Diesel Fuel Treatment - Clearwinner LA88

[Tony Brooks]

37 minutes ago, mross said:

Tony, sorry, as soon as I had asked I found the PBO test from September 2016 and deleted the question and added the link.  It seems to be a methodical test.  But all the products tested left deposits in the tank.  I think it would be a good get-you-home solution but eventually, the tank should be completely emptied and mechanically cleaned.  The biocides might be good before a problem occurs. 

Methodical yes, but I question the method. The thing is not helped by the, what at times looks like, partial and obscuring info provided by the vendors. I do not think they gave enough time for the one type of treatment to kill the bugs so this gave an advantage to the other type. It also seemed to assume that all products had the same purpose while clearly they do not.

I agree about the need to keep the tanks clean, hence my advocating and annual "suck the bottom of the tank until you get clear pink fuel" procedure - whether you use an additive or not.

[Midnight]

I've used an additive for years but still ended up breaking down through water contamination. As the club has the equipment I now polish the diesel every year. I still use an additive as a precaution but there's always a bit of 'black stuff' in the first test bottle. I get the feeling that additives are aimed more at boaters rather than diesel tanks, but it's relatively cheap so nothing lost.

[mross]

Has anyone tried AquaSocks?  Seems like a good idea, if you can get it down the filler hole!  https://www.asap-supplies.com/aqua-sock-aq12-fuel-tank-water-remover-10-pack-315012 .  Aquasocks.net website is defunct, so they may have gone out of business.

I sucked a few pints of fuel from the bottom of my tank with a Pela type vacuum pump and then poured it back in through a Mister Funnel which instantly separated fuel and water.  There was very little water so I took no further action.  I did similar when recovering a gallon of diesel that had leaked into my bilge.

Edited December 14, 2017 by mross

[Tony Brooks]

2 minutes ago, Midnight said:

I've used an additive for years but still ended up breaking down through water contamination. As the club has the equipment I now polish the diesel every year. I still use an additive as a precaution but there's always a bit of 'black stuff' in the first test bottle. I get the feeling that additives are aimed more at boaters rather than diesel tanks, but it's relatively cheap so nothing lost.

But your breakdown seems to indicate that you put your faith in additives and that maybe you did not realise that some additives actually cause water to drop out of the fuel. I do not blame you for that because the additive vendors do not seem very keen to give factual information about how their products work (note the lack of a reply from Mr Clearwater re my request for clear information). I think that you are now doing it correctly although I doubt there is an actual need for annual fuel polishing unless you have a contaminated diesel supply. Simply sucking from the bottom of the tank would do for those without fuel polishing equipment.

From experience I think some do work as long as the user understands how they are supposed to work. For years I used Fuelset (an emulsifier I understand) and after the "wax in filters" incident  RCR found I stopped and changed to marine 16 plus annual water removal. The first spring I found very little water, the next far more so I conclude Fuelset had kept the water at bay (as would other similar additives). I now try to have the best of both worlds. Fuelset from second fill up in the spring (to get rid of some of the over winter Marine16) until say mid August, then nothing, then a good dose of Marine 16 Complete at the last fill up of autumn for its biocide and demulsifying properties.

A number of large commercial and charitable (RNLI) organisation use fuel additives but they probably have the resources to investigate them and put them to optimum use. Individuals have to tug along behind the best we can but I think they do work for what they are intended. Pity the data we are fed is not so clear.

[Bee]

Condensation in fuel. As the tank is completely sealed apart from a very small breather it must only be able to condense a few teaspoons of water that is in the air. There is no more water to condense. If you change the air then you can introduce more water otherwise there is only a finite amount of water to get into the fuel. I think that is the case anyway. Happy to be told I'm wrong. I had a horrible case of water in fuel that I think was a leaking flush deck filler and the fuel additive did indeed mix the water and diesel, there was no 'water' that I could suck from the bottom of the tank, just a terrible tank of ruined fuel that I had to scrap. I have an inspection hatch on my tank, its too small and I made it by drilling a ring of holes and bashing out the disc but I really don't think I could have cleaned the tank without it. It should be standard practice to fit a proper access thing to tanks.

[RLWP]

Just now, Bee said:

Condensation in fuel. As the tank is completely sealed apart from a very small breather it must only be able to condense a few teaspoons of water that is in the air. There is no more water to condense. If you change the air then you can introduce more water otherwise there is only a finite amount of water to get into the fuel. I think that is the case anyway. Happy to be told I'm wrong. 

You are wrong! 

Once you condense water onto the sides and top of a half-filled tank, the space that used to be occupied by water vapour needs filling with something so more wet air gets drawn in

Whats probably more significant is the tank 'breathing' in and out as it changes temperature

Richard

[Bee]

Aha! I shall therefore bodge a big lump of putty over the breather next autumn (then wonder why the engine stops next spring)

[RLWP]

6 minutes ago, Bee said:

Aha! I shall therefore bodge a big lump of putty over the breather next autumn (then wonder why the engine stops next spring)

If you do, don't forget to shut the valves in the fuel and spill lines, otherwise the tank will try to breathe through those instead*

Richard

*can't imagine it making any difference mind, except sometimes joints that keep fuel in don't keep air out. 

[ditchcrawler]

One of the biggest problems I have had is finding a decent washer to fit the fuel filler, all the ones I have bought from different chandlers have been crap and started to expand after a couple of fills, This leads to the water coming up the side of the filler cap and not sitting  flat between the cap and the neck so opening the possibility of water getting in. I have just found some Nitrile ones on ebay so I am trying them.https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/263260243710 The cost more than the chandlers ones but if they keep the water out worth it. The diesel filler is this type

[Chewbacka]

1 hour ago, RLWP said:

You are wrong! 

Once you condense water onto the sides and top of a half-filled tank, the space that used to be occupied by water vapour needs filling with something so more wet air gets drawn in

Whats probably more significant is the tank 'breathing' in and out as it changes temperature

Richard

If my O level physics is remembered correctly - it was a long time ago - then if you have a 25C temp difference between day and night - maybe the sun shines on the tank to warm it during the day, so the 'air' inside is warmed by the sun - then the 25C temp change will give about 9% expansion - causing the tank to breath out, and breath back in at night as the air cools and contracts.  So as an example, with a 200l tank that is almost half full you would pull in and out almost 10 Litres of air every cycle (day).  To get an idea of how 'wet' the air can be, one only has to look at the grass on a frosty day.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Chewbacka

[reg]

5 hours ago, cuthound said:

Exactly this. Diesel bug lives in the water/oil interface.

Fully agree I know for a fact that diesel bug does exist, found out the costly way. 

I now use Fuelset at each refill, money well spent. 

[Midnight]

4 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:

But your breakdown seems to indicate that you put your faith in additives and that maybe you did not realise that some additives actually cause water to drop out of the fuel. I do not blame you for that because the additive vendors do not seem very keen to give factual information about how their products work (note the lack of a reply from Mr Clearwater re my request for clear information). I think that you are now doing it correctly although I doubt there is an actual need for annual fuel polishing unless you have a contaminated diesel supply. Simply sucking from the bottom of the tank would do for those without fuel polishing equipment.

From experience I think some do work as long as the user understands how they are supposed to work. For years I used Fuelset (an emulsifier I understand) and after the "wax in filters" incident  RCR found I stopped and changed to marine 16 plus annual water removal. The first spring I found very little water, the next far more so I conclude Fuelset had kept the water at bay (as would other similar additives). I now try to have the best of both worlds. Fuelset from second fill up in the spring (to get rid of some of the over winter Marine16) until say mid August, then nothing, then a good dose of Marine 16 Complete at the last fill up of autumn for its biocide and demulsifying properties.

A number of large commercial and charitable (RNLI) organisation use fuel additives but they probably have the resources to investigate them and put them to optimum use. Individuals have to tug along behind the best we can but I think they do work for what they are intended. Pity the data we are fed is not so clear.

Interesting Tony. I used Fuelset for about 7 years up until the breakdown. Since then I switched to Marine 16 but haven't really a clue what it does. The polisher comes at club rate £25 inc filter so not a big issue and worth it to me just for the confidence of knowing that the tank is clean at least once a year.

[Keeping Up]

3 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

One of the biggest problems I have had is finding a decent washer to fit the fuel filler, all the ones I have bought from different chandlers have been crap and started to expand after a couple of fills, This leads to the water coming up the side of the filler cap and not sitting  flat between the cap and the neck so opening the possibility of water getting in. I have just found some Nitrile ones on ebay so I am trying them.https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/263260243710 The cost more than the chandlers ones but if they keep the water out worth it. The diesel filler is this type

 

I've found that the ordinary ones last a lot longer if you liberally coat  them in Vaseline every time you replace the cap

[reg]

Good article here

http://www.pbo.co.uk/gear/12-diesel-bug-treatments-tested-43353

Pretty much confirms my personal experience of Marine 16 SHOCK treatment to kill the bug and Fuelset for ongoing prevention. 

Note. Article requires answer to a single advertising question for full article, please be like me and give a true and accurate reply there is no benefit to anyone to give a misleading answer. 

[Tony Brooks]

1 hour ago, Midnight said:

Interesting Tony. I used Fuelset for about 7 years up until the breakdown. Since then I switched to Marine 16 but haven't really a clue what it does. The polisher comes at club rate £25 inc filter so not a big issue and worth it to me just for the confidence of knowing that the tank is clean at least once a year.

I would use the polisher at rate rate.

I can only give my understanding of how the products work based on a fair but of reading and rumination plus personal observation. I understand marine 16 contains a biocide plus something to force any water out of the fuel so it can be removed from the tank while Fuelset tends to dissolve/emulsify any water into the fuel. I notice the reprint of the old article Reg posted and earlier referenced by myself and Mross was a bit obscure as to exactly what each product did.

[mross]

Is the test I linked to new, or is is the same test as ten years ago?

[RLWP]

5 minutes ago, mross said:

Is the test I linked to new, or is is the same test as ten years ago?

Quote

As published in the May 2011 issue of PBO.
Read more at http://www.pbo.co.uk/gear/12-diesel-bug-treatments-tested-43353#DOeDBJ8OC6Ig7bC3.99

MORE: apologies, that's Reg's artcle

Richard

Edited December 14, 2017 by RLWP

[bizzard]

5 hours ago, Bee said:

Aha! I shall therefore bodge a big lump of putty over the breather next autumn (then wonder why the engine stops next spring)

A half inflated balloon on the breather or a condom which are tougher in case birds peck at it.

[mross]

1 minute ago, RLWP said:

 

Your link goes to the September 2016 report that I posted earlier?

2 minutes ago, bizzard said:

a condom which are tougher in case birds peck at it

you must have an interesting sex life!

[bizzard]

2 minutes ago, mross said:

Your link goes to the September 2016 report that I posted earlier?

you must have an interesting sex life!

I keep a packet for the breather, it prevents fuel VD as well as preventing erm fresh air from getting in. The cashiers at Tesco's always look at me funny like when I present them alongwith my cats box of GoKat.

[RLWP]

13 minutes ago, mross said:

Your link goes to the September 2016 report that I posted earlier?

Which is from 2011 - it's at the bottom of the article

[mross]

5 minutes ago, RLWP said:

Which is from 2011 - it's at the bottom of the article

Thanks, I see that now.

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, bizzard said:

A half inflated balloon on the breather or a condom which are tougher in case birds peck at it.

So what about when the sun shines and we get this extra 10lt of expanded air coming out. Also how do you tell when a Johny is half inflated

[mross]

4 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

 Also how do you tell when a Johny is half inflated

When yer missus looks disappointed? 

[reg]

1 hour ago, mross said:

Your link goes to the September 2016 report that I posted earlier?

Apologise Mross I missed the fact that you had already linked to the article that I linked to later on.