Posted by Frank on May 26, 2009, 4:24 pm
Curbie wrote:
>> A lot of hype and very little detail, I won't hold my breath.
>>
>> I like bio-fuels, with, little practice they're easy to make, with a
>> Never trust a newspaper
> You got that right!
>
> I didn't mean to imply anything about the professor or the process,
> except from the article I don't see much benefit for the DIY bunch.
> The oil companies are really profiting from the way things are
> currently and I can't imagine them doing anything helpful until they
> can profit from it.
>
> I can't see how restaurant waste is going to solve fuel problems,
> those numbers just don't make sense, which to me leads the home
> bio-fuels bunch back to growing their own feed-crops.
>
> The article says:
> "The solvent used is on a three to one ratio, reducing it by 10 fold,
> it requires 30 times less catalyst and the process takes a maximum of
> 15 minutes. One litre of oil makes one litre of biofuel - like for
> like - with less glycerin, which we then use to make an additive to
> skim off the biofuel and start the recycling process."
>
> This confuses me (no detail):
> "The solvent used is on a three to one ratio"
> Generally transesterification requires methanol of 20% by volume of
> oil, a little higher % if you're using ethanol.
> Exactly what is getting reduced by 10 fold, I can't tell.
> "with less glycerin"
> Generally home-made biodiesel produces 10 to 20% (by volume) of
> glycerin depending on the oil used with a higher % if the oil is used.
> Assuming that new process produces 10% less glycerin and 10% more
> usable oil it may offset the cast of microwaving, then there would
> probably some value there for oil companies, but I still don't the
> benefit for home-makers, and it seems to me that the oil companies are
> doing just fine.
>
> Have fun.
>
> Curbie
>
I'm reminded of article many decades ago where a University got many
thousands of dollars to do a study on salt usage in restaurants and
discovered that more salt was used the bigger the holes in the shaker.
Lot of university scientists are shakedown artists ;)
Posted by Eeyore on May 27, 2009, 12:37 am
Frank wrote:
> I'm reminded of article many decades ago where a University got many
> thousands of dollars to do a study on salt usage in restaurants and
> discovered that more salt was used the bigger the holes in the shaker.
A local council in the UK recently handed out salt shakers with smaller
holes to 'fish and chip shops' in an attempt to reduce total salt intake by
their users. That sort of confirms your suggestion.
Personally, I just got used to eating food with less salt and found it often
tasted better to me. Foods with varying amounts of salt certainly do taste
different. I tend to favour low-salt now simply by accustomising myself to
it.
Graham
Posted by Frank on May 27, 2009, 1:21 am
Eeyore wrote:
>
> Frank wrote:
>
>> I'm reminded of article many decades ago where a University got many
>> thousands of dollars to do a study on salt usage in restaurants and
>> discovered that more salt was used the bigger the holes in the shaker.
>
> A local council in the UK recently handed out salt shakers with smaller
> holes to 'fish and chip shops' in an attempt to reduce total salt intake by
> their users. That sort of confirms your suggestion.
>
> Personally, I just got used to eating food with less salt and found it often
> tasted better to me. Foods with varying amounts of salt certainly do taste
> different. I tend to favour low-salt now simply by accustomising myself to
> it.
>
> Graham
>
I think the article was in "Science" over 40 years ago.
I've been using a Morton's KCl salt substitute.
Posted by Lord Gow333, Dirk Benedict's n on May 27, 2009, 2:56 pm
> Eeyore wrote:
>>
>> Frank wrote:
>>
>>> I'm reminded of article many decades ago where a University got many
>>> thousands of dollars to do a study on salt usage in restaurants and
>>> discovered that more salt was used the bigger the holes in the shaker.
>>
>> A local council in the UK recently handed out salt shakers with smaller
>> holes to 'fish and chip shops' in an attempt to reduce total salt intake
>> by
>> their users. That sort of confirms your suggestion.
>>
>> Personally, I just got used to eating food with less salt and found it
>> often
>> tasted better to me. Foods with varying amounts of salt certainly do
>> taste
>> different. I tend to favour low-salt now simply by accustomising myself
>> to
>> it.
>>
>> Graham
>>
> I think the article was in "Science" over 40 years ago.
> I've been using a Morton's KCl salt substitute.
I need salt to raise my blood pressure enough to push thru the cholesterol
blocked arteries.
And in turn I need the cholesterol to reinforce my arteries against the high
blood pressure.
It's a viscious cycle. :-)
LG
--
"Keep it simple. If it takes a genius to understand it, it will never work."
- Clarence Leonard "Kelly" Johnson
Posted by vaughn on May 27, 2009, 5:13 pm
> And in turn I need the cholesterol to reinforce my arteries against the
> high blood pressure.
> It's a viscious cycle. :-)
I don't know if you intended the pun or not, but it's one to remember!
(viscous vs. vicious)
Vaughn
XML site map
>>
>> I like bio-fuels, with, little practice they're easy to make, with a
>> Never trust a newspaper
> You got that right!
>
> I didn't mean to imply anything about the professor or the process,
> except from the article I don't see much benefit for the DIY bunch.
> The oil companies are really profiting from the way things are
> currently and I can't imagine them doing anything helpful until they
> can profit from it.
>
> I can't see how restaurant waste is going to solve fuel problems,
> those numbers just don't make sense, which to me leads the home
> bio-fuels bunch back to growing their own feed-crops.
>
> The article says:
> "The solvent used is on a three to one ratio, reducing it by 10 fold,
> it requires 30 times less catalyst and the process takes a maximum of
> 15 minutes. One litre of oil makes one litre of biofuel - like for
> like - with less glycerin, which we then use to make an additive to
> skim off the biofuel and start the recycling process."
>
> This confuses me (no detail):
> "The solvent used is on a three to one ratio"
> Generally transesterification requires methanol of 20% by volume of
> oil, a little higher % if you're using ethanol.
> Exactly what is getting reduced by 10 fold, I can't tell.
> "with less glycerin"
> Generally home-made biodiesel produces 10 to 20% (by volume) of
> glycerin depending on the oil used with a higher % if the oil is used.
> Assuming that new process produces 10% less glycerin and 10% more
> usable oil it may offset the cast of microwaving, then there would
> probably some value there for oil companies, but I still don't the
> benefit for home-makers, and it seems to me that the oil companies are
> doing just fine.
>
> Have fun.
>
> Curbie
>