psrumors
Veteran Member
I'll see if I can pick up the additives in the next day or two.
A single teaspoon is .16 ounces. Scaled down, I would add .0007 ounces of water to my container. I don't have the equipment to detect such a small amount.
Demulsifier - what happens to the water
- Thread starter psrumors
- Start date
40X40
Experienced
I intended that we use the smallest unit of water that we could readily and repeatedly identify so that the amounts of additive and fuel as well as the lab apparatus could be kept to a minimum.
If you contact Nicklockard , he might be able to advise you on a quick and accurate experiment or maybe even do the experiment for you.
Bill
If you contact Nicklockard , he might be able to advise you on a quick and accurate experiment or maybe even do the experiment for you.
Bill
Last edited:
D975 specifications
If you start using the ASTM D975 specification of the maximum allowable water in D2, it would be better than an arbitrary number.
Since D975 allows 500 ppm (.05% volume) of water, each gallon of D2 is allowed a whopping total of 0.064 ounces of water, maximum. This implies that 0.064 ounces of emulsified water per gallon is safely consumed by a diesel engine.
Anything beyond that level of water should be what these additives are supposed to help either solubize/emulsify or demulsify.
Following George Morrison's excellent advice on another thread, where he investigated the effectiveness of fuel filtration on TDI and Duramax factory OE fuel filters with AVLab fuel tests, I suggest throwing out any large slugs of water, as no additive on the market will deal effectively with that. The best one can hope for there is that the filter will simply block and stop the engine before any damage is done. A working WIF sensor is the best hope for that situtation.
In that project, George found that none of the fuel filters that OE's (VW or GM) were using provided either adequate particle filtering or water removal. In fact, in his tests, the same amount of water that was present in the fuel tank was also present on the output side of the filter! This happened even on filters which were rated as water separating and was with volumes of 45 ppm to 65 ppm. This is one reason he was a proponent of emulsifiers for on vehicle diesel fuel systems and demulsifiers in stationary fuel storage tanks.
His industry experience was that engine and road vibration caused the water to be partly emulsified and made it much more difficult for water separators (Dhal and Stanadyne in his example) and demulsifiers to work as desired. Only when the engine was shut off and the vehicle sat overnight, did demulsifiers work, but then, the demulsified fuel was everywhere, in the tank, in the hpfp, in the injectors and water would then separate in all of those components. On startup, that recently freed up water can cause scarring on pumps and injector precision surfaces. Not what we are wanting to happen.
George's work was in 2002/2003 on Dieselplace and TDIclub, on sourcing a 2 micron fuel filter, verfied by his own AVlabs testing instead of vendor claims. That was done on LSD D2 with 500 ppm sulfur.
Since that time, SWR labs* did a ULSD fuel filter/demulsification study that demonstrated that ULSD is far more difficult to demulsify than the older LSD D2 was. Due to its refining process, it has a higher affinity to emulsify with water. That study also stated that the J1488 standard used to measure demulsifying efficiency was developed with the older 500 ppm sulphur D2 and does not adjust for ULSD's higher affinity to emulsify with water (read, the water stripping ratings on filters using J1488 are probably overstated). Most of the study had to do with surfactant and interfacial tension effects of ULSD, which emulsify far more easily with water than the older fuel did. So George's assertions, which proved correct years ago, seem even more applicable today.
In reading a white/product paper from Racor, there is a claim that filtering water out of ULSD is made much more difficult when using a lift pump before the separation filter. Their claim is that the lift pump shears the water droplets down to a small size (5 to 10 microns) that emulsifies water even more and makes it extremely difficult to remove from D2 without specialized fuel filters.
To further validate George's assertions about engine vibration reducing filter effeciency, in both particle and water removal, the Racor paper states the same effect. It also states that if 10 micron filtering is required, a 10 micron filter will suffice if it's mounted on the chassis or firewall, but, if engine mounted, a 2 micron is needed to account for the loss of efficiency due to vibration. So even the location of the fuel filter on our vehicle can play a part in filtering and water removal efficiency.
There is a lot more going on (or not going on) in fuel filtration and water removal in our vehicles than we realize.
With this background in mind, I'd suggest using no more than double the amount of what D975 allows, otherwise the water may just simply settle to the bottom as a result of being heavier than ULSD and not because of the additive. I would also suggest thoroughly shaking the fuel/water mixture before adding the additives, to simulate the environment that the vehicle operates in.
Using double the amount that D975 allows as a high limit, or 0.128 ounces of water per gallon of fuel used in all tests, might be a more methodical approach to accurately measuring what these additives can do. At the very least, using the ASTM D975 maximum safe level of water is a good launch point.
Good luck.
* link here:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...sg=AFQjCNFtb863dh7WHJ6-w3UbepL94d2uvA&cad=rja
If you start using the ASTM D975 specification of the maximum allowable water in D2, it would be better than an arbitrary number.
Since D975 allows 500 ppm (.05% volume) of water, each gallon of D2 is allowed a whopping total of 0.064 ounces of water, maximum. This implies that 0.064 ounces of emulsified water per gallon is safely consumed by a diesel engine.
Anything beyond that level of water should be what these additives are supposed to help either solubize/emulsify or demulsify.
Following George Morrison's excellent advice on another thread, where he investigated the effectiveness of fuel filtration on TDI and Duramax factory OE fuel filters with AVLab fuel tests, I suggest throwing out any large slugs of water, as no additive on the market will deal effectively with that. The best one can hope for there is that the filter will simply block and stop the engine before any damage is done. A working WIF sensor is the best hope for that situtation.
In that project, George found that none of the fuel filters that OE's (VW or GM) were using provided either adequate particle filtering or water removal. In fact, in his tests, the same amount of water that was present in the fuel tank was also present on the output side of the filter! This happened even on filters which were rated as water separating and was with volumes of 45 ppm to 65 ppm. This is one reason he was a proponent of emulsifiers for on vehicle diesel fuel systems and demulsifiers in stationary fuel storage tanks.
His industry experience was that engine and road vibration caused the water to be partly emulsified and made it much more difficult for water separators (Dhal and Stanadyne in his example) and demulsifiers to work as desired. Only when the engine was shut off and the vehicle sat overnight, did demulsifiers work, but then, the demulsified fuel was everywhere, in the tank, in the hpfp, in the injectors and water would then separate in all of those components. On startup, that recently freed up water can cause scarring on pumps and injector precision surfaces. Not what we are wanting to happen.
George's work was in 2002/2003 on Dieselplace and TDIclub, on sourcing a 2 micron fuel filter, verfied by his own AVlabs testing instead of vendor claims. That was done on LSD D2 with 500 ppm sulfur.
Since that time, SWR labs* did a ULSD fuel filter/demulsification study that demonstrated that ULSD is far more difficult to demulsify than the older LSD D2 was. Due to its refining process, it has a higher affinity to emulsify with water. That study also stated that the J1488 standard used to measure demulsifying efficiency was developed with the older 500 ppm sulphur D2 and does not adjust for ULSD's higher affinity to emulsify with water (read, the water stripping ratings on filters using J1488 are probably overstated). Most of the study had to do with surfactant and interfacial tension effects of ULSD, which emulsify far more easily with water than the older fuel did. So George's assertions, which proved correct years ago, seem even more applicable today.
In reading a white/product paper from Racor, there is a claim that filtering water out of ULSD is made much more difficult when using a lift pump before the separation filter. Their claim is that the lift pump shears the water droplets down to a small size (5 to 10 microns) that emulsifies water even more and makes it extremely difficult to remove from D2 without specialized fuel filters.
To further validate George's assertions about engine vibration reducing filter effeciency, in both particle and water removal, the Racor paper states the same effect. It also states that if 10 micron filtering is required, a 10 micron filter will suffice if it's mounted on the chassis or firewall, but, if engine mounted, a 2 micron is needed to account for the loss of efficiency due to vibration. So even the location of the fuel filter on our vehicle can play a part in filtering and water removal efficiency.
There is a lot more going on (or not going on) in fuel filtration and water removal in our vehicles than we realize.
With this background in mind, I'd suggest using no more than double the amount of what D975 allows, otherwise the water may just simply settle to the bottom as a result of being heavier than ULSD and not because of the additive. I would also suggest thoroughly shaking the fuel/water mixture before adding the additives, to simulate the environment that the vehicle operates in.
Using double the amount that D975 allows as a high limit, or 0.128 ounces of water per gallon of fuel used in all tests, might be a more methodical approach to accurately measuring what these additives can do. At the very least, using the ASTM D975 maximum safe level of water is a good launch point.
Good luck.
* link here:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...sg=AFQjCNFtb863dh7WHJ6-w3UbepL94d2uvA&cad=rja
Last edited:
tditom
Top Post Dawg
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2001
- Location
- Jackson, MI
- TDI
- formerly: 2001 Golf GL, '97 Passat (RIP) '98 NB, '05 B5 sedan
outstanding post, ranger! thanks!
tdiatlast
Top Post Dawg
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2009
- Location
- Fort Worth, Texas
- TDI
- 2009 Sportwagen (boughtback); 2014 Passat TDI SEL (boughtback)
So this is the reason, with or w/o demulsifying additives, that I've seen zero water in a combined 160k miles of CR TDI operation?
Mako
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2011
- Location
- Cape Town
- TDI
- AMFPolo 1.4 TDI 100%Biodiesel, AHF Golf TDI 100% Biodiesel, AHF Golf TDI Wagon 100% Biodiesel, VW Syncro 3CT Kombi 100% Biodiesel, Corsa 1.7D 100% Biodiesel
Steam erosion of injector tips can be the result when water is entrained in fuel. I have no direct experience of this problem in a TDI but service agents reported this to be the reason for needed nozzle replacement on marine diesels I ran.
While water may not boil within the nozzle due to high pressure it seems it's a big deal as it's released through the orifice.
While water may not boil within the nozzle due to high pressure it seems it's a big deal as it's released through the orifice.
Yes, partly. Shearing water droplets down to 5 - 10 microns, caused by lift pump(s) is one reason, but it's only part of the reason. You also have many other mechanical parts that aid in shearing water droplets and emulsifying water even more - the HPFP piston as well as injector internal moving parts with very close tolerances.
Then you have the vibration of the engine and road suface helping out with more energy to emulsify the fuel in the tank and lines.
Add in ULSD's increased affinity for water emulsions, it's more stable emulsion properties once water is emulsified and all of these factors are now working against the demulsifier added to the fuel.
That is, until you park in the parking lot at work, or driveway at home and let the vehicle sit idle for 8 to 12 hours. Then gravity and chemical demulsifiers start working without the negating effects of vibration and mechanical shearing by very closely spaced moving parts throughout the fuel system.
If it works well enough, aided by gravity and if enough water is present, its going to change state from emulsified to demulsified, a nice word for free water, which is very destructive to these fuel systems.
The concern I have with demuslifiers is that they do not appear to be designed to work in high vibration, high mechanical shearing environments with just a simple fuel filter. I see them as an effective way to remove water in a stationary fuel tank, aided by gravity. That is, if you're fortunate enough to have one at your house, with the appropriate water removal equipment at the bottom of the tank.
This is the one assumption for using demulsifiers - that the chemical demulsifier will cause the water in the fuel to be effectively removed from the fuel at the fuel filter interface and no where else in the fuel system to any appreciable degree. How that is going to happen in a high vibration, micron size shearing environment, with chemical demulsifiers, I don't understand. If this were the case, I would think Bosch/Denso/Siemans/Delphi/Stanadyne and their customers would require a demulsifier in retail pump fuel as a condition for fuel systems warranty.
Based on the fuel tests I've seen posted on water in ppm, pre and post fuel filters, I don't think emulsified/entrained/solubilized water is being effectively removed at all in light duty OTR diesel vehicles.
As far as whether it's safe to run finely emulsified/solubilized water through a diesel fuel system, I think the ASTM spec allowing up to 500 ppm does infer that. The CR diesel engines require ASTM spec fuel and that spec allows 500 ppm of emulsified/entrained/solubilized/whatever you want to call it, other than free water.
If you look at SAE specs J1985, fuel filter initial single pass efficiency test, J1488 emulsified water removal test, J1839 coarse water removal test and J905 fuel filter tests, you can use their ratings criteria to see how effective your OE fuel filter is supposed to be, in a lab test environment.
But, as George Morrison, DBW and many others proved 12 years ago, real world tests show that even fuel filters claiming to be able to strip up to 92% of emulsified water didn't. Free water yes, but not emulsified. That's why Morrison proposed demulsifying in storage tanks, but emulsifying what's left in engine fuel systems.
At least if your emulsifier/solubilizer isn't reducing lubricity significantly, it's aiding the emulsification process already going on in your OTR diesel fuel system and the net effect should be good for your fuel system.
I think the effort being expended to lubricate the CP4 in the hope that it will last past its 94K mile design life is commendable. But, in some cases it's used on demulsifying products. Whether they work to effectively transition most of the emulsified water at the filter interface to free water and no where else in our vehicles is not known to most of us. I see the risk of it not working that way as too high to use them in my CR vehicle.
I'd suggest that if you really want to know if your fuel additive is demulsifying water effectively at your filter interface and not in the entire fuel system, get a group together who use demulsifiers and self fund a simple test at SWR labs and test your product.
Have them (SWR) emulsify pump ULSD with water at 5 to 10 micron size droplets with 100 and 500 ppm of water, then agitate it vigorously and filter it through your OE fuel filter, then let it settle for 12 to 24 hours. Then test it for water in ppm pre and post filter. The results would be far more useful data than what the vendor is providing on the bottle.
Then you'll know if you're doing any good, or actually causing more long term wear by promoting free water separation in your fuel system every time the vehicle sits parked for hours at a time.
If nothing else, you could draw your own sample pre and post filter on your CR VW fuel system, send it to AVlabs (or wherever you prefer) and see if your treated fuel water content post filter is any different than the fuel in the tank.
Regards,
Ranger1
Last edited:
tdiatlast
Top Post Dawg
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2009
- Location
- Fort Worth, Texas
- TDI
- 2009 Sportwagen (boughtback); 2014 Passat TDI SEL (boughtback)
Ranger 1: sending you a PM
Too bad Racor doesn't offer this filter for VW diesels. http://dmaxstore.com/products/?route=product/product&path=37_87&product_id=170
Which DOES remove water. Be it emulsified or not.
Been using them in my dmax since new.
Which DOES remove water. Be it emulsified or not.
Been using them in my dmax since new.
Have you done any fuel tests pre and post filter to measure how effective it is at water removal? Curious to know how much improved it is over the original OE filter...
Last edited: