quote:

Originally posted by danalinscott:

Yet so few appear to have ready access to technical reports, archived articles, etc.
Would you be willing to help provide on-line access to these resources to the VO fuel community?

Inter-library loan exists precisely because only a relative few libraries will have a given publication in their holdings. Unfortunately, for the reasons of copyright that Chris mentioned, it is not possible for me to publish my research library online, but I would be very happy to help anybody access the papers in my bibliography through their local library.

-Forest

quote:

Originally posted by danalinscott:
There are other legal ways to provide individuals with a copy of journal articles, research papers, etc. If anyone wants a copy of a specific paper...including the ones listed in Forrests "research library" just contact me. I will be happy to provide an original copy from my own library. I would ask only that anyone requesting these pay the postage and return postage..and of course return the material after reading it.

That's a very kind offer. Do you have a list of what you have in your collection?

-Forest

I've deleted about 13 posts in this thread because of all the personal attacks. What is it with the SVO crowd that some of you can't seem to have civil discussions.

I will be monitoring this thread, in addition to others. I will delete all of a post if there is any personal attack within it, so keep it civil, or I will put certain members on moderation.

Shaun

REPOST

quote:

Originally posted by danalinscott:

quote:

Originally posted by john galt:
If one can set aside the V100/SVO 'tunnel vision', then it becomes obvious that many of the problems can be solved by adding ULSD and heating the fuel blend to 60°C - 70°C to ensure complete and clean combustion. I've been doing this for a few years, in a seasonally sub-zero climate, and the exhaust emissions tests show that no degradation of the engine or fuel system has occurred.

No only is that completely off topic John,
But...
Whever you have been asked to provide credible verification of THAT claim you have not been able to do so.

Are you able to do that yet?

Without that such claims are just unsubstantiated claims.

Not off-topic at all, since it proves that 230°F IS NOT the optimum temperature as claimed by some without any substantiation. There are other very reasonable ways to achieve complete, clean combustion of VO based fuels. The emission test results which prove this have been posted before but are posted again here for those who missed it.
Government emissions tests over three years of running VO-BD-ULSD blends consistently show 0%-1% opacity, 9ppm-10ppm HC. This is extremely clean for any vehicle and remarkably clean for a diesel, especially for an '89 Toyota TDI with mechanical fuel system. These results not only show complete combustion of the fuel mix, but also that there has been no degradation of the engine by using VO based fuel blends. MPG has been consistent as well in the 24 to 27 MPG range. Those who actually use VO based fuels can back their claims with real data, not just inferences from 'studies' by others.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: john galt,

OK, I’ll stop taking the bait.

Studies show that there is little gain above 180F compared to the issues associated with hotter fuel, these include material and electronic temp limits, fuel system sensors which limit the fuel system when temperature thresholds have been reached, temp limits of hoses, seals and fuel tanks as well as the thermal expansion of clearance critical components such as injectors and injection pumps.

Vegetable oil does not need to be the exact viscosity as diesel fuel because it is not diesel fuel and behaves differently in the combustion chamber as is evidenced by the exhaust gas analysis, temp and power differences between the fuels. Also evidenced by this is the fact that the difference in completeness of combustion between fuel at 180F and fuel at 275F is negligible making this a moot argument.

The accuracy of the Chart posted on Frybrid in 2003 may be in question, I will look into it when I have time away from my fleet clients and webinars, it was clearly intended to illustrate a principal rather than to become a icon in the vegetable oil conversion cult. It shows that even 200F VO is not at the same viscosity as diesel fuel is at 25F below the point where diesel fuel gels so clearly it was never intended to state that 180F Vo has the same viscosity as diesel fuel. The data used to make the graph is in a spiral notebook someplace along with my child’s day care schedule and my tax return for 2002, the diesel part of the graph was averaged from the various diesel fuel blends I could find information on, the vegetable oil graph, the same. All was information from websites dealing with fuel issues and food oil properties. No deception was intended as has been alleged. Updated charts were compiled by Mr. Gregg while he was at Frybrid and posted on the site in the reference material section of that forum in 2006 and 2007.

A far more interesting subject is the Nox vs HC tradeoff and how VO combustion is affected by ignition advance vs retard.

Kudos to Mr. Linscott for offering to make his extensive library available on a lending basis. I recommend that everyone here make extensive use of his generous offer, there is much to learn.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: cgoodwin1,

quote:

What is it with the SVO crowd that some of you can't seem to have civil discussions.

Discussions start civil enough Shaun.
But there are a few members who ONLY post personal attacks..and a few who cannot seem to post without including personal attacks. Without moderation the discussions quickly degrade.

Hopefully with an active moderator this discussion can progress in a civil manner.
Thanks.

For those that wish to take advantage of my "lending library" offer please post rEquests Here so this discussionis not taken even further off topic.

quote:

Vegetable oil does not need to be the exact viscosity as diesel fuel because it is not diesel fuel and behaves differently in the combustion chamber as is evidenced by the exhaust gas analysis, temp and power differences between the fuels. Also evidenced by this is the fact that the difference in completeness of combustion between fuel at 180F and fuel at 275F is negligible making this a moot argument.

Clearly though VO may not need to be the "exact viscosity" of diesel fuel upon injection if one is to believe the vast majority of studies done on this subject the viscosities must be very close.

Ed Beggs appears to believe that 175-195°F is close enough.
Chris Goodwin appears to believe that 160-180°F is close enough.
I believe that 230-250°F may be close enough.

This would seem to be a very good subject for a technical discussion in which supporting evidence is provided by each party and the reader is allowed to make up their own mind based on that evidence.

I have provided links ot actual data and studies that support the information presented in the chart I created. No one has challenged the accurracy of this chart...because it is verifiably accurrate. I challenged the accurracy of the "Frybrid chart" because it is clearly not accurrate.

It is my hope that by providing more access to REAL information on VO fuel the unfounded claims and misinformation that predominate currently will be challenged and corrected.

Hopefully discussions that are governed by logic based on verifiable information will facilitate this process. Moderation of posts composed of little but personal attacks will certainly help as well.

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

quote:

Originally posted by danalinscott:
I have provided links ot actual data and studies that support the information presented in the chart I created. No one has challenged the accurracy of this chart...because it is verifiably accurrate.

The data points may be accurate, if a little sparse, but the extrapolated trend lines are not. It appears that you used Excel to make these graphs, so you can very much improve the accuracy by using an exponential trendline.

Better still, would be use the charts described in
ASTM D341 - 03 Standard Test Method for Viscosity-Temperature Charts for Liquid Petroleum Products.

Best, would be to use the fit the MacCoull-Walther equation to the different sets of datapoints. That's what I did here http://bunkum.us/svo/viscosity.html . The equation is also described in ASTM D341, but can be found other places on the internet, as well as my book which I think you own. My extrapolations are in line with equations reported by Lang and Pugazhvadivu. (see the linked page for citations.) Here's a good guide to fitting equations with Excel http://www.chemistry.nmsu.edu/...signment/fitting.htm

According to this method, most oils are will not reach the maximum allowable viscosity of diesel fuel at 104 F until around 280 F, not 230 F.

quote:

The data points may be accurate, if a little sparse, but the trend lines are not, particularly where the trends are extrapolated past the last datapoints.

There is no extrapolation past the end data points on the chart I created.
The most accurate charts use actual data points at each end. That procdedure was followed in the creation of this chart.

quote:

It appears that you used Excel to make these graphs

This is incorrect.

quote:

According to this method, most oils are will not reach the maximum allowable viscosity of diesel fuel at 104 F until around 280 F, not 230 F.

As the chart I created reflects.

230°F is not the optimum viscosity temp...it is the MINIMUM optimum viscosity temp if the majority of published studies relating to this subject are to be trusted. Although I would not neccesarily characterize the viscosity of diesel at 280°F as

quote:

maximum allowable viscosity

.

Diesel appears to continue to become less viscous at temps above 280°. I simply could not find data points available in the public domain for diesel viscosity at temps higher than that.

quote:

Originally posted by danalinscott:

quote:

The data points may be accurate, if a little sparse, but the trend lines are not, particularly where the trends are extrapolated past the last datapoints.

There is no extrapolation past the end data points on the chart I created.
The most accurate charts use actual data points at each end. That procdedure was followed in the creation of this chart.

I apologize for my misapprehension. I thought the lines the lines extending past the last data points had some significance.

Unfortunately, it appears that the data points are not accurate. You seem to have made mistakes reading the graph from the canola council paper, which would be easy to do. I went back to the sources cited in the paper, and I pulled out the actual values that were originally reported. You can find them in the table on this page, http://bunkum.us/svo/viscosity.html . The relevant sources are Lange, Magne, and Noureddini.

For rapeseed, Noureddini reported a viscosity of 9 centistokes at 100C, and 8 at 110; for soybean 8 centistokes at 100C and 7 at 110. The ASTM specified maximum viscosity for petrodiesel at 40 C, 104 F is 4.1 centistokes. (More accurately, in one paper Noureddini reports centipoise values, and in a companion paper he reports density values. Centistokes = centipose/density, the reported centistokes in the above link are calculated from the values in the two papers. )

The graph is so small and the markers are so large, it would be quite easy to misinterpolate the chart to think that the kinematic viscosity of these oils are below 4.1 centistokes at 110 C.

quote:

Originally posted by danalinscott:

quote:

According to this method, most oils are will not reach the maximum allowable viscosity of diesel fuel at 104 F until around 280 F, not 230 F.

As the chart I created reflects.

230°F is not the optimum viscosity temp...it is the MINIMUM optimum viscosity temp if the majority of published studies relating to this subject are to be trusted.

I thought we were talking about your chart, let's take things one step at a time.

-Forest

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Forest Gregg,

quote:

Originally posted by danalinscott:
I challenged the accurracy of the "Frybrid chart" because it is clearly not accurrate.

As I have stated, the chart was never intended to be an iconic image or a presentation of data on which advanced studies should be based, it was made with about 8 data points from the internet to illustrate the reduction in viscosity in relation to temperature, if you look at your superimposed data points you will note that, assuming your data is in any way accurate and was complied and plotted correctly, that the lines are very similar, simply raised slightly in the chart.

quote:

Originally posted by danalinscott:
Chris Goodwin appears to believe that 160-180°F is close enough.

You are making an assumption, and it is pointless, as no one cares what Mr.Beggs, you or I think, they are interested in what the data shows.

Perhaps it would behoove you to look at the charts on the Frybrid site in the reference material section based on 27 datapoints compiled by Mr. Gregg and posted by me in early 2006, they also show the upper and lower limits for diesel fuel. You will note that the citations are right above the charts for easy verification of the information.

I digress, back to the accuracy of your chart, so we can move on to fuel temp as it related to completeness of combustion.

quote:

I apologize for my misapprehension. I thought the lines the lines extending past the last data points had some significance.

As I stated previously:
There are no lines/plots in the graph I created whch extend past verifyable data points.

quote:

Unfortunately, it appears that the data points are not accurate. You seem to have made mistakes reading the graph from the canola council paper, which would be easy to do. The graph is so small and the markers are so large, it would be quite easy to misinterpolate the chart to think that the kinematic viscosity of these oils are below 4.1 centistokes at 110 C.

The datapoint for canola at 110C is no below 4.1 centistokes.
I stand by the data points in my chart as correct.
If you disagree it would be more productive to post which data points you believe are incorrect.

Clearly the viscosity of VO is WAY off in the Frybrid chart.
At 110C the VO data point is 22 centistokes.
I am aware of NO vo which has that high a viscosity at that temp.

This is the VO viscosity/temp chart that your link leads to.
I assume it is the graph that you are referring to.



Here is the chart I created with the Frybrid chart data points/plots superimposed.

quote:

I thought we were talking about your chart, let's take things one step at a time.

I was responding to another participants misinterpretation of the charts implications.

quote:

230°F IS NOT the optimum temperature as claimed

You may need to read through even the off topic posts in order to undertand the context of all the replies in a post. They are not all responses to your posts.

quote:

no one cares what Mr.Beggs, you or I think, they are interested in what the data shows.

I disagree.
Many rely upon the information and opinions presented by those who have concentrated on research and development of VO conversion technology. And of course...if one is to rely on data..it must be presented accurrately. Which was the main point of this project to create an accurate graph of the relationship of temp to viscosity in both VO and ASTM diesel fuel.

quote:

Perhaps it would behoove you to look at the charts on the Frybrid site in the reference material section based on 27 datapoints compiled by Mr. Gregg and posted by me in early 2006, they also show the upper and lower limits for diesel fuel.

Perhaps you could provide links to those..or better yet post the charts themselves so they can be compared to the charts already under discussion here.

quote:

You will note that the citations are right above the charts for easy verification of the information.

Citations alone do not provide "easy verification" of anything.
Access to the information the data was gathered to produce a chart does. This is why I posted links to the actual information sources that data was gathered from when I produced the chart in the OP of this discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by danalinscott:

quote:

no one cares what Mr.Beggs, you or I think, they are interested in what the data shows.

I disagree.
Many rely upon the information and opinions presented by those who have concentrated on research and development of VO conversion technology. And of course...if one is to rely on data..it must be presented accurrately. Which was the main point of this project to create an accurate graph of the relationship of temp to viscosity in both VO and ASTM diesel fuel.

Why do you feel the need to tempt me so?

If the point of all this is to create an accurate graph of the relationship of viscosity to temperature of both ASTM diesel fuel and Vegetable oils. It has already been done many times so perhaps we can stop beating a dead horse and move on to the discussion of optimum injection temperature of vegetable oils in CI engines…

quote:

Originally posted by danalinscott:


Perhaps you could provide links to those..or better yet post the charts themselves so they can be compared to the charts already under discussion here.

I have, twice, and you have seen them and know where they are. Since you have much of my website and forum cut and pasted into several of your fourm attempts, I find it hard to believe that you somehow missed that section.

quote:

Originally posted by danalinscott:

Citations alone do not provide "easy verification" of anything.
Access to the information the data was gathered to produce a chart does. This is why I posted links to the actual information sources that data was gathered from when I produced the chart in the OP of this discussion.

Are you completely daft? It is standard practice to present citations of the works you have used as data in your work, the citation is the actual information source, that is why you cite it. Providing links to the papers would require that you only use data available on the internet freely. I suggest that if you need a specific paper cited that is not available freely on the internet, that you simply send an “rEquest” here as you have offered to lend papers to readers including those in Mr.Gregg’s research library, which include the papers cited.

If one is citing the entire work in-text the format is: (Jones, 2006). For a specific page the format is: (Jones, 2006, p.31). If the authors name is included in the text of the sentence where the citation takes place the format is: Jones (2006, p.31) states that…And for citations of online articles with no page numbers the format is: (Rogers, 2004, ¶ 5) or (Smith, 2001, Conclusion section, para. 2). I could go on but the point is that citation is the accepted form in the acedemic community.

quote:

Originally posted by danalinscott:

Citations alone do not provide "easy verification" of anything.
Access to the information the data was gathered to produce a chart does. This is why I posted links to the actual information sources that data was gathered from when I produced the chart in the OP of this discussion.


Are you completely daft? It is standard practice to present citations of the works you have used as data in your work, the citation is the actual information source, that is why you cite it.

quote:

citation is the accepted form in the acedemic community

It may be "standard" practice to only provide citations in the academic community...but in public forums such as this one it is much more productive and helpful to provide either the actual information or links to the actual information that might otherwise simply be cited. Those in the academic community have ready access to the actual material being cited...those reading a diiscussion such as this one do not.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by danalinscott:


Perhaps you could provide links to those..or better yet post the charts themselves so they can be compared to the charts already under discussion here.


I have, twice, and you have seen them and know where they are.

I have checked and can find no such link or image you have posted in this discussion.
Perhaps it was in one of your deleted posts.

I have not seen them..and I do not know where they are.
If I did ..I would save you the trouble and simply post them myself.

quote:

I suggest that if you need a specific paper cited that is not available freely on the internet, that you simply send an “rEquest” here as you have offered to lend papers to readers including those in Mr.Gregg’s research library, which include the papers cited.

While that may provide access to one individual at a time..it is not "ready access" to verifying information.

quote:

Originally posted by danalinscott:

quote:

I apologize for my misapprehension. I thought the lines the lines extending past the last data points had some significance.

As I stated previously:
There are no lines/plots in the graph I created whch extend past verifyable data points.

The line representing the average of the viscosity of soybean and rapeseed oil extends all the way to about 150 C, but none of the references you cite have data on the viscosity of any oil for temperatures higher than 110 C.

quote:

Originally posted by danalinscott:
The datapoint for canola at 110C is no below 4.1 centistokes.
I stand by the data points in my chart as correct.
If you disagree it would be more productive to post which data points you believe are incorrect.

I think that, at the least, your data points at 110C are incorrect, for the following reasons:

In the second graph you posted, the green horizontal line intersects with the diesel viscosity line at about 30C. You cite two references that give viscosity charts for diesel fuel. The first indicates that petrodiesel will have a viscosity of 3 centistokes at 30c, the second indicates that petrodiesel will have a viscosity of a little bit less than 3 centistokes at 30c. Unless the diesel viscosity line came from another source you did not cite, the horizontal line should represent about 3 centistokes.

Perhaps this is the case, because at -10 C, your chart shows a viscosity for diesel of well over 10 centistokes, but both the references you cite indicate that at this temperature, diesel should have a viscosity of less than 10 centistokes.

Your data points at 110 C are below this green horizontal line, which would indicate that at this temperature the viscosity of these oils are less than 3 centistokes. In the references that you cite, the only source that indicates the viscosity of rapeseed and soybean oil at 110 C is the canola council paper. The Nouredinni paper, which is the original source of that data on those two oils, gives centistoke values of rapeseed and soybean oil at 110C at 8 and 7 respectively.

An alternative hypothesis, and one that seems more likely, is that you misread one of the diesel viscosity charts, and confused Fahrenheit temperature units for Celsius. That would explain all the anomalies, and would be an easy mistake to make, particularly with the Lee Chart. If this were the case you would have done quite an impressive job interpolating the values from the canola council paper, because if you read the graph in this light you are likely within one centistoke of the Noureddini values; according to the Lee chart the viscosity of diesel at 30 Fahrenheit (~ -1 C) is about 7 centistokes.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Forest Gregg,

quote:

The line representing the average of the viscosity of soybean and rapeseed oil extends all the way to about 150 C, but none of the references you cite have data on the viscosity of any oil for temperatures higher than 110 C.

I think perhaps you missed that one Forest.
from the ACREVO report...

quote:

First of all the stability of the rapeseed oil with the temperature was checked by thermogravimetry analysis and it comes out that this oil is very stable up to 300°C in inert conditions and up to 200°C under an oxidative atmosphere. Due to this stability with the temperature it is possible to preheat the oil up to 150°C where it attains the same viscosity as the diesel oil.

quote:

Perhaps this is the case, because at -10 C, your chart shows a viscosity for diesel of well over 10 centistokes, but both the references you cite indicate that at this temperature, diesel should have a viscosity of less than 10 centistokes.

quote:

An alternative hypothesis, and one that seems more likely, is that you misread one of the diesel viscosity charts

You appear absolutely correct.
I should have caught that easily..but did not.
The main reason I began this discussion was to make certain that the chart was correct.
I had hoped by providing the easy to access sources for the charts plot points if there were errors someone would find them.

Thank you for finding this error.
It appears that the ASTM diesel plot needs "recalibration".

I will do so in the next few days and post the corrected version.
I hope you will do me the favor of checking it accurracy when I do.

The viscosity of 'diesel fuel' varies both seasonally and regionally. For example No. 2 diesel fuel has a viscosity in the range of 2.5 - 3.2 cSt at 40°C [ASTM D975] A quick net search will show a range of 1 - 4 cSt at 40°C reported.
When comparing apples with oranges, keep in mind that all apples are not the same and all oranges are not the same.

quote:

Originally posted by danalinscott:

I think perhaps you missed that one Forest.
from the ACREVO report...

quote:

First of all the stability of the rapeseed oil with the temperature was checked by thermogravimetry analysis and it comes out that this oil is very stable up to 300°C in inert conditions and up to 200°C under an oxidative atmosphere. Due to this stability with the temperature it is possible to preheat the oil up to 150°C where it attains the same viscosity as the diesel oil.

I would not read this to mean that at 150 C rapeseed oil has the same viscosity as 150 C diesel fuel. The equations for viscosity as a function of temperature that I have seen reported in the literature or fitted myself from from reported values indicate that at about 150 C, vegetable oils will a viscosity of about 4 centistokes (a value which should be familiar by now), and at that diesel should have a viscosity of well below that. This is confirmed, by the way in the Ryan paper, which you quoted my discussion of earlier.

quote:

Originally posted by danalinscott:
It appears that the ASTM diesel plot needs "recalibration".

I will do so in the next few days and post the corrected version.
I hope you will do me the favor of checking it accurracy when I do.

Good luck, and feel free to use the values reported here http://bunkum.us/svo/viscosity.html I know how hard it is to get good data on oil viscosity, which is why I have published this and other hard to find data on vegetable oil on this site. All the content on that portion of the site are released under a Creative Commons Attribution license

And, for your new effort, if you would kindly report the values in addition to presenting the graphic chart. That would make it much easier to check the accuracy.

-Forest

Here is my study. Of the 15 vehicles that I have personally converted and driven the only one that I had issue with was a 1982 Nissan Maxima Diesel that had 300k miles. It ran fine on diesel and veg oil but if you forgot to flush and turned it off for 5 minutes it would not start. And was hard to start after that.

My truck will start in zero degree weather on diesel. This is the just as thick as veg oil at 160 degrees.

My Mercedes will also start in zero degree weather. The other 13 I have not had in zero degree weather.

I agree with CGoodwin.

quote:

Originally posted by danalinscott:

quote:

Originally posted by danalinscott:

Citations alone do not provide "easy verification" of anything.
Access to the information the data was gathered to produce a chart does.

[snip]

It may be "standard" practice to only provide citations in the academic community...but in public forums such as this one it is much more productive and helpful to provide either the actual information or links to the actual information that might otherwise simply be cited. Those in the academic community have ready access to the actual material being cited...those reading a diiscussion such as this one do not.

[snip]

[QUOTE] I suggest that if you need a specific paper cited that is not available freely on the internet, that you simply send an “rEquest” here as you have offered to lend papers to readers including those in Mr.Gregg’s research library, which include the papers cited.

While that may provide access to one individual at a time..it is not "ready access" to verifying information.

You claim to have all the papers and are willing to "lend" them, you have stated that many of these papers are not publicly available and know that the reason is that they are owned. Yet you are again asking that I post the very papers you claim to have, in violation of the copyrights so that the public will have "Ready access". Either you are chasing your own tail, you are malicious and trying to goad me into posting copyrighted material, or you are so involved in not ever backing down even when you have lost an argument that you simply can not stop typing. It really does not matter which it is, I will not post copyrighted material and will continue to cite the studies from which the information has been gained, you are welcome to put your head in a hole and ignore the material that you claim to have in your lending library if it provides you with some positive feeling, however it makes even less sense than your perpetual arguments.

The chart you are arguing for 8 pages about was produced in 2006 by Mr. Gregg and has been posted on the Frybrid site since that time. You have wasted your time, however, a discussion of the relationship between injection temp and completeness of combustion might provide you with some interesting insight.