Jump to content

Featured Posts

Just now, MartynG said:

I am guessing the fuel in aircraft is consumed fairly promptly and has a fast turnover

Unlike a boat where  fuel can sit in the tank for many months. I suspect the time factor is significant.

 

 

 

I also suspect the way the fuel gets into the combustion chamber of a jet is at a lower pressure and through a larger orifice than on our diesels.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tony Brooks said:

And the lab they sent a previous weird fuel issue implicated additives as well. Eberspatcher were adamant (verbally) maybe 10 years ago that certain additives were found to do strange things at the bottom of the tank. RCR changed their additive recommendations based on the previous occurrence.

 

I don't think that looking at the available semi-independent evidence rather than marketing stuff @Martyn g is correct. There is room for doubt. That is unless he has technical expertise in the area that he has not disclosed.

Choose your additives with care and stick to well known well tested brands for reputable companies.

But even the big boys get it wrong sometimes, wasn't there an issue several years ago where a big company (Shell?) started putting a new additive into their petrol to improve mpg and wrecked a whole load of injection systems?

 

and turning to oil rather than diesel, its one of the additives that causes bore glazing.

 

.................Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

That is better than the silly brass fitting types on many boats including the Hudson I owned but rain can still get down the sides of the lid, how is the filler cap seated into the hull?

The neck is sealed to the hull and the lift up flap where the key goes has a lip with a o ring in it , I have used fuelset from day one ( 6 years ) and dip my tanks regularly with water finding paste no water detected up to now also have a fuel guard fitted 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, luggsy said:

The neck is sealed to the hull and the lift up flap where the key goes has a lip with a o ring in it , I have used fuelset from day one ( 6 years ) and dip my tanks regularly with water finding paste no water detected up to now also have a fuel guard fitted 

If you use Fuel Set then you won't find any water in your tank because the Fuel Set dissolves the water into your diesel and then it goes through the fuel guard and injection system.

 

...........Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dmr said:

If you use Fuel Set then you won't find any water in your tank because the Fuel Set dissolves the water into your diesel and then it goes through the fuel guard and injection system.

 

...........Dave

It does what it says on the bottle then

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dmr said:

If you use Fuel Set then you won't find any water in your tank because the Fuel Set dissolves the water into your diesel and then it goes through the fuel guard and injection system.

 

...........Dave

That's the general idea but it  only works with tiny amounts of water .

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MartynG said:

I am guessing the fuel in aircraft is consumed fairly promptly and has a fast turnover

Unlike a boat where  fuel can sit in the tank for many months. I suspect the time factor is significant.

 

 

 

And unlike canal boats,the performance of military aircraft will be very closely monitored with armed service care.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:

Of much more importance  would suggest is to regularly drain/suck any water from the bottom of the tank and if you have one of the fancy "flush" fuel  fillers to change it for one that has a female cap on it or regularly change the O ring on the your fillet plug.

 

If you must use an additive i would suggest a biocide like Marine 16 Complete rather than an emulsifier,  especially if you have not got rid of any water in the bottom of the tank.

Good advice.

I use a vacuum type pump to clear the bottom of my tank.

It is a plastic bottle with the suction pump on top.It works by creating a vacuum in the bottle drawing up the diesel/ muck and not blocking the pump.

A good annual job.

If I remember,it was fairly cheap off e bay,and I think the make was Houseman.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MartynG said:

I am guessing the fuel in aircraft is consumed fairly promptly and has a fast turnover

Unlike a boat where  fuel can sit in the tank for many months. I suspect the time factor is significant.

 

 

 

 

The slow fuel turnover has become an issue for standby generator sets, where it can literally take years for a tanks contents to turn over.

 

Since the removal of a guaranteed FAME free supply, many installations now incorporate built-in  fuel polishing filters to remove any diesel bug whenever the engine is running.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cuthound said:

 

The slow fuel turnover has become an issue for standby generator sets, where it can literally take years for a tanks contents to turn over.

 

Since the removal of a guaranteed FAME free supply, many installations now incorporate built-in  fuel polishing filters to remove any diesel bug whenever the engine is running.

Now you mention it I wonder if fuel polishing  systems on boats will need to become the norm. I am guessing a small electric fuel pump and a filter could do the job.

Or perhaps something more sophisticated (and possibly more expensive)  like the following

https://www.marine16.co.uk/diesel-dipper-2/dieseldipper

.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2I note the "Diesel Dipper" doesn't state  the filtration standard of its filters.

 

The permanent systems I have seen use 3 stage filtration of 100 microns, 50 microns and 5 microns IIRC.

 

They operated whenever the generator was run (usually once a month plus mains outages) and filtered about 20% of the fuel capacity of the tank per hour.

 

You could always just use a manually switched pump and filters and could knock up a simple system for lot less than the "Diesel Dipper".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Marine 16......As used by the RNLI. Good enough for me.

Just now, XLD said:

Marine 16......As used by the RNLI. Good enough for me.

I suppose one of those “dipstick tube oil draining pumps” will be ideal to suck out any water at the bottom of a fuel tank.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MartynG said:

Now you mention it I wonder if fuel polishing  systems on boats will need to become the norm. I am guessing a small electric fuel pump and a filter could do the job.

Or perhaps something more sophisticated (and possibly more expensive)  like the following

https://www.marine16.co.uk/diesel-dipper-2/dieseldipper

.

 

Even allowing for the current £0.10 premium over the price of dino-diesel, I reckon using HVO with its 10-year shelf life would be a much cheaper and more reliable solution! Greater fuel-efficiency and reduced NoX outputs would an added bonus.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Up-Side-Down said:

Even allowing for the current £0.10 premium over the price of dino-diesel, I reckon using HVO with its 10-year shelf life would be a much cheaper and more reliable solution! Greater fuel-efficiency and reduced NoX outputs would an added bonus.

Higher cetane and lower emissions as you say .

If its available and only 10p a litre extra and that is offset by better fuel economy why are we not using it in boats already? 

https://www.crownoil.co.uk/products/hvo-fuel-hydrotreated-vegetable-oil/?utm_keyword=hvo&gclid=CjwKCAiAlNf-BRB_EiwA2osbxVLGOuNO2DqBdOWWD56JLYP_PNluYg4pOi0HU6K9DGv_dkkCYx3tyxoC43gQAvD_BwE

 

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Higher cetane and lower emissions as you say .

If its available and only 10p a litre extra and that is offset by better fuel economy why are we not using it in boats already? 

https://www.crownoil.co.uk/products/hvo-fuel-hydrotreated-vegetable-oil/?utm_keyword=hvo&gclid=CjwKCAiAlNf-BRB_EiwA2osbxVLGOuNO2DqBdOWWD56JLYP_PNluYg4pOi0HU6K9DGv_dkkCYx3tyxoC43gQAvD_BwE

 

.

I could not see a fuel economy claim on the web site and I also could not see anything to suggest it contains more energy than mineral diesel so where does the better economy claim originate?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

I could not see a fuel economy claim on the web site and I also could not see anything to suggest it contains more energy than mineral diesel so where does the better economy claim originate?

https://www.crownoil.co.uk/news/crown-hvo-fuel-in-a-modern-2bt-excavator-land-water-case-study/

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, cuthound said:

 

The slow fuel turnover has become an issue for standby generator sets, where it can literally take years for a tanks contents to turn over.

 

Since the removal of a guaranteed FAME free supply, many installations now incorporate built-in  fuel polishing filters to remove any diesel bug whenever the engine is running.

So why are they not using HVO, it looks like the perfect choice for standby stuff, I feel there must be a big disadvantage to HVO but can't see what it is.

 

...............Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dmr said:

So why are they not using HVO, it looks like the perfect choice for standby stuff, I feel there must be a big disadvantage to HVO but can't see what it is.

 

...............Dave

 

Cost I presume as HVO is currently more expensive than red diesel.

 

A 2000kVA generator running at full load will consume circa 450 litres per hour, and one data centre I worked in had 33 such beasts.

 

With a built in fuel polishing facility you only pay the installation cost once.

Edited by cuthound
Clarification
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tony Brooks said:

I could not see a fuel economy claim on the web site and I also could not see anything to suggest it contains more energy than mineral diesel so where does the better economy claim originate?

Does higher cetane not result in better performance ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Up-Side-Down said:

I still cant see any reference to fuel consumption in that link or on the Crown website.

 

Me thinks we have another example of  people confusing the benefits of  cetane rating for diesel and octane rating for petrol.

 

Unless I can see either a consumption test result or the energy density of HVO fuel I do beleive better consumption can be legitimately claimed.

 

This is not to denigrate any of its other advantages but I think it vital people do not make claims they can't substantiate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the interweb ............

Cetane number is a measure of combustion efficiency. The higher the number, the better potential for each and every droplet that is sprayed into the combustion chamber to burn and produce power.

The more efficiently the fuel burns in the combustion chamber, the less possibility to produce smoke and byproducts of combustion that the exhaust after-treatment system must manage.

The more of that fuel that burns, the better power output and better possible fuel mileage you can expect to achieve from the engine.

https://blog.amsoil.com/what-is-cetane-and-why-does-it-matter/#:~:text=How does increased diesel cetane,a measure of combustion efficiency.&text=The more of that fuel,to achieve from the engine.

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MartynG said:

From the interweb ............

Cetane number is a measure of combustion efficiency. The higher the number, the better potential for each and every droplet that is sprayed into the combustion chamber to burn and produce power.

The more efficiently the fuel burns in the combustion chamber, the less possibility to produce smoke and byproducts of combustion that the exhaust after-treatment system must manage.

The more of that fuel that burns, the better power output and better possible fuel mileage you can expect to achieve from the engine.

https://blog.amsoil.com/what-is-cetane-and-why-does-it-matter/#:~:text=How does increased diesel cetane,a measure of combustion efficiency.&text=The more of that fuel,to achieve from the engine.

.

 

Ah - taken from an additive company website. Its bullshine.

 

As I explained to LadyG a short while ago the cetane number describes how readily the fuel will ignite and by implication how long the delay period is. The higher the cetane number the faster it ignites and the shorter the delay period, this in turn reduces diesel knock. The delay period is measure in milliseconds or less so shortening it will make little difference to the power produced by burning a  specific quantity of fuel in the engine.

 

In a petrol engine with modern computer control a higher octane number allows the ECU to advance the ignition to the maximum safe degree  as the engine  speeds up. this will give more power and better fuel economy.

 

it may be that modern common rail injection systems can alter the injection timing but I have not heard of any manufacturer fitting a diesel knock sensor yet and without that the the ECU can never know when to advance or retard injection  for maximum performance. Happy to be poven wrong about the knock sensor.

 

Rotary pumps can and do alter the injection timing but its done by indirect reference to pump speed (transfer pump pressure) but the cetane rating can not influence this action in any way.  Very few inline/individual injector pumps have a method of automatically altering the injection timing. They all need a many with spanner to do it.

 

In our types of engines it is unlikely to make a significant difference economy wise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cuthound said:

 

Cost I presume as HVO is currently more expensive than red diesel.

 

A 2000kVA generator running at full load will consume circa 450 litres per hour, and one data centre I worked in had 33 such beasts.

 

With a built in fuel polishing facility you only pay the installation cost once.

But the only standby that I have ever had a passing connection with spent its whole life just waiting, just in case,, with an occasional test run, so cost of fuel used would be small, whilst the cost of making sure it really was ready to go, including possible periodic replacement of FAME diesel, would be high???

 

..............Dave

1 hour ago, MartynG said:

Does higher cetane not result in better performance ?

I think that lower than required cetane can degrade performance, but if a fuel has an adequate cetane rating (for a given engine design) then increasing it further has little advantage.

 

.............Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dmr said:

But the only standby that I have ever had a passing connection with spent its whole life just waiting, just in case,, with an occasional test run, so cost of fuel used would be small, whilst the cost of making sure it really was ready to go, including possible periodic replacement of FAME diesel, would be high???

 

..............Dave

 

Frequency and rigorousness of testing depends on who owns it.

 

The hospitals I've  installed them in tend to go for monthly 5 minute off load tests, presumably because its cheap, even though lives at stake. 😣

 

BT did monthly on load tests until the engine had warmed up, plus 5 yearly "black start" (actually fail the mains, rather than use a test button).

 

Data centres varied, but most did a monthly on load test for 5-12 hours, because a lot of money was at stake.

Edited by cuthound
Missing letter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.