Andy,
your efforts are appreciable, but I think possible to go too far with hope, sometimes. Make glycerin evaporate from a fuel is almost impossible, since the fuel will boil well before than glycerin. By heating strongly a fuel you can only evaporate methylic alchool and water. Maybe if you wash the fuel before heating you will separate the glycerin since it goes in solution with the water.
Preheating the fuel coming to the engine can be useful but it is only a faible remedy since it will not evaporate until the cranckase is not hotter than ebullition temperature of the fuel itself . This means that until the inner cranckase it is not about, say, 300°F you are actively working to wear the conrod, if you use straight kerosene or bio. And dont'mind fuel "lubricity", it is simply MEANINGLESS for HCCI engines since no injector is used.

Merugo, Andy & list,

Two years ago I made the positive decision of not getting involved with biodiesel or fuel additives, but instead find an engine that would run on filtered waste vegetable oil.

Waste vegetable oil is a byproduct of the catering and food manufacturing industries. It can be obtained for about US$ 0.60 per litre, making it even cheaper than home heating oil.

The engine I found was a 6 hp slow speed diesel built in Britain between 1930 and 1987, and now manufactured in India.

Modifications were minimal and the engine will spin a 3kW alternator and produce about 5kW of heat.

I accept that engines of this type have a very low power density ( 6hp from 740 lbs!) and are really only suitable for stationary applications, but perfectly appropriate for providing heat and power for my suburban home.

The results of my experiments are on my website www.powercubes.com/listers.html and in my blog http://sustburbia.blogspot.com/

I am now investigating the possibilities of using veg oil for as a fuel for engines between 20cc and 200cc displacement.


regards,


Ken

Hi Merugo,

You're absolutely right. If you have seen my postings on YouTube under the pseudonym "hopeso", you'll see that I have the tendency to try almost anything just to see what might be discovered. Many times I WILL jump to conclusions based on somewhat limited knowledge and variously, I do add qualifiers and caveats after the fact.

Picture this. A batch of Biodiesel that does not pass the water or the methanol test (after careful washing). So now, put it in a pot and bring it to a boil for a minute or so. The result? An orange, thick, gooey mess. So we reprocess with some sodium methoxide in the usual way and end up with an orange, highly liquefied material. The tricky thing is that no glycerin settles out in the usual way, even after several days. HOWEVER, washing this material brings us back to a yellow, near clear, low viscosity fluid.

I assumed that I had boiled off the glycerine and that that was why none dropped out in the second processing. This batch is still settling out some water but it looks good so far. Should be able to test it tonight.

Ken,

Maybe with a little work, we CAN run dieselized leaf blower engines on oil. How about using a water jacket that derives its cooling effect by running your oilfuel through it. This cools the engine AND thins out the oil. When I make Biodiesel, the base oil is heated to 60C. It's amazing how much viscosity it loses at this temperature.

In addition, you can eliminate that plastic piece between the case and the carb. I believe that this is there to keep the carb cool so that you don't get vapour lock when running gasoline. That wouldn't be a problem with an oilfuel and the heat might help the carb atomize the fuel more completely. As well, porting design might be something to consider.
To avoid the need for a special prime, why not spark ignition? Sacrilege maybe if you're talking diesel, but now we're really talking about getting oil to burn in small engines no matter what it takes. Looks like I'm going to be busier than ever next summer, running engines. Neat.

Andy, thank you for your generous offer on the fuel. It seems that you are still sorting out the mix so when you have it figured out send me a PM and we'll talk about it.

There are very good logical explanantions why a large slow running injected diesel can burn virtually any oil. The main two reasons: the atomization due to the fuel injector and the in cylinder compression temperatures. Guys have been running Mercedes 300Ds and other vehicles on SVO and WVO before biodiesel became common. With some basic changes to the fuel system the diesel engines will run on veggie oils.

The FIRST thing I did last year when I started the FS conversions when I had problems random guessing proper compression ratios was research. The first topic was diesel (compression ignition) combustion theory. All of my tests this year have only verified what I have learned through research. I said it before and I'll say it again, I haven't broken any new ground. I've applied it to model engines is all.

Ken, I see a lot of ambition. I see applications for such an engine also. The D-Star generators can be that small only because they run at High RPM. The .54 runs at 14,000 RPM and makes 1.3HP. There is simply no way to build a naturally aspirated of that size to run half the speed with the same horsepower.

Andy and Ken, and anyone else for that matter. How do you intend to vaporize an oil so it can burn? Heating things sounds like a good idea, but what is really happening when you do this? The fuel won't provide any substantial cooling for the engine, unless you are pumping it back to the tank with a radiator in between somewere to get rid of the heat. This is actually done in some airplanes with wing tanks and heat exchangers between the engine coolant and fuel system.

I have run a lot of etherless blend in the four strokes. Well not a lot because it runs for so long. I've also run synthetic lube in brand new engines much to the dismay of everyone here. I even got a two stroke engine to run for a bit with a castor/gasoline mix. Was it great? No. Did I get excited? No. Does it warrant further investigation? Probably not, based on my research into the subject and the results I saw, which again proved that the existing information on the topic was valid. Not practical for a simple model engine anyway. Will I try again? Probably, just to see if there are any possibilities. It will need a different engine.

So many ideas so little time.

I forgot to add that a stationary engine that runs at a fixed RPM and has a suitably heavy flywheel could probably be made to run on biodiesel or even SVO. It would be easier to get a high enough compressin ratio to burn such a fuel. The fixed RPM would certainly improve the ignition timing issues.

Greg,

Imagine you're in Italy and some guy comes along and claims that a heavier object does NOT fall faster than a lighter one. When this fellow dropped those cannonballs off of that funny looking tower, everyone was amazed. Many were perplexed, frightened and dumbfounded. Their entire perception about how the world worked came crashing down around their ears. Scared witless, they went to their classical Greek science texts and were relieved to find that it was STILL true, that "heavier objects DO fall faster". Satisfied that the world order was maintained by their illusions, that the stuff they so fervently believed, was "STILL IN THE BOOKS", they went to bed confident that the sun revolved around the earth and that it and THEY were at the center of the universe.

The history of science and technology is littered with pessimistic naysayers. Because it wasn't already being done, it was impossible. If it wasn't already being done, it wasn't needed.

Orville and Wilbur who? Back at the turn of the previous century, it was speculated that the patent office might need to be closed. It was declared by men of notable education that everything had already been invented. Such hubris.

What if I declared that I felt that a 1.2 CID engine could be designed that had high torque, delivered 2.2 HP, weighed 38 ounces, had nearly zero vibration and ran with such high efficiency and low emissions that the exhaust was cool to the touch and no muffler was needed. I think it's possible if you just work hard enough at it and forget everything you think you know about engines.

But now, tell me why it can't be done.

In that size range I think you will have an engine that could run on biodiesel. It will not have zero vibration unless mounted to a concrete slab or is of unconventional design. It will not be so incredibly efficient that the exhaust will be at ambient temperature and pressure without a muffler. I suppose the engine won't need a cooling system either?

Forgetting everything that is already known about engines is not such a good thing. You have to use everything we do know about engines, chemistry, and physics to even approach what you are talking about. Do you think the clueless students going into college don't have similar dreams? They do, but then reality sets in when they learn how the world around them works and why there are real limits to what is possible.

If you are trying to say that you can build a naturally aspirated, two stroke, compression ignition, carbureted 1.2ci engine that makes 2.2HP and has good fuel economy doing it, I don't think it's possible. 2.2HP from a 20CC engine is pretty optimistic. The Zenoah 20CC makes 1.7HP.

Do you have such an engine operating on kerosene? The fuel is not really relavent to the engine output. You could design your engine to run on readily available and publicly accepted fuels like gasoline or diesel. You could begin making your milloins and changing the world. Then you could consider making modifications so it runs on biodiesel and veggie oil or whatever else you have in mind. Why make it so hard on yourself? Start with a fuel of known characteristics. This will allow you to observe how it works and how it doesn't. The truth is that simply changing to a different fuel won't make any significant changes to the engines efficiency or power output. It can in the case of biodiesel make an instant change in emissions, when we know what the initial emissions are.

If you succeed in your quest I will personally fly out to shake your hand and inquire about investments.

Don't let my comments stop you though. They aren't stopping my work. I too see the need for small simple efficient engines, but I think some university or large company will beat me to it.

No you tell me how you intend to get the exhaust so cool. And what the specific fuel consumtion of your engine will be or is.

It's been hundreds of years since the general population was clueless. If you have ideas to how you will make it happen, post them here for a peer review, like is done in most fields. If your work is so earth shattering that you need a non disclosure agreement contact me privately. You'd better get that patent application filed while your at it. I've looked at so many new engine concepts online that it's funny. I was following Randcam stock for a while. The Scuderi sounds interesting. I found a Polish engine today. http://new4stroke.republika.pl/ Take a look let me know your opinion.

Andy, Greg.
This thread seems to be kidding somewhat, maybe the lasting effect of new year eve. Time to understand that we are NOT dealing with diesel motors at all (apart from some approximate exception of specially made engines and of the REALLY EXCEPTIONAL Eisfeld 10cc I saw somewhere in this site - why de Vries did not make a copy?).
WE ARE DEALING WITH HCCI ( HOMOGENEOUS CHARGE COMPRESSION IGNITION). They LACK of the main element in a diesel, the injector, or , more exactly, of the INJECTION phase, that allows diesel to be......diesel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So more humbly if someone intends to say " I understood and I know", he MUST know that HCCI is THE MOST UNKNOWN ENGINE TODAY. On the opposite, two stroke diesel engines are the more well known and biggest engines made today, more of 100.000hp of power, but they are NOT HCCI at all.
The HCCI cycle up today is subtly escaping both modelling and experimenting. None knows what a sort of fuel to use, and none can foresee what its future will be. A HCCI may be two or four strokes, but it remains EVER a HCCI. It is almost a miracle that model "diesels" run since none ever referred the true temperature and pressure cycle in a real cylinder, in starting or running conditions. So the matter is open and by sure capable of improvements. By this point of wiew some "ingenuity" is needed, but ingenuity is not all . The experience may appear ingenue, not the purpose neither the underlying theory . When the balls falled from the tower, the principles of the mechanics were clear in the mind of the experimenter .

Ugo, yes, I know what you are saying. I have done much research. I know I'm dealing with HCCI engines and the limitations. That is exactly the point I'm trying to make. Random guessing a fuel for an uncommon unknown engine design is probably not going to yield a superb engine. All of the research done with HCCI is pointing to complex systems involving exhaust gas recirculation by variuous means, inlet temperature control, and complex engine monitoring systems to predict HCCI combustion. And you are right, the best fuel for this type of engine is unknown. I just don't think this type of engine will be possible at the model level without any sort of auxiliary systems at all.

From the modeling aspect we started with fuel containing kerosene. The research shows that kerosene or diesel fuel is acceptable for combustion. I know it works in my engines. But it will not approach lambda ratios of 1 or greater. These small engine just won't run. I think the problem is vaporization. That is where I'm going to put my efforts for now.

I have no way of measuring in cylinder temperatures or pressures. I wish I did. I think pressure sensors will be easy to add. I don't know much about this sort of temperature sensor. I have a flow meter that I will use to measure the air consumed by the engine to get a better idea of air/fuel ratios. So far the little engines run very rich. Even D-Star's engines with the tiny bit of information I found run rich, but do make a good amount of power for the displacement.

greg
If you know ours are HCCIs we are half way . As for vaporization I think it has been UNDERSTATED.. In a two cycle HCCI with cranckase circulatio I strongly feel that fuel ha to be vaporized ENTIRELY around the conrod, since ONLY a 10% diluition of the lubricant will reduce at half its useful viscosity. So no way with bios and similar, they are rod destroyers since NO bearing can work without sufficient viscosity lubricants.
Now to the combustion "chamber", I guess none did conceive any HCCI with a chamber with a 20:1 diameter to height ratio, a monster of thermal inefficiency. Going to this tiny space possibly droplets collide on on the internal surfaces. They vaporize or coalesce before compression rises adiabatically the temperature up to the ignition. In this way it could be that unburnt fuel going out is simply what "washed" by coalescing the inner cylinder, another cause of wear, I guess. So I advocate a fuel that VAPORIZES as soon as possible, also if this could lead to a small reduction in volume efficiency . But it should be a little effect, if you assume a less than 1 to 10 weight ratio of the fuel to air, and remember that fuel vapour has a molar weight higher than air.
ugo

First.. A happy and peaceful New Year to everyone.

Still following the thread with great interest and I have been very interested in the experiments done by Merugo and the comments around them.

Just before Christmas there was an item on T.V about a UK based trawler which operates in the North Sea. It has been converted, at quite a high cost, to run on bio-diesel. The bio-diesel is not really competitive on cost as the fishing and agricultural industries get their diesel without having to pay the high tax that road transport has to pay for diesel fuel here in the UK. They hope to switch to what they called "tallow" which they explained was the thick sludge left in the bottom of the pan after frying stuff. The tallow would be a lot cheaper than the bio-diesel or conventional diesel.

They are heating the bio-diesel before sending it to the engine. i can only imagine that this is to improve vapourisation at the injectors by lowering the fuels viscosity. You could see where this would be desirable with the thicker "tallow" when they get around to using it but..... we are talking about a big diesel engine in a trawler and they still felt the need to heat the bio-diesel.

If a trawler diesel engine needs pre-heating of the bio-diesel then I suspect that the simple engines that we use AS diesels are not going to have a very happy time with trying to run bio-fuel.

The aim of the trawler experiment is to reduce CO2. A trawler typically throws out 37 tons of CO2
during a 10 day trip at sea. The average car throws out about 2 tons of CO2 in a year. The vegetable oil has consumed CO2 during it's plant phase so is less detrimental even though it gives it off again when used as a fuel.

I think we have made great progress since the start of this topic and the experimenting continues.

I found success with a mix of synthetic oil and olive oil with some ether still retained. I want to remove the ether when the weather allows flying again this year and stay with the synthetic oil and modified olive oil combined as the lubricant.

Low ether mixes ran well with either synthetic oil or olive oil and some castor. However the best engine runs and really good idle came from combining the synthetic and modified olive oil.

Why ? I don't know. Could the olive oil be contributing a higher viscosity which improved piston seal ??? I am open to ideas []

I am pleased to see that the "Baker Black Bitumastic Substitute" (or whatever it is currently called) is doing so well and indeed some 5 to 6 gallons have been run.... well done.

Who would have thought... before this topic started up... that you could reduce the ether content right down to about 6%, use pump diesel instead of kerosene and use the waste oil from your car's oil change to run a model diesel engine...... can 2007 improve on this ???

Reg

slope- soarer
what is your more reliable mix, and what the engine, what the climate/temperature ad how many the runs, or the liters?. I think interesting to reach some "consensus" recipes, and know how tis consensus is high, so toss your dice, please!
ugo

Tallow is to beef as lard is to pork.

Many of the large turbodiesels, as in ships and generation plants, heat the bunker fuel oil simply to pump it. The same could be said of diesel fuel when temperatures reach 20 below Fahrenheit. Biodiesel depending on the original fats can solidify at relatively high temperatures and we all know you can't pump a solid let alone vaporize it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel#Gelling

Lubrication. We did discuss previously that the fuel must be evaporated from the fuel mixture for the oil to provide proper lubrication. This is why viscosity is so important for plain bearing engines. Not so much at the crank because of the high surface speeds but more so at the conrod and especially the top end where there is very little surface velocity. The problem of vaporizing the fuel is the same reason we will never have a single component fuel that will properly lubricate the engine and burn as a fuel. If biodiesel with a viscosity of 4-6cSt at room temperature could lubricate an engine why would engine manufactures be using oils with viscosities 2-5 times that at 100C? I've never seen a spec for viscosity of biodiesel at 100C. I've only seen one published spec for autoignition temperature for biodiesel. The vapor pressure is low and flash point is pretty high for biodiesel meaning it will be hard to vaporize.

My four stroke engines have no issues with lubricant dilution running etherless fuels. There is plenty of oil in the crankcase whenever I check. While I have never analyzed it, it looks like mostly oil. Should try distilling the oil from the crankcase, but with such a small amount I don't know that household techniques would give much of an answer.

Andy, I keep posting the same reasons as to why your approach will be tough if not impossible. You keep telling me "what if?" There is always what if. But right now you have to prove to us in real life how "what if" is going to work before I take it very seriously. What if is great when you can say look at this.

Greg,
so something is emerging. LUBRIFICATION is the MAIN goal to be attained with a two stroke fuel. NO engine can run without the lubrication it is designed for. As for the main bearing, its need of hard lubrication is LOW ,apart from its material, mainly from the ridicoulous charge it has to bear in front of the rod extremities. Not only from its very large working surface ( I guess at last 20 times that of rod extremes, due to its longer span and wider diameter), but also from the lever effect due to its considerable lenght. So a plain crankshaft could run on somewhat resembling water, since the loads cannot break its film. LAST BUT NOT LEAST the crankshaft has the lower temperature of the entire engine, so there a mix of fluid fuel and lube HAS MORE VISCOSITY than absolute lube in the cylinder!
But here comes the unknown. Some of the oldest engines preferred ether, IT IS A WONDERFUL CHOSE by the point of view of the lubrification. Probably the ENTIRE inner engine runs on straight lube, maximizing compressibillity and durability.
But there are some tradeoffs, since ether is rather a " monochrome" fuel. IT IGNITES TOO EARLY AND TOO CONTEMPORARILY, giving the less diesel shape to the pressure cycle. That is the less power, you know. AND AN ENGINE RUNS ONLY ON THE PRESSURE CYCLE!.
So we need balancing somewhat in HCCIs fuels. Kerosene helps...but does it evaporate sufficienly in ours?. THIS IS THE CONUNDRUM, POWER VERSUS LUBRIFICATION. And I strongly feel that not all it is done in fuels for having powerful and LASTING engines.
THE FIRST REAL ECONOMY is the DURATION of the ENGINE, NOT THE COST OF THE FUEL. Rather easy to assess if you evaluate how many liters of fuel is lasting an engine...not to say the old irreplaceable pieces of art some fortunate can enjoy running also today!. Of course this reasoning does not hold for extreme users. A worn engine may be well worth a championship!
In this way I agree with you not to follow purposes and ways out of real model HCCI (aka diesel) needs, following what is done for extremely different engines with totally different purposes. But I don't agree with the "stare decisis" you seem to prefer, but not to practice when you investigate on our engines.

Greg,
I was surprised that the website (www.bbc.co.uk/news) used the word tallow - unless it was a simplified way of conveying an idea of the consistency of the used oil that was intended for future use.

I also picked up on the fact that the bio-diesel was being heated prior to injection. If they find it necessary to do this with a big diesel in an engine room which would probably be at a reasonably high temperature, then it doesn't bode well for using the stuff in a small model engine ! Like you I greatly doubt the feasability of a single fuel component which also acts as the lubricant... the two requirements are somewhat incompatible.

Reg

Merugo,
I have followed your olive oil experiments with some interest. I have made modified oilive oil to use as a lubricant but only by means of "cooking" it in a pan on the stove.... however the stuff seems to work !

I take a commercial model diesel engine fuel with 30% ether content and 24% castor oil content and dilute it down as follows....

To make 1 litre of fuel with a 10% ether content ...

2.5% ignition improver 25mls
12.5% Synthetic engine oil 125mls
16% modified olive oil 160mls
10% ether 100mls
8% castor oil 80mls
kerosene 357mls

This was the last fuel mix I tested and is so far the best. Winter has intervened and more testing will be done in the better weather with the intent to reduce the ether content and also reduce some of the oil content in favour of more kerosene.

The mix shown gives easy starting... with a starter motor, and runs exceptinally well. The idle is very slow and very steady and acceleration is fast and smooth even after idling for a couple of minutes at a time.

I have tried other mixes... some with no ether at all and some with just synthetic oil as the lube and kerosene as the fuel component.

From my testing I found that...

Fuels with no ether at all will run OK in my model diesel engines.
However.... they require high ether primes to get the engine hot enough to start and the crankcase temperature increases considerably.

High ether content i.e. 30% reduces engine temperature but more noticeably the crankcase runs considerably cooler with a lot of ether present.

I also tried using just castor oil and reduced ether content, and here I hit problems. If the ether content is reduced then there will come a stage where the castor starts precipitating out of the mix. I found that 25% castor oil needed 15% ether content. If the ether was reduced then the mix would go cloudy when left for a few minutes and a deposit would appear at the bottom... this would probably get worse at lower temperatures.

To recap...

My experimenting got as far as the mix shown above. That mix gives incredibly good running and would be acceptable both on performance and especially price for my use. It gives reasonable engine temperature and the crankcase is at (what I think is ) a temperature which is acceptable.

The mix has been thoroughly tested and I included engine runs of 20 minutes at a time with up to 4 minutes at a time at idle speed. The engines would accelerate without any "hiccups" after several minutes idling, throttle response was very good throughout the range.

I will be happy to use this mix but will also experiment a bit more just to see what else I can achieve. The castor oil is in the mix only because I haven't a source of ether so I dilute normal high ether content fuel in order to get ether into my "homebrew" mixes.

Including modified olive oil in the lubricant has definitely given easier starting and smoother running.

Engines used were PAW both 1.49 and 2.49 models. Fuel mix was initially tested in non-RC Paw engines and when they didn't destroy the engines then it was further tested in RC versions so that the throttle response could be evaluated.

Somone else is having great success with a somewhat simpler fuel mix....
18% used engine oil..... drained from his crankcase at oil change time !!!
2% ignition improver
80% ordinary diesel fuel obtained from the garage pump !!!

Reg

reg, thanks
I think to propose some form of template to copy and paste for fuel mixes here. In this way we will have a list of proposed fuels easy to retrieve and to compare..and to comment.
My first comment. If I understand you add to the listed componets some standard mix in order to reach 1 liter of mix. If it is so, you in conclusion make a mix such as this
43/ kerosene
40% mixed oils castor-olive-synthetic (what SAE grade?)
14.5% ether
2.5 improver (What chemica type or brand?)
I guess:
1) this mix starts because the oil set has a cold viscosity lower than castor only. maybe one half of it, so engine can run. Obviously such a massive oil dose, if castor only, would render life difficult!
2) the percentage of ether is not so much low to render starting really problematic ( do you use electric starter or by hand?)
3)running is smooth since synthetic rapidly loses viscosity leaving only the (reduced) viscosity of the castor and olive ( total 27.5% braking the engine
4) ether and kerosene amount for 57.5% of the fuel, not too far from the master mix 1/3, 1/3, 1/3, so the combustible part of the fuel seems well balanced, also taking into account for the higher energy of kero
In conclusion your mix, notwithstanding the appearance, does not go far away from sure recipes. What engine do you use? and at what ambient temperature?
( this could help me to prepare a standardized form to propose as a consensus one). Thanks for your patience. As for the sludge mix, I have to elaborate a bit more
Ugo

Ugo, I'm not sure what this means can you use other words? Wait the wonderful world of the internet gave me the answer. I'm still not sure what you are saying and exactly what it is regarding. HCCI combustion has not been studied in the way we must use it in our engines. We must mix lubricant even in our four strokes. This is a limitation that the existing research can't answer. I can't even begin to get the answer I would like to have. What is the actual percentage of fuel being burned? I estimated that my FS-48 conversion running on 20% castor oil, 78% kerosene, and 2% octyl nitrate is running at a Lambda 0.8 not including the oil. HCCI research rarely included anything less than 1.0 Lambda and goes all the way to 5.0 typically. I can't even directly measure Lambda because of the oil in the fuel. I'm seriously considering creating a mist lubrication system for a four stroke so I can burn fuel without lube. Combustion chambers are small in these engines so there is little we can do, and few have tried changing anything. Carbs are carbs to most people. Andy knows this is not true which is why I ask about the vaporization aspect of running a heavy fuel. Anyhow I was about to try running a 15% oil mix when I ran out of time and weather. As with vaporization, I didn't check an ether based mix, but I will. I wonder if the kerosene doesn't fully burn even if there is ether in the mix.

There is a difference between running an antique irreplaceable engine with a fuel of unknown properties and developing an engine around a fuel you want to run. I am more inclined to modify, or build an engine for this purpose rather than just replace the fuel for existing engines.

Serious team racers (FAI F2C) run a minimum amount of oil. I understand that those who can afford it in engine wear run 10% castor oil. This is to allow the greatest amount of combustible fuel to be carried in the fixed size tank.

The original intent of this thread was to reduce the cost of fuel and increase accessibility by using commonly available products. The main problem was ether, which is expensive and hard to obtain. Kerosene is commonly available and many of us decided it works well with some additives. A small percentage of ether improves starting and handling considerably. Actual fuel consumption was not even mentioned by anyone other than Andy, Treven, and myself, so I don't think efficiency is really a concern, or we would all be using four stroke engines. Ether is expensive and hard to get in most developed countries, that's why we want to eliminate it. Ether does improve idling and makes starting very easy.

I disagree that the cost of the engine is the most important in economy as this depends on engine cost. We can buy Chinese engines of good quality for a decent price. If we are burning conventional model diesel fuel in that engine at 25+USD per gallon, we find that fuel cost is greater than engine investment after 2 gallons or so. Our engines would have to wear very quickly to make this a problem. Etherless mix is less than half of that with castor oil, and far less with regular crankcase oil. Or if we did what Treven does, oil would be essentially free. There is, of course, no sense in wearing engine components needlessly. Perhaps your oil modification experiments will lead to a superior lubricant that we can make at home. Olive oil isn't exactly cheap though.

So what is my goal?

1. To burn a mix of kerosene or pump No.2 diesel, lube (whatever works, preferably purchased), and ignition improver that is readily available but not ether.
2. Design or modify an engine that will start and run reliably on the above fuel mix.
3. Optimize the engine to be as efficient as I can. This means reducing the fuel and oil consumption to a minimum.

Looks like everyone going fast on furious on this may more so than the oil companies, Lakeland Florida was playing with running their buses on treated veggie oil that came from frying french fries etc. as a matter of fact the exhaust did smell like french frys or pretty close The problem I see here is the demand exceeding the available "feed stock" to do it There is a tree in South America
that the sap when tapped will run diesel engines (some sort of Pine?? like Turp??) urban legend? , Also there was a neat magazine that came out a few months ago called diesel power by the same publisher as 4 wheeler saw 4 issues now cannot find it , It of course was devoted the hopping up truck diesels and engine swaps but they did have a page on whats happening in the diesel world
.Olive oil also costs bucks we use it for cooking (heathy) but $5 for about 6 or 8oz Corn or safflower costs a lot less, a biodiesel mix maybe 70/30 petro source/corn oil may be where its headed at least a start to the green planet thing martin

Greg,

Several years ago I was playing aroung with running a Magnum 80FS on gasoline and spark ignition. I was not mixing the gas with oil, but injecting oil into the valve cover. The oil was thinned with mineral spirits until a perry ossilating pump could pump it through a needle valve to regulate the amount of oil that was injected. The Mag 80 has the oil vent under the cam area so I plugged that and tapped the crank case cover for the vent. This seemed to provide adequate lubrication. The Mag 80 is still in service on glow after playing with the gas for a couple of years.

Just an idea that might help run fuel to the combustion chamber without oil mixed with it.

Will

greg,
to be short, suppose you are using a 2 stroke and you substitute the ether of a simple mix1/3, 1/3, 1/3. Within the crankase the kerosene is yet in liquid phase, so the oil is diluted 50-50 by the kerosene. This means that the natural viscosity of the lube is halved. Now pass to the mixture where ether has been substituded by some fuel similar to kerosene (an bio IS similar to kerosene by this point of view). Now the diluition is 33-66, that means FURTHER HALVING of the viscosity. Do you really think your engine happy to run on such a stuff?.
It may seem absurd, but it is true, REDUCING ETHER REDUCES WORKING VISCOSITY OF THE FUEL!!!! So this is the FIRST problem, the LUBRICATION. Instead of asking " does whale oil burn in place of ether? " one has to ask " does whale oil in place of ether reduce engine lubrification?"
.... next we will reflect of what mean for COMBUSTION the droplets of an etherless mix and their coalescence.....
ugo

Ugo, Well, I didn't think it would be a problem. I understand your theoretical point of view. However my experience says that the engine is fine running fuel without ether. I'm using 40 or 50 SAE weight lubricants. One engine has about 90 minutes of runtime on etherless fuel. Please also consider the D-star engines which run on JP-8 (essentially kerosene) and 0.03% lubricant. The .54 two stroke produces 1.3HP at 14,000 RPM and has shown a lifetime of 70 hours or more. I have done very little with etherless fuel in two strokes but Treven has flown 4-5 gallons of 5% ether mix in a two stroke without problems.

Will, Thanks for the idea. I was going to go with something a bit more complex like what is used in the Ryobi four stroke. That would be much simpler for this though. I have plenty of sacraficial four strokes for the engine Gods. But I'm still looking for a good deal on a Magnum 1.20 or 1.80.

Greg,
diesel pumps RUN on diesel fuel, but they are designed AROUND it! You say 90 minutes your running on etherless, could detail the mix?, it seems a bit short time, maybe 30 hours will be an acceptable goal. I hope you will attain it.
For D-STAR, those engines cost in the order of thousand dollars, if and when in production, and claim to be designed for working with lubrication of around 1 centistokes, the same as for diesel pums. But no model engine manifacturer claims this value. I think that if something happens they will declare their warranties void!
For an example of what is happening (wearing) around simply by substituting diesel with Jp8 take a look at http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...n15648548/pg_1

I never found that claim of lubrication for D-Star. I have read about the lubricity concerns with the new ultra low sulphur diesel fuel in the US. The stores everywhere stock diesel fuel additives for older engines since the introduction of the new diesel fuel. The link you gave said most of the tests were successful. There is also a significant difference between a Mil-spec application and a hobbyist application. I'm sure you do understand that any failure in the military is a seriuos problem. At my last job in the hobby industry we always joked the customer would smash the product into the ground or otherwise destroy it long before it's useful life was over or the warranty expired. I have found this to be true of most things in the hobby industry. There is no single component that will be lubricated entirely by kerosene in any of our engines. I don't think anyone here is advocating elimination of the lubricant completely. I think the problem is more closely related to crankcase oils in long term applications where a dilutant with a high boiling point will never boil out of the oil reserve and cause lubricant failure. I have read about such failures in diesel engines with faulty injectors.

With 20% castor oil I expect no problems with the four stroke engines in terms of longevity. I was going to try reducing the percentage to see if problems arise. As soon as I get the chance again I'll be running engines.

My engines have been run mostly on [link=http://www.maximausa.com/products/2stroke/castor927.asp]Maxima Castor 927[/link] at 20%, regular kerosene at 78%, and 2% octyl nitrate (2-ethylhexil nitrate). I have also tried various crankcase oils and two stroke synthetic lubricants. The engine is warmed on regular model diesel mix or heater, pior to running on etherless fuel at this time.

I guess I don't understand the concern. You make it sound like none of the the kerosene evaporates. We do know that most of it is burning. If the residual oil mixture in the crankcase of my engines was 50% kerosene, I would be surprised. Even if it is, the viscosity of the resulting oil mixture is suitable for the engine in my opinion. Now, I have to figure out how to determine how much kerosene is in the lube. I might be concerned with a two stroke, but Treven's experience says otherwise. Also how is the situation in a glow engine? We did go into these tests blindly, but experience has shown that it seems to work. Either we are on the verge of destroying our engines or the concern isn't really a concern. The truth may not be easily known without strictly controlled tests, possibly beyond our hobbyist capability. The easiest test would be to reduce oil content until problems do occur. This would tell us in practice what the engine needs to survive, even if we don't really know what is happening.

I suppose a good way to test would be a separate lube system, and straight fuel. This would let me determine the dilution easily.

To further satisfy my curiosity I completely disassembled the FS-48 that has the most runtime on it on etherless fuel. The engine was purchased used and I didn't inspect it prior to conversion. The crosshatch on the bushings in the conrod is like new. There is no indication of wear here. I was expecting some wear on the top end but if I had to say that there is wear it's at the big end on edge of the bushing. There is some light scuffing. The sleeve is in great shape considering it was missing one of the plastic bushings on the piston pin at one time. The piston pin ended up scoring the liner, and I discovered it when I had it apart for inspection previously and replaced the plastic bushing. I continued to run it as it was. The liner outside of this scored area looks great, like would be expected of any low time engine. The intake lifter has some wear but I don't know if this was there when I received the engine.