Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 289101112
Results 111 to 120 of 120

Thread: The Imsides method

  1. #111
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    York UK
    Posts
    68

    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!
    Last edited by smithy; 16th November 2017 at 11:52 PM.

  2. #112
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    ลึก ประเทศอินเด&
    Posts
    1,919

    Re: The Imsides method

    Hi smithy,


    Quote Originally Posted by smithy View Post
    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
    Last edited by tillyfromparadise; 17th November 2017 at 12:37 AM.

  3. #113
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    York UK
    Posts
    68

    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.

  4. #114
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    ลึก ประเทศอินเด&
    Posts
    1,919

    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

    Quote Originally Posted by smithy View Post
    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
    Last edited by tillyfromparadise; 19th November 2017 at 07:02 PM.

  5. #115
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Uk
    Posts
    4

    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)

  6. #116
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    York UK
    Posts
    68

    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.

  7. #117
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    ลึก ประเทศอินเด&
    Posts
    1,919

    Re: The Imsides method

    Hi DavidS

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidS View Post
    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,

    Quote Originally Posted by smithy View Post
    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?
    Last edited by tillyfromparadise; Yesterday at 01:31 AM.

  8. #118
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    York UK
    Posts
    68

    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.

  9. #119
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Uk
    Posts
    4

    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

  10. #120
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    ลึก ประเทศอินเด&
    Posts
    1,919

    Re: The Imsides method

    Hi DavidS
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidS View Post
    Hi Tilly,

    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.
    Best wishes,
    David
    I await the results of your test.
    Just a reminder that when doing comparison testing, to be meaningful, everything between the two tests must remain identical except for the one thing you are actually testing.
    In this case it is the drying of the methoxide compared to non-drying.
    I eagerly await the results of your test.

    I am excited!
    Last edited by tillyfromparadise; Yesterday at 04:13 AM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •