LOST JEEPS
http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/

Low-cost CCV diverter/trap (CCV DT)
http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=41637		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  hankdz [ Sat Mar 28, 2009 1:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Low-cost CCV diverter/trap (CCV DT)
I've been using a clear polyvinyl 3/4 inch ID hose from the CCV puck into a 2 liter plastic juice bottle to trap the CCV crap. It vented the gases to the atmosphere under the hood as there was no cover on the juice jug. I found that not only oil and soot were accumulating, but also water. It appears that there is water vapor included in the vent stream from the crankcase. That is likely what has been freezing as described in other threads. That process worked, however, I did not like the aroma from the vented gases.
I have just added a low-cost CCV Diverter/Trap (CCV DT) to the mix and removed the poly hose and juice jug. In the process of developing the CCV DT I looked for off-the-shelf low cost parts that, when assembled, would be out of the way and not clutter the engine compartment.
The parts include:
one 16 ounce HDPE dispensing bottle, US Plastics part #66099. I purchased five of them for a total of $13.82 including S&H. So each cost is $2.76 w/S&H. They came with caps that I did not use:
two 3/4 inch plastic hose barbs with lawn hose thread. Cost $1.88 each from Lowe's. They are inserted into the openings of the dispensing bottle. I wound some teflon tape around the barbs to tighten them in the openings so the clamps would not crush the bottle openings;
four 3/4 inch water hose plastic fittings at $1.49 each from Lowe's. They are used to connect the CCV DT hoses to the bottle with the hose barbs. Two at the bottle and two where the factory hose is connected to the new hose extension that brings the gases from the bottle to the air intake. I had these on hand, new prices might be higher, and I used two of them as substitute for a barbed connector explained below;
four 7/16 to 29/32 hose clamps. I purchased a bag of ten from Lowe's at $7.07 so the cost to the installation was $2.83;
I used lava rock as an absorbent, shredded paper as a buffer and cotton balls as the final gas filter element. I used approximately 1/2 pound of lava rock from a seven pound bag that cost $3.97 at Lowe's. The shredded paper is office waste, so no cost. The three or four cotton balls came from a bag of a thousand bought at CVS Pharmacy for $1.89 about six years ago -- cost negligible.
Total cost is under $20 for one each CCV DT.
The Hose is another matter. I was only able to locate some expensive high pressure hose at a local hydraulic hose manufacturer assembler. Possibly for those who live in larger metro areas, less expensive hose might be available. My only criterion for the hose was that it not be damaged by oil. The manager found a remnant piece of 300 psi 3/4 inch ID hose from which he sold me six feet for $25.77, that included a discount of about $40 from the normal price. I used about four feet of the hose.
Assembly process:
The first step was to break enough lava rock to fit through the bottle opening to approximately half fill the bottle. That process created a lot of lava rock dust. I was very careful to clean the remaining pieces before placing them through the bottle opening and after inserting them into the large compartment of the CCV DT bottle to shake the bottle upside down to remove any dust that made it by my first cleansing process. No need to filter diesel soot and then wind up with lava rock dust in its place.
The next step was to fill the remaining space in the cavity with shredded paper. I stuffed paper through the opening to fill the remaining eight, or so ounce space left after inserting the lava rock. I am thinking the paper will keep the lave rock settled on the bottom of the container so they don't bounce around in transit over rough surfaces.
The third step was to loosely insert three or four cotton balls in the neck of the bottle to act as a last step filter.
Fourth step was to wind teflon tape around both hose barbs so they fit snugly into the bottle necks, put a piece of mesh strainer over the barb that will vent the gas to keep any cotton from entering the air intake, put the hose barbs into the bottle necks and then clamp the hose barbs in place with the hose clamps. That finished the manufacturing process for the CCV DT.
Assembly into the CRD:
I then approached the hosing issue. I fit the CCV DT into the space on the passenger side of the engine compartment that is in front of the firewall next to the fender. It was a perfect snug fit. I did not attach the CCV DT with any fasteners. It sets in the space comfortably and snug so that no fastening seems to be needed at this time.
Once the CCV DT was located in its resting place I measured for hose lengths. I cut each piece a couple of inches longer than I thought would be needed then adjusted after fitting the hose connectors into the hose ends and assembling the whole apparatus. I used the plastic hose clamps on the ends of the hoses attached to the CCV DT and the steel worm drive hose clamps for the connection of the new hose to the factory hose. I had forgotten to purchase a 3/4 inch barb connector to mate the two pieces so I am temporarily using a male and female water hose connector for that joint. The connection to the CCV puck was merely sliding the new hose onto the puck's spout. I didn't clamp it to allow for a high pressure relief which is likely why the factory hose was not clamped to the puck's spout either.
Flow
The flow is from the puck to the small side of the CCV DT. The small side connects to the large side through a column to the bottom of the large side. The large side is used to collect the drippings and to allow the gases to vent up through the lava rock, paper and cotton balls and to enter the new hose piece that is connected to the factory hose to the air intake.
That's the whole saga. It took me 2 1/2 hours from open hood to close hood including breaking the lava rock. I have three pictures; one of the parts, one of the install before putting the CCV DT into its resting place and one of the whole thing ready to close the hood. I would post them except I don't know how. If someone could PM me with instructions I will do that.
Alternative location
I also realize some of you might have the SEGR in the place that I put the CCV DT. If you might want to replicate this you will need to locate another place for the CCV DT. I saw one Provent installation posted on this forum that had it on the other side of the compartment between the brake booster and the fender. I haven't installed my SEGR yet but I plan to put it inside the cabin. I'm thinking in front of the first mate as I noticed the space under dash in front of the helmsman is crowded.
Author:  Squeeto [ Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:12 pm ]
Post subject: 
Interesting. So when enough oil/water has accumulated you tip/squeeze it back into the small chamber to remove?

Quote:
I would post them except I don't know how.


Sign up to photobucket. You can upload pics directly from your computer with one click (well almost) and photobucket gives you the IMG code to paste in your post.
Author:  hankdz [ Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
Interesting. So when enough oil/water has accumulated you tip/squeeze it back into the small chamber to remove?

I hadn't thought about that aspect. I was thinking that the mess would be so crappy that I would just assemble another bottle. I suppose your idea might work. AS I've just begun down this road, Ill try your concept when there is a buch of "stuff" in the large chamber to see how that works.

Thanks for the idea and i will try to get the pics up.
Author:  bewestro [ Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
Hi Hankdz,

It would be interesting to see this thing! I am currently using something much like you had before, using a 2 liter pop bottle with a bunch of holes punched around the top for venting. I just took it off for the first time today, after putting it on late last summer, maybe 5k ago. It's nearly full! Almost all water, with a just a thick skin of oily sludge floating on top. Another couple months (or weeks?) and it would have been burbling out the vent holes, running down the sides making a mess. I shudder to think how much crap passed through the intake in the first 25k, before this. Yeesh, it must have been gallons.

With the pop bottle almost at the bottom of the vehicle, I don't seem to get too much stink, so it doesn't bother me, but your idea still sounds interesting. I've never posted pictures here before either, but I think first you have to load them onto an image hosting site like Photobucket or Imageshack, and then link to them from there. I know there are instructions on how to do this in the Frequently Asked Questions category.

For now I'm just gonna screw on a new bottle, but this is food for thought.

Thanks for the writeup!
--Ben
Author:  Squeeto [ Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
tip/squeeze it back into the small chamber


But might be a little difficult to squeeze if it is packed with lava rock. Dunno.
Author:  hankdz [ Mon Apr 13, 2009 5:21 pm ]
Post subject:  CCV DT (substitute Provent) images
I think I've finally found a picture hosting website that I have been able to understand enough to load some pics. It has also actually accepted pics from my computer. I don't know whether it is because I use Apple Macintosh hard-and soft-ware or whether it's just my lack of understanding, but none of the other sites have allowed me to upload pictures.

Try this:

http://img519.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=diverterhose.jpg

If it doesn't work, send me your e-mail address in a PM and I'll send the pics directly to anyone who is interested.

Thanks.

Hank
Author:  ATXKJ [ Mon Apr 13, 2009 8:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
try this

Image

Image

Image


(display image - right click - scroll down to properties - copy location: entire string
on your LOST post click IMG paste location string click IMG again - submit post)
Author:  Squeeto [ Tue Apr 14, 2009 12:09 pm ]
Post subject: 
Many here run clear pvc in and out of the filter to see dirty hose in, clean hose out.
Maybe you could have the input to the filter on the large chamber instead. If the small chamber gets dirty, you know that your filter isn't doing its job anymore.

Also, with the first designs posted around this forum, people were concerned about keeping all openings at 3/4 inch. I am not sure if the restriction in the bottle with have an adverse effect.
Author:  hankdz [ Tue Apr 14, 2009 5:21 pm ]
Post subject:  PVC clear vs oil proof opaque, and other comments
I used clear PVC as my first stab at just getting the crap out of the air intake, see my first posting above. The problem with PVC is it isn't petroleum proof. It gets soft and mushy after exposure to pet products. So I wanted to replace it as soon as possible. The hose I settled on is due to supply restrictions in our little corner of the world; however, it is oli proof.

I haven't seen a problem with the small pipe between chambers. The crap enters the small chamber and flows down the tube. The air just goes by. I have not clamped the hose to the puck just in case there is a pressure issue; however, that has not been the case. If the pressure builds, as I think that is the reason for the concern about restricting the size, the hose should just come off the puck just like it would have with the original factory design.

The selection of chambers is due to their capacity. I want the large chamber to accume the debris and have room to accept a filter medium. The small chamber could not do that for very long and it would be forcing the crap uphill to enter what ever filter medium one could place therein. Gravity and capacity would be working against it.

Thanks for the comments. I am about to make up another with course steel wool as the filter or adsorption medium. Another member suggested that and it makes sense from both the point that steel wool would have more surface area to accume the crap than the lava rocks, and I wouldn't need wory about any potential dust from the lava.
Author:  UFO [ Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:52 pm ]
Post subject: 
Even better if you can get some stainless steel scrub pads. Regular steel wool rusts like crazy.
Author:  hankdz [ Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:26 pm ]
Post subject:  CCV Trap update
Hi to those who have followed this one.
Update as of today. Have changed the trap twice since first installation. The cotton filler material was pretty much clogged after about 1,000 miles.
Another member suggested that I use steel wool, so the next one used that. That worked much better. At 3,000 miles I changed the filter set up again. Used steel wool and changed the intake outlet hoses around. Intake into small chamber and outlet from large chamber. Will post on that when I have some results.
I just read another posting on a home made Provent. It uses PVC fittings and tubing as well as some low pressure hydraulic hose. I would like to see how that performs in the future. It looks more compact than my design and simpler to drain. The thing in which I am most interested is whether the oil is actually separated from the gaseous part of the vapor. My design traps the oil and water from the vapor, but there is some carry over into the outlet hose and thereby into the intake manifold. It isn't much but there is some.
Author:  RJM [ Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: CCV Trap update
hankdz wrote:
Hi to those who have followed this one.
Update as of today. Have changed the trap twice since first installation. The cotton filler material was pretty much clogged after about 1,000 miles.
Another member suggested that I use steel wool, so the next one used that. That worked much better. At 3,000 miles I changed the filter set up again. Used steel wool and changed the intake outlet hoses around. Intake into small chamber and outlet from large chamber. Will post on that when I have some results.
I just read another posting on a home made Provent. It uses PVC fittings and tubing as well as some low pressure hydraulic hose. I would like to see how that performs in the future. It looks more compact than my design and simpler to drain. The thing in which I am most interested is whether the oil is actually separated from the gaseous part of the vapor. My design traps the oil and water from the vapor, but there is some carry over into the outlet hose and thereby into the intake manifold. It isn't much but there is some.
http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=42775&highlight=ccv+filter
Author:  mackruss [ Sat Sep 26, 2009 3:28 am ]
Post subject: 
ATXKJ wrote:
try this

Image

Image

Image


(display image - right click - scroll down to properties - copy location: entire string
on your LOST post click IMG paste location string click IMG again - submit post)


Are you allowing the blowby to run up the side of the container only :?:
Author:  flman [ Sat Sep 26, 2009 6:51 am ]
Post subject: 
Once the E-G-R is out of commission, why do you even need the prevent? The manifold no longer gunks up, I never had a problem with CCV oil in my TDI with the E-G-R out of commission. I would think the oil would disolve some of the previous E-G-R crap that was left behind?
Author:  RJM [ Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:53 am ]
Post subject: 
flman wrote:
Once the E-G-R is out of commission, why do you even need the prevent? The manifold no longer gunks up, I never had a problem with CCV oil in my TDI with the E-G-R out of commission. I would think the oil would disolve some of the previous E-G-R crap that was left behind?


With the EGR out of commission, soot in the itake is taken care of. The Provent or CCV filter takes out atomized blowby oil from the intake. Two completely different issues. the oil in the intake causes sensor problems and and attacks intake boots and intercooler hoses.
Author:  hankdz [ Sun Sep 27, 2009 5:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Alternative concept
I was meditating last night and the thought came to me that maybe another approach would work.
I started this thread and the diverter because I wanted to find a less expansive and just as good way to rid the intake of the crankcase fumes the way the Provent does. That was just a different way of looking at the way the Provent people solved the problem. What if the Provent model were ignored?
Just to let you know, when I meditate I'm not in a coma. I merely try to rid my mind of the things that have taken space for the previous while and let other things come into it. Here's what happened.
I was lying abed last night about midnight and all of a sudden the thought appeared, "Why not the exhaust instead of the intake?"
Here's as far as I've taken the thought. What if I were to put a hole in the exhaust side, say into the manifold or the exhaust pipe? What if I were to weld a 3/4 inch NPT nipple into that hole? What if I were to connect a piece of low pressure hydraulic hose from the CCV puck to that nipple and that's it? Wouldn't the crap from the CCV puck go into the exhaust and then disappear out the tail pipe?
I know someone would need to design the optimum angle at which the nipple enters the exhaust so there wouldn't be any backup into the puck. I think the exhaust would create enough vacuum to draw the CCV crap out of the puck, but does anyone have any other concerns that might make this idea implausible?
Any thoughts on this?
Love to hear some input.
Hank
Author:  hankdz [ Sun Sep 27, 2009 5:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Alternative concept
I was meditating last night and the thought came to me that maybe another approach would work.
I started this thread and the diverter because I wanted to find a less expansive and just as good way to rid the intake of the crankcase fumes the way the Provent does. That was just a different way of looking at the way the Provent people solved the problem. What if the Provent model were ignored?
Just to let you know, when I meditate I'm not in a coma. I merely try to rid my mind of the things that have taken space for the previous while and let other things come into it. Here's what happened.
I was lying abed last night about midnight and all of a sudden the thought appeared, "Why not the exhaust instead of the intake?"
Here's as far as I've taken the thought. What if I were to put a hole in the exhaust side, say into the manifold or the exhaust pipe? What if I were to weld a 3/4 inch NPT nipple into that hole? What if I were to connect a piece of low pressure hydraulic hose from the CCV puck to that nipple and that's it? Wouldn't the crap from the CCV puck go into the exhaust and then disappear out the tail pipe?
I know someone would need to design the optimum angle at which the nipple enters the exhaust so there wouldn't be any backup into the puck. I think the exhaust would create enough vacuum to draw the CCV crap out of the puck, but does anyone have any other concerns that might make this idea implausible?
Any thoughts on this?
Love to hear some input.
Hank
Author:  hankdz [ Sun Sep 27, 2009 5:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Alternative concept
I was meditating last night and the thought came to me that maybe another approach would work.
I started this thread and the diverter because I wanted to find a less expensive and just as good way to rid the intake of the crankcase fumes the way the Provent does. That was just a different way of looking at the way the Provent people solved the problem. What if the Provent model were ignored?
Just to let you know, when I meditate I'm not in a coma. I merely try to rid my mind of the things that have taken space for the previous while and let other things come into it. Here's what happened.
I was lying abed last night about midnight and all of a sudden the thought appeared, "Why not the exhaust instead of the intake?"
Here's as far as I've taken the thought. What if I were to put a hole in the exhaust side, say into the manifold or the exhaust pipe? What if I were to weld a 3/4 inch NPT nipple into that hole? What if I were to connect a piece of low pressure hydraulic hose from the CCV puck to that nipple and that's it? Wouldn't the crap from the CCV puck go into the exhaust and then disappear out the tail pipe?
I know someone would need to design the optimum angle at which the nipple enters the exhaust so there wouldn't be any backup into the puck. I think the exhaust would create enough vacuum to draw the CCV crap out of the puck, but does anyone have any other concerns that might make this idea implausible?
Any thoughts on this?
Love to hear some input.
Hank
Author:  Squeeto [ Sun Sep 27, 2009 10:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
Oil shot into the exhaust? I think that is how the skywriters do it.

Maybe include a push button operated solenoid to release it when someone is tailgating.

Just having some fun with you :)
Author:  RJM [ Sun Sep 27, 2009 11:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Alternative concept
hankdz wrote:
I was meditating last night and the thought came to me that maybe another approach would work.
I started this thread and the diverter because I wanted to find a less expensive and just as good way to rid the intake of the crankcase fumes the way the Provent does. That was just a different way of looking at the way the Provent people solved the problem. What if the Provent model were ignored?
Just to let you know, when I meditate I'm not in a coma. I merely try to rid my mind of the things that have taken space for the previous while and let other things come into it. Here's what happened.
I was lying abed last night about midnight and all of a sudden the thought appeared, "Why not the exhaust instead of the intake?"
Here's as far as I've taken the thought. What if I were to put a hole in the exhaust side, say into the manifold or the exhaust pipe? What if I were to weld a 3/4 inch NPT nipple into that hole? What if I were to connect a piece of low pressure hydraulic hose from the CCV puck to that nipple and that's it? Wouldn't the crap from the CCV puck go into the exhaust and then disappear out the tail pipe?
I know someone would need to design the optimum angle at which the nipple enters the exhaust so there wouldn't be any backup into the puck. I think the exhaust would create enough vacuum to draw the CCV crap out of the puck, but does anyone have any other concerns that might make this idea implausible?
Any thoughts on this?
Love to hear some input.
Hank
This is a an earlier post from gmctd: "Racers do that with free-flowing exhaust piping - tube insertion can be done such that flowing exhaust gasses create a slight vacuum on the "pitot-tube" probe, aiding crankcase blowby - however, there is little danger of burning the effluent that far past the soot trap in the exhaust pipe, as cooling thru the long tubing length prior to insertion cools the vapors, allowing the liquids to separate - could be fairly messy in the long run, considering the high volume of blowby from this 4cyl - closer to the turbine outlet, exhaust back-pressure can become problematical if the soot trap is not removed"

Not a good idea.
_________________
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/