Diesel bug in Brighton marina?

[BrendanS]

But what about a clear section of fuel feed pipe exposed to ultraviolet light? Could this not be beneficial, would it not interfere with the DNA of the bacteria? You could enlarge the pipe dia through the chamber to reduce resistance to flow which would also reduce the velocity? Just a thought that popped into my head! Would exposure to UV adversely affect the diesel?

Not realistically. UV can have an impact on bug growth, but when used on a moving stream of liquid, has negligible impact, unless you have a humongous UV source, which again, to get the required intensity, just wouldn't fit into a boat system (and I mean humongous to get the levels required to affect cell growth in a small tube)

There is also the issue that almost no material known to man would suit the tubing required without also becoming UV affected, as it would need to be diesel resistant, not fracture under stress and normal seagoing conditions, be almost 100% UV transparent, and not cloud or be other wise degraded by extreme UV

 

[GerryM]

I've yet to see any magnetic field provided by a device small enough to fit into a boat without some pretty interesting physics and engineering, that would have a powerful enough field to even marginally affect a bacterial or fungal cell wall. Given that the bug would be passing at a rate of knots past the device in the fuel, the effect would be even less.

Lab tests on bacteria growing in magnetic fields have shown that even very intense fields, with superconducting magnets, or NMR, have little effect on cell growth, and certainly don't blast cells in to particles.

The effectiveness of the device has nothing to do with the 'strength' of the magnets. A single magnet on it's own will probably have little effect as you pointed out.
Key to the operation of the device is the fact that the field MUST be oscillating. This is achieved by porting the fuel around three stationary donut shaped magnets which effectively causes 24 changes in magnetic polarity in a single pass. Microorganisms cannot react fast enough to the oscillations and effectively 'rupture' as a result. The kill rate efficiency is 97.6% in one pass.

A good explanation of the process is in a US Coast Guard Report from as far back as 1996.USCG Report

There's also a report on why magnets kill bugs at : Bug report

 

[BrendanS]

A good explanation of the process is in a US Coast Guard Report from as far back as 1996.USCG Report

There's also a report on why magnets kill bugs at : Bug report

No, not good, just old O level biology. Not sure what level they teach such things at these days.

The links are not peer reviewed articles in a decent scientific journal, and the methodology is flawed to say the least. No scientist would accept either link as acceptable proof, and you will struggle to find any peer reviewed articles in high level journals. I've looked previously many times, and there are few that will support your views

 

[markdj]

We had a tank in an Arvor that had black diesel in it. A dose of Soltron and 2 weeks later we changed the primary filter, started the engine and haven't looked back since.

Have further treated the tank after refuelling and no bug.

We also changed the fuel filler cap as rain and sea water sat in the lid - this is the most likely source of water intake to all fuel tanks.


Mark
www.boatdoctorni.com

 

[BrendanS]

Condensation is a primary cause of water in fuel tanks. Impossible to stop, as air enters containing water vapour in just about any system. Keeping the tank full is about the only way to stop condensation, and water from the fuel filler cap is probably low in most peoples systems.

Even without a water interface, some types of bug will grow anyway, so keeping water out of the tank does not mean you won't have a bug growth.

 

[SeaDave]

How can a bug block injectors? It's a bacterium surely, and as such in the region of nanometres long.

 

[RIB_imposter]

SeaDave - bacteria are typically more like a micron than a nanometer. One on its own wouldn't block an injector but they can clump together in lumps which will block filters etc. One of the more common (or commonly problematic) bugs forms horrible stuff a bit like very fine cotton wool. It has been responsible for bringing down aircraft in the past.

Gerry - if you want to prove scientifically that your system does work then PM me - our microbiology laboratory has the competence to undertake this sort of work on an impartial basis. We would be happy to provide data suitable for peer reviewed publication or e.g. to support marketing or an article in the marine press. We would be looking to demonstrate the reduction in count under normal opperating conditions, as well as the long term implications for boats that are used say only once a week for a few hours. e.g. a 97.6% reduction means for every 1000 bacteria 24 survive. In ideal conditions each one can double its number in 20 minutes - so negating any benefit (they could be back to the original count before you've drunk a couple of pints in the bar at the marina). However we would be happy to gather and interpret the data.

 

[Refueler]

Take your point but used the last boat in exactly the same way for five years without a hint of problem. I really appreciate your comments as always but cannot think its as simple as low usage over the winter. If thats the case how come there was no hint when a VP dealer did the checks in the Spring. If it was ok then what has changed since - except we have used the boat THEN topped up the tanks.

The problem was spotted by a very experienced guy who manouvred the boat off the boat lift. (I was up North!!) He immediately noticed one engine sluggish. The same guy took the boat from the mooring to the boat lift for lift out a few weeks ago and noticed NO problem, so the worst of it may have happened very recently. What do you make of that?

Please explain checks that VP agent did to state clean of bugs .... Very interested to know how he did that ...

When I get the answer - I'll tell you what it really means.

 

[GerryM]

No, not good, just old O level biology. Not sure what level they teach such things at these days.

Brendan, are you admitting to being out of touch with current trends in biology teaching ? For most people starting out on adult life I would have thought that 'old O level biology' would have delivered sufficient understanding of how the birds and bees functioned.

The links are not peer reviewed articles in a decent scientific journal, and the methodology is flawed to say the least. No scientist would accept either link as acceptable proof, and you will struggle to find any peer reviewed articles in high level journals. I've looked previously many times, and there are few that will support your views

In relation to the links you have looked at, if the methodology is as flawed as you state I would be very interested in hearing your opinion as to the correct procedures to be followed.

De-Bug works. It's been a worldwide commercial success for the past twenty years and it achieved this without having to rely on the approval of the scientific community - results and word of mouth from boat owners did that.

The world is big enough to allow anecdotal evidence co-exist with scientific opinion and everything in between - that's what allows people the freedom to make up their own minds rather than have it made up for them by the higher echelons of the scientific community.

 

[BrendanS]

I'm not sure that the fact that I haven't been to a biology class in school in quite a while is in any way relevant. I'm far more up to date with current biology than any class taught in school.

The bug report article is a very simplistic piece about how bacterial membranes work. No research, no original science, just a bad condensation of known principles, and leaving out some very important bits. The membrane pores will not be affected by a very brief magnetic affect, it would have to occur over many hours, probably days. Real research shows that only some bacteria are affected, not all, and it takes VERY intense fields to have a discernable effect, and it doesn't rupture or kill nearly 100% of cells as the claims for this type of device make.

The coastguard article is a sales article written by someone who works for the manufacturer of De-Bug.

If you want to be taken seriously, then you would need to create an experiment on each of the various bacteria and fungi which cause 'bug' in diesel tanks. In controlled conditions, pass diesel containing various concentrations of the bug grown in the diesel, through the magnetic field through tubes similar to those found in diesel fuel systems in boats (there are different types) for similar periods of time and fuel flow found in normal boat fuel systems, and measure the 'kill rate' compared to an identical system without the magnets. Repeat many times until you have a statistically valid result.

Write up the experiment, and send it to a reputable scientific journal, not a mickey mouse one that will publish anything you send them, and it will be peer reviewed by people expert in that field of research.

Then and only then, will you have results you can confidently use in advertising.

The fact that the product has been on sale for years means nothing. Just look at how a major fuel treatment brand had their advertising wings clipped over their claims, and they were pretty much a household name. Can't be bothered to find the links, I've put them on here many times before.

 

[RIB_imposter]

If you want to be taken seriously, then you would need to create an experiment on each of the various bacteria and fungi which cause 'bug' in diesel tanks. In controlled conditions, pass diesel containing various concentrations of the bug grown in the diesel, through the magnetic field through tubes similar to those found in diesel fuel systems in boats (there are different types) for similar periods of time and fuel flow found in normal boat fuel systems, and measure the 'kill rate' compared to an identical system without the magnets. Repeat many times until you have a statistically valid result.

Brendan, Gerry sent me some more information than he posted here - including reports from ICI and Shell who have carried out exactly the sort of experiment you are referring to with this system many years ago - apparently with positive results. I've only skimmed it briefly today - but prima facie it does provide the data you are looking for. Its not "peer reviewed" per se, but is apparently independent research by credible organisations. That data is no longer "recent, unpublished work" and so is unlikely to be of interest to the scientific community as such. It also doesn't address the issue of "why it works" as you originally asked - merely empirical evidence that it appears to work (and only when the magnets are present). I would caveat everything I have written by saying I have not had time to fully digest the reports, nor check if the flow rates etc are relevant in a small boat setting.

 

[Refueler]

Brendan, Gerry sent me some more information than he posted here - including reports from ICI and Shell who have carried out exactly the sort of experiment you are referring to with this system many years ago - apparently with positive results. I've only skimmed it briefly today - but prima facie it does provide the data you are looking for. Its not "peer reviewed" per se, but is apparently independent research by credible organisations. That data is no longer "recent, unpublished work" and so is unlikely to be of interest to the scientific community as such. It also doesn't address the issue of "why it works" as you originally asked - merely empirical evidence that it appears to work (and only when the magnets are present). I would caveat everything I have written by saying I have not had time to fully digest the reports, nor check if the flow rates etc are relevant in a small boat setting.

My Lab does Bug testing as a routine and we have been approached to FIT magnetic based systems to our truck .... even to my boat. We have checked all data and even run before / after tests and find that they do not work. I am not about to waste the money they want for the gear !! It's NOT cheap !!

Brendan is right - the bugs are not only water based but also some strains do not require water at all ... NOT even suspended ppm moisture. These are SRB's ... Sulphur Reducing Bacteria.
Second all fuels carry organisms ... heavy fuels, lubricating oils, kerosines etc. as well as diesels. For some reason Diesel issues seem to be more prevalent.

As to bugs getting resistant to treatments - that is always possible, as it's possible for them to get resistant to any form of zapper ! It is also why I advocate NOT dosing every tank of fuel (apart from cost as well !).

Final comment .... the LIVE bug is not the problem. It's the DEAD bug that is. They collect and build up a sludge that clogs filters and can eventually overcome the filter system --- clog lines, pumps and injectors.
Many of you lot out there probably have a layer of crud in bottom of your fuel tanks ... like I had. I changed fuel when my boat came out here to standard ULSD road diesel for early part ... the solvents and various components in the blend lifted the tank crud in bad weather and overcame my filters / inj. pump .... causing me loss of engine. Lucky I'm a sailboat and managed to get in under sail. I then syphoned of my tank and spent time trying to get at bottom ... even though I only had a small access where the level gauge fitted ... I managed to dislodge a reasonable volume of crud. My tank is 82ltrs max .. I reckon I got about 6 ltrs of sludge crud out ... despite checks previous that indicated a good tank.

 

[RIB_imposter]

My Lab does Bug testing as a routine and we have been approached to FIT magnetic based systems to our truck .... even to my boat. We have checked all data and even run before / after tests and find that they do not work..

Perhaps you would be good enough to share the method/data/findings with the rest of the community so people can make reasoned judgements. There is evidence from independent parties on the web which suggests that to some extent these devices work in some circumstances where they have been tested. An in depth reading of the reports is perhaps not as good as the "headlines" but there is still data in some studies by independent organisations who would appear to have no vested interest in the commercial success of the device which says put this in a contaminated system and the contamination level drops compared to a control system without the magnets. I'm not sure there is any data (for or against) which replicates typical leisure boat usage (e.g. 4-8 hrs per weekend for 10-20 weekends of the year).

 

[BrendanS]

The problem is that this sort of anecdotal evidence is often from people who have installed the system, so have a vested interest in convincing their company that they have spent money well, or by people that don't understand statistics or controls, and find that putting the magnets in reduces something, when an altogether different reason is the cause, but they have no methodology to show it.

I have yet to see any correctly performed research which show that magnets have any significant effect, and I would have to see these reports you mention to understand what methodology was used. It's very easy to do bad science, and produce results that convince the people obtaining the results, until it is peer reviewed, and the mistakes pointed out.

 

[RIB_imposter]

Brendan,

the reports are all on the manufacurer's website in NZ. Some of it is not entirely convincing - but there was at least one report which whilst not being as detailed as I would have liked - actually did seem to suggest that in that particular setup the system did have a biocidal effect over that of the control.

Interestingly I work in a not entirely dissimilar world - and whilst we have lots of "scientific" evidence - we get told that what matters is the real life case studies!

All the real life "case studies" of this product are high use applications - and so not directly comparable to leisure use.

Its equally as unscientific to claim that a system doesn't work without having studied it or the test data - as it is to claim that it can work! I agree with you that if someone came to me with the design on paper I would suggest that I don't see how it can work. But I wouldn't declare that it doesn't work without reviewing the data and preferably testing it myself.