Re: 3/27 test on B99 Re: Re: [siteplan] Fuel quality

hi Zac and everyonee,

first of all, I apologise for the bad mis-typing below, I'm using a new
(weird, rubber) keyboard and it sucks.

Zac Imboden wrote:

> Thanks. I performed the 3/27 tests in clean jars with screw top lids. 
> I got the methanol right out of our methanol production barrel.

I'd suggest using a new bottle of HEET insead of the productin barrel of
methanl, which could have absorbed water, especially where you live.
Yellow bottl heet is mthanol.

>
> After drying this questionable fuel, I was planning on taking a small 
> sample of the fuel and re-reacting to see if I get any more glycerin 
> out. If I don't get any glycerin, then I'm going to have to make a 
> decision there about its quality before adding to the coop's fuel 
> tote for purchase.


re-react with about 40 or 50 ml of methanol per liter of biodiesel, and
1 gram lye, i know I have an older version of that formula with too much
methanol in some older versions of my book.

I would just go ahead and use it if i were you- it's unlikely that it's
any different than whatever you (or anyone) were making before this test
came along. Almost no problems have been reprted with washed and fully
dried homemade biodiesel, even accounting for the exepected
underreporting that folks are prone to when they screw up something on
their own. to be safe you can tell folks that it's the same fuel you'e
always made, but that you now have feedback that there's a problem with
the conversion and advise them to be careful to exclude water in storage
of the fuel (but I doubt anyone's getting enough of it from you for
long-term storage to be a problem)- it seems that many problems that
have been attributed   to offspec fuel (mostly commercial fuel) might be
related to how it interacts with water..

Then figure out how to prevent the problem next time.be aware taht what
happens on a test bach scale (as far as conversion) isn't always
replicated on a larger scale in the reactor because yu just cant get as
good of a mixing action as you can in a 1-liter bach, so scale up from
1-liter batch to half batch and then a full batch so you can catch
problems (and change them in the next batch) before theyre too large.

 However, one amazing thing abut this test (which you can't say for GC
or other forms of testing) is that it allows you to test almost in 'real
time' during the process. It appears that undr most conditions (all bets
are off if you're working with extra-high-FFA-oil, hich tends to present
unique challenges conversion-wise), the test can be done acurately after
only about 10-15 minutes of settling time . this means you can pull a
sample, wait 15 minutes, 3/27 test the result. Once the 3/27 blobs stop
gettig any smaller, you can assume you're as 'done' as you can get with
that particular mixer, mixing time, chemical ratio, etc. so , for
instane, if it's still not passing, hre are several optinos- 'reproces'
on the stpot by retractin some glycerine and adding more methanol/lye
immediately (emergency 2-stage base-base proess, or  a reprocess), or
you can just add more methanol and catalyst (can't add catalyst alone
without dissolving it in methanol first) ithout removing any glycerine,
or you can keep mixing longer and see if that's the problem.

> Any suggestions for more extensive testing? We're  still working with
> U of O in Corvallis for gas chromotography  testing, but we can't
> count on getting this testing done very often.  What about the pHLip
> test kit? Have you tried that? Is it worth it's  $50 price tag?

use the 3/27 to finetune the process you're using fo r the particular
reator, then get GC testing after it passes. It'd not completey
guaranteed that a 3/27 pass is  also an ASTM 6584 (Gc test) pass, but
here's no need to fly blind in this. Just get some fresh HEET methanl
instead of the barrel stuff.

I've used phlip test beforebut it's not really any more 'exact' than
3/27 and might not work right out of the reactr. however it's very usefu
for testing commercial fuel beaue it'll pick up aging issues better than
any other homemade test can.

> Our plans are to do the 3/27 test after reacting fuel, 

or during reaction and aftr settling a sample 15 inutes or so



> visuals during  the wash, 


doesnt' really tell you anything due to variations in soap content (and
temp) also affecting emulsificaation etc.


> shake test after drying 

also doestn' tell you ANyTHinG at all worth knowing about. drop this as
a test, it's wors than useless.


> and probably for the next few  batches, re-react small samples of each
> batch on the table top.
>

re-processes can give a false positive (ie a false 'good' result) if
glycerine forms but is kept suspended. I'd mostly go by 3/27 for this,
it's more exact.

> Question: Can you not perform the 3/27 test with isopropyl alcohol? 
> Why not?
>

isopropyl alchol dissolves oil, whereas methanol doesn't, so unreacted
triglycerides (what falls out during a 3/27 test) wouldn't show in
isopropyl.

> Another question: Your book doesn't mention anything about pre-
> washes. What's your feeling about them? 


the new version I'm working on (soon, soon) will have that. its a
fantasti technique which reduces soap levels in half. It stops the
reaction but that's mostly done y the time you're washing nyway.

> They arrest the reaction, do  they not, which may or may not be a good
> thing. I have "inherited"  fuel-making procedures from past coop
> mixmasters, some of which I  don't know the science behind.
>
>

goodl uck!
a typing handicapped mark

> On Dec 11, 2006, at 10:00 PM, girl mark wrote:
>
>> Be aware that if Sequential is selling B99 or someone's added  antigels,
>> it might not pass either, though for reasons that aren't due to
>> unreacted material... I don't know this for a fact but it seems 
>> possible.
>>
>> Are you doing the 3/27 test in a sealed container, with good new
>> methanol such as a new bottle of Heet antifreeze from the auto parts
>> store? It seems to be sensitive to water and to the evaporation of
>> methanol during the test. The best way to get a 'good' sample for
>> comparison is to make some test batches with varying amounts of 
>> catalyst
>> and methanol, that'll give you a good idea of what the range of  results
>> can look like and mkae it easier to interpret borderline failures.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> Zac Imboden wrote:
>>
>>> We need to run all the tests that we can for every batch and be
>>> rigorous about dealing with the results. It was my decision to wash
>>> and dry the "failed" fuel, because I wanted to see what happened  to it
>>> through that process. We will test it again carefully after drying  and
>>> determine whether it needs to be re-reacted, which is probably what
>>> will happen.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 10, 2006, at 9:59 PM, Pete Kramer wrote:
>>>
>>>> I feel fuel quality comes up once and a while, but then gets swept
>>>> under the run b/c raw production takes presedence and coop memebers
>>>> are willing to buy it regardless.  I honestly don't feel we are
>>>> churning out anything bad, but I do feel we need tighter quality
>>>> control.  These kinds of things are never a problem until its too
>>>> late!!
>>>>
>>>> Lets get this back at the forefront of our planning/discussions!
>>>>
>>>> Pete
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>>> From: Felix Kersting <[email protected]
>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>>> To: siteplan <[email protected]
>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>; GoBiodiesel Mixmasters
>>>> <[email protected] 
>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 8:07:32 PM
>>>> Subject: [siteplan] Fuel quality
>>>>
>>>> Friends,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to all for some great work party accomplishments on Saturday.
>>>>
>>>> I know we are working hard to get the reactors back on line, but  I
>>>> would
>>>> like to discuss fuel quality.  While we are at this pause in 
>>>> production,
>>>> we need to re-examine the fuel quality issue.  Zac has been 
>>>> testing our
>>>> fuel with the 3/27 test and from what I have heard, none has passed.
>>>> This test is reported to be a good quick indicator of biodiesel 
>>>> purity:
>>>> no unreacted glycerindes.
>>>>
>>>> I would like to suggest that we buy a sample of SeQuential from 
>>>> Blue Sky
>>>> and test it just for fun.
>>>>
>>>> I think it would be prudent for someone to be working in the back 
>>>> ground
>>>> to refine our processing (using 1 liter batches) to get the  chemistry
>>>> right so we pass the test every time.
>>>>
>>>> These suggestions may be way out of whack if we have tested and 
>>>> are sure
>>>> we are passing the ASTM quality test.  Perhaps we need to pony up  the
>>>> cash to just go ahead and do that test after we get back on-line 
>>>> and are
>>>> satisfied we are back to our standard production, then correlate the
>>>> results with the ASTM grade stuff.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts from anyone?
>>>>
>>>> Felix
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> siteplan mailing list
>>>> [email protected] 
>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>> http://lists.gobiodiesel.org/mailman/listinfo/siteplan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> ----
>>>> Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
>>>> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=45083/*http://
>>>> advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> siteplan mailing list
>>>> [email protected] 
>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>> http://lists.gobiodiesel.org/mailman/listinfo/siteplan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Zac Imboden
>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>> 1534 SE 35th Place
>>> Portland, OR
>>> 97214
>>> 971-563-2477
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ---
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mixmasters mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://lists.gobiodiesel.org/mailman/listinfo/mixmasters
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mixmasters mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.gobiodiesel.org/mailman/listinfo/mixmasters
>>
>>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Zac Imboden
> [email protected]
> 1534 SE 35th Place
> Portland, OR
> 97214
> 971-563-2477
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mixmasters mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.gobiodiesel.org/mailman/listinfo/mixmasters
>