Hello Andrew

OK, you do not want proof. Consistently inaccurate is good enough for you.

3/27 is actually available all over the world, it is the HEET that is not.
So you want to know if HEET is consistantly the same, but you do not want to know enough to do any testing.
Why am I not surprised?

quote:

Originally posted by Andrew Morris:
Tilly,

I never said I wanted proof. You said I wanted it.

I think even you, Tilly, can understand this:

1. 3/27 seems to work with yellow heet.
2. 3/27 is available all over the USA.
3. Regardless of what other ingredients are in there besides methaol, as long as they are the same every time, we can use 3/27 as a good means of comparing one batch to another.

Now, it would be nice to know how consitent heet is from batch to batch and place to place. I'd like to think it is the same every time. Truth is, we don't know.

Tilly, is that what you call crystal ball gazing?

Andrew

The last few pages seem to be somewhat of a stalemate. Each side reposting their same views again and again.

Can I suggest a compromise?

The recommendation is to use whatever methanol you have available, unless you have trouble passing the test. Then you should consider obtaining one of the following:

The first choice and official standard should be Reagent ACS Grade >99.8% methanol.

The second choice should be any methanol with a purity >99.8% without additives (Tilly's M1 racing methanol)

Third choice for those in the US. HEET (The major advantage of HEET is it is widely available in the US locally in small quantities as a quick inexpensive alterative methanol source.)

Fourth choice should be Technical grade Methanol.

Any racing methanol with additives (lube) may give false results and should be avoided.

Temperature of the test and purity of the methanol should be reported with the test results when possible.

This is a just a suggestion, anyone want to recommend changes or additions?

Steve,

I hear you loud an clear. Your objections to HEET and it's secret ingredients are why HEET is third on the list. Are you suggesting that it should not even be on this list of alternative methanol sources?

There have been a few objections to the quality of HEET as you and Tilly have noted. There have also been a lot of people sucessfully using HEET to make 1 liter batches and in the 3/27 test. There are enough people reporting success that I find it as difficult to "ban" as Tilly does plastic processors.

Tilly,

I can see you are enjoying this.

quote:

OK, you do not want proof. Consistently inaccurate is good enough for you.

3/27 is actually available all over the world, it is the HEET that is not.
So you want to know if HEET is consistantly the same, but you do not want to know enough to do any testing.
Why am I not surprised?

What single source of methanol would you suggest for world wide use?

Andrew

Steve,

quote:

Hi Andrew, I think you should write goldeagle and tell them what you want to use their product HEET for and ask them if there would be any problem with the TW0 TRADE SECRET INGREDIENTS. If they say ok then maybe it might be ok. I like to know what I am messing with. methanol is bad enough but methanol with TW0 TRADE SECRET INGREDIENTS ? NO THANKS !

Why don't you ask them then?

Also, what single source of methanol would you suggest we use so we can compare our tests?

Andrew

quote:

yes, methanol with secret ingredients off the list.

Your vote has been counted. Any other votes?

quote:

Originally posted by steved:
I am saying not to use it except for what Goldeagle says to use it for.

Steve, that's a strong statement considering we use a lot of things in homebrewing for tasks the manufacture would not approve. For instance, using hot water heater elements to heat oil. I've not found one manufacture of water heater heating elements that approves of this application. In homebrewing we have gennerally used whatever is available or what works rather than what was recommended by the manufacture. I can understand the desire to only recommend products in applications approved by the manufacture, as I have that same desire, and find it difficult advise to follow. I also have no desire to burden people with rules that might keep them away from homebrewing.

Steve,

quote:

Andrew it sounds like you seek out the finest oil. I would get the good methanol too.

quote:

Also, what single source of methanol would you suggest we use so we can compare our tests?

not to be argumentative, but have you noticed how your are not really responding to my posts?

What source should we use? I am really asking. Not pulling your leg.

Andrew

quote:

Originally posted by steved:
I have never found the need to use a water heating element to heat oil. I have never had to use HEET to pass a 3/27 test. Tilly makes a good point too. You can buy HEET in the USA only. This forum is world wide.

Good response, supports your vote.

So far we have one vote against and no votes for keeping HEET on the list. Any other voters?

Any other suggestions on how to improve the compromise recommendation?

Steve,

quote:

For the best test results I would use Reagent ACS Grade >99.8% methanol.

Two questions:

1. Have you ever tested with both Reagent grade and heet and found the results to be different?

2. Where do I get it and how much is it?

My vote - (I admit this is not supported scientifically) - until lots of people have Reagent grade, let's use heet. I will look for problems with it though. If I find any, I will report.

Andrew

One vote to remove HEET from the list,

One vote to move it to the top of the list.

Hello All

If you want accuracy and consistancy across the world you have to go with the expensive stuff (99.8%). It will give consistant results world wide.

If close enough is good enough then whatever methanol you have on hand will likely do.
As Steve earlier pointed out, I can not imagine why anyone would think Heet is made from reagent grade methanol. 2 secret ingredients and variable quality methanol is a good bet.

Hi All,

How about this for a second draft:

The official infopop.cc standard for methanol to use in the Warnqvist test is 99.8% or better purity with water being the only contaminate. Using this standard is optional and is for when you want to compare your quality against some one else's

The unofficial teir 2 standard is to use whatever methanol you have available, unless you have trouble passing the test. If you consistantly have trouble passing the test, then try a different methanol source or a fresher bottle/drum. Using this standard is optional and to be used as a personal aide in determining your quality for yourself. Temperature of the test and purity and source of the methanol should be reported with the test results when possible.

When asking for assistance from Steve, you must use Reagent ACS grade methanol to perform the test or assistance may not be forthcomming.

When asking Andrew for assistance, you must use HEET as the methanol source or assistance many not be forthcomming.

When asking Tilly for assistance, if you use HEET, then you can expect a lecture on why HEET is not appropriate.



Do we need to add the following disclaimer:

Any mention of the source of the methanol used for the Warnqvist test will result in instant flames and ceasless bickering.

Rick,

quote:

When asking for assistance from Steve, you must use Reagent ACS grade methanol to perform the test or assistance may not be forthcomming.

When asking Andrew for assistance, you must use HEET as the methanol source or assistance many not be forthcomming.

When asking Tilly for assistance, if you use HEET, then you can expect a lecture on why HEET is not appropriate.

Do we need to add the following disclaimer:

Any mention of the source of the methanol used for the Warnqvist test will result in instant flames and ceasless bickering.

Good one...

I don't really care what people use. It was Mark's suggestion a while back that we all (USA) use heet to avoid the variations which seem to be there in the methanol we use in our reactions.

Just tell us what you are using.

If someone in the bay area knows where to get Reagent Grade fine. Idea for a group buy?

Other wise, I just going to calibrate my fuel which is .2548 total glycerol GC test to the heet and use that as a standard to surpass.

Rick, while you are diligently working on the standard, I think some resolution on letting it settle is needed. Some read the test right away. Some wait a few minutes. Some wait 30 min. like I do. 30 min. is clearly a higher standard. Ideas?

Andrew

Steve and Andrew, All this talk of consistancy and secret ingredients seems to have evolved into a simple troubleshooting tip.

"If you can't pass the test get better methanol and try again."



Andrew,

I don't see how long to wait as something that consensus building would be effective at resolving. How about if we took up a collection and commissioned some university to do a study on it?

Rick,

quote:

I don't see how long to wait as something that consensus building would be effective at resolving.

But you had SOOOO much fun with the last consenus building exercise.

I will do what I can to report from the sample which came back .2548 total glycerol. Perhaps that can give some clue on how to do the test if just passing is the target...

Andrew

Hello there, I'm a newbie to the post but I wanted to throw in my $0.02 worth of info on using the 3/27 test. I work in a small start-up commercial plant (a.k.a. large scale homebrew). We do 500 gal batches of cottonseed oil, 2 stage base/base, 27 wt% total methanol, and 1.59 wt% potassium hydroxide catalyst (both split 80/20 between stages).

We use the 3/27 test by using 50ml biodiesel and 450ml methanol. This large volume allows much greater accuracy in determining the volume of precipitation. We use methanol that has been distilled off our reactor. While I haven't tested the purity of this methanol, I feel confident that it has fairly low water content as our temperatures and pressures won't allow much water to distill off.

We have found that our last batch did not pass ASTM for total glycerin at 0.32%. We had 0.917 mono, 0.393 di, and 0.221 tri. Close, but no cigar. We had used the 3/27 test the day before sending our sample to Magellan and we did not see ANY cloudiness or precipitation within 30 minutes of performing the test. When we received our lab results we were surprised. We went to our retained 3/27 sample and found that some white fluffy stuff had formed and over the next two days it coalesced and dropped out as droplets the same as you'd see in a poorly converted sample.

In prior posts and other sites someone (RickdaTech?) suggested that the monoglycerides are not easily detected using the 3/27 test, or that it might take longer for these to react and drop out.

We are now allowing our 3/27 tests to run overnight for a better indication of glycerides. All lab testing performed at room temperature of 68F. The last batch we performed the 3/27 this way showed only miniscule pinhead drops of precipitation from our reactor sample after glycerin settling and methanol distillation. I will post our GC results once we have them.

Any comments from anyone on the slower precipitation of the monoglycerides would be appreciated, otherwise all of the above is for information to other folks who may make use of this.

Thank you for posting this Herman. Your data has confirmed some of my suspisions. I don't think this test can be used to determine if a sample will meet ASTM spec. I do think it will indicate "near ASTM" which your sample was. You didn't mention the free glycerin results. So far we have not had any indication of how sensitive this test is to free glycerin.


You might consider trying the Biodiesel pHLip Test in combination with the 3/27. It is very sensitive for monoglycerides and may have failed with this sample.

Rick,

quote:

t is very sensitive for monoglycerides

do you have any idea at what mass % pHlip is supposed to fail for monoglycerides?

Andrew

I'll let Randall answer that with a slide from one of his presentations:

Rick,

So, perhaps I am being dense, but it looks like it is not broken down.

When we say it is Very Sensitive to MG, we don't know what that means then?

Is he saying that it will pick up .05%, but only if the total is out of spec.?

Andrew