10/90 dropout test modification for better conversion

[dgs]

I see Manfred.

Chug, please let us know the outcome.

As both the 20/80 and the 10/90 with the tri sat methanol are both more saturated with tri's,di's, mono's, fame, they are a lot more temperature sensitive. I have noticed a small amount of dropout today in both my tests, the overnight temp was about 10 degs here last night and the tubes were left in my bio room away from the house in an outbuilding.

Yesterday evening both tests were clear of dropout when I locked up and I checked the temperature which was 15degs. As they were clear I am not worried by this, I think the big test is to see how the batch washes, which I will do on Sunday.

[Julian]

Sums never were my strong point, but I suspect the 3.75ml extra for the 3/27 test is correct as Manfred concurs.

The explanation I can just get my head around, but still a little unsure why he total volume is taken as the ratio, is as follows ...

I'm aiming for 20/80  which is (20ml bio in a total of 100ml) ...  100 / 20 = 5

If I add 3.75ml to a 3/27 test (3ml bio in a total of 30ml) I get 6.75ml in a total of 33.75ml.  33.75 / 6.75 = 5

Does that explanation make sense to anyone else?  If so it should improve the results of the test I did quite dramatically.

[Manfred]

After reading twice I understand it. More simple is a ratio of 4:1. So 27 meth /4 bio = 6.75. Minus the added 3 bio = 3.75 bio to be added.
 Dave has altered the test from a 9:1 to a 4:1 so all we do is add 25% bio to any quantity of meth. The old 5/45 is now a 10/40.

 When you look at it from this angle he is almost halving the methanol in the test. Jan's original 25/225 was to test a pass using titration to euro standard. Now we use it to minimise the chem quantity and say that it is not giving us the whole story, something that Jan never intended, as we would be using more chem with titration so probably getting the good pass without messing about.
 Please don't think I'm knocking Dave's testing or results as I will try it out myself it's just my thinking why Jan went 9:1
 Maybe there's still a place for titration afterall.

 Thinking more on this after my last 100L batch used over 800g of NaOH.so I did a titration. It came out at 3. To get a good second stage pass I use a base of 6 so with titration I would have used 900g of NaOH. That's only 100 more and maybe a better conversion with it.

[Julian]

I read my last post again this morning and I can't work out what the hell the 2520 figure was meant to be so I've taken it out of that post!

=================================

OK, so I redid the test this morning.  Shed ambient was 15°C.  3/27 was clear.   6.75/27 was cloudy but no drop out.

I brought the test indoors which, conveniently was 20°C and it cleared within a couple of hours with no dropout.

[dgs]

I washed the batch today, and the result--------------------------------------------TOTAL FAILURE.

It produced the same amount of emulsified mono's as the previous batch. So, just some thoughts and observations.

Based on my 200 litre batches the emulsified layer is about 4 litres. When split the actual volume of mono's is about 700mls. I use a small amount of acid to split it and have noticed a considerable increase in colour of the mono's when split (as opposed to letting it split naturally)

I am therefore wondering if the increase in colour when using acid in the whole batch is not an increase in the colour of the bio, but of the mono's when they are left in the bio.

Going back a few years I went through a period where I had no (or virtually no) mono's in the batch. At the time I was doing what I called the Maurice Mynah Method. M M replied with his method to one of my posts (can't remember if it was VOD or infopop) anyway, he basically glyc washes then uses 7 gms K/litre and processes for 4 hours at 60degs. He usually gets full conversion with this method but the process time is long.

I never managed the 7 gms, but close. However there was never any real emulsified layer in the bio when washing. Does this mean the key to reducing the mono's is more process time with temperature related?

[Julian]

I thought I had the monopoly on failures round here!

All the same it's not really a failure ... just an avenue of experimentation that returned a negative result eliminating the necessity to probe further.

Keep up the good work, it's only by chaps playing in their sheds (or poly-tunnels) that we gain any knowledge.

[dgs]

I know that failures can sometimes tell us as much as successes. I thought I had this one cracked. Even the test that was clear with the tri sat methanol is now showing about 0.2 mls dropout after a few days. It is maybe that the batch just wasn't converted enough but with a delayed action test it's a bit too late. I will keep trying.