Re: [Biofuel] test batches and the JtF quality test
again. I will post the results when done. John Keith Addison wrote: Thankyou John. I hope this discussion can resume now. Best wishes Keith Addison List owner to todd and the list in general, I would like to sincerely apologize for allowing myself to get involved in this flame war. It was inappropriate and not at all constructive. Further I apologize for my use of inappropriate language. I still have unanswered questions that I hope I can get answered here. I will continue to post the results of my tests in the hope that they will further the goal of making the production of high quality biodiesel accessible to all. Sincerely, John Guttridge ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] test batches and the JtF quality test
Not that you would be interested to know... So called linscott...aka dana linscott...aka dana can still be found over at the biodiesel yahoogroups performing exactly the same manner to which you have just describedunfortunately for most. Late... John(yet another John) - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 11:18 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] test batches and the JtF quality test Hello John Actually, it takes a brave man to tell a few home truths to John Tillman (aka tillyfromparadise, aka about 30 false IDs created to give the impression of group support) - you run the risk of precipitating a tireless, relentless, truly mindless, vicious and utterly integrity-free hate war against you for the next three years or so. I really hope that won't happen to you. In fact it doesn't even need home truths - what started his hate war against me, Journey to Forever, Aleks Kac (who he's never encountered in any way), Todd Swearingen, Steve Spence, and the Biofuel list? Nothing. That's right, nothing at all. I asked him some questions, that needed asking, without being in any way confrontational or rude or anything, and he decided I'd insulted him. Nobody else could see it, lots of people asked him to come off it, but no. Hate hate hate! Ever since, for the last three years. One sick puppy - a liar, a thief, a plagiarist, a multiple imposter, all very well documented. You can read a history of it here, if you really want to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Biodiesel/message/4254 Actually there are two of them, they often work in concert. The other one's a total creep named Linscott, who used to be a member here until, to loud public demand, very belatedly, after he'd wrought a lot of harm, he got the boot, also about three years ago or something. He's has lost no opportunity to stir it up wherever he can ever since. There's some background on him here: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/37931/ A right couple of psychos, these two. Apart from the above ref (necessary), instead of using the list as a platform to wage war from, I've been at considerable pains to keep this vomitous stuff away from the Biofuel list - unlike Tillscott, who've taken it everywhere they can and totalled several previously useful forums in the doing, and done the biofuels movement a deal of damage. As if they care. It's easy to be destructive. And yes, both of them lurk around here whispering their noxious BS to newcomers offlist. There's not much we can do about it, but we figured long ago that if you can't figure that out for yourself you probably won't be able to do much else worth half a damn anyway, and so it's proved, you being a case in point. There's also someone here right now who proves the opposite case in point, but that's his problem. He's going to have to choose, he can't have it both ways. In fact, interestingly, despite all the wreckage elsewhere, these two maniacs haven't succeeded in doing us any damage at all, not me, nor Journey to Forever, nor the Biofuel list, nor Todd, Aleks and Steve. For our part, only damaging *truths* could do that, and there aren't any. Anyway, John, I'm glad you put it in perspective, but generally we can do very well without any acknowledgement of this worthless stuff, thankyou very much. As for this: I would like to state to the list in general and especially kieth that no one should take any of this personally. This is how these creeps can distort things. John, if I got furious and took it personally every time somebody here or elsewhere criticised something at Journey to Forever, how would we ever have developed the resources there the way we have? Criticism and critical thinking are positive, or should be, not just a personal attack. It's a major factor at this forum and one reason we started it in the first place. There's a lot of original work at the Journey to Forever website biofuels section, but even there we can acknowledge a big debt to the Biofuel list and what we've learnt from the group over the years, and I have often acknowledged that. Genuine criticism is of course always welcome, right or wrong. Then it gets debated and the whole thing moves forward. Axe-grinding is not welcome. They're easily distinguished. And this: also I have observed that keith frequently expresses frustration that things get gone over again and again Do I? I've seen other people saying that. I just wish (often!) that more people would make better use of the archives, but also I can remember saying quite a few times that a question's been asked before but no harm in asking again, and pulling previous answers out of the archives for an airing rather than just giving the link. It can generate new responses, and even if not it makes the stuff easier to find in the archives next time. Best wishes Keith Addison Journey to Forever KYOTO
Re: [Biofuel] test batches and the JtF quality test
Appal Energy wrote: John, I don't know why you find it necessary to proclaim specific matters to be sore spots or as having been tak[en]... personally. because you are being pissy about this whole thing. What I do find perplexing is the amazing number of people who don't read or follow instructions when available, modify them under the premise of experimentation, even when they're trying out their first batches and should be adhering to them more rigidly than any other time, and then proclaim that they don't work, or aren't reproducable. you will note that the reason that I posted it was to do a sort of peer review process. you pointed out that I made a mistake in my experimentation and then I took steps to correct that mistake. What I find even more amazing (actually, not) is the fact that those very same people, once it is discerned or they reveal that the available instructions weren't adhered to, continue to find fault with everything but their own failure to read and follow. you will note that in my first reply to this I said that I understood that the volume could be a problem, then in my second I said that I would make a bigger test batch and repeat the experiment with the suggested volume. My personal belief is that if you want to dally in your laboratory, great. But if you wish to lay claims that aren't accurate pursuant to dalliances that are at great variance from any instructions (baseline) that you might imply as having followed, then you probably deserve any frustrations that acrue. Mind you the instructions did say to add 150 ml of water, not 150 ml of icecubes, or chilled water, or even heated water, much less 4 ml in a culture tube. (Hopefully, you did take note of the mention of magnified error when working in such micro-quantities.) the reason that I did this experiment at all was because I kept making 1L batches following the instructions to the letter that washed nicely but failed the quality test. I figured I could save oil by doing micro tests. you pointed out the error in that and I am taking steps to eliminate that error. And if your preference is to declare that your failing to run the middle course is a sore spot with others who might point this out, then I'd have to say with certainty you're welcome to whatever frustration you create for yourself. Yes indeed, you are entitled to them. what??? I suggested that others with cold water may have problems, luc backed me up. My bet is that if you're sharp enough to conduct all your variances and question your results, you might eventually learn from error and begin to acknowledge the basic necessity of using (and following) a map when venturing into the unknown, rather than just sticking a wetted finger into the air and presuming that all winds blow from the north. following the map doesn't yield arrival at the destination and I start questioning the map. I am doing the best to have peer review of my questionings. if you were a good scientist you would say silly john, you made an error here and I would say oh, I am sorry, you are right, let me fix that and try again and we would have advancement. Nothing personal. Just taking note of your obstinance. I post results which are questioned and then agree to make the steps to fix the questions. I ask more questions and answer those asked of me, you wave you dick around and call me a bad scientist without answering the majority of my questions. who is being obstinate? nothing personal, just making note of your hipocracy. John Todd Swearingen Post script: We've been washing with well/ground water, averaging ~55*F, for the past five years now. Do you think perhaps we should wedge open the shop doors and windows during the winter months in hopes that washes and reactions will work better? There are reasons why shops and labs are kept at reasonable temperatures, the first and foremost is not just to keep the human occupants fuzzy and comfortable. - Original Message - From: John Guttridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 1:28 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] test batches and the JtF quality test Todd, sorry to have stuck a sore spot with you, please stop taking this all personally. I never meant any of this as an attack at anyone, I am picking at things until I understand them. the purpose of this forum seems to be streamlining the process of learning. also I have observed that keith frequently expresses frustration that things get gone over again and again, lets make the instructions more specific to avoid this. Appal Energy wrote: John, I still think that temperature has a drastic effect on seperation time And you're correct. But there aren't too many people out there who are going to be washing with water direct from a glacier fed stream. I live in the northeast, my basement is cold and the pipes run through there, this has an effect
Re: [Biofuel] test batches and the JtF quality test
I certainly hope I didn't hear you right. And if I did, I suggest you find a new approach, because the antagonistic one you're pursuing certainly isn't going to gain you anything. I'd also suggest that you reread those answers given you. You will find that virtually every one of your questions (as few as they were) and a number of your statements were addressed. Since you choose to ignore that minor detail and opt instead to issue insult, distort what was actually written, pencil in what wasn't and instigate arguement, one can only be lead to believe that answers are not what you're primary interest is. Good day. - Original Message - From: John Guttridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 9:38 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] test batches and the JtF quality test todd, Appal Energy wrote: John, I don't know why you find it necessary to proclaim specific matters to be sore spots or as having been tak[en]... personally. because you are being pissy about this whole thing. What I do find perplexing is the amazing number of people who don't read or follow instructions when available, modify them under the premise of experimentation, even when they're trying out their first batches and should be adhering to them more rigidly than any other time, and then proclaim that they don't work, or aren't reproducable. you will note that the reason that I posted it was to do a sort of peer review process. you pointed out that I made a mistake in my experimentation and then I took steps to correct that mistake. What I find even more amazing (actually, not) is the fact that those very same people, once it is discerned or they reveal that the available instructions weren't adhered to, continue to find fault with everything but their own failure to read and follow. you will note that in my first reply to this I said that I understood that the volume could be a problem, then in my second I said that I would make a bigger test batch and repeat the experiment with the suggested volume. My personal belief is that if you want to dally in your laboratory, great. But if you wish to lay claims that aren't accurate pursuant to dalliances that are at great variance from any instructions (baseline) that you might imply as having followed, then you probably deserve any frustrations that acrue. Mind you the instructions did say to add 150 ml of water, not 150 ml of icecubes, or chilled water, or even heated water, much less 4 ml in a culture tube. (Hopefully, you did take note of the mention of magnified error when working in such micro-quantities.) the reason that I did this experiment at all was because I kept making 1L batches following the instructions to the letter that washed nicely but failed the quality test. I figured I could save oil by doing micro tests. you pointed out the error in that and I am taking steps to eliminate that error. And if your preference is to declare that your failing to run the middle course is a sore spot with others who might point this out, then I'd have to say with certainty you're welcome to whatever frustration you create for yourself. Yes indeed, you are entitled to them. what??? I suggested that others with cold water may have problems, luc backed me up. My bet is that if you're sharp enough to conduct all your variances and question your results, you might eventually learn from error and begin to acknowledge the basic necessity of using (and following) a map when venturing into the unknown, rather than just sticking a wetted finger into the air and presuming that all winds blow from the north. following the map doesn't yield arrival at the destination and I start questioning the map. I am doing the best to have peer review of my questionings. if you were a good scientist you would say silly john, you made an error here and I would say oh, I am sorry, you are right, let me fix that and try again and we would have advancement. Nothing personal. Just taking note of your obstinance. I post results which are questioned and then agree to make the steps to fix the questions. I ask more questions and answer those asked of me, you wave you dick around and call me a bad scientist without answering the majority of my questions. who is being obstinate? nothing personal, just making note of your hipocracy. John Todd Swearingen Post script: We've been washing with well/ground water, averaging ~55*F, for the past five years now. Do you think perhaps we should wedge open the shop doors and windows during the winter months in hopes that washes and reactions will work better? There are reasons why shops and labs are kept at reasonable temperatures, the first and foremost is not just to keep the human occupants fuzzy and comfortable. - Original Message - From: John Guttridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 1:28 AM Subject
Re: [Biofuel] test batches and the JtF quality test
Hi Keith, Not that you would be interested to know... So called linscott...aka dana linscott...aka dana can still be found over at the biodiesel yahoogroups performing exactly the same manner to which you have just describedunfortunately for most. Yup, he's there, and Tillman, and a bunch of others too. That used to be a good group. Very few of the longer-term members ever post there now. Mostly just this misbegotten bunch leading newcomers astray. Sad. People of the lie: http://www.amasci.com/maglev/levbill1.html The Pathological Dishonesty Disease Late... John(yet another John) :-) A fine name, to be sure. Best wishes Keith - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 11:18 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] test batches and the JtF quality test Hello John Actually, it takes a brave man to tell a few home truths to John Tillman (aka tillyfromparadise, aka about 30 false IDs created to give the impression of group support) - you run the risk of precipitating a tireless, relentless, truly mindless, vicious and utterly integrity-free hate war against you for the next three years or so. I really hope that won't happen to you. In fact it doesn't even need home truths - what started his hate war against me, Journey to Forever, Aleks Kac (who he's never encountered in any way), Todd Swearingen, Steve Spence, and the Biofuel list? Nothing. That's right, nothing at all. I asked him some questions, that needed asking, without being in any way confrontational or rude or anything, and he decided I'd insulted him. Nobody else could see it, lots of people asked him to come off it, but no. Hate hate hate! Ever since, for the last three years. One sick puppy - a liar, a thief, a plagiarist, a multiple imposter, all very well documented. You can read a history of it here, if you really want to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Biodiesel/message/4254 Actually there are two of them, they often work in concert. The other one's a total creep named Linscott, who used to be a member here until, to loud public demand, very belatedly, after he'd wrought a lot of harm, he got the boot, also about three years ago or something. He's has lost no opportunity to stir it up wherever he can ever since. There's some background on him here: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/37931/ A right couple of psychos, these two. Apart from the above ref (necessary), instead of using the list as a platform to wage war from, I've been at considerable pains to keep this vomitous stuff away from the Biofuel list - unlike Tillscott, who've taken it everywhere they can and totalled several previously useful forums in the doing, and done the biofuels movement a deal of damage. As if they care. It's easy to be destructive. And yes, both of them lurk around here whispering their noxious BS to newcomers offlist. There's not much we can do about it, but we figured long ago that if you can't figure that out for yourself you probably won't be able to do much else worth half a damn anyway, and so it's proved, you being a case in point. There's also someone here right now who proves the opposite case in point, but that's his problem. He's going to have to choose, he can't have it both ways. In fact, interestingly, despite all the wreckage elsewhere, these two maniacs haven't succeeded in doing us any damage at all, not me, nor Journey to Forever, nor the Biofuel list, nor Todd, Aleks and Steve. For our part, only damaging *truths* could do that, and there aren't any. Anyway, John, I'm glad you put it in perspective, but generally we can do very well without any acknowledgement of this worthless stuff, thankyou very much. As for this: I would like to state to the list in general and especially kieth that no one should take any of this personally. This is how these creeps can distort things. John, if I got furious and took it personally every time somebody here or elsewhere criticised something at Journey to Forever, how would we ever have developed the resources there the way we have? Criticism and critical thinking are positive, or should be, not just a personal attack. It's a major factor at this forum and one reason we started it in the first place. There's a lot of original work at the Journey to Forever website biofuels section, but even there we can acknowledge a big debt to the Biofuel list and what we've learnt from the group over the years, and I have often acknowledged that. Genuine criticism is of course always welcome, right or wrong. Then it gets debated and the whole thing moves forward. Axe-grinding is not welcome. They're easily distinguished. And this: also I have observed that keith frequently expresses frustration that things get gone over again and again Do I? I've seen other people saying that. I just wish (often!) that more people would make better use of the archives
Re: [Biofuel] test batches and the JtF quality test
I would like to sincerely apologize for allowing myself to get involved in this flame war. It was inappropriate and not at all constructive. Further I apologize for my use of inappropriate language. I still have unanswered questions that I hope I can get answered here. I will continue to post the results of my tests in the hope that they will further the goal of making the production of high quality biodiesel accessible to all. Sincerely, John Guttridge ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] test batches and the JtF quality test
I hope this discussion can resume now. Best wishes Keith Addison List owner to todd and the list in general, I would like to sincerely apologize for allowing myself to get involved in this flame war. It was inappropriate and not at all constructive. Further I apologize for my use of inappropriate language. I still have unanswered questions that I hope I can get answered here. I will continue to post the results of my tests in the hope that they will further the goal of making the production of high quality biodiesel accessible to all. Sincerely, John Guttridge ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] test batches and the JtF quality test
I still think that temperature has a drastic effect on seperation time And you're correct. But there aren't too many people out there who are going to be washing with water direct from a glacier fed stream. I am pointing out a sticking point that people may have (if I am having this problem other people are probably having it too). Some people get stuck. Some eventually recognize it for what it is and adapt. one of the problems that I have with all of this is that the instructions are really general Not really. They're pretty specific. They may not have had an exact temperature pasted all over them, but they were specific beyond that. You could at least note that you opted to go off the beaten path and then lay claim as to unreproducable. That in itself is a little bit misleading to those who read it or who come to it later. Making biodiesel is not rocket science. It's not exactly bucket science either, as you have to use a little common sense and stick somewhere close to the middle of what's known to work. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: John Guttridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 5:17 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] test batches and the JtF quality test Resending the following because I am unsure if it was caught in the outage: Understood. I will produce a batch large enough to make several runs at the 150mL test and post the results. I consumed the remains of my last test batch in a 125mL run (it was all that was left) and I followed your agitation (10 times up and down violently). it had seperated in to two clearly stratified sections within abbout 1 minute with 60*F water however it still had lots of tiny bubbles in both parts (sort of a milky yellow and a milky white). is that what you mean by clear seperation? I still think that temperature has a drastic effect on seperation time which I will test and post the results and methods of my experiment. I would like to state to the list in general and especially kieth that no one should take any of this personally. I am posting my results so that people can point out errors. I am pointing out a sticking point that people may have (if I am having this problem other people are probably having it too). any good science is a process of peer review. one posts methods and results others duplicate ones experiments and if they prove reporducable and consistant then they are seen by the community to be valid. one of the problems that I have with all of this is that the instructions are really general and I fear that there are factors that are important but are not mentioned such that they can be controlled. John Appal Energy wrote: John Guttridge, If you're looking for reproducability, you need to follow baseline, not modify a test/experiment so as to suit your own preference or conditions. You've apparently neglected to consider increases in sampling error that occur when conducting tests at micro-levels/volumes. You compound any flaw in your final evaluations by conducting not only the wash but the esterification with miniscule volumes. Unless your preparations are made with electronic scales to the thousandth of a gram, your alcohol and feedstock volumes determined by weight using the same scale, rather than relying upon glassware that forewarns of + or - 5% error factor, not to mention the + or - 10% human error factor (whether you know what end of the miniscus to take your measurements from or not) you only compound the degree of errors that are or can be represented by your conclusions. There is an enormous world of difference between reproducablity/results achieved on 150 ml samples and samples no bigger than single liters, even when conducted by professionals with decades of experience. As to your questioning the time frame that I mentioned for separation of well processed fuel, you need to take notice of the difference between the agitation period stated in my post and the general guideline you opted to modify. You also need to take notice that the wash test is not represented as anything more than a quick and simple manner of determing how an operator may care or feel reasonably safe to proceed with what he or she may believe to be biodiesel. The guidelines that are offered on this list and at Journey to Forever are intended to assist the general public in getting their fuel near or to the level that would pass the scrutiny of spec fuel, despite the fact that they may be working on dimestore budgets. If you can afford the luxury and it's absolute guarantees of finished product quality that you seek, I would suggest that you establish a procedural regimen, produce what you have reason to believe is a well-crafted product and then submit the sample to the testing methods established in D-6751. You'll quickly surprise yourself at how easily that standard can be neared or met in a meticulous homebrewer's environment
Re: [Biofuel] test batches and the JtF quality test
- Original Message - From: Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 8:46 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] test batches and the JtF quality test John, I still think that temperature has a drastic effect on seperation time And you're correct. But there aren't too many people out there who are going to be washing with water direct from a glacier fed stream. Except that I have posted a few times stating that I use well water direct and not word one was ever mentioned until I started asking if wash water temperature is important. Point is, not that I went without for awhile, but that now the question IS being adressed. I had a few problems with emulsion, but only in the last two batches when the weather changed and it started getting cold. Prior to that, and none of the variables had changed, everything was clean and precise and good fuel resulted every time. This question of wash water temperature needs to be added as a requisite in the instructional stages of making good fuel. Just assuming that Eskimos will not be interested doesn't make it. So it seems that now it has been addressed, and I for one am very pleased that it has. Now it only leaves to have that information readily available to anyone wanting to learn the methodology of home brewing biodiesel. I suggest that it be added in the washing section at JtF somewhere. That is where I got my education from, and I must say that I am very pleased with what I was taught, so in the interest of those coming afterward it should be added somewhere evident. I am now in the process of not only adding a second settling tank (insulated of course) but also of adding a water pre-heat tank using a 115V immersion heater to warm up the well water I will again be using to wash in the Spring when I get my production back on line. Just leaving this information in the archives doesn't cut it either, it needs to be accessible in the tutorials.(Sorry Keith, I don't want to tell you what to do, but this seems to be an important detail in the end goal of proper biodiesel production.) It obviously has been an oversight, and that is part of what this forum is all about, the betterment of the end user product, so there it is. Luc ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] test batches and the JtF quality test
sorry to have stuck a sore spot with you, please stop taking this all personally. I never meant any of this as an attack at anyone, I am picking at things until I understand them. the purpose of this forum seems to be streamlining the process of learning. also I have observed that keith frequently expresses frustration that things get gone over again and again, lets make the instructions more specific to avoid this. Appal Energy wrote: John, I still think that temperature has a drastic effect on seperation time And you're correct. But there aren't too many people out there who are going to be washing with water direct from a glacier fed stream. I live in the northeast, my basement is cold and the pipes run through there, this has an effect. that doesn't sound that uncommon. I am pointing out a sticking point that people may have (if I am having this problem other people are probably having it too). Some people get stuck. Some eventually recognize it for what it is and adapt. right, so lets put it in the instructions so that no one gets stuck in the first place. as you may have noticed I am of the second group, now I want to make things different for the next batch of newbies. one of the problems that I have with all of this is that the instructions are really general Not really. They're pretty specific. They may not have had an exact temperature pasted all over them, but they were specific beyond that. You could at least note that you opted to go off the beaten path and then lay claim as to unreproducable. That in itself is a little bit misleading to those who read it or who come to it later. there was no mention of temperature. that is a factor that can cause problems, I would say that makes the instructions fairly general. mix 150mL of that with 150mL of this and shake the hell out of it for 10 seconds, let sit for 30 minutes and see what you get is pretty general. Making biodiesel is not rocket science. It's not exactly bucket science either, as you have to use a little common sense and stick somewhere close to the middle of what's known to work. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: John Guttridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 5:17 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] test batches and the JtF quality test Resending the following because I am unsure if it was caught in the outage: Understood. I will produce a batch large enough to make several runs at the 150mL test and post the results. I consumed the remains of my last test batch in a 125mL run (it was all that was left) and I followed your agitation (10 times up and down violently). it had seperated in to two clearly stratified sections within abbout 1 minute with 60*F water however it still had lots of tiny bubbles in both parts (sort of a milky yellow and a milky white). is that what you mean by clear seperation? I still think that temperature has a drastic effect on seperation time which I will test and post the results and methods of my experiment. I would like to state to the list in general and especially kieth that no one should take any of this personally. I am posting my results so that people can point out errors. I am pointing out a sticking point that people may have (if I am having this problem other people are probably having it too). any good science is a process of peer review. one posts methods and results others duplicate ones experiments and if they prove reporducable and consistant then they are seen by the community to be valid. one of the problems that I have with all of this is that the instructions are really general and I fear that there are factors that are important but are not mentioned such that they can be controlled. John Appal Energy wrote: John Guttridge, If you're looking for reproducability, you need to follow baseline, not modify a test/experiment so as to suit your own preference or conditions. You've apparently neglected to consider increases in sampling error that occur when conducting tests at micro-levels/volumes. You compound any flaw in your final evaluations by conducting not only the wash but the esterification with miniscule volumes. Unless your preparations are made with electronic scales to the thousandth of a gram, your alcohol and feedstock volumes determined by weight using the same scale, rather than relying upon glassware that forewarns of + or - 5% error factor, not to mention the + or - 10% human error factor (whether you know what end of the miniscus to take your measurements from or not) you only compound the degree of errors that are or can be represented by your conclusions. There is an enormous world of difference between reproducablity/results achieved on 150 ml samples and samples no bigger than single liters, even when conducted by professionals with decades of experience. As to your questioning the time frame that I mentioned for separation
Re: [Biofuel] test batches and the JtF quality test
I don't know why you find it necessary to proclaim specific matters to be sore spots or as having been tak[en]... personally. What I do find perplexing is the amazing number of people who don't read or follow instructions when available, modify them under the premise of experimentation, even when they're trying out their first batches and should be adhering to them more rigidly than any other time, and then proclaim that they don't work, or aren't reproducable. What I find even more amazing (actually, not) is the fact that those very same people, once it is discerned or they reveal that the available instructions weren't adhered to, continue to find fault with everything but their own failure to read and follow. My personal belief is that if you want to dally in your laboratory, great. But if you wish to lay claims that aren't accurate pursuant to dalliances that are at great variance from any instructions (baseline) that you might imply as having followed, then you probably deserve any frustrations that acrue. Mind you the instructions did say to add 150 ml of water, not 150 ml of icecubes, or chilled water, or even heated water, much less 4 ml in a culture tube. (Hopefully, you did take note of the mention of magnified error when working in such micro-quantities.) And if your preference is to declare that your failing to run the middle course is a sore spot with others who might point this out, then I'd have to say with certainty you're welcome to whatever frustration you create for yourself. Yes indeed, you are entitled to them. My bet is that if you're sharp enough to conduct all your variances and question your results, you might eventually learn from error and begin to acknowledge the basic necessity of using (and following) a map when venturing into the unknown, rather than just sticking a wetted finger into the air and presuming that all winds blow from the north. Nothing personal. Just taking note of your obstinance. Todd Swearingen Post script: We've been washing with well/ground water, averaging ~55*F, for the past five years now. Do you think perhaps we should wedge open the shop doors and windows during the winter months in hopes that washes and reactions will work better? There are reasons why shops and labs are kept at reasonable temperatures, the first and foremost is not just to keep the human occupants fuzzy and comfortable. - Original Message - From: John Guttridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 1:28 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] test batches and the JtF quality test Todd, sorry to have stuck a sore spot with you, please stop taking this all personally. I never meant any of this as an attack at anyone, I am picking at things until I understand them. the purpose of this forum seems to be streamlining the process of learning. also I have observed that keith frequently expresses frustration that things get gone over again and again, lets make the instructions more specific to avoid this. Appal Energy wrote: John, I still think that temperature has a drastic effect on seperation time And you're correct. But there aren't too many people out there who are going to be washing with water direct from a glacier fed stream. I live in the northeast, my basement is cold and the pipes run through there, this has an effect. that doesn't sound that uncommon. I am pointing out a sticking point that people may have (if I am having this problem other people are probably having it too). Some people get stuck. Some eventually recognize it for what it is and adapt. right, so lets put it in the instructions so that no one gets stuck in the first place. as you may have noticed I am of the second group, now I want to make things different for the next batch of newbies. one of the problems that I have with all of this is that the instructions are really general Not really. They're pretty specific. They may not have had an exact temperature pasted all over them, but they were specific beyond that. You could at least note that you opted to go off the beaten path and then lay claim as to unreproducable. That in itself is a little bit misleading to those who read it or who come to it later. there was no mention of temperature. that is a factor that can cause problems, I would say that makes the instructions fairly general. mix 150mL of that with 150mL of this and shake the hell out of it for 10 seconds, let sit for 30 minutes and see what you get is pretty general. Making biodiesel is not rocket science. It's not exactly bucket science either, as you have to use a little common sense and stick somewhere close to the middle of what's known to work. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: John Guttridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 5:17 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] test batches and the JtF quality test
Re: [Biofuel] test batches and the JtF quality test
Actually, it takes a brave man to tell a few home truths to John Tillman (aka tillyfromparadise, aka about 30 false IDs created to give the impression of group support) - you run the risk of precipitating a tireless, relentless, truly mindless, vicious and utterly integrity-free hate war against you for the next three years or so. I really hope that won't happen to you. In fact it doesn't even need home truths - what started his hate war against me, Journey to Forever, Aleks Kac (who he's never encountered in any way), Todd Swearingen, Steve Spence, and the Biofuel list? Nothing. That's right, nothing at all. I asked him some questions, that needed asking, without being in any way confrontational or rude or anything, and he decided I'd insulted him. Nobody else could see it, lots of people asked him to come off it, but no. Hate hate hate! Ever since, for the last three years. One sick puppy - a liar, a thief, a plagiarist, a multiple imposter, all very well documented. You can read a history of it here, if you really want to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Biodiesel/message/4254 Actually there are two of them, they often work in concert. The other one's a total creep named Linscott, who used to be a member here until, to loud public demand, very belatedly, after he'd wrought a lot of harm, he got the boot, also about three years ago or something. He's has lost no opportunity to stir it up wherever he can ever since. There's some background on him here: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/37931/ A right couple of psychos, these two. Apart from the above ref (necessary), instead of using the list as a platform to wage war from, I've been at considerable pains to keep this vomitous stuff away from the Biofuel list - unlike Tillscott, who've taken it everywhere they can and totalled several previously useful forums in the doing, and done the biofuels movement a deal of damage. As if they care. It's easy to be destructive. And yes, both of them lurk around here whispering their noxious BS to newcomers offlist. There's not much we can do about it, but we figured long ago that if you can't figure that out for yourself you probably won't be able to do much else worth half a damn anyway, and so it's proved, you being a case in point. There's also someone here right now who proves the opposite case in point, but that's his problem. He's going to have to choose, he can't have it both ways. In fact, interestingly, despite all the wreckage elsewhere, these two maniacs haven't succeeded in doing us any damage at all, not me, nor Journey to Forever, nor the Biofuel list, nor Todd, Aleks and Steve. For our part, only damaging *truths* could do that, and there aren't any. Anyway, John, I'm glad you put it in perspective, but generally we can do very well without any acknowledgement of this worthless stuff, thankyou very much. As for this: I would like to state to the list in general and especially kieth that no one should take any of this personally. This is how these creeps can distort things. John, if I got furious and took it personally every time somebody here or elsewhere criticised something at Journey to Forever, how would we ever have developed the resources there the way we have? Criticism and critical thinking are positive, or should be, not just a personal attack. It's a major factor at this forum and one reason we started it in the first place. There's a lot of original work at the Journey to Forever website biofuels section, but even there we can acknowledge a big debt to the Biofuel list and what we've learnt from the group over the years, and I have often acknowledged that. Genuine criticism is of course always welcome, right or wrong. Then it gets debated and the whole thing moves forward. Axe-grinding is not welcome. They're easily distinguished. And this: also I have observed that keith frequently expresses frustration that things get gone over again and again Do I? I've seen other people saying that. I just wish (often!) that more people would make better use of the archives, but also I can remember saying quite a few times that a question's been asked before but no harm in asking again, and pulling previous answers out of the archives for an airing rather than just giving the link. It can generate new responses, and even if not it makes the stuff easier to find in the archives next time. Best wishes Keith Addison Journey to Forever KYOTO Pref., Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ Biofuel list owner Tilly, not really trying to say that keith has made a mistake on his site. instead I was asking for more information on how to conduct the test in a reproducible manner. I have a lot of respect for keith and what he does. you seem to lack that and I would be interested to understand why. I think that it is probably a good test to weed out the grossly under reacted batches and the way too much catalyst batches. I
Re: [Biofuel] test batches and the JtF quality test
G'day all; - Original Message - From: Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 8:46 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] test batches and the JtF quality test John, I still think that temperature has a drastic effect on seperation time And you're correct. But there aren't too many people out there who are going to be washing with water direct from a glacier fed stream. Except that I have posted a few times stating that I use well water direct We have a well, but it's defunct, and we've been using mains water. We want to get the well going again, but I take it you'd suggest we leave it to the spring? LOL! Ah, I wish we had a glacier-fed stream! Full of freshly-ground minerals, the secret of Hunza. But I could probably do without the glacier itself... and not word one was ever mentioned until I started asking if wash water temperature is important. Point is, not that I went without for awhile, but that now the question IS being adressed. I had a few problems with emulsion, but only in the last two batches when the weather changed and it started getting cold. Prior to that, and none of the variables had changed, everything was clean and precise and good fuel resulted every time. This question of wash water temperature needs to be added as a requisite in the instructional stages of making good fuel. Just assuming that Eskimos will not be interested doesn't make it. So it seems that now it has been addressed, and I for one am very pleased that it has. Now it only leaves to have that information readily available to anyone wanting to learn the methodology of home brewing biodiesel. I suggest that it be added in the washing section at JtF somewhere. That is where I got my education from, and I must say that I am very pleased with what I was taught, so in the interest of those coming afterward it should be added somewhere evident. I am now in the process of not only adding a second settling tank (insulated of course) but also of adding a water pre-heat tank using a 115V immersion heater to warm up the well water I will again be using to wash in the Spring when I get my production back on line. Just leaving this information in the archives doesn't cut it either, it needs to be accessible in the tutorials.(Sorry Keith, I don't want to tell you what to do, but this seems to be an important detail in the end goal of proper biodiesel production.) No problem, but let's get it all sorted out and settled first. In fact the whole washing section at JtF is currently being reworked, been due for it for awhile. For one thing, it needs to be more closely linked to quality control. I'll start uploading it soon, when I can. It obviously has been an oversight, and that is part of what this forum is all about, the betterment of the end user product, so there it is. Oversight? Perhaps, or maybe it's just the normal course of development. We'll see what comes out of it. Regards Keith Luc ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] test batches and the JtF quality test
not really trying to say that keith has made a mistake on his site. instead I was asking for more information on how to conduct the test in a reproducible manner. I have a lot of respect for keith and what he does. you seem to lack that and I would be interested to understand why. I think that it is probably a good test to weed out the grossly under reacted batches and the way too much catalyst batches. I couldn't figure out why I kept following the instructions to the letter and getting batches that failed the quality test. 'it is cold here' seems to be the answer. maybe also 'I have soft water' is the answer. also your generalized quest against all things JtF gives you very little veracity as I have found that JtF is an invaluable resource. you and the other one that contacted me off list and tried to direct me at some other site seem to both be on another planet than the rest of the community and the rest of the community seems to be happily functioning and making high quality fuel that works well. I wasted a lot of time listening to your advice, when see new people on the list I want to warn them not to listen. I am scientific and skeptical, unless someone can give me good reasons and solid instructions their advice is usually out the door (often to my own detriment, but at least I really learn things when I do). John tillyfromparadise wrote: Hello John, It takes a brave man to tell Keith he has a mistake on JTF You are correct. The water shake test has many problems and at best only picks up Grossly under-reacted batches. Passing the shake test is certainly NOT an indication that the fuel is *well within the standard specifications* as claimed on JTF, It is only an indication that the fuel is probably not grossly under-reacted. You are also correct that what is in the water makes a difference. Hard water seperates MUCH quicker than soft water. It is also important to allow the biodiesel to sit at least over night before doing the test. There is NO simple home made test for checking whether your biodiesel meets ASTM or not. I suspect very few people actually achieve ASTM standard biodiesel The best home test is a Viscosity test. These have limitations too as the viscosity of biodiesel varies slightly depending on what the original oil was. But it is a darn site better than the Shake-em up test on JTF. But then Keith has officially declaired that viscosity is not an indicator of quality so that is never going to be discussed. I wonder what the penality for telling Keith he has a mistake on his web site is? Good Luck Squire Tilly KE the quality test listed here: http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_vehicle.html#quality doesn't have enough information to be reproducible. separation time seems to be based on a number of factors including but probably not limited to: ambient temperature initial temperature of the H2O and the FAME snip * Yahoo! Messenger http://sg.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tagline/?http://sg.messenger.yahoo.com/* - Log on http://sg.mobile.yahoo.com/sms/msgr20.html with your mobile phone! ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] test batches and the JtF quality test
the 70*F batch was mostly separated within about 5-10 minutes but didn't really reach completion until the end of 25 minutes. thirty seconds to a minute??? http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_vehicle.html#quality says Then let it settle. The biodiesel should separate from the water in half an hour or less, with amber biodiesel on top and milky water below. at 140 it separated right quick. I understand how volume could have such a big effect, bubbles of the fuel seemed to form and get stuck on one another's surface tension while the separation was happening. only problem is that 150mL is just about all of my test batch so I won't be able to perform the test multiple times and vary the parameters. what I was trying to suggest here is that there are some factors that drastically affect the results that aren't even mentioned such that they can be controlled. John Appal Energy wrote: John, It is reproducable if you use larger volumes than the 8 ml total volume that you're using. A couple of fluid ounces would be more appropriate. The method suggests ~150 ml, or approximately five fluid ounces. If you're not getting anything resembling a clean separation for 25 minutes using 70*F water, something is not right. Same for the 50*F wash yielding three layers. The suggestion would be to work on getting more complete reactions. If the reaction went to completion, you should be able to take a 50/50 sample of water and fuel, shake radically/vertically ten times, and get a clean separation within 30 seconds to one minute, using the first water that comes out of a cold tap (ambient temp). Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: John Guttridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 3:25 PM Subject: [Biofuel] test batches and the JtF quality test the quality test listed here: http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_vehicle.html#quality doesn't have enough information to be reproducible. separation time seems to be based on a number of factors including but probably not limited to: ambient temperature initial temperature of the H2O and the FAME I made a test batch yesterday and then performed the quality test on it a number of times varying different factors, I did 2 with the coldest water that would come out of my tap and 2 with the hottest water that would come out of my tap, and one with appx 70 degree water (cold was about 55 degrees F and hot was about 140 degrees F) I also did 2 that sat in a bath of 140 degree water while they were separating, ambient temperature in my kitchen is approximately 60 degrees F. the two that sat in the 140 degree water had separated completely in less than 2 minutes, the 2 that were made with the hot water had completely separated (less cleanly than the ones in the hot water bath) in 18 minutes, the one that was made with 70 degree water separated fully in 25 minutes, and the ones that were made with the cold water separated into three layers of approximately the same volume one that was straw yellow and slightly milky one that was a much lighter yellow and much more milky and one that was milky white. these were all prepared in 13x100mm culture tubes with 4mL of H2O and 4mL of FAME. I also presume, although I have not yet tested this that the contents of one's tap water and the shape of one's container make a difference in the results. John Guttridge ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] test batches and the JtF quality test
If you're looking for reproducability, you need to follow baseline, not modify a test/experiment so as to suit your own preference or conditions. You've apparently neglected to consider increases in sampling error that occur when conducting tests at micro-levels/volumes. You compound any flaw in your final evaluations by conducting not only the wash but the esterification with miniscule volumes. Unless your preparations are made with electronic scales to the thousandth of a gram, your alcohol and feedstock volumes determined by weight using the same scale, rather than relying upon glassware that forewarns of + or - 5% error factor, not to mention the + or - 10% human error factor (whether you know what end of the miniscus to take your measurements from or not) you only compound the degree of errors that are or can be represented by your conclusions. There is an enormous world of difference between reproducablity/results achieved on 150 ml samples and samples no bigger than single liters, even when conducted by professionals with decades of experience. As to your questioning the time frame that I mentioned for separation of well processed fuel, you need to take notice of the difference between the agitation period stated in my post and the general guideline you opted to modify. You also need to take notice that the wash test is not represented as anything more than a quick and simple manner of determing how an operator may care or feel reasonably safe to proceed with what he or she may believe to be biodiesel. The guidelines that are offered on this list and at Journey to Forever are intended to assist the general public in getting their fuel near or to the level that would pass the scrutiny of spec fuel, despite the fact that they may be working on dimestore budgets. If you can afford the luxury and it's absolute guarantees of finished product quality that you seek, I would suggest that you establish a procedural regimen, produce what you have reason to believe is a well-crafted product and then submit the sample to the testing methods established in D-6751. You'll quickly surprise yourself at how easily that standard can be neared or met in a meticulous homebrewer's environment. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: John Guttridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 10:35 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] test batches and the JtF quality test Todd, the 70*F batch was mostly separated within about 5-10 minutes but didn't really reach completion until the end of 25 minutes. thirty seconds to a minute??? http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_vehicle.html#quality says Then let it settle. The biodiesel should separate from the water in half an hour or less, with amber biodiesel on top and milky water below. at 140 it separated right quick. I understand how volume could have such a big effect, bubbles of the fuel seemed to form and get stuck on one another's surface tension while the separation was happening. only problem is that 150mL is just about all of my test batch so I won't be able to perform the test multiple times and vary the parameters. what I was trying to suggest here is that there are some factors that drastically affect the results that aren't even mentioned such that they can be controlled. John Appal Energy wrote: John, It is reproducable if you use larger volumes than the 8 ml total volume that you're using. A couple of fluid ounces would be more appropriate. The method suggests ~150 ml, or approximately five fluid ounces. If you're not getting anything resembling a clean separation for 25 minutes using 70*F water, something is not right. Same for the 50*F wash yielding three layers. The suggestion would be to work on getting more complete reactions. If the reaction went to completion, you should be able to take a 50/50 sample of water and fuel, shake radically/vertically ten times, and get a clean separation within 30 seconds to one minute, using the first water that comes out of a cold tap (ambient temp). Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: John Guttridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 3:25 PM Subject: [Biofuel] test batches and the JtF quality test the quality test listed here: http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_vehicle.html#quality doesn't have enough information to be reproducible. separation time seems to be based on a number of factors including but probably not limited to: ambient temperature initial temperature of the H2O and the FAME I made a test batch yesterday and then performed the quality test on it a number of times varying different factors, I did 2 with the coldest water that would come out of my tap and 2 with the hottest water that would come out of my tap, and one with appx 70 degree water (cold was about 55 degrees F and hot was about 140 degrees F) I also did 2 that sat
Re: [Biofuel] test batches and the JtF quality test
Understood. I will produce a batch large enough to make several runs at the 150mL test and post the results. I consumed the remains of my last test batch in a 125mL run (it was all that was left) and I followed your agitation (10 times up and down violently). it had seperated in to two clearly stratified sections within abbout 1 minute with 60*F water however it still had lots of tiny bubbles in both parts (sort of a milky yellow and a milky white). is that what you mean by clear seperation? I still think that temperature has a drastic effect on seperation time which I will test and post the results and methods of my experiment. I would like to state to the list in general and especially kieth that no one should take any of this personally. I am posting my results so that people can point out errors. I am pointing out a sticking point that people may have (if I am having this problem other people are probably having it too). any good science is a process of peer review. one posts methods and results others duplicate ones experiments and if they prove reporducable and consistant then they are seen by the community to be valid. one of the problems that I have with all of this is that the instructions are really general and I fear that there are factors that are important but are not mentioned such that they can be controlled. John Appal Energy wrote: John Guttridge, If you're looking for reproducability, you need to follow baseline, not modify a test/experiment so as to suit your own preference or conditions. You've apparently neglected to consider increases in sampling error that occur when conducting tests at micro-levels/volumes. You compound any flaw in your final evaluations by conducting not only the wash but the esterification with miniscule volumes. Unless your preparations are made with electronic scales to the thousandth of a gram, your alcohol and feedstock volumes determined by weight using the same scale, rather than relying upon glassware that forewarns of + or - 5% error factor, not to mention the + or - 10% human error factor (whether you know what end of the miniscus to take your measurements from or not) you only compound the degree of errors that are or can be represented by your conclusions. There is an enormous world of difference between reproducablity/results achieved on 150 ml samples and samples no bigger than single liters, even when conducted by professionals with decades of experience. As to your questioning the time frame that I mentioned for separation of well processed fuel, you need to take notice of the difference between the agitation period stated in my post and the general guideline you opted to modify. You also need to take notice that the wash test is not represented as anything more than a quick and simple manner of determing how an operator may care or feel reasonably safe to proceed with what he or she may believe to be biodiesel. The guidelines that are offered on this list and at Journey to Forever are intended to assist the general public in getting their fuel near or to the level that would pass the scrutiny of spec fuel, despite the fact that they may be working on dimestore budgets. If you can afford the luxury and it's absolute guarantees of finished product quality that you seek, I would suggest that you establish a procedural regimen, produce what you have reason to believe is a well-crafted product and then submit the sample to the testing methods established in D-6751. You'll quickly surprise yourself at how easily that standard can be neared or met in a meticulous homebrewer's environment. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: John Guttridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 10:35 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] test batches and the JtF quality test Todd, the 70*F batch was mostly separated within about 5-10 minutes but didn't really reach completion until the end of 25 minutes. thirty seconds to a minute??? http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_vehicle.html#quality says Then let it settle. The biodiesel should separate from the water in half an hour or less, with amber biodiesel on top and milky water below. at 140 it separated right quick. I understand how volume could have such a big effect, bubbles of the fuel seemed to form and get stuck on one another's surface tension while the separation was happening. only problem is that 150mL is just about all of my test batch so I won't be able to perform the test multiple times and vary the parameters. what I was trying to suggest here is that there are some factors that drastically affect the results that aren't even mentioned such that they can be controlled. John Appal Energy wrote: John, It is reproducable if you use larger volumes than the 8 ml total volume that you're using. A couple of fluid ounces would be more appropriate. The method suggests ~150 ml, or approximately five
Re: [Biofuel] test batches and the JtF quality test
It is reproducable if you use larger volumes than the 8 ml total volume that you're using. A couple of fluid ounces would be more appropriate. The method suggests ~150 ml, or approximately five fluid ounces. If you're not getting anything resembling a clean separation for 25 minutes using 70*F water, something is not right. Same for the 50*F wash yielding three layers. The suggestion would be to work on getting more complete reactions. If the reaction went to completion, you should be able to take a 50/50 sample of water and fuel, shake radically/vertically ten times, and get a clean separation within 30 seconds to one minute, using the first water that comes out of a cold tap (ambient temp). Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: John Guttridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 3:25 PM Subject: [Biofuel] test batches and the JtF quality test the quality test listed here: http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_vehicle.html#quality doesn't have enough information to be reproducible. separation time seems to be based on a number of factors including but probably not limited to: ambient temperature initial temperature of the H2O and the FAME I made a test batch yesterday and then performed the quality test on it a number of times varying different factors, I did 2 with the coldest water that would come out of my tap and 2 with the hottest water that would come out of my tap, and one with appx 70 degree water (cold was about 55 degrees F and hot was about 140 degrees F) I also did 2 that sat in a bath of 140 degree water while they were separating, ambient temperature in my kitchen is approximately 60 degrees F. the two that sat in the 140 degree water had separated completely in less than 2 minutes, the 2 that were made with the hot water had completely separated (less cleanly than the ones in the hot water bath) in 18 minutes, the one that was made with 70 degree water separated fully in 25 minutes, and the ones that were made with the cold water separated into three layers of approximately the same volume one that was straw yellow and slightly milky one that was a much lighter yellow and much more milky and one that was milky white. these were all prepared in 13x100mm culture tubes with 4mL of H2O and 4mL of FAME. I also presume, although I have not yet tested this that the contents of one's tap water and the shape of one's container make a difference in the results. John Guttridge ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
