What's new
CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.

Biodiesel

I compost mine at our hunt club makes great soil additive for the food plots and clear cuts here is a link that is very infomative http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_glycerin.html
There are numerious different aproaches to bio I personaly like Dana Scott and
Girl Marc(dont ask) but they are both very good. I have tank heaters installed and fuel pumps at the tank rather than stock on the block I also installed fuel filter/heater/water seperator with a manual control valve I use in winter and have block heaters in placefor same.I could have gone a little more high tech but I like the simplicity less is sometimes more. You are using a oil base that will vary in viscosity due to tempature but for me the final savings in fuel cost are well worth the hassel bottom line is with fuel cost being what they are I can replace the whole engine with a cucv surplus and still save thousands in the long run. Bio at home can get messy, smelly, and a little of an eye sore if not hidden well but as my name states I have 5 kids and what I save in fuel gives me about $300 to $400 extra per month wich adds up to a pretty good vacation and Christmas for the family for a few hours a week effort. By the way it does smell pretty cool going through the woods to all my buds except give them a need for a burger fix LOL!
 
Last edited:
johnrpick - i totally understand where youre coming from, the articles from the magazine were quoted because they combined industry test information, as well as a real world dyno test and trial run of biodiesel in a truck for a multi week period, and their personal views of running it. As ive stated before, lab results are all well and good, but you cant recreate the real world in a lab, hence the reason i cited that article. the sources cited are in the magazine, im surprised they werent online as well.

Now dont get me wrong about 4by4bygod, we disagree about a few particulars related to the issue at hand, but i certainly appriciate his position and knowledge on the subject. and do very much enjoy the conversation were having here. And more to the point, i dont enjoy being wrong, so even though it sucks to argue a point and find you were mistaken, its worse to continue preaching that point and spreading misinformation. so if i am wrong, i hope 4by4bygod can convince me of it.... i just tend to be pretty hard headed about stuff. And in all honesty, i have to take what he says with a grain of salt, BECAUSE he works for the industry. If biodiesel does indeed provide the lubrication, similar mileage, power, and emissions benifits that are advertized by the biodiesel community..... really we wouldnt need all those additives now would we? thats not very good for 4by4bygods business, and it would benifit him to convince people biodiesel dosnt live up to the hype.

Now, please dont take that the wrong way, i was describing a purely hypothetical situation to illustrate why im so hard headed, i do not in ANY way think you are attempting to lie, cheat, or mislead anyone 4by4bygod, im just saying that i have reasons to be skeptical and take what is presented with a grain of salt and really research it. look at it this way, if i wind up being wrong, you can smile that much bigger when i realize it ;)

im off to class, but i will indeed check out your last post, and the link to the other thread you posted, and try to reply back later tonight.
 
dadof5 - im definatly a fan of mechanical simplicity, i dont have any high tech stuff on my rig, and would like to keep it that way. i spent enough time as a tech to see that really the most common failures on the cars i worked on were computer or module related. so im not a fan. ill take a manual valve water seperator any day ;)

in regard to the mess and hassle, im actually planning on building a trailer setup to house the biodiesel production, kinda a mobile shed. Im in school and living in an apartment so building a big stationary deal isnt really an option. i figure a few 55 gal barrels for liquid storage, a reaction vessel, and a 6 gal carboy for the methoxide mixing. heck, i might even figure out a way to build some solar panels into the thing and be able to have truely off the grid green fuel for my truck :) i could even drive cross country, taking my gas station with me :) snatch up WVO at truck stops along the way.

really the only problem ive been facing is getting rid of the waste water and glycerine. can your waste water just go down the storm drain?

i might have to find a landscaping company somewhere in the area and convince them that the glycerine is something they really want for their fertalizer ;)
 
waste

Water, I just let go, soap I clean up my drive and mess with (3 diesels you can guess the results) glyc like i said great for the plants. Just bear in mind unless your a neat freak you will have spillage and leaks life happens. A trailer setup is a good idea, know of a few even a guy that has a diesel pusher motorhome that has a production rig in front halve and a couple bikes in back. He uses heater lines with disconects as heating medium to process going down the road then has electrical hookups for stationary process cool setup! I have a storage out building and a fence setup to hide mine and I make about 150gls per month for my use. Im probobly well over your needs for space and production. As my boys get thier licence soon Im sure Ill have to rethink my needs! Get chummy with your local sources most have to pay to have waste taken away so we are usually a good thing for them. Check with the net and see if there isnt a org. in your area that is active with bio production you may be able to piggyback on something already going on to get your feet wet. Good luck
 
K5dreamer said:
johnrpick - i totally understand where youre coming from, the articles from the magazine were quoted because they combined industry test information, as well as a real world dyno test and trial run of biodiesel in a truck for a multi week period, and their personal views of running it. As ive stated before, lab results are all well and good, but you cant recreate the real world in a lab, hence the reason i cited that article. the sources cited are in the magazine, im surprised they werent online as well.

Now dont get me wrong about 4by4bygod, we disagree about a few particulars related to the issue at hand, but i certainly appriciate his position and knowledge on the subject. and do very much enjoy the conversation were having here. And more to the point, i dont enjoy being wrong, so even though it sucks to argue a point and find you were mistaken, its worse to continue preaching that point and spreading misinformation. so if i am wrong, i hope 4by4bygod can convince me of it.... i just tend to be pretty hard headed about stuff. And in all honesty, i have to take what he says with a grain of salt, BECAUSE he works for the industry. If biodiesel does indeed provide the lubrication, similar mileage, power, and emissions benifits that are advertized by the biodiesel community..... really we wouldnt need all those additives now would we? thats not very good for 4by4bygods business, and it would benifit him to convince people biodiesel dosnt live up to the hype.

Now, please dont take that the wrong way, i was describing a purely hypothetical situation to illustrate why im so hard headed, i do not in ANY way think you are attempting to lie, cheat, or mislead anyone 4by4bygod, im just saying that i have reasons to be skeptical and take what is presented with a grain of salt and really research it. look at it this way, if i wind up being wrong, you can smile that much bigger when i realize it ;)

im off to class, but i will indeed check out your last post, and the link to the other thread you posted, and try to reply back later tonight.
Click to expand...

If that were the case he could probably make a good bit of money selling biodiesel. Others are...
 
Hmmm.... well im a bit confused so far, because yes, glycerides do effect lubricity, and yes they are a contaminant, but the other factor listed as a contributor to the lubricity of the fuel, according to your cited reports are fatty acid methyl esters, aka FAME's, which is biodiesel. quite litterally biodiesel is FAME. So the idea that by removing all the glycerides will remove the lubrication qualities of biodiesel is incorrect.

regarding the filter plugging, this is a known problem with poor quality biodiesel, and water contamination is also a problem with regular diesel, hence the "water in fuel" idiot light on my dash. Also, there are other contributing factors to running biodiesel, one relates to mixtures like B20, in which biodiesel is polar, and ULSD is non polar, and the interaction of these two fuels creates sediments and contaminants that would not have existed in pure B100 diesel. The other problem relates to the solvent like nature of biodiesel, and its tendancy, especially in older vehicles to release varnish and other deposits from the fuel tank and lines. these deposits can clog filters and injectors and make it look like biodiesel is at fault. Similar problems arise with running E85 ethanol or methanol in gas powered cars. Although those create other corrosion related issues on their own, which would cause the same argument that they are poor choices for fuels... but i think monster truck drivers, some dragsters, formula 1 cars, and sprint car drivers would all disagree. because their engines are built to run the fuel, and do so quite well.

The other issue is in regard to the duty cycle of the engine having a major impact on the emissions of the engine with a certain fuel. well that just makes sense, in fact earlier today, i read that retarding the injection timing of a truck running biodiesel will signifigantly decrease the NOx emissions, however it was not stated what that timing change would do to mileage, power, or driveability.


"so there's more than meets the eye after all." - 4by4bygod

on that my friend, we can certainly agree :p:

As ive stated before, bio fuels arent a silver bullet, but to test them in engines not designed or tuned to make the most of them, is not a fair comparison. Imagine putting ULSD fuel in a gasoline powered car, and using the test results to prove that diesel is obviously an inferior fuel. I think most people would see a problem with that.

Biodiesel will run in a truck just fine, but there is alot of research that needs to be done to optimize it. from things as simple as measuring the effects of different timing settings, pump pressures, injector type, IDI vs DI, turbo vs NA, etc. etc. and in the mean time, those of us who choose to run it, will have to make the small adjustments to our truck to make it work. like in line fuel heaters, additional fuel filters, and so on and so forth. and even emissions equipment. Look at all the god awful emissions equipment and hoops the auto industry is jumping through to fix emissions on gas and diesel powered automobiles. So the biodiesel crowd will need different emissions equipment.... whats the big deal?

But with a large number (i have no actual numbers to post) of cars on the road that have run B100 for 20k, 50k, 100k, 150k and more, i think its very safe to say that the fuel is viable, and not quite as bad as it is sometimes made out to be.

Based on the numbers i have seen, the main problems seem to arise with Biodiesel/ULSD mixtures, and happen in the short term due to gelling in cold weather, or due to sedimentary filter or injector pluggage which is a known effect durring the first few tanks of biodiesel run through a vehicle, and something that goes away. But once the transision is made, and perhaps some fuel system seals and gaskets are replaced, biodiesel becomes as trouble free to run as regular diesel for far lower emissions, with the exception of NOx (which is only slightly higher) and perhaps these SOF's but i havent found a report about those yet. Im looking as we speak ;)

In short, what i will whole heartedly agree to, is that running biodiesel in your truck is more of a PITA than regular diesel. More work is involved, more things have to be concidered, there are a few minor mods that are suggested to avoid certain problems, and there is a teething period durring the transition when youll be replacing fuel filters, and adjusting things on the truck. But in the end, IMHO, the pro's of running a renewable fuel that signifigantly reduces emissions, smells better, and is good for the engine, far outweigh the cons of slightly raised emissions, and the inconveinience of processing the fuel in my backyard.

and thats what it boils down to. its not the perfect cure, but the pro's outweigh the con's. at least to me.
 
another fun hypothetical situation to talk about is in regard to algae diesel. right now its a budding technology, and scientists are researching the different characteristics if different strains of oil bearing algae. some grow fast, some produce lots of oil, some are very environment tolerant, yadda yadda, well, with the fun field of bio-engineering, it may be possible to produce a fast growing, high oil yeilding algae, custom tailored to produce an oil that when refined has characteristics that make all this discussion moot. for me, thats a fun thought, although i dont dwell on it because as of right now its not reality. but it may just well be the future of transportation fuels.

and algae farms dont need good cropland. all you need is water and sunlight. hell you could build the production plants in the nevada desert, or death valley. imagine, you could go four wheelin through death vally, and while youre out there, stop and fill up your gas tank to get back to civilization :)
 
K5dreamer said:
Hmmm.... well im a bit confused so far, because yes, glycerides do effect lubricity, and yes they are a contaminant, but the other factor listed as a contributor to the lubricity of the fuel, according to your cited reports are fatty acid methyl esters, aka FAME's, which is biodiesel. quite litterally biodiesel is FAME. So the idea that by removing all the glycerides will remove the lubrication qualities of biodiesel is incorrect.
Click to expand...

not sure of the point you are trying to make..if you read the agriculture report, they come out and say that methyl esters provide some lubricity benefit..the glycerides provide additional benefit, that make it worth talking about as a lubricant - if you remove the glycerides for quality purposes, would lubricity then be enhanced or diminished?

regarding the filter plugging, this is a known problem with poor quality biodiesel, and water contamination is also a problem with regular diesel, hence the "water in fuel" idiot light on my dash. Also, there are other contributing factors to running biodiesel, one relates to mixtures like B20, in which biodiesel is polar, and ULSD is non polar, and the interaction of these two fuels creates sediments and contaminants that would not have existed in pure B100 diesel. The other problem relates to the solvent like nature of biodiesel, and its tendancy, especially in older vehicles to release varnish and other deposits from the fuel tank and lines. these deposits can clog filters and injectors and make it look like biodiesel is at fault.
Click to expand...

you have to watch with the filter plugging issue, as it can come from several sources, not all of which are occurring in a given situation - first, if you are blending with ULSD, the ULSD is a breeding ground for bacteria, fungus, and yeast. Also, when it's cold out, the wax and / or water suspended in the ULSD will drop out and clog the filter ( it's a bitch to winterize).. the biodiesel is also hygroscopic - it attracts moisture from the atmosphere, leading to bacteria growth.. then there are the glycerides (again, a quality issue as you say)..I don't doubt BD is a good solvent, but that's all I ever hear anyone say when it comes to a clogged filter.. when it happens over and over again on a new truck, we must look for a different explanation.

Similar problems arise with running E85 ethanol or methanol in gas powered cars. Although those create other corrosion related issues on their own, which would cause the same argument that they are poor choices for fuels... but i think monster truck drivers, some dragsters, formula 1 cars, and sprint car drivers would all disagree. because their engines are built to run the fuel, and do so quite well.
Click to expand...

Alcohol powered race engines get torn down and rebuilt regularly, to overcome the fact that alcohol fuels have no lubricity and the oil doesn't last - corrosion isn't an issue for them.

The other issue is in regard to the duty cycle of the engine having a major impact on the emissions of the engine with a certain fuel. well that just makes sense, in fact earlier today, i read that retarding the injection timing of a truck running biodiesel will signifigantly decrease the NOx emissions, however it was not stated what that timing change would do to mileage, power, or driveability.
Click to expand...

Retarding timing would negatively impact power and mileage. that's always an issue - solve one problem, create another.


"so there's more than meets the eye after all." - 4by4bygod

on that my friend, we can certainly agree :p:
Click to expand...

yep!

As ive stated before, bio fuels arent a silver bullet, but to test them in engines not designed or tuned to make the most of them, is not a fair comparison. Imagine putting ULSD fuel in a gasoline powered car, and using the test results to prove that diesel is obviously an inferior fuel. I think most people would see a problem with that.
Click to expand...

I see what you are getting at, but while tuning for them is one thing, the physics of the four stroke otto cycle, and injector temps and pressures to be dealt with are another matter..they do have an effect on fuel, and it isn't always positive.

Speaking of SOF's, I thought you might find this interesting. It's an article describing the lack of toxological studies done on the effects of biodiesel emissions. What research they do have isn't pretty. they pretty much say that they'd like to see the speculation regarding the health effects of using the stuff actually be documented..

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1852688

Anyway, you aren't the only guy I've met who was stone cold committed to biofuels - and that's fine...it's a free country..all I do is teach to the best of my ability, and everyone gets to make their choices.
 
K5dreamer said:
Now dont get me wrong about 4by4bygod, we disagree about a few particulars related to the issue at hand, but i certainly appriciate his position and knowledge on the subject. and do very much enjoy the conversation were having here. And more to the point, i dont enjoy being wrong, so even though it sucks to argue a point and find you were mistaken, its worse to continue preaching that point and spreading misinformation. so if i am wrong, i hope 4by4bygod can convince me of it.... i just tend to be pretty hard headed about stuff. And in all honesty, i have to take what he says with a grain of salt, BECAUSE he works for the industry. If biodiesel does indeed provide the lubrication, similar mileage, power, and emissions benifits that are advertized by the biodiesel community..... really we wouldnt need all those additives now would we? thats not very good for 4by4bygods business, and it would benifit him to convince people biodiesel dosnt live up to the hype.
Click to expand...

I just saw this - I'm not offended, trust me..

dig deep on the issues I've brought up - they're real, whether you believe me or not..
 
4by4bygod - interesting article, it definatly points out that more thourough studies of a potential fuel should be undertaken, its the responcible and environmentaly friendly thing to do.

and i seem to see in that article that the PAH's i talked about earlier are a sub group of the SOF's you were talking about. kinda like a laberador is a type of dog. there was an interesting part of that article id like to quote...

"In in vitro bacterial assays, most of the mutagenic activity in biodiesel exhaust is contributed by a minority of the soluble organic fraction mass, particularly PAHs (Mauderly 1997)."

basically stating that the negative effects of the SOF's can in large part be attributed to the PAH's, which we have already stated in this discussion are signifigantly reduced by burning B100 biodiesel. So while it is indeed true that biodiesel produces more SOF's, it would seem from that quote that the really nasty ones are the ones that are decreased. at least thats how i interpret that quote.

Oh and the point i was making regarding the methyl esters as a lubricant was to say that even though the glycerides were removed, the methyl esters still provided the lubrication needed for the fuel system, to what degree i cant say, but as many people are running it sucessfully it must be good enough.

And just to clarify, im not necessarily stone cold commited to bio fuels, i simply see them as a better option to petrolium fuels. Especialy the practices that go along with drilling. Im terrified of the new trend of pumping CO2 underground. as if we didnt have enough to worry about with the vast stores of undersea methane hydrate that is thawing with global warming. now were pumping CO2 underground so that has the potential to suddenly release. has anyone heard of sweeping stuff under the rug???

but i digress, im also a fan of hydrogen, but only in certain applications. cities for instance. the GM Volt is an awesome concept, that kinda has the drivetrain of a WWII diesel/electric submarine, runs on batteries for 40 miles or so, then when it needs to recharge you either plug it in, or a fuel powered engine turns on and spins a generator to recharge the battery. wayyyyy more efficient use of fuel energy than direct drive. I like the solution the norwegians came up with, its a refridgerator sized electrolysis machine, powered by solar or wind power, that turns tap water into hydrogen and oxygen, and fuels your car up. So, the future may be hydrogen combustion cars, running compressed hydrogen and oxygen, with battery packs and electric motors. However, this style car is not viable for say, cross country trips, which would be where bio fuels would come in, or some other method. maybe well all start riding trains again ;)

hell i even plan on putting the concept of HHO boosted fuel powered cars to the test. I plan on getting a used lawnmower engine and actually empirically testing the concept of HHO gas boosting power or efficiency of fuel powered cars. fuel consumption, power output, air fuel ratios, etc. etc. ive researched it, and in theory it sounds good, but its really hard to believe, and the people doing it all kinda seem like crackpots that own too many cats. so again, like all things, i take it with a grain of salt, and feel the need to prove it to myself instead of taking those people at their words.

but my binge on biodiesel is simply because i own a diesel truck, and the fuel pumps are kickin me in the taco and wearing me like a snowshoe, and im kinda tired of the politics and the crap. so, i see a way out without any signifigant drawbacks, and it makes sense. so im all about it.
 
K5dreamer said:
4by4bygod - interesting article, it definatly points out that more thourough studies of a potential fuel should be undertaken, its the responcible and environmentaly friendly thing to do.

and i seem to see in that article that the PAH's i talked about earlier are a sub group of the SOF's you were talking about. kinda like a laberador is a type of dog. there was an interesting part of that article id like to quote...

"In in vitro bacterial assays, most of the mutagenic activity in biodiesel exhaust is contributed by a minority of the soluble organic fraction mass, particularly PAHs (Mauderly 1997)."

basically stating that the negative effects of the SOF's can in large part be attributed to the PAH's, which we have already stated in this discussion are signifigantly reduced by burning B100 biodiesel. So while it is indeed true that biodiesel produces more SOF's, it would seem from that quote that the really nasty ones are the ones that are decreased. at least thats how i interpret that quote.
Click to expand...

Dreamer - PAH's are only a component of SOF's, ( the laborador analogy works) and they only matter if they are present in the petrofuel blend. SOF's are significant toxins all by themselves, they don't need PAH's to be present, and B100 isn't the solution to make them go away:

http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/esthag/2000/34/i03/abs/es990543c.html

"Neat biodiesel had the highest organic carbon fractions for each of the test vehicles. PAH emissions for all fuel combinations were relatively low, probably due to the low fuel PAH levels."

"neat biodiesel" is B100, btw.
 
follow up

K5Dreamer Ive read most of these post and alot of good info has been thrown out. Interestind your submarine statement since I trained on S1C a nucular/electric prototype but thier is sound theory in your statement. Im have a more mechanical than chemical background but with 150,000+ miles on my K5 I feel pretty confident about my imput. I have less carbon build up in my exhaust which logic says Im getting a cleaner burn ie less emissions not more. My cylinders are still in factory cumbustion specs so as far as lubrication well.....Ive had steering pump failure, radiator recored, batteries and altinator go out but since none of that is fuel related I chalk it up to using the pee out of something. My injectors still hold a good pattern and flow and its got plenty of pep. Specs and statistics are all well and good on paper but I live pretty much real world I live in southern Ala. and drive to Kansas to go deer hunting with a bud of mine so there and back and a lot of riding and scouting cost me about $200.00 in fuel budget for around 2500 miles. Bottom line thats real life so as far as my impact on the invironment I pretty much think its minimum compared to all the fossil fuel buing gone thru fotr the same trip. Oh and by the way in the prairie I dont leave a foul smell behind that scares off the game only tire tracks :-)
 
4by4bygod - no no, i realize that there are still SOF's in neat biodiesel (B100), i was just pointing out that the study i was quoting seemed to state that the PAH's were the worst catagory of SOF's, and that biodiesel greatly reduced PAH's, even though there were still other SOF's. to use the dog breed comparison, you could say that biodiesel has fewer hungry wolves, and more hungry dogs. not saying im keen on being tied up with a bunch of hungry dogs, but to me its better than hungry wolves ;)

in regard to the NOx issue, i remembered an article i read about cetane values and the effects on injection timing. the difference in cetain from biodiesel (minimum of 50) and regular diesel (minimum 40) is similar to a 2 degree injection timing retard. So, theoretically with swapping to biodiesel, with its higher cetane value, you could retard the timing slightly (around 2 degree's) to lower NOx emissions, without any loss in power or mileage compaired to regular diesel. the data relating cetane to injection timing is from a company called Power Service Products.

dadof5 - youre a prime example of the people i talk about when i speak of real world use trumping some speculated or even apparent data. laboratory data is all well and good, but even all corporations do real world testing to verify or refute their lab data. being in college, and having worked in technical service jobs most of my life, i have definatly come to recognize that there are two types of education, that are different, but equally respectable. The first and most popularly respected education is that peice of paper on the wall you get from college. but the second is real world life experience. I like to research the crap out of stuff and review the numbers because that what i learned to do in school, but i also like to do real world testing and replication of results, or creation of results through hands on methods, the way i learned spinning wrenches most of my life. Having respect for both methods of learning is why i can take 4by4bygod seriously and respect what he has to say, but also why i give your points of view just as much respect, because you have first hand experience with empirical results i dont need to have a cited report to support.
 
K5dreamer said:
in regard to the NOx issue, i remembered an article i read about cetane values and the effects on injection timing. the difference in cetain from biodiesel (minimum of 50) and regular diesel (minimum 40) is similar to a 2 degree injection timing retard. So, theoretically with swapping to biodiesel, with its higher cetane value, you could retard the timing slightly (around 2 degree's) to lower NOx emissions, without any loss in power or mileage compaired to regular diesel. the data relating cetane to injection timing is from a company called Power Service Products.
Click to expand...

The power loss and mileage hit stems from the BTU ( thermal energy) of a given fuel, not cetane. cetane is an indicator of a fuels ignition quality, not power output.

Having respect for both methods of learning is why i can take 4by4bygod seriously and respect what he has to say, but also why i give your points of view just as much respect, because you have first hand experience with empirical results i dont need to have a cited report to support.
Click to expand...

sounds like a backhanded compliment of the background you think I have.. well, I'm not a college guy either - I just figured having cited reports would be better received than anecdotal evidence, which I have plenty of also..

how well would I be received if I led off with " hey, I sell and additive, and I want you to buy it because biodiesel sucks ", and then told a bunch of stories that couldn't be verified, or tried to prove my point using documents on my company letterhead?

CK5 means more to me than making a quick buck, and everyone here knows me better than that anyway. If I don't have proof, I'm wasting everyone's time. my customers here expect a certain level of professionalism from me, and I don't let them down. Last I checked, backing up statements with INDEPENDENT research was a good thing.

once more with feeling -

I wouldn't have needed to research the emissions effects of biodiesel, if I wasn't encountering companies ( yes, companies,, not just one ) whose particulate numbers were rising right along with the increased blend levels of biodiesel they were using, and they face big time fines if they don't solve the problem... it kind of helps to have answers for prospects, as they then become my customer. the reports I cite help them understand what they are seeing and measuring, and then steps are taken to solve the problem..every problem and issue I cite is something I've been told about by guys who have gone through it, and I've researched from every angle.


it's funny - I would hate to have to sell a product that I had to keep defending by saying " it'll work if it's made right - it'll work if conditions are perfect - It'll work if we spend more dough on research and development, and implement more standards".. no thank you, you can have it.
 
4by4bygod - um..... youve really lost me. yes BTU's and the energy content of a fuel definatly effect mileage and power, but you CANNOT ignore combustion efficiency and its effects on mileage. the faster a fuel ignites, and the more complete the burn, the better the mileage. Which may contribute to the reason that many people running biodiesel report similar fuel mileage, despite the lower energy density of the fuel. so... now that ive said all this, im realizing that if biodiesel's better burn characteristics offset the lower BTU count, giving similar mileage, reducing the injection timing would indeed lower mileage a bit. BLAST i walked myself into a corner with that one ;)

although it did sound like you were ignoring the importance to combustion efficiency to mileage, and thats just plain wrong.

in regard to my "backhanded" compliment to you, i really do apologize if thats how you take it. I believe ive stated several times durring our discussion how much it pleases me to spar with you as someone with so much knowledge. i dont know your background, and make no claim to.

to clarify, i was comparing statistical data vs real world results. You really would have a hard time saying that you havent been approaching this conversation from a statistical or lab result angle. dadof5 is a biodiesel user, who has been brewing, running, and succeeding with biodiesel. Its a difference of lab results, and real world experience with the subject. I myself am a very "by the book" guy, for repeatable results, hell, when i make sweet tea, i do it the same every time, i use 10 cups of water, 5 tea bags, and yup, i even measure out 250ml of sugar in a measuring cup. When i worked at the dealership i was the one using a torque wrench and book of specifications, and then one of the guys that did everything by hand, came over threw an impact gun on a pinion nut, and to my horror just started running it in. afterwords he grinned, and said... "go head, throw a torque wrench on there", exactly 25ft/lbs if i remember correctly, but i know it was right on spec.

what im saying is that at least in regards to the issue of brewing and running biodiesel, youre like me, running to the book, and citing numbers, facts and figures. Youre not wrong for doing it, but its one kind of knowledge. dadof5 is like the guy with the impact gun, who may not have known the exact torque spec, or any facts and figures, but had been doing it long enough to know how to do it right, and know it would work.

two different types of knowledge, both worthy of respect, i dont see whats so "backhanded" about giving credit where credit is due.
 
oh and i really hope you dont take it personal that i brought up that you work "in the industry". i was merely explaining why i was taking what you had to say with a grain of sand and not agreeing right away. im just as skeptical of tree huggers pushing the HHO generators they want people to put under the hood of their car, using electrolysis to produce hydrogen gas to improve combustion efficiency. They push green technology, and i question it because they are tree huggers. Youre advocating continued petrol diesel and coal diesel and i question it because youre "in the industry".

you yourself have raised the same viewpoints when responding to my posts regarding my sources "hand picking" the results to support their views. i didnt take it personally, because its true, which is why im so skeptical of anyone. and its very hard to change my mind about things. its certainly nothing personal, and im not attempting to discredit or mudsling in any way.
 
I don't know about all the research data, but the best and closest experience I've had with BD is from my uncle. He's a heavy equipment mechanic for a company with a big fleet of delivery trucks and 20-30 skid steers, heavy loaders, fork lifts, etc.
He said his company tried BD and all the vehicles ran poorly and had terrible economy. And the fuel was the same price or higher than dino juice. Filter intervals were cut in half, which is a pretty significant number of filters on a fleet.
He said they took 2 or 3 deliveries of BD, and switched back to regular diesel, and all the equipment went back to good performance and efficiency. The same thing happened when he was the mechanic at a construction company, they experimented with BD on a few vehicles, and couldn't justify the higher all around costs.
I have no idea what an individual should expect in a light daily driving vehicle with BD, but my desire to pursue it was somewhat quenched after talking with my uncle about his experience. Now reading this thread about the emissions, I fail to see the extended benefits materialize. I also don't have the time to collect waste oil, then filter and refine it, so I'd be paying the same price at the pump for it anyway.

But I still want a diesel...
 
i see youre in new york... dont suppose that fleet of vehicles that had all the gelling and filter plugging issues were also up north in the new york area??? If the vehicles in question were swapped over to biodiesel in the cold months, without any form of fuel heater installed to account for the cold weather operation problems, then those results are exactly what i would expect. I blame their biodiesel supplier for either providing sub-par product, or sub-par product support and advising. I personally know a friend who lives in vermont, and drives an old Mercedes on biodiesel, B100 that is. It can be done, but he has modified the car with a fuel tank heater, an inline fuel filter/heater, and a block heater that he keeps plugged in on a timer to warm the car up an hour before he goes to start it. really its not alot of hoops to jump through, and he runs just fine. hasnt had a problem yet that im aware of. aside from the teething problems he had when he first made the switch. and an occasional morning when its really cold and it takes some cranking to get the engine to fire.

oh and before people flip out, the fuel tank heater is a warming pad, like an electric blanket that is stuck to the bottom of the fuel tank, he didnt put a heating element inside the tank or anything crazy like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest Posts

Top Bottom