BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

For more information about Gasifiers and Gasification, please see our web site: http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org

To join the discussion list and see the current archives, please use this page: http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org

November 1999 Gasification Archive

For more messages see our 1996-2004 Gasification Discussion List Archives.

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Mon Nov 1 02:33:19 1999
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: : Downdraft Gasifiers
In-Reply-To: <199910290600.CAA14199@solstice.crest.org>
Message-ID: <004101bf243b$b1770160$64e637d2@graeme>

Hi Tuan

Throats are used in wood gasifier designs and were introduced as a measure
to reduce the tar in the output gas stream.

When the fuel wood is heated, distillation gases containing large amounts of
watery tar build up pressure in the fuel hopper which pushes the gases down
through the oxidation zone where some burn. In most downdraught gasifiers,
the air is introduced through a ring of air nozzles so there are gaps in
between each nozzle where the tar can pass through the fire without being
consumed.

In order for tar and water to be cracked into permanent gases, the oxidation
temperature of the fire must exceed 1,000 degreesC. The throat is placed at
a point where the oxidation lobe of each nozzle ends which is also the
hottest depth of oxidation. Sizing is critical to ensure overlap of each
lobe resulting in all the uncracked tar being collected and forced through
the high temperature. All the gasifier dimensions are critical to the
throat position which is above the reduction zone. Char passing through the
throat is consumed by reduction, with some ash and char left as residue.

Incorrect positioning causes many problems and successful high quality
gasifier design begins with the fuel sizing and of course the wood type i.e.
hardwood, softwood.

If you are using charcoal only as fuel, the throat becomes redundant and a
straight tube suffices, that is if the end use of the gas is for engines.

Hope this helps a little.

Regards

Doug Williams.

> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 11:19:34 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Tuan Haris Jayah <T.Jayah@devtech.unimelb.edu.au>
> Subject: GAS-L: Downdraft Gasifiers
>
> Hi there,
>
> I am inquisitive to know the function of having a throat in down draft
> Gasifiers. Could anyone explain it?
>
> Thanks
> Tuan
> - ------------------------------------------------------------
> IDTC
> Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering
> Faculty of Engineering
> The University of Melbourne
> Parkville Victoria 3052
> AUSTRALIA
> -

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
Gasification Projects
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml

 

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Mon Nov 1 02:33:21 1999
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: : Engines for Producer Gas
In-Reply-To: <199910290600.CAA14199@solstice.crest.org>
Message-ID: <004201bf243b$b2b46360$64e637d2@graeme>

Dear Tom R. And Gasification colleagues,

Tom, whilst it is always pleasing to have modern reference material relating
to gasified engines coming forward, there appears to be no change to the
basic knowledge produced in 1942 by J. Spiers on the optimum engine
compression ratio.

He concluded that above 11:1 no power increase was observable due to the
higher frictional forces consuming a greater proportion of the available
energy, but 12-14:1 specially built engines could be usefully employed.

With off the shelf gas engines now available at 12.5:1 which operate
perfectly on producer gas without altering timing etc. There would seem to
be little need to fiddle with modern engines built for natural gas. It
could be argued that tweaking will optimise performance or economics, but in
the end it comes back to gas quality and that is where most of the
performance variables lay hidden.

On the subject of converting diesel engines to gas, in most cases it was one
of necessity for many gasifier manufacturers. Rural power generation is
done almost exclusively on diesel, and even big truck engines fuelled on
gasoline began to disappear in the 1950s so by the energy crisis of the
1970s big spark ignition engines were impossible to source.

>From here in New Zealand our market was the Pacific Islands and diesel
generation was firmly established using Lister engines which left no option
other than to dual fuel existing engines. Our "bolt on" gas conversion kit
left the engine unmodified internally, and it could revert back to diesel if
required. Costwise the dual fuel option is still cheaper over pure gas
engines but that could depend on the geographic positioning of all the
players.

Regards

Doug Williams

> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 10:05:59 EDT
> From: Reedtb2@cs.com
> Subject: GAS-L: Engines for Producer Gas
>
> Dear Gasification:
>
> The optimal marriage of engines to gasifiers is a central issue in
> gasification - yet there has been very little research on appropriate
engines
> and too much application of false information.
>
> My good friends Dr. Shashikantha and Prof. P. P. Parikh at the Indian
> Institute of Technology, Bombay, have just (today?) published and
presented
> the seminal paper on the subject:
>
> SPARK IGNITION PRODUCER GAS ENGINE AND DEDICATED COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS
> ENGINE: TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND EXPERMIENTAL PERFORMANCE OPTIMISATION
> SAE Paper 99FL-407.
>
> Presented at the 1999 SAE International Fuels and Lubricants Meeting
October
> 25-28, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
>
> ~~~~
>
> There has been a tremendous amount of work in optimising diesel,
> gasoline-spark and gas-spark engines for producer gas - BUT NO WORK ON
WHICH
> TO USE!, no quantitative cross comparison.
>
> During WW II over a million existing gasoline engines were converted to
> producer gas, but there was a 40% loss of power (- chug chug). Now,
> conventional wisdom has favored aspirating producer gas into unmodified
> diesel engines with ~ 80% diesel replacement.
>
> In my "Gasification Odyssey" in 1996 I asked myself what the octane number
of
> producer gas is. Using Tom Reed's rule
>
> OCTANE NO. =10XMaximum practical compression ratio without preignition
>
> I got an answer of over 180 octane! So I wondered why most producer gas
> users prefered diesel engines? High Octane is a blessing in spark
engines -
> permits using high compression for high efficiency. High octane is a
curse
> in diesel engines. Won't compression ignite! *
>
> As I travelled, I asked the same question and I found three groups that
had
> recently converted diesel engines to spark ignition. They were all happy.
> Ever since I have been an advocate of using producer gas in spark engines
> with ~ 12/1 compression ratio. But I had no quantitative data.
>
> At that time Shashikantha at Prof. Parikh's lab was finishing his PhD
thesis
> (started 1990) on optimal conversion of diesel to spark. The above paper
is
> the summary of his 9 year thesis on the subject. The advantages are:
>
> Little or no derating derating of the diesel engine
> Optimal compression ratio 11.5/1
> 35 degree BTDC spark advance optimal for producer gas (22 degrees for
methane)
> NO particulate emissions
> Much lower CO, and NOX emissions than pilot diesel
>
> ~~~~~~~
> Congratulations on a great thesis Dr. Shashikantha.
> ~~~~
> I hope that Prof. Parikh can post a copy of this seminal paper to all
members
> of our GASIFICATION@CREST.org list. Or possibly post it on a Web page.
We
> at CPC will be studying the paper intently for our SMB project.
>
> Yours truly, TOM REED BEF/CPC
>
> * (The recent U.S. National program of converting city buses to methanol
> illustrates that engine people often don't understand the relative role of
> octane and cetane. A shameful waste of money. Methanol: 120 octane is a
> GREAT fuel for spark engines - terrible for compression ignition.)
>
>
>
>
>

 

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
Gasification Projects
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml

 

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Mon Nov 1 11:59:47 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Downdraft Gasifiers
Message-ID: <0.c3c81a23.254f21ea@cs.com>

Dear Tuan et al:

I have long wondered why the Imbert (tapered throat) gasifier introduces the
taper at the point where one would like the fuel/charcoal to flow easily.

I wondered the same thing in 1979 when we were building our high pressure
air/oxygen gasifier. (It eventually reached 75 tons/d.) We built a
"stratified downdraft gasifier", a straight tube with a grate and air only
entering at the top. We and many others have been using this design ever
since. Raw gas is typically 0.1% tar, and char-ash is 4-8%.

However, the addition of more air just above the grate (the IISC Bangalore
modification) converts the remaining char-ash and reduces the tar to
typically < 100 ppm in the raw gas.

The Imbert (Tapered throat) gasifier has the advantage that the reaction zone
is stabilized at the air nozzles by converting either biomass (if there is
too little char-ash being formed, typical of wet fuels) or burning any excess
charcoal formed (dry fuels).

The tapered throat can be improved by adding a valve in the lid which permits
some of the air to come from the top, rather than only from the nozzles.

I'll be interested to see what else is answered to your interesting question.

YOurs truly, TOM REED BEF

In a message dated 10/28/99 8:26:25 AM Mountain Standard Time,
T.Jayah@devtech.unimelb.edu.au writes:

<< Hi there,

I am inquisitive to know the function of having a throat in down draft
Gasifiers. Could anyone explain it?

Thanks
Tuan >>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
Gasification Projects
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml

 

From Eddie.Lim at pacificpower.com.au Mon Nov 1 13:07:23 1999
From: Eddie.Lim at pacificpower.com.au (Lim, Eddie)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Small scale electricity generation from the gasification of wood waste
Message-ID: <199911011807.NAA09493@solstice.crest.org>

I would very much like to seek information on any commercially available
or near commercial biomass energy system (20-300kW). This system should
utilise wood waste (forest residues and sawdust) at a rate ranging from
approximately 10 to 20 kg per day, with the following components:

1. automated continuous fuel supply system
2. gasifier
3. micro-turbine

Information on equipment which may be used in parts of such an integrated
system will be appreciated.

Eddie Lim
Senior Consultant/ Renewable Energy
Pacific Power
Sydney Australia
(02)92687958

 

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
Gasification Projects
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml

 

From snkm at btl.net Mon Nov 1 17:10:10 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Lost Contact
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19991101161720.006da460@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Folks,

I am just recovering from a small disaster -- losing my Hard Drive -- and
have lost all data regarding people from this list I was communicating with.

Could those people simply send me a short message so that I can be back in
touch with them??

Especially those relating to fast drying and gasifiers!

Peter Singfield
COROGEN
Executive Director
Xaibe Village
Corozal District
Belize, Central America
Tel 501-4-35213
E-mail: snkm@btl.net

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
Gasification Projects
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml

 

From antonio.hilst at merconet.com.br Tue Nov 2 07:21:50 1999
From: antonio.hilst at merconet.com.br (Antonio G. P. Hilst)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Downdraft Gasifiers
In-Reply-To: <0.c3c81a23.254f21ea@cs.com>
Message-ID: <381ED148.1C346CE2@merconet.com.br>

Dear Tom Reed, Tuan, and All

During my (and allies) work on the electrothemal gasifier (No air!) from 1979 to
1984 we faced the reaction zone sising problem - it was a downdraft gasifier
electrical cc heated ( a central grafite electrode and a lower almost horizontal
one). Model studies at IPT (Instituto de Pesquisas Tecnologicas de Sao Paulo)
showed that the reaction zone could be very small, but there was a certain height
to allow for complete reaction. Unfortunatelly I don't have data on tar.
Antonio Hilst

Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:

> Dear Tuan et al:
>
> I have long wondered why the Imbert (tapered throat) gasifier introduces the
> taper at the point where one would like the fuel/charcoal to flow easily.
>
> I wondered the same thing in 1979 when we were building our high pressure
> air/oxygen gasifier. (It eventually reached 75 tons/d.) We built a
> "stratified downdraft gasifier", a straight tube with a grate and air only
> entering at the top. We and many others have been using this design ever
> since. Raw gas is typically 0.1% tar, and char-ash is 4-8%.
>
> However, the addition of more air just above the grate (the IISC Bangalore
> modification) converts the remaining char-ash and reduces the tar to
> typically < 100 ppm in the raw gas.
>
> The Imbert (Tapered throat) gasifier has the advantage that the reaction zone
> is stabilized at the air nozzles by converting either biomass (if there is
> too little char-ash being formed, typical of wet fuels) or burning any excess
> charcoal formed (dry fuels).
>
> The tapered throat can be improved by adding a valve in the lid which permits
> some of the air to come from the top, rather than only from the nozzles.
>
> I'll be interested to see what else is answered to your interesting question.
>
> YOurs truly, TOM REED BEF
>
> In a message dated 10/28/99 8:26:25 AM Mountain Standard Time,
> T.Jayah@devtech.unimelb.edu.au writes:
>
> << Hi there,
>
> I am inquisitive to know the function of having a throat in down draft
> Gasifiers. Could anyone explain it?
>
> Thanks
> Tuan >>
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> Gasification Projects
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml

 

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
Gasification Projects
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml

 

From mvaravind78 at hotmail.com Tue Nov 2 10:46:59 1999
From: mvaravind78 at hotmail.com (ARVIND M.VENUGOPAL)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Requesting information on downdraught wood gassifiers
Message-ID: <199911021546.KAA08339@solstice.crest.org>

Sir/Madam,
I am a final year Mechanical = Engineering student in India.I plan to do
a project for the design and fabrication of = Downdraught wood gassifiers.
I have got info regarding your = organisation through the net.
I would like to get some info from = you regarding the details of
currently available equipments of the same,along with = some info on
their design details.
I would really appreciate it if you = could send me some info,which
would be of immense help to me.
= ; = Thanking you,
yours truly,
Arvind.M.V.

 

From snkm at btl.net Tue Nov 2 11:42:43 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Refrigerant Power!
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19991102105048.006cd610@wgs1.btl.net>

At 09:49 AM 11/2/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Be careful in expecting too much from a butane boiler. The maximum
>efficiency is the Carnot efficiency, the real world will be a bit worse.
>You have to take in heat at a temp T1 and you have an exhaust at a temp T2.
>The best efficiency you can get is 1 - T2/T1 and these are absolute
>temperatures. With a steam engine T1 is 373 and exhaust is around 300 so
>your best efficiency is about 20%. If you can get a 100 degrees of
>superheat the efficiency goes to 37% or so.
>
>Unless I misunderstand your plan, with butane the difference between the
>intake temperature and exhaust to ambient is pretty small, and then so is
>your efficiency.
>
>

Don;

Good point on the "super-heat" and one I tried to pass over to Dave and Gene.

But Beg to differ on the rest --

I "dreamed" of using a refrigerant as a working fluid for direct conversion
of solar energy to power -- 20 years ago.

The Delta T is there -- no problems. It stays a pressurized system though.
Think of a refrigeration cycle working back wards.

But then, just a few weeks ago -- while searching out some info on steam
engines and over all efficiencies (They had the uniflow design doing a 29%
engine efficienciy on 250 PSI 450F steam in so many installations back in
the beginning of this century!! -- pre 1910!! In HP ranges from 300HP to
4000HP -- and that turbine for the citrus is only getting 21%!! With 400
PSI, 750F steam!!) I inadvertently came across page 1015 in my old Mark's
manual!!

Which I am now going to take the time to type in!!

Adding my "comments" in brackets.

(this in regards to increasing efficiencies in condensing steam piston
engines!!)

A steam-sulphur dioxide (a refrigerant so close to the properties of butane
it is scary -- but lethal and corrosive) system has been used in
reciprocating engines.

This extends the temperature range at the lower limit and avoids the
necessity of maintaining a high steam-vacuume. As worked out by Josse, the
steam expands to about 3 lb. abs. (142 deg Fahr.) and on condensation
generates sulphur dioxide vapour at about 160 psi.

(The turbines for the citrus are "One (1) eight stage steam turbine
designed for 400 PSIG, 750oF steam inlet and 4" Hg abs. exhaust." -- which
is a steam temperature of 162F!!!)

This vapor expands down to about 50 Psi (70F) before it is condensed. To
reduce steam to the same temperature would require the maintenance of a
vacuume of 29.3 in., which is impracticable in a reciprocating engine. The
sulphur dioxide engine is of small bulk as a result of its high pressure.
(rem -- this back in 1909!!)

Added as a third cylinder to a compound steam engine, it has increased
power output and thermal efficiency about 50 percent.
************************************

Do you have any idea how expensive it is to build the apparatus (cooling
tower and chiller) for condensing steam exhaust for that turbine for the
citrus project?? Just to "waste" heat!!

Modern thermodynamics is just about as "ignorant" as modern medicine!!

Do you remember those copper finned tubed heat exchangers I got from that
company in Toronto -- that I was using in that liquid metal boiler for
waste heat recovery?? I am sure I showed them to you!! About 15 years or so
ago.

Each foot of that tubing was equivalent to 300 feet of iron tubing -- in
heat transfer. And much more so for stainless -- which is a poorer conductor!

A 6 million BTU per hour unit cost me $3000!!

These offer no resistance to the exhaust flow of a turbine!! I simply could
"stack" a number of these in the channel leading from the turbine to
condenser and recover incredible amounts of heat!!

Libertad has an old steam turbine of 1.4 meg capacity. It used 175 PSI
steam!! I could easily produce enough butane vapour from turbine exhaust to
spin that turbine to 1.4 megs!! And still have plenty heat left over from
the turbine exhaust!!

That turbine for the citrus -- at 21% -- "loses" (Gene's boiler is
supplying 42,530 lb. steam per hour!! -- 21% times 42,530 = 8931.3 is used
--) 33598.7 lbs steam per hour -- for which we pay a fortune to blow it to
the skies!!

If I had that shop I had back then -- I could build the recovery unit --
for at least 1.4 meg extra of power -- using that old turbine -- for much
less the cost than building the cooling tower!!

Sure -- a cooling tower would be still needed to throw the rest of the heat
to the skies -- but a much smaller one -- and the cost difference would
still be enough to more than pay for the butane boiler recovery power plant!!

If I had a totally "free" hand -- there would be no steam coming out of the
turbine needing a cooling tower to be condensed -- just a many orders
smaller one to condense the "pressurized" butane from the back of the
butane power turbine.

Water is so terrible inefficient as a power transfer agent because it grabs
1000 BTU (plus or minus a little -- depending on circumstances) -- to do
its change of state!

And of course -- this is lost in the Carnot cylce math --

Worse -- this same "technology" could be used to recover waste heat from a
stationary diesel power plant -- from the exhaust and radiator!! Pumping
over all efficiencies to over 50%!! Immagine how this would make the
gassifier crowd happy!

Or a smaller version -- could be used in automotive -- for powering
auxiliaries such a generator, water pump, air-conditioning etc -- it is not
like they do not already have refrigerant systems in them -- they do!! And
if one wanted to go whole hog -- using all that waste heat -- 50% increase
in gasoline economy! One wonders why in this era of declining fossil fuels
-- but now we get into politics -- not science!

Comments Don??

I am sure that you must find a reason why this can't work!! I mean it
simply cannot be possible that some, has been, "tinkerer" in Belize sees
this and nobody else in present day world of thermodynamic sciences can see
it!! They are all so smart -- just look at the "degrees" they have!!

Or is it just like Cascabel -- another sign of a "modern" society losing it
in every which way but up!

For twenty years now I have been trying to find the means to build a
prototype model!! Frank can attest to my postings regarding this -- the
solar boiler project -- many times in the past to the BZ list.

Finding page 1015 tells me that it was done, can be done, and it is simply
the new order of world ignorance that stops it from being done today!

For all the "trillions" being bandied around -- nobody has $50,000 to equip
me a prototype shop here!! Just like Cascabel!!

It gets so damn frustrating!!

My only hope is to build this citrus project -- and that while being
crippled -- with no shop to even help me develop "drying" -- so that I can
eventually have my prototype shop and turn thermodynamics of small power
generation on its damn ear!!

>From that point on -- every thermodynamic engineer in modern world will
have to take big detours around Belize -- just so they will not have to see
it -- and be able to continue in their ignorance that 21% efficiency is the
best one can get from 400 PSI steam at 750F. And if you want more -- go to
a single pass 5000 PSI boiler!! Any other syle of thinking is not
"politically" correct.

Never mind that they had 4000 HP uniflows doing 29% efficiencies in 1908 --
on 250 psi -- 450F steam. They burned those books long time ago -- and as
soon as they find mine -- they'll burn that as well!!

This is what the modern world calls "progress"!!

When I do make this -- it will not be for the world -- but simply to hear
it go wizz bang. I certainly not interested in trying to save modern
western civilization from its decline -- that is so well ordained -- who am
I to interfere!!

So Don -- let me get this right -- you figure it must be impossible to do
because "cosmic" conditions have changed in a manner we can't presently
understand -- so the "physics" of 90 years ago is no longer the "physics"
of today.

Interesting -- could you expound on this -- and present some hard data to
support this interesting theory?

Otherwise, do not question that refrigerant boilers can not work due to
Carnot's "rules" -- in case you have forgotten -- he was around back then
doing his thing -- and certainly knew better than to suggest that!

You also have known me long enough to understand that I never propose
something that cannot work. But often propose things that are never
implemented -- not unless I do them myself -- as everyone else is always so
convinced it "must" be impossible!!

Great world we live in today. Just back up and stand out of the way as it
plummets into the gorge! That is what I am doing!

I mean -- put this into very clear perspective. We are looking at a power
plant that can achieve less than 15% over all efficiency because the best
modern science can come up with is a turbine that gets 21% efficiency and
blows the rest of the heat to the sky!

When back in 1908 -- they were getting 29% efficiency using even poorer
quality stream, and steam engines!

And of course -- modern double talk tells us this is advancing technology
marching us into the future!

I call it Marching morons -- how else can you explain this level of "overt"
ignorance?? It is not the cosmic conditions of physics that have changed --
it is the level of education and the intelligence of the technical workers
that has deteriorated!!

This tied with a political system of existence -- like in ancient China --
that refuses to allow any form of "change". We do not want to be sending
all those engineers back to school to learn something new -- can't have
that!! Can't even have them apply old technology, that was well proven, but
does not fit with modern politically correct ideals.

So lets spent a couple billion on getting better gasoline milage by making
rounder tires -- or something -- and lets keep ignoring -- totally -- the
science of thermodynamics!

Because if some body ever got hold of a 1924 Mark's manual and looked at
page 1127 (not 1015) they might see the "Still Engine" for diesel power
plants. (Autom, Ind., June 19, 1919).

This is a compounding internal combustion engine using steam jackets to
raise operating temperature to 350F for the diesel cycle -- and dropping
exhaust temperatures from 900F to 100F and having a reliable -- over the
entire load range, 40% efficiency!

Or read about the 1350 h.p. Cockerill blast furnace gas engine that got
43.3% efficiency using steam produced from exhaust waste heat to turn an
auxiliary turbine (raising the producer gas engine efficiency from 30% to
43.3%)

We are just to fat, spoiled and stupid these days to understand the
economics of proper thermodynamics! But our great grand fathers could and did!

Today we build motors with 8 valves per cylinder head and turning at 15,000
RPM -- and think we have the tiger by the tail!!

What!! If we could apply some of that technology to improving those
original designs -- what could we not achieve today!! The only thing
stopping us is our collective ignorance -- and our inability to fund the
proper research projects -- over and over again.

Political correctness has taken over our sciences -- results are no longer
of importance -- being a perfect "player" is all that is required.

We pay the price for this folly --

Peter

 

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
Gasification Projects
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml

 

From arcate at email.msn.com Wed Nov 3 01:42:19 1999
From: arcate at email.msn.com (Jim Arcate)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: technology trading post
Message-ID: <000301bf25c7$c52f6340$0100007f@localhost>

To Gasification & Bioenergy:

Transnational Technology is owner and operator of techtp, an on-line
technology trading post for small business tech transfer, innovation and
collaboration.

You are invited to submit technology trading items (offered / wanted) using
the Reply Form. Please see www.techtp.com

Who knows maybe eBay will like it ! Charcoal was / is a good idea too ?
TTT = things take time

Transnational Technology
James R. Arcate
3447 Pipa Place
Honolulu, HI 96822-1221
(808) 988-7502
www.techtp.com

 

 

 

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
Gasification Projects
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml

 

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Wed Nov 3 07:12:46 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Lost Contact
Message-ID: <0.d815c508.255181a7@cs.com>

Peter:

What a disaster. How to avoid?

I'm Tom Reed, moderator of gasification.... reedtb2@cs.com

Website www.webpan.com/bef

Yours, TBR

 

In a message dated 11/1/99 3:25:31 PM Mountain Standard Time, snkm@btl.net
writes:

<< Hi Folks,

I am just recovering from a small disaster -- losing my Hard Drive -- and
have lost all data regarding people from this list I was communicating with.

Could those people simply send me a short message so that I can be back in
touch with them??

Especially those relating to fast drying and gasifiers!

Peter Singfield >>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
Gasification Projects
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml

 

From snkm at btl.net Wed Nov 3 08:33:45 1999
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Lost Contact
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19991103074117.00eeb700@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Tom;

Here in the tropics (Belize Central America) computer parts do not live
long. I just got sloppy with my back-ups. Last one being august 8th. I
still have on file our older comms.

I am like a Van Winkle (Sp??) -- having been out of main stream Engineering
for 10 years now -- and suddenly waking up to see what is going on out there.

Gasification appears to have a great future as fire boxes in furnace boiler
operations. It means an increase in boiler efficiencies since less flue gas
is created.

Stand alone gasifiers lose to much "heat" and cannot easily handle high
humidity fuels. I have just been perusing Foster Wheelers fluidized bed
boiler for biomass -- quite incredible.

The entire industry of Biomass to energy conversion is suffering from
terrible inefficiencies. This was acceptable when wastes only were being
considered -- but is not for primary biomass fuel power projects -- such as
I am working on.

There are so many directions worth investigating in these areas -- that is
waste heat recovery to electrical energy. I find it hard to believe that
there are no concerted efforts at present in this area! To me, everyone is
asleep at the wheel.

Wish it was 20 years ago -- and I still had my shop and "connection".

For now -- I am trying to reconstruct that same operation again here in
Belize -- but talk about five year plans!!

On the other hand -- having lived in the slow and easy tropical life style
for ten years now -- why bother?

I believe, after this present on going study of the situation, that
"Big-Brother" now controls all agendas of research -- cutting out the small
operator totally. Only politically correct corporations staffed with
perfectly correct people need apply.

During my tenure at the Canadian Research Council -- we saw study after
study demonstrating that corporations never innovate -- it is always the
small operator.

Looks like a miserable future for all concerned living in "modern"
circumstances.

What happened to the "Brave Hearts"? That is the rich that used to enjoy
investing in new gizmos. Gone to stock market -- every last one?

Besides -- under this new "perfect" system -- patents are extremely
difficult for small operators to get -- and not respected by the sharks out
there.

We have succeeded in one thing -- driving innovation out of modern society!

For my part -- I am interested in building -- some day! -- a small biomass
conversion unit -- such as 10 KW capacity -- that runs at better than 40%
over all efficiencies. This is easy to accomplish -- by simply using prior
art -- Gasifying furnace/boiler; unaflow steams engine; and waste heat
recovery using refrigerant boilers.

This I intend to do this by adding micro-processor controls to turn of the
century designs -- converting mechanical valving designs to computer
controlled actuators -- as example. Some thing along the lines they have
done with the modern car engines. Not only does this result in greater
efficiencies -- but also is much more economical to develop and produce.

And then of course -- there is fast pyrolysis using steam and steam
reforming of carbon residues -- and ones own little refinery in the back yard.

Small is beautiful!

Peter

At 07:16 AM 11/3/99 EST, you wrote:
>Peter:
>
>What a disaster. How to avoid?
>
>I'm Tom Reed, moderator of gasification.... reedtb2@cs.com
>
>Website www.webpan.com/bef
>
>Yours, TBR
>
>
>
>In a message dated 11/1/99 3:25:31 PM Mountain Standard Time, snkm@btl.net
>writes:
>
><< Hi Folks,
>
> I am just recovering from a small disaster -- losing my Hard Drive -- and
> have lost all data regarding people from this list I was communicating with.
>
> Could those people simply send me a short message so that I can be back in
> touch with them??
>
> Especially those relating to fast drying and gasifiers!
>
> Peter Singfield >>
>Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>Gasification Projects
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
Gasification Projects
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml

 

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Wed Nov 3 08:53:56 1999
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Requesting information on downdraught wood gassifiers
Message-ID: <0.dc1245a3.2551995e@cs.com>

Dear Arvind:

We have many books on gasification and gasifiers. See attached list....

Yours truly, TOM REED THE BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION

BOOKS FROM THE BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION PRESS

PURPOSES OF THE BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION PRESS: Biomass energy and
particularly biomass gasification is a field where publications are often
difficult to find. We make available information - sometimes old, sometimes
new - on biomass at reasonable prices in attractive "lie flat" bindings.
See our webpage at www.webpan.com/bef or write us at Reedtb2@cs.com

Biomass Energy Books - Description and Order Blank

NEW: A SURVEY OF BIOMASS GASIFICATION 2000: T. Reed and S. Gaur have
surveyed the biomass gasification scene for the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory and the Biomass Energy Foundation. 180 pages of large gasifiers
systems, small gasifiers and gasifier research institutions with descriptions
of the major types of gasifiers and a list of most world gasifiers.
180 pp $25 _________

NEW: BIOMASS GASIFIER "TARS": THEIR NATURE, FORMATION, AND CONVERSION: T.
Milne, N. Abatzoglou, & R. J. Evans. Tars are the Achilles Heel of
gasification. This thorough work explores the chemical nature of tars, their
generation, and methods for testing and destroying them.
ISBN 1-890607-15-6 180 pp $25________

NEW: EVALUATION OF GASIFICATION AND NOVEL THERMAL PROCESSES FOR THE
TREATMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE - W. Niessen et al. 1996 NREL report by
Camp Dresser and McKee on MSW conversion processes. ISBN 1-890607-13-6
198 pp $25_______

NEW: FROM THE FRYER TO THE FUEL TANK: HOW TO MAKE CHEAP, CLEAN FUEL FROM
FREE VEGETABLE OIL: J. & K. Tickell, (1998) Resale from Greenteach
Publishing Co. Tickell has done an excellent job of collecting both theory
and praxis on producing Biodiesel fuel from vegetable oils, particularly used
oil. Nice instructions for kitchen or large scale. ISBN 0-9664616-0-6
90 pp $20 __________

NEW/OLD: DENSIFIED BIOMASS: A NEW FORM OF SOLID FUEL: Tom Reed and Becky
Bryant, A "State of the Art evaluation of densified biomass fuels" with
documentation of processes, energy balance, economics and applications.
First published in 1978, & still good. ISBN 1-890607-14-6 35 pp
$12 __________

******
BIOMASS DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS HANDBOOK: T. Reed and A. Das,
(SERI-1988) Over a million wood gasifiers were used to power cars and trucks
during World War II. Yet, after over two decades of interest, there are only
a few companies manufacturing gasifier systems. The authors have spent more
than 20 years working with various gasifier systems, In this book they
discuss ALL the factors that must be correct to have a successful "gasifier
power system." Our most popular book, the "new Testament" of gasification
ISBN 1-890607-00-2 140 pp $25 ________

GENGAS: THE SWEDISH CLASSIC ON WOOD FUELED VEHICLES: English translation,
(SERI-1979) T.Reed, D. Jantzen and A. Das, with index. This is the "Old
Testament" of gasification, written by the people involved in successfully
converting 90% of transportation of WW II Sweden to wood gasifiers.
ISBN 1-890607-01-0 340 pp. $30 ________

SMALL SCALE GAS PRODUCER-ENGINE SYSTEMS: A. Kaupp and J. Goss. (Veiweg,1984)
Updates GENGAS and contains critical engineering data indispensable for the
serious gasifier projects. Ali Kaupp is thorough and knowledgeable. ISBN
1-890607-06-1 278 pp $30 __________

PRODUCER-GAS: ANOTHER FUEL FOR MOTOR TRANSPORT: Ed. Noel Vietmeyer (The U.S.
National Academy of Sciences-1985) A seeing-is-believing primer with
historical and modern pictures of gasifiers. An outstanding text for any
introductory program. ISBN 1-890607-02-6 80 pp $10 _________

FUNDAMENTAL STUDY AND SCALEUP OF THE AIR-OXYGEN STRATIFIED DOWNDRAFT
GASIFIER: T. Reed, M. Graboski and B. Levie (SERI 1988). In 1980 the Solar
Energy Research Institute initiated a program to develop an oxygen gasifier
to make methanol from biomass. A novel air/oxygen low tar gasifier was
designed and studied for five years at SERI at 1 ton/d and for 4 years at
Syn-Gas Inc. in a 25 ton/day gasifier. This book describes the theory and
operation of the two gasifiers in detail and also discusses the principles
and application of gasification as learned over eight years by the
author-gasifier team.
ISBN 1-890607-03-7 290 pp $30 ________

CONTAMINANT TESTING FOR GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS: A. Das (TIPI 1989). Test
that gas for tar! Long engine life and reliable operation requires a gas
with less than 30 mg of tar and particulates per cubic meter (30 ppm). The
simplified test methods described here are adapted from standard ASTM and EPA
test procedures for sampling and analyzing char, tar and ash in the gas.
Suitable for raw and cleaned gas. New edition & figures, 1999. ISBN
1-890607-04-5 32 pp $10 _________

TREE CROPS FOR ENERGY CO-PRODUCTION ON FARMS: Tom Milne (SERI 1980)
Evaluation of the energy potential to grow trees for energy. ISBN
1-890607-05-3 260 pp $30 _________

WOOD GAS GENERATORS FOR VEHICLES: Nils Nygards (1973). Translation of recent
results of Swedish Agricultural Testing Institute. ISBN 1-890607-08-8 50
pp. $4_________

CONSTRUCTION OF A SIMPLIFIED WOOD GAS GENERATOR: H. LaFontaine (1989) - Over
25 drawings and photographs on building a gasifier for fueling IC engines in
a Petroleum Emergency (FEMA RR28). ISBN 1-890607-11-8 68 pp $15________

BIOMASS TO METHANOL SPECIALISTS' WORKSHOP: Ed. T. Reed and M. Graboski, 1982.
Expert articles on conversion of biomass to methanol. ISBN 1-890607-10-X
331 pp $30_________

THE PEGASUS UNIT: THE LOST ART OF DRIVING WITHOUT GASOLINE: N. Skov and M.
Papworth, (1974). Description and beautiful detailed drawings of various
gasifiers and systems from World War II.
ISBN 1-890607-09-6 80 pp $20________

GASIFICATION OF RICE HULLS: THEORY AND PRAXIS: A. Kaupp. (Veiweg, 1984)
Applies gasification to rice hulls, since rice hulls are potentially a major
energy source - yet have unique problems in gasification. ISBN
1-890607-07-X 303 pp $30_________

TREES: by Jean Giono, 1953. While we strongly support using biomass for
energy, we are also very concerned about forest destruction. This delightful
story says more than any sermon on the benefits and methods of
reforestation. ISBN 1-89060712-6 8 pp $1_________

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
ORDER BLANK
TOTAL FOR BOOKS: ___________
-10% if 3 or more books ordered or to booksellers
___________
+ $3 handling + (US & Canada $1.50/book) or (Other foreign, $8/book air)
___________
TOTAL ORDER ___________

SHIP TO:
Name______________________________________________________________________
Address_______________________________________________________________________
_____
E-mail order to reedtb2@CS.com or Mail orders to The Biomass Energy
Foundation Press (BEFP), or mail to 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401; FAX
303-278 0560; call 303 278 0558. We'll send invoice with books. Pay by
postal order or check on US Banks, or electronic deposit to Bank No. 10 20000
76, Acct. No. 300800 2911. (No foreign checks - can cost $25 to clear!)

 

In a message dated 11/2/99 9:41:02 AM Mountain Standard Time,
mvaravind78@hotmail.com writes:

<< Sir/Madam,
I am a final year Mechanical Engineering student in India.I plan to do a
project for the design and fabrication of Downdraught wood gassifiers.
I have got info regarding your organisation through the net.
I would like to get some info from you regarding the details of currently
available equipments of the same,along with some info on their design details.
I would really appreciate it if you could send me some info,which would be
of immense help to me.
Thanking you,
yours truly,
Arvind.M.V. >>
Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
Gasification Projects
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml

 

From gavin at bblnorth.demon.co.uk Wed Nov 3 11:45:46 1999
From: gavin at bblnorth.demon.co.uk (Gavin Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Refrigerant Power!
Message-ID: <199911031645.LAA15884@solstice.crest.org>

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: multipart/alternative
Size: 0 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/19991103/fb7b75e5/attachment.bin