Vegetable Oil SVO WVO waste cooking oil as biofuel

[tylerkck]

“I still haven't seen anything that says this. Chip says near the top of the link I gave:
What the common VP44 problems are…. This is all mechanical due to low pressure, not anything to do with overheated electronics.”

He also wrote “Computer failures are 90% of almost all drivability issues in my experience. This is from listening to all of you in the “Real World” and testing the accuracy of my diagnostic procedures daily. I am convinced that HEAT IS THE KILLLER OF THESE PUMPS…” Again, lack of fuel pressure doesn’t concern me much. Still I asked him “does low fuel pressure causes the electronics to over heat”- yes. “When a failed LP causes the IP to fail, does the computer fail or fail along with mechanical components”- doesn’t know for sure because he can’t diagnose the computer, he just replaces all of them....

[SunWizard]

“Its fats that are more the problem, since most places cook some meat. Even with blending, the fats can still plug your filter and stay invisibly suspended in your VO unless you add long settling after the CF. Thats not a viscosity issue, the fats are like particles at that temp and won't melt until around 100F. “

Is cloud point related to fats?- PHO? I read some of your viscosity link.…you wrote “Heating the VO is needed with blends if you want to use it below the cloud point of the VO, which is around 30F for most VO. Or else you clog your filter. “ Is 100F or 30F the minimum temp?

If you have fats, the cloud point that matters is the cloud point of the fat which is around 100F, sometimes higher.

How much do your VO temps vary with RPM?

160-180F is the widest variation in extreme cold. This is narrow because my FPHE and coolant flow has far more capacity than needed. Shutdown a part of the coolant flow and you get much wider swings.

You set an acceptable viscosity of properly processed “good enough” WVO…..at 170F (160F,190F, or whatever). Why can’t this number be lowered (not past 30F or 100F) after properly blending in say 20% diesel?

It might work, and it might have issues, some issues I have mentioned above, some will come out of the blue, you will be more of a bleeding edge tester is the difference. You can't rely on the body of experiments and failures as much as you can if you ran more like the common 2 tank rigs.

The variation in viscosity of a blend versus temp hasn't been studied much. Every type of VO (like canola versus soy) has a different viscosity versus temp. The viscosity of the different VO types (even fats/PHO) all converges to about the same good value if you look a the graph, at around 160F. This won't be true of a blend especially at 50F, so I would need to do lots of my own testing many batches to decide. Another complexity is changing your blend% with the season.

[tylerkck]

“If you have fats, the cloud point that matters is the cloud point of the fat which is around 100F, sometimes higher. “

It sounds like 100F has to be my lower limit, and this temp has to be reached before the filter. So you and most other blenders start with no fat in the WVO or get it out before putting it in the single tank?- or else clog a filter soon after?

“160-180F is the widest variation in extreme cold. This is narrow because my FPHE and coolant flow has far more capacity than needed. Shutdown a part of the coolant flow and you get much wider swings. “

What size fuel and coolant lines do you have? What size FPHE connections and plate count? You would get slower and narrower swings with a bigger FPHE, bigger coolant lines, and bigger fuel lines due to the thermal inertia. The heater core line is 5/8”. It taps off the head adjacent to the exhaust manifold, there is a similar port closer to the front of the engine I was planning on using it for coolant supply (saw someone else’s conversion this way). My current diesel line is ½” (except stock return). I’m thinking ½” veg line, ¾” coolant line, my FPHE is 26 plate with ¾” connections. Also, if I do the setup with press reg upstream of IP I’ll be circulating much more VO then is being consumed by the IP, this should also help to slow and narrow the swings. As usual, how much?- How much the swing can be improved vs. worsened from trimming coolant flow is unknown.

I might have figured out a way to use an automotive style thermostat, waxstat. An oil cooler thermostat to regulate coolant flow might work. http://www.race-lines.co.uk/oil-cooler/ see how it operates….. I would plug the ports going to the cooler. They make wax stats down to 160F, maybe I could get a 160F oil stat. The coolant would flow into the stat after the FPHE, if the coolant temp leaving the FPHE drops below 160F the valve will open further, if it gets higher than 160F it closes further. What VO temp is produced by doing so is unknown, but as long as the unrestricted coolant flow thru the FPHE exits higher than 160F, I should see a decrease in VO temp. Any idea what temp your coolant is leaving FPHE? Complexity and all aside, what do you think about this as a replacement for the “human thermostat”?

“It might work, and it might have issues, some issues I have mentioned above, some will come out of the blue, you will be more of a bleeding edge tester is the difference. You can't rely on the body of experiments and failures as much as you can if you ran more like the common 2 tank rigs.”

Absolutely, I just went thru the Frybrid forum and sent messages to the five VP44 veggers I found. I hope I get some high mileage replies so I can drop all this nonsense!

“The variation in viscosity of a blend versus temp hasn't been studied much. Every type of VO (like canola versus soy) has a different viscosity versus temp. The viscosity of the different VO types (even fats/PHO) all converges to about the same good value if you look a the graph, at around 160F. This won't be true of a blend especially at 50F, so I would need to do lots of my own testing many batches to decide. Another complexity is changing your blend% with the season.”

I recently gathered some numbers on viscosity, thanks in part to you and this forum. You measured the viscosity of V80/D20 at 60F {new canola (26.7 cSt) and winter diesel (2.3 cSt)}. The viscosity of the diesel was 9% of the viscosity of the veg, this produced a 37% drop in veg viscosity. Diesel viscosity specs are given at 104F, 2-4.5 cSt, maybe up to 6. I haven’t seen numbers of VO thicker than 55 cSt at 104F. Being conservative, lets say 20% of 6 cSt diesel blended with 65 cSt veg…..this also gives a 9% viscosity difference, using a conservative drop in viscosity (20%) gives a viscosity of 13 cSt at 100F. Given that diesel at 32 F is 23-24 cSt and my truck runs it and thicker just fine, and 2-tank VP44 guys are running VO around 20-25 cSt (same with blenders?), I’d say 13 cSt is safe. My estimate of 13 cSt is conservative, the blend should be lower than this and my 100F temp is the bottom limit, above which it gets even thinner. I’m comfortable with the viscosity side of heating a blend (especially after some tests), just not the issues that will “come out of the blue”. One issue I thought off; what happens to diesel at +190F?- besides that it loses lubricity with temp, I assume veg does too. Veg has more lubricity than diesel, but I don’t know how much or how it is affected by blending and temp…..there may be a chance that the resulting heated blend has lower lubricity than ambient diesel. I doubt I’d change blend% with season…..V80/D20 all year heated to +100F.

For initial testing I was planning on running all the lines from the tank/pump (temporarily mounted in bed) thru rear window, valves on center seat, and out thru trans hole. Besides sitting next to hot valves and lines, is this a dumb idea?

[SunWizard]

It sounds like 100F has to be my lower limit, and this temp has to be reached before the filter. So you and most other blenders start with no fat in the WVO or get it out before putting it in the single tank?- or else clog a filter soon after?

Correct.

What size fuel and coolant lines do you have?

3/8 and 5/8, same as stock.

What size FPHE connections and plate count?

5/8 hose to 1/2 pipe thread, 26 plate.

I might have figured out a way to use an automotive style thermostat, waxstat. An oil cooler thermostat to regulate coolant flow might work. http://www.race-lines.co.uk/oil-cooler/ see how it operates….. I would plug the ports going to the cooler. They make wax stats down to 160F, maybe I could get a 160F oil stat. The coolant would flow into the stat after the FPHE, if the coolant temp leaving the FPHE drops below 160F the valve will open further, if it gets higher than 160F it closes further. What VO temp is produced by doing so is unknown, but as long as the unrestricted coolant flow thru the FPHE exits higher than 160F, I should see a decrease in VO temp. Any idea what temp your coolant is leaving FPHE?

I don't know since I never cared about that temp.

Complexity and all aside, what do you think about this as a replacement for the “human thermostat”?

160F sounds too high to get your desired temps since the VO would then be 140-150F.

I recently gathered some numbers on viscosity, thanks in part to you and this forum. You measured the viscosity of V80/D20 at 60F {new canola (26.7 cSt) and winter diesel (2.3 cSt)}. The viscosity of the diesel was 9% of the viscosity of the veg, this produced a 37% drop in veg viscosity. Diesel viscosity specs are given at 104F, 2-4.5 cSt, maybe up to 6. I haven’t seen numbers of VO thicker than 55 cSt at 104F. Being conservative, lets say 20% of 6 cSt diesel blended with 65 cSt veg…..this also gives a 9% viscosity difference, using a conservative drop in viscosity (20%) gives a viscosity of 13 cSt at 100F.

I don't get your math, 65cSt VO even with a huge 50% drop in visc. by blending would equal 32.5 cSt, not 13.

Given that diesel at 32 F is 23-24 cSt and my truck runs it and thicker just fine, and single tank VP44 guys are running VO around 20-25 cSt, I’d say 13 cSt is safe. My estimate of 13 cSt is conservative, the blend should be lower than this and my 100F temp is the bottom limit, above which it gets even thinner. I’m comfortable with the viscosity side of heating a blend (especially after some tests), just not the issues that will “come out of the blue”. One issue I thought off; what happens to diesel at +190F?- besides that it loses lubricity with temp, I assume veg does too. Veg has more lubricity than diesel, but I don’t know how much or how it is affected by blending and temp…..there may be a chance that the resulting heated blend has lower lubricity than ambient diesel. I doubt I’d change blend% with season…..V80/D20 all year heated to +100F.

Blending with >5% VO totally solves the lower lubricity of heated D2.

For initial testing I was planning on running all the lines from the tank/pump (temporarily mounted in bed) thru rear window, valves on center seat, and out thru trans hole. Besides sitting next to hot valves and lines, is this a dumb idea?

It seems better to mount them where you will want them, I don't see the benefit.

[tylerkck]

"I don't get your math, 65cSt VO even with a huge 50% drop in visc. by blending would equal 32.5 cSt, not 13."

Crap, my math was wrong, should've done a gut check. It comes out to 52 cSt. Too high. I'd have to go to 120F-140F. 120F, V8/D20 (4 cSt D2, 35 cSt VO), 20% drop for for 28 cSt. 140F, V80/D20 (3 cSt D2, 23 cSt VO), 20% drop for 18.4 cSt...... damn operating window keeps getting smaller! On the plus side, the fuel temp as measured by the IP gets diesel up to +120F. So IF I could control the temp to that I'm in the "range" both for viscosity and IP temp.

[tylerkck]

I found a couple, what I would call, success or near success stories.... http://www.burnveg.com/forum/about804.html

I tried to track down my VP44 part numbers, to find out if it had a "FedEx style computer", but talked to BlueChip and found out the part numbers are the same, the computer has to be specifically requested, and the only way to find out is to take the pump apart and see if it has the larger heat sink.

So Bosch's solution was to increase the size the of the heat sink....I can see that doing good while running, but that isn't going to help with heat soak, which is supposed to be when the IP sees the highest temps. Chip didn't know if they changed anything else about the computer, said the new heat sink sticks down into the inlet cavity more.

A larger heatsink will result in more heat transfer, whether it be computer to fuel or hot VO back to computer....it might not be a better IP for hot VO. The link above has a guy with over 375k miles on original IP, +159k on VO.

[tylerkck]

I havn't laid this to rest.

http://forum.mopar1973man.com/showthrea ... #post23313