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 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/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/
