Everything is potentially dangerous unless proven otherwise. It's as simple as that. Like talc powder. Asbestos is another example. Or Softenon.
Safe for what? Garden use? Swallowing? Brushing your teeth?
Wake up and smell the coffee. Ever heard of aspartame?
Yes, but if I find out that QnD is dangerous I can sue the company that sells it for this application. If the garden gel causes problems, the company that sells it will tell me that it was meant for garden purposes, not for dewatering biodiesel or oil.
I thought you were trolling. Now I'm sure.
No I don't dislike you.
No I suggested that it may be a polyacrylamide, but I have no clue what it is. Even if it is a polyacrylamide, it can be still very different in composition from the garden gel.
You should ask for an MSDS from the supplier.
I don't believe that garden centers sell potentially dangerous products. I'm quite sure that they do. I'm also sure that they have been selling potentially dangerous products in toy shops.
Unless you did test the long-term effects of garden gel mixed with all the possible substances in this application on the inside welding strips of 304L stainless steel with and without the use of inert backing gas you can't tell dick about it, Ant.
Spurious allegations? It's well known that polyacrylamide doesn't have to be polymerized for 100% and acrylamide can be present still, whatever your anonymous polymer chemist says. If you use the stuff once a year for your garden it may be perfectly safe. But if you use it on a daily basis for biodiesel production, it may be unsafe. It's an accumulating toxine.
But fine, show us the tests results of 'the product' in combination with biodiesel, FFA's, solvents and so on. And get us the approval of the supplier to use that product for dewatering biodiesel, oil and solvents without any risks. Forget about the tests results, I can lieve with the suppliers confirmation.
Think about it: plastic, pressure and thermoplastic welding. Stainless steel welds can cope with pressure, many thermoplastic welds cannot and you need at least one such weld for the supply line of the oil or biodiesel.
Well I can suppose what I want without you seeing the reason. The safety of products is determined by the way they are applied. A garden gel supplier will not accept responsibility for anything in case you use his garden gel to dewater biodiesel or oil. Especially in the UK, he will tell you to get lost. A supplier who sells a product for a specific application will support that application and he can be held responsible in case of damage and health problems.
Like established companies don't disappear overnight. Read some recent newspapers. And check out your bank too.
That's an easy thing to say in the UK. If you intoxicate yourself in the USA using substances not meant for a certain application, your healthcare insurance tells you to go to hell.
Why don't you order a book from a chemical supplier to see how many varieties of a chemical are available for various uses. You can get about 10 different qualities of methanol to start with. Maybe your garden gel supplier can guarantee that using his polyacrylamide in a biodiesel application is perfectly safe.
That's very personal indeed. The fact that you don't know the company doesn't mean anything. I don''t know your garden gel supplier either. I know a lot of UK sales people though and if they would tell me that something is perfectly safe I would really start to worry.
Unless you know what is in your garden gel and in the QnD, you cannot say anything about how safe the products are for dewatering biodiesel. You can only go by the supplier who supports this application and trust him, or not.
It doesn't matter what I believe. It matters what it really is and what the supplier tells you you can do with the stuff.
Well the double standard is justified by the reason that I can't slam the supplier of the garden gel in case something goes wrong in an application his product wasn't meant for. If you want to accept that responsibility yourself, feel free to do so. Some people feel fine with using QnD, others will prefer ordering garden gel from the UK, others will want to consider molecular sieves or heat. It's fine with me.
Well everybody knows you were denied an MSDS, so you probably assume nobody else got one by saying that there is a real reason to ask an MSDS. One can ask an MSDS without any reason. Some peole collect MSDS's like stamps.
I asked the QnD supplier for the MSDS and got it. I told him that I wanted to see what the product exactly is, so I can rebrand some garden gel into a similar product called Quick and Dirty over here in Europe to dewater beer. Imagine bringing a little bag of Quick and Dirty to an english pub, throwing it into a pint of lager and then discovering how the beer would taste before it was deliverd to the pub.
Yes, I saw a material safety data sheet without the formula of the product. It's a polymer!
Well you have a point there. I believe that an MSDS should be made available to the people that use the product. But that doesn't mean the supplier has to publicly disclose the composition of the product if he feels that it is a trade secret.
Tell us what do they say about using the stuff in your plastic column with biodiesel?
Did he analyse the granules of the garden gel for any presence of acrylamide or did he, just like you, just assume that it wasn't there?
Well it may apply to QnD and then again it may not. Just like the presence of a high amount of acrylamide may apply to your garden gel and not to QnD. Or vice versa. In any case, I'm sure your garden supplier or the chinese factory the garden gel is coming from will gladly tell you to go to hell if you encounter any long term health problem using the garden gel in another application, with other chemicals and at higher temperatures than it was intended for.
But it's your good right to use garden gel to dewater biodiesel and though I wouldn't recommend it to anyone without the consent of the manufacturer, I will defend your right to use it any time.
But if you recommend garden gel to other homebrewers, also accept responsibility in case the **** hits the fan.
That is a very pessemistic attitude that leaves me wondering how you can bring yourself to do anything if surrounded by constant danger from every angle? Ever read a book called the medical risks of life? It is a parody but factually correct. Basicly the only way to be safe is to kill youself now and get it over with. I just disagree with you but it is a question of personal perception if you see the glass as half empty, half full or in need of drinking quickly. There is no point in debating a difference of perception. I am happy with mine and hope you are as happy as you can be with yours.
Facetious comment can be amusing but please stick to the facts. Safe from having unreacted monomers in them as the thread of logic we are pursueing has been clear about from the start. Swallowing would likely damage or kill you but only from the mechanical damage caused by the swelling.
That is a false analogy. There is a difference between debates over whether or not a product is dangerous and should be banned; not realising a product is dangerous until after it is in widespread use and the case in point. There is no doubt at all that unreacted acrylic monomer is a nerve toxin. It would not be legal to sell products contaminated with it to the public in this country at least. That is why it is now illegal to use asbestos and it must be professionally removed safely where found in old installations. Once a danger is known it is avoided. We are discussing a known danger not a debatable issue.
Well suing for you damaged health may make you feel better but I prefer to judge my risks and avoid damage myself. In fact both the large garden polyacrylamide produceres in the USA I contacted were happy to knowingly sell thier product to me for drying veg oil. They know thier product and seem happy it would be safe in that use. Can you find one chemist to suggest any likely or possible reaction that would prove otherwise? Any danger at all apart from empty speculation or unreacted monomer?[/quote]
No I am just trying to understand your motives in what seems like a scientific double face.
If you suggested it you have a clue don't you? You may not know for sure but you have your suspicions. Well the copolymers can vary and the degree of crosslinking can vary. Not that different really. Are there any other paramaters you know of that can vary to make it very different?
Why say that when you know they won't give them out publicly and have specifically refused to show me one?
I have to concede a phrased that badly. weedkiller and the like being a case in point. Even so the products we are talking about are deemed safe and non toxic. Certification and msds are freely available to the public if you buy it or not. It is not such a problem to remove unreacted monomers and this is done. As you say, you either trust the company or you don't. You are willing to trust Qnd have removed the monomers. I am willing to trust that the garden soil conditioner suppliers have also removed them. You may please yourself and others will make thier own mind up.
Nonsense. We know what it is made of. We can predict the likelyhood of adverse reactions in what is a chemically simple product. You have to maintain a sense of proportion and scale. You are just being silly.
Which is removed by reputable suppliers. In any case if you used the same stuff for three years or more the trace amount of toxin in the stuff you used would be long gone wouldn't it? Either it is not there as I believe. Or it cannot come out which I don't believe. Or it will come out and be long gone during the years of use you get from a relatively small amount. Your spurious allegations are that we must be afraid of all the imaginary side reactions from a monomer free product that must be considered deadly dangerous nontheless because we are passing veg oil over it instead of putting it in the ground.
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.
Well I can suppose what I want without you seeing the reason. The safety of products is determined by the way they are applied. A garden gel supplier will not accept responsibility for anything in case you use his garden gel to dewater biodiesel or oil. Especially in the UK, he will tell you to get lost. A supplier who sells a product for a specific application will support that application and he can be held responsible in case of damage and health problems.[/quote]
Yes you can be as irrational as you like but to me the idea that the legal standing has any bearing on the objective facts of chemistry is simply amusing.
Irerelevant to the point that there is no real security in hoping to sue a small company in another country. It may work as a comfort blanket for you but I put no faith in such things and do not consider it a relevant aspect of the debate.
Which is a testament then to the bravery of the many USA homebrewers who have been willing to take measured and calculated risks in pursuit of thier hobby. The fact is, it is what we all do. We work as safely as possible but the world is not an entirely risk free place once you leave the womb. Even that has its hazards. To live in constant fear of risk no matter how small or carefully considered is not to live at all.
I have and use such books. The different grades of methanol relate to purity and trace contamination from elements such as iron or whatever. All carefully listed, quantified, certified and guaranteed. Not really relevant though. You have no specific danger to point to apart from the adressable one of unreacted momomer. The rest is just groundless paranoia and the fear of what might be in the absence of any likelyhood it will be. I couldn't get out of bed if I thought like that.
Exactly. The garden gell makers are willing to say exactly what is in their product and support it for dewatering oil at least. QnD won't say. Why should I trust them any more that the GG makers? For me knowing what is in a thing and being able to read up and study it is more important than what the makers say. I am willing to make my own decisions on risk. I can't do that with QD and thier commercial protectionist motives may be understandable but that changes nothing.
Exactly and what QD really is is a mystery becuase they are scared we will find the same stuff cheaper elswhere. I place less store in what a supplier tells me than you do. I prefer to be able to do independant study in possession of the facts.
We have different primary concerns. Yours seems to be legal considerations and suppliers assurances. Mine are actual compostion and researchable facts. Science is objective about a chemical compound regardless of who sold it for what.
If it was no more specific than polymer then it is very poor indeed. The ones I have seen for GGs specify the copolymers used and the fact they are crosslinked. In addition the makers answer emails and are willing to dislose more detail on request. I know which I prefer to trust.
Why dont you post it here then if you have one and believe that? I understand the commercial reasons for wanting to be secretive but that changes nothing about my preference for suppliers willing to disclose more information I can base reasearch on before I make the decision to buy the product.
You seem to miss the point that I am willing to asses such risks for myself and confirm or deny my assesment through experimentation. This is not a forum of sheeplike consumers. These are the pioneers who have paved the way through the forest that others now follow. I cannot asses the risk of a mystery substance.
Well he makes osmotic polymers including novel super absorbent polymers so I am willing to take his informed assurances over your speculative fears. You can ask the maker for certification either declaring the presence and quantity of trace monomers or certifying thier absence. Can you do that with QD?
As mentioned such consent seems fairly easy to obtain in practice. They seem to have more knowledge on the subject than you or I do. Hardly suprising.
As I have already said we all take personal responsibility on this forum. I am not selling a product so I have no responsibility to others. If we all thought like you there would be no free exchange of ideas and speculation and no pathways through the forest for the salespeople like yourself and QD to follow selling your wares.
mathematical elegance -- desired result achieved with minimal complication
John I have to say that you certainly give the impression that the upflow system is perfect in the initial piece you wrote and put on about every veg oil board in existence and have linked to more times than anyone could count. You have made many posts that basically ridicule people for either not being able to get perfectly dry oil or because they don't use the method and prefer other ways of processing their oil.
I have seen some later postings where you seemingly begrudgingly admit certain limitations of the system but theses are in stark contrast to the lambasting and sarcastic replys you have made to anyone that says it dosen't work for them.
What you are now saying is that the system works best at under 50 and you don't process any oil yourself under this temperature is a highly significant piece of information that really does changes the expectations (and suitable applications) that you have created in the effectiveness of this system.
I'm not sure if you were aware of this when you wrote the your piece on this due to having only used the system in your conditions and assuming it would work the same for everyone else, or that you just left these significant pieces of information out. Either way, it would certainly be the right thing to go back and edit your original piece to include this info so people are not under the wrong impression of what to expect from using this method.
You have many times basically ridiculed people for wanting to use centrifuges and other systems of cleaning and drying their oil but it is completely apparent now by your own admission, that the upflow system won't produce the results you achieve for a lot of people.
Yes, some people will be able to get perfectly dry oil under the right circumstances but for a lot of people, those circumstances don't exist and this is a glaring omission from the impression if not what you actually have said before.
I use the system myself and have done so in a couple of different configurations and it works well in cleaning the oil. As my climactic conditions are not consistently under 50oF for long at all, I don't get dry oil even after putting the oil through a whole series of tanks but the oil is significantly DRYER than what I started with and infinitely cleaner. That makes the system worthwhile for me and cuts down on the subsequent drying and filtering I have to do.
It also must be said though that it is only for me a continuous settling system and the oil that I store in 205 litre drums is no different after a few months of being left alone. Generally I store oil in the drums till I need to top up the upflow settling tank and I am able to just pump down till I see some of the fat streaks and then stop. The oil I get is clean and reduced in water content and the crap just sits at the bottom the same as with my upflow tank.
In some ways the batch method is superior to up flow but ALL methods of filtering and drying have their attributes and drawbacks and NONE are perfect or superior in every application or conditions.
I think an update on your original Upflow piece would be very significant to a lot of people and put the system on a more creditable footing for those who have probably tried and dismissed it.
Geez, talk about who is getting personal!
You have adopted this system and treated it like a neurotic mother guards and defends an only child. The moment anyone makes a comment or asks a question you perceive as uncomplimentary, you fly off with veiled ( or direct) insults and start casting dispersions on the person that asked them. Clearly you have become way to close to this issue you see as your claim to fame in the veg oil world and have completely lost your objectivity over it.
Talking about saturated fats has nothing to do with dewatering. I can remove fats and hydrogenated oil at higher temps than what you state but if YOU go back and read the simple English in the post you are now getting upset about, I made no reference to fats at all!
I specifically and directly made comment on the drying aspect of the process and its ability to remove water and yield dry oil.
Rather than attack you, my suggestion was that you go back and modify your initial writeup on the upflow system and effectively update it with more relevant and pertinent information so as to make things clearer, more accurate and easier to understand for those new to the idea.
If you choose to associate that with a personal attack, that's your doing, not mine.
You are the one whom has brought up the issue of fats which is distinctly different to producing dry oil you talk about.
It is the way you twist things around and the impression you create, quite purposefully I believe, that makes people who don't analyze every later deniable word you say the confusing thing that I and many others have tried to point out in the past.
Unfortunately you choose to get all upset rather than concede any limitations in the system you champion and the writeups you have made of it.
I'm sorry you feel that I'm attacking you personally but the reason I have commented on your dewatering write up is because you have posted it everywhere you could and I find it is written in a way that would lead many people to erroneous conclusions.
Your tone with anyone that doesn't fall down on bended knee and praise you like the god you obviously seek to be worshiped as, particularly with this upflow system, makes it seem like anyone that can't get perfectly dry oil the same as you do is doing something wrong or is an idiot.
The fact is, I believe in your desperation to put the upflow method on a plinth and have it held as the be all and end all of veg oil processing has led you to leave out relevant and pertinent information concerning what is required to get the dry oil you insist it should yield for anyone, the same as it does for you.
If you could comprehend what people were saying, you would see that I have commended the upflow system but been more realistic in stating its limitations and true capabilities.
Everyone I know that has used this system here ( and most of them are very experienced and knowledgeable veg users) have not been able to get the system to work to produce dry oil. If it won't work above 10oC as you are saying now, That is an awful lot of people that are not going to have the success you insist they should with this method in obtaining DRY oil.
As I noted above, I still think the system is very worthwhile and effective but it will only work as you say for some people who live in suitable climates and I believe are able to presettle their oil for long periods and do other things I am not sure of but highly suspect are necessary to get dry oil from this method.
I guess adding me to your ignore list will allow you to keep imagining the system you so cherish is perfect and avoid the facts and information people put forward about it that undermine it's perfection status you so clearly want to hold it in.
Anyway, good to know I will be able to make comment from now on without having to suffer the attitude and arrogance of your self serving responses.
Win-win for everyone I'd say!
"If you could comprehend what people were saying, you would see that I have commended the upflow system but been more realistic in stating its limitations and true capabilities."
Ditto. The The cold upflow system has its uses, but it is emphatically not the be-all end-all of dewatering systems. I also attempted a reasonable factual comparison with pros and cons of both systems and got nowhere.
Unless of course you are the one making the personal and smart A$$$ remarks in the first place to anyone that doesn't agree with your POV
As a reasonably impartial observer I agree that there were no personal comments made in DCS balanced comments on the pros and cons. Certainly there was clearly no intent to be personal.
Equally John was personal in his rebutal, perhaps becuase he felt upset and attacked even though it was not intended to be an attack.
Now that an agreement has been reached on the way forward ie a revised and improved update on the merits and demerits of the system it might be better to shake hands and follow that and not get caught up in what is past now and risk starting it up again. Even though it may seem justified.
I know I am not one to talk with a couple of threads I have been in lately but it is easier to be objective if you are not one of the main protagonists.
mathematical elegance -- desired result achieved with minimal complication
what kind of dryer do you use and hoe does it work. do you have any pictures?
80's NA VWs & NA and turbo Benzes, '91 E350 7.3 IDI NA
various bicycles with trailers and gearing low enough to ride up a cliff ;-)
Yeah pretty much ANY discussion john galt is in gets childishly biased and heated, of course towards whatever method john Galt uses. Gets a little old to scroll down and read his posts like we are just little kids and he is the daddy of all Veg oil endeavors.
2001 Dodge Cummins
2006 VW Jetta TDI
both on B100
Yeah, sure, whatever.... Got anything useful to contribute?
It's always easy to sit on the sidelines and take potshots a those who actually do something to advance the technology.
2001 Dodge Cummins
2006 VW Jetta TDI
both on B100