Re: [Biofuel] Titration
Hello Brian et al. The standard solutions for titration are for example KOH 0,1M and KOH 0,5M which are corresponding to 5,61g and 28,05g of KOH / dm3. But the concentration of the titration solution really doesn´t matter as long as the analysis is performed correctly and that the acid number is calculated from the analysis, and that the compensation need is calculated from the acid number. Please note that NaOH has a lower mass than KOH, so the weight will be lower for the corresponding concentration. You did not say how much your sample mass was when having that result. Do that, and we will work the values out properly. With best regards Jan Warnqvist - Original Message - From: Brian Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 5:45 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Titration Jan, You say that my concentration is very weak compared to the standard solutions. Do you mean the standard solution to titrate waste oil with, or are you just meaning weak in general? If it is weak compared to what should be used for waste oil, what is the standard strength? Did I miss read the information on journey to forever? Please let me know because right now I am not going to use the waste oil that I have because of the high titration rate and am going to have to find a new source. Thanks Brian Schneider On May 6, 2008, at 11:07 AM, Jan Warnqvist wrote: You should know that your concentration is very weak compared to the standard solutions. Your concentration is 0,025M / dm3, and due to its weakness, it will almost always produce high titration values. 1 ml of the solution assuming that your sample mass is 10,0 g corresponds to an acid number of 0,1, which is normal for refined oils. Consequently is 5 ml corresponding to 0,5 for acid number assuming that your sample mass is 10,0 g. 0,5 is a very good value for virgin oils. But, if your sample mass is 1,0g, then the values will become 10 times higher, of course. With best regards Jan Warnqvist - Original Message - From: Brian Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 1:37 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Titration I am using the 1 gram per 1000 mL or .1% of NaOH. I have tried mixing it several ways, 1 gram in 1 liter and also tried Keith's suggestion of 5 grams in .5 L as stock then using 5 mL of that in 45 mL of distilled water for the working solution. Both give the same result. What should New virgin oil titrate out as? or does it? Thanks for the help Brian Schneider On May 6, 2008, at 2:52 AM, Jan Warnqvist wrote: Hello Brian et al. Which concentration of the titration solution are you using ? The figures that you stated could be correct, but only assuming that your titration solution is aimed for the purpose. Best regards Jan Warnqvist - Original Message - From: Brian Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 4:35 PM Subject: [Biofuel] Titration Hi All, Have a quick question about titration. I have obtained some waste oil that seems to be titrating at 12 - 15mL. I have done this numerous times and come up with about the same results. That seems unusably high. So I tried to titrate new virgin oil. When I did that it only took about .2 - .4 mL is that normal or am I doing something terribly wrong. I am a little confused at this point and any help I could get would be really appreciated. Thanks Brian Schneider -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20080505/94b646be/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20080506/8d0baaf2/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
Re: [Biofuel] Titration
You're using different measures Jan. No need to change it, it's all quite clear - this is the homebrew method, please see: Basic titration http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make2.html#titrate Better titration http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make2.html#bettertitrate Using KOH http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make2.html#koh Best Keith Hello Brian et al. The standard solutions for titration are for example KOH 0,1M and KOH 0,5M which are corresponding to 5,61g and 28,05g of KOH / dm3. But the concentration of the titration solution really doesn´t matter as long as the analysis is performed correctly and that the acid number is calculated from the analysis, and that the compensation need is calculated from the acid number. Please note that NaOH has a lower mass than KOH, so the weight will be lower for the corresponding concentration. You did not say how much your sample mass was when having that result. Do that, and we will work the values out properly. With best regards Jan Warnqvist - Original Message - From: Brian Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 5:45 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Titration Jan, You say that my concentration is very weak compared to the standard solutions. Do you mean the standard solution to titrate waste oil with, or are you just meaning weak in general? If it is weak compared to what should be used for waste oil, what is the standard strength? Did I miss read the information on journey to forever? Please let me know because right now I am not going to use the waste oil that I have because of the high titration rate and am going to have to find a new source. Thanks Brian Schneider On May 6, 2008, at 11:07 AM, Jan Warnqvist wrote: You should know that your concentration is very weak compared to the standard solutions. Your concentration is 0,025M / dm3, and due to its weakness, it will almost always produce high titration values. 1 ml of the solution assuming that your sample mass is 10,0 g corresponds to an acid number of 0,1, which is normal for refined oils. Consequently is 5 ml corresponding to 0,5 for acid number assuming that your sample mass is 10,0 g. 0,5 is a very good value for virgin oils. But, if your sample mass is 1,0g, then the values will become 10 times higher, of course. With best regards Jan Warnqvist - Original Message - From: Brian Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 1:37 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Titration I am using the 1 gram per 1000 mL or .1% of NaOH. I have tried mixing it several ways, 1 gram in 1 liter and also tried Keith's suggestion of 5 grams in .5 L as stock then using 5 mL of that in 45 mL of distilled water for the working solution. Both give the same result. What should New virgin oil titrate out as? or does it? Thanks for the help Brian Schneider On May 6, 2008, at 2:52 AM, Jan Warnqvist wrote: Hello Brian et al. Which concentration of the titration solution are you using ? The figures that you stated could be correct, but only assuming that your titration solution is aimed for the purpose. Best regards Jan Warnqvist - Original Message - From: Brian Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 4:35 PM Subject: [Biofuel] Titration Hi All, Have a quick question about titration. I have obtained some waste oil that seems to be titrating at 12 - 15mL. I have done this numerous times and come up with about the same results. That seems unusably high. So I tried to titrate new virgin oil. When I did that it only took about .2 - .4 mL is that normal or am I doing something terribly wrong. I am a little confused at this point and any help I could get would be really appreciated. Thanks Brian Schneider ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Fascists at it again
Keith Addison wrote: Hi Chip, Chris and all This is the famous Mussolini quote: Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power. -- Benito Mussolini But Public Eye reckons he never said it. See: http://www.publiceye.org/fascist/corporatism.html Mussolini on the Corporate State Play it again Benito. :-) Such was my understanding. Benito, from what I've read, was basically a strong man thug type. Government philosophy wasn't one of his strong points. So what to call it then, if fascism's just an empty word these days? Chomsky calls it polyarchy: It has often been pointed out by political scientists that the US is basically a one-party state -- the business party. with two factions, Democrats and Republicans. Most of the population seems to agree. A very high percentage, sometimes passing 80%, believe that the government serves the few and the special interests, not the people. ... More serious political scientists in the mainstream describe the US not as a democracy but as a polyarchy: a system of elite decision and periodic public ratification. There is surely much truth to the conclusion of the leading American social philosopher of the 20th century, John Dewey, whose main work was on democracy, that until there is democratic control of the primary economic institutions, politics will be the shadow cast on society by big business. Not a good soundbyte word though, polyarchy, needs work... I like plutocracy myself. Corporate Oligarchy is good as well. Franklin, Jefferson et al, warned against corporations, and tried to set the base law of the US (aka the constitution) up so that corporations would be shackled in such a away as to avoid the wholly predictable rise of a corporate oligarchy. Chomsky's spot on, of course, but I think he lends too much credence to the twin party system, I'm not sure another term is needed. But then again, he's the linguist, not me. :) -- Best Keith Chris Burck wrote: well, when terms like islamo-fascist get slung about, yeah, you bet the meaning has been degraded. that's precisely the purpose for which such terms have been coined. that extreme notwithstanding, and though the pejorative use of the word exists, it has been far less abused than the barbs typical of the right, such as communist and hippie. it remains a very relevant word, certainly more so than commie was even at the height of the cold war. Well said, however, in point, ask a thousand folks on the street to define fascism, and I expect you'd not find a broad scale comprehension of the concept. Again, in contemporary parlance, fascist has no meaning, it's a simple negative term. And yeah, I about fell out of my chair when I heard chief autocrat Bush fling the new-speak meme, islamo-fascist. what a world what a world. :) On 5/5/08, Chip Mefford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris Burck wrote: the wiki articles place too much emphasis imho on fascism as a philosophy, though they do discuss corporatism, production/productivism, and strong government intervention in favor of the economic elites. im(not so -h)o that has to do with the fact that it's a pejorative term that gets tossed about rather than an apt description. wikipedia is correct to focus on fascism as an economic/governmental philosophy, as that is what it is. Where the fascists and the corporate autocracy cross paths, folks jump for joy and scream fascisti! fascisti! when in point, it's a term that no longer has meaning, rather like nazi, commie, hippie, etc, ad nausium. On 5/5/08, Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good URL Andy. Everyone should look at it. Most politicians seem to be a sick breed of cat. Power mad sociopaths. How they can be so toxic and not even have a hint of their pathology is beyond me. Kirk Andy Karpay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For some reason Wikipedia definition of fascism has lost its references to merging corporatism with the state (it's what I don't like about Wikipedia). However, some common threads can be seen here. 14 Points of fascism: The warning signs http://oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm AK .The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone --- Benito Mussolini The fascist rat bags who think themselves our betters are now promoting their pharma income. The state is a myth. Mussolini got what all good fascists deserve. Basically these people will rule you into the ground if you let them Chip Mefford wrote: Was that fascist as in /extreme/ nationalism? Or is that fascist as in pejorative label applied to things we
Re: [Biofuel] Fascists at it again
Hi Chip Keith Addison wrote: Hi Chip, Chris and all This is the famous Mussolini quote: Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power. -- Benito Mussolini But Public Eye reckons he never said it. See: http://www.publiceye.org/fascist/corporatism.html Mussolini on the Corporate State Play it again Benito. :-) Such was my understanding. Benito, from what I've read, was basically a strong man thug type. Government philosophy wasn't one of his strong points. No. (But did he play the piano?) So what to call it then, if fascism's just an empty word these days? Chomsky calls it polyarchy: It has often been pointed out by political scientists that the US is basically a one-party state -- the business party. with two factions, Democrats and Republicans. Most of the population seems to agree. A very high percentage, sometimes passing 80%, believe that the government serves the few and the special interests, not the people. ... More serious political scientists in the mainstream describe the US not as a democracy but as a polyarchy: a system of elite decision and periodic public ratification. There is surely much truth to the conclusion of the leading American social philosopher of the 20th century, John Dewey, whose main work was on democracy, that until there is democratic control of the primary economic institutions, politics will be the shadow cast on society by big business. Not a good soundbyte word though, polyarchy, needs work... I like plutocracy myself. Corporate Oligarchy is good as well. Franklin, Jefferson et al, warned against corporations, and tried to set the base law of the US (aka the constitution) up so that corporations would be shackled in such a away as to avoid the wholly predictable rise of a corporate oligarchy. Indeed. Similar warnings from Adam Smith. Et al. The constitution didn't seem to stop them much though did it, from Rockefeller-J.P. Morgan etc up to now. I guess in the end it was for sale, like everything else - the 4th estate, for instance, owned by the interests it's supposed to be defending the public against (though, arguably, not any more). It's difficult or impossible to protect something like the American constitution these days, IMHO, or any of the rights and protections we're supposed to have. Very threadbare security blankets, cold comfort, as with everything decreed from on high. We have to start again, from the ground up, at the local level, making it stick where we live, networking to carry it further and beyond. Chomsky's spot on, of course, but I think he lends too much credence to the twin party system, Twins, yes - that's better than the two-party system. I'm not sure another term is needed. Polyarchy, plutocracy, corporate oligarchy are all jolly fine terms, but they're not built to roll easily and mindlessly from the tongue of an anchor at FauxTV. Fascist is much better, but they killed it with overuse. I'm sure they say Islamo-fascist easily and mindlessly enough. What a world, as you say. Corporateers is quite a good word, it sounds predatory, but it leaves out the government merger bit. Disaster capitalist is also quite good. Nah, needs work. But then again, he's the linguist, not me. :-) You don't do too badly. We Are The Ones We Have Been Waiting For; Find Your Work And Do It, It's Time. Verily. Regards Keith :) -- Best Keith Chris Burck wrote: well, when terms like islamo-fascist get slung about, yeah, you bet the meaning has been degraded. that's precisely the purpose for which such terms have been coined. that extreme notwithstanding, and though the pejorative use of the word exists, it has been far less abused than the barbs typical of the right, such as communist and hippie. it remains a very relevant word, certainly more so than commie was even at the height of the cold war. Well said, however, in point, ask a thousand folks on the street to define fascism, and I expect you'd not find a broad scale comprehension of the concept. Again, in contemporary parlance, fascist has no meaning, it's a simple negative term. And yeah, I about fell out of my chair when I heard chief autocrat Bush fling the new-speak meme, islamo-fascist. what a world what a world. :) On 5/5/08, Chip Mefford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris Burck wrote: the wiki articles place too much emphasis imho on fascism as a philosophy, though they do discuss corporatism, production/productivism, and strong government intervention in favor of the economic elites. im(not so -h)o that has to do with the fact that it's a pejorative term that gets tossed about rather than an apt description. wikipedia is correct to focus on fascism as an economic/governmental philosophy, as that is what it is. Where the fascists and the
Re: [Biofuel] Fascists at it again
(oh, dear, you got me started. . .)how about corpiracy (inflicted on us by the neoprivateers-nice little double entendre)? probably not. too cutesy. if a new word emerges, it'll most likely come from the street. meanwhile, oligarchy works for me, too. that, or babylon. On 5/7/08, Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Chip Keith Addison wrote: Hi Chip, Chris and all This is the famous Mussolini quote: Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power. -- Benito Mussolini But Public Eye reckons he never said it. See: http://www.publiceye.org/fascist/corporatism.html Mussolini on the Corporate State Play it again Benito. :-) Such was my understanding. Benito, from what I've read, was basically a strong man thug type. Government philosophy wasn't one of his strong points. No. (But did he play the piano?) So what to call it then, if fascism's just an empty word these days? Chomsky calls it polyarchy: It has often been pointed out by political scientists that the US is basically a one-party state -- the business party. with two factions, Democrats and Republicans. Most of the population seems to agree. A very high percentage, sometimes passing 80%, believe that the government serves the few and the special interests, not the people. ... More serious political scientists in the mainstream describe the US not as a democracy but as a polyarchy: a system of elite decision and periodic public ratification. There is surely much truth to the conclusion of the leading American social philosopher of the 20th century, John Dewey, whose main work was on democracy, that until there is democratic control of the primary economic institutions, politics will be the shadow cast on society by big business. Not a good soundbyte word though, polyarchy, needs work... I like plutocracy myself. Corporate Oligarchy is good as well. Franklin, Jefferson et al, warned against corporations, and tried to set the base law of the US (aka the constitution) up so that corporations would be shackled in such a away as to avoid the wholly predictable rise of a corporate oligarchy. Indeed. Similar warnings from Adam Smith. Et al. The constitution didn't seem to stop them much though did it, from Rockefeller-J.P. Morgan etc up to now. I guess in the end it was for sale, like everything else - the 4th estate, for instance, owned by the interests it's supposed to be defending the public against (though, arguably, not any more). It's difficult or impossible to protect something like the American constitution these days, IMHO, or any of the rights and protections we're supposed to have. Very threadbare security blankets, cold comfort, as with everything decreed from on high. We have to start again, from the ground up, at the local level, making it stick where we live, networking to carry it further and beyond. Chomsky's spot on, of course, but I think he lends too much credence to the twin party system, Twins, yes - that's better than the two-party system. I'm not sure another term is needed. Polyarchy, plutocracy, corporate oligarchy are all jolly fine terms, but they're not built to roll easily and mindlessly from the tongue of an anchor at FauxTV. Fascist is much better, but they killed it with overuse. I'm sure they say Islamo-fascist easily and mindlessly enough. What a world, as you say. Corporateers is quite a good word, it sounds predatory, but it leaves out the government merger bit. Disaster capitalist is also quite good. Nah, needs work. But then again, he's the linguist, not me. :-) You don't do too badly. We Are The Ones We Have Been Waiting For; Find Your Work And Do It, It's Time. Verily. Regards Keith :) -- Best Keith Chris Burck wrote: well, when terms like islamo-fascist get slung about, yeah, you bet the meaning has been degraded. that's precisely the purpose for which such terms have been coined. that extreme notwithstanding, and though the pejorative use of the word exists, it has been far less abused than the barbs typical of the right, such as communist and hippie. it remains a very relevant word, certainly more so than commie was even at the height of the cold war. Well said, however, in point, ask a thousand folks on the street to define fascism, and I expect you'd not find a broad scale comprehension of the concept. Again, in contemporary parlance, fascist has no meaning, it's a simple negative term. And yeah, I about fell out of my chair when I heard chief autocrat Bush fling the new-speak meme, islamo-fascist. what a world what a world. :) On 5/5/08, Chip Mefford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris Burck wrote: the wiki articles place too much emphasis imho on fascism as a
