BUGGER

Slowboat35 said:
Interesting, isn't it, how maybe 30% of cars on the road are diesels, most live in the open and diesel bug is all but unknown - to the extent that the average motorist has probably never even heard of it.

I wonder if the anticipation of the bug among boaters isn't vastly more serious and prevalent than it's reality...
Click to expand...

Its to do with turnover ..... the more often the fuel is changed in the tank - the less you would have problem.

But I can tell you a funny side to this .... during one of my company's additive periods - we had a 10ton Mercedes truck for carrying the additives, pumps and hoses for injecting into ships during loading ops. (Note we did not inject Enzyme at that time - our main work was H2S and CFPP).
We had to drive from Ventspils to Tallinn on a round trip - basically I was closing the Tallinn Office and to transport all documents / furniture / company records etc. back to main Ventspils office. A round trip of about 1100km.
We were at about 800km and on the ring road round Riga ... when the truck slowed and ground to a halt. Yep - we'd been hit by bug !!
We had to call out Road Assist to bring us filters ..... which we fitted and finally got back to Ventspils ...

I have to say though - it was the only land based incident I can recall of bug .... but we had suspicion that because we were supplementing the fuel with our expired retention samples - that may have prompted the event. (Petroleum cargoes loaded to ships - usually samples are held for 90 days in case of quality issues.... and we have to pay a disposal company to take the old .. so why not use it !)
 
Tradewinds said:
So do you dose with more additives (M16 in my case) every year (say)? Boat has been static for 18 months.
Click to expand...

Personally ? I would drop a light dose in ... maybe only a fraction of your normal as a safety .. for that 18 month old fuel. Its most likely still fine.

Each fill up or at least reasonable intervals add a dose.

Example for mine : I have a tank I fill to 70ltr. I add suitable dose + a few % extra .... as I top-up ... lets say each 50ltrs stage - I add a small dose to keep all sweet.
 
if it is regular use then not so important ( assuming you are using clean fuel ) if only occasional use then it would be prudent to keep a little in the fuel .
 
I daren't answer this too much as I may jinx myself lol - I haven't in 5 years of ownership put an additive in the tank - That said I have never let the tank get below half way and when it does get to the halfway mark it gets filled up and when the season changes from summer to autumn I make sure its filled up as I don't sail out in her more used as a weekend escape/ crashpad
Jon
 
Tradewinds said:
So do you dose with more additives (M16 in my case) every year (say)? Boat has been static for 18 months.
Click to expand...
Once you've dosed the tank after filling with new fuel, then the biocide will kill off any bug present in that tank and you would be extremely unlucky to get a new infection entering the tank via the small, and usually quite long, vent pipe, especially if the cap of your tank does not let in rainwater (keep the cap well greased).

Having said that, it is worth adding a small dose, say 25% of normal, if the boat has been left standing for a year or two and you will not be refilling the tank and fully re-dosing.

Richard
 
General additives such as Startron .. Marine 16 ... etc. are not just bug additives - they can help engine run cleaner, assist suspended water to pass through etc.

Lets say a small dose of additive at reasonable intervals is like an insurance policy ....
 
Daydream believer said:
Surprises me how many use this forum but do not read PBO. This is from 2016.
Fuel bug test
Click to expand...

Actually from 2011 test .....

At the time I did communicate to PBO that there were errors in the article and that the standard test is significantly different to that used.

1. 'Bugs' are not only in the Fuel - Water interface but also in the fuel itself (SRB) and others in the water itself. In basic terms 3 states - not one as often and in that report said to be.
2. The standard test is actually to grow a culture of the fuel and to count the colonies. Old but accurate and covers not only regular Bug .. but also all others including the Yeast and Molds. The problem though is it is a time consuming test and needs controlled temperature.
3. The extra part about Winter fuel and CFPP is wrong - basically because each country such as UK have specific grades for each season and by law sales must carry the required CFPP grade according to season. Summer grade is usually untreated and as FAME is a required part - CFPP will be between -4 and -7C. Winter grade depends on part of the country / which country but in UK can be as low as -16C CFPP.
4. Mention of Kerosine - that is a misunderstanding on their part as Kerosine is a common product used to alter the CLOUD Point of the fuel. It does have a side effect of lowering CFPP ... but that is not its purpose.
 
Refueler said:
Actually from 2011 test .....
Click to expand...
The article that I linked to was dated sept 2016-- . Does that change the outcome if the products reviewed have not changed? Of course if the product has changed then it is relevant.
It must be very difficult for PBO to do any test without someone telling them that the test was totally wrong. :rolleyes:
However, They did go ahead with the review & it did rate a range of products. One may decide that is rubbish, but one can also decide if comments on the various merits of individual productsby forumites are any better. It is for readers to decide for themselves.
But before I get slated for my comments, I only pointed to the review & readers can make their own opinion
 
Last edited:
Daydream believer said:
The article that I linked to was dated sept 2016-- but you clearly know better. Does that change the outcome if the products reviewed have not changed? Of course if the product has changed then it is relevant.
It must be very difficult for PBO to do any test without someone telling them that the test was totally wrong. There is always one. :rolleyes:
However, They did go ahead with the review & it did rate a range of products. One may decide that is rubbish, but one can also decide if comments on the various merits of individual productsby forumites are any better. It is for readers to decide for themselves.
But before I get slated for my comments, I only pointed to the review & readers can make their own opinion
Click to expand...

I think you are misreading my post .. the article in general was very good. But like most media content - has some 'editorial errors'. My communication to YBW was after the publication and I received no response for my efforts. But RYA and CA were appreciative of my input to their committees and groups.

The Fuel QC test was made in 2011 ... if you go to the bottom of the article - the date is clearly shown.

"As published in the May 2011 issue of PBO. To find more archived articles browse our online copy service or call Holly Powell on 01202 440832. "

The 2016 date at top of article is just a rehash and reprint of the old article.
I know of the test anyway - as Soltron was at the time pressing me to test in my labs. I can also say that at the time many labs were reluctant to get involved for commercial reasons. By 2016 Soltron as a label was well gone.

I do not knock the test results - they are valid and to be commended. My point was that fundamental errors in descriptions of 'Bugs', CFPP were apparent. Second that the test used was not the industry standard test at the time.

With regard to :

It must be very difficult for PBO to do any test without someone telling them that the test was totally wrong. There is always one. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I take that as an insult I'm afraid. Consider that I have more than 35yrs experience in this field and still today am involved in Fuel Blending / transportation. Not only that but having set-up Petrochem Labs for various Multi National Inspection Co's ... setup and owned in my own company's. I may have an insight into this matter.
Nowhere did I say the test used was wrong ... I said that the Industry Standard Test was different and covered ALL Bugs incl Yeasts and Molds ... which Luminosimeter does not.
 
so , both my tanks were clean and no signs of water . i have stored the diesel in clear containers , i would like to use the diesel again and not just put it in the car , question is , accepting the possability of some water being " suspended " how long would be reasonable to allow for obvious visible settling in the containers ..
 
cherod said:
so , both my tanks were clean and no signs of water . i have stored the diesel in clear containers , i would like to use the diesel again and not just put it in the car , question is , accepting the possability of some water being " suspended " how long would be reasonable to allow for obvious visible settling in the containers ..
Click to expand...


All petroleum has suspended water that does not drop out except a fraction due to change of temperature as example.

Do not read into this 'suspended' water problems that are actually not there.

If the diesel appears Clear and Bright - then use it ..

OK ... I have posted this many times over many years :

Storage of Fuel especially Gasoline and Kerosine / High Grade Diesels should be stored in well sealed dark containers and out of heat / light.
There are 3 factors that affect fuel in storage other than 'bugs' : Heat, Light and Oxygen.
 
pvb said:
The guy has apologised. Can't you accept that?
Click to expand...

I note that SINCE my post - his post has been edited, but I see no apology.

In fact I never expected any apology.

I find it again that you choose to speak for others ? I am sure that DB can speak for himself. I do not want another thread to have your / my posts deleted because of a spat ... OK ?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: pvb
well boys , thank you all for you words of wisdom and encouragement ,, started both my engines this afty , all good (y)
( may i close this thread now )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top