Work group. Project: Oil Dr Jean Laigret

[C moa]

delete "Newsletter"

[Christophe]

Ah well that's quick response !!

Jmen charge immediately!

[C moa]

Hi C toa!

Have you been able to advance a little on the mail?
Did you see our remarks above?

We could send it to others than to econo subscribers!

Yes I saw them, concerning the library of the institute, I had seen it but I had not thought that it could not have put the good key words. It's to dig.

As for external subscribers, on the contrary, I think that the project will be more or less open source. This can only bring water to our mill I think.
Do you have ideas on sites and associations to contact?

[Christophe]

My comments and suggestion in bold knowing that the emails are sent in HTML so we can include layout and images. In bold italics the passages to be removed can be?

Éconologues dear, dear éconologues,

First of all know that this email although sent to all 22000 members of the econologie.com community is a first which aims to unite a few people around a concrete project: to try to manufacture oil from biomass in an "original biological" way but currently unexploited.

In fact, exceptionally, we decided to share with you directly a project born a few days ago to create a working group around a single subject "the oil of Doctor Laigret" that we mentioned in a previous news.

What is Doctor Laigret's oil ??

First of all, you should know that Dr. Laigret was a member of the Pasteur Institute in Tunis in the 40s and 50s. Recognized by his peers, he specialized in microbiology and virology, he participated in the development of a vaccine against yellow fever for example.

During experiments in the 40s (see his biography on the Institut Pasteur website) on a pathogenic agent responsible for gangrene, it succeeded in producing an anaerobic digestion of organic matter and above all it succeeded in producing liquid petroleum from soap.

It seems that he pushed his studies on other organic materials such as sewage sludge, agricultural waste ... with good results. This work was the subject of 2 reports to the Academy of Sciences available here and a article in S&V in 1949.

These works then fell into oblivion ... but the process seems to us quite topical and that is why, given the immobility of private and public officials, we would like to launch a private Open Source experiment!

For more details on the man and his experiences, we suggest you read the articles and documents that we have gathered on the next news.

A working group why do it?

First of all, it is a pity that these studies have fallen into oblivion without it being known whether an "industrialization" of the process is possible, without it being known whether the oil produced is of sufficient quality to be refined and reused. Then, we know that it is difficult to motivate public authorities and / or manufacturers without giving them a minimum of figures and results. So we decided to take charge of ourselves to conduct a private experiment accessible to all!

Through this working group, we want:

- resume the studies of Dr Laigret in order to reproduce his experiences;
- if the results are convincing, determine which are the most suitable substrates for mass production;
- control the quality of the crude and therefore assess its market value and especially its potential for oil substitution,
- from these results, see the feasibility of setting up production units in France to reduce and recover organic waste which is often very bulky.

Very ambitious program for individuals, some will say, they will be right, that is why we need you, your skills, your knowledge, your equipment ... in short, your motivation!

How to help the working group ??

As you will have understood, this working group aims to work on the long term. He needs different and varied skills so that everyone can save the group time and energy.

The main skills we would need today are:

- biologists and microbiologists to help us with the very heart of the project;
- chemists for the same reasons;
- ideally an employee of the Pasteur Institute in order to recover Laigret's writings.
- jurists to define the best structure to set up, to study the usual precautions…; Isn't that a bit premature?
- all possible goodwill because it is by sharing our ideas and our experiences that this project will advance. The more we are, the easier it will be to manage the group.

We are convinced that this project can go to the end if there are enough of us. We are not starting from scratch, the studies carried out in 1947 were carried out by a known and recognized scientist, in an equally prestigious institute. We want to build on this heritage to launch this project in an Open Source spirit whose sole purpose would be to show that a solution could exist.

To find out more and submit your "application":

https://www.econologie.com/forums/groupe-de- ... t5922.html


We thank you now for the time that you have been kind enough to devote to us, take the time to read the few links we have put on this mail.

Do not hesitate to contact us if you want to join us or just if you have any questions.

best regard

C moa, head of the Laigret working group

Here for the moment, I think that it would be necessary to add certain sentence to motivate people.

I propose to baptize the whole: "Laigret Project"

[C moa]

Delete "Newsletter"

[Christophe]

Mmm exterior fund background is vast.

If it is a public subsidy that is necessary (the best of cases: no accountability) I do not see how Open Source would generate. If it's a private subsidy we have to account and it has nothing to do with forum Public ...

Do not forget that the private labs are probably already on the spot and will not need us ...

But what is the final goal of this (pre) project? For me it is not to launch an industrialization of the thing. Funds and needs should be quite limited.

For me the goal is "only", for the moment, to reproduce and if we manage to challenge the general public but also the politicians and technological managers, scientific evidence to support that we can do things that have been buried for decades.

It is only then that we can talk about "funds" to possibly launch something more important (if we are not set in stone by then !!)

ps: none of the mailings sent by econologie is SPAM, that's why I deleted this passage. All registered members are registered on their own initiative ...

[C moa]

Mmm exterior fund background is vast.

Overall we have access to 3 types of background:
- Our equity;
- Public funds;
- Private funds.

For equity, I don't mind bringing a few hundred euros for a good cause (I think all those who experimented with pantone, wind, solar… at the start spent at least as much before that the greatest number benefit from it) but if, as Abyssin3 suggests, the sums to be committed from the outset are rather several thousand euros, I fear that this will be more difficult. Even by calling on various and varied econologists.
So there are public / private funds.

If it is a public subsidy that is needed (the best of cases: no accountability)

For public funds, a legal structure will be required and if we wish to obtain a substantial subsidy, the ideal would be to have a structure recognized and established for a long time (hence your idea to dig to get closer to an existing structure) .

For me, whether it be equity or public funds, we will be accountable. We can always say that we were wrong that for such or such a technical reason we see that this technology has no future but we must be held accountable. If only morally, I do not see myself soliciting / investing funds without reporting a minimum of information.

Going back to open source, as today we have no figures, so we don't know what type of funding we should apply for, I think it's best not to talk about it. It is always easier to say "here, we have experienced, it works, help yourself, develop for the good of the planet and our children" than to say "we had planned to tell you everything but our partner does not want no, get around there is nothing to see ”.

Historically, I prefer not to move forward than to have to disappoint my interlocutors.

For private funds, I would also like to do without it but it will depend on the figures we will have (I hope quickly) but do not cut options and above all you must be ready in case, where jurists.

But what is the final goal of this (pre) project? For me it is not to launch an industrialization of the thing. Funds and needs should be quite limited.

I also hope that the needs will be limited for the experimentation phase, this will make things all the more simple.

Personally I do not have a priori on a “how far will we go ?? ". Experimenting, proposing a realistic and healthy industrial process (in every sense of the term), making it known, promoting it is very good, but if nobody bites, it would bother me enormously if it fell like a soufflé.
I join you, it is at this time that it will be necessary to call on much larger funds.

PS: Ok for spam, I see the two mails again and I suggest it quickly to send it.

[Capt_Maloche]

A question of argument:

Why insist on making an oil equivalent if the gas can be produced more easily from organic waste?

[Christophe]

Storage and transport my dear Maloche!

And then biogas everyone knows so it's less funny! (even if the Laigret biogas is of better quality, because of the H2 in fairly high concentration from what I have read ...)

[C moa]

A question of argument:

Why insist on making an oil equivalent if the gas can be produced more easily from organic waste?

My answer is of course provided that we manage to reproduce the results of Dr. Laigret but in addition, my opinion is as follows:
1- The "returns" displayed in the reports are quite impressive. Globally 100% of the product is converted partly into petroleum (60-70%) and the other part (30-40%) into usable CH4 and H2 gas. We therefore not only produce oil but also gas in proportions similar to methanization processes.
2- I think it's a mess to consume so much oil just to burn it for our travel and / or our heating. So using biomass only to produce either gas or "bio" fuel is not the right way for me (if we can find something else of course).
3- Many products (from stilo bic to perfume, including lounge chairs or paintings) are created from petroleum. A number can easily be replaced or deleted (see plastic bags in supermarkets) but we will have trouble replacing all of them. We know how to produce petroleum from gas (GTL) but it is very energy-consuming so if we can produce crude petroleum straight away it is better in all respects I think.
4- If it is possible to mass produce this crude oil and the costs are under control, it might even be more interesting to develop recycling centers than to go and drill new wells at the other end of the world with all that that involves.

To illustrate an example:
Composite materials have developed a lot, they have notably helped to drastically reduce the weight of airplanes and cars, thus leading to a reduction in consumption.
According to the last readings I did, the future bollorées batteries would be in composite materials also. These batteries would apparently allow to have realistic electric cars (that is to say with more than 150 km of autonomy and - 3 tonnes of batteries).
If to produce these composite materials, you have to take LPG or LNG or wait until the biomass grows (biofuel) degrades (waste), then you have to transform them into petroleum to make composite materials, you will quickly find yourself with excessively expensive and ultimately polluting products that will block the development of future technologies.

I hope to have been clear....