Vegetable Oil SVO WVO waste cooking oil as biofuel

[240Volvo]

John, it is precisely because I do not wish this (or any other) discussion on this forum to be about personal issues that I made the statements that I have. I am done with this nonsense and this person.

[mixer]

Thankyou SunWizard, for clearly demonstrating that the forum of burnveg.com is not a place where gasoline blending with vegetable oil will receive honest and fair treatment, because your “many scientifically documented sites” to show how my claims are wrong, was only one overly emotional and irresponsible warning from a single diesel engine manufacturer, which does not at all equal the depth of my research and bibliography on the subject.

I am not obsessing or "filibustering" or fear mongering over the same argument, I (and 4 others) are simply responding to your claims that were so wrong and dangerous they need to be responded to. Its no wonder you have been banned at so many forums, and if you keep up like this (personal attacks on me, a moderator, and others) you will be banned here. I am not even responding to your personal attacks other than giving you this warning.

I linked many scientifically documented sites to show how your claims were wrong. I am glad you now admit that a RUG blend has the same fire and explosion hazard as RUG itself. The reason it kept going was you kept making false and potentially dangerous claims.

Now, I will agree that safety was never an emphasis of mine, and it may have been an oversight; however, I fail to see how safety issues are my responsibility over anyone else here.

Now, 240Volvo’s response to my last post is a complete surprise to me, because I find nothing in what I wrote that could be perceived as offensive, and was certainly not intended to be. In it I responded to his concern about safety. Perhaps he was offended by my response to his methods and procedures, where I made recommendations of safer procedures than he himself is practicing, but I did so in a non-abusive manor, although I could see where my emphasis, might have been misinterpreted.

(Personal attacks and repeated whining deleted by moderator.)

[SunWizard]

your “many scientifically documented sites” to show how my claims are wrong, was only one overly emotional and irresponsible warning from a single diesel engine manufacturer, which does not at all equal the depth of my research and bibliography on the subject.

Read this thread again, here are the sites that I linked that you must have missed, I see nothing emotional about any of them, all showing clearly that your claims were wrong:
http://www.cummins.dk/fileadmin/dokumenter/Bulletins_Litteratur/Fuels_for_Cummins_Engines.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_limit
http://www.ameriburn.org/Preven/2001Prevention/Educator's%20Guide.pdf

Since you still don't acknowledge the problems with your personal attacks, and keep posting possibly dangerous false information, inability to carry on a discussion, claiming people said things they didn't, and you appear to want to keep this going, moderation is my only last resort. This is too bad since we have never had to ban anyone yet. I am a blender myself and we have been having very good discussions about it until the last few days since you joined. Mixer is now banned.

[leftcoastjeff]

Thank you Mr. Wizard.

Fire is no joke, RUG is very flammable.

Thanks again,

LCjeff

[240Volvo]

Thank you, SW. Too bad. Fellow needs help.

[zoochy]

This is too bad since we have never had to ban anyone yet. I am a blender myself and we have been having very good discussions about it until the last few days since you joined. Mixer is now banned.

I am sure he will wear that as a badge of honour.

[Burbarian]

Getting back to the original topic.

Found this interesting snippet on section 2-19 'Gasoline in the fuel system' in the Haynes Diesel Engine Repair Manual for General Motors and Ford Light Trucks, Vans, Passenger Cars (GM 5.7, 6.2, 6.5 / Ford 6.9,7.3):

"If gasoline has been accidentally pumped into the fuel tank, it won't hurt the fuel system or the engine, but the engine won't run either."

"Gasoline in the fuel in small amounts - from 0 to 30 percent - isn't noticeable. At higher ratios, the engine will make a knocking noise, which will get louder as the amount of gasoline goes up. Gasoline in any amount, however, will make the engine harder to start when it's hot. In the summertime, hot starting can be a big problem."

Gasoline is never actually recommended, of course. Still, the way it was worded appears rather 'interesting'.

[Zulu]

Getting back to the original topic.

"Gasoline in the fuel in small amounts - from 0 to 30 percent - isn't noticeable....

Wow, I guess they must mean a big amount is 60%... not noticeable, that is funny....

[SunWizard]

RUG lowers the cetane of a blend compared to using D2 in your blend. Low cetane causes symptoms such as poor fuel economy, excessive smoke and engine noise, excessive emissions, misfiring, rough running and hard starting. These symptoms are usually worse or more noticeable in colder weather. VO has a very low cetane (38 for most VO) to begin with, its interesting that all those symptoms commonly listed are the very things you get if you have too high% VO in your blend.

The figure that matters for diesel engines is the auto-ignition temp, where lower is better: 410F = diesel. RUG is 536F. VO is 690F. This temp is the main thing that affects cetane.

Auto-ignition temps:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuels ... d_171.html
Which shows that almost all of the additives used by blenders will raise the auto-ignition temps. This means lower cetane, lower MPG and it can also make your timing off by being retarded.

The combustion quality and timing in a diesel depends mainly on cetane. As long as you have your viscosity thin enough that you get proper atomization, which is a separate discussion here:
http://www.burnveg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=231

Higher RPM engines need higher cetane. VW recommends 45 cetane minimum, and 49 for the newer PD engines. Europe laws mandate much higher cetane (46) than US laws (38.) Lower RPM longer stroke engines like my Cummins handle lower cetanes better, they recommend 40 minimum at >32F, and 45 at <32F. This is the main way that its engine dependent.

[240Volvo]

If the auto-ignition temp of RUG is lower than VO, then it would seem that RUG would thereby raise the cetane of VO in a blend. Hmm. Is my logic really messed up?

[SunWizard]

You are right, my point is it lowers cetane compared to if you used D2 in your blend. This is the testing I have done, comparing blends like V80/D20 to V80/RUG 20, etc. with respect to cold starts and power and MPG. I will edit the above post to make that clearer.

[coachgeo]

If the auto-ignition temp of RUG is lower than VO, then it would seem that RUG would thereby raise the cetane of VO in a blend. Hmm. Is my logic really messed up?

That is what Kugel sumized a good 4 or so years ago.

Have been bringing up that point for years since but those who cant see past the mathmatics of Cetane Octane will allways squash the concept. They sound like the very people whom they complain about for discounting WVO fuel as foolish.

Time with RUG blenders will tell I guess.