RE: Substitute for Ether
 

ob1n
I am not sure who are you, but i can think you are mixing between the real fuel injected diesel engine and model diesel engine since you wrote a long long post about the real diesel engine. :)

Maybe you never seen the real model diesel engine with contrapiston as adjustable compression ratio to adjust heat of compression and ignition timing.

RE: Substitute for Ether
 

No offense....but.....a diesel is a diesel. Real or model. They are moving a piston up and down because a high compression squeeze caused heat against a fuel/air mixture to explode.

Yes, of course.....the model diesel has a compression screw. "Real" diesels do not. But, if I put a carburetor on a "real" diesel and expected it to run......would I need a compression screw for each cylinder? Most likely! Why? Cause the fuel isn't being atomized properly. Like I said in my post before......I believe the fuel isn't the real issue as to why the model diesel is so difficult operate/run/start. Think about it.......an old-time, hydraulic injection pump-diesel engine in a vehicle. A kid(don't try this at home) goes out to the vehicle, inserts the key......turns it over and bang......diesel runs. Why? Cause he had to adjust fuel mixture/chemistry? Compression screw? I do not think so. It's because the compression was good, there is oxygen in the cylinder mixed with some sort of combustible fuel and it was atomized good enough to create an explosion. If you really think about it....diesels are born to detonate. Which is a bad thing in a gasoline engine.

Personally, I believe......like a gasoline engine.......if you don't atomize the fuel proper......no matter what it is, it will not fire. Gasoline is much easier to atomize. Which is why you can do so with a carburetor or fuel innjection. On the drag strip, a carbureted car pitted against a fuel injected car is fair game.....anyone can win. How come I do not see a carbureted diesel against a mechanically/electronically injected diesel at the tractor pull?! Cause it won't run without all those "compression screws, sensitive fuel chemistries, etc.". Now....take a diesel that is fuel injected........then add a turbo to it. What do you get?! Of course, the volumetric efficiency has increased but what else has happened? That's right....the turbo has ALSO caused better atomization. I've witnessed first-hand before. Emissions from a diesel before a turbo was installed showed it was "fairly dirty" out the tailpipe. Even though it was as good as it could get in terms of compression and tunability. Then, we added a turbo. A small one, too. Horsepower and torque GALORE!!!! AND......the emissions machine showed a much "cleaner" output in terms of complete combustion gases. Ever notice how a turbo makes BIG difference on a diesel engine? Put a turbo/super charger on a gasoline auto....and what is needed? MORE FUEL! Most of the time, NOT always, a diesel hardly needs added fuel after a power adder such as a turbo is installed. I believe....and many experts in this field, is because the fuel atomization got a whole lot better.

Sorry to be sooooooo adamant about this, guys.....but, really.....from everything I've experienced in life.....this diesel thing shouldn't be so hard. I find that repair/diagnostic work on diesels to be so much easier than gasoline/propane/electric powerplants. Get that fuel atomized properly and as long as you got oxygen, tight compression(not necessarily adjustable either.....FIXED), and a little warmth in the chamber at the time of firing.......it'll go bang on just about anything that says, "Danger: Highly Combustible".

RE: Substitute for Ether
 

ob1n .
" Now....take a diesel that is fuel injected........then add a turbo to it. What do you get?! Of course, the volumetric efficiency has increased but what else has happened? That's right....the turbo has ALSO caused better atomization"


Sorry but you need to go back to school on that statement, yes there maybe some improvement in atomisation, but this is due to the fact MORE air is being compressed into the same space causeing an increase in heat.
The reason for lower emisions is due almost entirely to the fact MORE air is available to burn the fuel not turbulance from the turbochager.
Stewart

RE: Substitute for Ether
 

I'm glad you brought it up......now think about what you just said. MORE air is available to burn the fuel.........BUT......like I said, MOST of the time, after installing a power adder to a diesel, we do NOT need to add MORE fuel as well. Therefore, the turbo is atomizing the fuel better. In most cases, why doesn't the diesel burn all that "extra" fuel BEFORE adding the turbo? It wasn't atomized. I make another example.......we'll use gasoline in this example.

Let's say we have an engine that's fuel injected and we can program the computer(ECU) to mix ANY kind of fuel/air ratio we desire. Desired, in theory, is 14.7 to 1. Let's say we make it 5 to 1. That's 5 parts air to 1 fuel molecule. It most likely will not run cause it's too rich. Air is NEEDED to atomize the fuel at the correct mixture to cause it to fire. Basically(in rough terms) atomization IS air being added to a fuel. Diesels actually can run MUCH richer than, say, a gasoline/propane ICE(Internal Combustion Engine). Not to mention, any diesel that is set up correctly can run on just about anything that is combustible.

Ask ANYone who welds on cars/exhaust systems for a living........they'll tell you that they would rather weld around a FULL tank of gas than a half tank(ESPECIALLY nearly empty). Why? Cause the Air/fuel ratio in an empty tank of gas is "atomized" in FAVOR for combustion. All it needs is a spark, arc and/or compression. Now....ask the same people about welding around diesel tanks. They'll tell you, in general, they are not worried. For the fuel is not as "atomized" as easily as gasoline.

Turbulence from the turbo charger helps.....a lot.....but even more so is the fact that more air is induced to the fuel which in turn atomizes it better. You can throw a match on top of a bucket of gasoline and have a little fire. Now......throw that bucket in the air. What happens? Atomization! You won't be able to be within 20 feet of that fire otherwise you'll be burned but good! Try that with bucket of diesel. Won't happen.....if it does.....not near the effect. Cause it didn't have compression. It's like you've got to "force" the air atoms between the fuel atoms in a diesel.....because of it's "oily", sticky chemistry.

Again....not meant to insult anyone. But, atomization is(basically) the act of adding air to something. Making the air turbulent helps the process. So....using my example you quoted......without the turbo, NO more air would've been introduced to the mixture had it not been there. And if we make power(and lots of it) withOUT adding more fuel.....then how come we just boost our power levels? Cause the fuel was atomized better and made use of what was already there! It just wasn't mixing/atomizing on it's own good enough for complete burn. Basically, it was running rich.....but a diesel doesn't really "care" about rich and lean like a gasoline does. I mean, of course you can't run a diesel on air alone and you also can't pour liquid fuel down the intake and expect to run either. But, do you see a throttle plate that regulates air on a diesel? That's what I'm talking about......and here we are, by some miracle, operating a model diesel with a CARBURETOR!!! LOL! I think it's amazing! We are adjusting compression and mixing fuels to make the diesel run for us as we desire. It is because a diesel is so forgiving with air/fuel ratio that we CAN get it to run with a carb. Now......atomize it with an injector, preferably direct port......and NEVER worry about mixing fuel again! Just make sure it isn't froze up and can flow through the injector at a super fine mist.

RE: Substitute for Ether
 

One more thing to illustrate.....

Take a cup of gasoline and pour it on the concrete in the summer heat. 5 minutes later......where did it go? It evaporated/atomized on it's own. A week later......there may be a hint of stain on the ground......maybe.

Now......same concrete.....same summer day.......1 cup of diesel fuel....any kind of fuel(kerosine, diesel for autos/trucks, biodiesel, vegetable oil....whatever). 3 hours later.....it's STILL all over the ground!!!!! Didn't atomize/evaporate to well, did it?! Look at it......ALL that energy just splattered all over the ground! A month later(unless you used lots of soap and water) that stain will STILL be there. In fact, it may still be oily in nature. Now.....throw a match on it. Maybe we MIGHT get a flame. We would on the gasoline spill if we did it before it completely atomized/evaporated. But, even though we can't get it to ignite spilled on the ground we KNOW that if this fuel were compressed inside an engine it would make a big bang! Why? Cause the compression/air is atomizing it.

Another example, pour gas(liquid) down the intake of a car engine. Turn off the "normal" fuel supply and try to start it. It will start!....and run for a few seconds. Now do the same for a diesel(liquid state). Yeah.....good luck! Of course, if we had a compression screw and some ether we might get a little bit of ignition. Ever heard of "hydraulic lock"? If we can get the fuel for diesel as close to "air" as possible.....man.....there'll be a bang. But, wait.....someone said they started a motor for a few seconds with WD40 as they used it for afterrun oil! What happened? Atomization. Sprayed in by an aerosol can(injector?) And, by chance, it was perfect and ripe for combustion. Now.....take that WD40 and pour it(liquid state) down that motor carb. Start it.......yeah.....right! Won't happen. UNLESS you atomize it OR use some sort of spark/heat element to ignite the "other" chemistries within it.

RE: Substitute for Ether
 

GM never had a "coverted" engine. The 5.7 was designed as a Diesel using gasser accessories and bolt patterns, it's terrible problems lead to it earning a reputation of being a converted gasser, NOT! The 6.2 couldn't be farther from a converted engine. It was designed from the ground up by the then Detroit Diesel Division of GM as a light duty diesel. The 6.2 was never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever related to a gasser at all. The 5.7 shared accessories and bolt patterns.

RE: Substitute for Ether
 

The Olds diesel was bad All they did was put on an injection pump and diesel heads and it came apart The 6.2 was a good engine had one in my Chevy van for years. The only issue was it would snap the air conditioner bracket is was the same as the gas engine oneand could not take
the vibration One made up from 1/4 steel plate solved it , Had for 10 years great milage , only thing
I had to replace was2 glow plugs and the control relay martin

RE: Substitute for Ether
 

dieseldan, They did more than just add an IP and heads. They also used different blocks in later years. The later (good) ones with a DX block had a much beefier block. Really the 5.7's biggest problem was that society wasn't ready for it. People didn't know enough about Diesels back then, I'd be suprised if there are many GM mechanics out there today even that know much about Diesels. There are some well-cared for 5.7's out there still today running strong at 300K+.

RE: Substitute for Ether
 

Please let me get into the conversation.

Atomization is different from evaporation.

Gas evaporates from liquid phase to vapour phase and mixes with the surrounding air. That's why a half tank of gas is more dangerous than a full tank. There probably is a fuel/air vapour mixture that may be at the right proportions to ignite. The flammable range of gas vapour in air is 1% - 7% by volume.

Atomization is the process by which a liquid is "decomposed" into small dropplets in a vapour phase. I don't see water atomizers catching fire ;) On the other hand, a WD40 vaporizer (not pressurized can) is great fun - albeit dangerous - to watch if you have a lighter in front of the nozzle due to the way the liquid is atomized to burn quickly. But if you put your hand instead in front of it, it will get full of liquid WD40.

Mitsubishi, with their GDI engine, had air assisted fuel injection, which greatly helped the atomization of gasoline and its better mix with the air in the combustion chamber.

Diesels have been experiencing smaller and smaller injector orifices to create a finner atomization of the diesel fuel and consequent better combustion due to increased fuel to air exposure area. Comparing the same engine with same fuel quantity injected but with different diameter injector holes, the one with larger holes will creates more sooth due to a more inneficient combustion from a worse atomization of the fuel.

RE: Substitute for Ether
 

RCpullerdude You are right back then it was the 5.7 just had a memory recall on mine and the owners guide engine section did say detroit diesel divison of GM it was not the olds block they was some issues with the injection pump made by Rousa ( if thats spelled right) but it got fixed my big van got at least 25 mp martin

RE: Substitute for Ether
 

Say what?

Detroit never had anything to do with the 5.7, but they did design the 6.2. The 6.2 used the Stanadyne Roosa-Master DB-2 IP. The 5.7 is all GM. GM designed it using accessories from the gasser, and the same bolt patterns, resulting in a similar image. Now, when they turned out to have a lot of problems, they where falsly, and still are to this day, accused of being converted gassers. GM never had a converted gasser. There was an early converted gasser used in pick-ups however, I'll see if anyone knows who built it and who used it. The biggest vehicle the 5.7 was used in was the C10 pick-up.

The 6.2 was designed by Detroit. Had absolutly nothing to do with the 5.7 at all. Was used in vans, Suburbans, Blazers, and all size C/K trucks.

RE: Substitute for Ether
 

Also, the 6.2/6.5 use a chain from the crank to the cam, and a gear from the cam to the IP. And, you do know that diesel's don't need glow plugs? Some 1:1 "real world" Diesels use no starting help at all.

RE: Substitute for Ether
 

This is an interesting fuel thread on the UK's Barton MFC ( Control line ) forum.
A bit off topic as it not a Ether replacement topic but a Kero and IPN related discussion, but worth a look ->
http://controlline.org.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3543

RE: Substitute for Ether
 

Morning John,

You beat me to the punch. Your thread turned into an interesting discussion and I was just on my way to post something about it here.

AndyW is (the starter of this thread) is an incessant tinker and experimenter and I am sure he would find your results rather interesting. I seem to recall that he did try barbeque lighter fluid and naptha at one time but was more interested in using less (or no) ether rather than finding a substitute for kerosene.

I wish I was within a couple of hours driving from your location. I am jealous that C/L is alive and well in the UK. I have been trying for a couple of years to get some local activity going but have so far met with very little interest.

cheers, Graham in Ottawa

RE: Substitute for Ether
 

Back to the fuel without ether topic. I made a mistake in mixing small batches of fuel while just messing around and running all my diesels. Doing "spring cleaning", I guess. I mixed what turned out (from sheer stupidity and negligence) to be 25% castor and 75% Red Line RL-2 Diesel Ignition Improver. I was priming with a syringe and flipping before connecting to the fuel and got three really hot starts that ran out the prime. When I started to fill the test bed tank from one of 3.5 oz glass bottles I use for small batches, I saw that the color was wrong and found no scent of ether when I sniffed it.

All I can say is that the bulk of the Red Line product is the carrier aromatic hydrocarbon and the some solvents intended to clean the injectors plus the DII. The MSDS says it's almost 50% heavy aromatic naptha and small quantities benzene and naphthalene and some other things I don't quite recognize:

__________________________________________________ __________

I presume that the DII is the 5% octlynitrate, but I could be wrong.

FWIW, it looks as if my engine started and ran out the prime on 25% castor, perhaps 30-35% naptha, and a bunch of solvents. I didn't experiment any further since I wasn't really happy with the way the exhaust residue looked or the overcompressed sound I was hearing during the brief runs on the primes. And I wasn't about to risk damaging a Webra Piccolo with further experimentation.

ps: The starting fluid I use as a source of ether is Johnsen's Premium. The MSDS says its 50% ether and Johnsen publicizes that number in its descriptions of the product.

RE: Substitute for Ether
 

WOW quite a chemical plant napthalene and Benzene bad stuff carcinogenic I will stick with the John Deere and its 80% ether and amsoil cetane booster octyl nitrate if I do any mxing
I try and use the Davis stuff have only made my own when I ran out martin

RE: Substitute for Ether
 

Hey lildiesel , you have got me thinking there.

I wonder if the white spirit + Wynnes (pump Diesel treatment stuff) I have been playing with ( as a sub for kero and IPN ) might actually also work with little or no Ether ?

Can't wait to test that out, I will report back !

RE: Substitute for Ether
 

Isn't white spirit the less volatile clear liquid used as a dry cleaning and spot removing agent? I think mineral turps might be a better choice since it is more volatile and should have a lower autoignition temperature than white spirits. Looking forward to reading your results.

RE: Substitute for Ether
 

Hey as I promised before I'm sending you this message with the hope to have some diagrams and photographs of how you make your heads for diesel engines
Thanks in advance

Marco

RE: Substitute for Ether
 

OK all I got my first diesel in 1949 or 1950 fuel mix was ether at least 30% think it was higher
have many davis conversions from 049 to an OS 1.08 at least 30 assorted plus PAWs +Enya + Irvine+ MVVS
factory issue diesels not conversions (which all list fuel mixes with ether)
I would think in 60 years if you could run on none ether fuels it would have happened
Davis,Red max, Model techniques would love it no expensive ether in the mix ITS STILL HERE AFTER 60 YEARS martin





\

RE: Substitute for Ether
 

Martin, if you are not the type of person that likes to experiment, that's fine. This thread was about finding alternative fuels, not really about proving why ether is in the fuel now. We know why it's there.

RE: Substitute for Ether
 

hi people, today I ran my PAW 29 Ds.. with 60%kerosene 20% petrobras mineral 2 stroke oil +15%soya +5% olive oil... NO Cetane booster, NO ether
they ran fine after I apply a heater gun... ambient temperature here is about 32º C, now I'm thinking about testing other components... like "2750" lacquer thinner.. that contains Xilene, Toluene and MEK (not MEKP, only MEK), and/or polyester resin catalist (diisobutyl ftalate + benzoyl peroxide)... I'm very happy with the results I have today, because the only source of ether is a blend with ethanol + 30%ether...

RE: Substitute for Ether
 

Xylene and toluene are high octane chemicals. They will not run well in your engine. Make sure that your two stroke oil has high viscosity or your engine will not last long. Castor oil would be best for a iron and steel engine like that. I look forward to reading more about your experiments.

RE: Substitute for Ether
 

my 2 stroke oil is SAE 30... should be good? castor is much more viscous than this mineral, soya or olive
I think my unmodified castor will not blend perfectly with kerosene without ether..

RE: Substitute for Ether
 

I recommend SAE40 or 50. Castor is generally SAE 50.