That is about the most ridicules statement
I have seen in some time. Not all Americans are lazy stupid or
helpless. Why don’t
you say all Arabs are terrorists?
All the French smell all Russians are
drunks except?
Whoa Big Feller........
Keith please don't forget Brian is an American, therefore he was born
and
raised to believe he is somehow special, and spoiled enough to expect
everything to be paint by numbers. American 'culture' is all about
instant gratification, less work vs more satisfaction/entertainment.
This
explains the typical american arrogance that drips from his rhetoric
and which
irritates you so well. I have no doubt that Brian is genuinely
frustrated
by his apparent lack of progress in this early stage but it is not
really HIS
fault, he has been conditioned with a set of expectations which do not
fit the
real world. This is why our insidious Disneyland 'culture' here in the
Americas (well at least Canada and US)
works so well because it has had the illusion of being sustainable for
so
long. I see this kind of attitude all the time with university
students. Even graduate students who are getting on in years; they
like
someone to lead them by the hand. We are a spoon fed continent. We
like
to have everything easy. Easy information, easy entertainment, easily
achievable goals, easy to throw away (insert everything you don't
like), and
yes even easy sex (we have a pill to help that). Well, it aint always
easy. Except for the sex part (speaking personally that is). ;-)
The point about the site that is important is that it works for many
many
people. If there is one overriding principle it is make sure you are
understanding very clearly what you are about to do before you start.
If
you don't know what %(w/v) means then you should not proceed. In fact
your exact next step at that point is, go find out what %(w/v) means
before you
go any further. Do not assume. Do not skip over. Go find out.
The fact that americans have this moronic attention span means that it
is very
difficult for us to take the time to just go and do this stuff
methodically. We cannot concentrate long enough to read a web page. We
see the fuel as miles rolling by our windscreen before the oil is even
reacted.
Carrot on a stick mentality. This is what the rulers of our society
have
created. Feel free to throw your television out the window if any of
this
bothers anyone! I guess it is hard for people in other parts of the
world
to know this about our infantile collective on this big island in the
sea. Take pity you cruel task master, we are but children emerging
from
the playground into a world of harsh reality.
Joe
Keith Addison wrote:
LOL Brian!!!
Actually it's not funny. It's just inept, and it sows confusion -
extracting such clouds of complexitites out of such simplicities is
not exactly going to encourage newbies, though that's apparently what
you're trying to do. Now it requires explanations of things which
need no explanations, which always makes them appear more complex
than they are, very encouraging for newbies, yes. Sigh...
I say this because I'd rather
not have people telling me I am not tip-top with my labwork. Tired is
all.
And I'm finally getting just a little tired of your saying our
website doesn't work properly when it's quite obviously you who
doesn't work properly.
How come, for starters, you're starting with WVO and not virgin oil?
How come lots of things.
First of all, in order to re-establish the whereabouts of our feet
somewhere near the surface of Planet Earth once again, see:
Basic titration
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make2.html#titrate
<snip>
With readings of that which we could expect, we then moved on to basic
titration. If you all will bear with me a moment, I do have some
questions. I will intertwine my questions right into the JtF web site
directions for basic titration. Our hope is to clarify these
directions for ourselves and for other newbies as well. We believe
that there are several statements found here and in the email list
which are contradictory at best.
Uh-huh.
"Basic titration
An electronic pH meter is best, but you can also use pH test strips
(or litmus paper), or phenolphthalein solution (from a chemicals
supplier)."
I suggest sorting the test equipment according to preference.
It's sorted according to cost and simplicity, cheapest and easiest to
most expensive, and that's how most people see it, especially
newbies. There's no confusion and no contradiction.
We were
ridiculed for using litmus paper.
I don't think you were ridiculed, you were simply advised against it.
Why do you need to say you were ridiculed?
Why list it second if it is
preferred as a third choice? Phenolphthalein sounds very interesting.
Do you mean to tell me, after all this time you claim to have been
studying this, months, that this is the first you hear of
phenolphthalein?
Why not give more information on the setup and use of this test? Yes
we followed the links.
Did you. Then what's the complaint? There's a whole section on
"phenolphthalein", and more information on it too, if only you'd
bothered to check the Table of Contents at the top of the pages where
it says so, and in a logical sequence furthermore. Did you notice the
Table of Contents at the top yet?
You're looking at "Basic titration" right? And only that it seems.
Immediately below that:
Basic titration
Better titration
Accurate measurements
pH meters
Phenolphthalein
pH meters vs phenolphthalein
All duly listed and linked, couldn't be clearer.
"Dissolve 1 gram of lye in 1 liter of distilled or de-ionized water
(0.1% w/v lye solution)."
Here, according to JtF, we are in the absolute most important first
step Titration, which a newbie is going to perform!
That's not the absolute most important first step according to JtF.
The absolute most important first step according to JtF is to make a
test-batch with virgin oil, where no titration is required, moving on
to WVO and titration later, when you have a few skills and know what
to expect. Not you though of course, you know better.
Standard procedure
in all technical writing as far as I am aware it to define all
abbreviations!!!! Why throw out a statement like: "(0.1% w/v lye
solution)" and not simply define (w/v?)
Good grief, it says GRAM, that's a WEIGHT, which starts with a "W",
it says LITER, that's a VOLUME, it starts with a "V", it's obvious!
Especially as it tells you exactly what to do first. It's a universal
convention and standard procedure in all technical writing and other
writing that if you use an abbreviation you put it in brackets after
the initial explanation. Did you say your wife's a science teacher??
This is making an already
completely new process unnecessarily cloudy in the mind of the
newbies. Ok, this is the second sentence in a half page description
Half page. So you're using a print-out. What I suggested, I thought
it might help, since you can't use a website with more than one page
and one level. Seems not.
of how to do the most important step in making biodiesel.
"In a smaller beaker, dissolve 1 ml of dewatered WVO oil in 10 ml of
pure isopropyl alcohol. Warm the beaker gently by standing it in some
hot water, stir until all the oil dissolves in the alcohol and the
mixture turns clear. Add 2 drops of phenolphthalein solution."
Smaller beaker than what?
Maybe - hey, let's take a chance here and really stick our necks out
- just maybe it MIGHT mean smaller than the one you just used two
words previously to make one litre of 0.1% w/v lye solution?
WVO oil is redundant.
I think in your case nothing is redundant.
Again, if the pH Meter
is the "best" tool and listed first in the sentence above, why are we
jumping back to phenolphthalein? If this is the preferred test, why
not say so in the first sentence?
It deals with all three methods (I'm getting tired of saying it's
obvious). Dealing with them separately would just be silly, and it
would definitely have you complaining very loudly, even though you
propose it below.
With phenolphthalein it needs an extra step - you have to add the
phenolphthalein to the solution first, unlike with meters or test
strips, where you don't add anything. So explain how to do that, then
you can say, as indeed it does say, hey, "With a pH meter or test
strips, use the same procedure without adding the phenolphthalein."
Much simpler, you see, simple and clear.
"Using a graduated syringe, add the 0.1% lye solution drop by drop to
the oil-alcohol-phenolphthalein solution, stirring all the time. It
might turn a bit cloudy, keep stirring. Keep on carefully adding the
lye solution until the solution stays pink (actually magenta) for 15
seconds."
See above. We are using a continuous readout pH meter. What is the pH
we are looking for here!
It says: "With a pH meter or test strips, use the same procedure
without adding the phenolphthalein. Add the 0.1% lye solution drop by
drop as before until the pH reaches 8.5." It's only SIX short
paragraphs, FCOL, did you really start off doing it without reading
it first, just six simple paragraphs? After dancing around it again
and again all this time?
Yes Keith, layered information is great,
This is not layered information, it's six short paragraphs in a
logical sequence without any links and you can't still can't get
anything right.
but
why push it when it is unnecessary? We are jumping all over the place
YOU are certainly jumping all over the place.
in order to do one simple step. Different methods are combined in the
same paragraph. This could be the reason newbies are confused.
YOU are confused, it seems to be your natural state.
"Take the number of milliliters of 0.1% lye solution you used and add
3.5 (the basic amount of lye needed for virgin oil). This is the
number of grams of lye you'll need per liter of oil."
Sheesh, I am sorry, but I have a question about every sentence in this
basic titration. "Take the number of milliliters of 0.1% lye solution
you used and add 3.5" ?? This is sloppy writing. Are you saying add a
number of milliliters to 3.5 grams?
I'm saying what I said, which you quoted, it needs no interpretation,
nor misinterpretation. They're NUMBERS. You add one NUMBER to another
NUMBER, last time I checked that wasn't illegal. "Take the number of
milliliters of 0.1% lye solution you used and add 3.5."
If it took 1.6 mL of lye solution
then are we supposed to add 1.6 g to 3.5 g? I don't think so.
Why don't you think so? That's what it says, it's clear, it's
unambiguous, it couldn't possibly mean anything else. But Brian knows
better. On the basis of what?
How
about a formula here?
IT IS A FORMULA!!! Add one number to another number!!! "Take the
number of milliliters of 0.1% lye solution you used and add 3.5" -
what could be easier!!! But not for Brian.
It would be clearer if you stated all of the
proper terms, weight, volume, etc.
Would it.
No wonder so many questions appear
on the email list about titration.
They don't, or at least not your kind of questions, only from you.
"With a pH meter or test strips, use the same procedure without adding
the phenolphthalein. Add the 0.1% lye solution drop by drop as before
until the pH reaches 8.5."
Duh! Why not just add this value to the sentence above to aid the
newbies who are learning the procedure and keep them from jumping
around.
You're complaining about perceived lack of clarity, but you want me
to tell people using phenolphthalein to look for a reading of "8.5"
even though there is no reading of "8.5, instead it goes pink? That
would be clear and unconfusing for you if you were using
phenolphthalein would it? So then conversely you'd be thrilled if you
were reading instructions on using a pH meter and it said "it goes
pink" when it doesn't, right? But you're not all over the place?
Also, please be consistent with the numbers throughout the
directions. A pH of 8.5 is mentioned and then a pH of 8-9 is
mentioned. This leads one to believe it does not really need to be
exact.
It does NOT mention a pH of 8-9 anywhere on those two pages or at any
of the links. It always says pH 8.5, every time. Mike Pelly says 8-9
but that's his business, and Mike's page is not referred to in these
instructions. You certainly are jumping all over the place. Why are
you going to Mike Pelly's page when you're trying to read six simple
paragraphs in order? Random chaos. But no, it's not you, it's the
website that's chaotic, right.
I know it is difficult for many folks to take criticism.
Nobody will take unwarranted criticism, why should they? Let's see
how you get on taking some criticism that's not misdirected.
I am not so
arrogant to think I could criticize people that are so far ahead of us
in this extremely important sustainable Biofuels research. I will
offer to help. First I have to get a handle on what it is we are doing
with the titration.
It is always acceptable to use the Scientific Method so that others
<snip>
2. Formulas and calculations. The formula for converting the lye in
the titrated mL solution to grams would be used here and the results
recorded. Formula, calculations = x grams of lye to bring one L of
WVO to a pH of 8.5
That's wrong. Nowhere at Journey to Forever does it say or imply such
a thing, and I'd be surprised if it says that in the list archives,
or at least without someone correcting it.
How do you manage to interpret bringing one gram of WVO to pH8.5 in a
titration, which calculates how much extra lye you need to neutralise
the extra FFA in WVO, as bringing one litre of WVO to pH8.5? Random
chaos Brian, it pervades your whole post.
Conclusion: Here is where all the opinions and speculations can occur.
1. X amount of grams of lye will need to be added to the 3.5 grams of
lye to be used in the Journey to Forever process of making biodiesel
Huh? It's simple titration, that's all.
with this particular batch of WVO. This sample of WVO was very
similar in quality to pure vegetable oil as it had no water and a
beginning pH of 6.9.
A beginning pH? Going out on your own a little with the jolly old
Scientific Method aren't you?
Although each batch of WVO obtained from the
same source should be tested, this source (Name the Source) appears to
produce very clean WVO.
Are you kidding?? Name the source? You mean the auntie's koesuster
stall behind the shebeen in Otjiwarango? How will that help? You
think info like "Chinese take-aways always have the best oil" is true
or useful? But you want to make it clearer and simpler, hm.
Sources of Error: List everything that might have adversely affected
the process and describe how it might have be avoided in the next
experiment or procedure.
1. The humidity due to heavy rains could have affected water content
of the lye. If conditions are not similar during the process of
making the biodiesel with this particular batch of WVO, the results
might be different.
Not if you read and followed the instructions.
It would be best to maintain constant conditions
throughout the entire process. Measuring materials in plastic bags
could also prevent moisture contamination and that process should be
in the procedure.
As indeed it is, several times, in the appropriate places, like
everything else.
2. etc.
Example 2. The Litmus Paper method.
Repeat the steps of Scientific Method.
We will provide the steps we used once we are able to effectively
complete the process.
Right Brian. Actually you've added nothing, no clarity, no help, just
a lot of mostly misbegotten and redundant stuff that'll have people
going in circles or nodding off. And you got it wrong anyway, no
surprise.
There's a hotlinked TOC at the top of the page. Here's what it has on
titration, in sequence:
More about lye
How much lye to use?
Basic titration
Better titration
Accurate measurements
pH meters
Phenolphthalein
pH meters vs phenolphthalein
Then:
No titration?
The basic lye quantity -- 3.5 grams?
Mixing the methoxide
Stock methoxide solution
Poor man's titration
You missed nearly everything. Is that the third time or the fourth
time you've missed nearly everything?
Little KIDS do this Brian, they don't ask questions, they just do it,
they succeed first time, their mums write and tell me so, "And he's
only 11."
But do it your way, whatever, go and make your own website or
something with your version of the Scientific Method, one page, no
links. But leave mine alone, scatterbrain.
Not a scatterbrain? How come you sent this message twice, the first
time with the wrong subject title? How many times have you done that
already? Quite a few, eh? It doesn't exactly enhance any levels of
clarity, especially not in archives searches. Nor does any of this
stuff, you're not cutting through confusion as you imagine, you're
creating it and sowing it. Enough. More than. Cease and desist.
Keith
Sincerely, Brian and Nell Rodgers
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
