Replies to post #2640 on Blue Biofuels Inc (BIOF)

[LTE]

<<As for the PhD reference, Daniel isn't one, so where does that put your faith in him? As far as I can tell, he doesn't have a bachelors, but that does not define success. If memory serves, Warren Buffet doesn't have a degree, but I'll bet you would take his investment advise. One sees only what they want to see.>>

Magmar, thanks for your insights.

But just FYI, Warren Buffett has a Master of Science degree in Economics from Columbia University.

Getting onto the PhD part, I don't think that's necessary. But
when you're in high-tech field you better have a degree in science
or technology from a respected accredited college or university. There are some exceptions to that like Bill Gates, but he got into Harvard and he dropped out because he was keenly paying attention to what was going on with the computer revolution. He felt that if he didn't leave, he would miss the window of opportunity. Secondly, just the fact that he got into Harvard probably means that he has an IQ of above 120 - so he's smart!

On the other hand, I believe that De Liege might have a community college
degree, at best. Or did he drop out?

[LTE]

Magmar, thanks for putting some sunlight into De Leige's schemes.

This is a pretty scathing discrepancy - this is from your post:

<<And there...CSL... is the difference. Not once did I trash or try to disprove Dr. Blair on the science. Rather, I used his documented and proven science to disprove and discredit Daniel and his false claims on how long it takes and the cost to make. It can be done, but in hours not minutes which requires more energy. That also means sugars are not made at 5 cents a pound or ethanol at less than a dollar a gallon. >>


<<I posted earlier, that there were 3 milling types available with rolling mill being the least efficient from energy perspective. Turns out rolling mill (which is what ALLM just built for new plant reactor) has worst contact rate of the 3 and it took 96 hours to achieve a solubility rate of 13.2% for plant material! What's worse is 30 RPM showed no catalytic activity,100 RPM only 13.2%. That's almost 2 revolutions per second of that huge washer drum in ALLM's picture of it. How much energy will that consume to run? BTW, entry [117] of this patent tells you why they must go with roller mill on industrial scale even though its the worst of the 3. While shaker and attrition mills are quicker and more effective at lab scale, they build up high levels of pressure during the reaction, making them dangerous at the industrial level, so the rolling mill is the only safe option, but takes an enormously longer time to solubilize material. >>

This is from an ALLM press release two years ago:


WEST PALM BEACH, Fla., Sept. 30, 2015 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Alliance

BioEnergy Plus, Inc. (OTCQB:ALLM) (the "Company"), announced today that its’ subsidiary Ek Laboratories in Longwood, Florida, under the direction of Dr. Richard Blair, Dr. Peter Cohen and Dr. Zhilin Xie, achieved 63% conversion of Coastal Hay, at commercial scale, into fermentable sugars in less than 30 minutes, using its licensed and patented mechanical/chemical CTS (Cellulose to Sugar) process.>>

https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2015/09/30/772281/0/en/Alliance-BioEnergy-Plus-Inc-Announces-a-Breakthrough-in-Cellulose-to-Sugar-Conversion-Rates-and-Efficiencies.html

[Magmar]

Time to revisit my previous post...

Maybe I will just duplicate the CTS process and add a little water to the reactor.

Not a damn thing he can do. An the license is worthless.

"Patent US20130233307 - the patent ALLM doesn't want you to know about..

1st things 1st. CS & L, in all my posts, I never said that Dr. Blair's (who isn't the only inventor listed on the patent, BTW. Sandra Hick and Josh Pruitt are as well) technology didn't work. I said it didn't work in the time frame like Daniel said it did and still doesn't with this patent by Dr. Blair proving it. The figures listed in original patent do not lie and are based on hours, not minutes. Go back and read my post where I compared the patent to ALLM media hype. Better yet, read the patent, like I did. There have been 2 more updates since this original, and far more revealing and damning to ALLM. As for the PhD reference, Daniel isn't one, so where does that put your faith in him? As far as I can tell, he doesn't have a bachelors, but that does not define success. If memory serves, Warren Buffet doesn't have a degree, but I'll bet you would take his investment advise. One sees only what they want to see.

On to the newest patent application filed in 2013; US20130233307.

http://www.google.com/patents/US20130233307

This is the one that should be used for the ALLM licensing technology, but read carefully as it debunks what Daniel has told you for the real time it takes to produce sugars, etc. For those willing to "invest" time in researching and determining if the new plant (or any plant or license agreement for that matter) will be viable, profitable I will highlight only the key points of argument. Only need to focus on the following entries;
[105,106,116,117, 122]

105 & 106:
I posted earlier, that there were 3 milling types available with rolling mill being the least efficient from energy perspective. Turns out rolling mill (which is what ALLM just built for new plant reactor) has worst contact rate of the 3 and it took 96 hours to achieve a solubility rate of 13.2% for plant material! What's worse is 30 RPM showed no catalytic activity,100 RPM only 13.2%. That's almost 2 revolutions per second of that huge washer drum in ALLM's picture of it. How much energy will that consume to run? BTW, entry [117] of this patent tells you why they must go with roller mill on industrial scale even though its the worst of the 3. While shaker and attrition mills are quicker and more effective at lab scale, they build up high levels of pressure during the reaction, making them dangerous at the industrial level, so the rolling mill is the only safe option, but takes an enormously longer time to solubilize material.

Entry 116, Fig. 15:
Here are the solubility % results of different feedstock using real world materials for industrial applications. The last bar graph on figure 15 is critical to the investor since this is the result for "mixed cellulosic biomass" of which the new plant would be using, per county agreement. 2 important points; this test and results done on lab scale attrition mixer mill, not ball mill, and; even using this more efficient mixer only achieved 40% solubility after 2 hours mixing, not minutes! Ball mill will take much, much longer. This is what to expect for new plant in Florida.

Table 1, [122]:
This table supports what I have been saying on how long I takes. Dr. Blair and others, included elapsed time it took to achieve % solubility efficiency for fermentable sugars. Looks like things aren't economical until 90..120 minutes and beyond.


And there...CSL... is the difference. Not once did I trash or try to disprove Dr. Blair on the science. Rather, I used his documented and proven science to disprove and discredit Daniel and his false claims on how long it takes and the cost to make. It can be done, but in hours not minutes which requires more energy. That also means sugars are not made at 5 cents a pound or ethanol at less than a dollar a gallon.

PS; I don't have doctorate either, but I don't need one. It's all in the science Dr. Blair has listed in his patent for you to see. He is telling you how this will work in the real world...and it is different than ALLM's story. Do you think Daniel spent as much time as I have researching and understanding this? He either hasn't, which is sad or he has and is using key words to entice unwary investors to drive his stock price up and sell, hoping they don't dig deeper or read these newer patent revisions by Dr. Blair with updated test information. Between you and me... I think he has no intention of ever building a plant or processing. His past actions and results have proven that. Did you REALLY read his letter to shareholders and how unclear it makes one feel about the future? Made me feel that what is in place was not definite or concrete. I guess we will know soon enough."