|
Member |
The tower I'm setting up is a ten foot long piece of six inch schedule 40 pvc, i plan on setting it up in a n up flow configuration, riht now I'm setting up a winnowing process to clean the fine dust out of my shavings.
|
|||
|
|
Member |
I got the test results back last week and they were very good. I did however fail the oxidation and total glycerine but i new that i would cause i didn't have a complete reaction but i was more worried about the soap, acid #, and free glycerine. I feel that this works with woodchips and bark. the wood chips i had a full test done on and the sodium was 3ppm, acid was .24 and free glycerine was .002 and all other test passed. the bark i did a crital test and the acid failed with a .54 but the rest passed. bark has more tannic acid and my bark was still slightly damp so that could have been the reason or simply unreacted bio. not sure however the bark only takes 2hrs of contact time to go to a 0 on the soap test and the chips take 6 hrs to pass soap test. that is bio setting in either chips or bark. Interesting note i had the test done at midwest labs and they said they could do a soap test for us for $50 and i asked them how they preformed the test and it is done the same way we all do it with hcl. so everytime you preform the test it saves you $50. we used hemlock bark because that is what they used to tan hides. I know it is a soft wood and we are suppose to use hardwoods. On the chips we used hardwood red oak and some hemlock.
|
|||
|
|
Member |
NewGuy,
So your argument is that ASTM D6751 doesn't say anything about soap? Therefor using eco2pure or wood shavings is fruitless? That is about as logical as saying that ASTM D6751 doesn't mention chicken bones.  I am no expert on ASTM's -- just making a guess. Perhaps soap falls under the category of water and sediment should be less than .05?
Again your logic escapes me. BD brewed from WVO will have impurities which need to be filtered or washed out. I don't see anything fishy about Eco2pure's statement. You say that you are citing facts, which may be true, but you are also misapplying the information you have gleaned. Telling a bunch of people experimenting with wood shavings that there is no free lunch and it is a waste of time and to go back to water washing without having done any experiments yourself is a waste of my time. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Fabricator,
Wow!!! That is one large tower. What kind of pump setup are you going to configure to push the BD up through the shavings? Tilt1, Thanks for the report on your test. As far as using Hemlock bark for the experiment goes. Hey, if it works for you then go for it. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Yip, thats a longgg tower but the longer and narrower the better. Mine is a standard 90 litre resin tower from a small water purification plant. Currently I'm using a 30 litre tower for my ion exchange resin. The reason i'm using downflow is because of the risk of the biodiesel channelling with upflow. That shouldnt affect a long narrow bore tho. As I posted previously hardwood sinks in biodiesel. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Jehu
Anyway, I'm thinking maybe pretreating the woodshavings might be a good idea. One thing i'll do before puting it into the tower is to seive all the small dust out of it. I might also do another small trial to see if 'priming' the woodshavings with both clean biodiesel and methanol first makes any difference by making it more absorbant.[/quote] The Ecopure is made to remove EXCESS Methanol, as one of it`s property's, so I don`t think pretreating will be a good idea. (Ps Centrifuge still working great) |
|||
|
|
Member |
Hi Stumpy
The Ecopure will already have been treated with whatever. But the shavings wont have had anything done. Methanol of course is 'wood alcohol' so it would be a natural choice to prime the stuff, and also it dries quickly. What I intend to do is to make a couple of litres of biodiesel from high titrating oil, weigh out three equal amounts of the sawdust, one which is untreated, one primed with methanol and the other with clean biodiesel, add to each an equal amount of the raw biodiesel and after mixing for ten minutes or so do a water test comparison for soap. |
|||
|
|
Member |
I don't think you can help it you just are an arrogant div who understands less than you think but imagine that becuse you associate with large scale producers you know better than people with years of hands on experience of making bio. The process you describe is the two stage base base method. Many of us are already familiar with it. Regardless of your ignorant opinion soap is present in the final bio even with base base two stage. Stumpy currently uses that method in conjunction with a centrifuge. He still removes soap from the final product. For most users who don't give a stuff about ASTM standards, most of which are irrelevant b0llocks set out by the petroleum oil industry, soap removal is an important part of meeting the standards we find produce good fuel. So wood shavings are a potentially useful tool. Unlike some tools under discussion. Resin towers do the same. Remove soap. It is what they are for. You are both arrogant and ignorant with an inflated sense of your own self worth and expertise. As to your motive in being a div. You don't need a motive. You just are one. mathematical elegance -- desired result achieved with minimal complication |
|||
|
|
Member |
And furthermore, with that base,base method the are not getting anywhere near 98% yeild, no way in hell.
|
|||
|
|
Member |
Ant
Your description of thenewguy as being an "arrogant div" is spot on, although being from Canada he probably does not know what a "div" is. Anyway, a couple of points on his remarks, he mentions his research and the ASTM standards not referencing soap, well what does he think the Sulfated Ash, Sodium & Potassium, or Calcium & Magnesium are a measure of. They will indicate the presence of soap in the finished fuel. Also commercial producers that use a "saponification" or "caustic refining" step on their WVO (as described by thenewguy in his most recent post) are not getting 98% yield and anyone who says they are needs their head testing. The pretreatment step causes quite a significant loss in overall yield. Although it seems the processors that he has visited do not do any form of acid esterification on the WVO to increase yield so he obviously has not visited may production plants. I have not been involved with the subject of this thread but having spent a lot of my professional life in and around edible oil and methyl ester production plants I can safely say he seems to be arrogantly talking bollocks. He should stick to smply selling the stuff. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Did i miss something. The results passed except for where i new they would fail. Process: make bio, seperate, demeth, and let set in chips for a few hrs = passable bio, no water or sediment detected, meth was greater than 150c, sulfated ash none detected, etc. and i only had to strain it thru a paint strainer not a filter and still got no sediment detected. my oxidation comes from old oil and air induction in system. my total glycerine comes from di and mono glycerides due to my human error. Personally i have tried many different ways to get the soap out even centrifuging and nothing works as well as the wood. It is also free and renewable unlike resin..and water washing is a pollutant. |
|||
|
|
member |
My eyes glazed over while reading the arguements between long time forum members and the troll. Forgive me if this was pointed out already...
Soap requires three things: Oil, Caustic, and WATER. What thenewguy is describing is simply caustic stripping of the WVO. It does not require water. This has been discussed and tested here extensively. At to the ASTM spec not having a soap standard...soap shows up as ash in the older test. Generally, anything under 400ppm soap would squeek by on the ash test. I have not read the new standard so I cannot speak to it. Keep up the testing. Someday I will track down a local source for oak shavings. Right now I am installing the second tank in my 87 300D to let me run my good oil in it as a greaser. My thick, animal fats will have to be turned into biodiesel AND heated to run reliably! -Jim |
|||
|
|
member 2009 Sponsor |
tilt1,
Thank you for reporting the results. It gives us reason to continue testing. The picture of ecopure2 looks like ground bark. Judging by the dark brown coloration. Where to find ground bark?  |
|||
|
|
member 2009 Sponsor |
Jack Daniels recycles old oak barrels
 Give your BD that "distinctive" smell that the police love so much  They're oak and they are already carboned by being charred inside.Probably make a decent grind, but that is a complete guess on my part as I know nothing of all this but am curious.**My reactor/processor :B100WH.com **The Colaborative Biodiesel Tutorial **B100 Heated Winter System ** Biodiesel Glycerine Soap - Make & sell soap from Biodiesel Glycerine |
|||
|
|
Member |
Bark. Thats interesting. I expect bark would be more porous, or at least have a much greater surface area and therefore be more effective than the wood itself. |
|||
|
|
member 2009 Sponsor |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Legal Eagle:
Jack Daniels recycles old oak barrels Give your BD that "distinctive" smell that the police love so much QUOTE]Smell? I'd just like to change the taste. You know, give it that hint of oak.  |
|||
|
|
Member |
"Sheepishly raising my hand" I live in hawaii and have been making bio diesel for almost 3 yrs and have been water washing...There are lots of wood turners here with tons of wood turning from koa and mango. Anybody know if these turnings (shavings) would be good? Please don't hit me
 Running on bio diesel since sept 05 |
|||
|
|
Member |
We have no idea. Try them and tell us.
mathematical elegance -- desired result achieved with minimal complication |
|||
|
|
Member |
At this point this whole thing is a question mark, you would undoubtedly be the first person on the planet to try koa and mango shavings.
|
|||
|
© Maui Green Energy 2000 - 2009