It's been at least 15 years now since I've wanted a waste motor oil powered diesel generator. I'm trying to calculate the cost of a listeroid generator, vs the lifetime amount of electricity and heat it can generate from WMO, which I consider "free" fuel.
So let's say I get a good listeroid and go through the proper pre-start rebuild. How many hours could I reasonably expect from the engine burning the highest concentration of WMO I can get away with? Does 2000 hours seem reasonable? I would be happy to get 2000 hours before needing a new piston/rings/liner/bearings. Is that realistic? Certainly a lot less than the 10,000 to 100,000 claimed life expectancies. I would probably have some sort of natural gas dual fuel system going with the WMO, to help keep things as clean as possible. How often would it be necessary to take off the head and decoke the combustion chamber? What about fuel injectors, are they going to suffer premature failure as well?
Also, with a listeroid on WMO, would I be correct in expecting about 10kwh/gallon? How many BTU of heat will that produce on 140,000BTU/gallon fuel? Roughly 2/3rds of that as heat?
Do these calculations sound right to anybody?
2000 hour life expectancy x 14kw (28/2 engine) = 28,000kw at $0.11/each. Total $3,080 worth of electricity.
On top of that, 2/3 of the fuel converted to heat = 92,400 BTU/hour waste heat. If I was buying that as natural gas it would be 1,848 therms at a cost of $1.12+ each. ($2069 savings over 2000 hours buying the same amount of natural gas)
Total, if my listeroid could last 2,000 hours on free waste motor oil, I could generate a total of $5149 in heat and electricity, which I would otherwise have to pay cash for. I think I can get ahold of a listeroid for under half that.
Does my math make sense to anybody else? :) Please, point out my flaws before I start spending money. ::)
From my experience with using WMO as fuel in a Lister I would keep the hours as low as possible.
As the engine wear is high and maintenance is also high I would and do use a WMO fuelled generator for power only.
The best thing is to set up a WMO heating system for your hot water and heating needs as this is the most economical way of producing heat and then it keeps the two systems separate.
No mods needed to the engine but you will have to thin the WMO will RUG by about 10 to 15%.
No wear to the fuel injection system in the 2000 hours plus I have been doing it and 2000 hours is possible with new rings, as the bottom end of the engine does not suffer at all.
When I pulled the head and block off at 1800 hours when the head gasket failed apart from the rings and bore wear there was no more carbon than with a engine running on diesel,but Lister do recommend a decoke every 1000 hours.
The biggest problem is the rapid top end wear from burning WMO and also the coke that forms daily on the injector tip which all the things that have been mention before like injector heating,water injection,natural gas, acetone will not stop.
I would definately be ok with taking the head off every 500-1000 hours for a decoke, if I can get away with running free fuel. I'm thinking of Bob's 28/2 listeroid for this, so I should be able to get a lot of heat and power during a short run time producing ~14kw. (maybe 4 hours/day?) Some of that may go into a battery bank. Just thinking outloud here...
Stupid question: what is "RUG"?
Ah, ok "RUG" is regular unleaded gas. Right? Would mixing 10 or more percent of natural gas with the WMO take the place of "RUG", for cheaper, and cleaner performance?
The RUG is added to reduce the viscosity of the fuel oil, not to enhance its burning characteristics. Indeed, put too much RUG in and you'll end up with detonation (pinking) and possibly other nasty effects.
I would have thought that if you centrifuged your WMO (I'm thinking of the Simple Centrifuges style unit, rather than a Dieselcraft type) clean, there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to aim for the 10K-100K hours mark (in total.... not between services). The biggest wear causing pollutant in WMO will be metallic particles, and the 'fuge should remove almost all of those.
If you reckon you can make about $5k of CHP out of a $3k listeroid, it's worth spending the extra $2k (say) on a centrifuge as you should at least double your engine's lifespan, maybe more. That's my thinking anyway...
Bio
you are doing the right thing ask a lot of questions first.
My 10/1 made it to 1775 before my camshaft broke. But my guess is it would have had a hard time making it to 2500 with the way the blow by was increasing.
If my plans hold I will pull the head and piston to day and will post pix. Will see if just a set of rings and a camshaft will bring it back to life.
Billswan
it would seem to me that getting 10k hours before a rering would be common if the oil stock was well filtered
and dry, i would expect that the injection system would wear out far faster than the cylinder components
otherwise.
this is assuming good quality components and a clean/properly setup engine to start with.
as for blowby, i would accept a quite high amount, provide the engine still started well.
i would vent the fumes so that the engine could inhale them and eject them out the tailpipe
and not into the room.
having said that i probably would make up some sort of cooler separator so that the oil could be condensed out
for the most part, or at least monitored for excessive amounts, it is unlikely that the lister would have a runaway but
it would probably be prudent to protect against that happening.
its been my experience that many diesels have what one might call excessive blowby, and go on to run 100's of thousands of miles
without issues. early DT466 engine come to mind, many of which had serious blowby issues but ran fine for a very long time.
blowby burning veggie oils might be a whole dirreent animal however, because of the increased amount of veggie ending up in the crankcase.
bob g
Quote from: AdeV on January 21, 2011, 06:06:59 AM
The RUG is added to reduce the viscosity of the fuel oil, not to enhance its burning characteristics. Indeed, put too much RUG in and you'll end up with detonation (pinking) and possibly other nasty effects.
Could the RUG be completey substitued for pre-warming the WMO before burning?
Also, would burning some amount of natural gas in combination with WMO keep the enine cleaner/longer lasting than without? Something like an 80%WMO/20%NG mix maybe?
Quote from: BioHazard on January 21, 2011, 06:35:17 AM
Quote from: AdeV on January 21, 2011, 06:06:59 AM
The RUG is added to reduce the viscosity of the fuel oil, not to enhance its burning characteristics. Indeed, put too much RUG in and you'll end up with detonation (pinking) and possibly other nasty effects.
Could the RUG be completey substitued for pre-warming the WMO before burning?
Yep - if you can get the viscosity down to something similar to diesel, then you don't need any thinning additives.
Quote from: BioHazard on January 21, 2011, 06:35:17 AM
Also, would burning some amount of natural gas in combination with WMO keep the enine cleaner/longer lasting than without? Something like an 80%WMO/20%NG mix maybe?
I don't know TBH. It would reduce the amount of WMO being burnt by the engine, so in theory it would be cleaner. Just more costly... I don't believe that adding NG will have a "cleaning" effect over & above the reduction of WMO deposits caused by the reduction of WMO used.
Hi Bob,
Before the LEF disappeared I posted my results from using WMO and it's long term use and the effects it had on an engine.
What I found was totally unexpected.
The results seem to indicate that when WMO is burnt it produces a white fine ash and this ash is abrasive and is the reason for the rapid ring and bore wear.
The white ash is produce by the burnt additives in oil which can not be filtered out,so if this indeed is the case then oils which do not have additives would be more suitable but I have not found such an oil apart from veg oil of coarse.
Spencer
Quote from: AdeV on January 21, 2011, 07:10:03 AM
Quote from: BioHazard on January 21, 2011, 06:35:17 AM
Quote from: AdeV on January 21, 2011, 06:06:59 AM
The RUG is added to reduce the viscosity of the fuel oil, not to enhance its burning characteristics. Indeed, put too much RUG in and you'll end up with detonation (pinking) and possibly other nasty effects.
Could the RUG be completey substitued for pre-warming the WMO before burning?
Yep - if you can get the viscosity down to something similar to diesel, then you don't need any thinning additives.
Quote from: BioHazard on January 21, 2011, 06:35:17 AM
Also, would burning some amount of natural gas in combination with WMO keep the enine cleaner/longer lasting than without? Something like an 80%WMO/20%NG mix maybe?
I don't know TBH. It would reduce the amount of WMO being burnt by the engine, so in theory it would be cleaner. Just more costly... I don't believe that adding NG will have a "cleaning" effect over & above the reduction of WMO deposits caused by the reduction of WMO used.
You can not use heat alone to reduce the viscosity of WMO like you can with WVO.
Engine oil is design to resist every thing you are asking it to do when trying to use it as a diesel fuel.
You will never reduce it's viscosity enough for the the injector to spray properly, think about it if that was the case what good would it do the engine in the sump with the high temperatures and even higher pressures it would simperly brake down and not do it's job of protecting the moving parts.
Quote from: AdeV on January 21, 2011, 07:10:03 AM
I don't know TBH. It would reduce the amount of WMO being burnt by the engine, so in theory it would be cleaner. Just more costly... I don't believe that adding NG will have a "cleaning" effect over & above the reduction of WMO deposits caused by the reduction of WMO used.
One thing I wonder about is the production of water vapor in propane/natural gas combustion, which I understand helps by adding a bit of a steam cleaning effect. Any truth to this?
Quote from: spencer1885 on January 21, 2011, 07:17:04 AM
What I found was totally unexpected.
The results seem to indicate that when WMO is burnt it produces a white fine ash and this ash is abrasive and is the reason for the rapid ring and bore wear.
The white ash is produce by the burnt additives in oil which can not be filtered out,so if this indeed is the case then oils which do not have additives would be more suitable but I have not found such an oil apart from veg oil of coarse.
I wonder if this could be helped by cleaning the combustion chamber/piston more often, maybe every 250-500 hours? If I could find a source of used hydraulic fluid or automatic trans fluid, with less additives, would that help with engine wear?
Quote from: BioHazard on January 21, 2011, 06:35:17 AM
Could the RUG be completey substitued for pre-warming the WMO before burning?
Not necessarily. This would be quite dependent on the source of the oil.
Remember that many automotive oils are multi-grade (eg: 10w-30) so adding heat would only reduce the oil viscosity to the range of a 10W oil. Still much thicker than diesel fuel.
Perhaps consider reducing the viscosity with kerosene due to it's auto-ignition properties and lack of pinging.
veggie
You need a lot more kerosene to reduce the viscosity than you do with RUG that's why it gets used.
Veg oil users use RUG also as a viscosity reducer for the same reason.
I don't believe the statement that you get pinging with RUG in a diesel as that's not my experience or veg oil users that I have spoken to.
Any reason not to thin with diesel? Is kero thinner to start with? I worry about the RUG making the mix explosive. Oh yes, I found out the hard
way when I poured some mix on a brush pile and lit it.
Ron
Or you could reduce the viscosity with regular diesel fuel... safer than RUG, possibly less expensive than kerosene, and contains proper fuel additives that will help with the problems associated with burning WMO - namely deposition in the combustion chamber, dirty injectors, off-spec cetane, etc...
I checked out different oils and all have lots of additives which means even nice clean looking hydraulic oil will give the same results, this is why veg oil is used world wide by all sort of people in diesel engines and why you don't hear about WMO being used.
:)
This is true. Oils used as lubricants will have metallic salts as additives, which aren't meant to be combusted, and will leave an abrasive ash.
The trick is to try to use an additive in the fuel that will stop this ash from deposting. Diesel fuel contains additives that assist with this.
You can thin WMO with what ever you want, it just down to what's the cheapest way of doing it which is why RUG gets used.
You can also decoke the engine more or feed in to the inlet manifold some thing to help reduce carbon build up but none of those things will stop the WMO producing the abrasive ash grinding your piston rings and bore away.
Well guys
For what it is worth i stumbled on a 30 gallon barrel of 30 year old straight 20w engine oil. And run it through my 10/1 thinned with number 2 diesel at the rate of 9 oil to 1 diesel. The oil was new never used so no carbon. oil rated I believe cc-se.
I thought it not being a multi grade would help but it seams not so, my engine actually ran better on the dirty god knows what oil in the used oil barrels.
Injector tip and precup seemed to fill up with carbon faster than the junk oil.
So what does that prove???????????????????????
Maybe fresh oil even 30+ years old has additives that are not degraded by use. Totally just guessing here.
Billswan
30 year old oil still has the original additives in it - degraded by contact with oxygen, maybe moisture, maybe contact with the drum and liner, who can say?
Unless the drum had never been opened, the additive will degrade with oxygen contact. Or just plain age.
But even then, the stuff was never meant to be burned, so it's going to deposit crap in the combustion chamber.
Old oil may even be worse - some of the additives used back then aren't legal any more.
Billswan,
I was given 205 litre drum of Total two stroke oil the red stuff and I did not see any improvements in the day to day carbon build up or associated daily problems.
:).
to be honest the only experience i have with burning oil in a diesel is burning 15/40 diesel oil
the stuff is now a low ash, made for cat, oil that apparently causes no problems, or at least has not
done so in one of our service trucks.
it has a 6.9l diesel and has amassed many thousands of mules burning a 70/30 mix.
heavy duty diesel all burn oil, some of which are still acceptable down to 1gallon per 1000 miles, during normal
operation, if the oils that are used left behind and abrasive ash the engine life would be dramatically reduced
we just don't see that happening however.
perhaps 15/40 diesel oil, especially the new low ash stuff burns cleaner without leaving behind all the abrasive crap?
bob g
Bob,
Low ash oil is a good thing but no lubricating oil is going to burn in a diesel engine as fuel and in such high to nearly neat concentrations with out it producing enough abrasive ash to cause ring and bore wear.
Did I read some where that Detroit Diesels suffered from bore and ring wear from the wrong sump oil and I am assuming that was from just small amounts of oil passing through the engine and not gallons of the stuff being injected in to the cylinders.
Quote from: cognos on January 21, 2011, 09:05:55 AM
30 year old oil still has the original additives in it - degraded by contact with oxygen, maybe moisture, maybe contact with the drum and liner, who can say?
Unless the drum had never been opened, the additive will degrade with oxygen contact. Or just plain age.
But even then, the stuff was never meant to be burned, so it's going to deposit crap in the combustion chamber.
Old oil may even be worse - some of the additives used back then aren't legal any more.
The barrel was sealed but when I got to the bottom there was some water probably from condensation getting by the seal. For what ever it's worth.
Billswan
In such small concentrations - 1 gallon every 100 miles or so - the additives in the diesel fuel itself would most likely be enough to stop any deposition that could be attributed to anything in the lubricating oil beong burned - and that's my point.
Modern low-ash lubricating oils will be less likely to cause trouble in this application.
As stated by others - burning used or even new lubrication oils at higher concentrations - such as are being used here in theses lister-style engines - is going to cause deposition problems. The deposits will be mineral ashes from the additives, metal amalgams from particulates in the oil fuel, and carbon - all forming an abrasive matrix.
Unless one can filter out *all* particulates from the WMO, and somehow filter out the additives and contaminants in it too, this is just the way it's going to be if you burn high WMO concentrations.
If there was water in the drum, that's a pretty good indicator that the oil is contaminated. After 30 years of contact with that water, it's anyone's guess as to what chemicals have been created/destroyed in that time... and what will happen if they are burned... certainly, the additive package will have failed by then, and it's possible acids have formed in the oil. Not good, in any case... ;D
Kerosene (central heating oil) is about half the price of RUG so you can put twice as much in for your money which gives you more fuel.
Kerosene is a lot thinner than regular diesel and almost tax free.
Kerosene was a recommended fuel by Listers in the 1930s and I quote "Burning or Illuminating or Paraffin oil (Kerosene) may be used as a fuel but only if an admixture of 1/2 a pint of lubricating oil per 2 gallons of Paraffin is made."
The reason veg oil users use RUG instead of kerosene is because most people use it in cars and it is illegal to use kerosene in road vehicles because no tax has been paid on it. This does not matter for us because we use it for generating electricity and heating purposes.
Spencer who has lots of experience suggests 10 to 15 percent RUG in his mixture so using his method
100 litres WMO + 15 litres RUG = 115 litres = £19.20 at todays price of £1.28 per litre.
100 litres WMO + 30 litres Kero = 130 litres = £18.84 at todays price of £0.628 per litre
Mick
I wish kerosene was cheaper here. Currently RUG is 2.97/gal and kerosene is just under 5.
Well, I certainly would expect increased wear with WMO, but that's why I'm asking. Say a good lister will go 10,000 hours on clean diesel fuel. Now if I cut the expected engine life back to 2000 hours, does that seem reasonable for WMO? Even after it "dies" from WMO we're only talking about a piston/liner/bearing change mostly...right? And if it lasts longer than that - happy surprise. I would be ok thinning up to maybe 10% with offroad diesel, and maybe 10% natural gas if it increased engine life.
Basically it comes down to this for me. If I burned WMO, then I would have completely free electricity and heat. (and a hobby) How many months does a ~$2000 lister have to last before it pays for itself and I can send it off for scrap? Right now I'm paying at least $300/month to my utility companies.
Am I also correct that waste transmission fluid is better than waste motor oil? (thinner/no carbon)
Let me explain a little more. Basically I've been eyeing Bob's 28/2 petteroid. Good deal, and I'm within driving distance. That should be good for 10kw easy, right?
10kw x 2000 hours = 20,000kwh x $0.12 each = $2400
Just a rough guess, 2000 gallons of WMO fuel in 2000 hours = 140,000 BTU x 2000, let's say I capture 50% of that. That's equal to 1400 therms, which if I bought from the gas company would cost more than $1600.
Total production in 2000 hours of service = $4,000. Say I spend 2 grand on the engine, I'm still 2 grand ahead, and I've finally scratched that "I NEED TO BURN WMO" itch...
Also, if the engine does last 5000 or 10000 hours, then I'd be way, way ahead...but that would probably take 10 or 20 years to happen.
Does that sound reasonable to anybody? Or am I out of my mind? ;D
Quote from: spencer1885 on January 21, 2011, 08:41:19 AM
this is why veg oil is used world wide by all sort of people in diesel engines and why you don't hear about WMO being used.
I agree WMO is bad for any engine, you just have to accept some level of damage for free fuel. One thing I like about WMO is that it lasts forever, and actually gets better with age as the stuff settles out of it.
Quote from: BioHazard on January 21, 2011, 07:01:06 PM
Well, I certainly would expect increased wear with WMO, but that's why I'm asking. Say a good lister will go 10,000 hours on clean diesel fuel. Now if I cut the expected engine life back to 2000 hours, does that seem reasonable for WMO? Even after it "dies" from WMO we're only talking about a piston/liner/bearing change mostly...right? And if it lasts longer than that - happy surprise. I would be ok thinning up to maybe 10% with offroad diesel, and maybe 10% natural gas if it increased engine life.
Basically it comes down to this for me. If I burned WMO, then I would have completely free electricity and heat. (and a hobby) How many months does a ~$2000 lister have to last before it pays for itself and I can send it off for scrap? Right now I'm paying at least $300/month to my utility companies.
Am I also correct that waste transmission fluid is better than waste motor oil? (thinner/no carbon)
Some people have posted that automatic transmission fluid has to much clutch particles in it.
Just repeating what I have read. Seems to me a guy should be able to filter that stuff out.
Billswan
so maybe we are back to a "cracking tower" to distill the waste motor oil and recover
the clean additive free oil stock to use as a fuel.
i know cognos is going to really like this,,,, not!
or how about gasifying the waste motor oil stock, that should leave the nasty particles behind
it shouldn't take pyrolysis temps to get a combustible gas off hot oil, the smoking fumes should be combustible?
or we accept a higher wear as been alluded to, and balance it against the cost of the fuel stocks
i still think 5k hours is attainable, especially with well filtered, dry, low ash oils.
then what? a couple hundred dollars of replacement parts? cylinder liner, rings and maybe a piston and big end brg (which probably is due anyway)?
more testing is in order, certainly cutting the feedstock with pump diesel probably will help, the question is how much diesel as a percentage?
only one way to determine that,.... testing!
bob g
Bob it just takes to much heat to distill oil, say nothing of the danger.
I believe that the lister-oid is an poor candidate for WMO the precup just runs to cold. Unless full load and max compression is continiously applied it just carbons up. Even the original lister manual called for a de carbon every 1000 hours.
I have decided to drag out my 16/1 metro which is a direct injected cup in piston. It won't take to many hours on Wmo to see if it likes it better than the 10/1. Although when i bought it from sam crosby I believe he warned me that WMO is going to be hard on it. OH man I wounder what a sleeve and piston + rings would cost for that ODD BALL. ::) ::)
Oh what about balance........ no no no...............what have i done............ :o :o
Billswan
Quote from: billswan on January 21, 2011, 10:02:40 PM
I believe that the lister-oid is an poor candidate for WMO the precup just runs to cold. Unless full load and max compression is continiously applied it just carbons up. Even the original lister manual called for a de carbon every 1000 hours.
Ok, so what engine would be the absolute best choice for burning WMO? Honestly I don't know a lot about these big diesels. To me, if it's big and green and has a giant flywheel, it's a lister or listeroid.
On the other hand what about the Metro 28/2 "petteroid" bob is trying to get rid of? How well do you guys think that engine specifically would be suited to WMO?
The way I figure, the bigger the engine, the more $$$ it can generate before it wears out.
The first thing is your engine won't last 5000 hours on WMO and you will have to factor in the cost of a thinner like RUG.
Also you are not going to use all the power you can produce so your calculations don't work.
:)
Quote from: BioHazard on January 21, 2011, 07:20:39 PM
Let me explain a little more. Basically I've been eyeing Bob's 28/2 petteroid. Good deal, and I'm within driving distance. That should be good for 10kw easy, right?
10kw x 2000 hours = 20,000kwh x $0.12 each = $2400
Just a rough guess, 2000 gallons of WMO fuel in 2000 hours = 140,000 BTU x 2000, let's say I capture 50% of that. That's equal to 1400 therms, which if I bought from the gas company would cost more than $1600.
Total production in 2000 hours of service = $4,000. Say I spend 2 grand on the engine, I'm still 2 grand ahead, and I've finally scratched that "I NEED TO BURN WMO" itch...
Also, if the engine does last 5000 or 10000 hours, then I'd be way, way ahead...but that would probably take 10 or 20 years to happen.
Does that sound reasonable to anybody? Or am I out of my mind? ;D
I'd bet there would be some additional costs before a fully functional cogen unit is up and running. Pumps, pipe, insulation, valves, heat exchangers, fittings, wire, breakers, breaker box, transfer switch, instrumentation, fans, thermostats, antifreeze, radiator, frame, concrete, fuel filtering equipment, hardware and more.
Not meaning to rain on your parade but there are
lots of bits and pieces needed. Been there, done that.
Quote from: BioHazard on January 22, 2011, 03:13:41 AM
Quote from: billswan on January 21, 2011, 10:02:40 PM
I believe that the lister-oid is an poor candidate for WMO the precup just runs to cold. Unless full load and max compression is continiously applied it just carbons up. Even the original lister manual called for a de carbon every 1000 hours.
Ok, so what engine would be the absolute best choice for burning WMO? Honestly I don't know a lot about these big diesels. To me, if it's big and green and has a giant flywheel, it's a lister or listeroid.
On the other hand what about the Metro 28/2 "petteroid" bob is trying to get rid of? How well do you guys think that engine specifically would be suited to WMO?
The way I figure, the bigger the engine, the more $$$ it can generate before it wears out.
Wartsila
Thanks, Geno
It's not the carbon that's the problem it's the additives and auto transmission fluid has lots of those to.
:)
Mick,
You will have to use more kerosene to get the same thinning as when using RUG.
Buying kerosene or RUG or even diesel costs money making your free fuel no longer free.
Work out parts costs and a thinner and it starts to get to a point of not being worth doing.
The only way is to use free misfuel as a thinner.
Spencer
Quote from: spencer1885 on January 22, 2011, 03:59:00 AM
The first thing is your engine won't last 5000 hours on WMO
Do you really know that for a fact? One thing I was just thinking of is that the listeroids that are actually used in india, probably don't get very clean fuel.
Quote from: spencer1885 on January 22, 2011, 03:59:00 AM
Also you are not going to use all the power you can produce so your calculations don't work.
I surely can. Anything extra would go into dump loads and battery charging. My plan would be to keep the engine as fully loaded as possible. Also in the summer I would really like to fit an A/C compressor and have oil fired air conditioning.
My power is billed based on the time that I use it. During the peak hours of the day, it cost 12 cents/KWH and that's when my generator would be running. Later in the day the power prices drop to "mid peak" and "off peak", which are only 6 cents and 4 cents/KWH. I won't be trying to compete with that with my generator. Even if I ran it 4 hours/day (unlikely) that would only be 1460 hours/year.
Quote from: Geno on January 22, 2011, 04:01:01 AM
I'd bet there would be some additional costs before a fully functional cogen unit is up and running. Pumps, pipe, insulation, valves, heat exchangers, fittings, wire, breakers, breaker box, transfer switch, instrumentation, fans, thermostats, antifreeze, radiator, frame, concrete, fuel filtering equipment, hardware and more.
I definately agree with that, however most of the necessary extras like gen heads, inverters, concrete, controllers, etc - will probably last nearly a lifetime regardless of what fuel I'm using. Plus, even when the engines gives out from WMO use, we're only talking a couple hundred bucks for a rebuild. The crankcase/crankshaft, and some other stuff should last darn near forever.
Basically it's like this. I WANT a listeroid. I have wanted one for a long, long time. On the other hand, if I'm burning pump diesel, and I don't have anything to power it with, that's just not going to happen. A cogenerator is my only realistic option.
You also have to keep in mind this is not just a tool, but a hobby.
Another question - what about thinning WMO with bad/old gasoline? I've got at least 30 gallons of it around the shop, and I'm sure I could find more where that came from.
Yes that's good and RUG is just short for regular unleaded gas/petrol.
:)
Quote from: BioHazard on January 22, 2011, 03:13:41 AM
Quote from: billswan on January 21, 2011, 10:02:40 PM
I believe that the lister-oid is an poor candidate for WMO the precup just runs to cold. Unless full load and max compression is continiously applied it just carbons up. Even the original lister manual called for a de carbon every 1000 hours.
Ok, so what engine would be the absolute best choice for burning WMO? Honestly I don't know a lot about these big diesels. To me, if it's big and green and has a giant flywheel, it's a lister or listeroid.
On the other hand what about the Metro 28/2 "petteroid" bob is trying to get rid of? How well do you guys think that engine specifically would be suited to WMO?
The way I figure, the bigger the engine, the more $$$ it can generate before it wears out.
No engine is more suitable for burning WMO than another, they are all going to die a slow death.
You might as well go to a breakers yard and buy the cheapest diesel engine you can and then throw it away when it dies.
BioHazard,
Have been reading the posts?
WMO will kill any engine in a very short time,1800 hours seem to be the point that the damage will already be severe .
:)
How about.... making an oil burner (there's some designs out there) which will burn the oil & produce loads of heat; use that to fuel a boiler, & run a steam engine?
OK, there are some significant hurdles; the boiler probably being the biggest one - it would have to be constructed to code & inspected (annually?); but the "cool" factor would be massive...
Hi AdeV,
I had the same idea but that's as far as it went.
Some one with more time and patience than me I'm sure could do it.
Spencer
Quote from: spencer1885 on January 22, 2011, 04:39:38 AM
No engine is more suitable for burning WMO than another, they are all going to die a slow death.
You might as well go to a breakers yard and buy the cheapest diesel engine you can and then throw it away when it dies.
[/quote]
I disagree 100%. Certainly some diesels will last thousands of hours on WMO, while some wouldn't last 5 minutes. For example a lister could do multi thousand hours...but that little Yanmar from Surplus center wouldn't last a week. (or I'd buy it) If I could go to a "breakers yard" and buy a running diesel engine for much less than a lister I would. Diesel engines tend to be very, very, very expensive, even junked...that's why we love third world engines so much. Good running diesels don't just sit around junkyards collecting rust. Maybe in Europe...
If I could find a running diesel, any diesel, with good life left and all required running parts for around $1,000, I'd be all over that. Honestly I think listeroids and changfoids are the cheapest diesel engine you can buy...if you can find one.
I've thought really, really hard about a simple waste oil burner, but I really don't want to rely on something homemade, and I really, really don't want to spend the bucks on a commercial unit. Plus, I have a lot greater need for electricity than heat. In the summer time a listeroid would sure be great for air conditioning and pool heating.
BioHazard,
I can buy a good running diesel from a breakers yard for less than £200 in the UK.
Well lets see these engines that have lasted thousands of hours on nearly neat WMO.
If you read the previous posts then you would have seen that the additives in lubricating oil that when burnt make a white abrasive ash which grinds the rings and bores away.
Perhaps the engines you are referring to are made of some thing harder than steel.
Quote from: spencer1885 on January 22, 2011, 05:18:39 AM
BioHazard,
I can buy a good running diesel from a breakers yard for less than £200 in the UK.
Well lets see these engines that have lasted thousands of hours on nearly neat WMO.
If you read the previous posts then you would have seen that the additives in lubricating oil that when burnt make a white abrasive ash which grinds the rings and bores away.
Perhaps the engines you are referring to are made of some thing harder than steel.
Not in the USA, not by a long shot. You might get a rusted out cracked core block for that price. Even then, most of the diesel engines we have to choose from are V8 truck engines. I understand perfectly clear that a diesel engine is not going to last as long running WMO than it would running clean diesel. I am willing to sacrifice engine life if my engine runs from free fuel. I understand that just fine. The only real question is how much engine life am I sacrificing.
In the US we simply don't have diesel cars. The EPA hates them as much as listeroids. There are a few exceptions, but that makes their motors extremely valueable. For example, a good running complete VW diesel could easily cost $1000...and that's for a used motor from a wrecked car most likely missing all accessories. Additionally they have no governor or stub shaft. Also, any modern diesel engine out of a car isn't going to run without an extremely complicated computer system.
The best thing is work out how hours per year you would have to run the engine for power only as a CHP is just going to put to many hours on the engine.
If you can do it in 3000 hours or less then its viable.
Use a battery bank and buy your self a waste oil fired boiler that's the most economical way of doing it.
Quote from: BioHazard on January 22, 2011, 04:22:57 AM
Another question - what about thinning WMO with bad/old gasoline? I've got at least 30 gallons of it around the shop, and I'm sure I could find more where that came from.
YES but what state do you live in? What is in the RUG in your area in my area you cannot buy straight gasoline it is all spiked with 10% ethanol. There are some premium only pumps for special uses like chain saws and old engines that must have premium gas. But any old gas found in this area might have ethanol in it and that will cause trouble in a diesel.
Billswan
Quote from: billswan on January 22, 2011, 06:00:18 AM
Quote from: BioHazard on January 22, 2011, 04:22:57 AM
Another question - what about thinning WMO with bad/old gasoline? I've got at least 30 gallons of it around the shop, and I'm sure I could find more where that came from.
YES but what state do you live in? What is in the RUG in your area in my area you cannot buy straight gasoline it is all spiked with 10% ethanol. There are some premium only pumps for special uses like chain saws and old engines that must have premium gas. But any old gas found in this area might have ethanol in it and that will cause trouble in a diesel.
Billswan
Billswan,
Ethanol is no problem as it's already blended in to pump diesel any way.
Ethanol gives a cleaner burn in diesels but ethanol with will mix with water so be careful when storing modern fuels in large tanks.
Quote from: billswan on January 22, 2011, 06:00:18 AM
Quote from: BioHazard on January 22, 2011, 04:22:57 AM
Another question - what about thinning WMO with bad/old gasoline? I've got at least 30 gallons of it around the shop, and I'm sure I could find more where that came from.
YES but what state do you live in? What is in the RUG in your area in my area you cannot buy straight gasoline it is all spiked with 10% ethanol. There are some premium only pumps for special uses like chain saws and old engines that must have premium gas. But any old gas found in this area might have ethanol in it and that will cause trouble in a diesel.
Billswan
Regular, 100% gasoline does not exist in the state of Oregon. Everything is alcoholic. It's "legal" to sell premium gas without ethanol, but nobody does. There just isn't enough demand for that sort of thing.
Yes it is the water that could cause you problems. It will pull the ethanol out of the mix and will go to the bottom of the tank. There if the injector pump gets a hold of a gob of that ethanol and water but no diesel there is the problem.
Billswan
Here in the US, I think the cheapest diesel engines to be found would be a mid 80's GM 6.2 non turbo V-8.
Often on Craigslist for around $600. Heck, I've got one in a '82 Suburban with a blown transmission. Maybe it needs a new home ;)
rm /
did a bit more reading last night, and came across this
(and yes i realize that there are many issues relating to safety etc)
http://www.allbusiness.com/north-america/canada/477932-1.html
here is the thought,
do it on a small scale batch fire manner, and use the prime mover as both the heat source and the vacuum source
as well as the consumer of the finished product.
the exhaust coming off a fully loaded engine is likely hot enough to drive the system, the system being small in size
could have its smell and fumes inhaled by the engine for further reduction and provide a level of safety, along with the needed
vacuum (low level) and when the engine is shut down the system quits because there is no longer heat to drive it.
such a small system could be built using schedule 80 pipe for the hot zone, safety pressure relief valves could be incorporated
and the whole thing could be made adequately safe and as clean as simply burning waste motor oil in an engine.
the left over sludge however is an issue, it would have to be recycled, however that amount should be ~20% of the original volume
or maybe less, it could be used in a number of other ways in some places such as mixing with woodchips for feedstock in a gasifier or
outdoor woodburner, or mixed with asphalt, or simply taken to a waste oil recycle drop.
the small batch fire system might well be the answer, as the resultant gasoil is said to be unstable and needs stabilizer work done on it to make
a good fuel, however if we are using the fuel as it is produced or very soon after production this instability should be a non issue. or at least
not much of an issue.
i think this could be done,, maybe not in every location, but certainly in many places.
bob g
Quote from: bschwartz on January 22, 2011, 08:17:00 AM
Here in the US, I think the cheapest diesel engines to be found would be a mid 80's GM 6.2 non turbo V-8.
Often on Craigslist for around $600. Heck, I've got one in a '82 Suburban with a blown transmission. Maybe it needs a new home ;)
That engine is about the only "car" engine I have considered...although I just don't think I want to start with a 20+ year old used engine. On the other hand, when it blows up, the core is still worth quite a bit, and one of them would bolt right into my truck..... ;D
I've only done one experiment with gasifying WMO, I took a copper pipe about a foot long and smashed one end closed. Then I filled it about half way with oil, heated it with a torch for a minute, and then lit the gas coming off the top. It did seem to burn quite well...
Another thing about using old gas for thinner, the alcohol/water could be seperated out and just the gasoline used. I have done this before with small batches of gas for small engines - literally just add enough water to your gas until the ethanol absorbs it all, and then sinks to the bottom. Siphon off the pure gas. I bet I could get free old wet gas from people out of boats and such and use it like that.
The problem with this in gasoline engines is that you're also taking out a lot of the octane.
Quote from: Geno on January 22, 2011, 04:01:01 AM
Quote from: BioHazard on January 22, 2011, 03:13:41 AM
Quote from: billswan on January 21, 2011, 10:02:40 PM
I believe that the lister-oid is an poor candidate for WMO the precup just runs to cold. Unless full load and max compression is continiously applied it just carbons up. Even the original lister manual called for a de carbon every 1000 hours.
Ok, so what engine would be the absolute best choice for burning WMO?
Wartsila
Thanks, Geno
Just curious, why the Wartsila exactly? What are the best options to have on a WMO burning engine? I don't know much (anything) about Wartsilas....
I wish I could simply turn my meter backwards and use the grid as a giant battery. If that was the case I'd have a 100kw+ generator that I only run for a few hours a month... ;D
Quote from: BioHazard on January 22, 2011, 03:13:41 AM
The way I figure, the bigger the engine, the more $$$ it can generate before it wears out.
Wartsila
Thanks, Geno
it would seem to me that heavy bunker oil also has a high ash content?
i wonder how the very large slowspeed engines that are built to inject and burn that crap not only tolerate it
but seem to have reasonable lifespans between overhauls
are the listeroid liners induction hardened?
if they are not hardened, perhaps an engine with hard liners, stainless allow top ring with steel insert in the piston top groove
would allow burning waste motor oil and get longer mean time before overhaul?
bob g
Wartsila uses water injection on at least some of their engines. Would this help wash away or lessen the the impacts of ash? I tried it on my Roid. Even at a quart an hour it contaminated my cold, 110 °F oil rather quickly. I could devise a way to get the oil hotter but I don't want the extra plumbing.
Thanks, Geno
Quote from: mobile_bob on January 23, 2011, 07:56:19 AM
it would seem to me that heavy bunker oil also has a high ash content?
i wonder how the very large slowspeed engines that are built to inject and burn that crap not only tolerate it
but seem to have reasonable lifespans between overhauls
are the listeroid liners induction hardened?
if they are not hardened, perhaps an engine with hard liners, stainless allow top ring with steel insert in the piston top groove
would allow burning waste motor oil and get longer mean time before overhaul?
bob g
??? ::)
Please could every one who is interested in using WMO please read my posts.
My genuine Lister has a chrome bore and that did not survive WMO.
The ash that's forming inside the cylinder is abrasive and that's going to be abrasive in any engine and unless your engine is made out of some thing harder than steel it's going to wear out very quickly.
how about a hot air engine with a babington burner , the animation below was based on using wood products
the animation came from the website of a retired NASA engineer who developed it.
(http://www.proepowersystems.com/index_files/image006.gif)
Quote from: deeiche on January 23, 2011, 09:56:22 AM
how about a hot air engine with a babington burner , the animation below was based on using wood products
the animation came from the website of a retired NASA engineer who developed it.
(http://www.proepowersystems.com/index_files/image006.gif)
Interesting idea, it is sort of on similar lines to building a steam boiler fired with WMO.
Burning a free but crappy fuel with out the crap getting in to an engine is looking like the best way of going about it.
A steam turbine or steam engine driving an alternator would make an excellent CHP system.
I have to admit that is an interesting idea. I also have to admit that it is way above my skill level, pay grade, and ability. Also patience.
It seems to me that removing the ash producing component from the WMO sounds like the simplest way to deal with the problem, however,
that may be as difficult or impossible as cracking the stuff to start with.
I guess an Epic Google Search is ahead :'(
Ron
Lister used a hard chrome liner in their originals - they called the process "Listard". As I understand it, the chrome would wear off after a time and had to be re-processed to renew the cylinder. Special softer iron rings were used with this style cylinder. The regular plain iron cylinders are just sacrifice parts that are either bored or tossed once worn beyond tolerances. They were not hardened nor specially heat treated as far as I can discern. We can specify the chrome bore in our current parts available for the 6/1 and 8/1. To my knowledge, this is the only way to get a hardened bore for these engine types.
dieselgman
Diesel Electric
I have some experiance with "Hard Chrome" and I can tell you it is not all it is cracked up to be. I work around industrial machinery almost every day. And often we find ourselves repairing wornout components.
Their are times when we must repair a worn shaft or bore that had to have the size maintained. when it was going to be "Chromed" we would first grind the worn area to allow the chrome plating to be uniform in thickness. Then the part is sent to "Chrome" with a "Chrome To Finish" specification. This allowed the chrome facility to apply enough material to allow it to be reground back to original spec's. When the part came back the machinist's set it back up in the grinder (I.D. or O.D.) Indicate the previously created reference bands to insure proper concentricity... then regrind back to spec.
During the process the Machinist will first notice how easy the chromed area grinds compared to the original material. It does make his job easier so long as he does not have to blend it to a nonchromed surface. When we place these parts back in use they have a much shorter life span than the original material. (Wears Very Fast compared to Hardened steel)
A method used when "Chrome" is not good enough is to Sleeve the part with a "Hardened Tool Steel Sleeve" then perform the regrinding. This allows you to use a very high quality steel and usually have a much longer usable life span. Could we make "Tool Steel Sleeves" for our engines? I am certain it could be done. But probably not practical... And if we did this we would need to use a different ring type... and even then you still have a soft piston to deal with.
Rob
Spencer
I did not realise that when you were talking about thinning WMO with RUG that the RUG you use is free. I made the assumption that you were paying for the RUG and hence my statement about putting twice the amount of kerosene in compared to RUG only makes sense if you are paying for the thinning agent. And live in the UK where kerosene is virtually tax free and half the price of RUG.
Thank you for doing the research on WMO I have been offered it for free but thanks to your advise I wont be going anywhere near it now. Unless the cracking can be sorted out.
Mick
Quote from: listeroil on January 23, 2011, 12:41:50 PM
Spencer
I did not realise that when you were talking about thinning WMO with RUG that the RUG you use is free. I made the assumption that you were paying for the RUG and hence my statement about putting twice the amount of kerosene in compared to RUG only makes sense if you are paying for the thinning agent. And live in the UK where kerosene is virtually tax free and half the price of RUG.
Thank you for doing the research on WMO I have been offered it for free but thanks to your advise I wont be going anywhere near it now. Unless the cracking can be sorted out.
Mick
Hi Mick,
I also live in the UK and if I can be of any help with your Lister related projects just let me know.
Have you considered using your supply of free WMO for heating instead.
Cheers
Spencer
Quote from: spencer1885 on January 23, 2011, 08:26:17 AM
??? ::)
Please could every one who is interested in using WMO please read my posts.
My genuine Lister has a chrome bore and that did not survive WMO.
The ash that's forming inside the cylinder is abrasive and that's going to be abrasive in any engine and unless your engine is made out of some thing harder than steel it's going to wear out very quickly.
Your posts have been read. I'm not stupid, of course WMO will make any engine wear out quicker than diesel fuel. On the other hand cylinder liners and piston rings aren't very expensive. I consider them disposeable. If WMO caused wear to the crankcase or the crankshaft the issue might be a little more severe.
You make it sound as if no engine has ever run on WMO or other bad, thick, dirty fuels like #6 bunker oil. The fact is, it happens all the time on ocean going ships, and they last thousands, and thousands, and thousands of hours.
In addition to that I am aware of quite a few people who have run their pickup trucks and listeroids and changfoids on WMO. They all report increased wear, and zero fuel bills, and few report their engine just explodes. Just imagine what kind of shit fuel they feed these engines in 3rd world countries like Inidia and China. I can guarantee you they aren't running clean #2 pump diesel at some village in the mountains of India....
Quote from: mobile_bob on January 23, 2011, 07:56:19 AM
are the listeroid liners induction hardened?
Better yet, could they be? Or maybe some other type of cylinder plating material?
Quote from: Geno on January 23, 2011, 08:12:18 AM
Wartsila uses water injection on at least some of their engines. Would this help wash away or lessen the the impacts of ash? I tried it on my Roid. Even at a quart an hour it contaminated my cold, 110 °F oil rather quickly. I could devise a way to get the oil hotter but I don't want the extra plumbing.
Thanks, Geno
If using propane or natural gas injection, the combustion creates it's own steam. I think propane makes more than gas. I wonder how much it takes to make a difference though? Another thing that could be tried is injecting steam.
After a little digging, I'm not sure anything will help. I posted a few things I discovered here-
http://www.microcogen.info/index.php?topic=1618.0
And I didn't even to begin to scratch the surface. There are also things in there that will make you grow extra body parts-or maybe make 'em fall off.
I just looked for some of the more obvious abrasives. It blows my mind that so many thing are lubricants - until you burn them and the ash turns into
rubbing compound. :-[
Ron
Quote from: BioHazard on January 23, 2011, 05:30:28 PM
Quote from: spencer1885 on January 23, 2011, 08:26:17 AM
??? ::)
Please could every one who is interested in using WMO please read my posts.
My genuine Lister has a chrome bore and that did not survive WMO.
The ash that's forming inside the cylinder is abrasive and that's going to be abrasive in any engine and unless your engine is made out of some thing harder than steel it's going to wear out very quickly.
Your posts have been read. I'm not stupid, of course WMO will make any engine wear out quicker than diesel fuel. On the other hand cylinder liners and piston rings aren't very expensive. I consider them disposeable. If WMO caused wear to the crankcase or the crankshaft the issue might be a little more severe.
You make it sound as if no engine has ever run on WMO or other bad, thick, dirty fuels like #6 bunker oil. The fact is, it happens all the time on ocean going ships, and they last thousands, and thousands, and thousands of hours.
In addition to that I am aware of quite a few people who have run their pickup trucks and listeroids and changfoids on WMO. They all report increased wear, and zero fuel bills, and few report their engine just explodes. Just imagine what kind of shit fuel they feed these engines in 3rd world countries like Inidia and China. I can guarantee you they aren't running clean #2 pump diesel at some village in the mountains of India....
At what point did any person on this forum or the LEF say WMO would cause the rings and bore to wear out in a couple of thousand hours and it was caused by the burnt additives?
This is news to me, perhaps you should have told us all about this before, if you had already known about it.
Quote from: spencer1885 on January 24, 2011, 04:18:20 AM
At what point did any person on this forum or the LEF say WMO would cause the rings and bore to wear out in a couple of thousand hours and it was caused by the burnt additives?
I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure that out. Dirty fuel = more bore wear. Very simple. Doesn't mean there aren't ways around it, or ways to just accept it.
Quote from: BioHazard on January 24, 2011, 04:28:12 AM
Quote from: spencer1885 on January 24, 2011, 04:18:20 AM
At what point did any person on this forum or the LEF say WMO would cause the rings and bore to wear out in a couple of thousand hours and it was caused by the burnt additives?
I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure that out. Dirty fuel = more bore wear. Very simple. Doesn't mean there aren't ways around it, or ways to just accept it.
You have missed the point once again. ::)
If it was just dirty fuel then the fuel injection system would have been wearing out.
It's a chemical change inside an engines cylinder after the WMO is burnt that's producing the highly abrasive ash.
Are you telling me that you already knew that.
I don't really care what exactly is causing it to wear. I'm glad to hear it didn't effect the pump or injectors. You said you got over 2000 hours right? I'd consider that a success. The engine paid for itself in that time and it sounds like you still have a good core. I honestly don't understand why you think your test was a failure?
It's kind of like gasoline engines that run on propane. They last longer and the oil stays cleaner. That's because propane is a much cleaner fuel than even fresh pump gasoline. But fuel injectors don't really wear out all that often on gas engines do they? In this sense, people driving around on gasoline are trading extra engine wear for a more convenient/cost effective fuel.
This works the same for diesel engines too, compared to propane diesel fuel is dirty/abrasive to your engine when it burns over time.
Quote from: BioHazard on January 24, 2011, 04:57:28 AM
I don't really care what exactly is causing it to wear. I'm glad to hear it didn't effect the pump or injectors. You said you got over 2000 hours right? I'd consider that a success. The engine paid for itself in that time and it sounds like you still have a good core. I honestly don't understand why you think your test was a failure?
It's kind of like gasoline engines that run on propane. They last longer and the oil stays cleaner. That's because propane is a much cleaner fuel than even fresh pump gasoline. But fuel injectors don't really wear out all that often on gas engines do they? In this sense, people driving around on gasoline are trading extra engine wear for a more convenient/cost effective fuel.
This works the same for diesel engines too, compared to propane diesel fuel is dirty/abrasive to your engine when it burns over time.
I can't tell you how many hours a Lister or Listeriod would normally last but it would be a lot if it was in good condition and serviced regularly.
2000 hours is a tiny fraction of the sorts of hours you would normally get.
If your cars engine lasted 250 000 miles which it could even do on veg oil a Lister lasting 3000 hours is more like 20 000 miles, that's what I would call a failure.
Guys
Have been thinking about the wear in my 10/1. As I have mentioned I believe it is not only WMO but the low quality parts.
Now spencer's 6/1 is still limping along and I am sure it has a cast iron piston and that type of piston probably resists ring land wear better than soft aluminum.
Now if an engine had a quality induction hardened sleeve with a piston of quality cast iron or aluminum and an insert like modern diesels have in the ring land area that would help, add in modern ring technology. Most diesel engines I used to work on had at least 1 keystone ring riding in a hardened insert.
I have to think back to the days of the old 10 series john deere tractors built in the early 60's they originally came out with 5 ring pistons and although I personally did not work on them some of the mechanics I worked with said there was a time jd had lots of trouble with the engines then the new design piston showed up it had 3 rings the top ring was a keystone running in an insert and the second ring was a normal rectangular running in aluminum and the 3rd If i remember right a 3 piece oil ring. After this change problems solved.
If we just had better parts I believe the life on wmo could be extended out significantly.
An induction hardened sleeve running a quality aluminum piston with direct injection cup in piston with 2 keystone rings in a hardened insert and a 3 piece oil ring. The top keystone ring needs to be steel not cast and have a chrome face second could be cast iron and keep the width of the rings down to about .100 not the .160 the 10/1 had. Then move the insert up closer to the top of the piston to improve compression by reducing the distance of the top ring to the head of the piston. Now throw away the IDI head put on a flat face head and incorporate modern injection tip with pressures at about at least 290 bar.
Hows that for dreaming ;D ;D
Billswan
Figure out how to get the carbon particles out of the WMO, supposedly the nasties are chemically imprisoned there, and the problem is solved.
BUT heat won't work, it releases the stuff. And I'll be darned if I can figure a cold (relatively) process that is viable.
Someone smarter than I will have to open this can of worms.
I know it can be done, the question is, can it be done on a small scale safely and economically.
I'm sure not gonna be out in the shop thinning my WMO with hexane, then centrifuging small batches for a couple hours at 12,000 rpm. >:(
Ron
Interesting that you mention using direct injection Billswan, I always thought IDI was better for waste oil? Am I wrong?
Do you think something like a custom piston is something that a DIYer can come up with, with help from a machine shop? Can standard lister liners be induction hardened?
Quote from: BioHazard on January 24, 2011, 07:45:40 PM
Interesting that you mention using direct injection Billswan, I always thought IDI was better for waste oil? Am I wrong?
Do you think something like a custom piston is something that a DIYer can come up with, with help from a machine shop? Can standard lister liners be induction hardened?
Bio
The guys that run wvo seem to think IDI is better, and as having no experience with wvo I have no reason to argue with that.
It is my personal idea that direct injection might be better for WMO I cannot prove it. Yet. The 10/1 I was running was idi and at first before the compression went away it seemed to run ok but when the compression dropped it started to be a real knocker as chunks of carbon would come down out of the pre cup and get in between the piston and head made quite the racket. I am hoping that with direct injection when the compression does start going down there won't be the knocking problem. I am hoping that when the carbon from incomplete combustion forms it will just get tossed out the exhaust. the carbon shouldn't stick to the piston and being the head is flat with less cold running nooks like a precup head has the carbon has less to build on,maybe.
See reply 21 http://www.microcogen.info/index.php?topic=1608.msg19623#new
and notice the big dents in the top of the aluminum piston scares the crap out of you if you are near by when the engine starts knocking from carbon interfering with the piston travel.
Custom pistons well we can dream but the cost would be ...........................?
Quality sleeves well who knows?
Billswan
Quote from: billswan on January 24, 2011, 08:31:16 PM
Quote from: BioHazard on January 24, 2011, 07:45:40 PM
Interesting that you mention using direct injection Billswan, I always thought IDI was better for waste oil? Am I wrong?
Do you think something like a custom piston is something that a DIYer can come up with, with help from a machine shop? Can standard lister liners be induction hardened?
Bio
The guys that run wvo seem to think IDI is better, and as having no experience with wvo I have no reason to argue with that.
It is my personal idea that direct injection might be better for WMO I cannot prove it. Yet. The 10/1 I was running was idi and at first before the compression went away it seemed to run ok but when the compression dropped it started to be a real knocker as chunks of carbon would come down out of the pre cup and get in between the piston and head made quite the racket. I am hoping that with direct injection when the compression does start going down there won't be the knocking problem. I am hoping that when the carbon from incomplete combustion forms it will just get tossed out the exhaust. the carbon shouldn't stick to the piston and being the head is flat with less cold running nooks like a precup head has the carbon has less to build on,maybe.
See reply 21 http://www.microcogen.info/index.php?topic=1608.msg19623#new
and notice the big dents in the top of the aluminum piston scares the crap out of you if you are near by when the engine starts knocking from carbon interfering with the piston travel.
Custom pistons well we can dream but the cost would be ...........................?
Quality sleeves well who knows?
Billswan
The way I look at it is,with a direct injection engine the smaller multi holes in the injector are more likely to have problems with carbon build up and also you are spraying all the crap straight in to the cylinder and on to the cylinder walls.
The carbon will still build up but instead of building up in the idi head and then braking off the carbon will build up on top of the piston and cause permanent knock until you remove the head and clean it off.
DI engines are known to need higher quality fuel and also have a lower compression than idi engines.
I have used a 50/50 mix of WMO in two Petter PH1 engines for a very short time and had problems with injectors becoming coked up.
Quote from: spencer1885 on January 25, 2011, 02:49:17 AM
Quote from: billswan on January 24, 2011, 08:31:16 PM
Quote from: BioHazard on January 24, 2011, 07:45:40 PM
Interesting that you mention using direct injection Billswan, I always thought IDI was better for waste oil? Am I wrong?
Do you think something like a custom piston is something that a DIYer can come up with, with help from a machine shop? Can standard lister liners be induction hardened?
Bio
The guys that run wvo seem to think IDI is better, and as having no experience with wvo I have no reason to argue with that.
It is my personal idea that direct injection might be better for WMO I cannot prove it. Yet. The 10/1 I was running was idi and at first before the compression went away it seemed to run ok but when the compression dropped it started to be a real knocker as chunks of carbon would come down out of the pre cup and get in between the piston and head made quite the racket. I am hoping that with direct injection when the compression does start going down there won't be the knocking problem. I am hoping that when the carbon from incomplete combustion forms it will just get tossed out the exhaust. the carbon shouldn't stick to the piston and being the head is flat with less cold running nooks like a precup head has the carbon has less to build on,maybe.
See reply 21 http://www.microcogen.info/index.php?topic=1608.msg19623#new
and notice the big dents in the top of the aluminum piston scares the crap out of you if you are near by when the engine starts knocking from carbon interfering with the piston travel.
Custom pistons well we can dream but the cost would be ...........................?
Quality sleeves well who knows?
Billswan
The way I look at it is,with a direct injection engine the smaller multi holes in the injector are more likely to have problems with carbon build up and also you are spraying all the crap straight in to the cylinder and on to the cylinder walls.
The carbon will still build up but instead of building up in the idi head and then braking off the carbon will build up on top of the piston and cause permanent knock until you remove the head and clean it off.
DI engines are known to need higher quality fuel and also have a lower compression than idi engines.
I have used a 50/50 mix of WMO in two Petter PH1 engines for a very short time and had problems with injectors becoming coked up.
Well spencer
I am going to going it a try and will report back if it works out as you say, well at least i will have replicated your experience and the group will profit from the post.
Billswan
Billswan,
Sorry if I am be so negative as I feel very disappointed that this has not been a success. :(
Of all the possible problems you could imagine I never imagined this one . :o
The only good coming out of this experience is helping other people not to make the same mistakes and waste there time and money.
How ever you look at it the results will be the same and the only way to use WMO is to burn it for heat.
Spencer
spencer
No problem.
I bought both of my roids with idea that I would run them on wmo several years ago and so far 1 is down now to see if what I have learned can keep the other one going. If it fails at an early hour level well then the forum will have another replication of your findings.
By the way the 16/1 I have is more of a top shelf model not the bargain basement crap the 10/1 was.
I will have it running in another day or so and will add to my posts about it. But at this point it looks much better quality wise. I might try water injection to help carry the ash out. I was also playing with the idea of leaving out the bottom oil ring to try to get more oil to the upper ring area. Both the 10/1 and this 16/1 have 2 oil rings and the 10 /1 never took any oil past the rings. Many times when I would clean the pre cup I would get the sense that the top end was too dry as it almost would squeak as it was turned.That ash is abrasive and if more oil could help wash some of it down it might be woth having to add a cup of oil to the crankcase ever so often.
Billswan
The metal removal from the engine parts burning waste motor oil seems to be getting rather conclusive.
spencers experience of it being concentrated in certain areas yet not in others might suggest that there is a chemical corrosion component to the process besides purely mechanical abrasion by the ash of combustion products. Maybe it doesnt matter what is the exact process of the destruction but I always want to know why.
Just food for thought; study the implications of the following link. http://www.bycosin.se/Deposits_more.htm There are lots of other high temperature reactions from various other compounds that can be chemically active in the soup of burning used motor oils.
Certain oil fields have a crude that is murder on refineries and some common materials are a serious contaminant at high temperatures. I was on a job on construction of an tarsand upgrader and an engineer shut us down because the anti seize we were using on the studs and nuts did not meet spec.
It didnt matter squat to us but it sure upset him
spencer1885
Don't get too disappointed yet....
There are many people running listers & Listeroids on WMO
RBodell in Texas has been doing it for 4 years now and makes power every day.
After 1000 hrs. he pulled the engine apart and took pictures.
Look here....
http://rbodell.com/listeroids.aspx (http://rbodell.com/listeroids.aspx)
This fellow runs a Lister 24/7 for 3 months a year on WMO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYZqAzEuPE8&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYZqAzEuPE8&feature=player_embedded)
If you want to run WMO....just do it.
As long as you consider it to be fun and experimental AND you don't mind
tearing the head off once in a while to keep an eye on things, then it might just be a lot of fun :)
You can buy a liner, piston, rings, and head gasket for the price of a good steak dinner (for two :) )
as they say in Barbados..... PUT IT MAN !
cheers,
veggie
Mr Bodell runs only a 50% WMO mix and a 20% mix when running at 300 rpm according to his site.
flywheel
Quote from: flywheel on January 25, 2011, 08:32:04 PM
Mr Bodell runs only a 50% WMO mix and a 20% mix when running at 300 rpm according to his site.
flywheel
He must vary it because in this thread he notes that he has run straight WMO down to 10 deg. f and below that he
adds Gasoline as a dilluent.
http://www.microcogen.info/index.php?topic=545.0 (http://www.microcogen.info/index.php?topic=545.0)
There are also threads on the LEF where he states that 70%wmo and 30% diesel are a common mix for him.
veggie
i have ran 50/50 mix of 15/40 low ash diesel oil in the changfa s195 and had the head off to check for anything unusual
i don't notice any difference in deposits, however there are probably significant differences from those results reported
by spencer and others
1. i have not put that many hours running the fuel
2. i run only at near max loading for the engine,
3. i run a cooling temperature of 240degree F at the head
4. and the low ash oil, along with it being formulated for the new catalytic diesels, is designed
to keep things that might burn out of the oil from poisoning the cat/particulate filter/nitrogen reduction system
that is mandated on the tier 4 truck engine's.
5. and the engine is a changfa, which in my opinion is superior in design and quality of materials/fit/finish to the typical listeroid
while the changfa will happily run just fine on 100% waste motor oil up to 30weight that i have tested, i don't see me ever running
over a 50/50 mix
now having said all that, i would expect the life of the engine to certainly exceed 2k hours under these conditions, likely 5k hours, but
i am not prepared to boldly state such because i am missing one important test parameter,, that being operational hours.
what i don't understand is how anyone can make an assertion that wmo is intrinsically bad, missing key parameters in their testing.
or, how about this
if an engine gets worn out in 2k hours burning 100% motor oil, perhaps it will run 4k hours if it is fueled 50/50 wmo/diesel mix.
might that be an acceptable option if it proved to be the case?
how about if the waste oil was the new low ash emission oil for the cat/controlled tier 4 engine's? what if that proved to extend
the lifespan of the engine from 2k hours to 3k hours? might that be acceptable?
it basically all comes down to what ones needs and expectation are, and determining how best to optimize engine life burning this alternative
fuel.
its not like burning veggie oil didn't have its problems early on either, or well had gas, or producer gas, all alternative fuels have their issues that must be recognized and dealt with.
why would motor oil be any different? why does it make in something not worth looking for ways to improve on its use?
where would we be if we didn't look at alternative fuels and seek solutions?
i will tell you where... at the pump paying whatever the oil company wants for his pump diesel!
there is also a concept known as "consumables" some processes just use up things, and in those cases it is an acceptable
expense for the process,, if you want to use a tig torch you will consume tungsten, and ceramic cups, along with argon, or if you are
good helium argon or if you are very good pure helium.
same goes for a mig welder, you use contact tips, liners, drive rolls, shields etc
nobody complains about this cost,
following our logic here, we would all be using mud covered coat hanger wire and an AC buzz box, because ... for heavens sakes mig and tig are bad because they wear out parts! and they consume GASES! oh my goodness the added costs!!
thats just whacked, or put more politically correct, "short sighted"
especially given tigs obvious advantage to stick welding and migs speed advantage over stick, the time saved in the process outweighs the expense of the consumables.
perhaps the money saved on fuel offsets the cost of replacement parts for a rebuild, and there is this
my changfa will produce a documented 5% more power running on oil than it will on pump diesel
that 5% increase in power over 2000 hours is likely more than enough to pay for replacement parts for the changfa
so maybe i look at the cylinder kit as a consumable, nothing different than an air cleaner element, but something that gets
changed at 2k hour intervals.
that being the worst case
bob g
just for fun, a little light reading
funny how i don't find mention of the additive package causing issues with the cracking process or the finished product
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5885444/description.html
bob g
Quote from: veggie on January 25, 2011, 07:49:26 PM
spencer1885
Don't get too disappointed yet....
There are many people running listers & Listeroids on WMO
RBodell in Texas has been doing it for 4 years now and makes power every day.
After 1000 hrs. he pulled the engine apart and took pictures.
Look here....
http://rbodell.com/listeroids.aspx (http://rbodell.com/listeroids.aspx)
This fellow runs a Lister 24/7 for 3 months a year on WMO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYZqAzEuPE8&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYZqAzEuPE8&feature=player_embedded)
If you want to run WMO....just do it.
As long as you consider it to be fun and experimental AND you don't mind
tearing the head off once in a while to keep an eye on things, then it might just be a lot of fun :)
You can buy a liner, piston, rings, and head gasket for the price of a good steak dinner (for two :) )
as they say in Barbados..... PUT IT MAN !
cheers,
veggie
Were is Bodell then,is that the only person you can come up with.
1000 hours and then it's gone very quiet.
Quote from: spencer1885 on January 26, 2011, 04:28:06 AM
Were is Bodell then,is that the only person you can come up with.
1000 hours and then it's gone very quiet.
It must be a government conspiracy. I bet the EPA is holding him hostage somewhere for burning all that dirty oil.
"Were is Bodell then,is that the only person you can come up with.
1000 hours and then it's gone very quiet."
1] Where is Bodell ?? Don't ask me.... I'm not his mother.
2] Is that all you can come up with? People of this planet don't report to me when they run WMO.
Those two examples are what I found with 2 minutes worth of searching. You could find more if you invest a bit of time and research.
Quote from: veggie on January 26, 2011, 08:06:49 AM
"Were is Bodell then,is that the only person you can come up with.
1000 hours and then it's gone very quiet."
1] Where is Bodell ?? Don't ask me.... I'm not his mother.
2] Is that all you can come up with? People of this planet don't report to me when they run WMO.
Those two examples are what I found with 2 minutes worth of searching. You could find more if you invest a bit of time and research.
Please some thing constructive to the subject and stop be confrontational.
Have got any experience with using WMO?, if so please tell
:)
Quote from: mobile_bob on January 25, 2011, 10:24:29 PM
just for fun, a little light reading
funny how i don't find mention of the additive package causing issues with the cracking process or the finished product
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5885444/description.html
bob g
Hi Bob!
The reason you didn't reads anything about it, is because this is what's called a "junk" patent. This process description conveniently leaves out all the problems that WMO cracking causes in real life.
For example, it basically says - "well, coke production is a problem for everyone else, so we don't do it that way. We operate in a manner so as not to create problematic coke..."
"...one
skilled in the art (
!) probably would have been of the opinion that it would not have been possible to efficiently and economically crack waste motor oil containing metal particles. However, as the results shown herein indicates
Applicants have found that that is not the case."
I see. Groundbreaking stuff... please call (insert name of Major Oil Company of your choice here) immediately. They need this information immediately, their engineering and research departments are completely ignorant of this new information...
;D ;D ;D
There are real, physical reasons why a real refiner wouldn't do this. And few of them bother to, since refining WMO into fuel is a dirty, money-losing, inefficient process compared to re-refining it back into motor oil. Which doesn't involve cracking.
Will their "patent-applied-for" process make fuel out of WMO? You bet. But I can think of any number of processes that will do the same - how much of a refinery does anyone want in their back yard? Given enough time and money, I guess anything's possible... ;D
Cognos
i am not suggesting that the patent application or the info included is valid, only that there are apparently methods
of getting the job done.
now who knows if this application and its methods will work well, work at all, or work well enough to get the job done to an acceptable level.
again, i don't know!
but i have questions, and generally i am not just going to accept something can't be done, until i have either determine through testing myself
it can't be done, or read enough other reports "with" details of how it was determined to not work,, before i decide to accept something on
anyones sayso.
i would expect the same if the tables were turned
bob g
Oh. I'm not saying it can't be done. It definitely can!
The questions are different and more complex than that.
1. Can turning WMO into a high-quality fuel be done? (yes)
2. Can it be done safely at home? (yes, but it won't be inexpensive or simple to do it safely, efficiently, reliably, and repeatably.)
3. Can the concerns in #2 be addressed? (Quite possibly.)
It's not a difficult process. There are some serious hazards along the way to be dealt with, and I don't want to see anyone injured or have their health damaged, or create a serious environmental situation.
cognos
i appreciate your concern and reasoned objections to the process,
can't imagine many dismissing your concerns, however there likely are a few.
i also appreciate your input, where you provide information to support your assertion and concerns
rather than simply stating "it is a bad thing" or "it is always bad" or other negative statements
without any sort of documentation other than ones own observations.
had spencer's approach been
"waste motor oil is bad as a fuel" because...
1. he has observed this
2. he has tried that
3. he has researched and found supporting documentation that supports his assertion
4. he also provided alternate theories that might explain his results, such as other issues
that might also be in play that are not directly related to wmo
etc.
we could then conclude that spencer's observations might have merit and we ought to
do some hard research to see what is happening, and why he is having this issue.
my problem is one of presentation i guess, don't tell me something is bad, without supporting the statement
and then be ready for some pointed questions
wmo should be innocent of the charge until it is proven guilty, so to speak.
thank goodness our legal system doesn't work in a similar manner to the way spencer has presented his position
otherwise anyone could bear false witness against another and there would be no investigation no peer review, just
condemnation and the firing squad.
:)
bob g
Quote from: mobile_bob on January 26, 2011, 12:15:18 PM
cognos
i appreciate your concern and reasoned objections to the process,
can't imagine many dismissing your concerns, however there likely are a few.
i also appreciate your input, where you provide information to support your assertion and concerns
rather than simply stating "it is a bad thing" or "it is always bad" or other negative statements
without any sort of documentation other than ones own observations.
had spencer's approach been
"waste motor oil is bad as a fuel" because...
1. he has observed this
2. he has tried that
3. he has researched and found supporting documentation that supports his assertion
4. he also provided alternate theories that might explain his results, such as other issues
that might also be in play that are not directly related to wmo
etc.
we could then conclude that spencer's observations might have merit and we ought to
do some hard research to see what is happening, and why he is having this issue.
my problem is one of presentation i guess, don't tell me something is bad, without supporting the statement
and then be ready for some pointed questions
wmo should be innocent of the charge until it is proven guilty, so to speak.
thank goodness our legal system doesn't work in a similar manner to the way spencer has presented his position
otherwise anyone could bear false witness against another and there would be no investigation no peer review, just
condemnation and the firing squad.
:)
bob g
Well done bob,
Get running your engine on WMO and when you know it not going to wear out in super quick time, then come on this forum and tell people it's safe ,but until then don't assume it safe and let other people wear there engines out.
Boy these posts are really getting hard to read
Quote from: spencer1885 on January 26, 2011, 08:15:16 AM
Quote from: veggie on January 26, 2011, 08:06:49 AM
"Were is Bodell then,is that the only person you can come up with.
1000 hours and then it's gone very quiet."
1] Where is Bodell ?? Don't ask me.... I'm not his mother.
2] Is that all you can come up with? People of this planet don't report to me when they run WMO.
Those two examples are what I found with 2 minutes worth of searching. You could find more if you invest a bit of time and research.
Somebody asked me to stop by and comment here.
I now have somewhere near 1700 hours on my engine running 100%WMO. Still haven't found any carbon deposits on the piston.
I still go by the same process for cleaning the oil as I started with on my website at rbodell.com.
I haven't updated my website because nothing has changed, it just keeps on running and running and running and .....
It runs cleaner on WMO than diesel and has more power. In fact I still have the same goldenrod fuel filter on the engine. If it was going to plug up, it would have before this because I do not use a puel pump so that says a lot for the dieselcraft centrifuge filter I use in my processor too.
There are photos of the processor with explanation on the site as well as http://picasaweb.google.com/rbodell/OilPROCESSOR# it the same aS a biodiesel processor as well as the same process exceept I don't add anything to the oil.
As for not finding too many peole who have run WMO, I couldn't find much either so I did a huge anount of research and managed to track bdown a few people who have run WMO in diesels for many years. One fellow has been running a truck on it for over 10 years.I am looking for a diesel pickup to run on it myself. Nothing like free fuel.
I would be glad to help anybody with any information I can, but most everything is on my website. There is contact info on the website, but if it is something new I will probably answer through this website. I haven't visited back here much lately, so if you post something specifically for me here, drop me an email and let me know it is there. rbodell AT gmail.
no I am not an engineer, scientist or even a mechanic. I just did a lot of research bthat told me I had nothing to fear with running this engine on WMO, so I invested $3,000 in the engine and gen head and have had no regrets since. Like I said, I am looking for a truck to run on WMO now.
If anybody living around the weatherford texas area wants to come by and check it out, I would be glad to show you around.
rbodell
i have said it before, and i will say it again...
you are my friggin hero!
thanks for providing a little balance to the debate.
bob g
Quote from: mobile_bob on January 26, 2011, 06:23:35 PM
rbodell
i have said it before, and i will say it again...
you are my friggin hero!
thanks for providing a little balance to the debate.
bob g
hero might be a little far fetched LOL. Always glad to help though. I think the main reason I tried this rout was because there wasn't much info on the net and I wanted to try it out. most of the people I have tracked down don't even use the internet so a lot of it was through snail mail. One fellow only got into town to the post office every month or two LOL.
I guess it is like wood-gas. A lot of people think it's a fairy tale until they actually do enough research to find out that automobile manufacturers actually built wood-gas cars rite on the assembly line during WW2. Even after my research, I still had visions of it smoking like an old freight train or coal powered factory.
I recently got a couple of power company electric meters from some really nice Guy who just happened by my website. One is going on my lister so I can see what it is making me in dollars and cents. How sweet it is when I think back to when the guy at the power company told me I was going to buy my power from them or nobody ........ BWAAAAHAHAHA.
Well, you all have a good day and those of you who haven't yet ordered your roid, better got to it, you won't regret it.
Thanks for chiming in rbodell. Spencer has an interesting WMO project in-work and hit a snag from what appears to have been from excessive additive ash. Rather than analysing the data and determine appropriate adjustments he started screaming the sky is falling and posted all over the Lister world that pouring WMO in your tank is like pouring battery acid on your johnson, don't do it and you will be doomed if you do. Some of us started questioning the rationale behind this action and it all went down-hill from there. We were trying to provide possible course's of action to get his project back on track but it was like me talking to our donkey. That 'ol donkey doesn't listen and his mind is made up, he ain't a'moven.
Take care and drop in from time to time.
Dave
So here are two questions to digest:
1. If burnt in a burner for heat, where are these ash products from the combustion of motor oil? I have looked at a few waste oil burners, and when rigged right, there is not very much left over...
2. Spencer if you encountered wear problems from WMO, what engine temps and loads were you operating under?
My instincts tel me that ash formation is probably not from combustion of the additives in the oil, but from the INCOMPLETE combustion aand breakdown of the additives in the oil...
Just musing...
Quote from: Ronmar on January 26, 2011, 08:35:51 PM
My instincts tel me that ash formation is probably not from combustion of the additives in the oil, but from the INCOMPLETE combustion aand breakdown of the additives in the oil...
Add to that, propane or natural gas injection supposedly make diesels combust more completely, and create steam as a byproduct.
Quote from: Ronmar on January 26, 2011, 08:35:51 PM
So here are two questions to digest:
1. If burnt in a burner for heat, where are these ash products from the combustion of motor oil? I have looked at a few waste oil burners, and when rigged right, there is not very much left over...
2. Spencer if you encountered wear problems from WMO, what engine temps and loads were you operating under?
My instincts tel me that ash formation is probably not from combustion of the additives in the oil, but from the INCOMPLETE combustion aand breakdown of the additives in the oil...
Just musing...
Good morning,
Waste oil heaters and boilers produce lots of white ash.
There are two main types of burners,the first one being the most common because it's cheap is the evaporating pan type.
This type of burner is basically jut a frying pan which the oil is burnt in ,not very efficient and leaves unburnt black carbon in the pan which must be cleaned out daily.
The other type of burner is a gun / jet burner which is much more efficient, but more expensive to buy.
The jet type of waste oil burner only produces white ash as it burns the oil more completely.
I get a bucket of white fine ash out of my Omni when I clean it out and if you go to a web site which deals with make your own waste oil burner which I am a member of you will read about people KILLING there BEARINGS in vacuum cleaners from the white abrasive ash going through the vacuum motor.
I have both types of waste oil burners and have owned and used many different types over the years
Spencer
Quote from: Ronmar on January 26, 2011, 08:35:51 PM
So here are two questions to digest:
1. If burnt in a burner for heat, where are these ash products from the combustion of motor oil? I have looked at a few waste oil burners, and when rigged right, there is not very much left over...
2. Spencer if you encountered wear problems from WMO, what engine temps and loads were you operating under?
My instincts tel me that ash formation is probably not from combustion of the additives in the oil, but from the INCOMPLETE combustion aand breakdown of the additives in the oil...
Just musing...
Fully loaded with ac and dc being produced, thermostat fitted.
White ash= fully burnt Black clumps of carbon= not fully burnt
Quote from: rbodell on January 26, 2011, 04:26:30 PM
Quote from: spencer1885 on January 26, 2011, 08:15:16 AM
Quote from: veggie on January 26, 2011, 08:06:49 AM
"Were is Bodell then,is that the only person you can come up with.
1000 hours and then it's gone very quiet."
1] Where is Bodell ?? Don't ask me.... I'm not his mother.
2] Is that all you can come up with? People of this planet don't report to me when they run WMO.
Those two examples are what I found with 2 minutes worth of searching. You could find more if you invest a bit of time and research.
Somebody asked me to stop by and comment here.
I now have somewhere near 1700 hours on my engine running 100%WMO. Still haven't found any carbon deposits on the piston.
I still go by the same process for cleaning the oil as I started with on my website at rbodell.com.
I haven't updated my website because nothing has changed, it just keeps on running and running and running and .....
It runs cleaner on WMO than diesel and has more power. In fact I still have the same goldenrod fuel filter on the engine. If it was going to plug up, it would have before this because I do not use a puel pump so that says a lot for the dieselcraft centrifuge filter I use in my processor too.
There are photos of the processor with explanation on the site as well as http://picasaweb.google.com/rbodell/OilPROCESSOR# it the same aS a biodiesel processor as well as the same process exceept I don't add anything to the oil.
As for not finding too many peole who have run WMO, I couldn't find much either so I did a huge anount of research and managed to track bdown a few people who have run WMO in diesels for many years. One fellow has been running a truck on it for over 10 years.I am looking for a diesel pickup to run on it myself. Nothing like free fuel.
I would be glad to help anybody with any information I can, but most everything is on my website. There is contact info on the website, but if it is something new I will probably answer through this website. I haven't visited back here much lately, so if you post something specifically for me here, drop me an email and let me know it is there. rbodell AT gmail.
no I am not an engineer, scientist or even a mechanic. I just did a lot of research bthat told me I had nothing to fear with running this engine on WMO, so I invested $3,000 in the engine and gen head and have had no regrets since. Like I said, I am looking for a truck to run on WMO now.
If anybody living around the weatherford texas area wants to come by and check it out, I would be glad to show you around.
If you have read the posts you would have seen that the wear will all ready be their at 1800 hours, if he pulls the block and checks.
Only 1700 hours so far.
I have posted ,I can't remember which forum now at 1800 hours when the head gasket blow I decided to decoke it at the same time.
I posted it was real clean with very little to no deposit's in the engine, it's not a coking problem but a abrasive problem.
3000 hours per year is what I need minimum.
I took apart my little 2 stroke generator today, and I found more carbon than expected at 35 hours in the exhaust port and in the muffler. Bore appears to have some slight wear and I think I need a new head gasket.
I guess that means I should stop burning premium gasoline/2 cycle oil mix so I don't wear out the engine in a few hundred hours. Maybe I should vacuum seal it too so that it doesn't ever rust.
;)
Quote from: BioHazard on January 27, 2011, 02:50:58 AM
I took apart my little 2 stroke generator today, and I found more carbon than expected at 35 hours in the exhaust port and in the muffler. Bore appears to have some slight wear and I think I need a new head gasket.
I guess that means I should stop burning premium gasoline/2 cycle oil mix so I don't wear out the engine in a few hundred hours. Maybe I should vacuum seal it too so that it doesn't ever rust.
;)
Stop posting stupid comments as you look like a plonker.
Post some thing to add to the subject if you have any thing, or please tell us want your area of expertise is relating to engines.
spencer
this last comment from you is uncalled for,
you ask what others credentials are, yet you provide little to nothing other than "i say so, therefore it is true"
i am beginning to see you has nothing more than a troll, looking to start argument based on sensational and controversial
posts, comments and titling.
nothing more to see here, time to move on.
we have all been patient with you, and extended you the opportunity to support your claims, so far you have not availed yourself
to this and our hospitality.
its time for you to either step up and be constructive or move on.
i would like to leave you with this
over the years i built 100s of 53, 71 and 92 series detroits, 2 stroke engines, many of which used the wrong oils, most of which inhaled, leaked
and in all sorts of ways consumed lot of motor oil.
i have seen dozens of these engine's coming in for overhaul that had white ash residue on the exhaust valve heads and stems, and the piston tops, however the only cylinders and rings that were worn out and not just glazed were engines that had some sort of air cleaner piping, element or other admission of dust/dirt into the air stream.
now why would these enigne's with significant amounts of white ash caked upon the pistons, valves and ports not have had accelerated sleeve and ring wear when you report such with your lister?
the detroit rings are a stainless steel alloy and the liners are induction hardened, and those engine's were not ran any significant amount of time at anything less than 75% loading with stable coolant temperatures in the 180 plus degree F range.
burning motor oil is not dangerous to your engine!
i can state that with equal authority based on my observations and "Facts" (using your argument)
should you or anyone accept my assertion as gospel?
hell no!
conversely should i or anyone accept your assertion as gospel?
(as if we really need to answer that)
hell no!
i am done with you on this topic, its time to move on.
bob g
Quote from: mobile_bob on January 27, 2011, 04:44:37 AM
spencer
this last comment from you is uncalled for,
you ask what others credentials are, yet you provide little to nothing other than "i say so, therefore it is true"
i am beginning to see you has nothing more than a troll, looking to start argument based on sensational and controversial
posts, comments and titling.
nothing more to see here, time to move on.
we have all been patient with you, and extended you the opportunity to support your claims, so far you have not availed yourself
to this and our hospitality.
its time for you to either step up and be constructive or move on.
i would like to leave you with this
over the years i built 100s of 53, 71 and 92 series detroits, 2 stroke engines, many of which used the wrong oils, most of which inhaled, leaked
and in all sorts of ways consumed lot of motor oil.
i have seen dozens of these engine's coming in for overhaul that had white ash residue on the exhaust valve heads and stems, and the piston tops, however the only cylinders and rings that were worn out and not just glazed were engines that had some sort of air cleaner piping, element or other admission of dust/dirt into the air stream.
now why would these enigne's with significant amounts of white ash caked upon the pistons, valves and ports not have had accelerated sleeve and ring wear when you report such with your lister?
the detroit rings are a stainless steel alloy and the liners are induction hardened, and those engine's were not ran any significant amount of time at anything less than 75% loading with stable coolant temperatures in the 180 plus degree F range.
burning motor oil is not dangerous to your engine!
i can state that with equal authority based on my observations and "Facts" (using your argument)
should you or anyone accept my assertion as gospel?
hell no!
conversely should i or anyone accept your assertion as gospel?
(as if we really need to answer that)
hell no!
i am done with you on this topic, its time to move on.
bob g
bob,
I have not got time to read your post now,but uncalled for and stupid remarks are what BioHazard keeps making.
Direct your comments to all concerned.
Spencer
Quote from: mobile_bob on January 27, 2011, 04:44:37 AM
over the years i built 100s of 53, 71 and 92 series detroits, 2 stroke engines, many of which used the wrong oils, most of which inhaled, leaked
and in all sorts of ways consumed lot of motor oil.
i have seen dozens of these engine's coming in for overhaul that had white ash residue on the exhaust valve heads and stems, and the piston tops, however the only cylinders and rings that were worn out and not just glazed were engines that had some sort of air cleaner piping, element or other admission of dust/dirt into the air stream.
now why would these enigne's with significant amounts of white ash caked upon the pistons, valves and ports not have had accelerated sleeve and ring wear when you report such with your lister?
the detroit rings are a stainless steel alloy and the liners are induction hardened, and those engine's were not ran any significant amount of time at anything less than 75% loading with stable coolant temperatures in the 180 plus degree F range.
bob g
Bob
Thanks for the above chunk of commentary.
It is what i am thinking but am not near as a experienced mechanic as you. I might have been but farming got in my way.
I have said or at least have tried to say that if my 10/1 would have had modern cylinder technology I believe it would have made it much longer before it wore the cylinder parts out.
I have the old cylinder and piston and rings setting beside 70's farm tractor components that I know were advertised to be induction hardened sleeve that is. The piston has if i remember right has 2 keystone compression rings running in a insert. well got to go you get the picture.
Have lots on my plate for the next 2 days, hope to make a post with pix to show what I mean in the near future.
Billswan
For any one interested in building a WMO or WVO burning heater/boiler or just for more information on the subject google, altfuelfurnace ,a forum that might interest some people on this forum.
Spencer
O.K.;
To try to inject a little empirical comment into this debate:
I have not run a Listeroid for any length of time on WMO - about 30 minutes just to "prove the concept". It worked well but of course I can't comment on wear. HOWEVER, I do use WMO in my oil boiler that is built specifically for that purpose (it is actually a WMO/WVO designed boiler). It is tuned to the tits and burns VERY cleanly, no smoke out of the chimney except for water vapour on cold days. But here is the interesting part - every 30 days or so it begins to act up as if it were starving for oxygen. Opening up the firebox shows a light (as in weight, not volume) white ash deposit on the boiler tubes to the extent that they are pretty much blocked. Clean out the tubes and all is well again.
As I said, this is a well-tuned unit that shows no discolouration on a smoke test. The only conclusion I can draw is that the combustion process results in the ash production and this ash is too heavy to blow through the firebox tubes and up out the chimney. I think it can be logically assumed that the same thing could happen in a Listeroid and this is what is likely causing the excessive wear that people are seeing.
Quote from: JohnF on January 27, 2011, 07:16:06 AM
O.K.;
To try to inject a little empirical comment into this debate:
I have not run a Listeroid for any length of time on WMO - about 30 minutes just to "prove the concept". It worked well but of course I can't comment on wear. HOWEVER, I do use WMO in my oil boiler that is built specifically for that purpose (it is actually a WMO/WVO designed boiler). It is tuned to the tits and burns VERY cleanly, no smoke out of the chimney except for water vapour on cold days. But here is the interesting part - every 30 days or so it begins to act up as if it were starving for oxygen. Opening up the firebox shows a light (as in weight, not volume) white ash deposit on the boiler tubes to the extent that they are pretty much blocked. Clean out the tubes and all is well again.
As I said, this is a well-tuned unit that shows no discolouration on a smoke test. The only conclusion I can draw is that the combustion process results in the ash production and this ash is too heavy to blow through the firebox tubes and up out the chimney. I think it can be logically assumed that the same thing could happen in a Listeroid and this is what is likely causing the excessive wear that people are seeing.
Spot on John,
Finally some one with experience of how WMO burns and it's deposits.
Spencer
Spencer
let me make this short and to the point
no one is arguing the existence of an ash byproduct
what i among others are stating is this
not all oils produce the same amount of ash, nor will all oils produce the same ash compounds
nor will all engine's suffer the same wear issues burning wmo, and
there are significant difference in a waste oil boiler and an engine when it comes to the combustion process
engines run at a higher coolant temperature
engine's run at higher pressures within the combustion chamber
engines have a cyclic pumping nature that helps to move the ash out of the chamber with each stroke
in a positive displacement process rather than a much lower pressure static pressure process.
its apples and oranges in the comparison on so many levels, somehow these things seem to go right over your
head.
what can we learn from a boiler that is going to help us with an engine burning wmo? not much other than we might
be able to test the residual ash for its abrasive characteristics, however
even that is problematic, because how do we know that the same compounds might reform harder or softer due to the very high combustion
pressures of an engine that are not seen in a wmo boiler
give me a break
bob g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYZqAzEuPE8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYZqAzEuPE8)
(apologies, this video can't be run embedded... you'll have to lick the clink...
Runs on 85% WMO / 15% red diesel (gas oil), according to the commentary. Approx 2000 hours between services (assuming 90 days @ 24x7). Obviously his engine lasted more than 1 service interval...
It may also be important to note that not everyone is concerned about slightly accelerated wear due to WMO fuels.
For some, this remains a good fuel strategy. Especially for those who don't have access to WVO.
Although WMO may not be the ideal fuel, we still need to discuss the ways and methods for making it a "better" fuel.
Whether that be via a blending process or by engine mods, it is still a good subject for discussion.
Let's try to keep our posts within the spirit of encouraging experimentation and forming solutions rather than discouraging new ideas.
veggie
Quote from: mobile_bob on January 27, 2011, 08:20:27 AM
Spencer
let me make this short and to the point
no one is arguing the existence of an ash byproduct
what i among others are stating is this
not all oils produce the same amount of ash, nor will all oils produce the same ash compounds
nor will all engine's suffer the same wear issues burning wmo, and
there are significant difference in a waste oil boiler and an engine when it comes to the combustion process
engines run at a higher coolant temperature
engine's run at higher pressures within the combustion chamber
engines have a cyclic pumping nature that helps to move the ash out of the chamber with each stroke
in a positive displacement process rather than a much lower pressure static pressure process.
its apples and oranges in the comparison on so many levels, somehow these things seem to go right over your
head.
what can we learn from a boiler that is going to help us with an engine burning wmo? not much other than we might
be able to test the residual ash for its abrasive characteristics, however
even that is problematic, because how do we know that the same compounds might reform harder or softer due to the very high combustion
pressures of an engine that are not seen in a wmo boiler
give me a break
bob g
Put it this way then,every gallon of WMO burnt produces ash.FACT
This amount of ash is the same volume to oil if it's burnt in a boiler/heater or burnt in an engine FACT
The volume of ash to oil is high FACT
The ash is very abrasive FACT
Abrasive ash in a engines cylinder will wear it out FACT
Now wants your point?
Quote from: spencer1885 on January 27, 2011, 08:30:51 AM
Now wants your point?
Allow me to modify your post for accuracy:
Put it this way then,every gallon of WMO burnt produces ash.
FACT CONJECTURE
(some oil may not produce ash)This amount of ash is the same volume to oil if it's burnt in a boiler/heater or burnt in an engine
FACT CONJECTURE
(need to run the same oil in both engine & boiler to be sure)The volume of ash to oil is high
FACT CONJECTURE
(JohnF saw high ash in his boiler. No guarantee it's high for all WMO.)The ash is very abrasive
FACT CONJECTURE
(some ash almost certainly is, but is all ash abrasive? Need to separate ash types & evaluate)Abrasive ash in a engines cylinder will wear it out FACT
(yep, I'll give you that one)HTH.
Quote from: AdeV on January 27, 2011, 08:28:07 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYZqAzEuPE8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYZqAzEuPE8)
(apologies, this video can't be run embedded... you'll have to lick the clink...
Runs on 85% WMO / 15% red diesel (gas oil), according to the commentary. Approx 2000 hours between services (assuming 90 days @ 24x7). Obviously his engine lasted more than 1 service interval...
I have already posted about video and talked to him twice.
It was a failure.
Could you post a link? I can't see where you referenced it & what made it a failure.
Quote from: veggie on January 27, 2011, 08:30:34 AM
It may also be important to note that not everyone is concerned about slightly accelerated wear due to WMO fuels.
For some, this remains a good fuel strategy. Especially for those who don't have access to WVO.
Although WMO may not be the ideal fuel, we still need to discuss the ways and methods for making it a "better" fuel.
Whether that be via a blending process or by engine mods, it is still a good subject for discussion.
Let's try to keep our posts within the spirit of encouraging experimentation and forming solutions rather than discouraging new ideas.
veggie
Who said the wear was slight?
Can you read?
It's already be discussed.
Quote from: AdeV on January 27, 2011, 08:41:12 AM
Quote from: spencer1885 on January 27, 2011, 08:30:51 AM
Now wants your point?
Allow me to modify your post for accuracy:
Put it this way then,every gallon of WMO burnt produces ash.FACT CONJECTURE (some oil may not produce ash)
This amount of ash is the same volume to oil if it's burnt in a boiler/heater or burnt in an engine FACT CONJECTURE (need to run the same oil in both engine & boiler to be sure)
The volume of ash to oil is high FACT CONJECTURE (JohnF saw high ash in his boiler. No guarantee it's high for all WMO.)
The ash is very abrasive FACT CONJECTURE (some ash almost certainly is, but is all ash abrasive? Need to separate ash types & evaluate)
Abrasive ash in a engines cylinder will wear it out FACT (yep, I'll give you that one)
HTH.
Now you are showing that your talking about a subject you have no knowledge of.
Quote from: AdeV on January 27, 2011, 08:44:10 AM
Could you post a link? I can't see where you referenced it & what made it a failure.
Which forum, I can not remember,do your own home work.
I am sure you could being in your work shop playing with that Lister of yours for a couple of more years ;D
"FACT"
hmmm, i am beginning to get a clearer picture of you spencer, obviously you are a younger man.
generally as we age and become more experienced we find out just how much we don't know, and the more
we learn the more we find out just how much more there is to learn.
one thing we all learn sooner or later is the world is not a black and white place
there are all sorts of colors and shade in between.
standing on anything and proclaiming it as fact usually end's in first "disappointment", followed by embarassment, which then leads one
to the inevitable,, "enlightenment".
of all your asserted "facts" i would agree for the most part with the last abrasive ash is bad for an engine, however not all ash is abrasive
ash that is formed by burning some of the additives such as the zinc compounds likely are not abrasive, but likely look like white ash.
some oils are very high in zinc compounds (up to 15%) while others are quite low (~1%) and the move by the epa has been to remove all zinc compounds anyway. those zinc compounds are used as an extreme pressure additive to aide in parts in the engine that are subject to higher stresses such as cam lobe/lifter faces, brg surfaces etc.
while burning the zinc compounds might well reform them into compounds left in the ash that is harder and more abrasive, we really don't know that until the ash is properly analyzed.
or we could simply just blindly follow Spencer and eschew wmo and go pay the oil companies for pump diesel.
how about this my friend, what are you going to do when the crapolla hits the air moving device? what happens when there is no pump diesel to be had, and there is no ready source for veggie oil? what happens then ??? are you going to then run waste motor oil if it is available?
of course you are!
are you going to be kicking yourself in the backside for being so reticent about doing some testing with those of us here that are suggesting we do?
how are you going to feel about using up your lovely lister having to run wmo, while others run twice or more longer just because they decided to do the research and experimentation to learn how to reduce the negative aspects of the wmo?
i can tell you how you will feel,,, you will be very disappointed in yourself for having had such a closed mind.
bob g
Quote from: spencer1885 on January 27, 2011, 08:59:09 AM
Quote from: AdeV on January 27, 2011, 08:44:10 AM
Could you post a link? I can't see where you referenced it & what made it a failure.
Which forum, I can not remember,do your own home work.
There is an old saying: Put up, or shut up...
YOU raised it, so YOU prove it. Otherwise I will assume that you're talking sh*t and will ignore it.
Quote
I am sure you could being in your work shop playing with that Lister of yours for a couple of more years ;D
I surely could, and surely will. What's your point?
Billswan and my self are only two people on this forum with long term use of WMO on a every day use in near neat amounts.
So you think I am talking rubbish fair enough, is Billswan talking rubbish as well
Lets hear from the other users on this forum in the same boat as Billswan and my self.
Just a small few members with no experience keep posting asking the same questions and disregarding other peoples real life experiences.
I think the saying goes [ you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink ]
;D
Quote from: mobile_bob on January 27, 2011, 09:07:20 AM
"FACT"
hmmm, i am beginning to get a clearer picture of you spencer, obviously you are a younger man.
generally as we age and become more experienced we find out just how much we don't know, and the more
we learn the more we find out just how much more there is to learn.
one thing we all learn sooner or later is the world is not a black and white place
there are all sorts of colors and shade in between.
standing on anything and proclaiming it as fact usually end's in first "disappointment", followed by embarassment, which then leads one
to the inevitable,, "enlightenment".
of all your asserted "facts" i would agree for the most part with the last abrasive ash is bad for an engine, however not all ash is abrasive
ash that is formed by burning some of the additives such as the zinc compounds likely are not abrasive, but likely look like white ash.
some oils are very high in zinc compounds (up to 15%) while others are quite low (~1%) and the move by the epa has been to remove all zinc compounds anyway. those zinc compounds are used as an extreme pressure additive to aide in parts in the engine that are subject to higher stresses such as cam lobe/lifter faces, brg surfaces etc.
while burning the zinc compounds might well reform them into compounds left in the ash that is harder and more abrasive, we really don't know that until the ash is properly analyzed.
or we could simply just blindly follow Spencer and eschew wmo and go pay the oil companies for pump diesel.
how about this my friend, what are you going to do when the crapolla hits the air moving device? what happens when there is no pump diesel to be had, and there is no ready source for veggie oil? what happens then ??? are you going to then run waste motor oil if it is available?
of course you are!
are you going to be kicking yourself in the backside for being so reticent about doing some testing with those of us here that are suggesting we do?
how are you going to feel about using up your lovely lister having to run wmo, while others run twice or more longer just because they decided to do the research and experimentation to learn how to reduce the negative aspects of the wmo?
i can tell you how you will feel,,, you will be very disappointed in yourself for having had such a closed mind.
bob g
To much reading with still no real point.
No one makes abrasive oil or puts abrasive additives in.
They only become abrasive when burnt.
Clear and to the point FACT
Quote from: AdeV on January 27, 2011, 09:12:09 AM
Quote from: spencer1885 on January 27, 2011, 08:59:09 AM
Quote from: AdeV on January 27, 2011, 08:44:10 AM
Could you post a link? I can't see where you referenced it & what made it a failure.
Which forum, I can not remember,do your own home work.
There is an old saying: Put up, or shut up...
YOU raised it, so YOU prove it. Otherwise I will assume that you're talking sh*t and will ignore it.
Quote
I am sure you could being in your work shop playing with that Lister of yours for a couple of more years ;D
I surely could, and surely will. What's your point?
Are you stupid it's all been posted ,read it lazy.
;D
Quote from: spencer1885 on January 27, 2011, 09:33:10 AM
Are you stupid it's all been posted ,read it lazy.
;D
OK, in summary:
YOU say: "All WMO produces abrasive ash which will kill your engine in 2000 hours"
EVERYONE ELSE says "You need to do more testing before you can state that with absolute authority".
It's taken 10 pages to get that far.
Quote from: AdeV on January 27, 2011, 09:38:56 AM
Quote from: spencer1885 on January 27, 2011, 09:33:10 AM
Are you stupid it's all been posted ,read it lazy.
;D
OK, in summary:
YOU say: "All WMO produces abrasive ash which will kill your engine in 2000 hours"
EVERYONE ELSE says "You need to do more testing before you can state that with absolute authority".
It's taken 10 pages to get that far.
Thanks for reading that much, but there is plenty more. :)
All WMO with additives will produce ash ,fact
The ash is abrasive ,fact
The ash will wear the top end of the engine in as little as 1700 hours, I am having to repeat my self again.
Ask Billswan what he has found after 1700 hours, which is what I found with my engine at 1800 hours.
You need to start reading the complete posts and then I won't have to keep repeating my self.
Spencer
consider this a warning and take it anyway you like
keep your remarks on topic and lose the personal comments.
my patience is wearing thin with you and your tactics
if you continue to refer to fellow members in a negative manner
using terms such as "stupid" or "lazy"
you "will" find yourself on the outside looking in.
For what its worth and to all concerned, I run a Changfa S195 on WMO filtered by centrifuge. All carbon deposits, water and heavy metals are removed. I dont know how to test for the presence of salts some of you mentioned and I burn the filter WMO thinned 8% by volume with petrol.
Over 5000 hours run time nothing untoward shown up. But do remember the quality of the parts are far better than Indian Listeroid parts and the build quality is light years ahead. In particular the cylinder liner is very well made and very hard, much better than the Listeroid liner. I will have you note the Changfa has a higher compression ratio and a more efficient overall head and fuel system design, and that is my opinion from working with these engines and not a qualified opinion from an engineer. I get an average of 20% better fuel economy on the Changfa than I do with my genuine Lister CS running the same load from the same PMG.
If I had the Pope witness the engine it still wouldnt be good enough for some people, so take what ever you want from this and be happy.
David
Spencer, you are running an original CS, many I've seen don't have an air cleaner. Does yours? If so what type are you using? How dusty is the area around your engine?
One of the things that rbodell does it to check and adjust the PH of his oil. Could acid be eroding the cylinder walls and rings? Have you checked your PH if so what is it?
David,
Welcome to the forum.
That's very useful information for us lovers of the "mighty Changfa".
When you get a moment, perhaps you could post a description of your system in the Changfa section.
(or even the alternative fuels WMO section).
PS: We love pictures too :)
thanks for posting,
veggie
PS Is your S195 a direct injection or indirect ?
Quote from: Tom on January 27, 2011, 10:25:18 AM
Spencer, you are running an original CS, many I've seen don't have an air cleaner. Does yours? If so what type are you using? How dusty is the area around your engine?
One of the things that rbodell does it to check and adjust the PH of his oil. Could acid be eroding the cylinder walls and rings? Have you checked your PH if so what is it?
Tom,
Filter fitted even with out one ,a constant sand storm needed to cause this much wear in so few hours
PH is only possible when water is present and motor oil a designed to neutralise acids from the combustion process.
Abrasion from ash not acid fuel which would effect the injection sytem
rbodell has only got 1700 hours only and he ran 50/50 for some of the hours, less WMO the slower the wear
Spencer
David:
welcome aboard and thanks for your real world experience with wmo in the changfa
5000 hours on wmo, and still going strong? hmmmm
i suppose we might conclude either of two things
1. your wmo is different than that spencer uses, or
2. your changfa has more wear resistant parts than spencers original lister
(or any number of other possible explanations is possible)
5000 hours and still cranking out power certainly provides some contrast to what has been reported.
thanks again for posting
bob g
BobG and other logical thinking and non blinkered, open minded posters,
My WMO comes from a farm service company, most of their oil is from engines and gearboxes. It is filtered as I mentioned already. How different its chemical composition is I cannot tell. I did run with unfiltered oil at one time but it was a bad move. Things get gummed up fast.
The Changfa engine I believe is very much under rated and has given me all these hours for the price of a head gasket that cost me a few euro to replace from a guy in Europe who carries engines and parts. I have not even heard of a Changfa engine giving major trouble whereas all the Listeroids that imported here are always trouble when you get them, or will soon develop a failure after they go into service. 'Here' is the African bush where we have no hope of power or water without an engine and the Changfa works very well for us. We have a 30hp changfa powering a digger, works very good.
We did have some Listeroids but they dont last long in service when ran on WMO and even a genuine CS imported at twice the cost of a Changfa in shipping alone, it has proven to be unworthy to be the shade of a CS when burning filtered WMO. The additional life must be attributed to better filtering and a better burn....maybe a better liner? I cannot think of any other reasons.
We have a retired aircraft designer come by once a month to help out and he did comment on the material grade and finish on the Changfa liner. He said 'huh'. And for this guy to mutter that means it met his approval. He tested some Indian valves for our Lister and said we would get better use from them if we sharpened one end and used it as a nail.
We have a neighbour 2 hours away (by light aircraft) who has 11,000 hours on his Changfa, its only ever got rings and a head gasket. All our engines are radiator cooled and no thermostat and run 1800 to 2000RPM fully loaded. Perhaps the loading helps burn the WMO better than those running slow speed engines?
David
David
have you any pictures of your setup?
we love pictures around here, especially s195 changfa pic's!
:)
we hear so little about these engine's, it would appear that folks buy one, put it to work
and that is the end of the story for years until it is time to pull it and swap in a new one.
we have a few reports of the little changfa making 20-25k hours with clean fuel and good maintenance
but not much info with alternative fuel usage.
i suspect there are many who would really like to learn more from your experience, i know i am.
thanks
bob g
Bob,
Sorry no pics. I know every cell phone has a camera these days and there should be no excuse. But we dont have service anywhere near here for many miles. My setup is nothing special.
The guy who supplied my engine knows a lot more of the engines history and deals with people in very remote corners of the world and makes all sorts of wonderful automation gadgets for them. I had to do a lot of research before I found someone who walked the walk and had a proven track record before I bought another lemon. i.e not another damn Listeroid or variant. The Changfa engine my supplier tells me is based on a Deutz design and has been modernised by the Chinese. Both Kubota and Yanmar he says have possibly done the same thing as their engines have a similar birth as Changfa.
He has clients with Changfa engine purchased in the 1970's and are still going strong. It is testiment to how good the engine is and once you dump the fuel tank and fuel lines they are a good engine and the lack of rattling tin keeps the noise less 'entertaining'.
David
Thanks, Admin, I thought he'd never go. Life's too short to read through endless rants and bickering.
q.
Something else to think about, do we have any reports of WMO killing any engine before 1000 hours?
You know this is a good idea. We have detrmined that the waste product of using WMO is ash. Well is it in such small amounts that it takes hundreds of hours to build up enough to create a problem? Or in a healthy engine is some of it passed out of the exhaust until something changes within the engine which allow it to build up. Because there are not many engines you could throw a hand full of fine sand in and it would run 2000 hours.
If in a healthy engine what if anything could be done to send the little nasties on out of the exhaust to keep something from hapening anyway??
I noticed the compression had decreased if I remember correctly on Bill and Spences engine before complete failure.
These are some questions that merit some discussion if anyone would like to chime in. Bill or anyone with an extended run time with WMO??????? DD
the only way i see we are ever going to get to the bottom of this is through careful testing
one test that might be useful is to collect some of this ash, do some analysis on it, maybe under a microscope
and do some abrasive testing with it mixed in clean oil and see how abrasive it is against things of various hardness.
another test might be the 100 hour test, where you take a new engine, carefully document all measurements like bore diameter
piston diameter, ring width, groove width etc, along with taking a look at the various wear surfaces under magnification and photograph
them as well,, run 100 hours tear down and repeat the inspection, run another 100hrs and tear down and repeat inspection, then if all is
still pretty good then stretch it out to 200hours and repeat, go another 200hours and repeat and if all is well stretch out the interval to 500hours and repeat.
at some point we determine the severity of the problem with a specific engine running at a specific load, if it is determined that there is a problem then we can develop a serious of tests designed to make the waste motor oil work as fuel over a longer period.
the test engine will have to be of reasonable quality of course and will have to start out assembled correctly and cleanly, the air intake and air cleaner will also need to be first rate and the oil change intervals will need to be regular so that we don't introduce any other variables of substantial quantity that might skew the results
not an easy task, and maybe we don't get highly accurate results and data, but we should get some relative data that is very useful if interpreted correctly.
bob g
Well guys
Like I said in a post in another thread, I have been very busy all day and then I get a pm from DD and come to the forum and my gosh it sure looks as though the place has been all stirred up.
My 10/1 started showing blow by at 700 hours +or - and in the last 1000 hours since late November it wore itself down to junk. The cylinder that is, the rod bearing although I did not remove it had a very good "feel" a term that an experienced mechanic would understand. ;) Again I will state that it is my opinion that the quality of the cylinder parts that my 10/1 had would be bottom shelf and the listeroid community over in India should be ashamed of the stuff.
Welcome to the forum davidgr I think your post is very valuable it proves that QUALITY parts can resist some of the perils of WMO use as fuel.
If only a cylinder assembly of induction harden and quality rings + quality piston could be secured for a lister-oid it might make a big difference.
Hope to get my 16/1 thumping this weekend it is a Metro and is much better quality wise than the 10/1 Omega. I fully intend to run it on WMO of varying %"s and will keep the forum informed of it's demise. My guess is it will die a slow death also but I am more than willing to sacrifice another cylinder assembly. To see if a way can be found to burn wmo and keep the engine going a lot longer than 1775 Hours.
Bob I am hoping to get a 1000 hours on this next engine by spring may be I can disassemble it then and measure the wear. I have already had it apart and measured everything on the top end and have some pix. The thread has been started but I have not had time to post but 1 pix. Will try to get all the measurements and the rest of the pix up in the next week. Have been thinking a daily measurement of crankcase vacuum might be a signal of ring and bore condition. Will try to do and document that.
Spencer1885 man oh man not sure what to say to you sir. Please try to find a way to not sir the pot so hard. I VALUE your findings as it was your post over at LEF that peaked my interest when you started to tell of your troubles with your 6/1 and the accelerated wear. I am a man with poor keyboard skills and have a hard time putting my thoughts on paper so to speak. I sit here and want to reach out to you but just do not know what to say..............
Billswan
Bill
if you want to measure the crankcase blowby, you will likely want to use a surge tank to buffer the crankcase pressure
so that it can be measured
if you take a tank such as a 5 gallon freon tank or some other similar size steel container, and connect into one end the crankcase
breather, and out the other side connect a length of pipe the same size as they crankcase vent, the puffing of the single cylinder will be
softened to a much lower intensity so you can then measure the blowby exiting that pipe if you just insert a fitting T 'd into the exit pipe.
use a U tube manometer which if you don't have can be easily made with some of the clear plastic tubing, some dye in water and a tape measure or yardstick for a gage.
if you try to measure without the buffer tank, you will get such pulsing that determining a blowby value might be very difficult.
just passing this along, just in case you weren't aware how a buffer tank might be used to get a usable measurement
i agree that one ought to be able to determine from the blowby what is happening with the engine, if you test with a stable load and rpm
actually this sort of setup would be most beneficial to anyone with a new engine wishing to break it in correctly, with the use of crankcase pressure one can load the engine in steps and run it at each level of loading until the rings seat properly, without fear of overloading.
bob g
Bob would the crankcase test used on the GMC through flow Diesels the 271 371 and so on be the test that's needed hear? I blew a disk out in my lower back and well not quiet with it upstairs but I thank you know what I am talking about. Tom T
on the two stroke detroits (53, 71, 92 and 149 series) i don't recall ever measuring crankcase pressure, however
you do measure air box pressure via one of the drop tube's/pipes and a manometer
its been nearly 30 years since i last did any measuring on one, however i still have my slack tube dwyer manometers
and my service manuals that have the spec's and illustrate the test.
with the cylinders being ported, there really isn't the opportunity for crankcase pressure like there is in a 4stroke engine
any cylinder blowby exits the ports rather than making into the crankcase in the detroits, so the airbox pressure increases
with cylinder leakage.
while i remember the test it is not something that is routinely used to determine the condition of a detroit, things like starting
and the amount of oil bypassing the oil control rings into the airbox and out of the drains, onto the floor is a better indicator
of engine condition. basically if the engine starts and runs good it would be used until such time that it consumed more than about
a gallon of oil per 1000 miles (warrantee limit) or as much as a gallon every 500 miles or so for anyone having to pay for the overhaul himself
(out of warrantee).
yes either of which would have lots of white ash deposits on the piston crowns and the valve heads, stems and in the ports.
bob g
I remember from my army days 196..... we did some thing on the crankcase along with the other test it was used to determine the over all condition of the engine.. a lot of years gone by since then. Tom T
Crankcase vacuum is the standard "test" in a Lister to determine engine condition. It is measured in inches with a manometer as suggested and is often included as standard equipment in a generator room to indicate when service is required. I am not certain about the specifications on the original CS product line but on newer 1800 rpm machinery it is from 1 to 3 inches...
We have an interest in developing quality parts... an induction hardened bore is of interest - we can investigate. Some input has already indicated that the Lister hard chrome bore lining did not survive WMO. On the alloy pistons, much has already been done. This develoment includes LM13 high silicon alloy in the piston body, a steel top ring-land with keystone fire-ring and chrome moly on SS for that important wear part. Most of this has been done for the higher speed Lister industrial engines, piston wear is a much higher issue with many of these - especially pump-jack applications. Our results have been proven in the field, but only with clean diesel fuels in DI engine types.
dieselgman
Diesel Electric
How about one of those surplus center Yanmars as a cheap WMO burner? Would the more modern engine respond worse to the WMO, or would it possibly be better, with better build quality, like the Changfa? At today's diesel prices, you'd only need to burn about 250 gallons of oil to pay it off. The same could be said about the commonly available chinese air cooled diesel, total engine cost is only slightly more than a listeroid rebuild.
Would an air cooled diesel burn WMO better due to higher operating temperatures?
I also wonder if it would be helpful to spin at higher speed when burning WMO, possibly blowing more ash out the exhaust?
I really want to see some experimentation with water/steam injection, but I don't really have the funds for diesel test engines right now.
A few good points mentioned, and I think BobG got it right. The way to scientifically determine what causes wear can only be done through tests and not what I or anyone else considers to be a fact. I will place my faith behind scientific testing any day.
In effect this means we can have one, or two ways in which wear is caused. Mechanical or chemical, or both.
Testing the deposited ash for acid to me sounds like a basic process and should not cost much. Testing particles of ash to determine if they are above a certain roughness is the final test, we hope.
I got our aircraft guy on the radio this morning and asked if he would compare the Listeroid piston rings and valves against the Changfa items. He gave a reply an hour later and he said..... the Changfa rings are far harder and break with the sudden 'snap' you would expect, whereas the Listeroid rings bent first and then snapped with a slow and 'unexciting' break. They are his words not mine, by the way. The Changfa valves are very hard and the seats also good quality. I sent an email to my supplier also today and asked if he could give some run hours on valve seat wear time. My reason for asking is if the ash is indeed akin to sanding parts I should see it happen in my engine.
I also thanked my aircraft guy for breaking my spare piston rings.
David
David remember in the name of expirementation no cost is to much. LOL Stay well. I would love to hear more about you application with yours and friends engines. DD
Quote from: dieselgman on January 28, 2011, 12:54:09 AM
Crankcase vacuum is the standard "test" in a Lister to determine engine condition. It is measured in inches with a manometer as suggested and is often included as standard equipment in a generator room to indicate when service is required. I am not certain about the specifications on the original CS product line but on newer 1800 rpm machinery it is from 1 to 3 inches...
We have an interest in developing quality parts... an induction hardened bore is of interest - we can investigate. Some input has already indicated that the Lister hard chrome bore lining did not survive WMO. On the alloy pistons, much has already been done. This develoment includes LM13 high silicon alloy in the piston body, a steel top ring-land with keystone fire-ring and chrome moly on SS for that important wear part. Most of this has been done for the higher speed Lister industrial engines, piston wear is a much higher issue with many of these - especially pump-jack applications. Our results have been proven in the field, but only with clean diesel fuels in DI engine types.
dieselgman
Diesel Electric
Well guys
I have seen the LM-13 4 times now, once on the face of a piston in a pix here or on LEF i believe the engine was crofters could be wrong there. Then I read it in the post of dieselman quoted above and it also appears on the pistons of both my wore out 10/1 and my 16/1. My experience says the ring lands in my 10/1 wore like soft shit on my 10/1 so I guess we have a idea what my 16/1 has in store. >:( ::) :'( :'( :'(
Read enough you might just learn something.
Well off for another long day be back here in about 15 hours, hope no one else gets suspended while I am gone! ;D
Billswan
Davidgr; interesting info on comparing the different engines component hardness. I have zero experience burning WMO in an engine but from experience refitting piping in industrial settings have seen that there is very often a chemical component as well as mechanical material removal. Temperature range can be critical and hotter is not automatically worse for wear. Chrome plating is a very broad term and lots of variation on processes for different metals. I have seen failures on shafting in chemical environments due to penetration of the porous chrome and attack on the underlying copper and/or nickel bonding layers that simply let the plating flake away: the culprit was not the chromium but the bonding treatment. If simple abrasion is a cause there usually are patterns of centrifugal effects and concentrations where velocity is highest.
It sometimes takes a lot of systematic detective work to get to the root cause of a problem and often then a number of liveable cures become apparent. The more eyes on the problem the less chance of someone treating as a fact, that "The waving of the tree branches causes the wind to blow".
Simply too many loose ends and no process of elimination. In brainstorming, every suggestion is a good one. The threads on this subject are almost a classic example of how not to solve a problem. I have to admire the patience shown.
Dr D, money no object?.....please do send some my way ;)
Crofter, I understand what you say and bobg's idea for testing is the most applicable so far that anyone has brought up. But I just dont have the time to go to these lengths and will let the engine run until it makes new noises. We have so much other work to do that we cant justify spending the time on an engine that only cost us less than half the price of a 6-1 and has outlasted all Listeroid's we and others here ever had. And all these engines work hard for a living here in remote locations for the most part. The engine owes us nothing at this stage and its a real little gem.
Perhaps someone will post how the test WMO in the correct manner and show what is causing wear. Until then I am happy to give what input I can and claim nothing other than these are my experiences and I am no authority on the matter. I can say with the greatest authority.....the Changfa has and continues to save me a lot of money!
David
It'd be interesting to know why it is that Cummins approves of burning WMO in their engines, but only up to 10%. I wonder how they arrived at that figure and whether that might be published somewhere in the automotive literature.
Quinn
we were told that the 10% limit had to do with injector issues,
when the limit came out the cummins engines all used cam actuated injectors
i never asked, but my bet is anything over 10% might well have put too much stress on the cam,
lifter, pushrod, rocker and injector due to higher viscosity?
the newer engines with the bloody expensive electronic injectors, i am not sure if they allow
for even 10% mix, even if they did, i wouldn't do it.
bob g
Hey David, I agree with your cost / benefit approach. There may be some inherent differences that favor the Changfa over the Listers and Listeroids. Even the geometry of the combustion space and the pattern of the injectors can have a big influence in an engine and most certainly in a furnace. A particular line of "so called" waste motor oil could also be particularly damaging. Mobile Bob and others have spoken of using motor lube oil with a known history. EP oils and now hydraulic and trans/hyd./gear oils have compounds that do undergo changes at elevated temperatures. That is the kind of thing that could be influencing different observations; it doesn't require any conspiracy to account for it.
In no way was I suggesting sloppy science in your project. It would take strict controls indeed on a large number of parameters to come to any kind of a scientific conclusion on this topic. I just point out a few occasions where the discovered answer was not the obvious one.
I am interested in the outcome of this since I could easily acquire the used oil from a fleet; presently my 10-1 serves as backup with only intermittent limited hours and I would not compromise that when wood is more convenient for heat.
Quote from: BigGreen on January 26, 2011, 08:33:09 PM
Thanks for chiming in rbodell. Spencer has an interesting WMO project in-work and hit a snag from what appears to have been from excessive additive ash. Rather than analysing the data and determine appropriate adjustments he started screaming the sky is falling and posted all over the Lister world that pouring WMO in your tank is like pouring battery acid on your johnson, don't do it and you will be doomed if you do. Some of us started questioning the rationale behind this action and it all went down-hill from there. We were trying to provide possible course's of action to get his project back on track but it was like me talking to our donkey. That 'ol donkey doesn't listen and his mind is made up, he ain't a'moven.
Take care and drop in from time to time.
Dave
Actually it was all the nay-sayers that convinced me to buy this engine and try it out. Like what was the worst that could happen? buy a set of rings and fuel system rebuild? The best way to get me to do something is to tell me I can't do it LOL. I was more interested in finding out why it wouldn't work other than just because somebody who never did it said it wouldn't work.
Depends on how fine the fuel is mechanically filtered. How much ash there is in the WMO? Hot hot the engine is operated at? Type of lube oil and how filtered it is. How efficient is the air filter? Is th engine operating at 85% power or 101% power?
Quote from: buickanddeere on September 13, 2013, 05:38:32 PM
Depends on how fine the fuel is mechanically filtered. How much ash there is in the WMO? Hot hot the engine is operated at? Type of lube oil and how filtered it is. How efficient is the air filter? Is th engine operating at 85% power or 101% power?
\
All that stuff makes little or no difference other than filtering. You forgot to mention the PH and moisture which I treat the waste oil for too.
After 7 years and several thousand hours of running on a brand new engine I purchased just for this project while feeding it anything that remotely resembled oil including burnt transmission oil, stale gasoline and stale diesel fuel, crude oil, hydraulic oil, paint thinner, kerosene, and some stuff that you had to look twice to for it to even look close to oil. I have run it at running speed down to 300 rpm. It actually looks better inside than you would expect running on diesel fuel. The manufacturer recommends removing the head every 700 hours to scrape the carbon off the piston. No carbon collects on the piston running on waste oil. I run straight 30 wt in the summer and 5w30 in the winter so I can still hand crank it. It still has the original injectors and injector pump it came from the factory with. In fact it also has the original 10 micron fuel filter in it. The only thing I do is run it through a centrifuge, remove moisture and bring the PH down to neutral.
I'd like to resurrect this thread, mostly because I had a thought about the discussion on ash.
Very high performance 2 stroke engines, such as dirt bikes and Kart engines have better longevity with additives that produce ash. In fact, those additives are some of the very same additives 4 stroke and diesel engine oils contain. The combustion event produces ash deposits, which must be scavenged out. Even so, it's possible to use conventional 4 stroke motor oil in 2 stroke engines with very good results. In fact, up until the 1960's it was common to use 30W or 40W oil (with additives) in 2 stroke engines.
I don't know what to make of this and the relationship to diesel engines.
Maybe it's the micro particulates that cause the wear and not specifically the additives.
I've used WMO in diesel engines with OK results. (VW diesel rabbit) However, the oil had settled for years and I drew from the top of the barrel. At the bottom of the barrel was a thick, hard sludge that contained the wear particulates from many engines.
cujet
I don't post much anymore but do try to read at least some of what is posted and this thread sure brings back memories. Went back and reread the first few posts and noticed that was when spencer was still posting. He sure was adamant with the fact as he seen it that WMO was a better fuel for waste oil fired heaters than diesel engines. And I see it about the same way. I sure won't argue like he did but he was right at least in slow speed lister like engines.
Not sure why some engines seem to tolerate WMO better but lister-oids sure don't. At least not the ones that are pushed to the limit. as I did with both of my single's.
I will say that posters like rbodell do seem to have better luck but he was treating his oil to reduce acid as best as i can remember and after seeing a video of his engine running I will say it was running at a lower power out put level. I am thinking that is causing his better results.
Now back to my experience with burning wmo in my boiler that heats my farm shop. I go through about 1400 gallons a year and I can attest to the fact that there is sure a lot of ash in 1400 gallons. I remember the post that spencer put up showing the bucket fulls he pulled out of his boiler, it works the same for me on this side of the pond.
I will speculate that if a car type of diesel was run on a high % of wmo and was driven casually it might work. But take the same engine bolt a gen head to it and push it to 80 to 90 % full out put it might suffer the same fate as the single's I spoke of above.
But as others have argued they have had better results..................
Billswan
Quote from: billswan on February 22, 2015, 01:03:50 PM
cujet
I don't post much anymore but do try to read at least some of what is posted and this thread sure brings back memories. Went back and reread the first few posts and noticed that was when spencer was still posting. He sure was adamant with the fact as he seen it that WMO was a better fuel for waste oil fired heaters than diesel engines. And I see it about the same way. I sure won't argue like he did but he was right at least in slow speed lister like engines.
Not sure why some engines seem to tolerate WMO better but lister-oids sure don't. At least not the ones that are pushed to the limit. as I did with both of my single's.
I will say that posters like rbodell do seem to have better luck but he was treating his oil to reduce acid as best as i can remember and after seeing a video of his engine running I will say it was running at a lower power out put level. I am thinking that is causing his better results.
MY ENGINE RUNS AT FULL POWER WHEN GENERATING ELECTRICITY OR IT WOULD NOT PRODUCE ADEQUATE POWER. I DO RUN IT SLOWER WHEN JUST CHARGING BATTERIES
Now back to my experience with burning wmo in my boiler that heats my farm shop. I go through about 1400 gallons a year and I can attest to the fact that there is sure a lot of ash in 1400 gallons. I remember the post that spencer put up showing the bucket fulls he pulled out of his boiler, it works the same for me on this side of the pond.
I CAN NOT "SPECULATE" ON HEATING WITH WMO, I HAVE NOT DONE IT AND IT HAS NO CONNECTION TO RUNNING AN ENGINE ON IT.
I will speculate that if a car type of diesel was run on a high % of wmo and was driven casually it might work. But take the same engine bolt a gen head to it and push it to 80 to 90 % full out put it might suffer the same fate as the single's I spoke of above.
WHEN PEOPLE "SPECULATED" WITHOUT ACTUALLY RUNNING IT ON WMO, THEY SAID I WOULD RUIN MY ENGINE. AFTER ABOUT 8 OR 9 YEARS WHEN I PULL THE HEAD EVERYTHING HAS FACTORY SPECS. THE FUEL SYSTEM HAS HAD WMO IN IT FOR THE SAME LENGTH OF TIME. IT WORKS PERFECTLY.
THE ONLY THING DIFFERENT IS THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE TO REMOVE THE HEAD AND SCRAPE THE CARBON OFF THE PISTON AS RECOMMENDED BY THE MANUFACTURER. IT NOT ONLY DOES NOT FORM, BUT THE CARBON IN THE WMO (WHICH MAKES IT BLACK) IS ALSO BURNED.
DURING MY RESEARCH I CAME ACROSS A GUY THAT WAS RUNNING A GM 671 DIESEL TRUCK ENGINE ON WMO FOR OVER 30 YEARS. IN THE BEGINNING, HE DID NOT TREAT THE WMO OTHER THAN A RAG FILTER AND THE PH CAUSED DAMAGE TO THE INJECTORS AND HIGH PRESSURE PUMP AFTER ABOUT A YEAR. ONCE HE TREATED THE PH HE HAD NO MORE PROBLEM WITH THE INJECTOR PUMP AND INJECTORS.
I WON'T BE "SPECULATING" ABOUT RUNNING IT IN A VEHICLE EITHER, AS SOON AS I GET MOVED TO ALASKA, I WILL BE GETTING A DIESEL VEHICLE AND TRYING IT MYSELF.
WHEN THE "SPECULATORS" SAID I COULDN'T RUN AN ENGINE ON WMO I PAID 3,000 DOLLARS FOR AN ENGINE TO FIND OUT WHY. NOW WHEN "SPECULATORS" SAY I WILL RUIN A CAR ENGINE WITH WMO, I WILL BE SPENDING ANOTHER COUPLE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR A DIESEL VEHICLE TO FIND OUT WHY. UNLIKE THE "SPECULATORS", I WILL KNOW WHY.
But as others have argued they have had better results..................
Billswan
It's all about filtration, ash content, how hard the engine is worked without being over fueled and how hot the coolant is.
Diesel oil for post 2007 engines and SF-2 oil for Detroit Two Strokes are noted for being low ash. Airplane engine oil and oil for NG and LP engines is also low ash.