Lightman: You are talking about the use of fuel emulsions and applying it to all fuel systems and engines, which are not all designed for it. The standards for emulsion fuels have not as of yet been approved/agreed to. Yes there are some major benefits of emulsion fuels, but I do not think we are there yet.

Just my opinion, and we may be talking apples and apples, but a different reference point on what a diesel fuel emulsion is.

I will continue to use demulsfication (re adsorbtion microscopic), so I guess you could say this is an emulsion.

 

Aaron, if you read more closely you'll see that I'm not talking about emulsion fuels, or any different type of fuels. I"m talking about the water that is present in all regular diesel fuel. Now fuel additives deal with water in fuel in two ways, emulsification or demulsification. Stanadyne for example, demulsifies, which causes water to clump together in large particles. Emulsifying additives like redline and primrose cause water to disperse, or become 'emulsified' in the fuel in smaller safer particles.. This is nothing alternative or crazy here...just the basics. I'm not sure where you're going.

 

Cummins stated that you can't remove the fuel-water seperator, and that free or emulsified water damages fuel system components. Cummins could have designed a water emulsifier instead of a seperator for the engine, but they didn't.

 

1sttruck you are missing the point completely. Do you understand how the stock filter is actually attempting to stop water? . They can design all they want, but they are not going to get any effective water removal with a $15 filter. Let me repeat - I've done fuel analysis testing before and after these filters . The tests show water ppm in the fuel in both cases. While the reduction in particulate matter is significant, the reduction in water ppm is nearly zero.

Guys there is emulsified/dissolved water in ALL FUEL. Whether you choose to let that fuel pass through in the size particles it currently is in, disperse them to large clumps, or make them smaller/safer particles is up to you. Dispersing them into small particles is by far the most fail safe method. Clumping them together like stanadyne and expecting your filter to stop them is risky at best.

I think there is a slightly higher degree of background knowledge necesary for folks to understand and comment on this issue. Maybe I shouldn't have brought it up and let everyone go on thinking they're doing themselves a favor dumping stanadyne and other demulsifers in their tanks.

 

Cummins, GM, Caterpillar,... all seem to prefer water seperators, and so do I. One would expect marine diesels to use emulsifiers exclusively as they can obviously be exposed to a lot of water, but water seperators seem to be the rule.

http://www.heavydutytrucking.com/2004/02/032a0402.asp

THE JOB OF FUEL FILTERS
There are many contaminants commonly found in diesel fuel that can cause problems in your engine. Water is the most common contaminant, according to the Filter Manufacturers Council. It gets into the fuel when warm, moisture-laden air condenses on the cold metal walls of fuel storage tanks, or from poor housekeeping practices. Free water settles to the fuel tank bottom, where it can be drained. Emulsified water, however, stays in suspension where it can enter the fuel lines, fuel pump and injectors and cause corrosion and failure of key fuel system components. "The problem with water is, it's not a very good lubricant," says Fleetguard's Clevenger. "It's worse with today's low-sulfur fuel, because sulfur is the best lubricant in fuel. So you're taking away the lubricating ability of the fuel, at the same time the water in fuel is not lubricating." The reduced lubricity can cause seizure of close-tolerance assemblies such as plungers, and water can even blow the tip off an injector. Water also is a problem because microbes, fungus and bacteria live in water and feed on the hydrocarbons found in fuel. They can quickly plug a fuel filter. If they pass through the filter, they can damage the fuel pump and injectors.



http://www.turbodieselregister.com/f...ic/112435.html

GM supports the use of Demulsifying additives for the D-Max which uses a high pressure pump like we have. This also may be why DC does not recommend using an additive because if you use an emulsifying additive you can cause damage.


http://www.cat.com/f2l/servlet/cat.v...DS=Y&siteId=25

Water Contamination - Water can get into your fuel if it’s mishandled by your fuel supplier. Most often, however, water gets into fuel tanks by condensation from the atmosphere. As the tank empties, air enters the tank. Water condenses on the walls and runs down the sides. The water never evaporates because it's heavier than fuel and goes to the bottom of the tank. After this process is repeated several times you may have a significant amount of water in the bottom of your tank. Water in your fuel can cause injector seizures and failures at sea. It also accelerates wear of expensive fuel system components. Add salt spray and wear increases rapidly. Water separators are critical to fuel treatment and should be used on all marine diesel installations. Operators of large vessels often install centrifuges which continuously recycle the fuel to remove water and sediment.

 

1st truck, thanks for copying and pasting that very basic information about diesel fuel. Like I said, people will need to know a lot more than what you posted to understand what I'm talking about with the additives. I will say that the above articles lack some credibility. Especially since they are quoted as saying that sulfur is the best lubricant in fuel - when it is NOT in fact a lubricant at all. The lubricity problem with low sulfur diesel is not the lack of sulfur, it's the refining process that removes sulfur that strips the fuel of its lubricity.

There are some truths presented in the above articles. Demulsifiers will cause water to pool in the bottom of your tank. That is great for fuel stations and farms with stationary tanks. However in moving vehicles, with vibration and being jounced around on the road, while some stays at the bottom of your tank, much of the previously separated water particles become suspended again in the water, and are now passing through your system in larger clumps than they originally were. It's not hard to put two and two together after draining the fuel filter time after time and finding no water - the factory separators don't work effectively for water on that small of a level. It's a pipe dream to assume they do.

As the above article states, water has no lubricity, and untreated, isn't healthy for your injection system or engine to burn. Emulsifying additives disperse water into the smallest droplets possible, encasulate them with a lubricant, and allow them to safely pass. One must be careful not to use additives with alcohol which can damage injection equipment. Most engine manufacturers warn against all use of fuel additives as a protection measure, since there are a few additves out there that do contain alcohol.

Again, I've done laboratory fuel analysis testing before and after these filters and they are ineffective at removing water. Folks should read the previous sentence a few times. I'm not here trying to spout out baseless nonsense or cheer for my favorite fuel additive. I'm simply sharing the benefit of years of research in this area with everyone. Some people can dig deep into the issue and realize I know what I'm talking about, or some can continue blindly using what they like and say I'm full of it... your perrogative. I have no reason to lie, and have an intense interest in diesel fuel technology and filtration, as well as oils.

 

Now this is why we have the form... I guess I should come up with some more questions to fuel the fire....

lightman - may I ask what you do?? just wondering... how did you start the fuel research in the first place... just because ??

 

Actually during refining when sulphur is removed, the process also removes trace compounds that do/did provide better lubricity. Most ULSD has additives that replace the lost lubricity. I am not saying all refiners have additives, but most. There are standards to meet.

Lightman: I am not arguing with what you are saying, just the context of what you are saying re emulsions, free water in fuels, adsorbtion, holloids, etc.

What you are talking about is a very important topic.

 

Ckennedy - I am not employed in the diesel fuel industry whatsoever - as the screen name might indicate - I am in the lighting business. I work for a residential decorative lighting company. I started doing the research with the purchase of my '99 E300, my first diesel. At that time I started really getting into diesels and I'm just generally the type of person who is **** enough to research and research and dig to the bottom of an issue until I have a full understanding. I also have a few friends/colleagues that are lubrication engineers, one in particular who's worked exclusively with diesel fuel and lubrication technology for the last 25 years. In any case, I read and read and researched and made phone calls (I sat on the phone with the tech guy from powerservice for a half hour one day ) In any case, I have no good explanation or reason, other than to simply say I have spent stupid amounts of hours debating these topics and learning about them over the last few years.

Aaron T - I think we were just on a slightly different page. You're right about the trace compounds, but when I make a point on here I try to keep it relatively straightforward. The glaring error in the article was someone saying sulfur was a lubricant. Now that's ignorant!

This is an important discussion and angle on fuel additives, I'm just not sure everyone was ready for it. It's hard to expect people who have jobs and limited time, to do the research that I've done - so its hard to expect people to know the difference between dissolved, emulsified, and free water in fuels.

Now lets really confuse things when I say I'd prefer to catch all free water with a filter however i'd prefer to emulsify all dissolved and currently suspended water in the fuel! The reality is that water separators only stop free water. Free water only occurs once fuel has reached its saturation point and can't hold any more in suspension. Typically you never have this situation occur with normal stations, so my take is to emulsify what water is inevitably there in the fuel, to make it more safely pass through, since it will be passing throuh anyway. The problem with demulsifiers is that they clump together the currently suspended water, and the clumps still aren't really big enough to be trapped by the filter, so they go through the system larger than they originally were, or pool at the bottom of the tank. Hopefully that made some sense. I must admit at this time of posting I have a few brews in me so it's time to call it a night. Cheers all. Love the forum!

 

Lightman, ------------ IMO------------

If Stanadyne only clumps together water into large particles and thats isnt good if you have a un-efficent water seperator then why is the company still doing so well , if they thought that being a "demulsifer " was a bad thing then they would create a 'emulsifier' to stay in business.
You've continued to down grade the effectiveness or the benifits of useing Stanadyne that it seems you have something against them ?? what good thing can you say about them ?? maybe their the best "demulsifer " avalible ?? so who benifits from that ??

Im no expert , but I would like to understand if Stanadyne is such a bad thing then why are they still around.

With all this Stanadyne bashing Im begining to think maybe you have a weekend job @ Redline

 

I'm sure that guessing I have a job at Redline would make sense of the world again for the lovers of demulsification , however this is most certainly not the case. I work for a lighting company in Cleveland. I'm not sure where Redline is located. Also if you are really in doubt, do a search for posts made by me. You'll see I have very limited knowledge in some areas and have a lot in others. I have been posting for quite some time and the majority of my posts have had nothing to do with fuel additives. I'm flattered you think I know enough to work for Redline.

As far as Stanadyne goes, I have nothing against them, in fact I think they're a stand-up type of company. They are 'still in business' because additives are only a tiny part of their product offering, and certainly don't represent their major source of income. Check their website to see the many product offerings. Good things I can say about stanadyne additive - I have tried it before, and it definitely seemed to make for a smoother idle - something I couldn't say for powerservice. I also never had a gel issue when I used stanadyne (I used it my first winter of owning a diesel, before I had done much research in the area. I just have a theoretical and IMO practical opposition to the method they have taken to deal with water.

It's just my guess, but I believe stanadyne probably uses a demulsifier because they make their own line of fuel filters and water separators, which they claim are quite effective. I personally ran a stanadyne fuel manager 2 micron filter on my 02 TDI as part of a test, in combination with stanadyne's additive. Their FM100 filter was what I ran, which of course touts ultra high efficiency, and in the end resulted in a minimally reduced water content. In addition to testing OEM filters and finding they weren't quite as good as the stanadyne, we came to the conclusion that the water separation ability of these little filters was mostly a marketing phenomenon. Its a great idea on paper but just doesn't work.

I feel like I've explained this pretty well. If anyone else has questions other than to attempt to discredit the information I've shared, please shoot.

 

Well alrighty then

 

Welcome to the "world of demulsification lover"

https://www.dieseltruckresource.com/...fuel+additives

Hey maybe we like our water all bunched up .

 

PS Dieselminded, where are you in Ohio?

 

Stanadyne INC.
465 Additive RD
Oilville, Oh 49875




-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------






Im really about 50 miles SE of columbus.