DCS

In order to achieve ~300 degree F inside the line, you believe i have my amps incorrect? Since i could have misread the meter, i will delete "amps" from the post. I am more interested in the heat than the amps required (within reason).

I powered-up SS wire with 12V to test heat output at various lengths? I also tested temps inside the line with a temp sensor before installation to truck.

Have you tested SS wire for heat? How long do you think an under hood fuel line heated to ~300 degree F must be ?

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

DCS

I am interested in your reply, have you experimented with stainless steel wire connected to 12v for heat?

DCS ?

Hello David,

No, I haven't experimented with these heaters at all simply for the reason I see no reason why they would work to a practical level.

I also don't believe that you couldn't get 300o temps out of 4 amps, the question is how long it would take to get the oil up to that temp. I can absoloutley guarantee you that you won't do that temp rise with those (or probably 10 times more) amps on a flow of oil sufficient to practically run a vehicle engine.

If you get some SS wire and feed it a shipload of amps, probably 50 to 100 or more, that equates to roughly 500 to 1000W. No doubt in my mind that will provide significant heat if you can effectively transfer it to the oil. I did work out what the actual energy required to raise the flow of 1L of oil per minute to 80oC was some time back. I forget the numbers now but myself and someone else here also crunched them separately and independently and both go numbers that showed it was so far away from being a practical and realistic possibility for our use it wasn't near worth thinking about.

Of course the problem with that is I can't imagine any vehicles electrical system handling that sort of load without major upgrade, maybe even a second alternator just to run the heater.
That is not the sort of energy people are putting into these things. They are citing much lower electrical consumption and then claiming they can warm the oil to temps that defy the laws of Physics. Electrical fluid heating is a very basic and well established engineering concept. There are no mystery's about it and its a straight forward thing rather than some black art.

It's a relatively straight forward equation. So much electrical energy in equals so much heat out which is able to raise a given amount of liquid a certain temperature in a certain time. That is how BTUS are calculated. I Forget the actual specification of the formula in relation to weight and volume but the calculation of BTU's is the amount of energy required to raise the temp of 1 pound of water 1o in one minute.
It's that cut and dried.
The problem is that people are feeding in insufficient electrical energy to start with, but then thinking they are getting an impossible temp rise in their oil.

Electrical heating will of course work, it's just completely impractical to get the temps needed from the electrical capacity of an average vehicle.

There is also a thread somewhere about the energy/ heat output of electrical Heating. I think it was last year but wouldn't even know now what terms to search under for it. Maybe someone with a better memory/ search skills than I can link to it.

As I recall, someone crunched the numbers with the mathematical formulas and properly worked out just how ineffective this was using the applicable physics involved.

You have only to think about how much energy gets poured into a half full kettle of water to even warm it from typical room temp to realize how ineffective any electric fuel heater is going to be at raising the temperature of the atomized fuel in a diesel engine cylinder without signifigant electrical generation/storage upgrades to a conventional diesel engine. The other thing fuel heating proponents (into a cold engine) forget, is that the metal of a cold engine is a huge heat sink and will instantaneously cool even very hot fuel being injected into a diesel cylinder as it passes the injectors for those important first few revolutions of a firing engine. The heat generated by even the very first firing of the cylinder will heat the outer half millimetre of the walls of that cylinder instantaneously also. So the trick is to get the cylinder (ie the engine) firing as quickly after the starter commences cranking it. Even one unfired cycle of that cylinder will deposit considerable amounts of unburnt fuel on the ring land/ cylinder wall area. That unburnt (now liquid, not an atomized spray) fuel will either burn incompletely when the engine finally does start and the carbon byproducts of that incomplete combustion will exit the tailpipe as smoke , or 'merely' start to gum up your cylinder/injector. And remember we're not even considering the unburnt fuel that blows by the rings and makes it into the lubrication system.

So the trick with any bio fuel is to get the engine started with as little cranking as possible. That said, I've never had any trouble starting my toyota ute (2l) engine on my blend (15% stale ULP/85%WVO) simply by cycling the glowplugs three times before I crank the cold engine. If the air (in the cylinder is hot (and remember, it is a damn sight hotter once the piston has compressed it), and the fuel is well atomized. Once the engine's warm my engine starts first time with just the one glow plug 'firing' incorporated in any ignition attempt. I'll probably eventually have to spend more on glow plug replacements, but what the heck.

DCS and others have mentioned before that their blending results are better when a FPHE is used. I personally think that is a recipe for vapour lock. 15%ULP/85%WVO lowers the viscosity of the resulting blend to just above dino anyway. So why use a FPHE? Stale ULP is free. But it's also very volatile, and heating it up is just asking for vapour trouble. Once it's inside the injector pump and beyond, it's at a humungous pressure anyway so it really doesn't matter how hot it is. WVO is free too. So what am I missing? John Galt's cold upflow filtering dries WVO perfectly without any disposables. I put the resulting oil once through a (Frantz type) bypass filter setup as well, which takes out any nano fraction of water remaining (not to mention any remaining particulates).

Remember, one of the reasons WVO users heat their fuel system is to reduce the load on their fuel filter. But if you've reduced the viscosity anyway by blending, you don't need to heat it.

But the take home message should be, if your diesel engine doesn't start immediately, and run well, on whatever blend you are using, either your specific engine is unsuitable for that (or possibly any) blend, or you're doing something wrong.
cheers,
Stuart.

quote:

Originally posted by Stuart:
DCS and others have mentioned before that their blending results are better when a FPHE is used. I personally think that is a recipe for vapour lock.

2.5+ years of experience with one car and another 4 months with another does not bear that theroy out at all. As John says, Veg fuels are not for idiots. If one takes the time to educate themselves about using ULP blends and adjusts them to the prevailing conditions and requirements of their Vehicle, Vapor lock is not a problem with heated blends.

Very early on in my Veg endeavors I did experience some problems with vapor lock on an exceptional hot day when using about 4 times more RUG than I should have been but since I cut the RUG back to a more suitable blend, I have not had a problem at all.

quote:

15%ULP/85%WVO lowers the viscosity of the resulting blend to just above dino anyway. So why use a FPHE? Stale ULP is free. But it's also very volatile, and heating it up is just asking for vapour trouble.

Remember, one of the reasons WVO users heat their fuel system is to reduce the load on their fuel filter. But if you've reduced the viscosity anyway by blending, you don't need to heat it.

I think you are way out on your statement of 15% ULP bring the viscosity even near that of Dino. If memory serves, it would be at least 4 times greater in viscosity. If you have any links to any creditable evidence of reports to support your statement, I would be genuinely interested to see and learn from it.

In your blend, 85% of the fuel is SVO. I don't think there is any dispute as to the need much less benefits of heating WVO for use in an engine so heating the blend and the 85% oil content makes perfect sense to me. Thinned by solvent or not, you can't have your oil TOO thin so what is the problem with heating as long as you don't get vapor lock??

I'm sure some people have experienced Vapor lock but it is irresponsible in this game to believe or state certain things are all encompassing to every situation without clear evidence to support that.

quote:

I put the resulting oil once through a (Frantz type) bypass filter setup as well, which takes out any nano fraction of water remaining (not to mention any remaining particulates).

Is this a toilet paper type filter or something else? I am only aware of the aqua block filter being touted to (arguably) remove water. Could you elaborate on the type of filter you are using to remove water?

DCS, I've never heated my blend, so I defer to your experience. However, I'm wondering how such a volatile solvent as ULP could avoid forming bubbles at ambient pressure (ie before the IP) if the fuel is heated to 80deg C. I'm not disputing you. But I am curious what's going on at a molecular level.

Yes I do mean a toilet paper type filter to get the remaining water out. Cellulose is an excellent water scavenger. That's why the biodiesel makers are having such success using wood shavings as a polisher. Frantz's published independent testing has found that a TP roll of the size and density of the type used in their bypass filters will absorb 200gms of water.
cheers,
Stuart

One of the major constituents of soap is water, John. That's why if you use perfectly dry oil to make Bio, you don't get soap. No water, no soap, regardless of how high the ffa's are.

Also, atmospheric pressure at sea level is about 14. No lift pump used with diesel engines delivers more than about 10. They should be delivering fuel to the IP at between 5 and 7 psi (depending on the engine). That's still plenty low enough to bubble out any volatile solvent, I would have thought.

Until I get the test references from Frantz, you'll have to make do with:

this
cheers,
Stuart

quote:

Originally posted by Stuart:
No lift pump used with diesel engines delivers more than about 10. They should be delivering fuel to the IP at between 5 and 7 psi (depending on the engine).

Untrue, my Dodge Cummins lift pump produces between 20-35psi at all times, and I have a guage on it which is very handy.

Many Ford powerstroke lift pumps produce >50psi.

Intriguing. Are these lift pumps original equipment or aftermarket? The diesel mechanics I have spoken to so far have told me that if an IP is designed to work without a lift pump then an accessory pump fitted should not exceed 10psi. Is this information wrong? It certainly would change the vapour lock situation if a stronger lift pump could be fitted.

John, are you saying that a pressure gauge that is reading 7psi is actually experiencing 21 ? In other words 7 plus 14?

Cheers,
Stuart

quote:

Originally posted by Stuart:
However, I'm wondering how such a volatile solvent as ULP could avoid forming bubbles at ambient pressure (ie before the IP) if the fuel is heated to 80deg C.

Petrol normally boils at about 100 at atmospheric. It may be less at certain negative pressures before the lift pumps and indeed boil. I also wonder if once under pressure on the other side of the pump the majority dosen't re condense? Many fuel systems are looped and have air traps built in so the fuel delivered to the IP is as air free as possible so perhaps it is just a matter of limiting the boiling to a manageable level the fuel system can cope with.
The other thing to bear in mind is that you regulate the amount of ULP according to temp. I would suggest this has some effect on the ULP boiling out at higher temps where it is OK at lower ones.

I don't really have a clue what goes on a the molecular level but I know what works and what dosen't and I'm happy enough with that.
I can only answer your question with suggestions rather that certain knowledge but others are bound to know better than me.

quote:

Yes I do mean a toilet paper type filter to get the remaining water out. Cellulose is an excellent water scavenger. That's why the biodiesel makers are having such success using wood shavings as a polisher. Frantz's published independent testing has found that a TP roll of the size and density of the type used in their bypass filters will absorb 200gms of water.

I also was thinking of the paper being oil saturated and can't see how it would work like that. Is the testing for the absorption of water done on petrol or Diesel? I can't see much difference really but there may be.
If I get a bit of paper towel or toilet tissue and pour oil or bio on it and then put water on it, the water runs off. IT works the other as well.
I think the paper will absorb whatever gets there first and one would hope there is a lot more fuel than water present in this application.

quote:

Originally posted by Stuart:
Intriguing. Are these lift pumps original equipment or aftermarket?

Original.

quote:

The diesel mechanics I have spoken to so far have told me that if an IP is designed to work without a lift pump then an accessory pump fitted should not exceed 10psi. Is this information wrong?

Most IPs are designed to be used with a lift pump.

Good thread. Most enlightening. My 300SD seems to be liking the blend. Starts fine, runs fine. I'll be adding a FPHE at summers end.
33% petrodiesel, 66% veg (upflow settled), powerservice diesel kleen cetane boost & turpentine.