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

Thnks Grrl Mrk. Yor dtaild suggtions wre MRE thn helpfl. Ww wll pck  
up sme HEET yellw.

On Dec 12, 2006, at 8:03 PM, girl mark wrote:

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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