This is about quality. A couple of reposts are necessary - just excerpts. It's a bit long just the same but it's worth a read if you want to know what all this is really about, and you should want to know.
First, this, from my main response to Mark's protests that she was finally going to respond to yesterday but didn't. "I" is me and "you" is Mark. >In fact, however, I've had growing misgivings about it, both the >processor stuff and the bubblewashing. There are too many >contradictions. I tried to sort some of them out at the processor >page recently but didn't get very far - a contradiction is a >contradiction after all. What you say about draining the glycerine >for one instance, what happens to it after that for another: "Use >carboys or buckets to drain the glycerol/soap/methanol byproduct. >Don't sniff it -- there is methanol present." > >Uh-huh? Yet when I uploaded our "Simple 5-gallon processor" page you >argued with me about it claiming it was dangerous: "But I don't like >the 'pouring off biodiesel' part. I have gotten serious methanol >exposure quite a few times doing this same thing (expecially with >warm biodiesel, which is much more fume-exuding than cold)." > >Not so, I said - it IS cold, for one thing, but you insisted: "I've >done my share of pouring off the biodiesel (and inhaling methanol, >therefore i"ve stopped doing this pouring). It's not a safe >practice, goes against the whole point of fumeless processors. Your >face is right there as you pour. I try pretty hard to hold my breath >and I still have gotten fumed this way. I've just stopped doing this >" > >But it seems you haven't. Yet I recall your saying onlist that you >certainly didn't know what methanol fumes smelt like, you were much >to safety-conscious. You say one thing and do another? There are >other things, like this: >http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/36779/ > >And some of the stuff you were saying in that ridiculous fracas you >fomented at the Biodiesel list (I mean the last one, not the one >you've just started there). Which leaves a person wondering just >what it is that you teach people. Then the "other things, like this" - I reposted the message linked there, "Repost 1", "Re: [biofuel] washing biodiesel in large processor", 10 Jul 2004. More problems. It's a reply from me to Todd. Mark had earlier contributed to the thread, and I've quoted her post. Todd was responding to another member's post, not Mark's, and I replied to Todd. (You can access the whole thread at the link above.) Todd said this: >>Some concern has been expressed in the past over the use of air to dry fuel, >>the concern being fuel oxidation. It's beyond me why those who express such >>concern (and rightfully so) don't say word one about bubble washing doing >>the exact same thing. It's Girl Mark he's referring to, it's in the archives if you want to check it. I said: >Indeed. For my part, I didn't say anything about air-drying but I >did say something about bubble-washing and oxidation: > >>Meeting the German or Austrian standard isn't difficult, but the >>Euro standard might be, especially if we think bubblewashing is a >>great idea. Might have to drop bubblewashing, go for simple >>stirring instead (and making the stuff properly in the first >>place). Might have to use an additive as well. And, might have to >>drop soy too. Something tells me the ASTM standard isn't about to >>adopt these Euro oxidation limits any time soon. > >Bubble-washing certainly promotes oxidation. I've been sent some lab >test results on that, or rather a precis of them. Those folks are no >longer doing bubble-washing or air-drying. They use pumps and >stirrers to wash. > >>Others express concern with pump- or prop-washed fuel not clearing as >>quickly as mist- or bubble-washed. There's sound reason for this, all things >>being equal. Pumps and propellers have the ability of better mixing the fuel >>and water ("atomizing it"), bringing both in more frequent contact with each >>other. This means greater surface to surface contact between water molecules >>and all suspended/dissolved impurities. Fifteen minutes with a 1/2 hp motor >>and 4" - 6" prop in a 200 gallon wash tank or bigger will achieve the same >>thing or more as an all-day-affair with a mist- or bubble-washer. This >>allows for hours of washing time to be converted to settling time, in turn >>hastening the entire wash process. > >Faster, results as good or better. We still do bubble-washing, but >then we do just about everything else too, except mist-washing, I >really do think that's a blind alley, along with other well-known >blind alleys. If this were just a production facility rather than >also for demonstration, testing, investigation, we'd probably drop >bubble-washing, or mostly anyway. It does have its advantages, >especially if you're not in a hurry, and oxidation of an oil like >canola/rapeseed or better (ie lower Iodine Values) isn't a problem >as long as you use it quickly. > >We do a lot of demos all over Japan, and we hold these very popular >monthly biodiesel seminars here, and when we demonstrate >bubble-washing (easy to transport and easy to scale down to >desktop-size if need be) it's a handily visual example of how >washing works, but it's also a good way of introducing the subject >of oxidation - after all, that's what the fish-tank aerator we use >does for the fish, as everyone knows. It's also a good added >reinforcement for what we lay the most stress on, other than that, >yes, you too can do this: do it right in the first place, make >complete fuel. We don't say bubble-washing's a no-no, we give the >pros and cons of it. We do emphasise the bottle-shake wash test. > >I don't agree with what Mark said about the acid-base process >creating a sulfate salt in the wash that might be masking washing >problems. > >>yes, it won't emulsify as much, but it should be >>investigated just what of the three factors (soap, mono and >>diglycerides, and salt inhibition of emulsification) are at play here. >>IT's probably different for each batch. > >If for instance you cut the 2nd stage short with an acid-base >reaction and it doesn't go far enough to completion it emulsifies >just as readily with the bottle-shake wash-test as incomplete fuel >made by any other process, as we've found when we've investigated >how far we could push the Foolproof method in various directions. >Same as any other process, as we could see from similar tests with >the other processes, using various types of oil with both. I don't >think the salt factor is significant. Sulfate salts or not, most of >the catalyst ends up in the glycerine by-product anyway. When we >separate acid-base glycerine by-product into its components, the >bottom layer is the catalyst salts. There's only 0.1% of sulphuric >v/v oil to start with, and less catalyst to start with too, unless >you're doing virgin oil, which is highly unlikely to have completion >problems using the acid-base method. Not a lot of salt to mask mono- >and di-glycs with. It washes well because they ain't there. > >I'm puzzled by what Mark said in her post: > >>either mistwash or bubblewash works fine for big batches, but the same >>rules apply as for small batches- more water is needed for misting and >>less emulsification happens, much less water is needed for >>bubblewashing but more chance of emulsification can take place. >> >>I actually use both now- mist for a few gallons (for a small 42 gallon >>batch I mist for 4 gallons) and then I bubblewash with good use of >>water recycling during bubblewashing. In my 350 gallon wash tank, my >>small aquarium air pump gives fine results, but not all of the air >>pumps might be able to handle such large batches. it looks like a tiny >>amount of bubbles are rising but it works really well- less >>emulsification than the same air pump agitating up a smaller batch. > >Emulsification with an aquarium air-pump? > >Mark says this too: "The disadvantage [of bubblewashing]: if you >have made poor quality biodiesel, or are washing a very small batch, >bubblewashing can agitate the water and the biodiesel too >vigorously, causing emulsification of the two liquids. >Emulsification is the quintessential "wash problem" -- but it is >also a form of quality testing and feedback on your process. Once >you know what causes it, it is easily avoided." > >Also: "The bad news is that poor quality biodiesel can emulsify just >from the agitation of bubblewashing. The good news is that it's easy >to make good biodiesel. Even with problematic biodiesel, you can >predict emulsification in a simple "wash test", take steps to avoid >it, and easily fix it if it does happen. The even better news is >that bubblewashing emulsification isn't a problem for average >well-made homebrew -- you should be able to use even nasty >restaurant oil and still easily make fuel that won't emulsify under >bubblewash conditions." > >And: "Some people use a super-gentle "mist washing" method to take >vigorous agitation out of the picture. To me it seems that this >masks the real problem -- which isn't agitation, it's poor fuel >quality. I'd rather make sure I've produced fuel that contains less >soap and less emulsifying monoglycerides and diglycerides (MG and >DG), instead of decreasing the agitation to "ease washing". The >agitation produced by standard bubblewashing isn't very strong, an >average homebrew fuel should be able to handle it without >emulsifying." > >? > >Puzzled. > >Not too sure about the "... or are washing a very small batch" bit >in the first paragraph, it shouldn't mind bubbles. It shouldn't mind >a blender too much either, bit drastic though. But I'm a friend of >frogs! Hey Todd, why don't you horrify everyone by giving us that >"Frog in a Blender" url? LOL! Urk... > >That's all from Mark's "Bubblewashing 101" article, by the way: >http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_bubblewash2.html According to Mark, she's making poor-quality fuel, and masking the problem with super-gentle "mist washing", and it seems super-gentle bubble-washing too. Compare with what Todd says above about pump- or prop-washed fuel. This is the basic biodiesel quality test, the wash-test, from Journey to Forever: >This is the most useful all-round test, and it's very simple: Put >150 ml of unwashed biodiesel (settled, with the glycerine layer >removed) in a half-litre glass jar. Add 150 ml of water, screw the >lid on tight and shake it up and down violently for 10 seconds or >more. 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. This is quality fuel, a completed product with minimal >contaminants, well within the standard specifications. Wash it and >then use it with confidence. > >But if it turns into something that looks like mayonaisse >(emulsifies) and won't separate, or if it only separates very >slowly, with a thick white layer sandwiched between water and >biodiesel, it's not quality fuel and your process needs improvement. >Either you've used too much catalyst and made soap (better >titration), or a poor conversion has left you with mono- and >diglycerides (try more methanol, better agitation, longer processing >time, better temperature control), or both. > >Whichever, you're headed for washing problems. Super-gentle washing >techniques might avoid the problems, but you'll still be left with >poor-quality fuel laced with contaminants that are bad for the >engine and the fuel system. Even normal bubble-washing is quite >gentle, and it's worth repeating the test with some washed fuel -- >it should separate from the water cleanly within 10 minutes. -- Quality testing http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_vehicle.html#quality Todd posted something on it yesterday, saying this: "If your reaction went to completion, you should achieve two distinct layers in a matter of less than 30 seconds after agitation." That's right. So how does that square with this from Mark? >>I actually use both now- mist for a few gallons (for a small 42 gallon >>batch I mist for 4 gallons) and then I bubblewash with good use of >>water recycling during bubblewashing. In my 350 gallon wash tank, my >>small aquarium air pump gives fine results, but not all of the air >>pumps might be able to handle such large batches. it looks like a tiny >>amount of bubbles are rising but it works really well- less >>emulsification than the same air pump agitating up a smaller batch. Less emulsion is still emulsion - in 350 gallons with a small aquarium air pump and a tiny amount of bubbles she gets emulsion. Yet Mark has previously (and angrily) insisted, onlist, that she uses the same quality checks that Todd and I use. Obviously that is not so. What is going on here? I started to wonder about it a few months back, after the previous fracas Mark stirred up at the Biofuel list, which I've mentioned a couple of times, including in the first excerpt above, without going into it. I think that's when quite a lot of people got a measure of what Mark is really like. Anyway, it was about the acid-base process, it was anything but straightforward and even-handed. It was actually started by John Tillman (aka "Tillyfromparadise" etc etc etc), who nurses a deep hatred of Aleks Kac, developer of the Foolproof acid-base method. He's never even encountered Aleks, but he'll do anything to trash the Foolproof method and Aleks. Todd often tries to counter this stuff and other such stuff there through a concern for newbies being disinformed, and so have I done that. This time, Mark weighed in on Tillman's side, and a nasty flame war developed. Never mind that, but, brushing it all aside, I was left at the end with some serious doubts about Mark's methods. That was when Mark insisted she uses the same quality checks we do, but it just didn't add up. That discussion had no integrity at all, like that forum, so it was impossible to take it any further then. Further doubts concerned pumps. Our 90-litre processor uses the same 1" clear water pump that Mark's Appleseed processor uses, only that's a 200-litre processor. We've been using it for quite a long time now and it's great, for 72-litre batches, but for 150 litres or more? I don't think so. Recently I've been looking at another water heater processor, very different set-up, but using the same 1" clear water pump. This one produces fuel that does pass the water-shake test, but it's a much smaller tank, doing 100-litre batches. I'd say that's about the maximum - much bigger than that and you're going to have to extend and adapt the process to get near enough to completion to pass the wash test and avoid emulsions. The Appleseed's pump is too small. Hence the emulsion and washing problems. Maybe there's more to it than this, but whatever it is you're inevitably left with these hopelessly incompatible statements on washing and emulsion. Very recently I've noticed that Mark seems to have started hinting that it might need a bigger pump, but only now? I could be wrong, but I didn't see any implications mentioned for process completion and quality. The stuff about methanol exposure also needs cleaning up, and about glycerine draining, and who knows what else? Whatever, I'll be axing it all from Journey to Forever. I'd've preferred to improve it, but that's obviously a no-hoper. I'd really hoped to sort all this out to some positive end, but that previous flame-war at the Biodiesel list made that very difficult. I hoped to get some discussion going with my 10 Jul 2004 post excerpted above, but Mark just ignored it, repeatedly. So it's all come to this. I doubt there's any possibility of a sensible discussion of it now, on- or off-list. Anyway I'm not interested in any further off-list communications with Mark, having had them abused subsequently on-list several times. I'll close this thread as soon as I'm finished with this. Anyone who thinks he/she knows better will get very short shrift. But obviously I'm not going to bar discussion of problems with Appleseed reactors. Let's be clear about it: if you've read this far you know what the problems are or you wouldn't have anything to discuss. It would be ill-advised to try to use it as a trojan horse for any further argument about Girl Mark. If people come here saying they're going to build an Appleseed reactor, I for one won't tell them it's a no-no, like the FuelMeister, but until we get better and more complete answers, if ever, I will tell them they should seriously investigate using a bigger pump or a smaller tank, point them at the how-to's at Journey to Forever and especially at the wash-test. Hopefully it will sort itself out in time. Keith Addison Journey to Forever KYOTO Pref., Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ Biofuel list owner ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything. http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
