BIODIESEL & SVO DISCUSSION FORUMS





Page 1 2 

Moderators: Shaun, The Trouts
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Oil Won't Dewater
 Login/Join
 
Member
posted
I am posting this for an associate of mine who doesn't frequent these boards.

Oil won't dewater no matter how long he heats and circulates. He's considering blending said oil at about 1 to 3 WVO to Diesel rather than his ususal procedure of making biodiesel.

If the oil is not suitable for bio processing due to the water content is it suitable for blending?

I myself think he may benefit from a glycerol pre-treatment to perhaps draw some water out of the oil as the glycerol seperates. What do you think?


1983 Mercedes Benz 300SD
290,000 miles. 50K on alt fuels.
 
Location: North Shore Vancouver | Registered: October 22, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
2013 Sponsor
posted Hide Post
Take a look at this article on drying oil:

make-biodiesel.org
 
Location: Cowboy Country | Registered: December 06, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by john galt:
Heating and circulating isn't the way.

Not true. Heating and circulating is just one of the many ways you can de-water. It's effectiveness depends on several variables like humidity, design of the circulation equipment, and airflow across the hot oil. Here in Utah, in the dry desert air, I can dry 45 gallons of nasty, creamy oil from the bottom of my settling tote in just a few hours by heating and circulating with a fan drawing air over the drum.

I usually dont do this, because I prefer to let gravity do all of the work, but I have the ability to dry oil if in a hurry.


'93 Chevy K3500 w/6.5 turbo, 4x4. 20k miles on bio and counting.
'02 Ford F350 4 Door Short-Bed w/7.3 Powerstroke. 15k miles on bio.
 
Location: Utah | Registered: July 17, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Heating and circulating isn't the way. Heating and settling or cold upflow settling are the correct methods.


Not every method works in every situation. There are so many variabilities in the wvo that you have to put in the time to find a method that works for your situation. I have tested cold upflow settling and it did not dewater (for the oil that I have). From what I gather, for cold upflow settling to work, the oil has to be very clean to start with and it has to be canola oil etc.
 
Registered: May 08, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
heating and circulating with a fan drawing air over the drum.

I should have chosen my words better. The method I use is heat, circulate (with a fan on), settle, and drain a little. I think my associate uses the same technique.
Because he hasn't had success he thinks the water is in there at a molecular level.


1983 Mercedes Benz 300SD
290,000 miles. 50K on alt fuels.
 
Location: North Shore Vancouver | Registered: October 22, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
bmor,

Is he certain that he's dealing with water? If color is his only way to identify water, then things like high-FFA grease or hydrogenated oil will make him think that it is water.

If it's water, then he definitely shouldn't run it through his engine (unless he is trying to kill it). Also, time can be his friend. Put it in a barrel on the side & come back to it in a month or three. But I am thinking he's not dealing with water. Have him titrate & try a 1 liter batch, & see if it processes as is.

-tony
 
Location: Central Texas | Registered: December 26, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
The hot pan test indicates the presence of water.


1983 Mercedes Benz 300SD
290,000 miles. 50K on alt fuels.
 
Location: North Shore Vancouver | Registered: October 22, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The two statements made contradict each other. The oil gets hot in a pan and gives an indication of water/water won't evaporate out of the oil from heat and circulation.

If it can't evaporate then how else is he getting the indication of water? If he is heating and spraying the oil, the water is going to come out. That is your doing with the water test, heating the water to a point it turns to steam.
 
Location: Texas | Registered: June 24, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
There are a lot of variables your bud needs to look at. How much ol is he drying, how is it sprayed, what is the temp of the oil ect.....

Example: I have a 110 gallon dryer. I can only dry 55 gallons at a time. If I put 100 gallons in there it takes forever to get the oil dry. With only 55 gallons it takes about 3 maybe 4 hours.
 
Location: Texas | Registered: June 24, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I'm beginning to think it may be the temperature. Myself I use 160F, he's had success at around 140F in the past as I recall. This particular oil may require more heat.


1983 Mercedes Benz 300SD
290,000 miles. 50K on alt fuels.
 
Location: North Shore Vancouver | Registered: October 22, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I was using soybean oil, no PHO. I know food particles hold water but I didn't know fat holds water too. Can someone else confrim that?.

Is it below 50°F year round where you live? If not, what do you do to filter in the warmer weather?

quote:
Originally posted by john galt:
quote:
for cold upflow settling to work, the oil has to be very clean to start with and it has to be canola oil etc.


NO.. cold upflow works best when it's COLD, i.e. below 50°F, so the water absorbing PHO and fats are separated and left in the bottom.
 
Registered: May 08, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
using soybean oil, no PHO.


Are you sure? What was cooked in the oil?


Yes I'm sure because I read the lables on the containers the oil came in and it says "Soybean oil" and nothing else..
 
Registered: May 08, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
1. Heat/settle/drain free water.
2. Spray dry to remove remainder of emulsified or dissolved or "molecular" water.

Used together with an appropriate setup this will dry your oil every single time with very rare exceptions.

Of course the devil is in the details. We would have to talk about "appropriate setup" and temps and times and gallons per batch, etc.

The upflow process is fine and useful and efficient I'm sure, but there are drawbacks. For example, what do you do with all the junk in the bottom???

With my described process, when you're done, there are no leftovers to deal with. The free water was drained and is gone. The dissolved water is evaporated and gone. Of course, that also has downsides. For example, any animal fats or hydrogenated oil products will still be in there. Great for summer fuel, terrible for winter fuel.

Just for completeness, he should try the sexy weigh/heat/weigh method to find out quantitatively exactly how much water is really in there. Here's the protocol:

http://www.biodieselcommunity.org/quantitativewatertest/


Water matters,

troy
 
Location: north america somewhere close to the midwest, or not | Registered: May 29, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Did somebody suggest an absorber method already?
 
Location: Netherlands | Registered: December 22, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
No one has suggested it yet Dimitri.

Why dosent your friend try passing a small sample of this water loving oil through a column filled with a soil moisture crystal (polyacrylamide gell) from his local garden centre? It may absorb the water based pm experiments that have been carried out by forum members.


mathematical elegance -- desired result achieved with minimal complication
 
Location: Manchester UK | Registered: June 03, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ant:
No one has suggested it yet Dimitri.

Why dosent your friend try passing a small sample of this water loving oil through a column filled with a soil moisture crystal (polyacrylamide gell) from his local garden centre? It may absorb the water based pm experiments that have been carried out by forum members.


If heating doesn't work, some absorber may do the job. Or a molecular sieve, or a centrifuge. I mentioned the absorber because I thought people here missed the other discussions.

The problem with polyacrylamide is that it also may contain some acrylamide, which is a neurotoxine. I have no idea how dangerous it is in the application, but it sure is a different kind of farewell than blowing up the shed.

Also it is an acid, which will cause corrosion and other unwanted side reactions and byproducts in (stainless) steel columns. Of course Hastelloy is an option.

So yes, garden gel sounds like a great idea to try.
 
Location: Netherlands | Registered: December 22, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by john galt:
quote:
The upflow process is fine and useful and efficient I'm sure, but there are drawbacks. For example, what do you do with all the junk in the bottom???

The junk in the bottom isn't a 'drawback', separating out the wet crud is what cold upflow is supposed to do. It isn't a waste byproduct to be discarded like dirty glycerol, it's mixed with sawdust and used to heat the house.


My apologies, your method is clearly superior in every aspect with no flaws or drawbacks whatsoever, and I don't even know why we bother to discuss the other options.

Oh yeah, what do they do if they don't have a wood stove?

Please carry on.

troy
 
Location: north america somewhere close to the midwest, or not | Registered: May 29, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
So yes, garden gel sounds like a great idea to try.


Well it is sold for use in home and commercial applications including food crops and gardens children play in so one can assume it has had the unreacted acrylamide removed? No more danger than working with it on your garden which has so far resulted in no reported health problems, I know of, over the years. If the acrylamide is improbably not removed then there is no reason to suppose the proprietry branded product is any better.

As for it's acidity attacking stainless etc. I doubt that somehow. It's a solid with its ion inside a polymer sheath and not readily available to react with it's container. Even assuming the acidity involved would have anything but a negligable effect. This is a solid you can hold in you hands without ill effect but you think it will react significantly with stainless? Seems unlikely.

If you can point to any research and evidence to demonstrate such a reaction then I will happily revise my assumptions and recommend people use plastic columns as most of our early adopters do anyway.

I am open to learning and being corrected but for someone who seems to support the propriatary product your response seems like scaremongering when there is no known difference between the two at the moment. That may not be your actual intent but it comes accross that way intentional or not. You yourself have speculated that the propriatary product is probably a polyacrylamide as it is not a salt. You have voiced no such concerns over the propriatary product. Not even provisional concerns dependant on it's as yet secret compostion. If your concerns are valid it would seem like a real reason to demand an MSDS from the propriatary supplier before purchasing any of the product.


mathematical elegance -- desired result achieved with minimal complication
 
Location: Manchester UK | Registered: June 03, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Well it is sold for use in home and commercial applications including food crops and gardens children play in so one can assume it has had the unreacted acrylamide removed? No more danger than working with it on your garden which has so far resulted in no reported health problems, I know of, over the years.


So hasn't talc powder, until recently.

quote:

If the acrylamide is improbably not removed then there is no reason to suppose the proprietry branded product is any better.


We both don't know what that product is.

quote:
As for it's acidity attacking stainless etc. I doubt that somehow. It's a solid with its ion inside a polymer sheath and not readily available to react with it's container. Even assuming the acidity involved would have anything but a negligable effect. This is a solid you can hold in you hands without ill effect but you think it will react significantly with stainless? Seems unlikely.


Yes, but how does it act combined with oil, biodiesel, ffa's, water, etc? Did you ask the garden gel supplier?

quote:
If you can point to any research and evidence to demonstrate such a reaction then I will happily revise my assumptions and recommend people use plastic columns as most of our early adopters do anyway.


No you should point to research and evidence that the garden gel product is harmless in the application you suggest unless you are willing to personally guarantee that it is.

Plastic doesn't sound like a good idea considering the possible pressure drop as a result of the gel-like material. Unless of course the pressure is monitored somehow.

quote:
I am open to learning and being corrected but for someone who seems to support the propriatary product your response seems like scaremongering when there is no known difference between the two at the moment.


Well if that proprietary product sucks in another way than meant to, we can always hold someone accountable for it: the company that sells it.

If your recommendations to use garden gel cause any problems to equipment or health, where can we reach you?

quote:
That may not be your actual intent but it comes accross that way intentional or not. You yourself have speculated that the propriatary product is probably a polyacrylamide as it is not a salt.


Yes, I did. So?

quote:
You have voiced no such concerns over the propriatary product. Not even provisional concerns dependant on it's as yet secret compostion.


No I haven't. Neither do I voice concerns about the secret composition of Coca Cola. I either trust the supplier that the stuff he sells is safe to use for the application he sells it for. Or I don't trust him and I don't buy the product.

quote:
If your concerns are valid it would seem like a real reason to demand an MSDS from the propriatary supplier before purchasing any of the product.


Well who says that I and all the others that are using it didn't ask for an MSDS?
 
Location: Netherlands | Registered: December 22, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:



So hasn't talc powder, until recently.


By that logic every substance thought to be safe should be considered potentially dangerous. This is a false logic and simple scaremongering. There is a known risk of buying polyacrylamide which has not had the unreacted monmomer removed. However dealing with a reputable supplier avoids this as the unreacted momomer is removed. So I am informed by a university polymer chemist in Scotland. Garden supplies in this country would be safe. Your contries safty standards may vary but I doubt any country makes it legal to pass nerve toxins to domestic consumers. That was the risk you brought up and applies equally to QnD which you yourself thought to be a polyacylamide which carries exadctly the same risk. You are not being impartial although I don't know why not. You have been protective of QnD in the other thread is it just a fellow supplier feeling empathy for another and the struggle to make a profit? Do you just dislike me and want to argue against me for the sake of it? Either way it does not serve the impartial truth which is what this board is about.


quote:


We both don't know what that product is.


But you have agreed it is probably a polyacrylamide and therfore it is little or no different at all to soil conditioner and carries exactly the same risk if any. By your own logic if it is unkown we should not take the chance it might be toxic. If you believe garden centers sell potentially dangerous products with clearly labled contents then why risk a product of an unknown nature who's supplier refuses to publicly disclose a MSDS?

quote:


quote:
As for it's acidity attacking stainless etc. I doubt that somehow. It's a solid with its ion inside a polymer sheath and not readily available to react with it's container. Even assuming the acidity involved would have anything but a negligable effect. This is a solid you can hold in you hands without ill effect but you think it will react significantly with stainless? Seems unlikely.



Yes, but how does it act combined with oil, biodiesel, ffa's, water, etc? Did you ask the garden gel supplier?


I don't need to as the nature of it is known and there is no reason to suppose there would be a problem with any of those things. Again you are scaremongering based on groundless speculation.


quote:


No you should point to research and evidence that the garden gel product is harmless in the application you suggest unless you are willing to personally guarantee that it is.


Nonsense. You are the one making spurious allegations and it is for you to defend them. The product is non toxic and non hazardous and in all likelyhood exactly the same as the product you seem intent on favouring.

quote:


Plastic doesn't sound like a good idea considering the possible pressure drop as a result of the gel-like material. Unless of course the pressure is monitored somehow.



What exactly do you mean here? The gell expands and flow slows is that what you are talking about? I can't comment properly unless you are more clear on what you think the problem is and how and why it would arise. Plastic columns are commonly used by homebrewers and small commercial concerns for various applications in filtering bio and WVO. Exactly what is the problem you forsee with a polymer gell?

quote:


quote:
I am open to learning and being corrected but for someone who seems to support the propriatary product your response seems like scaremongering when there is no known difference between the two at the moment.


Well if that proprietary product sucks in another way than meant to, we can always hold someone accountable for it: the company that sells it.

If your recommendations to use garden gel cause any problems to equipment or health, where can we reach you?


There is no reason to suppose that either product is toxic assuming that the propriatory one is sourced as responsibly as soil conditioner is in my country at least. Knowing I could try and chase some newly arisen company in Canada that could dissapear just as quickly would not make be feel better if my nerves were permanantly damaged. I don't see that as a risk as Canada has a reputation for strict enviromental laws and there is nor real reason why the product should be any more dangerous than a reputable soil conditioner.

As always homebrewers here take personal responsibility for our experimentation. Otherwise we would never have got anything done and there would be no market for you or your fellow suppliers to supply.

quote:


quote:
That may not be your actual intent but it comes accross that way intentional or not. You yourself have speculated that the propriatary product is probably a polyacrylamide as it is not a salt.


Yes, I did. So?


So, that means it carries exactly the same risk of unreacted monomers as any dodgily sourced polyacramide. A risk you felt no need to voice in relation to the product but felt it needful regarding the much more likely to be safe garden soil conditioner. This seems prejudiced and far from impartial truth seeking.

Personally I trust a nationally known brand of domestic soil conditoner to be dutiful about how they source their product more than a previously unknown company that has formed specifically to sell product into the biomarket. Depite that difference in trust I expect their product is just as safe as soil conditioner becuase there is no real obstacle to finding and using reputable bulk suppliers.



quote:


No I haven't. Neither do I voice concerns about the secret composition of Coca Cola. I either trust the supplier that the stuff he sells is safe to use for the application he sells it for. Or I don't trust him and I don't buy the product.


We are not talking about coca cola we are talking about a specific product you yourself believe likely to be a polyacryamide and so carrying exactly the same risks, if any, as a soil conditioner. The point is the double standard you exhibit betweeh the two products does not seem like a person seeking objective impartial truth. I have already stated my position on trust of suppliers.
quote:


quote:
If your concerns are valid it would seem like a real reason to demand an MSDS from the propriatary supplier before purchasing any of the product.


Well who says that I and all the others that are using it didn't ask for an MSDS?


Having to phrase a "who says" just seems like deception to me. You either did or you didn't and you either got one or you didn't. You know the answer so why phrase a question if not to suggest something that is not so? You have said you don't know what it is although like me you suspect a polyacrylamide. So you havn't read an MSDS or it is exceptionaly uninformative. They have refused to make the MSDS publicly available and stated they will only supply it if legally obliged to which only includes resellers and buyers with employees apparantly. Not end users. At least with the soil conditioners I can read the MSDS before I buy the product and decide for myself if I believe there is any risk. I don't and you have no reason but mud slinging to suggest there may be one. The polymer chemist I exchanged communications with on the subject pointed out no possible dangers except that repeated drying cycles can lead to fracturing and breakdown of the physical structure which might allow the then smaller crystals to get into the oil. A problem that probably applies to the propriatary product also but the suppliers seem unaware of or have not pointed out up front.


mathematical elegance -- desired result achieved with minimal complication
 
Location: Manchester UK | Registered: June 03, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2  
 


© Maui Green Energy 2000 - 2014