Decrease DPF filter regen rates and increase life of your filter

[TheOldHokie]

Feel free to draw conclusions about my ability to read and understand, but it probably means that I don't understand your posts either.

However, the conclusions of the paper are clear. No, you don't have to agree, and you can say they are wrong.

On the other hand, you draw your own conclusions of what you posted. Maybe you are right and maybe not.

Let's just assume you are right to save time. If the point of DPF is to reduce emissions and biodiesel is better, then why don't all of the manufacturers recommend B100 and why hasn't the EPA mandated it? That seems to conflict with your conclusions.

The conclusions are in bold and are direct quotes and are quite clear. Go read the report - it's not my interpretation it's the authors exact words describing the measured performance they observed. I will repeat the results here:

• Installation of the DPF caused PM emissions to drop by more than a factor of 10 for petrodiesel.
• Transient emissions tests show a 25% PM reduction for B20 without the DPF installed
• Use of B20 with the DPF produced an additional PM reduction of 67% below the petrodiesel+DPF level
• Filter regeneration rate measurements indicate that biodiesel causes a significant increase in regeneration rate, even at the 5% blending level

The future goal as stated in the 2006 paper is to improve on both and reduce/eliminate the increased frequency of active regen by identifying the optimal operating conditions for a DPF when used with bio-blends. That seems pretty easy to understand. In post #5 I gave you some current data indicating that follow on R&D has made that goal a reality.

As to B100 its superior performance wrt to reducing PM is solidly documented including in that report. But it has other issues that make it problematic - most notably gelling. Interestingly other data has shown animal fat bio tends to perform better than vegetable fat bio.

Currently the use of bio blends in concentrations as high as B20 are Kubota approved.

Dan

 

[armylifer]

The conclusions are in bold and are direct quotes and are quite clear. Go read the report - it's not my interpretation it's the authors exact words describing the measured performance they observed. I will repeat the results here:

• Installation of the DPF caused PM emissions to drop by more than a factor of 10 for petrodiesel.
• Transient emissions tests show a 25% PM reduction for B20 without the DPF installed
• Use of B20 with the DPF produced an additional PM reduction of 67% below the petrodiesel+DPF level
• Filter regeneration rate measurements indicate that biodiesel causes a significant increase in regeneration rate, even at the 5% blending level

The future goal as stated in the 2006 paper is to improve on both and reduce/eliminate the increased frequency of active regen by identifying the optimal operating conditions for a DPF when used with bio-blends. That seems pretty easy to understand. In post #5 I gave you some current data indicating that follow on R&D has made that goal a reality.

As to B100 its superior performance wrt to reducing PM is solidly documented including in that report. But it has other issues that make it problematic - most notably gelling. Interestingly other data has shown animal fat bio tends to perform better than vegetable fat bio.

Currently the use of bio blends in concentrations as high as B20 are Kubota approved.

Dan

I know that the conclusions you posted conflict with my real world experience.

 

[TheOldHokie]

I know that the conclusions you posted conflict with my real world experience.

The conclusions are actually empirical laboratory test results obtained using well designed test rigs and a carefully controlled test environment. No offense but I did this sort of stuff for a living and I am confident they are vastly more reliable than your perceived real world experience.

Dan

 

[armylifer]

The conclusions are actually empirical laboratory tesr results using well designed test rigs and a carefully controlled test environment. No offense but I did this sort of stuff for a living and I am confident they are vastly more reliable than your perceived real world experience.

Dan

Test all you want in any laboratory that you want. My real real world experience is I only get 10 plus miles per gallon using B20 and I get 12 plus using Straight number two diesel. In my car I get 28 + miles per gallon using non-ethanol and I get 19 miles per gallon using ethanol. My test beat your test for sure.

 

[TheOldHokie]

Test all you want in any laboratory that you want. My real real world experience is I only get 10 plus miles per gallon using B20 and I get 12 plus using Straight number two diesel. In my car I get 28 + miles per gallon using non-ethanol and I get 19 miles per gallon using ethanol. My test beat your test for sure.

I don't believe fuel economy is mentioned anywhere in the metrics I posted except for one oblique comment in the future plans section.

The performance of ethanoi in spark ignition engines is not pertinent to the question of the effects of bio diesel on DPF performance and is not mentioned at all.

If you bother to read the report they do discuss the fuel penalty associated with biodiesel in considerable detail and provide some metrics that (no surprise) align with your real world experience.

So exactly which of the results I posted do you question?

Dan

 

[jimh406]

No offense but I did this sort of stuff for a living and I am confident they are vastly more reliable than your perceived real world experience.

No offense to you, but what you did for a living doesn't really matter.
What the testing you believe to be true doesn't overrule what people see with their own experience.

Fairly recent so-called "science" should help you understand why experts lost so much credibility. Yes, it took a while, but what people were seeing turned out to be true while the experts seem to be executing an agenda.

 

[TheOldHokie]

No offense to you, but what you did for a living doesn't really matter.
What the testing you believe to be true doesn't overrule what people see with their own experience.

Fairly recent so-called "science" should help you understand why experts lost so much credibility. Yes, it took a while, but what people were seeing turned out to be true while the experts seem to be executing an agenda.

So now we get to the real issue - the scientists and engineers are lying. Since I am a "scientist" by profession and it guides everything I do not much reason to continue this discussion.

Dan

 

[jimh406]

So now we get to the real issue - the scientists and engineers are lying.

Nope, the real issue is you believe scientists and engineers are always right. Others disagree.

 

[TheOldHokie]

Nope, the real issue is you believe scientists and engineers are always right. Others disagree.

When it comes to physical measurement science I have absolute confidence in both the people and the results. And so do you everytime you get on an airplane, step on the bathroom scales, turn on a TV, or send an internet message.

Dan

 

[Trimley]

Pound for pound, they are both about 20kbtu. Depending on region, gas will actually edge out diesel by up to 1 kbtu. Diesel is heavier than gas at a given volume. About 7 lbs/ gal. Gasoline is about 6 lbs/ gal.

I thought it weighed more than 7Lbs/gal. Thanks for the info.

The transfer tank I'm currently building will hold 50 gallons, so about 400Lbs full. The BX23s will be fine lifting that.

 

[GreensvilleJay]

re: I have absolute confidence in both the people and the results. And so do you everytime you get on an airplane, step on the bathroom scales, turn on a TV, or send an internet message.

I have
ZERO confidence with respect to airplanes (hint 737max 8, locked cabin doors, and some avionics issues..)
ZERO confidence in bathroom scales ( always 5.7# high......)
ZERO confidence in TV, never any GOOD news, and too many 'reality' shows that are staged....
+1 for internet messages though, PROVIDING the ISP is 'up and running'.....

 

[The Evil Twin]

I thought it weighed more than 7Lbs/gal. Thanks for the info.

The transfer tank I'm currently building will hold 50 gallons, so about 400Lbs full. The BX23s will be fine lifting that.

Yeah. If ya think about it, oil floats on top of water (8.3 lbs/ gal) so it's def lighter.
According to the DOE , #2 is 6.91 lbs/ gal for summer diesel at 76° at sea level. That will change with temperature and pressure.

 

[Trimley]

Yeah. If ya think about it, oil floats on top of water (8.3 lbs/ gal) so it's def lighter.
According to the DOE , #2 is 6.91 lbs/ gal for summer diesel at 76° at sea level. That will change with temperature and pressure.

I'm in daily "get aquainted" mode, transitioning to diesel. I'm all over this forum, reading. It's overwhelming really.

I've had my 23s since 8/10/2023, and haven't once looked at any literature related to my tractor.

 

[TheOldHokie]

re: I have absolute confidence in both the people and the results. And so do you everytime you get on an airplane, step on the bathroom scales, turn on a TV, or send an internet message.

I have
ZERO confidence with respect to airplanes (hint 737max 8, locked cabin doors, and some avionics issues..)
ZERO confidence in bathroom scales ( always 5.7# high......)
ZERO confidence in TV, never any GOOD news, and too many 'reality' shows that are staged....
+1 for internet messages though, PROVIDING the ISP is 'up and running'.....

Yep - you got it all figured out.

Dan

 

[Trimley]

re: I have absolute confidence in both the people and the results. And so do you everytime you get on an airplane, step on the bathroom scales, turn on a TV, or send an internet message.

I have
ZERO confidence with respect to airplanes (hint 737max 8, locked cabin doors, and some avionics issues..)
ZERO confidence in bathroom scales ( always 5.7# high......)
ZERO confidence in TV, never any GOOD news, and too many 'reality' shows that are staged....
+1 for internet messages though, PROVIDING the ISP is 'up and running'.....

We could be on the same team

 

[jimh406]

The Kubota B3350 was created by engineers. So was the 6.0 put in the Ford '03-'06. Not to be outdone, there was the 6.4 put in the Ford '08-'10 ... the first really bad DPF solution in a Ford. Not really picking on Ford and Kubota. I could have chosen different brands. Really, it's too easy to point out failures in most industries created by engineers.

Likewise with science ...

Nobody knows everything, and there are lots of people with lots of confidence that don't know everything either.

 

[TheOldHokie]

The Kubota B3350 was created by engineers. So was the 6.0 put in the Ford '03-'06. Not to be outdone, there was the 6.4 put in the Ford '08-'10 ... the first really bad DPF solution in a Ford. Not really picking on Ford and Kubota. I could have chosen different brands. Really, it's too easy to point out failures in most industries created by engineers.

Likewise with science ...

Nobody knows everything, and there are lots of people with lots of confidence that don't know everything either.

Nobody knows everything - not you, not me, not any of the scientists in this world. Scientists and engineers are people and people make mistakes. But physical science and the scientific method is the foundation of human understanding of the world around us. Repeated measurement and replication of results is how the scientific community confirms results and establishes confidence in our measurements.

I am sure you remember when the folks at the CERN Hadron Collider reported they had observed neutrinos moving faster thsn the speed of light.

Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

Einstein and a hundred years or so of physics was suddenly proven wrong. But they kept looking, kept testing their equipment and methods, and after over a year of collabrative work identified faults in two of their instruments. The neutrinos were not moving as fast as initially thought. No agenda, no self agrandizing posturing, just people dedicated to furthering our understanding of the universe and the world around us.

It's what has allowed us to build a civilization and acheive spectacular things like putting a man on the moon and a space station in orbit around an earth that our human perceptions told us was flat. It's what has allowed us to split the atom and unleash and control enormous amounts of energy. These are feats l inconceivable a mere hundred years ago. It's not perfect, it occassionsly takes the wrong fork in the road, but it's self correcting and has ptoven itself to be extremely trustworthy.

Shortly after I retired from NIST the folks there announced completion and deployment of a new Watt Balance that is now the international measurement standard for the kilogram.

The old lump of metal in France has been retired and replaced by a machine buried in the NIST nano lab just a few hundred yards from my old office. It can measure the new standard, Plancks constant, to 35 places of precision. The young lady that lead this project has no political or social agenda. She is a professional dedicated to a life of science. There are many thousands just like her all around the world that help make all of our live's better

NIST in 90: Measuring Planck’s Constant

In this 2016 video, NIST physicist Darine Haddad uses a cup of coffee and sugar cubes to explain the significance of Planck’s constant. In 2017, after this video was recorded, NIST measured a new value of the Planck constant with an uncertainty of only 13 parts per billion. This measurement contribu

www.nist.gov

I am deeply saddened when people with their own political or social agenda attempt to undermine confidence in the community of world class profesdionals like her and the processes and methods that have given man dominion over his world. It truly is a sad sign of the times.

 

[will721]

The problem is whether you like it or not science can be politically motivated. Any industry or area of study is only safe until they become part of an agenda. Which has been seen over the years with more than one controversial topic where one study showed x and another showed y, but upon seeing who funded the research party that favored the result of x funded that study while the party that supported y funded the other.

The results of any study could be tampered with or tweaked to get a desired outcome, and unfortunately unless you are the one doing the study and calculations yourself theres no way to know for sure. This especially rings true to "green energy" related topics. There is simply far too much money to be made and politicians motivated to spread it around. Whether we like it or not integrity can and will be bought.

However as I stated before, contamination could very well explain why some members experience varied results from the paper posted. It could quite literally be that simple. Whether it be water, algae growth or otherwise. Its the nature of biodiesel to be more prone to contamination than standard diesel.

 

[Bmyers]

When it comes to physical measurement science I have absolute confidence in both the people and the results. And so do you everytime you get on an airplane, step on the bathroom scales, turn on a TV, or send an internet message.

Dan

So are you the one to blame for my bathroom scale lying to me? I know it can't be all those double cheeseburgers that I eat, it surely has to be someone elses fault.

 

[TheOldHokie]

The problem is whether you like it or not science can be politically motivated. Any industry or area of study is only safe until they become part of an agenda. Which has been seen over the years with more than one controversial topic where one study showed x and another showed y, but upon seeing who funded the research party that favored the result of x funded that study while the party that supported y funded the other.

The results of any study could be tampered with or tweaked to get a desired outcome, and unfortunately unless you are the one doing the study and calculations yourself theres no way to know for sure. This especially rings true to "green energy" related topics. There is simply far too much money to be made and politicians motivated to spread it around. Whether we like it or not integrity can and will be bought.

However as I stated before, contamination could very well explain why some members experience varied results from the paper posted. It could quite literally be that simple. Whether it be water, algae growth or otherwise. Its the nature of biodiesel to be more prone to contamination than standard diesel.

I would not argue with that. But I think you will find that the "hard sciences" are fundamentally immune to those agendas and conflicting studies. The so called social sciences and ad hoc interest group driven analytics posing as scientific studies are replete with problems. Conflating the two is not conducive to a meaningful discussion of a technology

The behavior of gravity and electromagnetic forces have been measured ad nauseum and we keep getting the same answer. We have used that answer to predict trajectories and guide space probes to the outer reaches of our solar system and beyond. Unless you are a flat earther or moon landing denier there is no debate about that science.

The difficulty of measuring the particulate levels of "CERTIFIED" biodiesel combustion under various operating conditions using "CERTIFIED" engines is no more complicated or controversial and the measured results have been independently replicated by repeated studies. The measured levels may vary somewhat but the basic relationships hold.

That science does not gaurantee that what you get served up at the pump is the same stuff that was tested and will exhibit the same behavior in your engine. That is not a failure of the science nor does it invalidate the scientific results. It's a failure of manufacturing and distribution, and the vagaries of engine maintenance and operation.

Dan