If a process is patented, then the owner of the patent is supposed to state the function of the patent when papers are filed. It seems strange indeed that Rivera, who patented the “Rivera Process†did not even realize that one of the fuel fractions was ethanol, since the specialty of his process was to produce fuel from cellulose material.
It may be that the percent of ethanol as compared to the other fuel fractions is very low. I used to test for percentages of ethanol in "beer" and "slop" products for the pineapple industry (California Packing Corporation). Pineapple skins and cores (removed by the Genaca Machine) were fermented to produce "beer" which was about 4% alcohol. Then the alcohol was extracted by steam distillation and became "slop" which was about 0.04% ethanol. Steam distillation produced about 250 gallons/hour (when in operation) which was then shipped to Del Monte. Del Monte processed the ethanol into vinegar for its catsup.
"Rivera said critics are not looking at how much fuel his process makes." Nowhere in the report does it state the percentage or amount of ethanol produced in the process. Anyone could have thrown in a handful of sugar and production of ethanol would have been guaranteed but in a small amount. If the cellular material had been smashed, some sugar compounds might also have been released which caused the production of ethanol but this would not have come from the cellular material itself.
Ethanol produced from natural sugars and ethanol produced from the break-down of cellulose materials are two different processes. If the Rivera process does actually convert the cellulose materials into compounds which are then converted into ethanol, I wish to commend Rivera on his discovery. It would be the equivalent of copying the process used by the bacteria in the stomach of a termite.
If Rivera's plans of having "200 fuel reactors producing 6,000 gallons a day by December†are to be instituted, Rivera should verify the % of the cellulose material converted into ethanol and that his complete process, including verification procedures be open to validation by an independent laboratory.
Do you know what happen to Alcar Chemical Group? I have not ...
Poll
"Your [webinar] was informative, with an eye to the special issues that affect cleantech, such
as regulation and the international policy issues around climate change. Looking
forward to seeing more!"
Premier sponsors include
Lead sponsors/partners include
All sponsors | All partners
The secret of the termite finally discovered?
Submitted on June 20th, 2007 by InterestedReaderIf a process is patented, then the owner of the patent is supposed to state the function of the patent when papers are filed. It seems strange indeed that Rivera, who patented the “Rivera Process†did not even realize that one of the fuel fractions was ethanol, since the specialty of his process was to produce fuel from cellulose material.
It may be that the percent of ethanol as compared to the other fuel fractions is very low. I used to test for percentages of ethanol in "beer" and "slop" products for the pineapple industry (California Packing Corporation). Pineapple skins and cores (removed by the Genaca Machine) were fermented to produce "beer" which was about 4% alcohol. Then the alcohol was extracted by steam distillation and became "slop" which was about 0.04% ethanol. Steam distillation produced about 250 gallons/hour (when in operation) which was then shipped to Del Monte. Del Monte processed the ethanol into vinegar for its catsup.
"Rivera said critics are not looking at how much fuel his process makes." Nowhere in the report does it state the percentage or amount of ethanol produced in the process. Anyone could have thrown in a handful of sugar and production of ethanol would have been guaranteed but in a small amount. If the cellular material had been smashed, some sugar compounds might also have been released which caused the production of ethanol but this would not have come from the cellular material itself.
Ethanol produced from natural sugars and ethanol produced from the break-down of cellulose materials are two different processes. If the Rivera process does actually convert the cellulose materials into compounds which are then converted into ethanol, I wish to commend Rivera on his discovery. It would be the equivalent of copying the process used by the bacteria in the stomach of a termite.
If Rivera's plans of having "200 fuel reactors producing 6,000 gallons a day by December†are to be instituted, Rivera should verify the % of the cellulose material converted into ethanol and that his complete process, including verification procedures be open to validation by an independent laboratory.
adrianakau2aol.com