From: John De Armond
Newsgroups: alt.energy.homepower
Subject: Re: general questions, small Yanmars
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 01:07:09 -0400
Message-ID: <hscnf2pviopmb1v854qi24iqf08u7ckgka@4ax.com>

On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 17:27:55 -0400, "soundhaspriority"
<nowhere@nowhere.org> wrote:

>This regards my Chinese one-lung Yanmar knock-offs.
>
>1. Is there any advantage to a fuel additive, ie., Pri-D ?

No.

>2. Next year, high sulfur (500ppm) fuel is history. Is the sulfur desirable
>for lubrication?

Yes but other chemicals will be added to make up for the sulfur.
Lubricity isn't as much an issue for machines like yours are it is for
say, automotive diesel engines with their much tighter tolerances and
smaller injectors.  Remember that your engine is designed to work with
pretty much anything that is flammable, being a simple third world
design.

>3. These engines do not have a final fuel filter, just a tank strainer. It
>hasn't happened to me yet, but what is the general procedure for a fuel
>clog? Unscrew the injector, and do something?

There probably won't be a clog  unless you get some gross amount of
dirt in the system.  The more usual result is that fine abrasive
contaminants gradually wear the precision (yeah, I know, "precise" is
a relative term when dealing with the chicoms) injector parts until
performance degrades to an intolerable level.  Most likely hard
starting will be the first indication.

If it were my engine I'd add a fuel filter.

>4. Can I recognize by sound when the valves need shimming, or do I have to
>do it by hours?

Don't know but probably not.

John

From: John De Armond
Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.rv-travel
Subject: Re: ULSD and Cummins lift pumps
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 12:13:22 -0500
Message-ID: <rj1eu2lip5nbbfrkuaeka5q7gmh6i1umfh@4ax.com>

On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 08:53:52 -0500, "RCE" <rce@nowhere.com> wrote:


>As I understand it, the former Low Sulfur Fuel for on-road use is no longer
>being refined, however existing stocks may continue to be sold until it is
>gone.  Eventually ULSD will be used everywhere.
>
>Around here (MA) the ULSD started showing up last October and currently I
>have not seen any of the former LSD being sold.   If the fuel pump does not
>have the LSD warning sticker (saying it is not to be used in 2007 engines),
>then the fuel is ULSD.

There is an article about this in the current issue of "The Trucker"
magazine.  According to them, no LSD is being refined.  Existing stock
can be sold until gone - probably is gone.  Now we're in a transition
period where the system is allowed to purge itself of sulfur residue.

During this time for NEW or chemically cleaned tankage and plumbing,
the sticker on the pump says ULSD.  For OLD, not cleaned tankage, ULSD
is pumped but the label remains LSD because the system may not yet
have been purged of sufficient sulfur.

There is no time limit on this transition.  The govt, in a rare move
of practical insight, figures the market will drive the fuel vendors
toward the proper time to remove the LSD stickers and apply the ULSD
ones.  The article's author guessed a year, as apparently there is a
fairly hefty penalty for ULSD labeled fuel exceeding the sulfur limit.

My comments now.  This ULSD is strange brew.  In the truck it burns
just the same as the old, best I (and the MPG computer) can tell.
However, it doesn't do much of anything else the same.  It smells
differently.  It feels much more slick than did old diesel. And it
doesn't burn worth a crap in heating appliances formerly listed as
diesel-acceptable.

I tried some in a Kero-sun-type heater in which I'd burned diesel for
years with results identical to kerosene.  Within a day the wick had
crudded up with some sort of hard stuff and the flame, what little
there was of it, was orange and smokey.

In my coleman dual fuel, kerosene rated cook stove, it didn't work
right from the beginning.  The kerosene generator never got hot enough
to rid the flame of the yellow tips.  Stunk like crazy.

I've not been brave enough to try it in any of my PetroMax lanterns
yet.  A friend who services those jet-engine-looking construction
heaters says that he's covered up with repairs from owners using the
stuff.  Mostly carbon-clogged orifices.

Those of you with diesel-fired appliances in their coaches need to
proceed carefully and contact the appliance manufacturer if possible.

There was a huge fire at the big Baytown, TX Pilot a few days ago.
Burned several trucks.  Front page news in "The Trucker".  Reading
between the lines a little, this fire may be the result of a diesel
heater sleeper malfunctioning.  The lady whose truck caught on fire
said that flames were coming out of the bunk aux heat.  Nothing
mentioned about having an APU so I bet she had a Webasto or some other
brand of diesel fueled heater.

Something to keep an eye on.

John

From: John De Armond
Newsgroups: alt.energy.renewable,alt.energy.homepower
Subject: Re: Biodiesel and paraffine
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 13:58:54 -0400
Message-ID: <24ucg3tr7fkr6dlg6lr9q11e8otpanlaa9@4ax.com>

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 16:53:24 +0200, Trygve Lillefosse <news@lillefosse.NOSPAM.org>
wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:43:01 GMT, "Jim" <jim@home.con> wrote:
>>    It would help if you would use a name most of us are familiar with. In
>>the US Parrafin is a hard wax that candles are made of.
>
>Thanks for the tip. Did a litle search beforehand, and it seemed like
>paraffine was the correct word.
>
>It's  the kind of oil that is frequently used to heat homes - when the
>boiler has a wick.
>
>After some re-searching...
>Seems like "No. 2 heating oil" might be the correct name.

In England, paraffin refers to what we call kerosene.  Kerosene is considerably
thinner than #2 heating oil and the two are not interchangeable.  I've tried burning
#2 in a kerosene heater which resulted in a stinking sooty mess.

If it smells very similar to diesel then it's probably #2 heating oil.  If it smells
like kerosene, well... :-)

You can mix a considerable amount of kerosene with diesel for engine use.  Over here
it's common practice with truckers if they run into waxing (actual paraffin :-)
problems in winter, to mix up to half and half kerosene and diesel.  The limit is the
lack of lubricity of kerosene.

Re: water.  Water won't mix with the kerosene so the major concern is to get the kero
out of the tank without the water.  If the tank is a fixed installation with a bottom
drain then there should be a water trap there.  The trap has a maximum velocity that
the fuel can flow in order to trap out water so your withdrawal would be slow via
that path.  Probably the easiest method is to simply pump the kero out through the
filler opening with the suction hose not near the bottom of the tank.  If you pump it
into plastic fuel tanks you can see any water that collects in the bottom.

If the fuel really is #2 then you have the added concern of algae (slime) that grows
at the water/oil interface.  This is normally a black goo that will adhere to a dip
stick thrust into the tank.  At the minimum you'd need a diesel algaecide and a
dispersant additive.

If there is much slime present then I'd seriously consider selling it to a recycler
or your dealer or disposing of it in some other manner.  It is a major and expensive
operation to de-slime a vehicle's fuel system.  Worse, once you inoculate your system
with the living organism, it will continue to grow any time moisture is present.  A
major pain in the ass that takes multiple cleanings and algeciding to get rid of.

John

From: John De Armond
Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.rv-travel
Subject: Re: Diesel Lubricity
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:47:47 -0400
Message-ID: <n0fae4hdsff2vou4uu27n0370rrevk5c0g@4ax.com>

On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 08:40:23 -0700, Dapper Dave <expurgated@gmail.com> wrote:

>>tin cup <tinny@outdoor.not> wrote:
>
>>I've heard little to nothing from anyone on the subject except a comment
>>from someone that Cat recommended an additive for lubricity and a biocide.
>>Any fuel gurus out there?
>
>When fueling the Bulgemobile, I routinely ask truckers what
>additives they use. Every one has told me "nothing."
>
>Obviously, Flying J wouldn't stock all those miracle additives if
>somebody weren't buying them, but my limited sample suggests that
>it is no more than a tiny minority of OTR drivers. If the
>corporations that own fleets of trucks found an additive that
>saved them money, I bet I would have run in to one of their
>drivers after six years of asking.

True.  In fact, with my company, it was a firing offense to add anything other
than diesel fuel to the tank.  There was one exception and that required
management approval, usually delivered on the spot via the Qualcom satellite
system.  That is, if one fueled in a warm area that still sold summer (high
wax) fuel and were headed up north.  Permission was based on where one was
headed and what the weather was along the way.  In that case, an anti-waxing
additive was permitted.

There are two RV-related exceptions that I can think of and both are based on
potentially long term storage of fuel, either in the vehicle's fuel tank or in
cans.

One is the anti-waxing additive.  If you lived in, say, PA, filled up in July,
parked the thing and then decided to go to upstate NY in December, an anti-wax
additive would be appropriate.

The second is an anti-fungal additive.  Diesel-eating fungus grows at the
interface between diesel and water and makes a black slime that clogs up
filters and water traps.  Water gets in the tank from condensation as cool
moist air is drawn into the tank at night as the tank cools.

With a regularly used vehicle, the moisture ends up in the water trap and is
drained.  Long-term storage, such as over-winter, leaves the water in the tank
where the fungus can grow.  A little anti-fungal is a good idea.

For the diesel that I store here at my cabin for my generator, I buy summer
fuel (slightly more energy and thus more "mileage"), store it in my heated
basement and add an anti-fungal agent.  Though the 55 gal drums have bungs in
place and thus are sealed, I'm concerned that the fuel (non-taxed, of course)
might have contained water from the pump.

I normally keep the drums in the basement and run fuel lines (supply and
return) out to the generator.  If it's bitterly cold, I'll slide on some pipe
insulation.  The insulation is much larger than the fuel lines.  I take
advantage of that by arranging the end so that hot cooling air from the engine
blows into the end.  That keeps the fuel warm on its trip to and from the
engine.  This particular engine uses a relatively high flow recirculation
system so that is probably not necessary, as the fuel is out and back to the
tank rapidly, but I do it anyway.  The thoughts of having to de-wax the fuel
system in a blizzard don't give me the warm fuzzies.

Incidentally, I once tested some the so-called cetane boosters that claim to
give more power on a diesel connected to a dynamometer, otherwise known as my
homemade diesel generator.  The test was simple.  Run the generator and load
it until the governor was wide open and the speed dropped slightly, recording
the maximum wattage produced.  Add the booster and repeat the test.  I
observed not one iota of difference.  Nadda.  Nothing.

Nor did the engine cold-start any better.  The Riggerini direct injection
engine that I used for my generator is notorious for rough starting, rumbling,
shaking, misfiring and smoking until warm.  Cetane booster is supposed to help
with that.  No difference that I could detect.  Other than a slightly lighter
wallet, of course. :-)

John