Re: [Biofuel] quality test questions
Wow, great info thanks for the cookbook type info that really helped me see how you did this. A while back I read your mentioning about this stirrer - heater. I could not find it on your site and didn't have time so I refrained from asking more details. Now this finds me at the right time and with the type of directions that I really like. Gary - Original Message - From: Joe Street To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 12:20 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] quality test questions Hi Darryl;Sorry for the confusion. The point is that a good reaction will leave you with a good separation between the esters (fuel) and everything else which makes up the 'glycerin cocktail', and when water is introduced, there should be next to no third layer but the absolute thickness of the layer, if you see one, will depend on the dimensions of the container, all other factors being equal. As to the previous statements you made about inconsistent information on how to do the process, my best advice is to follow explicitly the instructions on the J2F website starting from the begining and you will do just fine.In my own journey of discovery I learned this. You cannot afford to cut corners. Don't be tempted to use less than accurate measures and think that it will be alright. There is no cheating. I found that my success depended a lot on how careful I was with the titration step. Also I found that when the 0.1% base solution was added there was a tendancy for some oil to drop out and I think this affected my accuracy. I built a stirrer to keep the liquid in the test tube very well agitated during the titration and this helped a lot as I could tell by the consistency when I repeated the titration several times. If you want a description of how to make a very low cost titration kit check my website at http://www.nonprofitfuel.ca/Titrator.html Get a pipette marked in 0.1ml increments and a control bulb and it will make things easy and very accurate, for an investment of about 30 bucks.Another huge factor for me in getting complete reactions once I scaled up from the one liter size was the discovery that the methoxide had to be injected into the inlet of the mixing pump. I had tried other methods of introducing the methoxide which were not very successful. Methoxide and oil do not mix easily. By introducing the methoxide at the pump inlet, the pump impeller ensured vigorous mixing which made a huge difference for me. With hindsight the instructions do say that thorough mixing is of critical importance but the point is I thought that recirculation alone would be enough to do the job and clearly it wasn't with my setup. If you stick to what the instructions tell you it will work. Same goes for the quality tests. If you get quick separation and do not develop a third layer and the water stays clear you have good fuel. This is subjective and the absolute time required for the settling will vary depending on the severity of the agitation, but overall the statement holds. So as to your last question if after 3 or 4 washes your water is coming out clear then it sounds great. Perhaps what you saw as a 5 cm layer was a mixture of water and oil due to excessive agitation which just took a little longer to settle. Did you shake for more than ten seconds?JoeDarryl West wrote: I have found this an interesting discussion, which has left me a little more confused about what I need to do. I am gathering the take home message from my original question is that the Dr Peppers technique might not be the best one and that I need to look more at my over all process to reduce the amount of unprocessed materials. Could you guys maybe suggest what are the best measurements (recipes) to use to try and achieve a nearly complete reaction with virgin oil. I am very new to this and am really just looking to get it right before trying to scale it all up, but I am finding that there is some much information out there and a lot of it seems to be inconsistent with other things that I read. Also the container that I did the quality wash was a 250ml soda bottle. I went back and had a look at it again yesterday and the 5cm layer is now almost none existent .so I guess going back to my original question is would this be ok to wash, dry and use? Cheers Darryl From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Joe StreetSent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 5:56 AMTo: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject: Re: [Biofuel] quality test questions Todd;With all due respect, I think you missed my point. I agree that we should strive for a paper thi
Re: [Biofuel] quality test questions
Hello Joe >Keith; > >Well thanks for your kind words r.e. my penchant for sharing info. :-) Not just kind, it's most important, IMHO. There are those that just take, plenty of them, but I don't think it matters and nor do they, just as long as other people go on sharing, which is what real humans normally do all the time anyway. >I got to tell you it warmed a corner in my little pinko commieluver >heart to hear it. I guess that proves what I suspected all along, >that there is a reason for people to strive other than material or >monetary gain. Call it selfishness I guess LOL. I guess, but there's a whole world of difference between that kind of selfishness and the Thatcherist-Reaganite-Friedmanesque rendering (greed in drag). Let's just do it our way and see how well the greedy manage to thrive on trickle-up eh? >And that you are adding a link about it to your website.well I >also have to tell you I actually did a little victory dance right >here in my office when I read that news. Did you really? LOL! >Santa comes late sometimes it seemsand here I thought I might >suffer the karmic payback that I downed the milk and cookies my >daughter left out! Ah, you wicked person! What karmic payback might Santa have in store for me if I become an accessory after the fact? I'll have to modify the link, this man might indeed make a useful titration device but he steals his daughter's milk and cookies so on your own head be it. D'you think that'll let me off? Anyway it'll take a day or two to upload the link, I'll send you a pointer when done. >Thanks for making my day. You're most welcome. :-) Best Keith >Joe > > > >Keith Addison wrote: > >>Hi Joe >> >> >> >>>Hi Keith; >>> >>>Best wishes for the new year >>> >>> >> >>Thankyou, and to you and all. >> >> >> >>>and thanks for your tireless (seemingly) effort around here. >>> >>> >> >>You're most welcome, thanks again. In truth I haven't had much time >>for the list recently, we've been rushed off our feet for the last >>four months, every day we run out of time. Seems we're emerging now, >>most everything's done, we got there, can't believe it. >> >> >> >>>I hope it doesn't look like I am implying a good titration can't be >>>done without going to this length. That is not the case. >>> >>> >> >>I don't think you implied that, that's not what I was thinking, sorry >>if you thought it was. I guess I was thinking K.I.S.S., but that's a >>moveable feast. >> >> >> >>>I just wanted to share the idea incase anyone else wanted to give >>>it a whirl. >>> >>> >> >>I much admire your attitude to sharing and what you've said about it >>before, said and done. Would that more people saw it that way. But >>maybe enough do, for it to work and to spread, seems so. >> >> >> >>>Yes I know it looks too elaborate, but it really was quite simple to >>>put together and was done in less than a day. In the beginning, I >>>started out with 2 ml oil and 20 ml IPA in a 50 ml beaker standing >>>in a small wide mouth mason jar of hot water, stirring with a >>>popsicle stick in between dribbling the titrating solution. I'm >>>sure I could have continued with this. I did find it was a little >>>inconsistent but mostly I found it too fiddley. I'm just clumsy I >>>guess but I'm glad I put the (small relative to the rest of the >>>project) effort into my little kit. Now I have both hands free and >>>can dribble the solution smoothly without interruption just watching >>>for the indicator to go off, and get very repeatable results which >>>didn't used to be the case before. Probably my technique I guess >>>(I'm less dangerous with a soldering iron than a pipette) and as you >>>were saying in a recent post about building experience, I might have >>>got it down to a routine and worked the variability out of it given >>>enough time, but this way I made my life easier by fixing two of the >>>variables; the heat is always consistent, as the agitation is, and >>>besides, it helps keep me from making a mess :) >>> >>> >> >>:-) >> >>Well, you see, I'm not too happy with a soldering iron. Not that >>soldering's a problem but I'll have nothing to do with those evil >>black magic runes and so on that wicked wizards who're probably out >>to hex me refer to so deceptively as "electronic circuit diagrams" >>even if I could figure out which way is up. My brother did amazing >>things with them it's true, like his "better fly-swatter" for >>instance (shudder), but then he was a wicked wizard. >> >>Anyway that was a much better sales pitch, I can see the attraction. >>Fewer variables, an easier life. Useful. Needs a link I think, for >>them as can tell a soldering iron from a wand or know someone who can >>(ie someone who knows how to use a wand). Will do. >> >>Thanks, take care >> >>Keith >> >> >> >> >>>Joe >>> >>> >>> >>>Keith Addison wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hello Joe Pardon the snip... >I found that my success depended a lot
Re: [Biofuel] quality test questions
Keith; Well thanks for your kind words r.e. my penchant for sharing info. I got to tell you it warmed a corner in my little pinko commieluver heart to hear it. I guess that proves what I suspected all along, that there is a reason for people to strive other than material or monetary gain. Call it selfishness I guess LOL. And that you are adding a link about it to your website.well I also have to tell you I actually did a little victory dance right here in my office when I read that news. Santa comes late sometimes it seemsand here I thought I might suffer the karmic payback that I downed the milk and cookies my daughter left out! Thanks for making my day. Joe Keith Addison wrote: Hi Joe Hi Keith; Best wishes for the new year Thankyou, and to you and all. and thanks for your tireless (seemingly) effort around here. You're most welcome, thanks again. In truth I haven't had much time for the list recently, we've been rushed off our feet for the last four months, every day we run out of time. Seems we're emerging now, most everything's done, we got there, can't believe it. I hope it doesn't look like I am implying a good titration can't be done without going to this length. That is not the case. I don't think you implied that, that's not what I was thinking, sorry if you thought it was. I guess I was thinking K.I.S.S., but that's a moveable feast. I just wanted to share the idea incase anyone else wanted to give it a whirl. I much admire your attitude to sharing and what you've said about it before, said and done. Would that more people saw it that way. But maybe enough do, for it to work and to spread, seems so. Yes I know it looks too elaborate, but it really was quite simple to put together and was done in less than a day. In the beginning, I started out with 2 ml oil and 20 ml IPA in a 50 ml beaker standing in a small wide mouth mason jar of hot water, stirring with a popsicle stick in between dribbling the titrating solution. I'm sure I could have continued with this. I did find it was a little inconsistent but mostly I found it too fiddley. I'm just clumsy I guess but I'm glad I put the (small relative to the rest of the project) effort into my little kit. Now I have both hands free and can dribble the solution smoothly without interruption just watching for the indicator to go off, and get very repeatable results which didn't used to be the case before. Probably my technique I guess (I'm less dangerous with a soldering iron than a pipette) and as you were saying in a recent post about building experience, I might have got it down to a routine and worked the variability out of it given enough time, but this way I made my life easier by fixing two of the variables; the heat is always consistent, as the agitation is, and besides, it helps keep me from making a mess :) :-) Well, you see, I'm not too happy with a soldering iron. Not that soldering's a problem but I'll have nothing to do with those evil black magic runes and so on that wicked wizards who're probably out to hex me refer to so deceptively as "electronic circuit diagrams" even if I could figure out which way is up. My brother did amazing things with them it's true, like his "better fly-swatter" for instance (shudder), but then he was a wicked wizard. Anyway that was a much better sales pitch, I can see the attraction. Fewer variables, an easier life. Useful. Needs a link I think, for them as can tell a soldering iron from a wand or know someone who can (ie someone who knows how to use a wand). Will do. Thanks, take care Keith Joe Keith Addison wrote: Hello Joe Pardon the snip... I found that my success depended a lot on how careful I was with the titration step. Also I found that when the 0.1% base solution was added there was a tendancy for some oil to drop out and I think this affected my accuracy. I built a stirrer to keep the liquid in the test tube very well agitated during the titration and this helped a lot as I could tell by the consistency when I repeated the titration several times. If you want a description of how to make a very low cost titration kit check my website at http://www.nonprofitfuel.ca/Titrator.html I'm sure it works well, but what puzzles me, and puzzled me when you first discussed this, is the test tube. Before you made your kit you were shaking it to agitate it, no? I suppose there's not much else you can do if you're using a test tube. Why not use something that's shaped right so you can stir it properly? If you don't have a suitable beaker an ordinary glass tumbler will do. We get a bit fancy, we use fine crystal glasses, rescued along with much else from Tokyo's "gomi" (rubbish) on its way to Tokyo Bay. They're about 1.5" wide at the bottom and about 4" tal
Re: [Biofuel] quality test questions
Hi Joe >Hi Keith; > >Best wishes for the new year Thankyou, and to you and all. >and thanks for your tireless (seemingly) effort around here. You're most welcome, thanks again. In truth I haven't had much time for the list recently, we've been rushed off our feet for the last four months, every day we run out of time. Seems we're emerging now, most everything's done, we got there, can't believe it. >I hope it doesn't look like I am implying a good titration can't be >done without going to this length. That is not the case. I don't think you implied that, that's not what I was thinking, sorry if you thought it was. I guess I was thinking K.I.S.S., but that's a moveable feast. >I just wanted to share the idea incase anyone else wanted to give it a whirl. I much admire your attitude to sharing and what you've said about it before, said and done. Would that more people saw it that way. But maybe enough do, for it to work and to spread, seems so. >Yes I know it looks too elaborate, but it really was quite simple to >put together and was done in less than a day. In the beginning, I >started out with 2 ml oil and 20 ml IPA in a 50 ml beaker standing >in a small wide mouth mason jar of hot water, stirring with a >popsicle stick in between dribbling the titrating solution. I'm >sure I could have continued with this. I did find it was a little >inconsistent but mostly I found it too fiddley. I'm just clumsy I >guess but I'm glad I put the (small relative to the rest of the >project) effort into my little kit. Now I have both hands free and >can dribble the solution smoothly without interruption just watching >for the indicator to go off, and get very repeatable results which >didn't used to be the case before. Probably my technique I guess >(I'm less dangerous with a soldering iron than a pipette) and as you >were saying in a recent post about building experience, I might have >got it down to a routine and worked the variability out of it given >enough time, but this way I made my life easier by fixing two of the >variables; the heat is always consistent, as the agitation is, and >besides, it helps keep me from making a mess :) :-) Well, you see, I'm not too happy with a soldering iron. Not that soldering's a problem but I'll have nothing to do with those evil black magic runes and so on that wicked wizards who're probably out to hex me refer to so deceptively as "electronic circuit diagrams" even if I could figure out which way is up. My brother did amazing things with them it's true, like his "better fly-swatter" for instance (shudder), but then he was a wicked wizard. Anyway that was a much better sales pitch, I can see the attraction. Fewer variables, an easier life. Useful. Needs a link I think, for them as can tell a soldering iron from a wand or know someone who can (ie someone who knows how to use a wand). Will do. Thanks, take care Keith >Joe > > > >Keith Addison wrote: > >>Hello Joe >> >>Pardon the snip... >> >> >> >> >> >>>I found that my success depended a lot on how careful I was with the >>>titration step. Also I found that when the 0.1% base solution was >>>added there was a tendancy for some oil to drop out and I think this >>>affected my accuracy. I built a stirrer to keep the liquid in the >>>test tube very well agitated during the titration and this helped a >>>lot as I could tell by the consistency when I repeated the titration >>>several times. If you want a description of how to make a very low >>>cost titration kit check my website >>>at http://www.nonprofitfuel.ca/Titrator.html >>> >>> >> >>I'm sure it works well, but what puzzles me, and puzzled me when you >>first discussed this, is the test tube. Before you made your kit you >>were shaking it to agitate it, no? I suppose there's not much else >>you can do if you're using a test tube. Why not use something that's >>shaped right so you can stir it properly? If you don't have a >>suitable beaker an ordinary glass tumbler will do. We get a bit >>fancy, we use fine crystal glasses, rescued along with much else from >>Tokyo's "gomi" (rubbish) on its way to Tokyo Bay. They're about 1.5" >>wide at the bottom and about 4" tall, strong but thin glass so it >>warms up quickly when you stand it in hot water, and with a thick >>bottom so it retains the heat well. Easy to stir with a chopstick, no >>problem at all, no need for anything complicated. >> >>Best >> >>Keith >> >> >> ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] quality test questions
Hi Keith; Best wishes for the new year and thanks for your tireless (seemingly) effort around here. I hope it doesn't look like I am implying a good titration can't be done without going to this length. That is not the case. I just wanted to share the idea incase anyone else wanted to give it a whirl. Yes I know it looks too elaborate, but it really was quite simple to put together and was done in less than a day. In the beginning, I started out with 2 ml oil and 20 ml IPA in a 50 ml beaker standing in a small wide mouth mason jar of hot water, stirring with a popsicle stick in between dribbling the titrating solution. I'm sure I could have continued with this. I did find it was a little inconsistent but mostly I found it too fiddley. I'm just clumsy I guess but I'm glad I put the (small relative to the rest of the project) effort into my little kit. Now I have both hands free and can dribble the solution smoothly without interruption just watching for the indicator to go off, and get very repeatable results which didn't used to be the case before. Probably my technique I guess (I'm less dangerous with a soldering iron than a pipette) and as you were saying in a recent post about building experience, I might have got it down to a routine and worked the variability out of it given enough time, but this way I made my life easier by fixing two of the variables; the heat is always consistent, as the agitation is, and besides, it helps keep me from making a mess :) Joe Keith Addison wrote: Hello Joe Pardon the snip... I found that my success depended a lot on how careful I was with the titration step. Also I found that when the 0.1% base solution was added there was a tendancy for some oil to drop out and I think this affected my accuracy. I built a stirrer to keep the liquid in the test tube very well agitated during the titration and this helped a lot as I could tell by the consistency when I repeated the titration several times. If you want a description of how to make a very low cost titration kit check my website at >http://www.nonprofitfuel.ca/Titrator.html I'm sure it works well, but what puzzles me, and puzzled me when you first discussed this, is the test tube. Before you made your kit you were shaking it to agitate it, no? I suppose there's not much else you can do if you're using a test tube. Why not use something that's shaped right so you can stir it properly? If you don't have a suitable beaker an ordinary glass tumbler will do. We get a bit fancy, we use fine crystal glasses, rescued along with much else from Tokyo's "gomi" (rubbish) on its way to Tokyo Bay. They're about 1.5" wide at the bottom and about 4" tall, strong but thin glass so it warms up quickly when you stand it in hot water, and with a thick bottom so it retains the heat well. Easy to stir with a chopstick, no problem at all, no need for anything complicated. Best Keith ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] quality test questions
Hello Joe Pardon the snip... >I found that my success depended a lot on how careful I was with the >titration step. Also I found that when the 0.1% base solution was >added there was a tendancy for some oil to drop out and I think this >affected my accuracy. I built a stirrer to keep the liquid in the >test tube very well agitated during the titration and this helped a >lot as I could tell by the consistency when I repeated the titration >several times. If you want a description of how to make a very low >cost titration kit check my website >at >http://www.nonprofitfuel.ca/Titrator.html I'm sure it works well, but what puzzles me, and puzzled me when you first discussed this, is the test tube. Before you made your kit you were shaking it to agitate it, no? I suppose there's not much else you can do if you're using a test tube. Why not use something that's shaped right so you can stir it properly? If you don't have a suitable beaker an ordinary glass tumbler will do. We get a bit fancy, we use fine crystal glasses, rescued along with much else from Tokyo's "gomi" (rubbish) on its way to Tokyo Bay. They're about 1.5" wide at the bottom and about 4" tall, strong but thin glass so it warms up quickly when you stand it in hot water, and with a thick bottom so it retains the heat well. Easy to stir with a chopstick, no problem at all, no need for anything complicated. Best Keith ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] quality test questions
gt;> Cheers >> >> Darryl >> >> >> >> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Joe Street >> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 04, 2006 5:56 AM >> *To:* Biofuel@sustainablelists.org >> *Subject:* Re: [Biofuel] quality test questions >> >> Todd; >> >> With all due respect, I think you missed my point. I agree that we >> should strive for a paper thin interface, ( and I find it is easily >> achievable with experience) but when you put information out there >> like 1mm is ok and 5 mm is relatively incomplete it is meaningless >> unless you give the dimensions of the container and volume of liquid. >> Someone down the road might read that (a newbie) and say it has to be >> 1 mm. Consider a batch reacted which has 1 liter total volume. If I >> put that in a 10 cm square vessel it will also be 10 cm high and a >> 1mm layer at the interface would equate to 10 ml of contaminant. Now >> if I just pour the whole thing into another vessel of equal volume >> but with a 1 cm square size (bottom) it will have to be 1000 cm tall >> to hold it, and the contamination layer (which is the same amount) >> will show up as a 10 cm thick layer. So here you have a 1mm vs 100 mm >> thickness difference on the same reaction, just because of a >> different shape of vessel, but in both cases the thickness of the >> contaminant is the same fraction of the overall height (assumes a >> vessel of uniform dimensions) and the same fraction of the volume. >> >> Joe >> >> Appal Energy wrote: >> >>Let's wake up here, at least for the moment Joe. >> >> >> >>Soda pop comes in multiple sized bottles, as do drums, tanks and >> >>buckets. Your problem isn't dependant upon whether or not your container >> >>was a 20 ounce, 1 liter or 2 liter jug. >> >> >> >>The thin interface layer of a completed reaction is the result of the >> >>direct interaction/contact between water and fuel, not the volume of the >> >>batch or the diameter of a reaction vessel. A thick "interface layer" is >> >>actually a heavy emulsion that is caused by the excessive presence of >> >>mono- and di-glycerides. >> >> >> >>A complete reaction? A thin interface layer, no matter the vessel geometry. >> >> >> >>An incomplete reaction? A heavy emulsion formation. Depending upon how >> >>poorly the reaction went to completion, you could end up with nearly an >> >>entire vessel of of emulsified glycerides. >> >> >> >>Todd Swearingen >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Joe Street wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>Hi Todd; >>> >>> >>> >>>When you talk about thickness of layers, is this with the Dr. Pepper >>> >>>size container? Someone using a shallow wide container would have a >>> >>>much worse condition (with a 1mm layer) than someone using a tall >>> >>>narrow container no? Maybe when giving this type of information we >>> >>>should talk about layer thickness as a fraction of the total vertical >>> >>>height in the container rather than give absolute measurements? >>> >>> >>> >>>Joe >>> >>> >>> >>>Appal Energy wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Daryl, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>The suggestion is that you understand precisely what it is that you're >>>> >>>>looking at when you see a thick layer of emulsion in a wash. If the fuel >>>> >>>>was manufactured properly, the interface layer between water and fuel in >>>> >>>>a test wash would be only a milimeter or two thick. Five centimeters >>>> >>>>indicates a reasonably incomplete reaction. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>As for your suggested resolve? Reducing the methanol and lye? Going that >>>> >>>>direction would only compound the matter. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Todd Swearingen >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Darryl West wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >&
Re: [Biofuel] quality test questions
Ooops that last line should have said esters and water not OIL. Joe Street wrote: Hi Darryl; Sorry for the confusion. The point is that a good reaction will leave you with a good separation between the esters (fuel) and everything else which makes up the 'glycerin cocktail', and when water is introduced, there should be next to no third layer but the absolute thickness of the layer, if you see one, will depend on the dimensions of the container, all other factors being equal. As to the previous statements you made about inconsistent information on how to do the process, my best advice is to follow explicitly the instructions on the J2F website starting from the begining and you will do just fine. In my own journey of discovery I learned this. You cannot afford to cut corners. Don't be tempted to use less than accurate measures and think that it will be alright. There is no cheating. I found that my success depended a lot on how careful I was with the titration step. Also I found that when the 0.1% base solution was added there was a tendancy for some oil to drop out and I think this affected my accuracy. I built a stirrer to keep the liquid in the test tube very well agitated during the titration and this helped a lot as I could tell by the consistency when I repeated the titration several times. If you want a description of how to make a very low cost titration kit check my website at http://www.nonprofitfuel.ca/Titrator.html Get a pipette marked in 0.1ml increments and a control bulb and it will make things easy and very accurate, for an investment of about 30 bucks. Another huge factor for me in getting complete reactions once I scaled up from the one liter size was the discovery that the methoxide had to be injected into the inlet of the mixing pump. I had tried other methods of introducing the methoxide which were not very successful. Methoxide and oil do not mix easily. By introducing the methoxide at the pump inlet, the pump impeller ensured vigorous mixing which made a huge difference for me. With hindsight the instructions do say that thorough mixing is of critical importance but the point is I thought that recirculation alone would be enough to do the job and clearly it wasn't with my setup. If you stick to what the instructions tell you it will work. Same goes for the quality tests. If you get quick separation and do not develop a third layer and the water stays clear you have good fuel. This is subjective and the absolute time required for the settling will vary depending on the severity of the agitation, but overall the statement holds. So as to your last question if after 3 or 4 washes your water is coming out clear then it sounds great. Perhaps what you saw as a 5 cm layer was a mixture of water and oil due to excessive agitation which just took a little longer to settle. Did you shake for more than ten seconds? Joe Darryl West wrote: I have found this an interesting discussion, which has left me a little more confused about what I need to do. I am gathering the take home message from my original question is that the Dr Peppers technique might not be the best one and that I need to look more at my over all process to reduce the amount of unprocessed materials. Could you guys maybe suggest what are the best measurements (recipes) to use to try and achieve a nearly complete reaction with virgin oil. I am very new to this and am really just looking to get it right before trying to scale it all up, but I am finding that there is some much information out there and a lot of it seems to be inconsistent with other things that I read. Also the container that I did the quality wash was a 250ml soda bottle. I went back and had a look at it again yesterday and the 5cm layer is now almost none existent….so I guess going back to my original question is would this be ok to wash, dry and use? Cheers Darryl From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Joe Street Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 5:56 AM To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] quality test questions Todd; With all due respect, I think you missed my point. I agree that we should strive for a paper thin interface, ( and I find it is easily achievable with experience) but when you put information out there like 1mm is ok and 5 mm is relatively incomplete it is meaningless unless you give the dimensions of the container and volume of liquid. Someone down the road might read that (a newbie) and say it has to be 1 mm. Consider a batch reacted which has 1 liter total volume. If I put that in a 10 cm square vessel it will also be 10 cm high and a 1mm layer at the interface would equate to 10 ml of contaminant. Now if I just pour the whole thing into another vessel of equal volume but with a 1 cm squ
Re: [Biofuel] quality test questions
Hi Darryl; Sorry for the confusion. The point is that a good reaction will leave you with a good separation between the esters (fuel) and everything else which makes up the 'glycerin cocktail', and when water is introduced, there should be next to no third layer but the absolute thickness of the layer, if you see one, will depend on the dimensions of the container, all other factors being equal. As to the previous statements you made about inconsistent information on how to do the process, my best advice is to follow explicitly the instructions on the J2F website starting from the begining and you will do just fine. In my own journey of discovery I learned this. You cannot afford to cut corners. Don't be tempted to use less than accurate measures and think that it will be alright. There is no cheating. I found that my success depended a lot on how careful I was with the titration step. Also I found that when the 0.1% base solution was added there was a tendancy for some oil to drop out and I think this affected my accuracy. I built a stirrer to keep the liquid in the test tube very well agitated during the titration and this helped a lot as I could tell by the consistency when I repeated the titration several times. If you want a description of how to make a very low cost titration kit check my website at http://www.nonprofitfuel.ca/Titrator.html Get a pipette marked in 0.1ml increments and a control bulb and it will make things easy and very accurate, for an investment of about 30 bucks. Another huge factor for me in getting complete reactions once I scaled up from the one liter size was the discovery that the methoxide had to be injected into the inlet of the mixing pump. I had tried other methods of introducing the methoxide which were not very successful. Methoxide and oil do not mix easily. By introducing the methoxide at the pump inlet, the pump impeller ensured vigorous mixing which made a huge difference for me. With hindsight the instructions do say that thorough mixing is of critical importance but the point is I thought that recirculation alone would be enough to do the job and clearly it wasn't with my setup. If you stick to what the instructions tell you it will work. Same goes for the quality tests. If you get quick separation and do not develop a third layer and the water stays clear you have good fuel. This is subjective and the absolute time required for the settling will vary depending on the severity of the agitation, but overall the statement holds. So as to your last question if after 3 or 4 washes your water is coming out clear then it sounds great. Perhaps what you saw as a 5 cm layer was a mixture of water and oil due to excessive agitation which just took a little longer to settle. Did you shake for more than ten seconds? Joe Darryl West wrote: I have found this an interesting discussion, which has left me a little more confused about what I need to do. I am gathering the take home message from my original question is that the Dr Peppers technique might not be the best one and that I need to look more at my over all process to reduce the amount of unprocessed materials. Could you guys maybe suggest what are the best measurements (recipes) to use to try and achieve a nearly complete reaction with virgin oil. I am very new to this and am really just looking to get it right before trying to scale it all up, but I am finding that there is some much information out there and a lot of it seems to be inconsistent with other things that I read. Also the container that I did the quality wash was a 250ml soda bottle. I went back and had a look at it again yesterday and the 5cm layer is now almost none existent….so I guess going back to my original question is would this be ok to wash, dry and use? Cheers Darryl From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Joe Street Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 5:56 AM To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] quality test questions Todd; With all due respect, I think you missed my point. I agree that we should strive for a paper thin interface, ( and I find it is easily achievable with experience) but when you put information out there like 1mm is ok and 5 mm is relatively incomplete it is meaningless unless you give the dimensions of the container and volume of liquid. Someone down the road might read that (a newbie) and say it has to be 1 mm. Consider a batch reacted which has 1 liter total volume. If I put that in a 10 cm square vessel it will also be 10 cm high and a 1mm layer at the interface would equate to 10 ml of contaminant. Now if I just pour the whole thing into another vessel of equal volume but with a 1 cm square size (bottom) it will have to be 1000 cm tall to hold it, and the contamination layer (which is the same amount) will show up as a 10 cm thick layer. So here y
Re: [Biofuel] quality test questions
Ok you win Todd
Appal Energy wrote:
With all due respect Joe, nothing was missed in the slightest. But if
you wish to beat a dead horse, by all means feel free to do so.
The preference here is not to adhere to fall back positions of
"acceptability" until absolutely necessary. ("After all, people are
burning straight veg oil. A few mono- and di-glycerides mixed with
biodiesel can't be any worse, right?")
As for "points," your question originally revolved around a container of
unidentified volume and only semi-descriptive geometry, with a depth of
an emulsified layer being 5 cm, not 5 mm as you're alluding to
immediately below.
And as for what I said? It was that the thinner the interface layer the
greater the indication of a more complete reaction. That was the
information that I "put out there." Nothing more. Nothing less. If you
wish to shake-and-bake in pop bottles and someone else wishes to use
5,000 gallon tanks, the desired result remains the same - a thin
interface layer of almost imperceptible depth.
On the other hand, if you want to switch horses mid-stream and start
speaking of one-thousand-and-one different geometrical shapes of wash
vessels, rather than different interface layer thicknesses from
different reactions in the same vessel, by all means knock yourself out
with as many variables as you feel are necessary to completely confuse
yourself or others.
IMNSHO, there is no need to make it an issue that requires a doctor of
fluid dynamics in order to turn it back into a matter of simple relativity.
Todd Swearingen
Joe Street wrote:
Todd;
With all due respect, I think you missed my point. I agree that we
should strive for a paper thin interface, ( and I find it is easily
achievable with experience) but when you put information out there
like 1mm is ok and 5 mm is relatively incomplete it is meaningless
unless you give the dimensions of the container and volume of liquid.
Someone down the road might read that (a newbie) and say it has to be
1 mm. Consider a batch reacted which has 1 liter total volume. If I
put that in a 10 cm square vessel it will also be 10 cm high and a 1mm
layer at the interface would equate to 10 ml of contaminant. Now if I
just pour the whole thing into another vessel of equal volume but with
a 1 cm square size (bottom) it will have to be 1000 cm tall to hold
it, and the contamination layer (which is the same amount) will show
up as a 10 cm thick layer. So here you have a 1mm vs 100 mm thickness
difference on the same reaction, just because of a different shape of
vessel, but in both cases the thickness of the contaminant is the same
fraction of the overall height (assumes a vessel of uniform
dimensions) and the same fraction of the volume.
Joe
Appal Energy wrote:
Let's wake up here, at least for the moment Joe.
Soda pop comes in multiple sized bottles, as do drums, tanks and
buckets. Your problem isn't dependant upon whether or not your container
was a 20 ounce, 1 liter or 2 liter jug.
The thin interface layer of a completed reaction is the result of the
direct interaction/contact between water and fuel, not the volume of the
batch or the diameter of a reaction vessel. A thick "interface layer" is
actually a heavy emulsion that is caused by the excessive presence of
mono- and di-glycerides.
A complete reaction? A thin interface layer, no matter the vessel geometry.
An incomplete reaction? A heavy emulsion formation. Depending upon how
poorly the reaction went to completion, you could end up with nearly an
entire vessel of of emulsified glycerides.
Todd Swearingen
Joe Street wrote:
Hi Todd;
When you talk about thickness of layers, is this with the Dr. Pepper
size container? Someone using a shallow wide container would have a
much worse condition (with a 1mm layer) than someone using a tall
narrow container no? Maybe when giving this type of information we
should talk about layer thickness as a fraction of the total vertical
height in the container rather than give absolute measurements?
Joe
Appal Energy wrote:
Daryl,
The suggestion is that you understand precisely what it is that you're
looking at when you see a thick layer of emulsion in a wash. If the fuel
was manufactured properly, the interface layer between water and fuel in
a test wash would be only a milimeter or two thick. Five centimeters
indicates a reasonably incomplete reaction.
As for your suggested resolve? Reducing the methanol and lye? Going that
direction would only compound the matter.
Todd Swearingen
Darryl West wrote:
Hi,
I am just after a bit more advice regarding the quality test on a small test
batch. I followed the Dr Peppers technique using new canola oil and the
process seems to have worked out ok. When I do the quality test I get
separation in 30 mins, but also get a
Re: [Biofuel] quality test questions
Hello Darryl >I have found this an interesting discussion, which has left me a >little more confused about what I need to do. I am gathering the >take home message from my original question is that the Dr Peppers >technique might not be the best one :-) You win a coconut. All discussed before, if you look in the archives you'll see all the about's and approx's and just-do-it-this-way's and hope-for-the-best's and the rest of the random chaos associated with this crap and with the results people get with it. In the biodiesel world anything called "Dr Pepper" is not a method and is to be avoided. >and that I need to look more at my over all process to reduce the >amount of unprocessed materials. Could you guys maybe suggest what >are the best measurements (recipes) to use to try and achieve a >nearly complete reaction with virgin oil. I am very new to this and >am really just looking to get it right before trying to scale it all >up, but I am finding that there is some much information out there >and a lot of it seems to be inconsistent with other things that I >read. You were pointed at good, reliable and non-confusing resources when you joined the list. Actually you're obliged to use the list resources. In the last few months (and previously) there's been a lot of discussion between, with and about newbies, with a lot of list members pointing people again at the list resources and saying how and why it worked for them and it will work for you too. So: Start here: "Where do I start?" http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make.html#start Follow the instructions, step by step. Study everything on that page and the next page and at the links in the text. It tells you everything you need to know. >Also the container that I did the quality wash was a 250ml soda >bottle. I went back and had a look at it again yesterday and the >5cm layer is now almost none existent.so I guess going back to my >original question is would this be ok to wash, dry and use? No, you'll just mask the problem, it's lousy fuel. The DGs and MGs causing the emulsion won't wash out, they'll dissolve back into the biodiesel. Anyway you haven't told us what you did, not even if it was virgin oil, though it seems it probably was, and nothing about how you processed it. But please don't bother - just go back to the beginning and start again in the right place. Best wishes Keith >Cheers > > > >Darryl > > > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Street >Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 5:56 AM >To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org >Subject: Re: [Biofuel] quality test questions > > > >Todd; > >With all due respect, I think you missed my point. I agree that we >should strive for a paper thin interface, ( and I find it is easily >achievable with experience) but when you put information out there >like 1mm is ok and 5 mm is relatively incomplete it is meaningless >unless you give the dimensions of the container and volume of >liquid. Someone down the road might read that (a newbie) and say it >has to be 1 mm. Consider a batch reacted which has 1 liter total >volume. If I put that in a 10 cm square vessel it will also be 10 >cm high and a 1mm layer at the interface would equate to 10 ml of >contaminant. Now if I just pour the whole thing into another vessel >of equal volume but with a 1 cm square size (bottom) it will have to >be 1000 cm tall to hold it, and the contamination layer (which is >the same amount) will show up as a 10 cm thick layer. So here you >have a 1mm vs 100 mm thickness difference on the same reaction, just >because of a different shape of vessel, but in both cases the >thickness of the contaminant is the same fraction of the overall >height (assumes a vessel of uniform dimensions) and the same >fraction of the volume. > >Joe > >Appal Energy wrote: > >Let's wake up here, at least for the moment Joe. > >Soda pop comes in multiple sized bottles, as do drums, tanks and >buckets. Your problem isn't dependant upon whether or not your container >was a 20 ounce, 1 liter or 2 liter jug. > >The thin interface layer of a completed reaction is the result of the >direct interaction/contact between water and fuel, not the volume of the >batch or the diameter of a reaction vessel. A thick "interface layer" is >actually a heavy emulsion that is caused by the excessive presence of >mono- and di-glycerides. > >A complete reaction? A thin interface layer, no matter the vessel geometry. > >An incomplete reaction? A heavy emulsion formation. Depending upon how >poorly the reaction went to completion, you could end up with nearly an
Re: [Biofuel] quality test questions
With all due respect Joe, nothing was missed in the slightest. But if
you wish to beat a dead horse, by all means feel free to do so.
The preference here is not to adhere to fall back positions of
"acceptability" until absolutely necessary. ("After all, people are
burning straight veg oil. A few mono- and di-glycerides mixed with
biodiesel can't be any worse, right?")
As for "points," your question originally revolved around a container of
unidentified volume and only semi-descriptive geometry, with a depth of
an emulsified layer being 5 cm, not 5 mm as you're alluding to
immediately below.
And as for what I said? It was that the thinner the interface layer the
greater the indication of a more complete reaction. That was the
information that I "put out there." Nothing more. Nothing less. If you
wish to shake-and-bake in pop bottles and someone else wishes to use
5,000 gallon tanks, the desired result remains the same - a thin
interface layer of almost imperceptible depth.
On the other hand, if you want to switch horses mid-stream and start
speaking of one-thousand-and-one different geometrical shapes of wash
vessels, rather than different interface layer thicknesses from
different reactions in the same vessel, by all means knock yourself out
with as many variables as you feel are necessary to completely confuse
yourself or others.
IMNSHO, there is no need to make it an issue that requires a doctor of
fluid dynamics in order to turn it back into a matter of simple relativity.
Todd Swearingen
Joe Street wrote:
> Todd;
>
> With all due respect, I think you missed my point. I agree that we
> should strive for a paper thin interface, ( and I find it is easily
> achievable with experience) but when you put information out there
> like 1mm is ok and 5 mm is relatively incomplete it is meaningless
> unless you give the dimensions of the container and volume of liquid.
> Someone down the road might read that (a newbie) and say it has to be
> 1 mm. Consider a batch reacted which has 1 liter total volume. If I
> put that in a 10 cm square vessel it will also be 10 cm high and a 1mm
> layer at the interface would equate to 10 ml of contaminant. Now if I
> just pour the whole thing into another vessel of equal volume but with
> a 1 cm square size (bottom) it will have to be 1000 cm tall to hold
> it, and the contamination layer (which is the same amount) will show
> up as a 10 cm thick layer. So here you have a 1mm vs 100 mm thickness
> difference on the same reaction, just because of a different shape of
> vessel, but in both cases the thickness of the contaminant is the same
> fraction of the overall height (assumes a vessel of uniform
> dimensions) and the same fraction of the volume.
>
> Joe
>
> Appal Energy wrote:
>
>>Let's wake up here, at least for the moment Joe.
>>
>>Soda pop comes in multiple sized bottles, as do drums, tanks and
>>buckets. Your problem isn't dependant upon whether or not your container
>>was a 20 ounce, 1 liter or 2 liter jug.
>>
>>The thin interface layer of a completed reaction is the result of the
>>direct interaction/contact between water and fuel, not the volume of the
>>batch or the diameter of a reaction vessel. A thick "interface layer" is
>>actually a heavy emulsion that is caused by the excessive presence of
>>mono- and di-glycerides.
>>
>>A complete reaction? A thin interface layer, no matter the vessel geometry.
>>
>>An incomplete reaction? A heavy emulsion formation. Depending upon how
>>poorly the reaction went to completion, you could end up with nearly an
>>entire vessel of of emulsified glycerides.
>>
>>Todd Swearingen
>>
>>
>>
>>Joe Street wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Hi Todd;
>>>
>>>When you talk about thickness of layers, is this with the Dr. Pepper
>>>size container? Someone using a shallow wide container would have a
>>>much worse condition (with a 1mm layer) than someone using a tall
>>>narrow container no? Maybe when giving this type of information we
>>>should talk about layer thickness as a fraction of the total vertical
>>>height in the container rather than give absolute measurements?
>>>
>>>Joe
>>>
>>>Appal Energy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
Daryl,
The suggestion is that you understand precisely what it is that you're
looking at when you see a thick layer of emulsion in a wash. If the fuel
was manufactured properly, the interface layer between water and fuel in
a test wash would be only a milimeter or two thick. Five centimeters
indicates a reasonably incomplete reaction.
As for your suggested resolve? Reducing the methanol and lye? Going that
direction would only compound the matter.
Todd Swearingen
Darryl West wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I am just after a bit more advice regarding the quality test on a small
>test
>batch. I followed the Dr Peppers technique using new canola oil and the
>process seem
Re: [Biofuel] quality test questions
I have found this an interesting discussion, which has left me a little more confused about what I need to do. I am gathering the take home message from my original question is that the Dr Peppers technique might not be the best one and that I need to look more at my over all process to reduce the amount of unprocessed materials. Could you guys maybe suggest what are the best measurements (recipes) to use to try and achieve a nearly complete reaction with virgin oil. I am very new to this and am really just looking to get it right before trying to scale it all up, but I am finding that there is some much information out there and a lot of it seems to be inconsistent with other things that I read. Also the container that I did the quality wash was a 250ml soda bottle. I went back and had a look at it again yesterday and the 5cm layer is now almost none existent….so I guess going back to my original question is would this be ok to wash, dry and use? Cheers Darryl From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Street Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 5:56 AM To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] quality test questions Todd; With all due respect, I think you missed my point. I agree that we should strive for a paper thin interface, ( and I find it is easily achievable with experience) but when you put information out there like 1mm is ok and 5 mm is relatively incomplete it is meaningless unless you give the dimensions of the container and volume of liquid. Someone down the road might read that (a newbie) and say it has to be 1 mm. Consider a batch reacted which has 1 liter total volume. If I put that in a 10 cm square vessel it will also be 10 cm high and a 1mm layer at the interface would equate to 10 ml of contaminant. Now if I just pour the whole thing into another vessel of equal volume but with a 1 cm square size (bottom) it will have to be 1000 cm tall to hold it, and the contamination layer (which is the same amount) will show up as a 10 cm thick layer. So here you have a 1mm vs 100 mm thickness difference on the same reaction, just because of a different shape of vessel, but in both cases the thickness of the contaminant is the same fraction of the overall height (assumes a vessel of uniform dimensions) and the same fraction of the volume. Joe Appal Energy wrote: Let's wake up here, at least for the moment Joe. Soda pop comes in multiple sized bottles, as do drums, tanks and buckets. Your problem isn't dependant upon whether or not your container was a 20 ounce, 1 liter or 2 liter jug. The thin interface layer of a completed reaction is the result of the direct interaction/contact between water and fuel, not the volume of the batch or the diameter of a reaction vessel. A thick "interface layer" is actually a heavy emulsion that is caused by the excessive presence of mono- and di-glycerides. A complete reaction? A thin interface layer, no matter the vessel geometry. An incomplete reaction? A heavy emulsion formation. Depending upon how poorly the reaction went to completion, you could end up with nearly an entire vessel of of emulsified glycerides. Todd Swearingen Joe Street wrote: Hi Todd; When you talk about thickness of layers, is this with the Dr. Pepper size container? Someone using a shallow wide container would have a much worse condition (with a 1mm layer) than someone using a tall narrow container no? Maybe when giving this type of information we should talk about layer thickness as a fraction of the total vertical height in the container rather than give absolute measurements? Joe Appal Energy wrote: Daryl, The suggestion is that you understand precisely what it is that you're looking at when you see a thick layer of emulsion in a wash. If the fuel was manufactured properly, the interface layer between water and fuel in a test wash would be only a milimeter or two thick. Five centimeters indicates a reasonably incomplete reaction. As for your suggested resolve? Reducing the methanol and lye? Going that direction would only compound the matter. Todd Swearingen Darryl West wrote: Hi, I am just after a bit more advice regarding the quality test on a small testbatch. I followed the Dr Peppers technique using new canola oil and theprocess seems to have worked out ok. When I do the quality test I getseparation in 30 mins, but also get a small (5cm) white layer between thewater and biodiesel, which I believe is soap. Does this indicate poor fuel?Would it still be ok to wash and dry and use, or should I not use this batchand maybe use less methanol and lye? thanks Darryl West ___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-
Re: [Biofuel] quality test questions
Todd; With all due respect, I think you missed my point. I agree that we should strive for a paper thin interface, ( and I find it is easily achievable with experience) but when you put information out there like 1mm is ok and 5 mm is relatively incomplete it is meaningless unless you give the dimensions of the container and volume of liquid. Someone down the road might read that (a newbie) and say it has to be 1 mm. Consider a batch reacted which has 1 liter total volume. If I put that in a 10 cm square vessel it will also be 10 cm high and a 1mm layer at the interface would equate to 10 ml of contaminant. Now if I just pour the whole thing into another vessel of equal volume but with a 1 cm square size (bottom) it will have to be 1000 cm tall to hold it, and the contamination layer (which is the same amount) will show up as a 10 cm thick layer. So here you have a 1mm vs 100 mm thickness difference on the same reaction, just because of a different shape of vessel, but in both cases the thickness of the contaminant is the same fraction of the overall height (assumes a vessel of uniform dimensions) and the same fraction of the volume. Joe Appal Energy wrote: Let's wake up here, at least for the moment Joe. Soda pop comes in multiple sized bottles, as do drums, tanks and buckets. Your problem isn't dependant upon whether or not your container was a 20 ounce, 1 liter or 2 liter jug. The thin interface layer of a completed reaction is the result of the direct interaction/contact between water and fuel, not the volume of the batch or the diameter of a reaction vessel. A thick "interface layer" is actually a heavy emulsion that is caused by the excessive presence of mono- and di-glycerides. A complete reaction? A thin interface layer, no matter the vessel geometry. An incomplete reaction? A heavy emulsion formation. Depending upon how poorly the reaction went to completion, you could end up with nearly an entire vessel of of emulsified glycerides. Todd Swearingen Joe Street wrote: Hi Todd; When you talk about thickness of layers, is this with the Dr. Pepper size container? Someone using a shallow wide container would have a much worse condition (with a 1mm layer) than someone using a tall narrow container no? Maybe when giving this type of information we should talk about layer thickness as a fraction of the total vertical height in the container rather than give absolute measurements? Joe Appal Energy wrote: Daryl, The suggestion is that you understand precisely what it is that you're looking at when you see a thick layer of emulsion in a wash. If the fuel was manufactured properly, the interface layer between water and fuel in a test wash would be only a milimeter or two thick. Five centimeters indicates a reasonably incomplete reaction. As for your suggested resolve? Reducing the methanol and lye? Going that direction would only compound the matter. Todd Swearingen Darryl West wrote: Hi, I am just after a bit more advice regarding the quality test on a small test batch. I followed the Dr Peppers technique using new canola oil and the process seems to have worked out ok. When I do the quality test I get separation in 30 mins, but also get a small (5cm) white layer between the water and biodiesel, which I believe is soap. Does this indicate poor fuel? Would it still be ok to wash and dry and use, or should I not use this batch and maybe use less methanol and lye? thanks Darryl West ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustai
Re: [Biofuel] quality test questions
Yes. You are right that we should strive for a complete reaction. I've been reading too much about oil drilling today -- many of the Saudi oil fields are yielding close to 50% water, which they have to separate and pump back down, but that's considered okay or normal in that industry (or at least it's considered unavoidable with the current level of pumping). Must have polluted my brain. Z On 1/3/06, Appal Energy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Zeke, > > Your comments reiterate what was said, save for one area. > > "Bad" is a matter of subjective opininion. Whether the five centimeters > is in a five-thousand gallon tank, five-hundred or five still indicates > reaction incompletion. Five centimeters of emulsion in a spritz bottle > indicates the same thing. > > The point is to strive for what is easily achievable, not settle for > whatever you get, at least not unless absolutely necessary. > > An extremely thin interface layer is an indicator of being proficient, > or nearly so. > > Todd Swearingen > > > Zeke Yewdall wrote: > > >Huh??? I can buy that the interface layer for a completed reaction is > >related to the contact between water and fuel as you say, and is > >therefore dependent only on surface area of the interface, not volume > >of the reaction. Therefore it is a constant thickness regardless of > >volume or shape of the container. But if it is not fully reacted, the > >interface layer would be dependent on the volume of unreacted > >material, right? For example, you say that a 5cm thick layer is bad, > >but what if I had 5cm of emulsion in a 40 foot deep container? I > >would say that less than 0.5% emulsion is not that bad. But if I get > >5cm of emulsion layer in when doing the reaction in a pie pan, it > >could be 100%, which is terrible. > > > >Zeke > > > > > >On 1/3/06, Appal Energy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>Let's wake up here, at least for the moment Joe. > >> > >>Soda pop comes in multiple sized bottles, as do drums, tanks and > >>buckets. Your problem isn't dependant upon whether or not your container > >>was a 20 ounce, 1 liter or 2 liter jug. > >> > >>The thin interface layer of a completed reaction is the result of the > >>direct interaction/contact between water and fuel, not the volume of the > >>batch or the diameter of a reaction vessel. A thick "interface layer" is > >>actually a heavy emulsion that is caused by the excessive presence of > >>mono- and di-glycerides. > >> > >>A complete reaction? A thin interface layer, no matter the vessel geometry. > >> > >>An incomplete reaction? A heavy emulsion formation. Depending upon how > >>poorly the reaction went to completion, you could end up with nearly an > >>entire vessel of of emulsified glycerides. > >> > >>Todd Swearingen > >> > >> > >> > >>Joe Street wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>Hi Todd; > >>> > >>>When you talk about thickness of layers, is this with the Dr. Pepper > >>>size container? Someone using a shallow wide container would have a > >>>much worse condition (with a 1mm layer) than someone using a tall > >>>narrow container no? Maybe when giving this type of information we > >>>should talk about layer thickness as a fraction of the total vertical > >>>height in the container rather than give absolute measurements? > >>> > >>>Joe > >>> > >>>Appal Energy wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > Daryl, > > The suggestion is that you understand precisely what it is that you're > looking at when you see a thick layer of emulsion in a wash. If the fuel > was manufactured properly, the interface layer between water and fuel in > a test wash would be only a milimeter or two thick. Five centimeters > indicates a reasonably incomplete reaction. > > As for your suggested resolve? Reducing the methanol and lye? Going that > direction would only compound the matter. > > Todd Swearingen > > > Darryl West wrote: > > > > > > >Hi, > > > >I am just after a bit more advice regarding the quality test on a small > >test > >batch. I followed the Dr Peppers technique using new canola oil and the > >process seems to have worked out ok. When I do the quality test I get > >separation in 30 mins, but also get a small (5cm) white layer between the > >water and biodiesel, which I believe is soap. Does this indicate poor > >fuel? > >Would it still be ok to wash and dry and use, or should I not use this > >batch > >and maybe use less methanol and lye? > > > >thanks > > > >Darryl West > > > > > > > >___ > >Biofuel mailing list > >Biofuel@sustainablelists.org > >http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > > > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > > >Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 > >mes
Re: [Biofuel] quality test questions
Zeke, Your comments reiterate what was said, save for one area. "Bad" is a matter of subjective opininion. Whether the five centimeters is in a five-thousand gallon tank, five-hundred or five still indicates reaction incompletion. Five centimeters of emulsion in a spritz bottle indicates the same thing. The point is to strive for what is easily achievable, not settle for whatever you get, at least not unless absolutely necessary. An extremely thin interface layer is an indicator of being proficient, or nearly so. Todd Swearingen Zeke Yewdall wrote: >Huh??? I can buy that the interface layer for a completed reaction is >related to the contact between water and fuel as you say, and is >therefore dependent only on surface area of the interface, not volume >of the reaction. Therefore it is a constant thickness regardless of >volume or shape of the container. But if it is not fully reacted, the >interface layer would be dependent on the volume of unreacted >material, right? For example, you say that a 5cm thick layer is bad, >but what if I had 5cm of emulsion in a 40 foot deep container? I >would say that less than 0.5% emulsion is not that bad. But if I get >5cm of emulsion layer in when doing the reaction in a pie pan, it >could be 100%, which is terrible. > >Zeke > > >On 1/3/06, Appal Energy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Let's wake up here, at least for the moment Joe. >> >>Soda pop comes in multiple sized bottles, as do drums, tanks and >>buckets. Your problem isn't dependant upon whether or not your container >>was a 20 ounce, 1 liter or 2 liter jug. >> >>The thin interface layer of a completed reaction is the result of the >>direct interaction/contact between water and fuel, not the volume of the >>batch or the diameter of a reaction vessel. A thick "interface layer" is >>actually a heavy emulsion that is caused by the excessive presence of >>mono- and di-glycerides. >> >>A complete reaction? A thin interface layer, no matter the vessel geometry. >> >>An incomplete reaction? A heavy emulsion formation. Depending upon how >>poorly the reaction went to completion, you could end up with nearly an >>entire vessel of of emulsified glycerides. >> >>Todd Swearingen >> >> >> >>Joe Street wrote: >> >> >> >>>Hi Todd; >>> >>>When you talk about thickness of layers, is this with the Dr. Pepper >>>size container? Someone using a shallow wide container would have a >>>much worse condition (with a 1mm layer) than someone using a tall >>>narrow container no? Maybe when giving this type of information we >>>should talk about layer thickness as a fraction of the total vertical >>>height in the container rather than give absolute measurements? >>> >>>Joe >>> >>>Appal Energy wrote: >>> >>> >>> Daryl, The suggestion is that you understand precisely what it is that you're looking at when you see a thick layer of emulsion in a wash. If the fuel was manufactured properly, the interface layer between water and fuel in a test wash would be only a milimeter or two thick. Five centimeters indicates a reasonably incomplete reaction. As for your suggested resolve? Reducing the methanol and lye? Going that direction would only compound the matter. Todd Swearingen Darryl West wrote: >Hi, > >I am just after a bit more advice regarding the quality test on a small >test >batch. I followed the Dr Peppers technique using new canola oil and the >process seems to have worked out ok. When I do the quality test I get >separation in 30 mins, but also get a small (5cm) white layer between the >water and biodiesel, which I believe is soap. Does this indicate poor >fuel? >Would it still be ok to wash and dry and use, or should I not use this >batch >and maybe use less methanol and lye? > >thanks > >Darryl West > > > >___ >Biofuel mailing list >Biofuel@sustainablelists.org >http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 >messages): >http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ > > > > > > > > > ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ >>>--
Re: [Biofuel] quality test questions
Huh??? I can buy that the interface layer for a completed reaction is related to the contact between water and fuel as you say, and is therefore dependent only on surface area of the interface, not volume of the reaction. Therefore it is a constant thickness regardless of volume or shape of the container. But if it is not fully reacted, the interface layer would be dependent on the volume of unreacted material, right? For example, you say that a 5cm thick layer is bad, but what if I had 5cm of emulsion in a 40 foot deep container? I would say that less than 0.5% emulsion is not that bad. But if I get 5cm of emulsion layer in when doing the reaction in a pie pan, it could be 100%, which is terrible. Zeke On 1/3/06, Appal Energy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Let's wake up here, at least for the moment Joe. > > Soda pop comes in multiple sized bottles, as do drums, tanks and > buckets. Your problem isn't dependant upon whether or not your container > was a 20 ounce, 1 liter or 2 liter jug. > > The thin interface layer of a completed reaction is the result of the > direct interaction/contact between water and fuel, not the volume of the > batch or the diameter of a reaction vessel. A thick "interface layer" is > actually a heavy emulsion that is caused by the excessive presence of > mono- and di-glycerides. > > A complete reaction? A thin interface layer, no matter the vessel geometry. > > An incomplete reaction? A heavy emulsion formation. Depending upon how > poorly the reaction went to completion, you could end up with nearly an > entire vessel of of emulsified glycerides. > > Todd Swearingen > > > > Joe Street wrote: > > > Hi Todd; > > > > When you talk about thickness of layers, is this with the Dr. Pepper > > size container? Someone using a shallow wide container would have a > > much worse condition (with a 1mm layer) than someone using a tall > > narrow container no? Maybe when giving this type of information we > > should talk about layer thickness as a fraction of the total vertical > > height in the container rather than give absolute measurements? > > > > Joe > > > > Appal Energy wrote: > > > >>Daryl, > >> > >>The suggestion is that you understand precisely what it is that you're > >>looking at when you see a thick layer of emulsion in a wash. If the fuel > >>was manufactured properly, the interface layer between water and fuel in > >>a test wash would be only a milimeter or two thick. Five centimeters > >>indicates a reasonably incomplete reaction. > >> > >>As for your suggested resolve? Reducing the methanol and lye? Going that > >>direction would only compound the matter. > >> > >>Todd Swearingen > >> > >> > >>Darryl West wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>Hi, > >>> > >>>I am just after a bit more advice regarding the quality test on a small > >>>test > >>>batch. I followed the Dr Peppers technique using new canola oil and the > >>>process seems to have worked out ok. When I do the quality test I get > >>>separation in 30 mins, but also get a small (5cm) white layer between the > >>>water and biodiesel, which I believe is soap. Does this indicate poor > >>>fuel? > >>>Would it still be ok to wash and dry and use, or should I not use this > >>>batch > >>>and maybe use less methanol and lye? > >>> > >>>thanks > >>> > >>>Darryl West > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>___ > >>>Biofuel mailing list > >>>Biofuel@sustainablelists.org > >>>http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > >>> > >>>Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > >>>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >>> > >>>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 > >>>messages): > >>>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >>___ > >>Biofuel mailing list > >>Biofuel@sustainablelists.org > >>http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > >> > >>Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > >>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >> > >>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 > >>messages): > >>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >___ > >Biofuel mailing list > >Biofuel@sustainablelists.org > >http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > > > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > > >Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): > >http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ > > > > > > > > ___ > Biofuel mailing list > Biofuel@sustainablelists.org > http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytof
Re: [Biofuel] quality test questions
Let's wake up here, at least for the moment Joe. Soda pop comes in multiple sized bottles, as do drums, tanks and buckets. Your problem isn't dependant upon whether or not your container was a 20 ounce, 1 liter or 2 liter jug. The thin interface layer of a completed reaction is the result of the direct interaction/contact between water and fuel, not the volume of the batch or the diameter of a reaction vessel. A thick "interface layer" is actually a heavy emulsion that is caused by the excessive presence of mono- and di-glycerides. A complete reaction? A thin interface layer, no matter the vessel geometry. An incomplete reaction? A heavy emulsion formation. Depending upon how poorly the reaction went to completion, you could end up with nearly an entire vessel of of emulsified glycerides. Todd Swearingen Joe Street wrote: > Hi Todd; > > When you talk about thickness of layers, is this with the Dr. Pepper > size container? Someone using a shallow wide container would have a > much worse condition (with a 1mm layer) than someone using a tall > narrow container no? Maybe when giving this type of information we > should talk about layer thickness as a fraction of the total vertical > height in the container rather than give absolute measurements? > > Joe > > Appal Energy wrote: > >>Daryl, >> >>The suggestion is that you understand precisely what it is that you're >>looking at when you see a thick layer of emulsion in a wash. If the fuel >>was manufactured properly, the interface layer between water and fuel in >>a test wash would be only a milimeter or two thick. Five centimeters >>indicates a reasonably incomplete reaction. >> >>As for your suggested resolve? Reducing the methanol and lye? Going that >>direction would only compound the matter. >> >>Todd Swearingen >> >> >>Darryl West wrote: >> >> >> >>>Hi, >>> >>>I am just after a bit more advice regarding the quality test on a small test >>>batch. I followed the Dr Peppers technique using new canola oil and the >>>process seems to have worked out ok. When I do the quality test I get >>>separation in 30 mins, but also get a small (5cm) white layer between the >>>water and biodiesel, which I believe is soap. Does this indicate poor fuel? >>>Would it still be ok to wash and dry and use, or should I not use this batch >>>and maybe use less methanol and lye? >>> >>>thanks >>> >>>Darryl West >>> >>> >>> >>>___ >>>Biofuel mailing list >>>Biofuel@sustainablelists.org >>>http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org >>> >>>Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >>>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html >>> >>>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): >>>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>___ >>Biofuel mailing list >>Biofuel@sustainablelists.org >>http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org >> >>Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html >> >>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): >>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ >> >> >> >> > > >___ >Biofuel mailing list >Biofuel@sustainablelists.org >http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): >http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ > > > ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] quality test questions
Hi Todd; When you talk about thickness of layers, is this with the Dr. Pepper size container? Someone using a shallow wide container would have a much worse condition (with a 1mm layer) than someone using a tall narrow container no? Maybe when giving this type of information we should talk about layer thickness as a fraction of the total vertical height in the container rather than give absolute measurements? Joe Appal Energy wrote: Daryl, The suggestion is that you understand precisely what it is that you're looking at when you see a thick layer of emulsion in a wash. If the fuel was manufactured properly, the interface layer between water and fuel in a test wash would be only a milimeter or two thick. Five centimeters indicates a reasonably incomplete reaction. As for your suggested resolve? Reducing the methanol and lye? Going that direction would only compound the matter. Todd Swearingen Darryl West wrote: Hi, I am just after a bit more advice regarding the quality test on a small test batch. I followed the Dr Peppers technique using new canola oil and the process seems to have worked out ok. When I do the quality test I get separation in 30 mins, but also get a small (5cm) white layer between the water and biodiesel, which I believe is soap. Does this indicate poor fuel? Would it still be ok to wash and dry and use, or should I not use this batch and maybe use less methanol and lye? thanks Darryl West ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] quality test questions
Not knowing where you are in the process. I would sagest using the stock methoxide formula listed on J.T.F. after titration I mix the methoxide 1 gram less then the titration # and 1 gram more. I find that the results often differ with the feed stock used. After figuring out which 1/2 liter test batch is best I fine tune it 1/2 gram at a time until I start to get soap. I then go back 1/4 gram and use it for processing. It may seem like a lot of work but it can be done all at the same time I just mark the tops of the bottles with the mix used. When I started I found it very hard to see a change with new oil. After doing 2 qts of new oil just to see the basics I moved to wvo in 1/2 liter batches. I also found that the group helped me a lot it seems I thought I was using accurate measurements but only half of the crap I picked up for measuring was even close. Good luck. Derick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darryl West Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 3:37 PM To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] quality test questions Hi, I am just after a bit more advice regarding the quality test on a small test batch. I followed the Dr Peppers technique using new canola oil and the process seems to have worked out ok. When I do the quality test I get separation in 30 mins, but also get a small (5cm) white layer between the water and biodiesel, which I believe is soap. Does this indicate poor fuel? Would it still be ok to wash and dry and use, or should I not use this batch and maybe use less methanol and lye? thanks Darryl West ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] quality test questions
Daryl, The suggestion is that you understand precisely what it is that you're looking at when you see a thick layer of emulsion in a wash. If the fuel was manufactured properly, the interface layer between water and fuel in a test wash would be only a milimeter or two thick. Five centimeters indicates a reasonably incomplete reaction. As for your suggested resolve? Reducing the methanol and lye? Going that direction would only compound the matter. Todd Swearingen Darryl West wrote: >Hi, > >I am just after a bit more advice regarding the quality test on a small test >batch. I followed the Dr Peppers technique using new canola oil and the >process seems to have worked out ok. When I do the quality test I get >separation in 30 mins, but also get a small (5cm) white layer between the >water and biodiesel, which I believe is soap. Does this indicate poor fuel? >Would it still be ok to wash and dry and use, or should I not use this batch >and maybe use less methanol and lye? > >thanks > >Darryl West > > > >___ >Biofuel mailing list >Biofuel@sustainablelists.org >http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): >http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ > > > > > ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] quality test questions
Hi, I am just after a bit more advice regarding the quality test on a small test batch. I followed the Dr Peppers technique using new canola oil and the process seems to have worked out ok. When I do the quality test I get separation in 30 mins, but also get a small (5cm) white layer between the water and biodiesel, which I believe is soap. Does this indicate poor fuel? Would it still be ok to wash and dry and use, or should I not use this batch and maybe use less methanol and lye? thanks Darryl West ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
