Re: [Biofuel] Check your Beliefs
Bob, Thank you for the explanation. I don't know much about the Middle East and the conflicts there so this was quite enlightning. I have heard that one of the root causes was when a forefather of Saddam took hold of Nazi beliefs and stirred up a radical element of Islam against the Jews. Have you heard that? Could you shed any light on that particular facet of this mess? It may be just garbage , but right or wrong I would like to know. Thank you, Jim Bob Molloy wrote: > Hi Fritz, > Greetings and genuine warm thoughts. Sorry I appeared > sarcastic. I've looked again at what I posted and realise it could be > interpreted that way. Apologies for that. I'm afraid I gave in to my > worst instincts. The Arab-Israeli conflict always generates a kind of > knee-jerk reaction in me. I spent time in Israel and Gaza. I went > there an innocent and came away a cynic, which is the worst and last > state of the frustrated idealist. > > I wish I had Mike Weaver's light touch but my humour tends more to the > black. > > My knee-jerk reaction on hearing the latest horror in this long, sorry > saga was the equivalent of quoting Shakespeare and wishing a pox on > both their houses. Yet when you pointed me in the direction of > the btselem websites I did get a glimpse of a possible sane outcome > for all. Thank you again for that. > > The Geneva Convention and international law on human rights, in fact > even the recognition that humans /have /rights, all stem from > international agreements - in short a backing away from survival of > the fittest. However, what I said was that we are still savages under > the skin. And those of us still around are demonstrations of our > fitness to survive the ongoing competition for space and land. Our > international agreements are but fragile protection against our > instincts. > > The analysis I put forward was based on taking a moment in time and > working forward from there, always a contentious method. If I were to > apply that to second century Britain, 16th century America, 18th > century Canada or 19th century Australia the result would condemn the > present populations of those countries as usurpers. In fact, as I > pointed out, none of us would be able to stand tall. > > The reason for starting from the moment when UNO accepted Israel as a > member (in other words as a legally constituted legitimate state) was > in my view the only possible point of departure. There are many > others, but none so clearly legitimised as the moment when the most > modern international organisation we had then in existence chose to do > so. You point out that the Arab League did not accept that, hence > their reason for going to war. This means they accepted war as a > legitimate means of solving their dispute i..e a return to survival of > the fittest. They went to war and lost. That's why the Palestinians > were not compensated for land. The reality is that land is not the > issue here, cultural hegemony i.e. the dominance of Islam, is. > The wars that followed and the massacres you refer to were - as surely > as night follows day - the inevitable outcome. They went unpunished > due to modern power politics which, as I pointed out, is dominated by > the winners. > > An alternative to beginning the analysis with the legitimisation of > the modern State of Israel would be to go back even further to > the post-Moses period during which the Israelites entered the > so-called Promised Land and lived there for some 1,300 years - > surviving Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, Syrian and a half-dozen other > invasions - until sent into Diaspora (i.e scattered around the known > world) in AD 78 when the Romans burned Jerusalem, killed thousands, > enslaved the rest, destroyed the Temple and - a year later - wiped out > the last outpost of Jewish resistance at Masada. > > After the Romans got their come-uppance (about 400 years later - from > the Germans would you believe - then known as Visigoths) the land of > Israel was occupied by nomadic desert tribes. The Jews never - in the > almost 2,000 years since the Diaspora - ever gave up their claim. In > fact, they had a standard greeting which endured for centuries in > many languages which wished themselves "next year in Jerusalem". > > However, if we start our analysis from pre-Mosiac times i.e. before > the Israelites entered the Promised Land (which obviously had people > living in it) then of course the Jews had no right to what was then > known as Canaan. But here's the question: who the hell did? Answer: > the guy with the biggest stick. > > In AD 630 (more than 550 years after the Romans tossed out the > Jews) the guy in the Middle East with the biggest stick happened to be > a man called Muhammed who invaded Mecca with 10,000 believers, united > the desert tribes with a new religious message known as Islam, and > spread it across the entire Midd
Re: [Biofuel] WVO
Hi Luke, I get oil like this from one of my suppliers. I don't get the black sediment layer but I do get two distinct layers even after thorough dewatering. The upper layer is clear oil while the lower layer is caramel coloured and about as solid as soft butter. When it was warmed up, it would melt to a liquid and become much darker, coffee coloured. (espresso) I have separated this lower layer out and tried making a test batch with it, with reasonable results. My best results were with the acid/base process. Dewater your oil thoroughly and try a test batch, it is the best way to know for sure if it is usable or not. Regards, Bob - Original Message - From: "WM LUKE MATHISEN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 10:43 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] WVO > Tom, > > I heated to 170f as you suggested. It became transluent and then > congelled > again, this time in three layers, a bottom layer (about 5%) that looks > like > black solids, then a layer of something white (also about 5%) and the rest > brown goo. But it looks like no water. So chicken fat it is. Any point > in > processing it seperately? Except to save the good stuff for winter use? > At > what outside temp do I need to be conserned about BD 100 gelling? > > Oh, and any idea what the white layer is? > > Thanks for your help. > :-) > Luke > > >>From: "Thomas Kelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org >>To: >>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] WVO >>Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:50:56 -0400 >> >>Luke, >> If your WVO was used to cook meat such as chicken, you will have >> some >>animal fat which may be causing the middle layer. It will still make >>excellent warm weather fuel. >> >> Of course, it might be water. >> >> Heat a small sample to get the water to drop out. Take some of the >>dried >>WVO and let it cool. If it remains clear, you had water. If it clouds upon >>cooling it probably contains animal fat. >> Tom >>- Original Message - >>From: "WM LUKE MATHISEN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: >>Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 7:56 AM >>Subject: [Biofuel] WVO >> >> >> > The waste veg oil (wvo)I collect has three different layers after it >> > settles. A clear (translucent) layer on top and a brown >> > non-translucent >> > layer - that doesn't want to filter - in the middle and then black >>solids >> > on >> > the bottom. My question is the middle brown layer. It seems - and I >> > havent >> > run enough batches to be sure - that the middle layer has water in it. >>Is >> > it worth the energy - propane - to process it when you have to boil off >> > the >> > water? >> > >> > :-) >> > Luke >> > >> > _ >> > Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! >> > http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > ___ >> > 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/ >> > > _ > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! > http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ > > > ___ > 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/
Re: [Biofuel] WVO
Luke, The solid white layer is probably animal fat ... bacon grease? As long as the petro diesel was winterized, my 70% BD : 30% petro didn't gel even at temps of -10F (-23C). A friend of mine has an outside storage tank and will go 50 : 50 BD to dino diesel. I think you can use BD in any burner. You may have to make some minor adjustments. I have a Beckett AF oil burner and a Burnham boiler. At a 50 : 50 mix I started to have some startup problems and had to increase pump pressure from 100 to 125 psi. I also switched from a 1.0 gph/80 degree nozzle to 0.75gph/80. I decreased air flow and installed a Webster Bio Pump with viton seals (compatible w BD). It now runs on 100% biodiesel. Tom - Original Message - From: "WM LUKE MATHISEN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 12:01 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] WVO > Tom, > > I have a tank less hot water heater that I can easily adjust the temp from > 100 to 176 F, I put the oil in a pete bottle, filled the sink with 176f > water and set the bottle in it. I checked it after a few minutes and it > was > in the process of turning translucent. The next morning it had stratified > as I indicated. I neglected to tell you that the white layer seem almost > solid. When I tipped the bottle it wanted to stay in place. Later today > I > will pour it into a pan and see if I get any snap-crackle-pop, indicating > that Andres is correct. > > I am using BD for a backup generator for my solar system. It can get very > cold (sub zero) and my generator is in a shed attached to the house. Due > to > ventilation requirements it gets almost as cold in the shed. > > Now that I am 100% clean on the electrical side, I would love to reduce my > propane use. I use propane for heat, and hot water. What kind of furnace > are you using to burn BD? I am looking for some kind of free standing > stove > to heat our basement (which in turn will heat the house, I have in-floor > propane heated hydronics in the basement floor, which I designed to then > heat the whole house). We were planning to put in a wood stove, but after > I > started the BD project I am leaning hard toward an oil stove. > > Love to hear how bacon and egg exhaust goes. > > And lastly > YOU BUSTED ME! > (I don't titrate) > > I spent more than a week trying titration, and ended in total frustration. > I could never get it to work. So using poor man titration, and lots of > trial and error with the blender, I use the two stage process with > beautiful > results (passes the quality tests with flying colors). My formula is 10g > KOH/1 liter Methanol. 25% Methoxide. 75% first stage - 25% second. 3 > vigorous washes and its done! > > :-) > Luke > > >>From: "Thomas Kelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org >>To: >>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] WVO >>Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 21:33:35 -0400 >> >>Luke, >> "So chicken fat it is." Maybe. >> >> Did you use bottom heat? as in a pot on the stove? >>If so, did it crackle a bit? Any water on the bottom? >> If you used a submersible heater, did bubbles form around the >> heating >>element? >> >> The white stuff , "about 5%", might be water. >> >> I use 100% BD in my car until night temps get down around freezing >>(32F >>/~2C). I then go to a 70% BD : 30% winterized petro diesel blend. 32F is a >>good deal below the cloud point of my BD. (You can check your BD by >>putting >>it in the fridge, check occassionally, read temp when it starts to cloud.) >>I >>drive an '82 Mercedes 300SD. I think it would pump jello. >> Last year I "winterized" my BD as described at JTF. >>This year I have separated WVO with the lowest cloud point from WVO that >>clouds at high temps. When the temps go down, the stuff that clouds easily >>becomes heating fuel for my house ... tank in basement, the other stuff >>becomes BD for my car ... outside in the cold. >> I actually like BD made from the WVO w. chicken fat. The car exhaust >>smells more like a barbeque than like french fries. My next 20 gal (76L) >>batch will have about 5 gal of bacon grease solid, had to melt it. >>It'll go in the car. I sometimes go fishing w a friend early in the >>morning. >>He has requested bacon and egg exhaust. Maybe this next batch will fit the >>bill. >> Good luck w the WVO >> By the way, what do you get for a titration on it? >> >> Tom >>- Original Message - >>From: "WM LUKE MATHISEN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: >>Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 5:43 PM >>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] WVO >> >> >> > Tom, >> > >> > I heated to 170f as you suggested. It became transluent and then >> > congelled >> > again, this time in three layers, a bottom layer (about 5%) that looks >> > like >> > black solids, then a layer of something white (also about 5%) and the >>rest >> > brown goo. But it looks like no water. So chicken fa
Re: [Biofuel] Check your Beliefs
Hi Fritz, Greetings and genuine warm thoughts. Sorry I appeared sarcastic. I've looked again at what I posted and realise it could be interpreted that way. Apologies for that. I'm afraid I gave in to my worst instincts. The Arab-Israeli conflict always generates a kind of knee-jerk reaction in me. I spent time in Israel and Gaza. I went there an innocent and came away a cynic, which is the worst and last state of the frustrated idealist. I wish I had Mike Weaver's light touch but my humour tends more to the black. My knee-jerk reaction on hearing the latest horror in this long, sorry saga was the equivalent of quoting Shakespeare and wishing a pox on both their houses. Yet when you pointed me in the direction of the btselem websites I did get a glimpse of a possible sane outcome for all. Thank you again for that. The Geneva Convention and international law on human rights, in fact even the recognition that humans have rights, all stem from international agreements - in short a backing away from survival of the fittest. However, what I said was that we are still savages under the skin. And those of us still around are demonstrations of our fitness to survive the ongoing competition for space and land. Our international agreements are but fragile protection against our instincts. The analysis I put forward was based on taking a moment in time and working forward from there, always a contentious method. If I were to apply that to second century Britain, 16th century America, 18th century Canada or 19th century Australia the result would condemn the present populations of those countries as usurpers. In fact, as I pointed out, none of us would be able to stand tall. The reason for starting from the moment when UNO accepted Israel as a member (in other words as a legally constituted legitimate state) was in my view the only possible point of departure. There are many others, but none so clearly legitimised as the moment when the most modern international organisation we had then in existence chose to do so. You point out that the Arab League did not accept that, hence their reason for going to war. This means they accepted war as a legitimate means of solving their dispute i..e a return to survival of the fittest. They went to war and lost. That's why the Palestinians were not compensated for land. The reality is that land is not the issue here, cultural hegemony i.e. the dominance of Islam, is. The wars that followed and the massacres you refer to were - as surely as night follows day - the inevitable outcome. They went unpunished due to modern power politics which, as I pointed out, is dominated by the winners. An alternative to beginning the analysis with the legitimisation of the modern State of Israel would be to go back even further to the post-Moses period during which the Israelites entered the so-called Promised Land and lived there for some 1,300 years - surviving Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, Syrian and a half-dozen other invasions - until sent into Diaspora (i.e scattered around the known world) in AD 78 when the Romans burned Jerusalem, killed thousands, enslaved the rest, destroyed the Temple and - a year later - wiped out the last outpost of Jewish resistance at Masada. After the Romans got their come-uppance (about 400 years later - from the Germans would you believe - then known as Visigoths) the land of Israel was occupied by nomadic desert tribes. The Jews never - in the almost 2,000 years since the Diaspora - ever gave up their claim. In fact, they had a standard greeting which endured for centuries in many languages which wished themselves "next year in Jerusalem". However, if we start our analysis from pre-Mosiac times i.e. before the Israelites entered the Promised Land (which obviously had people living in it) then of course the Jews had no right to what was then known as Canaan. But here's the question: who the hell did? Answer: the guy with the biggest stick. In AD 630 (more than 550 years after the Romans tossed out the Jews) the guy in the Middle East with the biggest stick happened to be a man called Muhammed who invaded Mecca with 10,000 believers, united the desert tribes with a new religious message known as Islam, and spread it across the entire Middle East including Israel and its principal city, Jerusalem. If you start your analysis from that point then the Palestinians are in the right. Does that make your head spin? It does mine. The point I'm making is that if you are looking for legitimacy in terms of land occupation you have to start somewhere. However, it is an academic approach. What matters in the heat of the moment is blood and fire and our separate reactions to them. Inevitably there will always be people on opposing sides of the issue. I finished my post with the view that the Arab-Israeli war will never end until Israel is destroyed or the Ara
Re: [Biofuel] Check Your Beliefs
Good on ya Bobit seems that the human race is most comfortable at attempting to wipe itself out!!Mother Nature RulesLeoBob Molloy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hey guys, It's a war; dirty, messy, cruel, inhuman andunnecessary - unless you happen to be a Palestinian yearning for your landback or an Israeli who's been threatened with annihilation since birth. It'salso a war that's been going on since mankind began. It's about land andreligion and culture and who dominates who. There are no rights and wrongsthere are only who wins and who loses. The winners write history and we moveon.Mike Weaver made the point when he wondered if he might be living on landowned by an indigenous people, a point which also applies to you too, Fritz,despite your disingenuous attempt to justify occupation of "unwanted" land.However, before you think of noble savages, remember that all those nicepeace-loving indigenes slaughtered and plundered their way through themillenia since they left Africa (where we all originated) to wherever theyfinally settled. The 19th century saw the last vestiges of this land grab.If you were a theologian you'd call it original sin. Darwin was earthier,and more enlightening, he called it survival of the fittest. You may takesides, wring your hands, jump up and down, talk about human rights but weare all - even those nice people in the rain forest who we think live inharmony with nature - guilty of genocide and dispossession. In the presentcase it's called the Arab-Israeli war. We'll know who was right whensomebody wins.And if you've forgotten how it all began, here's a brief sketch. I found iton my thumbnail.The UNO blessing on the establishment of Israel in 1948 was merely therecognition of a de facto situation. From that moment on Israel was de jure,i.e. a legal entity in international law. The Arabs disagreed. Five Arabarmies (Egypt, Syria, Trans-Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq - including theBritish-trained and armed Arab Legion) immediately invaded the fledglingstate. The world responded by clapping a total arms embargo on Israel.Against that the Israelis had nine obsolete aircraft, a few tanks, fewerthan 20,000 armed civilians -and balls. They won, and pushed out theirfrontiers to safeguard their collective backsides from future attacks.The attacks never stopped (rockets, mines, cross-border shelling andguerilla incursions) but the next big one came in 1967 - the so-called SixDay War. This time the Arabs meant business. Egypt closed the Straits ofTiran to all Israeli shipping, cutting off Israel's only supply route withAsia and stopping the flow of oil from its main supplier, Iran.President Nasser of Egypt challenged Israel to fight. "Our basic objectivewill be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight." Heordered all UN peace-keeping forces stationed on Israeli borders to leave.The UN complied without even calling a meeting. The Voice of the Arabs radiostation proclaimed: "As of today, there no longer exists an internationalemergency force to protect Israel. The sole method we shall apply againstIsrael is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionistexistence". Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad was more blunt: "The Syrianarmy, with its finger on the trigger, is unitedI, as a military man,believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.Nasser topped that: "We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered insand; we shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood." He meant Israeliblood.The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon massed on the borders ofIsrael. Backing them with men and munitions were Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait,Sudan and the whole Arab world. The actual count was 465,000 troops, morethan 2,800 tanks, and 800 aircraft. President Johnson warned the Israelisnot to fight. The Red Cross stocked up on blankets, the rest of the worldstood by and watched. Israel couldn't get a hearing in the UN. The SecurityCouncil, it seemed, was difficult to contact.We all know what happened. The Israelis didn't wait for the war. Theypre-empted it. In six days (about the same time God needed to create heavenand earth) the Israelis - using an army 80% of which were weekend soldiersi.e. civilians taking time off from work -and an airforce a fraction thesize of that possessed by the Arabs defeated the lot and pushed out theborders to a more comfortable fit. Figuring that sauce for the goose wassauce for the gander they also closed the Suez Canal to all nations. On thesixth day just as the Israelis were heading for Damascus the SecurityCouncil suddenly found time to convene and ordered a cease fire on allsides. Nasser promptly died and left the mess to his successor, Anwar Sadat.Sadat waited six years and then famously announced he was willing to"sacrifice one million soldiers" (nice man) in a showdown with Israel. Hejoined Syria in assembling a vast army - the equivalent of the total forcesof NATO in Europe. On the Golan Heights alo
Re: [Biofuel] Check your Beliefs
Well put. I wish I had your turn of the phrase. I had actually dared hope that post Yassar Arafat and Ariel Sharon there might be a bit of a lull. Falso hopes. I went to Jamestown, Va. a few weeks back and researched where some of my ancestors landed in 1617. Reading the history it's amazing how the English and the locals got along until a very minor misunderstanding blew into war. -Weaver Bob Molloy wrote: > Hi Fritz, > Greetings and genuine warm thoughts. Sorry I appeared > sarcastic. I've looked again at what I posted and realise it could be > interpreted that way. Apologies for that. I'm afraid I gave in to my > worst instincts. The Arab-Israeli conflict always generates a kind of > knee-jerk reaction in me. I spent time in Israel and Gaza. I went > there an innocent and came away a cynic, which is the worst and last > state of the frustrated idealist. > > I wish I had Mike Weaver's light touch but my humour tends more to the > black. > > My knee-jerk reaction on hearing the latest horror in this long, sorry > saga was the equivalent of quoting Shakespeare and wishing a pox on > both their houses. Yet when you pointed me in the direction of > the btselem websites I did get a glimpse of a possible sane outcome > for all. Thank you again for that. > > The Geneva Convention and international law on human rights, in fact > even the recognition that humans /have /rights, all stem from > international agreements - in short a backing away from survival of > the fittest. However, what I said was that we are still savages under > the skin. And those of us still around are demonstrations of our > fitness to survive the ongoing competition for space and land. Our > international agreements are but fragile protection against our > instincts. > > The analysis I put forward was based on taking a moment in time and > working forward from there, always a contentious method. If I were to > apply that to second century Britain, 16th century America, 18th > century Canada or 19th century Australia the result would condemn the > present populations of those countries as usurpers. In fact, as I > pointed out, none of us would be able to stand tall. > > The reason for starting from the moment when UNO accepted Israel as a > member (in other words as a legally constituted legitimate state) was > in my view the only possible point of departure. There are many > others, but none so clearly legitimised as the moment when the most > modern international organisation we had then in existence chose to do > so. You point out that the Arab League did not accept that, hence > their reason for going to war. This means they accepted war as a > legitimate means of solving their dispute i..e a return to survival of > the fittest. They went to war and lost. That's why the Palestinians > were not compensated for land. The reality is that land is not the > issue here, cultural hegemony i.e. the dominance of Islam, is. > The wars that followed and the massacres you refer to were - as surely > as night follows day - the inevitable outcome. They went unpunished > due to modern power politics which, as I pointed out, is dominated by > the winners. > > An alternative to beginning the analysis with the legitimisation of > the modern State of Israel would be to go back even further to > the post-Moses period during which the Israelites entered the > so-called Promised Land and lived there for some 1,300 years - > surviving Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, Syrian and a half-dozen other > invasions - until sent into Diaspora (i.e scattered around the known > world) in AD 78 when the Romans burned Jerusalem, killed thousands, > enslaved the rest, destroyed the Temple and - a year later - wiped out > the last outpost of Jewish resistance at Masada. > > After the Romans got their come-uppance (about 400 years later - from > the Germans would you believe - then known as Visigoths) the land of > Israel was occupied by nomadic desert tribes. The Jews never - in the > almost 2,000 years since the Diaspora - ever gave up their claim. In > fact, they had a standard greeting which endured for centuries in > many languages which wished themselves "next year in Jerusalem". > > However, if we start our analysis from pre-Mosiac times i.e. before > the Israelites entered the Promised Land (which obviously had people > living in it) then of course the Jews had no right to what was then > known as Canaan. But here's the question: who the hell did? Answer: > the guy with the biggest stick. > > In AD 630 (more than 550 years after the Romans tossed out the > Jews) the guy in the Middle East with the biggest stick happened to be > a man called Muhammed who invaded Mecca with 10,000 believers, united > the desert tribes with a new religious message known as Islam, and > spread it across the entire Middle East including Israel and its > principal city, Jerusalem. If
Re: [Biofuel] Biodiesel and the Petroleum Industry
In my opinion, that until the petroleum industry finds a way for them to regulate (control) biodiesel, they will use all at their disposal to keep the general public in the dark about the whole truth.Thomas Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I attended a public forum on Biofuels a while back. One of the speakers, the head of a biodiesel co-op, had me perplexed by his repeated assertion that biodiesel can be used in 2, 5%, " even 10% or 20% blends", but above these levels engine problems and gelling can occur. He had graphs showing the benefit of using biodiesel to improve exhaust emissions, but pointed out that above a 10% blend improvement tapers off "better to have 10 people driving with B10 than 1 person driving with B100." I questioned his assertions regarding gelling of fuel and pointed out that I drop from BD100 to BD70 in winter months w/o gelling. I explained the cleansing effect of BD and how this may clog fuel filters during initial use, but mentioned that this will also happen w blends as low as 5%. Actual engine damage is more a function of fuel quality than the nature of the fuel itself ... even homebrewers can make quality fuel shouldn't commercial producers be expected to do the same? I conceded that at BD10 there is a 10% reduction in hydrocarbon emissions and that at BD100 there is "only a 70% reduction", but suggested that I'd like to see all 10 drivers using BD100 to achieve the 70% reduction. There were 60 - 70 people at the forum; some from local newspapers, others from Community Action Groups, most were just curious about biofuels. Their enthusiasm was palpable, their questions polite. Before responding to a question, the speaker asked each person their name, and then spoke as if he was having a friendly, heart-to-heart conversation. To my questions he simply shrugged his shoulders and moved on. I contacted the friend who told me about the forum. He emailed me the actual invitation he had received. Re: the Biodiesel guy: " .Jerry --- has over 20 years of domain expertise in the petroleum distribution and marketing and is presently a member of a biodiesel business development team at a major independent energy supplier. ... Jerry does consulting in building biodiesel refineries and advocacy work in promoting alternative and sustainable fuels. Jerry brings over 25 years of experience in the petroleum industry in technology in the distribution, logistics and terminal operations areas. Jerry has been personally involved in the alternative energy arena for the past 15 years, operating his personal car on biodiesel more than 10 years ago and presently driving a van powered by CNG (compressed natural gas) as well as a car on home made biodiesel." He was clearly advocating 2%, 5% blends. Why? Is it simply because the auto manufacturers will void warrantees at higher blends? If so, why not just say so. Somehow I know I should be following the money. It must involve dollars and cents. Any ideas? Thanks , I've been mulling this over for weeks. Tom ___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ Do you Yahoo!? Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.___ 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/
Re: [Biofuel] WVO
Tom, I have a tank less hot water heater that I can easily adjust the temp from 100 to 176 F, I put the oil in a pete bottle, filled the sink with 176f water and set the bottle in it. I checked it after a few minutes and it was in the process of turning translucent. The next morning it had stratified as I indicated. I neglected to tell you that the white layer seem almost solid. When I tipped the bottle it wanted to stay in place. Later today I will pour it into a pan and see if I get any snap-crackle-pop, indicating that Andres is correct. I am using BD for a backup generator for my solar system. It can get very cold (sub zero) and my generator is in a shed attached to the house. Due to ventilation requirements it gets almost as cold in the shed. Now that I am 100% clean on the electrical side, I would love to reduce my propane use. I use propane for heat, and hot water. What kind of furnace are you using to burn BD? I am looking for some kind of free standing stove to heat our basement (which in turn will heat the house, I have in-floor propane heated hydronics in the basement floor, which I designed to then heat the whole house). We were planning to put in a wood stove, but after I started the BD project I am leaning hard toward an oil stove. Love to hear how bacon and egg exhaust goes. And lastly YOU BUSTED ME! (I don't titrate) I spent more than a week trying titration, and ended in total frustration. I could never get it to work. So using poor man titration, and lots of trial and error with the blender, I use the two stage process with beautiful results (passes the quality tests with flying colors). My formula is 10g KOH/1 liter Methanol. 25% Methoxide. 75% first stage - 25% second. 3 vigorous washes and its done! :-) Luke From: "Thomas Kelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: Subject: Re: [Biofuel] WVO Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 21:33:35 -0400 Luke, "So chicken fat it is." Maybe. Did you use bottom heat? as in a pot on the stove? If so, did it crackle a bit? Any water on the bottom? If you used a submersible heater, did bubbles form around the heating element? The white stuff , "about 5%", might be water. I use 100% BD in my car until night temps get down around freezing (32F /~2C). I then go to a 70% BD : 30% winterized petro diesel blend. 32F is a good deal below the cloud point of my BD. (You can check your BD by putting it in the fridge, check occassionally, read temp when it starts to cloud.) I drive an '82 Mercedes 300SD. I think it would pump jello. Last year I "winterized" my BD as described at JTF. This year I have separated WVO with the lowest cloud point from WVO that clouds at high temps. When the temps go down, the stuff that clouds easily becomes heating fuel for my house ... tank in basement, the other stuff becomes BD for my car ... outside in the cold. I actually like BD made from the WVO w. chicken fat. The car exhaust smells more like a barbeque than like french fries. My next 20 gal (76L) batch will have about 5 gal of bacon grease solid, had to melt it. It'll go in the car. I sometimes go fishing w a friend early in the morning. He has requested bacon and egg exhaust. Maybe this next batch will fit the bill. Good luck w the WVO By the way, what do you get for a titration on it? Tom - Original Message - From: "WM LUKE MATHISEN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 5:43 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] WVO > Tom, > > I heated to 170f as you suggested. It became transluent and then > congelled > again, this time in three layers, a bottom layer (about 5%) that looks > like > black solids, then a layer of something white (also about 5%) and the rest > brown goo. But it looks like no water. So chicken fat it is. Any point > in > processing it seperately? Except to save the good stuff for winter use? > At > what outside temp do I need to be conserned about BD 100 gelling? > > Oh, and any idea what the white layer is? > > Thanks for your help. > :-) > Luke > > >>From: "Thomas Kelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org >>To: >>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] WVO >>Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:50:56 -0400 >> >>Luke, >> If your WVO was used to cook meat such as chicken, you will have >> some >>animal fat which may be causing the middle layer. It will still make >>excellent warm weather fuel. >> >> Of course, it might be water. >> >> Heat a small sample to get the water to drop out. Take some of the >>dried >>WVO and let it cool. If it remains clear, you had water. If it clouds upon >>cooling it probably contains animal fat. >> Tom >>- Original Message - >>From: "WM LUKE MATHISEN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: >>Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 7:56 AM >>Subject: [Biofuel] WVO >> >> >> > The waste veg oil (wvo)I collect
[Biofuel] Biodiesel and the Petroleum Industry
I attended a public forum on Biofuels a while back. One of the speakers, the head of a biodiesel co-op, had me perplexed by his repeated assertion that biodiesel can be used in 2, 5%, " even 10% or 20% blends", but above these levels engine problems and gelling can occur. He had graphs showing the benefit of using biodiesel to improve exhaust emissions, but pointed out that above a 10% blend improvement tapers off "better to have 10 people driving with B10 than 1 person driving with B100." I questioned his assertions regarding gelling of fuel and pointed out that I drop from BD100 to BD70 in winter months w/o gelling. I explained the cleansing effect of BD and how this may clog fuel filters during initial use, but mentioned that this will also happen w blends as low as 5%. Actual engine damage is more a function of fuel quality than the nature of the fuel itself ... even homebrewers can make quality fuel shouldn't commercial producers be expected to do the same? I conceded that at BD10 there is a 10% reduction in hydrocarbon emissions and that at BD100 there is "only a 70% reduction", but suggested that I'd like to see all 10 drivers using BD100 to achieve the 70% reduction. There were 60 - 70 people at the forum; some from local newspapers, others from Community Action Groups, most were just curious about biofuels. Their enthusiasm was palpable, their questions polite. Before responding to a question, the speaker asked each person their name, and then spoke as if he was having a friendly, heart-to-heart conversation. To my questions he simply shrugged his shoulders and moved on. I contacted the friend who told me about the forum. He emailed me the actual invitation he had received. Re: the Biodiesel guy: " .Jerry --- has over 20 years of domain expertise in the petroleum distribution and marketing and is presently a member of a biodiesel business development team at a major independent energy supplier. ... Jerry does consulting in building biodiesel refineries and advocacy work in promoting alternative and sustainable fuels. Jerry brings over 25 years of experience in the petroleum industry in technology in the distribution, logistics and terminal operations areas. Jerry has been personally involved in the alternative energy arena for the past 15 years, operating his personal car on biodiesel more than 10 years ago and presently driving a van powered by CNG (compressed natural gas) as well as a car on home made biodiesel." He was clearly advocating 2%, 5% blends. Why? Is it simply because the auto manufacturers will void warrantees at higher blends? If so, why not just say so. Somehow I know I should be following the money. It must involve dollars and cents. Any ideas? Thanks , I've been mulling this over for weeks. Tom ___ 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/
Re: [Biofuel] WVO
For me the white layer is non reacted saturated monoglicerides, diglicerides and fat. I made a second step sterification and the layer did not formed again. It seems that more yield is get with a two stage process (using 60% and then 40% of methanol and soda) than a single step one. That white layer is not formed with virgin vegetable oil. ;-) Cheers - Original Message - From: "WM LUKE MATHISEN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 7:56 AM Subject: [Biofuel] WVO > The waste veg oil (wvo)I collect has three different layers after it > settles. A clear (translucent) layer on top and a brown non-translucent > layer - that doesn't want to filter - in the middle and then black solids > on > the bottom. My question is the middle brown layer. It seems - and I > havent > run enough batches to be sure - that the middle layer has water in it. Is > it worth the energy - propane - to process it when you have to boil off > the > water? > > :-) > Luke > > _ > Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! > http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ > > > > ___ > 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/ > > __ Visita http://www.tutopia.com y comienza a navegar más rápido en Internet. Tutopia es Internet para todos. ___ 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/
