check out this companies testing equipment. http://www.grabner-instruments.com/index.html
Steve Spence Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter: http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. -- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dick Carlstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 11:10 PM Subject: [biofuels-biz] fuzzy standards my webster defines fuzzy, amongst other things, as '...not clear; blurred...' and i find present biodiesel 'standards' to be generally not clear, or misleading. the one exception is perhaps the austrian standard, C 1191, dated nov. '96, and based on a previous austrian standard, 0norm C 1190, dated feb. '91. all other standards actually are proposed standards, and not binding legally in their countries of origin. the din standard E-DIN 51606 dated sep. '97 is, as the 'e' signals, a proposed standard. it is not a lawfully enforceable standard. individuals or corporations may use it as their standard, but that would be the same as if i set up standards for my biodiesel, dick 101, and claimed my plant's biodiesel meets this standard. as long as a car manufacturer accepts my standards as valid, it wouldn't really matter if where 'universal' or not. the astm standard is again a proposed standard, drawn jointly with the national biodiesel board (nbb), the ps 121 dated '98, and modified april '01. it is of interest to note that in the us fuel standards are each state's prerogative, so that even if astm/nbb where to come up with a definite standard, it would still need to be ratified by 50 state legislatures. the ce standard is still in the political backwaters, and will probably not be available for another year or so. my guess is that it will be half way between C 1191 and e-din 51606. the argentine standard is again a proposed one, and fits in with the ce one. spain is working on a standard, but so far a lot of hot air, but no muscle. i know of no other standards, but will be most happy to learn of such. australia, for example, or maybe japan ?? there are a couple of partial standards in the us applicable to biodiesel, and these are the material safety standard, cas # 67784-80-9, which deals with the safety of biodiesel, and takes into consideration specific gravity (which astm/nbb does not), boiling point, which no other standard, us or elsewhere, addresses, % volatiles, and evaporation indexes. this last index is again not contemplated in astm/nbb ps 121 standard. another us standard is the national motor freight classification, which defines biodiesel as a 'fatty acid ester', with an id # 144.920, and shipping # 65. but why would i call these proposed or existing standards fuzzy ? why are they unclear to me ? why do i find them confusing ? after all they might be proposed standards, but that shouldn't detract from their usefulness. the reason I find these 'standards' fuzzy, confusing, unclear, blurred, is because they are not in agreement with each other for parameters i consider of vital importance. 1) the cetane number varies from 40 for the astm/nbb to 49 for the austrian and e-din ones. now i consider cetane index key regarding engine longevity, and ml/hp/hr efficiency. how can i explain a 22.5 % spread in that value ? i find this confusing, to say the least. so which of the standards is right, and which is wrong ? fuzzy, what ? (aside: i would be delighted to learn how you can determine cetane index with either gc or nir. it would really further my education. and of course it would make all those ricardo engines out there obsolete, overnight) 2) density, a relatively simple value to determine, goes from a minimum of 0.85 to 0.90, a mere 5.9 % spread. but this is in the european standards. the astm/nbb does not define a value for this parameter. why, or why not ? again, fuzzy. 3) the european standards for viscosity have a spread of 42.8 % the astm/nbb has a spread of 315.8 % !!! am i missing something here ? shall we say it's fuzzy ? 4) the fcpp so dear to gc testing proponents goes from 0 to 15 in the austrian standards, to 0 to 20 for the e-din. the astm/nbb does not take this into consideration. zilch to zilch. how fuzzy can you get ? 5) total sulphur has a spread of 500 % between the different 'standards'. that's a pretty hefty spread, considering biodiesel was supposed to be sulphur free. something doesn't quite tally here. fuzzy, i'd say..... 6) the list goes on, but i suggest you check it out yourselves. water content is zilch for the austrians, 0.03 % for e-din, and not listed for astm/nbb. water and sediment is not a european standard, but it is one for the astm/nbb crowd. same for total contamination, e-din seems to be losing sleep over this, but austria and the astm/nbb folks won't even list it. neutralisation value has a spread of 60 %, no mean feat that !! and so on and so forth. not very edifying, what ? and i haven't even mentioned iodine !!! being a good boy today. so what say we use our brains, and realise there are no reliable standards per se, and that we should start making up our own. logical, practical, pragmatic, and applicable to real world situations. else we're playing right into the hands of big oil. and into the hands of megabucks centralised biodiesel operators, who really are nothing more than big oil, without the oil wells, and the reserve depletion tax breaks. if the us were to add ONE percent of biodiesel to its present fossil diesel, it would need 300 million gallons of biodiesel. us biodiesel capacity today is under 200 million gallons. now lets suppose the epa really leans on the big truck operators, and enforces b20. what would happen ? one, production capacity would have to be increased thirty fold. two, feedstock prices would go up. three, biodiesel would be in short supply for many years to come. and four, standards, when existant, would 'soften' to accommodate 'marginal' biodiesel. any other scenario suggestions, list members ? thus i preach simple 'feet-on-the-ground' standards for our industry: density, viscosity, pH, water and alky content. these are easy to determine and allow for a 'go/no go' strategy. add alek's neat quasi chromatography, and you should be able to recommend b20 to anybody willing to listen. low temps ? do like the fossil boys do, use an additive. and what about neat bio, or higher than b20 mixes ? well, for that i'll just quote the national biodiesel board: "A considerable amount of experience exists in the US with a 20% blend of biodiesel with 80% diesel fuel (B20). Although biodiesel (B100) can be used, blends of over 20% biodiesel with diesel fuel should be evaluated on a case by case basis until further experience is available". april 2001 i stand my case. as to the personal innuendoes, and criticisms (ad hominem, for those of you who had latin), tendered in lieu of a factual rebuttal of the information i post, or the opinions i hold, they shall go begging for my attention. i'd rather deal with facts, as per the above, and not with feelings. i consider this a business list, focused on biofuels, and not a cat house chat room. relax, have some mead !!! cheers, dick. in <snipping> veritas !!! this is a public service message. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Small business owners... Tell us what you think! http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
