Danger engine damage

[mobile_bob]

"... so just post something informative"

boy,, thats like the pot calling the kettle black !

bob g

[DRDEATH]

Spencer read my post. I said I hope it will be a productive day. Not 10 pages of arguements about the very same thing OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. There has been some valuable information posted last night. Just take time to read it before you decide it's not on point. OK. You also need to read how Bill who you refer to as one of your witnesses is going to be ready to have his other engine up and running and plans to introduce WMO as a fuel source. It will not be 100% but his engine will be using it again. So that tells me he is not 100% sure it is bad stuff completly. Mike

[DRDEATH]

Bob I have been up almost 2 days since someone called in sick last night. I hope the forum will continue with informative information. I guess I will just see when I wake up. DD

[spencer1885]

here are my operating parameters with a s195 idi changfa
burning 15/40 low emission diesel oil as fuel

the coolant temp is controlled and operates between 205 and 214 degree's F
the head temperature averages ~238 degree's F
the engine is 20 to 1 compression from the factory

the exhaust temperature as measured with an infrared non contact thermometer runs
at 640 degrees F at approx 2 inches out of the exhaust port at the outside of the first elbow (the hottest part)

the output from the genhead will maintain 7.5 kwatt resistive output, and also another
couple hundred watts for the belt drives, another 130watts for the coolant pump and fan, and approx another 100 watts for field excitation and starter battery charging via one of the twin 555 alternators, for a total of a bit over 8kwatts output.

the exhaust burns cleanly, with no smoke and a bit of rack left, the engine will maintain this steady state operation for an hour or as long as one wants to run the test.

the only failures i had were failed head gskts at this load level, however i have rectified that issue with aftermarket gaskets from gskts to go.

i have had the head off after such runs on wmo and found there to be no more carbon than there is after running straight pump diesel.

the engine will start on straight motor oil, however it does smoke for approx 30-45 seconds then clears right up,

the carbon residue i have found on the piston and in the prechamber (the changfa has a removable hot plug) is soft and easily removed with a thumbnail.

now i have not amassed a thousand hours of testing however, i am convinced that if i were to provide some form of water mist injection periodically or propane/natgas fumigation the soft carbon would be easily cleared before it had a chance to harden and be heated to the point of ash formation.

i have never found any ash after such a run on motor oil.

now we might prematurely conclude all sorts of things, probably be wrong more times than not making hasty conclusion, however
i do think there is evidence that motor oil can be burned successfully and without engine damage in a changfa and perhaps other engines under certain conditions.

i really believe that carbon removal is key, before it has a chance to harden under heat and constant pressure and be converted to ash. having higher compression ratios might help as would higher coolant temperatures.

btw the engine runs smoother makes less noise (noticeably less diesel knock), makes more power (approx 10%) and has improved BSFC (5% better) running on oil vs pump diesel.

all indications with this engine ran under these conditions is the use of wmo as fuel
looks promising, however it might be prudent to follow controlled decarbon by manual or gaseous fumigation or water mist injection.

another thing comes to mind, i have torn down many old gas engine's that were using massive amounts of lube oil, the kind that foul plugs badly and smoke like a freight train. i have also seen copious amounts of ash deposits (white caked up deposits) on spark plug electrodes/tips and in the combustion chambers. relatively large amount of ash and carbon buildup,,, and also have found the cylinders to be in remarkably good shape on some of these engines as well.

those engines that seem to maintain cylinder condition best are those with high nickel content castiron and those that do worst are those with low nickel content cast.

this might lead one to conclude that the ash deposits "if" abrasive, are much harder on
low nickel cast cylinders (cheaper engines) and it would appear the abrasive nature of the ash product is not hard enough to effect the harder nickel cast cylinders.

i think it is time to get my hands on some of the ash, and do some testing to see just how abrasive it really is, and what its effects are against low alloy cast iron vs high nickel content cast iron vs induction hardened liners.

i am going to go way out on a limb and place a bet,
my bet is the ash is not hard enough to touch the surface of a nickel iron block and even less so with an induction hardened liner.

failing that one, my next bet would be that the carbon left behind from using wmo as fuel is no where near hard enough to even touch a hard liner or nickel cast iron cylinder.

time to do some research and testing

place your bets boys!



bob g

Good morning,
bob you have just posted your theory ,with only a few hours of running, now run it for over a 1000 hours and report back
Have you ever heard of an engine manufacture concluding an engine fit of purpose with an hour or so of time  testing it, no you won't as testing is done for thousands of hours over months.
I am going to get to the bottom of this wear problem starting with a video on this forum showing how much ash and carbon is produced to what amount of oil and what happens to the burnt oil inc the different types of deposits and here and why they are formed.
Once that is established then there can be some progress.
Depending on cost I may send samples to a lab for analysing

[DRDEATH]

Spencer you need to read just what you posted. You are ready to post without a shadow of a doubt that WMO is bad because of 1 or 2 engines failed. That theory also need 1000 and 1000 of hours to back up that statement. Why are you not help to the same criteria as you just held Bob to?? And one more thing do you have to cope every post just so it takes twice as many pages to figure out what you have to share. We can read other peoples post.

[spencer1885]

Spencer read my post. I said I hope it will be a productive day. Not 10 pages of arguements about the very same thing OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. There has been some valuable information posted last night. Just take time to read it before you decide it's not on point. OK. You also need to read how Bill who you refer to as one of your witnesses is going to be ready to have his other engine up and running and plans to introduce WMO as a fuel source. It will not be 100% but his engine will be using it again. So that tells me he is not 100% sure it is bad stuff completly. Mike

He has already said his engine failed because of excessive wear from WMO that's a fact, he is not sure why this has happened.
As he already had the second engine and it's a di he is giving it ago because he has nothing to lose

[spencer1885]

Spencer you need to read just what you posted. You are ready to post without a shadow of a doubt that WMO is bad because of 1 or 2 engines failed. That theory also need 1000 and 1000 of hours to back up that statement. Why are you not help to the same criteria as you just held Bob to?? And one more thing do you have to cope every post just so it takes twice as many pages to figure out what you have to share. We can read other peoples post.

Fact


Already run for 1000 of hours and so have two other people with the same results  , not an hour or so with statements like it should work.

[DRDEATH]

Spencer if you show David anything other than respect for what he has to share we will have a little problem. He has nothing to gain from his experiment. It is his way of life to survive. He has some very valuable comments to share and I don't want to hear you being sarcastic to him. It is not in his culture to be disrespected or show disrespect. What he shares if you done like it just leave it alone. He has has some very good conservations with other members of the other forum. I have ask him to share on this one also.

[spencer1885]

"... so just post something informative"

boy,, thats like the pot calling the kettle black !

bob g

Try reading from the beginning all informative facts from some one who has done it not just run an engine for a couple of hours bob

[DRDEATH]

Spencer you have been in trouble on the other forum. Is that you goal on this one also. You continue to argue the same old thing. I would challenge you to read what has been posted. It does not say what happened to you is not true. It says now we will see if there is a solution to prevent it from happening again under the same circumstances. That is how a scientific experiment works. Why do you not understand that??

[DRDEATH]

Did you go to college and take chemistry or biology. Was there ever a time that the information you recorded from one experiment was ever considered FACT. I don't think so. Not in the UK and not in the USA. You run numerous experiments to prove a FACT. This is no different.

[spencer1885]

I have run WMO in idi engines and di engines from a Petter AA1 to a mazda 3.5 SLT and a lot in between.
Any one who regularly uses it in the same engine in high levels will experience injector tip fouling from carbon forming on the end, this is the first and most regular problem.
No mention of this fact should set alarm bells ringing

[mobile_bob]

well we have more than one that has burned waste motor oil in a changfa
one of which (david) reports over 5k hours of dependable operation and his
engine continues to work as designed.

you summarily dismiss this report, yet we are to believe everything that come out of your
mouth as "fact".

come on spencer, debating you is very much like playing cards with a 2 year old, you start to lose the game and simply change the rules.

lets stay on point shall we?

how about more specific details about your application, what engine specifically? what condition before and after, what kind of wmo?  what operating conditions, temperatures, load level? etc.  how often did you decarbon when burning wmo?

either start to put out some details or go back to your corner, you are becoming quite tedious.

something perhaps you can answer, whether you will or not is yet to be seen...

why aren't you more interested in the mechanism/chemistry that answers the question as to why your engine failed at relatively low hours burning wmo?

it would seem to me that a reasonably intelligent guy such as yourself would just have an inborn, genetic coded, need to know what happened specifically, and how it might have been avoided or how to extend the lifespan of the engine.

i suppose it would be a much easier life to lead, simply accepting everything at face value, everything that pops up first as being indisputable fact, and moving on.  i suppose it might be much simpler not to give things serious thought, and do research to find solutions to problems, much easier to scream the sky is falling rather than actually do something about it.

i suppose your mind is made up, so no sense wasting time with facts huh?

oh yes, i almost forgot,, you have your facts don't you.

too bad they exclude all other possible explanations.

i suspect we will find the answer to these and other questions, likely without your help
so don't waste your valuable time actually doing something other than spouting the same stuff over and over again.

kind of sad really

bob g

[bschwartz]

Mike,
Go take a nap.  This (he) really isn't worth wasting your time with.
Lay your head down for a little while and dream of British steel coming to this side of the pond 

[DRDEATH]

Bob do you not sleep at nights??? I sure as heck would not be awake except I am at work. I suppose I am glad you are awake. It has been a good 24 hours on both forums discussing some possible solutions. DD