New Methods #2. The Imisides Method

[Dr Mark Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Dr Mark]

I have removed this method, as I am commercialising it, and my investors have asked me to remove it from the public domain

[yorta2 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close yorta2]

Re: New Methods #2. The Imisides Method

Thanks Mark. That sounds really interesting and, if I can get the quicklime, I'll be trying it soon. I'm wondering if the formula will work with sodium hydroxide too. Can you advise, please?

[Dr Mark Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Dr Mark]

Re: New Methods #2. The Imisides Method

I have removed this method, as I am commercialising it, and my investors have asked me to remove it from the public domain

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

Re: New Methods #2. The Imisides Method

Thanks Mark
I like to try different methods, so If i find some quick lime I will be having a go, Is the methoxide to WVO 15% ? and how big is your shovel? also is this a typo? "Now, add the CaO and stir vigorously for several minutes. Since this process is heterogenous (the CaO doesn’t dissolve), vigorous stirring is required to allow as much contact as possible with the water in solution."
does that mean there is water in the methanol, or have I missed somthing
Thanks again
smithw

[Dr Mark Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Dr Mark]

Re: New Methods #2. The Imisides Method

I have removed this method, as I am commercialising it, and my investors have asked me to remove it from the public domain

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

Re: New Methods #2. The Imisides Method

This is very interesting mark I remember reading somewhere that every 40G NAOH mixed in methanol will produce 18G water !!! no wonder we make soap. I read and was going to try MGS04 to remove the water then filter this out what are your thoughts on this? also I am trying to source sodium methylate the liquid stuff to react without making soap but I am having difficulty sourcing it here in SA. perhaps your method may be an alternative but i am time poor and cant wait weeks for it to settle out. regards andy

[Dr Mark Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Dr Mark]

Re: New Methods #2. The Imisides Method

I have removed this method, as I am commercialising it, and my investors have asked me to remove it from the public domain

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

Re: New Methods #2. The Imisides Method

Hi Mark,
If all this method does is remove the water from the methoxide that is produced when you mix the NaOH/ KOH with methanol, why do you not need to titrate?

This removes water and pulls the equilibrium to the right, thus resulting in a far higher concentration of methoxide, which speeds up the reaction kinetics such that heating is not required.

It has been demonstrated a number of times that as long as everything remains liquid, heating is not required to obtain ASTM quality biodiesel using the normal Base method of transesterfication.

Also, if you remove the drying agent before performing the transesterfication, what happens to the water that is produced when the the FFA's are converted into soap?

Have you tried this procedure on high FFA oil?

[Dr Mark Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Dr Mark]

Re: New Methods #2. The Imisides Method

I have removed this method, as I am commercialising it, and my investors have asked me to remove it from the public domain

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

Re: New Methods #2. The Imisides Method

Hi Mark,

Really? That's interesting. Every method for bio that I've seen on this forum and elsewhere says that you have to heat it.

Yes, really. The only reason to heat the reaction is to increase the speed at which it occures.
If you would like I can provide you some links to research on this

Water is not generated when the FFAs are converted to soap.

Are you sure? everything I have read and all the chemists I have talked to (PhD's included) says that water is generated when the FFA's are converted into soap.
R-COOH+ KOH→ R-COOK+ H2O
(Fatty Acid+ Potssium Hydroxide→ Potassium soap+ Water)

I don't know, but it's immaterial. This method will work regardless of how high the FFA level is due to the vast alkaline excess of the methoxide solution. FFAs only cause problems in biodiesel when either

a. They consume enough base in your methoxide solution to leave insufficient left over for the transesterification, or

b. There is enough of them in the WVO to produce a high enough concentration of soap to produce substantial emulsification with the water that is inevitably present in conventional formulations.
The beauty of this method is that both these problems are eliminated. The first because of the vast excess of base, and second because it doesn't matter how high your FFAs are - and therefore how high your soap concentration - as there is no water to emulsify.

That is interesting, you have not actually performed tests/experiments to verify everything you are saying?

Many people use 5g NaOH + Titration for every litre of WVO being processed.
When using 90% purity KOH many people use 8g KOH+ Titration.
How much NaOH/ KOH do you recommend people use?

Also, using a large excess of caustic in the reaction leads to increased soap production in the side reaction that is converting biodiesel and WVO into soap. How do you prevent this increased soap production?

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

Re: New Methods #2. The Imisides Method

Yes, those numbers are correct - it's the ratio of the respective molecular weights.

If you wanted to investigate alternatives for drying the methoxide, MgSO4 is certainly an alternative, as is Na2SO4 (which is probably cheaper) but they will almost certainly not work as well. The reason is that with either of the sulphate salts they remove the water by adsorption, and would themselves be in an equilibrium with the water they were adsorbing. The lime, however, actually reacts with the water to convert it to a different compound. The completeness of this process (it's not an equilibrium) is why it's so good at pulling the equilibrium to the right.

In any case, whatever drying agent you use, a requirement is that they be finely divided so as to maximise surface area, so you'd have the same wait for settling regardless of what you use.

Mark thank you, this is very interesting bear with me as i am not academically minded, when you say finely divided you mean pulverised to a talc like powder? if so i could make my methoxide this way then filter it through appropiately micron sized filters then add this using your method I realise that some particles will get through but being insoluble i will be able to remove them and use the bulk of the bio in days rather than weeks. thanks again andy.

[Dr Mark Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Dr Mark]

Re: New Methods #2. The Imisides Method

I have removed this method, as I am commercialising it, and my investors have asked me to remove it from the public domain

[Dr Mark Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Dr Mark]

Re: New Methods #2. The Imisides Method

I have removed this method, as I am commercialising it, and my investors have asked me to remove it from the public domain

[Andy Chee Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Andy Chee]

Re: New Methods #2. The Imisides Method

Dessicating the methoxide before catalysing the transesterfication reaction. Now why didn't I think of that

I might try it with copper sulfate, though I agree calcium oxide would probably work better. I don't have a high temperature kiln to regenerate the calcium oxide, though if you can get it cheaply enough you could treat it as a consumable.

edit: nuts. just realised CuSO4 might not work

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

Re: New Methods #2. The Imisides Method

Thanks for reminding me. My method avoids both these sources of water and provides sufficient methoxide to allow the reaction to proceed at room temperature. The beauty of it is that since the emulsifying effect of the water is eliminated, you can add as much or as little methoxide as you want, according to how quickly you want the rxn to proceed. With the quantities I've listed, however, it proceeds at about the same rate that the conventional method does with heating.
So how long would the conventional method take to go to completion without heating? I once made a batch at 8 degrees C (in Melbourne "room temperature" can be pretty cold) and it appeared to go to completion in about ten minutes. How long would the conventional method take at this temperature?

I am definitely gonna give this a try I think its got great merits, I want to try to use the least amount of catalyst and methanol as possible so will run with some heat to see how much i can actually save , I will start with your amounts mark then gradually decrease catalyst and meth and increase heat. I will do quantitive soap titrations 3/27 and manometer water content tests as i go along. A question, I have calcium carbide for the manometer can i use some of this in the quicklime/methoxide to tell when no more water is present or will there be any bad reaction between MeOh, KOH,NaOH,CaO,CaC2

Using the conventional method with my last reactor I could get to completion in 20-30 min but would run 1 hr to make sure with my new processor it takes the whole hr but i have to tweak it to get a better mixing happening. This will all be turned on its head if i can get your method to work thanks again andy