Expected life expectancy from WMO?

[billswan]

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

[Crofter]

 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

[veggie]

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

This fellow runs a Lister 24/7 for 3 months a year on WMO

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

[flywheel]

Mr Bodell runs only a 50% WMO mix and a 20% mix when running at 300 rpm according to his site.
                                                                                                                                                            flywheel

[veggie]

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

There are also threads on the LEF where he states that 70%wmo and 30% diesel are a common mix for him.

veggie

[mobile_bob]

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

[mobile_bob]

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

[spencer1885]

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

This fellow runs a Lister 24/7 for 3 months a year on WMO

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.

[BioHazard]

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.

[veggie]

"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.

[spencer1885]

"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

[cognos]

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...



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...

[mobile_bob]

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

[cognos]

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.

[mobile_bob]

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