Plantoil/diesel conversion basics
Sign up Latest Topics Chat
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
danalinscott

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 934
Reply with quote  #1 

(Under construction)

A discussion developed on the Frybrid forum regarding how applicable the Beatty report is to real life VO fuel use and VO conversions. It quickly degraded to a non-technical discussion in which a civil professional discussion of issues could not proceed. This discussion was begun on this forum when the moderator on the Frybrid forum chose to begin changing the words in my posts. This makes continuing the discussion on that forum impossible since it indicates he is willing to win any debate in this issue at any cost.

However several interesting points were raised.

The one I found most interesting is using experiments which closely duplicate the conditions of VO conversions in real life to determine if the Beatty report IS applicable to real life situation despite its disclaimer that:

Quote:
"It is important to note here that no correlation is suggested
between the times required to initiate rapid oxidation reported in
this study and “real life” operating conditions nor is it felt that any
such relationship can be formulated. These test conditions rapidly
accelerate oxidation by agitation, which greatly increases the
exposure of the oil to oxygen."


It was proposed by Chris Goodwin that
Quote:
Set up:

4 mason jars, 2 with a 5/16" hole in the top, 2 with a barb screwed into the top and a double balloon attached to the barb. all 4 filled 2/3 with used soy oil. Into one vented jar and one balloon sealed jar place 2 shinny copper pennies.

Place all 4 jars in a pan of water and set to boil with a timer. Check regularly for color change.

Explanation:

The jars with the balloon have only the air in the jar with which to react, the balloon prevents expanding air from shattering the jar. The vented jars have a vent allowing 02 replenishment through diffusion.

We can establish the rate of the reaction in both open and closed vessels and the relative effect of copper on the speed of the reaction.


Another suggested:
Quote:
Not much copper in a copper penny...perhaps a piece of copper tubing? 


I agree.
In fact in order to make it as close to real life as possible I believe that the experiment should be configured thusly.

1.Two vessels should be used. One filled 2/3 full with fresh unused SVO that contains a copper pipe section and one  with the same amount of SVO that does not. Secondary tests should be run later to see if substituting used VO has any significant effects or if other metals or types of VO produce significantly different results. The vessels will be open to the air via a hole of size proportional to the cross section of a common fuel tanks vent divided by the air/fuel interface area.

2. A section of copper pipe should placed in the bottom of both. The exposed copper should be as close as possible in surface area to volume to that of an actual copper probe type heated fuel pickup in a VO tank.

3.The vessels of VO should be heated twice a day to 100°F over a period of 1 hour to simulate a twice a day drive of 120 miles total. Some initial testing will be required to determine how this can be most accurately and consistently accomplished. The vessels should  be allowed to cool to ambient temperature between heatings. 

4. Every 48 hours 2/3 of the VO in each vessel should be drained off and replaced with fresh VO to simulate normal use of fuel.


5. The experiment should be run for 2 weeks at which time viscosity of the two samples should be compared.

Are there any objections to the validity of this experiment in determining if copper in fact significantly accelerates polymerization of VO or not? Any suggestions that might make it more valid to REAL LIFE VO fuel use?








__________________
Dana danalinscott@yahoo.com
danalinscott

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 934
Reply with quote  #2 
Chris Goodwin responded:
Quote:

Control freak test:

"1.Two vessels should be used. One filled 2/3 full with fresh unused SVO that contains a copper pipe section and one with the same amount of SVO that does not. Secondary tests should be run later to see if substituting used VO has any significant effects or if other metals or types of VO produce significantly different results. The vessels will be open to the air via a hole of size proportional to the cross section of a common fuel tanks vent divided by the air/fuel interface area."

The vent size should be the same size as is normally found in fuel tanks if you are going to use a vessel the size of a fuel tank., the surface area only maters as it relates to the amount of fuel in the tank. I do not know of any manufacturers who use smaller vents for smaller tanks, do you? Fuel tank vents serve three functions, to allow air to enter when fuel is used preventing tank collapse or fuel starvation, to allow expanding air out of the tank to prevent over pressurizing the tank and to allow air to escape as the tank is being filled. This is why vents which are tapped into the fill neck do so at a higher point than the tip of the fuel fill nozzle, if they did not the air being forced from the tank would push fuel out of the filler all over your leg. Aux tanks often have a vent on the side and vent to atmosphere.

"2. A section of copper pipe should placed in the bottom of both. The exposed copper should be as close as possible in surface area to volume to that of an actual copper probe type heated fuel pickup in a VO tank."

And inserted from the top down as is common. Of course this is only if we are pandering to one design, perhaps the more common coil of copper in the tank bottom would more accurately demonstrate what most people who do not have a fetish for soldering plumbing pipe together would have.

"3.The vessels of VO should be heated twice a day to 100°F over a period of 1 hour to simulate a twice a day drive of 120 miles total. Some initial testing will be required to determine how this can be most accurately and consistently accomplished. The vessels should be allowed to cool to ambient temperature between heatings."

"4. Every 48 hours 2/3 of the VO in each vessel should be drained off and replaced with fresh VO to simulate normal use of fuel."

This would simulate the best possible scenario for using up the fuel before it can polymerize, which is why we recommend that people not install larger tanks than they will be using in a weeks time. This is not the scenario of most VO users.

A TDI at 40mpg with a 15 gallon tank used as a commuter driving 10 miles each way every day or 100 miles a week. It takes about 2 miles to come to temp each way and duiring that time no VO is being used so we have 80 miles on VO and will consume 2.2 gallons of oil in a weeks driving. 15% of the fuel in the tank.

My dodge gets about 18mpg, has a 26 gallon tank and is driven 5 miles each way to work, 50 miles a week , minus the two miles to warm up each trip= 30 miles a week on vo = 1.6 gallons a week. or 8% of the tank volume.


"5. The experiment should be run for 2 weeks at which time viscosity of the two samples should be compared."

A more accurate test would be vacuum on a filter or pressure between a pump and a filter. Of course the whole experiment ignores the possible fuel system effects.

No one has ever asserted that this problem exists in every system, but that it is taking place and if the fuel is not used up before the reaction can reach a problematic point, then you have a problem. I think if you used a "real world example" in a mild steel tank with a copper heat exchanger you would be shocked at the results.

I have an old greasecar tank in my shop and can rig it to be heated and build a cam device to rock it gently. The viscosity of the oil should be checked both before and after a test cycle using a zahn cup.
__________________
 

__________________
Dana danalinscott@yahoo.com
danalinscott

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 934
Reply with quote  #3 
"1.Two vessels should be used. One filled 2/3 full with fresh unused SVO that contains a copper pipe section and one with the same amount of SVO that does not. Secondary tests should be run later to see if substituting used VO has any significant effects or if other metals or types of VO produce significantly different results. The vessels will be open to the air via a hole of size proportional to the cross section of a common fuel tanks vent divided by the air/fuel interface area."


Quote:
The vent size should be the same size as is normally found in fuel tanks if you are going to use a vessel the size of a fuel tank., the surface area only maters as it relates to the amount of fuel in the tank. 
I agree that IF a vessel the size of a fuel tank were to be used the vent should be average size. But the test begin contemplated is  NOT for a tank size vessel. I suggest that a quart jar will make this experiment simpler to duplicate.  You are not clear here. Do you believe that the vent should not be proportional to the vessel size in this experiment or of the size common in full size tanks?
 
 
]"2. A section of copper pipe should placed in the bottom of both. The exposed copper should be as close as possible in surface area to volume to that of an actual copper probe type heated fuel pickup in a VO tank."

[QUOTE
And inserted from the top down as is common. Of course this is only if we are pandering to one design, perhaps the more common coil of copper in the tank bottom would more accurately demonstrate what most people who do not have a fetish for soldering plumbing pipe together would have.


Heating (copper) coils in tanks were demonstrated to not be an  optimal tank heater several years ago since they tend to overheat VO. Similarly the Probe type heated fuel pickups were demonstrated about the same time to be much more effective if mounted horizontally near the bottom of the tank rather than vertically.  I see no reason to use configurations believed to be obsolete in this test.

(Please note that Chris is posting his replies on the Frybrid forum and they are being pasted verbatim here. Normally participants would be required to act in a more professional manner. Chris is being given special consideration.)
 
 
"3.The vessels of VO should be heated twice a day to 100°F over a period of 1 hour to simulate a twice a day drive of 120 miles total. Some initial testing will be required to determine how this can be most accurately and consistently accomplished. The vessels should be allowed to cool to ambient temperature between heatings."

"4. Every 48 hours 2/3 of the VO in each vessel should be drained off and replaced with fresh VO to simulate normal use of fuel."

Quote:

This would simulate the best possible scenario for using up the fuel before it can polymerize, which is why we recommend that people not install larger tanks than they will be using in a weeks time. This is not the scenario of most VO users.

A TDI at 40mpg with a 15 gallon tank used as a commuter driving 10 miles each way every day or 100 miles a week. It takes about 2 miles to come to temp each way and duiring that time no VO is being used so we have 80 miles on VO and will consume 2.2 gallons of oil in a weeks driving. 15% of the fuel in the tank.

My dodge gets about 18mpg, has a 26 gallon tank and is driven 5 miles each way to work, 50 miles a week , minus the two miles to warm up each trip= 30 miles a week on vo = 1.6 gallons a week. or 8% of the tank volume.

 
Diesels are not well suited to short trips. I never recommend that individuals convert or even use a diesel car for such short trips. The payback period on a conversion used for such short trips is too long to justify it economically.  I don't see the point of modeling the test on a very unlikely use of a VO conversion. Of course once the basic testing procedure is agreed upon secondary tests using this scenario can easily be accomplished.

"5. The experiment should be run for 2 weeks at which time viscosity of the two samples should be compared."

Quote:
A more accurate test would be vacuum on a filter or pressure between a pump and a filter. Of course the whole experiment ignores the possible fuel system effects.

No one has ever asserted that this problem exists in every system, but that it is taking place and if the fuel is not used up before the reaction can reach a problematic point, then you have a problem. I think if you used a "real world example" in a mild steel tank with a copper heat exchanger you would be shocked at the results.


I have an old greasecar tank in my shop and can rig it to be heated and build a cam device to rock it gently. The viscosity of the oil should be checked both before and after a test cycle using a zahn cup.


Please elaborate on why you believe the below to be true?
A more accurate test would be vacuum on a filter or pressure between a pump and a filter.
 
I believe that there are methods to determine viscosity that are more accurate than a zahn cup...especially if polymerization does occur. A zahn cup might be subject to plugging of the drain hole and this would create significant errors.
 
Of course the whole experiment ignores the possible fuel system effects. Yes..it does since all that is being tested is on aspect of VO polymerization at this time.

No one has ever asserted that this problem exists in every system,

 
No but I believe that although the possibility of polymerization exists in REAL LIFE it is very rare ..seldom a serious problem ..and is being blown out of proportion in order to market product by unnecessarily spreading fear that is it more common and serious than it is. A series of tests should help determine if this is the case or not.
 
Remember ..the author of the Beatty report clearly states that:
Quote:
"It is important to note here that no correlation is suggested
between the times required to initiate rapid oxidation reported in
this study and “real life” operating conditions nor is it felt that any
such relationship can be formulated. These test conditions rapidly
accelerate oxidation by agitation, which greatly increases the
exposure of the oil to oxygen."  




__________________
Dana danalinscott@yahoo.com
danalinscott

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 934
Reply with quote  #4 
At this point the Frybrid "moderator" appears to not want to discuss this anymore choosing instead to threaten me in private messages and attack the use of copper in his public ones. 

__________________
Dana danalinscott@yahoo.com
danalinscott

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 934
Reply with quote  #5 

After years of denial Chris FINALLY admits...
Quote:
It is important to remember that while materials like aluminum do not allow polymers to bond to them, they will not prevent polymerization. You can fill a stainless or aluminum fitting with polymers just as easily as a steel or brass fitting, the only difference is tht the polymers will not actually be stuck to the metal.
 

11-30-2010, 08:44 AM
HERE

__________________
Dana danalinscott@yahoo.com
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!

This forum is brought to you by A proud sponsor of Invest in the future.