Hello Brian
I'm sorry I spelled your name wrong, people are always doing that to
me so I should know better. (But it was late...)
>Hello Keith
>Thank you for the thoughtful and considerate review of my weekend's
>fun in setting up our first mixer and solution of methoxide.
I didn't want it to be a putdown but I guess it was anyway.
> > Wow, the Dark Ages are back! LOL!
>How true, for me I don't know about Kurt.
In the biodiesel world it harks back to the good old days that
weren't but it was fun anyway, with people posting photographs on the
Web of their first batch of biod, leaning over open processors with
sparking drill motors doing the stirring and so on. A little later
they were wearing breathing masks while leaning over their open
processors, before it got figured out (someone asked a chemicals
company) that not only ordinary breathing masks but even organic
vapour masks are useless against methanol fumes. And so on. Now we
look back and shudder and wonder why nobody even got hurt, and what
are all those guardian angels that must've worked so hard to save our
asses doing with themselves these days, well-deserved early
retirement I guess. Anyway we don't want to be going back there.
> > Um. Look, I really don't want to put a damper on your enthusiasm so
> > I'll try not to but I'm in wonderment at the way you're going about
> > it.
>Not to worry I can't be dis-enthused this easy.
:-) I didn't think you could.
> > This just isn't what it's all about.
>What is it all about?
Couple of things beyond the immediately obvious. I think the main
point is the context. Depends how broad you want to make it, it can
be as broad as you like, then shrink it down to the immediate level
and see how much of it fits.
There's this, from an altogether different thread a couple of weeks
back, three different people:
>>> > Anyway, I am sorry if I have cause hate and discontent.
>>>
>>>I think you're misunderstanding. Calling you into accountability for
>>>accuracy does NOT imply hatred or discontent. Please be careful with
>>>your facts in the future!
>>
>>snip>
>>No need to be careful just to inspire.
>
>Yes there is. It takes both otherwise you'll mislead. Or you've come
>to the wrong place.
Which he then cheerfully admitted, no problem.
Arguably the opposite is more true, that if you're out to inspire
people you should be much more careful, not less, you have to take a
long view. And get your facts right.
With biodiesel, there are two ways of going about it. One focuses on
encouraging newbies - make it as quick and easy as possible to get
results the first time or they'll lose interest, quick results, never
mind what results.
So for instance one guy ("But I'm a professor!" LOL!) uploaded his
biodiesel how-to showing just that, Dark Ages stuff, him leaning over
open processors and messing with methoxide with no gloves, no goggles
and not even a useless breathing mask, just to show people how easy
it really is, he said, and though he was using WVO he didn't say
anything about titration because don't make it too complicated:
"KISS! Keep It Simple Stupid!" But KISS is as KISS DOES (Don't
Oversimplify Either, Stupid).
The next development or maybe the one after that was there's no need
for titration with WVO, just use 6.25 grams, Mike Pelly says so.
Indeed he does say so, but if you actually read it, what he says is
that titration is the most important step, do it very carefully and
then do it twice:
"To determine the correct amount of lye required, a titration must be
performed on the oil being transesterified. This is the most
difficult step in the process, and the most critical -- make your
titration as accurate as possible... It's a good idea to do this
entire process more than once to ensure that your number is correct."
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_mike.html
Biodiesel recipe from Mike Pelly: Journey to Forever
But a lot of people, even now, just use 6.25 grams. Maybe it'll even
pass the wash-test if you bend the test too and use hot water or
something, or more likely the wash-test gets sneered at as useless,
it doesn't work - onward to super-gentle washing methods that will
mask incomplete reactions loaded with emulsifiers and soap, and then
it's stir-washing that "doesn't work". And so on. There's a whole
school of this iffy stuff. "I've done dozens of trouble-free miles
already!"
But as you can see from the messages being posted here all the time,
the wash-test isn't useless, titration is necessary, stir-washing
does work, and diesels should do half a million trouble-free miles,
not just dozens. Quality-control issues are important, with making
biodiesel and with information, and also for the list, which has a
distinct role and function and will achieve different goals otherwise.
Will people lose interest unless you lower the goalposts for them so
they can score 100% first time? That's what advertising people and PR
spin merchants and our lords and masters think, they even have us
believing it, and after all statistics show that web surfers have the
attention span of a goldfish, only 9 seconds, so gratification has to
be instant. But did you ever see a goldfish doing something dumb? Did
a goldfish ever see you doing something dumb? Maybe web surfers
aren't so dumb either.
Newbies aren't after instant gratification, they want to learn how to
make good fuel for their diesel motor, and it turns out getting it
right is quite easy anyway.
Sure, Brian, improvising is also what it's all about, very much so,
and of course you can achieve the same ends by using completely
different means, that's what people do here all the time, all the
gear at JtF is that way too. But you have to learn something about
what you're doing first or you'll just be flailing about in the dark
(ages).
This division over quality in the world of biodiesel homebrewing is
nothing special, you find the same issues everywhere. "There's no
proof it does any damage" (unwashed biodiesel or whatever) (there's
lots of proof) vs We'd like to see some proof that it doesn't do any
damage. There's a geopolitical confrontation brewing between Risk
Assessment (read Ford Pinto, Bhopal, human-caused global warming,
business-as-usual) and the Precautionary Principle, which some people
were citing decades ago in connection with global warming, fossil
fuels use, the "Dirty Dozen" pesticides and so on. Decades later:
"An estimated 12,000 weather-related disasters since 1980 have caused
618,200 fatalities and resulted in economic losses of $1.3 trillion.
In the 1980s, the average annual economic loss from weather-related
disasters was $26 billion. In 2004, that number rose to $104 billion,
and in 2005, Hurricane Katrina alone is expected to cost $100-200
billion in economic losses." (Worldwatch)
In 1992 in Rio, 178 countries (including the US) signed the Rio
Declaration on Environment and Development and adopted Agenda 21, a
300-page plan for achieving sustainable development in the 21st
century.
This is Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration: "In order to protect the
environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by
States according to their capabilities." Principle 15 is very often
cited these days at all levels.
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm
A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I) REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21toc.htm
United Nations Division for Sustainable Development
Agenda 21 - Table of Contents
Risk assessment and "acceptable risk" (ie risks to other people) are
still paramount in the US, with more and more exceptions, but the
Precautionary Principle has established itself in Europe and
elsewhere and it won't go away. One way has a future, the other way
will destroy the future if we let it.
Think globally, act locally, and Agenda 21 has devolved to
local-level initiatives worldwide, they don't hit the national press
much but they happen anyway. People here talk about stuff like
eco-footprints and making changes in the world, energy
decentralisation, community biofuels, and it all comes down again to
your own backyard. Like Darryl says, "It's your planet. If you won't
look after it, who will?"
That's part of the backdrop to making a first test-batch of
biodiesel, IMHO, you can choose how much or how little of it you'll
accept.
See:
Cutting fuel costs
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html#cutfuel
Anyway, that's one point, and you get others below, especially the
one about a few hundred folks looking over your shoulder.
But nobody thinks you're a knucklehead. And let's face it, you were
being a scatterbrain, I wasn't name-calling, just a little impatient.
How could you forget both scales and a blender? Peace! :-)
Or almost anyway. Separate reply next message on information flow of websites.
Best wishes
Keith
> >I think you're missing the
> > point. At least one, IMNSHO.
> >
> > You've got it all going your way, great information resources, and a
> > bunch of people here to discuss it with who've been doing it a long
> > time.
>I agree.
> > There was a recent thread here or maybe two with a bunch of messages
> > encouraging newbies having difficulty with the wash-test, saying how
> > they'd also struggled but got there in the end and they're glad they
> > persevered, they did it by removing the variables, checking their
> > techniques, improving their practices. That's quite a strong contrast
> > with this thread.
>Again, I can't speak for Kurt, my wife and I did what we could with
>what we had on hand, short of driving another thirty miles to get what
>we needed to do it right.
> > There are a lot of newbies here these days, by the way, much more
> > than usual, hundreds of them just one or two steps behind you and
> > watching how you're going about it, and what they're seeing from you
> > now is how to get away with being sloppy. Here we are, at the Biofuel
> > list, in the year Anno Domini 2005, after six years of this, being
> > sloppy.
>Yes, I see your point. I have found that I need to keep my mouth
>closed with the world view
>topics on this list because I feel others know better than I. It
>hadn't occurred to me that in this biodiesel process newbie thread
>others would be reading of my inexperience and thinking that if this
>knucklehead can do it then I should try doing this process sloppy as
>well.
> > When you follow a planned step-by-step course into learning how to do
> > something complex, in the early steps you'll probably be learning
> > more than you're aware of, if the course is up to much. Since it's
> > been developed in accordance with user-experience here it probably is
> > up to much.
>Not sure what you are getting at with the last sentence.
> > Why make small one-litre test batches anyway? So that you don't risk
> > messing up right at the outset with a 150-litre first batch and end
> > up facing a barrel of intractable and discouraging glop, right?
>I still feel better having made a sloppy and possibly useless two
>liter batch this weekend.
> > It's much more difficult to make one-litre test batches than
> > 150-litre batches.
>The only reason I did the two liter trial run is I needed to see first
>hand what I was going to need, or more accurately what I could
>scavenge and use and still get results.
> > Kurt, do you think you're going to need the new
> > 0.1 gram scale to measure the lye for a 55-gal reactor batch? Sure
> > you'll use it, but you won't need those tolerances. With a one-litre
> > batch it gives you a margin of error of 2.9%, kind of wide, but with
> > the bigger batch it would be accurate to within 0.01%, ridiculously
> > narrow, no need. The smaller the batch, the bigger the error, the
> > more accurate your measurements have to be.
> >
> > A good reason to learn precise techniques doing small test batches,
> > starting simple and adding one variable at a time, with quality
> > checks not only of the fuel you make but of your procedures too, is
> > that no matter how experienced you get, you never quite know what
> > fiendishly cunning little challenges the next batch of WVO might be
> > holding in store for you. The quality checks and test-batches aren't
> > just for newbies, you do it with every batch. Many case-hardened
> > biodiesel brewers do "Poor man's titration" bracket tests and quality
> > checks with every batch, they've said so on the list. The more
> > accurate and precise your measurements are the more your tests will
> > tell you, and the less grief will fill your days.
> >
> > "You have to get a 'feel' for it," they say. Like when you tie your
> > shoelaces, you just do it, you don't even have to look, your fingers
> > do it for you, it's easy. Actually it's a complicated series of
> > operations, tying your shoelaces, it wouldn't be so easy to program a
> > computer to do it. I don't think you get a good feel for it by trying
> > to take it by storm, deciding it's not going to kick *your* butt, so
> > you hurl volleys of random test batches at it and hit a wall of
> > emulsion. So in the end you buy accurate scales after all, like
> > everyone was telling you. But now you're advising Brian how not to
> > need one.
> >
> > Now you've got the scales, but you also have the idea lodged in your
> > head that you can measure half a gram of lye by volume in a beaker
> > because you tried it and it "worked". If you go teaching your fingers
> > stuff like that you're going to find yourself tripping over your
> > shoelaces a lot.
> >
> > You already are. You abandoned one-litre batches in favour of 300 ml
> > batches in the hopes of getting less moisture in the lye because you
> > think smaller measurements will take less time (76% humidity isn't so
> > much, it's higher than that here now). So you set yourself the task
> > of measuring even smaller quantities without an accurate scale. For a
> > 300ml batch, 3.5g/litre of lye works out to 1.05 grams, and the
> > volume would be 0.495 ml. You're measuring 0.495 ml of lye in a
> > beaker? And it gave you some of your "best results". But I think with
> > these methods your best results are just as randomly chaotic as the
> > worst ones. But you get it right by bending the wash-test your way.
> > And then advise another newbie to do the same.
> >
> > Brian, meanwhile, is starting in the wrong place and forgot he needs
> > to weigh something or other, and forgot he needed a blender to mix it
> > in too. Sheesh, Brain, how can you be so scatter-brained? Don't you
> > even make notes? You're not just boiling an egg you know.
>Actually, its spelled "Brian", but brain sounds good.
>We did a fine set of notes. As to being scatterbrained, I thought we
>weren't supposed to call each other names here. I am too enthusiastic
>to take the bait. In my case I am as focused as a person with zero
>dollars can be when it comes to doing lab work in a kitchen. Currently
>I have only what I have learned here to work with. I see others
>including you Keith finding salvage equipment and modifying it to work
>for you. This is all I do know about. I am the king (in my world) of
>modifications.The first thing I had to learn was that each person no
>matter how resourceful may overcome obstacles using completely
>different methods while still accomplishing the end result.
>Now I never intended to modify the chemistry found here, I wouldn't know how.
> > Why aren't you starting with virgin oil? But you want to start with
> > WVO, why waste time, and you're going to titrate it. Only you don't
> > have scales and you're going to use old litmus paper from a soil test
> > kit. And the way you're going you'll pick your way unerringly through
> > this jungle of variables to a glorious result, right. Meanwhile
> > you're already moving on to better things, next stop the acid-base
> > method.
>Again, I have no money for buying virgin oil. And, no I am not moving
>on to better things, acid base, sounds great, but I ain't got no acid
>either.
> > Sorry, chums, this ain't the way to do it, either not even for
> > beginners or especially not for beginners, take your choice.
> >
> > Eg (closes eyes and chucks a dart)...
>Hardly what I would say about the people that are trying to use the
>information found at journeytoforever web site. I would hope.
> > >I do recall that that ambient humidity messes with the methoxide
> > >mixing. Should I wait until the rain quits to continue with the
> > >experiment?
> >
> > What difference does it make, if you've carefully measured out your
> > lye into plastic bags keeping it dry as advised and you're mixing
> > methoxide the easy way, as advised, in a closed HDPE container with
> > both a bung and a lid?
>This is on the top of my list today, not exactly sure where I am going
>to find the HDPE container. I do have enough tubing and epoxy to do
>what I need.
> > But if you've prepared zilch for your first attempt at making biod,
> > after talking about it here for months, well...!
>Did I say that? It is no doubt true. Nnevertheless, I did learn how to
>do an awful lot of processes on the road to making my own biodiesel.
> > Go back to the beginning. Start here:
> > Make your first test batch
> > http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make.html#biodnew
>I intend to start at the begining , after all that's where I am.
> > Keep going, step by step. Study everything on that page and the next
> > page and at the links in the text.
> >
> > I suggest you make some print-outs Brian.
>We did this weekend
> >But please no more sloppiness!!
>I Promise.
> > Best wishes
> >
> > Keith
>Now Keith, please don't take this the wrong way (negative being wrong)
>has it occurred to you that maybe the flow of the JTF web site gets a
>little interrupted here and there? When was the last time you sat down
>with a newbie and watched as each step is absorbed and asked questions
>about comprehension? Again I don't mean to offend. For all I know you
>use your web page to teach newbies all the time and I am an idiot.
>
>Sincerely Brian Rodgers
_______________________________________________
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/
