|
Thrift shop distiller $9
please repost the original thread, I would be interested in distilling
water from the engine. thanks On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 01:42:39 GMT, Jere Lull wrote: On 2007-09-08 21:40:35 -0400, Larry said: in powerboats like trawlers, motor yachts, bubbleboats. Anything guzzling that kind of fuel is making a LOT of waste heat and simply dumping it overboard. You might be surprised. Friend had a 42' trawler that used about 1 gph to go 8-10 knots. New boat is 55', but still only uses about 3 gph for slightly higher speeds. There's not that much waste heat to use. |
Thrift shop distiller $9
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:14:21 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote: On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:56:08 -0000, " wrote: On Sep 10, 1:02 pm, Larry wrote: ... My discussion involves a whole different way of distillation in POWER boats with ENGINES running....not hermits living on the hook. ... I take it from the nasty ad hominem zinger that I'm being a pain. Sorry about that. Just for the record, there are many very desirable cruising destinations that have plenty of people but not much fresh water. In those spots an efficient water maker is a wonderful tool for sociable cruisers. Also for the record, I'm not trying to be a pain. But, at the risk of seeming negative, since you completely ignored my question I'll ask it one more time: what is the motivation to use steam distillation even in "POWER boats with ENGINES running" when the same amount of heat differential would give you vastly more fresh water if you used it to run R/O filtration? My understanding is that Larry simply prefers distilled water, and has given reasons why. Mineral content, and possible bacterial contamination of RO water. Though I am not well versed in this, and have not tested the waters. distilled and RO are different, aren't they? He never said distilling was more energy efficient than RO, but was looking to capture engine waste heat to make distilling more efficient than it is using conventional methods. And if it could be done, it would be of benefit to sailboats too, since they are often under power, and their engines waste many, BTUs. Capturing wasted BTUs is the most important issue Engine heat powered stills, in sizes suitable for yachts, were on the market decades ago. RO killed the market for them. Casady |
Thrift shop distiller $9
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:16:55 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote: On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:39:21 -0700, " wrote: Capturing wasted BTUs is the most important issue. Now you've confused me -- bless my heart I am dumber than a box of rocks. I was good with "I steam distill water because I want steam distilled water", but if capturing the BTUs is the most important issue then why use an inefficient desalination system like steam distilling? Well, it's pretty well established - I think - that Larry doesn't want RO water. He wants distilled water. You have said, "Steam distilled water is a luxury version of drinking water." IMO, Larry is not one bit averse to luxury. At the same time, and perhaps in other threads, Larry has talked about engine waste heat recovery as a separate issue. And it is. How the waste heat is used is a different matter entirely, though Larry happened to be talking about distilling when it came up, or maybe he was thinking about waste heat and distilling all at once. Hell if I know. But theoretically you may use the waste heat to generate electricity The only really efficient way to convert fuel to shaft work is with a diesel engine, and the small ones are nearly as good as very large ones. Steam has to be huge to be efficient. I mean a cube 100 feet on a side for the boiler. You could use the heat in the engine coolant to boil propane, if you had cold water, 40F, say, that is. All engines work on temperature differences. Heat moves from hot to cold, and you can siphon off some of the energy as shaft work, if you are clever enough. to run RO, the TV, an A/C unit, etc, or to heat hot water for the shower, or to distill. The only one I see happening is heating the hot water tank, This is on the market. Most engines are actually cooled by glycol, which is, in turn, cooled by water. Fresh water or sea water, the glycol, and the engine, don't care. You simply run hot engine coolant into a coil in an insulated tank of water. which is closer to a distilling system than to a system that generates electricity. Exactly. Hey, too bad they don't make thermal blankets/material that could enclose an engine compartment and generate electricity from the heat. I'm not up in physics, and don't know how solar cells work, whether they use UV or IR, but they work. You cannot get a solar cell to work on heat. Engine heated fresh water stills were killed by RO. Casady |
Thrift shop distiller $9
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:47:13 -0700, "
wrote: On Sep 10, 6:23 pm, Larry wrote: " wrote groups.com: but if capturing the BTUs is the most important issue then why use an inefficient desalination system like steam distilling? Because boiling seawater into steam from the waste heat off an engine is about as simple a thing to do as you can get. To make an RO run off waste heat, you have to convert it to PRESSURE, probably to electricity to run the RO's pump and computer, right? I want to simply boil seawater into steam in heat exchangers running off hot exhaust gasses and engine coolant....making distilled water for NOTHING in fuel and very little in maintenance. ... Simple is good. I wish you well with it. Just so you know, RO doesn't need electricity any more than steam does. You just need to push water through a membrane. My Spectra system has only one electrical component and that's an off the shelf pressure water pump. It has no electronics. The lifeboat model has a hand pump. It is a filter and that is all it is. They used to sell stills that use engine heat, but I guess RO killed them off. Casady |
Thrift shop distiller $9
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 01:42:39 GMT, Jere Lull wrote:
On 2007-09-08 21:40:35 -0400, Larry said: in powerboats like trawlers, motor yachts, bubbleboats. Anything guzzling that kind of fuel is making a LOT of waste heat and simply dumping it overboard. You might be surprised. Friend had a 42' trawler that used about 1 gph to go 8-10 knots. New boat is 55', but still only uses about 3 gph for slightly higher speeds. There's not that much waste heat to use. Last time I was in New York I got a peek at Forbes' yacht. Goes 25 on 150 GPH. Has a helocopter on the rear deck, the kind shaped like an egg. Casady |
Thrift shop distiller $9
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 04:35:54 +0000, Larry wrote:
Jere Lull wrote in news:2007091021343611272- jerelull@maccom: We have a filter and dedicated "drinking water" tap at the kitchen sink. What bothers me about "filters" is the same thing that bothers me about RO. Whatever is filtered from the water backs up on whatever filter media is used, whether it's a paper and carbon filter...or an expensive RO membrane. In an undersink filter, with no backflush capability, there it sets...for months...or YEARS....breaking down under the water pressure and flow into SMALLER, less filterable, more toxic things. Once it has broken down far enough, it passes THROUGH the filter into the drinking supply...bacterial toxins that cause Legionaires' Disease is a good example. Viruses are so small they aren't filtered in the first place! The filters aren't molecular level. There are NO viruses in distilled water....NOT EVEN DEAD ONES. Distilled water is safe even if the CIA pours Anthrax into the water to reduce Social Security costs or for false flag operations to keep us under control, a real possibility lately. Am I better off filtering or drinking the water straight? Noone I can find in the filter business wants to talk about what happens on the pressure side of the filter element "as-time-goes-by". I can't even get a straight answer from the SC Dept of Health and Environmental Control on this subject. This may be because every coffee pot in every restaurant has this little metal filter in its water supply line that is NEVER changed unless the whole machine changes. I'm sure glad it's boiled before I drink it! The iced tea is NOT! Most of it is just water poured in as the tea brews...filtered, of course. You say that viruses are smaller than sodium or chloride ions? I got A's in college chemistry, and I have trouble believing it. You say an RO filter doesn't work at molecular level? Just what would call it then? Casady |
Thrift shop distiller $9
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 20:32:59 +0000, Larry wrote:
Works great, change it every 100 gallons or when the water starts tasting slightly metallic, indicating the carbon has loaded up with benzene, which distillers also distill out of the water. The CRC lists 15 substances with the same boiling point as water. A simple still won't even remove alcohol or methanol, or acetic acid. Of the hundreds of known chemicals with boiling points near water, few, fortunately, are likely to be found in high seas water. Some rivers are a different story. I would't trust some river water not to attack gelcoat or aluminum. You wouldn't have the urge to put it in a nice clean still. Distillation is OK but it costs a lot. In my opinion, either RO or distilled water should be run through a carbon filter. Gets the benzene and a lot more. Carbon ought to take out 'plastic taste' but I have not put it to the test. Casady |
Thrift shop distiller $9
On 2007-09-11 00:35:54 -0400, Larry said:
This may be because every coffee pot in every restaurant has this little metal filter in its water supply line that is NEVER changed unless the whole machine changes. I'm sure glad it's boiled before I drink it! Uh, Larry: They don't *boil* the water in most restaurants, only get it pretty hot. Years ago, I worked at a shore hotel where they had a large metal bowl that held the grounds atop the carafe. A tube led down to the bottom of the carafe. Water started in the carafe, boiled up into the bowl, then was vacuumed down when the assemblage was removed from the heat. Shame I didn't drink coffee then, as I was told it was excellent. -- Jere Lull Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD Xan's new pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/ Our BVI pages: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ |
Thrift shop distiller $9
On 2007-09-11 12:06:19 -0400, (Richard
Casady) said: You say that viruses are smaller than sodium or chloride ions? I got A's in college chemistry, and I have trouble believing it. As I understand him from the past, the viruses are broken down to toxic chemicals that will pass. -- Jere Lull Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD Xan's new pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/ Our BVI pages: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ |
Thrift shop distiller $9
Keith Hughes wrote in news:46e62c2e$0$10300
: Depends on whether your still is really effective or not. If you're only condensing *steam*, i.e. not water vapor but gaseous steam, you may be correct. However, unless your still is a multi-effect (doubtful) or uses some form of cyclonic separation (doubtful), and uses some form of demisting (also doubtful), you don't have quite the assurance you think you do. Almost certainly any organisms will be inactivated, but you may still have endotoxin carryover. There is no water vapor making its way out of the water trap in the top of the boiler. Water doesn't run well uphill with no pressure. There's a special trap in the top to prevent it. I've never heard of endotoxin vaporizing only the various ...enes like benzene, xylene, all carbon- based that are trapped by the activated carbon filter the water coming out passes ever so slowly through so these distillable petroleum products attach themselves. You can easily taste these in the un-carbon-treated distilled water. The taste is significantly different after carbon filtration. Another sign is my water will not conduct electricity, even at 2000 volts from my megger. Distilled water is an insulator uncontaminated. ONE grain of table salt just touching the water on the other side of a container of it and ZOOM!....The current goes WAY up! I cannot get my polycarbonate containers to get the TDS below about 1.9 ppm. I think the containers themselves are being eaten by the really corrosive distilled water, which causes a tiny leakage in the electrical test. RO water has its place. But, there ARE bad problems with RO if it is not meticulously maintained. And, it takes a lab test to see if it's safe boaters don't have, placing WAY TOO MUCH FAITH in the integrity of that membrane, I think. Larry -- Search youtube for "Depleted Uranium" The ultimate dirty bomb...... |
Thrift shop distiller $9
|
Thrift shop distiller $9
Jere Lull wrote in news:2007091120440443658-
jerelull@maccom: As I understand him from the past, the viruses are broken down to toxic chemicals that will pass. The bacteria, not viruses, contain the toxins that make you sick. The toxins are as small or smaller than the water molecules....and flow through as soon as the bacteria are crushed by the pressure as they deteriorate from the flow and pressures. Are there viruses as small as H2O? Yes, there are.... Larry -- Search youtube for "Depleted Uranium" The ultimate dirty bomb...... |
Thrift shop distiller $9
Jere Lull wrote in news:2007091120440443658-
jerelull@maccom: You say that viruses are smaller than sodium or chloride ions? I got A's in college chemistry, and I have trouble believing it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:W...dimensions.svg http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai? &verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0 735750 See. I think the chart on this RO-promotion website is very telling.... http://www.freedrinkingwater.com/rejection.htm It says RO passes the pollutants test from NSF 58 on the left column and REDUCES/rejects the pollutants on the right column. Reduces? It doesn't say HOW MUCH it reduces. I find this omission on lots of "charts" like this one telling me we're not hearing the full story. http://www.pwgazette.com/tfc.htm Here's a "partial list" that does show the percentages..... 94-96% of arsenic. How much arsenic should we drink? 95-98% of the radioactivity. I hope there's no radioactivity in your seawater, but there is. Again, is this too much? 99% of the viruses. Will 1% of the herpes viruses in my glass give me herpes? YES IT WILL...just like the 3% of the radium will cause cancer in laboratory humans. RO is a FILTER, that lets a fair percentage of the bad stuff flow through. These numbers come from an RO company. Are they higher than reality in an RO system with a 3-year-old membrane that's been running on a boat filtering seawater? I'd suspect they'd be quite optimistic numbers on an older membrane..... Larry -- Search youtube for "Depleted Uranium" The ultimate dirty bomb...... |
Thrift shop distiller $9
|
Thrift shop distiller $9
"Larry" wrote in message ... I quoted it all so you can re-read it. I was referring to those nasty water filters on all the water-based drinking equipment at any restaurant on the coke machine, coffee pots, tea making equipment... The filters fill up with crap the first week that sit against the filter medium deteriorating into whatever pressure does to them.....LONG before anyone ever changes them because they are totally clogged....yecch. Case in point is the filter behind anyone's refridgerator that feeds the ice machine. When was the last time it was changed? 1992??!! At least SOME RO operators will flush out the big stuff...sometimes. Larry -- Search youtube for "Depleted Uranium" The ultimate dirty bomb...... Larry, the metal filters in coffemakers can be cleaned (and should be, once a month or so) with plain white distilled vinegar. Dunno if this also applies to the other machines you mention. |
Thrift shop distiller $9
Larry wrote: Keith Hughes wrote in news:46e62c2e$0$10300 : Depends on whether your still is really effective or not. If you're only condensing *steam*, i.e. not water vapor but gaseous steam, you may be correct. However, unless your still is a multi-effect (doubtful) or uses some form of cyclonic separation (doubtful), and uses some form of demisting (also doubtful), you don't have quite the assurance you think you do. Almost certainly any organisms will be inactivated, but you may still have endotoxin carryover. There is no water vapor making its way out of the water trap in the top of the boiler. Water doesn't run well uphill with no pressure. Water vapor runs 'uphill' very efficiently, since it weighs much less than air (ever see a cloud?). Water vapor - what you can actually see - is not steam, it's water. And that vapor can carryover all kinds of things if not removed. There's a special trap in the top to prevent it. That's the point I was making - a simple demister like your still likely has is not nearly as efficient as you may think it is. Hence the use of cyclonic separators in many (depending on design) industrial stills, to remove vapor and low molecular contaminants more effectively without a huge hit on distillation efficiency. I've never heard of endotoxin vaporizing only the various...enes like benzene, xylene, all carbon- It doesn't vaporize, it becomes entrained in the water vapor. based that are trapped by the activated carbon filter the water coming out passes ever so slowly through so these distillable petroleum products attach themselves. You can easily taste these in the un-carbon-treated distilled water. The taste is significantly different after carbon filtration. Another sign is my water will not conduct electricity, even at 2000 volts from my megger. Distilled water is an insulator uncontaminated. I think you'll find that distilled water (unless it's distilled in glass) will have a resistivity of about 2 megohms/cm, versus DI water at ~18 megohms/cm. There's more than enough ions released by the stainless to drop the resistivity (increase conductivity) significantly when compared to DI water. ONE grain of table salt just touching the water on the other side of a container of it and ZOOM!....The current goes WAY up! I cannot get my polycarbonate containers to get the TDS below about 1.9 ppm. I think the containers themselves are being eaten by the really corrosive distilled water, which causes a tiny leakage in the electrical test. RO water has its place. But, there ARE bad problems with RO if it is not meticulously maintained. And, it takes a lab test to see if it's safe boaters don't have, placing WAY TOO MUCH FAITH in the integrity of that membrane, I think. You say that like everyone is feeding wastewater into their RO. With simple maintenance, they can be very effective, and very safe, especially when you're talking about desalinization. But take a look at commercial (real) stills and look at the performance specs. Check Stilmas, Steris/Finn-Aqua, Mueller, etc. You'll find that they will provide a 3-log reduction of endotoxins, and they will not effect a significant reduction in over TOC, so you can't dump sewage in a still and be assured of pristine pure water coming out. Yes you *can* do that with distillation, but you have to accept a 10 or 20 fold reduction in efficiency to ensure that absolutely *no* vapor is carried over. That doesn't sell well. I'm not saying that your still is not effective, and not a good way to make clean water. It's just not nearly as effective and foolproof as you want to claim. Keith Hughes |
Thrift shop distiller $9
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 02:48:17 +0000, Larry wrote:
And, it takes a lab test to see if it's safe boaters don't have, placing WAY TOO MUCH FAITH in the integrity of that membrane, I think. There is a simple test for chlorides: just add a drop of silver nitrate solution to a sample. Any hint of cloudiness would indicate a leak. This is how the steamship boys tested their boiler water for leaks in the condenser. Your conductivity test should also find a hole in the membrane. I also think there are many who would not bother to check: you may be right about 'too much faith'. Lots of people simply trust the stuff to be good, when they fill up with whatever comes out of the hose at the marina. It wouldn't be that hard to add a conductivity meter to the RO equipment at the factory. How often do the membranes fail, anyway? Casady |
Thrift shop distiller $9
Keith Hughes wrote in news:46e77321$0$3576
: With simple maintenance, they can be very effective, and very safe, especially when you're talking about desalinization. Now, all we have to do is get the busy lawyer, who can't replace batteries in a flashlight twice in a row resulting in a usable flashlight, to do this maintenance....in his busy life chasing money. It doesn't happen on our docks. It would happen on a boat owned by a hermit, bored to tears out there on the hook. The hermit has plenty of time to do boat maintenance, some their only reason for living. Larry -- I've watched a lawyer fixing a head. It would be hilarious to watch him fixing a complex RO system!...(c; |
Thrift shop distiller $9
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 03:31:14 +0000, Larry wrote:
The test is the TDS meter and electrical conductivity. Distilled water is an insulator. These carbon-based chemicals you list attach themselves very nicely to the carbon molecules in the activated carbon filter. That filter gets quite hot in their presence during use, even at the tiny trickle of water coming from a small distiller. Gasoline is an insulator. Conductivity tests only detect ions. Hydrocarbons do not ionize and are really good insulators. They fill transformers that operate at hundreds of thousands of volts, with oil. By the way, there is no such thing as a carbon molecule. Casady |
Thrift shop distiller $9
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:03:31 -0700, Keith Hughes
wrote: Water vapor - what you can actually see - Water vapor is a gas and is invisible. Steam is the vapor phase of water. Clouds are liquid water. The liquid is hundreds of times as dense as the vapor, by the way. |
Thrift shop distiller $9
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:36:28 GMT, Jere Lull wrote:
TW, though I don't believe a small engine such as ours could practically boil much water --that last degree to flash to steam is a killer-- it seems a good idea to distill water drawn from the hot water tank, gaining a good bit of the required BTUs for free. A BTU is a British Thermal Unit. It is the ammount of heat that it takes to raise one pound of water by one degree F. It takes about 1073 BTUs to evaporate a pound of water. Roughly 140 BTUs to raise the water from room temperature to the boiling point. If you are heating the water in the hot water tank for free, it would help, but not by much. There is not really a last degree. The phase change from liquid to gas takes place at a constant temperature, the boiling point, and and the last degree of heating below that point, is the same as any other degree, one BTU per pound. In round figures, seven eights of the energy goes into the evaporation, one eighth to temperature change. Boiling point varies greatly with pressure, but I assume that we are all talking about ordinary sea level, 14.7 psi type air.[give or take changes with the weather] Casady |
Thrift shop distiller $9
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:44:05 GMT, Jere Lull wrote:
You say that viruses are smaller than sodium or chloride ions? I got A's in college chemistry, and I have trouble believing it. As I understand him from the past, the viruses are broken down to toxic chemicals that will pass. Thank you for relaying that little tidbit. I remain skeptical. I may drop by the local waterworks and look at a few trade magazines. Check out the ads for the millions of gallons a day RO plants. Casady |
Thrift shop distiller $9
Jere Lull wrote:
:On 2007-09-11 12:06:19 -0400, (Richard :Casady) said: : You say that viruses are smaller than sodium or chloride ions? I got : A's in college chemistry, and I have trouble believing it. :As I understand him from the past, the viruses are broken down to toxic :chemicals that will pass. Toxic chemicals smaller than a sodium or chlorine ion? |
Thrift shop distiller $9
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:28:03 +0000 (UTC), David Scheidt
wrote: Jere Lull wrote: :On 2007-09-11 12:06:19 -0400, (Richard :Casady) said: : You say that viruses are smaller than sodium or chloride ions? I got : A's in college chemistry, and I have trouble believing it. :As I understand him from the past, the viruses are broken down to toxic :chemicals that will pass. Toxic chemicals smaller than a sodium or chlorine ion? I also liked the carbon molecules. Casady |
Thrift shop distiller $9
(Richard Casady) wrote in
: I also liked the carbon molecules. Casady Ok, you got me. Carbon molecules are called..... Lamp Black, which is what I'm filtering water through.... Graphite, a lubricant because different layers are loosely coupled Diamond, whose existence is obvious. Just for your reference: http://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/carbon.htm http://www.nyu.edu/pages/mathmol/mod...n/carbon1.html http://chemistry.suite101.com/articl..._and_nanotubes http://rich.en.alibaba.com/product/0...lar_Sieve.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12416962.700.html I wonder if they made them? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecule Molecule - at least 2 atoms joined by sharing pairs of electrons in a covalent bond. What school did you attend? Larry -- Search youtube for "Depleted Uranium" The ultimate dirty bomb...... |
Thrift shop distiller $9
Richard Casady wrote: On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:03:31 -0700, Keith Hughes wrote: Water vapor - what you can actually see - Water vapor is a gas and is invisible. You are correct, I should have said "mist". The point being that what most people routinely think of as "steam" is not steam, but condensate. Steam is the vapor phase of water. Clouds are liquid water. Yes, and clouds 'fly'. Hence the "water doesn't flow uphill" statement, in this context doesn't...hold water. The liquid is hundreds of times as dense as the vapor, by the way. Really? Keith Hughes |
Thrift shop distiller $9
Richard Casady wrote: snip The phase change from liquid to gas takes place at a constant temperature, the boiling point, Which isn't a constant temperature, as you address below.. and and the last degree of heating below that point, is the same as any other degree, one BTU per pound. This is true from a physics perspective, but not, unfortunately from an applications engineering perspective. Since the effectiveness of whatever heat exchange mechanism you use is proportional to the delta-T between the process and the exchange medium, each degree of process rise requires more heat input into the system than the previous one. Not into the 'process', but into the 'system'. This, IMO, is the crux of the issue of trying to use engine heat for evaporation (i.e. distillation), versus just preheating. For an efficient process, the engine-to-transfer medium exchanger needs to run with a significant delta-t, and so to does the transfer medium-to-process exchanger. This two-step cascade would likely require much higher engine operating temperatures than normal, with all the attendant maintenance and longevity issues. In round figures, seven eights of the energy goes into the evaporation, one eighth to temperature change. Boiling point varies greatly with pressure, but I assume that we are all talking about ordinary sea level, 14.7 psi type air.[give or take changes with the weather] Casady Keith Hughes |
Thrift shop distiller $9
Richard Casady wrote: On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:44:05 GMT, Jere Lull wrote: You say that viruses are smaller than sodium or chloride ions? I got A's in college chemistry, and I have trouble believing it. Smaller isn't necessarily the issue with retention of ionic species. A membrane that electrostatically adsorbs ions can still pass much larger non-polar molecules and materials. As I understand him from the past, the viruses are broken down to toxic chemicals that will pass. Thank you for relaying that little tidbit. I remain skeptical. I may drop by the local waterworks and look at a few trade magazines. Check out the ads for the millions of gallons a day RO plants. Casady There are a number of studies showing that RO membranes (which are not absolute porosity filters, but are spiral wound depth filters) are not 100% viral retentive, or bacterial retentive (especially for Giardia oocytes, and certainly not for mycoplasma) when challenged with a significant upstream population. The prevalence of these organisms (and almost-organisms) in seawater is, however, extremely low, and a 2 to 3-log reduction (about what the literature seems to support) gives a very high probability of 100% removal. Safer than tap water, by a long shot. As for viral proteins being toxic, the only studies I'm aware of have been done on the common viral pesticides, where no oral toxicity has ever been observed - doesn't mean it can't happen, but given how rapidly protein is denature in the stomach, it's pretty unlikely. For injectables, some hepatotoxicity has been shown in mice injected with solubilized viral proteins - hence my reluctance to inject RO water while out sailing... The DNA/RNA does not appear to be orally toxic either. Keith Hughes |
Thrift shop distiller $9
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 23:17:40 -0700, Keith Hughes
wrote: This, IMO, is the crux of the issue of trying to use engine heat for evaporation (i.e. distillation), versus just preheating. For an efficient process, the engine-to-transfer medium exchanger needs to run with a significant delta-t, and so to does the transfer medium-to-process exchanger. This two-step cascade would likely require much higher engine operating temperatures than normal, with all the attendant maintenance and longevity issues. There is no escaping the simple fact that equipment for using the waste heat from an engine for distillation was around for decades. Off the shelf. It was intended for boats, of all things. RO may have killed them off, however. Why do you insist that proven, available off the shelf [ at one time, at least,] equipment cannot work? Under load, the exhaust headers on my car run yellow hot, with a ninety MPH breeze cooling them Enough temperature difference? Something like a quarter of the fuel goes to a hot exhaust. Three quarters of the fuel burned in a gas engine goes to waste heat. Diesels do a bit better, and get maybe one third as shaft work. Casady |
Thrift shop distiller $9
Keith Hughes wrote in news:46e8db3d$0$3579
: Safer than tap water, by a long shot. I also don't believe this to be true. From the time it was injected with Chlorine and other chemicals until it reaches your tap is longer than you think....plenty of time for the chemicals injected into the water to, at least, KILL the bugs in the water. This is not true in a boat RO system. If any kind of live organism makes it through the membrane, it's STILL live when you drink it. It STILL can multiply in the storage tanks, probably already contaminated by dock water from Smiley's Marina and Tire's swamp water well out back of the old outhouse. You could be sure by simply boiling it for a few minutes. That will kill whatever crap you ingest from RO and that filthy tank you've never seen the inside of. Of course, for the hermits, that takes power. Larry -- The seawater sucked into the RO is loaded with microscopic life the ocean lives on. The plankton, alone, must represent a huge attack on the system. Plankton is, probably not, toxic. But, microorganisms have a tendency to, well, to put it bluntly, ****. That's, probably, a toxic soup of organic chemistry I'd rather not talk about over dinner. It's amazing all this doesn't just clog the filter dispite the constant flushing.....and I keep thinking about all those people on the cruise ships that got sick from drinking the water on the ship....RO water. They didn't get sick off tap water..... |
Thrift shop distiller $9
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 23:40:01 -0700, Keith Hughes
wrote: Richard Casady wrote: On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:44:05 GMT, Jere Lull wrote: You say that viruses are smaller than sodium or chloride ions? I got A's in college chemistry, and I have trouble believing it. Smaller isn't necessarily the issue with retention of ionic species. A membrane that electrostatically adsorbs ions can still pass much larger non-polar molecules and materials. As I understand him from the past, the viruses are broken down to toxic chemicals that will pass. Thank you for relaying that little tidbit. I remain skeptical. I may drop by the local waterworks and look at a few trade magazines. Check out the ads for the millions of gallons a day RO plants. Casady There are a number of studies showing that RO membranes (which are not absolute porosity filters, but are spiral wound depth filters) That explains a lot. I have cut open,[ they make a tool just for that] a number of pleated paper oil filters. With those they seem to either pass a particle size, or not. Like any sieve, its all or nothing. I have seen filters made from spiral wound string, for fuel, if I recall, but they didn't make any claims of micron size. That would be a spiral wound depth filter? I can see how it could pass some, but not all, of the same size particles. You could call it an attrition filter. but clearly it isn't a simple sieve. Photographic filters take out a percentage, but not all, of the light.I was under the impression that RO filters were all or nothing,like any sieve. It is good of you to post some actual information. A newsgroup with news, of all things. are not 100% viral retentive, or bacterial retentive (especially for Giardia oocytes, and certainly not for mycoplasma) when challenged with a significant upstream population. The prevalence of these organisms (and almost-organisms) in seawater is, however, extremely low, and a 2 to 3-log reduction (about what the literature seems to support) gives a very high probability of 100% removal. Safer than tap water, by a long shot. Can you run the stuff through twice and get the same percentage reduction for the second pass? Someone mentioned arsenic,and the CRC does list it as a component of sea water. Three to twenty-four parts per billion. Or mg/ton. About the same as iron. 1970 edition, your milage may vary. As for viral proteins being toxic, the only studies I'm aware of have been done on the common viral pesticides, where no oral toxicity has ever been observed - doesn't mean it can't happen, but given how rapidly protein is denature in the stomach, it's pretty unlikely. That is the reason for having stomach acid isn't it? That and dissolving "insoluble" heavy metal salts. For injectables, some hepatotoxicity has been shown in mice injected with solubilized viral proteins - hence my reluctance to inject RO water while out sailing... The DNA/RNA does not appear to be orally toxic either. 0 |
Thrift shop distiller $9
On Sep 13, 2:39 am, (Richard Casady)
wrote: On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 23:17:40 -0700, Keith Hughes wrote: This, IMO, is the crux of the issue of trying to use engine heat for evaporation (i.e. distillation), versus just preheating. For an efficient process, the engine-to-transfer medium exchanger needs to run with a significant delta-t, and so to does the transfer medium-to-process exchanger. This two-step cascade would likely require much higher engine operating temperatures than normal, with all the attendant maintenance and longevity issues. There is no escaping the simple fact that equipment for using the waste heat from an engine for distillation was around for decades. Off the shelf. It was intended for boats, of all things. RO may have killed them off, however. Why do you insist that proven, available off the shelf [ at one time, at least,] equipment cannot work? Under load, the exhaust headers on my car run yellow hot, with a ninety MPH breeze cooling them Enough temperature difference? Something like a quarter of the fuel goes to a hot exhaust. Three quarters of the fuel burned in a gas engine goes to waste heat. Diesels do a bit better, and get maybe one third as shaft work. Casady |
Thrift shop distiller $9
Richard Casady wrote: snip There are a number of studies showing that RO membranes (which are not absolute porosity filters, but are spiral wound depth filters) That explains a lot. I have cut open,[ they make a tool just for that] a number of pleated paper oil filters. With those they seem to either pass a particle size, or not. Like any sieve, its all or nothing. Well, absolute porosity is really a misnomer, even though the term is used frequently. It's really based on a statistical measure of retention capability, since all membranes are essentially "mats" of material, not like you'd expect for, say, sintered metal. And they all depend on adsorption, impaction, and physical sieving to achieve that porosity rating. I have seen filters made from spiral wound string, for fuel, if I recall, but they didn't make any claims of micron size. That would be a spiral wound depth filter? A very common type, yes. A DE pool filter is another example. Depth filters become *more* effective as they load up, since the accumulated material provides additional sieving action. I can see how it could pass some, but not all, of the same size particles. You could call it an attrition filter. but clearly it isn't a simple sieve. Photographic filters take out a percentage, but not all, of the light.I was under the impression that RO filters were all or nothing,like any sieve. Unfortunately, all membrane filters have large and small pores, and the interactions between the mean pore size, the configuration of the pore pathway (i.e. the more tortuous path provided through the membrane, the more likely that physical impaction will sequester a particle), membrane charge, fluid pressure, and fluid velocity, among other esoteric factors, determines the retention capability of the membrane. So retention is a statistical measure of performance, rather than an absolute capability. Depth filters, like wound membranes, have much larger variability in retention capability, relative to their nominal pore size, than do most membrane filters. It is good of you to post some actual information. A newsgroup with news, of all things. Well, it's sort of topical at the moment, since I'm currently working on qualifying a multi-effect still, pure steam generator, and an ultra-filtration/diafiltration skid. are not 100% viral retentive, or bacterial retentive (especially for Giardia oocytes, and certainly not for mycoplasma) when challenged with a significant upstream population. The prevalence of these organisms (and almost-organisms) in seawater is, however, extremely low, and a 2 to 3-log reduction (about what the literature seems to support) gives a very high probability of 100% removal. Safer than tap water, by a long shot. Can you run the stuff through twice and get the same percentage reduction for the second pass? Yes, and no. Since retention is statistical in nature (i.e. the likelihood of 100% retention is not only directly related to particle size distribution, but also on upstream particulate concentration), the retention effectiveness for the second pass would actually be much greater (with respect to ensuring a clean filtrate) than on the first pass. Now, that is if you're talking about dual pass in series. Most "double-pass" RO systems are designed for water savings, not filtration effectiveness, and are in a series/parallel configuration where the rejected water from the first pass goes to the second pass, and that permeate (filtrate) and is then pooled with the permeate from the first pass. So the membranes are in series, but water flow is in parallel, only passing through one membrane, either first pass or second pass. Someone mentioned arsenic,and the CRC does list it as a component of sea water. Three to twenty-four parts per billion. Or mg/ton. About the same as iron. 1970 edition, your milage may vary. In industrial applications, this isn't an issue, since most systems use some type of chelating agent or sequestrant that complexes such materials making them easy to filter. Not real amenable to the cruiser though, and I don't know off hand how well arsenic is rejected. As for viral proteins being toxic, the only studies I'm aware of have been done on the common viral pesticides, where no oral toxicity has ever been observed - doesn't mean it can't happen, but given how rapidly protein is denature in the stomach, it's pretty unlikely. That is the reason for having stomach acid isn't it? That and dissolving "insoluble" heavy metal salts. Yep. That it is. Keith Hughes |
Thrift shop distiller $9
Larry wrote: Keith Hughes wrote in news:46e8db3d$0$3579 : Safer than tap water, by a long shot. I also don't believe this to be true. From the time it was injected with Chlorine and other chemicals until it reaches your tap is longer than you think.... No, it isn't. In my case, it's long enough for the chlorine level to be undetectable at my tap. And long enough for plenty of growth to occur. I've been looking at potable water micro results (total microbial and coliforms) for 25 years - I know the quality of tap water. plenty of time for the chemicals injected into the water to, at least, KILL the bugs in the water. This is not true in a boat RO system. If any kind of live organism makes it through the membrane, it's STILL live when you drink it. It STILL can multiply in the storage tanks, probably already contaminated by dock water from Smiley's Marina and Tire's swamp water well out back of the old outhouse. OK, where'd the storage tank slip into the discussion? You think putting distilled water in a vented storage tank remains sterile? You could be sure by simply boiling it for a few minutes. That will kill whatever crap you ingest from RO and that filthy tank you've never seen the inside of. Of course, for the hermits, that takes power. I've said it before, and I'll say it again...you were bitten by an RO unit as a small child weren't you? :-) Keith Hughes |
Thrift shop distiller $9
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 04:17:23 +0000, Larry wrote:
RO - One pinhole and everyone dies..... One pinhole and the stuff will be loaded with chloride, dead simple to detect. Add one drop of silver nitrate solution. Any cloudiness indicates chloride, and it takes very little. This has long been the practice on steam ships, with regard to the boiler water. And I don't paint a rosy picture of RO, other than it takes less than one hundredth the energy. So boil the stuff you drink, and use the cheap RO water to wash down the expensive boat. You can afford distilled drinking water. You ever figure out what it actually costs for homemade electricity. It ain't pretty. Salt water showers suck, and so does 25 cent a kwhr juice. The old quadruple effect evaporators found on steamships used one tenth the energy of an electric single stage still. Nobody said boats were cheap. |
Thrift shop distiller $9
Keith Hughes wrote in
: OK, where'd the storage tank slip into the discussion? You think putting distilled water in a vented storage tank remains sterile? You could be sure by simply boiling it for a few minutes. That will kill whatever crap you ingest from RO and that filthy tank you've never seen the inside of. Of course, for the hermits, that takes power. I've said it before, and I'll say it again...you were bitten by an RO unit as a small child weren't you? :-) Keith Hughes Gotta be stored somewhere, making all that water. Distilled isn't going to make any difference UNLESS it's the ONLY water ever put in one. Drinking out of someone's filthy water tank is always flirting with sickness. Who knows what is in there? No, I was never bitten by RO, myself. I'm not sure of your motives for the big attack, either, but RO ISN'T as wonderful as the brochures say it is. In the hands of a sailboat "captain", who's a lawyer, bank president, with no experience in biology outside of suing doctors for malpractice, I can't imagine them doing the proper testing and maintenance these complex filters require to make them safe and reliable. I'll drink distilled from my 5 gallon sanitary jug.....thanks. Larry -- Search youtube for "Depleted Uranium" The ultimate dirty bomb...... |
Thrift shop distiller $9
Larry wrote:
Keith Hughes wrote in : Snip Gotta be stored somewhere, making all that water. Distilled isn't going to make any difference UNLESS it's the ONLY water ever put in one. Even then it won't make any difference for a typical vented tank, unless you use a real bacterial retentive vent filter, and do lots of routine maintenance on the tank and filter. Drinking out of someone's filthy water tank is always flirting with sickness. Who knows what is in there? Well, the point I was making was that you brought up the tank and storage as though that was strictly an artifact of RO, not distilled. No, I was never bitten by RO, myself. I still don't believe it, I bet you tried to pet one when you were little... :-) I'm not sure of your motives for the big attack, either, but RO ISN'T as wonderful as the brochures say it is. I had no intention of "attacking" you or distillation. Sorry if it came off that way. I was responding to your attack on RO as being basically a death trap, and it just isn't so. If it were, there'd be a lot of dead people floating around. People by the millions drink RO problems with out problems. Also, there are some BS consumer-level stills out there that are not very effective at all, because of mist and condensate carryover into the distillate, so you need to be cognizant that there are 'bad' stills out there, and blind faith in them is not justified. Especially not the belief that you can basically dump sewage in them and get nice clean water out. People need to be aware that all purification/sanitization process results are statistical in nature, and that means being smart about the feed water as well as the purification method you use. As for the capturing of engine heat to use for distillation, I just have a hard time seeing that the engines used by the typical cruiser, as typically used, would be amenable to that type of modification. In the hands of a sailboat "captain", who's a lawyer, bank president, with no experience in biology outside of suing doctors for malpractice, I can't imagine them doing the proper testing and maintenance these complex filters require to make them safe and reliable. Well, personally, for a boat application I would use cellulose acetate membranes (instead of thin film composite - e.g. polyamide etc.), even though they are not quite as efficient, so they can be sanitized with a simple chlorine solution. I also wouldn't use them in most lakes, estuaries, or inhabited bays. I'll drink distilled from my 5 gallon sanitary jug.....thanks. Nothing wrong with that. Keith Hughes |
Thrift shop distiller $9
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 10:43:37 -0700, Keith Hughes
wrote: Also, there are some BS consumer-level stills out there that are not very effective at all, because of mist and condensate carryover into the distillate, so you need to be cognizant that there are 'bad' stills out there, and blind faith in them is not justified. Especially not the belief that you can basically dump sewage in them and get nice clean water out. People need to be aware that all purification/sanitization process results are statistical in nature, and that means being smart about the feed water as well as the purification method you use. Good advice. Having worked on the steam generating end only, where the "cool" steam was +600 F, I hadn't given much thought on the potential distillers have for biological type carryover. A good boiling of the water, perhaps under pressure, before any steam/vapor is allowed to process further, and close care with the carryover and condensing elements of the distiller should solve that, but the cost and complexity grows greater. Larry had me a bit concerned about RO quality, and his take on "toxins" created by RO hydraulic pressure on bacteria, and mass cruise boat illness is interesting, but I'm not sold on either. You have raised red flags about distiller feed, design and operation. Very educational discussion. Put me down on the RO side. But I admit I've never been a big drinker of plain water. --Vic |
Thrift shop distiller $9
Keith Hughes wrote in
: Gotta be stored somewhere, making all that water. Distilled isn't going to make any difference UNLESS it's the ONLY water ever put in one. Even then it won't make any difference for a typical vented tank, unless you use a real bacterial retentive vent filter, and do lots of routine maintenance on the tank and filter. Granted. A couple of years ago, I got in a ****ing contest with an RO dealer on a web forum. RO was better than distillation, which just isn't so. So, he and I swapped a quart of our finest product in sanitized containers. My container was a polycarb jug I meticulously cleaned, then sanitized in my convection oven for an hour at 220F. Trying to do his best, his sanitation method was very similar. I took his word he was sending me RO, not distillate...(c; The bet was to put each water sample in the sun for a couple of months to see what grows in it. (I cheated because I'd already set a gallon of distillate in a sanitized container in the sun for a whole year that grows nothing...doesn't even change the taste in polycarb containers. The RO came with a destructive seal I'd forgotten to put on the one I sent him. I don't think he trusted me. I sat it in the summer South Carolina sun out on my patio where the daytime temp is in the 90s here on the river. Two weeks, not a month, later, I returned his RO swamp water that grew some beautiful algae in a light green color without even taking a look at it under my microscope to look for bacteria or amoebas. He never returned my sample and refused to discuss with the group his findings in my sample. I told him I thought his membrane had a rip in it....just for laughs. The algae is harmless, but that wasn't the point. RO isn't the holy grail the dealers portray it to be. It's FILTERED WATER. I didn't attack RO, by the way. I only pointed out what I had read of the bacteria trapped on the high pressure side of the membrane breaking down, then releasing their toxic load into the feedwater, which WAS small enough to pass through the membrame into the drinking water on the other side. It's a serious problem for many drinkers if it's not corrected. Boaters, the same guys who cannot figure out why the batteries don't charge, have no training other than the little instruction manual on the proper maintenance and operation of an RO plant that is complex by its very nature and REQUIRES this maintenance to be performed at regular intervals and properly to get safe results. I think THAT is a recipe for disaster.....not RO, per se. Larry -- Search youtube for "Depleted Uranium" The ultimate dirty bomb...... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:18 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com