Talk:Bioconversion of biomass to mixed alcohol fuels

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

	Energy Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article is on a subject of mid importance within energy.
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

== Patented Process? ==) - - Is this process patented? Please include this information in the article. - - --It sure is patented. I added the word "patented" as per your request Alex. Thanks. Cesar 09:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC) - - This comment wasn't mine! I added the environment link. The article is very close to being an advert for the MixAlco process so other people may wish its deletion. You may wish to consider if there is an article it can be a sub heading under. Personally I'm not too bothered as I think it's interesting and my field is waste treatment technology.--Alex 08:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC) - - :Please provide a proper link to the the patent itself, -fact reference-, it is unlikely that such a widerange patent is granted. Mion 10:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC) - ::Done. Mion 13:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC) - ::Also Mion there are MANY MANY more patents pending. Ag2003 22:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC) - :::Sure, you can add them in the patents section. Mion 10:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC) - :::: Naw.. let's just keep the granted patents for now. Ag2003 11:00, 24 september 2006 (UTC) - - : Alex, Excuse the confusion. This article is only informative, nothing else. It is another way for producing cellulosic biofuels. I take well that Mion removed the inventor's name. Ag2003 22:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC) - - ::You removed the inventor name yourself, its back again.Mion 08:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC) - - :::I removed it from the Patent section, but after you had first removed it from the introduction. That is what I was talking about. - Ag2003 8:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC) - - == Discussions == - - [[1]] - [[2]]Mion 12:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC) - - == Stage of development == - - There is no timestamp on this citation, Mion 14:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC) - Thanks for the timestamp, is there any reference link to confirm that statement ?. Mion 08:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC) - : There isn't. I just happen to know about it. In any case, that timestamp is tentative. Ag2003 08:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC) - - - == Efficiency == - - more energy from the biomass will end up as liquid fuels than in converting biomass to ethanol fuel. - - Is this statement confirmed ? Mion 14:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC) - - : Of course it is confirmed, and it is also explained why. Cellulosic ethanol made by saccharifying holocellulose (i.e., cellulose and hemicellulose) to make glucose and xylose followed by yeast fermentation will produce 2 molecules of ethanol per every molecule of sugar plus CO2. The undigested biomass, which is mostly lignin, must be burned to make electricity and it cannot be added to the fuel. If you go the acetic acid route, then you make 3 molecules of Acetic acid with no CO2 production. Then if you gasify the lignin, you get the lignin energy in the form of H2 which can be added to the acetic acid to obtain 3 molecules of Ethanol overall. So you see, if you make 100% acetic acid, then your yield will be 50% higher (i.e., 3 molecules of ethanol as opposed to 2). The MixAlco process makes 75% acetic acid (the rest is higher acids which are made with CO2 production); thus, you will end up with about 40% higher alcohol yields on an energy basis. I hope this is clear. Ag2003 22:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC) - - Please ad referencelinks for confirmation.Mion 08:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC) - - : Mion, you don't need links. The chemistry is clear. Ethanol fermentation is chemically limited to only 2 molecules of ethanol per molecule of glucose and you cannot add more energy to it. Acetic acid fermentation, followed by hydrogenation, produces 3 molecules of ethanol per molecule of glucose, thus you end up with 50% higher yield (both in energy and mass). Ag2003 08:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Company Name 2 fact 3 Changing title 4 == Re: Please revert == 5 ==Patents==

[edit] Company Name

I have to clarify something. MixAlco is the name of the process, not the name of the company. The company that HOLDS the licence to the MixAlco process is Terrabon, L.L.C. (I am not sure if I am allowed to say their name even here in the discussion section, so you may delete it if such is the case) Ag2003 1:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fact

I'm sure your contributions are honoust, but I need external reference links for the statements, and than not links to statements made by Dr. Mark Holtzapple or G. P. van Walsum. reg. Mion 10:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Links to what statements exactly? To the timestamp? If so, then I cannot provide those. Ag2003 8:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats ok, the timestamp issue can be checked in time, but the whole idear is from 1999 and now it is 2006, not much progress is made. Mion 11:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Also is missing a conformation link on the efficiency statement of the process. Mion 10:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The efficiency of the process is not mentioned anywhere. WHat is mentioned is a comparison of the theoretical yield (maximum yield as allowed by chemistry) of acetic acid fermentation (which is the type of fermentation used in the MixAlco process) and ethanol fermentation. To this, as I mentioned, you don't need links because, again, the chemistry is clear. Ag2003 8:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

it is ensured that more energy from the biomass will end up as liquid fuels, i need some external confirmation here, just pop up the 20 external links. reg . Mion 11:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, you don't need any links. The chemistry says so. Do you understand the chemistry? Ethanol fermentation cannot make more than 2 molecules of ethanol per molecule of glucose. THe undigested residue is then just burned to make electricity for the plant and to export it to the grid, thus the energy in the undigested residue never makes it to the liquid fuel. In Acetic acid fermentation + hydrogenation, on the other hand, 3 molecules of ethanol per molecule of glucose are obtained. THe H2 is obtained from gasification of the undigested residue, thus some of the energy of the undigested residue makes it into the liquid fuel, which can't be the case with ethanol fermentation. ONe thing must be clear.. THis is not the efficiency but only a comparison of the theoretical YIELDS. Even the DOE agrees with this, as they are supporting the so-called ZeaChem indirect route to ethanol, which is basically acetic acid fermentation followed by hydrogenation, with H2 obtained from undigested product (if ethanol is made from glucose/xylose obtained by enzymatic hydrolysis), sugarcane bagasse (if ethanol is made from sugar from sugarcane) or corn stover (if ethanol is made from corn). Just google ZeaChem. Ag2003 10:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

no i have no clue about chemistry, thats why I ask external control references that we are still lacking, expert opinion is needed.-:) reg.Mion 14:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

no i have no clue about chemistry

Ohh that explains it. Then how good an external link will do you, since the link will simply state the very same thing based on chemistry. Ethanol fermentation produces theoretically 2 molecules of ethanol per molecule of sugar (i.e., 2 lb of ethanol per pound of sugar). It could produce less, but it cannot produce more because it would break the laws of chemistry and physics. Acetic acid fermentation followed by Hydrogenation, on the other hand, produces theoretically 3 molecules of ethanol per molecule of sugar (i.e., 3 lbs of ethanol per pound of sugar fermented). So it is clear that 3 lbs of ethanol is 50% more energy and mass than 2 lbs of ethanol produced by the ethanol fermentation. Ag2003 15:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

yes, the statement about the higher yield is clear, try me with the requested link -:).Mion 20:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. How about this http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/841137-u4bFGI/841137.PDF#search=%22Acetic%20acid%20route%20ZeaChem%22. The ZeaChem process is based on the acetic acid route because of this reason. They start with free sugars and they ferment to acetic acid instead of ethanol because of the higher yields. Ag2003 17:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changing title

MixAlco process (old) to Biofuels and Chemicals from Biomass ? Mion 10:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC) or: Biomass Conversion ? Mion 11:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC) or Biomass conversion to mixed alcohol fuels.Mion 11:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

MixAlco process is how this process is identified in the scientific community. Any scientific article written about it calls it this way. You should not change the name. Thanks. Also, I must clarify, MixAlco is the name of the process not the company. There is no company named MixAlco.

Ag2003 01:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, discussion was going that way to keep the title as it is, (Biomass conversion to mixed alcohol fuels also known as the MixAlco process), would be better, but the way you are putting the name repetitive in the article it is commercial spamming which would end up that the whole article might end up on the deletion list. MixAlco isn't a company name, but its a name used for commercial branding.Mion 08:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree. MixAlco is not even a TRADE MARK. As I said, is the name given to this process and it is how it is known in the scientific community. There are more than 20 technical articles published about it in well-renowned scientific journals, where commercial spamming is not allowed as well, and they have NO problem with that. Regarding putting the name many times in the article it has to do with keeping clarity. Just by putting "the process", like you were doing it just does not cut it. I can give you many examples here in wikipedia of the same situation. Quickly check out for instance Raney Nickel. "Raney" is even the TRADEMARK given to this catalyst belonging to W. R. Grace and Company, and they use the name to keep clarity more than 20 times in the article, and that is because RANEY NICKEL is the name given to this catalyst in the scientific community. or should the "Raney nickel" article also be deleted for using the TRADEMARK name so many times? Ag2003 08:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because a name is not a registered trademark it does not mean it is not a commercial plug. If it was trademarked and well established it may have more justification as the title of the whole article. I.e. Coca-cola. The academic articles do not give justification for the article to be a commercial plug, they give proof of the science behind it. These are two different issues.--Alex 08:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

20 technical articles published about it in well-renowned scientific journals

I am expecting 20 external links here.Mion 10:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Some of them you will not find on the web. I will paste them here and you will paste them in the article since you are the one insisting on this.

- van Walsum, G. Peter; Flatt, Michael; Doyle, Erin; Adapala, Reddy. Application of the mixalco process to in-situ conversion of dairy manure and chipped yard waste for production of fuels and chemicals. AIChE Annual Meeting, Conference Proceedings, Cincinnati, OH, United States, Oct. 30-Nov. 4, 2005 (2005), 371e/1-371e/14. CODEN: 69ICFK AN 2006:531274 CAPLUS.

This one is already in the external links of the article.

- Agbogbo, Frank K.; Holtzapple, Mark T. Fermentation of rice straw/chicken manure to carboxylic acids using a mixed culture of marine mesophilic microorganisms. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology (2006), 129-132 997-1014. CODEN: ABIBDL ISSN:0273-2289. CAN 144:410901 AN 2006:397689 CAPLUS

2006-My own publicationApplied Biochemistry and Biotechnology Humana press:from Holtzapple, Mark T.

- van Walsum, G. Peter; Flatt, Michael; Doyle, Erin; Massengale, Rene. On-site acidogenic fermentation of cattle manure for production of chemical feedstocks via the MixAlco process. Abstracts of Papers, 227th ACS National Meeting, Anaheim, CA, United States, March 28-April 1, 2004 (2004), CELL-058. CODEN: 69FGKM AN 2004:222104 CAPLUS

2004-Abstract-from G. P. van Walsum

- Domke, Susan B.; Aiello-Mazzarri, Cateryna; Holtzapple, Mark T. Mixed acid fermentation of paper fines and industrial biosludge. Bioresource Technology (2003), Volume Date 2004, 91(1), 41-51. CODEN: BIRTEB ISSN:0960-8524. CAN 140:234455 AN 2003:841864 CAPLUS

2003-My own publication:from Holtzapple, Mark T.

- Thanakoses, Piyarat; Mostafa, Nagat Abd Alla; Holtzapple, Mark T. Conversion of sugarcane bagasse to carboxylic acids using a mixed culture of mesophilic microorganisms. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology (2003), 105-108 523-546. CODEN: ABIBDL ISSN:0273-2289. CAN 139:67846 AN 2003:355116 CAPLUS

2003-My own publication:from Holtzapple, Mark T.

- Holtzapple, Mark T.; Davison, Richard R.; Ross, M. Kyle; Aldrett-Lee, Salvador; Nagwani, Murlidhar; Lee, Chang-Ming; Lee, Champion; Adelson, Seth; Kaar, William; Gaskin, David; Shirage, Hiroshi; Chang, Nan-Sheng; Chang, Vincent S.; Loescher, Mitchell E. Biomass conversion to mixed alcohol fuels using the MixAlco process. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology (1999), 77-79(Twentieth Symposium on Biotechnology for Fuels and Chemicals, 1998), 609-631. CODEN: ABIBDL ISSN:0273-2289. CAN 131:118329 AN 1999:416297 CAPLUS

1999-My own publication:from Holtzapple, Mark T.

- Holtzapple, M. T.; Ross, M. K.; Chang, N.-S.; Chang, V. S.; Adelson, S. K.; Brazel, C. Biomass conversion to mixed alcohol fuels using the MixAlco process. ACS Symposium Series (1997), 666(Fuels and Chemicals from Biomass), 130-142. CODEN: ACSMC8 ISSN:0097-6156. CAN 127:7015 AN 1997:335439 CAPLUS

1997-Been to a symposium: Holtzapple, Mark T.

- Holtzapple, M. T.; Loescher, M.; Ross, M.; Rapier, R.; Ghandi, J.; Burdick, S. Biomass conversion to mixed alcohols. Book of Abstracts, 211th ACS National Meeting, New Orleans, LA, March 24-28 (1996), BTEC-015. CODEN: 62PIAJ AN 1996:217410 CAPLUS

1996-Abstract: Holtzapple, Mark T.

- Aiello-Mazzarri, Cateryna; Coward-Kelly, Guillermo; Agbogbo, Frank K.; Holtzapple, Mark T. Conversion of municipal solid waste into carboxylic acids by anaerobic countercurrent fermentation. Effect of using intermediate lime treatment. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology (2005), 127(2), 79-93. CODEN: ABIBDL ISSN:0273-2289. CAN 144:238379 AN 2005:1244968 CAPLUS

2005-My own publicationApplied Biochemistry and BiotechnologyHumana press:from Holtzapple, Mark T.

- Aiello-Mazzarri, Cateryna; Agbogbo, Frank K.; Holtzapple, Mark T. Conversion of municipal solid waste to carboxylic acids using a mixed culture of mesophilic microorganisms. Bioresource Technology (2005), Volume Date 2006, 97(1), 47-56. CODEN: BIRTEB ISSN:0960-8524. CAN 144:93175 AN 2005:980778 CAPLUS

2005-My own publicationBioresource Technology VNU:from Holtzapple, Mark T.

Before I continue getting more articles, are you really going to put them in the main article? Thanks for your answer. Ag2003 10:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I asked for reference links to articles on the subject which are not from Holtzapple, Mark T or van Walsum, G. Peter, Bioresource Technology from the VNU isn't a trusted source, and humana press ?. reg. Mion 12:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let us end this here, as this is taking us nowhere.. First of all, no, if you read above, you asked for technical articles and I gave you technical articles. Somewhere else you asked for reference links which are not from Holtzapple or van Walsum, the two professors/researchers (one from Texas A&M and the other from Baylor) that have been working on this process and who know more about it than anybody else. I don't know why would you want that, as this article is merely informative as to what is the MixAlco process and a summary of its details and it is not meant to cause controversies... Secondly, you say that "Bioresource Technology", one of the most respected and well-renowed peer-reviewed scientific journals is NOT a trusted source.. come on!!.. Thirdly, why do you say "my own publication"?. Just to let you know I am NOT Mark Holtzapple. Ag2003 12:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

My own publication is from the view of the patenters and publishers of this whole process, now for new inventions it is logical that it is hard to find proper references/reflections on a recently innovated process, the article states that its running since 1991, so why is the rest of the community not responding/taking it up ? Mion 13:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

the article states that its running since 1991, so why is the rest of the community not responding/taking it up ?

Those involved in industry know very well that for any innovative process using unconventional raw materials and new methods and making new products, to get to be a well-established process takes some good 30 years from the time laboratory testing starts to the time a full scale commercial plant is built and functioning. I can give you many examples of this. There are however, in some cases, circumstances that might accelerate things. In the case of the MixAlco process, and all the other biofuel-from-biomass processes, the recent high energy prices, are speeding up things. Ag2003 15:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gents, personally I agree with Mion Biomass conversion to mixed alcohol fuels seems like a better, more encyclopedic title with a subreference to the MixAlco process in the main text. I also consider that if the author of this article was neutral there would not be an issue with the title being changed to allow readers greater understanding or the subject. I consider the multiple references to MixAlco in the text as a commercial plug. I believe this should be kept to perhaps 1 or 2Alex 08:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What is being described in this article is THE MixAlco process and NO OTHER process. Many technical articles have been written about it in well-renowned scientific journals and many presentations in biotechnology symposiums have been given and that is the name that has been given to it and how it is known in the biotechnology/scientific community. To change the title and not mention it will cause confusion. You say: "biomass conversion can be achieved by systems such as the MixAlco process", then what is being described IS the MixAlco process and no other process. To me it makes no sense. I'll go with the title change for now as long as it says Biomass bioconversion to mixed alcohol fuels (as there is a way to make Mixed Alcohols by gasification followed by fisher tropsch) and, because it is the MixAlco process that is being described and no other process, where it says "can be accomplished by systems such as the MixAlco process" it is changed to "is accomplished by the MixAlco process" becuase what is EXTENSIVELY described afterwards IS the MixAlco Process and NO other process. I would like to hear more people's opinion on this regard other than Alex and Mion. If I don't hear from anyone else or the opinion is that it should be kept as is, then I will revert. Ag2003 09:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

As we are not allowed to reflect, we have to give other readers the opportunity to do so, so we have to give it a timespan, lets say , 6 months ? . reg Mion 14:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, the title might as well be left as is, as it is more descriptive of what this process is about. Ag2003 17:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I am glad you have finally understood our point. The fisher tropsch process has been long commercialised. The MixAlco process has not as yet got further than pilot scale. If the system becomes widely used and well known and accepted I would have no objections to the article being named as such. At present I do not believe this is the case and a descriptive title would be more helpful to readers. It is not a personal criticism as it is a good and interesting article--Alex 08:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes Alex, I agree with you I think the title is more descriptive of what is being done. Although I never talked about Fischer Tropsch, but about Raney Nickel as an article that is using it TRADEMARK name in the title, I also accept those are well established technologies. On the other hand, just to show you, here in wikipedia you find Iogen Corp., which is a company that is also starting to get established in the biofuel industry, by producing cellulosic ethanol with enzymes followed by yeast fermentation. They are NOT even commercial yet, but they are only in the R&D stages. Yet, no one is changing their name, title or the like. Their process is extensively explained in the same page. In any case, let's just leave it at that. Ag2003 5:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have concerns relating to the Iogen Corp. article perhaps you should raise them. On the face of it it seems that this particular company is well established and has been trading since the 70s. The article doesnt relate to the process which isn't yet developed, instead the company which is developing it.

Now the article is less promotional I have added links to this article via List of solid waste treatment technologies, butanol fuel & ethanol fuel. You may want to also include links on Timeline of alcohol fuel and cellulosic ethanol.

--Alex 12:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] == Re: Please revert ==

This discussion has been moved here from the User_talk:Mion#.3D.3D_Re:_Please_revert_.3D.3some answers can be found on User_talk:Ag2003#Please_revert. Mion 10:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Hello Mion. I think you are confused regarding the last edit I did to Bioconversion of biomass to mixed alcohol fuels. Please check out the links again. You will notice that those links basically are simply Dr. Holtzapple's presentation, which is already cited there in the article (reference # 1 in the present version after your rv), but Dr. Holtzapple simply speaks as the slides are shown. If you notice, there was already a video clip of Dr. Holtzapple giving a presentation (reference #2 in present version), but in that clip he presents about a lot of things, whereas in the ones I added, he concentrates only on Bioconversion of biomass to mixed alcohol fuels. What exactly made you think that this was a "shameless pushing for publicity" as you put it? The name of the company that is commercializing this technology (i.e., Terrabon, L.L.C.) does not appear ANYWHERE in those video clips, only the University LOGO of the Texas A&M University Soil & Crop Department, who were the ones who made the video clips. Please, I ask you to reconsider. Ag2003 02:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mion. It has been exactly a week since I sent you this message. I even sent you an email. I have noticed you have been participating in wikipedia here and there. However, I have gotten no response from you. I am going to give it 5 to 7 more days. If I don't hear from you as to how, where and why you think my last edit was commercial spamming, I am going to re-edit the article to include those video clips of Dr. Holtzapple's presentation on Bioconversion of biomass to mixed alcohol fuels. Thanks. Ag2003 20:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mion, your last two messages to me do not address the question I posed to you: "What exactly of MY LAST EDIT made you think that it was a "shameless pushing for publicity" as you put it?", this was the reason why you reverted and this is what you have to address. Your messages address other issues, such as whether those two references I added in the last edit have anything new (they might not have anything new but they clarify things because they are video clips of a presentation that is already there being given by Dr. Holtzapple LIVE), or whether I have collaborated in other articles in Wikipedia (If you have to know I did collaborate to biofuels in 2007) accusing me that my edits are PR, and yet you are unable to tell me how or where or why they are PR. But again, the two messages have nothing to do with the reason why you reverted, so I pose the question to you again: I want to hear from you how, where and why you think MY LAST EDIT was commercial spamming (not whether it has anything new, or questioning my low wikipedia activity, which were not the reasons why you reverted, nor they would be reason enough to revert). If you are unable to address that then I think I am justify to re-edit the article to include those video clips of Dr. Holtzapple's presentation on Bioconversion of biomass to mixed alcohol fuels. Don't you think?. Thanks. Ag2003 21:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mion, on the message that you sent me you ask:"now about your contribution in the edit, a link to a promotional video on a seminar," This is NOT a promotional video by ANY means. This is a technical presentation given by Dr. Holtzapple to the Soil & Crop Department (College of Agriculture) at Texas A&M. If you notice in the article, almost from its inception there is a VIDEO presentation by Dr. Holtzapple. THis is similar. You ask: "my question to you, what is in the video states what is not in the article ? so, what is the video link adding as new information to the article ?" For starters, again, this was NOT the reason for your revert, you are still not addressing the reason for your revert. In any case, it is true that this video might not be adding new information to the article (most of what is in the video is already in the article), but it clarifies things, because you are hearing the description of the process from the "horse's mouth". I think this video explains things better than the presentation that is already cited there (as a pdf file), or even the other video that is already cited there as well, which also touches other topics that are not too related to Bioconversion of biomass to mixed alcohol fuels. My dear friend, you are still not addressing the reason for your revert, I hope that you will, or if you are unable, then agree with me that I should re-edit the article to include those video clips, thanks. Ag2003 11:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Mion, thinking a little more, NOT THAT IT HAS ANYTHING to do with your revert, but there is some new stuff in that presentation that is not in the article. IT shows that this process, starting from the carboxylate salts, can make OVER 100 different chemicals. I could add that to the article I guess, but I think it would be too cumbersome to add all the 100 different chemicals that can be made. thanks. Ag2003 11:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping in here, however, this is wikipedia. I read the article, and sat through the slide presentation under discussion, out of interest and curiosity. Correct me if I am wrong, but since it is even stated in the article: this process is still, although being scaled up, being researched for optimal performance. I can then look at it as still passing for "original research", as per wikipedia definition? It certainly looks like it to me. Has there been a discussion on that point?
As for the slide presentation: that link, does, in my opinion, not improve the quality of this article. If it does indeed give additional information relating to the process then put it in the article. As it is presented now one needs to sit through this 45 minute presentation and listen to a whole bunch of information that is nót directly related to the article. All the arguments on economy and applications, etc., as mentioned in the presentation video, might eventually have their own article (if such articles do already exist information could be added there), but they don't fit in here. What Mion might have intended to express is that all the extra information in the video is just there to show the economic viability, not support the article. I tend to agree with Mion in this case. VanBurenen 20:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

@VanBurenen: ok the first point , original research, yes part of it is, as it is always part of frontrunners, its the part where the improvements are made, however we checked the patentlist, which is valid, a lot of different people had something to say about it and some published the research it, Alex had a look at on it, which for the chemical part I have to rely on, so the point was mentioned and so far the result was keep. For the second point Fair enough, i will watch the complete video tomorrow and let you know tomorrow as well.

Cheers Mion 23:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Mion, first of all, thanks for agreeing with me that the article is worth keeping, which resulted in your rv. Changing subjects, VanBurenen, I agree with you that the economics, from the purely scientific point of view, which is the approach of the article (and of wikipedia in general), do not fit. However, in a technical presentation about a process that is being scaled-up, such as this one, the economics are crucial. As a chemical process is scaled up, it must undergo economic evaluations at least 30 times with the best information you have available each time, in the 15 to 20 (and sometimes 30) years that it takes to go from concept, to lab,to pilot plant, to ramp up, to demonstration plant and finally full-commercial plant. The economic evaluations become the go-no-go measures at every stage, because all comes down to how much it costs; thus, process and design engineers will want to see the economics before they see anything else. If a process is not economical, even though it might be the soundest process scientifically speaking, it will not be worth anything, other than being a scientific curiosity. Mion, now, you were saying, if you are interested to maintain this discussion, that the video presentation was ok in the chemistry but that you found three flaws in the economics. Would you care to share it with me? I am curious to see what you found, thanks. Ag2003 2:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Using wikipedia to show the world that your process is a viable one is not an appropriate use for this encyclopedia. I'll state it once again: this is an encyclopedia. The article describes a process. For the economic viability interested parties may contact you or your colleagues. This article is imho used inappropriately as a platform to sell your system. Now you are adding the economics and possible product range through a video presentation. I agree with Mion's removal of the video presentation. Also any other texts that do not fit the encyclopedic intention of the article (i.e. process description) should be removed. The sooner the better.
Ag2003 mentions 'three flaws'. That relates to a discussion elsewhere. Please Mion, keep your discussions on one subject together. There is imho no need for Mion to get into a discussion about the validity of the economics in this space. That only distracts from the need to remove the videos asap.
You will want your business start-up costs to be as little as possible, and research and pilot plants do cost money, but do not use wikipedia to reduce your marketing/publicity expenses.
(PS: maybe this discussion should be copied to and carried out on Talk:Bioconversion_of_biomass_to_mixed_alcohol_fuels?) VanBurenen 10:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

@vanBurenen, "that relates to discussion elsewhere" is not the case, Cesar sent me an email with the same content as his answer on my talkpage, the content:

Mion,

I could not reach you in wikipedia, so I am resending the message I sent you by email. I hope you don't mind.. Thanks,

Email:

Hello Mion. I think you are confused regarding the last edit I did to Bioconversion of biomass to mixed alcohol fuels. Please check out the links again. You will notice that those links basically are simply Dr. Holtzapple's presentation, which is already cited there in the article (reference # 1 in the present version after your rv), but Dr. Holtzapple simply speaks as the slides are shown. If you notice, there was already a video clip of Dr. Holtzapple giving a presentation (reference #2 in present version), but in that clip he presents about a lot of things, whereas in the ones I added, he concentrates only on Bioconversion of biomass to mixed alcohol fuels. What exactly made you think that this was a "shameless pushing for publicity" as you put it? The name of the company that is commercializing this technology (i.e., Terrabon, L.L.C.) does not appear ANYWHERE in those video clips, only the University LOGO of the Texas A&M University Soil & Crop Department, who were the ones who made the video clips. Please, I ask you to reconsider. Ag2003 02:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mion"

Thanks,

Cesar (Ag2003) That was the only email i ever received from Cesar who was just wondering why we couldt't agree on the matter and sent me an email as , HE, dont forget it. So, assume some good faith in this matter.

As for the part of Economics of a system I totaly disagree with you that its not part of the article, the problem here is that only a small part of it, i.e efficiency is mentioned in the article. In itself the proces is related to the ethanol economy, just like we have hydrogen economy, vegetable oil economy, zinc economy, methanol economy, lithium economy or liquid nitrogen economy, more interesting for readers with an economical approach than with a chemical approach but still relevant. As for the request to go into details of the 3 economic flaws, i am still making up my mind about it as i thougth Wikipedia is not a forum, but it seems somebody removed that from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. And for the rest i think that i can decide for myself what actions to do vanBuren Cheers Mion 13:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

@Mion: as for your last comment: of course. My apologies for not expressing myself correctly. I had planned to add some more text but it slipped my mind. I'll leave the rest to you. Regards. VanBurenen 20:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Mion, I totally understand if you cannot discuss the 3 economic flaws here. You can always send me an email. CesarGC76@yahoo.com. Regards, Ag2003 20:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes i know, thats an option, but if i do an of the board discussion with you about it means i am switching position, which has its own implications, another option is an onboard referenced discussion thats happens all the time on talk pages, i think its best to keep that decision as the last thing to decide so i move the decision about it to next week. First things first, lets have a look at the article and remove the unusual elements from it that is creating the idear of advertising and bringing in something about economics without bringing in the whole discussion of ethanol as a fuell. Mion 11:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

@vanBurenen, np, and i understand the confusing part of it asswell your point that some cleaning was nessecerry to keep it acceptable, so i did some, and as you are more experienced on wikipedia, please feel free to stay in the discussion or as it is on wikipedia feel free to make corrections on the article to improve it. Cheers Mion 16:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ==Patents==

i removed this from the frontpage because normally we only point to the underlaying publications, stupid enough i was the one that extended it to such proportions to get an in depth idear of wat this process was about. The method is patented (awarded or pending) by Dr. Mark Holtzapple at Texas A&M University (College Station, TX). The awarded patents follow:

• US. Patent - 5,865,898 - Methods of biomass pretreatment - February 2, 1999
• US. Patent - 5,693,296 - Calcium hydroxide pretreatment of biomass - December 2, 1997
• US. Patent - 5,962,307 - Apparatus for producing organic acids - October 5, 1999
• US. Patent - 5,874,263 - Method and apparatus for producing organic acids - February 23, 1999
• US. Patent - 5,986,133 - Recovery of fermentation salts from dilute aqueous solutions - November 16, 1999
• US. Patent - 6,478,965 - Recovery of fermentation salts from dilute aqueous solutions - November 12, 2002
• US. Patent - 5,969,189 - Thermal conversion of volatile fatty acid salts to ketones - October 19, 1999
• US. Patent - 6,262,313 - Thermal conversion of fatty acid salts to ketones - July 17, 2001
• US. Patent - 6,043,392 - Method for conversion of biomass to chemicals and fuels - March 28, 2000
• US. Patent - 6,395,926 - Process for recovering low-boiling acids - May 28, 2002

Status: not required. Mion 12:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Mion, I agree. This was too much information. The only one that I disagree is an expired patent from 1982:^[1], which, if you go and look at it, it has lots of experiments run and lots of information that show that hydrogenolysis of esters over a reduced CuO/ZnO if feasible. So I am adding that. Thanks Ag2003 16:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

fine with me. Mion 18:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Mion, on the thesises and dissertation, if you remove the University to which they belong, and the city where the university is (as there may be universities with the same name in other cities), you are not putting the complete citation for people to go and find it. I think we should return the citation of "Texas A&M University, College Station, TX" to all the thesises and dissertations. Thanks Ag2003 12:01, 6 October (UTC)

Hi Cesar, that is also the problem with it, we also have a policy[3] that allows only published references, maybe they are accessible on the scientific channel ?, it would be better if this university would use Open access journals, if its the case that the source is so closed that its better to get in the car to have a look at the papers they should be removed. Cheers Mion 18:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)