Hello Rick
The change has been made. If there is any further clarification required just let me know.

Thank You Tilly, you really are a saint.

ebztz, yes, by the book solubility is affected by temperature. But, it is how much is soluable that is effected and with the Triglycerides we are talking only trace amounts. So if it is cold a smaller trace amount will dissolve in the methanol than if it is warm. The difference in the precipitation may not be measurable. Since most of the testing so far has been at roughly room temperature, I would suggest keeping to roughly room temperature. Let your sample of biodiesel cool down before testing it.

Excellent, concise response. Thanks much.

does anybody else worry about this conversion test being a valuble tool to determine conversion? It seems if you tested a sample of a batch as directions 9:1 and it passed or sort of passed then this would imply that batch is ok? I wonder what would happen if you had a batch that you knew was crpa and did a subsequent 30 minute room temperature reaction on it with no catalyst at a 270:1 molar ratio of methanol. seems to me it would probabaly turn the crpa batch into a much better conversion fuel especially after boiling out the methanol. you could perform this and leave a test liter "out" of the experiment and compare it to a liter of the batch that went through the conversion test(reprocess) by specific gravity, viscosity, or money to burn free and total glycerol tests.
I wouldn't want to bet that the results wouldn't show a significant improvement in conversion just by doing the Jan Warnqvist test procedure on a given sample.

I'm not really sure I follow your post. But, I THINK your suggesting that we can salvage a bad batch by dissolving it in a lot of methanol, removing what falls out, then boiling off the methanol.

It would probably work, but it would cost a fortune!!

not exactly just that. im suggesting that the Varnqvist test is in addition to its testing capabilities is actually a legitimate way (yes very expensive) to make methly esters (process oil into biodiesel) with high conversion rate in of itself. So how can we tell if a batch was any good by performing this test? How would we know that a bad batch wasn't still bad even though a sample of it passed the test? Maybe the unreacted material was converted by the test procedure and nothing fell out (the glycerol wouldn't fall out of the methanol). Or is this accounted for in the test?

-if so it would seem that at a set temperature different volume ratios of methanol used for a test would show a more exact range of completion. But as nothing (precise) has come forth here from the inventor or other users (ive had raw oil dissolve completely and turn clear- nothing dropped out and i KNOW it wasn't done cause it titrated at 80+ g NaOh/liter. after boiling out methanol it titrated at 1.5 g/liter), i was just questioning if any other biodieselers had similar questions as to the value of performing this test.

seems to me a way to get people to go ahead and use a lot lower conversion biodiesel. which is what? worse than svo?

I think I understand you. Well first, yes I had questions as to the value or rather the validity of the test and I proved it out for myself. I found that the original tests as presented on JTF had a flaw, but that if slightly modified it was a good test.

I had never tested it pure FFAs like you just did. It sounds like FFA's will dissolve in methanol. I suspected that. I find it interesting that your titration values were reduced. So there must be some esterification going on to do that. I find that very interesting, and worthy of more testing!!!

The test is for after the transesterification, not before. From my understanding transesterification converts the FFA to soap first, then moves on to breaking down triglycerides and making methyl esters. So, If someone were to attempt transesterification on pure FFA then use this test on it the test may give false results. But doing transesterification on pure FFA would never result in biodiesel, only soap. So only a newbie that ignored everyone's advice against using ultra high titration oil would run into this problem. Then again, they would have bigger problems, like how to get that 300lb bar of soap out of their processor.

You provided some valuable information to add to the knowledge base on the test. I don't think your testing invalidated anything because this is a test for conversion. Conversion tests don't generally provide useful information before the conversion takes place.

An additional note:

There have been some that suggested washing high FFA oil with methanol (as a solvent) to remove the FFA, but they always ended the threads in it was too expensive a process. They never suggested that it would also cause esterification.

How did you boil off the methanol? With heat alone or did you use vacuum?

On using the test for precise measurements of conversion rates. I found that both triglycerides and Diglycerides fell out. The Monoglycerides did not fall out. So in the first place not all of the Glycerides fall out. In the second place triglycerides, Diglycerides and Monoglycerides contain differing weights of glycerine by volume, so unless you can separate them out you can not be very precise. However, tossing precision in the wind, you may assume all that falls out is triglycerides and come up with an estimated conversion.

i just slow boiled it out into another glass liter bottle.About 2hrs , no acid no base. i tried it again with less methanol 3:1 and a few drops of sulfuric this sample also was the one, i think, where i found a real live piece of plastic(not soap gel, this thing was absolutely clear and you could pull on it without it breaking-it wouldn't stretch though more like an insect wing) that formed after i removed the contents of the glass bottle into a half a coke can directly on the electric kithen burner for more rapid boiling than the glass liter bottle in water. unfortunately while i was examining the formed piece of plastic about 2 cm^2 i over boiled the sample resulting in black goo with actually a couple more pieces of the plastic dow in the bottom of the can so i didn't tirate it - it woulda just reflected the amount of acid left - i repeated this without burning it, washed it two times with methanol(water washing just looked ugly) to remove acid/glycerol/water and titrated less than 1/4 drop(lol) acid number. this oil im using i dont think is pure ffa maybe 50-60% hard to say with so much acid(or caustic-how the hell can one tell) cleaners and degresers in it. i gotta try it again with less methanol - maybe just the wash methanol, longer reaction and a mesured amount of sulfuric. then distill out the color bodies/ mono/di-glycerides methanol insoluble cleaners. anybody make a homebrew version of a wiped film evaporator?

btw there is a size rubber hose from napa that will fit snugly (no clamping needed) over a 3/4 type M copper tube and also snugly into a glass 1 liter bottle. real snug - like you could do this indoors with your baby around and not worry

China Sea Pirate, You really should start another thread for this, since what your posts have more to do with reducing FFA and acid esterification than the methanol test.

yeah allright but but i already got a dozen dead threads on those subjects and the excess methanol will reduce the glcerides also in the test sample. heck if your sample doesn't pass the varnqvist test one day it might the next after a simple shaking, and absolutely pass it at some time undetermined in the future.

what about using a bad batch such as .96 total glycerol? is this worse for say an indirect injection engine than a cleaned wvo or a svo from the store?

Graydon, Here it is.

Andrew Morris

You commented above that impure KOH would not affect performance if you used the same KOH in the titration solution. This is not quite correct. You will get the right amount for the titraton part which covers the FFA but will not be right with the catalyst part. You should allow for the purity there.

Thanks Tilly,
'preciate it..
-Graydon

I'm not sure if this is where I need to post this at, but am confused with my testing. I tried Jan's 27/3 test and I had a very very small drop settle out. I tried the reprocessing test and nothing dropped out and I got a gelatin substance within twenty minutes. Am I correct in assuming Jan's test showed that I did not have a complete reaction and the reprocessing test showed I did? Can anybody confirm or deny my assumptions and is this dried BD a good usable product? If I need to post this someplace else, someone let me know.

farmbrew,

Your understanding of 3/27 is right. How long did you wait before your droplet settled out? Such a small drop would be interpreted to mean your conversion was very good, but most likely ASTM grade.

I have no practice with the reprocess test, but I understand that it is not widely in use now. People seem to favor Warnquist 3/27. It may be a more sensitive test than reprocess.

Useability relates to your vehicle. I would burn that just fine in my 83 mecedes, but mix it with petro if I had to put it in my 03 VW TDI. I am pretty cautious though. Depends on your comfort level too, I suppose.

Andrew

Andrew,
It was about 2 hrs. befor I could see the droplet. I have a 02 Duramax with no problems yet at up to B75.

Ray

Sounds like you've got it covered. In my limited experience, when you don't have it right, the unreacted stuff drops out immediately and rather visibly. When you've got it right, you can watch as the BD literally melts into the methanol. It's pretty clear the difference.

Yes,

I agree. I would use it. I also agree with progunprogressive.

It is not totally clear at what point 3/27 correlates with ASTM, but it is likely you are pretty close, if not there.

Andrew

Thanks Andrew & progunprogressive.