Re: [biofuel] Now that you mention Knothe
Hi Christian Dear Keith, I was also wondering: In the papers the guys from Germany sent me (the guys, with all due respect), they showed walues of dissolved water for SME of about 1250 ppm. My own sunflowerME resulted (as previously discussed) in something between 1000 and 2000 ppm. Knothe's an American, by the way, he works for ARS. But I guess you know that. Did they send you a full copy of the Bunger, Krahl report? WHY ON EARTH does DIN specify 300 ppm and why does ASTM specify 500 ppm max if it seems BIODIESEL WILL SUCK UP WATER (either atmospheric or form the washing stages) to reach a water saturation content COMFORTABLY ABOVE the ammount specified by ASTM DIN??? Maybe it's a protection racket. As discussed previously, the Euro standards seem to deliberately favour rapeseed biodiesel and exclude soy biodiesel, for no good reason other than keeping the US out of the market. If you recall, it was Camillo Holecek of Energea in Austria who told us about these water standards and said they were all nonsense, that it would pick up 1200 ppm anyway. Actually he said they were producing biodiesel with only 50 ppm. He also said it wouldn't be that way anymore by the time it got into a car's tank. But it's easily arranged for it to still be 50 ppm on arrival at a quality testing lab. On the other hand, that might not be so easily arranged for a backyarder or a small-scale operation. I guess you could get it down with heat treatment though - cheat, in other words. Maybe I just don't trust the big guys. Well, anybody who still does hasn't been paying a lot of attention lately. But could be I'm seeing plots where there aren't any. Maybe the standards are just stupid. Regards Keith Regards, Christian - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 2:52 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] No more French fry WVO? I received some ordinary post mail from Mr. Hendrik Stein G. Knothe concerning various emission tests by Prof. Krahl in Germany. They reported traceo of acrolein and aldehides in emissions. The issue of acrolein was somewhat treated (in part by me) some weeks ago. Best wishes, Christian That's this one, below, Bunger, Krahl et al. I know that Gerhard Knothe cites these results, and there's been some controversy about that. The other person who cited Bunger, Krahl et al was a certain Associate Professor Jim Olsson of the Department of Physical Chemistry at Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg, Sweden. You can find out more about that in the Files section at the list website, in a folder marked Swedish_biodiesel_study - Junk science: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/files/Swedish_biodiesel_study/ A.k.a. the :frying pan study. Rapeseed oil and biodiesel used as a green alternative to conventional vehicle fuels can produce 10 times more cancer-causing emissions and pollutants than diesel. These findings were reported by Reuters. Olsson's flame reactor burned the test samples at only 550 deg C (1022 deg F) at normal atmospheric pressure, whereas a diesel engine burns the fuel at up to 2000 deg C (3632 deg F) at a pressure of about 100 bar (96.7 atmospheres), with completely different results. After a lot of protest from scientists and industry, Chalmers University itself published a retraction of the study, signed by Johan Carlsten, Chalmers' Vice President: The conditions in the flame reactor are not directly comparable with those in a combustion engine... This study does not allow direct conclusions about corresponding emissions from diesel engines... See Rapeseed oil as fuel: http://www.chalmers.se/Nyheter/2001/vecka08/rapsolja.html Olsson previously worked for Volvo, and it's thought that Volvo funded this study. Some time later, after Chalmers had already published its retraction, Volvo UK issued a press release slamming biodiesel: Bio-diesel is 10 times more carcinogenic than low sulphur diesel, exhaust fumes smell like oily chips and running costs are inflated. Volvo Car UK has questioned the latest report by the British Association of Bio Fuels and Oils promoting Bio-diesel as the 'fuel of the future' as misleading. As part of its own research into Bio-diesel and based on recent Swedish research, Volvo claims Bio-diesel is dirtier, smellier and less fuel efficient than low sulphur diesel, and engines are more costly to maintain. Etc etc. This was published in the British motoring press. Volvo too was forced to withdraw this ridiculous nonsense and publish a retraction, though with very poor grace indeed, and the press published that too. Biofuel list members had quite a lot to do with all this, especially Terry de Winne. Volvo seem to be trying to protect their investment in their new Bi-Fuel cars, which they tout as environmentally friendly, and they see biodiesel as
Re: [biofuel] Now that you mention Knothe
Keith: Yep... they«re from the ASAE. Yep. The sent me the whole stuff (I think... it«s rather long and most interesting... still haven«t gone through all of it. They seem like various reports) The authors work: Krahl J., Baum K., U. Hackbarth H., Jeberien E., Munack A., Schtt C., Schrder O., Walter N., Bnger J., Mller M. M., Weigel A. - Gaseous Compounds, Ozone Precursors, Particle Number and Particle Size Distributions, and Mutagenic Effects Due to Biodiesel - 2001 - ASAE, Vol 44(2): 179-191 (The publications sent to me where different works on the same topic: emissions ant mutagenesis, and each one is written by combinations of the names listed above) Your conspiracy theory might be right. Krahl«s RME showed 760 ppm while their SME showed 1760 ppm (I think those were the values). Evidently RME holds less water than SME. And we all know Europe favours the first and USA favours the latter. Who knows. Anyway I see it practically impossible to vacuum seal (or at least dry seal) our home made BD production... and my sunflowerME (over 1000 ppm water) worked OK. A former teacher of mine is currently studying water injection IN DIESEL ENGINES with very good results (at the Universidad Tecnolgica Nacional, which readily favours research... as opposed to my Univ.). I«ve been trying to contact him but I can never find him. He«s a mechanical engineer (who tought me thermodynamics and fluid mechanics a couple of years ago). «t could be interesting to find out what he knows. Best wishes, Christian - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 4:59 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Now that you mention Knothe Hi Christian Dear Keith, I was also wondering: In the papers the guys from Germany sent me (the guys, with all due respect), they showed walues of dissolved water for SME of about 1250 ppm. My own sunflowerME resulted (as previously discussed) in something between 1000 and 2000 ppm. Knothe's an American, by the way, he works for ARS. But I guess you know that. Did they send you a full copy of the Bunger, Krahl report? WHY ON EARTH does DIN specify 300 ppm and why does ASTM specify 500 ppm max if it seems BIODIESEL WILL SUCK UP WATER (either atmospheric or form the washing stages) to reach a water saturation content COMFORTABLY ABOVE the ammount specified by ASTM DIN??? Maybe it's a protection racket. As discussed previously, the Euro standards seem to deliberately favour rapeseed biodiesel and exclude soy biodiesel, for no good reason other than keeping the US out of the market. If you recall, it was Camillo Holecek of Energea in Austria who told us about these water standards and said they were all nonsense, that it would pick up 1200 ppm anyway. Actually he said they were producing biodiesel with only 50 ppm. He also said it wouldn't be that way anymore by the time it got into a car's tank. But it's easily arranged for it to still be 50 ppm on arrival at a quality testing lab. On the other hand, that might not be so easily arranged for a backyarder or a small-scale operation. I guess you could get it down with heat treatment though - cheat, in other words. Maybe I just don't trust the big guys. Well, anybody who still does hasn't been paying a lot of attention lately. But could be I'm seeing plots where there aren't any. Maybe the standards are just stupid. Regards Keith Regards, Christian - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 2:52 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] No more French fry WVO? I received some ordinary post mail from Mr. Hendrik Stein G. Knothe concerning various emission tests by Prof. Krahl in Germany. They reported traceo of acrolein and aldehides in emissions. The issue of acrolein was somewhat treated (in part by me) some weeks ago. Best wishes, Christian That's this one, below, Bunger, Krahl et al. I know that Gerhard Knothe cites these results, and there's been some controversy about that. The other person who cited Bunger, Krahl et al was a certain Associate Professor Jim Olsson of the Department of Physical Chemistry at Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg, Sweden. You can find out more about that in the Files section at the list website, in a folder marked Swedish_biodiesel_study - Junk science: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/files/Swedish_biodiesel_study/ A.k.a. the :frying pan study. Rapeseed oil and biodiesel used as a green alternative to conventional vehicle fuels can produce 10 times more cancer-causing emissions and pollutants than diesel. These findings were reported by Reuters. Olsson's flame reactor burned the test samples at only 550 deg C (1022 deg F) at normal atmospheric pressure, whereas a diesel engine burns the fuel at up to 2000 deg C (3632 deg F
