BIODIESEL & SVO DISCUSSION FORUMS





Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Biodiesel  Hop To Forums  Biodiesel Quality    3/27 and beyond
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Moderators: Shaun, The Trouts
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
3/27 and beyond
 Login/Join
 
Member
posted Hide Post
This is really interesting. I did a test to check your observation.

I first performed a 30/270 test and waited for clear methanol for the final reading.
The fallout was 0.6ml
Next I added 1ml of Veg Oil to the test and performed the test again.
The results was a fallout of 3.8ml.
That is pretty amazing-
In this case, adding 1ml of Veg Oil increased the fallout by just over 3ml.
So much for the one to one correlation.

quote:
Originally posted by Ronny:
I washed and dried a sample of the 17% biodiesel I made yesterday and did a 30/270 test on it to completion. After 10 hours the methanol was clear and the fall out was 2.6ml
Next I added 1ml of unreacted oil.
I am currently 3 hours into this test and the Fall out is 5.3ml
I nearly fell off the chair when I saw that.
 
Location: Louisiana | Registered: February 17, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Ronny and Poppy,

Strangely enough i did try a similar thing a few weeks ago.I didn't post the result because i

couldn't quite believe it,I thought i'de made a big mistake, but now iooking at your results

I probably hadn't.

Into a 200ml volumetric flask i put exactly 200mls finished biodiesel.! had previously done a

dropout test on this fuel and left it several days with no fallout.

I pippetted 20mls out of the flask and replaced it with 20mls of used, but good quality Rapeseed

oil and mixed well. This was now bio but with 10% unreacted oil.

I pippetted 10mls into my 10/90 tube and added the methanol.

After 2 hours there was 2.0 mls dropout! 20% not 10%!

I then threw out the contents of the tube - thought i had done something wrong.

Seems the unreacted oil pulls some of the bio out of solution from the methanol?

This seems a similar result to yours.
 
Location: YORK UK | Registered: April 27, 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Re above post,

Will have get my wife to show me what to do so the sentences

arn't all broken up when I post,sorry.
 
Location: YORK UK | Registered: April 27, 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Dgs,
the unreacted oil in a biodiesel sample is a blend of monoglycerides, diglycerides and triglycerides. At high conversion levels these first 2 can constitute a significant portion of the unreacted oil.
Each of these three has a different level of solubility in methanol at 20°C.
Adding fresh vegetable oil to biodiesel is simply not the same as the unreacted fraction and will not produce the same result.
Also you do not mention temperature, at below 20°C I would expect some of the biodiesel and any monos and dis to drop out along with the oil.

Im happy to say that I am almost finished my tests on a wide selection of biodiesel from my customers and forum members. A forum member may be calling with me this week and I hope he will have time to examine my setup and confirm the accuracy of the findings I have recorded so far.
 
Location: Lismore Ireland | Registered: November 25, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Dgs:
Ronny and Poppy,
Strangely enough i did try a similar thing a few weeks ago.I didn't post the result because i
couldn't quite believe it,I thought i'de made a big mistake, but now iooking at your results
I probably hadn't.
Exactly. If Ronny had not already said that he had observed such a huge increase in fallout, I would have also thought I had made a mistake.
That seems to be ronny's initial reaction, that he had made a mistake. So he did a second test.

quote:
Into a 200ml volumetric flask i put exactly 200mls finished biodiesel.! had previously done a
dropout test on this fuel and left it several days with no fallout.
I pippetted 20mls out of the flask and replaced it with 20mls of used, but good quality Rapeseed
oil and mixed well. This was now bio but with 10% unreacted oil.
I pippetted 10mls into my 10/90 tube and added the methanol.
After 2 hours there was 2.0 mls dropout! 20% not 10%!
I then threw out the contents of the tube - thought i had done something wrong.
Seems the unreacted oil pulls some of the bio out of solution from the methanol?
This seems a similar result to yours.
That means three people have had the same test results.
 
Location: Louisiana | Registered: February 17, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Poppy:
That means three people have had the same test results.


Thanks for that chuckle!

Cheers, John
 
Registered: June 17, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
quote-originally posted by IMB
-----------------------------------------------
Adding fresh vegetable oil to biodiesel is simply not the same as the unreacted fraction and will not produce the same result.
------------------------------------------------
I am sure that you are correct,however don't you think it is strange that there is so much extra fallout.

The Warnqvist test says if there is any undissolved material in the bottom of the measuring glass the reaction is not complete.

There is no mention of time or temperature, however a rider
after the letter suggests about 30mins and room temperature
20 to 25degs c

Do you think Jan reads this thread. I wonder if he would like to
contribute. Anyone know how to contact him.

In an ideal world we could react, test for conversion(using a method that would give us 100% accurate result in 10mins?)
then re-process, it would be so easy.

The thing that amazes me most is this.
There are 14000 members on this forum,I realise many are
non active for whatever reason. So with a test as important as
this why arn't more members asking questions?

Is the 15min time valid?
Is the several hours+ time correct?
How sensitive is the test to temperature?

Keep tuned folks in a few years we may find the answer!
 
Location: YORK UK | Registered: April 27, 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I think this thread should have been called

The 3/27 anomaly and beyond.
 
Location: YORK UK | Registered: April 27, 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Dgs:
The thing that amazes me most is this.
There are 14000 members on this forum,I realise many are
non active for whatever reason. So with a test as important as
this why arn't more members asking questions?


Easy -- because their fuel burns just fine. Also realize that probably several hundred of those "members" are just the same dull troll that has nearly single-handedly generated this thread.

Cheers, John

This message has been edited. Last edited by: dukegrad98,
 
Registered: June 17, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
posted Hide Post
I'm not asking questions about the 3/27 subject because the last time I did the test I had no fall out. I didn't know I was supposed to wait 15 minutes though. Thanks
 
Location: Texas | Registered: April 27, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by dukegrad98:

Easy -- because their fuel burns just fine. Also realize that probably several hundred of those "members" are just the same dull troll that has nearly single-handedly generated this thread.

Cheers, John


Yes, the fuel may burn fine in older vehicles or non-common rail indirect injection engines, but anyone running a modern diesel should be very concerned about fuel quality. Common rail fuel pumps work at enormous pressures, and in my case, running a Ford Focus, the fuel system is especially sensitive (and enormously expensive to repair).

Regards

David (England, UK)
 
Location: Leeds, UK | Registered: April 13, 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by David Shinn:
Yes, the fuel may burn fine in older vehicles or non-common rail indirect injection engines, but anyone running a modern diesel should be very concerned about fuel quality. Common rail fuel pumps work at enormous pressures, and in my case, running a Ford Focus, the fuel system is especially sensitive (and enormously expensive to repair).

Regards

David (England, UK)


Agreed, generally, but it really isn't hard to make high-quality fuel at home. I would ballpark that I personally have about 60k miles on indirect injection engines (Benz OM606), and another 100k miles on high-pressure "modern" unit injector and common rail engines (a Volkswagen V10 TDI and a 6.7L Cummins), all on homemade B100 and occasional varied blends. My homemade fuel always passed the 3/27 test, as originally conceived and used by many for all these years; I used to also periodically have someone verify my fuel quality with a commercial chromatograph. I have never had a fuel-related issue beyond a filter that needed replacement or the occasional older hose that was affected by the fuel.

I believe the current view is that the problems with modern engines have much more to do with the emissions systems than the injection systems. As evidenced by my practices, on exceedingly expensive consumer engines, I trust my fuel in all my vehicles. I only wish I had more time for the hobby these days!

Cheers, John
 
Registered: June 17, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Dgs:
So with a test as important as
this why arn't more members asking questions?


Some of us use slightly under-reacted BD specifically to minimize any soap formation and make washing significantly easier. We have no need for 3/27 precision, and therefore it's not an important test for everyone.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Is the 15min time valid?
Is the several hours+ time correct?
How sensitive is the test to temperature?


Dgs, these are the three questions that need to be properly addressed using tests and results that are accurate and that can be confirmed.

To that end I have set up a series of tests.
First I have taken a sample of a customers biodiesel and performed the 30/270 test at a range of accurate and consistent temperatures.
Second, I have constructed an accurate warm cabinet which holds the temperature of tests at 20°C to within 0.2°C indefinitely.
Using this setup I have tested four samples of biodiesel so far and recorded the fall out at 6 minutes, 15 minutes, 1 hr, 4 hrs and 24 hours.

I apologise for the delay in putting these results together but I decided at the outset that I would not manufacture samples but use real world samples made by other homebrewers. It has taken quite a while to collect even four samples because most of my customers make bio with no fall out. A few samples of failed batches were unusable because the fall out was greater than 5 ml which is the limit of my tester. I am hoping to receive 3 or 4 samples from Womble which should amount to a reasonable number on which to base findings.
Before publishing these results I want an independent member of this forum to check my tests and confirm their accuracy. It seems obvious to me that trolls on this forum make up whatever results suit their argument, or contradicts mine, safe from scrutiny behind their false identities.
I will publish my findings when they are ready and confirmed but not before.
 
Location: Lismore Ireland | Registered: November 25, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Is the 15min time valid?
Is the several hours+ time correct?
How sensitive is the test to temperature?

I would like to start by looking at the last question first because if the test is temperature sensitive we need to know that before investigating the correct time. I began by taking a sample of biodiesel and testing it at 3 temperatures and have plotted the results below.



I think it is obvious from the figures that the test is indeed temperature sensitive and that if one test result is to be compared with another they must be carried out at the same temperature. I would also argue that if a test is to be valid the temperature must be maintained throughout the observation time, however long that may be.

To that end I have constructed a warm cabinet that maintains 20°C to within 0.2°C. It is cheap and easy to construct and guarantees a steady temperature no matter how long it takes to measure the dropout. Details of construction are posted here so I wont bother posting them again.
http://biodiesel.infopop.cc/ev...837098873#8837098873
 
Location: Lismore Ireland | Registered: November 25, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Now I would like to address the second question.

Is the several hours+ time correct?

Using My new warm cabinet I have tested 4 samples so far. These are real world samples of biodiesel made by other homebrewers. I decided at the outset I would not manufacture my own samples. I have not yet received the samples from Womble but will add then to the chart as soon as they arrive.



Despite the small number of samples there is a clear pattern here.
1. If the temperature is maintained correctly total fall out occurs within 4 hours in every case.
2. In every case the difference between the 15min result and the 4 hour result amounts to 1% conversion.

Finally I would like to answer the first question.

Is the 15min valid ?
The simple answer is no and I would propose revised methods for carrying out the 30/270 conversion test.

Method A. If you have a warm cabinet or a similar arrangement that guarantees constant accurate temperatures 4 hours is the correct time for the test.

Method B. If you operate in a normal workshop environment where you cannot control the temperature for long periods then use the 15min time and subtract 1% from the result.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: imakebiodiesel,
 
Location: Lismore Ireland | Registered: November 25, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ronny:
That means the dropout consists of 1.5ml biodiesel and 3.5ml of biodiesel.


Predicated, of course, on an unsupported assumption that your sample was 100% converted absolutely pure biodiesel in the first place. That seems terribly obvious to have to point out, but hey, while you're trolling...why not?

Cheers, John
 
Registered: June 17, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Hi IMB,
I am very pleased with the outcome of your tests.Pleased in that it has convinced you that any
dropout takes much longer than 15mins to reach completion.

The tests that Ronny and I have done indicate that the total dropout time can be considerably
longer than the 4 hours that you found with your tests,however i think i may have found the reason
why this time was so different.Also i notice Kieran C's drop out was relatively fast.

When i have done the test i let the contents of the processor rest for about 10 mins,i then take the sample,mix and shake vigorously for about 5 secs. Giving this some thought,between the sample
containing high amounts of soap and glycerol and me shaking too hard causing all suspended matter to
"break up" into fine pieces,i think is the main cause of the high dropout time.

3 days ago I did a process,after the 1st reaction i let it rest for 40 mins.Took the sample as normal,mixed,then GENTLY upturned the tube one way then the other for about 8 to 10 secs,so I could
see that all the phases had mixed.
In 2 1/2 hours the methanol was clear and I had the result!

I wonder if this is the reason for the different results.
IMB,I'm sure I have seen in your video that you shake the tube gently?
Ronny,gently or vigorously?

As regards temperature,IMB you have proved that going to the extremes of 10 and 30degs gives false
readings.When you do your other tests could you maybe do some comparisons at say 17 to 23deg's
If we could get a temperature spread where we find the test works within it would save a lot of
work constructing temperature controlled cabinets.
 
Location: YORK UK | Registered: April 27, 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
Dgs, all my test have been done on finished biodiesel, fully washed and dried.( as mentioned before this is part of the service I provide for my customers). The presence of soaps and water in a sample could easily affect dropout times although never having tried it I have no evidence for this.

I give my sample 5 hard shakes and then place it in the warm cabinet. I have done 4 more tests since I posted my table of results and in all of them the total fallout occurred within 4 hours. Womble has expressed an interest in constructing a warm cabinet and verifying my test results which I would welcome.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: imakebiodiesel,
 
Location: Lismore Ireland | Registered: November 25, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by imakebiodiesel:

I would like to thank KieranC and Dgs for raising these issues and for your patience. I hope to get access to a Gas Chromatograph in a local college later this year and invite you both to participate in a set of tests to verify the correct temperature for the 30/270 test.


Sorry IMB, Forgot to reply to this.I will always be happy to help you in any way i can.
 
Location: YORK UK | Registered: April 27, 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  
 

Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Biodiesel  Hop To Forums  Biodiesel Quality    3/27 and beyond

© Maui Green Energy 2000 - 2014