Re: [Biofuel] MaGnesol is... was Re: Manesol pretreatment and washing
Very nice Todd. The end result of this biodiesel washing with Magnesol is that you will have used a lot of water and a lot of time. Me thinks they need a proof reader. LOL! Methinks they do. Would you agree that such slips are telling? Just circumstantial evidence, but still. There is a problem, it's much more difficult to get 100% accurate proofreading onscreen than on paper (you can probably find typos at JtF too). But that stray Magnesol in there is just sloppy, what else is sloppy? Something to add might be whether Magnesol really does give the same results. If it's time-saving that's the aim there are ways round that without becoming more dependent on anyone. I don't accept it gives better-quality results unless maybe you're starting with a poorly completed product, in which case the magnesol is just masking the problem (like mist-washing). You can easily get within the standard specs with well-made homebrew biodiesel plus a few hours spent stir-washing it. If you GC'd the result and compared it with a sample of the same batch of homebrew dry-washed with Magnesol, what would it show? Has anybody seen such results? Best Keith The presumption is made that the following is from Dallas Group's PR about Magnesol. .. Water in biodiesel is not a good idea. Most people would agree this is a true statement. Dohhh!!! Perhaps that's why it's removed? Yet most people continue to wash their biodiesel with water, and then go on to dry their biodiesel after washing. The end result of this biodiesel washing with Magnesol is that you will have used a lot of water and a lot of time. Me thinks they need a proof reader. That and they conveniently(?) neglect to mention that use of Magnesol uses a lot of Magnesol and probably some rather hefty energy inputs. On the Magnesol side: A) Magnesol is not universal. B) Use of Magnesol marries the manufacturer to a vendor. C) Rather costly filter presses are required to remove Magnesol from the fuel stream. D) Expended Magnesol must be handled as a solid waste, inclusive of the filtrate. E) Energy expenditures are required to manufacture and transport synthetic magnesium silicate (Magnesol). As a parenthetical aside, suggestion has been made and perhaps research conducted on feeding the expended Magnesol (sodium silicate) with filtrate to livestock. Soap, glycerol, FFA, mono- and di-glyceride laden sodium silicate as animal feed. Positively yummy, no doubt. This seems almost reminiscent of the days when feeding cement dust to livestock was not abnormal. On the water side: A) Water is universal, by and large. B) Water has a dual utility, as easily treated wash water can be reused as gray water irrigation. C) Acid/Base systems don't require inordinate amounts of water (or Magnesol for that matter). There is an extra heating cycle in a water wash system than a dry wash (Magnesol). Both flash the methanol from the fuel prior to washing. But the water wash system requires elevating from wash temperature to flash temperature. Both systems can use the heat recovered from their final flash to preheat the feedstock. This is where the energy equation between the two systems should be constructed to see precisely which uses more energy - manufacturing, transporting, filtering and disposing of Magnesol or elevating the temperature of the cooled, wet-washed, fuel to flash temp. Doubtful that Dallas Group would divulge their energy expenditures from manufacturing. All in all they both have their place. Neither is necessarily superior over the other. Todd Swearingen Bruno M. wrote: Magnesol, with a G in it, and not Manesol like in the title ;-) is used in the US to clear ( resfresh) frying oil and makes it last longer. It's produced by the Dallas Group of America Inc. www.dallasgrp.com/ It's simply a synthetic Magnesium Silicate, sold as an absorbent filter aid. They say: MAGNESOL® XL keeps shortening clean and free from impurities, which reduces the build-up of off-flavor, off-odors and color in used shortening. Shortening retains its fresh quality, lasts longer and fried products are always light, crisp and golden delicious. pr And in this PDF: www.dallasgrp.com/biodiesel.pdf you'll find on page 2 their analysis from BD cleaned with Magnesol compared to water washing. So, original made for refreshing fryer oil, it's not new in de BD world, the dallasgroup itself has already found in BD a new market and, this UK commercial site www.ukfueltech.com/ about BD tells ...: ~~ www.ukfueltech.com/biodiesel-magnesol-dry-washing.htm Magnesol - dry wash biodiesel clean Water in biodiesel is not a good idea. Most people would agree this is a true statement. Yet most people continue to wash their biodiesel with water, and then go on to dry their biodiesel after washing. The end result of
Re: [Biofuel] MaGnesol is... was Re: Manesol pretreatment and washing
Keith Addison wrote: Very nice Todd. The end result of this biodiesel washing with Magnesol is that you will have used a lot of water and a lot of time. Me thinks they need a proof reader. LOL! Methinks they do. Would you agree that such slips are telling? Just circumstantial evidence, but still. There is a problem, it's much more difficult to get 100% accurate proofreading onscreen than on paper (you can probably find typos at JtF too). But that stray Magnesol in there is just sloppy, what else is sloppy? Something to add might be whether Magnesol really does give the same results. If it's time-saving that's the aim there are ways round that without becoming more dependent on anyone. I don't accept it gives better-quality results unless maybe you're starting with a poorly completed product, in which case the magnesol is just masking the problem (like mist-washing). You can easily get within the standard specs with well-made homebrew biodiesel plus a few hours spent stir-washing it. If you GC'd the result and compared it with a sample of the same batch of homebrew dry-washed with Magnesol, what would it show? Has anybody seen such results? Best Keith The presumption is made that the following is from Dallas Group's PR about Magnesol. .. Water in biodiesel is not a good idea. Most people would agree this is a true statement. Dohhh!!! Perhaps that's why it's removed? Yet most people continue to wash their biodiesel with water, and then go on to dry their biodiesel after washing. The end result of this biodiesel washing with Magnesol is that you will have used a lot of water and a lot of time. Me thinks they need a proof reader. That and they conveniently(?) neglect to mention that use of Magnesol uses a lot of Magnesol and probably some rather hefty energy inputs. On the Magnesol side: A) Magnesol is not universal. B) Use of Magnesol marries the manufacturer to a vendor. C) Rather costly filter presses are required to remove Magnesol from the fuel stream. D) Expended Magnesol must be handled as a solid waste, inclusive of the filtrate. E) Energy expenditures are required to manufacture and transport synthetic magnesium silicate (Magnesol). As a parenthetical aside, suggestion has been made and perhaps research conducted on feeding the expended Magnesol (sodium silicate) with filtrate to livestock. Soap, glycerol, FFA, mono- and di-glyceride laden sodium silicate as animal feed. Positively yummy, no doubt. This seems almost reminiscent of the days when feeding cement dust to livestock was not abnormal. On the water side: A) Water is universal, by and large. B) Water has a dual utility, as easily treated wash water can be reused as gray water irrigation. C) Acid/Base systems don't require inordinate amounts of water (or Magnesol for that matter). There is an extra heating cycle in a water wash system than a dry wash (Magnesol). Both flash the methanol from the fuel prior to washing. But the water wash system requires elevating from wash temperature to flash temperature. Both systems can use the heat recovered from their final flash to preheat the feedstock. This is where the energy equation between the two systems should be constructed to see precisely which uses more energy - manufacturing, transporting, filtering and disposing of Magnesol or elevating the temperature of the cooled, wet-washed, fuel to flash temp. Doubtful that Dallas Group would divulge their energy expenditures from manufacturing. All in all they both have their place. Neither is necessarily superior over the other. Todd Swearingen Bruno M. wrote: The main reason I am trying out Magnesol is because it is going to be MUCH easier to integrate into my continuous process than water washing. I saw some test data from Biodiesel magazine (March 2005), which compared 2 samples. One was water washed and one was Magnesol washed, the test results from the Magnesol washed sample were superior. Have you done any tests with Magnesol to come to your conclusion that it is inferior to water washing? Have you evidence that these results are indeed incorrect, or doctored in any way? Where I live the only water I have available is heavily treated to be potable and it is currently getting scarse (Drought orders are already in effect in South England, the last time this happened was in the 70's) So personally if I can find a way around utilising a scarce and precious commodity then I will try it, is that not why we are here! I have nowhere at my workplace to collect rainwater and it would be unrealistic to transport water collected at home to my workplace where I process my diesel! Extracts from the said article: IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY College of Engineering Mechanical Engineering Department 2025 Black
Re: [Biofuel] MaGnesol is... was Re: Manesol pretreatment and washing
You seem rather cross, Chris. Magnesol washed sample were superior. Have you done any tests with Magnesol to come to your conclusion that it is inferior to water washing? Have you evidence that these results are indeed incorrect, or doctored in any way? I reached no such conclusion. I expressed a valid doubt and asked for some evidence. The burden of proof is not on me nor on the consumer when the makers of a commercial product make claims for it, it's on them. You're siding with risk assessment, we go by the Precautionary Principle here, we ask questions, and is that not why we are here!. Where I live the only water I have available is heavily treated to be potable and it is currently getting scarse (Drought orders are already in effect in South England, the last time this happened was in the 70's) So personally if I can find a way around utilising a scarce and precious commodity then I will try it, is that not why we are here! Who's trying to stop you? On the other hand, as we all know or should by now, the water resource you'd be using need not be wasted, and I'm afraid I have to ask whether you use a flush toilet that uses fresh water? You've provided us with one reason anyway for using Magnesol (presuming it passes the other hurdles Todd mentioned, and me), and you've also offered some test results below, which is what I asked for though I haven't read them yet, so what's the problem? Isn't that why we're here? Would you say that you've reached a stage with learning the process where you can easily make homebrew biodiesel yourself that gets within the standard specs with a few hours spent stir-washing it so you can do some comparative tests yourself? I didn't get the impression that was established with the results you gave us, please correct me if I'm wrong. Best Keith Keith Addison wrote: Very nice Todd. The end result of this biodiesel washing with Magnesol is that you will have used a lot of water and a lot of time. Me thinks they need a proof reader. LOL! Methinks they do. Would you agree that such slips are telling? Just circumstantial evidence, but still. There is a problem, it's much more difficult to get 100% accurate proofreading onscreen than on paper (you can probably find typos at JtF too). But that stray Magnesol in there is just sloppy, what else is sloppy? Something to add might be whether Magnesol really does give the same results. If it's time-saving that's the aim there are ways round that without becoming more dependent on anyone. I don't accept it gives better-quality results unless maybe you're starting with a poorly completed product, in which case the magnesol is just masking the problem (like mist-washing). You can easily get within the standard specs with well-made homebrew biodiesel plus a few hours spent stir-washing it. If you GC'd the result and compared it with a sample of the same batch of homebrew dry-washed with Magnesol, what would it show? Has anybody seen such results? Best Keith The presumption is made that the following is from Dallas Group's PR about Magnesol. .. Water in biodiesel is not a good idea. Most people would agree this is a true statement. Dohhh!!! Perhaps that's why it's removed? Yet most people continue to wash their biodiesel with water, and then go on to dry their biodiesel after washing. The end result of this biodiesel washing with Magnesol is that you will have used a lot of water and a lot of time. Me thinks they need a proof reader. That and they conveniently(?) neglect to mention that use of Magnesol uses a lot of Magnesol and probably some rather hefty energy inputs. On the Magnesol side: A) Magnesol is not universal. B) Use of Magnesol marries the manufacturer to a vendor. C) Rather costly filter presses are required to remove Magnesol from the fuel stream. D) Expended Magnesol must be handled as a solid waste, inclusive of the filtrate. E) Energy expenditures are required to manufacture and transport synthetic magnesium silicate (Magnesol). As a parenthetical aside, suggestion has been made and perhaps research conducted on feeding the expended Magnesol (sodium silicate) with filtrate to livestock. Soap, glycerol, FFA, mono- and di-glyceride laden sodium silicate as animal feed. Positively yummy, no doubt. This seems almost reminiscent of the days when feeding cement dust to livestock was not abnormal. On the water side: A) Water is universal, by and large. B) Water has a dual utility, as easily treated wash water can be reused as gray water irrigation. C) Acid/Base systems don't require inordinate amounts of water (or Magnesol for that matter). There is an extra heating cycle in a water wash system than a dry wash (Magnesol). Both flash the methanol from the fuel prior to washing. But the water wash system requires elevating from wash temperature to flash temperature. Both systems can use
Re: [Biofuel] MaGnesol is... was Re: Manesol pretreatment and washing
Appal Energy wrote: B) Use of Magnesol marries the manufacturer to a vendor. I believe there are alternative brands of synthetic magnesium silicate on the market, several at a lower cost. I am currently looking into this, several posts on online forums suggest this also. C) Rather costly filter presses are required to remove Magnesol from the fuel stream. Not exactly. A cheap and readlily available sock filter and gravity will do the trick with very little investment. There are commercially available filter units which are big bucks, but in the spirit of the JTF site I doubt many people here would have any difficulty in suspending a 5 micron sock filter over a collecting drum. Wont look as nice as a commercially bought stainless filter unit, but thats not always an issue. The units I have seen in the commercial sector are simply a stainelss enclosure taking a £9.99 for 10 sock filter and a pump. D) Expended Magnesol must be handled as a solid waste, inclusive of the filtrate. The manufacturer claims disposal by composting, the filters are non consumable. E) Energy expenditures are required to manufacture and transport synthetic magnesium silicate (Magnesol). As they are to treat and pump water, and to treat sewerage. I agree it would be nice to know the true energy costs, but where do you stop? I remember at Uni reading a paper about nuclear power stations. A group of students started doing energy calculations, adding up everything it took to run a power plant (and I mean everything!!) right down to the fuel used to transport materials to the brickworks to make the bricks to build the plant! They concluded that they couldnt possibly have factored in all the energy, but on what they had it was something like a 25-30 year running time before the break even point was reached!! On the water side: A) Water is universal, by and large. Tell that to those people in S England who face having theirs turned off soon! ;-)) B) Water has a dual utility, as easily treated wash water can be reused as gray water irrigation. Assuming that you are in the situation where you need irrigation, if not then it is going to get drained. Not being critical of your comments at all, just factoring in my situation, which is probably the same as many here. I have nothing else to do with my wash water but to put it down the drain. All in all they both have their place. Neither is necessarily superior over the other. I agree. As I have said, I am aiming to get a small scale semi-continuous process online soon to process the WVO of a small group of people. I feel this will be beneficial over lots of small processor running individually. Integrating magnesol washing it going to be far easier than integrating water washing as every gallon squirt out of the processor could be dosed with magnesol, mixed for a number of minuites then dumped into a tank to be gravity fed through a filter bag. Todd Swearingen Bruno M. wrote: Magnesol, with a G in it, and not Manesol like in the title ;-) Sorry for the typo! is used in the US to clear ( resfresh) frying oil and makes it last longer. Erm, sorry you have lost me, what is resfresh? ;-) The end result of this biodiesel washing with Magnesol is that you will have used a lot of water and a lot of time. I see, this error that was mentioned earlier (magnesol not water) was on the website of a third party distributor of Magnesol, not from Magnesol themselves. I was getting a bit woried there for a moment with all the mention of 'sloppyness'. ;-) Chris.. ___ 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] MaGnesol is... was Re: Manesol pretreatment and washing
When I was talking to the local small pizzeria, he mentioned about the use of some kind of powder that was usedto keep used fryer oil lasting longer. He didn't know the name of it offhand, but stated that he would never use it. I asked him why, and he stated that the food that was cooked in the "refreshed" oildidn't taste the same. The local fire company also asked him about this powder, because the fire company used it one year to try to extend the life of their oil for their fish fry during Lent. They stated that many people were complaining of diarrhea shortly after eating their fish.Nobody could prove(or didn't want to) that it was the powder that was causing this. The local pizzeria vendor told them to just change their oil more frequently and that it was a small price to payfor a little peace of mind. They took his advice and this past year they changed their oil more frequently. As far as I know, there were no, or very few, complaints this year. Would this powder cause "plumbing" problems in individuals? Or would this be due to some other factor?"Bruno M." [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Magnesol,with a G in it, and not Manesol like in the title ;-)is used in the US to clear ( resfresh) frying oil and makes it last longer.It's produced by the "Dallas Group of America Inc." www.dallasgrp.com/It's simply a synthetic Magnesium Silicate, sold as an absorbent filter aid.They say: MAGNESOL® XL keeps shortening clean and free from impurities,which reduces the build-up of off-flavor, off-odors and color in usedshortening. Shortening retains its fresh quality, lasts longer and friedproducts are always light, crisp and golden delicious. prAnd in this PDF: www.dallasgrp.com/biodiesel.pdfyou'll find on page 2 their analysis from BD cleaned with Magnesol compared to water washing.So, original made for refreshing fryer oil, it's not new in de BD world,the dallasgroup itself has already found in BD a new market and,this UK commercial site www.ukfueltech.com/ about BD tells ...:~~ snip___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/ Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.___ 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] MaGnesol is... was Re: Manesol pretreatment and washing
Keith Addison wrote: You seem rather cross, Chris. Not at all, lol, I just get the impression that it was you opinion that using anything other than water for cleaning biodiesel was a big 'no no'. The way your response came across read to me like that. I apologise if I misread you. I reached no such conclusion. I expressed a valid doubt and asked for some evidence. The burden of proof is not on me nor on the consumer when the makers of a commercial product make claims for it, it's on them. I don't accept it gives better-quality results unless maybe you're starting with a poorly completed product, in which case the magnesol is just masking the problem (like mist-washing). I read this as you opinion being that the results from my experiments were some how 'made up'. My results showed that I can wash my product quicker with magnesol and that this is the result I am looking for with my process in mind. I agree its up to the manufacturer to provide evidence, and they comissioned a report to find the answers, it is readlily available in the public domain. You're siding with risk assessment, we go by the Precautionary Principle here, we ask questions, and is that not why we are here!. As do I. I am a professional engineer and havent got by on taking things for granted and not requiring proof of principles when integrating new techniques, processes, and technologies. You say 'we ask questions'? But what questions have been asked? I have simply made available to a group of people who are interested in biofuels my results from utilising a variation in the process, nothing more, nothing less. I would expect a better way forward for the current biofuel technologies would be to discuss these variations, and see if they are a step forwards, or indeed backwards. Your previusly quoted comment suggests that you have no belief that this is the case here, and you admitted yourself that you have seen no evidence. I feel this is not the way to move forward. Who's trying to stop you? I wasnt aware that anybody was! Not sure what agve you the idea that I was considering binning the idea. On the other hand, as we all know or should by now, the water resource you'd be using need not be wasted, and I'm afraid I have to ask whether you use a flush toilet that uses fresh water? I do indeed flush my toilet with fresh water. Attractive as it may be to carry waste wash water from work 20 miles to home to refill the cistern, I doubt the practical aspects of doing this would go without a frown or two from the wife. :-D You've provided us with one reason anyway for using Magnesol (presuming it passes the other hurdles Todd mentioned, and me), and you've also offered some test results below, which is what I asked for though I haven't read them yet, so what's the problem? Isn't that why we're here? Just re-read Todds message and although I can see a few important issues he mentioned regarding energy expenses, as to actual hurdles in the way of integrating magnesol into a process I see none. Would you say that you've reached a stage with learning the process where you can easily make homebrew biodiesel yourself that gets within the standard specs with a few hours spent stir-washing it so you can do some comparative tests yourself? I didn't get the impression that was established with the results you gave us, please correct me if I'm wrong. Best Keith I have indeed. If you refer to the fact that I over 'lyed' the test batches then the reason for this was quite deliberate. In the event of a misreading, miscalculation or mismeasurement during a process then the water washing stage offers the ability to correct the oversight. I wanted to be sure that a magnesol wash could cope with this. If a measured dose of magnesol can cope with a soapy batch diesel then it can certanly cope with a good batch. If I had not done this then I would have had no 'safety factor' in my conclusions. I will leave this subject at that and make no more mention of it. I was interested in getting feedback and ideas on the technical/chemistry side of things, maybe this is not the place to do that. Chris.. ___ 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] MaGnesol is... was Re: Manesol pretreatment and washing
Hello Chris Keith Addison wrote: You seem rather cross, Chris. Not at all, lol, :-) If you insist. Try reading it again (like you had to read what I'd said again - but I think you should read that again too). Very common to back off and use an lol as a cover when people overreact. There's a wide disconnect between what I said and your angry response to it, and now you're trying to stretch what I said to cover the gap. Lots of confusion as a result, and my original post that you're interpreting every which way rather than reading the damn' thing has gone missing in action, so I'll put it back, here it is: Something to add might be whether Magnesol really does give the same results. If it's time-saving that's the aim there are ways round that without becoming more dependent on anyone. I don't accept it gives better-quality results unless maybe you're starting with a poorly completed product, in which case the magnesol is just masking the problem (like mist-washing). You can easily get within the standard specs with well-made homebrew biodiesel plus a few hours spent stir-washing it. If you GC'd the result and compared it with a sample of the same batch of homebrew dry-washed with Magnesol, what would it show? Has anybody seen such results? Okay? I just get the impression :-) It's wasn't a very impressionistic piece of writing. that it was you opinion that using anything other than water for cleaning biodiesel was a big 'no no'. The way your response came across read to me like that. I apologise if I misread you. Apology accepted, but you still are misreading it. If you still see it as a dismissal rather than a question then I'd have to ask why you dislike the question so much. Biofuels makes the best sense when production is localised and therefore necessarily adapted to local conditions (even the US military thinks that these days). That means the Appropriate Technology approach, and *that* means K.I.S.S., on the one hand, and optimal use of locally available, renewable resources on the other, such as water - whether it's scarce or not is a local condition and doesn't change the principle. So, yes, there will be resistance to relying on anything extra that doesn't meet those criteria, especially if top-quality fuel production is a simple matter without it. If you're not aware of this background then that's your problem. Finding it introduced when you're not expecting it may not be a pleasant surprise, but concluding that it means we don't do biofuels discussions here and you might as well go somewhere else with your nose in the air is kind of preposterous. But it's up to you of course, feel free. I reached no such conclusion. I expressed a valid doubt and asked for some evidence. The burden of proof is not on me nor on the consumer when the makers of a commercial product make claims for it, it's on them. I don't accept it gives better-quality results unless maybe you're starting with a poorly completed product, in which case the magnesol is just masking the problem (like mist-washing). I read this as you opinion Not so. If I'd said it doesn't give better-quality results, that would be an opinion. But I said I didn't accept it and asked for test results that would tell one way or the other. That's a question. I expressed a valid doubt and asked for some evidence. What you read into that, what it suggests to you, the impression you get from it, is that I'm rejecting discussion of it. That's the sort of logic you get from the Red Queen in Alice. being that the results from my experiments were some how 'made up'. Why not try reading what's there instead of what you're reading into it that isn't there? You're just cross because you saw it as an attack on your experiments and maybe on you. Go and find where I said that, or even implied it. In the following post I asked you about your processing, but I didn't say it was crap. Why are you protesting so loudly? My results showed that I can wash my product quicker with magnesol and that this is the result I am looking for with my process in mind. ... my product... quicker. But you haven't convinced yet that you're getting good completion with your product. Let's have a look at that now. I asked: Would you say that you've reached a stage with learning the process where you can easily make homebrew biodiesel yourself that gets within the standard specs with a few hours spent stir-washing it so you can do some comparative tests yourself? I didn't get the impression that was established with the results you gave us, please correct me if I'm wrong. I have indeed. If you refer to the fact that I over 'lyed' the test batches then the reason for this was quite deliberate. In the event of a misreading, miscalculation or mismeasurement during a process then the water washing stage offers the ability to correct the oversight. If the mis-whatever results in poor completion it will only mask
Re: [Biofuel] MaGnesol is... was Re: Manesol pretreatment and washing
Chris Bennett was certainly angry. He posted his last message and I just got the notice that he unsubscribed shortly afterwards, before I posted my reply, below. That's ridiculous. Oh well. Best of luck to him. Best Keith Hello Chris Keith Addison wrote: You seem rather cross, Chris. Not at all, lol, :-) If you insist. Try reading it again (like you had to read what I'd said again - but I think you should read that again too). Very common to back off and use an lol as a cover when people overreact. There's a wide disconnect between what I said and your angry response to it, and now you're trying to stretch what I said to cover the gap. Lots of confusion as a result, and my original post that you're interpreting every which way rather than reading the damn' thing has gone missing in action, so I'll put it back, here it is: Something to add might be whether Magnesol really does give the same results. If it's time-saving that's the aim there are ways round that without becoming more dependent on anyone. I don't accept it gives better-quality results unless maybe you're starting with a poorly completed product, in which case the magnesol is just masking the problem (like mist-washing). You can easily get within the standard specs with well-made homebrew biodiesel plus a few hours spent stir-washing it. If you GC'd the result and compared it with a sample of the same batch of homebrew dry-washed with Magnesol, what would it show? Has anybody seen such results? Okay? I just get the impression :-) It's wasn't a very impressionistic piece of writing. that it was you opinion that using anything other than water for cleaning biodiesel was a big 'no no'. The way your response came across read to me like that. I apologise if I misread you. Apology accepted, but you still are misreading it. If you still see it as a dismissal rather than a question then I'd have to ask why you dislike the question so much. Biofuels makes the best sense when production is localised and therefore necessarily adapted to local conditions (even the US military thinks that these days). That means the Appropriate Technology approach, and *that* means K.I.S.S., on the one hand, and optimal use of locally available, renewable resources on the other, such as water - whether it's scarce or not is a local condition and doesn't change the principle. So, yes, there will be resistance to relying on anything extra that doesn't meet those criteria, especially if top-quality fuel production is a simple matter without it. If you're not aware of this background then that's your problem. Finding it introduced when you're not expecting it may not be a pleasant surprise, but concluding that it means we don't do biofuels discussions here and you might as well go somewhere else with your nose in the air is kind of preposterous. But it's up to you of course, feel free. I reached no such conclusion. I expressed a valid doubt and asked for some evidence. The burden of proof is not on me nor on the consumer when the makers of a commercial product make claims for it, it's on them. I don't accept it gives better-quality results unless maybe you're starting with a poorly completed product, in which case the magnesol is just masking the problem (like mist-washing). I read this as you opinion Not so. If I'd said it doesn't give better-quality results, that would be an opinion. But I said I didn't accept it and asked for test results that would tell one way or the other. That's a question. I expressed a valid doubt and asked for some evidence. What you read into that, what it suggests to you, the impression you get from it, is that I'm rejecting discussion of it. That's the sort of logic you get from the Red Queen in Alice. being that the results from my experiments were some how 'made up'. Why not try reading what's there instead of what you're reading into it that isn't there? You're just cross because you saw it as an attack on your experiments and maybe on you. Go and find where I said that, or even implied it. In the following post I asked you about your processing, but I didn't say it was crap. Why are you protesting so loudly? My results showed that I can wash my product quicker with magnesol and that this is the result I am looking for with my process in mind. ... my product... quicker. But you haven't convinced yet that you're getting good completion with your product. Let's have a look at that now. I asked: Would you say that you've reached a stage with learning the process where you can easily make homebrew biodiesel yourself that gets within the standard specs with a few hours spent stir-washing it so you can do some comparative tests yourself? I didn't get the impression that was established with the results you gave us, please correct me if I'm wrong. I have indeed. If you refer to the fact that I over 'lyed' the test batches then the reason for this was quite deliberate. In
Re: [Biofuel] MaGnesol is... was Re: Manesol pretreatment and washing
Chris, Anything beyond the personal production level is going to require industrial filtration in order keep up with the finished product output.. I'd venture to say even as low as 100 gpd would warrant a filter press. The manufacturer claims disposal by composting, the filters are non consumable. I think this idea of composting such material is getting way out of hand, at any level. This stuff, soaps, FFAs and partially reacted glycerides, doesn't readily compost.. It's essentially an oily mess that kills good composting. Almost better to put the filtrate in a solid fuels boiler I think that in the case of Magnesol, or at least if it's incorporated universally, whether wet washing is viable at a location or not, is an example of the enemy of good is better. Of what value is better fuel wherever another wash option exists if the process proves to be more wasteful in the long run? As they are to treat and pump water, and to treat sewerage. I agree it would be nice to know the true energy costs, but where do you stop? I remember at Uni reading a paper about nuclear power stations. A group of students started doing energy calculations, I believe an equally worthwhile question is Where do you start? To my knowledge no one has produced an energy inputs comparison for the two washing processes, Nor has anyone done an effluents analysis between the two. A) Water is universal, by and large. Tell that to those people in S England who face having theirs turned off soon! ;-)) Instances such as this might be where the qualifier by and large comes in, no? I have nothing else to do with my wash water but to put it down the drain. That's putting part of the cost of your fuel production upon the pockets of others. Perhaps not a large cost, but it violates a general principle of cradle to grave. Industry does this all the time. Are you sure you want to head in the same direction? If you're producing just for yourself and have a front or back lawn, you've got ample space to dispose of treated gray water. You could even cistern it and use it during a dry spell. Or maybe not in your case. But the principles are there and it wouldn't hurt if we all adhered to them as well as possible. Erm, sorry you have lost me, what is resfresh? ;-) It comes from accompanying English/grammar volume to George Bush's Fuzzy Math. Should have been refresh. Todd Swearingen Chris Bennett wrote: Appal Energy wrote: B) Use of Magnesol marries the manufacturer to a vendor. I believe there are alternative brands of synthetic magnesium silicate on the market, several at a lower cost. I am currently looking into this, several posts on online forums suggest this also. C) Rather costly filter presses are required to remove Magnesol from the fuel stream. Not exactly. A cheap and readlily available sock filter and gravity will do the trick with very little investment. There are commercially available filter units which are big bucks, but in the spirit of the JTF site I doubt many people here would have any difficulty in suspending a 5 micron sock filter over a collecting drum. Wont look as nice as a commercially bought stainless filter unit, but thats not always an issue. The units I have seen in the commercial sector are simply a stainelss enclosure taking a £9.99 for 10 sock filter and a pump. D) Expended Magnesol must be handled as a solid waste, inclusive of the filtrate. The manufacturer claims disposal by composting, the filters are non consumable. E) Energy expenditures are required to manufacture and transport synthetic magnesium silicate (Magnesol). As they are to treat and pump water, and to treat sewerage. I agree it would be nice to know the true energy costs, but where do you stop? I remember at Uni reading a paper about nuclear power stations. A group of students started doing energy calculations, adding up everything it took to run a power plant (and I mean everything!!) right down to the fuel used to transport materials to the brickworks to make the bricks to build the plant! They concluded that they couldnt possibly have factored in all the energy, but on what they had it was something like a 25-30 year running time before the break even point was reached!! On the water side: A) Water is universal, by and large. Tell that to those people in S England who face having theirs turned off soon! ;-)) B) Water has a dual utility, as easily treated wash water can be reused as gray water irrigation. Assuming that you are in the situation where you need irrigation, if not then it is going to get drained. Not being critical of your comments at all, just factoring in my situation, which is probably the same as many here. I have nothing else to do with my wash water but to put it down the drain. All in all they both have their place. Neither is necessarily superior over
[Biofuel] MaGnesol is... was Re: Manesol pretreatment and washing
Magnesol, with a G in it, and not Manesol like in the title ;-) is used in the US to clear ( resfresh) frying oil and makes it last longer. It's produced by the Dallas Group of America Inc. www.dallasgrp.com/ It's simply a synthetic Magnesium Silicate, sold as an absorbent filter aid. They say: MAGNESOL® XL keeps shortening clean and free from impurities, which reduces the build-up of off-flavor, off-odors and color in used shortening. Shortening retains its fresh quality, lasts longer and fried products are always light, crisp and golden delicious. pr And in this PDF: www.dallasgrp.com/biodiesel.pdf you'll find on page 2 their analysis from BD cleaned with Magnesol compared to water washing. So, original made for refreshing fryer oil, it's not new in de BD world, the dallasgroup itself has already found in BD a new market and, this UK commercial site www.ukfueltech.com/ about BD tells ...: ~~ www.ukfueltech.com/biodiesel-magnesol-dry-washing.htm Magnesol - dry wash biodiesel clean Water in biodiesel is not a good idea. Most people would agree this is a true statement. Yet most people continue to wash their biodiesel with water, and then go on to dry their biodiesel after washing. The end result of this biodiesel washing with Magnesol is that you will have used a lot of water and a lot of time. Saves time: purify biodiesel in minutes not hours with Magnesol Saves energy: no drying required with Magnesol Saves disposal costs: NO water waste with Magnesol Magnesol is a truly exciting development in the biodiesel world. With Magnesol you can wash your biodiesel without water and save money. Producing ultra-pure biodiesel every time. Achieving fuel standards much easier than with water washing. Saving time and money. It sounds to good to be true, but it isn't. Magnesol works. Magnesol is especially formulated for biodiesel. Magnesol is produced by the Dallas Group of America Inc., which is a recognized world leader in oleo-chemical purification technology. Dallas is the only U.S. company actively marketing a commercial product for the adsorptive purification of biodiesel. Magnesol is developed by a dedicated team of specialists. In our opinion nobody does it better (or even comes close). The companys synthetic magnesium silicate adsorbent, sold by UKFuelTech www.ukfueltech.com/ under the trademarked name Magnesol, is an adsorbent filter aid that ensures biodiesel quality by removing contaminants within methyl esters. Magnesol is though, not just any old magnesium silicate - it is the ONLY specially formulated product for biodiesel. It is the only magnesium silicate designed by experts. Accept no substitute. Magnesol has been subject to extensive testing, some highlights of which are: Free glycerin (tests prove an 85% reduction in 20 minutes) Water (tests prove a 60% reduction in 20 minutes) Methanol content reduced in test from 0.113% to 0.011% (90% reduction in 20 minutes) Soap (tests prove a reduction from 651mg/kg to 4mg/kg in 20 minutes) How good is Magnesol when used with one of our 1000 litre per hour Magnesol ... Looks like worth a try, but were to, with the waste product ? grts Bruno M. ( NFI ) At 15:57 24/05/2006, Joe wrote: I am interested in the pics. What is magnesol exactly? Also I just wanted to say FYI when you talk about crystal clarity it is anecdotal of course and DOES only give some info about particulate or emulsified contamination. A great way to detect very small levels of this type of contamination is to put a sample into a glass jar and in a darkened room shine a laser (pointer) through the BD. The beam should not be visible in the liquid. Note that this tells you nothing about trigliceride levels or methanol contamination but water content will give an indication above a certain level. Can magnesol be used to pretreat feedstock and be left in to settle out with the byproduct? Joe --- Chris Bennett wrote: Been having a play with a bag of Magnesol this week with impressive resuts. I made a sample batch of diesel, went over the top with the lye by about 2 grams per litre. I added the magnesol powder to the finished, seperated diesel and mixed for about 5 minuites. I removed the magnesol by filtering thru coffee filters several times (it was quite difficult to get it all out without a fine enough filter). The result is crystal clear biodiesel. I mean CRYSTAL clear, much better than I have EVER been able to get with water washing. Adding water to the diesel yields quick seperation, clarity is still 100% and the wash water is perfectly clear. 10grams per litre of magnesol has removed EVERY trace of soap and contaminants. Lets just say I will no longer be water washing. The next experiment
Re: [Biofuel] MaGnesol is... was Re: Manesol pretreatment and washing
The presumption is made that the following is from Dallas Group's PR about Magnesol. .. Water in biodiesel is not a good idea. Most people would agree this is a true statement. Dohhh!!! Perhaps that's why it's removed? Yet most people continue to wash their biodiesel with water, and then go on to dry their biodiesel after washing. The end result of this biodiesel washing with Magnesol is that you will have used a lot of water and a lot of time. Me thinks they need a proof reader. That and they conveniently(?) neglect to mention that use of Magnesol uses a lot of Magnesol and probably some rather hefty energy inputs. On the Magnesol side: A) Magnesol is not universal. B) Use of Magnesol marries the manufacturer to a vendor. C) Rather costly filter presses are required to remove Magnesol from the fuel stream. D) Expended Magnesol must be handled as a solid waste, inclusive of the filtrate. E) Energy expenditures are required to manufacture and transport synthetic magnesium silicate (Magnesol). As a parenthetical aside, suggestion has been made and perhaps research conducted on feeding the expended Magnesol (sodium silicate) with filtrate to livestock. Soap, glycerol, FFA, mono- and di-glyceride laden sodium silicate as animal feed. Positively yummy, no doubt. This seems almost reminiscent of the days when feeding cement dust to livestock was not abnormal. On the water side: A) Water is universal, by and large. B) Water has a dual utility, as easily treated wash water can be reused as gray water irrigation. C) Acid/Base systems don't require inordinate amounts of water (or Magnesol for that matter). There is an extra heating cycle in a water wash system than a dry wash (Magnesol). Both flash the methanol from the fuel prior to washing. But the water wash system requires elevating from wash temperature to flash temperature. Both systems can use the heat recovered from their final flash to preheat the feedstock. This is where the energy equation between the two systems should be constructed to see precisely which uses more energy - manufacturing, transporting, filtering and disposing of Magnesol or elevating the temperature of the cooled, wet-washed, fuel to flash temp. Doubtful that Dallas Group would divulge their energy expenditures from manufacturing. All in all they both have their place. Neither is necessarily superior over the other. Todd Swearingen Bruno M. wrote: Magnesol, with a G in it, and not Manesol like in the title ;-) is used in the US to clear ( resfresh) frying oil and makes it last longer. It's produced by the Dallas Group of America Inc. www.dallasgrp.com/ It's simply a synthetic Magnesium Silicate, sold as an absorbent filter aid. They say: MAGNESOL® XL keeps shortening clean and free from impurities, which reduces the build-up of off-flavor, off-odors and color in used shortening. Shortening retains its fresh quality, lasts longer and fried products are always light, crisp and golden delicious. pr And in this PDF: www.dallasgrp.com/biodiesel.pdf you'll find on page 2 their analysis from BD cleaned with Magnesol compared to water washing. So, original made for refreshing fryer oil, it's not new in de BD world, the dallasgroup itself has already found in BD a new market and, this UK commercial site www.ukfueltech.com/ about BD tells ...: ~~ www.ukfueltech.com/biodiesel-magnesol-dry-washing.htm Magnesol - dry wash biodiesel clean Water in biodiesel is not a good idea. Most people would agree this is a true statement. Yet most people continue to wash their biodiesel with water, and then go on to dry their biodiesel after washing. The end result of this biodiesel washing with Magnesol is that you will have used a lot of water and a lot of time. Saves time: purify biodiesel in minutes not hours with Magnesol Saves energy: no drying required with Magnesol Saves disposal costs: NO water waste with Magnesol Magnesol is a truly exciting development in the biodiesel world. With Magnesol you can wash your biodiesel without water and save money. Producing ultra-pure biodiesel every time. Achieving fuel standards much easier than with water washing. Saving time and money. It sounds to good to be true, but it isn't. Magnesol works. Magnesol is especially formulated for biodiesel. Magnesol is produced by the Dallas Group of America Inc., which is a recognized world leader in oleo-chemical purification technology. Dallas is the only U.S. company actively marketing a commercial product for the adsorptive purification of biodiesel. Magnesol is developed by a dedicated team of specialists. In our opinion nobody does it better (or even comes close). The company’s synthetic magnesium silicate adsorbent, sold by UKFuelTech www.ukfueltech.com/ under the trademarked name Magnesol, is an “adsorbent filter aid” that ensures biodiesel
