Thanks man. That is what I'm converting first too - my 84 300CD turbo.

The copper tubing hot water heat exchanger for the injection lines should be a lot easier to fab for the Benz since it has an inline pump - which means that the injector lines are all close together, paralell, and in a single flat plane. That should allow for bending the 1/4" copper line into a standard rectangular pattern. Going across the group of lines, make a 180* u-turn, go back across the lines, 180* u-turn, etc. Pretty simple, and shouldn't require anything more than removing the lines as an assembly to do the installation.

For the Stanadyne on the old Fords, the pattern of the 1/4 copper pipes is probably going to have to be more like the outline of a daisy. I'm thinking of startng at the distribution hub where the injection lines all exit the pump, trace along a line for a few inches, do a 180* loop over to the next line and trace it back down close to the hub, do a tight 180* bend to loop over to the next line and repeat. Either that or maybe coil it around the whole group of lines coming out of the pump. Either way it is almost certainly going to require removing the pump and lines as a unit to installation.

Whichever way I do it the heat transfer is going to be by metal-to-metal contact between the steel injector lines and the copper tubing, and it is probably going to require some insulation wrapped around and encapsulating the injection lines and copper tubing together to hold in the heat and warm up the lines as fast and as hot as possible so the electric part of the system shuts off as soon as possible and stays off as much of the time as possible.

One other little "wrinkle" I plan on adding is a two LEDs in different colors for monitoring the two electric portions of the system. The one that is attached to the electric injection line heaters would also serve as your starting indicator. So, you'd turn the key to the RUN position and the electric heaters would come on, lighting the LEDs on your dash. When the light for the injection line heaters goes out, that would tell you that the lines are warmed up enough for it to be OK for you to turn the key to the START position and crank 'er up.

 

Purely a theory on my part attempting to explain the lack of a phenomenon my gut (which 65 years have taught me is remarkably accurate) tells me should be there. I wish I had access to a lab to run the appropriate tests and either calm my fears or confirm them.

Actually a phenomenon such as I described can be found in water.
Saltwater and freshwater will form such a gradient if not physically mixed. The denser saltwater at the bottom with freshwater on top, an intermixed zone rather than a sharp delineation occurs at the interface. Such conditions can be observed in nature at estuaries.

My theory goes on to explain that overtime a gradual concentration in layers based on density and polarity will occur; however, there will always be that zone of graduated delineation rather than a distinct line.

Yes.
Carbon bonds occur at a consistent 120 degrees so there wont be any straight lines but that is the best analogy I can think of. The three hydrocarbon chains are each bonded to the glycerol backbone by an ester bond. It is the carbonyl oxygen in that bond that accounts for the slight polarity of the VO molecule.

I have to correct something I said earlier I referred to the VO/#2 combination as "partly miscible" that cannot be true because miscible implies the formation of a homogeneous mixture regardless of proportions of the components. I should have referred to solubility. While VO is 3 times the size of #2 the fact that it is branched tends to reduce the space it occupies thus decreasing the significance of size. The somewhat polar nature of the VO molecule vs the non-polar nature of the #2 molecule pushes the equation in the other direction, remember the basic rule of solvents "like dissolves like" that rule addresses the polarity issue. If VO was non-polar I dont think there would be a problem.
Gasoline is a mix of 5 to 12 carbon length chains. It is hard to say how long the 90W gear oil molecule is but it is probably in the 20s. Just remember we are dealing with solubility not viscosity or density, since both gasoline and 90W are non polar they are soluble in each other,


I admit to a bias against blending but that developed during my research as to which VO based alternative fuel I would use. I believe I started out with an open mind

 

The reference to 65 years and the fact that someone with your obvious depth of knowledge on this subject, leads me to believe that you are retired, correct?


But isn't that a different situation? If I pour in the veg oil then pump in the #2, they will be quite well mixed. And then sloshing action in the tank created by driving the vehicle around will continue to physically mix them. Once mixed the salt and fresh water do not further separate - do they? Now if the vehicle sits for extended periods AND the two fluids have a tendancy to separate in fairly short period of time, then I could see that being a problem. But if they're being mixed daily, seems like it wouldn't be.

Again, I can see where that would be an issue if the mix were to sit undisturbe for extended periods, or if the two fluids were so dissimilar that they separate rapidly (like oil and water), but in my way of thinking that doesn't seem to be the case.

I'm thinking of another experiment to try in order to figure out just how much and how fast the two separate and if there are gradiations of separation. How about mixing them and filling up a tall, transparent column (like a 2" plastic tube a couple of feet long). Let it sit for a few days, and then carefully, using a pipette (or similar) take samples from 5 or so different levels in the column (top, bottom, middle, and one point halfway above and below the middle) and then compare them. With your background it seems like that would be a pretty easy experiment to complete...

 

Actually the 65 reference was to emphasize the fact that I have learned thru experience to trust my gut. LOL I would prefer to have less experience and more hair.
I am not retired because I enjoy my work.

I think the tank sloshing influence would depend on the presence or absence of baffles in the tank.

Since I committed to BD I have not spent much time pursuing analysis of blends. I will pass on an idea just before I made my decision. I would try to get some farm or offroad diesel. Unless the red dye transfers from layer to layer it should show the layering. Using a tall cylinder would be better than a jar or flask.

I would be interested in your results.

 

Oh, I took 65 years of "trusting your gut" to mean you had worked and accumulated 65 years experience
What kind of work do you do? From the info you have shared it is obvious you have a pretty solid background in chemistry. While I understand and remember most of the priciples and terms you have referenced from having taken a year of chem in college, I certainly couldn't have pulled all of them from my own memory without reading your references to them first.

Yeah, baffles could reduce the sloshing action, however they would also serve to disrupt any laminar flow and thereby break up any layering since the tank can't be completely baffled to the point of being compartmentalized. In my Mercedes, I don't think the tank has much if any baffling since an abrupt acceleration, deceleration, or even a high speed turn, will cause the fuel gauge reading to change by as much as 1/8 of a tank - which is 2-3 gallons.

I thought about that, but like you I am also uncertain of whether the dye would be as miscible (great word) with the veg oil as it is with the diesel. In which case it wouldn't be much help. I also don't know where I could even find a gallon of off-road diesel!

 

Ok guys, I try and stay out of blending threads.... But since I have some lab equipment Still haven't had time to set up my GC equip! And I have a 1,000 gallon tank full of off-road fuel that I use for blending in winter, I'll dig out some glassware and try different samples. I will try some at ambient temps, colder temps, "splash" mixed, and mechanical mixed, in different ratios.

Give me a couple of days to put everything together, I'll take before pics and will monitor over time. Say 30 days?

Question for Phy.....I have a chance to pick up a Photospectrometer from a friends lab for very little $$$$$. Would that help in any way??

 

Don to the RESCUE! That sounds great man! I bet that photospectrometer would work for analyzing the composition at different levels in the column. Assuming the veg and #2 have different refractive properties - which I'm sure they do.

It will be VERY interesting to see your results, if the mix separates, and if so how long it takes, and if it separates cleanly or stratifies. However, rather than wait 30 days I think I may proceed with running some low concentration blends even before we see the results...

 

Don
Man where do you get all those offers you must have been born under a lucky star.

The photospec would certainly aid in determining whether or not layers are forming in the way I describe.

 

Nope, could'nt be a lucky star, or I'd be rich instead of just good looking!

 

Absolutely!....NOT!

BTW, Don, as interesting as the results over a 30 day period will be, I hope you won't wait that long to start reporting what you find - especailly if it bears out Phydeaux's theory about the mix separating into a gradient (rather than clean layers). I'm much more interested in what happens over a period of a day or two and up to a week or so. A week to 10 days is as long as a tank of fuel ever lasts in my MB since it is my commuter, and the longest it ever sits undisturbed is a couple of days over the weekend.

So personally, what can or does happen in those time frames are what interests me the most, and since I am going to go ahead with trying the weak (20%) blend and start working my way up from there in 20% increments (40%, 60%), it would be great to know how it separates (if at all) sooner rather than later...

I also wanted to mention that I saw no clouding, separating, or anything else in any of my mix concentrations with OR without the DieselKleen after 48 hours out on the porch with lows in the lower 50s. Last night I put the jars into the fridge and as of this morning, no obvious change in any of the mixes overnight at 45 degrees. After another day, I may try putting them into the freezer if nothing has changed. I would also like to compare the relative viscosity of the mixes to the viscosity of #2 diesel, but the cheapest viscosity measuring device I have found is $125. I guess that since all I'm really concerned about is the relative viscosity compared to diesel at the same temp (vs. absolute viscosity) I could make my own drip cup to compare them...

 

Just checked with my buddy..................It's gone! for $200 no less..........

 

I've got a jar I mixed a year and a half ago sitting in my shop, I put a top on it and left it. I'll try to go take a picture tomorrow. It looks just like it did when I first shook it. I have a buddy that runs straight veggie in the summer and mixes a little diesel in the winter in his old 5 cyl Mercedes. I have a 3-53 Detroit I just put in a Chevy truck that I think will run real good on it, but I havn't put any in it yet, I just finished it yesterday.

 

Confused on this end
With the weather hot out here I am to assume that I can run 20% vo 80% diesel ,with no probs other than maybe fuel filter issues? You guys have some interesting replies but it leaves me baffled a bit. Heck give me a piece of wood ,thats what I know

Hanklin

 

Blending is risky. The issue is if cold WVO gets past the piston rings it will coke the rings.
With the blend on cold starts the pistons don't seal as well when the engine is hot fuel get past the rings and you can do cause issue.

It sounds like the people with the best luck @ blending live in the souther parts of the USA.

 

Well, I added one five gallon blend of 85% SVO/15% RUG with 16 gallons D2 and it ran just great.

Ran that until it was down to about 4 gallons left in the tank and added 10 gallons of 85/15 SVO/RUG blend to the remaining mix and added another 7 gallons D2 - so right now my mix is about 47% SVO, 8% RUG, and 45% D2. She's still starting and running great.

When this tank gets run down pretty low, I'm going to try 15 gallons 85/15 SVO/RUG mixed with (up to) 6 gallons D2 (whatever it takes to top off after adding 15 gallons of blend). That will put me at about a 60% SVO, 10% RUG, 30% D2 blend. We'll see how that goes in tems of how well it starts and runs.

I'm kind of thinking that the current mix of 10 gallons of 85%/15% SVO/RUG mix per 21 gallon tank is about what I'll end up sticking with, at least until I finish my conversion. That still saves me about $1 a gallon on fuel costs...

BTW, I have a quart of the 85%/15% SVO/RUG mix in my fridge that has been there undisturbed for around 2 weeks now. The RUG was from my boat and had been mixed 50:1 with green 2-stroke oil, so if it were separating from the SVO it should be pretty easy to see since the RUG was pretty dark green and the SVO is a light gold in color. Still looks as uniform in color top to bottom right now as it did when I put it in there two weeks ago...