The lazyman process

[Jamesrl]

Well I've been doing this for months now, overdosing the catalyst.  Not had a bad batch yet!  Yield does not seem to be noticeably less, though my processing time is as I'm getting a clear pass with a single stage.

I was under the impression we were doing just that BEFORE Titless arrived AND without over dosing the catalyst.

When you've got a crystal 10/90 in under 15mins single stage gissa shout, did that years ago.

HCII was doing 10k litres in approx 20mins.

[Tony]

Catalyst, in the true sense, shouldn't be consumed by the process - so in theory the quantity shouldn't matter.

HCII was using more catalyst than conventional?  Wish I'd know that years ago.

[Jamesrl]

I'm fully aware of what a catalyst is and how it works, it's only be consumed if water is present.

Over dosing, as you say, should make no difference to the finished product as it ends up in the glyc which would be advantageous when used in the next glyc wash, especially if the glyc is not demethed.

[Tony]

I'm fully aware of what a catalyst is and how it works, it's only be consumed if water is present.

Which makes a good argument for using ASM this way.

[Jamesrl]

I'm fully aware of what a catalyst is and how it works, it's only be consumed if water is present.

Which makes a good argument for using ASM this way.

Correction to my last statement, Catalyst is consumed if FFA's and/or water is present.

[Julian]

I've just given this method a try with ASM and I have to say I'm impressed ... well done Tony!

I didn't bother to titrate (well, if it's meant to be a lazy method), just added around 20% more ASM and another litre or so of methanol than usual and did a single stage.  The oil was dried to 90°C using the condenser the day before.  At the start of processing I did a lazy HPT ... switched on the heater and heard no popping or crackling (I normally hear it with undired oil).

I tried doing 10/90 tests instead of my usual 3/27s and at 16 minuets I got a 95% conversion.  At 45 minuets, the drop out was barely visible so I recon around 99.5% conversion.  Taking frequent samples, I didn't notice any of the jelly stages I've been using as guidance when skimping heavily on catalyst during the last dozen or so batches.  Working on the principle that the remnants of oil would convert during the early stages of demeth if they were going to convert at all, I started demeth 50 minuets after starting the batch.

I tried a couple of pre-wash tests in jam jars and test tubes.  Way too much water resulted in respectable looking bio and glycerin, but it had a light coloured intermediate layer which I'm guessing could be the start of an emulsion.  Smaller tests with the correct amount of water showed a separation between bio and glycerin, but the glycerin was a strange light colour.

I then tried an acid titration on centrifuged bio.  The acid required was only roughly double that of my previous method (although my previous method included a 7% pre-wash which would have removed much of the unused catalyst), so I've drained the glycerin and will continue with a titrated acid wash and subsequent washes over the next few days.

[Jamesrl]

Julian old chap,

A clear 10/90 only indicates a 96.5% conversion has been achieved so you're guessing at 99.5% of 96.5%.

There could be inexcess of 3.5% triglycerides floating about in the batch.

[Julian]

Julian old chap,

A clear 10/90 only indicates a 96.5% conversion has been achieved so you're guessing at 99.5% of 96.5%.

There could be inexcess of 3.5% triglycerides floating about in the batch.

Complete news to me !!!!

Where did that revelation come from?  It wasn't mentioned by Jan Warnqvist when he first published the method.

Anyhow, it had several hours demething so I'm hoping that I got a slightly better conversion.

This being my first 10/90, I also noticed that there appears to be two phases of settling occurring ... a clear oil looking layer with a cloudy and deeper layer on top.

[Jamesrl]

It wasn't mentioned by Jan Warnqvist when he first published the method.

Strange,  'cause that's where I got the info from, it's not written in those words but that's what he was saying.

He said that the test, 25/225, indicated that the conversion had met the minimum requirements (ASTM) to be classed as Biodiesel.

[Julian]

Quote ...

------------------------------------

From: "Jan Warnqvist" <EMAIL PROTECTED>
Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To: <Biofuel@sustainablelists.org>
Subject: Re: Biofuel Quality Test
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 18:51:02 +0200


Hello Jeffery.
The test method that you are using seems to me highly dubious, since there are a number of pre-assumptions that has to be met. For a further check IŽd suggest this:
Take exactly 25 ml of biodiesel and dissolve it in exactly 225 ml of methanol in a measuring glass. Now: The biodiesel should be fully soluble in the methanol forming a clear bright phase. If not, there is pollution in the biodiesel causing you trouble with the water test. Each ml of undissolved material is corresponding to 4% by volume. Are there any undissolved material at the bottom of the measuring glass ?
If there is, your reaction is not complete and this is causing you trouble with the water test. This method does not cover every aspect of quality, but it gives a hint though........

Good luck to you
Jan Warnqvist
AGERATEC AB
--------------------------
... Unquote


No mention of the ASTM test!

[Jamesrl]

I'm absolutely sure the discussion continued for quite a while and the figures were mentioned somewhere along the line,  I don't think I made it up, why would I.

I'm far from having the right knowledge to draw those conclusions meself.

[Julian]

I'm absolutely sure the discussion continued for quite a while and the figures were mentioned somewhere along the line,  I don't think I made it up, why would I.

I'm far from having the right knowledge to draw those conclusions meself.

I know you wouldn't make it up ... but at your age ... well, you know, the mind plays funny tricks!  Have those voices come back after since you started the new medication?

But seriously (quite a feat for me) I did an awful lot of digging around to get back to the earliest mention of the test to stick it on the wiki and I don't remember any mention of the ASTM test in any posts.  There's a link to the thread on the wiki, so I'll go back and have another read.

I too know nothing of the chemistry involved but it would seem logical that if nothing drops out, it's all dissolved in the methanol ... so I don't logically see how could that equate to 69.5%.

I've had other thoughts on the 3/27 test today so I'll start another thread on the subject.

[Julian]

Oh, to answer a question raised earlier in this thread ... glogs made from this glycerin burn perfectly well, ones flaming away nicely in the log burner as I type.

[Bill]

The accuracy of the Jan Warnqvist test is reduced as the sample size decreases from 100/900 down to 25/225 down through 10/90 to 3/27. It depends how readable or measureable the drop is.
At 1ml of dropout in the 25/225 test is 4% unconverted, at 10/90 its 10%. Whats the smallest amount of dropout you can accurately measure or estimate by observation? That's the limit of your accuracy in claiming an achieved conversion value.
A claim of 99.5% conversion with a 10/90 test suggests that you measured or estimated the dropout at 0.05ml.

[Julian]

The accuracy of the Jan Warnqvist test is reduced as the sample size decreases from 100/900 down to 25/225 down through 10/90 to 3/27. It depends how readable or measureable the drop is.
At 1ml of dropout in the 25/225 test is 4% unconverted, at 10/90 its 10%. Whats the smallest amount of dropout you can accurately measure or estimate by observation? That's the limit of your accuracy in claiming an achieved conversion value.
A claim of 99.5% conversion with a 10/90 test suggests that you measured or estimated the dropout at 0.05ml.

Exactly that, my conical centrifuge tube starts with 0.05ml graduations.