Blending on the fly - components and theory

Single Tank WVO systems and blending SVO WVO to thin it.

Moderators: SunWizard, coachgeo

Postby SunWizard » Sat Jan 03, 2009 3:04 pm

I still don't get the reason for wanting to blend on the fly, here is the reasons I see between the 2 common methods:

Single tank:
costs less up front.
less complexity, less operator error.
more risk of engine damage from cold starting on VO.
only low %VO works in cold <20F.

2 tank:
costs less in the long run (no blend fuel cost).
less risk of engine damage from cold starting on VO.
harder to operate
works on V100 in any climate.

on-the-fly versus 2 tank:
costs more (blend fuel cost)
same to operate, startup and purge on different fuel needed.
more complex design to meter the 2 fuels.

Are you saying the advantage you are going for is to use a V50 or other blend for operation for those 30 seconds between warm and full temp operation? Why not go to V100 when full temp? If we understand the goal we can help better.

I don't see any way to make it less complex or cost less than a simple 2 tank, which is the main reason to blend.
YVORMV - Your veg. oil results may vary.
95 Dodge Cummins 4x4 SVO WVO conversion.
81 Mercedes 300D- stock and happy on V80/D20 blend.
Low fossil net zero house- 100% solar power and heat.
SunWizard
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:53 pm
Location: N. Colorado

Postby John Galt » Sat Jan 03, 2009 3:38 pm

coachgeo wrote:from the review of the material I read most whom had vapor issues had a OEM original fuel system and/or simular (pump in engine bay) thusly moving fuel via vaccum from tank to pump. Some had added heat, some didn't. It was not well noted if added heat was on the vaccume side or not. Typically though in the WVO world is it not the norm to have heat added on the vaccume side more so than the pressure side?... particularly priot to FPHE coming into use.

That is correct. Most, if not all, fuel vaporization problems have occurred with heated fuel under negative pressure.
Heating only the pressurized fuel blend isn't a problem. It doesn't need heating till the filter and IP. Negative pressure lines remain cold.
John Galt
 
Posts: 526
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Coldest North America

Postby coachgeo » Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:16 pm

SunWizard wrote:...I don't see any way to make it less complex or cost less than a simple 2 tank, which is the main reason to blend.
You may be correct... but your assuming. The point of this thread is to hash out parts and possibilites. right now your stuck on a mind set and thusly you cant move forward from there.

Climb out of that box, who knows whats out there. You've done it before.
Life; It's all in the Balance

Moderator
coachgeo
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:46 am
Location: North Texas

Postby SunWizard » Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:35 pm

coachgeo wrote:Climb out of that box, who knows whats out there. You've done it before.

Well then we are all stuck in that same box, since no one has yet presented any ideas that would cost less or be less complex than a simple 2 tank. I don't think its a box as much as not understanding the point of it, and asking these questions to see what your goal is. Or what problem we are trying to solve.

If your concern is vapor lock in RUG blends, the easy solution already mentioned is use D2 or kero instead.
YVORMV - Your veg. oil results may vary.
95 Dodge Cummins 4x4 SVO WVO conversion.
81 Mercedes 300D- stock and happy on V80/D20 blend.
Low fossil net zero house- 100% solar power and heat.
SunWizard
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:53 pm
Location: N. Colorado

Postby David » Sat Jan 03, 2009 6:37 pm

coachgeo wrote:
Climb out of that box, who knows whats out there. You've done it before.


Respectfully, I think you are stuck in a similar box.
You want to make this work regardless if it is practical or not compared to other commonly used systems or simple ways around the problem that you propose to overcome.

Is your focus to fix the problem as practicaly and simply as possible or to fix it only using the idea you have?

I admit that I'm stuck in the box because I don't see the point of re-inventing a wheel that is more complex, costly and in all likely hood has more potential for failure than the existing or what would seem more practical fixes.

The suggestions I have put forward already to solve the problem you want to fix can be done easily and without a lot of potentially engine threatening trial and error in working out how to make the system work and even if it will to a practical level. Basically what I suggested with the high pressure pump and regulator is a bolt bolt them up and your ready to go solution, even if it is not particularly the cheapest solution.
Have you looked into the oil injection pump I proposed or do you only want to use the sort of components already mentioned?

If you are determined to solve the problem in a way never done before, then you can't get upset because other people don't share your idea or are able to give you the answers you want on a plate. You are going to have to figure it out yourself rather than relying on others who neither see the point nor understand the practical reason of the method you want to use.

If you get it sorted, and overcome the inherent problems the system you are proposing creates, let us know so we may be better able to understand the advantages and benefits of this method so we can see what ever it is we must be overlooking now. :D

Best of luck with it!
_____________________

I don't give a damn about what might or could happen until a significant group of people can tell me it HAS happened to them.
Until then, it's just more endless gloom and doom Veg folk law.
David
 
Posts: 333
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:12 am
Location: Sydney Australia

Postby John Galt » Sat Jan 03, 2009 7:36 pm

no one has yet presented any ideas that would cost less or be less complex than a simple 2 tank.

I did but there was no interest in something much simpler, less expensive.

The people responding are simply defending their choice in an expensive two tank configuration even though this is the single tank section of the forum. Of course they will defend thousands of dollars invested, especially when simpler systems can work just as well. It would seem that thinking outside the box is being discouraged by those who know so much better than us mere mortals.
Last edited by John Galt on Sat Jan 03, 2009 7:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
John Galt
 
Posts: 526
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Coldest North America

Postby coachgeo » Sat Jan 03, 2009 7:41 pm

Not stuck in any box here.

Mental exploration, taking new routes... breeds new invention... breeds new ideas that get reapplied in new ways....

exploration fosters growth in countless ways.


oh well.... no mental explorers around these parts.

maybe another day.
Life; It's all in the Balance

Moderator
coachgeo
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:46 am
Location: North Texas

Postby SunWizard » Sat Jan 03, 2009 8:49 pm

John Galt wrote:
no one has yet presented any ideas that would cost less or be less complex than a simple 2 tank.

I did but there was no interest in something much simpler, less expensive.

What you proposed I thought was a simple 2 tank rig, but I went back to re-read it and you have deleted your posts so I guess we can't discuss that.

I used a cheap and simple homebrew 2 tank system, so I am not sure who you are talking about with expensive rigs.
YVORMV - Your veg. oil results may vary.
95 Dodge Cummins 4x4 SVO WVO conversion.
81 Mercedes 300D- stock and happy on V80/D20 blend.
Low fossil net zero house- 100% solar power and heat.
SunWizard
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:53 pm
Location: N. Colorado

Postby coachgeo » Sat Jan 03, 2009 8:57 pm

Here is static mixer info if anyone cares to explore it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_mixer
Life; It's all in the Balance

Moderator
coachgeo
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:46 am
Location: North Texas

Postby coachgeo » Sat Jan 03, 2009 9:00 pm

SunWizard wrote:...I went back to re-read it (J Gaults idea)and you have deleted your posts so I guess we can't discuss that.....


Johns idea sounded interesting. Opposit in direction than I was taking in this thread. That does not discount the value of the idea though.

ifffff I recall right; his was basically a two tanker (defined by my other posts) approached in a new way.

Drive on diesel (or any fuel that will run the vehicle on its own such as Bio-D) and blend in WVO; increasing the ratio as you go.
Life; It's all in the Balance

Moderator
coachgeo
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:46 am
Location: North Texas

Postby John Galt » Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:00 pm

SunWizard wrote:
John Galt wrote:
no one has yet presented any ideas that would cost less or be less complex than a simple 2 tank.

I did but there was no interest in something much simpler, less expensive.

What you proposed I thought was a simple 2 tank rig.


A simple addition to burn 100% clear clean VO is to add an axillary fuel container, an electric pump, a switch, a couple of check valves, an isolation valve and some tubing and wire.

A simple connection is to Tee into the fuel line from the existing tank upstream of the lift pump. Check valves prevent fuel from flowing back to the tank or axillary container. The electric pump injects VO fuel from a container as operated by a manual or thermostat switch.

In cooler temperatures the main tank can have a VO-ULSD blend that won't gel at that temperature, and an auxiliary container can have a high percent VO mix for injection once the engine is at operating temperature. The portability of the axillary container allows it to be pre-warmed indoors. One suction line from the pump to the container with a quick disconnect hydraulic or compressed air fitting is all that's needed.

In warmer temperatures the main tank can have a high percent VO-ULSD blend, and an auxiliary container can have a low percent VO mix for purging and starting.

Additives like naphtha, gasoline, kerosene, turpentine, acetone, etc. can be added as desired. For health and safety, one would probably want to avoid volatile solvents in the axillary tank if it's located [vented] inside the vehicle.

The existing return line from the injectors can be returned to the main tank, looped, or a combination of both with a simple valve. A heat exchanger is installed between the fuel feed pump and the fuel filter.

If you want to discuss this without it becoming another meaningless debate over whether it's 1 or 2 tank then I'll leave it.
John Galt
 
Posts: 526
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Coldest North America

Postby SunWizard » Sat Jan 03, 2009 11:05 pm

John Galt wrote:A simple addition to burn 100% clear clean VO is to add an axillary fuel container, an electric pump, a switch, a couple of check valves, an isolation valve and some tubing and wire.

Thats an example of what I call a simple 2 tank rig. The difference from mine and most of them is that it doesn't have as much heat, so requires blend in the VO tank for cold weather instead of V100. The portable aux. container is a good idea if you can come up with a clean and simple quick connect method.

Operation is exactly the same as the usual 2 tank system for start and purge?
YVORMV - Your veg. oil results may vary.
95 Dodge Cummins 4x4 SVO WVO conversion.
81 Mercedes 300D- stock and happy on V80/D20 blend.
Low fossil net zero house- 100% solar power and heat.
SunWizard
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:53 pm
Location: N. Colorado

Postby David » Sun Jan 04, 2009 12:54 am

John Galt wrote:
Of course they will defend thousands of dollars invested, especially when simpler systems can work just as well.


My conversion cost under $100 and is about as simple as I can imagine.

I'd be more than happy to learn of something better even if it were not as cheap or was a little more complex but I'm failing to understand the benefit of the proposed setup in the end let alone figuring out how you would go about " tuning it.

Reading your proposed setup John I can see it has a lot of merit and is indeed simple but I'm not so sure about how cheap. A pump capable of reliably supplying Veg oil is not a cheap thing here at least and would be several times the price of a common Pollack valve.
Check Vales are not so easy or cheap to come by here either but I would think that isn't the case in a lot of other places.

I think your proposal has a lot of merit but it seems it was not following the desired method even if it was a valid and simple solution to the problem.
_____________________

I don't give a damn about what might or could happen until a significant group of people can tell me it HAS happened to them.
Until then, it's just more endless gloom and doom Veg folk law.
David
 
Posts: 333
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:12 am
Location: Sydney Australia

Postby John Galt » Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:21 am

Yes, that's the point. One doesn't have to spend thousands of dollars on something like a FlyBird conversion kit.
John Galt
 
Posts: 526
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Coldest North America

Postby 123eddie » Tue Feb 17, 2009 8:10 am

Promoters of Hydrogen generators claim to create a better burn which intern could mean less coking on a single tank. You inject the hydrogen gas into the air intake which would be simple without messing with the fuel side. It won't help thin the wvo but in a warm climate could possibly create a safer way of running a single tank. My wife's car is a 83 Mercedes wagon with an Elsbett conversion that we run with mostly 100% wvo in San Diego. There is no way that this combination would run in colder climates with out a greater blend or starting on diesel.
123eddie
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 9:46 am
Location: Encinitas CA

PreviousNext

Return to Single Tank Systems and Blending

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron