BIODIESEL & SVO DISCUSSION FORUMS






Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Biodiesel  Hop To Forums  General Biodiesel Discussion    B100 use in post-injection modern diesels, leading to high engine wear
Page 1 2 3 4 5 

Moderators: Shaun, The Trouts
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
B100 use in post-injection modern diesels, leading to high engine wear
 Login/Join
 
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
quote:
You stated that ECUs don't improve efficiency


nope, not me, don't twist things around. I stated that a computer was not necessary for a properly designed diesel engine to burn cleanly with minimal pollution.


Tell me: what is it exactly that I'm twisting around?

quote:
john galt
Member

Posted 19 April 2008 06:19 PM Hide Post
Computers are not needed for an engine to run clean and efficient.


What part of "run clean and EFFICIENT" is not talking about efficiency?

quote:
Believe whichever source of information you want to about the 13B-T


Of course I will. But you still failed to address the fact that, even with your numbers, your engine is not even close to electronically controlled engines.


************************

"When you don't think what you say, you say what you think" Jacinto Benavente.

"Wars not make one great" Yoda.

"A pessimist is a well informed optimist"

WWVhaCwgSSdtIGEgZ2Vlay4gU08gV0hBVD8=
 
Location: Miami, Florida. | Registered: April 06, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
yeah sure, whatever....



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
posted Hide Post
Hi Bernyjb.

I hate to jump into your guys "conversation", but since this is a biofuels forum, not a performance forum, I'd have to say that IF computer enhanced engine efficiency comes at the cost of compatability with biofuels (potential carbon neutrality/fuel renewability), then it is a step backward rather than forward.

Yes, I know that current total global feedstock production is a drop in the bucket of humanitys' energy needs. Whether global warming is petroleum related or not, if we continue to aim our efforts at optimising petro consumption, then our current overpopulation problem will eventually collide with the fact that petrofuels are non-renewable. That collision will lead to dire consequences. Total societal collapse. Wars will likely be waged as people get desperate to control the last dwindling oil deposits.

Domestically, our governments will likely dispatch the National Guard to protect stuff like our power reactors and hydro-electric dams as they will be the only things left capable of sustaining only the most critically important infrastructure components. Military installations, government facilities, police stations and hospitals will likely be the only power consumers guaranteed to have proper ininterrupted access to electricity.

Yes, fuel efficiency is a noble goal, but if it necessarilly prevents any engine from being fuelled on renewable fuels, then it looses practical efficiency by default due to inevitable elimination of fuel supply. Super efficient petro engines may be good interim stop-gap measures until humanity gets past overpopulation and dependancy on non-renewable energy sources. Even renewable energy is no match for skyrocketing population growth.

This is actually one of John Gs favourite arguements, I'm sorta surprised he hadn't pulled it on you yet.

I've read that the majority of the worlds methanol supply is not from digester plants, but rather from petro refinement. If this is true, then until cellulosic ethanol becomes a practical reality for transesterification, then I'd say the Elsbett is one of the most effecient engine designs.

No alcohols or petrofuels are required for the Elsbett engine to do it's thing, just pure veggie oil. After all, veggie oil IS fuel...
 
Registered: September 26, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
I hate to jump into your guys piddling match, but since this is a biofuels forum, not a performance forum, I'd have to say that IF the computer enhanced efficiency (undeniable) comes at the cost of compatability with biofuels ( potential carbon neutrality), then it is a step backward rather than forward.


Hello Welder:
I completely agree with you. I've been an advocate of the use of biofuels for more than 2 years now, ever since Katrina hit Miami.
Actually, the reason I found this forum is because Harry747 recommended it to me, when I was "promoting" the JTF site on the "Mythbusters" forum.
But the solution to that problem is not to ignore new technologies, and keep using decades old equipment, but to work on a way to make those new technologies biofuels compatible.
For what I've seen so far, if there's one thing this forum is not lacking, it's knowledge. So let's use that knowledge to make those engines run on biodiesel as good or better than on dino diesel.
For example: I'm sure the car companies are very proud of their post injection systems, and their DPFs, but we don't need them to run BD, so let's figure out a way to get rid of them.
I'm not advocating to keep on using fossil fuels. Heck, the reason I'm here is because I'm planning to fully convert to biodiesel and ethanol by the end of 2008, not only for transportation, but for electricity as well!(Assuming everything goes well...)
So, yes, it's true that newer engines are less and less BD compatible. It's also true that one of the preferred arguments of the biofuels' detractors is the lower fuel efficiency of biofuels against fossil fuels, so, if we really want to help the environment, and we really want to promote the use of biofuels, we have to stop driving relics, and show those people that biofuels can have even better efficiency than fossil fuels.
Otherwise, we'll end up being just the crazy neighbor.


************************

"When you don't think what you say, you say what you think" Jacinto Benavente.

"Wars not make one great" Yoda.

"A pessimist is a well informed optimist"

WWVhaCwgSSdtIGEgZ2Vlay4gU08gV0hBVD8=
 
Location: Miami, Florida. | Registered: April 06, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
posted Hide Post
quote:
So let's use that knowledge to make those engines run on biodiesel as good or better than on dino diesel.



In order to avoid "wasting" resources, why don't we focus on developing super high efficiency diesel engines that run on non-transesterified VO and WVO? That way, not one drop of precious cellulosic ethanol will be "wasted" on brewing biodiesel. It can all be exclusively consumed by spark ignition engines.
 
Registered: September 26, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
In order to avoid "wasting" resources, why don't we focus on developing super high efficiency diesel engines that run on non-transesterified VO and WVO?


That'd be great, but I don't think it's gonna happen. I don't think the automakers would use their resources to develop such an engine, and for a private citizen (or a group of them), developing a new engine could prove to be too big of a task.
But either way, my point is that making newer engines biodiesel compatible is not such a insurmountable challenge. We just have to put our minds to it.


************************

"When you don't think what you say, you say what you think" Jacinto Benavente.

"Wars not make one great" Yoda.

"A pessimist is a well informed optimist"

WWVhaCwgSSdtIGEgZ2Vlay4gU08gV0hBVD8=
 
Location: Miami, Florida. | Registered: April 06, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
As long as my 'relic' passes emissions tests with unburned hydrocarbons as low or lower than new computerized vehicles, gas or diesel, then I see no reason to stop driving it.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Drewry
Member
Posted 19 April 2008 05:58 PM Hide Post
This is an option...although not cheep and not for those that like the old school way. The unit costs $350. If you could extend the time between oil changes or more impotantly now if you had fuel in your oil it would be well worth it IMHO.

http://www.intellistick.com/home.html
The IntelliStick is a compact dipstick replacement device which electronically monitors multiple conditions of engine oil and continuously scans for water/coolant and fuel intrusions.

2005 Dodge Ram 2500 Cummins Diesel.
Woodmizer Sawmill with 42 hp Kabota diesel.
B100 in summer....blends in Winter depending on weather.
GL 300 liter processor
working on Biodiesel supplements such as adding hydrogen, methanol under direct injection to increase HP and mileage while further reducing emissions.
Location: Sierra Nevada Mountains, California | Registered: 14 November 2007




Excellent product.

You know guys, one of the issues addresses in the article that started this thread was how biodiesel blown-by into the sump oil doesn't get along with the sump oil.

I think it was either Sunwizard, John Galt, or Crossbones who found an interesting technical article showing why the polarity of vegetable oil gives it superior lubrating properties over biodiesel or motor oil.

As I read this thread, I couldn't help fantasizing about driving a brand new properly SVO converted (Veggiestroke) F-350 Powerstroke, or a Dodge Cummins. The engine would be lubed with virgin canola with a healthy squirt of TBHQ and the oil would have the intellistick giving updates on its condition. All I would need then is a WVO powered Espar/Webasto/Mikuni type coolant engine preheater and I'd never need biodiesel or petrodiesel as a warm up fuel because I wouldn't need two tanks!

Now that's energy independance in style!
 
Registered: September 26, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
As long as my 'relic' passes emissions tests with unburned hydrocarbons as low or lower than new computerized vehicles, gas or diesel, then I see no reason to stop driving it.


Then keep on driving it. That doesn't mean we have to.


************************

"When you don't think what you say, you say what you think" Jacinto Benavente.

"Wars not make one great" Yoda.

"A pessimist is a well informed optimist"

WWVhaCwgSSdtIGEgZ2Vlay4gU08gV0hBVD8=
 
Location: Miami, Florida. | Registered: April 06, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
quote:
Then keep on driving it. That doesn't mean we have to.


I don't recall offering my truck to anyone to drive


Oh, sorry. Looks like my post was somewhat ambiguous.
Let me break it down for you:
What I meant is that you can keep on driving your relic until judgment day if you want, but that doesn't mean we also have to drive relics.
Clear enough?

quote:
nor do I care what others choose as their best option for getting from point A to point B.


Well, you act like you do. You keep on repeating like a parrot that non electronically controlled engines are as good or better than electronically controlled ones, without a shred of proof, and then when you're presented with evidence to the contrary, you get defensive, instead of accepting your mistake.
I'd say that, if you don't care, you do a good job hiding it.

quote:
As others have pointed out as well, new is not necessarily better.


Really?
I don't recall anybody (except you) stating that older engines are better than new ones.


************************

"When you don't think what you say, you say what you think" Jacinto Benavente.

"Wars not make one great" Yoda.

"A pessimist is a well informed optimist"

WWVhaCwgSSdtIGEgZ2Vlay4gU08gV0hBVD8=
 
Location: Miami, Florida. | Registered: April 06, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by john galt:
Or an electric pre-heater powered by renewable energy.

Or chemical heat storage. It could be a practical solution. Store the waste heat from the exhaust to pre-heat for the next cold start.

Ken
 
Location: Sellersville, PA | Registered: May 17, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I'm fairly certian that the newer diesel are not going to like WVO/SVO oil systems. There all High Pressure CR's and WVO never truly gets down to the viscoity of diesel, no matter at what temp... So you will be shorting the life of your injection pumps for sure as well as trashing the injector nozzels. Biodiesel is doable, but there have been issues with the new CR systems. The only way I would get in a new diesel, would be slightly used, and then I would delete all of the EPA stuff off of it, so I could have a decent fuel economy rig and something that would get better emmsions than a truck with all of that crap on there... with the exception of NoX of course.
 
Location: Pittsburgh Pa | Registered: March 04, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
What are these issues I keep hearing about with common rail injection systems run on B100? I've searched the internets for said problems and haven't found any. If anyone would care to enlighten me I'd greatly appreciate it.

I ask because I'm currently fueling an '08 JEEP Grand Cherokee CRD with B100 I brew in a BioPro.

edited to add:Ifthere isn't proofthat B100 causes problems in common rail systems then maybe a biodiesel forum shouldn't help perpetuate that urban myth? Maybe?

I just did a Google search for problems in common rail systems and this forum was the first entry. Turns out that thread discussed polymerization under high pressure and concluded it was the poorly made fuel of one sketchy supplier and that no actual proof to condemn B100 was found or offered.
 
Location: Hampton, Va | Registered: May 02, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Some of what I've read is that the high pressure polymerizes the fuel , my interpretation of that is that it makes for stringy goo , semi solid .
Also the manufactures say that the system is much more sensitive to water so extra filtering to use as much as B20 , after extra filtering , B5 without extra filtering .
No warranty beyond those numbers & conditions .
 
Location: St.Paul | Registered: March 24, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Well Personally I have not had any issues, I run a Ford 6.0L and were running it through a Cummins 5.9l CR on a Dodge. The Ford does not have any issues b/c there injectors are fired via High Pressure Oil from a HPOP. Yes the fuel is compressed.. but its not compressed to the 2X,XXXpsi required to overcome the internal forces in DI(direct inject) engines...until it needs to be(in the actual injector). Thats why the fords have good luck and can easly run WVO/SVO systems and biodiesel without any issues. WHen it comes down to it.. Yes the fuel is pressuredized to 2X,XXX psi but its only done so when the ECU requests the injector to dump. In the CR trucks they get compressed and then fed through rails and such. If you fuel is offspec(yes there is a millions ways it could be so, usless your ASTM testing everybatch then you will never know) then the engine is going to "let you know". It will run rough. I' no chemisty major by any means but the other issue is with the water being attracted to the fuel on the return to tank side. I run a Airdog(Fuel/Air Seperator)on my truck cause I "play" with it. More importnaly the filtering media is better suited to biodiesel and I have coolant running through it to heat everything up.

Plus even if everything is running fine, your pumping a fluid that is slightly more dense than no.2 diesel. That will eventually lead to shorter duty cycles on the injector pump and the lift pump. Not to mention most engine Manuf's are now listing B50 overhaul peroids.. and there shorter than if the engine was running on No.2 distitlate.

Dont get me wrong I'm not saying it wont work, or anything of that sorts. I'm just saying that CR trucks need to have the fuel is tiptop shape for consistant running, and when compred to other diesels CR's are the most picky of them all.

Now you dont have an option anymore because the Ford/Chevy/Dodges are all CR systems.
 
Location: Pittsburgh Pa | Registered: March 04, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
All other things being equal (which they never are), the higher the compression, the better the efficiency. This stems from fundamental Carnot thermal efficiency issues. This is the primary reason a diesel is more efficient than the same vehicle with a gasser. Gas burners typically have compression ratios in the neighborhood of 12:1.

Higher compression engines produce (not surprisingly) higher cylinder temperatures. That's why they don't need glow plugs in some examples. This is a good thing for efficiency, but a bad thing for NOX emissions. The smog police over at the EPA and in the Peoples Republik of Kalifornia have gotten so wound up about NOX that they have lost sight of the larger issues, like less total pollutants per mile traveled, and ummm, running out of oil.

So yeah, some of the older designs that had relatively high compression ratios could produce pretty good fuel economy.

Now, what we have not really stated is that if we could marry high compression ratios with sophisticated computer controls to max out efficiency, without being stupidly fixated on NOX, that might be interesting. But, they would also have to be designed to work pretty much trouble free and durable for 20 years, so you don't incur huge life cycle energy costs because you have to replace the car when the 12 year old obsolete computer can't get fixed at the dealer any more, now we could have a conversation.

So, to summarize, if your added (theoretical) 15% increase in efficiency due to sophisticated computer control takes 5 years off the useful life of the vehicle, you're a big time net energy loser, as the embodied energy cost on a vehicle is pretty high.


Gets a bit complicated, but fun nevertheless.

troy
 
Location: north america somewhere close to the midwest, or not | Registered: May 29, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
yeah I could never understand that reasoning.. Lets reduce emission buy burning more fuel. So now a truck that used to get 18MPG now gets 12MPG because of all the regen cycles.

Stupid EPA, but dont you worry, I have found my way around that Big Grin
 
Location: Pittsburgh Pa | Registered: March 04, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Air pollution from vehicles is an urban issue. Not all vehicles are driven into big polluted cities. One solution is for jurisdictions like Los Angeles county to tax vehicles based on how much pollution they emit. For instance a vehicle that emits very little pollution would pay a very low tax and vice-versa. A person would be free to buy a high MPG vehicle that happened to emit NOx and as long as they didn't drive into big cities, they wouldn't pay a pollution tax and could enjoy the benefits of higher MPG. Those who felt they had to drive into polluted cities could either drive a low pollution vehicle or pay the pollution tax.
I live in a sparsely settled area, I shouldn't have to pay a higher price for a vehicle that meets California urban pollution standards.

The embodied energy in a vehicle is significant. In some cases it's 1/3 of the average total energy a vehicle will use in it's lifetime. Keeping an older fuel efficient vehicle that happens to emit NOx running for 20+ years is much easier on the environment than one that emits less NOx but only lasts for 10 years on average, just as long as the older vehicle isn't operated in a polluted urban area.

quote:
The U.S. Department of Transportation reports that the average life span of a vehicle is just over 13 years, with a final mileage of 145,000 miles. Half of all registered vehicles are at least 8 years old, a third of them 10 years old or older. The average new-car buyer trades in the car at 55,000 miles, approximately every four years. That leaves an average life expectancy of 9 years and 90,000 miles for a 4-year-old used car. New-car leases accelerate the trade-in frequency to 3 years at 36,000 miles. The projected life expectancy of an average 3-year-old off-lease vehicle would be 10 years and 110,000 miles.

http://www.safecarguide.com/gui/new/neworused.htm



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post



member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by William Brown:
What are these issues I keep hearing about with common rail injection systems run on B100?

quote:
Ifthere isn't proofthat B100 causes problems in common rail systems then maybe a biodiesel forum shouldn't help perpetuate that urban myth? Maybe?

I don't think it's so much the common rail pressure that is being troublesome. Did you read the article linked in the very first post of this discussion?

Ken
 
Location: Sellersville, PA | Registered: May 17, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Yeah I read it, but I'ms aying negating the effects of that DPF system, your going have "issues" with the simple mechanics of the engine, let alone trying to get some EPA Pile-Of-F to work correctly.
 
Location: Pittsburgh Pa | Registered: March 04, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4 5  
 

Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Biodiesel  Hop To Forums  General Biodiesel Discussion    B100 use in post-injection modern diesels, leading to high engine wear

© Maui Green Energy 2000 - 2014