The Imsides method

[smithy Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close smithy]

Re: The Imsides method

Hi smithy,

As always Tilly you will go to the ends of the Earth to try and discredit me. I never made any claims that the multi stage process was done without any pre-treatment. Jon Heron could have done the same thing with probably the same outcome.

For those on here who want to know exactly what we are talking about the post is here;

posted December 21, 2014 04:59 AM Hide Post posted December 20, 2014 03:49 PM For a while now I have been experimenting with the minimum amount of catalyst required to achieve complete conversion. My first few tests resulted in KOH amounts between 5.2 and 4.0 gms KOH/litre after glycerol pre-treating (with no KOH added to the glycerol) After the 4.0 result it was obvious that to try and obtain a 'minimum' result then more stages would be required. Including the pre-wash (lets call this stage one) the 4.0 result needed 4 stages. Another thought is that I feel that there is more residual catalyst left in the glycerol than most of us realise. Before I start the description of the process, I am not advocating this as a practical proposition. It is not energy efficient and certainly requires a lot more work, It's really a result of my over enquiring mind. I used 80 litres of oil that titrated at only 1.3 I pre-treated this with 30 litres of glycerol. This glycerol had no added KOH, however it had 3 litres of added methanol. The pre-treatment was at 55 degs and mixed for a long time- 2 1/2 hours. I conducted a 10/90 where the dropout was 8.8 mls (12% conversion) The next 5 stages were all at 60degs for 1 hour and were as follows; 130gms KOH 3.2 mls dropout. 80 gms 0.8 mls 30 gms 0.4 mls 20 gms 0.2 mls 20 gms zero This total of 280gms equates to 3.5 gms/litre. Now, the big question, How much KOH was removed from the glycerol during pre-treatment. From testing I have done, I came up with the following figures. 72 gms of KOH would be reqd to neutralise the FFA's, and 38 gms would be be reqd for the 12% conversion. A total of 110 gms. So 30 litres of the glycerol I used contained at least 110 gms KOH. Thats 3.7 gms /litre. I would consider this a large amount. So the result for complete conversion was; 3.5 gms/litre of actual KOH flake used. 4.88gms/litre including KOH extracted from glycerol. 6 stages over 3 days,I won't be doing another one of these soon! Before someone asks, from tests I have done previously I have found that 100 litres of oil that titrated at 1.3 required 90 gms of KOH to neutralise. (this is where the 72gm figure came from)

You did no such thing.

It is exactly this type of inaccurate nonsense that you are continually posting that I am talking about.

I went back and had a look at what you were claiming and you were not talking about oil. You were talking about partially reacted biodiesel. You had already performed at least one stage of reaction.

Of course you call your first stage of reaction a “Glycerol pre-wash” and for some reason do not count it as a stage of reaction. You almost never include the chemicals contained in this first stage when you tell people the quantities of chemicals used in a reaction.

I have no idea why you continually post inaccurate and misleading information.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I had to rake around the VOD forum to find it, a thread called 'second stage overdose' I'm sure you remember the one, Tilly. It's the thread you and your 'sock puppets' contributed to and because of your bad behavior you were BANNED from posting on the main forum.

[tillyfromparadise Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close tillyfromparadise]

Re: The Imsides method

Hi smithy,

I am glad to see that you are acknowledging that you did not "convert oil to bio by using only 3.5gmsKOH/litre by using a 7 stage process".
You are making progress!

With any luck you will stop posting false and misleading information

[tillyfromparadise Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close tillyfromparadise]

Re: The Imsides method

Hi smithy,

Tilly... why would I want to try to convert WVO 'as is' When I can remove ffa's and water so easily, making the oil convert as if it were new.

Another incorrect statement.

If you were reacting new oil, it would require more chemicals than you continually claim to be using.
You tell people that you are using anywhere between 10%- 12% methanol to achieve a full conversion.
That is simply not possible to do no matter what type of reaction you are using and what type of oil you are using.
The stoichiometric amount of methanol required for the reaction is about 12.5%
You will never achieve a full conversion using only the quantities of methanol you claim to be using

This is not a stoichiometric reaction, it is an equilibrium reaction. That means it requires additional methanol to be present in the reaction to insure a complete reaction occurs.
it will take an absolute minimum of 16% methanol per litre of oil to perform a single stage reaction that reached full conversion.

The only way you will achieve full conversion using the amounts of methanol you claim to be using is if you are performing the second stage of a two stage reaction and not including the methanol that was used in the first stage reaction.
That is exactly what you are doing.

You perform a first stage reaction that you pretend is not a first stage reaction so you never mention the chemicals used in your first stage reaction.
You them perform a second stage reaction which you call the first stage reaction and only mention the chemicals used in this second stage.

Do you really think that anyone who has any experience in making biodiesel believes you

[WesleyB Donating Member Find all posts View Profile Close WesleyB]

Re: The Imsides method

I've found something a little odd. I tried Smithy's glycerol stripping using pure pharmacy bought glycerine. I heated the used vegetable oil to 110 degrees centigrade. No water boiled out. I let the 200 milliliters of Used Vegetable Oil cool some, then added 50 millilters of pure glycerine. I heated with magnetic stirring up to 85 degrees centigrade. Then shut down heating and magnetic stirring. After about 5 minutes 3 layers formed, not two. The middle (phase) layer maybe free fatty acids with glycerine increased concentration (that's a guess). Not two layers , three layers.

[WesleyB Donating Member Find all posts View Profile Close WesleyB]

Re: The Imsides method

I tested glycerol free fatty acid stripping of used vegetable oil. The Used Vegetable Oil titrated at 15 drops that's a titration number of 15/24 milliliters. I treated the U.V.O. with 25% pure glycerol heat and stirring. Afterwards the titration number was the same as best I could measure it. Glycerol stripping probably relies on removing soap with glycerine, not free fatty acids.

[tillyfromparadise Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close tillyfromparadise]

Re: The Imsides method

Hi wesley,

I've found something a little odd. I tried Smithy's glycerol stripping using pure pharmacy bought glycerine.

Smithy is not doing glycerol stripping using pure pharmacy bought glycerine.
He is performing a first stage reaction that contains large quantities of methoxide + byproduct from a different reaction.

I recommend you try testing what smithy is actually doing, it would be more meaningful

I tested glycerol free fatty acid stripping of used vegetable oil. The Used Vegetable Oil titrated at 15 drops that's a titration number of 15/24 milliliters. I treated the U.V.O. with 25% pure glycerol heat and stirring. Afterwards the titration number was the same as best I could measure it.

Why am I not surprised

[smithy Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close smithy]

Re: The Imsides method

Wesley, you have to use ex-process glycerol to make the proceedure work. It depends on a number of factors; ratio of mix, residual chemical amounts tied up in the glycerol, acid value of the oil and more.

A glycerol pre-treatment will leave the oil from anything from only a reduced titration to oil that shows no titration and up to around 20% conversion, depending on the above.

In any event it is good to recover most of the chemicals in the glycerol. Just think of all the unused chemicals that Tilly throws away!

[tillyfromparadise Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close tillyfromparadise]

Re: The Imsides method

Hi smithy,

Wesley, you have to use ex-process glycerol to make the proceedure work.

Yes, the "Magic" is in the methoxide, not in the glycerine

Just think of all the unused chemicals that Tilly throws away!

This statement clearly shows just how little testing you have actually done.

HINT- if you perform a reaction that has a minimal excess of methanol there will be a minimal amount of methanol in the byproduct layer

[smithy Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close smithy]

Re: The Imsides method

What a good idea it was for me to post on here. At least when Tilly is examining my posts and 'having a go' it gives other members like Dr Mark a rest from him.

[tillyfromparadise Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close tillyfromparadise]

Re: The Imsides method

HI smithy,
In keeping with the spirit of trying to sort out the many misunderstands you have about producing biodiesel, I think it would be helpful for you to point out that the bold part of your below post is not correct

As you mentioned in para 3 of your post NaOH does seem to give a better yield (not only does it contain less water than KOH but as the reqd amount is roughly 1.4 times less then the water produced is 1.4 times less)

The part in bold is not true.
In the neutralization reaction each molecule of FFA is neutralized by one molecule of KOH or NaOH and produces one molecule of water. The same amount of water is produced through the neutralization reaction using the same number of molecules of caustic regardless whether you use NaOH or KOH in the reaction.

I hear you say "Then why do we use a greater weight of KOH, about 1.4 times as much KOH as NaOH."
The answer is simple- a molecule of KOH weighs more than a molecule of NaOH.
The Molecular mass of NaOH is 39.99711 g/mol
The molecular mass of KOH is 56.1056 g/mol
56.1056÷ 39.99711= 1.402741
A molecule of KOH weighs about 1.4 times more than a molecule of NaOH

Therefore, in order to insure we have the same number of KOH molecules present as NaOH molecules, it requires about 1.4 times more KOH than NaOH by weight to have the same number of molecules of caustic

[DavidS Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close DavidS]

Re: The Imsides method

I can report that further testing is now underway in the UK of the Dr. Mark method.


Dave (Smithy) suggested to me that a good basic test would be to make up batch of methoxide in accordance with Dr Mark's formula and use it to react 1 litre of new shop-bought oil.


Then add the correct amount of cement to the remaining methoxide and again, react another 1 litre of new shop-bought oil.


A comparison can then be made between the two using the 10/90 test. This will tell us whether Dr. Mark's process produces a measurably increase in the conversion of oil to biodiesel.


I have carried out the first part of the test and reacted 1 litre of oil using the un-cement-treated methoxide.


I have added cement to the remaining methoxide and will now have to wait a few days for the fines to settle before carrying out the second part of the test.


It's so exciting I bet Tilly can't sleep at night!


David
(Leeds, UK)

[smithy Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close smithy]

Re: The Imsides method

He probably doesn't sleep an night anyway, David. He is too busy picking through posts trying to see if there is anything that doesn't suit him.

No Tilly, you have got my post all wrong. I'm not talking about neutralisation of FFA's, just the water produced mixing the methoxide. Ignoring the water already in the KOH, mix for mix the NaOH methoxide will produce 1.4 times less water as only 1.4 times less is reqd compared with KOH.

[tillyfromparadise Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close tillyfromparadise]

Re: The Imsides method

Hi DavidS

I can report that further testing is now underway in the UK of the Dr. Mark method.
Dave (Smithy) suggested to me that a good basic test would be to make up batch of methoxide in accordance with Dr Mark's formula and use it to react 1 litre of new shop-bought oil.
Then add the correct amount of cement to the remaining methoxide and again, react another 1 litre of new shop-bought oil.
A comparison can then be made between the two using the 10/90 test. This will tell us whether Dr. Mark's process produces a measurably increase in the conversion of oil to biodiesel.
David
(Leeds, UK)

Increased conversion is not one of the claims made for this procedure.
It would probably be more meaningful if you designed a test to test one of the claims actually made for the procedure.

Are you the David Smith who posted to the website that hosts this procedure




Hi smithy,

He probably doesn't sleep an night anyway, David. He is too busy picking through posts trying to see if there is anything that doesn't suit him.

It is true that I normally do not have a good nights sleep.
My wife's uncle who has terminal bone cancer is living with us and he only sleeps fitfully at night so he and I are often awake late at night talking.
I hope our talking is not disturbing your sleep.

No Tilly, you have got my post all wrong. I'm not talking about neutralisation of FFA's, just the water produced mixing the methoxide. Ignoring the water already in the KOH, mix for mix the NaOH methoxide will produce 1.4 times less water as only 1.4 times less is reqd compared with KOH.

That is not true for the same reason I posted above.
Each molecule of NaOH or KOH will only produces one molecule of water when mixed with methanol to produce methoxide.
To have the same number of molecules of KOH present as NaOH you need to weighs out 1.4 times more the weight of KOH compared to NaOH.
Then you have the same number of molecules of KOH as NaOH so the same number of molecules of water will be produced whether you use the KOH or NaOH to produce the methoxide
There is no increase in water using KOH instead of NaOH to produce methoxide.

Do you think your new friend DavidS from Leeds is the David Smith who posted to that other website?

[smithy Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close smithy]

Re: The Imsides method

No Tilly, he is not. David S is David Shinn and I am David Smith. Neither of us would dream of confusing the forum by posting as someone we were not.

[DavidS Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close DavidS]

Re: The Imsides method

Hi Tilly,


I live in Leeds. I am certainly not the same person as Dave Smith, who lives in a different town to me. Dave is a friend so mine and he taught me how to make biodiesel.


Regarding the testing, my interest is in whether Dr.Mark's method produces a better reaction in terms of a higher conversion due to the supposed drying of the methoxide using cement. To test this I am performing an identical reaction using identical methoxide apart from the fact that one has been "dried" and the other hasn't. To test whether there is an identifiable increase in conversion I will carry out a 10/90 test on each sample.


That seems a reasonable starting point to me and I will carry out any further testing that seems sensible after I have completed the first test. Hopefully we will then have something of interest to discuss.


Best wishes,


David