quote:

Originally posted by danalinscott:
The ones sold by Plantdrive appear similar to the Dieselcraft centrifugal filters that require multiple passes for dewatering. While there are similar in expense to small single pass centrifuges they are not nearly as efficient.

Some wild assumptions in this thread. You'd have to judge a single pass side by side with a multipass cf doing the same quality oil to know for sure. But if the absolute does 15 gallons per hour, I'd put my money on a DieselCraft OC-50 multipassing for an hour for that same 15 gallons...at about 1/2 the price.

I'm still waiting to see a lab results on vegoil from a one pass centrifuge, and knowing what it takes to get really clean oil I'm skeptical of their efficiency.

No question something like a OC-50, or absolute, or simple, is price/volume overkill if you're only burning 10-15 gallons every week or two, and you're not splitting the cost of cleaning oil with others. Otherwise, an OC-20 cleaning a 25-30 gallon batch every other week is an economically viable alternative.

Sam

quote:

Please get those "vertifiable facts" strait before posting them as a personal attack. They are neither facts nor verifyable.

Sure Dana, I'm always glad to help out a friend.

Hopefully this reposting of the "verifiable facts" will be worded civilly enough to pass the filters.

Here's the verification of my claims you requested:

1. Near the bottom of this thread, you admit that in your experiment, you used inadequate heat on your WVO:

http://biodiesel.infopop.cc/ev...551/m/2001011761/p/3

2. Near the bottom of this thread, you state that Spinner type CFs lack sufficient G-force to dewater WVO properly:

http://biodiesel.infopop.cc/ev...081091911#9081091911

Hope that helps.

Your previous posts made it past the filters...but were apparently removed by the moderators.

Please stop trying to pick a fight using personal attacks.

quote:

Please stop trying to pick a fight using personal attacks.

Sure, I can tone it down to a more moderate level.

I just got ruffled up a bit after Ed posted his info in an apparently innocent spirit, then you baited him with syropy ad hominem attacks yourself.

When you said stuff like: "I know you don't want to miss an opportunity to insert a Plantdrive ad wherever possible" you clearly picked a fight yourself. Sure Ed wants to advertise, just like you are always advertising your site when you post your hyperlink all over Shauns' site, but the text of Eds post was clearly informative, not simply mercenary. That was as obvious to you as it was to everyone elsewhen you first read it, but you still had to slide the insult in there didn't you?

Pretending that people following the thread were likely incapable of seeing the difference between fluid driven and direct driven CFs & then dropping a veiled insinuation that ED might have been somehow accidently trying to misrepresenting his fluid driven CF as being direct drive CFs was actually an insult to Eds honesty and the readerships' intelligence. Did you REALLY think we couldn't see the obvious difference?

Anyone shopping for CFs would quickly notice the differnt configurations between the two main styles...

I attacked you because you attacked Ed. At least my accusation actually were verified. Instead of attacking you, I should have just flagged you post. Baiting IS trolling and Shaun & The Trauts usually see it as clearly as the intended targets do.

quote:

Baiting IS trolling

quote:

Instead of attacking you, I should have just flagged you post.

Yes, I think that would have been a more appropriate response.

quote:

Sure Ed wants to advertise, just like you are always advertising your site when you post your hyperlink all over Shauns' site, but the text of Eds post was clearly informative, not simply mercenary. That was as obvious to you as it was to everyone elsewhen you first read it, but you still had to slide the insult in there didn't you?

Look if you want to discuss advertising on this website please start another discussion. I am not willing to help hijack this one.

quote:

Anyone shopping for CFs would quickly notice the differnt configurations between the two main styles...

This unfortunately is not so. Many are confused by the two very different types of centrifuges discussed on this forum. True enough the more they read on the subject the more they understand the differences. But when the differeneces are not noted by a vendor the asumption too often is that they are essentially the same.

quote:

Pretending that people following the thread were likely incapable of seeing the difference between fluid driven and direct driven CFs & then dropping a veiled insinuation that ED might have been somehow accidently trying to misrepresenting his fluid driven CF as being direct drive CFs was actually an insult to Eds honesty

Your perception of my intentions may or may not be accurrate. But again that is another subject which should not be used to hijack this discussion.

Come On, leave Dana alone and stay on topic. I read enough pissing matches on this forum to last me a life time.

Obviously, I am a proponent of the single pass centrifuges and will continue to develop that technology.

I agree that there is a volume/time threshold where the more complex and expensive solutions come to play. If you only need a couple dozen gallons per week, you should just let it settle and maybe pour it through a sock. If you are dealing with hundreds or thousands of gallons; you get pretty motivated to find a reliable and autonomous solution.

Continuing discussion; I am interested in the opinions against the single pass units. Is it now down to just cost? IMHO the OC-20 is a toy and the OC-50 with pump and hoses ect can easily cost over $1k.

Don't you think there is value in these units based on:

1) not requiring a high pressure pump
2) control of feed rate and feed temperature to suit feed stock and requirements
3) actually knowing that your rotor is spinning
4) single pass flow does not contaminate final container
5) If you are using heat you only need to heat the oil entering the centrifuge not the whole batch at once
6) easy and quick to clean

Nothing is perfect and I am just looking to continue a critical discussion.

I also appreciate that there are many resourceful people out there that are willing to hack a power steering pump out of a wrecked car or start with the rotor out of a juicer to save a buck. You guys are close to my heart but not the market of a commercial product. The intent of which is to offer a cost effective solution that saves the time and effort of developing your own.

Finally, I will apologize up front for calling the OC-20 a toy. Hopefully each and every one of you that use and love one, doesn't have to tell me so. I do expect a few of you to tell me anyway...

Hi Leon, just want to say that I don't think the OC-20 is a toy, neither is the similar sized SmallFuge I put on the site for $135 Canadian a toy either, just has less capacity.

There, that's over with....

I put it on the with specific information that it's for those who are willing to add their own pump, motor, fittings, etc. (although I found out that the ORB fittings we have on hand for the filters and valves we sell also fit it, so will toss in one of those, to make life for the user a little easier.)

For the true high volume user, one like yours would be great. For most of the people on this forum, a smaller one would likely do, especially if they settle at least a few days first, that will get a lot of the larger stuff out, then follow up with centrifuge.

And, for sure, not everyone needs a centrifuge, some want one, though. We had a customer years ago wanted to try one, so I got him a Spinner 2, and he found he could get the oil cleaner even after bag filtering. He liked that, so he kept doing it. Mind you, he was retired, we got it for him for free to try one, gather some data, and he had time for it. And when he went on the road, it was for massively long cross country trips, and he liked to do the whole trip and not have to change the spin on element.

Anyway, each to his own. If you are in Canada, and you don't use a lot of oil, and you don't want to spend a lot, we have a basic centrifuge on the site...it's not listed on the PlantDrive site for the USA.

If you are using quite a bit of oil and the budget and need are there, then look at a higher capacity centrifuge, maybe a single pass self-powered one.

I admit up front that I do not add the "gee whiz" factor of a centrifuge into the equations I use to decide which option is most economically viable for WVO pre-filtering and dewatering for a client. But for many private individuals that must certainly be taken into account. ANY centrifuge is a lot more fun to watch and listen to(for the first few hours anyway) than the simpler and cheaper prefilter/dewatering units are.

But if we are to have discussion based simply on economics here is how I break it down for clients.

Small clients (using under 500 gallons per week) are probably best off simply using a filter/settle/filter unit. They are easy and cheap to automate to the point that all one has to do is hook up the oulet of your collection truck/trailer tank to the unit and open the valve. They are simple to operate and being very simple have few things that can go wrong.

They require testing of each batch of the final product for water content but rarely require much in the way of adjustment (once the optimal daily thoughput has been established) to produce a consistant product. The low initial cost and low cost of replacement filters offsets the need for regular filter element replacement.

Large clients (using over 2000 gallons per week) are usually best served by a self cleaning industrial centrifuge. These units cost from $5,000 to $25,000 each but allow wvo to be used within hours of collection. The reduced need for large amounts of on site storage and the ability of the units to process 24/7 with miimal attendance offsets the high initial cost to a great degree. And since such large amounts of fuel are being produced the ROI is relativly fast.

For those clients using between 500 and 2,000 gallons of wvo per week both multi pass and single pass centrifuges are viable options.

They both cost approximately the same to set up. But although I would not characterize multipass scentrifuges like the Dieselcraft or Smallfuge as "toys" they are not as well suited to light industrial use as the SimpleCentrifuge or Absolutecentrifuge. Pump driven centrifugal filters are more complex than direct or belt driven single pass centrifuges and are more subject to problems during operation due to this complexity.

They are much more limited in the amount of contamination that can be removed before requiring cleaning than are small single pass centrifuges so 24 hour operation is rarely, if ever, feasible. This limits their their maximum output to 500-700 gallons per week. The maximum through put of small single pass centrifuges is roughly double that amount.

Higher energy efficiency is another advantage that single pass centrifuges have over multi pass ones. It is very simple to incorporate heat exchangers in the constant process inflow/outflow paths that allow most of the (heat) energy input to be recycled. This is not so with batch processes like multi-pass centrifugal filters must use.

Of course there is another option for processing medium amounts of wvo fuel which may be even simpler and less expensive than any centrifuge.

Mistwashing and vacuum dewatering.

I know I am biased because I am selling gravity fed single pass CF's, but no matter how you look at it they have more adjustable parameters than multi-pass spinner CF's where flow rate and viscosity dictate g-force. With single pass gravity fed Cf's, g-force is always held constant while the other 2 parameters are adjustable (flow rate & viscosity), these 3 parameters combined are the driving force in properly cleaning and dewatering WVO. What I am not saying is that spinner CF's do not work, I am under the impression that they do work but with anything in life you are limited by your options and gravity fed CF's allow you more options for cleaning WVO.

I sell a lot of centrifuges to people in So. California with single tank conversions where fats and/or PHO can pose restriction problems in their fuel systems. A single pass gravity fed CF has the ability to remove most of the harmful fats/PHO from the WVO (see below) that spinner type CF's can not remove due to the heating requirements to lower viscosity in order to spin the rotor. This in my opinion is a crucial option that spinner CF's do not have an answer for unless you want to settle your oil after cleaning it and if that is the case then why even bother buying a CF?

Hi Absolute Centrifuge.

To save time & to clarify the intent of my responses, I'll insert them into your quoted post.

quote:

I know I am biased because I am selling gravity fed single pass CF's, but no matter how you look at it they have more adjustable parameters than multi-pass spinner CF's where flow rate and viscosity dictate g-force. With single pass gravity fed Cf's, g-force is always held constant while the other 2 parameters are adjustable (flow rate & viscosity), these 3 parameters combined are the driving force in properly cleaning and dewatering WVO. What I am not saying is that spinner CF's do not work, I am under the impression that they do work but with anything in life you are limited by your options and gravity fed CF's allow you more options for cleaning WVO.

***YES, and I agree with everything you've written, but fluid driven CFs still do a great job at several hundred dollars cheaper.

To be honest, I really don't think the "parameters" need that much flexability. Get the oil hot & spin the gunk out of it seems to be the "best" way no matter what style of CF used.***

I sell a lot of centrifuges to people in So. California with single tank conversions where fats and/or PHO can pose restriction problems in their fuel systems.

***Then they need better SVO conversions, not a machine that seperates perfectly good higher energy fuel out from the lower energy stuff.***

single pass gravity fed CF has the ability to remove most of the harmful fats/PHO from the WVO (see below) that spinner type CF's can not remove due to the heating requirements to lower viscosity in order to spin the rotor. This in my opinion is a crucial option that spinner CF's do not have an answer for unless you want to settle your oil after cleaning it and if that is the case then why even bother buying a CF?

***A cheap used refrigerator or freezer could be used to chill the animal fats & PHO into a solid state that could easilly be strained out from the other liquid fuel. Why bother anyway, a better conversion will use up the lard & PHO no problem.***

Also, I want to ask you 2 important questions:

1. Do you ballance your rotors?

2. Have ever done destructive testing to determine max rpm before the rotor blows apart?

I'm not against you, I just think that if you are going to point out the "weaknesses" of fluid driven CFs, then someone should point out that these weaknesses may not really be any valid concern.

Drop your prices $300.00 & you'll sell more of these things.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: welder,

quote:

I know I am biased because I am selling gravity fed single pass CF's, but no matter how you look at it they have more adjustable parameters than multi-pass spinner CF's where flow rate and viscosity dictate g-force. With single pass gravity fed Cf's, g-force is always held constant while the other 2 parameters are adjustable (flow rate & viscosity), these 3 parameters combined are the driving force in properly cleaning and dewatering WVO.

You might adjust your flow rate, but at a cost, just like adjusting the flow rate of a fluid driven CF. And still, the fluid driven CFs have several times the g-force. Like Welder said, cutting the temp is a false benefit. So what do you get out of a single pass CF, not more g's, nor necessarily more clean oil per hour than out of a batch process.

Again, want to sell Absolute centrifuges, prove it with lab results. I've done it for the DieselCraft and I'd like to see the same for Absolute. One more indicator of just how clean my oil is; I changed my truck filter in October, after 18,000 miles, and it was still clean.

Sam

Welder,

The conversion issue is beside the point, I think in this situation you are putting the cart in front of the horse. I am not saying anything negative about single tank conversions, I know the Elsbett people have been converting diesel engines for ~30years with great success. What I am saying is most people tend to convert their car first and then choose a filtration system or upgrade from some ill advised cheap filtration system they thought would work to something that is more efficient. At this point (with a single tank conversion) you must decide if you want a single pass gravity fed CF or a multi-step filtration system (spinner CF + refrigerator/freezer) and all of the inherent additional handling (oil spills etc..) and processing of your oil before you put it in your car? Space (especially in California) and time is money to some people and ~$150 may be worth it for a cleaner more efficient system (comparing mid sized spinner CF’s to my single pass CF). There are also people who do this for environmental reasons, and we all know it is not cost efficient to run a refrigerator/freezer to chill your oil but it also wastes a whole lot of energy to do so, especially the old ones you are going to get for cheap off of craigslist.

To answer your questions:

1) Our rotors (bowls) are made from solid billets of aluminum with new multi-million dollar CNC machines that are primarily used to fabricate aircraft components, so the tolerances are extremely tight. This is evidenced by when we run our CF there is very little vibration, so little that the machine does not even need to be bolted down (we only recommend bolting it down because it is the common sense thing to do when installing it on an elevated surface).

2) As I said in the above answer, these bowls are machined from solid pieces of aluminum (NO welding, NO bolts holding anything together, and NO moving parts what-so-ever) with radiused edges to ensure rigid and robust construction. I think anyone would be extremely hard pressed to find a motor to spin it fast enough for the rotor to blow apart. I am sure it can be done but I am not sure why this is relevant if we are only spinning them at 3,450RPM?

I was not describing “weaknesses” with regards to cleaning oil, I was just saying what you can and can not do with each CF system. I believe these are valid points that people should know before deciding on a CF filtration system? You may perceive them as “weaknesses” while I have always maintained that these 2 systems are equipped with different options.

Thank you for your pricing advice I appreciate all input.

Welder,
1) No, they are machined and balanced well enough from that process. By “well enough” I mean that at over 5000rpm they are smoother and quieter than any of the DCs that I have seen.

2) I have done FEA on the design and confirmed that I have no ability or desire to get one spinning fast enough to do destructive testing.

Sam,
Several times the rpms maybe, but unlikely; certainly not several times the Gs. I have measured just under 6000rpm producing 3800Gs. The ACTUAL speed of a DC will always be in question.

But seriously, I wouldn't even read this thread for a pissing match, much less take part in the discussion. Innovation is happening now with these units to address a need in the community/industry. The inherent advantages are obvious and with people like Lars and I pushing the technology; it will not be very long indeed before you get both the increased performance and reduced cost. Anything else on the wish list?

Sam Crowe,

Please visit my website (www.absolutecentrifuge.com; “Home” page under “Performance” tab), I do have published lab results posted (water PPM). I would also like to see your lab results because up to this point I have not seen anyone publish anything regarding particle counts before and after cleaning their oil with any available system. I also believe this is difficult to accomplish because you will have fat/PHO contamination providing “false” positive particles in the lab results (I speak from experience). This is something that I am working on to provide proof positive particle count analyses for my centrifuge in the near future. A friend of mine observed the same results using a single pass CF by removing his fuel filter after ~15K miles and cutting it open- extremely clean.

To address your other statements, by reducing flow rate on a single pass CF DOES NOT come at a cost, it actually comes at a benefit (you get cleaner oil because you increase settling time while RPM's and g-force remain constant). With fluid driven CF's if you reduce flow rate it DOES come at a cost because along with reducing flow rate you reduce RPMs and g-force (like I said g-force is dependent on flow rate). In your statement you mention g-force a number of times, and although g-force is an important factor it is not the only factor to consider when cleaning oil. If g-force was the only important parameter in cleaning oil the OC50 Dieselcraft CF would be the most efficient spinner CF Dieselcraft offers, and we all know this isn’t the case. What you are leaving out is rotor size and flow rate. They state on their website that "The OC-50 produces approximately 25% more centrifugal force than the OC-200", so why would anyone want to spend an additional $1,627 on the OC-200 if it wasn’t a more efficient option for cleaning oil? The answer is simple, flow rate vs. rotor size allows for longer settling time combined with g-force which leads to better separation of oil and contaminants (eg. OC50 has a 20oz oil capacity=108GPH; OC200 has a 84oz oil capacity=300GPH).

Like I said in my post before both systems work, I just want to set the record straight on what spinner CF’s are capable of and what single pass gravity fed CF’s are capable of. Please do not take this as an attack on people using spinner CF’s, I am sure all of you are satisfied with your filtering system. I am simply trying to illustrate the differences between the two systems. If I am incorrect in any way I am sure someone is going to let me know about it.

Hi Absolute Centrifuge.

For brevity, I will refer to you as Abs.Cent. from now on. No insult is intended (absent?), I just wouldn't want anyone to think I was talking about Air Conditioning (A.C.)

quote:

The conversion issue is beside the point, I think in this situation you are putting the cart in front of the horse. I am not saying anything negative about single tank conversions, I know the Elsbett people have been converting diesel engines for ~30years with great success. What I am saying is most people tend to convert their car first and then choose a filtration system or upgrade from some ill advised cheap filtration system they thought would work to something that is more efficient

I gotta disagree here.

The conversion is NOT beside the point.

Like I said, high melt point fats are stronger fuels & most modern 2 tank SVO conversions can easilly handle them, even higher concentrations. A well heated veggie filter & a properly made HOH fuel line will allow the veggie pump to move veggie adequately. Many guys here run PHO & lard laden veggie oil just fine.

Doesn't anyone else here see this?

I know that Sunwizard & others have said it enough times that people should understand it by now.

Danalinscott has said that a HOH & a properly wrapped svo filter can move grease adequately.

Jeke Palmer also has run PHO etc in a HOH equipped conversion without issues.

If a few problems have occurred with people in your area not getting PHO/lard laden WVO to flow, then it's their conversions that are faulty, NOT their home based WVO refineries.

Again I want to say that I support your business & your product, all I want to see is accurrate/honest advertising. Lower prices wouldn't hurt either...

quote:

To answer your questions:

Hi Abs.Cent.

I would have preferred direct answers to these very important questions. I get the feeling that you were dodging them, rather than giving simple yes & no answers.

1) Our rotors (bowls) are made from solid billets of aluminum with new multi-million dollar CNC machines that are primarily used to fabricate aircraft components, so the tolerances are extremely tight. This is evidenced by when we run our CF there is very little vibration, so little that the machine does not even need to be bolted down (we only recommend bolting it down because it is the common sense thing to do when installing it on an elevated surface).

***Sounds like a NO to me. Am I right?***

2) As I said in the above answer, these bowls are machined from solid pieces of aluminum (NO welding, NO bolts holding anything together, and NO moving parts what-so-ever) with radiused edges to ensure rigid and robust construction. I think anyone would be extremely hard pressed to find a motor to spin it fast enough for the rotor to blow apart. I am sure it can be done but I am not sure why this is relevant if we are only spinning them at 3,450RPM?

***Sounds like another NO to me. Am I right again?***

This message has been edited. Last edited by: welder,

quote:

Welder,
1) No, they are machined and balanced well enough from that process. By “well enough” I mean that at over 5000rpm they are smoother and quieter than any of the DCs that I have seen.

2) I have done FEA on the design and confirmed that I have no ability or desire to get one spinning fast enough to do destructive testing.

Sounds to me like neither of you two guys ballance your rotors, and/or have done any destructive testing.

The vertical walls of the rotors flex minutely with the intense G-forces. Repeated flexing MAY cause metal fatigue/stress cracking.

This applied to fluid driven CFs as well, and I'm betting that although DC DOES ballance their rotors, they likely haven't done destructive testine either...

I don't understand; using a manufacturing process that REQUIRES a secondary ballancing operation is supperior? Also, designing a product near its operational limit would be preferable too?

Again, seriously Welder? How would you propose distructivly testing a machined rotor? Running it over with my truck wouldn't do it. Failure speed would be somewhere north of 50000rpm. Thats just silly. The force released would be enough to knock out neighbours windows.

Is just not nessasary, with such low strain, the flexing is well within the practical fatigue limit of the material.

Welder,

I am not saying that people should not worry about their conversions, what I am saying is that no matter what people are going to have single tank conversions and if a product has the capacity to efficiently provide an adequate fuel source for this conversion than it should be known. You are right, you can install/adjust components (to your car or fuel filtering system) to deal with the fats/PHO, but isn't it much easier and efficient to just buy something that treats the fuel problem than to spend more money up front (on additional components) and/or over the long run (additional cost to energy bills, etc.....)? There are multiple ways to fix a problem, and I am not in disagreement with you on this. We started this discussion talking about efficiency and I think somewhere we strayed off topic because all of a sudden you are talking about 2 tank conversions, HOH and their ability to melt fats/PHO effectively, no one is arguing this point. What I was talking about was the fact that there are single tank conversions out there and the cause and effect of fats/PHO have on their fuel systems and one way to efficiently remove them, that was my point. Do you agree with me that that can be done with a gravity fed single pass CF?

With regards to balancing, you are right we do not balance our bowls. What you may or may not know is that if a bowl is unbalanced it will show up as vibration right when the CF is turned on, that is guaranteed (personal experience)!! The lack of vibration illustrates that the bowl is balanced, once again there are multiple ways of addressing a single issue. The quality control when making these bowls is second to none, we are not using archaic 20th century tools here, the resulting product is a testament to this. You may want to question the product if it is not made properly to begin with and then have to made adjustments (balancing), it is much more efficient to just make it right the first time around and that is what we have done. I invite you or anyone else for that matter to come by and see one run for yourself and it will be immediately apparent what I am talking about.

I have built several CF bowls on old 20th century machines. With single fixturing, you can almost equal the modern CNC machines.

My design is very similar to either of these single pass CF's. I had the bowls CHECKED for balance on some rather expensive equipment and found the general machining method to produce a bowl so symetrical that they needed no further balancing. I calculated the yield to be over 40,000 rpm (filled with oil) and spun them up to 25,000 rpm with no failure.

I would not be worried about either of these manufacturer's products unless the bowls were dropped or filled with bolts before spinning. They are about as likely to fail from spinning as a brake drum would be. The forces under normal operation are WAY BELOW the failure point.