Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 00:16:41 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote: Take this for as much verification as you think it's worth... On at least one occasion my dad came home from the fire station with a story of a truck engine running away when the guys put gasoline in the tank instead of diesel fuel. I don't see why this should happen _in theory_ as a diesel is throttled by controlling the amount of fuel injected, but I could certainly see it happening in practice if the lower viscosity of gas let it flow at a too- high volume. IIRC one shuts down a runaway diesel by shutting off the air. There is (was) supposed to be an emergency shut-off valve in the intake of every diesel motor, but in a pinch one could use articles of clothing stuffed into the intake. I was working on a drilling rig when we hit a gas pocket, and a cloud of it wound up being pulled into the intake of the 398 Cat (about the side of a small garage) driving the mud pump. We wound up stuffing about 5 pairs of Carrhart insulated coveralls in the intake....she was climbing and climbing in rpm...scary **** to hear a big! diesel winding up like a GE turbofan, and starting to move on its base. Gunner "[L]iberals are afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to do so would result in even less votes than they currently receive. Their methodology is to lie about their real agenda in the hopes of regaining power, at which point they will do whatever they damn well please. The problem is they have concealed and obfuscated for so long that, as a group, they themselves are no longer sure of their goals. They are a collection of wild-eyed splinter groups, all holding a grab-bag of dreams and wishes. Some want a Socialist, secular-humanist state, others the repeal of the Second Amendment. Some want same sex/different species marriage, others want voting rights for trees, fish, coal and bugs. Some want cradle to grave care and complete subservience to the government nanny state, others want a culture that walks in lockstep and speaks only with intonations of political correctness. I view the American liberals in much the same way I view the competing factions of Islamic fundamentalists. The latter hate each other to the core, and only join forces to attack the US or Israel. The former hate themselves to the core, and only join forces to attack George Bush and conservatives." --Ron Marr |
#42
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 01:38:50 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: Something is funny here, Tim. I wonder if those guys told your dad what actually happened? The cetane rating of gasoline is so low that, if you can ignite it at all in a diesel, the gasoline burns so slowly that the engine knocks like crazy, and it's still burning past the end of the power stroke. Thus, the white smoke that someone else mentioned. At low temperatures, a diesel fueled with gasoline may not ignite at all. At the risk of oversimplifying, octane and cetane have roughly opposite burning characteristics. A high cetane rating (as in premium diesel) indicates that the fuel ignites easily from the heat of compression and that it burns quickly once ignited. In fact, the cetane rating is based on the time it takes for fuel ignited at high temperature and compression to reach a specified cylinder pressure. An octane rating, which is very low in diesel and much higher in gasoline, indicates the *resistance* of the fuel to burning under those same conditions. Higher octane allows higher compression ratios without premature ignition from the heat of compression. However, what octane rating really measures, if I recall correctly, is the speed with which a flame progresses. High octane, slow burning. Your recollection is not quite correct, which is where the confusion comes in. Octain has NOTHING to do with the temperature at which the fuel will auto-ignite, nor the speed of burn, when you get right down to it. It has everything to do with resistance to dissassociation, and resultant detonation. The flash point of gasoline is lower than the flashpoint of diesel fuel. The vapour pressure is higher. Therefore it actually takes less heat to light gasoline than diesel. However, the flamability range of gasoline is lower - too lean or too rich and it won't light. When you inject gasoline into a diesel, if you get it injected in a proper cone, at the right time, some of the fuel will ignite immediately and will burn very quickly, causing a knock. The rest of the fuel is dissipated in an overlean mixture, and does not burn. (severe lean misfire)This goes out the pipe as white "smoke" and also causes the flame in the exhaust if it ends up lighting on the way out. If the throttle is advanced enough to get sufficient fuel into the cyl to get the mixture rich enough to burn more completely, SEVERE "detonation" shock occurs - the engine knocks badly, smokes profusely, and makes very little power. High octane fuel will not behave much differently than low octane fuel in a deisel. A diesel depends on s relatively slow even burn, and a reasonably long calibrated injection period provides the fuel to keep building cyl pressure constantly untill the piston is almost at BDC. So they aren't exactly opposite characteristics, but they're pretty close. FWIW, ethanol is even harder to ignite with compression than gasoline. But ether, which has a cetane rating around 80 (compared to petroleum diesel's rating of 40 to 55), ignites much easier than any of them, with either compression or a spark. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
#43
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
"ED" wrote in message news Brazil has no petrolium resources and relied on sugar cane to produce ethenol. I believe they were/are 100% independent from oil imports.. We should be doing more in this country--not with corn but with sugar beets....and oil seeds.. Be careful what you wish for. On all bio fuels I have seen touted so far, it seems to be a proposition where it takes more energy put in to the production of the fuel than you get out of the fuel when you use it. Think for a moment about how many gallons of oil you get per acre of farm land, the cost of pumping water to irrigate the crop and the energy required to run the tractors, truck and process the produce. Brazil has a whole lot of bio-mass to ferment into alcohol, and they have very little demand. Conversely, in the US we are burning a whole lot of natural gas to generate electricity. Motor vehicles can use natural gas with very little modification, yet few use this fuel because of the price and availability. If we were to build some more nuclear power plants, we could free up the supply of natural gas, and get cheaper and cleaner electricity. Political pressures from scare mongers have thwarted this however. As a result of this stupidity, we generate about half of our electricity by burning coal and therefore dump thousands of tons of radioactive pollution into the atmosphere from burning the coal. Cheap electricity would also allow for cheap hydrogen to be produced. Hydrogen could also be used as a motor fuel with zero smog, or carbon emissions. -- Roger Shoaf If you are not part of the solution, you are not dissolved in the solvent. |
#44
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 02:41:13 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: Well, assuming that's really the bottom line, maybe it's safe to pick apart some of your answer without obscuring the point. g That certainly was a long answer, and it really runs around the horn, but some of your concepts in there just aren't right. First, gasoline's tendency to burn from high compression would be an issue in a diesel except that the gasoline (or diesel) never has a chance to "preignite". It's injected long after preignition could take place. The environment it's injected into (high heat, high pressure) burns the fuel progressively and its cetane rating determines how fast it burns. Conversely, its octane rating reflects its resistance to burn rapidly from the heat of compression. Thus, if you inject gasoline into a diesel engine it will burn, but it does so slowly, and the engine may not run at all. That's entirely different from mixing the fuel with the air before it gets into the engine. At a compression ratio of 20:1 or so, gasoline/air mixes would burn in a way that you could describe as an explosion (although there was contention about this as of a couple of decades ago -- the high-speed flame-front versus acoustic shock wave theories of engine detonation they were then studying at MIT's Sloan labs -- I never read how it was concluded) but that's really a side issue here and not worth discussing. The point is, there is no gasoline (or diesel fuel) in the cylinder until it's injected, so there is no pre-ignition, no detonation, no explosion, and the gasoline actually burns slower than diesel fuel does in that environment. Gasoline actually can be hard to ignite at all when it's sprayed into a diesel cylinder, at least at low temperatures, despite what we know about the tendency of gasoline to detonate when it's pre-mixed with the air charge in spark-ignition engines with excessively high compression ratios. When you go to direct injection, you're changing some of the crucial dynamics of the whole process. The flamability range of gasoline and air is rather narrow - so only some of the fuel in the highly stratified charge in a deisel will ignite. Putting an air throttle on a deisel would enhance the running of the engine on gasoline Another point: there is nothing that would cause gasoline to detonate in the injector system. Some of the current common-rail, direct (cylinder) injection gasoline engines use pressures similar to those of common-rail, high-pressure injection in modern diesel engines. And that's very high pressure indeed. Gasoline will not burn hotter in a diesel engine than diesel fuel does. In fact, diesel has somewhat higher caloric value per unit volume ( 11% - 15%, depending on who's measuring) and the diesel fuel will produce more heat in the cylinder. More importantly, it will produce higher peak cylinder temperatures because (again, due to its higher cetane rating) it burns faster. You may be aware that there are, or were, dual-fuel spark-ignition engines that run on gasoline or kerosene (once they're heated up), so the volatility of fuel oils of that grade is not so low that you can't spark-ignite it at gasoline-engine compression ratios. They were industrial and agricultural engines that enjoyed a reasonable operating life. I reported on a line of such engines, made in Italy back in the '70s, that were widely used for ag jobs throughout Europe at the time. These dual fuel engines, almost without exception, would not cold start on Kero, and would knock, smoke and generally complain loudly if switched to kero (or "distillate" before fully warmed up. I listened in to an online discussion about this very subject around 20 years ago, by some very knowledgable engineers from MIT and Carnegie Mellon, and one of them pointed out that there are a lot of incorrect assumptions people make about these fuels based on our experience using them to start charcoal fires. g The properties of fuels at atmospheric pressure, when you throw a match into them to light a fire, are very different from their behavior in an enclosed environment at high pressure and with different systems of ignition. The idea that diesel fuel can burn faster in an engine than gasoline does is one of the things that runs counter to our sensible experience. The fact that diesel will burn at a much leaner mixture than gasoline helps here. At the lean combustion limit, gasoline burns much faster than at the rich combustion limit. Diesel generally runs at a leaner overall mixture in the cyl than gasoline does. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
#45
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 06:25:41 -0500, "DanG" wrote:
Ed. as always, I appreciate your response. I used to run a bit of diesel in old gasoline engines before computers and what not. I'm sure it was as ignorant as adding gasoline to diesel fuel. I was believing your frank, honest style, but the technical article just made it dance. Thanks. I wish more people would limit their comments to facts, not hyperbola. A bit of diesel or stove-oil was commonly used as an "upper cyl lubricant" in years gone by. On Mopar Flatties they'd run well on 20% stove oil and stink like crazy. Just don't forget to downshift and make it lug at low RPMs. Then they'd knock something awfull, and smoke. At medium engine speeds, even under heavy load, they were OK. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
#46
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 12:39:32 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... snip Unless you go to the SME or MIT research sources... That should be SAE, not SME. And regarding the corners of the combustion chambers, that should be the corners of the combustion *space*. Detonation is most likely to occur where the piston meets the cylinder walls. Detonation is most likely to occur wherever fuel is exposed to high temperature and pressure for an "extended" periosd of time. The pressure and temperature "crack" the hydrocarbons into hydrogen radicals and carbon. This process takes a finite amount of time (which is why detonation is much less of a problem at high speeds than at low speeds). The hydrogen radicals "explode" as soon as they find a molecule of oxygen to attach to - fire or no fire. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
#47
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
Gerald Miller wrote:
A lot of the older International bulldozers were started as gasoline engines and switched over to diesel once they warmed up, right down to the spark plugs. Gerry :-)} London, Canada I recently saw such a critter running a saw mill. I *think* it was a very old Detroit, but not positive on that. |
#48
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 13:12:06 GMT, RAM³ wrote:
"SteveB" wrote in news:4ut5d5-efo2.ln1 @news.infowest.com: IHMO, it would take someone with brass balls to climb up there and do it! Don't worry - they've got them. Proof: Who else would go into a burning building voluntarily just to see if there's anyone in it? There's a burning building, and then there's an _unsafe_ burning building. Not always the same thing. There's an excellent reason that, while Law Enforcement Officers may be known as the "Finest", Fire Fighters are referred to as the "Bravest". Hrrm, not so sure about that. When I go into a fire situation, the fire is responding predictably, more or less, and obeying laws of physics and nature. If you see the signs, and know how it's going to work, then you can anticipate what it's going to do. Do you want to know who'd qualify as the "Craziest"? *Volunteer* Fire Fighters. (shrug) I don't mind doing it for a buck an hour "reimbursement", but I sure wouldn't want to do it for a living. They're the ones who pay for and/or build their own equipment, consider themselves to on-duty 24/7, and still work for a living doing something unrelated. I've spent hundreds on my own equipment, but it's all the optional "nice to have" stuff. The NFPA-mandated stuff is all supplied by our taxpayer-funded department. |
#49
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 07:58:02 -0600, ED
wrote: Brazil has no petrolium resources and relied on sugar cane to produce ethenol. I believe they were/are 100% independent from oil imports.. We should be doing more in this country--not with corn but with sugar beets....and oil seeds.. Google "rapeseed" Gunner "[L]iberals are afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to do so would result in even less votes than they currently receive. Their methodology is to lie about their real agenda in the hopes of regaining power, at which point they will do whatever they damn well please. The problem is they have concealed and obfuscated for so long that, as a group, they themselves are no longer sure of their goals. They are a collection of wild-eyed splinter groups, all holding a grab-bag of dreams and wishes. Some want a Socialist, secular-humanist state, others the repeal of the Second Amendment. Some want same sex/different species marriage, others want voting rights for trees, fish, coal and bugs. Some want cradle to grave care and complete subservience to the government nanny state, others want a culture that walks in lockstep and speaks only with intonations of political correctness. I view the American liberals in much the same way I view the competing factions of Islamic fundamentalists. The latter hate each other to the core, and only join forces to attack the US or Israel. The former hate themselves to the core, and only join forces to attack George Bush and conservatives." --Ron Marr |
#50
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 11:33:40 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote: On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 07:58:02 -0600, ED wrote: Brazil has no petrolium resources and relied on sugar cane to produce ethenol. I believe they were/are 100% independent from oil imports.. We should be doing more in this country--not with corn but with sugar beets....and oil seeds.. Google "rapeseed" Gunner Or Canola ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
#51
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
After reading the other comments I think you have multiple issues going
on to switch from diesel to gasoline: -the gasoline will have a MUCH lower viscosity, you are going to get way different (more)amounts of fuel through the injector. I'd think that is what causes the white smoke a lousy performance, it's too rich. -at the same time, gasoline has lower fuel value per gallon or milliliter, same volume of fuel will cause the engine to go lean, never a good thing -gasoline has a much higher flame front speed, ie it will detonate, really does bad things to the top of the piston. -gasoline has no lubricating qualities, will tear up a standard injector pump in short order. Very interesting discussion. I've been asked to be the project manager for an alternate fuels project based around a 100kw Cat diesel generator. Fire up on a new fuel, check for short term issues, go to a 50% load then 100% load for 8 to 24 hours, then tear down and look for damage. Looks like I would be spending more time than planned dealing with the injector pump. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Ivan Vegvary wrote: Sorry about the OT, but, I do contribute once in a while and this is such a knowledgeable group! Many decades ago (1950's) when people talked about diesel engines (lot of this talk was from 'old country' poor Europeans), they would always tout the fact that they (the engines) would run on anything. The list, if I remember correctly included diesel, gas, lighter fluid, heating oil, liquefied lard, charcoal lighter, veggie oil etc., etc., etc. If any of the above is true, why don't people, today, put gasoline into their diesel engines, considering the higher cost of diesel fuel? Just want to know what would happened if you did use gasoline. BTW, my only diesel is my small Kubota tractor. Thanks for replies. Ivan Vegvary |
#52
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
RoyJ wrote:
After reading the other comments I think you have multiple issues going on to switch from diesel to gasoline: -the gasoline will have a MUCH lower viscosity, you are going to get way different (more)amounts of fuel through the injector. I'd think that is what causes the white smoke a lousy performance, it's too rich. I don't think that would be the case as unlike a petrol engine the diesel uses a positive displacement pump for the injection AFAIK so injected fuel quantity wouldn't be effected by the viscosity. -at the same time, gasoline has lower fuel value per gallon or milliliter, same volume of fuel will cause the engine to go lean, never a good thing -gasoline has a much higher flame front speed, ie it will detonate, really does bad things to the top of the piston. -gasoline has no lubricating qualities, will tear up a standard injector pump in short order. Very interesting discussion. I've been asked to be the project manager for an alternate fuels project based around a 100kw Cat diesel generator. Fire up on a new fuel, check for short term issues, go to a 50% load then 100% load for 8 to 24 hours, then tear down and look for damage. Looks like I would be spending more time than planned dealing with the injector pump. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Ivan Vegvary wrote: Sorry about the OT, but, I do contribute once in a while and this is such a knowledgeable group! Many decades ago (1950's) when people talked about diesel engines (lot of this talk was from 'old country' poor Europeans), they would always tout the fact that they (the engines) would run on anything. The list, if I remember correctly included diesel, gas, lighter fluid, heating oil, liquefied lard, charcoal lighter, veggie oil etc., etc., etc. If any of the above is true, why don't people, today, put gasoline into their diesel engines, considering the higher cost of diesel fuel? Just want to know what would happened if you did use gasoline. BTW, my only diesel is my small Kubota tractor. Thanks for replies. Ivan Vegvary |
#53
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
Dave Hinz wrote:
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 13:12:06 GMT, RAM³ wrote: "SteveB" wrote in news:4ut5d5-efo2.ln1 @news.infowest.com: IHMO, it would take someone with brass balls to climb up there and do it! Don't worry - they've got them. Proof: Who else would go into a burning building voluntarily just to see if there's anyone in it? There's a burning building, and then there's an _unsafe_ burning building. Not always the same thing. VERY true. A well built structure can handle a LOT of fire before it is unsafe. Now your typical mobile home on the other hand.... There's an excellent reason that, while Law Enforcement Officers may be known as the "Finest", Fire Fighters are referred to as the "Bravest". Hrrm, not so sure about that. When I go into a fire situation, the fire is responding predictably, more or less, and obeying laws of physics and nature. If you see the signs, and know how it's going to work, then you can anticipate what it's going to do. The only catch to this becomes the instances of meth labs or other incendiary time bombs out there. Do you want to know who'd qualify as the "Craziest"? *Volunteer* Fire Fighters. (shrug) I don't mind doing it for a buck an hour "reimbursement", but I sure wouldn't want to do it for a living. Same here. The good thing in this area is that we don't get a lot of the stupid calls like the paid departments seem to get. Nothing like going to the same building 30 times a week on average for "burnt food" or "smoking in the room". They're the ones who pay for and/or build their own equipment, consider themselves to on-duty 24/7, and still work for a living doing something unrelated. I've spent hundreds on my own equipment, but it's all the optional "nice to have" stuff. The NFPA-mandated stuff is all supplied by our taxpayer-funded department. I tend to buy my own turnout gear as well. Mainly because I take care of it and any repairs or problems get taken care of NOW instead of the normal chain of dysfunction... -- Steve W. |
#54
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
"RoyJ" wrote in message ... After reading the other comments I think you have multiple issues going on to switch from diesel to gasoline: -the gasoline will have a MUCH lower viscosity, you are going to get way different (more)amounts of fuel through the injector. I'd think that is what causes the white smoke a lousy performance, it's too rich. -at the same time, gasoline has lower fuel value per gallon or milliliter, same volume of fuel will cause the engine to go lean, never a good thing You raise an intriguing question there, Roy. How do you make a diesel run lean? g -gasoline has a much higher flame front speed, ie it will detonate, really does bad things to the top of the piston. It will detonate, but it's because of the *slower* flame front speed. That's the thing that's indirectly measured by the cetane rating: gasoline around 25, diesel typically 45+. -gasoline has no lubricating qualities, will tear up a standard injector pump in short order. Very interesting discussion. I've been asked to be the project manager for an alternate fuels project based around a 100kw Cat diesel generator. Fire up on a new fuel, check for short term issues, go to a 50% load then 100% load for 8 to 24 hours, then tear down and look for damage. Looks like I would be spending more time than planned dealing with the injector pump. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Ivan Vegvary wrote: Sorry about the OT, but, I do contribute once in a while and this is such a knowledgeable group! Many decades ago (1950's) when people talked about diesel engines (lot of this talk was from 'old country' poor Europeans), they would always tout the fact that they (the engines) would run on anything. The list, if I remember correctly included diesel, gas, lighter fluid, heating oil, liquefied lard, charcoal lighter, veggie oil etc., etc., etc. If any of the above is true, why don't people, today, put gasoline into their diesel engines, considering the higher cost of diesel fuel? Just want to know what would happened if you did use gasoline. BTW, my only diesel is my small Kubota tractor. Thanks for replies. Ivan Vegvary |
#55
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
Ed Huntress wrote:
"RoyJ" wrote in message ... After reading the other comments I think you have multiple issues going on to switch from diesel to gasoline: -the gasoline will have a MUCH lower viscosity, you are going to get way different (more)amounts of fuel through the injector. I'd think that is what causes the white smoke a lousy performance, it's too rich. -at the same time, gasoline has lower fuel value per gallon or milliliter, same volume of fuel will cause the engine to go lean, never a good thing You raise an intriguing question there, Roy. How do you make a diesel run lean? g -gasoline has a much higher flame front speed, ie it will detonate, really does bad things to the top of the piston. It will detonate, but it's because of the *slower* flame front speed. That's the thing that's indirectly measured by the cetane rating: gasoline around 25, diesel typically 45+. Ed, I'm wondering if some of the problem here is with the nature of the combustion in the 2 engines. My understanding is that the SI engine burns a vapourised fuel air mix which burns like any gaseous fuel air mix but in the diesel combustion the fuel droplets burn at the surface of the droplet in the combustion air, the lighter fractions burning first leaving the heavier fractions, hence the particulates left behind. The modern diesels in small vehicles, at least in Europe as I think regulations have constrained small diesels in the US, have much finer atomisation of the fuel due to the high pressures used which allows shorter burn times and higher resultant RPM but the nature of the combustion still differs from that of a petrol engine. -gasoline has no lubricating qualities, will tear up a standard injector pump in short order. Very interesting discussion. I've been asked to be the project manager for an alternate fuels project based around a 100kw Cat diesel generator. Fire up on a new fuel, check for short term issues, go to a 50% load then 100% load for 8 to 24 hours, then tear down and look for damage. Looks like I would be spending more time than planned dealing with the injector pump. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Ivan Vegvary wrote: Sorry about the OT, but, I do contribute once in a while and this is such a knowledgeable group! Many decades ago (1950's) when people talked about diesel engines (lot of this talk was from 'old country' poor Europeans), they would always tout the fact that they (the engines) would run on anything. The list, if I remember correctly included diesel, gas, lighter fluid, heating oil, liquefied lard, charcoal lighter, veggie oil etc., etc., etc. If any of the above is true, why don't people, today, put gasoline into their diesel engines, considering the higher cost of diesel fuel? Just want to know what would happened if you did use gasoline. BTW, my only diesel is my small Kubota tractor. Thanks for replies. Ivan Vegvary |
#56
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:50:08 -0500, RoyJ
wrote: After reading the other comments I think you have multiple issues going on to switch from diesel to gasoline: -the gasoline will have a MUCH lower viscosity, you are going to get way different (more)amounts of fuel through the injector. I'd think that is what causes the white smoke a lousy performance, it's too rich. -at the same time, gasoline has lower fuel value per gallon or milliliter, same volume of fuel will cause the engine to go lean, never a good thing Except a deisel is ALWAYS lean,(except possibly at full power) and direct injection gives a stratified charge, which even on gasoline, CAN run very lean without overheating. -gasoline has a much higher flame front speed, ie it will detonate, really does bad things to the top of the piston. -gasoline has no lubricating qualities, will tear up a standard injector pump in short order. Very interesting discussion. I've been asked to be the project manager for an alternate fuels project based around a 100kw Cat diesel generator. Fire up on a new fuel, check for short term issues, go to a 50% load then 100% load for 8 to 24 hours, then tear down and look for damage. Looks like I would be spending more time than planned dealing with the injector pump. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Ivan Vegvary wrote: Sorry about the OT, but, I do contribute once in a while and this is such a knowledgeable group! Many decades ago (1950's) when people talked about diesel engines (lot of this talk was from 'old country' poor Europeans), they would always tout the fact that they (the engines) would run on anything. The list, if I remember correctly included diesel, gas, lighter fluid, heating oil, liquefied lard, charcoal lighter, veggie oil etc., etc., etc. If any of the above is true, why don't people, today, put gasoline into their diesel engines, considering the higher cost of diesel fuel? Just want to know what would happened if you did use gasoline. BTW, my only diesel is my small Kubota tractor. Thanks for replies. Ivan Vegvary ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
#57
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 23:15:53 +0100, David Billington
wrote: RoyJ wrote: After reading the other comments I think you have multiple issues going on to switch from diesel to gasoline: -the gasoline will have a MUCH lower viscosity, you are going to get way different (more)amounts of fuel through the injector. I'd think that is what causes the white smoke a lousy performance, it's too rich. I don't think that would be the case as unlike a petrol engine the diesel uses a positive displacement pump for the injection AFAIK so injected fuel quantity wouldn't be effected by the viscosity. Except on "common rail" engines which use a timed injector on constant pressur instead of positive displacement. -at the same time, gasoline has lower fuel value per gallon or milliliter, same volume of fuel will cause the engine to go lean, never a good thing -gasoline has a much higher flame front speed, ie it will detonate, really does bad things to the top of the piston. -gasoline has no lubricating qualities, will tear up a standard injector pump in short order. Very interesting discussion. I've been asked to be the project manager for an alternate fuels project based around a 100kw Cat diesel generator. Fire up on a new fuel, check for short term issues, go to a 50% load then 100% load for 8 to 24 hours, then tear down and look for damage. Looks like I would be spending more time than planned dealing with the injector pump. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Ivan Vegvary wrote: Sorry about the OT, but, I do contribute once in a while and this is such a knowledgeable group! Many decades ago (1950's) when people talked about diesel engines (lot of this talk was from 'old country' poor Europeans), they would always tout the fact that they (the engines) would run on anything. The list, if I remember correctly included diesel, gas, lighter fluid, heating oil, liquefied lard, charcoal lighter, veggie oil etc., etc., etc. If any of the above is true, why don't people, today, put gasoline into their diesel engines, considering the higher cost of diesel fuel? Just want to know what would happened if you did use gasoline. BTW, my only diesel is my small Kubota tractor. Thanks for replies. Ivan Vegvary ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
#58
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 19:08:43 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "RoyJ" wrote in message ... After reading the other comments I think you have multiple issues going on to switch from diesel to gasoline: -the gasoline will have a MUCH lower viscosity, you are going to get way different (more)amounts of fuel through the injector. I'd think that is what causes the white smoke a lousy performance, it's too rich. -at the same time, gasoline has lower fuel value per gallon or milliliter, same volume of fuel will cause the engine to go lean, never a good thing You raise an intriguing question there, Roy. How do you make a diesel run lean? g -gasoline has a much higher flame front speed, ie it will detonate, really does bad things to the top of the piston. It will detonate, but it's because of the *slower* flame front speed. That's the thing that's indirectly measured by the cetane rating: gasoline around 25, diesel typically 45+. It's not realy detonation, and it's not really the speed of the burn that is involved (flame front). It is the speed at which the cyl pressure goes up with gas vs diesel. You DO get a faster pressure spike when burning gasoline than when burning deisel at high cyl pressures. -gasoline has no lubricating qualities, will tear up a standard injector pump in short order. Very interesting discussion. I've been asked to be the project manager for an alternate fuels project based around a 100kw Cat diesel generator. Fire up on a new fuel, check for short term issues, go to a 50% load then 100% load for 8 to 24 hours, then tear down and look for damage. Looks like I would be spending more time than planned dealing with the injector pump. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Ivan Vegvary wrote: Sorry about the OT, but, I do contribute once in a while and this is such a knowledgeable group! Many decades ago (1950's) when people talked about diesel engines (lot of this talk was from 'old country' poor Europeans), they would always tout the fact that they (the engines) would run on anything. The list, if I remember correctly included diesel, gas, lighter fluid, heating oil, liquefied lard, charcoal lighter, veggie oil etc., etc., etc. If any of the above is true, why don't people, today, put gasoline into their diesel engines, considering the higher cost of diesel fuel? Just want to know what would happened if you did use gasoline. BTW, my only diesel is my small Kubota tractor. Thanks for replies. Ivan Vegvary ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
#59
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 10:43:21 -0700, "Roger Shoaf"
wrote: snippage I agree with what you are saying especially in regards to nuclear and natural gas. With some decent leadership we could turn around the current situation in a decade or so. It won't be a single thing/event more like an accumilation of technologys. On the oil seed front there are ag producers in eastern MT that are running their operations on what they produce. There was a news article published last week on how it is working. Safflower can/is being grown at a big +++ net energy gain. Commodity revenues are up %200 year to year in this area. The farmer in the article bought a crusher from an India company for $5K and is very happy with the fuel. He sells the extra left over meal at $125 a ton for cattle feed. Super high quality feed. Camelina is going to be huge--check it out.. There's two $100Mil plants going online this year....just for camelina. Growing corn for ethenol is best if it's sold by the bottle :-) ED |
#60
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 11:33:40 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote: On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 07:58:02 -0600, ED wrote: Brazil has no petrolium resources and relied on sugar cane to produce ethenol. I believe they were/are 100% independent from oil imports.. We should be doing more in this country--not with corn but with sugar beets....and oil seeds.. Google "rapeseed" Gunner Theres a lot of canola (aka rapeseed) grown around here but the inputs are rather high..check out camelina or safflower for even better numbers.,.ED "[L]iberals are afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to do so would result in even less votes than they currently receive. Their methodology is to lie about their real agenda in the hopes of regaining power, at which point they will do whatever they damn well please. The problem is they have concealed and obfuscated for so long that, as a group, they themselves are no longer sure of their goals. They are a collection of wild-eyed splinter groups, all holding a grab-bag of dreams and wishes. Some want a Socialist, secular-humanist state, others the repeal of the Second Amendment. Some want same sex/different species marriage, others want voting rights for trees, fish, coal and bugs. Some want cradle to grave care and complete subservience to the government nanny state, others want a culture that walks in lockstep and speaks only with intonations of political correctness. I view the American liberals in much the same way I view the competing factions of Islamic fundamentalists. The latter hate each other to the core, and only join forces to attack the US or Israel. The former hate themselves to the core, and only join forces to attack George Bush and conservatives." --Ron Marr |
#61
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
"David Billington" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: "RoyJ" wrote in message ... After reading the other comments I think you have multiple issues going on to switch from diesel to gasoline: -the gasoline will have a MUCH lower viscosity, you are going to get way different (more)amounts of fuel through the injector. I'd think that is what causes the white smoke a lousy performance, it's too rich. -at the same time, gasoline has lower fuel value per gallon or milliliter, same volume of fuel will cause the engine to go lean, never a good thing You raise an intriguing question there, Roy. How do you make a diesel run lean? g -gasoline has a much higher flame front speed, ie it will detonate, really does bad things to the top of the piston. It will detonate, but it's because of the *slower* flame front speed. That's the thing that's indirectly measured by the cetane rating: gasoline around 25, diesel typically 45+. Ed, I'm wondering if some of the problem here is with the nature of the combustion in the 2 engines. My understanding is that the SI engine burns a vapourised fuel air mix which burns like any gaseous fuel air mix but in the diesel combustion the fuel droplets burn at the surface of the droplet in the combustion air, the lighter fractions burning first leaving the heavier fractions, hence the particulates left behind. The modern diesels in small vehicles, at least in Europe as I think regulations have constrained small diesels in the US, have much finer atomisation of the fuel due to the high pressures used which allows shorter burn times and higher resultant RPM but the nature of the combustion still differs from that of a petrol engine. The ignition and combustion processes definitely are very different. It happens that gasoline is only partly vaporized when it enters a cylinder -- there was a lot of research on this in the '70s and they learned that complete vaporization is not the best thing -- but the essential difference is something else. The big thing is that the fuel burns as it's injected, and the period of injection stretches out the combustion so there is a minimal amount of shock from the sudden high pressure. Unlike a SI engine, a diesel doesn't depend upon the mixture to control the combustion rate. The ideal situation is to have a fuel that burns quickly -- that's why you want a high cetane rating -- and to control the combustion rate by the rate of injection. Some of the newest engines divide the injection into several distinct periods. All of which suggests why gasoline, with its low cetane equivalent and slow burning, can foul up the process. If you burn gasoline in a diesel that's set up for conventional diesel fuel, fuel is injected faster than it burns, so you wind up with regions of unburned fuel/air mix in the cylinder, at extremely high compression, that are invitations to detonation. That was what I was guessing before, but I did some digging today and learned that is apparently what happens. I went through a lot of SAE paper abstracts today, to try to catch up, and I see that there are all kinds of experiments going on with different fuels and mixes, including gasoline, in diesels. The primary purpose of the gasoline is to slow down combustion and thereby to reduce NOx emissions. They have to advance injection by quite a bit and, apparently, use complex strategies for injection, including multiple shots and different kinds of aiming of the injectors. The most interesting research is on something called HCCI (homogeneous charge/compression ignition) engines that are basically diesels, but some of which have "spark assist." Some of these run at compression ratios that are intermediate between conventional SI engines and conventional diesels. There is a lot going on. It's pretty interesting, especially since they now have better tools to analyze combustion in an engine. -- Ed Huntress |
#62
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote in message ... On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 12:39:32 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... snip Unless you go to the SME or MIT research sources... That should be SAE, not SME. And regarding the corners of the combustion chambers, that should be the corners of the combustion *space*. Detonation is most likely to occur where the piston meets the cylinder walls. Detonation is most likely to occur wherever fuel is exposed to high temperature and pressure for an "extended" periosd of time. The pressure and temperature "crack" the hydrocarbons into hydrogen radicals and carbon. This process takes a finite amount of time (which is why detonation is much less of a problem at high speeds than at low speeds). The hydrogen radicals "explode" as soon as they find a molecule of oxygen to attach to - fire or no fire. I'd like to know what your source is for this model of the process. It sounds like one of the theories that was under discussion around 30 years ago, and it seems to have been superceded by newer understandings. In fact, it appears there are at least three modes of combustion that are part of "knock." I'd like to get some of the papers for which I've been reading the abstracts, but they cost a bundle. However, here's a part of an abstract that suggests multiple modes: ============================================== A Theoretical and Experimental Study of the Modes of End Gas Autoignition Leading to Knock in S.I. Engines -- J. Pan - University of Leeds, C.G.W. Sheppard - University of Leeds Abstract: A 2-D simulation of fluid dynamic and chemistry interaction following end gas autoignition has demonstrated three distinct modes of reaction, dependent upon the temperature gradient about an exothermic center. All three modes (deflagration, developing detonation and thermal explosion) can contribute to knock; the developing detonation case, associated with intermediate temperature gradient, has been identified as the more damaging. The simulation code (LUMAD) has been used in a systematic parametric study designed to separate the complex interacting events which can lead to mixed modes in real engines. A most significant finding related to the sequential autoignition of multiple exothermic centers. For two exothermic centers characterized by large temperature gradients, which would normally yield the relatively benign deflagrative mode, it was found that pressure waves emanating from the first could modify the temperature gradient and so promote violent developing detonation mode at the adjacent center. ============================================= This paper, and at least a dozen others that discuss multiple modes, seem to be the resolution to that debate that was going on when I last studied the subject. The answer appears to be that there are different phenomena going on, that the chemistry of it is very complex, and that the old models of knock and detonation don't really explain it. Where is your information coming from, Clare? -- Ed Huntress |
#63
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:04:53 -0400, clare at snyder dot ontario dot
canada wrote: On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 12:39:32 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... snip Unless you go to the SME or MIT research sources... That should be SAE, not SME. And regarding the corners of the combustion chambers, that should be the corners of the combustion *space*. Detonation is most likely to occur where the piston meets the cylinder walls. Detonation is most likely to This process takes a finite amount of time (which is why detonation is much less of a problem at high speeds than at low speeds). The hydrogen radicals "explode" as soon as they find a molecule of oxygen to attach to - fire or no fire. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** That is pure gobble-gook! Detonation is the extremely rapid burning of the fuel-air charge, a near explosion, and can happen at any engine speed. At low engine speeds you typically hear it as a "pinging" noise but it can happen at wide open throttle settings as easily. In fact a caterpillar 3516 "lean burn" engine that operates at, basically, wide open throttle is equipped with detonation sensors because detonation can and does happen at high engine speeds. Detonation has nothing to do with "occur wherever fuel is exposed to high temperature and pressure for an "extended" periods of time." Nor does "The pressure and temperature "crack" the hydrocarbons into hydrogen radicals and carbon." What typically happens in high RPM detonation is that the mixture leans to the point that it burns extremely rapidly, an explosion one might say, rather then burning evenly. What is amazing about this post is that here we have a device, an internal combustion engine, that has been in existence for something like a hundred years and still people don't understand it..... Thank God we still aren't using buggy whips. Can you imagine what people would be writing about them? Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) |
#64
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
Ed Huntress wrote:
{..] Ed, I'm wondering if some of the problem here is with the nature of the combustion in the 2 engines. My understanding is that the SI engine burns a vapourised fuel air mix which burns like any gaseous fuel air mix but in the diesel combustion the fuel droplets burn at the surface of the droplet in the combustion air, the lighter fractions burning first leaving the heavier fractions, hence the particulates left behind. The modern diesels in small vehicles, at least in Europe as I think regulations have constrained small diesels in the US, have much finer atomisation of the fuel due to the high pressures used which allows shorter burn times and higher resultant RPM but the nature of the combustion still differs from that of a petrol engine. The ignition and combustion processes definitely are very different. It happens that gasoline is only partly vaporized when it enters a cylinder -- there was a lot of research on this in the '70s and they learned that complete vaporization is not the best thing -- but the essential difference is something else. The big thing is that the fuel burns as it's injected, and the period of injection stretches out the combustion so there is a minimal amount of shock from the sudden high pressure. Unlike a SI engine, a diesel doesn't depend upon the mixture to control the combustion rate. The ideal situation is to have a fuel that burns quickly -- that's why you want a high cetane rating -- and to control the combustion rate by the rate of injection. Some of the newest engines divide the injection into several distinct periods. Yes I'm aware of some of the modern developments as a mate of mine works for Ricardo and gets involved in diesel design. He has mentioned that some of the modern automotive engine management systems for diesel engines are more sophisticated than those for SI engines. One of the things he mentioned recently that was mentioned to him was a limitation of a diesel is that the fuel has to be injected when the air is hot enough to ignite it. I wonder what happens if it is injected too early and the air charge isn't hot enough. All of which suggests why gasoline, with its low cetane equivalent and slow burning, can foul up the process. If you burn gasoline in a diesel that's set up for conventional diesel fuel, fuel is injected faster than it burns, so you wind up with regions of unburned fuel/air mix in the cylinder, at extremely high compression, that are invitations to detonation. That was what I was guessing before, but I did some digging today and learned that is apparently what happens. I went through a lot of SAE paper abstracts today, to try to catch up, and I see that there are all kinds of experiments going on with different fuels and mixes, including gasoline, in diesels. The primary purpose of the gasoline is to slow down combustion and thereby to reduce NOx emissions. They have to advance injection by quite a bit and, apparently, use complex strategies for injection, including multiple shots and different kinds of aiming of the injectors. The most interesting research is on something called HCCI (homogeneous charge/compression ignition) engines that are basically diesels, but some of which have "spark assist." Some of these run at compression ratios that are intermediate between conventional SI engines and conventional diesels. There is a lot going on. It's pretty interesting, especially since they now have better tools to analyze combustion in an engine. -- Ed Huntress |
#65
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote in message ... On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 01:38:50 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote: Something is funny here, Tim. I wonder if those guys told your dad what actually happened? The cetane rating of gasoline is so low that, if you can ignite it at all in a diesel, the gasoline burns so slowly that the engine knocks like crazy, and it's still burning past the end of the power stroke. Thus, the white smoke that someone else mentioned. At low temperatures, a diesel fueled with gasoline may not ignite at all. At the risk of oversimplifying, octane and cetane have roughly opposite burning characteristics. A high cetane rating (as in premium diesel) indicates that the fuel ignites easily from the heat of compression and that it burns quickly once ignited. In fact, the cetane rating is based on the time it takes for fuel ignited at high temperature and compression to reach a specified cylinder pressure. An octane rating, which is very low in diesel and much higher in gasoline, indicates the *resistance* of the fuel to burning under those same conditions. Higher octane allows higher compression ratios without premature ignition from the heat of compression. However, what octane rating really measures, if I recall correctly, is the speed with which a flame progresses. High octane, slow burning. Your recollection is not quite correct, which is where the confusion comes in. Octain has NOTHING to do with the temperature at which the fuel will auto-ignite, nor the speed of burn, when you get right down to it. It has everything to do with resistance to dissassociation, and resultant detonation. I don't want to turn this into a battle of citations, but what you're saying disagrees with the research -- particularly the recent research. Because of the interest in HCCI engines a lot of work is being done in this area, because octane is suddenly of interest in compression-ignition and spark-assisted compression-ignition engines. Here are a few remarks from recent research papers: ================================================== ==== [The Effect of Prf Fuel Octane Number on Hcci Operation - 2004] "The test results show that, with the increase of the octane number, the ignition timing delayed, the combustion rate decreased, and the cylinder pressure decreased." [A Method of Defining Ignition Quality of Fuels in Hcci Engines - 2003] "The higher the OI [octane index], the more the resistance to autoignition and the later is the heat release in the HCCI engine at a given condition. When the engine is run with a boost pressure of 1 bar and with the intake air temperature maintained at 40\mDC, K is highly negative and fuels of low MON, such as those containing aromatics, olefins or ethanol, have a higher OI and ignite later than paraffinic fuels of comparable RON." [Note that the study above examines the burn characteristics of aliphatics versus paraffinics -- more about that later.] [Knock in Spark-Ignition Engines: End-Gas Temperature Measurements Using Rotational Cars and Detailed Kinetic Calculations of the Autoignition Process - 1997] "It is found that calculations with different RONs of the fuel lead to different levels of radical concentrations in the end-gas. The appearance of the first stage of the autoignition process is marginally influence by the RON, while the ignition delay of the second stage is increased with increasing RON." [There are two stages to controlled autoignition, and the final one is delayed as octane number increases.] [Experimental Investigation into HCCI Combustion Using Gasoline and Diesel Blended Fuels - 2005] "Gasoline and diesel, the two fuels with very different characteristics and with wide availability for conventional engine use, were blended as a HCCI engine fuel. Gasoline, with high volatility, easy vaporization and mixture formation, is used to form the homogeneous charge. Diesel fuel, which has good ignitability and fast combustion at the conditions predominating in the HCCI environment, is used to dominate the auto-ignition and restrain the knocking combustion." ================================================== ====== The flash point of gasoline is lower than the flashpoint of diesel fuel. The vapour pressure is higher. Therefore it actually takes less heat to light gasoline than diesel. However, the flamability range of gasoline is lower - too lean or too rich and it won't light. The flashpoints of gasoline and diesel have little to do with ignition in a high-compression engine that ignites the fuel by autoignition. The autoignition temperature for gasoline is 246 deg. C; for diesel, it is 210 deg. C. So diesel ignites faster in a compression-ignition engine. As for the amount of heat required to ignite either, since the initial in-cylinder conditions are the same in both cases, the amount of heat is the same. The quicker ignition of the diesel relates to its lower autoignition temperature, not to the amount of heat involved. When you inject gasoline into a diesel, if you get it injected in a proper cone, at the right time, some of the fuel will ignite immediately and will burn very quickly, causing a knock. What's your reference for this? The resources I've checked (I read over 200 abstracts during the past 24 hours), at least those that address the question, say that gasoline is slow to ignite in a diesel. The rest of the fuel is dissipated in an overlean mixture, and does not burn. (severe lean misfire)This goes out the pipe as white "smoke" and also causes the flame in the exhaust if it ends up lighting on the way out. If the throttle is advanced enough to get sufficient fuel into the cyl to get the mixture rich enough to burn more completely, SEVERE "detonation" shock occurs - the engine knocks badly, smokes profusely, and makes very little power. High octane fuel will not behave much differently than low octane fuel in a deisel. A diesel depends on s relatively slow even burn, and a reasonably long calibrated injection period provides the fuel to keep building cyl pressure constantly untill the piston is almost at BDC. Again, diesel burns more quickly in an engine environment than gasoline does. -- Ed Huntress |
#66
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote in message ... On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 19:08:43 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "RoyJ" wrote in message ... After reading the other comments I think you have multiple issues going on to switch from diesel to gasoline: -the gasoline will have a MUCH lower viscosity, you are going to get way different (more)amounts of fuel through the injector. I'd think that is what causes the white smoke a lousy performance, it's too rich. -at the same time, gasoline has lower fuel value per gallon or milliliter, same volume of fuel will cause the engine to go lean, never a good thing You raise an intriguing question there, Roy. How do you make a diesel run lean? g -gasoline has a much higher flame front speed, ie it will detonate, really does bad things to the top of the piston. It will detonate, but it's because of the *slower* flame front speed. That's the thing that's indirectly measured by the cetane rating: gasoline around 25, diesel typically 45+. It's not realy detonation, and it's not really the speed of the burn that is involved (flame front). It is the speed at which the cyl pressure goes up with gas vs diesel. You DO get a faster pressure spike when burning gasoline than when burning deisel at high cyl pressures. Reference? You may be comparing a homogeneous mixture in a spark-ignition engine with the timed spray in a diesel. If you create a homogeneous mixture with diesel alone, it burns faster than gasoline. That's what the HCCI-engine research shows. -- Ed Huntress |
#67
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
"David Billington" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: {..] Ed, I'm wondering if some of the problem here is with the nature of the combustion in the 2 engines. My understanding is that the SI engine burns a vapourised fuel air mix which burns like any gaseous fuel air mix but in the diesel combustion the fuel droplets burn at the surface of the droplet in the combustion air, the lighter fractions burning first leaving the heavier fractions, hence the particulates left behind. The modern diesels in small vehicles, at least in Europe as I think regulations have constrained small diesels in the US, have much finer atomisation of the fuel due to the high pressures used which allows shorter burn times and higher resultant RPM but the nature of the combustion still differs from that of a petrol engine. The ignition and combustion processes definitely are very different. It happens that gasoline is only partly vaporized when it enters a cylinder -- there was a lot of research on this in the '70s and they learned that complete vaporization is not the best thing -- but the essential difference is something else. The big thing is that the fuel burns as it's injected, and the period of injection stretches out the combustion so there is a minimal amount of shock from the sudden high pressure. Unlike a SI engine, a diesel doesn't depend upon the mixture to control the combustion rate. The ideal situation is to have a fuel that burns quickly -- that's why you want a high cetane rating -- and to control the combustion rate by the rate of injection. Some of the newest engines divide the injection into several distinct periods. Yes I'm aware of some of the modern developments as a mate of mine works for Ricardo and gets involved in diesel design. He has mentioned that some of the modern automotive engine management systems for diesel engines are more sophisticated than those for SI engines. One of the things he mentioned recently that was mentioned to him was a limitation of a diesel is that the fuel has to be injected when the air is hot enough to ignite it. I wonder what happens if it is injected too early and the air charge isn't hot enough. Ya' got me. My guess is that you get a smoke-belching engine. But you probably could find something on it with some judicious choice of search terms on the SAE website. -- Ed Huntress |
#68
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 09:02:45 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote in message .. . On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 12:39:32 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... snip Unless you go to the SME or MIT research sources... That should be SAE, not SME. And regarding the corners of the combustion chambers, that should be the corners of the combustion *space*. Detonation is most likely to occur where the piston meets the cylinder walls. Detonation is most likely to occur wherever fuel is exposed to high temperature and pressure for an "extended" periosd of time. The pressure and temperature "crack" the hydrocarbons into hydrogen radicals and carbon. This process takes a finite amount of time (which is why detonation is much less of a problem at high speeds than at low speeds). The hydrogen radicals "explode" as soon as they find a molecule of oxygen to attach to - fire or no fire. I'd like to know what your source is for this model of the process. It sounds like one of the theories that was under discussion around 30 years ago, and it seems to have been superceded by newer understandings. In fact, it appears there are at least three modes of combustion that are part of "knock." I'd like to get some of the papers for which I've been reading the abstracts, but they cost a bundle. However, here's a part of an abstract that suggests multiple modes: ============================================== A Theoretical and Experimental Study of the Modes of End Gas Autoignition Leading to Knock in S.I. Engines -- J. Pan - University of Leeds, C.G.W. Sheppard - University of Leeds Abstract: A 2-D simulation of fluid dynamic and chemistry interaction following end gas autoignition has demonstrated three distinct modes of reaction, dependent upon the temperature gradient about an exothermic center. All three modes (deflagration, developing detonation and thermal explosion) can contribute to knock; the developing detonation case, associated with intermediate temperature gradient, has been identified as the more damaging. The simulation code (LUMAD) has been used in a systematic parametric study designed to separate the complex interacting events which can lead to mixed modes in real engines. A most significant finding related to the sequential autoignition of multiple exothermic centers. For two exothermic centers characterized by large temperature gradients, which would normally yield the relatively benign deflagrative mode, it was found that pressure waves emanating from the first could modify the temperature gradient and so promote violent developing detonation mode at the adjacent center. ============================================= This paper, and at least a dozen others that discuss multiple modes, seem to be the resolution to that debate that was going on when I last studied the subject. The answer appears to be that there are different phenomena going on, that the chemistry of it is very complex, and that the old models of knock and detonation don't really explain it. Where is your information coming from, Clare? Ed, the new information does't disprove the old - it just enhances the understanding. The multiple modes can now be recorded - but have they explained in any way, more completely, what actually HAPPENS chemically in any or all 3 of these modes? And exactly what CAUSES them? The explanation I have used IS several years old - but is more accurate than the other, more common belief that higher octane gas must necessarily burn slower, or produce less power, etc etc. A faster burning fuel, in a combustion chamber which is designed to promote a faster burn, is more detonation resistant because the "end gasses" are not exposed to the high heat, high temperature stagnation that allows (or causes) the fuel to dissassociate. Same thing for higher speed operation. Less time under the conditions that produce the dissassociation means less chance of detonation. I can't remember the guy who brought this theory out - don't think it was Riccardo, but it may have been. It is information that I was taught years ago when it was "cutting edge" and which I have found in many places over the years as an (accepted) explanation of detonation and how to control it. It is also what I taught as an explanation at the trade level. I know it is not a FULL explanation, and more is beeing learned all the time. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
#69
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in
m: I had the local chief of a volunteer fire department screaming at me that it wasn't legal to hang temporary work lights from overhead wires at the job site. The firehouse was less than 100 feet away. I asked him to follow me, and walked into the firehouse. I hit their breaker box with my fist, and sparks lit up the room. I told him that I had reported it as defective when I was a boy scout and our troop held our meetings there, over 20 years earlier and they still hadn't had it fixed. He informed me they didn't have to obey the law. During my decade with a Volunteer Fire Dept. in a rural county, our biggest problems came from some of the local Deputy Sheriffs who had no notion of the laws concerning Arson. More than once Arsonists that had been caught - and confessed - were simply told to "get lost" by Deputies. As to the breaker box, why hadn't you already fixed it for them? That way, you could have written off both time and materials - at retail pricing - on your taxes. grin |
#70
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
"RAM³" wrote: "Michael A. Terrell" wrote in m: I had the local chief of a volunteer fire department screaming at me that it wasn't legal to hang temporary work lights from overhead wires at the job site. The firehouse was less than 100 feet away. I asked him to follow me, and walked into the firehouse. I hit their breaker box with my fist, and sparks lit up the room. I told him that I had reported it as defective when I was a boy scout and our troop held our meetings there, over 20 years earlier and they still hadn't had it fixed. He informed me they didn't have to obey the law. During my decade with a Volunteer Fire Dept. in a rural county, our biggest problems came from some of the local Deputy Sheriffs who had no notion of the laws concerning Arson. More than once Arsonists that had been caught - and confessed - were simply told to "get lost" by Deputies. As to the breaker box, why hadn't you already fixed it for them? That way, you could have written off both time and materials - at retail pricing - on your taxes. grin The truth? I was waiting for their building to burn down. Under that fire chief the state of Ohio listed it as the worst in the entire state. Five years earlier it was in the top 5%. It could take 30 minutes to get a crew together, but it didn't stop the members from driving around with lights and sirens on their private vehicles, or their kids from joy riding. They would tailgate people, then turn on the lights and sirens for kicks. I saw one of the little *******s turn onto the highway behind me one night, and sure enough, on went the lights and siren. I locked up the brakes on my stepvan and almost got rear ended. The idiot came running up to my door screaming that he was going to call the police. I reminded him that he was impersonating a fireman, and that he would go to jail. He peeled rubber, and left, but not before I got the tag number. I confronted his dad at the next monthly meeting at the firehouse, and told them all that if I ever saw anything else illegal, I was going to the State Attorney General. A few months later, I left Ohio for good. Their performance was so bad that no insurance company would recognize them. Even though their hose tower could fall into my yard and to within a few feet of the kitchen, the nearest accepted fire department was over 10 miles away. Add that to the fact that fire chief was supposed to be 100% disabled, yet he could climb ladders and pull hose during a fire made everyone in the area despised them. Because of their bad rating homeowner's insurance was about 20% higher than areas closer to the rated city operated firehouses. -- aioe.org is home to cowards and terrorists Add this line to your news proxy nfilter.dat file * drop Path:*aioe.org!not-for-mail to drop all aioe.org traffic. http://improve-usenet.org/index.html Use any search engine other than Google till they stop polluting USENET with porn and junk commercial SPAM |
#71
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 20:42:22 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote: On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:04:53 -0400, clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote: On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 12:39:32 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... snip Unless you go to the SME or MIT research sources... That should be SAE, not SME. And regarding the corners of the combustion chambers, that should be the corners of the combustion *space*. Detonation is most likely to occur where the piston meets the cylinder walls. Detonation is most likely to This process takes a finite amount of time (which is why detonation is much less of a problem at high speeds than at low speeds). The hydrogen radicals "explode" as soon as they find a molecule of oxygen to attach to - fire or no fire. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** That is pure gobble-gook! Detonation is the extremely rapid burning of the fuel-air charge, a near explosion, and can happen at any engine speed. At low engine speeds you typically hear it as a "pinging" noise but it can happen at wide open throttle settings as easily. In fact a caterpillar 3516 "lean burn" engine that operates at, basically, wide open throttle is equipped with detonation sensors because detonation can and does happen at high engine speeds. Detonation has nothing to do with "occur wherever fuel is exposed to high temperature and pressure for an "extended" periods of time." Nor does "The pressure and temperature "crack" the hydrocarbons into hydrogen radicals and carbon." What typically happens in high RPM detonation is that the mixture leans to the point that it burns extremely rapidly, an explosion one might say, rather then burning evenly. What is amazing about this post is that here we have a device, an internal combustion engine, that has been in existence for something like a hundred years and still people don't understand it..... Thank God we still aren't using buggy whips. Can you imagine what people would be writing about them? Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) Bruce do your research. This is all proven accepted scientific theory. Detonation can, and does, happen with rich mixtures as well as with lean, untill you get so over-rich that you are cooling the engine with gasoline. An OVER LEAN mixture actually burns cooler than a proper mixture, and the speed of the "normal" flame front does NOT contribute to detonation. There are , as Ed has noted, other modes of operation that cause engine knock or ping. PreIgnition is one. Pre ignition is NOT detonation, but when pre-ignition exists, detonation is not far behind. Conversely, when detonation occurs, pre-ignition also often follows. Both pre-ignition and detonation tend to disrupt the insulating boundary layer, allowing excess heat to be absorbed by the piston and or cyl head. This is why one of the definitive ways of determining the onset of detonation is a drop in exhaust temperatures accompanied by a simultaneous increase in cyl head temperatures. If the power level is not reduced in short order detonation usually escalates to also produce pre-ignition. Out of control, the engine usually suffers mechanical damage in a very short time. It is the disruption of the boundary layer that causes holes in pistons from detonation. When the boundary layer is disrupted by detonation, the head and/or pistons heat up, increasing the temperature to the point where autoignition takes place. If the autoignition occurs before the spark, it is detonation. If it occurs after the spark, we get multiple flame fronts which cause what is sometimes referred to as "spark knock" which is similar to, but not exactly, detonation. This is the rattle that GM tells you is "normal" under moderate accelleration under load.It GENERALLY does not cause severe engine damage. True detonation is not just extremely fast burning (conflargation?). It is the equivalent to a small charge of high explosive being set off in the cyl.It is almost always detrimental to engine life as well as power output. Perhaps this is whed Ed is aluding to with the multiple modes of detonation? ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
#72
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:57:28 +0100, David Billington
wrote: Ed Huntress wrote: {..] Ed, I'm wondering if some of the problem here is with the nature of the combustion in the 2 engines. My understanding is that the SI engine burns a vapourised fuel air mix which burns like any gaseous fuel air mix but in the diesel combustion the fuel droplets burn at the surface of the droplet in the combustion air, the lighter fractions burning first leaving the heavier fractions, hence the particulates left behind. The modern diesels in small vehicles, at least in Europe as I think regulations have constrained small diesels in the US, have much finer atomisation of the fuel due to the high pressures used which allows shorter burn times and higher resultant RPM but the nature of the combustion still differs from that of a petrol engine. The ignition and combustion processes definitely are very different. It happens that gasoline is only partly vaporized when it enters a cylinder -- there was a lot of research on this in the '70s and they learned that complete vaporization is not the best thing -- but the essential difference is something else. The big thing is that the fuel burns as it's injected, and the period of injection stretches out the combustion so there is a minimal amount of shock from the sudden high pressure. Unlike a SI engine, a diesel doesn't depend upon the mixture to control the combustion rate. The ideal situation is to have a fuel that burns quickly -- that's why you want a high cetane rating -- and to control the combustion rate by the rate of injection. Some of the newest engines divide the injection into several distinct periods. Yes I'm aware of some of the modern developments as a mate of mine works for Ricardo and gets involved in diesel design. He has mentioned that some of the modern automotive engine management systems for diesel engines are more sophisticated than those for SI engines. One of the things he mentioned recently that was mentioned to him was a limitation of a diesel is that the fuel has to be injected when the air is hot enough to ignite it. I wonder what happens if it is injected too early and the air charge isn't hot enough. You get that white, smelly, acrid smoke typical of a cold engine with bad glow plugs on startup. If all cyls are involved the engine most likely will not start. All of which suggests why gasoline, with its low cetane equivalent and slow burning, can foul up the process. If you burn gasoline in a diesel that's set up for conventional diesel fuel, fuel is injected faster than it burns, so you wind up with regions of unburned fuel/air mix in the cylinder, at extremely high compression, that are invitations to detonation. That was what I was guessing before, but I did some digging today and learned that is apparently what happens. I went through a lot of SAE paper abstracts today, to try to catch up, and I see that there are all kinds of experiments going on with different fuels and mixes, including gasoline, in diesels. The primary purpose of the gasoline is to slow down combustion and thereby to reduce NOx emissions. They have to advance injection by quite a bit and, apparently, use complex strategies for injection, including multiple shots and different kinds of aiming of the injectors. The most interesting research is on something called HCCI (homogeneous charge/compression ignition) engines that are basically diesels, but some of which have "spark assist." Some of these run at compression ratios that are intermediate between conventional SI engines and conventional diesels. There is a lot going on. It's pretty interesting, especially since they now have better tools to analyze combustion in an engine. -- Ed Huntress ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
#73
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote in message ... snip True detonation is not just extremely fast burning (conflargation?). It is the equivalent to a small charge of high explosive being set off in the cyl.It is almost always detrimental to engine life as well as power output. Perhaps this is whed Ed is aluding to with the multiple modes of detonation? What I was referring to is just what was in the abstract I posted ("A Theoretical and Experimental Study of the Modes of End Gas Autoignition Leading to Knock in S.I. Engines") from the University of Leeds. I don't have the full article, so I don't have a further explanation. But that basic definition shows up in several papers I encountered on the SAE website. There is conflagration (very rapid burning); developing detonation; and explosion. Several papers say it is the developing detonation phase that causes most of the damage. -- Ed Huntress |
#74
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 11:28:11 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote in message .. . On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 01:38:50 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote: Something is funny here, Tim. I wonder if those guys told your dad what actually happened? The cetane rating of gasoline is so low that, if you can ignite it at all in a diesel, the gasoline burns so slowly that the engine knocks like crazy, and it's still burning past the end of the power stroke. Thus, the white smoke that someone else mentioned. At low temperatures, a diesel fueled with gasoline may not ignite at all. At the risk of oversimplifying, octane and cetane have roughly opposite burning characteristics. A high cetane rating (as in premium diesel) indicates that the fuel ignites easily from the heat of compression and that it burns quickly once ignited. In fact, the cetane rating is based on the time it takes for fuel ignited at high temperature and compression to reach a specified cylinder pressure. An octane rating, which is very low in diesel and much higher in gasoline, indicates the *resistance* of the fuel to burning under those same conditions. Higher octane allows higher compression ratios without premature ignition from the heat of compression. However, what octane rating really measures, if I recall correctly, is the speed with which a flame progresses. High octane, slow burning. Your recollection is not quite correct, which is where the confusion comes in. Octain has NOTHING to do with the temperature at which the fuel will auto-ignite, nor the speed of burn, when you get right down to it. It has everything to do with resistance to dissassociation, and resultant detonation. I don't want to turn this into a battle of citations, but what you're saying disagrees with the research -- particularly the recent research. Because of the interest in HCCI engines a lot of work is being done in this area, because octane is suddenly of interest in compression-ignition and spark-assisted compression-ignition engines. Here are a few remarks from recent research papers: ================================================= ===== [The Effect of Prf Fuel Octane Number on Hcci Operation - 2004] "The test results show that, with the increase of the octane number, the ignition timing delayed, the combustion rate decreased, and the cylinder pressure decreased." [A Method of Defining Ignition Quality of Fuels in Hcci Engines - 2003] "The higher the OI [octane index], the more the resistance to autoignition and the later is the heat release in the HCCI engine at a given condition. When the engine is run with a boost pressure of 1 bar and with the intake air temperature maintained at 40\mDC, K is highly negative and fuels of low MON, such as those containing aromatics, olefins or ethanol, have a higher OI and ignite later than paraffinic fuels of comparable RON." [Note that the study above examines the burn characteristics of aliphatics versus paraffinics -- more about that later.] More to do with the actual fuel composition than the actual octane rating, wouldn't you agree? Ethanol., intrinsically has a higher octane than gasoline, yet they are stating low RON fuels containing ethanol. Aromatics and olefins DO behave differently than parafins, and MON and RON are different - which is why the typical automotive octane ratings (ron+mon/2) are somewhat misleading and confusing. Kinda like aircraft octane, where you have a rich and a lean number. Which actualy tells you more than ron+mon/2. ANyway - enough arguing There is always going to be more research, with morefindings to be proven or disproven when it comes to fuel and combustion technology. Suffice it to say taht gasoline in a compression ignition engine is NOT a good idea for reasons pertaining to the difference in combustion characteristics alone - and then there are the issues of lubricity etc which can be circumvented by mixing lubricating oils with the fuel lie in typical 2 stroke (fuel lubricated) gasoline practice. There is so much TOTAL MISUNDERSTANDING of fuel octane and detonation issues out there in both automotive and aviation worlds. Your explanations (or the explanations which may or may not exist in the citations given) may go a lot farther in the explanation of how it actually works, but without paying for and reading the complete documentation (which in most cases would go right over the heads of most on this list) it is impossible to say for certain. They may or may not disprove (or support) the theory I have been taught and that has been accepted for years. ANd just because some scientist or scholar has presented a thesis, and supported it with scientific method, does not mean that thesis will not be proven totally false (or substantially in error) by some other scientist or scholar in the short or long term. [Knock in Spark-Ignition Engines: End-Gas Temperature Measurements Using Rotational Cars and Detailed Kinetic Calculations of the Autoignition Process - 1997] "It is found that calculations with different RONs of the fuel lead to different levels of radical concentrations in the end-gas. The appearance of the first stage of the autoignition process is marginally influence by the RON, while the ignition delay of the second stage is increased with increasing RON." [There are two stages to controlled autoignition, and the final one is delayed as octane number increases.] ANd this disproves or dissagrees with my explanation how? The "radical concentrations" refer to what? Higher RON reduces the radical concentrations, which delay the "second stage of autoignition" - which in spark engine parlance is "detonation" In my words, high octane gasoline resists thermal dissassociation of the hydrocarbons, resulting in lower production of hydrogen radicals and a marked reduction in the propensity of the engine to detonate. You are talking DIESEL ENGINE RESEARCH - where autoignition is a good thing (particularly stage one) Second stage autoignition (also referred to as detonation) is apparently also an issue in the engines in question. In spark ignition engines, autoignition is a BAD THING, even in stage one (spark knock or the so-called non-destructive engine knock)but particularly in stage 2 (detonation) [Experimental Investigation into HCCI Combustion Using Gasoline and Diesel Blended Fuels - 2005] "Gasoline and diesel, the two fuels with very different characteristics and with wide availability for conventional engine use, were blended as a HCCI engine fuel. Gasoline, with high volatility, easy vaporization and mixture formation, is used to form the homogeneous charge. Diesel fuel, which has good ignitability and fast combustion at the conditions predominating in the HCCI environment, is used to dominate the auto-ignition and restrain the knocking combustion." ================================================= ======= The flash point of gasoline is lower than the flashpoint of diesel fuel. The vapour pressure is higher. Therefore it actually takes less heat to light gasoline than diesel. However, the flamability range of gasoline is lower - too lean or too rich and it won't light. The flashpoints of gasoline and diesel have little to do with ignition in a high-compression engine that ignites the fuel by autoignition. The autoignition temperature for gasoline is 246 deg. C; for diesel, it is 210 deg. C. So diesel ignites faster in a compression-ignition engine. As for the amount of heat required to ignite either, since the initial in-cylinder conditions are the same in both cases, the amount of heat is the same. The quicker ignition of the diesel relates to its lower autoignition temperature, not to the amount of heat involved. When you inject gasoline into a diesel, if you get it injected in a proper cone, at the right time, some of the fuel will ignite immediately and will burn very quickly, causing a knock. What's your reference for this? The resources I've checked (I read over 200 abstracts during the past 24 hours), at least those that address the question, say that gasoline is slow to ignite in a diesel. Slow to ignite - but fast flame front/pressure rise when ignited. The rest of the fuel is dissipated in an overlean mixture, and does not burn. (severe lean misfire)This goes out the pipe as white "smoke" and also causes the flame in the exhaust if it ends up lighting on the way out. If the throttle is advanced enough to get sufficient fuel into the cyl to get the mixture rich enough to burn more completely, SEVERE "detonation" shock occurs - the engine knocks badly, smokes profusely, and makes very little power. High octane fuel will not behave much differently than low octane fuel in a deisel. A diesel depends on s relatively slow even burn, and a reasonably long calibrated injection period provides the fuel to keep building cyl pressure constantly untill the piston is almost at BDC. Again, diesel burns more quickly in an engine environment than gasoline does. Which is why the fuel is NOT injected in one instantaneous shot, but in a prolonged spray to maintain a constantly expanding charge or burn, maintaining more or less even pressure on the piston for the full power stroke - unlike the situation in a spark ignition gasoline engine. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
#75
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote in message ... On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 11:28:11 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote: clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote in message . .. On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 01:38:50 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote: Something is funny here, Tim. I wonder if those guys told your dad what actually happened? The cetane rating of gasoline is so low that, if you can ignite it at all in a diesel, the gasoline burns so slowly that the engine knocks like crazy, and it's still burning past the end of the power stroke. Thus, the white smoke that someone else mentioned. At low temperatures, a diesel fueled with gasoline may not ignite at all. At the risk of oversimplifying, octane and cetane have roughly opposite burning characteristics. A high cetane rating (as in premium diesel) indicates that the fuel ignites easily from the heat of compression and that it burns quickly once ignited. In fact, the cetane rating is based on the time it takes for fuel ignited at high temperature and compression to reach a specified cylinder pressure. An octane rating, which is very low in diesel and much higher in gasoline, indicates the *resistance* of the fuel to burning under those same conditions. Higher octane allows higher compression ratios without premature ignition from the heat of compression. However, what octane rating really measures, if I recall correctly, is the speed with which a flame progresses. High octane, slow burning. Your recollection is not quite correct, which is where the confusion comes in. Octain has NOTHING to do with the temperature at which the fuel will auto-ignite, nor the speed of burn, when you get right down to it. It has everything to do with resistance to dissassociation, and resultant detonation. I don't want to turn this into a battle of citations, but what you're saying disagrees with the research -- particularly the recent research. Because of the interest in HCCI engines a lot of work is being done in this area, because octane is suddenly of interest in compression-ignition and spark-assisted compression-ignition engines. Here are a few remarks from recent research papers: ================================================ ====== [The Effect of Prf Fuel Octane Number on Hcci Operation - 2004] "The test results show that, with the increase of the octane number, the ignition timing delayed, the combustion rate decreased, and the cylinder pressure decreased." [A Method of Defining Ignition Quality of Fuels in Hcci Engines - 2003] "The higher the OI [octane index], the more the resistance to autoignition and the later is the heat release in the HCCI engine at a given condition. When the engine is run with a boost pressure of 1 bar and with the intake air temperature maintained at 40\mDC, K is highly negative and fuels of low MON, such as those containing aromatics, olefins or ethanol, have a higher OI and ignite later than paraffinic fuels of comparable RON." [Note that the study above examines the burn characteristics of aliphatics versus paraffinics -- more about that later.] More to do with the actual fuel composition than the actual octane rating, wouldn't you agree? No, they're talking about octane ratings, and you'll find the same pattern for gasoline and other high-octane fuels versus diesel fuel, throughout the literature. The issue here is the differences in performance relative to different octane rating systems. Ethanol., intrinsically has a higher octane than gasoline, yet they are stating low RON fuels containing ethanol. Where do they say that? MON, RON, and OI are not the same things. The most useful octane rating, based on relative performance in an engine, is the Octane Index. Ethanol has a higher OI than gasoline. Aromatics and olefins DO behave differently than parafins, and MON and RON are different - which is why the typical automotive octane ratings (ron+mon/2) are somewhat misleading and confusing. Kinda like aircraft octane, where you have a rich and a lean number. Which actualy tells you more than ron+mon/2. When you normalize for performance in an engine, you get OI. ANyway - enough arguing There is always going to be more research, with morefindings to be proven or disproven when it comes to fuel and combustion technology. Suffice it to say taht gasoline in a compression ignition engine is NOT a good idea for reasons pertaining to the difference in combustion characteristics alone - and then there are the issues of lubricity etc which can be circumvented by mixing lubricating oils with the fuel lie in typical 2 stroke (fuel lubricated) gasoline practice. There is so much TOTAL MISUNDERSTANDING of fuel octane and detonation issues out there in both automotive and aviation worlds. Your explanations (or the explanations which may or may not exist in the citations given) may go a lot farther in the explanation of how it actually works, but without paying for and reading the complete documentation (which in most cases would go right over the heads of most on this list) it is impossible to say for certain. They may or may not disprove (or support) the theory I have been taught and that has been accepted for years. ANd just because some scientist or scholar has presented a thesis, and supported it with scientific method, does not mean that thesis will not be proven totally false (or substantially in error) by some other scientist or scholar in the short or long term. It looks to me like someone gave you some misinformation regarding flame speeds, but that the rest of what you're saying looks reasonably right. As I was reading all of this yesterday (I have a respiratory infection, or you wouldn't catch me dead inside, and not fishing, on a Saturday in April g), some of what I was taught 40 years ago came back to me. I remembered that gasoline was harder to ignite by compression than diesel. I had forgotten that flame speed was slower for gasoline, which was counterintuitive and struck me funny 40 years ago. But that's the same thing they're saying in all of this current research. Abstracts or full text, those conclusive statements are the same either way. I got another dose of all this in the late '70s, when I was covering materials for _American Machinist_ and most of that was automotive; I took the time then to re-study engine dynamics. They knew about turbulence and lean burning, and all of that, by then. What's new is that they have sensors and photogrammetry that let them detect all kinds of things. Now they can describe not only the outcomes, but also the how and why of much of it. I was startled to see that one piece of research identified 669 chemical species in the combustion process. g! Now they can tell us why different fuels that deliver the same MON or RON numbers in a standardized test, but which are chemically different fuels, may perform radically different under real-world conditions. One test showed a 2:1 ratio in detonation resistance, between two fuels that have the same RON. None of that changes the fact that cetane and octane are close to being opposite scales of the same thing, and that gasoline resists ignition, and burns slower, than diesel in an engine. This explains why that MIT engineer jokingly said 20 years ago that it's not like using those fuels to start your charcoal grill. Flashpoint and volatility at ambient temperatures, which are important in starting a grill, become trivial with direct injection at high compression ratios. [Knock in Spark-Ignition Engines: End-Gas Temperature Measurements Using Rotational Cars and Detailed Kinetic Calculations of the Autoignition Process - 1997] "It is found that calculations with different RONs of the fuel lead to different levels of radical concentrations in the end-gas. The appearance of the first stage of the autoignition process is marginally influence by the RON, while the ignition delay of the second stage is increased with increasing RON." [There are two stages to controlled autoignition, and the final one is delayed as octane number increases.] ANd this disproves or dissagrees with my explanation how? The "radical concentrations" refer to what? Higher RON reduces the radical concentrations, which delay the "second stage of autoignition" - which in spark engine parlance is "detonation" No, they're talking about controlled autoignition. Detonation is uncontrolled autoignition that progesses to an explosive, or near-explosive state. And they're talking about diesels, not SI engines. In my words, high octane gasoline resists thermal dissassociation of the hydrocarbons, resulting in lower production of hydrogen radicals and a marked reduction in the propensity of the engine to detonate. But it also slows down the flame front, which contradicts, apparently, what you were taught. This appears over and over again in those research papers. FWIW, there is a lot of research that picks apart the multiple stages of intermediate combustion products, which are heavily involved in the rate of combustion and which vary widely between fuels. The simplified idea that the hydrocarbons are just dissociated and then burn doesn't cut it at the level of engineering science they're working at today. You are talking DIESEL ENGINE RESEARCH - where autoignition is a good thing (particularly stage one) Second stage autoignition (also referred to as detonation) is apparently also an issue in the engines in question. They aren't talking about detonation. There are two stages of controlled autoignition. snip This could go on, but you'll find it interesting to pick through the current research. They debunk a few old misconceptions, but the basics haven't changed. And, as you say, the important thing is, don't burn gasoline in a diesel that's tuned to run on diesel fuel. -- Ed Huntress |
#76
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 11:30:58 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote in message .. . On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 19:08:43 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "RoyJ" wrote in message ... After reading the other comments I think you have multiple issues going on to switch from diesel to gasoline: -the gasoline will have a MUCH lower viscosity, you are going to get way different (more)amounts of fuel through the injector. I'd think that is what causes the white smoke a lousy performance, it's too rich. -at the same time, gasoline has lower fuel value per gallon or milliliter, same volume of fuel will cause the engine to go lean, never a good thing You raise an intriguing question there, Roy. How do you make a diesel run lean? g -gasoline has a much higher flame front speed, ie it will detonate, really does bad things to the top of the piston. It will detonate, but it's because of the *slower* flame front speed. That's the thing that's indirectly measured by the cetane rating: gasoline around 25, diesel typically 45+. It's not realy detonation, and it's not really the speed of the burn that is involved (flame front). It is the speed at which the cyl pressure goes up with gas vs diesel. You DO get a faster pressure spike when burning gasoline than when burning deisel at high cyl pressures. Reference? You may be comparing a homogeneous mixture in a spark-ignition engine with the timed spray in a diesel. If you create a homogeneous mixture with diesel alone, it burns faster than gasoline. That's what the HCCI-engine research shows. But what is the difference between timed spray of diesel vs timed spray of gasoline. That was not, from what I saw, addressed. Diesel combustion is NOT a homogenous mixture under normal operating conditions. Running deisel fuel in a spark ignition engine, with more or less homogenous mixtures, the burn speed of the deisel is DEFINITELY faster than the burn speed of gasoline in a homogenous mixture, but NOT as fast as the burn speed of decomposed endgas, which is involved in detonation. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
#77
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 19:04:55 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: More to do with the actual fuel composition than the actual octane rating, wouldn't you agree? No, they're talking about octane ratings, and you'll find the same pattern for gasoline and other high-octane fuels versus diesel fuel, throughout the literature. The issue here is the differences in performance relative to different octane rating systems. You will admit, will you not, that propane, ethanol, and leaded racing fuel will have 3 very widely varying burn speeds, very different flamability ranges, extremely differing autoignition specs, widely disparate energy densities,just as widely disparate specific gravities and reid vapour pressures, yet very close to the same octane? SO. Octane has NOTHING to do with flame front speed, nothing to do with autoignition temperatures, nothing to do with vapour pressure, power density,specific gravity, or ANY other property except the resistance to detonation in a spark ignition internal combustion engine. It MAY have an effect on the operation of a compression ignition engine as well - I would say there is little chance that any fuel with high octane would run successfully in a standard CI engine - but octane, by it's definition has little if any to do with compression ignition engine operation. The big MYTHS out there are several, including but not limited to the following: ALL high octane fuels MUST burn slower than low octane fuels. ALL high octane fuels must produce less power in a low compression engine than low octane fuels. Using ANY fuel with higher than recommended octane rating MUST produce poorer fuel economy SG of a fuel indicates octane High octane fuel can be differentiated from low octane fuel by RVP. The truth is: FASTER burning fuels are less prone to detonation, all else being equal. SOME high octane fuels will produce just as much power (or even more power) than some low octane fuels in low compression engines SOME high octane fuels will provide as good or better fuel economy in low compression engines than low octane fuels. RVP in itself has no bearing on Octane There is so much TOTAL MISUNDERSTANDING of fuel octane and detonation issues out there in both automotive and aviation worlds. Your explanations (or the explanations which may or may not exist in the citations given) may go a lot farther in the explanation of how it actually works, but without paying for and reading the complete documentation (which in most cases would go right over the heads of most on this list) it is impossible to say for certain. They may or may not disprove (or support) the theory I have been taught and that has been accepted for years. ANd just because some scientist or scholar has presented a thesis, and supported it with scientific method, does not mean that thesis will not be proven totally false (or substantially in error) by some other scientist or scholar in the short or long term. It looks to me like someone gave you some misinformation regarding flame speeds, but that the rest of what you're saying looks reasonably right. As I was reading all of this yesterday (I have a respiratory infection, or you wouldn't catch me dead inside, and not fishing, on a Saturday in April g), some of what I was taught 40 years ago came back to me. I remembered that gasoline was harder to ignite by compression than diesel. I had forgotten that flame speed was slower for gasoline, which was counterintuitive and struck me funny 40 years ago. But that's the same thing they're saying in all of this current research. Abstracts or full text, those conclusive statements are the same either way. Flame speeds vary with fuel mixture and fuel composition, as well as with compression pressure. Lean mixtures burn faster than rich. High compression causes faster fuel burn ( at least in most cases, as chemical activity goes up with temperature, and compression raises temperature) Flame front and rate of expansion are highly variable and influenced by compression pressure, temperature, mixture, and fuel composition. Because Gasoline is NOT a tightly defined compund, but (particularly in recent years) a very wide-ranging chemical soup, it is difficult, if not impossible, to generalize about how "Gasoline" behaves in an engine under specific conditions. It's been 40 years since I was taught a lot of this stuff too. The issue date on my C of Q says December 17, 1971 I got another dose of all this in the late '70s, when I was covering materials for _American Machinist_ and most of that was automotive; I took the time then to re-study engine dynamics. They knew about turbulence and lean burning, and all of that, by then. But they have learned a lot more about both since, as well. What's new is that they have sensors and photogrammetry that let them detect all kinds of things. Now they can describe not only the outcomes, but also the how and why of much of it. I was startled to see that one piece of research identified 669 chemical species in the combustion process. g! Now they can tell us why different fuels that deliver the same MON or RON numbers in a standardized test, but which are chemically different fuels, may perform radically different under real-world conditions. One test showed a 2:1 ratio in detonation resistance, between two fuels that have the same RON. And just as wide a difference in detonation resistance between engines with the same compression ratios - and many cases where high compression engines are so much MORE detonation RESISTANT than other engines of exactly the same design with reduced compression ratios. None of that changes the fact that cetane and octane are close to being opposite scales of the same thing, and that gasoline resists ignition, and burns slower, than diesel in an engine. This explains why that MIT engineer jokingly said 20 years ago that it's not like using those fuels to start your charcoal grill. Flashpoint and volatility at ambient temperatures, which are important in starting a grill, become trivial with direct injection at high compression ratios. For all intents and purposes, Cetane and Octane ratings are very CLOSE to opposites, but there are subtle differences. Most definitely, behaviour under atmospheric conditions does NOT predict how a fuel will behave under elevated temperatures and pressures. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
#78
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 14:31:27 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth: clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote in message .. . snip True detonation is not just extremely fast burning (conflargation?). It is the equivalent to a small charge of high explosive being set off in the cyl.It is almost always detrimental to engine life as well as power output. Perhaps this is whed Ed is aluding to with the multiple modes of detonation? What I was referring to is just what was in the abstract I posted ("A Theoretical and Experimental Study of the Modes of End Gas Autoignition Leading to Knock in S.I. Engines") from the University of Leeds. I don't have the full article, so I don't have a further explanation. But that basic definition shows up in several papers I encountered on the SAE website. There is conflagration (very rapid burning); developing detonation; and explosion. Several papers say it is the developing detonation phase that causes most of the damage. Damage is most likely caused by the advanced timing effect which is brought about by detonation. The mixture explodes as the piston is coming -up- to TDC on the compression stroke. Rods, pistons, head gaskets, and rod bearings don't like that at all. It's almost as much fun as that neat trick called "hydrostatic lock." -- Save the whales! Trade them for valuable prizes. |
#79
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:50:08 -0500, RoyJ
wrote: Very interesting discussion. I've been asked to be the project manager for an alternate fuels project based around a 100kw Cat diesel generator. Fire up on a new fuel, check for short term issues, go to a 50% load then 100% load for 8 to 24 hours, then tear down and look for damage. Looks like I would be spending more time than planned dealing with the injector pump. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. What are the alternate fuels they want to check? If it's natural gas, Caterpillar has off the shelf engines to do that. No experimenting or reinventing the wheel needed - just couple, plumb and go. If it's canola or other vegetable oils, they have specs for getting the glycerine out, and the concentrations allowed. IIRC they only allow B-20 right now (80% regular diesel) if you still want warranty coverage, but that may well have changed. For B-100, yeah you'd want to keep an eye on the injector pump. -- Bruce -- |
#80
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Diesel engines
clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote in message ... On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 11:30:58 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote: clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote in message . .. On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 19:08:43 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "RoyJ" wrote in message ... After reading the other comments I think you have multiple issues going on to switch from diesel to gasoline: -the gasoline will have a MUCH lower viscosity, you are going to get way different (more)amounts of fuel through the injector. I'd think that is what causes the white smoke a lousy performance, it's too rich. -at the same time, gasoline has lower fuel value per gallon or milliliter, same volume of fuel will cause the engine to go lean, never a good thing You raise an intriguing question there, Roy. How do you make a diesel run lean? g -gasoline has a much higher flame front speed, ie it will detonate, really does bad things to the top of the piston. It will detonate, but it's because of the *slower* flame front speed. That's the thing that's indirectly measured by the cetane rating: gasoline around 25, diesel typically 45+. It's not realy detonation, and it's not really the speed of the burn that is involved (flame front). It is the speed at which the cyl pressure goes up with gas vs diesel. You DO get a faster pressure spike when burning gasoline than when burning deisel at high cyl pressures. Reference? You may be comparing a homogeneous mixture in a spark-ignition engine with the timed spray in a diesel. If you create a homogeneous mixture with diesel alone, it burns faster than gasoline. That's what the HCCI-engine research shows. But what is the difference between timed spray of diesel vs timed spray of gasoline. That was not, from what I saw, addressed. It wasn't, in the papers from which I quoted. It was in some of the other 200 or so. Diesel combustion is NOT a homogenous mixture under normal operating conditions. It is in an HCCI engine running on diesel, which is what I said. You don't need HCCI to have diesel burning faster. It burns faster in a conventional stratified charge diesel, as well. It just doesn't happen in a way that you can compare it with a SI engine, which is what that paragraph was about. Running deisel fuel in a spark ignition engine, with more or less homogenous mixtures, the burn speed of the deisel is DEFINITELY faster than the burn speed of gasoline in a homogenous mixture, but NOT as fast as the burn speed of decomposed endgas, which is involved in detonation. ?? I'm not sure if we just got off on a siding, or what... -- Ed Huntress |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
mini diesel engines | Metalworking | |||
Old engines vs new | Metalworking | |||
Are 2-cycle engines or 4 cylce engines 'better'? | Home Repair | |||
Diesel engines--valve adjustments | Metalworking | |||
Diesel engines | Metalworking |