Jump to content

Talk:Diesel fuel/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Better photo

One interesting feature about fueling a diesel vehicle in my experience is the absence of a rubbery vapor collector thing, which makes fueling easier. I guess diesel is not as volatile(?). Anyhow, it would be nice if the image of a man fueling his vehicle could show that a bit more clearly. Maybe I'll pop my camera out tomorrow... --Treekids (talk) 02:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Reviewed

As part of the energy project I have assessed the article and included some suggestions here. Comments welcome. SheffGruff (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Turn this into a redirect?

Should this become a REDIRECT Diesel engine ? JeLuF

Could this be fixed up so that the Diesel page becomes the one for disambiguation, and the content for that page goes to Diesel fuel (eliminating the redirect there)? HWDP!!

Charles Kettering

An anon removed the reference to Charles Kettering from the intro without explaining it, so I've added it back in. It's possible it is overstating Kettering's role, though - can anybody confirm this? sjorford →•← 10:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Not even the homepage of the Kettering Fund says anything that justifies his name here. I'll remove it. - Alureiter 14:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

No citation that R. Diesel did not invent the Diesel engine

There is no citation given stating that Rudolf Diesel did not in fact invent the diesel engine. Yet the linked to wiki entry for the supposed actual inventor states "[The] vaporizing oil engine... This is a type of "surface ignition" that is distinctly different than the Diesel engine which uses the heat of compression for ignition". So is the engine he invented different or the same as the Diesel engine that was patented several years later? The whole first two paragraphs are confusing. Did Rudolf Diesel invent the Diesel engine or not? If he did not invent the engine then who did, and where is the citation/proof stating that he was not the inventor. People coming to this page are going to assume that Diesel was the inventor of the Diesel engine, to say otherwise needs to be backed up. Again, the linked to article for Herbert Akroyd Stuart does not clarify at all and the assertion that Diesel was not the true inventor of needs a citation.

How can the article state as fact that Rudolf Diesel did not invent the Diesel engine without giving a citation?? Its a major assertion and I don't see how it can remain without some primary source backing it up.

There is a plaque attesting to Stuart's invention on the site on the corner of Aylesbury Street and Denmark Street, Fenny Stratford, Milton Keynes. The site Stuart used is now a corner shop. Thomcurtis (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Historical questions

I have a quick question / request for reference. In the article it currently says, "Rudolf Diesel originally designed the diesel engine to use coal dust as a fuel, but oil proved more effective". This is in contrast to the story I've always been told, which was that Diesel's first engine designs were supposed to run on peanut or other vegetable oils. I don't have a source for this statement either, which is why I'm not going to change anything, but I wondered if someone could clarify and substantiate one side or the other. -Kadin2048 13:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Chemical properties

Diesel fuel chemically? -- Joonas

I was wondering the same thing so I googled for it. I found this PDF which appears to be reliable, but I was unsure if I could just quote it all. Compiling the information is a work of the US government (specifically the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), but the data specifically comes from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is part of the World Health Organization, so it may be copyrighted. Can anyone shed any light on that? I'd like to include the data from table 3-2 and 3-3 specifically. - Taxman Talk 18:07, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Under the heading "Chemical composition" the article states "The average chemical formula for common diesel fuel is C12H23, ranging from approx. C10H20 to C15H28". This statement has at least two interpretations: First, that all of the molecules in diesel fuel fall in this range. This interpretation is reasonable based on the English language, but cannot be correct, because the article says that diesel includes non-cyclo paraffins, which have a composition of CnH2n+2, so the high end of the range would be expected to be C15H32 rather than C15H28. A second interpretation is that the range given in the article is the range of the average molecule per sample, across all of the world's diesel fuel samples. If that is the intended meaning, the article should be rewritten to compel this meaning unambiguously, perhaps something like this: "The average chemical formula for common diesel fuel is typically about C12H23, but different samples have chemical formula averages ranging from approx. C10H20 to C15H28". Anomalocaris (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

As you pointed out your first interpretation can't be right, and I don't see how it comes from what the article states anyway. Ranging from approx x to x means some constituents can be higher or lower than that approximate range. Approximate doesn't translate to all falling in that range. And I do think that range refers to the constituent molecules, not the average as in your rewritten sentence, but as above I couldn't find a good source on it and I'm not a chemist. One could verify which is true by looking at approximate melting points or other physical characteristics such as gel point, etc. and I think you'd find that a mixture of hydrocarbons with a chemical formula average of C15H28 for example would not have the properties of diesel fuel. I'm almost certain that is the case because if you go up that many carbons in the average, you'll have radically different physical properties. So as I understand it the sentence would be more accurate as something like: "The average chemical formula for common diesel fuel is C12H23, with constituent molecules ranging from approx. C10H20 to C15H28". But one would need a reliable source and input from someone more knowledgeable than I to be sure. - Taxman Talk 02:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Article name

Why isn't this called Diesel (fuel) or some such? Then wikis could go diesel engine, or diesel fuel as necessary. GraemeLeggett 10:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, if not here, the best name would be Diesel (fuel), but I don't see the major need. If someone is looking for something diesel related they see the engine article and Rudolph Diesel's article right in the first sentence. - Taxman Talk 12:23, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rudolph would be rolling in his grave if he knew his name was being used exclusively for petrodiesel fuel! He designed his engine to run on peanut oil! This really should be a disambiguation page. And biodiesel should be given equal billing to the petro version. --Treekids (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

E-Diesel

E-Diesel is a blend of ethanol & diesel and should be mentioned in this article. Check it out: [1]

Hmm, just an opinion, but seems like just another measure by the corn and ethanol lobby to promote their product. E-diesel, according to their website, has a much lower flash point than diesel, can't be used in a mixture higher than 15% ethanol, requires an additive to keep it from separating out of the mixture, and lowers the energy content and fuel efficiency. I'm still looking for a benefit that isn't already better in biodiesel. Well maybe the cold flow properties, and maybe it could be used to improve that for biodiesel, but the additive e-diesel requires doesn't seem like it could be cheap to make. Notwithstanding my opinion, it should be covered if it is reasonably important. I didn't see any information on that website that shows it has made it anywhere beyond the laboratory. If there was some information available on how much of it is actually used, price, etc, then maybe we'd have something. - Taxman Talk July 5, 2005 17:18 (UTC)

DIESEL

There is a mention of a blend of 95% ethanol and 5% petrol being a replacement for diesel under the Synthetic Diesel section. Surely someone posted that as some kind of a joke, since I'm sure it will not work. If you're lucky, the engine won't start and all you will have destroyed is the lift pump and maybe your injection pump. I have not actually tried this mixture in my diesel (nor do I intend to) but I'm pretty sure that it would cause rapid and destructive coking of the injectors and pre-chamber (as well as the preglow plugs, I would think) not to mention the destruction of any pumps and other fuel system parts dependent on the lubricity of diesel oil. vThis seems like dangerously inaccurate information and, unless it can be backed up by credible info and tests, should be removed.--Diesel220 03:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, so I removed it. If someone can substantiate the material it can go back in, but not without a quality source to verify it. Don't be too scared to remove dubious material that has no source as long as you note it on the talk page. Wrong information is worse than no information, and if it is correct, it could easily be replaced. - Taxman Talk 14:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


Grades

An explanation of the differences between diesel A and diesel B would be useful. Jzylstra Aug 5, 2005

A definition of #1 and #2 diesel fuel and info on their gelling point should be added.Wilsonbond 18:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


I found following:


Any fuel used in a diesel engine is called diesel fuel. These fuels are classified as 1D, 2D and 4D. A main difference between these is the pour point, the lowest temperature a liquid will flow. A second difference is viscosity, the resistance of a liquid to flowing. Most diesel fuels are made of petroleum, but other types are available such as biodiesel and synthetic diesel.


4D Usage 4D fuels are only used in very low-speed engines such as those in stationary units or marine operations.


Cold Weather 1D diesel fuel has lower viscosity and a lower pour point than 2D, so is preferred for cold weather.



1D Considerations 1D diesel fuel has only about 95 percent of the energy output as 2D, causing reduced gas mileage and lower horsepower.


2D Fuel 2D fuel is used in warmer weather, and also can be mixed with 1D for an effective winter fuel.


Biodiesel Another type of diesel fuel is biodiesel, obtained from vegetable oil or animal fats. Some versions can be mixed with petroleum diesel.


Synthetic Diesel Synthetic diesel fuel is derived from various sources such as wood, straw, corn and even garbage and food scraps.


and

ASTM D975 - 10 Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils

http://www.astm.org/Standards/D975.htm

as per American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)

Abstract

This specification covers seven grades of diesel fuel oils suitable for various types of diesel engines. These grades are: Grade No. 1-D S15; Grade No. 1-D S500; Grade No. 1-D S5000; Grade No. 2-D S15; Grade No. 2-D S500; Grade No. 2-D S5000; and Grade No. 4-D. The requirements specified for diesel fuel oils shall be determined in accordance with the following test methods: flash point; cloud point; water and sediment; carbon residue; ash; distillation; viscosity; sulfur; copper corrosion; cetane number; cetane index; aromaticity; lubricity; and conductivity.

This abstract is a brief summary of the referenced standard. It is informational only and not an official part of the standard; the full text of the standard itself must be referred to for its use and application. ASTM does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents of this abstract are accurate, complete or up to date.

1. Scope

1.1 This specification covers seven grades of diesel fuel oils suitable for various types of diesel engines. These grades are described as follows:

1.1.1 Grade No. 1-D S15—A special-purpose, light middle distillate fuel for use in diesel engine applications requiring a fuel with 15 ppm sulfur (maximum) and higher volatility than that provided by Grade No. 2-D S15 fuel.

1.1.2 Grade No. 1-D S500—A special-purpose, light middle distillate fuel for use in diesel engine applications requiring a fuel with 500 ppm sulfur (maximum) and higher volatility than that provided by Grade No. 2-D S500 fuel.

1.1.3 Grade No. 1-D S5000—A special-purpose, light middle distillate fuel for use in diesel engine applications requiring a fuel with 5000 ppm sulfur (maximum) and higher volatility than that provided by Grade No. 2-D S5000 fuels.

1.1.4 Grade No. 2-D S15—A general purpose, middle distillate fuel for use in diesel engine applications requiring a fuel with 15 ppm sulfur (maximum). It is especially suitable for use in applications with conditions of varying speed and load.

1.1.5 Grade No. 2-D S500—A general-purpose, middle distillate fuel for use in diesel engine applications requiring a fuel with 500 ppm sulfur (maximum). It is especially suitable for use in applications with conditions of varying speed and load.

1.1.6 Grade No. 2-D S5000—A general-purpose, middle distillate fuel for use in diesel engine applications requiring a fuel with 5000 ppm sulfur (maximum), especially in conditions of varying speed and load.

1.1.7 Grade No. 4-D—A heavy distillate fuel, or a blend of distillate and residual oil, for use in low- and medium-speed diesel engines in applications involving predominantly constant speed and load.

Note 1—A more detailed description of the grades of diesel fuel oils is given in X1.2.

Note 2—The Sxxx designation has been adopted to distinguish grades by sulfur rather than using words such as “Low Sulfur” as previously because the number of sulfur grades is growing and the word descriptions were thought to be not precise. S5000 grades correspond to the so-called“regular” sulfur grades, the previous No. 1-D and No. 2-D. S500 grades correspond to the previous “Low Sulfur” grades. S15 grades were not in the previous grade system and are commonly referred to as “Ultra-Low Sulfur”grades or ULSD.

1.2 This specification, unless otherwise provided by agreement between the purchaser and the supplier, prescribes the required properties of diesel fuels at the time and place of delivery.

1.2.1 Nothing in this specification shall preclude observance of federal, state, or local regulations which can be more restrictive.

Note 3—The generation and dissipation of static electricity can create problems in the handling of distillate diesel fuel oils. For more information on the subject, see Guide D4865.

1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.

I cannot find an ISO norm for determining the different types of diesel fuel.

--SvenAERTS (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Similarity to Heating Oil

Is it the same or not? This article says that it is distilled similarly then later that they are the same.

I have always understood them to be functionally identical, the only difference being the dye that marks the fuel as not taxed for road use. The diesel sold at fuel docks(marine fuel) and sold for off road use(heavy equipment, etc.) is identical (including the red dye) to heating oil. If this can be confirmed it seems that section should be edited.

  • As I understand it, it's a one-way relationship: you can use motor diesel (ASTM std) in heating and boating applications, but that a lower grade bunker fuel is usually used in furnaces and large marine diesel engines because they are not as "picky" about their fuel. --Treekids (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) defines different standards for them.
    • Fuel Oil has to conform to [ASTM D396|http://www.astm.org/Standards/D396.htm]
      • The grades of fuel oil shall conform to the limiting requirements prescribed for: flash point, water and sediment, physical distillation or simulated distillation, kinematic viscosity, Ramsbottom carbon residue, ash, sulfur, copper strip corrosion, density, and pour point.
    • Diesel Fuel has to conform to [ASTM D975|http://www.astm.org/Standards/D975.htm]
      • The requirements specified for diesel fuel oils shall be determined in accordance with the following test methods: flash point; cloud point; water and sediment; carbon residue; ash; distillation; viscosity; sulfur; copper corrosion; cetane number; cetane index; aromaticity; lubricity; and conductivity.
    • I believe the cetane values are the most significant. Joeinwap (talk) 06:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

diesel exhaust smell

I put in this line:-
Diesel engines are notorious for exhaust smell.
and User:Alureiter deleted it: (Revert, a modern diesel car's exhaust doesn't smell any different to gasoline cars). But I beg to differ: I have motorcycled near or behind or past enough diesel buses and lorries/trucks, and diesel exhaust smells the same as it always did. Ditto when I have been on diesel water craft about 100 feet long. On a motorcycle I can't wind the windows up when there is a smell nearby. Anthony Appleyard 23:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Fine, but CITE AN OBJECTIVE SOURCE. 76.190.222.115 01:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I think motor vehicles now use ULSD in most insdustrial nations, which should smell "better" (low sulpher), but large ships use bunker fuel which is trully noxious- in California they are talking about banning huge container ships and tankers from using it, especially after the Cosco Busan oil spill. Personally, my diesel smells OK: they tell me it's B99 biodiesel made from virgin soy- it doesn't even smell like french fries. Where can I get a diesel motorcycle? But I digress... --Treekids (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
If you are serious, try Enfield. They did one for a while which was rumoured to get in the region of 200mpg, although not very fast. 92.0.125.201 (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

Diesel Slang

I have heard the word Diesel many times used in slang to describe someone as strong, musclar, etc generally a person who is larger and is considered to be hardworking or unstoppable, example being an American Football player, especally a lineman for either side, fullback or linebacker. Also I have found Diesel Dyke used to refur to a especally "butch" lesbian. additional sources [2] [3]

where can i find an equation for diesel fuel

why in the UK is diesel SO expensive?

is it because we tax it so much or is it because our diesel is so refined and pure (it's colourless) that it costs a little more to produced compared to unleadef octane 95 petrol?

I refer ofcourse to car diesel: not diesel buses use which in my city - is frankly liquid bituman

It is expensive because the refineries in Europe cannot be altered to produce more diesel and less gasoline - they have to produce a set amount of both. In other words, lets say a refinery can turn 3 barrels of crude oil into 1 barrel of gasoline, 1 barrel of diesel, and 1 barrel of other products. In Europe, if a refiner wants to make 1000000 barrels of diesel, it would have no choice but to make 1000000 barrels of gasoline. The American refineries are more flexible, which lets them produce more diesel on demand, and less gasoline. What has happened is that Europe has to produce too much gasoline to try to meet their diesel needs, and the gasoline is then exported to the United States. This makes the cost of gasoline in the United States lower, because Europe has no choice but to drop the price of gasoline until someone will take it from them. Then the United States makes more diesel to meet the rest of Europe's needs, but since this is demand driven instead of supply driven, the American refineries can set their price higher, and it increases the cost of diesel in Europe. Also there are extensive taxes, etc, and it takes more oil to produce a set amount of diesel than the same amount of gasoline. However, because of the bigger energy content of diesel, this is mitigated by the increase in fuel efficiency. The fact that Europe uses ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) does not strongly impact the price - sulphur extraction is relatively easy. The only problem might be that an additive has to be put in to increase the lubricity of the diesel fuel. I don't know which one Europe uses, but it is probably biodiesel, which would not increase the price significantly. (I work as an energy analyst) --Ignignot 17:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
In fact it is more to do with the fact that the government takes about 60% of the cost at the pump in taxes. I can buy bottles of vegetable oil at my supermarket for less than half the price and dump it straight into the tank. (Smells better too)92.0.125.201 (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

Blonde2max 19:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC) But on the continent diesel is far cheaper than petrol. it's just the UK thats getting ripped off again

Not everywhere on the continent - Diesel is more expensive then petrol in Switzerland - AFAIK this is due to Tax. 81.221.177.166 18:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I blame Thatcher. Seriously, around 1990 diesel cars were close to cornering 50% of the market. Diesel was then much cheaper than petrol and diesel cars used less of it, resulting in a major loss of revenue to HM Treasury. So they doubled the duty on it. The road haulage lobby and diesel car screamed, and were roundly ignored. Mr Larrington (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Diesels produce less CO2 them petrol engines for each mile traveled

[4] [5]

And that's not dificult to see. Diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline (petrol) engines of the same power, resulting in lower fuel consumption. A common margin is 40% more miles per gallon for an efficient turbodiesel. It's 40% less gallons you burn. Take CO2 pollution: 22 pounds/gallon * 0,4 = 8.8 pounds/gallon became less than the petrol's engine 19.4 pounds/gallon. The Statement: "In other words, a petrodiesel powered engine must have greater than 15% more fuel efficiency than a petrol engine in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions". It's a false statement. I'm removing it. 83.240.180.157 03:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)John Arau -

Just to correct your arithmetic here, an advantage of 40% more miles per gallon corresponds to 28.57% less fuel per mile. 1 - 1/1.4 = 0.2857... For example, if a gasoline car gets 25 miles per gallon and a comparable turbodiesel gets 25 * 1.4 = 35 miles per gallon, then a trip of 175 miles would consume 175/25 = 7 gallons of gasoline but only 175/35 = 5 gallons of diesel. It is true that 7 gallons is 40% more than 5 gallons, but 5 gallons is not 40% less than 7 gallons; 5 gallons is (7-5)/7 = 2/7 = 28.57% less than 7 gallons. Anomalocaris (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

it's Red Diesel in the US too

"In the United Kingdom it is known as red diesel"

According to my Automotive Technology teacher, the untaxed agricultural diesel in the United States is also called "Red Diesel". Can anyone else confirm this? --MercenaryKris23 07:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

In the U.S. "Red Diesel" is a term commonly used in the fuel stream, and it refers to Diesel Fuel used for non-taxable purposes, such as in non-road equipment and vehicles (including tractors, cranes, generators, etc). In the fuel market, "clear diesel" is used to describe TAXABLE diesel for on-road use. The IRS requires the red dye marker in order to make the difference clear. --Jcollura 04:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

lpg blent with diesel

lpg blent with diesel used in oilotors such as in agri

Removed phrase

I removed the phrase "In the United States, the color green has become associated with the fuel and is commonly used on fuel pumps and labels." from the first paragraph, as if we are going to list what colours the pumps are in the US, we'll have to do it for every other country in its own section. I suggets if someone wants to put it back in, that they place it elsewhere in the article. Mouse Nightshirt 13:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

'synthetic diesel'

I haven't edited anything previously and don't know how, so I hope someone with the requisite knowledge will edit out the unnecessary bad language in the 'synthetic diesel' section.

welcome. a great place to start is Frequently Asked Questions and Getting started. Hopfully you will create an account and stay for a while. Hu12 05:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Miss directed

I believe this page is missdirected.

First of all, when the diese cycle was invented, there was no such thing on the market as "diesel fuel" (evidently). So whenever someone browses wikipedia for diesel without specifying anything else I believe the user should be directed differently. The most important aspect, would be the diesel cycle (refering to the thermodynamical cycle) which gives name to the fuel known as diesel.

Items on the disambiguation page should link to:

  • Rudolph Diesel (Inventor of the Diesel Cycle
  • Diesel (fuel)

This is very important since otherwise this article is very misleading. The fuel known as diesel was called that after petrol companies decided to market one of their products aimed to the invention by Rudolph Diesel. The thermodynamical cycle, does NOT require this fuel to run on. Technically, it would be more accurate to refer diesel to biodiesel since this second option is more related to the original fuel utilized when the cycle was invented. It would still be wrong though since the main aspect is the thermodynamical cycle which has the flexibility to run on one or another fuel. I have no refenrences for this, but I believe most of this is common knowledge and if someone has the time to assign references to it, that would be great.

But I do strongly believe that the article as directed today is VERY misleading, specially to people not familiar with the subject. Orgoca 18:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Carlos Ortiz (orgoca@gmail.com)

Japan

Apparently, here in Japan, diesel cars/pumps are in the "being phased out" stage. 138.243.228.52 08:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirect

I posted the missdirected blog a while ago and I have no responses yet. So unless someone has arguments against me not doing so, I will redirect diesel as I stated above. I will do so in a month time from now to give time to anyone that might have an objection or suggestion about it to make it public. Orgoca 18:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC) "Look up on misdirected blog"

Rudolf Diesel

Someone messed up Rudolf Diesel by writing comments into that article instead of correcting it. --Espoo 01:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Additives - subsection required

Having had to give up refuelling my car today due to excessive foaming as the fuel entered the tank (pump kept cutting out), came here (via diesel fuel) to find out about why diesel fuel is prone to foam, and about anti-foaming agents added to the fuel.

There's nothing here!

Now I know absolutely nothing about the subject, so any content added would be very high-level. Could someone more knowledgeable add something please? Need to cover: why additives may be required; what additives are used; how the additives work; side-effects; environmental issues; etc.

To help out, I have found an extremely good website page, from Automotive Engineering Online. The page specifically covers the testing of additives, but, out of necessity, also describes what many of them are and what they do.

(Apologies for excessive use of italics... :o) ) EdJogg 10:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Products of diesel combustion

I am disappointed to see a real lack of information in this article about the extremely and acutely harmful products produced by diesel combustion in comparison to petroleum.

The high aromatic content of diesel, along with high sulphur content, produces many extremely harmful chemicals on combustion, such as benzo(a)pyrene which have a direct and vast effect in urban areas, primarily to human health.

Is there anyone out there with a high enough understanding of diesel combustion to add this to the article?

For years it has annoyed me that diesel has been encouraged as a fuel in order to aide the reduction of CO2 emmisions and therefore aide the statistics which governments spew upon us. Diesel emmisions may have a lower CO2 output per unit energy, but some of it's byproducts of combustion are scarily dangerous and vastly understated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.145.107.239 (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Cite a 1930 road trip?

The article says

The very first diesel-engine automobile trip was completed on 6 January 1930. The trip was from Indianapolis to New York City, a distance of nearly 1300 km. This feat helped to prove the usefulness of the internal combustion engine.

but this seems dubious. By 1930 the internal combustion engine seems proven (millions of Ford's Model Ts were produced from 1908 to 1927). Either the date or its significance seems wrong Wendell 02:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Taxation

The entry on taxation includes the sentences "In Europe, the United States and Canada, taxes on diesel fuel are higher than on heating oil due to the fuel tax, .... Similarly, "untaxed" diesel is available in the United States, which is available for use primarily in agricultural applications such as for tractor fuel". While taxation varies from state to state and province to province, in Ontario, Canada, we refer to at least part of this tax as the "road tax". Not only farmers but construction firms and no doubt mining firms are able to purchase dyed fuel for off-road use. I question whether the "agricultural applications" referred to are so pre-eminent that the omission of the other sectors of the economy is justified. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.113.169.140 (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

diesel and water

Christophermurimi 18:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)christophermurimiChristophermurimi 18:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)What happens when mixed with water if diesel and water is not 100% immisible?

Rename Article to "Diesel Fuel"

This article should be renamed "Diesel Fuel". I mean, what is this article about? Is it about Rudolg Diesel? Is it about Diesel Engine vehicles? By changing the name, it will be clear to the reader that the subject of the article is Diesel Fuel, and not any other subject (that is written about extensively elsewhere in wiki. --Jcollura 12:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur. 76.167.124.179 00:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Biodiesel/Straight Vegetable Oil confusion

Under the "Biodiesel" heading, there's a small paragraph describing straight vegetable oil for diesel-engine use without calling it out as such. I think this should be struck, or at least called out as "straight vegetable oil" rather than "biodiesel". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.167.124.179 (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC).


How much diesel vs gas can one refine from a barrel of oil?

seems to be an important factor missing in the discussion? at optimal efficiency what is the resulting product spread between diesel/unleaded gas from a barrel of oil? as far as i know it takes more oil to make diesel?

Comparative CO2 emissions

I think that the phrase "While diesel's 15% higher volumetric energy density results in 15% higher greenhouse gas emissions per liter compared to gasoline" is incorrect. Surely what is meant is that the higher specific density of diesel leads to higher CO2 emissions, from the simple fact that there is more carbon per litre to make CO2 out of. The higher volumetric energy density is the mitigating effect that leads to an overall decrease in CO2 per vehicle mile. I have edited the article to reflect my interpretation. 136.8.152.13 12:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Locomotives

There is exactly one mention, in passing, in this article of diesel locomotives. Surely they deserve a paragraph, or at least a link to Diesel locomotive. - Jmabel | Talk 05:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

But more interestingly the locomotives are not diesel, the are electric with diesel generators. 76.190.222.115 01:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

identification of diesel

I think a section on the identification of diesel should be added. This would include information such as the standard of using yellow gas jugs to transport and identify diesel. 76.190.222.115 01:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, "yellow gas jugs" refers to a plastic fuel container of about a gallon/5 litres. I would recommend against adding the information here as you'd need to include the standard (if any) for every country, although it might useful as an article in it's own right which this one could link to. Sarky Git 13:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Diegaso

What is diegaso? --82.159.136.215 13:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

A number of people have suggested this page be moved so that Diesel can redirect to Diesel (disambiguation) which opens up to Rudolf Diesel and to diesel engine and to slang usages and actors and such. Seems reasonable to me. Since nobody had opened up the process and there seems to be quite a few people behind it (and at least one seriously against it), well, here we go. --Treekids (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Strongly against move The most common usage of the term is for the fuel/engine, and it is adequately linked for other uses. A disabiguous page should only be used as a primary page when there is confusion about many different uses of the term. Javelin is a good example. To me, it means a car by AMC and a defunct brand of boat (now Stratos). To you, it might mean a long steel rod that is used to throw in the olympics first, and other uses next. Diesel, however, doesn't suffer from multiple common uses, and as such, should not be changed to a disambiguous page. When someone types in "Diesel" into the search box, the vast majority of the time, this page is exactly what they are expecting. If you made it a disambig page first, you would actually harm the system and make it require more steps to get to the most commonly referenced article, which is counter to the goal. PHARMBOY (TALK) 15:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I request the addition of a link to: http://cta.ornl.gov/data/Index.shtml - the online version of the "Transportation Energy Data Book - Edition 26" , prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) for the Office of Planning, Budget and Analysis in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy of the U.S. Department of Energy.

To quote from the description, ...The major purposes of the data book were to draw together, under one cover, transportation data from diverse sources, to resolve data conflicts and inconsistencies, and to produce a comprehensive document... Syrenab (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Eight-year history of Dieslel Prices in the U.S.

Worth adding? Yes? No?

http://www.freightcostreduction.net/diesel-fuel-prices/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.249.13 (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think its worth adding, we could subordinate the section "Taxation" to a new section titled "Fuel prices". Here are some useful links:
I don't think the price of diesel was serious tracked before 2002—it was still cheap then—so that can complicate things a bit. ChyranandChloe (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No.2 fuel oil

Could somebody knowledgeable include some information about how Diesel fuel is different to No. 2 fuel oil. The fuel oil articles variously includes the phrases:

  • diesel is a type of fuel oil
  • No. 2 is the diesel that trucks and some cars run on, leading to the name "road diesel". It is the same thing as heating oil.
  • MDO (Marine diesel oil) - A blend of gasoil and heavy fuel oil
  • diesel is different in that it also has a cetane number limit

Is anyone knowledge to shed some clarity to the article? —Sladen (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Why is there a picture of bio diesel, shouldn't we have a picture of petroleum based diesel as most people would be looking for information on that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Airdoo0 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I second that (and note that there are now *two* pictures of biodiesel and none of petroleum-based, unless you count the picture where it's spilled on the ground. Muad (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh! so this issue is already raised here. Actually I was looking for petroleum-based diesel related info. and came to talk page when couldn't find its picture in the article. Thanks in advance (whoever can do it). -Tadarth1 (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Runaway

The paragraph on runaway failure (in the Use as a Vehicle Fuel section) has a "citation needed" tag after the fist sentence, and a citation at the end of the paragraph. Is someone being over vigilant here? While I don't have a copy of the book, it looks like the citation covers the first sentence. So, I don't think the "citation needed" tag is appropriate. SlowJog (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Move request

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Diesel → Diesel fuel, Diesel (disambiguation) → Diesel — Depending on the context, "diesel" can mean either the fuel, the engine, or perhaps both. Thus the fuel is not the clear primary topic. The current DAB page would be moved here. BilCat (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss this move at Talk:Diesel (disambiguation)#Requested move, as the move Diesel (disambiguation) → Diesel depends on this move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Transportation section

The section on the use of diesel in automobiles is quite staggering! Diesel is widely used in cars around the world, yet the sole content of this section is a remark about the first diesel-powered car trip in the USA!

Most trucks use diesel engines; this is a notable omission from the section as a whole. Dricherby (talk) 12:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There were far worse problems with that section than being US-centric. - BilCat (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I request the addition of a link to: http://www.dieselfuelprices.org/ - Diesel fuel prices in the U.S.; reasons of its changes and review of nowadays' situation on diesel fuel market. There is a pages with great information about biodiesel fuel, diesel car, diesel fuel filter and etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoFighter (talk • contribs) 06:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

As explained to you elsewhere, Wikipedia is not a directory service, and we are not here to provide space for links to your personal sites. --Ckatzchatspy 09:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV violation.del pict.

Main articles: Exhaust gas § Diesel engines, Diesel engine § Emissions, Diesel particulate matter, and Diesel exhaust air contaminants

this is not a typical exhaust.pict should be deleted.Wdl1961 (talk) 03:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Diesel Fuel Production

Apparently more oil is required to make one litre of diesel fuel than one litre of gasoline (estimates say 15-20% more oil). This would greatly reduce diesel fuel's efficiency in terms of raw oil consumption. Does anyone more knowledgeable than me know if this claim is true? If confirmed, I think we should include this into the "Use as Car Fuel" section or in the efficiency section. Snoopy18 (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Diesel Fuel weight per gallon or liter

I could not find a reference to this yet it is important to anyone designing a truck from a truck dealer's specifications. If I felt that I needed to be able to haul 200 gallons of Diesel fuel, what would that amount weigh?

76.90.79.221 (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


Net energy content or lower heating value

When talking about fuels for combustion engines it is always the lower heating value that is used for energy content as the water formed by combustion will leave the engine in vapor form. In effect, it is the lower heating value that is used to heat the working fluid in the engine and should be used for comparison unless it is specifically specified as gross heating value. JEdlund (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Use as vehicle fuel

I was going over this section, and ran into some stuff that really didn't look right.

Unlike petroleum ether and liquefied petroleum gas engines, diesel engines do not use high-voltage spark ignition (spark plugs). An engine running on diesel compresses the air inside the cylinder to high pressures and temperatures (compression ratios from 14:1 to 18:1 are common in current diesels); the diesel is generally injected directly into the cylinder, starting a few degrees before top dead center (TDC) and continuing during the combustion event. The high temperatures inside the cylinder cause the diesel fuel to react with the oxygen in the mix (burn or oxidize), heating and expanding the burning mixture to convert the thermal/pressure difference into mechanical work, i.e., to move the piston. (Glow plugs are used to assist starting the engine to preheat cylinders to reach a minimum operating temperature). Diesel engines are lean burn engines[13], and use less fuel than rich burn spark ignition engines which are run at a Stoichiometric Air-Fuel Ratio. High compression ratios and throttleless operation generally result in diesel engines being more efficient than many spark-ignited engines[citation needed].

Note that I added the section about diesel engines being lean burn, since modern ones are. I have seen spark ignition diesel engines, they were common at one time. Well, make that not uncommon. The engine I saw was built in the late 1920's. The reason that diesel engines don't use spark ignition is that compression ignition is more efficient, and less expensive. I have seen gasoline and lpg engines that used compression ignition. Prototypes exist, whether or not they will make it into production is anyone's guess.

I don't like the language in this paragraph. It is really weak. In my opinion it needs a total re-write.

This efficiency and its lower flammability and explosivity[citation needed] than gasoline are the main reasons for military use of diesel in armored fighting vehicles, such as tanks and trucks.[citation needed] Engines running on diesel also provide more torque, and are less likely to stall, as they are controlled by a mechanical or electronic governor[citation needed].

I guess you've never seen a diesel engined vehicle explode. It is REALLY impressive. This paragraph needs to be corrected, the real reasons are fuel economy and torque.

A disadvantage of diesel as a vehicle fuel in some climates, compared to gasoline or other petroleum-derived fuels, is that its viscosity increases quickly as the fuel's temperature decreases, turning into a non-flowing gel at temperatures as high as -19 °C (-2.2 °F) or -15 °C (5 °F), which cannot be pumped by regular fuel pumps. Special low-temperature diesel contains additives to keep it in a more liquid state at lower temperatures, yet starting a diesel engine in very cold weather may still pose considerable difficulties[citation needed].

If this was true we wouldn't be using diesel engines in Canada, where for a good bit of the year the temperature is below -19 °C (-2.2 °F). Find citations to back this up, or expand upon to showing how it was true at one time (because it was) and why it isn't true now.

There are a bunch of other weaknesses throughout the entire article. I could spend the entire day on them, but I haven't the time right now. I will come back and see what I can do later. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

All three of your claims are uncited rubbish. Except that one about the original article para being poorly written.
  • Spark plug diesel? No. A Diesel cycle engine needs sustained fuel injection to provide the extended combustion (and thus constant pressure with expanding volume) that is their defining factor. The usual diesel engine is a compression ignition engine, thus not spark-ignition. If you mean (and you did say 1920) a semi-diesel or hot bulb engine, then these aren't diesel engines.
  • Fire aspects of diesel AFVs. Oh, get real. Do your own legwork on that one.
  • Winter diesel. "Viscosity" isn't the best term, as it's actually the precipitation of a separate waxy component of the fuel rather than a homogeneous fluid simply becoming more viscous. However it's a very real effect, and this is why winter diesel changes formula from the summer, why additives are sometimes used (even an admixture of petrol) and why diesel filters are often heated, to avoid blockages in cold weather.
If you make any changes, they _must_ have good references to support them and changes of this nature will be reverted forthwith. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Andy, we are talking about diesel fueled engines. A spark ignition diesel fueled engine is legitimately a diesel fueled engine. The one that I saw was on a tractor manufactured by Case Corporation. My father owned it, and there might even be a photograph of it in the thousands of pictures that I haven't digitized yet. As to doing my own leg work, I have the intention of doing so. I know where the evidence should be, including the videos of exploding diesel fuel tanks. I've worked with diesels for a hell of a long time. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
UT makes some useful comments. No 'oil compression engine' today uses the diesel cycle (they might use diesel 'fuel' but that is bye the bye). The military love oil compression engines because the are more reliable. Flammability is of a lesser concern. Yes, ordinary 'diesel fuel' does wax at low temperatures (and at even lower temperatures homogeneously turns to jelly with waxy flakes) but as they are really 'oil compression engines', choosing a more suitable fuel in these conditions over-come the short comings of standard diesel fuel. The article(s) on this subject are misleading. They appear to be re-edited by editors that don't understand the subject properly but think they do.--Aspro (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
A Case tractor of the 1920s? Then that's most likely a TVO engine (in UK parlance - I forget the US term). It's a spark ignition engine that starts on petrol and then switches to cheaper kerosene fuel once warmed up. The main fuel could be kerosene (paraffin in the UK), "power kerosene" in Australia, TVO in the UK or lamp oil. Lamp oil and kerosene engines were tuned slightly differently, for Fergusons at least, I'm not sure about Case. They'll run on many things - certainly diesel fuel or Jet A-1, but not cooking oil. These are not by any stretch "diesel engines" though. "I have seen spark ignition diesel engines" is not borne out by the existence of these TVO engines.
As to explosion, then neither liquid petrol nor diesel will explode, owing to their lack of oxygen. The primary hazard of petrol is the flammability of its vapour, owing to the wide range (fuel/air range) for which this is flammable. Diesel vapour has nothing like a comparable hazard. If the liquid is heated, especially in a closed vessel, the risk is then that of a BLEVE where the resultant vapour cloud is also liekly to ignite. This can be a risk for both diesel or petrol. In practical terms though, the risk is less about the scale of the explosion, should a serious one occur, and far more about the greater risk by which petrol vapour is more easily ignited. If you don't believe it for AFVs (and ask NATO why they've now gone entirely diesel fuel), then ask a boat owner.
Slow-speed diesel engines, using a close approximation to the Diesel cycle, are used in some of the larger ship engines, owing to their high efficiency. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
So we agree then, that no modern engines use the diesel cycle and that oil compression engines are used in maritime application because thy are more efficient?--Aspro (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
No. The Diesel cycle is used, although only in a few modern engines of these extremely large and also slow-revving engines. Heavy oil is used in marine engines because it's cheap ($/Joule), not that it favours an especially efficient engine. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The marine diesel engine is a two stroke cycle. It is the most efficient prime mover. See McNeil (1990)An Encyclopedia of the History of TechnologyPhmoreno (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
@ AD: May I ask you as to what leads you believe that the diesel cycle is still employed to day (not just in marine use but any other).--Aspro (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%A4rtsil%C3%A4-Sulzer_RTA96-CPhmoreno (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Marine diesels are both two and four stroke. There's some bias towards two stroke for the bigger ones, but mostly it depends on the maker specialising in a particular cycle. Two stroke also has advantages for easy reversing, slower speed (avoiding a gearbox) and is more favourable for opposed piston uniflows.
Practical cycles never have the sharp corners and straight lines of a textbook indicator diagram, but IMHO the distinction between a Diesel and an Otto cycle is that the Diesel has a deliberately extended combustion period, as a result of prolonged fuel injection, so as to maintain a constant pressure during expansion in the power stroke. One reason why they have to use injection, rather than carburation. An Otto cycle for these huge ship engines becomes unworkable because the peak pressure necessary to drive the piston through the following power stroke would, for a stroke so long in both distance and time, become mechanically impractical. I don't know of any diesel or oil engines that are equally large, other than marine engines. Other very powerful engines, such as large generator sets, also require higher crankshaft speeds, so they don't have such a long, or slow, stroke. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Having worked in diesel R&D which included work on armoured fighting vehicles, I know some of the in depth history and thus think I can see where the confusion keeps arising on these articles. The cycles patterned by Otto and Diesel get taught in schools because they are simple aids to introducing the difference between 'pure' compression ignition engines and 'pure' spark ignition engines. The early low-compression oil engines had either a hot bulb or some other means of aiding ignition (I'll leave out TVO which was much later). This was due to the limitations of engineering technology and metallurgy. Even Rudolf ran into the same problem as his engines kept blowing up. I was surprised to read in contemporary articles of those times that his successful working engines had ended up so heavy that they where not economical from a commercial point of view and so his licensees actually made their money from their own interpretations. Pure DC engines did not sell very well -despite what most condensed accounts suggest. However, he had the financial backing (not unlike like Microsoft today) to bamboozle his way through the pattern courts to thwart the competition. What his engines really became were hybrids which where not really different from his competitors. These were more commercially viable and efficient than his idealized Diesel Cycle (which he only formulated to get round existing patterns). There is also a continuing argument as to how much he pinched of the later technology from his weaker foes as they learnt how to increase their compression ratios and improved their injection systems. This dualism of the two simplistic cycles causes many people to come to false assumptions. Designers of large marine compression ignition engine still strives to give the same sort of power curve that one would expect to find in a spark ignition engine (forget Otto for the minute) because it is more thermodynamically efficient that the idealised Diesel Cycle -which is long dead. See:[6] for a typical marine engine power curve. There is no constant pressure phase in marine, or land applications -even Rudolf had to abandon it. Engineers build the marine engines like any other -strong enough to make the most of the energy in the fuel. Even injection starts before TDC which Rudolf had to avoid because of patent issues. If the Diesel engine article was renamed compression ignition engines then the whole range can more simply be represented (from the most efficient and very high 'pure' compression rotary engines that run on natural gas (often used for power generation and usually 'long stroke'), all the way across the various other engines like the multi- fuelled Chieftain tank and the variable compression ratio CV12 engine that was fitted to its replacement. That would virtually run on straight Brent Crude (so long as one removed all the grit and brine from it first). All the way down to the original hot-bulb and hot-wire engines. I have seen these still these running at steam shows. Allowing the confusion to exist between the 'Diesel Cycle' with the engines which go by the now generic name of diesel, make the articles difficult to edit in a way that accurately describes the technology and its historical development in an encyclopedic way. --Aspro (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
AIUI, the marine engines of the Wartsila scale are Diesel's cycle, i.e. they do at least extend the combustion phase to provide a sustained period of pressure, rather than the simple Otto expansion. I hope we can agree that this much is enough to tip the balance. I think the later Doxfords were too. Admittedly I've never worked on a big marine engine - although if we're talking about AFV engines, the AS90's engine & power pack was tested on a dyno system that I designed. These engines, even the multi-fuels, are certainly compression ignition engines with an Otto cycle, although how you can describe the Chieftain as "reliable" is beyond me. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Were did I say the Chieftain was reliable. It was an attempt (during a time of uncertain fuel supply ) to produce a 'deploy anywhere' AFV. I know -I lived though it and earned a lot of over-time. I might add also, that there where not many pizza places in those days, so we had to make do with fish an' chips with the odd saveloy on those long lonely nights. [These were no silent nights – standing next to these beasts on a test bed, whilst at full bore - it goes right though you] --Aspro (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
That'll be your claim, ". The military love oil compression engines because the are more reliable. " They're maybe more reliable today, but not back in the 1960s and never when a spark ignition engine like the Meteor was compared to those early multifuel engines. The multifuel engines were a long way from reliable, they never delivered on their "refill with anything" promise as they needed a REME fitter to reset their fuel system and the Chieftain's L60 was the worst of a bad bunch. Nor was the L60 introduced as any sort of response to the 1973 oil crisis - the Chieftain had already been deployed since the mid-1960s. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Your are now picking on particular 'types' so as to try and use the exception to prove the rule. This is why I say the Diesel article should be renamed to bring sense to the whole range. Also, why should the MOD wait until the 1973 crises when the West could see it approaching on the horizon. Towards the end of the 1960's the UK government gave huge tax incentives to the oil companies to retrieve oil from the North sea at $16 a barrel whilst it only cost 8 cents a barrel to pump it up out the desert. Post-war manufacturing out-put was one of the reasons why compression ignition engines were slow to take off in the UK. Yet emergency vehicles like fire tenders, ambulances, buses and other utility vehicles quickly adopted diesel due to the better reliability and the willingness of the public authorities invest in these more costly engines. Even the Metor would have to have more frequent maintenance. Light aircraft have very reliable petrol engines but need more frequent maintenance routines than turboprop or turbine. Petrol engines have never achieved such long service hours between maintenance schedules. Instead of seeing things are they are (and were etc.) your employing confirmation bias to support your superficial impressions and I don't see that as a suitable way to expand an encyclopedia. You haven't come out with anything in your diatribe that would be useful to improve this subject at all! Sorry, but I have had enough of this tail trying to wag the dog.--Aspro (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
A "diatribe"? Hang on, I'm not the one claiming:
  • Spark ignition diesel engines
  • Anything with diesel in it becomes a "diesel engine"
  • An invented neologism of "oil compression engine" rather than the perfectly adequate "compression ignition engine", if we're not to use the populist but admitted misnomer of diesel engine. Note too that it's not the oil that's getting compressed.
  • A conspiracy theory about Chieftain engines being designed to pre-empt a war ten years in the future.
  • Chieftains being "reliable".
Andy Dingley (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hold. While most of this is interesting, it doesn't cover the original point that I raised, which is that there are no citations on certain statements under Use as a vehicle fuel. For now I am removing those statements. If someone can find citations for them they can be returned to the article, though preferably they should be re-written. The grammar needs work. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Your deletion has already been reverted, or I'd have done it myself. These are two very widely known points. Although citations are always welcome, deleting them through ignorance is unhelpful. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


The info in these 2 paragraphs is well known to most people who handle diesel engines

The full quote from the revert was 2011-10-22T11:25:59‎ Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs)‎ (32,794 bytes) (→Use as vehicle fuel: The info in these 2 paragraphs is well known to most people who handle diesel engines.) (undo).

The problem with this sort of thinking is that we only show on Wikipedia things that we can document. If these things are well known to most people who handle diesel engines there shouldn't have any issues in finding citations. Why were my edits were reverted without citations?

One of the problems is that when you look at things that everyone knows, you quite often find that they aren't right. Most people knew that washing your hands had nothing to do with disease until Ignaz Semmelweis proved different. Most people knew that heavier than air flight wasn't possible until the Wright brothers proved different.

So post some citations. Real citations. Because I'll be reading them. I'm like that. When someone pulls a revert with the reason is well known to most people I loose my trust in them. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Because I'll be reading them. I'm like that.
How about if you were someone who wrote these citations? There's nothing stopping you adding them, rather than disrupting the page and hoping that the same people you're pissing off by doing so will somewhere produce the extra time, and a smidgen of their diminishing enthusiasm, in order to do this for you. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
If you're going to get a strop on about unsourced additions, you can begin by not adding rubbish like, "A compression ignition engine compresses the air-fuel mix inside the cylinder " Andy Dingley (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
It looks partially good. You didn't include a link to the book though of course there [http://www.amazon.com/1981-82-Military-Annual-Colonel-editor/dp/053103741X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319319341&sr=8-1 are several sources]. You also left the words Engines running on diesel also provide more torque, and are less likely to stall, as they are controlled by a mechanical or electronic governor. It would be difficult to find any engine that does not have a governor installed at the factory, so that line should be excised.
As to adding rubbish like', I just did. I also added the Wikipedia links to go with that rubbish. Because it isn't rubbish. I'm an engineer who worked in the field. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
'It looks partially good.' Well thanks a bunch, you patronising ignoramus. I didn't add a link, because my bookshelves aren't on line. The comment about "more torque" is misleading (big petrol engines have more torque than small diesels, it's just not this simple), but I left it because I couldn't be bothered to fix it up cleanly. As to governors, then how many spark ignition engines (i.e. those with throttle butterflies) have governors? - as have been a standard fitment for compression ignition since the 1930s and the first high-speed diesel engines. If you don't appreciate this, and you clearly don't see the significance of a throttle butterfly vs. a diesel engine, then I doubt very much if you've "worked in the field" and certainly not as an engineer, or even a mechanic. You would certainly appreciate why, "A compression ignition engine compresses the air-fuel mix inside the cylinder " is such rubbish. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy, first off, this is not a pissing contest. This is an attempt to fix up an article which has some serious issues.

I didn't add a link, because my bookshelves aren't on line.

That's fine. I have a ton of books here too, which are not out of copyright. All we can do is cite them, with as much detail as possible. Yours' at least are modern enough so you can include the ISBNs. A lot of mine predates the use of ISBN. Some of my collection is damned ancient, and I'm looking forward to digitizing it in the next few years as they slide out of copyright. Or at least as they slide out of copyright in Canada. I'm a Canadian publisher, and I'm going to republish them. Everywhere except for the United States. U.S. Copyright Law is incredibly flaky.

But that is off-topic. Tell me how the difference between your version and my version is an improvement? Let us take this one step at a time:

  • You don't mention Internal and External Combustion Engines
  • You don't mention Otto, Diesel, and 2 Stroke ICE cycles
  • You don't mention the gasoline (petrol), LPG, and NG engines which operate using Compression Ignition (the Diesel Cycle)
  • You don't mention that virtually every engine built since the 1930's has a governor of some sort, except racing engines
  • If you check the Compression Ignition Engine page you'll find that it disagrees with some of your definitions, including the compression ratios, they mention ratios above 20:1 being in common use.
  • burn is oxidize
  • Shouldn't heating and expanding the burning mixture to convert the thermal/pressure difference into mechanical work, i.e., to move the piston be replaced by oxidizing the fuel-air mixture in side the combustion chamber releases heat. The heat causes the gasses inside the combustion chamber to expand, forcing the piston to move, i.e. converting chemical energy to kinetic energy.

To avoid a long explanation of each technology I linked to the Wikipedia pages that explained the technology. Internal Wikipedia page links are the best way to allow a site user to follow through to the information that they need, rather than trapping them on our page, which may not contain all their needs. Using internal Wiki links is highly encouraged, and with the size of the English language Wikipedia it is usually easy to find pages covering most technical topics.

I'm not your enemy here. Yes, I sometimes tend to be too direct. My apologies if I came across like Godzilla. That was not the intent. The intent was to fix this page up, and to make it shine. That means adding citations, internal wikilinks, and verifying everything that we write. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

As you've now turned your pissing contest into one over books, I can only suggest that you look at Commons for a hint as to just how much there might be on my bookshelves, and how old some of it is. I'd also add that it's no use just owning books, you have to read them too.
I don't have "my version" or "my changes" here. I haven't even edited this article, certainly not this week, beyond adding a reference with some very minor copyediting and reverting changes to the original when these changes were badly broken. Yes, if I had time, I would have re-written this into great chunks of erudite well-referenced prose, but I don't have time and so all I can manage is to try and keep the barbarians from the gate.
"The most common is the Diesel cycle engine, which uses compression of the air-fuel mixture" is wrong on two counts. Oddly, one of these is one that is disputed further back up the talk page, when I suggest that the Diesel cycle is used in some rare and highly specialised engines. It certainly isn't used in the common-or-garden diesel engine, nor do either of them compress an air-fuel mixture, as you claim. I don't know why you claim this: maybe it's because you don't know how compression ignition engines work, maybe it's because you really do think that pouring diesel into a petrol engine then makes it into a diesel engine.
"virtually every engine built since the 1930's has a governor of some sort" is equally bad. Sure, engines that run unattended such as generators, even lawnmowers, have governors to maintain a constant engine speed under changing load. However engines in vehicles mostly have a foot pedal controlled by the driver, with no such control. High-speed diesel engines, as appeared in trucks from the 1930s, have a governor within the injection pump. This is controlled by the foot pedal and maintains engine speed, so the foot pedal is controlling the speed the engine runs at, more than its power directly. For an engine with a throttle butterfly, i.e. a petrol engine with a carburettor, there's no such governor. The pedal is controlling engine power, more than a speed set point. One reason why a diesel will go from flat to a hill climb at a constant speed with much less driver attention than for a petrol engine. Governor behaviour for petrol engines in vehicles doesn't return until electronic engine controls become sophisticated in the 1980s, and even then it's far less obtrusive than the governor of a 1930s diesel injector pump.
These are bad changes. They can't stay. In the absence of anything better written (I'm wasting what little time I have arguing that diesel don't even use spark ignition instead), then simple reversion at least stops things getting worse. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Almost all gasoline engines have governors. That gasoline engine governors are different than diesel engine governors is beside the point, the same terminology is used for both. They may work in totally different ways. They may share little in common technologically. They do share the same name.
Consider the Governor on the Continental F-163 flat head engine. It was a centripetal force actuated device that was afixed to the crankshaft. Then there is the Hoof style governor which is now in common use on non-road gasoline and lpg fueled engines. A totally different technology, but it uses the same name.
The problem is that calling a "governor" a "governor" leaves you open to misinterpretation.
That is my complaint with this article. There are too many places where the language used is too loose, and could be misunderstood. If I walked up to most people and started talking to them about oil problems on Silicon Carbide and Cordierite filters, they would probably think I was talking about oil filters. Of course I wouldn't be, but how would they know? UrbanTerrorist (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Almost all gasoline engines have governors.
The F-163 is an industrial engine: generators, pumps, winches, that sort of task. See "Sure, engines that run unattended such as generators," above. However most petrol engines are in cars - no governors. Find me the governor on a VW Beetle or a Camaro. Hoof governors are also intended for use on industrial engines, not road vehicles. There is no need for a governor on a petrol engine, if there's a driver. The governor certainly isn't an essential component, as it is for a diesel engine. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Archive 1

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Diesel fuel/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
This seems to be a fairly well written and interesting article, I would suggest the following improvements to move it closer to GA status:
  • Check through for unreferenced facts and add a citation if possible, things that stood out for me were: Energy per litre for diesel/petrol, algae section, biodiesel clogging fuel filters, aircraft history and the first automotive trip, German cost effective cut off point at ~12000 miles.
  • Image improvements. Firstly, there is a photograph of someone pumping unleaded petrol (the handle is green), which should be replaced. Mention of colour coding of pumps would be worthwhile. Diagrams of the chemical structure of some of the molecules may be interesting, and a fuel infobox similar to the chemical compound infobox set might make the introduction of the page a bit easier on the eye. (eg, look at Butane's box on the top right of the page). Any chart or diagram relating to efficiency or fractional distillation might be worth including, as would images of diesel in a glass vial.
  • Spelling. Is it going to be Sulphur or Sulfer? Keep it consistent whatever it is.
  • Content - a more in depth explanation of what the extra pollutants in diesel are and why it has a higher price. Perhaps a section on the past and future expected market performance of diesel as a fuel. Reasons why people are trying to make biodiesel and other diesel based fuels. More information on the chemical process of burning diesel.
SheffGruff (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 11:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 14:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diesel_fuel/Archive_1&oldid=1083343799"