The Plan :
Make Ethanol safely and slowly not fast !, it can be as slow as it
needs to be !
Why :
Hobby -> To see if I can run the car on ethanol that I made from left
overs in the garden.
1. Grind mass (grass / bark from trees )
2. The Reactor – Shredded Mass with Glycolic Acid Solution
3. Cook @ pressure and temperature.
4. Neutralisation – not sure what to use here ? Lye ?
5. Yeast for fermentaiton period.
6. Distillation.
Will at any point the reaction be poisonous. ?
The reason I ask is I know nothing about chemistry and dont want to
kill myself or the neighbours. Apparently if you use a more agressive
acid like Nitric, you end up with Nitogen Dioxide which as it turns
out will kill you stone dead.
Infact can anyone point me in the right direction for proper
consultancy on something like this ?
Cheers
s
steve wrote:
> The Plan :
> Make Ethanol safely and slowly not fast !, it can be as slow as it
> needs to be !
> Why :
> Hobby -> To see if I can run the car on ethanol that I made from left
> overs in the garden.
> 1. Grind mass (grass / bark from trees )
> 2. The Reactor – Shredded Mass with Glycolic Acid Solution
> 3. Cook @ pressure and temperature.
Thermodynamics is laughing at you. Any energy you expend would be
more efficiently invested into directly powering your vehicle.
> 4. Neutralisation – not sure what to use here ? Lye ?
> 5. Yeast for fermentaiton period.
> 6. Distillation.
[snip crap]
Why don’t you build a solar-powered home factory… and wait for a
sunny day?
Kilkenny cats – recycling inevitably funnels down to nothing. Socks
are too cheap to mend because they are made in factories not
cottages. Mao’s Great Leap Forward had a billion Chinese with
puddling furnaces in their backyards melting their woks, pots, and
knives to make China the largest steel-producing nation on Earth.
1) Ridiciulously inefficient fuelwise – that square-cube thingie.
2) Steel is science not politics – the product was useless re the
EPA and the Department of Education.
3) Melting down household utensiles to provid raw material to
fabricate household utensiles is very Al Gore.
–
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
"Uncle Al" <Uncle…@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:46111228.C26B00FC@hate.spam.net…
> 3) Melting down household utensiles to provid raw material to
> fabricate household utensiles is very Al Gore.
Unless you’re Al Gore!
Tom
1. This is Australia, solar is abundant. Its sunny everyday. We have a
solar concentrator that is already focussed on a closed loop ractor
that will provide controllable heat and pressure.
2. We also have a solar powered still from someone else’s previous
experiements.
3. We have acres and acres of switchgrass and other organic materials
that is doing nothing due to various reasons.
4. We have loads of combustion engines lying around.
5. Solar Energy and Organic substances in -> Ethanol out is the goal.
Any constructive replies appreciated….
On Apr 3, 12:24 am, Uncle Al <Uncle…@hate.spam.net> wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> steve wrote:
> > The Plan :
> >MakeEthanolsafelyandslowly notfast!, it can be as slow as it
> > needs to be !
> > Why :
> > Hobby -> To see if I can run the car onethanolthat I made from left
> > overs in the garden.
> > 1. Grind mass (grass / bark from trees )
> > 2. The Reactor – Shredded Mass with Glycolic Acid Solution
> > 3. Cook @ pressure and temperature.
> Thermodynamics is laughing at you. Any energy you expend would be
> more efficiently invested into directly powering your vehicle.
> > 4. Neutralisation -notsure what to use here ? Lye ?
> > 5. Yeast for fermentaiton period.
> > 6. Distillation.
> [snip crap]
> Why don’t you build a solar-powered home factory… and wait for a
> sunny day?
> Kilkenny cats – recycling inevitably funnels down to nothing. Socks
> are too cheap to mend because they are made in factoriesnot
> cottages. Mao’s Great Leap Forward had a billion Chinese with
> puddling furnaces in their backyards melting their woks, pots, and
> knives tomakeChina the largest steel-producing nation on Earth.
> 1) Ridiciulously inefficient fuelwise – that square-cube thingie.
> 2) Steel is sciencenotpolitics – the product was useless re the
> EPA and the Department of Education.
> 3) Melting down household utensiles to provid raw material to
> fabricate household utensiles is very Al Gore.
> —
> Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
"Uncle Al" <Uncle…@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:46111228.C26B00FC@hate.spam.net…
> Kilkenny cats – recycling inevitably funnels down to nothing. Socks
> are too cheap to mend because they are made in factories not
> cottages. Mao’s Great Leap Forward had a billion Chinese with
> puddling furnaces in their backyards melting their woks, pots, and
> knives to make China the largest steel-producing nation on Earth.
I have agreed with you about a lot of things, but this may not be one of
them.
The recycling project that was started in Norway a couple of decades ago
was,
IMO, destined to be one of these failures. They had always failed in the
USA.
It would appear that now the system is up and running,and the municipalities
are either making money or cutting their costs to the point that they are
beginning
to reflect tax deductions.
I never thought it would happen, but it has.
Items like beer cans or coke bottles are not dropped on the streets and
roadways.
You pay such a large (refundable) deposit that it would be foolish to
litter,and the
containers are recycled in any case.
Sometimes it works.
"steve" <steve….@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175489888.776433.267950@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> The Plan :
> Make Ethanol safely and slowly not fast !, it can be as slow as it
> needs to be !
> Why :
> Hobby -> To see if I can run the car on ethanol that I made from left
> overs in the garden.
> 1. Grind mass (grass / bark from trees )
> 2. The Reactor – Shredded Mass with Glycolic Acid Solution
> 3. Cook @ pressure and temperature.
> 4. Neutralisation – not sure what to use here ? Lye ?
> 5. Yeast for fermentaiton period.
> 6. Distillation.
> Will at any point the reaction be poisonous. ?
> The reason I ask is I know nothing about chemistry and dont want to
> kill myself or the neighbours. Apparently if you use a more agressive
> acid like Nitric, you end up with Nitogen Dioxide which as it turns
> out will kill you stone dead.
> Infact can anyone point me in the right direction for proper
> consultancy on something like this ?
You need to study the chemistry behind this a bit. If you want to do
fermentation, you can either ferment readily available sugars from
plant waste, or you can go a bit further with acid catalyzed breakdown
of cellulose to get more fermentables.
Nitric acid is an oxidizing acid and is not the best way for you to go.
The small amount of nitrogen oxides that would be produced when using
catalytic levels of acid are not so much to be feared. If possible it would
be best to use an acid that is reasonably compatible with the materials
in your digester.
Another approach is to construct your digester so that you get bacterial
production of methane (and other species). You can use yard waste,
animal feces, human feces, etc and can pump off the flammable gas
which is fairly easy to use in an internal combustion engine.
I realize this is a project or hobby, and that you dont have to worry about
energy breakeven.
When people say that it is not feasible, it usually means that – compared
with
the present cheap sources of energy including fossil fuels – it is not
desirable
under present conditions.
But now, if the total equation were expanded to include heavy penalties for
the use of geological carbon sources, and if the CO2 so generated had to be
recovered and disposed of, the economics may look a bit different. We might
call this a Gore economic evaluation, but it is foolish to think that this
might
not eventually come about.
Brasil MADE ethanol work. They had to do so. Their backs were against the
wall as they did not have large fossil fuel reserves. Now ethanol supplies
about 40% of their liquid auto fuel requirements. They do it with
fermentation
of sugar cane, not corn. It doesnt take too much investigation to find out
why
corn is a poor choice as a precursor for ethanol.
I am glad that there are people like you who are willing to actively get
involved
in projects of this kind. Too many just sit, eat chips, and watch TV.
Dear Bob:
"Bob" <bbx107….@excite.XYZ.com> wrote in message
news:mtr3139bst5it33rbng7fk40mphv25bf6t@4ax.com…
> On 1 Apr 2007 21:58:08 -0700, "steve" <steve….@gmail.com>
> wrote:
…
>>3. Cook @ pressure and temperature.
>>4. Neutralisation – not sure what to use here ? Lye ?
>>5. Yeast for fermentaiton period.
>>6. Distillation.
>>Will at any point the reaction be poisonous. ?
> The ethanol product has been known the make
> people drunk.
And there are tests that show ethanol is a carcinogen. Of
course, the same tests show table salt is a carcinogen…
David A. Smith
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
H…@nospam.nix wrote:
> "Uncle Al" <Uncle…@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:46111228.C26B00FC@hate.spam.net…
> > Kilkenny cats – recycling inevitably funnels down to nothing. Socks
> > are too cheap to mend because they are made in factories not
> > cottages. Mao’s Great Leap Forward had a billion Chinese with
> > puddling furnaces in their backyards melting their woks, pots, and
> > knives to make China the largest steel-producing nation on Earth.
> I have agreed with you about a lot of things, but this may not be one of
> them.
> The recycling project that was started in Norway a couple of decades ago
> was,
> IMO, destined to be one of these failures. They had always failed in the
> USA.
> It would appear that now the system is up and running,and the municipalities
> are either making money or cutting their costs to the point that they are
> beginning
> to reflect tax deductions.
> I never thought it would happen, but it has.
> Items like beer cans or coke bottles are not dropped on the streets and
> roadways.
> You pay such a large (refundable) deposit that it would be foolish to
> litter,and the
> containers are recycled in any case.
> Sometimes it works.
Follow the money. You are paying at least twice to dump the garbage.
There is no net reimbursment.
–
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
> > Sometimes it works.
> Follow the money. You are paying at least twice to dump the garbage.
> There is no net reimbursment.
There is no free lunch, that is for sure.
Civilized society has a very complicated cost accounting scheme.
Thanks for all your input so far…
Bob – "Won’t work. Rate will be zero, I suspect. Do you have info to
the contrary?? "
–> Yes, this is a good point and I did spend some time doing some
reading, what I did find was that pretty much any acid will hydrolyse
cellulose but when you are using something as weak as Glycolic it will
take a very very very long time and you have to cook it under
pressure. So I understand anyway. I am willing to give a go and see
what happens at any rate ? The energy supply in our case to all this
is free (the sun) so don’t care about the process being efficient by
any stretch of the imagination.
h…@nospam.nix – "Nitric acid is an oxidizing acid and is not the
best way for you to go. "
–> We are thinking Glycolic or Sulphuric with a neutraliser
h…@nospam.nix – "digester so that you get bacterial production of
methane "
–> Unfortunately ethanol is the goal as we want the fuel to be
portable with conventional methods, ie re-use the tank in a car.
"steve" <steve….@gmail.com> wrote in message > –> Yes, this is a good
point and I did spend some time doing some
> reading, what I did find was that pretty much any acid will hydrolyse
> cellulose but when you are using something as weak as Glycolic it will
> take a very very very long time and you have to cook it under
> pressure. So I understand anyway. I am willing to give a go and see
> what happens at any rate ? The energy supply in our case to all this
> is free (the sun) so don’t care about the process being efficient by
> any stretch of the imagination.
Agreed, conversions of this type may be slow without heat and pressure.
Not all reactions have to be fast to be usable. Patience.
> h…@nospam.nix – "Nitric acid is an oxidizing acid and is not the
> best way for you to go. "
> –> We are thinking Glycolic or Sulphuric with a neutraliser
Glycolic is rather weak. Sulfuric, phosphoric, or hydrochloric might
be better choices.
> h…@nospam.nix – "digester so that you get bacterial production of
> methane "
> –> Unfortunately ethanol is the goal as we want the fuel to be
> portable with conventional methods, ie re-use the tank in a car.
Before you get to this point, you need to find out something about the
metallurgy of your fuel tank. Be sure it is compatible with concentrated
moist ethanol.
One of your Oz experimenters did work on chicken poop digesters years
ago. I can remember the photos of him, tooling around in his little car
fueled solely by gas from chicken poopies.
Here, the chicken sh*ts who generate the most gas are serving useless
time in Washington.
<H…@nospam.nix> writes:
>> –> We are thinking Glycolic or Sulphuric with a neutraliser
>Glycolic is rather weak. Sulfuric, phosphoric, or hydrochloric might
>be better choices.
I have seen the description of a process to produce alcohol from wood in
a 1940′s book. I don’t remember much other than it used sulfuric acid
in a heated pressurized container that operated at about 3 atmospheres.
"Michael Moroney" <moro…@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:ev3o5m$cih$1@pcls6.std.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
"steve" <steve….@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Yes, ….I did find was that pretty much any acid will hydrolyse
> cellulose but when you are using something as weak as Glycolic
> it will take a very very very long time and you have to cook it under
> pressure.
> <H…@nospam.nix> writes:
>>> –> We are thinking Glycolic or Sulphuric with a neutraliser
>>Glycolic is rather weak. Sulfuric, phosphoric, or hydrochloric might
>>be better choices.
[Mike]
> I have seen the description of a process to produce alcohol from wood in
> a 1940′s book. I don’t remember much other than it used sulfuric acid
> in a heated pressurized container that operated at about 3 atmospheres.
[hanson]
Mike, you maybe referring to the industrial production of Furfural(dehyde)
by distilling cellulose / pentoses in diluted H2SO4, per brutto reaction:
C5H10O5 —> C5H4O2 + 3 H2O
Furfural is nasty smelling stuff; polymerizes easily into hard black coke
balls… and the green shits whine that it is extraordinarily cancerous.
Now, I wonder whether anaerobic bio/fermentation methods do exist that
will hydrogenate Furfural into the Pentan(di/tri)ols or even into the
Pentoxone series which would make a far better fuel than EtOH?
hanson
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
"hanson" <han…@quick.net> writes:
>"Michael Moroney" <moro…@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>news:ev3o5m$cih$1@pcls6.std.com…
>"steve" <steve….@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> Yes, ….I did find was that pretty much any acid will hydrolyse
>> cellulose but when you are using something as weak as Glycolic
>> it will take a very very very long time and you have to cook it under
>> pressure.
>> <H…@nospam.nix> writes:
>>>> –> We are thinking Glycolic or Sulphuric with a neutraliser
>>>Glycolic is rather weak. Sulfuric, phosphoric, or hydrochloric might
>>>be better choices.
>[Mike]
>> I have seen the description of a process to produce alcohol from wood in
>> a 1940′s book. I don’t remember much other than it used sulfuric acid
>> in a heated pressurized container that operated at about 3 atmospheres.
>[hanson]
>Mike, you maybe referring to the industrial production of Furfural(dehyde)
>by distilling cellulose / pentoses in diluted H2SO4, per brutto reaction:
>C5H10O5 —> C5H4O2 + 3 H2O
No, the process supposedly hydrolized cellulose into sugars. The sugar
solution was neutralized with lime/limestone and fermented into alcohol,
while the waste (lignin) was burned to cook the next batch.
"Michael Moroney" <moro…@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:ev5hsi$ett$1@pcls4.std.com…
> >[hanson]
> >Mike, you maybe referring to the industrial production of
Furfural(dehyde)
> >by distilling cellulose / pentoses in diluted H2SO4, per brutto reaction:
> >C5H10O5 —> C5H4O2 + 3 H2O
> No, the process supposedly hydrolized cellulose into sugars. The sugar
> solution was neutralized with lime/limestone and fermented into alcohol,
> while the waste (lignin) was burned to cook the next batch.
This is pretty standard chemistry…Every high school science fair has
someone
hydrolyzing cellulose to make sugars ( and more). Cornstarch is another
material
rather easily hydrolyzed.
Enzymes offer another option.
But you are correct, after hydrolysis to simpler compounds, the "satz" has
to
be fermented and distilled.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Michael Moroney wrote:
> "hanson" <han…@quick.net> writes:
> >"Michael Moroney" <moro…@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
> >news:ev3o5m$cih$1@pcls6.std.com…
> >"steve" <steve….@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> Yes, ….I did find was that pretty much any acid will hydrolyse
> >> cellulose but when you are using something as weak as Glycolic
> >> it will take a very very very long time and you have to cook it under
> >> pressure.
> >> <H…@nospam.nix> writes:
> >>>> –> We are thinking Glycolic or Sulphuric with a neutraliser
> >>>Glycolic is rather weak. Sulfuric, phosphoric, or hydrochloric might
> >>>be better choices.
> >[Mike]
> >> I have seen the description of a process to produce alcohol from wood in
> >> a 1940′s book. I don’t remember much other than it used sulfuric acid
> >> in a heated pressurized container that operated at about 3 atmospheres.
> >[hanson]
> >Mike, you maybe referring to the industrial production of Furfural(dehyde)
> >by distilling cellulose / pentoses in diluted H2SO4, per brutto reaction:
> >C5H10O5 —> C5H4O2 + 3 H2O
> No, the process supposedly hydrolized cellulose into sugars. The sugar
> solution was neutralized with lime/limestone and fermented into alcohol,
> while the waste (lignin) was burned to cook the next batch.
That is rather amusing. Lime comes from calcined limestone – less its
CO2 plus CO2 released by the heating fuel. Just what aspect of the
Earth do you plan to sustainably save?
It would make more sense to feed cellulostics to cattle. Silage.
You’d get milk, meat, hides, and valuable manure to anerobically
ferment into methane then fertilize the fields. It’s been done, you
know – it’s called "agriculture." Farmers know all about that stuff.
They have a clearer vision because their heads are not sef-righteously
stuffed up their New Age asses.
–
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
"Uncle Al" <Uncle…@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:46165D1A.790025C1@hate.spam.net…
> Michael Moroney wrote:
>> "hanson" <han…@quick.net> writes:
>> >"Michael Moroney" <moro…@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>> >news:ev3o5m$cih$1@pcls6.std.com…
>> >"steve" <steve….@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> Yes, ….I did find was that pretty much any acid will hydrolyse
>> >> cellulose but when you are using something as weak as Glycolic
>> >> it will take a very very very long time and you have to cook it under
>> >> pressure.
>> >> <H…@nospam.nix> writes:
>> >>>> –> We are thinking Glycolic or Sulphuric with a neutraliser
>> >>>Glycolic is rather weak. Sulfuric, phosphoric, or hydrochloric might
>> >>>be better choices.
>> >[Mike]
>> >> I have seen the description of a process to produce alcohol from wood in
>> >> a 1940′s book. I don’t remember much other than it used sulfuric acid
>> >> in a heated pressurized container that operated at about 3 atmospheres.
>> >[hanson]
>> >Mike, you maybe referring to the industrial production of Furfural(dehyde)
>> >by distilling cellulose / pentoses in diluted H2SO4, per brutto reaction:
>> >C5H10O5 —> C5H4O2 + 3 H2O
>> No, the process supposedly hydrolized cellulose into sugars. The sugar
>> solution was neutralized with lime/limestone and fermented into alcohol,
>> while the waste (lignin) was burned to cook the next batch.
> That is rather amusing. Lime comes from calcined limestone – less its
> CO2 plus CO2 released by the heating fuel. Just what aspect of the
> Earth do you plan to sustainably save?
> It would make more sense to feed cellulostics to cattle. Silage.
> You’d get milk, meat, hides, and valuable manure to anerobically
> ferment into methane then fertilize the fields. It’s been done, you
> know – it’s called "agriculture." Farmers know all about that stuff.
> They have a clearer vision because their heads are not sef-righteously
> stuffed up their New Age asses.
Then it’s time you took up farming and stayed the fuck away
from mathematics. Beta cannot be derived, shitaniumhead.
"Androcles" <Engin…@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3SuRh.62446$%g3.58551@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk…
"Uncle Al" <Uncle…@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:46165D1A.790025C1@hate.spam.net…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Michael Moroney wrote:
>> "hanson" <han…@quick.net> writes:
>> >"Michael Moroney" <moro…@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>> >news:ev3o5m$cih$1@pcls6.std.com…
>> >"steve" <steve….@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> Yes, ….I did find was that pretty much any acid will hydrolyse
>> >> cellulose but when you are using something as weak as Glycolic
>> >> it will take a very very very long time and you have to cook it under
>> >> pressure.
>> >> <H…@nospam.nix> writes:
>> >>>> –> We are thinking Glycolic or Sulphuric with a neutraliser
>> >>>Glycolic is rather weak. Sulfuric, phosphoric, or hydrochloric might
>> >>>be better choices.
>> >[Mike]
>> >> I have seen the description of a process to produce alcohol from wood
>> >> in
>> >> a 1940′s book. I don’t remember much other than it used sulfuric acid
>> >> in a heated pressurized container that operated at about 3
>> >> atmospheres.
>> >[hanson]
>> >Mike, you maybe referring to the industrial production of
>> >Furfural(dehyde)
>> >by distilling cellulose / pentoses in diluted H2SO4, per brutto
>> >reaction:
>> >C5H10O5 —> C5H4O2 + 3 H2O
>> No, the process supposedly hydrolized cellulose into sugars. The sugar
>> solution was neutralized with lime/limestone and fermented into alcohol,
>> while the waste (lignin) was burned to cook the next batch.
> That is rather amusing. Lime comes from calcined limestone – less its
> CO2 plus CO2 released by the heating fuel. Just what aspect of the
> Earth do you plan to sustainably save?
>> It would make more sense to feed cellulostics to cattle. Silage.
>> You’d get milk, meat, hides, and valuable manure to anerobically
>> ferment into methane then fertilize the fields. It’s been done, you
>> know – it’s called "agriculture." Farmers know all about that stuff.
>> They have a clearer vision because their heads are not sef-righteously
>> stuffed up their New Age asses.
>Then it’s time you took up farming and stayed the fuck away
>from mathematics. Beta cannot be derived, shitaniumhead.
chill out it’s passed over.
Uncle Al <Uncle…@hate.spam.net> writes:
>Michael Moroney wrote:
>> No, the process supposedly hydrolized cellulose into sugars. The sugar
>> solution was neutralized with lime/limestone and fermented into alcohol,
>> while the waste (lignin) was burned to cook the next batch.
>That is rather amusing. Lime comes from calcined limestone – less its
>CO2 plus CO2 released by the heating fuel. Just what aspect of the
>Earth do you plan to sustainably save?
The CO2 from burning the wood waste, plus that released by burning the
ethanol produced is CO2 originally removed from the atmosphere and
would have been returned to the atmosphere even if the wood it came from
was unused and allowed to rot or burn. Net effect: zero.
The CO2 from the limestone is "old", and its release contributes to global
warming (if human CO2 releases do cause global warming) and is therefore
bad, but you only need to neutralize the acid to allow the yeasties to do
their thing, so is a smaller amount. I suppose "greener" alternatives
are available for neutralization.
"Bob" <bbx107….@excite.XYZ.com> wrote in message
news:e9rd131jt6ffp165v5roo01pd7l6h41pki@4ax.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 14:26:31 GMT, <H…@nospam.nix> wrote:
> >> No, the process supposedly hydrolized cellulose into sugars. The sugar
> >> solution was neutralized with lime/limestone and fermented into
alcohol,
> >> while the waste (lignin) was burned to cook the next batch.
> >This is pretty standard chemistry…Every high school science fair has
> >someone
> >hydrolyzing cellulose to make sugars ( and more). Cornstarch is another
> >material
> >rather easily hydrolyzed.
> >Enzymes offer another option.
> But the statement "Cornstarch is another material rather easily
> hydrolyzed." is misleading. (The word "another" is what makes it
> misleading.) Cellulose is not easily broken down, by chemical or
> enzymatic processes. That is the barrier to its use. Nature gave us
> cellulose as a structural material – and starch as a sugar reservoir.
> Starch is easily broken down, cellulose is not. It is inherent in the
> structure of the polymer.
I agree, my verbage might be taken as misleading. It is not incorrect
as stated, but can be taken in a couple of different ways.
Cellulose CAN obviously be broken down to starches, dextrins, and
sugars (and God only knows what else). But it adds a step of energy
consumption that would be best avoided.
"Bob" <bbx107….@excite.XYZ.com> wrote in message
news:s88m13dj958euonl8ttp6esrkl1fsg85kr@4ax.com…
> Cellulose CANNOT be broken down to starch. They are constructed in
> fundamentally different ways, and one cannot get from one to the
> other. (The glucose units are connected "alpha" in one case, "beta" in
> the other. Turns out that makes a huge difference in the resulting
> physical properties.) They can both be broken down to sugars — with
> the key problem, we agree, that one is much harder to do, thus more
> expensive.
> bob
Fair enough.