First time using ASM.

[neisel]

Gonna give this ASM lark another go, this time with 100% ASM.

So, it's 15L of methanol & 1620 of ASM for S1, which will be done tomoz a.m. after the 2nd glyc wash has all dropped out.

On the getting cloudier front I mentioned in the last post. I eventually gave up water washing thinking it just HAD to be de-soaped by now. There wasn't much of a layer of soap after the 7% pre-wash & it just stood to reason after all the washes I had done it must be soap free & something else was causing the cloudiness. I wasn't unconverted oil as I had a crystal clear zero drop out 10/90 after S2. I left the last 50/50 test for 36 hours & it eventually went clear.

Still have no idea why it didn't clear pretty much immediately.

[dgs]

I would guess at mono's, invisible to the 10/90 test.

[neisel]

How do I eliminate monos?

[dgs]

Try to 'fine tune' your process so that dropout is 0.3 to 0.5mls after S1 or S2, then double the calculated catalyst amount for the dropout you have. Re-process with the small amount of excess catalyst. This will eliminate/convert the monoglycerides.

Even if I get a clear pass after S1 I always do a S2 on a batch size of 195 litres using 50gms KOH in 500 mls methanol.

Since doing the above I've never had a problem with mono's even processing at ambient. They really do make water washing difficult.

[neisel]

Thanks, I'll try that on the next batch though TBH I think I overdose already with S2 as in my experience using 75% of what the drop out calcs tell me I should use results in a clear 10/90. In this batch I used 100% of what I should have used & still suffer from the cloudiness.

What happens if, once I'm satisfied I've got all the soap out, I just give up on getting the monos out & proceed to the drying, using stage?

[dgs]

According to a chemist on another forum, bio burns more efficiently when it is pure, ie the methyl ester without any intermediates present.

Remember the monoglyceride is one fatty acid chain still attatched to the glycerine molecule. it will give rise to misting/gelling at higher temperatures than the rest of the bio.

Most people that don't water wash will probably have an amount left in the fuel. The only time they make themselves visible is during the water wash.

The 10/90 test is reasonably accurate as regards calculating chemicals for the next stage but it isnt dead accurate. From tests I have done the dropout in the tube isn't all oil. It is actually (roughly) 50/50 bio and oil. Some bio would rather mix with the oil than the methanol.

The reason we don't over-chemical the next stage when using the test is by some stoke of luck (or whatever you want to call it) the excess chemicals as calculated from the test are about enough to convert the intermediates (mono's and di's) but not always.

Sometimes, as you have found the chemical addition isn't sufficient. Hence my small modification to the normal method.

If you are using 75% of the calculated chemicals and still get a pass your bio must be 'on the cusp' of converting all the tri's, leaving mono's and di's present.

Hope you follow all that.

Have a look at Drums graphs at the end of his post. They are mathmatical models but it gives you some idea of mono's present even with a zero fallout.

http://www.biopowered.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2480.msg31232.html#msg31232

[dgs]

Just been studying some of Drums graphs again and realised this.

Clear 10/90 test, just on the 'cusp' amount of triglycerides present 2% (from posts over the years/GC results it appears 2% of the 10ml sample will be dissolved/absorbed into the methanol.

So according to drums mathematical model in at least one of the graphs this leaves 2% monoglycerides in the bio. 2% in a 100 litre batch is 2 litres which (I have found) will give rise to 8 to 10 litres of emulsified layer.

So to conclude, clear pass (just) can give 8 to 10 litres of emulsion on a 100 litre batch if you water wash aggressively