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
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
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.
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 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/
_______________________________________________
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/
_______________________________________________
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/
_______________________________________________
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/
