Still no separation of anything in the Canola WVO/Kerosine/Ethanol/water at 80/15/4.75/.25 twenty four hours later just clear dark fuel. The Greasy Pig hums on it.

Thebushpig, if you wanted separation why would you add ethanol?

What is the ambient temperature? See if a sample in the freezer has any effect.

QUOTE]Originally posted by Thebushpig:
Still no separation of anything in the Canola WVO/Kerosine/Ethanol/water at 80/15/4.75/.25 twenty four hours later just clear dark fuel.

quote:

Originally posted by neutral:
Thebushpig, if you wanted separation why would you add ethanol?

No mate I did not want separation. This comment was in response to Sushi pointing out, quite rightly, that dino ethanol and water is an unstable mix and the ethanol/water phase will separate out; not something I want in my blend!

Well the Geasy Pig has now done 1000 kms on the stuff except for having 20 litres of Dino it was all kugel a la Canola WVO/Kerosine/Ethanol/water at 80/15/4.75/.25, about 120 litres of it. The GP was workin hard in 30 degrees centigrade towing a trailer with 350 litres of oil in it plus toolbox water etc etc etc. Plus its a new moter with rings yet to bed.

The jar I put some sample in still shows no separation Sushi and I have got no water in the filter trap.

Next stage is to put the sample in the fridge; after that its the freezer, then I will add water and repeat. It would be nice to know just how much water the mix can handle... and to what temperature. Out west where I run the GP to its so hot I would not need to heat canola. The injector lines are too hot to touch...

quote:

dino ethanol and water is an unstable mix and the ethanol/water phase will separate out

This remark above is really an oversimplification. Whether or not there will be a separation depends on the proportions. Ethanol is used to permit petrol to take an appreciable amount of water into harmless solution. Isopropanol does it even better. I see no reason why ethanol and isopropanol would not do the same with diesel and veg oil.

quote:

Originally posted by neutral:

quote:

dino ethanol and water is an unstable mix and the ethanol/water phase will separate out

This remark above is really an oversimplification. Whether or not there will be a separation depends on the proportions. Ethanol is used to permit petrol to take an appreciable amount of water into harmless solution. Isopropanol does it even better. I see no reason why ethanol and isopropanol would not do the same with diesel and veg oil.

That's exactly what I'm counting on. I get all my oil straight from a cool fryer into 5 gallon cubes, and I've not had any obvious water contamination. It seems difficult and time/energy consuming to assure 100% dry oil. For peace of mind, I will be adding IsoHeet to each tank of vegetable oil. That should take care of the small amounts of water from condensation -- I mean, jeez, biodiesel brewers ADD water to their fuel to wash it, then settle and draw off the top. I'd bet that has more water in it than SVO that's never had any added.

Old 300D oil of the used fryer variety is more hydrophilic than BioD or Dino. At this stage my flirtation with dissolving water is experimental. Neutral and I believe it to be sound. Dana and Girlmark, considered by many here to be experts in there field, while perhaps not having the depth of general scientific chemical knowledge Neutral has, consider that the only way is to dewater....

I have some solvent knowledge and mechanical experience and I would NOT RECOMMEND anybody follow my lead just yet. Don't forget I am operating at temperate and tropical temperatures at the moment which may have a bearing on it all.

Neutral; yes it is an oversimplification and such mixtures are said to be stable at higher proportions of ethanol; however in the light of the proportion of ethanol in my blend it is correct.

My position is that WVO is far different to fossil fuels and BIOD and in WVO the ethanol water solution is stable at the rate I am using it.

I too thought that ethanol would do the same in Dino but I was wrong. The petroleum handbook 1938 put out by employees of the Dutch Shell Company says this:

"Pure ethyl alcohol mixes perfectly with gasoline in any proportion.....if a little water is added to the mixture much of the alcohol and water separates to the bottom... To obtain satisfactory stable mixtures containing less than 30% alcohol it is necessary to use alcohol contining less than 0.5% water.... stable mixtures of...say 50% alcohol can be made from alcohol containing 5% water.

Sushi reported the same phenomena in Diesahol on the bottom of page 3 of this thread.

Don't forget when we wash BioDesiel (with the caveat that I don't make it) we remove the methanol.... it separates from the fuel on the addition of water to the mix...

However given that the triglycerid has 3 nonpolar chains/tails and a polar "head" (as exhibited in the bi-lipid layer configuration) it should have at least a limited capacity to handle kerosine/gasoline/dino and alcohol/water together in solution.

Given that I've just run on Canola WVO/Kerosine/Ethanol/water at 80/15/4.75/.25 for 1,000 kms over the last 2 days I confirm that it does, at least in temperatures of 16 degrees c and above.

Old300D

I have mentioned on several occasions that adding isopropanol is much more effective than adding dry ethanol if you wish to get water into harmless solution in fuel. Being more effective means less is required and it is thus cheaper. Now I notice that you are adding IsoHeet. This is of course isopropanol.

It seems this forum has not previously pointed out that isopropanol and isoheet both dry fuel in the same way because they are the same thing.

Not only is isopropanol better than dry ethanol for this purpose but it is also easy to obtain dry while ethanol is only easy to obtain with 5% water in it. This 5% water makes it unsuitable for this purpose.

Thebushpig,

Not only is there a difference between oils in the way they work with alcohol, as you say, there is also a difference between alcohols in the way they work with veg oil. You can only dissolve about 3% methanol in veg oil but you can get about 10% dry ethanol to go in. Though I haven't tried it I am sure that even greater amounts of isopropanol could be dissolved in veg oil. Not that you would want to use much of course - it costs - but is good fuel.

In my experience of owning a auto parts store and automotive repair centers for 28 years, I saw many different chemical additives come in the market to "dry gas". Over time the isopropanol did the best job of doing this.

I offer the below as interesting info and not as fact........

In my readings of some very old patents on fuel, I found a lot of them wanted to add water to the fuel as a benefit. In the early years the "common" additive was a solution of quince seed oil in very small percentage amounts. I all so read that these emulsion fuels with water tended to stay in emulsion up to the temperature of 170F. Some mentioned the need for a biocide. Some mention the need of a shear pump in line to help make the emulsion just before entering the engine.

There is one patent that has in-depth chemical compounds (which is miles over my head) that may help in the questions we have about dealing with water in the veggie oil. Maybe someone with the understanding of such chemical bonds could read this and report back to the list on what they think.

patent#3490237 dated 1970........plug the number in on this URL
http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/srchnum.htm

thanks.....James

Just a thought...Perhaps in some cases, the extensive analysis of fuel quality may be overkill. Take the case of a $2000.00 mid 80's benz (with perhaps another $800 or less for DIY conversion) running on WVO versus $2.00/gallon dino:

($2800/2)*25mpg = ~35000 miles
If the IP (or entire car) lasts this long or better, you are ahead of the game without even mentioning all the non financial benefits of running veg.

Granted this only applies to inexpensive vehicles ..but perhaps this is where the DIY technology is best applied, until more definitive research is properly conducted?

Seems that the issue of dewatering is a function of vehicle/equipment investment, which may also apply to other weak links such as incomplete combustion of glycerin/injector coking/etc.

Vegenergy,
Re...

quote:

Seems that the issue of dewatering is a function of vehicle/equipment investment

...

Can't say I agree on this point. Regardless of what you pay for your car, it is always good engineering practice to do whatever you can to remove all potential problem areas. Getting the water out of wvo is surely one of the basic requirements.
I wouldn't sleep at night if I knew that there was a potential hazard to my IP that I could have avoided.
regards
dva

quote:

Originally posted by vegenergy:
SNIP
($2800/2)*25mpg = ~35000 miles
If the IP (or entire car) lasts this long or better, you are ahead of the game without even mentioning all the non financial benefits of running veg.
SNIP

Vegenergy,
I feel that the equation should be ($2800/2)*25mpg ~ 500 000 or more miles. The cost of fuel should not limit the useful life of the engine in the vehicle.
If we take reasonable precautions to ensure the quality of our fuel, and protect our investment, then the engine will give us the longest service, consistent with it's service history and current maintenance regieme.

Tony and dva,
Yes...I agree that reasonable steps should be taken to reduce the potential for problems. I guess I was just thinking that the extent of those efforts should be in balance with the overall objective.

Once the efforts/costs of preparing WVO exceed the cost/efforts of using something else, such as virgin oils, one should consider them. I do think the cost of fuel relative to engine life should be considered...as the entire system is what should be being evaluated. Total energy costs (in btu, time, and $)in, for useful work out.

Should you filter your WVO? Of course. Should you dewater? Of course. But to what extent seems to be relative to overall investment/goals/risk...especially when most of "our" data is anecdotal at best.

Vegenergy,
What you augument seems to boil down to is the cheapness of your dino. And a
throw-away mentality. Maybe I should re-phrase that last bit to a ‘limited life
expectancy’ point of view.
You get your dino for half the price we do, so the cost of obtaining your wvo and
processing it soon reaches the cost of the dino. The ‘using a by-product of another
process,’ i.e , cooking , and there for putting it to good use (ok, the green aguement, if
you like, though I would prefer to call it common sense) isn’t part of the consideration.
Car repair in the UK is very expensive. Many of the larger places are asking 40 Pound
(about $75 per hour) to do things that a semi illiterate orang utang could do if they would
only give it a chance. So cars get scraped long before they need to. It is far cheaper to
buy a used car and scrap the whole thing just to get a replacement Diesel engine than it is
to get your old one re-bored and fitted with new pistons. Things didn’t use to be this
way. It is just part of our rip-off way of doing business.
But we can make out engines last at least as long as the designer intended, and probably
much longer. You are thinking market forces, always a slippery slope.
As for anecdotal. I wouldn’t call the reported observations of hundreds of hours of
experimenting with and using bio, svo, wvo etc quite that. After all, a scientific report
is more or less the same thing dressed up in a white coat and carrying a clip-board. Done
with better equipment and by people that are paid to do it as against sweaty old Joe’s
grubby note pad records of what happens when he does something . But we do get a
chance to assess the observations for ourselves, and to ask Joe questions, which is more
than we do with industrial reports.
regards
dva

Hi dva,
Yes..I do agree with you on the "common sense" approach of putting this material to better use, and the finacial argument for WVO usage is fairly low on my list of reasons for doing so, despite the current artificially low price at the poump for petro in the US.

My reason for calling the "data" anecdotal is only because I get the impression that we still do not REALLY know the effects of various amounts and forms of water in SVO. In fact, it seems there is still a fair amount of confusion over a standard set of definitions. Dissolved water, suspended water, emulsions, microdroplets, freewater, etc. What quantities of each are we talking about? Has anyone really isolated one variable at a time?

Please don't get me wrong...I do not advocate for a throw-away mentality. I would have never gotten involved in renewable fuels if i did! It just seems like we are all guessing here. IP lifespan seems to be all over the map, indicating large variability in everyone's own experience..making it hard for a unified body of data to emerge. I wish I had the resources to set up a few test engines, reduce the variables, and compare, but currently I do not. Meanwhile we all have our own personal experience, which helps, but is a slow way to come to definitive results due to the number of variables and lack of standards and methods. I suppose my posting into this thread may have more to do with a level of personal frustration in this regard, and for this I apologize.

I would hate for us to eventually come to he conclusion that in order to really produce a fuel truly compatible with current engine design we have to expend more energy eventually offsetting the benefits of our reuse/renewable approach.

Indeed, this entire method of personal transport is highly questionable from an energy efficiency standpoint (but that is a topic for another thread!).

It MAY be the case that in order to utilize our fuels in the most efficient manner, we must reconsider the engine design as well (no small task) Meanwhile, it may be acceptable to utilize the current designs in a less than optimal usage.
These engines have been optimized over years for a specific range of fuels. It should come as no surprise that using a fuel that the engine is not optimized for produces less than optimal results (with regard to lifespan/performance). Despite being less than optimal on these levels, this usage may still be advantageous on a number of other levels (environmental, health effects, political, with financial being very low on my personal priority list). So the question remains, what is acceptable, and what still provide the advantage(s) we are after. I would imagine these answers will vary from person to person.

But even when we do consider the financial aspect, my thought process is not exactly far-flung, even in this community. After all even Tony from West Oz, in his paper ( http://www.shortcircuit.com.au/warfa/paper/paper.htm ) states:

"Triglycerides in the range of IV 50 – 100 may result in decreased engine life, and in particular to decreased fuel pump and injector life. However these must be balanced against greatly decreased fuel costs (if using cheap, surplus oil) and it may be found that even with increased maintenance costs that this is economically viable. "

and...

"In many cases, it is possible to use a variety of triglyceride fats and oils as a fuel. While engine wear and maintenance may be increased, in some circumstances these problems are not serious enough to prevent the use of the triglycerides as a fuel."

and...

"To date there has been no evidence of increased engine wear, lubricating oil dilution or other problems. However the experience of others has shown that increased engine wear may occur but as yet it is still too early to determine whether or not this will occur in this example. Even so, the economic benefits obtained by using waste canola oil may more than offset any extra engine maintenance costs."

-Rob

Dva,
You British chaps are a riot
We have some of the same Technicians you do i guess and they even get paid the same.
Some even look and act like the furry primate you refer to....One of the ways that i can differentiate between primate and homosapien is that many times the latter will have some kind of piercing in or around the eyes, ears, tongue or nose and possibly other orifices that i will not be investigating.

quote:

Car repair in the UK is very expensive. Many of the larger places are asking 40 Pound
(about $75 per hour) to do things that a semi illiterate orang utang could do if they would
only give it a chance.

P.S. My mother is a full blooded Brit.
so i guess that makes me 50% or in other words a wannabe.

Wannabee,
The really annoying part of the high cost of repairs is that the poor greasy sod holding the spanner (I used to be one) is still on about eight Pound / hour ,say $14/hour US if he is lucky. The rest goes to administration and keeping a nice showroom.
Did you ever read 'Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance' ? The part in the book where the guy takes his BMW bike in for the valve clearances adjusting really sums up all my worst fears about garages.
Good to see that half of you still belongs to the Mother Lode.
regards
dva

Vegenergy, getting back to you soon.

Reading that fricking book as a 15-year-old (it was assigned in high school) is what's ultimately responsible for me becoming interested in working on engines and finding some kind of a higher calling in it, and being here as a biofuels promoter.

mark

not to divert the thread..but as with girlmark..yup..that book influenced me too!