quote:

Originally posted by danalinscott:
If they test identical I believe it might be strong proof that the method DOES thoroughly dewater without mistwashing. If not it might be helpful to others considering using the unit to always use a wash as an initial step.

Because its evaporative dewatering this can not remove acids unless they somehow were attached to the carbon goo that stays in the rotor. And it makes sense that the acid/etc attaches to the water so I am surprised you are so into this "no mistwash" test. You are the voice trying to get everyone to mistwash

I don't think you could ever guarantee any rig will remove acid/etc. without mistwash since there are so many variables in the starting oil. Even a $30,000 industrial centrifuge and lots of research and you are still mistwashing before it? Seems like that says a lot. Luckily mistwash is easy.

There can still be widespread use of this. Its like you are focused on a method that is not recommended with any other rig (doing no mistwash) and applying it to this one only? (and then saying its success or failure hinges on that?)

quote:

Originally posted by canolafunola:
I wish the Dieselcraft centrifuge could remove suspended water by centrifugal action rather than flash evaporation. If so, the soulble acids are removed along with the water and not left behind, thus not requiring mist wash before centrifuging, which greatly complicates the process, especially in a mobile environment.

This will probably embroil me in a flame fest, and is off topic, but here goes. I may not have any more responses here tho wed-fri as I'll be away from civilization. I've been meaning to be more involved in some of the water wash posts but have had no time to keep up reading all of them, much less get involved.

There are 2 separate issues involving water washing.
-1st, is does it clean dirty oil? Absolutely IMHO, tho whether it does it more efficiently than proper settling and filtering is going to be an individual decision.
-2nd, a dual point, does it somehow clean suspended water or assist it's removal? This is where I seriously question a lot of what has been posted.

To start with, what makes an oil/water emulsion difficult to break is the surface tension of the high viscosity oil around the water droplets. If the droplets are big enough, they can squish together enough to break thru the oil film and form a larger droplet. The smaller the droplet size, the more difficult this becomes. A sub-micron sizes, they become extremely difficult to remove even at high temps since the oil film can even contain the steam bubble unless there is sufficient agitation near air to help it break free.

Now imagine this tiny droplet bumping up against a big drop from a mist wash. If the oil film is strong enough to keep it from being drawn into the larger droplet it will never be "washed" by it. If it is able to combine, it will be removed entirely. So likely only the larger of the suspended droplets if any will be affected by the mist wash.

If you concentrate the contaminant (assume acid) by evaporative/flash techniques, you further reduce it's size and make it even harder to remove by washing or filtering.

As to G for centrifugal removal of ultra small droplets, I can not find a definite answer. It appears that only stacked plate centrifuges are truly effective at this, due to the large angled surface areas "scrubbing" effect. Then I was informed recently that even after that there is some water that must be removed by other processes in veg-oil plants.

The real question after all this is does the concentration effect really matter?
Is there really enough concentration of acids to cause damage?
Are there even sufficient quantities of the type acids that could cause damage present?
Is neutralizing with baking soda or other bases better than trying to "wash"?
Are any of the water solubles going to make it past the final centrifuging/filtering after being concentrated? In damaging amounts?

Bottom line, till there is definitive research one way or another specific to WVO, we pretty much have to go with our guts and do what makes sense to us individually as far as acceptable final product.

JOAT, very good questions. We are not likely to get any definitive research!

I think the biggest research is going on with all of us who are experimenting everyday with our own setups. And then trying to share our results on the internet.

I think that if it passes the pan test after this rig, its a small enough amount to not be a problem. (edit- and after a mistwash if you have an initial pan test that shows suspended water/acid) This rig is basically the heat, settle, filter sped up, with some extra evaporation, and no replacement filters to buy.

So the mistwash and whether its needed (or even works) is a seperate topic that applys equally to any method we all are using. So I say its a good topic but not relevant to this rig in particular. Start a new thread for that this one is too long already (edit - I say this because theorizing that a mistwash doesn't work is interesting and worthy of a whole thread.)

And the suspended micro droplets is similar in that it applys equally to every method people are using, not just this one. Interesting that even the expensive industrial centrifuges will not remove all micro water/acid. And I bet the people doing the common heat, settle, filter are not removing the micro water/acid. Probably people using a 10 micron nominal filter should be much more concerned than those using this which filters to 0.1 micron (note that is 100x finer.)

(and this is not just talking to JOAT who I greatly appreciate being an early tester of this along with me)

Here maybe this disclaimer will work for Dana and we could put it on all filter/dewater rigs?

Caution, there are some sources of WVO that contain invisible suspended acid/sugar/salts/unknowns that may be harmful. The hot pan test will probably tell if they are present. And there are no known processes to remove them all, a mistwash may remove them but has not been tested with all types of bad VO, so collect from good oil sources only!

quote:

I think the biggest research is going on with all of us who are experimenting everyday with our own setups. And then trying to share our results on the internet.

I don't think so.
It cannot really be called research if you are not willing to actually do some testing. Up to this point very little actual testing is ocurring form what I can see. There is a LOT of assumption being stated as fact though.

Some of it is just plain misleading speculation.

quote:

I think that if it passes the pan test after this rig, its a small enough amount to not be a problem.

What would lead you to believe this?

quote:

So the mistwash and whether its needed (or even works) is a seperate topic that applys equally to any method we all are using. So I say its a good topic but not relevant to this rig in particular.

Only if the above speculationis correct.
Testing is the way to determine this.
The testing is relativcly simple.
I do not understand why you do not wish to test to make certain your assumptions are correct.

So far the testing that has been done on evaporative dewatering indicates that mistwashing IS required to thoroughly dewater. The testing done on THIS unit also indicates this. UNless testing is done to determine if mistwashing is NOT required for thorough dewatering with this unit they are inextricably linked.

quote:

And the suspended micro droplets is similar in that it applys equally to every method people are using, not just this one.

This is incorrect.
Either filtering/settling or using a true centrifuge can remove suspended water along with the water soluble contaminants in it.

quote:

even the expensive industrial centrifuges will not remove all micro water/acid.

Again..incorrect.

quote:

And I bet the people doing the common heat, settle, filter are not removing the micro water/acid.

Having tested this method very thoroughly I would be more than willing to take that bet.

quote:

Probably people using a 10 micron nominal filter should be much more concerned than those using this which filters to 0.1 micron (note that is 100x finer.)

You just lost me.
Why would they be more concerned?
Is there any evidence that finer filtration lowers suspended water levels?

quote:

If you concentrate the contaminant (assume acid) by evaporative/flash techniques, you further reduce it's size and make it even harder to remove by washing or filtering.

If droplet size were the only mechanism at work here I might agree. But it is not.

quote:

imagine this tiny droplet bumping up against a big drop from a mist wash. If the oil film is strong enough to keep it from being drawn into the larger droplet it will never be "washed" by it. If it is able to combine, it will be removed entirely. So likely only the larger of the suspended droplets if any will be affected by the mist wash.

This is an interesting..but flawed theory.
How do I know?
I tested.

Look....
You have a very promising concept here.
And I am encouraging you to test it and furhter develop it. But if you are saying that you don;t want to test it or develop it further than please...don't make misleading claims about it. It will cause others to assume that you are makeing these claims because you have thoroughly tested it and they will be needlessly harmed.

If you are unwlling to test or develop it further just say so. I am sure that others are willing to but don't feel it is ethical to jump on an idea which appears to be in the middle of development and finish the fork you have begun.

But if you have no intention of doing further R&D yourselves please just say so and that would significantly change the ethical restrictions of completing what you have begun.

quote:

quote:

imagine this tiny droplet bumping up against a big drop from a mist wash. If the oil film is strong enough to keep it from being drawn into the larger droplet it will never be "washed" by it. If it is able to combine, it will be removed entirely. So likely only the larger of the suspended droplets if any will be affected by the mist wash.

This is an interesting..but flawed theory.

How do I know?
I tested.

Perhaps you missed my point. I'm merely stating the illogic of assuming a droplet of water would somehow be washed by water without being removed. If it's removed, great. If not, it's still going to be just as contaminated.

I respect your opinion Dana, but I can't accept it as conclusive evidence when you don't actually publish the test results. Therefore I must throw my "flawed theories" out there so others will have as many angles to consider as possible.

quote:

...don't make misleading claims about it. It will cause others to assume that you are makeing these claims because you have thoroughly tested it and they will be needlessly harmed.

I'm not sure if that was aimed at me or if you just bundled my quotes with SunWizards. If me, then re-read my posts. I merely state what I've found trying the product with no puffing, and some actual criticisms. I have by no means endorsed or tried to imply the fitness of this product for this use yet. The more who test it tho the better.

Anyway, I'll get back to testing the centrifuge this weekend on unwashed oil.

quote:

Perhaps you missed my point. I'm merely stating the illogic of assuming a droplet of water would somehow be washed without being removed.

Yes..I missed that.
I guess I did not think that anyone thought that the suspended water itself was "washed". I have never heard of washing referred to in this way. Every time I have heard of mistwashing it referred to the oil as bieng "washed" by the droplets of water falling through. As in "washing" particulates and suspended "water" from wvo.

quote:

I respect your opinion Dana, but I can't accept it as conclusive evidence when you don't actually publish the test results.

I guess I don't even expect folks to accept "test results"...which is why I encourage others to duplicate the tests I have done myself. And to critique them and suggest improvements.

Joat and sunwizard: I hope I represent all of us bench-sitters who are watching you pioneer this system without helping any more than posting our thoughts, opinions, suggestions, and questions.

I, for one, don't have time to do what you guys have managed to do and I'm so cheap that I want you guys to do all the research to prove the system before I go out and buy it.

I would like to propose to all bench-sitters that we send a little cash their way to help get proper testing done. If a bunch of us send just a few bucks each, these guys won't have to pay for these tests that will benefit everyone. They've already put in enough money and even more time. I'm good for $10 and a tube of litmus paper.

Joat and Sunwizard: PM me if you want to take me up on this

Just a quick observation, when I mist wash the waste water that comes out initially has a pH of 4.0 After a quantity of water, about 60- 80% of oil volume has gone thru the pH level has gone to 7.0 That tells me it is removing acid from the oil. I cant think of another way to do this.
Johnno

SunWizard, when I get back I'm going to resume testing at lower pressures and see how low I can go with good results. 90 PSI has been great but noisy. Perhaps we can get as good of results at lower RPM, especially if the higher turbulence and vibration reduces centrifugal efficiency? Just something else I want to test....

wvoalaska, thanks for the offer, but I will just continue my standard testing level over time as I process my oil for now. If someone comes accross a cheap (or free from university) place to do full chemical analisys, that would be great. The sources I know of and have checked only go to about .1% on water at best.

Johnno I've seen this too. It's just I get less obvious results testing already cleaned oil for any remaining acids, mistwashed or not. Thus I have not been able to convince myself mistwashing is essential instead of just an option. Anyway, I'm done with that discussion for now. If I get any definitive evidence relating as I test, I'll present it tho.

quote:

Originally posted by danalinscott:

quote:

I think that if it passes the pan test after this rig, its a small enough amount to not be a problem.

What would lead you to believe this?

Because that is the test that large numbers of people are using with all methods. And it appears to be a sufficient test since everyone is relying on it with decent results, and the only one we can use for every batch.

quote:

quote:

So the mistwash and whether its needed (or even works) is a seperate topic that applys equally to any method we all are using. So I say its a good topic but not relevant to this rig in particular.

Only if the above speculation is correct.
Testing is the way to determine this.
The testing is relativcly simple.
I do not understand why you do not wish to test to make certain your assumptions are correct.

So far the testing that has been done on evaporative dewatering indicates that mistwashing IS required to thoroughly dewater. The testing done on THIS unit also indicates this. UNless testing is done to determine if mistwashing is NOT required for thorough dewatering with this unit they are inextricably linked.

I plan on continuing testing. I don't plan on spending the $ on lab tests for it, because we need tests that everyone can do. Like many things, it depends on your VO source. Here is a possible classification:

Type 1: No suspended water, no mistwash needed, cleans up great.

Type 2: Has suspended water, does not require mistwash and all suspended water is removed. 1 to 2 is how my sources appear to be, and I will do no mistwash on the next batch as a test.

Type 3: requires mistwash to get full removal,

Type 4: can't remove completly even with a mistwash. I don't have sources for all those kinds of oil. It would be interesting to see how much of each class of VO people are running into.

quote:

quote:

And the suspended micro droplets is similar in that it applys equally to every method people are using, not just this one.

This is incorrect. Either filtering/settling or using a true centrifuge can remove suspended water along with the water soluble contaminants in it.

When I say it applies, I mean that proper removal is a problem and you must test for it with every rig. Agreed?

quote:

quote:

even the expensive industrial centrifuges will not remove all micro water/acid.

Again..incorrect.

That was based on JOATs research posted above, so now I don't know who to believe.

quote:

quote:

And I bet the people doing the common heat, settle, filter are not removing the micro water/acid.

Having tested this method very thoroughly I would be more than willing to take that bet.

That is good to know. I wonder why Tim and others are working so hard on flash evaporators to use on VO that they have already settled? Is it that the settling must be unbearably long for some VO?

quote:

quote:

Probably people using a 10 micron nominal filter should be much more concerned than those using this which filters to 0.1 micron (note that is 100x finer.)

You just lost me.
Why would they be more concerned?
Is there any evidence that finer filtration lowers suspended water levels?

The concern is because there is much well done research showing that particles even <10 microns cause IP wear. CAT and others have switched to 2 micron filters due to that research. And a nominal filter lets a certain unspecified percentage of particles >10 microns through, and doesn't get the smaller ones much.

quote:

Look....
You have a very promising concept here.
And I am encouraging you to test it and furhter develop it. But if you are saying that you don;t want to test it or develop it further than please...don't make misleading claims about it. It will cause others to assume that you are makeing these claims because you have thoroughly tested it and they will be needlessly harmed.

If you are unwlling to test or develop it further just say so. I am sure that others are willing to but don't feel it is ethical to jump on an idea which appears to be in the middle of development and finish the fork you have begun.

But if you have no intention of doing further R&D yourselves please just say so and that would significantly change the ethical restrictions of completing what you have begun.

Thats vague, what misleading claims have I made? If there are any point them out and then I can retract it or further test it. Kind of hard to do with a vague accusation like that.

I have not claimed this will remove suspended water from bad VO without a mistwash. That seems to be what you are focused on. I think that would be a very hard claim to make on any rig, even a very expensive centrifuge. I don't know why you want me to be the one to test to the extreme level to be able to make that claim. Why don't you build one and start testing, Dana?

I think its fine for others to build one and start testing and do further development. Further development is inevitable, even if I tried to sell the plans for this and protect the info as if its my secret. Thats why I posted it here with all the info for everyone to do just that. Because this is an important area for use of VO, and this is so much easier than filters. In fact I bet there are vendors who will start selling rigs like this.

The not ethical thing I can see would be to start selling plans for info similar to what I am giving away for free here. (edit- so Dana if you make some improvements please don't charge us to tell us what they are )

I think the basis for our disagreement/misunderstanding is that you believe that the hot pan test will detect suspended water with even very high concentrations of water soluble contaminants.

You apparrently believe this because others do.
By doing so you are assuming exactly what they assume.
Assumptions lead to incorrect conclusions.
And basing assumptions on incorrect conclusions leads one ever further from the truth.

The Hot Pan Test was originally developed to test for suspended water levels in wvo that has been dewatered by gravity or(true)centrifuge. Later others used it to test for suspended water in wvo that has been dewatered by evaporative methods. It appeared to show that complete dewatering was taking place...so they assumed it was. They did not test to make certain that this was true.

I felt obligated (and a bit curious) to determine if the HPT was accurrate to use when testing wvo dewatered by evaporative means. I didsovered it did not reveal suspended water that has highly concentrated water soluble contaminants in it.

As a result I modified the description of the HPT...though old copies of it are still used by many as it was widely copied and distributed. Since Dec 27, 2005 it has been:

quote:

NOTE:
Do not pour in a sample with any visible water. If water droplets are visible no testing is needed. There is water present in your sample. Visible droplets of water will spatter hot oil out of the pan and may cause burns or fire.


Look closely at the bottom of the pan where the oil meets it. Are there very small bubbles forming. This indicates some suspended water. The number of bubbles indicates how much water is present in suspended form.

I usually accept a FEW bubbles myself. Lots of small bubbles is unacceptable to me. If crackling or popping is heard..way too much water is present.
I have tried to keep this test as simple, cheap, and translatable as possible.
It works....though it is not "foolproof". False positives can be obtained if the pan is WAY too hot..or if solvents are mixed in the WVO. And false negative results are possible if the suspended water has high concentrations of salt/sugar/ acids.

I try to join in as early as possible when folks are duplicating testing I have some previous experience with. The hope is that they will be able to build upon this and not spend time and $ duplicating ALL of that testing. And that they will not depend upon assumptions which I discovered were questionable, unreliable, or incorrect.

You discovered as I did that "spinner" type centrifugal filters tend to emulsify any free water present. I tried to present this to you early on..and was rewarded with this;

quote:

I just ran my first batch of 15 gallons of WVO straight from the restaurant barrel, 100 micron screen on sucker, through the centrifuge with no other filtering and it works great. Easy to clean, no more filters to buy. Runs at 90psi, 1 gpm. I was surprised since Dana had me scared it wouldn't work

Shortly after this you began indicating that it removed suspended water according to the "pan test". You have continued to indicate that it appears to remove suspended water "according to the pan test". When I tired to expalin why the "pan test" might not be an accurate test to use with evaporative dewatergin I got pretty much the same response I have from about half of those experimenting with evaporative dewatering techniques. Ridicule.

I have two goals in posting to this discussion:
1.I want to encourage the devlopment of this concept to the point of utitlity. As I have said several times before I believe that YOUR concept of combining a centrifugal filter AND flash evaporation has a LOT of potential. I do not have time to do this currently..and feel it would be unethical for anyone to take YOUR CONCEPT and develop it IF you intend to do so yourself. On the other hand if you do not intend to fully develop this I see no reason that others should not...and be compensated for doing so.

2.I do not want overentusiasm to (unintentionally) mislead others into believing that at this stage of development the unit actually dewateres without mistwashing. If it can be determined by appropriate testing that it does this would be wonderful. But assuming it does can easily cause unneccesary harm to those who might believe this has already been tested.

How do I balance those two goals?

Partly by trying to ignore when I am ridiculed for urging caution.

I am not trying to accuse you of anything other then possibly overenthusiasm.

I am not tryng to urge anyone considering joining in the test not to...just to be aware that at least one of the tests being used (the one I "designed") should not be assumed to be sufficient to test for suspended water (acid/etc) in wvo dewatered by evaporative means.


When you first ridiculed me for posting what I thought was helpful info I backed away...and then essentially asked if my input was welcome. You indicated it was. If it IS welcome please try to not ridicule me for providing it. I have very limited time as well as the need to make about $1000 more income each month (fathers failing health) so if my input is not welcome just let me know. But please don't tell me you appreciate my input and then make insinuations about MY ethics when I provide it.

quote:

The not ethical thing I can see would be to start selling plans for info similar to what I am giving away for free here. (edit- so Dana if you make some improvements please don't charge us to tell us what they are )

quote:

Originally posted by danalinscott:
I think the basis for our disagreement/misunderstanding is that you believe that the hot pan test will detect suspended water with even very high concentrations of water soluble contaminants.

I never said that, so I don't know where you get that I believe that about the pan test. I recommend mistwash, does this bring down any very high concentrations to a level where a pan test would show it? Or are you saying that for some VO, the pan test doesn't work and mistwash doesn't work? (and a later pan test won't show that the mistwash didn't work?) That would negate several of the things you have been recommending to us all, and seem like some warnings be issued.

quote:

Shortly after this you began indicating that it removed suspended water according to the "pan test". You have continued to indicate that it appears to remove suspended water "according to the pan test". When I tired to expalin why the "pan test" might not be an accurate test to use with evaporative dewatergin I got pretty much the same response I have from about half of those experimenting with evaporative dewatering techniques. Ridicule.

I saw no explanation until now, you simply asked where I mention my dewatering testing methods. I pointed that out. Yet I gave no ridicule, I asked if you didn't like the pan test anymore. This better explanation of specific reasons when you don't like the pan test is a good answer.

quote:

2.I do not want overentusiasm to (unintentionally) mislead others into believing that at this stage of development the unit actually dewateres without mistwashing. If it can be determined by appropriate testing that it does this would be wonderful. But assuming it does can easily cause unneccesary harm to those who might believe this has already been tested.

Don't worry I have never made the claim of dewater any kind of VO without mistwashing. I also am very cautious, and am not assuming all these things you say I am. You are accusing me of making misleading claims, so I will take offense at that until you can point it out! (or say you are sorry for accusing me of misleading claims when you can not quote one here.)

quote:

If it IS welcome please try to not ridicule me for providing it.

I don't see anything I said as ridicule, but if you point it out the specific "ridicule" I can try not to do it again.

quote:

But please don't tell me you appreciate my input and then make insinuations about MY ethics when I provide it.

quote:

The not ethical thing I can see would be to start selling plans for info similar to what I am giving away for free here. (edit- so Dana if you make some improvements please don't charge us to tell us what they are )

Selling plans for things as you do I think is a great thing since there are so many here who need the help.
That makes no insinuations about your ethics, it is simply a request to not take this idea and sell plans for it, and share freely what you develop on this, which is what you often do and I appreciate.

edit- and this great sharing of information from everyone on this board including Dana is why I chose this board to post this thread You are the most promising group of greasy scientists I have found.

Look...I have clearly stated this before.

quote:

I am not trying to accuse you of anything other then possibly overenthusiasm.

The misleading statements begin with the title of this discussion

quote:

Dieselcraft centrifuge works great -My filter and dewater rig

You did not KNOW it "worked great" when you began it..and you have still not established that it does.

Lets look at the first sentence "I just ran my first batch of 15 gallons of WVO straight from the restaurant barrel, 100 micron screen on sucker, through the centrifuge with no other filtering and it works great."

Lets ignore that you are not using a centrifuge"...it is similar but different from a centrifuge. It IS a centrifugal filter. Given the information so far it might be very easy for someone to believe that the "spinner type" filter is an actual centrifuge ofd the type which actually DOES remove suspended water. You are not TRYING to mislead anyone but the misuse of the term "centrifuge" would easliy lead to someone being mislead.

You do not mention mistwashing until I suggest it..to which you reply;

quote:

The centrifuge doesn't need to do the dewater for me to consider it a sucess,

Remember the topic heading????

quote:

Dieselcraft centrifuge works great -My filter and dewater rig

More?

quote:

Yes the Dieselcraft rig that I use will remove all the water. Takes about 4 passes to filter very fine and dewater.

Again...I am not accusing you of intentionally misleading anyone. But I DO think you are UN intentionally providing misleading info.

If you take offense at that I do not see how I can state it in a less accusatory manner.

It is up to YOU but it may be helpful to summarise that mistwashing is requred as part of the process as an EDIT in your first post so folks who do not want to read though 10 pages of postings don't miss that point. It is critical IMO.

I have tried to remain as repectful of you as possible. I have also tried to point out that I do not feel you have made a similar effort. I AM NOT going to waste my time pointing out where it seems you are ridiculing theadvice and experience I have shared with you.

I have not tried to "Scare" you...nor have I accused you of TRYING to mislead anyone. I have tried at every turn to offer you help based upon my experience (which was far from free to obtain) and in return I have gotten "tude" from you. Possibly you consider that humorous. I do not.

quote:

Selling plans for things as you do I think is a great thing since there are so many here who need the help.
That makes no insinuations about your ethics, it is simply a request to not take this idea and sell plans for it, and share freely what you develop on this, which is what you often do and I appreciate.

If you truely appreciate that them please try to show it in some way. That was NOT a request.
It was a uncalled for slap in the face.

quote:

You are the most promising group of greasy scientists I have found.

Then why the "tude" dude?
We have tried to gently suggest things to you that are obvious to several of us. We have tried to ENCOURAGE you to develop this. But we have also tried to get you to not be so enthusiastic that you neglect significantly testing BEFORE declaring SUCCESS and leaving a false trail for those that follow.

To which you seem to take offense.

quote:

Originally posted by danalinscott:
The misleading statements begin with the title of this discussion

quote:

Dieselcraft centrifuge works great -My filter and dewater rig

You did not KNOW it "worked great" when you began it..and you have still not established that it does.

I knew it worked great as a filter which is what I started the experiment with. After I got repeated good filtering and dewatering results, I added the "my filter and dewater rig". You would of course need to read the thread to see how it worked great for me and how I mistwash and dewater. Can't put all that in the title.

quote:

Lets look at the first sentence "I just ran my first batch of 15 gallons of WVO straight from the restaurant barrel, 100 micron screen on sucker, through the centrifuge with no other filtering and it works great."

Lets ignore that you are not using a centrifuge"...it is similar but different from a centrifuge. It IS a centrifugal filter.

It is a centrifuge by all definitions and Dieselcraft calls it the Dieselcraft “Cyclone” Series Oil Centrifuges if you want to be precise. There are many types of centrifuges, for example a lab centrifuge, despite its not very useful for VO, I would still call it a centrifuge.

And I mention repeatedly in the thread that I mistwash, and in each place I talk about dewatering.

quote:

Given the information so far it might be very easy for someone to believe that the "spinner type" filter is an actual centrifuge ofd the type which actually DOES remove suspended water. You are not TRYING to mislead anyone but the misuse of the term "centrifuge" would easliy lead to someone being mislead.

More?

quote:

Yes the Dieselcraft rig that I use will remove all the water. Takes about 4 passes to filter very fine and dewater.

Again...I am not accusing you of intentionally misleading anyone. But I DO think you are UN intentionally providing misleading info.

It is up to YOU but it may be helpful to summarise that mistwashing is requred as part of the process as an EDIT in your first post so folks who do not want to read though 10 pages of postings don't miss that point. It is critical IMO.

They would get that if they read to page 2 which is worth it to see the development, but I will add something to first post: This is a BLOG of my greasy science project. See page 2 for info on how I did my mistwash and dewatering, and then further improvements to this rig on later pages. Tests at this point say a mistwash is required before this rig (or any evaporative method) will dewater any VO that contains large amounts of suspended acids/salts/etc.

Does that work for you?

quote:

quote:

That makes no insinuations about your ethics, it is simply a request to not take this idea and sell plans for it, and share freely what you develop on this, which is what you often do and I appreciate.

If you truely appreciate that them please try to show it in some way. That was NOT a request.
It was a uncalled for slap in the face.

The way you worded your post about taking this idea "and finish the work you have begun" sounds like selling plans, and in kind of a threatening way. So thats why I posted that, not as a slap but a request against something that seemed likely.

quote:

[QUOTE]share freely what you develop on this, which is what you often do and I appreciate.

You are the most promising group of greasy scientists I have found.

Then why the "tude" dude?

Those words there are trying to show I got no 'tude and showing appreciation. Sorry if you don't get that from those words.

quote:

We have tried to gently suggest things to you that are obvious to several of us. We have tried to ENCOURAGE you to develop this. But we have also tried to get you to not be so enthusiastic that you neglect significantly testing BEFORE declaring SUCCESS and leaving a false trail for those that follow.

To which you seem to take offense.

Where is the false trail? Another vague accusation, and that is all I have taken offense at, and can still remain completely civil in my replys. Things often get taken wrong on the internet and turn into flame wars and its amazing and lucky we haven't here. The trail I took is fully documented here. If some part is false I will gladly go back and edit it or "disclaimer" it but you are not pointing out a specific thing.

quote:

Originally posted by danalinscott:
Here is the test I suggest:
Take a sample of wvo with suspended water(5-10 gallons) and process it without mistwashing.

Process an equal amount after mistwashing.

Compare the acidity of both using both titration and the distilled water "wash" (litmus paper) method.

If they test identical I believe it might be strong proof that the method DOES thoroughly dewater without mistwashing. If not it might be helpful to others considering using the unit to always use a wash as an initial step.

There are many problems I see with that test. It would only prove it worked for that particular batch of VO with its particular contaminants. Very hard to generalize. And I agree the litmus paper test is not very accurate, as JOAT has pointed out. And it doesn't cover salts, sugars and who knows what else? And I thought titration was only good to determine FFA, and that no one has determined them to be important to remove.

So I can't forsee any way that I would make the claim to remove suspended junk from bad VO without mistwashing. Nor would I tend to believe others making that claim with any rig, including "real" centrifuges. It might work for some bad VO, not for others.

And doing no mistwash is not what I am recommending either, its your topic you keep bringing up for several pages here. If anyone thinks they can make it work with all types of bad VO and no mistwash and have a decent way to test it, please go for it. But as we both have said, its not very likely with evaporative dewatering and could take a lot of time.

I still say you are focused on a method that is not recommended with any other rig (doing no mistwash) and applying it to this one only? (and then saying its success or failure hinges on that?) Seems very strange.

Dana, the memory goes first LOL. It was Joat who had doubts on Mist washing not Sunwizard.

Sunwizard or Joat- though Im not sure what the resulting answer would mean.... what the hell.. try the test of a two batches from same drum (or two totes of 5 gal/each mixed together to form one batch of 10gal then split back into two)Mist wash one... dont mist wash the other before Cfuging. Set a cup sized sample of each aside then run thru Dieselcraft C-fuge. Take samples of the cleaned oil, maybe at end of each cycle?

Now test the samples for PH. I assume you would have to mist wash each sample taken to collect water; after settling ,so you can measure PH of the water.

This would add some good data to the collection of info about this set up.

THANX AGAIN FOR ALL YOUR TIME AND EFFORTS!!!!

Sunwizard.
I really do not know how to respond.

You seem to feel that when I challenge your assumptions I need to be very careful to not offend you in doing so AND provide a detailed explanation of why it is incorrect. When I treat you as a "peer" you take offense at my bluntness and failure to provide details that a peer would already be aware of. Yet you appear to not feel any need to treat me with any reciprocity. I am used to dealing with professionals who act in a professional manner or non professionals who are at least grateful enough for my help to not take cheap shots at me.

I do not have the patience to provide assistance in this discussion under rules which require me to treat you as a professional AND a nonprofessional at the same time.

If I had the patience or you were less combative I think I could be very helpful here. Unfortunately both of us seem to be the the limits of our ability.

I sincerely wish you good luck with this project but feel I would have been much better off following my initial impression that you did not really want my help or the benefit of my experience.

If anyone that can stand my bluntness and apparrently unreasonable restrictions of remaining on topic, following a logical progression of research and development, and acting in a prfessional and blunt manner wishes to discuss this topic futher with me please PM me. Perhaps I can provide more help with less agravation from a distance. I do not believe I can do so directly given my own limitations.

You don't need to be careful of anything, I like a good scientific debate which should be obvious from all these posts. Your vague accusations are what I don't like since they can not be debated, and all I have done is ask you to be more specific to be able to respond to those accusations. I like bluntness (get a point across with the least words) and please point out any offense at yours.

Since you are going to stop posting here anyway then I can be blunt and not be so worried about offending you. Note I am the one who said sorry repeatedly on many pages as you took offense to little things, and you would not point out what offended you when I offered to try to avoid whatever it was. Here is how I see what you have been doing, and I will be specific, not vague.

You are the one being overenthusiastic and misleading people about this making them think that it could remove all suspended water without a mistwash, and that there is a test that would work to prove that, and then after 1 test that it could be generalized for all VO. I have been the pessimist and scientist about it by saying its highly unlikely, we don't have a good test, even if we got a positive result on a batch it can't be generalized. I will keep recommending a mistwash as I have done since page 2 where I started dewatering tests, and you keep strangely claiming I am not.

You haven't been much help with this anyway, you have posted mostly FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt). My guess as to the motive for that would be you fear as more people build one of these and post good results it could lower sales of your filter plans, and its all laid out here for free. This rig does make a lot of sense even if used only as a filter since it filters very finely and you don't have to keep buying replacement cartridges. You have a conflict of interest, that is until you can claim you have "completed the work I began" as you said, and can charge people for the plans for some secret improvements.

quote:

Originally posted by wvoalaska:
Joat and sunwizard: I hope I represent all of us bench-sitters who are watching you pioneer this system without helping any more than posting our thoughts, opinions, suggestions, and questions.

I, for one, don't have time to do what you guys have managed to do and I'm so cheap that I want you guys to do all the research to prove the system before I go out and buy it.

I would like to propose to all bench-sitters that we send a little cash their way to help get proper testing done. If a bunch of us send just a few bucks each, these guys won't have to pay for these tests that will benefit everyone. They've already put in enough money and even more time. I'm good for $10 and a tube of litmus paper.

Joat and Sunwizard: PM me if you want to take me up on this

Thanks for the encouragement and generous offer. I have some business sponsors who have approached me and I am working with to get that lab testing. I already have large supply of litmus paper If anyone has a lab or even some of the testing equipment, that would be the best! Also ideas of how to structure such lab testing would be useful since thats the stage we are at now. More development to come...