by using biofuel?

I've heard of 30% increase before.

What have you experienced?

I get the same mileage on average with both my dodge truck on V100, and mercedes on V80/D20.

oh yeah... I think if you do run WVO you might not see the fuel economy increase.

I guess I was talking more about the waste crankcase oil.

I know that my dad has seen a 30% increase in his experiments so far.

What exactly is your dad burning? I never tried biodiesel, ( not sold at pumps around here.) But the buz on net indicates it has less btu & thus gets less milage than dino.

quote:

Originally posted by bork:
What exactly is your dad burning? I never tried biodiesel, ( not sold at pumps around here.) But the buz on net indicates it has less btu & thus gets less milage than dino.

We are both experimenting with solvent thinned biofuel.

80% waste oil (crank case mostly) that is filtered through 5 stages of filters (down to 1 micron)... and 20% diesel. The military has been doing this since the 1940's.

We mix the blend up (with our new rig, available soon), and we took a road trip to see what it would do. We drove round trip over 350 miles. We did the stats. He incresed his mileage 30% from running regular diesel that buy at the pump. His horsepower increased as well (Higher BTU's).

So far, so good...

quote:

We are both experimenting with solvent thinned biofuel.

80% waste crankcase oil that is filtered through 5 stages of filters... and 20% diesel.

How in the world can this be called biofuel ???

for what it's worth... me and my dad are NOT trying the methanol/lye biodiesel method.

Too many steps involved, and we don't much care for dealing with the harmful chemicals.

Making it the way that we do, is MUCH, MUCH easier.

quote:

Originally posted by john galt:

quote:

We are both experimenting with solvent thinned biofuel.

80% waste crankcase oil that is filtered through 5 stages of filters... and 20% diesel.

How in the world can this be called biofuel ???

OK, what is it called then????

What you are doing with waste crankcase oil and diesel IS NOT biofuel by any stretch of the word.
It's waste petroleum fuel.

quote:

Originally posted by john galt:

quote:

We are both experimenting with solvent thinned biofuel.

80% waste crankcase oil that is filtered through 5 stages of filters... and 20% diesel.

How in the world can this be called biofuel ???

I remember vividly asking people in this forum what this method is called... and someone said it was solvent thinned biofuel.

I am ever so curious to hear this one...

I'll even look up the archives... hold on.

It won't make any difference.
crankcase oil is NOT biofuel
what part of that isn't understood?

Biofuel (if cultivated, then also called agrofuel) is a basic abbreviation of biorganic fuel. This is a scientific name for any plant or animal substance that can burn (combustible (fuel) organism (organic) of two types (bi-), plant and animal).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel

quote:

Originally posted by john galt:
It won't make any difference.
crankcase oil is NOT biofuel
what part of that isn't understood?

Biofuel (if cultivated, then also called agrofuel) is a basic abbreviation of biorganic fuel. This is a scientific name for any plant or animal substance that can burn (combustible (fuel) organism (organic) of two types (bi-), plant and animal).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel

OK... oil that comes from the ground is not organic????

WTF????

quote:

Originally posted by AltJPC30:

quote:

Originally posted by john galt:
It won't make any difference.
crankcase oil is NOT biofuel
what part of that isn't understood?

Biofuel (if cultivated, then also called agrofuel) is a basic abbreviation of biorganic fuel. This is a scientific name for any plant or animal substance that can burn (combustible (fuel) organism (organic) of two types (bi-), plant and animal).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel

OK... oil that comes from the ground is not organic????

WTF????

But the frankenfood waste oil from your local McDonalds (GMO mind you) IS?!?!?

You have some explaining to do...

quote:

Originally posted by AltJPC30:

quote:

Originally posted by AltJPC30:

quote:

Originally posted by john galt:
It won't make any difference.
crankcase oil is NOT biofuel
what part of that isn't understood?

Biofuel (if cultivated, then also called agrofuel) is a basic abbreviation of biorganic fuel. This is a scientific name for any plant or animal substance that can burn (combustible (fuel) organism (organic) of two types (bi-), plant and animal).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel

OK... oil that comes from the ground is not organic????

WTF????

But the frankenfood waste oil from your local McDonalds (GMO mind you) IS?!?!?

You have some explaining to do...

Oh yeah, and MAJOR pesticides (chemical and organic) have been sprayed on it as well... since the waste oil was cooking the GMO crops and all.

That isn't even the point...

We are making processors that can be used for making biofuel. We are around many farmers that can press their own canola, sunflowers, safflowers, camelina, soybean and other various oil-based crops...

...Or the waste oil method as well.

Either way, it is a great alternative to buying at the pump.

Also from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel :

Bioenergy from waste
Using waste biomass to produce energy can reduce the use of fossil fuels, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce pollution and waste management problems. A recent publication by the European Union highlighted the potential for waste-derived bioenergy to contribute to the reduction of global warming. The report concluded that 19 million tons of oil equivalent is available from biomass by 2020, 46% from bio-wastes: municipal solid waste (MSW), agricultural residues, farm waste and other biodegradable waste streams.[7][8]

Landfill sites generate gases as the waste buried in them undergoes anaerobic digestion. These gases are known collectively as landfill gas. This can be burned and is considered a source of renewable energy, even though landfill disposal are often non-sustainable. [Landfill gas (LFG)] can be burned either directly for heat or to generate electricity for public consumption. Landfill gas contains approximately 50 percent methane, the same gas that is found in natural gas.[citation needed]

If landfill gas is not harvested, it escapes into the atmosphere: this is not desirable because methane is a greenhouse gas, with more global warming potential than carbon dioxide.[9][10] Over a time span of 100 years, methane has a global warming potential of 23 relative to CO2.[9] Therefore, during this time, one ton of methane produces the same greenhouse gas (GHG) effect as 23 tons of CO2.[citation needed] When methane burns the formula is CH4 + 2O2 = CO2 + 2H2O So by harvesting and burning landfill gas, its global warming potential is reduced a factor of 23, in addition to providing energy for heat and power.

Frank Keppler and Thomas Rockmann discovered that living plants also produce methane CH4.[11] The amount of methane produced by living plants is 10 to 100 times greater than that produced by dead plants (in an aerobic environment)[citation needed] but does not increase global warming because of the carbon cycle.[citation needed]

Anaerobic digestion can be used as a distinct waste management strategy to reduce the amount of waste sent to landfill and generate methane, or biogas. Any form of biomass can be used in anaerobic digestion and will break down to produce methane, which can be harvested and burned to generate heat, power or to power certain automotive vehicles.

A 3 MW landfill power plant would power 1,900 homes.[citation needed] It would eliminate 6,000 tons per year of methane from getting into the environment.[citation needed] It would eliminate 18,000 tons per year of CO2 from fossil fuel replacement.[citation needed] This is the same as removing 25,000 cars from the road,[citation needed] or planting 36,000 acres (146 km²) of forest,[citation needed] or not using 305,000 barrels of oil per year.[citation needed]

quote:

Originally posted by john galt:

quote:

We are both experimenting with solvent thinned biofuel.

80% waste crankcase oil that is filtered through 5 stages of filters... and 20% diesel.

How in the world can this be called biofuel ???

yeah, it's probably a stretch but ya know, there are heaps of terminology's in this game that aren't entirely accurate but what's the point of arguing about them?

To me, people who use like 20% WVO in 80% Fossil fuel Diesel and then call that Biofuel or say they are veg fuel users is at least just as big a stretch. To me, you aren't really using a bio fuel or Veg until the amount of fuel you are using has a higher concentration of veg oil than fossil fuel. The other way round, your still using fossil fuel just with an additive.
To call that Biofuel is probably just spin doctoring the facts so people can be seen to have a place on the Bio fuels Bandwagon.

AltJPC30,
You may want to quote posts from certain people you are replying to. Some posts have a habit of disappearing particularly when some people start loosing the arguments they started and the other party is making good sense. Quoting these posts helps keep the responses relevant and the other persons comments preserved for all to see should these posts mysteriously disappear as is prone to happen with fair regularity for some.

Good luck with your recycled fuel. It sounds innovative and just like using Veg oil, seems to fit the goals of a biofuel by reducing the amount of Fossil fuel consumed therefore making good use of an otherwise "waste" resource and in so doing, reducing the need for foreign fuel imports and all that other patriotic feel good stuff so often championed.

I went from 34 hwy @ 65 mph on diesel to,34 hwy@ 80 mph on wvo.My engine runs better,my oil temp at injectors 220 degrees.Running homemade 2 tank setup.

I think the argument is that you are still using fossil fuels which in turn puts of carbon dioxide causing the greenhouse effect. But on the other hand you are re-using waste oil that who knows what would happen to it if you weren't burning it. I think most people think of biofuel as clean burning and good for the environment in that respect instead of being good for the environment by recycling the oil. Either way it is great you are doing it in my opinion. In my case I am going to burn WVO and knowing this maybe even recycle some crankase oil, anything to save at the pump!
Rusty

Improved fuel economy with WVO/gasoline (petrol) blends, Testimonials

chipmonster
http://biodiesel.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/97510148...711016562#9711016562

posted on 17-6-2008 at 11:32 AM
mpg increase with petrol
I normally get 50 - 55 mpg to the gallon on the trip computer on my 1999 Passat using DINO. Since using BD (100 %) this dropped to about 42 - 45 mpg.

However, I had about half a tank of BD left in the tank. I put in about a litre of petrol into the tank over a week ago.

Since then, the MPG has gone back up to 53 -55 mpg to the gallon with BD, very pleased with the result.

I am thinking of putting petrol in the tank every few tanks, is this recommended?

Tim c cook
Posted 23 August 2008 11:54 PM
RUG in my cold blends -- I can't say I have seen any differance in how the blends run with or without the RUG, no higher exhaust temps, no difference in smoke, no loss of milage or power, etc. I use it because it is a cheaper and thinner solvent than diesel or kerosine so I can run a bit higher percentage of veg in the blend and still have everything thin enough to flow through the unheated fuel system.

John Galt
Location: Possum Lake, Northern Canukland
PostPosted: Sat May 31, 2008 7:34 pm
The common solvents available for mixing with VO are
(a) D2
(b) D1/KErosene/JetA/Stove Oil
(c) RUG/NAptha/JetB
in order of increasing volatility.

I suspect that a mix of VO with a percent of type (b) and a percent of type (c) solvent will come close to the burn characteristics of D2 type (a). The specific percents will vary with vehicle fuel systems, different operating temperatures and different types of VO.

I'm experimenting with mixes of D2+VO+jetB+D1 in an '89 3.4L TDI.

curently using 60% D2 20%VO 10%D1 10%JB
operating temperature above freezing 5°C to 25°C

Good success so far over 2 years 30k with various VO mixes, no smoke on cold start, minimum smoke on heavy acceleration [less than with D2], no noticeable loss of power or MPG, emissions tests very clean.
http://www.burnveg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=267

David
Location: Sydney Australia
PostPosted: Sat May 31, 2008 8:10 pm
Blending with RUG is far from all bad.
Having used RUG and many other blends (pretty much all I could get my hands on) I have to say it may not be the optimal blending agent engine wise but for many vehicles, it is certainly a very viable blending agent and has several things in its favour.

RUG is easier to get that some other blending agents like Kero, B100 or turps in many places.

It is the thinnest of the blending agents so although the percentage you can use is limited, its thinning power is the best.

RUG is cheaper here in OZ than anything else you can blend with. I believe Diesel may be cheaper in many places but thanks to taxes, here it is about 15C/L more exy than unleaded ATM.

I have found RUG to be very effective in helping with cold weather starts. When using any of the other blending agents, I have found the addition of 5% RUG makes starting better in my old car.

In my own tests, RUG is the most effective blending agent at lowering the gel point of WVO and as a friend has recently tested and found, it also lowers the gel point of Bio very effectively as well. As mentioned above, the percentages it can be used at vary with a number of factors but having done testing on my own vehicle and discovering what works best, I would use it at with complete and utter confidence.

I have found RUG to work very well as a blending agent and honestly think that there is a lot of ill founded misinformation about it that has become almost " Folk law" these days.
http://www.burnveg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=267

td2dv
PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:57 am
Post subject: Single Tank Systems and Blending
My hand operated transfer pump moves 1 us gallon per 10 revolutions. I get 30 mpg on D2 and 32 on WVO/10% rug. I chose RUG for blending because of it's availability and price. D2 may work as well but I don't think it thins as much. I filter cold to trap the thick stuff. The RUG dissolves the rest. I'm curious how cold this will work. Here is my viscosity test, again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4hgvSe3c2I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiGdk2VSglk&NR=1
The injection pump determines timing. I think the RUG helps propel the flame front and increases the efficiency of the combustion event. In addition to my gas milage improving my operating temperature went up to the extent I had to take out the winter thermostat (88ºc) and put the summer one (80ºc) back in.
_________________
Benz 240-D
Minneapolis
WVO/RUG (10%) 5 mo/yr
http://www.burnveg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=267&postda...storder=asc&start=15


John Galt
Location: Possum Lake, Northern Canukland
PostPosted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:49 pm
There are no dynos within hundreds of miles from here. The standard govt emissions test is at idle and at cruise RPM, at no load of course without a dyno. When my truck was tested the techs commented that the HC emissions were extremely low at 9ppm and the 1% opacity was the lowest of any diesel truck they tested. The HC emissions were comparable to new gasoline cars tested and that the only other diesel vehicles that tested that low were new VW TDIs. As compared with other trucks with the same engine, mine is getting exceptionally good MPG.
My fuel blend of clear clean dry VO plus naphtha and kerosene gives exceptionally clean cold starts especially in very cold conditions, as well the amount of smoke from the exhaust on a long climbing hill under load is significantly reduced as compared with 100% diesel, to the point of being barely discernible. It ain't broke and I'm not about to tinker with it just because someone on an internet forum thinks that's a good idea.
I don't personally care if others use gasoline or naphtha in their blends or not. I know it makes a significant improvement in the objectionable exhaust emissions from my truck, with no decrease in MPG, and that's all I expect from a fuel. If others find this information useful good for them. I'm not here to change anyone's preconceived notions of how they choose to view reality. I couldn't care less.
http://www.burnveg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=505&start=30

David
Location: Sydney Australia
New postPosted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 4:04 am
I am convinced in the non scientific tests I have done that I get better power and performance when adding a small percentage of RUG to WVO than on WVO alone.
http://www.burnveg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=510&start=15