Lubricity Study

[RickB]

Marin wrote:but the point is that here is a major transportation company that regards fuel additives as a necessary part of their operation.

It's not just apples and oranges, it's more like saying the airlines put Prist in their tanks so why shouldn't Foss towing? Because they are different fuels used in drastically different environments, that's why.

Mouse milk is, for the most part, harmless to everything except the bank account when used in the recommended proportions but that doesn't mean it is worth using or contributes anything to the operation* of a marine engine. Your friends who recommend it have nothing much to lose even if they have nothing to gain. That doesn't mean adding mouse milk make any sense at all.

If you think I look at risking a half million $ a week charter because I believe the engines I support are somehow more immune to fuel pump scuffing than your Lehman, you are mistaken. Like I wrote earlier, we go through a couple of million gallons of diesel a year in diesel engines of all types including some the size of your Lehman. Those engines support very expensive operations which are highly sensitive to reliability issues and I don't recommend buying mouse milk. It is a fuel contaminant by definition and we keep meticulous records of the quality of fuel loaded because fuel related problems can cost millions of dollars in lawsuits from a missed or interrupted charter, not to mention the cost of repairs.

If those CAV or Simms pumps are so sensitive that they require mouse milk to operate with a higher viscosity fuel in a marine environment, they must be failing like cheap light bulbs in all the other terrestrial applications of that same engine and pump that burn thin and volatile automotive fuel. Or are there only a couple hundred of them and they are all on Lehman marine conversions? Do you see where I am going here, even the statistics don't support claims that those engines are somehow unique and require mouse milk to avoid some perceived threat to their health.

I honestly could care less if you add valve grinding compound to your fuel, it is your right and your own business what you put in your tanks. You have certainly convinced yourself that a lubricity additive makes sense, just don't try and convince others that doing so is necessary or even wise.

 

[Marin]

RickB wrote:


...just don't try and convince others that doing so is necessary or even wise.

That's true, that would be bad.* Sort of like trying to convince people that lubricity additives don't do anything.

What's the best anchor, what's the best outboard, what are the best ways to ensure engine longevity?* In my opinion the validity of the answers all boil down to credibility,*so to me it's a matter of choosing*to go with the people I believe*have the most of it.

 

[RickB]

Marin wrote:That's true, that would be bad.* Sort of like trying to convince people that lubricity additives don't do anything.

Nice try but who, where, and when did anyone say lubricity additives don't do anything? Is that really the best you can do to defend your claims? Do you really have to resort to inventing a statement and attribute it to someone else? I thought you had more to offer than that. You don't sign my paycheck so my credibility with you is among the least of my concerns, based on your response to what a couple of us have told you about our experience of burning a few million gallons of the stuff a year, you are not open to learning much anyway.

There is a huge body of literature to back up the fact that modern diesel fuel meets the lubricity requirements of every diesel operating today and the use of aftermarket lubricity additives is neither recommended or required by engine manufacturers. *

I challenge you to provide a single documented case of a Lehman diesel failing due to injection pump failure resulting from low lubricity of marine diesel fuel during the past 5 years.

I have looked long and hard and funny enough, all I can find online is a statement you posted in 2006 on another board wherein you described the necessity of using a lubricity additive to prevent fuel injection pump wear.*

You are the one claiming a lubricity additive is necessary, support that argument or just call it quits.* All you have to do is document one.

* Except the Lehman, and speaking of credibility, the recommended additive has just been shown to reduce lubricity!*

-- Edited by RickB on Friday 2nd of April 2010 09:00:24 PM

 

[Jay N]

Don't hold back Rick, tell us what you think!

 

[Marin]

RickB wrote:

Nice try but who, where, and when did anyone say lubricity additives don't do anything?

Ummmm.... you did.* Hasn't that been the whole point of your arguments, that "mouse milk" is a marketing scam that doesn't actually accomplish anything in one's engine?

You seem real hung up on this notion that I'm the one making the claim that lubricity additives are beneficial to old engines like the Lehman based on some scientific data I'm supposed to have.* So one more time..... pay attention now, particularly to the words in boldface.....this is what I've been told and advised on by a number of actual, gen-u-ine*professionals in the diesel design, manufacturing, servicing, and repairing business.** I'm just restating the advice.* The fact that you found*an old post of mine that states the same advice simply proves that my memory of what I've been told has remained consistent.

This is how it works.* I don't know something.* But it's something I believe I need to know about.* So I go and ask people who DO know about it.* That's what I've done on the subject of lubricity, and I've been repeating what I've been told.* If you believe the advice I've been given is wrong, fine.* That's the whole point of this forum I think, to pose questions and discuss them, either from first hand experience or from information obtained from other sources.* You may know everything there is to know on the planet, but I don't.* Hence my need to rely on the experience and advice of professionals in fields I know nothing about.

Part of the information I was given consisted of being told about a some teardowns on 1960s-era injection pumps*that compared the wear in*pumps that had been run with and without*a lubricity additive.* Did I do the teardowns?* Nope.* Do I have all the wear specs?* Nope.* Do I have a copy of whatever report might have been written up abou the test (if one even was)?* Nope.

All I have is the basic results as described by the person who works at the company that did them.* Did he lie to me?* Dunno.* Did he make the test up in the attempt to sell me vast stocks of lubricity additives?* His company doesn't sell them, but hey, you never know.* Did he see an opportunity to lead a gullible person with no knowledge of fuel and lubricity propeties down the garden path?* Dunno.* Is he the kind of person who would do any or all of these things?* Not based on my experience with him which spans a couple of decades but.... you never know.* Is he an ignorant twit?* Well, considering the positions he's held with the company for over 30 years and the respect his peers and customers have for him I woudn't think so, but... you never know.

So I've been stating what I've been told.* People can believe it, not believe it, research it*on their own, whatever.* They can weigh what I've been told, what they've been told, what they know about the subject themselves, what you've said in your posts, what Mike and other people have*said in their posts, and come to their own conclusions.

I don't use Mystery Oil in engines despite the fact that the person who arguably knows more about the Lehman generation of engines than anyone on the planet recommends it.* Why?* Because based on the advice I have been given by people I respect*in the diesel engine business, I don't choose to run it.* But it would be presumptuous of me--- who knows nothing of fuel and fuel additives from an educational or experience standpoint--- to tell someone who believes Mystery Oil is beneficial that they're wrong.* I'll tell them what I've been told, but that's as far as I can go.

You're welcome to keep going*on this but*I probably*wore out my welcome on this topic a whole lot of posts ago.* If you don't understand where I'm coming from by now you never will.* So I'm gonna turn my energies to thinking of something else to bore the crap out of people with.


-- Edited by Marin on Friday 2nd of April 2010 11:26:44 PM

 

[FF]

The problem is that fuel , directly from a " good US' refinery , might have the "industry standard" fuel lubricity additives.

However most fuel is delivered via pipelines to local distribution points.

Weather it came from a US refinery , or some offshore refinery is unknown ,

as is weather the local distributor bothered to bring the fuel to the required specs.

Large coastal ports that import fuel should not be a problem as they can test and bring the fuel up to standards.

Your fuel may vary from perfect..

 

[RickB]

Marin wrote:
If you don't understand where I'm coming from by now you never will.

Ahh, but I do, I just didn't think you would ever admit it.

You believe, you don't know; you feel, you cannot demonstrate; you have heard, but have not seen for yourself. Fair enough, it's a faith based thing so buying mouse milk must be your form of tithing.

Marin wrote:Hasn't that been the whole point of your arguments, that "mouse milk" is a marketing scam that doesn't actually accomplish anything in one's engine?

Put down your prayer beads for a minute and go back to my first post, the one that says it it is not necessary to add a lubricity additive to marine diesel fuel as it already has the required additives and is by its composition a better lubricant than the automotive diesel used as a baseline in that study.

Have a nice weekend.

*

 

[sunchaser]

FF
If the refinery is badged Chevron, Tesoro, Sinclair, Shell etc, the base additives we are yapping about are factory added. In the real world, not forum world, the biggest commercial diesel fuel question in NA and Europe*relates to*re-formulating with the seasonal changes**to insure diesel flow at low temperatures. I've seen summer fuel turn to a wax like jello at minus 10 C. Lubricity is way down the "concern" scale in comparison. Lubricity, like cetane indices, is "just there" and a standard building block in the refining process. There is no lubricity conspiracy because it is not an issue, except for Lehmans as best I understand. (How can Lehmans go from the most reliable diesel engine on the planet to*a disaster lurking*failure in just one*thread)

Again I add, CA CARB nutcase regs notwithstanding. In CA the*flavor of the month is a*debate*such as*--*the best way to remove C from the stack is to remove it from fuel. The logic is if S in the fuel can be lowered from 500 to 5 ppm with no ill effects, the same can be done with C.

What is the worst diesel fuel problem and 99% due to owner neglect? You guessed it - water.


-- Edited by sunchaser on Saturday 3rd of April 2010 07:11:20 AM

 

[RickB]

FF wrote:

The problem is that fuel , directly from a " good US' refinery , might have the "industry standard" fuel lubricity additives.

However most fuel is delivered via pipelines to local distribution points.

Weather it came from a US refinery , or some offshore refinery is unknown ,

as is weather the local distributor bothered to bring the fuel to the required specs.

Large coastal ports that import fuel should not be a problem as they can test and bring the fuel up to standards.

Your fuel may vary from perfect..

Regardless of the source, diesel fuel has a paper trail from refiner to end user. Marine fuels in particular are tested and documented at each stage. It is tested before the product is pumped off the tanker, it is tested in the tank farms tanks and is tested again before being leaving in a truck or barge.

When we load diesel on a boat we take samples of the product during the transfer and get a lab report on its specifications. Should there be any issues with that fuel the sample and the report determine who pays the damages. That is standard industry practice. Many operators send the fuel samples to an independent lab immediately to double check the specifications. We only send it if there is any question about the quality. I have only done that once in the past year and that was for a flash point and water content question. Turned out the stuff was just fine.

The Europeans have been adding lubricity additives longer than we have. They are far greater users of automotive and marine diesels than we are and are very quality conscious. We import product from Europe, they import product from us, it's a trading jack knives thing, sometimes we have a surplus, sometimes they do. the bottom line is that the stuff is a commodity and quality control is very strict regardless of the source. Our boats load in nearly every port in the world, including the Caribbean and SE Asian backwaters, and we don't have the kind of problems that frighten weekend boaters in Seattle.

You can ask for a bunker receipt next time you fuel your boat, the pump jockey will look at you funny but they are required to provide you with the test specs for the load that was delivered. If you load at a commercial fuel dock they will run you off a copy without batting an eye. Since lubricity is a given these days, you will be most interested in flash point (>60*C), and water content - plus salt if water is present.

*


-- Edited by RickB on Saturday 3rd of April 2010 07:25:48 AM

 

[Keith]

RickB wrote:


Marin wrote:
If you don't understand where I'm coming from by now you never will.

Ahh, but I do, I just didn't think you would ever admit it.

You believe, you don't know; you feel, you cannot demonstrate; you have heard, but have not seen for yourself. Fair enough, it's a faith based thing so buying mouse milk must be your form of tithing.

Marin wrote:Hasn't that been the whole point of your arguments, that "mouse milk" is a marketing scam that doesn't actually accomplish anything in one's engine?

Put down your prayer beads for a minute and go back to my first post, the one that says it it is not necessary to add a lubricity additive to marine diesel fuel as it already has the required additives and is by its composition a better lubricant than the automotive diesel used as a baseline in that study.

Have a nice weekend.

*

Just because aftermarket additives "aren't necessary" doesn't mean they're not helpful nor does it mean their harmful.

*

 

[RickB]

Keith wrote:Just because aftermarket additives "aren't necessary" doesn't mean they're not helpful nor does it mean their harmful.

And it doesn't mean they are helpful or are not harmful.

Do you know the long term effects of those chemicals on components of your fuel system?

Are those additives compatible with your lube oil additives?

Has the engine manufacturer or anyone else performed long term tests on those chemicals on your engine?

What does your mousemilk do to cetane ratings, storage life, stability, corrosion resistance, and lube oil compatibility?

Do you know what is in the stuff?

Do you know at what concentration they become very harmful?

In what concentration are they safe?

At that concentration do they perform any useful purpose?

If you want to pay for the privilege of doing experimental work on your own machinery, have at it. You won't get much sympathy from your insurance company, repair shop, or engine supplier if it all comes to a whimpering halt, or worse.

*

 

[Forkliftt]

Marin,
How long have you run mouse milk and would you say your results have been positive or negative? Has your fuel system failed to date? Let's call this a "study". Rick, go get a beer.

 

[Marin]

Forkliftt wrote:

Marin,
How long have you run mouse milk and would you say your results have been positive or negative? Has your fuel system failed to date? Let's call this a "study". Rick, go get a beer.

We were advised by the people I have mentioned previously to use a lubricity additive in our fuel for our FL120s when we bought the boat 12 years ago. The product that was recommended by the diesel shop we use is Hammonds Select3.* Hammonds is the same company that makes Biobor, the anti-bug additive that is the most recommended in this area (which we also use).* The lubricity ingredient in Select3 is Lubribor, which is what Hammond refers to as a mil-spec lubricity agent.* We adhere to the treatment amount specified in the ounces-per-gallons chart in the directions.

We have been running Select3 for 12 years/2000+ hours now.* I have no idea if it is helping, hurting, or not doing anything to the engine.* The engines smoke at startup the same amount that they did the day we sea-trialed the boat prior to purchase.* There's not much smoke (blue oil smoke) and it disappears within a few minutes.* They say if FL120s don't smoke a bit at startup there's something wrong with them

The engines start as soon as the starter engages except in the winter when, if we're out so there's no heat in the engine room, they crank for about 3-4 seconds before starting.* The starting characteristics are unchanged over the last 12 years.* The idle settings have never needed adjustment.* The only adjustment service that has been done to the engines themselves was a valve adjustment, called out in the operators manual for every 2,000 hours.* We run them at a cruise rpm of 1600-1700 rpm (the SW tachs and gauges that were used in this generation of GB are not the most accurate things in the world, they "suggest" rather than actually measure

The Simms injection pumps are supposed to have their lube oil changed every 50 hours, which we have done since acquiring the boat.* The amount of oil that comes out of each pump has not changed in 12 years, which indicates that plunger and bore wear has not increased noticeably in that time.* Otherwise there would be a gradual increase in the amount of oil coming out of the pumps due to a gradual increase in fuel leak-down and oil dilution. The amount of oil that comes out of the port engine's IP is identical to the amount from the starboard engine.

We use the boat year round. The frequency of use is dependent upon the wind and my work and travel schedule.* The longest the engines have gone without being run in the 12 years we've had the boat is five weeks.

This is all just anecdotal evidence so it doesn't actually prove anything other than confirm that the way we have been operating our engines hasn't resulted in any discernible changes in 12 years/2000+ hours.



-- Edited by Marin on Sunday 4th of April 2010 02:29:11 AM

 

[koliver]

In order to call this a "study" there should be a control boat, that has the same engines, runs the same protocol, ie the same amount of hard running, same amount of underload running, same oil change interval, buys fuel at the same source, started from the same # of hours and finished at the same # of hours, plus several other variables to be controlled.
Then the engines should be torn down and examined by an expert.

Without that control, all you can say about Marin's MouseMilk study (MMM) is " verrrry interesting".