November 2000 Gasification Archive

From rabello at uniserve.com Tue Aug 1 01:01:47 2000
From: rabello at uniserve.com (robert luis rabello)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Heavy Metal vs ring-a-dings
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000731214557.009708a0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <39865A7D.8CE04844@uniserve.com>

Peter Singfield wrote:

> Arnt -- you are ignoring flame propagation speeds! A wider cylinder with a
> short stroke will not have time to extract all the energy as rpm goes up.
> Sure you can get more HP out of the motor if you increase rpm and it sucks
> more producer gas in -- but your fuel efficiency goes right out the exhaust
> ports.

I read about a camshaft that the Crower company was producing in the late
1970's or early 1980's. Their intriguing idea centered around adjusting the
intake valve timing to limit the overall intake charge on a 5.7 liter small block
Chevrolet. Crower made the engine's intake volume 1/3 less than "normal", then
squeezed the intake charge hard (their research engines were running compression
ratios of something like 15:1 on premium gasoline) and let the long stroke
develop maximum fuel efficiency.

Reported fuel economy gains were quite impressive, but I can't remember the
numbers due to excessive brain cell loss! The concept, however, seems similar to
what you are proposing. The big, 10 liter turbo diesels that power class 8
trucks are ubiquitous, but rather expensive to rebuild--at least around here. (I
remember getting quotes for my customers that ranged in the $10 000
neighborhood. I could build four or five big block automobile engines for that.
. .)

Big displacement usually equates to big torque at low rpm. The slower you
turn that engine, the longer it should last, everything else being equal. For
stationary applications, your argument makes sense. I'd hate to lug that kind of
mass around in my personal vehicle, however!

robert luis rabello

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

From rabello at uniserve.com Tue Aug 1 01:02:02 2000
From: rabello at uniserve.com (robert luis rabello)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tuning for efficiency - eating the derating!
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000731124349.00936240@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <39865A8D.8252274A@uniserve.com>

Peter Singfield wrote:

> Let the producer gas go into the engine, past the intake valve -- at 900 C.
> Then -- just before top dead center -- inject sufficient water to lower the
> temperature before combustion.
>
> OK -- the first thing you have is a steam engine. Meaning -- even if you
> did not ignite that charge -- the engine would rotate and produce some
> power. In fact -- this might be a good way to start the engine.

How would you remove the condensate from the cylinder during shut down? I had
an expensive problem related to using water injection on my last engine project,
in that one time enough water remained in one of the cylinders to create a
hydraulic condition during start-up. This resulted in a very loud "bang" and a
bent connecting rod. Upon tear-down, I was astonished that such a substantial
hunk of steel could become so badly bent! (And my loving wife has not let me hear
the end of that mistake!)

If you eliminate the water or steam injection during shut down, you'll run up
against the excessively hot intake gas problem that you're trying to avoid. Do
you see a way around this?

Any of you who remember the Second World War may correct me if my facts are
not in order, but didn't the B-29's flying in the Pacific actually REQUIRE water
injection to develop sufficient power during take off? They could have shut the
system off after the aircraft reached sufficient altitude, but how would this work
in a stationary application?

Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion!

robert luis rabello

From tvoivozd at roanoke.infi.net Tue Aug 1 10:14:35 2000
From: tvoivozd at roanoke.infi.net (tvoivozhd)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tuning for efficiency - eating the derating!
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000731124349.00936240@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3986CCF1.5930B695@roanoke.infi.net>

Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion!

robert luis rabello

P-47's with a Pratt and Whitney used water injection ANY time they pulled full
throttle, take-off or combat, at 72 inches manifold pressure. It was automatic. You
could run at 72 inches four minutes. Unless it was a short runway it was inadvisable
to redline the manifold pressure. Beyond four minutes at full power you would be
ready to bail out.
Without water injection detonation would occur immediately, with an engine life
measured in seconds.

From snkm at btl.net Tue Aug 1 11:26:05 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Water injection and hot gas feeding
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000801084214.009423a0@wgs1.btl.net>

At 10:05 PM 7/31/00 -0700, you wrote:
>> OK -- the first thing you have is a steam engine. Meaning -- even if you
>> did not ignite that charge -- the engine would rotate and produce some
>> power. In fact -- this might be a good way to start the engine.
>
> How would you remove the condensate from the cylinder during shut down?

Hi Robert;

I am doing a "gonjo" math model right now -- when I find the time. It is
looking like it will require very little water -- probably less than the
normal amount of diesel that would be injected -- much less. So think of
using the regular diesel fuel injection system for water injection.

In a hot motor this will go out of the exhaust. One would simply close the
injection pump solenoid for a few seconds before shutting down the motor by
turning off the spark ignition. It would be easy to put in a shut down
control circuit that does this automatically.

> If you eliminate the water or steam injection during shut down, you'll
run up
>against the excessively hot intake gas problem that you're trying to
avoid. Do
>you see a way around this?

The intake manifold will be cooled. You see it takes time for heat to
transfer. Though it is true if you run a motor for any period of time --
the hot gasses running through the intake manifold, continuously, will heat
it up to almost the same temp as the hot gasses.

But if one cools the manifold (using the regular cooling system flow) the
hot gasses lose only a very little of their heat -- as they are not there
long enough.

So only a negligible amount of heat is lost. Same as what is happening in
the cylinder during its high temp combustion process -- think on this.

Remember -- I am not reducing piston speed or intake flow speed. Just going
to a longer stroke to lower crank rpm. There will be a longer period that
the hot gasses and combustion of gasses stays in that cylinder -- but still
negligible as a loss factor.

Any way -- the mechanical parts coming in contact with that hot gas will be
all cooled. The hot gas delivery pipe will be well insulated.

I plan on putting an air to air heat exchanger on the exhaust manifold to
heat intake air. Also preheat that air by passing it through a small heater
radiator connected to the engine cooling system.

If we are going with hot gas intake -- may as well grab all the heat we can
get.

Of course this makes the charge far less dense. According to my rough
calculations -- I need a 2:1 blower boosting to bring things back to a
normal charge per cylinder.

Also -- the 12:1 compression ratio will in effect double that hot gas
temperature in the cylinder. Putting pre-ignition temps well above 1000 C.

But remember -- this is all happening very fast -- not like holding a torch
on a piece of iron and waiting for it to melt.

The engine cooling system may require a little more capacity -- but no big
deal there.

Under pressure -- and at over 1000C temp -- there should be a very complete
conversion of fuel to energy when ignition occurs. And the flame temp will
be much higher than normal. Plus the expansion of the nitrogen and steam
will definitely add to power output.

This all adds up to increased engine efficiencies.

Peter

I had
>an expensive problem related to using water injection on my last engine
project,
>in that one time enough water remained in one of the cylinders to create a
>hydraulic condition during start-up. This resulted in a very loud "bang"
and a
>bent connecting rod. Upon tear-down, I was astonished that such a
substantial
>hunk of steel could become so badly bent! (And my loving wife has not let
me hear
>the end of that mistake!)
>
> If you eliminate the water or steam injection during shut down, you'll
run up
>against the excessively hot intake gas problem that you're trying to
avoid. Do
>you see a way around this?
>
> Any of you who remember the Second World War may correct me if my
facts are
>not in order, but didn't the B-29's flying in the Pacific actually REQUIRE
water
>injection to develop sufficient power during take off? They could have
shut the
>system off after the aircraft reached sufficient altitude, but how would
this work
>in a stationary application?
>
> Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion!
>
>robert luis rabello
>
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

From snkm at btl.net Tue Aug 1 11:26:10 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Derating and engine efficiencies -- the trends.
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000801092113.0093db60@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Again Robert;

Crower made the engine's intake volume 1/3 less than "normal", then
>squeezed the intake charge hard (their research engines were running
compression
>ratios of something like 15:1 on premium gasoline) and let the long stroke
>develop maximum fuel efficiency.

They effectively made the engine appear to have a longer stroke by cutting
out intake duration. This also results in a serious engine derating.
However -- yes -- it would greatly increase the fuel milage.

My point is that one has to derate a short stroke block a lot more than a
long stroke block. And I am hoping that certain people can either correct
me using "science" or agree with the science presented to date.

I find it difficult that I must "argue" the point that to increase engine
efficiency one must make sure that the fuel has time to burn "completely"
in the cylinder. This should be a "given".

>The big, 10 liter turbo diesels that power class 8
>trucks are ubiquitous, but rather expensive to rebuild--at least around
here. (I
>remember getting quotes for my customers that ranged in the $10 000
>neighborhood. I could build four or five big block automobile engines for
that.
>. .)

All true. But this list is "excited" over a 250 kw Tesla that gets maybe
24% efficiencies and costs just $800 per kw!!

That is 335 HP for $200,000

I believe I can get much better efficiency than that for a cost 1/10 -- and
probably have much better reliability and much lower maintenance costs!

The big block car engine are great to -- but must go that Crower cam route
to get an efficiency even approaching better than 24%. That means a lot
more derating. You might need 4 or five to replace that big diesel block!

They would be very reliable operating at that level of derating though!

There are great old truck gasoline engines -- low RPM -- that would work
great to.

And using a 454 to put out 25 kwh at say 900 RPM is not such a bad idea
either -- they sure don't cost much money and would last forever at that
derating level -- and quite possibly do better than 30% efficiencies.

I am trying to "question" the theory that more derating means more
efficiency. All I am getting from Arnt is that he can run a motor on
producer gas with very little derating -- and who cares what engine
efficiencies are -- his business is making gasifiers -- he will simply make
a bigger gasifier, make more profit, and let the customer use an poor
efficiency motor -- plus consume a lot more fuel.

Guess it does make good business sense -- but very poor power production
economics.

We simply do not have this luxury of screwing everyone over here in 3rd
world. Modern world is fat -- so can afford wasting resources. In fact they
are doing such a good job of that right now we are literally melting down
the entire planet!!

The best way to lower carbon emissions is by increasing power generation
efficiencies -- lest we all forget!!

You can certainly tell that present state of the art gasification comes
from WW2 technology -- where getting that vehicle moving was the only
priority -- never mind how much "alternate" fuel it took. Times have
changed folks -- get with it!

The best way to reduce power generation costs using a gasification system
is by reducing the size of the gasifier required. As with small block, high
efficiency gasoline engines, this will have to come from out side the
modern world domain. They simply do not care. (V-5's forever -- 5 mpg is
cool!) They have no incentive. They build most of these devices on "grant"
money so can be extremely wasteful. Then they wonder why the rest of the
world does not adopt their technology?

I trust what India has to say on this matter -- not the whiz kids from
modern world that are "playing". India is trying to make a serious shift
into producer gas power. And they have to do it in a real world -- that is
a 3rd world economy.

North America has the cheapest fuel costs on planet earth. And the cheapest
electrical energy costs. How can people from that area get serious about
energy from biomasses?? They play!

The Europeans are just followers. Wanna-bees. They would rather have cheap
fuels so they could be energy pigs to -- than look at efficient
co-existence with power production.

When I get quotes for prices from Europeans -- I know they are lost!! Far
to expensive. Not at all practical. And no changing their "habits".

The revolution -- as always -- will come from 3rd world. A 500 kwe gasifier
from India costs under $60,000 US -- and is a proven worker.

Arnt told me he would need a couple of million to do that same size!!

Also -- there are severe restriction with "western" designed gasifiers --
fuel must be pelletized to within close tolerances! Another million for the
pellet machine! The India Gasifier I am thinking of burns rice husks!!

Western people get their salaries from grant money thrown to them for
"playing" to be concerned with biomass gasification. Where is the incentive
to produce new technology under that kind of system?? We end up with over
priced -- severly restricted -- designs that have no "practical"
application beyond a research grant in some rich modern country.

Rest my case --

Peter Singfield (Belize)

At 10:05 PM 7/31/00 -0700, you wrote:
>
>
>Peter Singfield wrote:
>
>> Arnt -- you are ignoring flame propagation speeds! A wider cylinder with a
>> short stroke will not have time to extract all the energy as rpm goes up.
>> Sure you can get more HP out of the motor if you increase rpm and it sucks
>> more producer gas in -- but your fuel efficiency goes right out the exhaust
>> ports.
>
> I read about a camshaft that the Crower company was producing in the late
>1970's or early 1980's. Their intriguing idea centered around adjusting the
>intake valve timing to limit the overall intake charge on a 5.7 liter
small block
>Chevrolet. Crower made the engine's intake volume 1/3 less than "normal",
then
>squeezed the intake charge hard (their research engines were running
compression
>ratios of something like 15:1 on premium gasoline) and let the long stroke
>develop maximum fuel efficiency.
>
> Reported fuel economy gains were quite impressive, but I can't
remember the
>numbers due to excessive brain cell loss! The concept, however, seems
similar to
>what you are proposing. The big, 10 liter turbo diesels that power class 8
>trucks are ubiquitous, but rather expensive to rebuild--at least around
here. (I
>remember getting quotes for my customers that ranged in the $10 000
>neighborhood. I could build four or five big block automobile engines for
that.
>. .)
>
> Big displacement usually equates to big torque at low rpm. The slower
you
>turn that engine, the longer it should last, everything else being equal.
For
>stationary applications, your argument makes sense. I'd hate to lug that
kind of
>mass around in my personal vehicle, however!
>
>robert luis rabello
>
>
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Aug 1 11:44:29 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tuning for efficiency - eating the derating!
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000731124349.00936240@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3986EF91.E8B19E7C@c2i.net>

robert luis rabello wrote:
>
> Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> > Let the producer gas go into the engine, past the intake valve -- at 900 C.
> > Then -- just before top dead center -- inject sufficient water to lower the
> > temperature before combustion.
> >
> > OK -- the first thing you have is a steam engine. Meaning -- even if you
> > did not ignite that charge -- the engine would rotate and produce some
> > power. In fact -- this might be a good way to start the engine.
>
> How would you remove the condensate from the cylinder during shut down? I had

..shut down water spray/injection _before_ shutting down the engine. Let
it run dry at idle. Kill fuel supply, then ignition. _Automate_ the
shutdown procedure, or you'll do it wrongly some expensive day.

..but why shut down at all? (Except for maintenance) Starting up from
cold will get you 600 - 800 hours worth of wear, warming up the
engine. Pointless wear. Each time.

> an expensive problem related to using water injection on my last engine project,
> in that one time enough water remained in one of the cylinders to create a
> hydraulic condition during start-up. This resulted in a very loud "bang" and a

..on experimental gear, pre-start hand cranking is _proven_ technology.
;-)

> bent connecting rod. Upon tear-down, I was astonished that such a substantial
> hunk of steel could become so badly bent! (And my loving wife has not let me hear
> the end of that mistake!)

> If you eliminate the water or steam injection during shut down, you'll run up
> against the excessively hot intake gas problem that you're trying to avoid. Do
> you see a way around this?

..separate cooling. Is needed anyway.

> Any of you who remember the Second World War may correct me if my facts are
> not in order, but didn't the B-29's flying in the Pacific actually REQUIRE water
> injection to develop sufficient power during take off? They could have shut the

..sounds reasonable, and in accordance with standards of that time.

> system off after the aircraft reached sufficient altitude, but how would this work
> in a stationary application?
>
> Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion!
>
> robert luis rabello
>
--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

"Irrationality is the square root of all evil"
-- Douglas Hofstadter
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Aug 1 11:45:43 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tuning for efficiency - eating the derating!
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000731203126.0098eac0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3986EFDA.A6928CD5@c2i.net>

Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> At 02:10 AM 8/1/00 +0200, you wrote:
> >Peter Singfield wrote:
> >> Let the producer gas go into the engine, past the intake valve -- at 900 C.
> >> Then -- just before top dead center -- inject sufficient water to lower the
> >> temperature before combustion.
> >
> >..here you suggest something like a "gas diesel" engine, at 900C, gas
> >burns promptly.
> >Fuel gas needs to be compressed for this to work.
>
> I am presently working up a model for all this. The first thing you would
> need is a good blower!

..yup. Or a Pulsator-like device. VW's "G-Lader" combines the Pulsator
and the Gatling gun into a revolving supercharger feeding exhaust gas
pressure waves into fresh the air intake. Was no commercial success,
used in the mid 1980'ies in the VW Scirocco?, same basic engine as the
Rabbit GTI.

> And no -- the fuel gas is compressed by the piston -- the water is injected

..back to otto-style gas+air mixture drawn into the engine. Last time
you proposed Diesel style air induction, this require some form of
separate fuel gas compression to allow the fuel gas going into the
compressed air in the cylinder. It can be shot into the cylinder, using
a rich mixture initial combustion, allowing a very lean overall mixture.
Depends on how you prefer skinning cats. ;-)
Commersial players call this "stratified charge combustion", when they
try to do this without the torch shot. ;-)

> at -- or probably a little before top dead center. Water -- not steam. But
> injecting steam would be better for efficiencies -- but not for cooling the
> hot gasses down so much. I am in the middle of seeing if all this heat will
> melt the motor -- ergo using water spray. Later I'll present it -- or maybe
> I never have time to finish the model. Some pretty tricky guessing involved.
>
> But you brought up a good point. Would the steam serve as an antiknock
> agent? Allowing higher compression ratios?? Then we could use a higher
> boost on the blower and really increase efficiencies!

..with vaporizing water and spirits, you can do all sorts of black
magic ;-)

> >> OK -- the first thing you have is a steam engine. Meaning -- even if you
> >> did not ignite that charge -- the engine would rotate and produce some
> >> power. In fact -- this might be a good way to start the engine.
> >
> >..is known as 'air starting'. Used to start Russian aero engines and old
> >& large ship engines and gensets. Proven tech, at low temps. At 900'C,
> >it'll be real fun. ;-)
>
> no -- that is a different gig all together. This is using heat in fuel/air
> (going to preheat the air as well) to make steam -- in the cylinder.

..well proven. First used in "war emergency" power settings, and
racing. Dates back to before WWI. Used in _all_ WWII air forces.

> >> Second point -- you want a long stroke -- low rpm -- engine to get away
> >> with this!
> >
> >..or short stroke and high rpm ;-)
>
> Slow flame propagation Arnt. And even slower with steam mixed in to further
> dilute the gas charge. Need small cylinder area with long stroke --

..or _catalyzing_ vapors. ;-)

> everything slowed down. You can't get high RPM out of producer gas. That is

..the thruth is, producer gas flame speed cannot beat hydrogen flame
speed.
No need to. ;-)

> what Prof. (Mrs) Parikh was saying pointing us at - due to slow flame
> propagation.
>
> The boys gets around this by using diesel injection for a "flame" ignition

..which too does a fine job of torch shooting the cylinder charge. ;-)

> through out the entire compressed charge of producer gas. This also solves
> the knocking problem. But run on pure producer gas with spark ignition at
> those compression ratios in a diesel and see what happens!

..nope, I want that water + alcohol spray too. ;-)

> >..figure of merit is piston speed. The key is match the piston speed to
> >the combustion characteristics, an area of myths and black magic by
> >wizards. ;-)
>
> Exactly -- now practice what you myth!
>
> Sure you can do hig RPM and a short stroke -- just use many tiny little
> cylinders. Like in a v - 100 cylinder engine!

..or catalyze. ;-) Also, the big guys like Wartsila start the fire in
a lot of places too. Can torch shoot too. ;-)

> >> Third point:
> >>
> >> You have now greatly reduced the calorie value of your fuel charge -- and
> >> flame propagation becomes even more of a problem! Plus -- gasp!! -- more
> >> derating.
> >>
> >> Still -- if your engine has a long enough stroke -- and is turning over
> >> slowly -- one would expect a good increase in over all efficiency.
> >>
> >> Now -- let go a little further. Arnt would also like to introduce some
> >> exhaust back in through the intake -- mixed with the make up air.
> >
> >..some engine exhaust into the gasifier thru the tuyeres and the
> >integrated fuel hopper tar flare air intake... ;-)
>
> Sorry -- miss-quoted you.
>
> >
> >..now try again the below reasoning.
> >
> >> What would happen? Well it is possible that the hot steam could reform that
> >> CO2 to CO -- with the freed oxygen molecule being available for better
> >> combustion -- to probably burn the same CO back to CO2. A bouncing,
> >> reversible, reaction. Still -- it will squeeze a little extra energy out
> >> for two reasons -- maybe!
> >
> >..outlet gas is drawn out at 1000'C to avoid make any CO2.
>
> Yes - I was thinking about the wrong thing. In your model you are right. In
> the gasifier you have carbon present to lock that extra Oxygen into CO.
>
> Hey -- a good way to clean up extra char in the ash pit!
>
> >
> >> One -- the hot exhaust gas would allow more water injection.
> >
> >..steam is pointless, will displace air and gas. Cool first, then spray
> >water and a wee dose of, say methanol, to catalyze cylinder charge
> >combustion.
>
> The steam is supplying the oxygen to carbon as well. Resulting in more CO
> and more hydrogen.

..into the gasifier, yep. Into the engine, nope.

> >> Two -- there are always some combustibles that missed the first trip
> through.
> >
> >.._such_ combustibles weld nice boat anchors. ;-)
> >
> >..I want to run gas power plants economically, re-using whatever surplus
> >carbon and heat wherever available in my system. If anything "misses
> >the first trip thru", I weld nice boat anchors.
> >
> >> Would this engine over heat and seize up? Not at all -- the heat absorbed
> >> by the water spray would balance the reaction in the same manner as if one
> >> cooled the intake gas to 50 C.
> >>
> >> We also have the advantage of not having to devise mechanical mechanisms to
> >> cool the hot gas product from the gasifier.
> >
> >..keep dancing. Cooler system _is_ needed. ;-)
> >
> >> Dancing the light fandango here -- I freely admit!
> >>
> >> But trying to point out there is a lot of modifications possible in looking
> >> for extra system efficiencies. And wondering where the people are that may
> >> be doing such??
> >>
> >> Is gasification to IC engines in a rut?
> >>
> >> OK -- we have been talking of 100 kwh -- lets jump up a little.
> >>
> >> I wonder what a good condition -- 1500 HP -- locomotive diesel and genset
> >> costs?
> >
> >..finally a use for them! Anyone? ;-)
> >
> >>
> >> OK -- so we derate it by 2/3 rds to do all the tricks -- and have only
> 500 kw.
> >
> >..my kinda #'s, ;-), rule of thumb is cut hp #'s by half and call'em
> >kWe.
>
> 1 hp = .746 Kw
> 1 kw = 1.34 Hp
>
> 500 kw = 670 HP
>
> I believe I can still get that out of that 1500 hp diesel -- still well
> derated.

..cutting by half, I the practioning myth, get 750. ;-)
And call'em kWe. 30% down. One more step closer to...

> >> Lets break that 35% efficiency barrier at least!
> >
> >..hear, hear! ;-)
> >
> >> Peter Singfield (Belize)
> >
--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From LINVENT at aol.com Tue Aug 1 11:46:04 2000
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tuning for efficiency - eating the derating!
Message-ID: <f7.16a86a7.26b84a95@aol.com>

Dear Mr. Rabello,
Water injection causes an explosion in the cylinder when the water
droplets expand to steam. Fighters also have used it periodically for pulling
out of dives and in dogfights. I think Mustangs used to have it.
Engine lifetime is shortened. In long term use such as on oil rigs where
the ocean spray gets into the intake, the valves are damaged, not from the
salt but from overheating. Highly conductive steam heats the valves up.
Increased compression pressure may blow head gaskets and damage rings.
If one were to design a water assisted engine, it would have many
benefits including less emissions and run cooler, much higher fuel
efficiency. Other problems like water and higher acid contamination in the
oil would have to be dealt with.
I messed around with this when I was in high school.

Tom Taylor
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Aug 1 11:47:04 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Heavy Metal vs ring-a-dings
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000731214557.009708a0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3986F02C.6A2BF759@c2i.net>

Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> Arnt -- you are ignoring flame propagation speeds!

..I thought I covered my tail here on saying "combustion speed", not
combustion speed. I'm well aware of the black magic non-linear
characteristics involved here.
These tweaks can be approximated with linear math quite nicely to
impress people, here we discuss the practicalities of setting up a small
power plant with gasifier and all.

> A wider cylinder with a
> short stroke will not have time to extract all the energy as rpm goes up.
> Sure you can get more HP out of the motor if you increase rpm and it sucks
> more producer gas in -- but your fuel efficiency goes right out the exhaust
> ports.
>
> Your right about piston speeds being higher in a long stroke. But we
> address that problem by lowering RPM. Read well the message next time.
>
> Tell me -- what is the RPM of those diesels getting 46% efficiencies?? (I
> list them at the end)

..read it. These efficiencies are the products of massive tweaks, no
de-rates.

> Rpm is a trade of for reduction in size. If you are going to stick a
> gasifier in a car -- you need a small light, high rpm, motor. And you

..in an automobile, the buying public 1. _want_ an _high_ horsepower
number so they can outbrag their neighbors, they 2. _need_ a _wide_
torque band so they can _actually_ drive the auto without embarrasingly
stalling it. Greenpeace dont buy autos anyway, so their potential
demands for efficiency is _ignored_.

..tuning engines is black magic, art, only then science wherever
documented.
On tuning an engine, first decide what you want to gain, most common
tune parameters are power, torque, life or efficiency. Effectively this
means moving, and _mowing_ the peaks around. So _accept_ the sacrifice
on _all_ the other parameters to stay happy. Or, watch both your parts
dealer and therapist get rich.

..Wartsila chose efficiency, and _peaked_ _everything_ at 400 rpm, to
get 46%.
_
> probably will never get better than 15% fuel efficiencies on producer gas.
>
> For my part -- stationary power plants -- I do not care how big the motor
> is! They are cheaper in those sizes. A man just down the road from me here
> in Belize has two 903 cummins V-8 turbo charged. Says they were working
> when he pulled them. Who cares -- they rebuild easy. He wants $2000 US for
> both!

..end of discussion, get them! ;-)

> 3rd world is full of these type engines. Why should I be paying top dollar
> for engines that need high rpm to work well. I will have much less derating
> on that cummins 903 -- rated at well over 400 HP on diesel -- turning at
> 2000 rpm than you will have on a racing 454 turning at over 5000 RPM to get
> its over 400 HP.

..anyone seen racing 454's tuned for efficiency? ;-)

..a 454 can be tuned for efficiency too. Makes it usable for our
purposes. A racing engine is not usable.

> Plus -- think of the fuel efficiencies!!
>
> No thanks -- you stay in high rpm -- short stroke land. Not me!!

..try compare piston speeds from the Cummins, Wartsila's and the 454 ;-D

> You know and like wartsila diesels -- right??
>
> So let me use them as example regarding increasing efficiencies by
> increasing stroke and lowering rpm. Mind you -- they get bigger in size as
> well!
>
> Cummins Wartsila CW170
>
> Light Fuel Oil
> Unit -- 18V170
> Technical data 60 Hz/1800 rpm
> Power output kWe 2360
> Heat rate kJ/ kWhe 9512
> Electrical efficiency % 37.8
>
> Dimensions and weights
> Length mm 6200
> Width mm 1720
> Height mm 2350
> Genset weight tons 21
>
> Cummins Wartsila CW200
> Light Fuel Oil
> Unit 18V200
> Technical data 60 Hz/1200 rpm
>
> Power output kWe 3000
> Heat rate kJ/kWhe 8767
> Electrical efficiency % 41.1
>
> Dimensions and weights
> Length mm 7900
> Width mm 1840
> Height mm 2950
> Genset weight ton 36.3
>
>
>
> Wartsila 38
> Heavy Fuel Oil
> Unit 18V38
> Technical data 60 Hz/600 rpm
>
> Power output kWe 11010
> Heat rate kJ/kWhe 8350
> Electrical efficiency % 43.1
>
> Dimensions and weights
> Length mm 13800
> Width mm 4760
> Height mm 4690
> Genset weight ton 168
>
>
> Heavy Fuel Oil
> Unit 12V64
> Technical data 60 Hz/400 rpm
>
> Power output kWe 22582
> Heat rate kJ/kWhe 7780
> Electrical efficiency % 46.3
>
> Dimensions and weights
> Length mm 13350
> Width mm 5200
> Height mm 7770
> Genset weight ton 428
>
> See any trend here Arnt?? I see two.
>
> 1/ The lower the RPM the higher efficiencies
> (and the poorer fuel it can use)

..who sez heated heavy oil vapors is poor fuel? ;-)
Match piston speed to "combustion speed".

> 2/ Lower the Rpm -- great increase in engine size!
>
> Remember -- producer gas is the poorer fuel again -- by about 28%!

..fun part is, that irrelevant to efficiency.
Relevant to power/fuel unit ratios only ;-)

..and yes, engine tuned for one fuel will lose some performance
efficiency on anything else. ;-)

> So I expect the trend to be even more pronounced -- regarding increase in
> efficiencies with lengthening stroke and slowing down RPM. As the flame
> temp is lower than even than heavy fuel oil.
>
> So OK -- you vote for Tom and the racing motor 454 to get your 400 HP plus
> block.

..if _re-tuned for efficiency_ cheaper than yours.

> I'll still take the 903 Cummins for the 400 HP plus block.
>
> Hey Arnt -- it may well be a free world -- but energy is expensive. So why
> use more than you have to??

..now we talk money. ;-) If Tom can beat your price re-tuning for
efficiency, _and_ beat your efficiency, you lose flat out. At 2000 US$
you have a good start. ;-)

> Your happy with a probable 17% or less engine efficiency -- but you want to
> haul it around in the back of your car. Plus you may well like rebuilding
> engines on a very regular basis.

..no down time, thanks. ;-) Tuning for efficiency, will not maximize
life, that takes tuning for life, however, service life is not hurt as
badly as when tuning for high rpm power peaks or low rpm torque peaks.
Such peaks hurt by slamming metal onto near-solid lube films, and
grinding metal thru collapsing lube films.

> I'm looking looking for breaking the 30% efficiency barrier -- not the
> fastest lap at the Indi 500. And to just keep on breaking it year in and
> year out with out having to tear down a rebuild.
>
> So what if it takes a 5 ton truck to move it around -- once!
>
> Are you following any of this?? Or are you so addicted to "speed"?
>
> If you want "speed" -- try gasoline with nitro-methane -- not producer gas
> -- as the fuel.

..actually, in aeromodelling, the common racing fuels are glow ignited
blends of methanol + say 15-45% nitromethane etc, plus ~20% castor oil,
at some 20-35 krpms and sub-inch strokes, chk those piston speeds. ;-)
>
> While you are into light little ring-a-dings -- I am into "heavy-Metal".

..tuned right, both works fine. ;-)

> Peter Singfield (Belize)
>
> At 02:16 AM 8/1/00 +0200, you wrote:
> >Peter Singfield wrote:
> >>
> >> Good day Prof. Anuradda Ganesh;
> >>
> >> I am so happy to see some contributions regarding the state of this art in
> >> India.
> >>
> >> Some very interesting points Prof. (Mrs) Parikh brings to this discussion.
> >> And very well backed up with reasons why.
> >>
> >> Let me high light a few which I find very pertinent to this discussion.
> >>
> >> > Diesel 3.4 (812)
> >> > Producer Gas 2.2 (525)*
> >>
>
--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Aug 1 11:48:33 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Heavy Metal vs ring-a-dings
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000731214557.009708a0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3986F086.E2673435@c2i.net>

robert luis rabello wrote:
>
> Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> > Arnt -- you are ignoring flame propagation speeds!

> > A wider cylinder with a
> > short stroke will not have time to extract all the energy as rpm goes up.
> > Sure you can get more HP out of the motor if you increase rpm and it sucks
> > more producer gas in -- but your fuel efficiency goes right out the exhaust
> > ports.
>
> I read about a camshaft that the Crower company was producing in the late
> 1970's or early 1980's. Their intriguing idea centered around adjusting the
> intake valve timing to limit the overall intake charge on a 5.7 liter small block
> Chevrolet. Crower made the engine's intake volume 1/3 less than "normal", then

..1/3 less cross section intake? Or 1/3 less air into the engine? The
latter dumps you right back to 10:1 effective. The former adds
induction gas speed and inertia, could well add 50% more air into the
engine if done right. Tuning.

..slam shut the induction valve behind that incoming gas. At idle,
allow it to blow gas back out to reduce compression, no need for full
compression at idle.

> squeezed the intake charge hard (their research engines were running compression
> ratios of something like 15:1 on premium gasoline) and let the long stroke
> develop maximum fuel efficiency.
>
> Reported fuel economy gains were quite impressive, but I can't remember the
> numbers due to excessive brain cell loss! The concept, however, seems similar to
> what you are proposing. The big, 10 liter turbo diesels that power class 8
> trucks are ubiquitous, but rather expensive to rebuild--at least around here. (I
> remember getting quotes for my customers that ranged in the $10 000
> neighborhood. I could build four or five big block automobile engines for that.
> . .)

..so that truck engine would output how much for how long?
And those 4 to 5 V-8's combined, ditto?
Pull one V-8 off the grid, and you _still_ output 75-80% to the grid.
;-)

> Big displacement usually equates to big torque at low rpm. The slower you
> turn that engine, the longer it should last, everything else being equal. For

..assuming adequate lube pressure.
This also takes power.
This is only almost a linear world. ;-)

> stationary applications, your argument makes sense. I'd hate to lug that kind of
> mass around in my personal vehicle, however!
>
> robert luis rabello
>
--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From snkm at btl.net Tue Aug 1 12:39:36 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Water injection
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000801103104.00935ad0@wgs1.btl.net>

A rough math model regarding boosting efficiencies by using hot gas at
intake and water injecting to extract that heat -- in the cylinder --
during operation.

**********************************************************

Continuing alone the lines of extracting energy from wasted heat by direct
water injection.

If we have 900 C producer gas -- and we mix it 1:1:2 with air -- it will
quickly be cooled down to around 450 C in the manifold.

Well, lets preheat the air as well!

We can start that process by sucking it though a small radiator directly on
the block water out from the jacket -- before going to the main engine
radiator. From there we draw it through a heat exchanger around the engine
exhaust.

Now the inlet air should be nice and toasty for our hybrid steam/producer
gas engine.

How much water would need to be injected per stroke??

Well -- just saying -- piston dia 4 in -- stroke 5 in = 62.85 in cubed.

Call the "swept" volume 63 in cubed.

Call the specific heat of the mixed gasses .26 btu/lb deg F.

Weights of gasses drawn into cylinder

At Room temp -- Air = .07655 lbs per ft cubed.
Producer Gas = .06583

1:1.2 (.06583 + .09186 = .15769/2.2 = .07168)

So room temp -- Air and producer mix = .07168

Now -- say our intake temp of this mix is 600 C (guessing)

What is the density of our mixture then?

Well -- using steam as an example (steam charts) -- I would say 1/2

OK -- the first thing noted is that we would need to have a blower attached
to this motor just to get the right charge into the cylinder.

So -- a turbo charger with enough boost to double the density of the gas.
Going a step further -- if my figures are wrong -- by a bit -- lets just
say a turbo charging to blow the same amount of hot gasses into the
cylinder as a cold draw would have.

Ok -- next.

Now we can say:

63/1728 * .07168 = .0026133 lbs of gas mixture in this cylinder

.0418 of an ounce!! 1.185 gram!!

Now -- what is the temperature??

Well -- it comes in at 500 C -- but how much hotter does it get after being
compressed 12:1??

At top dead center --

OK guys -- all I have at hand to find that figure is an old chart in my
1924 Mark's Manual. It shows a doubling of temperature at a 12 to one
compression ratio.

I stand to be corrected -- but for now

2000 F

Ok -- .0026133 lbs of gas mixture * .26 = .000068 btu deg F

Delta T = 2000 - (what??)

OK -- how much heat do we want to take out?? well -- we should not have
condensing in the cylinder -- so say we got to 300F

2000 - 300 = 1700 * .000068 = 1.154 btu of heat to extract.

you can figure at least 1600 btu per pound of water fro steam that would be
created in that cylinder. So to match the amount of water needed to cool
down the cylinder --

1.154/1600 = .00072 of a pound water.

0.3265848 gram -- or 0.3265848 cc -- or 327 ml of water needs be injected.

Can we use the existing injector in that diesel for this??

Four stroke engine at 1500 rpm -- 750 power strokes per minute.

750 * .3265848 = 245 cc per minute.

How much extra energy should we be netting?

Well -- we are "playing" with a gross of 1.154 btu per stroke. Say we get
just .5 of that back as extra expansion energy (probably more)

750 * .5 btu = 375 btu per minute.

375 btu/min = 8.8 HP

Hey -- not a bad gain -- eh folks!!

Now -- who is going to verify all those figures and guestimates??

Personally -- I used to do these kind of gonjo math models just to see if
something was worth while pursuing. The next step would be to derive the
right figures by actual bench testing. The math modeling is simply to see
if there may be a value worth while there.

In this case I certainly feel there is!

In this case -- would be interesting to know how much HP the combustion of
producer gas is making in that same cylinder.

We are drawing in 63 in cubed per stroke -- 750 time per min.

63 time 750 = 47250 in cubed per min.

Producer gas is 1:1.2 or 45% of this mix

45% * 47250 = 21263 cu in per minute. or 12.32 ft cu.

At 150 btu per foot cu. = 1848 BTU/min = 43.54 HP

total HP = 43.54 plus 8.8 = 52.35

8.8/52.35 = 16% increase in power

Two points to remember -- this is gross power in the cylinder -- not net
power to the crank. But the percentage ratios should still be there -- in
gross and in net!

Second point -- we also are putting btu's into the feed air by preheating
that as well.

One point in this example is that how can you preheat air using an exhaust
heat exchanger if water injection has lowered it to 300 F ??

You can't. But you can certainly find that heat from around the
combustion/reduction zones of the gasifier -- another utilizing of
presently wasted heat.

All in all -- one can safely say an increase of 10% over all efficiency is
possible in the fuel to electrical power figures when using a gasifier.

Prof. Parikh once told me that the best over all efficiencies one can
expect for a biomass conversion to electrical energy using gasification
process is 17% and it is normal to see only 14%.

This puts gasification on the weak side of boilers and steam turbines by
quite a bit.

Getting a further 10% engine efficiency should allow an increase of at
least 6% to over all efficiencies.

That now puts the Gasifier over all efficiencies ranging from 20% to 23%.

To give you prospective on those figures. The very best boiler biomass
system is the Foster Wheeler one. A fluidized bed gasifier burning
"pellets" producing gas firing a modern state of the art boiler --
producing steam quality of 900 F super heat and 1675 psi pressure -- get
21% over all efficiencies.

If only modern technology was not so fat and lazy -- there could be great
strides to be made in gasification!!

Further -- water injection is just one little trick to increase engine
efficiencies. Just as much increase can be achieved through further tuning
of an engine design optimizing the combustion of producer gas to power.
Like using a slow RPM long stroke design.

This would push a gasifier to IC engine power plant design to over 25%
efficiencies -- and probably break the 30% barrier!

To bad the "moderns" are not into this. And to bad we in 3rd world can't
afford to pursue this direction with the energy is deserves just yet -- but
give us time -- and we will -- leaving the rest of you behind in the fat
laden dust you so richly deserve.

Meanwhile, Tom and Arnt can have a gasifier race around the old brick yard.
Just who can design the most waste-full design is not important -- but who
can get around that track fastest is all that counts.

Playing a game! While we melt down the planet. Playing a fiddle at the
burning of Rome.

I am sorry I brought up the question of "efficiencies" -- obviously it is
of no concern to the rich how much energy they waste to get their kicks. Or
how much it costs to build their "bloated" devices to do this -- either!!

Just remember -- in the end -- the very end -- the "worm" eats all.

Peter Singfield (Belize)

From snkm at btl.net Tue Aug 1 13:17:30 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tuning for efficiency - eating the derating!
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000801104938.00942180@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Arnt;

See your slowly coming around to understanding the principles.

At 05:42 PM 8/1/00 +0200, you wrote:
>Peter Singfield wrote:
>> The boys gets around this by using diesel injection for a "flame" ignition
>
>..which too does a fine job of torch shooting the cylinder charge. ;-)

I like the term torch shooting -- think I'll steal it. Last time we
discussed flame ignition over spark ignition on this list we had nobody
understanding what the discussion was about!

>
>> through out the entire compressed charge of producer gas. This also solves
>> the knocking problem. But run on pure producer gas with spark ignition at
>> those compression ratios in a diesel and see what happens!
>
>..nope, I want that water + alcohol spray too. ;-)

Yes -- exactly. Have you figured out how much alcohol you would need?

>> Sure you can do hig RPM and a short stroke -- just use many tiny little
>> cylinders. Like in a v - 100 cylinder engine!
>
>..or catalyze. ;-) Also, the big guys like Wartsila start the fire in
>a lot of places too. Can torch shoot too. ;-)

Yes - -exactly. In the earlier conversation regarding flame ignition I was
proposing adapting the Volks Rabbit diesel for this purpose -- as it
already has a "squish" chamber built in for diesel charge ignition. That is
where the glow plugs screw into. The plan is replace the glow plug with a
spark plug. The gas mixture is ignited there and the flame shoots out to
fire the main charge in the cylinder.

They use this same system for this same reason on the big diesels --

>>
>> The steam is supplying the oxygen to carbon as well. Resulting in more CO
>> and more hydrogen.
>
>..into the gasifier, yep. Into the engine, nope.

Yes -- obviously -- no carbon to pick up in the gas mix in the cylinder.
But you'll see what I was trying to say in the water injection math model I
just posted.

But you do have carbon left over to steam reform in the chars mixed with
your ash. Suggest entering the steam though your ash pit.

Peter Singfield (Belize)
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Aug 1 13:39:35 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Derating and engine efficiencies -- the trends.
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000801092113.0093db60@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <39870A89.EE37B6E1@c2i.net>

Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> Hi Again Robert;
>
> Crower made the engine's intake volume 1/3 less than "normal", then
> >squeezed the intake charge hard (their research engines were running
> compression
> >ratios of something like 15:1 on premium gasoline) and let the long stroke
> >develop maximum fuel efficiency.
>
> They effectively made the engine appear to have a longer stroke by cutting
> out intake duration. This also results in a serious engine derating.

..how serious? 1/3 less, less or more? Efficency should rise slightly
due to less air pumping losses?

> However -- yes -- it would greatly increase the fuel milage.
>
> My point is that one has to derate a short stroke block a lot more than a
> long stroke block. And I am hoping that certain people can either correct
> me using "science" or agree with the science presented to date.

..I try! My points, "match engine and fuel", and "each is different,
need ditto medicine".

> I find it difficult that I must "argue" the point that to increase engine
> efficiency one must make sure that the fuel has time to burn "completely"
> in the cylinder. This should be a "given".

..amen!

> >The big, 10 liter turbo diesels that power class 8
> >trucks are ubiquitous, but rather expensive to rebuild--at least around
> here. (I
> >remember getting quotes for my customers that ranged in the $10 000
> >neighborhood. I could build four or five big block automobile engines for
> that.
> >. .)
>
> All true. But this list is "excited" over a 250 kw Tesla that gets maybe
> 24% efficiencies and costs just $800 per kw!!
>
> That is 335 HP for $200,000

..good expensive numbers, therefore considered creditable.

> I believe I can get much better efficiency than that for a cost 1/10 -- and
> probably have much better reliability and much lower maintenance costs!

..problem is, few, very few people believe in beginners luck, when you
ask them to borrow you money. They happily believe in track records.
Classic chicken and egg problem.

> The big block car engine are great to -- but must go that Crower cam route
> to get an efficiency even approaching better than 24%. That means a lot
> more derating. You might need 4 or five to replace that big diesel block!
>
> They would be very reliable operating at that level of derating though!
>
> There are great old truck gasoline engines -- low RPM -- that would work
> great to.
>
> And using a 454 to put out 25 kwh at say 900 RPM is not such a bad idea
> either -- they sure don't cost much money and would last forever at that
> derating level -- and quite possibly do better than 30% efficiencies.
>
> I am trying to "question" the theory that more derating means more
> efficiency. All I am getting from Arnt is that he can run a motor on
> producer gas with very little derating -- and who cares what engine

..they did this in WWII. See Gengas.
Some did this good. No need to do worse.
We build on what works, and junk whatever don't.
No need to waste money copying WWII mistakes.
A lot of people do just that, because they do not check out what other
people has done before.

> efficiencies are -- his business is making gasifiers -- he will simply make
> a bigger gasifier, make more profit, and let the customer use an poor
> efficiency motor -- plus consume a lot more fuel.
>
> Guess it does make good business sense -- but very poor power production
> economics.

..amen!

> We simply do not have this luxury of screwing everyone over here in 3rd
> world. Modern world is fat -- so can afford wasting resources. In fact they
> are doing such a good job of that right now we are literally melting down
> the entire planet!!

..but temperamental fumes are ok?

> The best way to lower carbon emissions is by increasing power generation
> efficiencies -- lest we all forget!!

..amen!

> You can certainly tell that present state of the art gasification comes
> from WW2 technology -- where getting that vehicle moving was the only
> priority -- never mind how much "alternate" fuel it took. Times have
> changed folks -- get with it!
>
> The best way to reduce power generation costs using a gasification system
> is by reducing the size of the gasifier required. As with small block, high
> efficiency gasoline engines, this will have to come from out side the
> modern world domain. They simply do not care. (V-5's forever -- 5 mpg is
> cool!) They have no incentive. They build most of these devices on "grant"
> money so can be extremely wasteful. Then they wonder why the rest of the
> world does not adopt their technology?
>
> I trust what India has to say on this matter -- not the whiz kids from

..this playing whiz kid, pulled _all_ money out of his own and two
partners pockets.
_After_ doing his Gengas homework. And all the other stuff he found. A
lot of beginners luck in making the right guesses on how thermochemical
gasification really work.

..big mistake, was trying to do this in Norway. Not because of denied
grants, learned to live without them, but because Norway Simply Does Not
Want the Gasification Competition[Tm]. Try sell a few megawattshours
here...

> modern world that are "playing". India is trying to make a serious shift
> into producer gas power. And they have to do it in a real world -- that is
> a 3rd world economy.
>
> North America has the cheapest fuel costs on planet earth. And the cheapest
> electrical energy costs. How can people from that area get serious about
> energy from biomasses?? They play!

..amen! Norwegian electricity is cheapest though, about 1/3 us cent per
kWh, when selling, most people pay about 8 cents per kWh. Piece of cake,
if you own the grid. That is the requirement here.

> The Europeans are just followers. Wanna-bees. They would rather have cheap
> fuels so they could be energy pigs to -- than look at efficient
> co-existence with power production.

..amen!

> When I get quotes for prices from Europeans -- I know they are lost!! Far
> to expensive. Not at all practical. And no changing their "habits".
>
> The revolution -- as always -- will come from 3rd world. A 500 kwe gasifier
> from India costs under $60,000 US -- and is a proven worker.
>
> Arnt told me he would need a couple of million to do that same size!!

..true. This also includes teaching the lost Europeans how to do it
right, and remaining sure I would not run out of money in the process.
That is how to cover _their_ tails _too_. And _why_, it gets so
_damned_ expensive.

> Also -- there are severe restriction with "western" designed gasifiers --
> fuel must be pelletized to within close tolerances! Another million for the
> pellet machine! The India Gasifier I am thinking of burns rice husks!!

..need to try that rice husk too.

> Western people get their salaries from grant money thrown to them for
> "playing" to be concerned with biomass gasification. Where is the incentive
> to produce new technology under that kind of system?? We end up with over
> priced -- severly restricted -- designs that have no "practical"
> application beyond a research grant in some rich modern country.
>
> Rest my case --

..cool off, Peter, we're still in business.

> Peter Singfield (Belize)
>
> At 10:05 PM 7/31/00 -0700, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >Peter Singfield wrote:
> >
> >> Arnt -- you are ignoring flame propagation speeds! A wider cylinder with a
> >> short stroke will not have time to extract all the energy as rpm goes up.
> >> Sure you can get more HP out of the motor if you increase rpm and it sucks
> >> more producer gas in -- but your fuel efficiency goes right out the exhaust
> >> ports.
> >
> > I read about a camshaft that the Crower company was producing in the late
> >1970's or early 1980's. Their intriguing idea centered around adjusting the
> >intake valve timing to limit the overall intake charge on a 5.7 liter
> small block
> >Chevrolet. Crower made the engine's intake volume 1/3 less than "normal",
> then
> >squeezed the intake charge hard (their research engines were running
> compression
> >ratios of something like 15:1 on premium gasoline) and let the long stroke
> >develop maximum fuel efficiency.
> >
> > Reported fuel economy gains were quite impressive, but I can't
> remember the
> >numbers due to excessive brain cell loss! The concept, however, seems
> similar to
> >what you are proposing. The big, 10 liter turbo diesels that power class 8
> >trucks are ubiquitous, but rather expensive to rebuild--at least around
> here. (I
> >remember getting quotes for my customers that ranged in the $10 000
> >neighborhood. I could build four or five big block automobile engines for
> that.
> >. .)
> >
> > Big displacement usually equates to big torque at low rpm. The slower
> you
> >turn that engine, the longer it should last, everything else being equal.
> For
> >stationary applications, your argument makes sense. I'd hate to lug that
> kind of
> >mass around in my personal vehicle, however!
> >
> >robert luis rabello
> >
--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Aug 1 13:49:01 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:35 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tuning for efficiency - eating the derating!
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000801104938.00942180@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <39870CC3.4798B547@c2i.net>

Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> Hi Arnt;
>
> See your slowly coming around to understanding the principles.
>
> At 05:42 PM 8/1/00 +0200, you wrote:
> >Peter Singfield wrote:
> >> The boys gets around this by using diesel injection for a "flame" ignition
> >
> >..which too does a fine job of torch shooting the cylinder charge. ;-)
>
> I like the term torch shooting -- think I'll steal it. Last time we
> discussed flame ignition over spark ignition on this list we had nobody
> understanding what the discussion was about!
>
> >
> >> through out the entire compressed charge of producer gas. This also solves
> >> the knocking problem. But run on pure producer gas with spark ignition at
> >> those compression ratios in a diesel and see what happens!
> >
> >..nope, I want that water + alcohol spray too. ;-)
>
> Yes -- exactly. Have you figured out how much alcohol you would need?

..nope, steal from the P&W guys, and work from there.
Tried spraying that burning diesel oil sample yet?
You're looking for a hotter bright non-smoky flame. Catalyzed. ;-)

> >> Sure you can do hig RPM and a short stroke -- just use many tiny little
> >> cylinders. Like in a v - 100 cylinder engine!
> >
> >..or catalyze. ;-) Also, the big guys like Wartsila start the fire in
> >a lot of places too. Can torch shoot too. ;-)
>
> Yes - -exactly. In the earlier conversation regarding flame ignition I was
> proposing adapting the Volks Rabbit diesel for this purpose -- as it
> already has a "squish" chamber built in for diesel charge ignition. That is
> where the glow plugs screw into. The plan is replace the glow plug with a
> spark plug. The gas mixture is ignited there and the flame shoots out to
> fire the main charge in the cylinder.
>
> They use this same system for this same reason on the big diesels --
>
> >>
> >> The steam is supplying the oxygen to carbon as well. Resulting in more CO
> >> and more hydrogen.
> >
> >..into the gasifier, yep. Into the engine, nope.
>
> Yes -- obviously -- no carbon to pick up in the gas mix in the cylinder.
> But you'll see what I was trying to say in the water injection math model I
> just posted.
>
> But you do have carbon left over to steam reform in the chars mixed with
> your ash. Suggest entering the steam though your ash pit.

..nope, would come straight back into the engine as is.
Need to draw it thru the gasifiers carbon bed to make CO out of it. ;-)

--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Aug 1 13:58:30 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:35 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tuning for efficiency - eating the derating!
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000731124349.00936240@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <39870EFC.E01FF44E@c2i.net>

tvoivozhd wrote:
>
> Any of you who remember the Second World War may correct me if my facts are
> not in order, but didn't the B-29's flying in the Pacific actually REQUIRE water
> injection to develop sufficient power during take off? They could have shut the
> system off after the aircraft reached sufficient altitude, but how would this work
> in a stationary application?
>
> Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion!
>
> robert luis rabello
>
> P-47's with a Pratt and Whitney used water injection ANY time they pulled full
> throttle, take-off or combat, at 72 inches manifold pressure. It was automatic. You
> could run at 72 inches four minutes. Unless it was a short runway it was inadvisable

..aouch. 72 inches is a _lot_ of boost pressure. If true, no wonder
they could take 88mm hits and come home. I've seen 36 inches quoted for
I believe, Packard/RR Merlins. At sea level, we breathe 29 inches
ambient, no boost.

> to redline the manifold pressure. Beyond four minutes at full power you would be
> ready to bail out.
> Without water injection detonation would occur immediately, with an engine life
> measured in seconds.

--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Aug 1 14:54:03 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:35 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Water injection
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000801103104.00935ad0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <39871BFE.35C3CFA6@c2i.net>

Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> A rough math model regarding boosting efficiencies by using hot gas at
> intake and water injecting to extract that heat -- in the cylinder --
> during operation.
>
> **********************************************************
>
> Continuing alone the lines of extracting energy from wasted heat by direct
> water injection.
>
> If we have 900 C producer gas -- and we mix it 1:1:2 with air -- it will
> quickly be cooled down to around 450 C in the manifold.

.._if_, we mix it there. ;-) I like your gas "diesel". Could shoot
torches too.
Needs separate hot gas compression though. That's tough.

> Well, lets preheat the air as well!

..nope. Would expand before entering the engine. We want the air to
work expanding inside the engine, not do sabotage outside it.

> We can start that process by sucking it though a small radiator directly on
> the block water out from the jacket -- before going to the main engine
> radiator. From there we draw it through a heat exchanger around the engine
> exhaust.
>
> Now the inlet air should be nice and toasty for our hybrid steam/producer
> gas engine.
>
> How much water would need to be injected per stroke??
>
> Well -- just saying -- piston dia 4 in -- stroke 5 in = 62.85 in cubed.
>
> Call the "swept" volume 63 in cubed.
>
> Call the specific heat of the mixed gasses .26 btu/lb deg F.
>
> Weights of gasses drawn into cylinder
>
> At Room temp -- Air = .07655 lbs per ft cubed.
> Producer Gas = .06583
>
> 1:1.2 (.06583 + .09186 = .15769/2.2 = .07168)
>
> So room temp -- Air and producer mix = .07168
>
> Now -- say our intake temp of this mix is 600 C (guessing)
>
> What is the density of our mixture then?
>
> Well -- using steam as an example (steam charts) -- I would say 1/2
>
> OK -- the first thing noted is that we would need to have a blower attached
> to this motor just to get the right charge into the cylinder.
>
> So -- a turbo charger with enough boost to double the density of the gas.
> Going a step further -- if my figures are wrong -- by a bit -- lets just
> say a turbo charging to blow the same amount of hot gasses into the
> cylinder as a cold draw would have.
>
> Ok -- next.
>
> Now we can say:
>
> 63/1728 * .07168 = .0026133 lbs of gas mixture in this cylinder
>
> .0418 of an ounce!! 1.185 gram!!
>
> Now -- what is the temperature??
>
> Well -- it comes in at 500 C -- but how much hotter does it get after being
> compressed 12:1??
>
> At top dead center --
>
> OK guys -- all I have at hand to find that figure is an old chart in my
> 1924 Mark's Manual. It shows a doubling of temperature at a 12 to one
> compression ratio.
>
> I stand to be corrected -- but for now
>
> 2000 F
>
> Ok -- .0026133 lbs of gas mixture * .26 = .000068 btu deg F
>
> Delta T = 2000 - (what??)
>
> OK -- how much heat do we want to take out?? well -- we should not have
> condensing in the cylinder -- so say we got to 300F
>
> 2000 - 300 = 1700 * .000068 = 1.154 btu of heat to extract.
>
> you can figure at least 1600 btu per pound of water fro steam that would be
> created in that cylinder. So to match the amount of water needed to cool
> down the cylinder --
>
> 1.154/1600 = .00072 of a pound water.
>
> 0.3265848 gram -- or 0.3265848 cc -- or 327 ml of water needs be injected.
>
> Can we use the existing injector in that diesel for this??

..lube in water, can be done.

> Four stroke engine at 1500 rpm -- 750 power strokes per minute.
>
> 750 * .3265848 = 245 cc per minute.
>
> How much extra energy should we be netting?
>
> Well -- we are "playing" with a gross of 1.154 btu per stroke. Say we get
> just .5 of that back as extra expansion energy (probably more)
>
> 750 * .5 btu = 375 btu per minute.
>
> 375 btu/min = 8.8 HP
>
> Hey -- not a bad gain -- eh folks!!
>
> Now -- who is going to verify all those figures and guestimates??
>
> Personally -- I used to do these kind of gonjo math models just to see if
> something was worth while pursuing. The next step would be to derive the

..between gonjo and bench banging, I like to zero in. Quite cost
effective. Some people even call it engineering. ;-)

> right figures by actual bench testing. The math modeling is simply to see
> if there may be a value worth while there.
>
> In this case I certainly feel there is!
>
> In this case -- would be interesting to know how much HP the combustion of
> producer gas is making in that same cylinder.

..ok. Stop! Do we do steam, gas or both now?
In the last case, you add both models together afterwards, ignoring
model interaction?
Approximation control, is good to know how far off we can expect to be.
;-) Carry on.

> We are drawing in 63 in cubed per stroke -- 750 time per min.
>
> 63 time 750 = 47250 in cubed per min.
>
> Producer gas is 1:1.2 or 45% of this mix
>
> 45% * 47250 = 21263 cu in per minute. or 12.32 ft cu.
>
> At 150 btu per foot cu. = 1848 BTU/min = 43.54 HP
>
> total HP = 43.54 plus 8.8 = 52.35
>
> 8.8/52.35 = 16% increase in power
>
> Two points to remember -- this is gross power in the cylinder -- not net
> power to the crank. But the percentage ratios should still be there -- in
> gross and in net!

..ok.

> Second point -- we also are putting btu's into the feed air by preheating
> that as well.

..this I do not want to do. I want to pipe, say, 18% of the exhaust gas
back into the gasifier, to re-use some exhaust CO2 carbon, and all the
heat you can stuff back into my gasifier.

> One point in this example is that how can you preheat air using an exhaust
> heat exchanger if water injection has lowered it to 300 F ??
>
> You can't. But you can certainly find that heat from around the
> combustion/reduction zones of the gasifier -- another utilizing of
> presently wasted heat.
>
> All in all -- one can safely say an increase of 10% over all efficiency is
> possible in the fuel to electrical power figures when using a gasifier.
>
> Prof. Parikh once told me that the best over all efficiencies one can
> expect for a biomass conversion to electrical energy using gasification
> process is 17% and it is normal to see only 14%.

..we'll see. ;-)

> This puts gasification on the weak side of boilers and steam turbines by
> quite a bit.
>
> Getting a further 10% engine efficiency should allow an increase of at
> least 6% to over all efficiencies.
>
> That now puts the Gasifier over all efficiencies ranging from 20% to 23%.
>
> To give you prospective on those figures. The very best boiler biomass
> system is the Foster Wheeler one. A fluidized bed gasifier burning
> "pellets" producing gas firing a modern state of the art boiler --
> producing steam quality of 900 F super heat and 1675 psi pressure -- get
> 21% over all efficiencies.

..first target to beat. ;-)

> If only modern technology was not so fat and lazy -- there could be great
> strides to be made in gasification!!
>
> Further -- water injection is just one little trick to increase engine
> efficiencies. Just as much increase can be achieved through further tuning
> of an engine design optimizing the combustion of producer gas to power.
> Like using a slow RPM long stroke design.

..or whatever does the job better. I'd be really surprised to see the
Tesla win. ;-)

> This would push a gasifier to IC engine power plant design to over 25%
> efficiencies -- and probably break the 30% barrier!
>
> To bad the "moderns" are not into this. And to bad we in 3rd world can't
> afford to pursue this direction with the energy is deserves just yet -- but
> give us time -- and we will -- leaving the rest of you behind in the fat
> laden dust you so richly deserve.

..amen!

> Meanwhile, Tom and Arnt can have a gasifier race around the old brick yard.
> Just who can design the most waste-full design is not important -- but who
> can get around that track fastest is all that counts.
>
> Playing a game! While we melt down the planet. Playing a fiddle at the
> burning of Rome.
>
> I am sorry I brought up the question of "efficiencies" -- obviously it is
> of no concern to the rich how much energy they waste to get their kicks. Or
> how much it costs to build their "bloated" devices to do this -- either!!

..dont be. Learn. ;-) And do get Gengas. Much of what you ask, is
there.

..Tom R! I like to see the english version of Gengas online. Please!
Will enhance this site's academic value, and allow book and technology
up-dates.
Gengas is a very good starting point of any discussion of thermochemical
gasification and tweaks.
If you have an electronic copy, but no time to do it, e-mail it to me
and I'll do it.
If all you've got is an hardcopy, chuck it in the mail, and I'll scan it
too.

> Just remember -- in the end -- the very end -- the "worm" eats all.
>
> Peter Singfield (Belize)

--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From snkm at btl.net Tue Aug 1 20:55:54 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:35 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Heavy Metal vs ring-a-dings
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000801185124.009434c0@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi again Arnt:

(Listers -- Arnt and I normally get into a flurry like this off list all
the time. Brain storming in the skunk works. Nothing real comes out of it
but it stimulates action.)

At 05:43 PM 8/1/00 +0200, you wrote:
>Peter Singfield wrote:
>> Tell me -- what is the RPM of those diesels getting 46% efficiencies?? (I
>> list them at the end)
>
>..read it. These efficiencies are the products of massive tweaks, no
>de-rates.

Yes -- just a coincidence that they go low RPM to do it?? The more you
tweak the more time you need for the tweaking to have effect.

>
>> Rpm is a trade of for reduction in size. If you are going to stick a
>> gasifier in a car -- you need a small light, high rpm, motor. And you
>
>..in an automobile, the buying public 1. _want_ an _high_ horsepower
>number so they can outbrag their neighbors, they 2. _need_ a _wide_
>torque band so they can _actually_ drive the auto without embarrasingly
>stalling it. Greenpeace dont buy autos anyway, so their potential
>demands for efficiency is _ignored_.

Exactly -- the fat and lazy syndrome of all "advanced" civilizations.

>..Wartsila chose efficiency, and _peaked_ _everything_ at 400 rpm, to
>get 46%.

Yes -- and the cost is a great increase to engine weight to power out
ratios. but in stationary power plants -- it makes no difference. For
running a car or even worse a plane -- it would be impossible.

We must decide what gasification is being developed for. It has been my
understanding that the best market place for it is stationary power plants.
To lower the high costs of electrical power. Especially in 3rd world
countries - -which do not have the clout to control the fossil energy
supplies of this planet and heavily subsidize their energy needs. And who
cares if we melt the planet!

>_
>> probably will never get better than 15% fuel efficiencies on producer gas.
>>
>> For my part -- stationary power plants -- I do not care how big the motor
>> is! They are cheaper in those sizes. A man just down the road from me here
>> in Belize has two 903 cummins V-8 turbo charged. Says they were working
>> when he pulled them. Who cares -- they rebuild easy. He wants $2000 US for
>> both!
>
>..end of discussion, get them! ;-)

Greatly tempted -- but no gasifier to put to them -- never mind the
generators, control panels -- etc.

>> 2000 rpm than you will have on a racing 454 turning at over 5000 RPM to get
>> its over 400 HP.
>
>..anyone seen racing 454's tuned for efficiency? ;-)

I had a 1968 Olds Tornado with a 454 that produced a little better than 400
HP. If I remember -- I got around 3 to 4 miles per gallon cruising at 125
miles per hour.

>
>..a 454 can be tuned for efficiency too. Makes it usable for our
>purposes. A racing engine is not usable.

Yes -- that Crower Cam is the way to do it.

>> No thanks -- you stay in high rpm -- short stroke land. Not me!!
>
>..try compare piston speeds from the Cummins, Wartsila's and the 454 ;-D

I know -- lower the RPM.

>> 1/ The lower the RPM the higher efficiencies
>> (and the poorer fuel it can use)
>
>..who sez heated heavy oil vapors is poor fuel? ;-)
>Match piston speed to "combustion speed".

Your right -- but see any small engines burning crude lately??

>> 2/ Lower the Rpm -- great increase in engine size!
>>
>> Remember -- producer gas is the poorer fuel again -- by about 28%!
>
>..fun part is, that irrelevant to efficiency.
>Relevant to power/fuel unit ratios only ;-)

Exactly!! So if you accept the derating figures you will not have a problem
getting good efficiency -- but if you fight the derating figures -- you
can't get any efficiency.

>
>..and yes, engine tuned for one fuel will lose some performance
>efficiency on anything else. ;-)

Finally!!!

>
>> So I expect the trend to be even more pronounced -- regarding increase in
>> efficiencies with lengthening stroke and slowing down RPM. As the flame
>> temp is lower than even than heavy fuel oil.
>>
>> So OK -- you vote for Tom and the racing motor 454 to get your 400 HP plus
>> block.
>
>..if _re-tuned for efficiency_ cheaper than yours.

Answered that in another message. I am sure we could tune a 454, short
stroke, to do great efficiency at less than 1000 RPM -- but only about 40 kwe.

Look -- that crower cam cuts intake by 33%!! Add that on top of your 28%
built in derating -- and then consider the much slower RPM figures to tweak
for high efficiencies. But so what!! If you have a big block putting out 40
kwe at 30% -- great!!

Still -- well worth the trouble!! And lots of fun besides. These big block
gas engines are worth less than $100 US around here -- in good running
condition. No body can afford to drive them anymore.

>> Hey Arnt -- it may well be a free world -- but energy is expensive. So why
>> use more than you have to??
>
>..now we talk money. ;-) If Tom can beat your price re-tuning for
>efficiency, _and_ beat your efficiency, you lose flat out. At 2000 US$
>you have a good start. ;-)

But the 454 has to be derated much more that the old long stroke diesel. So
it would take many of those 454's to be like one 903 cummins.

>..no down time, thanks. ;-) Tuning for efficiency, will not maximize
>life, that takes tuning for life, however, service life is not hurt as
>badly as when tuning for high rpm power peaks or low rpm torque peaks.
>Such peaks hurt by slamming metal onto near-solid lube films, and
>grinding metal thru collapsing lube films.

Exactly -- that 454 designed and rated for 400 plus HP should live almost
for ever at 75 HP output. Certainly will never over heat!

>
>..actually, in aeromodelling, the common racing fuels are glow ignited
>blends of methanol + say 15-45% nitromethane etc, plus ~20% castor oil,
>at some 20-35 krpms and sub-inch strokes, chk those piston speeds. ;-)
>>

Yes -- model engine fuel is something else! And I have never seen anything
suck so much fuel before in my life!! It sprays out the exhaust port! I
wonder what their engine efficiencies are??

Peter
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

From rabello at uniserve.com Tue Aug 1 21:09:27 2000
From: rabello at uniserve.com (robert luis rabello)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:35 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Heavy Metal vs ring-a-dings
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000731214557.009708a0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <39877588.D3936FD5@uniserve.com>

Arnt Karlsen wrote:

> ..1/3 less cross section intake? Or 1/3 less air into the engine? The
> latter dumps you right back to 10:1 effective. The former adds
> induction gas speed and inertia, could well add 50% more air into the
> engine if done right. Tuning.

My understanding was 1/3 less air/fuel. Now that you've written this down, it
makes intuitive sense that altering intake valve timing would effectively reduce
compression ratios. I remember posting to the list on a previous occasion that
compression pressure is more pertinent to combustion characteristics than the actual
ratio for this very reason.

Nonetheless, even with the reduced "effective compression" resulting from delayed
intake valve closing, part throttle efficiency should increase when compared to engines
built with "stock" compression ratios. Such tuning techniques would benefit low energy
gaseous fuels, especially since producer gas would not detonate as readily in a higher
compression pressure environment.

I believe Peter makes an excellent point in discussing the relative economic and
environmental merits of maximum efficiencies for producer gas plants. Extending his
argument further, I'd like to add that specialty parts increase the capital equipment
and maintenance costs. While this effect may be less significant in wealthy regions,
those living in less affluence might appreciate the savings.

> ..slam shut the induction valve behind that incoming gas. At idle,
> allow it to blow gas back out to reduce compression, no need for full
> compression at idle.

As long as we're talking about Otto-cycle, externally-mixed engines, efficiencies
increase at part throttle with higher compression. (Please correct me if I'm
mistaken!) Given that a producer gas power plant is unlikely to operate at wide open
throttle, would such an engine NOT benefit from increased compression?

> ..so that truck engine would output how much for how long?
> And those 4 to 5 V-8's combined, ditto?
> Pull one V-8 off the grid, and you _still_ output 75-80% to the grid.
> ;-)

I've seen 400 horsepower 10 liter turbo diesels working very well after 800 000
kilometers of service, consistently pulling loads in excess of 34 000 kilos up and down
the mountains. (Sorry about mixing the measurements--I'm unaccustomed to rating
engines in kWs. . .) Further, the big diesels have replaceable cylinder sleeves,
heavier duty bearings and "bottom end" hardware that make them less susceptible to
wearing out. No machinist that I have met recommends boring a Chevrolet block more
than about 35 mm.

You have a point about the multiple engine "grid", but the added complexity and
maintenance requirements of more than one engine in operation at a time appear to be
mitigating factors. Besides, I understood that we were comparing a single 6.6 liter
big block Chevrolet tuned for maximum power against a larger, heavier line haul diesel.

robert luis rabello

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Aug 1 22:05:37 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:35 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Heavy Metal vs ring-a-dings
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000731214557.009708a0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <39878127.666BD30D@c2i.net>

robert luis rabello wrote:
>
> Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>
> > ..1/3 less cross section intake? Or 1/3 less air into the engine? The
> > latter dumps you right back to 10:1 effective. The former adds
> > induction gas speed and inertia, could well add 50% more air into the
> > engine if done right. Tuning.
>
> My understanding was 1/3 less air/fuel. Now that you've written this down, it
> makes intuitive sense that altering intake valve timing would effectively reduce
> compression ratios. I remember posting to the list on a previous occasion that
> compression pressure is more pertinent to combustion characteristics than the actual
> ratio for this very reason.

..ok.
> Nonetheless, even with the reduced "effective compression" resulting from delayed
> intake valve closing, part throttle efficiency should increase when compared to engines
> built with "stock" compression ratios. Such tuning techniques would benefit low energy
> gaseous fuels, especially since producer gas would not detonate as readily in a higher
> compression pressure environment.

..true, in my VW Beetle experiences, I believe efficiency improved, I
found a _low_ idle, I set around 125 rpms for prompt throttle response,
I found _massive_ low and mid range torque, 25% better than standard
fuel economy, but it ran out of breath at high rpms and fully open
throttle. Used a standard carb, this tuned engine core came from a
_wreck_, ran best at partial thottle. Beginners luck had it I got the
front wheels down again as they started to rise off the road at about
185 km/h. Book said it shouldnt go beyond 140. Go figure. ;-)

> I believe Peter makes an excellent point in discussing the relative economic and
> environmental merits of maximum efficiencies for producer gas plants. Extending his
> argument further, I'd like to add that specialty parts increase the capital equipment
> and maintenance costs. While this effect may be less significant in wealthy regions,
> those living in less affluence might appreciate the savings.

..very, very true. Tuning for efficiency still use the basic knowledge,
only differently.
It often involves re-machining moving parts zeroing out mechanical
tolerances, giving a perfectly balanced engine core, and much more
efficient.

> > ..slam shut the induction valve behind that incoming gas. At idle,
> > allow it to blow gas back out to reduce compression, no need for full
> > compression at idle.
>
> As long as we're talking about Otto-cycle, externally-mixed engines, efficiencies

..you meant internally fired. Firing an otto externally it becomes a
stirling cycle. Also needs modifying then.

> increase at part throttle with higher compression. (Please correct me if I'm
> mistaken!) Given that a producer gas power plant is unlikely to operate at wide open
> throttle, would such an engine NOT benefit from increased compression?
>
> > ..so that truck engine would output how much for how long?
> > And those 4 to 5 V-8's combined, ditto?
> > Pull one V-8 off the grid, and you _still_ output 75-80% to the grid.
> > ;-)
>
> I've seen 400 horsepower 10 liter turbo diesels working very well after 800 000
> kilometers of service, consistently pulling loads in excess of 34 000 kilos up and down
> the mountains. (Sorry about mixing the measurements--I'm unaccustomed to rating
> engines in kWs. . .) Further, the big diesels have replaceable cylinder sleeves,
> heavier duty bearings and "bottom end" hardware that make them less susceptible to
> wearing out. No machinist that I have met recommends boring a Chevrolet block more
> than about 35 mm.

..means Chevy blocks are produced with much closer tolerances, more
expensively, except maybe this is offset by lesser steel costs. No
problem in tuning for efficiency. Useless for dragracing.

> You have a point about the multiple engine "grid", but the added complexity and
> maintenance requirements of more than one engine in operation at a time appear to be
> mitigating factors. Besides, I understood that we were comparing a single 6.6 liter
> big block Chevrolet tuned for maximum power against a larger, heavier line haul diesel.

..I dont, I compare the 10 000 $ heavy iron rebuild you could get into
business with the 4 or 5 big-blocks you could get for the same money.
In business, money's output is relevant. ;-)

> robert luis rabello

--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From arnt at c2i.net Wed Aug 2 00:11:26 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:35 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Heavy Metal vs ring-a-dings
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000801185124.009434c0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <39879EA3.69B53670@c2i.net>

Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> Hi again Arnt:
>
> (Listers -- Arnt and I normally get into a flurry like this off list all
> the time. Brain storming in the skunk works. Nothing real comes out of it
> but it stimulates action.)
>
> At 05:43 PM 8/1/00 +0200, you wrote:
> >Peter Singfield wrote:
> >> Tell me -- what is the RPM of those diesels getting 46% efficiencies?? (I
> >> list them at the end)
> >
> >..read it. These efficiencies are the products of massive tweaks, no
> >de-rates.
>
> Yes -- just a coincidence that they go low RPM to do it?? The more you
> tweak the more time you need for the tweaking to have effect.

..a coincidence, yup. Cause of coincidence is _narrow_ rpm _range_, and
_narrow peak_, not from low rpm. ;-) Low rpm comes with _big_.

> >
> >> Rpm is a trade of for reduction in size. If you are going to stick a
> >> gasifier in a car -- you need a small light, high rpm, motor. And you
> >
> >..in an automobile, the buying public 1. _want_ an _high_ horsepower
> >number so they can outbrag their neighbors, they 2. _need_ a _wide_
> >torque band so they can _actually_ drive the auto without embarrasingly
> >stalling it. Greenpeace dont buy autos anyway, so their potential
> >demands for efficiency is _ignored_.
>
> Exactly -- the fat and lazy syndrome of all "advanced" civilizations.
>
> >..Wartsila chose efficiency, and _peaked_ _everything_ at 400 rpm, to
> >get 46%.
>
> Yes -- and the cost is a great increase to engine weight to power out
> ratios. but in stationary power plants -- it makes no difference. For
> running a car or even worse a plane -- it would be impossible.

..latter done in Sweden in 1943, charcoal I believe, another crazy gas
guru.
To fly, not neccesarily to fly at 46%. ;-)

> We must decide what gasification is being developed for. It has been my
> understanding that the best market place for it is stationary power plants.

..hear, hear! ;-) Only place to do business. Ferries fed MSW, going
between 2 cities, _may_ also be viable.

> To lower the high costs of electrical power. Especially in 3rd world
> countries - -which do not have the clout to control the fossil energy
> supplies of this planet and heavily subsidize their energy needs. And who
> cares if we melt the planet!
>
> >_
> >> probably will never get better than 15% fuel efficiencies on producer gas.
> >>
> >> For my part -- stationary power plants -- I do not care how big the motor
> >> is! They are cheaper in those sizes. A man just down the road from me here
> >> in Belize has two 903 cummins V-8 turbo charged. Says they were working
> >> when he pulled them. Who cares -- they rebuild easy. He wants $2000 US for
> >> both!
> >
> >..end of discussion, get them! ;-)
>
> Greatly tempted -- but no gasifier to put to them -- never mind the
> generators, control panels -- etc.

..get them in India, use my internal trim inside them. ;-) Dumps price
_way_ down, from millions to thousands.

> >> 2000 rpm than you will have on a racing 454 turning at over 5000 RPM to get
> >> its over 400 HP.
> >
> >..anyone seen racing 454's tuned for efficiency? ;-)
>
> I had a 1968 Olds Tornado with a 454 that produced a little better than 400
> HP. If I remember -- I got around 3 to 4 miles per gallon cruising at 125
> miles per hour.
>
> >
> >..a 454 can be tuned for efficiency too. Makes it usable for our
> >purposes. A racing engine is not usable.
>
> Yes -- that Crower Cam is the way to do it.

..one way. Not the one I believe in. We'll see. Many ways to get cat
fur. ;-)

> >> No thanks -- you stay in high rpm -- short stroke land. Not me!!
> >
> >..try compare piston speeds from the Cummins, Wartsila's and the 454 ;-D
>
> I know -- lower the RPM.
>
> >> 1/ The lower the RPM the higher efficiencies
> >> (and the poorer fuel it can use)
> >
> >..who sez heated heavy oil vapors is poor fuel? ;-)
> >Match piston speed to "combustion speed".
>
> Your right -- but see any small engines burning crude lately??

..nope, only read about them and played with numbers. They use fuel
preheat. Not air preheat. And heat fuel with steam. Smart people also
spray water and additives. ;-)

> >> 2/ Lower the Rpm -- great increase in engine size!
> >>
> >> Remember -- producer gas is the poorer fuel again -- by about 28%!
> >
> >..fun part is, that irrelevant to efficiency.
> >Relevant to power/fuel unit ratios only ;-)
>
> Exactly!! So if you accept the derating figures you will not have a problem
> getting good efficiency -- but if you fight the derating figures -- you
> can't get any efficiency.

..so _that's_ what you guys call de-rating! I'd call that, "fuel
baselining" ;-)

> >..and yes, engine tuned for one fuel will lose some performance
> >efficiency on anything else. ;-)
>
> Finally!!!

..note that I said "performance efficiency", meaning "service
efficiency", an engine tuned for efficiency on _one_ producer gas
mixture, will lose efficiency on _any_ other fuel. Here I speak of
_peaky_ tweaks.

..in a power plant, our peaky 454 should peak at, say, 3620 rpm shafted
straight to a 2 pole a-syncroneous machine. Syncroneous speed is
3600rpm on a 60 Hz grid.

..our needle peaky 454 does not have to be able to run, at over 3625
rpms.
It does not even have to be able to run at anything below, say, 3615
rpms either, it can be spooled up to 3620 and _then_ started.

..on a live grid, there is electricity up to 3580 rpms for our 454, up
from there we need steam or compressed air or whatever.
Or, we can sacrifice some efficiency, widening the peak down to, say,
3579 rpms.

..am I now getting my 'peaky tweaky service performance efficiency
tuning' point, across? ;-)

> >> So I expect the trend to be even more pronounced -- regarding increase in
> >> efficiencies with lengthening stroke and slowing down RPM. As the flame
> >> temp is lower than even than heavy fuel oil.
> >>
> >> So OK -- you vote for Tom and the racing motor 454 to get your 400 HP plus
> >> block.
> >
> >..if _re-tuned for efficiency_ cheaper than yours.
>
> Answered that in another message. I am sure we could tune a 454, short
> stroke, to do great efficiency at less than 1000 RPM -- but only about 40 kwe.

..now _this_ is 'de-rating'! ;-)

> Look -- that crower cam cuts intake by 33%!! Add that on top of your 28%
> built in derating -- and then consider the much slower RPM figures to tweak
> for high efficiencies. But so what!! If you have a big block putting out 40
> kwe at 30% -- great!!
>
> Still -- well worth the trouble!! And lots of fun besides. These big block
> gas engines are worth less than $100 US around here -- in good running
> condition. No body can afford to drive them anymore.

..and for 10 grand, we have how many? ;-)

..at 100 a piece, they might not be worth a rebuild either, we might
plug, run and dump 'em, to maximize profits. Even in the jungle. ,-)

> >> Hey Arnt -- it may well be a free world -- but energy is expensive. So why
> >> use more than you have to??
> >
> >..now we talk money. ;-) If Tom can beat your price re-tuning for
> >efficiency, _and_ beat your efficiency, you lose flat out. At 2000 US$
> >you have a good start. ;-)
>
> But the 454 has to be derated much more that the old long stroke diesel. So
> it would take many of those 454's to be like one 903 cummins.

..how many good running 454's for a good running 903? ;-)

> >..no down time, thanks. ;-) Tuning for efficiency, will not maximize
> >life, that takes tuning for life, however, service life is not hurt as
> >badly as when tuning for high rpm power peaks or low rpm torque peaks.
> >Such peaks hurt by slamming metal onto near-solid lube films, and
> >grinding metal thru collapsing lube films.
>
> Exactly -- that 454 designed and rated for 400 plus HP should live almost
> for ever at 75 HP output. Certainly will never over heat!

..and nearly as long at 300. ;-) Most wear come cold starting.
Each cold start cost about 600 to 800 km worth of wear. Or 8 - 10 hours
off the service life, assuming Norwegian highway cruise speeds. About
the same as yours.

..cure is simple: leave 'em hot. Means running. Feeding power into the
grid. Profits into your wallet. ;-)

> >..actually, in aeromodelling, the common racing fuels are glow ignited
> >blends of methanol + say 15-45% nitromethane etc, plus ~20% castor oil,
> >at some 20-35 krpms and sub-inch strokes, chk those piston speeds. ;-)
> >>
>
> Yes -- model engine fuel is something else! And I have never seen anything
> suck so much fuel before in my life!! It sprays out the exhaust port! I
> wonder what their engine efficiencies are??

..who cares ;-D, in the 5-10% area, fuel+lube spray is _coolant_, these
engines are vapor-cooled internally, and partially externally too, then
partially aircooled.

..now, did you do the piston speed math? ;-)
--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From th_royd at sierra.psnw.com Wed Aug 2 00:19:03 2000
From: th_royd at sierra.psnw.com (Roy Haury)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:35 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Heavy Metal vs ring-a-dings
Message-ID: <002501bffc00$d1092420$1af52bce@pavilion>

I will generally not post as I feel I have much more to learn than to teach
however I recall reading of an experimental cam configuration which
purported to be extremely efficient in an gasoline engine. It's design held
the intake open throughout the normal intake stroke and then approx halfway
into the compression stroke. Since normal compression ratio had been raised
to 16:1 this resulted in an actual compression of 8:1 yet an expansion ratio
of 16:1. Although it had a High idle speed (1000) it was supposedly quite
efficient and I've wondered if a reed valve configuration beneath the
throttle could be employed to tame it somewhat. The work was done by a
person named Mike Brown who also manufactured copies of the old 'fish'
carburetor. This may do someone some good in researching, then again it may
just be bilge. Certainly its nothing with a proven record as applicable to
gasification yet where efficiencies are critical it may have merit.
Roy
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Singfield <snkm@btl.net>
To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Date: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 12:56 AM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Heavy Metal vs ring-a-dings

>
>Hi again Arnt:
>
>(Listers -- Arnt and I normally get into a flurry like this off list all
>the time. Brain storming in the skunk works. Nothing real comes out of it
>but it stimulates action.)
>
>At 05:43 PM 8/1/00 +0200, you wrote:
>>Peter Singfield wrote:
>>> Tell me -- what is the RPM of those diesels getting 46% efficiencies??
(I
>>> list them at the end)
>>
>>..read it. These efficiencies are the products of massive tweaks, no
>>de-rates.
>
>Yes -- just a coincidence that they go low RPM to do it?? The more you
>tweak the more time you need for the tweaking to have effect.
>
>>
>>> Rpm is a trade of for reduction in size. If you are going to stick a
>>> gasifier in a car -- you need a small light, high rpm, motor. And you
>>
>>..in an automobile, the buying public 1. _want_ an _high_ horsepower
>>number so they can outbrag their neighbors, they 2. _need_ a _wide_
>>torque band so they can _actually_ drive the auto without embarrasingly
>>stalling it. Greenpeace dont buy autos anyway, so their potential
>>demands for efficiency is _ignored_.
>
>Exactly -- the fat and lazy syndrome of all "advanced" civilizations.
>
>>..Wartsila chose efficiency, and _peaked_ _everything_ at 400 rpm, to
>>get 46%.
>
>Yes -- and the cost is a great increase to engine weight to power out
>ratios. but in stationary power plants -- it makes no difference. For
>running a car or even worse a plane -- it would be impossible.
>
>We must decide what gasification is being developed for. It has been my
>understanding that the best market place for it is stationary power plants.
>To lower the high costs of electrical power. Especially in 3rd world
>countries - -which do not have the clout to control the fossil energy
>supplies of this planet and heavily subsidize their energy needs. And who
>cares if we melt the planet!
>
>>_
>>> probably will never get better than 15% fuel efficiencies on producer
gas.
>>>
>>> For my part -- stationary power plants -- I do not care how big the
motor
>>> is! They are cheaper in those sizes. A man just down the road from me
here
>>> in Belize has two 903 cummins V-8 turbo charged. Says they were working
>>> when he pulled them. Who cares -- they rebuild easy. He wants $2000 US
for
>>> both!
>>
>>..end of discussion, get them! ;-)
>
>Greatly tempted -- but no gasifier to put to them -- never mind the
>generators, control panels -- etc.
>
>>> 2000 rpm than you will have on a racing 454 turning at over 5000 RPM to
get
>>> its over 400 HP.
>>
>>..anyone seen racing 454's tuned for efficiency? ;-)
>
>I had a 1968 Olds Tornado with a 454 that produced a little better than 400
>HP. If I remember -- I got around 3 to 4 miles per gallon cruising at 125
>miles per hour.
>
>>
>>..a 454 can be tuned for efficiency too. Makes it usable for our
>>purposes. A racing engine is not usable.
>
>Yes -- that Crower Cam is the way to do it.
>
>>> No thanks -- you stay in high rpm -- short stroke land. Not me!!
>>
>>..try compare piston speeds from the Cummins, Wartsila's and the 454 ;-D
>
>I know -- lower the RPM.
>
>>> 1/ The lower the RPM the higher efficiencies
>>> (and the poorer fuel it can use)
>>
>>..who sez heated heavy oil vapors is poor fuel? ;-)
>>Match piston speed to "combustion speed".
>
>Your right -- but see any small engines burning crude lately??
>
>>> 2/ Lower the Rpm -- great increase in engine size!
>>>
>>> Remember -- producer gas is the poorer fuel again -- by about 28%!
>>
>>..fun part is, that irrelevant to efficiency.
>>Relevant to power/fuel unit ratios only ;-)
>
>Exactly!! So if you accept the derating figures you will not have a problem
>getting good efficiency -- but if you fight the derating figures -- you
>can't get any efficiency.
>
>>
>>..and yes, engine tuned for one fuel will lose some performance
>>efficiency on anything else. ;-)
>
>Finally!!!
>
>>
>>> So I expect the trend to be even more pronounced -- regarding increase
in
>>> efficiencies with lengthening stroke and slowing down RPM. As the flame
>>> temp is lower than even than heavy fuel oil.
>>>
>>> So OK -- you vote for Tom and the racing motor 454 to get your 400 HP
plus
>>> block.
>>
>>..if _re-tuned for efficiency_ cheaper than yours.
>
>Answered that in another message. I am sure we could tune a 454, short
>stroke, to do great efficiency at less than 1000 RPM -- but only about 40
kwe.
>
>Look -- that crower cam cuts intake by 33%!! Add that on top of your 28%
>built in derating -- and then consider the much slower RPM figures to tweak
>for high efficiencies. But so what!! If you have a big block putting out 40
>kwe at 30% -- great!!
>
>Still -- well worth the trouble!! And lots of fun besides. These big block
>gas engines are worth less than $100 US around here -- in good running
>condition. No body can afford to drive them anymore.
>
>>> Hey Arnt -- it may well be a free world -- but energy is expensive. So
why
>>> use more than you have to??
>>
>>..now we talk money. ;-) If Tom can beat your price re-tuning for
>>efficiency, _and_ beat your efficiency, you lose flat out. At 2000 US$
>>you have a good start. ;-)
>
>But the 454 has to be derated much more that the old long stroke diesel. So
>it would take many of those 454's to be like one 903 cummins.
>
>>..no down time, thanks. ;-) Tuning for efficiency, will not maximize
>>life, that takes tuning for life, however, service life is not hurt as
>>badly as when tuning for high rpm power peaks or low rpm torque peaks.
>>Such peaks hurt by slamming metal onto near-solid lube films, and
>>grinding metal thru collapsing lube films.
>
>Exactly -- that 454 designed and rated for 400 plus HP should live almost
>for ever at 75 HP output. Certainly will never over heat!
>
>>
>>..actually, in aeromodelling, the common racing fuels are glow ignited
>>blends of methanol + say 15-45% nitromethane etc, plus ~20% castor oil,
>>at some 20-35 krpms and sub-inch strokes, chk those piston speeds. ;-)
>>>
>
>Yes -- model engine fuel is something else! And I have never seen anything
>suck so much fuel before in my life!! It sprays out the exhaust port! I
>wonder what their engine efficiencies are??
>
>
>Peter
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>

From sahyog at vsnl.com Wed Aug 2 07:48:45 2000
From: sahyog at vsnl.com (.)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:35 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fellowship request
Message-ID: <016701bffc77$0120d560$3d7d003d@tariq>

Dear list,

Kindly permit me to introduce myself:
My name is Farzana Shoeb. I teach Chemistry in a Post Graduate College
in Uttar Pradesh (northern India). I have done PhD in Chemistry and my area of
interest is focused on alternative source of energy, more specifically biogas
energy from water hyacinth. I am also associated with a grass root NGO committed
for promotion and propagation of appropriate technology in Eastern UP, in the
capacity of its President.

I am pleased to bring to your kind notice that one of my
research papers on bioenergy " kinetic Studies of Biogas Evolved from Water
hyacinth" has been accepted for oral presentation for AgroEnviron-2000 Symposium
to be held in Tekirdağ, Turkey 18-20 October, 2000.

While I am trying all possible sources for financial support, I wish to
inform you that though I am very keen to attend the conference, I am finding it
difficult to arrange the required finances. Firstly, as a teacher the salary is
barely enough to meet my cost of living leaving no balance. Secondly, the area I
am residing, i.e. Eastern part of U.P. (Northern India bordering Nepal) is a
poor and backward area where raising of financial assistance to the tune of
about U.S. $ 2000/- the approximate amount required to attend the conference, is
almost impossible. Personally, I have no other source of financial assistance
nor the organisation which I represent have any financial resources.

I am, therefore, writing this letter to request you that keeping in view my
keen desire to attend the symposium at the same time my financial limitations,
could you please provide me financial assistance to cover up the required
registration and accommodation fee plus traveling expenses etc. to enable me to
attend the symposium or guide me to other sources where I can request for the
travel grant / financial assistance in this regard.

I am attaching below the acceptance letter of
the AGROENVIRON - 2000 Organising Committee

Looking forward to your reply,With best
regards,

Dr Farzana Shoeb (Mrs)

City Convent School
Miyan Bazar (East)
Gorakhpur - 273 001 (UP)
INDIA

Tel: 91-551-340636
E-mail: <A
href="mailto:sahyog@vsnl.com">sahyog@vsnl.com

LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE FROM AGROENVIRON - 2000 ORGANISING
COMMITTEE

Dear F. Shoeb,We are pleased to inform you that
your paper has been accepted for ORALpresentation for Agroenviron-2000
Symposium to be held in Tekirdağ,Turkey 18-20 October, 2000.please
see the attached files for the letter of acceptance.Please accept our
sincere apologies for this unforeseen delay in thenotification of paper
acceptance.AgroEnviron-2000 Organising
Committee*******************************************************PS.1.
You can find the Technical Program and Guidelines in our web site :<A
href="http://www1.beykent.edu.tr/~agro2000/">http://www1.beykent.edu.tr/~agro2000/PS.2.
Please bear in mind that July 15, 2000 is the due date for the fullpaper
submissionPS.3. The original acceptance letter will also send you by
post.PS.4. Please contact Mr.Aydin Adiloglu for further information
aboutguidelines. <A
href="mailto:a.adiloglu@tu.tzf.edu.tr">a.adiloglu@tu.tzf.edu.tr<FONT
size=2>

From arnt at c2i.net Wed Aug 2 07:54:59 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:35 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Heavy Metal vs ring-a-dings
In-Reply-To: <002501bffc00$d1092420$1af52bce@pavilion>
Message-ID: <39880B4B.DE39F613@c2i.net>

..keep it open to, say, 2/3 to 5/6 thru compression stroke,
my (mums) VW Bug handcrancked easily.

> into the compression stroke. Since normal compression ratio had been raised
> to 16:1 this resulted in an actual compression of 8:1 yet an expansion ratio

..assuming you blow air back out at low rpms.

> of 16:1. Although it had a High idle speed (1000) it was supposedly quite

..anyone (else) tried this? Below 300 rpms?

> efficient and I've wondered if a reed valve configuration beneath the
> throttle could be employed to tame it somewhat. The work was done by a

..here I doubt you'll want a valve. I feel you'd prefer narrow
induction channels, to maximize inlet air+gas charge speed and inertia.
Like you would build speed to go uphill.

> person named Mike Brown who also manufactured copies of the old 'fish'
> carburetor. This may do someone some good in researching, then again it may
> just be bilge. Certainly its nothing with a proven record as applicable to
> gasification yet where efficiencies are critical it may have merit.
> Roy

--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Wed Aug 2 09:01:04 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:35 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Regarding Derating with producer gas
Message-ID: <13.8def595.26b97567@cs.com>

Dear Prof. Ganesh:

Thanks so much for sending Prof. Parikh's clear exposition of derating. We
hope to see her here August 14.

Yours truly, TOM REED

In a message dated 7/31/00 2:23:44 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
aganesh@me.iitb.ernet.in writes:

<< Dear gasification-crest friends,

In regard to the discussion on derating, I would like to bring an
excellent discussion to your notice-- which is a part of the introductory
chapters to the State-of-Art Report on Gasification of biomass, written by
Prof. (Mrs) Parikh. I am presenting that portion (as it is) for all of
you. I hope it will be of interest.

ChapterIV,(Scope and limitations of utilisation of biomass based producer
gas in dual-fuel operation of existing diesel engines"
page A-51, 3.1.1

FUEL PROPERTIES

Power capacity of a given engine provided with a certain stroke volume
(litre capacity) depends upon the maximum possible heat input per cycle
and the number of cycles per unit time (32). In case of diesel engine,
since the stroke volume contains only air and the volume of fuel is
negligible the power capacity becomes a function of the amount of fuel
that can be burnt per unit air volume contained in the cylinder. When all
the air available is utilised and all the fuel injected is completely
burnt, the combustion is referred to as the stoichiometric combustion. In
case stoichiometric combustion, we can then define the quantity, Mixture
calorific value Hmix'as:

Hmix = Calorific value of diesel, kJ/kg
--------------------------------
Stoichiometric quantity of air expressed in std. m3

= kJ/std.m3 of air.

The Hmix values for various other fuels can also be calculated according
to this definition but with a difference that if the fuel is gaseous, the
Hmix will be the amount of heat input per unit volume of the mixture of
fuel and air instead of air alone. This is because a substantial fraction
of volume is occupied by the fuel itself. Therefore for a given cylinder
volume which is occupied partially by fuel and partially by air, the
amount of heat input per cycle will depend upon this quantity i.e. Hmix.
Calculations for Hmix for diesel fuel as well for gaseous fuels have been
carried out and the results are tabulated in table.

Fuel Mixture Calorific value
MJ/std.m3
Diesel 3.4 (812)
Petrol 3.5 (835)
Ethanol 3.5 (835)
Methanol 3.7 (884)
Biogas 2.8 (668)
Natural Gas 3.0 (716)
Producer Gas 2.2 (525)*

*Values in Kcal/m3

In dual-fuel operation of an engine, the major fraction of heat input is
drawn from the premixed mixture of air and the supplementary fuel. The
maxima of heat input per cycle therefore, will be a direct function of
Hmix. Comparing the two situations, in both of which the diesel rate is
kept constant for want of ignition requirement (and therefore certain
fraction of stroke volume has to be set aside for providing the
stoichiometric amount of air for combustion of this pilot diesel quantity)
the volume available to accommodate the premixed mixture is same. If we
use two different supplementary fuels for example, Natural gas (having
Hmix = 3MJ/m3) and Producer gas (Hmix = 2.2 MJ/m3) it is not difficult to
see that the heat contribution under dual-fuel operation with producer gas
as supplementary fuel will be lower than that with Natural gas by a
fraction of 2.2/3.0. Since the calorific value of the gas and its
stoichiometric air/fuel ratio are the two parameters on which the Hmix
depends, we can certainly state that power capacity of a dual-fuel engine
depend upon the properties of the supplementary fuel.

In case of engines of higher speed ranges, limitations on power capacity
are imposed due to the need of reducing the engine operating speed to
accommodate lower flame velocities of fuels like producer gas. Derating
due to speed reduction is a very prominent factor while considering high
speed spark ignition engines. The power capacity of the engine reduces in
proportion to the speed reduction.

Prof. Anuradda Ganesh
Energy System Engg.
IIT Bombay
>>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

From snkm at btl.net Wed Aug 2 09:35:03 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:35 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Terrible modeling!!!
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000802073122.0093d6d0@wgs1.btl.net>

At 04:05 AM 8/2/00 +0200, you wrote:
>Hi Peter,
>
>I'll send you a few crude model snapshots, assuming wartsila type
>gensets at a reasonable 42% electric efficienfy, without and with
>exhaust gas recycling.
>They come as html files, 15 in the next mail.
>If that fails, you get one each in the next 15 mails.
>
>..while you have been busy bombarding me on the gas-list, ;-), I've been
>busy trying to figure out how to make my models respond right to web
>browser input, allowing yourself to try your own numbers in them without
>having to get any new fancy software. Hope I didnt sound too caustic.
>;-)
>

Arnt -- that math model is full of major errors!! But I just do not have
time to keep debugging it.

For instance -- the exhaust gas will be much higher than 300 F -- forgot
the heat of combustion -- Pretty serious omission!!

Further -- I used the wrong Delta T -- included the heat of compressing the
charge. True -- that must be figured for how much steam can be produced --
but is has nothing to do with extra increase in efficiency.

Further -- remember a large percentage of the heat will be lost in state of
change of water to steam -- that is not recovered. That 1150 btu per pound
that "kills" the steam efficiency cycle.

That could be solved by steam rather than water injection -- but at a very
complicated device price.

All in all -- one would be lucky to get a real 4% increase in engine
efficiency -- and maybe only a couple %. Still -- it solves having to cool
gas.

Wonder if there would be time to steam reform residual tars in the cylinder
under those conditions??

Anyway -- I have to get back to my "life" -- so see where you can go along
this roughly opened trail.

The most interesting test of all would be simply to take a diesel engine
that is being supplemented with producer gas -- still injecting diesel for
ignition and knock control -- unhook the injector governor -- reversing the
action -- that is increasing injection with rpm rather than reducing
injection with RPM -- replace diesel with water. And see if that motor will
run well on 100% producer gas with water injection.

Peter

From rabello at uniserve.com Wed Aug 2 10:54:32 2000
From: rabello at uniserve.com (robert luis rabello)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:35 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Heavy Metal vs ring-a-dings
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000731214557.009708a0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <398836EB.4B7219EF@uniserve.com>

Arnt Karlsen wrote:

> >
> > As long as we're talking about Otto-cycle, externally-mixed engines, efficiencies
>
> ..you meant internally fired. Firing an otto externally it becomes a
> stirling cycle. Also needs modifying then.

No sir. I am referring to the method of fuel mixing. In most Otto cycle engines, the
air and fuel are mixed outside the combustion chamber. Direct injection is possible with
Otto cycle engines, but the cylinder head must be significantly modified.

> ..means Chevy blocks are produced with much closer tolerances, more
> expensively, except maybe this is offset by lesser steel costs. No
> problem in tuning for efficiency. Useless for dragracing.
>

The problem with overboring such engines is that the cylinder walls become too thin
beyond about 35 mm. The water jackets lie very close to the combustion chambers.

> ..I dont, I compare the 10 000 $ heavy iron rebuild you could get into
> business with the 4 or 5 big-blocks you could get for the same money.
> In business, money's output is relevant. ;-)
>

I concede the point.

robert luis rabello

From snkm at btl.net Wed Aug 2 11:28:33 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:35 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Heavy Metal vs ring-a-dings
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000802090613.008c76f0@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi again Arnt:

>..a coincidence, yup. Cause of coincidence is _narrow_ rpm _range_, and
>_narrow peak_, not from low rpm. ;-) Low rpm comes with _big_.
>

Yes -- big slow RPM, long stroke cylinders, giving lots of time for
complete combustion and energy extraction.

>> We must decide what gasification is being developed for. It has been my
>> understanding that the best market place for it is stationary power plants.
>
>..hear, hear! ;-) Only place to do business. Ferries fed MSW, going
>between 2 cities, _may_ also be viable.

Yes -- ships are "floating" power plants and can also do this.

>> Greatly tempted -- but no gasifier to put to them -- never mind the
>> generators, control panels -- etc.
>
>..get them in India, use my internal trim inside them. ;-) Dumps price
>_way_ down, from millions to thousands.

Yes - -we discussed that in the past -- excellent idea -- but where to find
the capital funding?? Not on what I earn here!

>> Yes -- that Crower Cam is the way to do it.
>
>..one way. Not the one I believe in. We'll see. Many ways to get cat
>fur. ;-)

Any way that derates sufficiently.

>> Your right -- but see any small engines burning crude lately??
>
>..nope, only read about them and played with numbers. They use fuel
>preheat. Not air preheat. And heat fuel with steam. Smart people also
>spray water and additives. ;-)

Yes -- steam vaporizing of heavy fuels works very well. Mentioned that
already.

>> Exactly!! So if you accept the derating figures you will not have a problem
>> getting good efficiency -- but if you fight the derating figures -- you
>> can't get any efficiency.
>
>..so _that's_ what you guys call de-rating! I'd call that, "fuel
>baselining" ;-)

Yes -- another way to say it. Probably more accurate.

>
>> >..and yes, engine tuned for one fuel will lose some performance
>> >efficiency on anything else. ;-)
>>
>> Finally!!!
>
>..note that I said "performance efficiency", meaning "service
>efficiency", an engine tuned for efficiency on _one_ producer gas
>mixture, will lose efficiency on _any_ other fuel.

Yes. But as was mentioned -- you can have variables built in -- such as
controlling air/fuel mixture rates on the fly.

Here I speak of
>_peaky_ tweaks.
>
>..in a power plant, our peaky 454 should peak at, say, 3620 rpm shafted
>straight to a 2 pole a-syncroneous machine. Syncroneous speed is
>3600rpm on a 60 Hz grid.
>
>..our needle peaky 454 does not have to be able to run, at over 3625
>rpms.
>It does not even have to be able to run at anything below, say, 3615
>rpms either, it can be spooled up to 3620 and _then_ started.
>
>..on a live grid, there is electricity up to 3580 rpms for our 454, up
>from there we need steam or compressed air or whatever.
>Or, we can sacrifice some efficiency, widening the peak down to, say,
>3579 rpms.
>
>..am I now getting my 'peaky tweaky service performance efficiency
>tuning' point, across? ;-)

You still would have to fuel base line an awful lot! Plus the high rpm eats
up mechanical efficiencies.

>>
>> Answered that in another message. I am sure we could tune a 454, short
>> stroke, to do great efficiency at less than 1000 RPM -- but only about
40 kwe.
>
>..now _this_ is 'de-rating'! ;-)

Wish we could bench test all this stuff --

>>
>> Still -- well worth the trouble!! And lots of fun besides. These big block
>> gas engines are worth less than $100 US around here -- in good running
>> condition. No body can afford to drive them anymore.
>
>..and for 10 grand, we have how many? ;-)

There is a huge demand for 25 kwe power plants in 3rd world. That will run
most of the small factories!

Why not use a severely derated 454 for this and tune for the greatest
amount of efficiency?

>
>..at 100 a piece, they might not be worth a rebuild either, we might
>plug, run and dump 'em, to maximize profits. Even in the jungle. ,-)

Yes -- and at that derating they probable would last until judgement day.

>
>..how many good running 454's for a good running 903? ;-)

454 good for 40 kwe plant.

903 good for 150 kwe plant.

>> Exactly -- that 454 designed and rated for 400 plus HP should live almost
>> for ever at 75 HP output. Certainly will never over heat!
>
>..and nearly as long at 300. ;-) Most wear come cold starting.
>Each cold start cost about 600 to 800 km worth of wear. Or 8 - 10 hours
>off the service life, assuming Norwegian highway cruise speeds. About
>the same as yours.

Wear is the amount of feet -- total -- the piston travels and the amount of
revolutions the crank turns. Load will accelerate "wear".

A lightly loaded, low rpm motor, will outlast a high loaded high rpm motor
anytime.

We start it once -- and never shut it down! Even changing the oil and
filters on the fly!

>
>..cure is simple: leave 'em hot. Means running. Feeding power into the
>grid. Profits into your wallet. ;-)

Agreed.

>..now, did you do the piston speed math? ;-)

For now -- my piston speed math is take the motor and rotate it slower than
it was designed for.

Peter

>--
>..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)
>
> "Irrationality is the square root of all evil"
> -- Douglas Hofstadter
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

From snkm at btl.net Wed Aug 2 11:28:35 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:35 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Short Camming the Intake
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000802092358.0093baf0@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Roy;

At 09:37 PM 8/1/00 -0000, you wrote:
>I will generally not post as I feel I have much more to learn than to teach
>however I recall reading of an experimental cam configuration which
>purported to be extremely efficient in an gasoline engine. It's design held
>the intake open throughout the normal intake stroke and then approx halfway
>into the compression stroke. Since normal compression ratio had been raised
>to 16:1 this resulted in an actual compression of 8:1 yet an expansion ratio
>of 16:1.

Great direction to play around in! Exhaust gasses would be mixing with
intake gas mixture though.

Although it had a High idle speed (1000) it was supposedly quite
>efficient and I've wondered if a reed valve configuration beneath the
>throttle could be employed to tame it somewhat.

You mean a "check-valve" effect to not allow exhaust gasses to mix with
intake?

Well, we certainly would not want gas/air mixture blown out the intake!
That would not be efficient at all. But as for the reed valve -- better
just to close that valve before the compression stroke.

In fact -- if one was going to short cam the intake -- and since we can
live with engine derating -- trading for engine efficiency -- the intake
valve should open top dead center, close before bottom dead center. The
exhaust valve would open at bottom dead center after the power stroke and
be closed top dead center.

The compression ration could indeed be adjusted by how long -- or how
"large" the intake valve opens.

And yes -- this would in effect increase expansion volume.

But we can do the same by using hot gas as feed -- that would lower the
density of the charge and achieve the same end result.

A little water injection would help take advantage of that extra expansion
volume.

Would it not be fun to have an old engine on a test bed to play with all of
these "tricks"??

Then one could see power and efficiencies on the fly as different
parameters are altered.

Peter

The work was done by a
>person named Mike Brown who also manufactured copies of the old 'fish'
>carburetor. This may do someone some good in researching, then again it may
>just be bilge. Certainly its nothing with a proven record as applicable to
>gasification yet where efficiencies are critical it may have merit.
>Roy
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Peter Singfield <snkm@btl.net>
>To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
>Date: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 12:56 AM
>Subject: Re: GAS-L: Heavy Metal vs ring-a-dings

From snkm at btl.net Wed Aug 2 11:49:09 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:35 2004
Subject: GAS-L: 454's; 440's; 460's; 455's and the old 549 International
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000802094358.0095bb30@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Arnt;

>> ..I dont, I compare the 10 000 $ heavy iron rebuild you could get into
>> business with the 4 or 5 big-blocks you could get for the same money.
>> In business, money's output is relevant. ;-)

Do the "playing" with the 454 blocks -- cheaper! But when things start
coming together -- move on to the heavy work horses.

That for the bigger power plants. For the small plants -- stay with the 454.

Now -- wonder how much it would cost to sleeve and change pistons on that
454 to make it under-square?? As the motor will be so derated -- should not
have to worry about over heating. Should be able to find some diesel
sleeves to fit in -- and probably adapt the pistons as well. But starts
getting expensive!

What I lack in my library -- and find so hard to get off the WWW -- is
stroke and bore for all these engines!

I'm just guessing!! what is the stroke and bore for a 454??

What is the stroke and bore for the small Perkins, 3 cylinder, farm tractor
motor??

I believe the piston sleeve kit for those are around $60 each. Would cost
$480 in parts -- plus machining -- to refit.

If one grind the cams so no over-lap -- the piston could go deep into the
combustion chamber. That would compensate for the extra large combustion
chamber.

Naw -- better to live with that short stroke and just derate it severely.

Arnt -- how many 454's have they got over your way to play with??

Or 455's -- 460's -- 440 -- etc --etc

How about the old 549 International truck gasoline engines!! They are lower
RPM, under square design. 220 HP but great fuel economy!

Had one of those trucks once -- talk about torque down to under 1000 RPM!!
And lived forever and one day.

Peter

From crest_ppp at hotmail.com Wed Aug 2 14:48:34 2000
From: crest_ppp at hotmail.com (Pravina Parikh)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:35 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <200008021848.LAA17113@secure.crest.net>

I dont think efficinecy will drop simply because the CO2 is expected to be
reduced to CO during gasification reaction, and that is purpose of
recycling!!
Mrs Parikh

Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 09:13:25 +0200
From: Thomas Koch <tk@tke.dk>
Reply-To: gasification@crest.org
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: Sv: GAS-L: Exhaust loopback

I think that the efficiency will drop if you mix CO2 into gas in the engine.
The
reason is that the kappa value will drop.

I would likje a hypothesis too.

Thomas

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Kevin Chisholm <kchishol@fox.nstn.ca>
Til: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Dato: 25. juli 2000 16:38
Emne: Re: GAS-L: Exhaust loopback

>Dear Markus
>
>Markus Almroth wrote:
>>
>>Has anybody tested mixing the primary air with CO2 from the
>>exhaust from the IC engine to save fuel? (like in the swedish WWII coal
>>generator Källe)
>
>CO2 in the exhaust is the result of fully complete combustion. The
>energy in the original fuel has been fully released. Why would you
>expect to save energy by recirculating some exhaust into the incoming
>air?
>>
>>The principle is that you just as well can reduce the CO2 from the
>>exhaust
>>as you could from CO2 resulting from the pyrolysis.
>>
>>I vaguely recall someone asking this question before, if so i apologize.
>>
>It would be helpful if you vould pose a hypothesis as to why the
>introduction of CO2 into the primary air could save fuel.
>
>Kindest regards,
>
>Kevin Chisholm
>
>>/Markus Almroth
>>
>>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>

Reply Reply All Forward Delete Previous Next Close

(Move to Selected Folder)InboxSent MessagesDraftsTrash Can

Inbox Compose Addresses Folders Options Help

Get notified when you have new Hotmail or when your friends are on-line.
Send instant messages. Click here to get your FREE download of MSN Messenger
Service! Meet new friends at the new MSN Chat.

Other Links:

Buy Music
Download Music
Buy Books
Free Games
Pharmacy
More...

Special Features:

When Cupid's arrow has failed ...
Find and compare homes online
Summer tunes, tours & the tube!
Do you have the right kind of insurance?
Get the info you want, when you want!
More...

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From kchishol at fox.nstn.ca Wed Aug 2 15:32:11 2000
From: kchishol at fox.nstn.ca (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:35 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re:
In-Reply-To: <200008021848.LAA17113@secure.crest.net>
Message-ID: <39887643.6450D063@fox.nstn.ca>

Dear Mrs. Parikh

The efficiency will potentially have to drop if CO2 is converted to CO,
in that the conversion process is very absorbing of energy. In the
reverse case, where CO is converted to CO2, energy is liberated. One way
to look at it is that it is this "absence of liberated energy" that
could be responsible for lower efficiency. If later on in the system,
the CO is converted back to CO2, there may or not be effective energy
recovery. If it recombines in the cylinder of an engine, or within a
boiler, then there is the potential for "no net loss", but if it
recombines in the exhaust system, or the smokestack, then there is
indeed a loss of useful energy, and a loss in efficiency.

Kevin Chisholm

Pravina Parikh wrote:
>
> I dont think efficinecy will drop simply because the CO2 is expected to be
> reduced to CO during gasification reaction, and that is purpose of
> recycling!!
> Mrs Parikh
>
> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 09:13:25 +0200
> From: Thomas Koch <tk@tke.dk>
> Reply-To: gasification@crest.org
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: Sv: GAS-L: Exhaust loopback
>
> I think that the efficiency will drop if you mix CO2 into gas in the engine.
> The
> reason is that the kappa value will drop.
>
> I would likje a hypothesis too.
>
> Thomas
>
> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> Fra: Kevin Chisholm <kchishol@fox.nstn.ca>
> Til: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
> Dato: 25. juli 2000 16:38
> Emne: Re: GAS-L: Exhaust loopback
>
> >Dear Markus
> >
> >Markus Almroth wrote:
> >>
> >>Has anybody tested mixing the primary air with CO2 from the
> >>exhaust from the IC engine to save fuel? (like in the swedish WWII coal
> >>generator Källe)
> >
> >CO2 in the exhaust is the result of fully complete combustion. The
> >energy in the original fuel has been fully released. Why would you
> >expect to save energy by recirculating some exhaust into the incoming
> >air?
> >>
> >>The principle is that you just as well can reduce the CO2 from the
> >>exhaust
> >>as you could from CO2 resulting from the pyrolysis.
> >>
> >>I vaguely recall someone asking this question before, if so i apologize.
> >>
> >It would be helpful if you vould pose a hypothesis as to why the
> >introduction of CO2 into the primary air could save fuel.
> >
> >Kindest regards,
> >
> >Kevin Chisholm
> >
> >>/Markus Almroth
> >>
> >>The Gasification List is sponsored by
> >>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> >>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
> >>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> >>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> >>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> >>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> >>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
> >The Gasification List is sponsored by
> >USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> >and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
> >Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> >http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> >http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> >http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> >http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
> >
>
> The Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
> Reply Reply All Forward Delete Previous Next Close
>
> (Move to Selected Folder)InboxSent MessagesDraftsTrash Can
>
> Inbox Compose Addresses Folders Options Help
>
> Get notified when you have new Hotmail or when your friends are on-line.
> Send instant messages. Click here to get your FREE download of MSN Messenger
> Service! Meet new friends at the new MSN Chat.
>
> Other Links:
>
> Buy Music
> Download Music
> Buy Books
> Free Games
> Pharmacy
> More...
>
> Special Features:
>
> When Cupid's arrow has failed ...
> Find and compare homes online
> Summer tunes, tours & the tube!
> Do you have the right kind of insurance?
> Get the info you want, when you want!
> More...
>
> © 2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Terms of Service
> Privacy Statement (updated)
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>
> The Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

From arnt at c2i.net Wed Aug 2 15:51:05 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:35 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re:
In-Reply-To: <200008021848.LAA17113@secure.crest.net>
Message-ID: <39887AE3.9D3A7A22@c2i.net>

Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>
> Dear Mrs. Parikh
>
> The efficiency will potentially have to drop if CO2 is converted to CO,
> in that the conversion process is very absorbing of energy. In the

..we have excess heat and exhaust gas, piping this back to the gasifier
was done in the swedish WWII Källe gasifier to control heat. Källe
piped back 18%, gained ~20% more mileage... go figure... ;-)

> reverse case, where CO is converted to CO2, energy is liberated. One way
> to look at it is that it is this "absence of liberated energy" that
> could be responsible for lower efficiency. If later on in the system,
> the CO is converted back to CO2, there may or not be effective energy
> recovery. If it recombines in the cylinder of an engine, or within a
> boiler, then there is the potential for "no net loss", but if it
> recombines in the exhaust system, or the smokestack, then there is
> indeed a loss of useful energy, and a loss in efficiency.
>
> Kevin Chisholm
>
> Pravina Parikh wrote:
> >
> > I dont think efficinecy will drop simply because the CO2 is expected to be
> > reduced to CO during gasification reaction, and that is purpose of
> > recycling!!
> > Mrs Parikh
> >
> > Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 09:13:25 +0200
> > From: Thomas Koch <tk@tke.dk>
> > Reply-To: gasification@crest.org
> > To: gasification@crest.org
> > Subject: Sv: GAS-L: Exhaust loopback
> >
> > I think that the efficiency will drop if you mix CO2 into gas in the engine.
> > The
> > reason is that the kappa value will drop.
> >
> > I would likje a hypothesis too.
> >
> > Thomas

..feel free to compile one from this discussion. ;-)

--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From kchishol at fox.nstn.ca Wed Aug 2 16:03:04 2000
From: kchishol at fox.nstn.ca (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:35 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Heavy Metal vs ring-a-dings
In-Reply-To: <002501bffc00$d1092420$1af52bce@pavilion>
Message-ID: <39887D98.DFF4633F@fox.nstn.ca>

Dear Roy

It strikes me that all that is being done is reducing volumetric
efficiency to 50% with a "special cam." The 16:1 compression ratio would
be reduced to 8:1, so that ther would not be a detonation problem. The
extra expansion capability could indeed lead to an increase in
efficiency, but at a substantial reduction in HP output, because with
greater expansion comes reduced mean effective pressure.

Kevin Chisholm

Roy Haury wrote:
>
> I will generally not post as I feel I have much more to learn than to teach
> however I recall reading of an experimental cam configuration which
> purported to be extremely efficient in an gasoline engine. It's design held
> the intake open throughout the normal intake stroke and then approx halfway
> into the compression stroke. Since normal compression ratio had been raised
> to 16:1 this resulted in an actual compression of 8:1 yet an expansion ratio
> of 16:1. Although it had a High idle speed (1000) it was supposedly quite
> efficient and I've wondered if a reed valve configuration beneath the
> throttle could be employed to tame it somewhat. The work was done by a
> person named Mike Brown who also manufactured copies of the old 'fish'
> carburetor. This may do someone some good in researching, then again it may
> just be bilge. Certainly its nothing with a proven record as applicable to
> gasification yet where efficiencies are critical it may have merit.
> Roy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Singfield <snkm@btl.net>
> To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
> Date: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 12:56 AM
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: Heavy Metal vs ring-a-dings
>
> >
> >Hi again Arnt:
> >
> >(Listers -- Arnt and I normally get into a flurry like this off list all
> >the time. Brain storming in the skunk works. Nothing real comes out of it
> >but it stimulates action.)
> >
> >At 05:43 PM 8/1/00 +0200, you wrote:
> >>Peter Singfield wrote:
> >>> Tell me -- what is the RPM of those diesels getting 46% efficiencies??
> (I
> >>> list them at the end)
> >>
> >>..read it. These efficiencies are the products of massive tweaks, no
> >>de-rates.
> >
> >Yes -- just a coincidence that they go low RPM to do it?? The more you
> >tweak the more time you need for the tweaking to have effect.
> >
> >>
> >>> Rpm is a trade of for reduction in size. If you are going to stick a
> >>> gasifier in a car -- you need a small light, high rpm, motor. And you
> >>
> >>..in an automobile, the buying public 1. _want_ an _high_ horsepower
> >>number so they can outbrag their neighbors, they 2. _need_ a _wide_
> >>torque band so they can _actually_ drive the auto without embarrasingly
> >>stalling it. Greenpeace dont buy autos anyway, so their potential
> >>demands for efficiency is _ignored_.
> >
> >Exactly -- the fat and lazy syndrome of all "advanced" civilizations.
> >
> >>..Wartsila chose efficiency, and _peaked_ _everything_ at 400 rpm, to
> >>get 46%.
> >
> >Yes -- and the cost is a great increase to engine weight to power out
> >ratios. but in stationary power plants -- it makes no difference. For
> >running a car or even worse a plane -- it would be impossible.
> >
> >We must decide what gasification is being developed for. It has been my
> >understanding that the best market place for it is stationary power plants.
> >To lower the high costs of electrical power. Especially in 3rd world
> >countries - -which do not have the clout to control the fossil energy
> >supplies of this planet and heavily subsidize their energy needs. And who
> >cares if we melt the planet!
> >
> >>_
> >>> probably will never get better than 15% fuel efficiencies on producer
> gas.
> >>>
> >>> For my part -- stationary power plants -- I do not care how big the
> motor
> >>> is! They are cheaper in those sizes. A man just down the road from me
> here
> >>> in Belize has two 903 cummins V-8 turbo charged. Says they were working
> >>> when he pulled them. Who cares -- they rebuild easy. He wants $2000 US
> for
> >>> both!
> >>
> >>..end of discussion, get them! ;-)
> >
> >Greatly tempted -- but no gasifier to put to them -- never mind the
> >generators, control panels -- etc.
> >
> >>> 2000 rpm than you will have on a racing 454 turning at over 5000 RPM to
> get
> >>> its over 400 HP.
> >>
> >>..anyone seen racing 454's tuned for efficiency? ;-)
> >
> >I had a 1968 Olds Tornado with a 454 that produced a little better than 400
> >HP. If I remember -- I got around 3 to 4 miles per gallon cruising at 125
> >miles per hour.
> >
> >>
> >>..a 454 can be tuned for efficiency too. Makes it usable for our
> >>purposes. A racing engine is not usable.
> >
> >Yes -- that Crower Cam is the way to do it.
> >
> >>> No thanks -- you stay in high rpm -- short stroke land. Not me!!
> >>
> >>..try compare piston speeds from the Cummins, Wartsila's and the 454 ;-D
> >
> >I know -- lower the RPM.
> >
> >>> 1/ The lower the RPM the higher efficiencies
> >>> (and the poorer fuel it can use)
> >>
> >>..who sez heated heavy oil vapors is poor fuel? ;-)
> >>Match piston speed to "combustion speed".
> >
> >Your right -- but see any small engines burning crude lately??
> >
> >>> 2/ Lower the Rpm -- great increase in engine size!
> >>>
> >>> Remember -- producer gas is the poorer fuel again -- by about 28%!
> >>
> >>..fun part is, that irrelevant to efficiency.
> >>Relevant to power/fuel unit ratios only ;-)
> >
> >Exactly!! So if you accept the derating figures you will not have a problem
> >getting good efficiency -- but if you fight the derating figures -- you
> >can't get any efficiency.
> >
> >>
> >>..and yes, engine tuned for one fuel will lose some performance
> >>efficiency on anything else. ;-)
> >
> >Finally!!!
> >
> >>
> >>> So I expect the trend to be even more pronounced -- regarding increase
> in
> >>> efficiencies with lengthening stroke and slowing down RPM. As the flame
> >>> temp is lower than even than heavy fuel oil.
> >>>
> >>> So OK -- you vote for Tom and the racing motor 454 to get your 400 HP
> plus
> >>> block.
> >>
> >>..if _re-tuned for efficiency_ cheaper than yours.
> >
> >Answered that in another message. I am sure we could tune a 454, short
> >stroke, to do great efficiency at less than 1000 RPM -- but only about 40
> kwe.
> >
> >Look -- that crower cam cuts intake by 33%!! Add that on top of your 28%
> >built in derating -- and then consider the much slower RPM figures to tweak
> >for high efficiencies. But so what!! If you have a big block putting out 40
> >kwe at 30% -- great!!
> >
> >Still -- well worth the trouble!! And lots of fun besides. These big block
> >gas engines are worth less than $100 US around here -- in good running
> >condition. No body can afford to drive them anymore.
> >
> >>> Hey Arnt -- it may well be a free world -- but energy is expensive. So
> why
> >>> use more than you have to??
> >>
> >>..now we talk money. ;-) If Tom can beat your price re-tuning for
> >>efficiency, _and_ beat your efficiency, you lose flat out. At 2000 US$
> >>you have a good start. ;-)
> >
> >But the 454 has to be derated much more that the old long stroke diesel. So
> >it would take many of those 454's to be like one 903 cummins.
> >
> >>..no down time, thanks. ;-) Tuning for efficiency, will not maximize
> >>life, that takes tuning for life, however, service life is not hurt as
> >>badly as when tuning for high rpm power peaks or low rpm torque peaks.
> >>Such peaks hurt by slamming metal onto near-solid lube films, and
> >>grinding metal thru collapsing lube films.
> >
> >Exactly -- that 454 designed and rated for 400 plus HP should live almost
> >for ever at 75 HP output. Certainly will never over heat!
> >
> >>
> >>..actually, in aeromodelling, the common racing fuels are glow ignited
> >>blends of methanol + say 15-45% nitromethane etc, plus ~20% castor oil,
> >>at some 20-35 krpms and sub-inch strokes, chk those piston speeds. ;-)
> >>>
> >
> >Yes -- model engine fuel is something else! And I have never seen anything
> >suck so much fuel before in my life!! It sprays out the exhaust port! I
> >wonder what their engine efficiencies are??
> >
> >
> >Peter
> >The Gasification List is sponsored by
> >USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> >and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
> >Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> >http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> >http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> >http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> >http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
> >
>
> The Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

From kchishol at fox.nstn.ca Wed Aug 2 16:26:26 2000
From: kchishol at fox.nstn.ca (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:35 2004
Subject: GAS-L:CO2 Conversion to CO, and Efficiency Implications
In-Reply-To: <200008021848.LAA17113@secure.crest.net>
Message-ID: <39888313.169A0BBC@fox.nstn.ca>

Dear Arnt

Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>
> Kevin Chisholm wrote:
> >
> > Dear Mrs. Parikh
> >
> > The efficiency will potentially have to drop if CO2 is converted to CO,
> > in that the conversion process is very absorbing of energy. In the
>
> ..we have excess heat and exhaust gas, piping this back to the gasifier
> was done in the swedish WWII Källe gasifier to control heat. Källe
> piped back 18%, gained ~20% more mileage... go figure... ;-)
>
What was happening before and after he employed recirculation? What were
the "before" and "after" efficiencies? (I once doubled the efficiency of
fuel utilization on zinc retorts by making combustion changes...
increased it all the way from 1% to 2%!!)

> > reverse case, where CO is converted to CO2, energy is liberated. One way
> > to look at it is that it is this "absence of liberated energy" that
> > could be responsible for lower efficiency. If later on in the system,
> > the CO is converted back to CO2, there may or not be effective energy
> > recovery. If it recombines in the cylinder of an engine, or within a
> > boiler, then there is the potential for "no net loss", but if it
> > recombines in the exhaust system, or the smokestack, then there is
> > indeed a loss of useful energy, and a loss in efficiency.

If indeed there was really a gain in efficiency, then something happened
where more of the fuel energy could be harnessed within the energy
extraction portion of the engine system. There is no conflict with what
I said above.

That hang together for you?? :-)

Kevin Chisholm

> >
> > Pravina Parikh wrote:
> > >
> > > I dont think efficinecy will drop simply because the CO2 is expected to be
> > > reduced to CO during gasification reaction, and that is purpose of
> > > recycling!!
> > > Mrs Parikh
> > >
> > > Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 09:13:25 +0200
> > > From: Thomas Koch <tk@tke.dk>
> > > Reply-To: gasification@crest.org
> > > To: gasification@crest.org
> > > Subject: Sv: GAS-L: Exhaust loopback
> > >
> > > I think that the efficiency will drop if you mix CO2 into gas in the engine.
> > > The
> > > reason is that the kappa value will drop.
> > >
> > > I would likje a hypothesis too.
> > >
> > > Thomas
>
> ..feel free to compile one from this discussion. ;-)
>
> --
> ..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)
>
> "Irrationality is the square root of all evil"
> -- Douglas Hofstadter
> The Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

From arnt at c2i.net Wed Aug 2 18:36:39 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:35 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Heavy Metal vs ring-a-dings
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000802090613.008c76f0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3988A1B2.27108A45@c2i.net>

Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> Hi again Arnt:
>
> >..a coincidence, yup. Cause of coincidence is _narrow_ rpm _range_, and
> >_narrow peak_, not from low rpm. ;-) Low rpm comes with _big_.
> >
>
> Yes -- big slow RPM, long stroke cylinders, giving lots of time for
> complete combustion and energy extraction.
>
> >> We must decide what gasification is being developed for. It has been my
> >> understanding that the best market place for it is stationary power plants.
> >
> >..hear, hear! ;-) Only place to do business. Ferries fed MSW, going
> >between 2 cities, _may_ also be viable.
>
> Yes -- ships are "floating" power plants and can also do this.
>
> >> Greatly tempted -- but no gasifier to put to them -- never mind the
> >> generators, control panels -- etc.
> >
> >..get them in India, use my internal trim inside them. ;-) Dumps price
> >_way_ down, from millions to thousands.
>
> Yes - -we discussed that in the past -- excellent idea -- but where to find
> the capital funding?? Not on what I earn here!

..working on it ;-)

> >> Yes -- that Crower Cam is the way to do it.
> >
> >..one way. Not the one I believe in. We'll see. Many ways to get cat
> >fur. ;-)
>
> Any way that derates sufficiently.
>
> >> Your right -- but see any small engines burning crude lately??
> >
> >..nope, only read about them and played with numbers. They use fuel
> >preheat. Not air preheat. And heat fuel with steam. Smart people also
> >spray water and additives. ;-)
>
> Yes -- steam vaporizing of heavy fuels works very well. Mentioned that
> already.
>
> >> Exactly!! So if you accept the derating figures you will not have a problem
> >> getting good efficiency -- but if you fight the derating figures -- you
> >> can't get any efficiency.
> >
> >..so _that's_ what you guys call de-rating! I'd call that, "fuel
> >baselining" ;-)
>
> Yes -- another way to say it. Probably more accurate.
>
> >
> >> >..and yes, engine tuned for one fuel will lose some performance
> >> >efficiency on anything else. ;-)
> >>
> >> Finally!!!
> >
> >..note that I said "performance efficiency", meaning "service
> >efficiency", an engine tuned for efficiency on _one_ producer gas
> >mixture, will lose efficiency on _any_ other fuel.
>
> Yes. But as was mentioned -- you can have variables built in -- such as
> controlling air/fuel mixture rates on the fly.
>
> Here I speak of
> >_peaky_ tweaks.
> >
> >..in a power plant, our peaky 454 should peak at, say, 3620 rpm shafted
> >straight to a 2 pole a-syncroneous machine. Syncroneous speed is
> >3600rpm on a 60 Hz grid.
> >
> >..our needle peaky 454 does not have to be able to run, at over 3625
> >rpms.
> >It does not even have to be able to run at anything below, say, 3615
> >rpms either, it can be spooled up to 3620 and _then_ started.
> >
> >..on a live grid, there is electricity up to 3580 rpms for our 454, up
> >from there we need steam or compressed air or whatever.
> >Or, we can sacrifice some efficiency, widening the peak down to, say,
> >3579 rpms.
> >
> >..am I now getting my 'peaky tweaky service performance efficiency
> >tuning' point, across? ;-)
>
> You still would have to fuel base line an awful lot! Plus the high rpm eats
> up mechanical efficiencies.

..some, yes. I hate giving up a dime's worth of efficiency wherever I
dont need to. ;-)

> >> Answered that in another message. I am sure we could tune a 454, short
> >> stroke, to do great efficiency at less than 1000 RPM -- but only about
> 40 kwe.
> >
> >..now _this_ is 'de-rating'! ;-)
>
> Wish we could bench test all this stuff --
>
> >>
> >> Still -- well worth the trouble!! And lots of fun besides. These big block
> >> gas engines are worth less than $100 US around here -- in good running
> >> condition. No body can afford to drive them anymore.
> >
> >..and for 10 grand, we have how many? ;-)
>
> There is a huge demand for 25 kwe power plants in 3rd world. That will run
> most of the small factories!
>
> Why not use a severely derated 454 for this and tune for the greatest
> amount of efficiency?
>
> >
> >..at 100 a piece, they might not be worth a rebuild either, we might
> >plug, run and dump 'em, to maximize profits. Even in the jungle. ,-)
>
> Yes -- and at that derating they probable would last until judgement day.

..nice way to sell dooms day quality powerplants ;-), heat is needed in
Hell too. Especially to toast the evil de-raters denying colorful people
good power ;-)

> >..how many good running 454's for a good running 903? ;-)
>
> 454 good for 40 kwe plant.
>
> 903 good for 150 kwe plant.
>
> >> Exactly -- that 454 designed and rated for 400 plus HP should live almost
> >> for ever at 75 HP output. Certainly will never over heat!
> >
> >..and nearly as long at 300. ;-) Most wear come cold starting.
> >Each cold start cost about 600 to 800 km worth of wear. Or 8 - 10 hours
> >off the service life, assuming Norwegian highway cruise speeds. About
> >the same as yours.
>
> Wear is the amount of feet -- total -- the piston travels and the amount of
> revolutions the crank turns.

...times the...

> Load will accelerate "wear".

...times the lube oil _load capacity_ -> approximates wear better... ;-)

..cold metal will penetrate cold lube oil films too, unless oil pressure
is built before crancking. Thenafter, we have metal expanding doing all
sorts of weird things with like piston ring lenght toleances until the
engine has stabilized at operating temperatures with appropriate heat
flow load gradients etc. Black magic, engine makers hire tons of
engineering master degree holders to get it right, and are still outdone
by amateurs ;-)

>
> A lightly loaded, low rpm motor, will outlast a high loaded high rpm motor
> anytime.
>
> We start it once -- and never shut it down! Even changing the oil and
> filters on the fly!

..like Linux ;-) we dont reboot like Wintendo, we occationally restart
services on tweaking them. ;-)

> >..cure is simple: leave 'em hot. Means running. Feeding power into the
> >grid. Profits into your wallet. ;-)
>
> Agreed.
>
> >..now, did you do the piston speed math? ;-)
>
> For now -- my piston speed math is take the motor and rotate it slower than
> it was designed for.
>
> Peter
>
--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From arnt at c2i.net Wed Aug 2 18:39:10 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:35 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Short Camming the Intake
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000802092358.0093baf0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3988A24B.3F7E12B1@c2i.net>

Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> Hi Roy;
>
> At 09:37 PM 8/1/00 -0000, you wrote:
> >I will generally not post as I feel I have much more to learn than to teach

..Roy, if we don't ask dumb questions, how do you plan to get wise
answers?
The worst thing you risk here is a good laughter, like from me and
Peter, and then, wisdom.
Or, you can silently copy other silent peoples stupid mistakes, _far_
more expensively.
Also a very effective way to wisdom. ;-)

> >however I recall reading of an experimental cam configuration which
> >purported to be extremely efficient in an gasoline engine. It's design held
> >the intake open throughout the normal intake stroke and then approx halfway
> >into the compression stroke. Since normal compression ratio had been raised
> >to 16:1 this resulted in an actual compression of 8:1 yet an expansion ratio
> >of 16:1.
>
> Great direction to play around in! Exhaust gasses would be mixing with
> intake gas mixture though.
>
> Although it had a High idle speed (1000) it was supposedly quite
> >efficient and I've wondered if a reed valve configuration beneath the
> >throttle could be employed to tame it somewhat.
>
> You mean a "check-valve" effect to not allow exhaust gasses to mix with
> intake?
>
> Well, we certainly would not want gas/air mixture blown out the intake!

..at idle speeds, we want _just that!_ Reduces compression and engine
loads. Calculating engine loads, your will be surpriced to see the real
idle loads.

..at running service loads & rpms, & grid frequency, is where we want
all the nice profitable performance curve peaks. Take advantage of
Helmholz pressure wave theory, gas inertia, you name it etc.

> That would not be efficient at all. But as for the reed valve -- better
> just to close that valve before the compression stroke.
>
> In fact -- if one was going to short cam the intake -- and since we can
> live with engine derating -- trading for engine efficiency -- the intake
> valve should open top dead center, close before bottom dead center. The
> exhaust valve would open at bottom dead center after the power stroke and
> be closed top dead center.
>
> The compression ration could indeed be adjusted by how long -- or how
> "large" the intake valve opens.
>
> And yes -- this would in effect increase expansion volume.
>
> But we can do the same by using hot gas as feed -- that would lower the
> density of the charge and achieve the same end result.
>
> A little water injection would help take advantage of that extra expansion
> volume.
>
> Would it not be fun to have an old engine on a test bed to play with all of
> these "tricks"??

..hear hear! ;-)

> Then one could see power and efficiencies on the fly as different
> parameters are altered.
>
> Peter
>
> The work was done by a
> >person named Mike Brown who also manufactured copies of the old 'fish'
> >carburetor. This may do someone some good in researching, then again it may
> >just be bilge. Certainly its nothing with a proven record as applicable to
> >gasification yet where efficiencies are critical it may have merit.
> >Roy
--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From arnt at c2i.net Wed Aug 2 18:40:29 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:35 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Terrible modeling!!!
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000802073122.0093d6d0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3988A299.1035D87E@c2i.net>

Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> At 04:05 AM 8/2/00 +0200, you wrote:
> >Hi Peter,
> >
> >I'll send you a few crude model snapshots, assuming wartsila type
> >gensets at a reasonable 42% electric efficienfy, without and with
> >exhaust gas recycling.
> >They come as html files, 15 in the next mail.
> >If that fails, you get one each in the next 15 mails.
> >
> >..while you have been busy bombarding me on the gas-list, ;-), I've been
> >busy trying to figure out how to make my models respond right to web
> >browser input, allowing yourself to try your own numbers in them without
> >having to get any new fancy software. Hope I didnt sound too caustic.
> >;-)
> >
>
> Arnt -- that math model is full of major errors!! But I just do not have

..your, or my model?

> time to keep debugging it.

..email it anyway, so I can have a look.

> For instance -- the exhaust gas will be much higher than 300 F -- forgot
> the heat of combustion -- Pretty serious omission!!
>
> Further -- I used the wrong Delta T -- included the heat of compressing the
> charge. True -- that must be figured for how much steam can be produced --
> but is has nothing to do with extra increase in efficiency.
>
> Further -- remember a large percentage of the heat will be lost in state of
> change of water to steam -- that is not recovered. That 1150 btu per pound
> that "kills" the steam efficiency cycle.
>
> That could be solved by steam rather than water injection -- but at a very
> complicated device price.
>
> All in all -- one would be lucky to get a real 4% increase in engine
> efficiency -- and maybe only a couple %. Still -- it solves having to cool

..my model works out 'gasifier+engine' efficiency, these works together.
;-)

> gas.
>
> Wonder if there would be time to steam reform residual tars in the cylinder
> under those conditions??

..tar is _failure_. Except for making boat anchors.

> Anyway -- I have to get back to my "life" -- so see where you can go along
> this roughly opened trail.
>
> The most interesting test of all would be simply to take a diesel engine
> that is being supplemented with producer gas -- still injecting diesel for
> ignition and knock control -- unhook the injector governor -- reversing the
> action -- that is increasing injection with rpm rather than reducing
> injection with RPM -- replace diesel with water. And see if that motor will
> run well on 100% producer gas with water injection.

..will work on a Hesselman, has spark ignition.
Without, we _might_ get to ~95%.

> Peter
--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From arnt at c2i.net Wed Aug 2 18:41:56 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:36 2004
Subject: GAS-L: 454's; 440's; 460's; 455's and the old 549 International
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000802094358.0095bb30@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3988A2F1.CD0B3484@c2i.net>

Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> Hi Arnt;
>
> >> ..I dont, I compare the 10 000 $ heavy iron rebuild you could get into
> >> business with the 4 or 5 big-blocks you could get for the same money.
> >> In business, money's output is relevant. ;-)
>
> Do the "playing" with the 454 blocks -- cheaper! But when things start
> coming together -- move on to the heavy work horses.
>
> That for the bigger power plants. For the small plants -- stay with the 454.
>
> Now -- wonder how much it would cost to sleeve and change pistons on that
> 454 to make it under-square?? As the motor will be so derated -- should not
> have to worry about over heating. Should be able to find some diesel
> sleeves to fit in -- and probably adapt the pistons as well. But starts
> getting expensive!

..past sublty so, yep. ;-) Only wise sleeving is for guns, can use .22
ammo in Gatling guns, and .45 Ångström in Uzi's ;-)
>
> What I lack in my library -- and find so hard to get off the WWW -- is
> stroke and bore for all these engines!
>
> I'm just guessing!! what is the stroke and bore for a 454??
>
> What is the stroke and bore for the small Perkins, 3 cylinder, farm tractor
> motor??
>
> I believe the piston sleeve kit for those are around $60 each. Would cost
> $480 in parts -- plus machining -- to refit.
>
> If one grind the cams so no over-lap -- the piston could go deep into the
> combustion chamber. That would compensate for the extra large combustion
> chamber.
>
> Naw -- better to live with that short stroke and just derate it severely.
>
> Arnt -- how many 454's have they got over your way to play with??

..here, they are expensive, the Lost Europe got in the way. Eurasian
engines are cheaper and plentful, run&dump. Needs gearing too, so grab
them with gear-boxes. ;-)

> Or 455's -- 460's -- 440 -- etc --etc
>
> How about the old 549 International truck gasoline engines!! They are lower
> RPM, under square design. 220 HP but great fuel economy!
>
> Had one of those trucks once -- talk about torque down to under 1000 RPM!!
> And lived forever and one day.
>
> Peter
--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From arnt at c2i.net Wed Aug 2 18:58:54 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:36 2004
Subject: GAS-L:CO2 Conversion to CO, and Efficiency Implications
In-Reply-To: <200008021848.LAA17113@secure.crest.net>
Message-ID: <3988A6EA.806ABD64@c2i.net>

Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>
> Dear Arnt
>
> Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> >
> > Kevin Chisholm wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Mrs. Parikh
> > >
> > > The efficiency will potentially have to drop if CO2 is converted to CO,
> > > in that the conversion process is very absorbing of energy. In the
> >
> > ..we have excess heat and exhaust gas, piping this back to the gasifier
> > was done in the swedish WWII Källe gasifier to control heat. Källe
> > piped back 18%, gained ~20% more mileage... go figure... ;-)
> >
> What was happening before and after he employed recirculation? What were
> the "before" and "after" efficiencies? (I once doubled the efficiency of
> fuel utilization on zinc retorts by making combustion changes...
> increased it all the way from 1% to 2%!!)

..there is a good discussion of this in 'Gengas'. Also on Joachim's?
website.
The Källe charcoal gave about 25% better mileage than competing charcoal
gasifiers without exhaust gas recycling.

> > > reverse case, where CO is converted to CO2, energy is liberated. One way
> > > to look at it is that it is this "absence of liberated energy" that
> > > could be responsible for lower efficiency. If later on in the system,
> > > the CO is converted back to CO2, there may or not be effective energy
> > > recovery. If it recombines in the cylinder of an engine, or within a
> > > boiler, then there is the potential for "no net loss", but if it
> > > recombines in the exhaust system, or the smokestack, then there is
> > > indeed a loss of useful energy, and a loss in efficiency.
>
> If indeed there was really a gain in efficiency, then something happened
> where more of the fuel energy could be harnessed within the energy
> extraction portion of the engine system. There is no conflict with what
> I said above.
>
> That hang together for you?? :-)

..yup, heat energy is added to the fuel energy in the gasifier. All it
takes.
Bonuses include less nitrogen in the fuel gas, as less air is needed to
produce the required heat inside the gasifier, to gasify. Richer gas
also helps the engine perform better.

> Kevin Chisholm
>
> > >
> > > Pravina Parikh wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I dont think efficinecy will drop simply because the CO2 is expected to be
> > > > reduced to CO during gasification reaction, and that is purpose of
> > > > recycling!!
> > > > Mrs Parikh
> > > >
> > > > Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 09:13:25 +0200
> > > > From: Thomas Koch <tk@tke.dk>
> > > > Reply-To: gasification@crest.org
> > > > To: gasification@crest.org
> > > > Subject: Sv: GAS-L: Exhaust loopback
> > > >
> > > > I think that the efficiency will drop if you mix CO2 into gas in the engine.
> > > > The
> > > > reason is that the kappa value will drop.
> > > >
> > > > I would likje a hypothesis too.
> > > >
> > > > Thomas
> >
> > ..feel free to compile one from this discussion. ;-)
> >

--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From snkm at btl.net Wed Aug 2 20:09:49 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:36 2004
Subject: GAS-L:
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000802174203.00940c10@wgs1.btl.net>

>> Arnt -- how many 454's have they got over your way to play with??
>
>..here, they are expensive, the Lost Europe got in the way. Eurasian
>engines are cheaper and plentful, run&dump. Needs gearing too, so grab
>them with gear-boxes. ;-)
>

Just as well. What do the big trucks run over your way??

Maybe we can send some "CARE" packages with big blocks in them??

From snkm at btl.net Wed Aug 2 20:09:50 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:36 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Terrible modeling!!!
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000802173652.0093a690@wgs1.btl.net>

At 12:37 AM 8/3/00 +0200, you wrote:
>Peter Singfield wrote:
>>
>> Arnt -- that math model is full of major errors!! But I just do not have
>
>..your, or my model?

Mine!

>
>> time to keep debugging it.
>
>..email it anyway, so I can have a look.

That is the one regarding trying to work out water injection -- already
posted.

>
>..my model works out 'gasifier+engine' efficiency, these works together.
>;-)

You mean like in multiplying 75% (Gasifier efficiency) by 17% (engine
efficiency) to get 12.75% over all efficiency.

>> The most interesting test of all would be simply to take a diesel engine
>> that is being supplemented with producer gas -- still injecting diesel for
>> ignition and knock control -- unhook the injector governor -- reversing the
>> action -- that is increasing injection with rpm rather than reducing
>> injection with RPM -- replace diesel with water. And see if that motor will
>> run well on 100% producer gas with water injection.
>
>..will work on a Hesselman, has spark ignition.
>Without, we _might_ get to ~95%.

Good point Arnt -- forget to mention you have to also convert that diesel
to spark ignition -- but maybe not have to lower compression. And maybe get
25% engine efficiency.

From snkm at btl.net Wed Aug 2 20:09:52 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:36 2004
Subject: GAS-L:CO2 Conversion to CO, and Efficiency Implications
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000802175326.009438e0@wgs1.btl.net>

At 12:55 AM 8/3/00 +0200, you wrote:
>Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>>
>> Dear Arnt
>>
>> Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>> >
>> > Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>> > >
>
>..there is a good discussion of this in 'Gengas'. Also on Joachim's?
>website.
>The Källe charcoal gave about 25% better mileage than competing charcoal
>gasifiers without exhaust gas recycling.

You mean it went from 10% efficiency to 12.5% -- wow! Remember the old
saying -- 100% of nothing is still nothing! You have to put a base line to
those figures Arnt.

>
>> > > reverse case, where CO is converted to CO2, energy is liberated. One
way
>> > > to look at it is that it is this "absence of liberated energy" that
>> > > could be responsible for lower efficiency. If later on in the system,
>> > > the CO is converted back to CO2, there may or not be effective energy
>> > > recovery. If it recombines in the cylinder of an engine, or within a
>> > > boiler, then there is the potential for "no net loss", but if it
>> > > recombines in the exhaust system, or the smokestack, then there is
>> > > indeed a loss of useful energy, and a loss in efficiency.

Exactly!! So it is a question of a bouncing (reversible" reaction that if
the last bounce is outside of the cylinder you lose -- and the best you can
get if it occurs in the cylinder -- is you break even.

(I already explained that off-list to Arnt a while back.)

>
>..yup, heat energy is added to the fuel energy in the gasifier. All it
>takes.
>Bonuses include less nitrogen in the fuel gas, as less air is needed to
>produce the required heat inside the gasifier, to gasify. Richer gas
>also helps the engine perform better.

Adding extra heat to make more gas is steam reforming. The residual
humidity in the fuel could be supplying the "steam". Also -- in that
cylinder combustion -- is there not H20 exhaust as well??

This would enrich the gasifier product -- as steam reforming works without
nitrogen being introduced -- and yes -- it would eat up extra heat to do
this -- including the heat in the motor's exhaust.

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Aug 3 07:04:05 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:36 2004
Subject: GAS-L:CO2 Conversion to CO, and Efficiency Implications
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000802175326.009438e0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <398950D3.8E9B1DD3@c2i.net>

Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> At 12:55 AM 8/3/00 +0200, you wrote:
> >Kevin Chisholm wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Arnt
> >>
> >> Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Kevin Chisholm wrote:
> >> > >
> >
> >..there is a good discussion of this in 'Gengas'. Also on Joachim's?
> >website.
> >The Källe charcoal gave about 25% better mileage than competing charcoal
> >gasifiers without exhaust gas recycling.
>
> You mean it went from 10% efficiency to 12.5% -- wow! Remember the old
> saying -- 100% of nothing is still nothing! You have to put a base line to
> those figures Arnt.

..very true. Working on it, may have found a new workshop here.

> >> > > reverse case, where CO is converted to CO2, energy is liberated. One
> way
> >> > > to look at it is that it is this "absence of liberated energy" that
> >> > > could be responsible for lower efficiency. If later on in the system,
> >> > > the CO is converted back to CO2, there may or not be effective energy
> >> > > recovery. If it recombines in the cylinder of an engine, or within a
> >> > > boiler, then there is the potential for "no net loss", but if it
> >> > > recombines in the exhaust system, or the smokestack, then there is
> >> > > indeed a loss of useful energy, and a loss in efficiency.
>
> Exactly!! So it is a question of a bouncing (reversible" reaction that if
> the last bounce is outside of the cylinder you lose -- and the best you can
> get if it occurs in the cylinder -- is you break even.
>
> (I already explained that off-list to Arnt a while back.)
>
> >
> >..yup, heat energy is added to the fuel energy in the gasifier. All it
> >takes.
> >Bonuses include less nitrogen in the fuel gas, as less air is needed to
> >produce the required heat inside the gasifier, to gasify. Richer gas
> >also helps the engine perform better.
>
> Adding extra heat to make more gas is steam reforming. The residual
> humidity in the fuel could be supplying the "steam". Also -- in that
> cylinder combustion -- is there not H20 exhaust as well??

..sure is. ;-)

> This would enrich the gasifier product -- as steam reforming works without
> nitrogen being introduced -- and yes -- it would eat up extra heat to do
> this -- including the heat in the motor's exhaust.

--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Aug 3 07:10:54 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:36 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Terrible modeling!!!
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000802173652.0093a690@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3989527F.5A59BC05@c2i.net>

Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> At 12:37 AM 8/3/00 +0200, you wrote:
> >Peter Singfield wrote:
> >>
> >> Arnt -- that math model is full of major errors!! But I just do not have
> >
> >..your, or my model?
>
> Mine!
>
> >
> >> time to keep debugging it.
> >
> >..email it anyway, so I can have a look.
>
> That is the one regarding trying to work out water injection -- already
> posted.

..ah. I was thinking of your basic program tools you say you use
generating your numbers ;-)

> >..my model works out 'gasifier+engine' efficiency, these works together.
> >;-)
>
> You mean like in multiplying 75% (Gasifier efficiency) by 17% (engine
> efficiency) to get 12.75% over all efficiency.

..yep. Uses linear iteration math too, modelling the recycleing. ;-)

> >> The most interesting test of all would be simply to take a diesel engine
> >> that is being supplemented with producer gas -- still injecting diesel for
> >> ignition and knock control -- unhook the injector governor -- reversing the
> >> action -- that is increasing injection with rpm rather than reducing
> >> injection with RPM -- replace diesel with water. And see if that motor will
> >> run well on 100% producer gas with water injection.
> >
> >..will work on a Hesselman, has spark ignition.
> >Without, we _might_ get to ~95%.
>
> Good point Arnt -- forget to mention you have to also convert that diesel
> to spark ignition -- but maybe not have to lower compression. And maybe get
> 25% engine efficiency.

..some apporach the low 30'ies, as is, even before peaky tweaky tuning.
;-)

> Peter Singfield (Belize)

--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Aug 3 07:25:14 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:36 2004
Subject: GAS-L:
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000802174203.00940c10@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <398955DA.1D56017C@c2i.net>

Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> >> Arnt -- how many 454's have they got over your way to play with??
> >
> >..here, they are expensive, the Lost Europe got in the way. Eurasian
> >engines are cheaper and plentful, run&dump. Needs gearing too, so grab
> >them with gear-boxes. ;-)
> >
>
> Just as well. What do the big trucks run over your way??

..8 - 11 liter inline 6 cylinder diesel's, mostly, some 14 liter V-8
diesels too, all are turbocharged. Nice profitable toys. ;-)

> Maybe we can send some "CARE" packages with big blocks in them??

..to help this country I live in become a "developing" one ?
_Great_ idea, now Norwegians believe they live in an "Industrial"
country.
To qualify, industry _is_ needed.
To qualify as a "development" country, needs at least a _desire_ to
develop...
There _are_ fat petroleum and gas profits flowing in for as long as the
Saudis allow the free ride.

> Peter

--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From snkm at btl.net Thu Aug 3 09:42:48 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:36 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Terrible modeling!!!
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000803072352.00942d90@wgs1.btl.net>

>
>..ah. I was thinking of your basic program tools you say you use
>generating your numbers ;-)

Arnt;

My basic programming tools are a few old engineering hand books, a
calculator, and a note book.

I use to write up basic programs for problems that were used a lot. But
even then -- one has to chop that first trail with a machete before calling
in the heavy machinery.

Peter

From markus.almroth at connection.se Thu Aug 3 10:08:42 2000
From: markus.almroth at connection.se (Markus Almroth)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:36 2004
Subject: GAS-L:CO2 Conversion to CO, and Efficiency Implications
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000802175326.009438e0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <38EA6D7A.EF684EB5@connection.se>

Arnt Karlsen wrote:

> Peter Singfield wrote:
> >
> > At 12:55 AM 8/3/00 +0200, you wrote:
> > >Kevin Chisholm wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Dear Arnt
> > >>
> > >> Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Kevin Chisholm wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >
> > >..there is a good discussion of this in 'Gengas'. Also on Joachim's?
> > >website.
> > >The Källe charcoal gave about 25% better mileage than competing charcoal
> > >gasifiers without exhaust gas recycling.

etc...

The way I see it reuse of exhaust CO2 is more about putting excess heat in the
pyrolysis to good use instead of just cooling it away.
As long as you have excess heat it should be effective to recycle some CO2.
The question should be how much CO2 you can recycle, if you mix in too much,
the heat drops enough to let tars pass through the hearth without cracking, and
you end up with a very broken engine.

Am I wrong?

/Markus

From snkm at btl.net Thu Aug 3 10:13:34 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:36 2004
Subject: GAS-L: How to make your steam for reforming
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000803080826.00956ea0@wgs1.btl.net>

Well Arnt;

If you want to feed your hot exhaust gasses back through your gasifier --
and you want to experiment with some steam reforming of carbons -- the
easiest way to do that would be by converting a diesel to spark ignition,
keep the injection system in place but make the Governor linear with power
demand (more throttle -- more injection) -- inject water rather than diesel.

This should do a number of things.

One -- maybe an excellent anti-knock method allowing one to use diesel
compression ratios (18:1) on pure producer gas.

Two -- give you extra steam in your hot exhaust gasses to use for some
steam reforming of carbon in your gasifier.

A variation worth investigating would be to feed hot gasifier product into
this same engine and then inject some water.

This would in effect lower compression ratios (hot gas being less dense)
but instead of derating the motor -- or losing engine efficiency (lower
compression due to less gas) -- the expanding steam made would win that
back with maybe a little on the plus side -- and still feed the exhaust to
the gasifier for some attempt to steam reform carbon.

The advantage of steam reforming some carbon is a higher BTU value product
gas with the waste heat actually invested into the extra btu's of this gas.

Remember -- steam reforming is an endothermic reaction -- but the heat is
not lost -- it shows up as extra btu's in the increased "value" of the fuel
so produced.

Ready to "gamble" a diesel engine on this??

And one last point. You now would have a pressurized gas stream going to
your gasifier. Do you think is would be wise to mix air (preheated
preferably) with that exhaust gas stream to your gasifier??

Else -- how do you get O2 into the reaction zone??

Put a venturi air injection system in the exhaust pipe??? (adjustable of
course)

The math models for this are not correct -- but they do seem to point in
the plus side.

Further -- this list has come up with numerous examples in the past of
water injection "boosting" engine performance.

In my opinion -- worth risking a diesel engine.

Tom -- would you take a go at it??

From snkm at btl.net Thu Aug 3 10:54:51 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:36 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Looking for Mr. Good Gasifier
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000803085009.0094fb30@wgs1.btl.net>

>The question should be how much CO2 you can recycle, if you mix in too much,
>the heat drops enough to let tars pass through the hearth without
cracking, and
>you end up with a very broken engine.
>
>Am I wrong?
>
>/Markus

Ditto for steam reforming. One has to have a good heat balance to do all of
this.

But there is a way around the problem -- in practice -- flairing to make
more heat if the temps fall off to low. Or simply make arrangement for more
air to be introduced into the right place at the right time. Tweaking and
tuning.

Originally this thread started over the possibility of using 50% humidity
fuel in a standard gasifier.

Need heat to dry the fuel before it hist the combustion/reduction zone.
Plus -- lots of steam will be in that combustion atmosphere now -- way to
much! So steam reforming -- a very endothermic reaction -- will cool to low
to quick.

Solution is to flair into the reduction zone.

Arnt has designed an operated a gasifier that does tar and pyrolized fuel
vapors flairing into the combustion zone.

In his case he is using the normal below 20% humidity fuel. but even then
-- there is a good amount of water vapor mixed with all the rest.

If he can throw the still hot exhaust from the engine in -- he can also
recover that heat as richer btu gas.

His present tar flair design could be supplemented with product gas for
extra heat again.

No heat is lost -- just invested.

He would have a pipe with a series of venturi injection points. This part
of the exhaust piping being of a smaller diameter to sustain the flow rates
needed for the venturi process to work well.

One venturi for scavenging his tars, pyrolized fuel vapors from the top of
the fuel pile over the reaction zone.

Another venturi injector taking from product gas exhaust of the gasifier.

Another venturi for allowing air in.

One real complicated flair! With lots of, very variable, tweaking/tuning
points.

All four gas streams being "hot". The exhausting product gas -- the
exhausting engine gasses, and the scavenged fuel gasses -- come with their
own heats.

The air needed could be preheated from further waste heat sources -- the
engine radiator -- then around the hot gas intake manifold (to pick us a
percentage there -- most of the hot gas would still be going straight into
the engine) etc.

So we may have a wet fueled gasifier with a much higher btu value product
gas running a hot intake engine with water injection.

Kind of a total redesign of the current state of the art gasification to IC
engine technology.

Also -- since the intake to the gasifier is pressurized -- reduction zone
physical parameters can be changed so that very fine fuels -- even dust --
can be used without worrying so much about bridging -- etc.

fuel conditioning for gasifiers is a nightmare.

Has to be below 20% humidity!!

Has to be uniform sized chunks -- like pellets!

It is much easier to grind wood (as example) to chips or sawdust than it is
to grind wood to sawdust and then make pellets!!

so basically -- this all started because a saw mill here in Belize has
huge piles of "wet" sawdust and wants to know what to do with it. But can't
afford all the fuel processing needed for running a gasifier/IC engine
combination.

That being drying and sizing.

So if Mohammed can't get to that mountain -- make the mountain come to him!

Time that gasification took a good look at itself and changed its spots!

Everything that we have been discussing is in relation to a "cheap"
solution to this problem.

Lose the pelletizer!

Lose the heat exchangers to dry fuel!

Simplify the product gas conditioning process prior to IC engine introduction.

And lets increase over all efficiencies at the same time!

Let us make gasification a real thing rather than a technical toy! A
plumber's nightmare.

In the beginning -- Arnt -- let me introduce you to steam reforming ---
from little acorns large oak trees grow.

Peter Singfield (Belize)

At 12:32 AM 4/5/00 +0200, you wrote:
>Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>
>> Peter Singfield wrote:
>> >
>> > At 12:55 AM 8/3/00 +0200, you wrote:
>> > >Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> Dear Arnt
>> > >>
>> > >> Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>> > >> > >
>> > >
>> > >..there is a good discussion of this in 'Gengas'. Also on Joachim's?
>> > >website.
>> > >The Källe charcoal gave about 25% better mileage than competing charcoal
>> > >gasifiers without exhaust gas recycling.
>
>etc...
>
>The way I see it reuse of exhaust CO2 is more about putting excess heat in
the
>pyrolysis to good use instead of just cooling it away.
>As long as you have excess heat it should be effective to recycle some CO2.
>The question should be how much CO2 you can recycle, if you mix in too much,
>the heat drops enough to let tars pass through the hearth without
cracking, and
>you end up with a very broken engine.
>
>Am I wrong?
>
>/Markus
>
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

From andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com Thu Aug 3 11:10:05 2000
From: andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:36 2004
Subject: GAS-L:CO2 Conversion to CO, and Efficiency Implications
In-Reply-To: <200008021848.LAA17113@secure.crest.net>
Message-ID: <a02jos4p2i7jcg0bk3vr9qq69tjpmaocva@4ax.com>

Arnt
I have fallen behind with current discussions on engines in this list,
it seems that Peter and you are proposing combining a Rankine Cycle
(max efficiency ~13%, typical efficiency 8%) with an Otto cycle ( max
efficiency ~50%, typical efficiency 30%) and expecting the efficiency
to be additive, I would have guessed a multiple would be more likely
;-(.

Other comments inserted in text:

On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 00:55:38 +0200, you wrote:

>Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>>
>> Dear Arnt
>>
>> Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>> >
>> > Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Dear Mrs. Parikh
>> > >
>> > > The efficiency will potentially have to drop if CO2 is converted to CO,
>> > > in that the conversion process is very absorbing of energy. In the

Apologies for dropping the attributions but this is the point: The
crucible or hearth gets hot, this heat leaves the system as the
sensible heat in the offgas or losses from the gasifier, it also
contributes to "wear/erosion" of the tuyeres/throat. There is an
option to feed in steam to cool the hearth (highly endothermic water
gas reaction) or carbon dioxide (plus nitrogen) from the exhaust. The
net proportion of nitrogen having a free ride through the system
remains the same (two trips for the recirculated gas).

The effect on the off gas is significant. CO is a poorer gas than h2
for engines. Prof Parikh has pointed out on a number of occasions that
H2 is important in that it has a high flame speed. The time available
for combustion is a limiting factor. Again Prof Parikh has pointed out
a major reason for derating is that flame speed limits engine speed
and hence HP, the poorer offgas from a carbon monoxide generator will
not rev the engine as fast as gas containing hydrogen.

Many years (~1981?) ago a Mrs. Humphreys from New Zealand offered me a
new ceramic bed downdraft wood gasifier. She made it clear then that
dry wood should not be used, I inferred from this that steam generated
in the drying zone was necessary to moderate the heat in the hearth
and also this enriches the offgas. Tom reed has also mentioned in the
past that a small quantity of moisture is optimal in *burning* wood
cleanly, I have experienced this effect.

I posted the equation for the Kalle gasifier with recirculation some
time back. Assuming the 18% figure is correct and the hearth
temperature is maintained high enough to reduce the CO2 I calculated
the maximum cold gas efficiency in a charcoal gasifier would increase
to above 80%. I believe wood gasifiers seldom get better than 70%. In
the past I had surmised that a gasifier could raise steam in cooling
the offgas which (neglecting losses from an insulated gasifier)
contains ~30% of the total energy and use the water gas reaction to
both enrich the gas and moderate the hearth temperature (complicated
though the feedback loop would be as hearth temperature must be
maintained). All this is speculation on my part as I still have not
connected a gasifier to an engine. Again I would point out coal gas
plants typically reached thermal efficiencies of 85% and produced a
homogeneous dependable, relatively clean, town gas.

>> If indeed there was really a gain in efficiency, then something happened
>> where more of the fuel energy could be harnessed within the energy
>> extraction portion of the engine system. There is no conflict with what
>> I said above.
Essentially Kevin is correct here, energy is conserved but there is
more in the chemical content of the gas and less in the sensible heat
of the gas (which must be cooled anyway before entering an ic engine.
Prof Parikh also observed that the C)2 from the exhaust should be
recirculated without cooling, this in effect recycles heat in the
exchaust that would otherwise be vented to atmosphere.
>>
>> That hang together for you?? :-)
>
>..yup, heat energy is added to the fuel energy in the gasifier. All it
>takes.
>Bonuses include less nitrogen in the fuel gas, as less air is needed to
>produce the required heat inside the gasifier, to gasify. Richer gas
>also helps the engine perform better.
I disagree about the nitrogen, in the case of a charcoal gasifier the
cv of the gas remains the same also, just less cooling required.
AJH

From cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk Thu Aug 3 11:57:11 2000
From: cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk (Cordner Peacocke)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:36 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Looking for Mr. Good Gasifier
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000803085009.0094fb30@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20000803165627.007bba70@pop3.demon.co.uk>

Dear Peter et al.,

What is a ''good'' gasifier? I'm sure we all have our own criteria.
Anyway, moving on.....

Just to throw my 2 UK pounds [while we still have them] into the melting
pot...........

One thing to remember is that gasification is a slow process. CO2
gasification with the char is slow and endothermic as noted and steam
reforming won't be much better. As noted, the temperature of the
gasification zone will drop significantly [for wet fuels] and then there
will be significant char quantities and poor quality gas. I think what
will be the limiting factor is carbon availability to give more CO from the
CO2 gasification, then you will rapidly run out of char. I haven't worked
out the numbers but it should be fairly easy to calculate at what point you
end up carbon [or hydrogen] limited. Recycle rates of the gas could be
faster than the gasification rate, therefore the gas quality will be
reduced, but it could, as you note, be carefully balanced.

>Arnt has designed an operated a gasifier that does tar and pyrolysed fuel
>vapors flaring into the combustion zone.

If my memory serves me correctly, a Dr. Groenveld from the University of
Groningen, the Netherlands, designed and operated a gasifier which
recycled the product gas back into the gasification zone to increase tar
destruction. I believe that he formed a company to market the gasifier,
but as far as I am aware, it folded several years ago. I don't know any of
the results, but perhaps one of our Dutch colleagues can comment. I will
try and dig out some references [when I get time]. I think he only
recycled 5% of the product gas, but I would have to check.

With regards to your comments on fuel drying, the engine exhaust gases
diluted with air can dry the wood to an acceptable level, assuming we're
talking about co-current downdraft gasifiers here. One scheme I worked on
recently does this and the hot water from the engine jacket is also used.
Air has a low specific heat capacity, therefore rob heat from the losses
through the gasifier wall near the reduction zone. In my view, have a low
heat loss reduction zone to improve tar cracking and get the benefit of
improved gas CV. This is where small-scale systems loose out on heat losses.

Your updraft counter current gasifier will take a wetter fuel, typically
35wt% water, but then tar-cracking is required to recover the energy in the
pyrolysis products.

I can't comment on the engine discussions, I simply don't have that depth
of knowledge, but gas cleaning systems can be simplified if the gasifier is
operated correctly to give very low ''organics'' and particulates
containing gas. Get the gasifier right, and don't worry about the gas
cleaning [conditioning] system. Then you have a chance of almost coupling
the gasifer to the engine.

Cordner

From th_royd at sierra.psnw.com Thu Aug 3 12:06:38 2000
From: th_royd at sierra.psnw.com (Roy Haury)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:36 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Short Camming the Intake
Message-ID: <000c01bffd2c$d87e2fc0$b9fc2bce@pavilion>

Peter,
My understanding of this concept is that the intake valve closes well before
ignition takes place and therefor would not cross-pollute the intake charge.
My consideration of a reed valve would indeed be operating as a check valve.
Its purpose would be to control the pulsation's at the throttle and perhaps
reduce the effect of erratic operation at low rpm. Perhaps tuned intake
runners could achieve this end as I believe Arnt suggested. None of this
speculation is merited by forte, I was a natural resources major, not an
engineer. My interests in gasification is as a hobby and as a concern over
carbon loading in our atmosphere. Although my experimentation spans several
years it is quite limited and nothing more virtuous than backyard
investigations. Also, My use of water injection in past years has proven to
accelerate wear in the upper cylinder region judging from ridge formation
and comparing with other engines of similar mileage/maintenance, although
admittedly I did not employ strict scientific methodology to conclude this.
Yes an old engine and the time required to play would certainly be nice.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Roy

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Singfield <snkm@btl.net>
To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Date: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 3:28 PM
Subject: GAS-L: Short Camming the Intake

>Hi Roy;
>
>At 09:37 PM 8/1/00 -0000, you wrote:
>>I will generally not post as I feel I have much more to learn than to
teach
>>however I recall reading of an experimental cam configuration which
>>purported to be extremely efficient in an gasoline engine. It's design
held
>>the intake open throughout the normal intake stroke and then approx
halfway
>>into the compression stroke. Since normal compression ratio had been
raised
>>to 16:1 this resulted in an actual compression of 8:1 yet an expansion
ratio
>>of 16:1.
>
>Great direction to play around in! Exhaust gasses would be mixing with
>intake gas mixture though.
>
>
>Although it had a High idle speed (1000) it was supposedly quite
>>efficient and I've wondered if a reed valve configuration beneath the
>>throttle could be employed to tame it somewhat.
>
>You mean a "check-valve" effect to not allow exhaust gasses to mix with
>intake?
>
>Well, we certainly would not want gas/air mixture blown out the intake!
>That would not be efficient at all. But as for the reed valve -- better
>just to close that valve before the compression stroke.
>
>In fact -- if one was going to short cam the intake -- and since we can
>live with engine derating -- trading for engine efficiency -- the intake
>valve should open top dead center, close before bottom dead center. The
>exhaust valve would open at bottom dead center after the power stroke and
>be closed top dead center.
>
>The compression ration could indeed be adjusted by how long -- or how
>"large" the intake valve opens.
>
>And yes -- this would in effect increase expansion volume.
>
>But we can do the same by using hot gas as feed -- that would lower the
>density of the charge and achieve the same end result.
>
>A little water injection would help take advantage of that extra expansion
>volume.
>
>Would it not be fun to have an old engine on a test bed to play with all of
>these "tricks"??
>
>Then one could see power and efficiencies on the fly as different
>parameters are altered.
>
>Peter
>
>The work was done by a
>>person named Mike Brown who also manufactured copies of the old 'fish'
>>carburetor. This may do someone some good in researching, then again it
may
>>just be bilge. Certainly its nothing with a proven record as applicable to
>>gasification yet where efficiencies are critical it may have merit.
>>Roy
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Peter Singfield <snkm@btl.net>
>>To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
>>Date: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 12:56 AM
>>Subject: Re: GAS-L: Heavy Metal vs ring-a-dings
>
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>

From snkm at btl.net Thu Aug 3 13:11:39 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:36 2004
Subject: GAS-L:CO2 Conversion to CO, and Efficiency Implications
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000803110725.00971140@wgs1.btl.net>

>I disagree about the nitrogen, in the case of a charcoal gasifier the
>cv of the gas remains the same also, just less cooling required.
>AJH

I disagree with your disagree. Increase the amount of H2 and CO in the
gasifier product and N2 -- which certainly is the same amount in both
reactions -- becomes less a part of the total volume of gasses in the
second reaction. Ergo -- the percentage N2 -- against total volume of
gasses produced -- becomes less.

Now -- would be interested in your comments on my highly theoretical model
just posted in "Looking" for Mr. Good Gasifier".

I am well aware of the coal gas model -- I like to derive from that example
often. It is a three stage gas production conversion. Pyrolization of Coal,
then the bi-stage, steam reformation cooling the charge to below the set
point -- then "flairing" making producer gas while reheating the charge
sufficiently to continue steam reforming. The producer gas being used for
steam production. And maybe even the source of heat for Pyrolization??

We have all the same characters in this wood/biomass gasification act. Just
need to get the right script to make a hit show.

Peter Singfield (Belize)

>
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Aug 3 15:14:10 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:36 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Terrible modeling!!!
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000803072352.00942d90@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3989C3C3.FBBB7E2D@c2i.net>

Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> >
> >..ah. I was thinking of your basic program tools you say you use
> >generating your numbers ;-)
>
> Arnt;
>
> My basic programming tools are a few old engineering hand books, a
> calculator, and a note book.
>
> I use to write up basic programs for problems that were used a lot. But

..these are the basic programs I wanted to see. Chopped them?

> even then -- one has to chop that first trail with a machete before calling
> in the heavy machinery.
>
> Peter

..playing with software is _much_ cheaper, than with _hardware_ ;-)

--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com Thu Aug 3 17:17:57 2000
From: andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:36 2004
Subject: GAS-L:CO2 Conversion to CO, and Efficiency Implications
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000803110725.00971140@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <conjosov85upvq9g1n6v5bjefq23ov2s22@4ax.com>

On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 11:08:39 -0500, you wrote:

>>I disagree about the nitrogen, in the case of a charcoal gasifier the
>>cv of the gas remains the same also, just less cooling required.
>>AJH
>
>I disagree with your disagree. Increase the amount of H2 and CO in the
>gasifier product and N2 -- which certainly is the same amount in both
>reactions -- becomes less a part of the total volume of gasses in the
>second reaction. Ergo -- the percentage N2 -- against total volume of
>gasses produced -- becomes less.

I was assuming a charcoal gasifier using pure char (unlikely with most
charcoal making as some volatiles remain). Hence with CO2
recirculation hydrogen does nor figure. However I accept I did make a
mistake in that I did not allow for the contribution of the extra fuel
carbon utilised to the massflow.

>Now -- would be interested in your comments on my highly theoretical model
>just posted in "Looking" for Mr. Good Gasifier".

Peter you are too prolific in your postings for me to keep up! I am
still trying to digest the thread so far.
>
>I am well aware of the coal gas model -- I like to derive from that example
>often. It is a three stage gas production conversion. Pyrolization of Coal,
>then the bi-stage, steam reformation cooling the charge to below the set
>point -- then "flairing" making producer gas while reheating the charge
>sufficiently to continue steam reforming. The producer gas being used for
>steam production. And maybe even the source of heat for Pyrolization??
>
>We have all the same characters in this wood/biomass gasification act. Just
>need to get the right script to make a hit show.

I'll drink to that! We have the makings of the stage adaptation, still
desperately seeking an angel though ;-(.
AJH

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Aug 3 17:54:11 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:36 2004
Subject: GAS-L:CO2 Conversion to CO, and Efficiency Implications
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000803110725.00971140@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3989E926.85881C72@c2i.net>

Andrew Heggie wrote:
>
> On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 11:08:39 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >>I disagree about the nitrogen, in the case of a charcoal gasifier the
> >>cv of the gas remains the same also, just less cooling required.
> >>AJH
> >
> >I disagree with your disagree. Increase the amount of H2 and CO in the
> >gasifier product and N2 -- which certainly is the same amount in both
> >reactions -- becomes less a part of the total volume of gasses in the
> >second reaction. Ergo -- the percentage N2 -- against total volume of
> >gasses produced -- becomes less.
>
> I was assuming a charcoal gasifier using pure char (unlikely with most
> charcoal making as some volatiles remain). Hence with CO2
> recirculation hydrogen does nor figure. However I accept I did make a
> mistake in that I did not allow for the contribution of the extra fuel
> carbon utilised to the massflow.
>
> >Now -- would be interested in your comments on my highly theoretical model
> >just posted in "Looking" for Mr. Good Gasifier".
>
> Peter you are too prolific in your postings for me to keep up! I am
> still trying to digest the thread so far.

..hear hear! I found a bug in my gnomepad+ editor losing content I
hadnt saved the last week ;-), it ran 24/7 like a server, ;-D

..rebuilding lost stuff now ;-)

> >I am well aware of the coal gas model -- I like to derive from that example
> >often. It is a three stage gas production conversion. Pyrolization of Coal,
> >then the bi-stage, steam reformation cooling the charge to below the set
> >point -- then "flairing" making producer gas while reheating the charge
> >sufficiently to continue steam reforming. The producer gas being used for
> >steam production. And maybe even the source of heat for Pyrolization??
> >
> >We have all the same characters in this wood/biomass gasification act. Just
> >need to get the right script to make a hit show.
>
> I'll drink to that! We have the makings of the stage adaptation, still
> desperately seeking an angel though ;-(.
> AJH
>

--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From tmiles at teleport.com Thu Aug 3 19:19:22 2000
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:36 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Help Me: Tars and Backpressure in Gasifiers
Message-ID: <200008032319.QAA27112@secure.crest.net>

Cc: hatharasinghe@yahoo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Forwarded to the Gasification List:

>Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 08:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
>From: ROSHAN HATHARASINGHE <hatharasinghe@yahoo.com>
>Subject: help me
>To: stoves@crest.org
>
>
>Iam a final year chemical engineering student in
>university of peradeniya srilanka.
>my final year project is BIOMAS GASIFIER
>ihave some problems
>
>1.back pressure(feeder)
>2problem of tar cracking (reducing tar content)
>
>please be kind enough to technically help me
>
>i hope your answer.
>
>thank you
>ROSHAN

From kchishol at fox.nstn.ca Thu Aug 3 19:33:20 2000
From: kchishol at fox.nstn.ca (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:36 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Help Me: Tars and Backpressure in Gasifiers
In-Reply-To: <200008032319.QAA27112@secure.crest.net>
Message-ID: <398A00F9.3AF362E6@fox.nstn.ca>

Dear Roshan

Tom Miles wrote:
>
> Cc: hatharasinghe@yahoo.com
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> Forwarded to the Gasification List:
>
> >Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 08:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
> >From: ROSHAN HATHARASINGHE <hatharasinghe@yahoo.com>
> >Subject: help me
> >To: stoves@crest.org
> >
> >
> >Iam a final year chemical engineering student in
> >university of peradeniya srilanka.

I am curious: where is it?

> >my final year project is BIOMAS GASIFIER
> >ihave some problems
> >
In general, I would comment that in order to get help from a list such
as this, you have to ask more specific questions. There are some
extremely knowledgeable people on this list, and if you asked the right
question, they could almost certainly steer you in the right direction.

> >1.back pressure(feeder)

If there was a way that you could post a drawing of your system or
apparatus, then someone may be able to spot the problem area.

> >2problem of tar cracking (reducing tar content)
> >
What is the problem associated with cracking of the tars? I presume that
you are getting too much tar carry-over. Again, more information is
required to make a sensible suggestion. Gas flow patterns and
temperatures, in relation to the uncharred biomass are critical.

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm

> >please be kind enough to technically help me
> >
> >i hope your answer.
> >
> >thank you
> >ROSHAN
>
> The Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

From snkm at btl.net Thu Aug 3 20:41:22 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:36 2004
Subject: GAS-L:CO2 Conversion to CO, and Efficiency Implications
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000803164001.0093e460@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Andrew;

Yes -- we have had a flurry of a brainstorm here -- unfortunately all
theoretical.

Hopefully some of the folks making and running Gasifier to IC engine power
plants will consider running a few experiments to find out if anything of
value has been presented.

For now -- we probably have beaten the poor horse beyond submission --
maybe it is dead??

It will take me at least a week to sieve through all the messages -- on
list and off -- for any gems of wisdom that might have fallen through the
cracks.

I for one have over extended my ability to consider this question any more
at this time without some real input from some bench testing. And I simply
am not in any position to do that --

I found that our next door neighbor here -- Guatemala -- has these really
neat single cylinder, 8 hp diesels -- look like Lister Diesel knock offs --
for sale for $1000 US -- new.

I believe a lot of the "questions" brought up on this list in the past few
days can be addressed properly by building a gasifier to go with one of
these diesels and experiment.

My "Kingdom" for enough spare cash to do even that!

So it is up to others.

Peter Singfield

At 11:50 PM 8/3/00 +0200, you wrote:
>Andrew Heggie wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 11:08:39 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>> >>I disagree about the nitrogen, in the case of a charcoal gasifier the
>> >>cv of the gas remains the same also, just less cooling required.
>> >>AJH
>> >
>> >I disagree with your disagree. Increase the amount of H2 and CO in the
>> >gasifier product and N2 -- which certainly is the same amount in both
>> >reactions -- becomes less a part of the total volume of gasses in the
>> >second reaction. Ergo -- the percentage N2 -- against total volume of
>> >gasses produced -- becomes less.
>>
>> I was assuming a charcoal gasifier using pure char (unlikely with most
>> charcoal making as some volatiles remain). Hence with CO2
>> recirculation hydrogen does nor figure. However I accept I did make a
>> mistake in that I did not allow for the contribution of the extra fuel
>> carbon utilised to the massflow.
>>
>> >Now -- would be interested in your comments on my highly theoretical model
>> >just posted in "Looking" for Mr. Good Gasifier".
>>
>> Peter you are too prolific in your postings for me to keep up! I am
>> still trying to digest the thread so far.
>
>..hear hear! I found a bug in my gnomepad+ editor losing content I
>hadnt saved the last week ;-), it ran 24/7 like a server, ;-D
>
>..rebuilding lost stuff now ;-)
>
>> >I am well aware of the coal gas model -- I like to derive from that
example
>> >often. It is a three stage gas production conversion. Pyrolization of
Coal,
>> >then the bi-stage, steam reformation cooling the charge to below the set
>> >point -- then "flairing" making producer gas while reheating the charge
>> >sufficiently to continue steam reforming. The producer gas being used for
>> >steam production. And maybe even the source of heat for Pyrolization??
>> >
>> >We have all the same characters in this wood/biomass gasification act.
Just
>> >need to get the right script to make a hit show.
>>
>> I'll drink to that! We have the makings of the stage adaptation, still
>> desperately seeking an angel though ;-(.
>> AJH
>>
>
>--
>..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)
>
> "Irrationality is the square root of all evil"
> -- Douglas Hofstadter
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

From snkm at btl.net Thu Aug 3 20:41:34 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:36 2004
Subject: GAS-L: "Dreaming" about Mr. Good Gasifier
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000803183742.00940370@wgs1.btl.net>

At 04:56 PM 8/3/00 +0100, you wrote:
>Dear Peter et al.,
>
>What is a ''good'' gasifier? I'm sure we all have our own criteria.
>Anyway, moving on.....
>
>Just to throw my 2 UK pounds [while we still have them] into the melting
>pot...........
>
>One thing to remember is that gasification is a slow process. CO2
>gasification with the char is slow and endothermic as noted and steam
>reforming won't be much better. As noted, the temperature of the
>gasification zone will drop significantly [for wet fuels] and then there
>will be significant char quantities and poor quality gas.

Yes -- maintaining proper "reactor" temperature is the bottom line in this
scenario. And I believe "product gas" may have to be burned (Flaired??) to
do this as the reaction runs away.

The balancing act will be between endothermic and exothermic reactions. The
advantage is that a lot of presently considered waste heat can be put back
to good use. And most of it without having to use a heat exchanger device.

The series of venturi injection points -- Air, product gas, and top of fuel
pile tars and pyrolysis gasses into the engine exhaust stream allow for
easy adjustment -- and indeed -- easy automatic -- micro-controller -- feed
back loops.

A K thermocouple in the primary reduction area would then be the bottom line.

If fuel is being batch loaded -- the adjustments would be quite extreme
during the entire reduction of that batch -- but still with in the range of
a system as described.

Still -- there is a simply major problem with using the exhaust gasses for
all this -- which we will soon come to --

I think what
>will be the limiting factor is carbon availability to give more CO from the
>CO2 gasification, then you will rapidly run out of char.

Yes -- a point I kept bringing up -- where to get the extra Carbon for
that! And why bother spending carbon for CO when you can have H2 + CO??

I haven't worked
>out the numbers but it should be fairly easy to calculate at what point you
>end up carbon [or hydrogen] limited.

When that thermocouple reads less than 1600 F I imagine.

Recycle rates of the gas could be
>faster than the gasification rate, therefore the gas quality will be
>reduced, but it could, as you note, be carefully balanced.

Yes -- but what a wild ride! And one can't just keep pumping that cycle
full of engine exhaust -- remember -- intake air to the engine keeps
building up the volume of gases in this circuit. So it simply can't be
"closed" -- at the very least -- there would be an eventual explosion.

Any comments Arnt? How, what and where do you plan to put the bleed off???
and them we are back to the same problem -- waste heat going up the stack
-- unless we put a heat exchanger in -- and if we do that -- why bother
with recycling exhaust gasses through the gasifier?

Ok -- one could "split" the reaction. Take a clue from the old (ancient
actually) coal gasification plants.

Let the hot exhaust gases "fire" pyrolysis of -- say -- the sawdust. In
effect kind of torrefying the wood -- which would then drop from this
through an air lock to the process chamber of the gasification reactor --
but separate gas flows all together.

And now we are making our own plumber's nightmare. One wonders if the best
thing to do is simply use a heat exchanger to extract heat from exhaust
gases to heat fuel and combustion/oxidization air.

I am not convinced of any value to reducing IC engine exhaust CO2 -- yet.

>
>>Arnt has designed an operated a gasifier that does tar and pyrolysed fuel
>>vapors flaring into the combustion zone.
>
>If my memory serves me correctly, a Dr. Groenveld from the University of
>Groningen, the Netherlands, designed and operated a gasifier which
>recycled the product gas back into the gasification zone to increase tar
>destruction. I believe that he formed a company to market the gasifier,
>but as far as I am aware, it folded several years ago. I don't know any of
>the results, but perhaps one of our Dutch colleagues can comment. I will
>try and dig out some references [when I get time]. I think he only
>recycled 5% of the product gas, but I would have to check.

I believe a 5% recycling of product gas to "fire" the steam reformation
process due to increased humidity of the fuel -- would be about right. But
this would require proper carburetion with air -- not hot engine exhaust
gases.

We know the ratio of water/steam to carbon is 1.3 water for 1 pound carbon.
so 50% humidity fuel would contain less than the amount required -- which
is what we would want. Some of the carbon available must be used for
producer gas formation just to fire this process.

Also -- batch lots will be hard to adjust for. It would be far easier to
"trickle" the right amount of "Wet-Sawdust" into this first reaction zone.
That could be as simple as a thick steel plate, mildly convex in shape --
separating the torrefied sawdust underneath -- where the next "reaction" is
heating this plate to well over 2000 F. The small amount of sawdust
impinging from the top surface first producing gasses of pyrolization,
steam, and probably the beginnings of steam reformation products -- the
torrefied -- or even "charred" wood residue slowly sliding off the circular
outer edge (Which could be accordingly "rimmed") -- the gasses freely
flowing along past this drop -- then into a very short and sharp cone --
into the under plate reaction chamber where the proper amount of air would
be introduced to support combustion as in normal gasification. Here the
chars/tars would either be reduced in the presence of the steam -- or
partially oxidized/combusted to supply heat and producer gas required.

There probably will be more heat required than the "choked" oxidation
process can supply -- so then burn maybe 5% of the product gas directly
above the coned reaction chamber, under the "hot" plate (The under side of
that being convex and having a space to allow this) directly above the
torrefied/char pile -- with it own gas/air mixture. The very hot gasses of
combustion produced from this secondary combustion would be split between
heating the plate, supplying heat for steam reformation continuing in the
gas/chars/ torrefied wood falling off the convex top of that same plate and
what ever left going down through the reaction chamber where the main
reactions are continuing.

Now to balance this reaction is as simple as throttling the product gas
combustion circuit (with its own air) -- the air entry circuit to the
bottom reaction zone -- the wet sawdust fuel feed going in the top.

I could do that "blindfolded" with a few sensors, actuators and
micro-controlling.

As Cordner points out -- time in the reaction zones will be critical for
complete reduction/oxidation to occur. And this part will have to be
adjusted , probably, in the traditional manner -- that is throat diameters
and lengths.

>
>With regards to your comments on fuel drying, the engine exhaust gases
>diluted with air can dry the wood to an acceptable level, assuming we're
>talking about co-current downdraft gasifiers here. One scheme I worked on
>recently does this and the hot water from the engine jacket is also used.

Yes -- this is a very real option. There was a man with a gasifier in
British Columbia Canada that was doing exactly that to dry wet sawdust in
his sawdust gasifier. Blowing the exhaust though the sawdust charge before
entry to his gasifier. But another tricky balancing act.

But actually -- we have all the heat to do that from another direction --
and one where we must lower heat anyway. The hot product gas.

Arnt and I already math modeled this a number of times. What we found is
there is more than enough heat available -- even including poor heat
exchange characteristics -- in the hot product gas alone, to dry 50%
humidity "saw-dust" to under 20%. And as his product gas comes out at 1000
C -- we have more than enough Delta T to satisfy even a poor in surface
area (meaning "cheap") heat exchanger arrangement. (more on that later)

Again -- the trickle effect will work well here as well. And the gasses of
any pyrolization that is produced -- as well as hot tar vapors -- are
simply part of the flow into the reaction zones.

This also is a rather simple solution. But the extra high amounts of steam
produced from this process beg for steam reformation -- and again --
burning that 5% or less of product should handle that well. In this case --
replace the hot plate effect with a hot heat exchanger effect. No air
circulation -- but a direct heat from hot product gasses to sawdust --
again -- more on that later -- with a light "draw" of heated feed air to
make the fumes move into the reaction zone.

Though I would like to know exactly what the combustion heat value is of
the pyrolization gasses would be?? As they two could be combusted in this
same manner to supply the extra heat to be invested in the steam reforming
process on the way "down".

>Air has a low specific heat capacity, therefore rob heat from the losses
>through the gasifier wall near the reduction zone.

Yes -- I have been looking at that as well. But feel it would be better to
highly insulate that area to keep temperatures as high as possible if steam
reforming is to be part of the gasification processes.

>In my view, have a low
>heat loss reduction zone to improve tar cracking and get the benefit of
>improved gas CV. This is where small-scale systems loose out on heat losses.
>

Exactly!

>Your updraft counter current gasifier will take a wetter fuel, typically
>35wt% water, but then tar-cracking is required to recover the energy in the
>pyrolysis products.
>

Arnt and I started this off-list with a flurry of communications. I to
looked at the up-draft concept from the first -- but no -- can't see that
being of benefit -- for the same reasons you are mentioning. Mainly it gets
to cold to fast and so much problem with tars -- plus steam that can't find
heat to do any reforming.

>I can't comment on the engine discussions, I simply don't have that depth
>of knowledge, but gas cleaning systems can be simplified if the gasifier is
>operated correctly to give very low ''organics'' and particulates
>containing gas.

Yes -- in the end the best gas cleaning system is to have a gasifier that
produces very clean product. Arnt feels there is no problem supplying a tar
free product -- and using steam reduction in the cycle -- I can't see how
any tars would not be steam reformed in a proper design. Dust and particles
-- numerous ways to clean that up.

Now -- the "later" part -- ye old upright fire tube boiler as heat exchanger.

I would use a large bore vertical heat exchanger -- think of a vertical
fire tube boiler -- a number of large diameter tubes of a decent length,
large manifold for collection at the bottom -- entrance of hot product just
under the tubes. As the velocity of the gasses would be drastically reduced
at this point the particles in the stream would settle to the bottom. I
have described this in great detail in one of the messages -- don't know if
I can ever find it again though!

Further the exit could easily have a large area fine mesh to impede any
particle escape. The heat exchanger would be used for heating air. The
lower part -- hottest air - say plus 500 C -- would be used for the
gasifier reaction chambers -- including burning either gases of
pyrolization or that extra boost of product gas combustion as well as the
normal feed to the gasifier fuel combustion zone. Or -- for that hot plate
effect. That is feed the sawdust in around the bottom part of this fire
tube heat exchanger -- say the first one half. Screw feed at the top.
Slanted plates at the bottom letting the hot, dried, partially torrefied,
sawdust slide from the bottom into the reaction zones. Let a little air
trickle in from the top to sweep out the gasses of pyrolization and the
"steam" extracted. Maybe mix that 5% of product gas at this point for good
combustion -- with the gasses of pyrolization -- for and easy supply of
heat to steam reform in the reaction chamber below.

The upper segment of that heat exchange would put out 500 C and less -- and
be used for heating fuel -- remember it takes 1150 BTU per pound to change
that humidity to steam. The "split might be even on the hotter side -- like
700 C and 300 C. Math modeling will help find the starting point. Moveable
baffles will do the rest.

>Get the gasifier right, and don't worry about the gas
>cleaning [conditioning] system. Then you have a chance of almost coupling
>the gasifer to the engine.

Right -- and hopefully with a richer product that allows a higher engine
efficiency with less derating. A gasifier efficiency of 80% or a little
better and an engine efficiency of 30%.

Over all efficiency of 80% times 30% = 24%

That would blow away the best fluid bed gasifier/steam boiler power plant
set-up by a few percent at least -- comes in small sizes -- and for a
fraction of the cost and "head-ache".

Believe me -- you would have the entire 3rd world building statues to
commemorate such an event!!

To bad there is such little interest in "First" world for these kind of
projects.

To burn 50% humidity biomass fuels as "sawdust" (no pelletizing) -- put out
a richer gas product for greater engine efficiency -- do it all in a simple
manner -- what a dream eh??

Of course this would be the greatest gift to humanity ever! Just think of
the relief to global warming that would be achieved!!

Just where are our Uncle Bills (Clinton or Gates) when we need them!!

Peter

>
>Cordner
>
>
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Aug 3 20:56:43 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:36 2004
Subject: GAS-L:CO2 Conversion to CO, and Efficiency Implications
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000803164001.0093e460@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <398A140E.A5A1066D@c2i.net>

Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew;
>
> Yes -- we have had a flurry of a brainstorm here -- unfortunately all
> theoretical.
>
> Hopefully some of the folks making and running Gasifier to IC engine power
> plants will consider running a few experiments to find out if anything of
> value has been presented.
>
> For now -- we probably have beaten the poor horse beyond submission --
> maybe it is dead??

..naw, it still moves ;-)

> It will take me at least a week to sieve through all the messages -- on

..rebuilt what I lost, now posting it.

> list and off -- for any gems of wisdom that might have fallen through the
> cracks.
>
> I for one have over extended my ability to consider this question any more
> at this time without some real input from some bench testing. And I simply
> am not in any position to do that --
>
> I found that our next door neighbor here -- Guatemala -- has these really
> neat single cylinder, 8 hp diesels -- look like Lister Diesel knock offs --
> for sale for $1000 US -- new.
>
> I believe a lot of the "questions" brought up on this list in the past few
> days can be addressed properly by building a gasifier to go with one of
> these diesels and experiment.
>
> My "Kingdom" for enough spare cash to do even that!
>
> So it is up to others.
>
> Peter Singfield
--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Aug 3 21:01:22 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:36 2004
Subject: GAS-L:CO2 Conversion to CO, and Efficiency Implications
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000803110725.00971140@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <398A1525.D4C354D8@c2i.net>

..rest forgiven. ;-) That recycle and tar flaring, are my news. ;-)

> >Now -- would be interested in your comments on my highly theoretical model
> >just posted in "Looking" for Mr. Good Gasifier".
>
> Peter you are too prolific in your postings for me to keep up! I am
> still trying to digest the thread so far.

..hear, hear. We also waste a lot of time re-keying in data om our
different model platforms, don't we, Peter. ;-)

..amen!. Working on it.
--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Aug 3 21:02:42 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:36 2004
Subject: GAS-L:CO2 Conversion to CO, and Efficiency Implications
In-Reply-To: <200008021848.LAA17113@secure.crest.net>
Message-ID: <398A1574.3116BA94@c2i.net>

Andrew Heggie wrote:
>
> Arnt
> I have fallen behind with current discussions on engines in this list,
> it seems that Peter and you are proposing combining a Rankine Cycle
> (max efficiency ~13%, typical efficiency 8%) with an Otto cycle ( max

..Peter is. I am a bit more conservative, feeling gases entering an
engine should be cold. That said, I am happy to spray water and alcohol
into the cylinder charge.

> efficiency ~50%, typical efficiency 30%) and expecting the efficiency
> to be additive, I would have guessed a multiple would be more likely
> ;-(.
>
> Other comments inserted in text:
>
> On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 00:55:38 +0200, you wrote:
>
> >Kevin Chisholm wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Arnt
> >>
> >> Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Kevin Chisholm wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Dear Mrs. Parikh
> >> > >
> >> > > The efficiency will potentially have to drop if CO2 is converted to CO,
> >> > > in that the conversion process is very absorbing of energy. In the
>
> Apologies for dropping the attributions but this is the point: The
> crucible or hearth gets hot, this heat leaves the system as the
> sensible heat in the offgas or losses from the gasifier, it also
> contributes to "wear/erosion" of the tuyeres/throat. There is an
> option to feed in steam to cool the hearth (highly endothermic water

..I do not want to cool the hearth, I want to _heat_ it! ;-)

..the whole idea is to _displace_ the air and fuel requirements to fuel
the gasificaton process, as far as possible, by dumping _heat into_ the
gasifier.

..the way to do it, is recycle some exhaust gas, to augment supply of
heat, carbon, oxygen and hydrogen, in the forms of exhaust gas steam,
CO2 and heat.

> gas reaction) or carbon dioxide (plus nitrogen) from the exhaust. The
> net proportion of nitrogen having a free ride through the system
> remains the same (two trips for the recirculated gas).

..minimizing air also means minimizing said 80% of it ;-)

> The effect on the off gas is significant. CO is a poorer gas than h2
> for engines. Prof Parikh has pointed out on a number of occasions that
> H2 is important in that it has a high flame speed. The time available
> for combustion is a limiting factor. Again Prof Parikh has pointed out
> a major reason for derating is that flame speed limits engine speed
> and hence HP, the poorer offgas from a carbon monoxide generator will
> not rev the engine as fast as gas containing hydrogen.
>
> Many years (~1981?) ago a Mrs. Humphreys from New Zealand offered me a
> new ceramic bed downdraft wood gasifier. She made it clear then that
> dry wood should not be used, I inferred from this that steam generated
> in the drying zone was necessary to moderate the heat in the hearth
> and also this enriches the offgas. Tom reed has also mentioned in the
> past that a small quantity of moisture is optimal in *burning* wood
> cleanly, I have experienced this effect.

..here, OH- ions catalyze the combustion process.
Which is why a burning (steel) bucket sample of heated diesel oil, will
brighten up to a white flame when sprayed with a water+alcohol mixture,
far better than with straight water. Can also use bases. Try it. ;-)

> I posted the equation for the Kalle gasifier with recirculation some
> time back. Assuming the 18% figure is correct and the hearth

..I missed it, link?

> temperature is maintained high enough to reduce the CO2 I calculated
> the maximum cold gas efficiency in a charcoal gasifier would increase
> to above 80%. I believe wood gasifiers seldom get better than 70%. In
> the past I had surmised that a gasifier could raise steam in cooling
> the offgas which (neglecting losses from an insulated gasifier)
> contains ~30% of the total energy and use the water gas reaction to
> both enrich the gas and moderate the hearth temperature (complicated
> though the feedback loop would be as hearth temperature must be
> maintained). All this is speculation on my part as I still have not
> connected a gasifier to an engine. Again I would point out coal gas
> plants typically reached thermal efficiencies of 85% and produced a
> homogeneous dependable, relatively clean, town gas.

..target to beat. ;-) Means trying out all dirty tricks we dream up. ;-)
>
> >> If indeed there was really a gain in efficiency, then something happened
> >> where more of the fuel energy could be harnessed within the energy
> >> extraction portion of the engine system. There is no conflict with what
> >> I said above.
> Essentially Kevin is correct here, energy is conserved but there is
> more in the chemical content of the gas and less in the sensible heat
> of the gas (which must be cooled anyway before entering an ic engine.

..the challenge is contain those cooling/heat exhanger losses.

> Prof Parikh also observed that the C)2 from the exhaust should be
> recirculated without cooling, this in effect recycles heat in the
> exchaust that would otherwise be vented to atmosphere.

..a lot of exhaust gas is going out that way. A lot of heat, CO2 and
steam can be recovered, and piped back to the gasifier. How much,
another challenge. ;-)

> >>
> >> That hang together for you?? :-)
> >
> >..yup, heat energy is added to the fuel energy in the gasifier. All it
> >takes.
> >Bonuses include less nitrogen in the fuel gas, as less air is needed to
> >produce the required heat inside the gasifier, to gasify. Richer gas
> >also helps the engine perform better.

> I disagree about the nitrogen, in the case of a charcoal gasifier the
> cv of the gas remains the same also, just less cooling required.
> AJH

..actually, expect even more heat exchanging. N2, see above. ;-)
--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Aug 3 21:03:56 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:36 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Looking for Mr. Good Gasifier
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000803085009.0094fb30@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <398A15C0.9F9C4775@c2i.net>

Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> Markus wrote:
> >
> >The question should be how much CO2 you can recycle, if you mix in too much,
> >the heat drops enough to let tars pass through the hearth without
> cracking, and
> >you end up with a very broken engine.
>
> >Am I wrong?

..not much ;-) Disregarding my tar flare, not at all. ;-)

> >/Markus
>
> Ditto for steam reforming. One has to have a good heat balance to do all of
> this.
>
> But there is a way around the problem -- in practice -- flairing to make
> more heat if the temps fall off to low. Or simply make arrangement for more
> air to be introduced into the right place at the right time. Tweaking and
> tuning.
>
> Originally this thread started over the possibility of using 50% humidity
> fuel in a standard gasifier.
>
> Need heat to dry the fuel before it hist the combustion/reduction zone.
> Plus -- lots of steam will be in that combustion atmosphere now -- way to
> much! So steam reforming -- a very endothermic reaction -- will cool to low
> to quick.
>
> Solution is to flair into the reduction zone.
>
> Arnt has designed an operated a gasifier that does tar and pyrolized fuel
> vapors flairing into the combustion zone.

..http://skyboom.com/arnt/ssrcolor.gif

> In his case he is using the normal below 20% humidity fuel. but even then

..and some soaking wet wood too ;-)

> -- there is a good amount of water vapor mixed with all the rest.
>
> If he can throw the still hot exhaust from the engine in -- he can also
> recover that heat as richer btu gas.
>
> His present tar flair design could be supplemented with product gas for
> extra heat again.
>
> No heat is lost -- just invested.
>
> He would have a pipe with a series of venturi injection points. This part
> of the exhaust piping being of a smaller diameter to sustain the flow rates
> needed for the venturi process to work well.
>
> One venturi for scavenging his tars, pyrolized fuel vapors from the top of
> the fuel pile over the reaction zone.

..actually, a couple of annular pipes, the outer draws tar & vapors, the
inner hot air, when mixed at the end of the inner pipe, hot mix burns.
;-) See fig.

[...]
>
> The air needed could be preheated from further waste heat sources -- the
> engine radiator -- then around the hot gas intake manifold (to pick us a
> percentage there -- most of the hot gas would still be going straight into
> the engine) etc.
>
> So we may have a wet fueled gasifier with a much higher btu value product
> gas running a hot intake engine with water injection.
>
> Kind of a total redesign of the current state of the art gasification to IC
> engine technology.
>
> Also -- since the intake to the gasifier is pressurized -- reduction zone
> physical parameters can be changed so that very fine fuels -- even dust --
> can be used without worrying so much about bridging -- etc.
>
> fuel conditioning for gasifiers is a nightmare.
>
> Has to be below 20% humidity!!
>
> Has to be uniform sized chunks -- like pellets!
>
> It is much easier to grind wood (as example) to chips or sawdust than it is
> to grind wood to sawdust and then make pellets!!
>
> so basically -- this all started because a saw mill here in Belize has
> huge piles of "wet" sawdust and wants to know what to do with it. But can't
> afford all the fuel processing needed for running a gasifier/IC engine
> combination.
>
> That being drying and sizing.
>
> So if Mohammed can't get to that mountain -- make the mountain come to him!
>
> Time that gasification took a good look at itself and changed its spots!
>
> Everything that we have been discussing is in relation to a "cheap"
> solution to this problem.
>
> Lose the pelletizer!

..eventually ;-)

> Lose the heat exchangers to dry fuel!

..any time someone beats them ;-)

> Simplify the product gas conditioning process prior to IC engine introduction.

..agreed. ;-)

> And lets increase over all efficiencies at the same time!
>
> Let us make gasification a real thing rather than a technical toy! A
> plumber's nightmare.
>
> In the beginning -- Arnt -- let me introduce you to steam reforming ---
> from little acorns large oak trees grow.

..you mean stuff like 'H2O + C + 131 kJ/mol <-> H2 + CO'
and 'CO2 + H2 + 40 kJ/mol <-> CO + H2O' ? ;-)
--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Aug 3 21:05:29 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:36 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Terrible modeling!!!
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000803072352.00942d90@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <398A161D.3735AD7E@c2i.net>

..playing with software is much cheaper than with hardware.
Been there etc. ;-) On my _own_ expense too. As in "Aouch"...

..these basic program tools you've hacked, is what I wanted to have a
look at, could port them to something we both could use, much quicker
than handfeeding numbers to each model platform. Assuming of course you
didn't chop them off your disk machete-style ;-)

> Peter

--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Aug 3 21:06:45 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:36 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Short Camming the Intake
In-Reply-To: <000c01bffd2c$d87e2fc0$b9fc2bce@pavilion>
Message-ID: <398A1669.45260C42@c2i.net>

Roy Haury wrote:
>
> Peter,
> My understanding of this concept is that the intake valve closes well before
> ignition takes place and therefor would not cross-pollute the intake charge.
> My consideration of a reed valve would indeed be operating as a check valve.
> Its purpose would be to control the pulsation's at the throttle and perhaps
> reduce the effect of erratic operation at low rpm. Perhaps tuned intake
> runners could achieve this end as I believe Arnt suggested. None of this
> speculation is merited by forte, I was a natural resources major, not an
> engineer. My interests in gasification is as a hobby and as a concern over
> carbon loading in our atmosphere. Although my experimentation spans several
> years it is quite limited and nothing more virtuous than backyard

..science is not where you do things, but how you do homework preparing
it, and document it throughout. Welcome to the selfmade's back yard
crowd! ;-)

> investigations. Also, My use of water injection in past years has proven to

..tell us more: the why's, how you did it, and what you experienced
doing it.

> accelerate wear in the upper cylinder region judging from ridge formation
> and comparing with other engines of similar mileage/maintenance, although
> admittedly I did not employ strict scientific methodology to conclude this.
> Yes an old engine and the time required to play would certainly be nice.
> Thanks for your thoughts.
> Roy
--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Aug 3 21:08:59 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:36 2004
Subject: GAS-L: How to make your steam for reforming
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000803080826.00956ea0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <398A16EE.4455FD38@c2i.net>

-- Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> Well Arnt;
>
> If you want to feed your hot exhaust gasses back through your gasifier --
> and you want to experiment with some steam reforming of carbons -- the
> easiest way to do that would be by converting a diesel to spark ignition,

..I simply pulled my Lada 2121's 1.6 head, dropped in a 1.2 head,
compression rose from 8.5 to 11.3. Still idles down to ~300 rpm, ping's
too, if provoked on gasoline. ;-)
Still in the jeep. To be skid mounted.

> keep the injection system in place but make the Governor linear with power
> demand (more throttle -- more injection) -- inject water rather than diesel.
>
> This should do a number of things.
>
> One -- maybe an excellent anti-knock method allowing one to use diesel
> compression ratios (18:1) on pure producer gas.
>
> Two -- give you extra steam in your hot exhaust gasses to use for some
> steam reforming of carbon in your gasifier.
>
> A variation worth investigating would be to feed hot gasifier product into
> this same engine and then inject some water.
>
> This would in effect lower compression ratios (hot gas being less dense)
> but instead of derating the motor -- or losing engine efficiency (lower
> compression due to less gas) -- the expanding steam made would win that
> back with maybe a little on the plus side -- and still feed the exhaust to
> the gasifier for some attempt to steam reform carbon.

..I want _Hot_ _Low_ Pressure Air + (say~18%) Engine Exhaust Gas + _All_
Heat Recycled [Tm] piped into my gasifier's tuyeres and tar flare air
inlets. See figure at http://skyboom.com/arnt/ssrcolor.gif

..into the engine, I want _Cold_ high pressure air.

> The advantage of steam reforming some carbon is a higher BTU value product
> gas with the waste heat actually invested into the extra btu's of this gas.
>
> Remember -- steam reforming is an endothermic reaction -- but the heat is
> not lost -- it shows up as extra btu's in the increased "value" of the fuel
> so produced.
>
> Ready to "gamble" a diesel engine on this??

..after we've fixed the models, unless you need an anchor for your boat
;-)

> And one last point. You now would have a pressurized gas stream going to
> your gasifier. Do you think is would be wise to mix air (preheated
> preferably) with that exhaust gas stream to your gasifier??

..yep. Need at least _some_ oxygen to maximize CO and H2 production.
> Else -- how do you get O2 into the reaction zone??
>
> Put a venturi air injection system in the exhaust pipe??? (adjustable of
> course)
>
> The math models for this are not correct -- but they do seem to point in
> the plus side.

..fix 'em. ;-)

> Further -- this list has come up with numerous examples in the past of
> water injection "boosting" engine performance.

..these are tweaks. ;-)

> In my opinion -- worth risking a diesel engine.
>
> Tom -- would you take a go at it??

..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Aug 3 21:10:16 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:37 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Looking for Mr. Good Gasifier
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20000803165627.007bba70@pop3.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <398A173C.B6D8238C@c2i.net>

-- Cordner Peacocke wrote:
>
> Dear Peter et al.,
>
> What is a ''good'' gasifier? I'm sure we all have our own criteria.
> Anyway, moving on.....
>
> Just to throw my 2 UK pounds [while we still have them] into the melting
> pot...........
>
> One thing to remember is that gasification is a slow process. CO2
> gasification with the char is slow and endothermic as noted and steam
> reforming won't be much better. As noted, the temperature of the
> gasification zone will drop significantly [for wet fuels] and then there
> will be significant char quantities and poor quality gas. I think what
> will be the limiting factor is carbon availability to give more CO from the
> CO2 gasification, then you will rapidly run out of char. I haven't worked
> out the numbers but it should be fairly easy to calculate at what point you
> end up carbon [or hydrogen] limited. Recycle rates of the gas could be
> faster than the gasification rate, therefore the gas quality will be
> reduced, but it could, as you note, be carefully balanced.
>
> >Arnt has designed an operated a gasifier that does tar and pyrolysed fuel
> >vapors flaring into the combustion zone.
>
> If my memory serves me correctly, a Dr. Groenveld from the University of

..Groeneveld, now Prof. Dr. ? He did his Dr. thesis in 1985, afaik.

> Groningen, the Netherlands, designed and operated a gasifier which
> recycled the product gas back into the gasification zone to increase tar

..like Tom R.'s propane-torched open hearth gasifier? Doing this right,
is doing this before the combustion zone, so any fuel entering is either
char, or gas. Accept no tar vapors.

..any links to Dr. Groenevelds papers on this? (Tried vading the
University of Delft web site, its _deep_. ;-) .)

> destruction. I believe that he formed a company to market the gasifier,
> but as far as I am aware, it folded several years ago. I don't know any of
> the results, but perhaps one of our Dutch colleagues can comment. I will
> try and dig out some references [when I get time]. I think he only
> recycled 5% of the product gas, but I would have to check.
>
> With regards to your comments on fuel drying, the engine exhaust gases
> diluted with air can dry the wood to an acceptable level, assuming we're
> talking about co-current downdraft gasifiers here. One scheme I worked on
> recently does this and the hot water from the engine jacket is also used.
> Air has a low specific heat capacity, therefore rob heat from the losses

..heat loss from the combustion and reduction zone is unacceptable.

> through the gasifier wall near the reduction zone. In my view, have a low
> heat loss reduction zone to improve tar cracking and get the benefit of
> improved gas CV. This is where small-scale systems loose out on heat losses.
>
> Your updraft counter current gasifier will take a wetter fuel, typically
> 35wt% water, but then tar-cracking is required to recover the energy in the
> pyrolysis products.
>
> I can't comment on the engine discussions, I simply don't have that depth
> of knowledge, but gas cleaning systems can be simplified if the gasifier is
> operated correctly to give very low ''organics'' and particulates
> containing gas. Get the gasifier right, and don't worry about the gas
> cleaning [conditioning] system. Then you have a chance of almost coupling
> the gasifer to the engine.

..done on a mower engine driving a fan. ;-)
>
> Cordner

..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From th_royd at sierra.psnw.com Thu Aug 3 22:04:05 2000
From: th_royd at sierra.psnw.com (Roy Haury)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:37 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Short Camming the Intake
Message-ID: <005d01bffd80$4f5e8920$59f52bce@pavilion>

Arnt,
My water 'injection' method of choice was simply an fishtank aereator stone
submerged in water in a mayo jar and connected to venturi vacuum. It was
adjusted with a needle installed in said vacuum line. The mileage
improvements varied from nothing to up to 4 mpg at low elevation (around
500ft). Negative effect at higher altitudes.The FMC 302 and GM 327 I tried
it on both 'seemed' to perform better and were noticeably smoother at hiway
speeds. It required abandoning the vacuum advance because of low vacuum
availability and was therefore timed to accommodate this.
I once tried an injection system purchased from J.C. Whitney with 12v
connections and supposedly vacuum monitoring to control the injection rate.
It was never satisfactory. The best results I obtained with this unit was
with the EGR disconnected. With this done I experience pre-detonation when
first starting off however smooth operation once underway. (around 2300 rpm
on a FMC 302cid) My impression at the time was that the J.C.W. unit did not
initiate at low rpm but unfortunately I documented nothing and turned the
device over to a pal with more time and resources to cover his mistakes.

-----Original Message-----
From: Arnt Karlsen <arnt@c2i.net>
To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Date: Friday, August 04, 2000 1:07 AM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Short Camming the Intake

>Roy Haury wrote:
>>
>> Peter,
>> My understanding of this concept is that the intake valve closes well
before
>> ignition takes place and therefor would not cross-pollute the intake
charge.
>> My consideration of a reed valve would indeed be operating as a check
valve.
>> Its purpose would be to control the pulsation's at the throttle and
perhaps
>> reduce the effect of erratic operation at low rpm. Perhaps tuned intake
>> runners could achieve this end as I believe Arnt suggested. None of this
>> speculation is merited by forte, I was a natural resources major, not an
>> engineer. My interests in gasification is as a hobby and as a concern
over
>> carbon loading in our atmosphere. Although my experimentation spans
several
>> years it is quite limited and nothing more virtuous than backyard
>
>..science is not where you do things, but how you do homework preparing
>it, and document it throughout. Welcome to the selfmade's back yard
>crowd! ;-)
>
>> investigations. Also, My use of water injection in past years has proven
to
>
>..tell us more: the why's, how you did it, and what you experienced
>doing it.
>
>> accelerate wear in the upper cylinder region judging from ridge formation
>> and comparing with other engines of similar mileage/maintenance, although
>> admittedly I did not employ strict scientific methodology to conclude
this.
>> Yes an old engine and the time required to play would certainly be nice.
>> Thanks for your thoughts.
>> Roy
>--
>..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)
>
> "Irrationality is the square root of all evil"
> -- Douglas Hofstadter
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Aug 3 22:33:18 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:37 2004
Subject: GAS-L: "Dreaming" about Mr. Good Gasifier
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000803183742.00940370@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <398A2AB1.9BA9F9D3@c2i.net>

Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> At 04:56 PM 8/3/00 +0100, you wrote:
> >Dear Peter et al.,
> >
> >What is a ''good'' gasifier? I'm sure we all have our own criteria.
> >Anyway, moving on.....
> >
> >Just to throw my 2 UK pounds [while we still have them] into the melting
> >pot...........
> >
> >One thing to remember is that gasification is a slow process. CO2
> >gasification with the char is slow and endothermic as noted and steam
> >reforming won't be much better. As noted, the temperature of the
> >gasification zone will drop significantly [for wet fuels] and then there
> >will be significant char quantities and poor quality gas.
>
> Yes -- maintaining proper "reactor" temperature is the bottom line in this
> scenario. And I believe "product gas" may have to be burned (Flaired??) to
> do this as the reaction runs away.
>
> The balancing act will be between endothermic and exothermic reactions. The
> advantage is that a lot of presently considered waste heat can be put back
> to good use. And most of it without having to use a heat exchanger device.

..we'll see. ;-)

> The series of venturi injection points -- Air, product gas, and top of fuel
> pile tars and pyrolysis gasses into the engine exhaust stream allow for
> easy adjustment -- and indeed -- easy automatic -- micro-controller -- feed
> back loops.
>
> A K thermocouple in the primary reduction area would then be the bottom line.
>
> If fuel is being batch loaded -- the adjustments would be quite extreme

..I like continous augering. ;-)

> during the entire reduction of that batch -- but still with in the range of
> a system as described.
>
> Still -- there is a simply major problem with using the exhaust gasses for
> all this -- which we will soon come to --
>
> I think what
> >will be the limiting factor is carbon availability to give more CO from the
> >CO2 gasification, then you will rapidly run out of char.
>
> Yes -- a point I kept bringing up -- where to get the extra Carbon for
> that! And why bother spending carbon for CO when you can have H2 + CO??
>
> I haven't worked
> >out the numbers but it should be fairly easy to calculate at what point you
> >end up carbon [or hydrogen] limited.
>
> When that thermocouple reads less than 1600 F I imagine.

..1800'F at the gasifier outlet ;-)

> Recycle rates of the gas could be
> >faster than the gasification rate, therefore the gas quality will be
> >reduced, but it could, as you note, be carefully balanced.
>
> Yes -- but what a wild ride! And one can't just keep pumping that cycle
> full of engine exhaust -- remember -- intake air to the engine keeps
> building up the volume of gases in this circuit. So it simply can't be
> "closed" -- at the very least -- there would be an eventual explosion.
>
> Any comments Arnt? How, what and where do you plan to put the bleed off???

..we'll bleed engine exhaust. Preferably as cold N2 and CO2 gas, and
drinking water. ;-) Some air enters the gasifier, the major part goes
into the engine.
Means at least 40% of the cylinder charge is inert N2 we wanna dump
after yanking out all its heat.

> and them we are back to the same problem -- waste heat going up the stack
> -- unless we put a heat exchanger in -- and if we do that -- why bother
> with recycling exhaust gasses through the gasifier?
>
> Ok -- one could "split" the reaction. Take a clue from the old (ancient
> actually) coal gasification plants.

..as in 'virtual split' them. Cooling collects water condensates.
Forcing exhaust gas thru deep water, traps CO2, releasing the pressure
bubbles it back out. ;-) Ever opened a Pepsi or a beer can? ;-)

> Let the hot exhaust gases "fire" pyrolysis of -- say -- the sawdust. In
> effect kind of torrefying the wood -- which would then drop from this
> through an air lock to the process chamber of the gasification reactor --
> but separate gas flows all together.
>
> And now we are making our own plumber's nightmare. One wonders if the best
> thing to do is simply use a heat exchanger to extract heat from exhaust
> gases to heat fuel and combustion/oxidization air.

..going into the gasifier... ;-)

> I am not convinced of any value to reducing IC engine exhaust CO2 -- yet.

..not going to. ;-) We want to maximize it and recycle it. We dump the
N2.

> >
> >>Arnt has designed an operated a gasifier that does tar and pyrolysed fuel
> >>vapors flaring into the combustion zone.
> >
> >If my memory serves me correctly, a Dr. Groenveld from the University of
> >Groningen, the Netherlands, designed and operated a gasifier which
> >recycled the product gas back into the gasification zone to increase tar
> >destruction. I believe that he formed a company to market the gasifier,
> >but as far as I am aware, it folded several years ago. I don't know any of
> >the results, but perhaps one of our Dutch colleagues can comment. I will
> >try and dig out some references [when I get time]. I think he only
> >recycled 5% of the product gas, but I would have to check.
>
> I believe a 5% recycling of product gas to "fire" the steam reformation
> process due to increased humidity of the fuel -- would be about right. But
> this would require proper carburetion with air -- not hot engine exhaust
> gases.
>
> We know the ratio of water/steam to carbon is 1.3 water for 1 pound carbon.
> so 50% humidity fuel would contain less than the amount required -- which
> is what we would want. Some of the carbon available must be used for
> producer gas formation just to fire this process.

..., tradition sez. I recycle to avoid that fuel loss. WWII Swede
Källe recycled to cool his piping, and gained ~25% better mileage
bonus. Same chemistry and thermodynamics apply. Use of it is slightly
different, according to each desired outcome.

[...]

> Just where are our Uncle Bills (Clinton or Gates) when we need them!!

..I run Linux. ;-)

> Peter

--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From snkm at btl.net Thu Aug 3 22:44:23 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:37 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Feeding exhaust to a gasifier-- how much??
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000803203644.00947670@wgs1.btl.net>

OK Arnt;

This keeps "bugging" me. How are you going to feed exhaust to your gasifier?

OK -- obviously you can't feed all the exhaust to your gasifier. Anyone
have at hand the expansion figure for a gasifier fuel/air mix before and
after combustion in the cylinder??

1:1.2 ration -- so that is more than doubling right there!! Plus products
of combustion -- plus greater heat!!

Just say 4 to one -- OK.

So the best you can do is use 25% -- but then it gets worse again. Because
you have to put some air in with it again during the gasification process.

So maybe you have 20% (But probably 5%) -- so what are you doing with the
other 80% (95%)

Your not solving much of a heat loss problem -- are you??

You would be better to preheat air with it.

We certainly have a lot of hot air around. Hot product exhaust, hot engine
radiator. Hot engine exhaust.

Remember -- 2.13 more times product gas coming out than going in. so that
rails back what you can inject as exhaust gas as well.

Why -- well -- what ever gas volume goes in comes little more than twice
comes out. In your circuit -- you can't put more gas in that you take out
-- right??

So follow one cubic foot out of the Gasifier exhaust.

But first -- please remember less than one half a cubic foot of your
exhaust gas and air intake mixture was needed to make that product cubic
foot.

On the way to the cylinder -- it gets mixed 1:1.2 with air.

Whoa -- we are already way under 1/4 now!!

Plus expansion volume of combustion -- and you are keeping it hot -- so not
even H2O will be condensed.

Your feeding cold -- wonder what thermal expansion factor is between intake
valve and exhaust pipe temperatures??

Arnt -- just how much exhaust gas are you figuring on recycling??

Where is your little math model -- eh?? With all these figures laid out??

I know -- you want us to prove your theory for you -- waste a day working
it all out. Nope -- you prove it and I'll verify your proof -- how's that??

Number my friend -- numbers!!

Peter

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Aug 3 22:58:58 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:37 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Short Camming the Intake
In-Reply-To: <005d01bffd80$4f5e8920$59f52bce@pavilion>
Message-ID: <398A30B7.E55A6BA4@c2i.net>

Roy Haury wrote:
>
> Arnt,
> My water 'injection' method of choice was simply an fishtank aereator stone
> submerged in water in a mayo jar and connected to venturi vacuum. It was

...crude. Would be ideal for constant speed power plants. ;-)

> adjusted with a needle installed in said vacuum line. The mileage
> improvements varied from nothing to up to 4 mpg at low elevation (around

.."remaining" mileage was?

--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From snkm at btl.net Thu Aug 3 23:31:04 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:37 2004
Subject: GAS-L: "Dreaming" about Mr. Good Gasifier
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000803210928.0094d760@wgs1.btl.net>

>> I haven't worked
>> >out the numbers but it should be fairly easy to calculate at what point
you
>> >end up carbon [or hydrogen] limited.
>>
>> When that thermocouple reads less than 1600 F I imagine.
>
>..1800'F at the gasifier outlet ;-)

Why not!! Will make sure things run very smoothly -- and we got a great
heat exchanger that can work even better with a higher Delta-T factor.

Fire tube boiler type heat exchangers are so easy to build. Especially for
next to no pressure conditions!

>> Any comments Arnt? How, what and where do you plan to put the bleed off???
>
>..we'll bleed engine exhaust. Preferably as cold N2 and CO2 gas, and
>drinking water. ;-) Some air enters the gasifier,

How much exhaust (percentage of total) mixed with how much air -- goes to
the gasifier??

> the major part goes
>into the engine.

Ok -- the part going to the engine is still far to much for that engine to
take! Well -- call it supercharging -- but you know need a blower to mix
your air now??

And each stroke the pressure go up -- very quickly -- BOOMmMm!!

Talk about boosting intake pressures!!

Arnt -- talk figures here. How much "net" percentage of the exhaust to the
gasifier??

How much "net" exhaust to the engine??

How do you get around the 1:1.2 ratio -- producer gas to Air -- to burn
your "charge".

Then I have a few more for you.

>Means at least 40% of the cylinder charge is inert N2 we wanna dump
>after yanking out all its heat.

How are you going to selectively dump 40% N2

You have not yet defined an outlet for your excess gasses -- though 40%
does sound like a modest percentage of what you would have to dump each
stroke so not to blow up!!

But until you explain how you do not need that 1:1.2 of air -- I'll say you
have to dump more like 80% each stroke!

OK -- here is a simple model that might work.

1.2 part air + 1 part gas + 2.2 parts exhaust = 4.4

So a two to one compression boost.

But boy -- have you thinned your charge out!!

Also -- if you start with a 16:1 compression ratio -- what would be your
top dead center head pressure at a two to one initial boost?? (BAM!)

>> Ok -- one could "split" the reaction. Take a clue from the old (ancient
>> actually) coal gasification plants.
>
>..as in 'virtual split' them. Cooling collects water condensates.
>Forcing exhaust gas thru deep water, traps CO2, releasing the pressure
>bubbles it back out. ;-) Ever opened a Pepsi or a beer can? ;-)

Yes -- all true -- but if you want to use this process for concentrating N2
-- the cost is hardly work the results!

Work out a rough idea of thermodynamic gains possible here -- like I did
for the steam injection.

>>
>> And now we are making our own plumber's nightmare. One wonders if the best
>> thing to do is simply use a heat exchanger to extract heat from exhaust
>> gases to heat fuel and combustion/oxidization air.
>
>..going into the gasifier... ;-)

Yes -- but we already have to much from cooling the hot product gas!!

Well, what is the exhaust gas temps from the engine??

And we know we are getting more volume out than in.

You know what -- the best place we have to invest high temps is always in
the same place -- for supplying 160 F plus heat to a steam reforming
reaction. We can't get to much.

The problem is we can only "clip" the part above 1600 F -- unless we design
a heat pump. So that works out to very little in the end.

We would be better off to run one of my Refrigerant working fluid
boiler/engine power plants from what is left over after the "clip"

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Aug 3 23:35:15 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:37 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Feeding exhaust to a gasifier-- how much??
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000803203644.00947670@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <398A3936.310993DA@c2i.net>

Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> OK Arnt;
>
> This keeps "bugging" me. How are you going to feed exhaust to your gasifier?

..first simply feed some straight in, heat exchange the remaining gas
and then dump it.
Later I want to draw off all heat, force it into a highpressure water
bath to trap and dump the N2. Then I bleed out CO2 and some water,
reheating it and feed it to the gasifier.

> OK -- obviously you can't feed all the exhaust to your gasifier. Anyone
> have at hand the expansion figure for a gasifier fuel/air mix before and
> after combustion in the cylinder??
>
> 1:1.2 ration -- so that is more than doubling right there!! Plus products
> of combustion -- plus greater heat!!
>
> Just say 4 to one -- OK.
>
> So the best you can do is use 25% -- but then it gets worse again. Because
> you have to put some air in with it again during the gasification process.
>
> So maybe you have 20% (But probably 5%) -- so what are you doing with the
> other 80% (95%)
>
> Your not solving much of a heat loss problem -- are you??
>
> You would be better to preheat air with it.

..I believe I'll be recycling anywhere between 18% - 40%.
I need to dissect the specific fuel caloric/heat values, to model this
properly.
Traditionally, caloric values are found checking temp's and weights,
before and after, the dust settles. I need figures _during_ "dust
flight". Until I have these, I'll go "18% - 40%".

..basically, dumping all the exhaust heat into half to a sixth of the
exhaust gas, should be possible. Also, traditionally, the incoming air
volume is ~60% of the product gas volume (at same temp's and pressure),
with no pre-heat.

> We certainly have a lot of hot air around. Hot product exhaust, hot engine
> radiator. Hot engine exhaust.

..easily trapped heat. ;-)

> Remember -- 2.13 more times product gas coming out than going in. so that
> rails back what you can inject as exhaust gas as well.
>
> Why -- well -- what ever gas volume goes in comes little more than twice
> comes out. In your circuit -- you can't put more gas in that you take out
> -- right??

..yep. ;-)

> So follow one cubic foot out of the Gasifier exhaust.
>
> But first -- please remember less than one half a cubic foot of your
> exhaust gas and air intake mixture was needed to make that product cubic
> foot.
>
> On the way to the cylinder -- it gets mixed 1:1.2 with air.
>
> Whoa -- we are already way under 1/4 now!!
>
> Plus expansion volume of combustion -- and you are keeping it hot -- so not
> even H2O will be condensed.
>
> Your feeding cold -- wonder what thermal expansion factor is between intake
> valve and exhaust pipe temperatures??
>
> Arnt -- just how much exhaust gas are you figuring on recycling??
>
> Where is your little math model -- eh?? With all these figures laid out??

..gasBook8a-10b.html snapshots I mailed you privately, remember? ;-)

..listers, those are snapshots of a spreadsheet I'm trying to set up so
it can be tried out in any web browser by you guys testing your own
numbers.

> I know -- you want us to prove your theory for you -- waste a day working
> it all out. Nope -- you prove it and I'll verify your proof -- how's that??
>
> Number my friend -- numbers!!

..mañana etc. ;-) _After_ I get to to work dynamically on a web
browser. And clear off that backlog.

> Peter
>
--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From arnt at c2i.net Fri Aug 4 00:19:02 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:37 2004
Subject: GAS-L: "Dreaming" about Mr. Good Gasifier
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000803210928.0094d760@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <398A437A.55E1D8D6@c2i.net>

Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> >> I haven't worked
> >> >out the numbers but it should be fairly easy to calculate at what point
> you
> >> >end up carbon [or hydrogen] limited.
> >>
> >> When that thermocouple reads less than 1600 F I imagine.
> >
> >..1800'F at the gasifier outlet ;-)
>
> Why not!! Will make sure things run very smoothly -- and we got a great
> heat exchanger that can work even better with a higher Delta-T factor.

..true. Besides, 1800'F is needed to make sure no CO loss into CO2
occur.

> Fire tube boiler type heat exchangers are so easy to build. Especially for
> next to no pressure conditions!
>
> >> Any comments Arnt? How, what and where do you plan to put the bleed off???
> >
> >..we'll bleed engine exhaust. Preferably as cold N2 and CO2 gas, and
> >drinking water. ;-) Some air enters the gasifier,
>
> How much exhaust (percentage of total) mixed with how much air -- goes to
> the gasifier??

..numbers. Do I waste time doing things the old fashion way or may I
ask time to prepare a nice tool, my web model, with figure, numbers and
all?
..lister, those of you who can read M$Excel format spreadsheets, find
them down below on http://skyboom.com/arnt/norsk.html , those are the
kragas2.xls, solheim.xls and solheim.xls, which form my base models.
Kludgy, but done a nice job this far.

> > the major part goes
> >into the engine.
>
> Ok -- the part going to the engine is still far to much for that engine to
> take! Well -- call it supercharging -- but you know need a blower to mix
> your air now??
>
> And each stroke the pressure go up -- very quickly -- BOOMmMm!!
>
> Talk about boosting intake pressures!!
>
> Arnt -- talk figures here. How much "net" percentage of the exhaust to the
> gasifier??
>
> How much "net" exhaust to the engine??
>
> How do you get around the 1:1.2 ratio -- producer gas to Air -- to burn
> your "charge".
>
> Then I have a few more for you.
>
> >Means at least 40% of the cylinder charge is inert N2 we wanna dump
> >after yanking out all its heat.
>
> How are you going to selectively dump 40% N2

..not just 40%, nitpicker, _all_ of it.
Will be at least 40% of the cylinder gas volume. ;-)

> You have not yet defined an outlet for your excess gasses -- though 40%
> does sound like a modest percentage of what you would have to dump each
> stroke so not to blow up!!
>
> But until you explain how you do not need that 1:1.2 of air -- I'll say you
> have to dump more like 80% each stroke!
>
> OK -- here is a simple model that might work.
>
> 1.2 part air + 1 part gas + 2.2 parts exhaust = 4.4
>
> So a two to one compression boost.
>
> But boy -- have you thinned your charge out!!
>
> Also -- if you start with a 16:1 compression ratio -- what would be your
> top dead center head pressure at a two to one initial boost?? (BAM!)
>
> >> Ok -- one could "split" the reaction. Take a clue from the old (ancient
> >> actually) coal gasification plants.
> >
> >..as in 'virtual split' them. Cooling collects water condensates.
> >Forcing exhaust gas thru deep water, traps CO2, releasing the pressure
> >bubbles it back out. ;-) Ever opened a Pepsi or a beer can? ;-)
>
> Yes -- all true -- but if you want to use this process for concentrating N2
> -- the cost is hardly work the results!
>
> Work out a rough idea of thermodynamic gains possible here -- like I did
> for the steam injection.

..nope, backlog and web spreadsheet is waiting ;-)

> >> And now we are making our own plumber's nightmare. One wonders if the best
> >> thing to do is simply use a heat exchanger to extract heat from exhaust
> >> gases to heat fuel and combustion/oxidization air.
> >
> >..going into the gasifier... ;-)
>
> Yes -- but we already have to much from cooling the hot product gas!!
>
> Well, what is the exhaust gas temps from the engine??

..expect "normal" temp's.

> And we know we are getting more volume out than in.

..both into the engine and gasifier. Only one gas bleed point is needed.
;-)

> You know what -- the best place we have to invest high temps is always in
> the same place -- for supplying 160 F plus heat to a steam reforming
> reaction. We can't get to much.
>
> The problem is we can only "clip" the part above 1600 F -- unless we design
> a heat pump. So that works out to very little in the end.

..cold air and cold gas goes into the engine, remember? ;-) Can use an
heat pump too, another dirty trick.

> We would be better off to run one of my Refrigerant working fluid
> boiler/engine power plants from what is left over after the "clip"
>
--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From kchishol at fox.nstn.ca Fri Aug 4 09:02:35 2000
From: kchishol at fox.nstn.ca (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:37 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Feeding exhaust to a gasifier-- how much??
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000803203644.00947670@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <398ABEA6.E13BD4E7@fox.nstn.ca>

Dear Arnt

Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>
> Peter Singfield wrote:
> >
> > OK Arnt;
> >
> > This keeps "bugging" me. How are you going to feed exhaust to your gasifier?
>
I share Peter's puzzlement.

> ..first simply feed some straight in, heat exchange the remaining gas
> and then dump it.
> Later I want to draw off all heat, force it into a highpressure water
> bath to trap and dump the N2. Then I bleed out CO2 and some water,
> reheating it and feed it to the gasifier.
>
I missed the first part of your reasoning why exhaust gas recirculation
is potentially beneficial, but theres some big tme prollems shaping up
here:

1: "...forcing into a high pressure water bath..." You will need a
compressor here, which will be quite energy consumptive.
2: N2 is relatively insoluble in water, about the same as oxygen. CO2 is
far more soluble. You will take out about as much oxy as nitrogen..

> > OK -- obviously you can't feed all the exhaust to your gasifier.
I'm still not clear why you would want to feed any!!

>...del...
>
> ..basically, dumping all the exhaust heat into half to a sixth of the
> exhaust gas, should be possible.

This is not clear... could you elaborate? It seems like you are
attempting to "concentrate" the heat. This implies a raise in
temperature. This is impossible without the expenditure of energy.

Also, traditionally, the incoming air
> volume is ~60% of the product gas volume (at same temp's and pressure),
> with no pre-heat.
>
> > We certainly have a lot of hot air around. Hot product exhaust, hot engine
> > radiator. Hot engine exhaust.
>
> ..easily trapped heat. ;-)
>
But it is low grade heat, probably best let go to Entropy Heaven. :-)

Regards,

Kevin Chisholm
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

From snkm at btl.net Fri Aug 4 10:25:55 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:37 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Feeding exhaust to a gasifier-- how much??
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000804073803.009431d0@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Arnt;

Part of the reason the soft drink bubbles is because cold water dissolves a
lot more than hot water. So as the can warms up -- the CO2 bubbles out.

This is also a problem for global warming. A little increase in Ocean temps
-- a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere.

So now -- in order for your process to work well -- and that process being
the recovery of some waste heat -- you have to refrigerate your water bath.

It gets more counter productive the deeper we dig.

Well, you could also compress the exhaust to extremely high pressures,
liquify, fractionally distill it -- and recover N2 that way.

The exhaust from large diesel power plants is also well suited for
supplying heat to a cascade, vacuum distillation, plant for the production
of potable water from sea water.

And let's not forget absorption cooling plants --

And as for extra energy -- still say use a refrigerant as working fluid in
a Rankine cycle to drive a turbine to make that extra power.

From cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk Fri Aug 4 12:33:29 2000
From: cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk (Cordner Peacocke)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:37 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Looking for Mr. Good Gasifier
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20000803165627.007bba70@pop3.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20000804172447.007b92a0@pop3.demon.co.uk>

Dear Arnt et al.,

2 more UK pounds for the hat....................

Just a brief reply to my comment on the heat required to preheat the air to
the gasifier. I gave the wrong impression, or it has been interpretred
wrongly, about using the heat of the gasifier.

You are absolutely right - I would not try and recover heat from the
gasification and combustion zone. Rather, as has been used by Martezo,
have a double wall where the exiting gases heat the incoming air in a crude
exchanger, improving the efficiency.

There is also the valid comment on the use of steam, although not much
discussion. It has an improtant role as a temperature moderator and has
been used in the past to control the gasifier temperature [sorry, no
references spring to mind]. Also, in the 1980's in Europe, there was an
extensive R&D programme on methanol synthesis, so molar ratios of H2, CO,
etc. were more important to get the right mix for the catalysts.

Some references for Groeneveld:

Hos, J.J, and Groeneveld, M.J., 'Biomass Gasification', in Biomass
Regenerable Energy, Eds. Hall D.O, and Overend, R.P., Wiley, Chichester, 1987.

Groeneveld, M.J., Gellings, P.E., Hos, J.J., ''Production of a tar-free gas
in an annular co-current moving bed gasifier'', Energy from Biomass and
Wastes VII, Eds. Klass, D., IGT, Chicago, pp. 433-454.

Groeneveld, M.J., 'The Co-Current Moving Bed Gasifier', PhD thesis, Twente
University of Technology, The Netherlands, 1980.

Groeneveld, M.J., Gellings, P.E., Hos, J.J., 'Production of a tar-free gas
in an annular co-current moving bed gasifier,', in Holz Roh-Werkst., 1984,
vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 67-74.

My apologies, obviously he studied at Twente University. I suggest
contacting the university directly to get copies of his thesis - someone
may have some spare ones.

I have been looking at the issue of overall system conversion efficiencies
and of course, one of the problems we have is reliable, consistent data
from operational systems. Can anyone out there, and I know a lot of
companies keep their eye on this group, actually provide data on gasifier
efficiencies and engine/turbine efficiency? I posted data from a former
colleague of mine and some of this used actual data, so I hope we can see
overall efficiencies in the near future in excess of 24% for REAl systems.

Cordner

From arnt at c2i.net Fri Aug 4 18:30:26 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:37 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Looking for Mr. Good Gasifier
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20000803165627.007bba70@pop3.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <398B434A.56992B27@c2i.net>

Cordner Peacocke wrote:
>
> Dear Arnt et al.,
>
> 2 more UK pounds for the hat....................
>
> Just a brief reply to my comment on the heat required to preheat the air to
> the gasifier. I gave the wrong impression, or it has been interpretred
> wrongly, about using the heat of the gasifier.
>
> You are absolutely right - I would not try and recover heat from the
> gasification and combustion zone. Rather, as has been used by Martezo,
> have a double wall where the exiting gases heat the incoming air in a crude
> exchanger, improving the efficiency.
>
> There is also the valid comment on the use of steam, although not much
> discussion. It has an improtant role as a temperature moderator and has
> been used in the past to control the gasifier temperature [sorry, no
> references spring to mind]. Also, in the 1980's in Europe, there was an
> extensive R&D programme on methanol synthesis, so molar ratios of H2, CO,
> etc. were more important to get the right mix for the catalysts.

..yup, my _initial_ etc ;-) estimate is a kilogram of MSW (and oxygen
from air) can yield a pint of gasoline, using Topsoe's (petrochemical
technology) 2 stage process, which uses zeolite catalysts, ~40Bar and
~1000'C fusing syngas into gasoline.
MSW and O2 -> ~1 kg of each -> torch 'n squash thru zeolites -> ~pint of
gasoline.

> Some references for Groeneveld:
>
> Hos, J.J, and Groeneveld, M.J., 'Biomass Gasification', in Biomass
> Regenerable Energy, Eds. Hall D.O, and Overend, R.P., Wiley, Chichester, 1987.
>
> Groeneveld, M.J., Gellings, P.E., Hos, J.J., ''Production of a tar-free gas
> in an annular co-current moving bed gasifier'', Energy from Biomass and
> Wastes VII, Eds. Klass, D., IGT, Chicago, pp. 433-454.
>
> Groeneveld, M.J., 'The Co-Current Moving Bed Gasifier', PhD thesis, Twente
> University of Technology, The Netherlands, 1980.
>
> Groeneveld, M.J., Gellings, P.E., Hos, J.J., 'Production of a tar-free gas
> in an annular co-current moving bed gasifier,', in Holz Roh-Werkst., 1984,
> vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 67-74.
>
> My apologies, obviously he studied at Twente University. I suggest
> contacting the university directly to get copies of his thesis - someone
> may have some spare ones.

..ah, looks like I did my homework here ;-)

..Groeneveld also proposed a _neat_ 150 tons/day gasifier concept in one
of his papers, imagine arranging the throat and hearth in concentric
rings, just like good old fashion cook stove rings. ;-)

> I have been looking at the issue of overall system conversion efficiencies
> and of course, one of the problems we have is reliable, consistent data
> from operational systems. Can anyone out there, and I know a lot of
> companies keep their eye on this group, actually provide data on gasifier
> efficiencies and engine/turbine efficiency? I posted data from a former
> colleague of mine and some of this used actual data, so I hope we can see
> overall efficiencies in the near future in excess of 24% for REAl systems.
>

..amen!

> Cordner

--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From arnt at c2i.net Fri Aug 4 18:31:43 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:37 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Feeding exhaust to a gasifier-- how much??
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000804073803.009431d0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <398B4399.F06F28CA@c2i.net>

Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> Hi Arnt;
>
> Part of the reason the soft drink bubbles is because cold water dissolves a
> lot more than hot water. So as the can warms up -- the CO2 bubbles out.
>
> This is also a problem for global warming. A little increase in Ocean temps
> -- a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere.
>
> So now -- in order for your process to work well -- and that process being
> the recovery of some waste heat -- you have to refrigerate your water bath.

..yep, the idea is separate the gases, low temps will reduce compression
requirements.

> It gets more counter productive the deeper we dig.

..needs energy recovery, yep. ;-)

> Well, you could also compress the exhaust to extremely high pressures,
> liquify, fractionally distill it -- and recover N2 that way.
>
> The exhaust from large diesel power plants is also well suited for
> supplying heat to a cascade, vacuum distillation, plant for the production
> of potable water from sea water.
>
> And let's not forget absorption cooling plants --
>
> And as for extra energy -- still say use a refrigerant as working fluid in
> a Rankine cycle to drive a turbine to make that extra power.

..agreed, water, ammonia and CO2 are cheap coolants. ;-)

> Peter
--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From arnt at c2i.net Fri Aug 4 18:33:42 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:37 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Feeding exhaust to a gasifier-- how much??
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000803203644.00947670@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <398B4410.62224F6F@c2i.net>

Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>
> Dear Arnt
>
> Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> >
> > Peter Singfield wrote:
> > >
> > > OK Arnt;
> > >
> > > This keeps "bugging" me. How are you going to feed exhaust to your gasifier?
> >
> I share Peter's puzzlement.
>
> > ..first simply feed some straight in, heat exchange the remaining gas
> > and then dump it.
> > Later I want to draw off all heat, force it into a highpressure water
> > bath to trap and dump the N2. Then I bleed out CO2 and some water,
> > reheating it and feed it to the gasifier.
> >
> I missed the first part of your reasoning why exhaust gas recirculation
> is potentially beneficial, but theres some big tme prollems shaping up
> here:

> 1: "...forcing into a high pressure water bath..." You will need a
> compressor here, which will be quite energy consumptive.

..yep. Balancing act. ;-)

> 2: N2 is relatively insoluble in water, about the same as oxygen. CO2 is
> far more soluble. You will take out about as much oxy as nitrogen..

..yep. Plenty more in the air we feed in. ;-)

> > > OK -- obviously you can't feed all the exhaust to your gasifier.
> I'm still not clear why you would want to feed any!!

..heat and carbon source. "Good" gasifiers typically burn off 15 - 25%
of incoming fuel to stay hot enough to gasify. Feed exhaust gas _hot
enough_ to the gasifier, and it will displace that fuel loss. Feed too
much too cold, and you'll extinguish the gasifier, neat to shut it down
quickly. Balancing act ;-)

> >...del...
> >
> > ..basically, dumping all the exhaust heat into half to a sixth of the
> > exhaust gas, should be possible.
>
> This is not clear... could you elaborate? It seems like you are
> attempting to "concentrate" the heat. This implies a raise in
> temperature. This is impossible without the expenditure of energy.

..yep. Cool all engine exhaust gas -> compress it -> separate gases in
"deep" water -> bleed off pressure (say in a turbine) (and dump cold
exhaust gas)-> mix in some air into the "some CO2" gas -> dump (or
heatpump) all exhaust heat into the mix -> feed to gasifier -> ;-)

> Also, traditionally, the incoming air
> > volume is ~60% of the product gas volume (at same temp's and pressure),
> > with no pre-heat.
> >
> > > We certainly have a lot of hot air around. Hot product exhaust, hot engine
> > > radiator. Hot engine exhaust.
> >
> > ..easily trapped heat. ;-)
> >
> But it is low grade heat, probably best let go to Entropy Heaven. :-)

..nice name for a heat pumped plant building. ;-)

> Regards,
>
> Kevin Chisholm

--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... despoof: remove ".no", or _bounce_... ;-)

From tmiles at teleport.com Fri Aug 4 19:29:52 2000
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:37 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification Discussion
Message-ID: <4.3.2.20000804162340.04325a10@mail.teleport.com>

The Gasification list is maintained by volunteers for the productive
exchange of useful technical information. The current dialogue on the
Gasification list is difficult to read and immature in its presentation. It
has driven some good contributors off the list. Several of the messages
belong offline.

When responding to messages:
1. Please do not quote the entire message.
2. Provide thoughtful intelligent responses.

Thanks for your consideration,

Tom Miles
Bioenergy Lists Administrator
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas R. Miles tmiles@teleport.com
Technical Consultants, Inc. Tel (503) 292-0107/646-1198
1470 SW Woodward Way Fax (503) 292-2919/646-4406
Portland, Oregon, USA 97225

From gayathri at cgpl.iisc.ernet.in Sat Aug 5 00:23:16 2000
From: gayathri at cgpl.iisc.ernet.in (Gayathri V)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:37 2004
Subject: GAS-L: BUN-INDIA
Message-ID: <200008050423.VAA19266@secure.crest.net>

Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 09:43:30 +0530
Message-ID: <IEEKKPIPKKCFGINLPAIAKEACCDAA.gayathri@cgpl.iisc.ernet.in>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Disposition-Notification-To: "Gayathri V" <gayathri@cgpl.iisc.ernet.in>

Dear Members,

Please see the 11th issue of our BUN-INDIA news letter at
http://144.16.65.129/~cgplhome/bun_vol_33.html. We
appreciate your valuable comments.

for BUN-INDIA

Gayathri

Mrs. Gayathri V
Combustion Gasification Propulsion Lab.
Dept. of Aerospace Engineering
Indian Institute of Science
Bangalore 560 012
Phone (Office) 91-80-3600536,3600140-142,3092338
(Home) 91-80-6632717
(Mobile) 00-91-98450 41913
Fax 91-80-3444692

Email gayathri@cgpl.iisc.ernet.in
gayathri@aero.iisc.ernet.in

Web: http://cgpl.iisc.ernet.in

From gayathri at cgpl.iisc.ernet.in Sat Aug 5 20:32:58 2000
From: gayathri at cgpl.iisc.ernet.in (Gayathri V)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:37 2004
Subject: GAS-L: BUN-INDIA
Message-ID: <200008060032.RAA07725@secure.crest.net>

Dear Members,

Please see the 11th issue of our BUN-INDIA news letter at
http://144.16.65.129/~cgplhome/bun_vol_33.html. We
appreciate your valuable comments.

for BUN-INDIA

Gayathri

Email gayathri@cgpl.iisc.ernet.in
gayathri@aero.iisc.ernet.in

Web: http://cgpl.iisc.ernet.in

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sun Aug 6 09:21:20 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:37 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification Discussion
Message-ID: <13.90fe517.26bec02a@cs.com>

Dear Gasification List:

In addition to Tom Miles's comments below, I would like to add

o When holding a personal discussion with one or two people, please use
their direct addresses and don't burden the whole list. Sometimes it is
necessary to look for their address and delete the "Gasification@crest.org"
address. Do so

o For some reason I get multiple (2-6) postings on the Gasification list,
and sometimes other Crest lists. For instance I got 3 copies of the BUN
announcement to Bioenergy, all with the same address. Most often I get two
postings, the first with an extra page of addresses, the second without.
Maybe the CREST software can filter these out if we don't find another
solution.

Your list administrator,

Dr. Thomas B. Reed

In a message dated 8/4/00 5:32:05 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
tmiles@teleport.com writes:

<<

The Gasification list is maintained by volunteers for the productive
exchange of useful technical information. The current dialogue on the
Gasification list is difficult to read and immature in its presentation. It
has driven some good contributors off the list. Several of the messages
belong offline.

When responding to messages:
1. Please do not quote the entire message.
2. Provide thoughtful intelligent responses.

Thanks for your consideration,

Tom Miles
Bioenergy Lists Administrator
----------------------------------------------------- >>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sun Aug 6 09:21:58 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:37 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Activated Charcoal from gasifiers and stoves for water purification
Message-ID: <c4.774d696.26bec030@cs.com>

Dear Activated Charcoal Devotees:

WHAT I KNOW

Activated charcoal looks like cooking charcoal and is amazingly different,
having a surface of many square meters as measured either by absorbtion tests
(tricky) or iodine number (also starch No. etc.).

I suppose activated charcoal has been around three centuries (at least since
the advent of white sugar), but the understanding is new and rare and hard to
come by, since the commercial manufacturers don't tell and probably don't
know.

Activated charcoal could be very important for water quality around the world
if it was easier to make. The standard recipe is to heat conventional (20%
volatile) charcoal in a rotary kiln and pass CO2, H2O through it for an hour.
That will get you an iodine number > 1000.

I visited the Jack Daniels plant in Kentucky and saw a reasonable open air
charcoal process that they use to produce the charcoal that takes the
headache out of whiskey.

The charcoal made in fires etc. normally has an iodine number <100, so only
has value if activated.

WHAT I SUSPECT

The conditions in a downdraft gasifier (charcoal at 700-900C) could sometimes
produce pretty high activation, but the time is usually too short. Agua Das
and I have discussed modivications to the gasifier that could make it an
activated charcoal gasifier. (Talk is cheap).

I was initially skeptical about Antal's comment below about activating with
hot water. It is possible that tarry gases passing over activated charcoal
are cleaned and the charcoal becomes de-activated. Mike Antal's comment
about hot water treatment could be a removal of these condensables.

As to dumping hot charcoal in a bucket of water to purify it, you really need
to pass the water slowly through an activated charcoal bed to remove the
impurities. And don't forget the charcoal does NOT remove pathogens, so you
still need chlorine or ozone treatment.

Yours truly, TOM REED

In a message dated 8/3/00 11:59:36 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
antal@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu writes:

<<
Dear Andrew: I would not be at all surprised by the effect you describe.
The iodine number of charcoal can be increased to a moderate value
(several hundred) by treatment of the charcoal with hot water. We
recently published a paper in Carbon which describes this and related
effects. I am happy to send you a copy of this paper. Regards, Michael
Antal.

On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Andrew Heggie wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 10:31:40 -0600, you wrote:
>
> >Stovers: Perhaps someone nearby (Priya?) in India could especially
assist.
>
> I see she replied with some practical results. I shall add a little
> belated reply.
>
> > 4. If a small amount (perhaps a kG) of ordinary, red-hot,
> >just-produced charcoal was simply extinguished in a pail of polluted
water,
> >would you believe that there would be any significant cleanup of the water
> >(after which the charcoal could be dried and used for cooking)?
>
> I do not know how active this char would be. Activated charcoal tends
> to be of animal origin (bone?). It has had its effective surface area
> greatly increased by erosion of little pockets into the char matrix, I
> gather this can be done by steam or carbon monoxide being reduce by
> the hot char. ie molecules of carbon are removed from the surface.
>
> The filtering effect may be mechanical or (as Professor Basu points
> out) by adsorption. I understand adsorption effect is from weak Van
> Der Waals (sp?) forces bonding the pollutants to the enhanced surface.
> This these forces are related to electron densities so favour the
> collection of large molecules whilst smaller molecules (water, oxygen
> nitrogen etc pass through).
>
> Also some pollutants will be highly reactive (chlorine?) and will
> chemically react with the char.
> AJH
> >>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

From tmiles at teleport.com Sun Aug 6 13:32:18 2000
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:37 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification Discussion
In-Reply-To: <13.90fe517.26bec02a@cs.com>
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20000806102652.00d3c9c0@mail.teleport.com>

At 09:20 AM 8/6/00 -0400, Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:
>o For some reason I get multiple (2-6) postings on the Gasification list,
>and sometimes other Crest lists. For instance I got 3 copies of the BUN
>announcement to Bioenergy, all with the same address. Most often I get two
>postings, the first with an extra page of addresses, the second without.
>Maybe the CREST software can filter these out if we don't find another
>solution.

Tom Reed et al.,

You're simply suffering from the abundance of information from the
cornucopia of the Internet. Actually you are subscribed to each list with
more than one email address. If others have the same agony please let me
know and I'll streamline your subscription.

Tom Miles
tmiles@teleport.com
Thomas R Miles tmiles@teleport.com
T R Miles, TCI Tel 503-292-0107
1470 SW Woodward Way Fax 503-292-2919
Portland, OR 97225 USA

From snkm at btl.net Sun Aug 6 23:05:18 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:37 2004
Subject: GAS-L: While Checking out a new search engine --
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000806205703.008dd220@wgs1.btl.net>

>From Sweden

Swedish technology selected for BIG-GT project in Brazil

A project to construct and operate a 32 MW biomass-fuelled,
integrated, combined-cycle power station based on eucalyptus wood is
in progress.

The combined-cycle power station integrates atmospheric pressure
gasification technology and gas turbines, otherwise known as Biomass
Integrated Gasification-Gas Turbine technology (BIG-GT). The plant
will be located in Bahia, North-eastern Brazil and is scheduled to
start up in 2000.

In the BIG-GT process, biomass (as chipped wood) is heated and
transformed into an energy-rich gas. The gas is cleaned and burned in
a gas turbine. Hot flue gas from the gas turbine is led into a heat
recovery boiler producing steam that is in turn led into a steam
turbine. This 'combined-cycle' method of using a gas turbine in
combination with a steam turbine is a key to the high electrical
efficiency of the BIG-GT plant. The TPS gasification and gas-cleaning
process has made it possible to produce a biogas clean enough to be
used in a high-efficiency gas turbine. The TPS proprietary
tar-cracking technology is also fundamental to the scheme, which must
generate cool, clean gas for the compressor while avoiding the
production of significant quantities of noxious wastes.

For more information contact the CADDET Swedish National Team[1] in
Stockholm.

The CADDET Renewable Energy Newsletter is a quarterly magazine
published by the CADDET Centre for Renewable Energy at ETSU, UK.
The articles published in the Newsletter reflect the opinions of the
authors. They do not necessarily reflect the official view of CADDET.
Enquiries concerning the Newsletter should be addressed to Pauline
Toole[3], Editor, CADDET Centre for Renewable Energy, ETSU, Harwell,
Oxfordshire OX11 0RA, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 1235 432968, Fax: +44
1235 433595.

*** References from this document ***

[orig] http://www.caddet.co.uk/html/body_398newss.htm
[1] http://www.caddet.co.uk/html/contswed.htm
[2] http://www.caddet.co.uk/html/398news.htm
[3] mailto:pauline.toole@aeat.co.uk

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

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Mon Aug 7 10:33:59 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:37 2004
Subject: GAS-L: More Clues (Brazil Biomass Project)
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000807082959.008f66d0@wgs1.btl.net>

(Please let me know if this is disturbing members on this list -- I'll stop
-- no problems -- Peter Singfield/Belize)

From:

http://www.tps.se/processUK.html

Numbers in []'s refer to Urls at end of text)

**************************************

Process development
In-house process development - gasification technology

TPS has made a considerable impact with its atmospheric-pressure
gasification technology developed in-house. This biogas
combined-cycle technology is expected to achieve a commercial
breakthrough within five to ten years. It can produce twice as much
electrical power from biofuel as a conventional CHP plant.

TPS has taken part in a number of preliminary studies in Sweden, the
UK, the Netherlands, Brazil and other countries. Extensive pilot
experiments in TPS's laboratory show that the technology lives up to
the demands made of it. To enable further development demonstration
plants will now be built. A UK joint-venture company has selected TPS
technology for a biogas combined-cycle plant to be built in the UK.
TPS has also been chosen for a project in Brazil and Bora*s Energi in
Sweden are interested in building a plant with TPS technology. The
final decision for project go-ahead has yet to be made in these three
projects.

You are welcome to request information about our three demonstration
projects.

Contact person: Henrik Lundberg, marketing manager.
Tel: +46-8-441 70 71
E-mail: henrik.lundberg@tps.se[1]

info@tps.se[2]

[ Homepage[3] ] [ Presentation[4] ] [ Research[5] ]
[ Industry[6] ] [ Laboratory[7] ] [ Contact[8] ]

*** References from this document ***

[orig] http://www.tps.se/processUK.html
[1] mailto:henrik.lundberg@tps.se
[2] mailto:titti.hadders.lindahl@tps.se
[3] http://www.tps.se/indexUK.html
[4] http://www.tps.se/info/infotextUK.html
[5] http://www.tps.se/researchUK.html
[6] http://www.tps.se/industryUK.html
[7] http://www.tps.se/labUK.html
[8] http://www.tps.se/info/contactUK.html

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From tmiles at teleport.com Mon Aug 7 11:31:50 2000
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:37 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fwd: John Deere Natural Gas Engines
Message-ID: <4.3.2.20000807083330.04608d40@mail.teleport.com>

This should be of interest to the List.

>From: "Lehrke Dean" <LehrkeDean@JohnDeere.com>
>To: "'tmiles@teleport.com'" <tmiles@teleport.com>
>Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 08:46:37 -0500
>
>Dear Friends of Bio-energy:
>
>If anyone wants some John Deere natural gas engines I can help direct
>interested parties to the Alternative Fuels Engines group of Deere Power
>Systems at Deere & Company.These engines are regular Deere diesel engines
>converted to use natural gas. They are sold for many road vehicle (i,e,
>busses and trucks) and stationary power applications. On CNG they have
>excellent torque curves (better than many competetive diesel engines of the
>same displacement!) and are extremely quiet. Perhaps Deere Power Systems
>might be persuaded to do some testing on producer gas for potential
>customers if there was sufficient demand. I suspect that our big "green"
>Deere engines can run very well on any "green" fuel (i.e. bio-fuel)!
>
>Dean Lehrke
>LehrkeDean@JohnDeere.com

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Mon Aug 7 17:11:36 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:37 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Over All Plant Efficiencies over 50%
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000807150518.008f6960@wgs1.btl.net>

For those that are interested in:

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle(IGCC)

Check out:

http://www.fe.doe.gov/coal_power/igcc/igcc_sum.html

They are planning to push over all plant efficiencies past 50% and capital
coast less than $1100.

Here is just the intro:

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) systems replace the
traditional coal combustor with a gasifier and gas turbine. Over 99
percent of the coal's sulfur can be removed before the gas is burned
in the gas turbine. Exhaust heat from the gas turbine is used to
produce steam for a conventional steam turbine. The gas and steam
turbines operate together as a combined cycle.

First-generation IGCC power systems capable of achieving efficiencies
up to 42 percent are now at the commercial demonstration stage of
development. Advanced IGCC systems demonstrated in the late 1990s
will lead to commercial offerings with efficiencies of 45 percent.
Technology advances such as gas turbine developments will result in
further improvements, pushing system efficiencies beyond 50 percent.

***********snipped***************

(Got to keep these messages short)

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

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Mon Aug 7 19:16:11 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:37 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Bioenergy Glossary
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000807170948.008fbbf0@wgs1.btl.net>

Good bioenergy glossary over at:

http://rredc.nrel.gov/biomass/states/bio_glossary/glossary.html

Posting just the first part -- which I have already Getwebbed into ASCI
text and now have filed away for quick -- copy; paste and post use.

My apologies in advance to the people that might feel this is wasted
bandwidth??

Peter/Belize

************example*****************

Bioenergy Glossary

A[27]
-----

Abiotic: Having an absence of life or living organisms.

Accumulating shear: A feller-buncher shearhead that is capable of
accumulating and holding 2 or more cut stems.

ACDP: Air Contaminant Discharge Permit issued by the DEQ.

ACFM: Actual cubic feet per minute. The actual cubic feet per minute
of gas flowing in a process at the temperature and pressure of the
process at that point.

Acid hydrolysis: A chemical process in which acid is used to convert
cellulose or starch to sugar.

Activated sludge process: A biological wastewater treatment process
in which a mixture of waste water and activated sludge is agitated
and aerated. The activated sludge is then separated from the treated
wastewater by sedimentation and disposed of or returned to the
process as needed.

Adaptive management: A continuing process of action-based planning,
monitoring, researching, evaluating, and adjusting with the objective
of improving implementation and achieving the goals of the selected
alternative.

Adaptive management area: Landscape units designated for development
and testing of technical and social approaches to achieving desired
ecological, economic, and other social objectives.

Aeration basin: A basin where oxygen is supplied by mechanical
agitation or pneumatic means to enhance the breakdown of wastes held
in suspension.

Aerobic: Life or biological processes that can occur only in the
presence of oxygen.

Air Quality Maintenance Area: Specific populated area where air
quality is a problem for one or more pollutants (Portland-Vancouver,
Salem, Eugene-Springfield, Medford-Ashland).

Alcohol: A general class of hydrocarbons that contain a hydroxyl
group (OH). The term "alcohol" is often used interchangeably with the
term "ethanol," even though there are many types of alcohol. (See
Butanol, Ethanol, Methanol.)

Alkali: A soluble mineral salt.

Alternative: Under NEPA, a comprehensive management strategy. When a
federal agency is considering an action, the agency must develop and
analyze a range of alternatives. The alternatives must show a
reasonable range of actions, including a "no action" alternative.

AMA: See Adaptive Management Area.

Ambient air quality: The condition of the air in the surrounding
environment.

AMW: See Average megawatt.

Anadromous fish: Fish that hatch in freshwater, migrate to the ocean
to mature, then return to freshwater to spawn. An example is salmon.

Anaerobic: Life or biological processes that occur in the absence of
oxygen.

Anaerobic digestion: A biochemical process by which organic matter is
decomposed by bacteria in the absence of oxygen, producing methane
and other byproducts.

Attainment area: A geographic region where the concentration of a
specific air pollutant does not exceed federal standards.

Average megawatt: (MWa or AMW) One megawatt of capacity produced
continuously over a period of one year. 1 MWa = 1 MW x 8760
hours/year = 8,760 Mwh = 8,760,000 kWh.

Avoided costs: An investment guideline describing the value of a
conservation or generation resource investment by the cost of more
expensive resources that a utility would otherwise have to acquire.

*************snipped*************
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Aug 8 09:01:02 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:37 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: BFCS Travel--Stokes/Ebbeson
Message-ID: <a1.905b0f9.26c15e64@cs.com>

Dear Harry:

I will also be travelling to Mumbai and will present a paper on our
Turbo-2000 Woodgas Stove. We haven't made our plans yet, but I think those
of us in the U.S. should post our findings and itinerary.

I am also posting this to the CREST gasification and stoves groups. I know
that Ronal Larson, moderator of the stoves group is also going.

Yours truly, TOM REED

In a message dated 8/5/00 11:27:47 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
hstokes@blazenet.net writes:

<<
Greetings to all of you who may be travelling to Mumbai for the
International Conference on Biomass-Based Fuels And Cooking
Systems(BFCS-2000). I am Harry Stokes of the Stokes Consulting Group and
will be travelling with Bengt Ebbeson, Sweden, of the Electrolux
Corporation. Bengt and I will be presenting a paper entitled "Converting
Biomass To A Clean Liquid Fuel For Domestic Use" and will be discussing and
demonstrating the Origo Stove by Electrolux. A synopsis of our work is
available in "Boiling Point" No.43, Autumn 1999, pp.28-30.

Please share with us any helpful travel plans. We would be delighted to
participate in joint arrangements, certainly if helpful and convenient to
all. We look forward to meeting and talking with each and every one of you.

Best Wishes, Harry Stokes

Harry Stokes, M.S., Forestry
The Stokes Consulting Group
22 Mummasburg Street
Gettysburg, PA 17325
TEL(717)337-9816/FAX (717)334-7313
E-mail: hstokes@blazenet.net
>>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Aug 8 09:01:03 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:37 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Producer gas "octane"
Message-ID: <cc.8727c9b.26c15e69@cs.com>

Dear All:

At the risk of repeating myself, the "octane number" of producer gas
extrapolates to well over 150, so we don't need to worry about knock or
compression ignition.

While there are many DISadvantages to producer gas, these entail the
following ADvantages:

o High octane permits high increased compression ratio to compensate for
derating

o Low heating value does not stress crankshaft and rods so much as one would
think from the CR.

o You can mix producer gas with air at fairly high temperature and not get
ignition

I'll be seeing Prof. Parikh next week and we'll discuss all of this and see
if she agrees. She is my ultimate authority.

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Aug 8 09:01:18 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:37 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Charcoal Briquettes from Bagasse
Message-ID: <d.870d6d9.26c15e6a@cs.com>

Dear ELK:

If you are REALLY serious I can institute a multi hour search for my records.
This is what I remember:

An NGO and US AID funded a Mr. Lacey to develop a sugar cane gasifier
operating in Belize. He made a reasonable stab at it. It was about 8 ft in
diameter and 15 ft tall. During testing someone turned the wrong valve and
there was a minor explosion that tore off some of the insulation.

They found money to fix the insulation and sent me down to operate it and
evaluate it.

I spent a week travelling to the site every day and operating the gasifier
with the help of workers in the sugar mill. We reached a point where it
operated and produced a few hundred pounds of charcoal and then I went home
with MANY questions unanswered. I really enjoyed working at the mill.

I think cane trash and bagasse are prime candidates for charcoal making, but
it will take more than a week to solve all the problems, including the
briquetting of the product. I'm still interested.

Sorry to hear you may not go to Pune... I need to meet you sometime, here (Den
ver, I live 1 mile from Ron Larson, Crowwise, so you can kill two birds with
one stone). there (no present plans to visit, but you should invite me and my
Turbo Stove) or in Pune (since we're both contributing to the cooking
problem, bigtime).

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF

In a message dated 7/31/00 2:06:41 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
elk@net2000ke.com writes:

<<
Thanks Tom.

Tell me more about your Belize experience please? Compared to sawdust, the
bagasse was very easily carbonised and briquetting is not a problem at all.
I'm curious to hear what you determined.

Pune is not looking probable at this point unfortunately.

rgds;

elk
>>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From pdebruicker at gocpc.com Tue Aug 8 15:09:38 2000
From: pdebruicker at gocpc.com (Paul DeBruicker)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:37 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Spark ignited timing
Message-ID: <NEBBKKBFILHGCIGHNBIOGEFBCAAA.pdebruicker@gocpc.com>

Hello,

Does anyone have an experience running Ford 4.9 liter, Inline 6cyl. spark
ignited engines on producer gas? I am trying to determine the spark advance
setting that will provide an agreeable balance between power and efficiency,
in the 1800-2600 rpm range. Does anyone know of a guideline for producer gas
spark advance? I would appreciate any thoughts on the subject. Thanks in
advance.

Paul

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From John.White at state.or.us Wed Aug 9 16:28:21 2000
From: John.White at state.or.us (WHITE John)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:38 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Bioenergy Glossary
Message-ID: <"399172B3.8442.66BF.000*/c=us/admd= /prmd=or.gov/o=ODOE/ou=gwise/s=White/g=John/"@MHS>

Glad you liked the glossary. However, please credit the Oregon Office of
Energy for creating it. See http://rredc.nrel.gov/biomass/states/bio_glossary/

John G. White
Oregon Office of Energy
625 Marion St., NE, Suite 1
Salem, Oregon 97301-3742
john.white@state.or.us

>>> snkm@btl.net 08/07/00 04:18PM >>>

Good bioenergy glossary over at:

My apologies in advance to the people that might feel this is wasted
bandwidth??

Peter/Belize

************example*****************

Bioenergy Glossary

A[27]
-----

Abiotic: Having an absence of life or living organisms.

Accumulating shear: A feller-buncher shearhead that is capable of
accumulating and holding 2 or more cut stems.

ACDP: Air Contaminant Discharge Permit issued by the DEQ.

ACFM: Actual cubic feet per minute. The actual cubic feet per minute
of gas flowing in a process at the temperature and pressure of the
process at that point.

Acid hydrolysis: A chemical process in which acid is used to convert
cellulose or starch to sugar.

Adaptive management area: Landscape units designated for development
and testing of technical and social approaches to achieving desired
ecological, economic, and other social objectives.

Aeration basin: A basin where oxygen is supplied by mechanical
agitation or pneumatic means to enhance the breakdown of wastes held
in suspension.

Aerobic: Life or biological processes that can occur only in the
presence of oxygen.

Air Quality Maintenance Area: Specific populated area where air
quality is a problem for one or more pollutants (Portland-Vancouver,
Salem, Eugene-Springfield, Medford-Ashland).

Alkali: A soluble mineral salt.

AMA: See Adaptive Management Area.

Ambient air quality: The condition of the air in the surrounding
environment.

AMW: See Average megawatt.

Anadromous fish: Fish that hatch in freshwater, migrate to the ocean
to mature, then return to freshwater to spawn. An example is salmon.

Anaerobic: Life or biological processes that occur in the absence of
oxygen.

Anaerobic digestion: A biochemical process by which organic matter is
decomposed by bacteria in the absence of oxygen, producing methane
and other byproducts.

Attainment area: A geographic region where the concentration of a
specific air pollutant does not exceed federal standards.

Average megawatt: (MWa or AMW) One megawatt of capacity produced
continuously over a period of one year. 1 MWa = 1 MW x 8760
hours/year = 8,760 Mwh = 8,760,000 kWh.

Avoided costs: An investment guideline describing the value of a
conservation or generation resource investment by the cost of more
expensive resources that a utility would otherwise have to acquire.

*************snipped*************
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Wed Aug 9 16:38:55 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:38 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Bioenergy Glossary
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000809092937.0090a100@wgs1.btl.net>

Here is that missing "front-end" -- Peter/Belize

******************************************************

From:

http://rredc.nrel.gov/biomass/states/bio_glossary/

Oregon Department of Energy
625 Marion Street NE
Salem, OR 97310

1-800-221-8035
503-378-3194
FAX: 503-373-7806
E-mail: john.white@state.or.us[1]

Edition Date: 11/24/95

The Bioenergy Glossary, published by the Oregon Department of Energy,
is a useful compendium of more than 600 technical terms. Included in
the glossary are general terms and specialized terms associated with
bioenergy technologies. Definitions have been drawn from the fields
of energy policy and development, forestry, biofuels, cogeneration,
waste water treatment, and biogas production. The Bioenergy Glossary
is a reference guide for bioenergy industries in Oregon.

We invite your comments and suggestions. Please let us know how our
definitions could be improved. Tell us what additional terms should
be included in the next edition of the Bioenergy Glossary.

Click here for the Bioenergy Glossary [2]
[ Back to States ][3]

*** References from this document ***

[orig] http://rredc.nrel.gov/biomass/states/bio_glossary/
[1] mailto:john.white@state.or.us
[2] http://rredc.nrel.gov/biomass/states/bio_glossary/glossary.html
[3] http://rredc.nrel.gov/biomass/states/

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Wed Aug 9 17:04:51 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:38 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: "measuring flame temperature"
Message-ID: <6e.1f0ff61.26c2b4fc@cs.com>

Dear John et al:

John Hamilton asked:

>Dear sir/madam,
>I have recently read the topic on the web re "flame temperature
>measurement-thermocouples not!" I would be grateful if you would let me know
>what %error can be expected when measuring with a thermocouple vs a suction
>thermocouple. I presently measure flame temperature using a type R but am
>considering a suction thermocouple if the error is too great.
>thank you for your time

Our pleasure.

The experts agree that the "adiabatic flame temperature" (that achieved by
the combustion products from the energy in the fuel) , and the spectroscopic
and suction flame temperature of most flames is 2000C +/- 200 C. However, if
you put a platinum wire in the flame of a bunsen burner it will glow a dull
or bright red, depending on size and flame velocity, but never exceed 1100 C.
So the error is around 700-1200C.

The temperature observed on the wire is that temperature at which the
radiation out equals the heat transfer in, and radiation goes up as the 4th
power of T, while heat transfer goes up as the ~first power of T and maybe
(velocity)^1/2.

Oxygen flames (~3000 C) have significantly higher heat transfer rates than
air flames of the same fuels because while the temperature is only 50 %
higher, the burning velocity is many times higher.

The suction thermocouple overcomes the measurement problem in part by
shielding the radiation out and enhancing the heat transfer in by drawing hot
gases at very high velocity over the TC.

Why do you want to measure flame temperature when you can more reliably look
it up in
the Combustion Handbook or other sources (like the 30 volume proceedings of
the Combustion Symposium).

~~~~~~

Incidentally, a similar confusion occurs in cooking. If you cook the turkey
at 450F for a few hours, the temperature of the turkey itself does not exceed
220 F, or it would "mummify". Or, if you put a pan of water in the 300F oven
it will never boil because the heat loss of evaporation exceeds the heat
transfer to the water and pan.

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF
In a message dated 8/7/00 5:49:45 PM Mountain Daylight Time, larcon@sni.net
writes:

<< >
>John Hamilton
>
>>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From LINVENT at aol.com Thu Aug 10 01:30:22 2000
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:38 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: "measuring flame temperature"
Message-ID: <46.91685ce.26c397e8@aol.com>

Dear Tom Reed,
What happens if you put a reflector around the flame to reflect the
radiated energy back into the flame?

Tom Taylor
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From joacim at artech.se Thu Aug 10 01:33:25 2000
From: joacim at artech.se (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:38 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Producer gas "octane"
In-Reply-To: <cc.8727c9b.26c15e69@cs.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10008091747500.808-100000@localhost>

On Tue, 8 Aug 2000 Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:

> Dear All:
>
> At the risk of repeating myself, the "octane number" of producer gas
> extrapolates to well over 150, so we don't need to worry about knock or
> compression ignition.
>
> While there are many DISadvantages to producer gas, these entail the
> following ADvantages:
>
> o High octane permits high increased compression ratio to compensate for
> derating
>
> o Low heating value does not stress crankshaft and rods so much as one would
> think from the CR.
>
> o You can mix producer gas with air at fairly high temperature and not get
> ignition

Wouldn't also the pressure fall across the gasifier make room for a
higher CR? (i.e. to gain the same compression pressure)

How high levels of H2 can we have in producer gas without it affecting the
methane number too much? H2 has -- by definition -- a methane number of
zero...

A motor with variable CR would be nice. There have been many designs with
that in the past, more or less complicated. The simplest design I've seen
is a new motor from Saab: Take a straight 4cyl (with overheighted cam), cut
off the motor block just above the main bearings, add a hinge on one side,
an adjusting bolt on the other, and strap accordion bellows around the
crack to keep the oil in.

Joacim
-
main(){printf(&unix["\021%six\012\0"],(unix)["have"]+"fun"-0x60);}
-- David Korn

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From LINVENT at aol.com Thu Aug 10 13:50:44 2000
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:38 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Producer gas "octane"
Message-ID: <96.8448518.26c4454c@aol.com>

Joachim,
When you rotate the block, you change the timing on the valves at the
same time. It would be a very complicated mechanical coupling process not to
as the length between the crankshaft to the camshaft would change. How much
compression change can you get? I would like to see a 1MWe engine set up
that way, what a big deal.

Tom Taylor
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From mailbox at teri.res.in Thu Aug 10 19:34:07 2000
From: mailbox at teri.res.in (TERI mailbox)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:38 2004
Subject: GAS-L: TERI's fax/ tel. numbers change from 10th August 2000
Message-ID: <200008102334.QAA13500@secure.crest.net>

Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by secure.crest.net id
OAA08655

The Tata Energy Research Institute, New Delhi, can be reached at the
following numbers from 10 August 2000

Tel. 468 2100 and 468 2111
Fax 468 2144 and 468 2145

These numbers *replace* the old numbers.

-------------------------
Please accept our apologies for this intrusion; the intimation about the
changed numbers is being sent automatically, and your address was included
because you may have exchanged mails with one or more members of the TERI
staff in recent past.
-------------------------

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From joacim at artech.se Thu Aug 10 20:03:21 2000
From: joacim at artech.se (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:38 2004
Subject: GAS-L:CO2 Conversion to CO, and Efficiency Implications
In-Reply-To: <a02jos4p2i7jcg0bk3vr9qq69tjpmaocva@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10008100842320.808-100000@localhost>

On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Andrew Heggie wrote:

> I believe wood gasifiers seldom get better than 70%.

They went above 90% efficiency with wood gas in experiments at Budapest
Institute of Technology, Hungary, around 1945, by using extensive heat
recapturing. The heat exchanger consisted of a long coil of a guesstimately
2" diameter pipe (primary air pipe), going all the way up inside the outer
mantle of the gasifier. (Didn't look like a particulary efficient heat
exchanger to me, but that was all of it.) Of course, heat exchangers
implies pressure fall and thereby less power. I guess it's allways a matter
of finding a suitable compromise between efficiency vs power/weight.

Joacim
-
main(){printf(&unix["\021%six\012\0"],(unix)["have"]+"fun"-0x60);}
-- David Korn

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From joacim at artech.se Thu Aug 10 20:03:23 2000
From: joacim at artech.se (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:38 2004
Subject: GAS-L:CO2 Conversion to CO, and Efficiency Implications
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000802175326.009438e0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10008100728290.808-100000@localhost>

On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Peter Singfield wrote:

> At 12:55 AM 8/3/00 +0200, someone wrote:
> >..there is a good discussion of this in 'Gengas'. Also on Joachim's?
> >website.
> >The Källe charcoal gave about 25% better mileage than competing charcoal
> >gasifiers without exhaust gas recycling.
>
> You mean it went from 10% efficiency to 12.5% -- wow! Remember the old
> saying -- 100% of nothing is still nothing! You have to put a base line to
> those figures Arnt.

T. Källe mentioned a saving of fuel up to 50%, for taxi drivers. As I
understand it, that wasn't measured numbers, but his own expectations,
based upon his own experiments. It doesn't sound unreasonable though. Taxi
drivers probably consumed more fuel per distance than someone taking long
drives on the road without stopping at red lights, waiting for customers
etc. Producer gas is probably not the best of fuels for city traffic. ;)
Also, this saving of fuel was for the *whole* gasifier, specifically when
powering a car with it, and not solely an effect of recycling CO2. (He also
recycled char and heat, the latter both in the small heat exchanger inside
the gasifier, and perhaps also some heat and steam from the exhaust gases.
The Källe gasifier was normally mounted in the front of the car, where
exhaust is still rather hot.) The Källe gasifier had better dynamic
behaviour than other charcoal gasifier at the time, which of course
affected the way the driver handled it. (Most wood gasifiers in 1942-43,
when the Källe-gasifier came out, had terrible dynamics compared to
charcoal gasifiers in general. They were catching up by the end of the war
though.)

There was an article in Teknisk Tidskrift about the Källe-system (publ.
1944, ref 24 in Gengas). I don't have the article at hands now, so take
this with a grain of salt, but I recall that one conclusion the author made
was that it didn't matter for efficiency if CO2 or steam was "recycled".
The main reason why Källe recycled exhaust, was to keep the nozzle from
melting down; to keep the temperature down, or rather, constant. The amount
of exaust was /up to/ this or that many % (seen numbers of 17 to 25% of the
primary air. It was adjustable). The amount varied with the load. (which
helped keeping the temperature in the hearth stable, i.e. improved
dynamics, i.e. made it easier to handle particulary in city traffic,
perhaps saving some fuel for that reason?)

Joacim
-
main(){printf(&unix["\021%six\012\0"],(unix)["have"]+"fun"-0x60);}
-- David Korn

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Fri Aug 11 08:00:58 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:38 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Spark ignited timing
Message-ID: <e4.8ebd2d0.26c544d5@cs.com>

Paul:

Prof. Parikh is the #1 world expert on PG engines and will be here next
Monday. ...

TOM

In a message dated 8/8/00 1:11:57 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
pdebruicker@gocpc.com writes:

<< Hello,

Does anyone have an experience running Ford 4.9 liter, Inline 6cyl. spark
ignited engines on producer gas? I am trying to determine the spark advance
setting that will provide an agreeable balance between power and efficiency,
in the 1800-2600 rpm range. Does anyone know of a guideline for producer gas
spark advance? I would appreciate any thoughts on the subject. Thanks in
advance.

Paul
>>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From joacim at artech.se Fri Aug 11 08:19:42 2000
From: joacim at artech.se (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:38 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Producer gas "octane"
In-Reply-To: <96.8448518.26c4454c@aol.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10008110807310.808-100000@localhost>

On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 LINVENT@aol.com wrote:

> Joachim,
> When you rotate the block, you change the timing on the valves at the
> same time. It would be a very complicated mechanical coupling process not to
> as the length between the crankshaft to the camshaft would change.

What they did, was splitting up the cam chain/belt in two parts, and have
a connecting wheel placed in line with the hinge. The belt/chain tension is
then constant, and as far as I can tell (if the drive wheels for the belt
from the crank shaft to the hinge are both of the same size), the cam
timing won't be affected either if the movement is kept within reasonable
limits (as in not pulling the pistons out from the cylinder, or try to
slam them through the cylinder head). ...and it's not a "would", the motor
already exists. ;) Like I said before, there have been several engine
designes in the past century with variable CR; the only "special" here is
that it is so simple, compared to having displacement mini-cylinders in the
cylinder head or whatnot other complicated mechanisms involved.

How much variation in cam timing is acceptable btw?

> How much
> compression change can you get?

Oh, I don't know. ...how much would be sufficient? If you can move the crank
shaft ±1mm from the cylinder head on a 85mm stroke (as for a plain 4 cyl,
fairly square, 2 litre motor) with a mean CR of, say, 1:10, what upper and
lower limit would get for the CR then? If you can move it ±2mm? ±5mm? ±7mm?

I don't remember what variations Saab was playing with there, it was months
ago I read about it last time. I think "a couple of mm" was mentioned.
Check the motor magazines, or the web.

Joacim
-
main(){printf(&unix["\021%six\012\0"],(unix)["have"]+"fun"-0x60);}
-- David Korn

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From costich at pacifier.com Fri Aug 11 09:13:44 2000
From: costich at pacifier.com (Dale Costich)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:38 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Spark ignited timing
In-Reply-To: <e4.8ebd2d0.26c544d5@cs.com>
Message-ID: <000d01c00397$1db637c0$26e091c6@pacifier.com>

Dear Paul: Its so simple you don't need a world expert to tell you. Simply
get your producer gas supply flowing thru the engine at any typical BTDC
that the engine will run at...say 10degrees before... and then loosen the
distributor hold down nut to where you can just rotate it slowly both
directions and watch/and, or listen to your load respond where it seems most
powerful this coincides with its greatest possible efficiency (given that
particular set of input conditions)...period...zip. The old blind sow picks
up an acorn!
Dale
Brush Prairie, Wa

----- Original Message -----
From: <Reedtb2@cs.com>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 5:00 AM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Spark ignited timing

> Paul:
>
> Prof. Parikh is the #1 world expert on PG engines and will be here next
> Monday. ...
>
> TOM
>
> In a message dated 8/8/00 1:11:57 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
> pdebruicker@gocpc.com writes:
>
> << Hello,
>
> Does anyone have an experience running Ford 4.9 liter, Inline 6cyl.
spark
> ignited engines on producer gas? I am trying to determine the spark
advance
> setting that will provide an agreeable balance between power and
efficiency,
> in the 1800-2600 rpm range. Does anyone know of a guideline for producer
gas
> spark advance? I would appreciate any thoughts on the subject. Thanks in
> advance.
>
> Paul
> >>
> The Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Fri Aug 11 15:59:50 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:38 2004
Subject: GAS-L:CO2 Conversion to CO, and Efficiency Implications
Message-ID: <bc.8e2df61.26c5b510@cs.com>

Dear Joachim, Peter and all interested in charcoal Gasification:

Charcoal gasification is the primer for wood gasification. It is relatively
easy - if someone else will make the charcoal for you and you don't mind
throwing away 2/3 of the energy in the wood. Charcoal gasifiers were very
big in the 1930s, easy for amateurs, but when gasification came into wide use
during the war, they all used wood (and cleaned the gas). Otherwise there
would have been no forests left in Europe by 1945.

The one problem with charcoal is that the reaction

Carbon + air ==> CO

generates a temperature of up to 1400 C, beyond the capability of most
materials. This can be moderated including a fraction of

C + CO2 ==> 2 CO

preferably C + H2O ==> CO + H2

(since it increases hydrogen content and CO burns VERY slowly.) Both these
reactions are VERY endothermic (consume heat), so by using the correct
proportion of air and exhaust you can have a reaction of any temperature
required between 850 C (where Co dominates CO2) and 1100 C (where everything
begins to scale and melt.)

With all the history of chargoal gasification I am still looking for a GOOD
scientific description of the mass and energy balance. If anyone has one,
please post..

THANKS, TOM REED BEF

In a message dated 8/10/00 6:04:54 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
joacim@artech.se writes:

<<

On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Peter Singfield wrote:

> At 12:55 AM 8/3/00 +0200, someone wrote:
> >..there is a good discussion of this in 'Gengas'. Also on Joachim's?
> >website.
> >The Källe charcoal gave about 25% better mileage than competing charcoal
> >gasifiers without exhaust gas recycling.
>
> You mean it went from 10% efficiency to 12.5% -- wow! Remember the old
> saying -- 100% of nothing is still nothing! You have to put a base line to
> those figures Arnt.

T. Källe mentioned a saving of fuel up to 50%, for taxi drivers. As I
understand it, that wasn't measured numbers, but his own expectations,
based upon his own experiments. It doesn't sound unreasonable though. Taxi
drivers probably consumed more fuel per distance than someone taking long
drives on the road without stopping at red lights, waiting for customers
etc. Producer gas is probably not the best of fuels for city traffic. ;)
Also, this saving of fuel was for the *whole* gasifier, specifically when
powering a car with it, and not solely an effect of recycling CO2. (He also
recycled char and heat, the latter both in the small heat exchanger inside
the gasifier, and perhaps also some heat and steam from the exhaust gases.
The Källe gasifier was normally mounted in the front of the car, where
exhaust is still rather hot.) The Källe gasifier had better dynamic
behaviour than other charcoal gasifier at the time, which of course
affected the way the driver handled it. (Most wood gasifiers in 1942-43,
when the Källe-gasifier came out, had terrible dynamics compared to
charcoal gasifiers in general. They were catching up by the end of the war
though.)

There was an article in Teknisk Tidskrift about the Källe-system (publ.
1944, ref 24 in Gengas). I don't have the article at hands now, so take
this with a grain of salt, but I recall that one conclusion the author made
was that it didn't matter for efficiency if CO2 or steam was "recycled".
The main reason why Källe recycled exhaust, was to keep the nozzle from
melting down; to keep the temperature down, or rather, constant. The amount
of exaust was /up to/ this or that many % (seen numbers of 17 to 25% of the
primary air. It was adjustable). The amount varied with the load. (which
helped keeping the temperature in the hearth stable, i.e. improved
dynamics, i.e. made it easier to handle particulary in city traffic,
perhaps saving some fuel for that reason?)

Joacim
- >>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From arnt at c2i.net Fri Aug 11 16:58:06 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:38 2004
Subject: GAS-L:CO2 Conversion to CO, and Efficiency Implications
In-Reply-To: <bc.8e2df61.26c5b510@cs.com>
Message-ID: <39946847.F21DE0A2@c2i.net>

Hi Tom,

Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:
>
> Dear Joachim, Peter and all interested in charcoal Gasification:
[...]
> With all the history of chargoal gasification I am still looking for a GOOD
> scientific description of the mass and energy balance. If anyone has one,
> please post..
>
> THANKS, TOM REED BEF

..please qualify "GOOD scientific description".

..my feeling is not too many authors qualify to _my_ standards, by
rather obviously _not_ doing their homework first, before spending other
peoples money. Myself, I was not even trying to be "scientific", I just
copied the best stuff I found in "Gengas" and a couple of other sources,
my plan was "make money", ;-) My failure was not finding Svedlunds 1932
patent.

..in Gengas I learned "un-scientifically" to judge gasifiers by their
looks versus their product gas make-up, tar content and efficiency.

..your high regards for Prof. mrs Parikh has made me curious. Is there
an url to her papers?

--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... my gasifier web models? Working on them, up to my
ears in bills too.

Where it is a duty to worship the sun it is pretty sure
to be a crime to examine the laws of heat.
-- Christopher Morley
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com Sat Aug 12 17:32:10 2000
From: andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:38 2004
Subject: GAS-L:CO2 Conversion to CO, and Efficiency Implications
In-Reply-To: <bc.8e2df61.26c5b510@cs.com>
Message-ID: <a6gbpsg3im8btk3nam1dhrt77knsq7lcuu@4ax.com>

On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 15:59:12 EDT, you wrote:

<snipped> bit on inefficiency of charcoal making [1}
>
>The one problem with charcoal is that the reaction
>
> Carbon + air ==> CO
Should this not read Carbon + Air ==> CO2 ?
>
>generates a temperature of up to 1400 C, beyond the capability of most
>materials. This can be moderated including a fraction of
>
> C + CO2 ==> 2 CO

Which also occurs as an equilibrium reaction with the above if the CO2
has to pass through a bed of hot reducing char (IIRC being told that a
5" deep bed of glowing char is sufficient to reduce substantially all
the CO2 from the initial reaction, presumably the depth of bed is
related to heat loss from hearth and superficial velocity through
hearth), the recycling of CO2 in the exhaust, as Joacim has confirmed,
keeps the char bed at sufficient temperature to operate correctly
without excessive burning of the gas inlets. There is also some debate
as to how much CO2 can be recycled without quenching the char. Figures
of 15-20% are a bit meaningless when one person is referring to the
primary air supply and others may be thinking of mass of CO2.
>
>preferably C + H2O ==> CO + H2
Trouble with this is one has to carry a supply of water and a steam
coil. With a wood gasifier sufficient water for this reaction may be
available by controlling the moisture content very precisely [2].
>
>(since it increases hydrogen content and CO burns VERY slowly.) Both these
>reactions are VERY endothermic (consume heat), so by using the correct
>proportion of air and exhaust you can have a reaction of any temperature
>required between 850 C (where Co dominates CO2) and 1100 C (where everything
>begins to scale and melt.)

>With all the history of chargoal gasification I am still looking for a GOOD
>scientific description of the mass and energy balance. If anyone has one,
>please post..

Well let's start with the reaction I posted some time back for the
charcoal gasifier (bearing in mind that I am not a scientist of any
sort) with a 1/6 feedback of CO2. Perhaps someone else can comment on
the energy flow in the sensible heat of the offgas, assuming primary
air is pre heated in a counter flow with the off gas and exhaust heat
is conserved. The only losses from the system assuming an equilibrium
tending to CO2+12C+6O2==>14CO is maintained are in the heat loss from
the gasifier, heat loss in raising the mass of charcoal to operating
temperature and that in cooling the gas to a sensible level for the
engine. Then for every 12 mols of Carbon gasified we expect to
generate 14 mols of Carbon Monoxide.

So the mass of carbon consumed to mass of CO produced is
12*12:14*(12+16)= 144:392 with 30MJ/kg for carbon and 10.1 MJ/kg for
CO this gives a top cold gas efficiency of 4320:3959.2 or 91.65%.

AJH

[1] IMO efficiency should be viewed in an overall context. I see no
merit in chasing the last ounce of efficiency in a complicated high
maintenance generating system giving 17% overall efficiency if a
sophisticated but cheap to run 12% efficient system is affordable. In
a CHP scenario it is the ratio of electrical output to heat recovery
that may be important.

[2] A pelleted feedstock could pre determine operating temperatures
with known moisture content and calorific value, Peter Singfield
posted a comment about commercial gasifiers being fussy about
rawstock, I infer he had had a response from a gasifier supplier that
a pelleted feedstock should be used. Why not? wood pellets are
compact, convenient and competitively priced here in UK. We would not
dream of putting unrefined crude petroleum in small ic engine so why
should we not expect to use a refined biomass as a feedstock. I know
of two long term "green" projects who wish to demonstrate biomass or
renewable power systems. Their current options are to buy "green"
electricity from the grid or run a genset on Biodiesel as
gasifier-gensets are too big, unreliable and expensive. If anyone in
Southern UK would like to demonstrate a ~40kW(e) ic genset on our wood
pellets then feel free to contact me.
AJH
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From John07sax at aol.com Sun Aug 13 12:54:56 2000
From: John07sax at aol.com (John07sax@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:38 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasification of process wastes, to produce synthetic gas.
Message-ID: <6a.5a97aa7.26c7f94e@aol.com>

To: gasification@crest.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 32

Please be aware that BASF plc are about to bring on line a waste gasifier,
which is capable of converting three types of process waste into synthetic
gas (syn gas).
The plant is in the UK at Middlesbrough at a place called Seal Sands.
The site was once owned by Mosanto.
All the best.

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Sun Aug 13 13:16:34 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:38 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasification of process wastes, to produce synthetic gas.
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000813110030.008fdb30@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi John;

Please -- a little more info??

What kind of gasifier are they planning to use for making syngas??

what size is the operation to be??

Are there any Url's available?

Block diagrams??

etc.

Sounds so interesting --

Peter Singfield / Belize

At 09:14 AM 8/13/00 EDT, you wrote:
>To: gasification@crest.org
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 32
>
>Please be aware that BASF plc are about to bring on line a waste gasifier,
>which is capable of converting three types of process waste into synthetic
>gas (syn gas).
>The plant is in the UK at Middlesbrough at a place called Seal Sands.
>The site was once owned by Mosanto.
>All the best.
>
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk Sun Aug 13 15:45:12 2000
From: cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk (Cordner Peacocke)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:38 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasification of process wastes, to produce synthetic gas.
In-Reply-To: <6a.5a97aa7.26c7f94e@aol.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20000813204507.007a3d00@pop3.demon.co.uk>

Dear Group,

For those interested in the Seal Sands project:

13.3 t/h /30 MWth gasifier for nylon production residues [start November
2000], provided by Noell-KRC, Germany [part of Preussag Noell GmbH]

Technology used: pressurised entrained flow gasification

Noell also have rotary kiln technology [pyrolysis]

Cordner
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From ktwu at itri.org.tw Sun Aug 13 23:43:21 2000
From: ktwu at itri.org.tw (ktwu@itri.org.tw)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:38 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasification of process wastes, to produce synthetic gas.
Message-ID: <200008140343.UAA05335@secure.crest.net>

Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:28:22 +0800
Message-ID: <OF8FB8AD3A.B1AB09C2-ON4825693B.000C1C23@erl.itri.org.tw>
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on erlmail/ITRI(Release 5.0.2b (Intl)|16
December 1999) at
2000/08/14 10:28:24 AM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Dear all

More details about BASF's gasifier can be seen on the ENDS Report:

BASF: A world first in waste gasification
ENDS Report 305, pp. 23-25, June 2000.

Unfortunately, the ENDS Report did not post the full article on its web
site:

http://www.ends.co.uk/report/index.htm

Best wishes

Keng-Tung Wu, PhD
Researcher
Biomass Energy Laboratory
New Energy Research Division
Energy & Resources Laboratories
Industrial Technology Research Institute

N400 ERL/ITRI
Bldg. 32, No.196-4, Sec. 4, Chung Hsing Rd.
Chutung, Hsinchu 310 TAIWAN, ROC
TEL: + 886-3-591 7399 FAX: +886-3-582 0030
E-mail: ktwu@itri.org.tw
WWW page: http://www.itri.org.tw

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Mon Aug 14 08:43:58 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:38 2004
Subject: GAS-L:CO2 Conversion to CO, and Efficiency Implications
Message-ID: <9f.95783a3.26c9436d@cs.com>

Dear Andrew and other Kohlenbrenners (charcoal makers):

I said that the reaction C + Air ==> CO (Hr = - 28 kcal/mole)at temperatures
up to 1400 C and yes I meant CO. The blacksmith's forge forces air through a
bed of hot charcoal and he can raise the temperature of his steel to
1100-1200 for working. The reducing atmosphere keeps oxidation low.

The adiabatic reaction C + Air ==> CO2 (Hr = 96 kcal/mole) generates
temperatures to 2000 C, but it is hard to mix solid carbon with gaseous air,
so we seldom see that temperature except in charoal dust explosions.

Passing air through 5 inches of carbon can reach the CO/CO2 equilibrium, but
depends on particle size. Maybe through 20 particle diameters would be a
better way to put it.

All of this stuff was well known at the turn of the last century and has been
forgotten. Those who don't study history etc.
~~~~

Taking the heats of formation of CO and CO2 as -28 and -96 respectively, your
reaction doesn't balance)

CO2+12C+6O2==>14CO Hr = -392

is VERY exothermic. You could use up to 4 CO2s for this much air. But the
temperatures invovled are VERY high. Have good refractories and leak
sealing.

We recently republished the book

"MODERN GAS PRODUCERS" by Rambush, 1923. 300 pages of knowledge, pictures
and wisdom. (Ralph Overend republished it on microfiche early on.)

Good luck, TOM REED BEF

In a message dated 8/12/00 3:33:06 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
andrew.heggie@dtn.ntl.com writes:

<< On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 15:59:12 EDT, you wrote:

<snipped> bit on inefficiency of charcoal making [1}
>
>The one problem with charcoal is that the reaction
>
> Carbon + air ==> CO
Should this not read Carbon + Air ==> CO2 ?
>
>generates a temperature of up to 1400 C, beyond the capability of most
>materials. This can be moderated including a fraction of
>
> C + CO2 ==> 2 CO

Which also occurs as an equilibrium reaction with the above if the CO2
has to pass through a bed of hot reducing char (IIRC being told that a
5" deep bed of glowing char is sufficient to reduce substantially all
the CO2 from the initial reaction, presumably the depth of bed is
related to heat loss from hearth and superficial velocity through
hearth), the recycling of CO2 in the exhaust, as Joacim has confirmed,
keeps the char bed at sufficient temperature to operate correctly
without excessive burning of the gas inlets. There is also some debate
as to how much CO2 can be recycled without quenching the char. Figures
of 15-20% are a bit meaningless when one person is referring to the
primary air supply and others may be thinking of mass of CO2.
>
>preferably C + H2O ==> CO + H2
Trouble with this is one has to carry a supply of water and a steam
coil. With a wood gasifier sufficient water for this reaction may be
available by controlling the moisture content very precisely [2].
>
>(since it increases hydrogen content and CO burns VERY slowly.) Both
these
>reactions are VERY endothermic (consume heat), so by using the correct
>proportion of air and exhaust you can have a reaction of any temperature
>required between 850 C (where Co dominates CO2) and 1100 C (where
everything
>begins to scale and melt.)

>With all the history of chargoal gasification I am still looking for a GOOD
>scientific description of the mass and energy balance. If anyone has one,
>please post..

Well let's start with the reaction I posted some time back for the
charcoal gasifier (bearing in mind that I am not a scientist of any
sort) with a 1/6 feedback of CO2. Perhaps someone else can comment on
the energy flow in the sensible heat of the offgas, assuming primary
air is pre heated in a counter flow with the off gas and exhaust heat
is conserved. The only losses from the system assuming an equilibrium
tending to CO2+12C+6O2==>14CO is maintained are in the heat loss from
the gasifier, heat loss in raising the mass of charcoal to operating
temperature and that in cooling the gas to a sensible level for the
engine. Then for every 12 mols of Carbon gasified we expect to
generate 14 mols of Carbon Monoxide.

So the mass of carbon consumed to mass of CO produced is
12*12:14*(12+16)= 144:392 with 30MJ/kg for carbon and 10.1 MJ/kg for
CO this gives a top cold gas efficiency of 4320:3959.2 or 91.65%.

AJH

[1] IMO efficiency should be viewed in an overall context. I see no
merit in chasing the last ounce of efficiency in a complicated high
maintenance generating system giving 17% overall efficiency if a
sophisticated but cheap to run 12% efficient system is affordable. In
a CHP scenario it is the ratio of electrical output to heat recovery
that may be important.

[2] A pelleted feedstock could pre determine operating temperatures
with known moisture content and calorific value, Peter Singfield
posted a comment about commercial gasifiers being fussy about
rawstock, I infer he had had a response from a gasifier supplier that
a pelleted feedstock should be used. Why not? wood pellets are
compact, convenient and competitively priced here in UK. We would not
dream of putting unrefined crude petroleum in small ic engine so why
should we not expect to use a refined biomass as a feedstock. I know
of two long term "green" projects who wish to demonstrate biomass or
renewable power systems. Their current options are to buy "green"
electricity from the grid or run a genset on Biodiesel as
gasifier-gensets are too big, unreliable and expensive. If anyone in
Southern UK would like to demonstrate a ~40kW(e) ic genset on our wood
pellets then feel free to contact me.
AJH
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Mon Aug 14 08:44:09 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:38 2004
Subject: GAS-L:CO2 Conversion to CO, and Efficiency Implications
Message-ID: <65.860757a.26c94373@cs.com>

I'm forwarding your question to Prof. Parikh (and I'll ask her tonight when
she arriives for a visit....

TOM REED

In a message dated 8/11/00 2:59:12 PM Mountain Daylight Time, arnt@c2i.net
writes:

<<
..your high regards for Prof. mrs Parikh has made me curious. Is there
an url to her papers?

-- >>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Mon Aug 14 08:44:17 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:38 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Producer gas "octane"
Message-ID: <37.8de58f9.26c9437e@cs.com>

Dear Joachim and Engine Gurus:

Wouldn't also the pressure fall across the gasifier make room for a
higher CR? (i.e. to gain the same compression pressure)

I BELIEVE EXCESS COMPRESSION MAKES UP FOR THE PRESSURE LOSS IN GASIFIER AND
CLEANING.. OPINIONS?

How high levels of H2 can we have in producer gas without it affecting the
methane number too much? H2 has -- by definition -- a methane number of
zero...

PRODUCER GAS IS SO WEAK THAT EVEN 15% h2 AND MORE co DON'T GIVE ANY TROUBLE
THAT I HAVE HEARD OF...

Joacim

tom reed
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Mon Aug 14 08:44:19 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:38 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: "measuring flame temperature"
Message-ID: <dd.8548bfc.26c9437f@cs.com>

Dear Tom Taylor et al:

<< Dear Tom Reed,
What happens if you put a reflector around the flame to reflect the
radiated energy back into the flame?

Most flames ( without soot) have quite low emissivities - need to be a few
feet thick before your proposal works.

TOM REED

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From allemann at ksc7.th.com Wed Aug 16 02:56:01 2000
From: allemann at ksc7.th.com (Walter J. Allemann)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:38 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Rice husk gasification
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20000816134853.00a82b40@ksc7.th.com>

To whom it may concern.

Our company is selling rice mill equipment in Asia and I need to get some
information about gasification of rice husks.

In former time they have been burned to produce steam, which would drive
the rice mill, but now all these machines are driven by means of electric
motors, so there is no need for steam.

I'm now looking for a source to produce gas from these husks, which then
can be used to drive a generator or be compressed and sold to the public as
cooking gas.

Any comments are wellcome.

Kind regards

Walter J. Allemann

Allemann Co., Ltd.
http://members.dencity.com/rice-mills/

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com Wed Aug 16 16:09:25 2000
From: andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:38 2004
Subject: GAS-L:CO2 Conversion to CO, and Efficiency Implications
In-Reply-To: <9f.95783a3.26c9436d@cs.com>
Message-ID: <tqllpsgftrigbtjmlmh6b0mte84m5f2r0v@4ax.com>

On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 08:43:25 EDT, you wrote:

>Dear Andrew and other Kohlenbrenners (charcoal makers):

The literal translation would be charcoal burners, this is in fact
what the guys call themselves here, not makers. I do not burn charcoal
commercially, though I do extract timber to kilnside, I became
interested in making a cleaner more healthy system for the burners,
which I have achieved on the small scale. I call myself a
self-employed woodman.
>
>I said that the reaction C + Air ==> CO (Hr = - 28 kcal/mole)at temperatures
>up to 1400 C and yes I meant CO. The blacksmith's forge forces air through a
>bed of hot charcoal and he can raise the temperature of his steel to
>1100-1200 for working. The reducing atmosphere keeps oxidation low.

OK I understood this is what you meant from the heat of reaction, and
yes I have seen how the CO acts as a shielding gas in a forge. We have
a chap who uses our charcoal to cast bronze axe heads at open days,
very handsome they are too.

What I was trying to point out; from high school chemistry many years
ago, I remember that the combustion of carbon is a special case of
surface reaction. The oxygen molecule attaches to a carbon molecule
which (if the charcoal bed is hot enough) is subsequently reduced to
CO. I wonder if you are saying this is no longer the understanding?
>
>The adiabatic reaction C + Air ==> CO2 (Hr = 96 kcal/mole) generates
>temperatures to 2000 C, but it is hard to mix solid carbon with gaseous air,
>so we seldom see that temperature except in charoal dust explosions.
>
>Passing air through 5 inches of carbon can reach the CO/CO2 equilibrium, but
>depends on particle size. Maybe through 20 particle diameters would be a
>better way to put it.

Yes this intuitively seems a better rule of thumb.
>
>All of this stuff was well known at the turn of the last century and has been
>forgotten. Those who don't study history etc.

My thought exactly, but some history needs recounting by those who
remember to the newbies, texts can be selective on telling a story.
With open lists there will always be new members asking familiar
questions, this is the reason for a FAQ (does the list have one?).
> ~~~~
>
>Taking the heats of formation of CO and CO2 as -28 and -96 respectively, your
>reaction doesn't balance)
>
> CO2+12C+6O2==>14CO Hr = -392
>
Yes you are right, this just shows that the erudite lurkers are not
paying attention at the back.

I should have posted:

CO2+13C+6O2==>14CO
so the figures change to 13 mols of carbon to 14 mols of CO and the
maximum cold gas efficiency of 85%.

Your heat of reaction does not allow for the reduction of the CO2
molecule, using your figures it looks like this should be +40kcal/mol
( though these figures are temperature dependant also on the absolute
scale aren't they?). A 10% reduction in the heat of reaction, but
still highly exothermic. I only illustrated the feedback ratio to be
near the figures someone had quoted. Clearly there are some
considerations of entropy (an abstruse concept to a chap who spends
his day chopping trees down!) the temperature and change in entropy
term should point to the equilibrium being shifted towards production
of CO rather than CO2 (intuitively the carbon atom becomes more
disorganised in changing from solid to gas)as temperature increases.
So the feedback loop not only reduces the temperature of the hearth
but increases the chances of CO2 carrying back into the offgas, a
balance has to be struck which I take to be maintenance of the bed at
850C.

>is VERY exothermic. You could use up to 4 CO2s for this much air. But the
>temperatures invovled are VERY high. Have good refractories and leak
>sealing.

Well of course the temperatures are lower than in the simple carbon
monoxide reaction, this is intuitive as the mass flow per molecule of
CO is unchanged and the delta H term for each molecule has been
reduced by 10%.

What you must consider all the time is that the biggest contributor to
the mass flow is N2. This has a free ride through the system but the
heat of reaction must heat this passenger up also. To allow for this
N2 term. Is:

24N2+CO2+13C+6O2==> 24N2+14CO -352 kg/mol
a reasonable second approximation. If so then as the temperature of
the bed will be related to heat of reaction/massflow. We assume a
minimum hearth temperature of 850C, we know the mass flow from above
so the unknown is the specific heat of the gasses at 850C. This
sensible heat will be 100-coldgas efficiency.

In practice there must be many other variables, although the Kalle
feedback loop started this thread I am told that gasturbine
gasification cycles have an element of this as all the primary air is
derived from hot exhaust (there being a preponderance of excess air in
a gas turbine exhaust).
>
>We recently republished the book
>
>"MODERN GAS PRODUCERS" by Rambush, 1923. 300 pages of knowledge, pictures
>and wisdom. (Ralph Overend republished it on microfiche early on.)

I must admit to an absolute dearth of texts on chemistry or
combustion, when you publish in electronic form and with a secure
credit card facilities I may indulge myself ;-).
AJH

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From crest_ppp at hotmail.com Thu Aug 17 16:28:50 2000
From: crest_ppp at hotmail.com (Pravina Parikh)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:38 2004
Subject: GAS-L: spark advance for Producer gas engines
Message-ID: <200008172028.NAA18757@secure.crest.net>

Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 17:21:04 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F167AjmvPiXIZz502iv000020d3@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Aug 2000 17:21:04.0468 (UTC)
FILETIME=[5B55A940:01C007A6]

Hello
This is in response to the message below. The spark advance depends upon the
compression ratio of the machine. For a machine having 8.3 compression
ratio, as it is presumably for the said engine the advance may be beyond 4-
degrees of Crank Angle. It must however be mentioned that 8.3 is not a good
compression ratio for Producer-gas. A good compression ratio range for
Producer-gas burning is 11 to 12. even in this case an optimum spark advance
is found to be 35 to 40 CA.
Mrs Parikh

Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 13:07:02 -0600
From: Paul DeBruicker <pdebruicker@gocpc.com>
Reply-To: gasification@crest.org
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: GAS-L: Spark ignited timing

Hello,

Paul

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Thu Aug 17 18:53:56 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:38 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Compression numbers for Producer gas engines
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000817164936.008bc250@wgs1.btl.net>

Welcome Mrs Parikh;

I hear you are presently in North America?

Regarding compression ratios. You suggest 12 to 1 as the optimum level.
>From past communications we seem to agree that is best established by using
a heavy diesel engine and reducing compression to 12 to 1 from say -- the
original 18 to 1.

I find this all very reasonable.

My question is simply this. If one was to use a diesel engine that has a
turbo charger in place -- should not the swept volume compression ration be
further reduced to make up for an increased compression due to higher inlet
pressures?

For instance -- the swept volume compression ration on a "blower" operated
diesel is always reduced so that the real compression "number" stays the
same as in the naturally aspirated engine of the same design.

The increase in power deriving from an increase in charge entering the
cylinder rather than a higher compression number.

How would one calculate the physical, swept cylinder, compression ratio
needed to establish the same cylinder compression number when using a
blower? Or does one simply supercharge the 12 to 1 swept volume cylinder to
a much higher compression number and not worry?

Peter Singfield

Belize

At 01:28 PM 8/17/00 -0700, you wrote:
>Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 17:21:04 GMT
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>Message-ID: <F167AjmvPiXIZz502iv000020d3@hotmail.com>
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Aug 2000 17:21:04.0468 (UTC)
>FILETIME=[5B55A940:01C007A6]
>
>Hello
>This is in response to the message below. The spark advance depends upon the
>compression ratio of the machine. For a machine having 8.3 compression
>ratio, as it is presumably for the said engine the advance may be beyond 4-
>degrees of Crank Angle. It must however be mentioned that 8.3 is not a good
>compression ratio for Producer-gas. A good compression ratio range for
>Producer-gas burning is 11 to 12. even in this case an optimum spark advance
>is found to be 35 to 40 CA.
>Mrs Parikh

***********snipped*************
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From VHarris001 at aol.com Thu Aug 17 22:54:48 2000
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:38 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Dirty Gas, Steam Power and V8 Engine Conversion Help
Message-ID: <9.97dd9eb.26cdff54@aol.com>

In a message dated 07/28/2000 12:57:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, snkm@btl.net
writes:

> >We who are interested in producer gas must perforce be very knowledgable
> >about the uses of producer gas including (but not limited to)
> >
> >Spark Engines, including Wankel engines
> >Diesel Engines
> >Fuel Cells
> >Stirling Engines
> >Turbines
> >Tesla Turbines
> >
> >(Did I miss anything? Comments?)
>
>
> Boiler and steam engine. Hard as it may be to believe -- you can get a 28%
> efficiency (engine) with a uniflow working at a steam quality of 900F 1675
> PSI steam which is the standard out put of the fluid bed gasifiers/single
> pass boilers of Foster Wheeler fame.
>
> Only for smaller systems!! And probably still for less than $1000 per kwh.
>
> Some of the advantages of doing this are in relation to producer gas
> conditioning.
>
> You do not need any -- plus you keep the BTU's invested in the how gas
> produced before combustion.
>
> You can use fuels to 50% humidity.
>
> You can use fuels of much greater physical variations. (That is in pure
> gasifier furnaces -- such as Hurst Boiler produce)
>
> The Foster Wheeler set-up -- as in their 9.6 megawatt model - -achieved
> better than a 21% "over-all" efficiency.
>
> Using the present Tesla turbine at 23% efficiency as example. To get an
> over all efficiency of 21% the gasifier would have to be at least 91%
> efficient.
>
> Using the uniflow at 28% engine efficiency -- 75% efficiency.
>
> Using a turbine of 30% -- 70% (which is what you get with a gasifier
> furnace burning 50% humidity fuels)
>
> Plus -- remember -- in the second/third examples -- dirty gas is OK.
>
>

Hi Peter and everyone,

I've been a long-time reader here at gasification, an occasional poster, and
a constant learner. I note that steam power has has always had a place in
the discussions here at gasification - but for the most part I have brushed
steam aside as an efficiency consuming and unnecessary intermediate step to
the production of power from producer gas.

However, having finally come to the conclusion that I won't be able to
sufficiently (inexpensively) clean my producer gas stream, I've spent the
last little while kicking around the possibilities of using steam power.
Naturally, once one begins to investigate the proposition, one eventually
finds the devil in the details. However - after careful consideration of my
unique project - thusfar I find fewer devils in a steam power solution than I
do in direct IC engine consumption of producer gas. So I've turned my
attention to two-stage combustion; a gasification first stage and second
stage producer-gas burner/boiler combination.

Having said that, I'd still like to use a traditional IC engine as a steam
engine. I believe I have most of the *simpler* details "sufficiently" solved
to meet my needs. However, there is one substantial problem that I have yet
to solve - the inlet valve - and I was wondering if you (Peter) or any one
else on this list might evaluate or critique one idea I've been toying with.

I'd like to use a Ford 351 Windsor engine - and keep as many as possible of
the parts limited to either stock or aftermarket mass produced parts. In
keeping with that idea, I'd like to use the existing heads and valves and
modify them as little as possible to accomodate the introduction of steam.

As you probably know, the steam pressure in an automotive inlet port will
tend to push a single poppet (automotive type) valve open. One way to
overcome this problem is to put a balanced poppet valve into the engine (so
that the pressure pushes equally on the poppet and the axial balance poppet
or piston) and thus balance out the steam pressure across the valve stem.
However, that will require a great deal of machining work and take up a lot
of space in an already confined area.

Therefore I've been considering grinding off the poppet end of the valve and
so using only the valve stem as a kind of piston valve, or needle valve, type
plunger to block off the valve seat opening. I'd put a plug in the
cross-section of the valve seat, then machine an opening just large enough to
accept the valve stem. Then I'd grind the cam such that the valve stem was
held *closed* by the cam lobe (that is to say pressed into the orifice) until
the heel of the cam rolled around at which time the valve spring would *open*
the steam port by drawing the valve stem out of the orifice. Then when the
lobe rolled around again, the valve stem would be pushed back into the
orifice.

This type of steam valve would require no balancing since there would be no
poppet to be pressed open by the steam pressure. However, since there would
need to be a working clearance between the valve stem and the orifice, I'm
not sure there would be sufficient sealing to prevent substantial blowby past
the valve stem when it was in place inside and blocking the orifice.

Are you (or anyone else out there) familiar enough with steam valves to know
if this type of valve has ever been used successfully in steam applications,
what clearance is required and how much throw might be needed to close the
valve?

I have in mind superheated steam in the 800 psia, 850 F range and a maximum
engine operating speed of approximately 3000 rpm.

If you or anyone has any experience or suggestions, I certainly would
appreciate hearing from you.

Thanks in advance,
Vernon Harris
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From ges at iies.es Fri Aug 18 04:59:23 2000
From: ges at iies.es (BESEL, S.A.)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:38 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Coffee pulp gasification
Message-ID: <002b01c008f3$10438730$79ce3bd4@arrakis.es>

Dear Colleagues,
I'm searching for reliable examples of coffee pulp
gasifiers in the range of 0.5-1 MW thermal output.
I have found very few references in the
www.
Guillermo J. Escobar

From tk at tke.dk Fri Aug 18 08:51:10 2000
From: tk at tke.dk (Thomas Koch)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:38 2004
Subject: Sv: GAS-L: Coffee pulp gasification
Message-ID: <00c601c00913$801285a0$048744c0@image.image.dk>

If you find any please let everybody
know.

Regards

Thomas Koch
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
-----Oprindelig
meddelelse-----Fra: BESEL, S.A. <<A
href="mailto:ges@iies.es">ges@iies.es>Til: <A
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org <<A
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org>Dato:
18. august 2000 10:59Emne: GAS-L: Coffee pulp
gasification
Dear Colleagues,
I'm searching for reliable examples of coffee
pulp gasifiers in the range of 0.5-1 MW thermal output.
I have found very few references in the
www.
Guillermo J.
Escobar

From VHarris001 at aol.com Fri Aug 18 12:17:39 2000
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:38 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Dirty Gas, Steam Power and V8 Engine Conversion Help
Message-ID: <f8.1fb2287.26cebb6f@aol.com>

I have posted a sketch of what I have in mind for the steam valve. You can
see it at:

http://hometown.aol.com/vharris001/myhomepage/profile.html

The primary concern I have is determining the clearance required between the
valve stem and the steam outlet orifice in order to achieve reliable
operation, accomodate thermal expansion and valve stem flexing.

Thanks everyone for taking a look and critiquing the idea.
Vernon Harris

In a message dated 08/17/2000 10:56:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
VHarris001@aol.com writes:

>
>
> Hi Peter and everyone,
>
> I've been a long-time reader here at gasification, an occasional poster,
and
>
> a constant learner. I note that steam power has has always had a place in
> the discussions here at gasification - but for the most part I have
brushed
> steam aside as an efficiency consuming and unnecessary intermediate step
to
> the production of power from producer gas.
>
> However, having finally come to the conclusion that I won't be able to
> sufficiently (inexpensively) clean my producer gas stream, I've spent the
> last little while kicking around the possibilities of using steam power.
> Naturally, once one begins to investigate the proposition, one eventually
> finds the devil in the details. However - after careful consideration of
my
>
> unique project - thusfar I find fewer devils in a steam power solution
than
> I
> do in direct IC engine consumption of producer gas. So I've turned my
> attention to two-stage combustion; a gasification first stage and second
> stage producer-gas burner/boiler combination.
>
> Having said that, I'd still like to use a traditional IC engine as a steam
> engine. I believe I have most of the *simpler* details "sufficiently"
> solved
> to meet my needs. However, there is one substantial problem that I have
yet
>
> to solve - the inlet valve - and I was wondering if you (Peter) or any one
> else on this list might evaluate or critique one idea I've been toying
with.
>
> I'd like to use a Ford 351 Windsor engine - and keep as many as possible
of
> the parts limited to either stock or aftermarket mass produced parts. In
> keeping with that idea, I'd like to use the existing heads and valves and
> modify them as little as possible to accomodate the introduction of steam.
>
> As you probably know, the steam pressure in an automotive inlet port will
> tend to push a single poppet (automotive type) valve open. One way to
> overcome this problem is to put a balanced poppet valve into the engine
(so
> that the pressure pushes equally on the poppet and the axial balance
poppet
> or piston) and thus balance out the steam pressure across the valve stem.
> However, that will require a great deal of machining work and take up a
lot
> of space in an already confined area.
>
> Therefore I've been considering grinding off the poppet end of the valve
and
>
> so using only the valve stem as a kind of piston valve, or needle valve,
> type
> plunger to block off the valve seat opening. I'd put a plug in the
> cross-section of the valve seat, then machine an opening just large enough
> to
> accept the valve stem. Then I'd grind the cam such that the valve stem
was
> held *closed* by the cam lobe (that is to say pressed into the orifice)
> until
> the heel of the cam rolled around at which time the valve spring would
*open*
>
> the steam port by drawing the valve stem out of the orifice. Then when
the
> lobe rolled around again, the valve stem would be pushed back into the
> orifice.
>
> This type of steam valve would require no balancing since there would be
no
> poppet to be pressed open by the steam pressure. However, since there
> would
> need to be a working clearance between the valve stem and the orifice, I'm
> not sure there would be sufficient sealing to prevent substantial blowby
> past
> the valve stem when it was in place inside and blocking the orifice.
>
> Are you (or anyone else out there) familiar enough with steam valves to
know
>
> if this type of valve has ever been used successfully in steam
applications,
>
> what clearance is required and how much throw might be needed to close the
> valve?
>
> I have in mind superheated steam in the 800 psia, 850 F range and a
maximum
> engine operating speed of approximately 3000 rpm.
>
> If you or anyone has any experience or suggestions, I certainly would
> appreciate hearing from you.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Vernon Harris
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Fri Aug 18 14:45:23 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:38 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Dirty Gas, Steam Power and V8 Engine Conversion Help
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000818123852.008f35d0@wgs1.btl.net>

>Hi Peter and everyone,

Hi Vernon,

>Having said that, I'd still like to use a traditional IC engine as a steam
>engine. I believe I have most of the *simpler* details "sufficiently"
solved
>to meet my needs. However, there is one substantial problem that I have yet
>to solve - the inlet valve - and I was wondering if you (Peter) or any one
>else on this list might evaluate or critique one idea I've been toying with.
>

The answer to your question is over at:

http://www.multimania.com/rossen/solar/wcengine.html

The White Cliffs Solar Steam Engine

Has been over a year I downloaded that site -- but just checked the Url and
it works.

There you will find complete instructions on how to make a greater than
20%, engine efficiency, uniflow steam engine, from a Lister diesel with
some GMC diesel parts.

I especially like the way he solved the intake valving problem. I have
appended a part of the text from this Url.

Enjoy!

Peter

>Thanks in advance,
>Vernon Harris

***********appended text************

The Steam Engine

In recent years much effort has been directed to developing, on the one
hand, high efficiency heat engines (for example employing Stirling, Brayton
and other cycles) for utilizing, very efficiently, the high quality heat
from concentrating solar collectors; and on the other, to produce very
inexpensive low efficiency steam and other engines which can be built in
Third World workshops and supplied by energy from biomass. The former
objectives have not as yet been realised because problems of performance,
especially reliability and cost effectiveness, have not been adequately
overcome; the latter also for various reasons have not resulted in that
technology reaching significance.

But there is another approach, relevant to these application areas, which
employs medium level technology and is based on mass-produced
readily-available components, supplemented by some special items to produce
steam engines with heat-to-mechanical work conversion efficiencies of over
20%, robust, reliable, able to be maintained by those with automotive and
agricultural experience, and having the potential for cost-effectiveness
for many applications.

Such engines have resulted from our development of the White Cliffs Solar
Thermal Power Station [Kaneff 1983, 1987], where a unit has operated for
many thousands of hours giving electricity supply reliably. Other units are
currently working in the USA (in Troy NY, at Albuquerque NM and at the
Sandia test facility, preparatory to operation on Molokai Hawaii); please
see Appendix I. Further units are to be used for a rural village power
supply in Fiji and for the utilisation of crop wastes in Australia. Figure
41 shows the White Cliffs engine.

3.4.1 Engine Details - Piston Operated Valves (POV)
For reasons already indicated, this unit employs a diesel engine converted
to steam operation. The particular unit employed a Lister 3-cylinder engine
- is used in its thousands in Australia and has the advantage that each
cylinder and head is removable.

Most of the engine is made from parts of two diesel engines (Lister and
Ceneral Motors) which are on the market. The general form of the engine is
shown in Figure

42. Steam is supplied to a chamber in the head of each cylinder; the engine
is started by a standard electric motor. As a piston approaches top dead
centre, the pins in its crown lift the three ball valves from their seats
and steam enters the cylinder until the valves seat again past dead centre.
The steam expands while applying pressure to the piston until the piston
exposes the normal exhaust ports in the cylinder liner which was made for a
2-stroke diesel engine. The cylinders, cylinder heads, valve seats and
steam chambers, that is, the conversion components, can be produced by
relatively simple workshop techniques from cast iron, mild steel and
stainless steel.

***********snipped**********
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From VHarris001 at aol.com Fri Aug 18 15:16:50 2000
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:38 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Dirty Gas, Steam Power and V8 Engine Conversion Help
Message-ID: <ce.97caa6c.26cee572@aol.com>

In a message dated 08/18/2000 2:47:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, snkm@btl.net
writes:

> 42. Steam is supplied to a chamber in the head of each cylinder; the engine
> is started by a standard electric motor. As a piston approaches top dead
> centre, the pins in its crown lift the three ball valves from their seats
> and steam enters the cylinder until the valves seat again past dead centre.
> The steam expands while applying pressure to the piston until the piston
> exposes the normal exhaust ports in the cylinder liner which was made for a
> 2-stroke diesel engine. The cylinders, cylinder heads, valve seats and
> steam chambers, that is, the conversion components, can be produced by
> relatively simple workshop techniques from cast iron, mild steel and
> stainless steel.

Hi Peter,

You were probably the one that previously directed me to the White Sands
steam engine site some time ago.

I have considered "bash valves" but have been resisting using them due to
some limitations, most notably that that steam is admitted into the cylinder
long before the piston reaches top-dead-center. For instance, a 10% cutoff
bash valve will open at about 32 crank degrees before the piston reaches TDC
and similarly it will close at about 32 degrees after TDC.

I may find that I am stuck with bash valves after all.

Thanks,
Vernon Harris

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Fri Aug 18 21:35:48 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:38 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Popping Steam off --
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000818163454.008b93f0@wgs1.btl.net>

>Hi Peter,
>
>You were probably the one that previously directed me to the White Sands
>steam engine site some time ago.
>
>I have considered "bash valves" but have been resisting using them due to
>some limitations, most notably that that steam is admitted into the cylinder
>long before the piston reaches top-dead-center. For instance, a 10% cutoff
>bash valve will open at about 32 crank degrees before the piston reaches TDC
>and similarly it will close at about 32 degrees after TDC.
>
>I may find that I am stuck with bash valves after all.
>
>Thanks,
>Vernon Harris

Hi Vernon;

Do you know how a simple BB or pellet gun works?? They mostly all use a
"Pop|" valve system.

I used pop valves for other devices for year -- on 2000 PSI plus "tank"
nitrogen for quick actuators. The design was a very simple adaptation of a
standard hydraulic quick coupler. You no -- the kind with the ball bearings
sitting in a seat?

Here is a simple experiment to try.

Take the side of the quick couple which is the "male" part and adapt it to
a standard oxygen tank fitting. Pipe this onto your Oxygen tank -- a full
one -- with over 2000 PSI. Once on tight -- crack your tank valve open. The
hydraulic quick coupler will not leak one bit!

Now -- take a brass hammer and give a "smart", gentle tap to the ball on
the end of that quick couple. You will get quite a pop!

What you are forgetting is that the White Sands steam engine is operating
at 955 PSI steam (and 842F). You do not want or need to hold that valve
open long -- as in drawing in a charge in a naturally aspirated motor. Just
a tap -- maybe 2 deg before top dead center will be more than enough.

Also -- you do not need a big delivery line. If your spark plug comes in
relatively 90 deg to the top of your piston -- you could use a small quick
coupler adapted into that same spark plug hole.

No reason to go uniflow just to experiment. So take the rocker arm off the
intake valve -- keep your exhaust valve operating.

The more expansion you do in the cylinder -- the greater the steam
efficiency -- and the less the exhaust pressure. But less HP as well. Still
-- full expansion will mean a greatly reduced temperature of operation for
your engine.

Steam engines run much better with all delivery lines, cylinder head,
cylinders -- insulated. so you need a large expansion to keep temps way
down where your pistons and rings can live.

Further -- if you do four stroke it -- you need not inject and extract oil
in/from your steam.

So really -- you just have to pop that ball valve. Not hold it open!! You
can adjust for the optimum position ny screwing your spark plug steam
injection device in and out.

By the way -- those hydraulic quick couplers are made of very good quality
steel and would handle 1500 PSI 900F steam.

Hope that give you enough leads??

Are you interested in the boiler design to go along with it??

I only hope that people on this list do not find talking "steam"
objectionable? But producer gas is certainly a perfect fuel for a simple
boiler. Which I can give an example of if there is interest.

People in this modern world have been conned into thinking that high
pressure -- high temperature -- steam is only for multi million dollar
power stations. This is simply not true. I believe one can build a good
efficiency steam power plant for a small gasifier easier and for less cost
than dealing with the present state of the art required to cool and
condition the gas to run an IC engine. And you need no cooling or cleaning
to fire that boiler!!

It is so easy to build a small high pressure, single pass, water tube, boiler.

But the mind set says nay!

Peter singfield / Belize
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Fri Aug 18 22:29:30 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:39 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Popping Steam off --
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000818175231.008f8440@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Vernon;

Do you know how a simple BB or pellet gun works?? They mostly all use a
"Pop|" valve system.

Here is a simple experiment to try.

Now -- take a brass hammer and give a "smart", gentle tap to the ball on
the end of that quick couple. You will get quite a pop!

Also -- you do not need a big delivery line. If your spark plug comes in
relatively 90 deg to the top of your piston -- you could use a small quick
coupler adapted into that same spark plug hole.

No reason to go uniflow just to experiment. So take the rocker arm off the
intake valve -- keep your exhaust valve operating.

Steam engines run much better with all delivery lines, cylinder head,
cylinders -- insulated. so you need a large expansion to keep temps way
down where your pistons and rings can live.

Further -- if you do four stroke it -- you need not inject and extract oil
in/from your steam.

So really -- you just have to pop that ball valve. Not hold it open!! You
can adjust for the optimum position ny screwing your spark plug steam
injection device in and out.

By the way -- those hydraulic quick couplers are made of very good quality
steel and would handle 1500 PSI 900F steam.

Hope that give you enough leads??

Are you interested in the boiler design to go along with it??

I only hope that people on this list do not find talking "steam"
objectionable? But producer gas is certainly a perfect fuel for a simple
boiler. Which I can give an example of if there is interest.

It is so easy to build a small high pressure, single pass, water tube, boiler.

But the mind set says nay!

Peter singfield / Belize
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From tvoivozd at roanoke.infi.net Fri Aug 18 22:51:00 2000
From: tvoivozd at roanoke.infi.net (tvoivozhd)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:39 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Popping Steam off --
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000818163454.008b93f0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <399DE7E2.8D7506F8@roanoke.infi.net>

Peter Singfield wrote:

> Further -- if you do four stroke it -- you need not inject and extract oil
> in/from your steam.
>
> So really -- you just have to pop that ball valve. Not hold it open!! You
> can adjust for the optimum position ny screwing your spark plug steam
> injection device in and out.
>
> By the way -- those hydraulic quick couplers are made of very good quality
> steel and would handle 1500 PSI 900F steam.
>
> Hope that give you enough leads??
>
> Are you interested in the boiler design to go along with it??
>

Tvoivozhd---by all means---a simple, safe monotube??

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Fri Aug 18 23:13:52 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:39 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Reviewing your Valving mechanism
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000818205551.008f4670@wgs1.btl.net>

At 12:16 PM 8/18/00 EDT, you wrote:
>I have posted a sketch of what I have in mind for the steam valve. You can
>see it at:
>
>http://hometown.aol.com/vharris001/myhomepage/profile.html
>
>The primary concern I have is determining the clearance required between the
>valve stem and the steam outlet orifice in order to achieve reliable
>operation, accomodate thermal expansion and valve stem flexing.
>
>Thanks everyone for taking a look and critiquing the idea.
>Vernon Harris

Hi Vernon -- looked over your design.

"Packing
Packing will be used to prevent steam blowby out the valve stem. At the
present time no packing or rings are being considered to seal the clearance
space between the valve stem and the steam outlet orifice. "

Packing high pressure steam is a nightmare for long term. Though I can show
you a good system that will work way past 5000 PSI and to at least 1000F.

I would hate to have to fit it all in an existing cylinder head.

Leaks will destroy your efficiency figures.

I remember my professor many years ago pointing out that a 1/8 in diameter
tube, 10 feet long, can pass 40 HP steam at 2000 psi.

Just how much HP do you want to get into that cylinder?? Think in terms of
a much smaller valve orifice.

But I am taking to much for granted here. What quality steam are you going
to use?

(what temp -- what pressure)

Reasonable steam efficiencies start at 1500 psi and 900F temperature. Your
motor will not run at those pressure or temps -- as you will be expanding
this dramatically. But your intake valve will be seeing it first hand!

Always remember -- when making power by expansion -- the resulting power is
a subtract of the heat in the original charge. The bigger the difference
between temperature in and temp out the more power you are extracting.

Ergo -- nice to have even a simple condenser on the exhaust -- makes an
increase in efficiency at little increase of costs.

Peter

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From VHarris001 at aol.com Fri Aug 18 23:45:59 2000
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:39 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Popping Steam off --
Message-ID: <99.912d2cb.26cf5ccc@aol.com>

In a message dated 08/18/2000 9:39:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, snkm@btl.net
writes:

> What you are forgetting is that the White Sands steam engine is operating
> at 955 PSI steam (and 842F). You do not want or need to hold that valve
> open long -- as in drawing in a charge in a naturally aspirated motor. Just
> a tap -- maybe 2 deg before top dead center will be more than enough.
>

Do you mean 2 degrees of crank rotation or do you mean 2 percent of the
piston stroke? I've been told that the mass of steam is not trivial,
particularly at high engine speeds (which means a short time duration of the
valve opening). At 3000 rpm (max planned engine speed) do you think that 4
degrees of crank rotation (2 BTDC to 2 ATDC) is sufficient time to admit the
necessary mass of steam?

> Also -- you do not need a big delivery line. If your spark plug comes in
> relatively 90 deg to the top of your piston -- you could use a small quick
> coupler adapted into that same spark plug hole.

I'd be interested in hearing more about how you would do this.

>
> No reason to go uniflow just to experiment. So take the rocker arm off the
> intake valve -- keep your exhaust valve operating.

Yes, I had hoped to use the existing exhaust valve.

I think the problem I have with the bash valve is that it admits steam to the
cylinder as the piston approaches top dead center - and does so without any
ability to control it. While steam admission to the cylinder before top dead
center is okay at higher engine speeds (similar to the effect of advancing
spark ignition in regular IC engine), the effects of admitting high pressure
steam into a cylinder as the piston approaches TDC at low rpm's could be very
damaging to the engine (similar to the effect of detonation in a regular IC
engine). Since I need the engine to operate over a wide range of engine
speeds and load ranges, I am very hesitant about using a bash valve -
concerned with causing excessive wear or substantial damage. While this
would not be a concern in a conventional steam engine (due to the different
design of a steam engine) I believe this is a significant problem when using
steam to power a conventional IC engine conversion. Comments?

Thanks much,

Vernon Harris

Oh yeah, I am planning on using a monotube boiler (like Doble, SAS, etc.) but
plan to have it built by a professional boilermaker. I don't want to take
any chances.
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From VHarris001 at aol.com Sat Aug 19 00:05:18 2000
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:39 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Reviewing your Valving mechanism
Message-ID: <8.92bba4e.26cf616b@aol.com>

In a message dated 08/18/2000 11:16:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, snkm@btl.net
writes:

> I remember my professor many years ago pointing out that a 1/8 in diameter
> tube, 10 feet long, can pass 40 HP steam at 2000 psi.
>
> Just how much HP do you want to get into that cylinder?? Think in terms of
> a much smaller valve orifice.
>
> But I am taking to much for granted here. What quality steam are you going
> to use?
>
> (what temp -- what pressure)
>
> Reasonable steam efficiencies start at 1500 psi and 900F temperature. Your
> motor will not run at those pressure or temps -- as you will be expanding
> this dramatically. But your intake valve will be seeing it first hand!

Hi Peter,

I'm planning on steam at 800 psi and 850F at the inlet valve.

Desired horsepower from the engine is 250 hp at 2500 rpm, or 31.25 hp per
cylinder.

If I'm not mistaken, I think a Ford V8 351 Windsor valve stem is 11/32 inch
diameter. Any idea on how much clearance will be required between the valve
stem and the inlet port wall? Both will be made from cast iron, so the
coefficient of expansion should be similar between the metals. Once I know
how much clearance will be required, I should be able to estimate how much
leakage there will be past the valve stem and into the cylinder at 800 psi
and 850F.

Thanks,
Vernon Harris
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Sat Aug 19 11:25:04 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:39 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Small single pass boilers
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000819081100.008f44b0@wgs1.btl.net>

At 09:50 PM 8/18/00 -0400, you wrote:
>> Are you interested in the boiler design to go along with it??
>>
>
>Tvoivozhd---by all means---a simple, safe monotube??

Single pass, water tube, boiler. No great danger for explosions -- as only
the water injected is flashed to steam. There is no water reservoir below
the steam chamber.

This design was well typified in the old Steam Jennies used to steam clean
heavy equipment in days gone by.

Basically a coil of tubing with water injected under greater pressure than
the steam produced and steam coming out the opposite orifice. The "fire"
being at the bottom part of this coil.

Boiler efficiency is "tuned" by pipe diameter and amount of coils in each
stage.

You can easily prototype by using 1/4 in steel brake line tubing and
building a small unit. Designing the super heating circuit is the tricky
part.

I did not realize the size that Vernon is going for -- 250 HP. That being
well beyond the capabilities of such a simple home made boiler project to
bench test a basic steam engine design.

Single pass boilers of 250 HP -- say 186 kw net output of motor (20%
efficiency?) -- will not be found at an economic price. Normally these only
come in the giant size.

Two components are lacking for the commercialization of small gasifiers as
steam power plants. The steam engine and the boiler producing the needed
high quality to operate them.

Not that it is such a big deal to do -- or that it has not been done well
in the past.

Today -- it is a wheel that needs re-inventing.

Peter Singfield / Belize

>
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Sat Aug 19 11:25:36 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:39 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Rossen design Steam Engine
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000819084044.008f6240@wgs1.btl.net>

At 11:45 PM 8/18/00 EDT, you wrote:
>In a message dated 08/18/2000 9:39:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, snkm@btl.net
>writes:
>
>> What you are forgetting is that the White Sands steam engine is operating
>> at 955 PSI steam (and 842F). You do not want or need to hold that valve
>> open long -- as in drawing in a charge in a naturally aspirated motor.
Just
>> a tap -- maybe 2 deg before top dead center will be more than enough.
>>
>
>Do you mean 2 degrees of crank rotation or do you mean 2 percent of the
>piston stroke? I've been told that the mass of steam is not trivial,
>particularly at high engine speeds (which means a short time duration of the
>valve opening). At 3000 rpm (max planned engine speed) do you think that 4
>degrees of crank rotation (2 BTDC to 2 ATDC) is sufficient time to admit the
>necessary mass of steam?

Try that experiment with the high pressure oxygen tank and the ball valve
hydraulic couple. You need just a "tap". In the White Cliffs Solar Steam
Engine he uses three poppet valves to get the needed charge.

>
>> Also -- you do not need a big delivery line. If your spark plug comes in
>> relatively 90 deg to the top of your piston -- you could use a small quick
>> coupler adapted into that same spark plug hole.
>
>I'd be interested in hearing more about how you would do this.
>

Now that I see how "serious" your project is -- a 250 HP steam engine. I
would advise going the same route as the white Cliffs -- that is building
your own heads. Not so hard as it looks. Needs no cooling passages -- just
a flat plate of steel. You can then easily fit your poppet valves in and
adapt the same exhaust valves with valve actuation train.

Using the spark plus hole gives only one entrance -- and that must be near
vertical to the piston to work.

>>
>> No reason to go uniflow just to experiment. So take the rocker arm off the
>> intake valve -- keep your exhaust valve operating.
>
>Yes, I had hoped to use the existing exhaust valve.
>
>I think the problem I have with the bash valve is that it admits steam to
the
>cylinder as the piston approaches top dead center - and does so without any
>ability to control it.

The motor control is by throttling the steam flow to it. You design the pop
valves for maximum power. It is also a progressive valving in regards to
RPM. The faster it is tapped -- the higher the ball goes off the seat --
the more steam is injected. So tune for 3000 rpm.

While steam admission to the cylinder before top dead
>center is okay at higher engine speeds (similar to the effect of advancing
>spark ignition in regular IC engine), the effects of admitting high pressure
>steam into a cylinder as the piston approaches TDC at low rpm's could be
very
>damaging to the engine (similar to the effect of detonation in a regular IC
>engine).

I think you will find you need very little "advance". Also -- one more
point. One can make this a two stroke with an exhaust valve. Change the
timing gear from two to one to one to one. Exhaust valve would open at
bottom of power stroke. Close just before top dead center. You do not need
that compression stroke!

Also -- now you know the reason Rossen starts his engine with an electric
motor -- letting it get up to RPM before turning on the steam. Also -- this
will work down to 500 RPM -- at least. Just how slow do you want to go??

> Since I need the engine to operate over a wide range of engine
>speeds and load ranges,

You are not going to be turning a generator at a fixed rpm, throttling to
adjust engine RPM to one fixed area??

Which bring us to another problem -- the single pass boiler adjusts to load
requirements by dampening fire and injecting less water. Lowering load and
lessening water injection flow, but still keeping the fire hot, will blow
the super heater tube -- not an explosion though. This system is happier
with a steady load.

The only boiler I can think of that could pull this off would be one of the
old fire tube boiler designs. That limits steam quality to 800 PSI and 700
F -- and I would make sure there are no close neighbors -- for at least a
couple of hundred yards -- just in case!

Still -- you could always get around the fire controlling by simply turning
down the gas going in to the single pass boiler and flairing the balance
until your gasifier is tuned down.

I am very hesitant about using a bash valve -
>concerned with causing excessive wear or substantial damage. While this
>would not be a concern in a conventional steam engine (due to the different
>design of a steam engine) I believe this is a significant problem when using
>steam to power a conventional IC engine conversion. Comments?

Rossen gives us this info:

Such engines have resulted from our development of the White Cliffs
Solar Thermal Power Station [Kaneff 1983, 1987], where a unit has
operated for many thousands of hours giving electricity supply
reliably. Other units are currently working in the USA (in Troy NY,
at Albuquerque NM and at the Sandia test facility, preparatory to
operation on Molokai Hawaii); please see Appendix I. Further units
are to be used for a rural village power supply in Fiji and for the
utilization of crop wastes in Australia.

In your position -- I would be paying a visit to either Troy NY or
Albuquerque NM or both.

Peter Singfield / Belize

>
>Thanks much,
>
>Vernon Harris
>
>Oh yeah, I am planning on using a monotube boiler (like Doble, SAS, etc.)
but
>plan to have it built by a professional boilermaker. I don't want to take
>any chances.
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sat Aug 19 17:11:39 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:39 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Dirty Gas, Steam Power and V8 Engine Conversion Help
Message-ID: <30.922d780.26d051e8@cs.com>

Dear Vern and all:

Interesting idea to use the IC mechanism for steam power. Not my field, so
my comments may be off the mark. Let me know and I'll modify them.

I taught steam thermodynamcs at the Colorado School of Mines in the 1980s.
My memory of the steam cycle is that it has to include a condensing loop to
get into the bigtime efficiency - and to avoid stops every 10 miles for more
water. Stanley Steamers had this problem.

I also had the impression that small conventional steam engines achieved
efficiencies of 5-10% and you didn't reach 30% until you were > 10 MW.

As far as gasification for running a boiler, that will certainly be simpler
than clean gas for IC operation.

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF/CPC
If I'm carrying around some misconceptions, please let me know.

In a message dated 8/17/00 8:57:11 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
VHarris001@aol.com writes:

<<
Hi Peter and everyone,

I've been a long-time reader here at gasification, an occasional poster, and
a constant learner. I note that steam power has has always had a place in
the discussions here at gasification - but for the most part I have brushed
steam aside as an efficiency consuming and unnecessary intermediate step to
the production of power from producer gas.

However, having finally come to the conclusion that I won't be able to
sufficiently (inexpensively) clean my producer gas stream, I've spent the
last little while kicking around the possibilities of using steam power.
Naturally, once one begins to investigate the proposition, one eventually
finds the devil in the details. However - after careful consideration of my
unique project - thusfar I find fewer devils in a steam power solution than
I
do in direct IC engine consumption of producer gas. So I've turned my
attention to two-stage combustion; a gasification first stage and second
stage producer-gas burner/boiler combination.

Having said that, I'd still like to use a traditional IC engine as a steam
engine. I believe I have most of the *simpler* details "sufficiently"
solved
to meet my needs. However, there is one substantial problem that I have yet
to solve - the inlet valve - and I was wondering if you (Peter) or any one
else on this list might evaluate or critique one idea I've been toying with.

I'd like to use a Ford 351 Windsor engine - and keep as many as possible of
the parts limited to either stock or aftermarket mass produced parts. In
keeping with that idea, I'd like to use the existing heads and valves and
modify them as little as possible to accomodate the introduction of steam.

As you probably know, the steam pressure in an automotive inlet port will
tend to push a single poppet (automotive type) valve open. One way to
overcome this problem is to put a balanced poppet valve into the engine (so
that the pressure pushes equally on the poppet and the axial balance poppet
or piston) and thus balance out the steam pressure across the valve stem.
However, that will require a great deal of machining work and take up a lot
of space in an already confined area.

Therefore I've been considering grinding off the poppet end of the valve and
so using only the valve stem as a kind of piston valve, or needle valve,
type
plunger to block off the valve seat opening. I'd put a plug in the
cross-section of the valve seat, then machine an opening just large enough
to
accept the valve stem. Then I'd grind the cam such that the valve stem was
held *closed* by the cam lobe (that is to say pressed into the orifice)
until
the heel of the cam rolled around at which time the valve spring would
*open*
the steam port by drawing the valve stem out of the orifice. Then when the
lobe rolled around again, the valve stem would be pushed back into the
orifice.

This type of steam valve would require no balancing since there would be no
poppet to be pressed open by the steam pressure. However, since there
would
need to be a working clearance between the valve stem and the orifice, I'm
not sure there would be sufficient sealing to prevent substantial blowby
past
the valve stem when it was in place inside and blocking the orifice.

Are you (or anyone else out there) familiar enough with steam valves to know
if this type of valve has ever been used successfully in steam applications,
what clearance is required and how much throw might be needed to close the
valve?

I have in mind superheated steam in the 800 psia, 850 F range and a maximum
engine operating speed of approximately 3000 rpm.

If you or anyone has any experience or suggestions, I certainly would
appreciate hearing from you.

Thanks in advance,
Vernon Harris >>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From joflo at yifan.net Sat Aug 19 21:03:01 2000
From: joflo at yifan.net (Joel Florian)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:39 2004
Subject: GAS-L: coal to hydrogen
In-Reply-To: <30.922d780.26d051e8@cs.com>
Message-ID: <00c901c00a42$b3cdc460$3c9570d1@joels>

Dear List,

I don't mind the occasional mention of steam or even some of Peter's profuse
math. I'm hoping to build a system that will turn sawdust into electricity
for less than $10,0000. I'm interested in your input. We Alaskans can find
many uses for "waste" heat.

While reading an engineering mag, I found reference to a technology being
developed at Los Alamos that converts water and coal into hydrogen and CO2
and then (via fuel cells) to electricity. They claim "more than twice the
electrical output for the same unit of fuel" "1/2 the CO2 output" and "no
combustion". A website give some more tantalizing
details.http://www.lanl.gov/energy/ziock/ziock.html

Joel Florian
Alaska

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From doncox at fox.nstn.ca Sat Aug 19 21:28:30 2000
From: doncox at fox.nstn.ca (Don Cox)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:39 2004
Subject: GAS-L: coal to hydrogen
In-Reply-To: <30.922d780.26d051e8@cs.com>
Message-ID: <001d01c00a45$ed3887a0$b41f059a@p2350mhz>

> Dear List,
>
> I don't mind the occasional mention of steam or even some of Peter's
profuse
> math. I'm hoping to build a system that will turn sawdust into
electricity
> for less than $10,0000. I'm interested in your input. We Alaskans can
find
> many uses for "waste" heat.

A year of so ago I heard of a company on Vancouver Island called Malahat
Systems Corp. that has a real nifty system for running a diesel on sawdust.
They claim to have a method of making ultra clean gas and have been running
a 50 hp diesel for some years without any fouling. The last I heard they
were commencing tests on a 500 hp diesel generator using sawdust as fuel.

You might get some update from George Neufeld at

Neufeld, George
E-mail Address(es):
neufeld@bronson.ca

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Sat Aug 19 22:01:22 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:39 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The Rossen Steam Engine
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000819195328.008c6560@wgs1.btl.net>

Ok Tom and Folks;

One more time. First of all I have found the better site for the Rossen,
poppet valve, Uniflow, IC engine conversion:

http://members.xoom.com/_XMCM/rossen/solar/wcengine.html

You can get the full size pictures and drawing there.

Now -- stepping through Tom's comments:

At 05:11 PM 8/19/00 EDT, you wrote:
>Dear Vern and all:
>
>Interesting idea to use the IC mechanism for steam power. Not my field, so
>my comments may be off the mark. Let me know and I'll modify them.
>
>I taught steam thermodynamcs at the Colorado School of Mines in the 1980s.
>My memory of the steam cycle is that it has to include a condensing loop to
>get into the bigtime efficiency - and to avoid stops every 10 miles for more
>water. Stanley Steamers had this problem.

Yes -- so true. But super heat -- or simply as high a steam temperature
possible before equipment melt down, is even more important to engine
efficiencies. So you can have a condensing system on a set up with 300F
steam and get a lot less efficiency than a non-condensing set up with 900F
steam.

Pressure is of relatively little importance for your efficiency figures --
but you need a much large device to make power from a lower pressure system
than a high pressure one. This is not just the engine -- but the boiler as
well. Those high pressures increase heat transfer rates -- meaning a lot
less boiler surface area is required. The higher pressure to the motor
means smaller cylinders -- less stroke.

Carbon steel (such as A106 or A53) can handle pressure temps of 1500 psi
and 900 F. Though they do not recommend this! It is a very economical
boiler tube material. So for a maximum application we say 1500 psi with a
900F superheat is our top design limit. Beyond that you get into exotic
materials indeed.

>
>I also had the impression that small conventional steam engines achieved
>efficiencies of 5-10% and you didn't reach 30% until you were > 10 MW.

Today -- yes. but in the past -- no.

Let me again post the specs for Rossen's uniflow:

The White Cliffs engine configuration is:
Bore: 98.4mm
Stroke: 114.3mm
Number of Cylinders: 3
Maximum Steam Pressure: 70 kg/cm2 (abs) (6.9 MPa) (995.6 PSI)
Maximum Steam Temperature: 450C (842 F)
Condenser Pressure: 0.25 kg/cm2 (abs) (24.5 KPa) (3.56 PSI)
Expansion Ratio (Adjustable): 1.25 (used)
Lubrication: as in Lister engine
Lubricant: specially selected
Measured Efficiency: 21.9%
(at Steam Pressure 42 kg/cm2, Temperature 415C):
597 PSI 779 F

Now -- he doesn't just "claim" this out of the blue -- or by computer
modeling!

Check out these two "exact" Urls for the actual bench test results:

http://members.xoom.com/_XMCM/rossen/solar/images/wctab7.jpg

http://members.xoom.com/_XMCM/rossen/solar/images/wcfig43.jpg

Now he did this back in 1982! So Tom -- your right -- nobody does it today
-- but that does not mean it can't be done. You can see a fine drawing of
how he does this at:

http://members.xoom.com/_XMCM/rossen/solar/images/wcfig42.jpg

No big secret there! Also Vernon -- notice it is just like I say -- couple
degrees before top dead center -- no more than that. Actually -- it is a
.090 in tap (read the plans) Just a tap on those ball valves. Please do not
argue it can't be done!

so let us review. He designs a steam engine based on a 3 cylinder Lister
diesel engine with GMC pistons and sleeves. He turns out some external
adapter sleeves to mount these cylinders.

Check out the details at:

http://members.xoom.com/_XMCM/rossen/solar/images/wcfig44a.jpg

Notice a few points in these pictures. The intake "tubing" is very small.
The exhaust tubing is using rubber car radiator hose with clamps. That
means the engine exhaust temperature is quite low.

In fact -- going back to:

http://members.xoom.com/_XMCM/rossen/solar/images/wctab7.jpg

We see it is 73 to 74 C (163.4 F to 165.2 F)

Now even though he designed this uniflow to operate at 995.6 PSI - 842 F;
he never bench tested it past 597 PSI - 779 F and yet still achieved 21.9%.

I feel safe in saying that at 995/842 he would be close to 24% efficiency.
And if one wanted to go the limit -- 900 F at 1500 psi -- you would be
getting close to the text book rating for Unaflows (of about 75 years
back!!) of 29% efficiency.

All in all very respectable figures -- and I wish Vernon the best of luck
designing better from scratch!

As for "small" -- just how much power was he producing??

Again at:

http://members.xoom.com/_XMCM/rossen/solar/images/wctab7.jpg

With 600 PSI and 779 F he was putting out 28.3 kwe

Now this might be considered "micro" rather than small up your way -- but
in my neck of the woods -- we call it "plenty"

A Chinese knock-off Lister single cylinder 8 HP diesel costs $1100 US new
in this corner of the world. Just to give you a basic cost figure. I
believe they are even cheaper in India -- as example.

Following Rossen's design -- it should be possible to get 5 kwe out of that
same machine on steam at 22% and better efficiencies with a small single
pass boiler! And that is enough power for an entire village here!!

>
>As far as gasification for running a boiler, that will certainly be simpler
>than clean gas for IC operation.

You are forgetting one other extremely important point Tom -- you also
would be getting a "net" 8 to 10% increase in gasifier efficiencies as the
hot product would be directly "fired"!! No cooling down the porduct gas to
meet IC engine needs.

So compared to the standard producer gas IC set-up -- well lets take an
example.

Gasifier eff -- 70% for IC motor * 22% IC engine eff on producer gas

15.4% over all efficiencies.

Gasifier eff -- 80% for steam motor * 22% steam engine eff

17.60% over all efficiencies.

And I can run that uniflow up to 29% efficiencies -- which gives:

80 * 29 = 23.2 % efficiencies -- on a 5 kwe power plant!!

It is such a shame that western society is not concerned with small power
plants. Because it would be easy to produce such a system for $1000 per kwh!

Compare this to producer gas "conditioning" to fuel and IC engine!

What really confuses me to no end is how come the brilliant people in India
are not investigating this? Duhh ----

As I mentioned one year back on this list -- I could build the first one of
these in less than two months easy -- boiler and steam engine -- and pop
out one a day in a small shop from that point onwards, once I had the
design optimized. But no proto-type shop to do this -- dratt!!

Plus -- I see no reason not to get at least 85% efficiency -- probably more
-- out of the boiler burning producer gas to make that steam!!

And still have all the "easily" directable heat I need to dry fuel from
flue gas exhaust alone -- never mind condenser waste heat.

I guess when things get to simple -- people simply can't believe it can be
done.

Thanks Mr. Rossen for putting up that WWW site!!

>
>Yours truly, TOM REED BEF/CPC
>If I'm carrying around some misconceptions, please let me know.
>

Don't think you are Tom -- but going to educate you a little further before
you might start going down that road.

Peter Singfield / Belize
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From VHarris001 at aol.com Sat Aug 19 22:45:18 2000
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:39 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Dirty Gas, Steam Power and V8 Engine Conversion Help
Message-ID: <6d.844c69b.26d0a01b@aol.com>

In a message dated 08/19/2000 5:12:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Reedtb2@cs.com writes:

> Dear Vern and all:
>
> Interesting idea to use the IC mechanism for steam power. Not my field,
so
> my comments may be off the mark. Let me know and I'll modify them.
>
> I taught steam thermodynamcs at the Colorado School of Mines in the 1980s.

> My memory of the steam cycle is that it has to include a condensing loop
to
> get into the bigtime efficiency - and to avoid stops every 10 miles for
more
>
> water. Stanley Steamers had this problem.
>
> I also had the impression that small conventional steam engines achieved
> efficiencies of 5-10% and you didn't reach 30% until you were > 10 MW.
>
> As far as gasification for running a boiler, that will certainly be
simpler
> than clean gas for IC operation.
>
> Yours truly, TOM REED BEF/CPC
> If I'm carrying around some misconceptions, please let me know.
>

Hi Tom and all,

I think you are right on the mark regarding condensing operation of the steam
engine. Condensing operation has either been avoided or has been a
problematic application in automotive steaming history (which I am only
slightly familiar with). I do plan on using a condensing cycle for both the
reasons you mention above - to recapture water and to improve efficiency.

The efficiency improvement is achieved by providing lower-than-atmospheric
exhaust conditions (as the condenser can operate at a vacuum at the exhaust
port), which allows for greater expansion of the steam in the cylinder and
less energy loss in pushing the exhaust steam back out of the cylinder.

Of course, the down side of condensing operation is the *substantial* heat
that must be removed from the exhaust steam in order to achieve phase change
for recirculation. Many steam vehicles have suffered from this problem - the
drivers find the vehicles "running out of steam" so to speak, at high load
conditions - not necessarily due to insufficient steam generation capacity
but rather due to the inability of the condenser to keep up in cooling the
exhaust. This robs the engine of power and efficiency.

Regarding efficiency, I can't give you a good answer for small scale steam
engines. I see a very wide range of figures mentioned, from low single
digits to low 20's. In fact, I recently read that steam car builder Doble
had estimated one of his car engine's efficiency to be in the mid 20's in
actual operation and consumed just 8 lbs. of steam per horsepower hour.
Whether true or not, I can't say. I'm hoping to achieve 12-15 percent
efficiency with an IC engine conversion. The key to efficiency will be using
good insulation in critical areas and minimizing blowby (using "gapless"
piston rings from www.totalseal.com) and eliminate other leakage. And - of
course - using superheated steam to prevent condensation of the steam in the
cylinder.

Did you have an opportunity to look at that valve diagram, and if so are you
able to comment one way or the other regarding whether or not it might be
workable? Traditional automotive type poppet valves are excellent for
sealing in a high pressure and temperature steam environment, but they do
require "balancing" - which allows them to operate "mostly" without being
affected by the steam pressure. Although balancing can be done, it's a great
deal of machining and sealing work so I'm seeking a simpler alternative - if
one can be found.

Thanks for your interest,
Vernon Harris
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Sat Aug 19 23:27:02 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:39 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Doble Boiler
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000819212325.009014d0@wgs1.btl.net>

Hey Folks;

Did a little quick checking for a potential producer gas fired monotube
boiler design -- 85% efficiency -- and of steam quality sufficient to make
that Rossen design purr 22% or better.

http://www.greenhills.net/~apatter/DobleBoiler.html

The boiler size is only --

The tubing is seamless cold drawn steel
575 3/4 feet long. When coiled and assembled it is 22 inches in
diameter and 13 inches high.

Another blast from the past -- the Doble steam car!!

Ha!!

That WWW site give complete formulas on how to roll your own.

What is exceptionally cute -- is it is of a down draft design. Yes -- you
could stack a down draft gasifier on top -- and put this boiler directly
under. The forced draft "fan" on the bottom -- or the stack to the side.

Peter

***********part of the site appended************

The Doble model E monotube boiler provided steam at 750 PSIA and 750
F. It is a counter flow design with forced draft fire on top and
exhaust flue at the bottom. Water enters the lower coil and
progresses upward toward the fire at the top. The top coil exposed to
the fire is radiant heated. The tubing is seamless cold drawn steel
575 3/4 feet long. When coiled and assembled it is 22 inches in
diameter and 13 inches high. The boiler was cold water tested to 7000
PSIA. The boiler delivered sufficient steam to maintain 75 MPH in a
large car weighing 4800 pounds and could be started from cold in 30
to 45 seconds.

****************snipped************

At full load the velocity of the water should be 8 ft/sec and
saturated steam to be 75 ft/sec. These velocities maintain turbulent
flow with minimal scaling of the boiler. From these velocities and
the steam rate we can establish the cross sectional area requirements
to achieve these velocities.

A = ([specific volume] [steam rate])/[velocity]

A = ([specific volume ft^3/lb] [steam rate lb/hr])/[velocity ft/sec]

Ain^2 = ([specific volume] [steam rate])/[velocity] ft^2 [in^2/ft^2]
sec/hr / [sec/hr]

Ain^2 = ([specific volume] [steam rate])/[velocity] 144/3600

The cross sectional area of a tube is related to its inside diameter
id

A = pi() id^2 /4

id in = sqrt(4((([specific volume] [steam rate])/[velocity])
144/3600)/3.1415928)

************snipped**************

In the F type and later boilers great use was made of radiant heat by
surrounding the fire with superheating and vaporization sections. In
the chart below you can see the advantage in heat transfer per sq
foot made by the newer type boiler. The pounds of steam evaporated
per sq foot per hour is almost doubled with these newer boilers.

Using the above formula the tubing size of the type boiler on the
left to produce 800 lb of steam per hour at 850 PSIA and 850 F can be
determined. These requirements were used in the design of the F type
automotive boiler. The line in the chart below was used in Doble
designs of F type and later boilers to figure the heating surface
requirements. Using the line we see that to get 85% efficiency in
this type boiler we need about 1 sq foot for every 4 pounds of steam
produced. However in the F type and later boilers we might expect to
get 10 pounds of steam per sq foot of heating surface.

***************snipped*****************
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From VHarris001 at aol.com Sun Aug 20 13:36:03 2000
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:39 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The Rossen Steam Engine
Message-ID: <bb.64c63f3.26d170de@aol.com>

In a message dated 08/19/2000 10:02:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, snkm@btl.net
writes:

>
> Let me again post the specs for Rossen's uniflow:
>
> The White Cliffs engine configuration is:
> Bore: 98.4mm
> Stroke: 114.3mm
> Number of Cylinders: 3
> Maximum Steam Pressure: 70 kg/cm2 (abs) (6.9 MPa) (995.6 PSI)
> Maximum Steam Temperature: 450C (842 F)
> Condenser Pressure: 0.25 kg/cm2 (abs) (24.5 KPa) (3.56 PSI)
> Expansion Ratio (Adjustable): 1.25 (used)
> Lubrication: as in Lister engine
> Lubricant: specially selected
> Measured Efficiency: 21.9%
> (at Steam Pressure 42 kg/cm2, Temperature 415C):
> 597 PSI 779 F
>

<snips>

> No big secret there! Also Vernon -- notice it is just like I say -- couple
> degrees before top dead center -- no more than that. Actually -- it is a
> .090 in tap (read the plans) Just a tap on those ball valves. Please do not
> argue it can't be done!
>

Hi Peter and all,

I'd like to concentrate on the valves in this post, as that is where I am
encountering difficulties in design.

In the Lister engine, using the 0.090 inch tap (2.286 mm) of the bash valve,
and the engine stroke of 114.3 mm, we get (2.286 / 114.3) a 2 percent cutoff
(that is, the valve is open from top dead center until the piston has
traveled 2.286 mm, or 2 percent of the downward stroke). I don't have the
connecting rod length of the Lister engine so I can't calculate its relative
crank angle degrees. However in a typical automotive IC engine, 2 degrees of
piston travel from TDC would equate to about 14 crank angle degrees.
Therefore, the Lister engine's bash valve is probably open for a total of 28
crank angle degrees.

Since it has such a short cutoff, I suspect the Lister engine is actually
capable of producing *much* more power. At 2 percent cutoff, I would venture
to guess that the designers were striving for engine efficiency first and for
power output second. While not in itself a bad thing, such a short cutoff
won't suit my needs. I believe I'll need a cutoff closer to 10 percent (32
crank angle degrees from TDC to inlet valve close) to provide performance
through a wide range of speeds and load conditions.

As I suggested before, I'm not opposed to bash valves when used in their
proper place, but I am concerned that a bash valve that provides 10 percent
cutoff (32 crank angle degrees) after top dead center, will also be opening
10 percent before top dead center, which under certain engine speeds and load
conditions, could prove very damaging to an IC engine and it's components.

The engine will operate in a speed range of about 500 rpm to 3000 rpm. At
slower speeds, there should be sufficient time for the cylinder to accept a
full charge of steam before the piston reaches top dead center. Consider
that an 800 psi steam charge applied to a typical IC engine piston crown of
4.000 inches diameter (12.57 square inches) gives a downward force of 10,000
lbs on the rapidly rising piston. It would only take once when the engine
was at slow operating speed, under a substantial load, someone too aggressive
with the throttle, and the piston will be rising to face five tons of force.
As you can see, this condition must not be allowed to occur. While a bash
valve with a *very* short cutoff and a steady speed engine performs well, I
don't believe it will suit my needs.

The only promising way I have found so far to achieve the needed valve
performance is by using a conventional automotive type valve train and
valves. But of course they need some modification. Rather than try to
balance them, I was hoping to circumvent all that machine work by having them
work as modified piston valves (aka spool valves with only half the spool).
I thought perhaps someone here would know what type of clearance I would need
in order to get reliable operation from that valve. Then I could calculate
the expected blowby and see if those were acceptable losses.

Again, the drawing of the tentative valve arrangement can be seen at:

http://hometown.aol.com/vharris001/myhomepage/profile.html

If anyone has any comments or suggestions or criticisms, particularly as
relates to that valve design, I certainly would apprecaite hearing from you -
on or off list.

Thanks
Vernon Harris

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Sun Aug 20 16:06:52 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:39 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The Rossen Steam Engine
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000820140126.00901220@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Vern;

It will "start" opening at 7.2 deg before TDC and "finish" closing at 7.2
after TDc.

38 kw from a 3 cylinder Lister is about as much as one can reasonably expect.

He states an expansion ratio of 25:1. Most single chamber expansion steam
engines run around the 70:1 mark.

Be careful with a steam engine -- start going out of "line" and you start
getting 2 or 3% engine efficiencies.

Sure -- it will spin -- and maybe it will produce 250 kw from that small
block. but just how much fuel are you willing to use to do this??

Consider
>that an 800 psi steam charge applied to a typical IC engine piston crown of
>4.000 inches diameter (12.57 square inches) gives a downward force of 10,000
>lbs on the rapidly rising piston.

Ok -- but think of this. At just 500 RPM (idle speed -- not optimum
operating) -- that piston is moving 9 in per rpm -- or 4500in. per minute.
We are talking of lifting the pop valve .09 in.

So -- 4500/.09/60 = 1/833 of a second. Now cut that in half for the part
before TDC -- 1/1666 sec. By the time the steam starts moving through that
valve -- the piston is probably past TDC.

I get a feeling all your thinking about is how much steam you can ram into
you cylinder. Steam engines are based on expansion -- not ramming as much
charge as you can into the engine. Course -- that is if you want better
than 2% efficiencies.

Vern -- before you get going to far in your plans -- and end up with one
big jack-pot -- take some time to look over this site:

http://www.greenhills.net/~apatter/Sitetoc.html

You'll get a clear idea of what's up -- plus all the math formulas you can
imagine. Kind of a one stop steam education center.

Unless you are making a steam powered dragster -- that block is not going
to work. But you certainly will get lots of good ideas from that site.
(Steam Wankel any one??)

Ditto for the 800 PSI -- the piston is not static -- never sees that kind
of force -- unless you could lock up the crank right at that fraction of a
second after the valve has actuated.

The long cut-off steam valving is for compound motors. Where the exhaust
from such an over charged cylinder is fed to the next lower pressure. A
good compound is 3 to 4 such cylinder banks. Each one being of increasing
displacement.

No thanks -- I'll stay with a full expansion in one cylinder -- unaflow style.

Your building the first stage of a compound engine -- lucky if you get 3%
efficiency. But you could be getting over 1000 hp! For the few seconds it
takes for the motor to fly apart.

Your condenser will have to be way over size -- and will make no difference
to your efficiencies. It simply will be there to absorb all the wasted heat.

By the way -- have you worked out your expansion ratio yet??

2% is 50 to one. But his piston is moving to fast (even at 500 rpm) so he
gets 25:1??? While the valve is open the cylinder space fills -- that valve
gets "bounced". The return to close state is probably extended. Meaning the
when the piston drops down -- the ball valve is still going up. This will
increase the faster the pop valve is hit. But please -- this is after TDC
-- not before!!

You keep ignoring that this engine worked for a long period??

And last of all -- here is exact details on how to make a "bash" valve from
a spark plug -- plus they adjust between 35 to 60 thou for the "knock --
and are running 5000 RPM.

http://www.firedragon.com/~kap/SteamTopics/bashvalve.html

To bad you do not like the idea --- because it certainly works for a lot of
other people.

Vern -- you would be better off spending time figuring how to clean the
tars out of your producer gas product to directly run an IC engine.

Peter Singfield / Belize

At 01:35 PM 8/20/00 EDT, you wrote:
>In a message dated 08/19/2000 10:02:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
snkm@btl.net
>writes:
>
>>
>> Let me again post the specs for Rossen's uniflow:
>>
>> The White Cliffs engine configuration is:
***********snipped***********
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From VHarris001 at aol.com Sun Aug 20 21:07:33 2000
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:39 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The Rossen Steam Engine
Message-ID: <54.85367c8.26d1daaf@aol.com>

In a message dated 08/20/2000 4:10:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, snkm@btl.net
writes:

>
> Hi Vern;
>
> It will "start" opening at 7.2 deg before TDC and "finish" closing at 7.2
> after TDc.
>

Hi Peter,

I don't have the length of the connecting rod for the Lister engine, do you?
Without that length, I can't calculate the crank degrees, but I am quite
certain that the bash valve will start to open closer to 14 deg BTDC and
finish closing at approx. 14 deg ATDC.

> 38 kw from a 3 cylinder Lister is about as much as one can reasonably
expect.
>

38 kw? Hmmm, I thought that Lister's max. was 28.3kw => only 38 hp total
engine output, from an 8.7 liter (480 cubic inch) engine? Seems more than a
little weak to me.

>
> He states an expansion ratio of 25:1. Most single chamber expansion steam
> engines run around the 70:1 mark.
>

I think you are way off the mark at 70:1 expansions in a simple cylinder.
One tenth that or 7:1 would be more reasonable, although the more expansions
you achieve the more power you lose (but you also gain efficiency to a point).

> Be careful with a steam engine -- start going out of "line" and you start
> getting 2 or 3% engine efficiencies.
>

Poor efficiency is no doubt easy to achieve. I'll try to be careful. I
think I've got a good design - if I can just get this inlet valve problem
resolved.

Anyone can see it at:

http://hometown.aol.com/vharris001/myhomepage/profile.html

> Sure -- it will spin -- and maybe it will produce 250 kw from that small
> block. but just how much fuel are you willing to use to do this??
>

I had in mind 250 hp max, (or 186 kw) at max. power output. Max power will
rarely be needed, but when it is needed, it will be needed, so that much
available power must be designed in - or, as you know - it won't ever be
available. I believe fuel consumption will be reasonable for the power
output requirements.

> >Consider
> >that an 800 psi steam charge applied to a typical IC engine piston crown
of
>
> >4.000 inches diameter (12.57 square inches) gives a downward force of 10,
> 000
> >lbs on the rapidly rising piston.
>
> Ok -- but think of this. At just 500 RPM (idle speed -- not optimum
> operating) -- that piston is moving 9 in per rpm -- or 4500in. per minute.
> We are talking of lifting the pop valve .09 in.
>
> So -- 4500/.09/60 = 1/833 of a second. Now cut that in half for the part
> before TDC -- 1/1666 sec. By the time the steam starts moving through that
> valve -- the piston is probably past TDC.
>

My calculation is this: at 2 percent cutoff, the pop valve begins to open at
~14 deg. BTDC and finishes closing at ~14 deg. ATDC. Total valve opening is
28 crank angle degrees. (28 / 360 degrees) * (60 sec / 500 rpm) = 0.0093
sec. total valve open time. Therefore the time from the valve beginning to
open until it reaches TDC is (0.0093 / 2) or 0.00465 seconds, a factor of
6.75 greater than your calculation above of (1/1666 or 0.0006 seconds)
estimate. I believe my calculation is accurate.

> I get a feeling all your thinking about is how much steam you can ram into
> you cylinder.

Packing in as much steam as I need to get the power I expect. I will need
good power at certain times. However, 250 hp is about the standard IC engine
horsepower rating for that engine and it should be no problem to get that
much power out. In fact, since the IC engine will go from 4 strokes to 2
strokes, I should be able to get the same power out when using only half the
base mean effective pressure (BMEP), and if I use the same BMEP, I should be
able to get out *twice* the power of the normal IC engine application.

>Steam engines are based on expansion -- not ramming as much
> charge as you can into the engine. Course -- that is if you want better
> than 2% efficiencies.
>

Right, I'll carefully control steam inlet and thus efficiency.

> Vern -- before you get going to far in your plans -- and end up with one
> big jack-pot -- take some time to look over this site:
>
> http://www.greenhills.net/~apatter/Sitetoc.html
>

Been there - I use the freeware steam calculator frequently to do my steam
calculations. For anyone who is interested in steam power, I would recommend
downloading the calculator. I find it quite handy although just a little
buggy.

> You'll get a clear idea of what's up -- plus all the math formulas you can
> imagine. Kind of a one stop steam education center.
>
> Unless you are making a steam powered dragster -- that block is not going
> to work.

Don't be so pessimistic! I'm quite sure expanding steam will push those
pistons around just fine, steam admitted can be carefully controlled with a
traditional IC cam and valve arrangement - and can be made quite efficient to
boot!

> But you certainly will get lots of good ideas from that site.
> (Steam Wankel any one??)
>
> Ditto for the 800 PSI -- the piston is not static -- never sees that kind
> of force -- unless you could lock up the crank right at that fraction of a
> second after the valve has actuated.
>
> The long cut-off steam valving is for compound motors.

Perhaps you have your cutoff percentages confused. Simple expansion piston
engines probably run quite efficiently at 5 percent or so cutoff, depending
on the power needs. I need 10 percent cutoff because I will be running the
engine considerably faster than a typical steam engine. But lots of
compounds run at 25 to 40 percent cutoff - depending on power requirements
and the number of downstream cylinders.

>Where the exhaust
> from such an over charged cylinder is fed to the next lower pressure. A
> good compound is 3 to 4 such cylinder banks. Each one being of increasing
> displacement.
>
> No thanks -- I'll stay with a full expansion in one cylinder -- unaflow
> style.
>
> Your building the first stage of a compound engine -- lucky if you get 3%
> efficiency.But you could be getting over 1000 hp! For the few seconds it
> takes for the motor to fly apart.
>

Don't be so pessimistic! I'll get less horspower, better efficiency and good
reliability (except maybe there will be reliability problems with that
prototype valve).

> Your condenser will have to be way over size -- and will make no difference
> to your efficiencies. It simply will be there to absorb all the wasted
heat.
>

Don't be so pessimistic! It will have to be large, but a little engineering
work will allow it to be appropriately sized.

> By the way -- have you worked out your expansion ratio yet??
>

Yes, with 10 percent cutoff and clearance volume of 12 percent, the
"theoretical" expansion ratio is 8:1. However, that is for low engine speeds
(which will be throttled back and so admitting less steam). At higher engine
speeds, when more steam is being admitted, the engine speed will result in
wire drawing and thus prohibit a full steam charge. Therefore at lower load
conditions, steam expansion will be greater than 8:1. At higher engine
speeds, the expansion ratio will also be greater than the 8:1. Only at lower
engine speeds and high load (high throttle) conditions, will the expansion
ratio of 8:1 actually occur.

> 2% is 50 to one. But his piston is moving to fast (even at 500 rpm) so he
> gets 25:1??? While the valve is open the cylinder space fills -- that valve
> gets "bounced". The return to close state is probably extended. Meaning the
> when the piston drops down -- the ball valve is still going up. This will
> increase the faster the pop valve is hit. But please -- this is after TDC
> -- not before!!
>

Redo your calculations. As I stated above, I believe mine are correct. Not
only is the pop valve open for 14 crank angle degrees, but - and this is an
important consideration - the pop valve is open when the piston is
approaching TDC, and therefore when the clearance volume is at it's minimum
volume. Therefore the mass of steam that must pass through the valve is at
it's absolute minimum in order to achieve a full charge in the cylinder! And
finally, the steam is venting into the cylinder when the piston is at it's
slowest speed, about to stop, and reverse directions! That's three strikes
against the pop valve in longer cutoff applications.

> You keep ignoring that this engine worked for a long period??
>
> And last of all -- here is exact details on how to make a "bash" valve from
> a spark plug -- plus they adjust between 35 to 60 thou for the "knock --
> and are running 5000 RPM.
>
> http://www.firedragon.com/~kap/SteamTopics/bashvalve.html
>
> To bad you do not like the idea --- because it certainly works for a lot of
> other people.
>

It may work, but it doesn't work well - at least it won't work well enough
for me.

> Vern -- you would be better off spending time figuring how to clean the
> tars out of your producer gas product to directly run an IC engine.
>

Don't be so pessimistic! :-)

Thanks for your post. I appreciate the feedback. I think your calculations
may be off, but if I am the one in error, I'll be happy to reexamine my
figures!

Vernon Harris

P.S. Any suggestions on the minimum clearance I can get away with on that
modified poppet valve diagram I have posted?

> Peter Singfield / Belize
>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From VHarris001 at aol.com Sun Aug 20 21:49:09 2000
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:39 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The Rossen Steam Engine
Message-ID: <4e.a09ea54.26d1e46c@aol.com>

In a message dated 08/20/2000 9:10:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
VHarris001@aol.com writes:

> > 38 kw from a 3 cylinder Lister is about as much as one can reasonably
> expect.
> >
>
> 38 kw? Hmmm, I thought that Lister's max. was 28.3kw => only 38 hp total
> engine output, from an 8.7 liter (480 cubic inch) engine? Seems more than
a
>
> little weak to me.
>
> >

OOPS, seems I can't even operate my own calculator correctly! I *think* the
above should be 2.6 liter (160 cubic inch) engine. Not quite so weak as I
first thought, but still - assuming my other math is correct - 38 hp seems a
little weak for a 160 cubic inch IC engine. I would think that at two stroke
steam operation, considerably more hp could be got - and still with
reasonable efficiency.

Vernon Harris
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From VHarris001 at aol.com Sun Aug 20 23:40:16 2000
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:39 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The Rossen Steam Engine
Message-ID: <12.142b070.26d1fe79@aol.com>

In a message dated 08/20/2000 9:10:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
VHarris001@aol.com writes:

> > By the way -- have you worked out your expansion ratio yet??
> >
>
> Yes, with 10 percent cutoff and clearance volume of 12 percent, the
> "theoretical" expansion ratio is 8:1. However, that is for low engine
> speeds
> (which will be throttled back and so admitting less steam). At higher
> engine
> speeds, when more steam is being admitted, the engine speed will result in
> wire drawing and thus prohibit a full steam charge. Therefore at lower
load
>
> conditions, steam expansion will be greater than 8:1. At higher engine
> speeds, the expansion ratio will also be greater than the 8:1. Only at
> lower
> engine speeds and high load (high throttle) conditions, will the expansion
> ratio of 8:1 actually occur.

See what happens when I shoot from the hip without double checking my facts.
I should know better by now! The engine expansion ratio should be 5.6:1.
I'm using the Ford 351W engine with a bore of 4 inches, stroke 3.5 inches,
connecting rod length 5.956 inches, and combustion chamber volume 4.2099
cubic inches. At 10 percent cutoff, I calculate 32.6 crank angle degrees at
inlet valve close and an expansion ratio of 5.6:1.

Vernon Harris

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From kchishol at fox.nstn.ca Tue Aug 22 10:35:17 2000
From: kchishol at fox.nstn.ca (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:39 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Condensing; Steam Power and V8 Engine Conversion Help
In-Reply-To: <6d.844c69b.26d0a01b@aol.com>
Message-ID: <39A28F85.2FCA596@fox.nstn.ca>

Dear Vern

You have a fascinating project on the go!!!...

VHarris001@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 08/19/2000 5:12:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> Reedtb2@cs.com writes:
>
> > Dear Vern and all:
> >

>
> Hi Tom and all,
>
> I think you are right on the mark regarding condensing operation of the steam
> engine. Condensing operation has either been avoided or has been a
> problematic application in automotive steaming history (which I am only
> slightly familiar with). I do plan on using a condensing cycle for both the
> reasons you mention above - to recapture water and to improve efficiency.

What about if you took your exhaust steam, ran it into the cooling
passages of the engine block, and then out to the radiator?

This would help keep cast iron sleeves down to a "good temperature", and
the existing radiator system could act as a condenser. A possible
problem is that existing radiators are designed for pressure; the flat
tubes may tend to collapse inward with a vacuum situation.

Kevin Chisholm
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From VHarris001 at aol.com Tue Aug 22 13:25:04 2000
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:39 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Condensing; Steam Power and V8 Engine Conversion Help
Message-ID: <b4.9d37c1b.26d41143@aol.com>

In a message dated 08/22/2000 10:38:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
kchishol@fox.nstn.ca writes:

> What about if you took your exhaust steam, ran it into the cooling
> passages of the engine block, and then out to the radiator?
>
> This would help keep cast iron sleeves down to a "good temperature", and
> the existing radiator system could act as a condenser. A possible
> problem is that existing radiators are designed for pressure; the flat
> tubes may tend to collapse inward with a vacuum situation.
>
> Kevin Chisholm

Hi Kevin,

I really like the idea of using the water jacket as a steam jacket. Someone
told me they thought the water inlet and outlet orifice would restrict the
flow of the expanded steam too much to put *all* the steam through, but that
I could put some of it through. I'd have to do the calculations to find out
the volume of steam at, say 5 psia out (versus 800 psia in) and see what
cross-section I need to accomodate that volume.

I had never thought about those radiator tubes collapsing under vacuum - good
point! I'm not sure a traditional automotive type radiator will be
sufficient to handle the heat that will need to be removed from the steam.
I've been toying with the idea of trying to achieve 250 hp from the engine
(at maximum power) but that might be too high a number. Even at a "very
efficient" 8 lbs of steam per hp hour, that would require the system to pass
through 2000 lbs of water per hour. The radiator then would need to throw
off (2000 lbs. * 1000 btu per lb) (phase change plus), or 2,000,000 btu per
hour or more. Of course, that much power would rarely be needed - but it
must be designed in in order for it to be achieved.

Also, due to the low density of steam, it is not a good conductor of heat so
won't give up it's heat to the radiator tubes and fins nearly as well as does
automotive coolant, which I believe will require a larger cooling surface.
Some methods to help relieve this problem is to have the steam enter the
bottom of the radiator on the assumption that it will percolate up through
already condensed water, helping to transfer the heat of the steam to cooler
water. Another method I've heard is to run the steam through an area being
sprayed with atomized water to assist in the cooling.

Any ideas on how much heat a large automotive (or Ford F350 truck) radiator
will remove and how many gallons of water throughput they are capable of?

Thanks for your post,
Vernon Harris
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From BronzeoakC at aol.com Tue Aug 22 16:32:46 2000
From: BronzeoakC at aol.com (BronzeoakC@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:39 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Coffee pulp gasification
Message-ID: <48.9f8b336.26d43d47@aol.com>

Dear Guillermo,

We looked at ways to use coffee pulp and concluded that it is too wet for
combustions (or gasification) without drying. Unfortunately, the energy to
dry the waste is considerable and the economics do not look very hopeful.

A better alternative may be anaerobic digestion. This has been tried on
Costa Rica on an pre-commercial basis. I do not know of any commercial
application.

Best regards
David Walden

In a message dated 8/18/00 5:00:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ges@iies.es
writes:

<< Subj: GAS-L: Coffee pulp gasification
Date: 8/18/00 5:00:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: ges@iies.es (BESEL, S.A.)
Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
Reply-to: gasification@crest.org
To: gasification@crest.org

Dear Colleagues,
I'm searching for reliable examples of coffee pulp gasifiers in the range of
0.5-1 MW thermal output.
I have found very few references in the www.
Guillermo J. Escobar

--------------------
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2920.0" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>

<DIV>Dear Colleagues,</DIV>
<DIV>I'm searching for reliable examples of coffee pulp
gasifiers in the range of 0.5-1 MW thermal output.</DIV>
<DIV>I have found very few references in the
www.</DIV>
<DIV>Guillermo J. Escobar</DIV>

----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
Return-Path: <owner-gasification@crest.org>
Received: from rly-yh05.mx.aol.com (rly-yh05.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.37])
by air-yh04.mail.aol.com (v75_b3.11) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 05:00:55
-0400
Received: from secure.crest.net (secure.crest.net [216.200.135.128]) by
rly-yh05.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 05:00:49 -0400
Received: from localhost (mail@localhost)
by secure.crest.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA06318;
Fri, 18 Aug 2000 02:00:03 -0700
Received: by secure.crest.net (bulk_mailer v1.9); Fri, 18 Aug 2000 01:59:27
-0700
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
by secure.crest.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA06255
for gasification-outgoing; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 01:59:23 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: secure.crest.net: majordomo set sender to
owner-gasification@crest.org using -f
Received: from ssmtp04.melange.isp ([212.59.217.68])
by secure.crest.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA06252
for <gasification@crest.org>; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 01:59:21 -0700
Received: from hola ([212.59.206.235]) by ssmtp04.melange.isp
(Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id FZHCT705.R12 for
<gasification@crest.org>; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 10:55:55 +0200
Message-ID: <002b01c008f3$10438730$79ce3bd4@arrakis.es>
From: "BESEL, S.A." <ges@iies.es>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Subject: GAS-L: Coffee pulp gasification
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 11:02:36 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0028_01C00903.D11B19E0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700
Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
Reply-To: gasification@crest.org
Precedence: bulk

>>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From joflo at yifan.net Tue Aug 22 18:30:24 2000
From: joflo at yifan.net (Joel Florian)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:39 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Condensing; Steam Power and V8 Engine Conversion Help
In-Reply-To: <b4.9d37c1b.26d41143@aol.com>
Message-ID: <003b01c00c88$d6096780$139570d1@joels>

Vern,

Our greenhouse heat exchangers are about the same size as an automotive rad
and are rated at 220,000btu/H with 180F water flowing through at 10 gpm and
65F ambient. Steam will be much hotter (at least until it condenses) so
you'll have a bigger delta T which might double the output of a radiator.
I've experimented with rads as heat exhangers in the greenhouse and they
seem on a par with the $500 engineered ones. I can scare up some
engineering data from the heat exchangers if you think it would help.

Joel Florian -- Alaska

> Any ideas on how much heat a large automotive (or Ford F350 truck)
radiator
> will remove and how many gallons of water throughput they are capable of?

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From kchishol at fox.nstn.ca Tue Aug 22 20:57:28 2000
From: kchishol at fox.nstn.ca (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:39 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Condensing; Steam Power and V8 Engine Conversion Help
In-Reply-To: <b4.9d37c1b.26d41143@aol.com>
Message-ID: <39A2BD88.5CBCC3@fox.nstn.ca>

Dear Vern

VHarris001@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 08/22/2000 10:38:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> kchishol@fox.nstn.ca writes:
>
> > What about if you took your exhaust steam, ran it into the cooling
> > passages of the engine block, and then out to the radiator?
> >
> > This would help keep cast iron sleeves down to a "good temperature", and
> > the existing radiator system could act as a condenser. A possible
> > problem is that existing radiators are designed for pressure; the flat
> > tubes may tend to collapse inward with a vacuum situation.
> >
> > Kevin Chisholm
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
> I really like the idea of using the water jacket as a steam jacket. Someone
> told me they thought the water inlet and outlet orifice would restrict the
> flow of the expanded steam too much to put *all* the steam through, but that
> I could put some of it through. I'd have to do the calculations to find out
> the volume of steam at, say 5 psia out (versus 800 psia in) and see what
> cross-section I need to accomodate that volume.

OK.... but the steam is condensing along the way. As it condenses, then
you have a reduced volume.
>
> I had never thought about those radiator tubes collapsing under vacuum - good
> point! I'm not sure a traditional automotive type radiator will be
> sufficient to handle the heat that will need to be removed from the steam.

So-called "industrial radiators" are often made with round tube. Alos,
copper/aluminum HVAC coils are usually round, and thus less prone to
vacuum collapse.
> I've been toying with the idea of trying to achieve 250 hp from the engine
> (at maximum power) but that might be too high a number. Even at a "very
> efficient" 8 lbs of steam per hp hour, that would require the system to pass
> through 2000 lbs of water per hour. The radiator then would need to throw
> off (2000 lbs. * 1000 btu per lb) (phase change plus), or 2,000,000 btu per
> hour or more. Of course, that much power would rarely be needed - but it
> must be designed in in order for it to be achieved.

A 250 HP engine would probably be about 25% efficient; input heat would
thus be about 1000 HP. Roughly half the inefficiency would go out the
tailpipe, and 1/4 out the radiator. Thus "Rad Power = Mech. Power." A
radiator for a 250 HP engine would prolly have to pass 250 x 3412 =
853,000 BTU/Hr.
>
> Also, due to the low density of steam, it is not a good conductor of heat so
> won't give up it's heat to the radiator tubes and fins nearly as well as does
> automotive coolant, which I believe will require a larger cooling surface.

"Au contraire, mon ami." :-) With steam, you can get dropwise or film
condensation, and lots of scouring velocity, so you will prolly have
much greater heat transfer coefficients on the steam side. The problem,
if any, will be on "air side heat remval."

> Some methods to help relieve this problem is to have the steam enter the
> bottom of the radiator on the assumption that it will percolate up through
> already condensed water, helping to transfer the heat of the steam to cooler
> water. Another method I've heard is to run the steam through an area being
> sprayed with atomized water to assist in the cooling.
>
This will prolly not be necesary or desirable.

> Any ideas on how much heat a large automotive (or Ford F350 truck) radiator
> will remove and how many gallons of water throughput they are capable of?

See above, as a first approximation.
>
> Thanks for your post,

No prollem!!! You have a fun project!! :-)

Kevin Chisholm
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Tue Aug 22 22:08:48 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:39 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Coffee pulp gasification
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000822200349.00963100@wgs1.btl.net>

It can be dewatered by filter belt pressing to 50%. You have more than
sufficient waste heat in the hot product gas to bring it to under 20% after
for IC engine operation -- or more than sufficient in the furnace flue gas
for drying to 35% for gasification to fuel a furnace.

I can think of a few gasifiers available in India that should be able to
use this fuel and produce that range of heat you are looking for.

Peter Singfield / Belize

At 04:32 PM 8/22/00 EDT, you wrote:
>Dear Guillermo,
>
>We looked at ways to use coffee pulp and concluded that it is too wet for
>combustions (or gasification) without drying. Unfortunately, the energy to
>dry the waste is considerable and the economics do not look very hopeful.
>
>A better alternative may be anaerobic digestion. This has been tried on
>Costa Rica on an pre-commercial basis. I do not know of any commercial
>application.
>
>Best regards
>David Walden
>
>In a message dated 8/18/00 5:00:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ges@iies.es
>writes:
>
><< Subj: GAS-L: Coffee pulp gasification
> Date: 8/18/00 5:00:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> From: ges@iies.es (BESEL, S.A.)
> Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
> Reply-to: gasification@crest.org
> To: gasification@crest.org
>
> Dear Colleagues,
> I'm searching for reliable examples of coffee pulp gasifiers in the range
of
>0.5-1 MW thermal output.
> I have found very few references in the www.
> Guillermo J. Escobar
>
> --------------------
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> <HEAD>
> <META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
> <META content="MSHTML 5.00.2920.0" name=GENERATOR>
> <STYLE></STYLE>
> </HEAD>
>
> <DIV>Dear Colleagues,</DIV>
> <DIV>I'm searching for reliable examples of coffee pulp
> gasifiers in the range of 0.5-1 MW thermal output.</DIV>
> <DIV>I have found very few references in the
> www.</DIV>
> <DIV>Guillermo J. Escobar</DIV>
>
>

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Wed Aug 23 09:56:09 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:39 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Doble Boiler
Message-ID: <66.6cd41d6.26d531d0@cs.com>

Dear Peter et al:

You said "Yes -- you could stack a down draft gasifier on top -- and put this
boiler directly under. The forced draft "fan" on the bottom -- or the stack
to the side.

NOTE; YOU COULD PUT AN "INVERTED DOWNDRAFT" GASIFIER ON THE BOTTOM AND USE
NATURAL OR FORCED DRAFT. SEE

WWW.WOODGAS.COM

FOR DETAILS ON THE INVERTED DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER.

Tom Reed

In a message dated 8/19/00 9:28:29 PM Mountain Daylight Time, snkm@btl.net
writes:

<< Ha!!

That WWW site give complete formulas on how to roll your own.

What is exceptionally cute -- is it is of a down draft design. Yes -- you
could stack a down draft gasifier on top -- and put this boiler directly
under. The forced draft "fan" on the bottom -- or the stack to the side.

Peter
>>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Wed Aug 23 09:56:21 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:39 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Vermont Gasification Project
Message-ID: <28.9c81a7a.26d531d7@cs.com>

Dear John:

Congratulations! I knew you could do it (with help from.....)

Keep us posted

Tom Reed GASIFICATION MODERATOR

In a message dated 8/14/00 9:17:35 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
JIRVING104@aol.com writes:

<<
Hi Bioenergy Newsgroup!

At 1:52 am on August 12, 2000. The Vermont Gasification Project
successfully
completed the 24 hour endurance run performance producing medium btu gas
from
wood! This project is based on the indirectly heated process developed by
Battelle Laboratories, owned by Future Energy Resources and located at
Burlington Electric Departments' McNeil Generating Station in Burlington
Vermont. The process worked great with all major parameters indicating
stable and consistent operation. Parametric Testing is scheduled to begin
later this month.

John Irving >>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From hatharasinghe at yahoo.com Wed Aug 23 10:06:42 2000
From: hatharasinghe at yahoo.com (ROSHAN HATHARASINGHE)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:39 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <20000823140640.7053.qmail@web2005.mail.yahoo.com>

dear sir,

Iam doing a research on biomass gasification(saw dust)
I have some problems

1 back pressure (feeder)
2 to reduce tar content before send to IC engine.

3 Tar cracking methods.

normally saw dust contains lot of tar, so it is very
difficult to send to IC engine.

so please help me to improve the things

my new E-MAIL:roshan@cheme.pdn.ac.lk

PLEASE SEND THINS TO ABOVE MAIL.

THANK TOU

roshan hatharasinghe
reserch assistant
Dept of Chemical Eng,
University of Peradeniya,
Peradeniya,
Srilanka.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Wed Aug 23 14:41:43 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:39 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Doble Boiler
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000823113439.00931420@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Tom;

At 09:55 AM 8/23/00 EDT, you wrote:
>Dear Peter et al:
>
>You said "Yes -- you could stack a down draft gasifier on top -- and put
this
>boiler directly under. The forced draft "fan" on the bottom -- or the stack
>to the side.
>
>NOTE; YOU COULD PUT AN "INVERTED DOWNDRAFT" GASIFIER ON THE BOTTOM AND USE
>NATURAL OR FORCED DRAFT. SEE
>
> WWW.WOODGAS.COM
>
>FOR DETAILS ON THE INVERTED DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER.
>
>Tom Reed
>

Interesting site alright -- but could not find a single detail regarding an
inverted down draft gasifier.

Nice picture of a rig on a trailer -- including yourself.

Would be interested in more details. A flow diagram??

What are the advantages to this design??

Also - that data base at:

http://www.woodgas.com/DataBaseTable.htm

Very interesting.

For those wondering where one can buy a good mono-tube or single pass -- or
flash tube, boiler -- in just about any size:

http://www.claytonindustries.com/

So -- a inverse down draft gasifier -- a Clayton monotube boiler -- a
Rossen pop valve lister steam engine -- does an small steam power plant make??

Peter Singfield
Belize

>
>In a message dated 8/19/00 9:28:29 PM Mountain Daylight Time, snkm@btl.net
>writes:
>
><< Ha!!
>
> That WWW site give complete formulas on how to roll your own.
>
> What is exceptionally cute -- is it is of a down draft design. Yes -- you
> could stack a down draft gasifier on top -- and put this boiler directly
> under. The forced draft "fan" on the bottom -- or the stack to the side.
>
> Peter
> >>
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Wed Aug 23 14:41:46 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:39 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Vermont Gasification Project
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000823113711.00908270@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi John;

Was thinking about sending you a message asking what has been developing
with the Vermont Gasifier project. Thanks for this report of progress to date.

Any Url that can help one know more?

Peter Singfield

Belize

At 09:55 AM 8/23/00 EDT, you wrote:
>Dear John:
>
>Congratulations! I knew you could do it (with help from.....)
>
>Keep us posted
>
>Tom Reed GASIFICATION MODERATOR
>
>In a message dated 8/14/00 9:17:35 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
>JIRVING104@aol.com writes:
>
><<
> Hi Bioenergy Newsgroup!
>
> At 1:52 am on August 12, 2000. The Vermont Gasification Project
>successfully
> completed the 24 hour endurance run performance producing medium btu gas
>from
> wood! This project is based on the indirectly heated process developed by
> Battelle Laboratories, owned by Future Energy Resources and located at
> Burlington Electric Departments' McNeil Generating Station in Burlington
> Vermont. The process worked great with all major parameters indicating
> stable and consistent operation. Parametric Testing is scheduled to begin
> later this month.
>
> John Irving >>
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From jgordes at earthlink.net Wed Aug 23 19:37:12 2000
From: jgordes at earthlink.net (jgordes)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:39 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification Questions
In-Reply-To: <20000823140640.7053.qmail@web2005.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.20000823192459.007d46f0@127.0.0.1>

Dear Roshan,

Thanks for contacting me on this question. Unfortunately I am not
qualified to answer your technical questions on this topic. I think that
many others in the gasification List Serve will be able to help you.

Good luck.

Best,
Joel N. Gordes

At 07:06 AM 08/23/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>dear sir,
>
>Iam doing a research on biomass gasification(saw dust)
>I have some problems
>
> 1 back pressure (feeder)
> 2 to reduce tar content before send to IC engine.
>
> 3 Tar cracking methods.
>
>normally saw dust contains lot of tar, so it is very
>difficult to send to IC engine.
>
>so please help me to improve the things
>
>
>my new E-MAIL:roshan@cheme.pdn.ac.lk
>
>PLEASE SEND THINS TO ABOVE MAIL.
>
>THANK TOU
>
>roshan hatharasinghe
>reserch assistant
>Dept of Chemical Eng,
>University of Peradeniya,
>Peradeniya,
>Srilanka.
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
>http://mail.yahoo.com/
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
>
Joel N. Gordes
Environmental Energy Solutions
P.O. Box 101
Riverton, CT 06065
(860) 379-2430

"Dedicated to executing ideas, not killing them!"

Be sure to visit our web site at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~jgordes
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From hatharasinghe at yahoo.com Wed Aug 23 23:53:37 2000
From: hatharasinghe at yahoo.com (ROSHAN HATHARASINGHE)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:39 2004
Subject: GAS-L: help
Message-ID: <200008240353.UAA15247@secure.crest.net>

To: gasification@crest.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

> dear sir,
>
> Iam doing a research on biomass gasification(saw
> dust)
> I have some problems
>
> 1 back pressure (feeder)
> 2 to reduce tar content before send to IC engine.
>
> 3 Tar cracking methods.
>
> normally saw dust contains lot of tar, so it is very
> difficult to send to IC engine.
>
> so please help me to improve the things
>
>
> my new E-MAIL:roshan@cheme.pdn.ac.lk
>
> PLEASE SEND THINS TO ABOVE MAIL.
>
> THANK TOU
>
> roshan hatharasinghe
> reserch assistant
> Dept of Chemical Eng,
> University of Peradeniya,
> Peradeniya,
> Srilanka.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from
> anywhere!
> http://mail.yahoo.com/
> The Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program
> http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
>
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From ges at iies.es Thu Aug 24 02:24:01 2000
From: ges at iies.es (BESEL, S.A.)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:40 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Coffee pulp gasification
Message-ID: <002001c00d94$557648b0$8f4c05c3@arrakis.es>

Dear Thomas Koch et al,
Thank you very much for the information and clues
you have given me.
By the moment, I have worked out gasification
technology of coffee pulp is not mature enough to guarantee the success of our
project. Pyrolisis or direct combustion to fuel/feed a tesla turbine or
compressed air turbine are to be analysed. As soon as we have results, you'll be
posted.
Guillermo J. Escobar

From tk at tke.dk Thu Aug 24 07:55:42 2000
From: tk at tke.dk (Thomas Koch)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:40 2004
Subject: Sv: GAS-L: Coffee pulp gasification
Message-ID: <00f201c00dc1$d16e7460$048744c0@image.image.dk>

If want guarantee for success I suggest
combustion and steam turbines.

Thomas Koch
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
-----Oprindelig
meddelelse-----Fra: BESEL, S.A. <<A
href="mailto:ges@iies.es">ges@iies.es>Til:
Gasificación Lista distribución <<A
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org>Dato:
24. august 2000 08:24Emne: GAS-L: Coffee pulp
gasification
Dear Thomas Koch et al,
Thank you very much for the information and
clues you have given me.
By the moment, I have worked out gasification
technology of coffee pulp is not mature enough to guarantee the success of
our project. Pyrolisis or direct combustion to fuel/feed a tesla turbine or
compressed air turbine are to be analysed. As soon as we have results,
you'll be posted.
Guillermo J.
Escobar

From jgordes at earthlink.net Thu Aug 24 14:08:05 2000
From: jgordes at earthlink.net (jgordes)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:40 2004
Subject: GAS-L: De-rating & Scrubber Contaminant Products
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000823113439.00931420@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.20000824140752.0081b140@127.0.0.1>

Dear All,

There are two questions I have for the group and would appreciate any
guidance on this:

1) Let's say I have an older 75 MW oil-fired plant that I want to do a
refiring project on and convert it to gasified biomass. However, let's say
I only have enough biomass resource to fire a 20 or 40 MW facility at most.
Could the 75 MW steam turbine/generator from the older plant be de-rated
enough to be used with the 20 to 40 MW of biomass? Any complications or
losses associated with this? Approximately how much if so?

2) Not related directly to the question above. In using water in the
scrubber operation to clean up the gas from gasified biomass before it goes
into a gas turbine, what contaminants will I be left with in the water?
How much of this contaminated water might I expect to have per MWh? How is
it normally dealth with if it is a problem?

Thank you.

Best,

Joel N. Gordes
Environmental Energy Solutions
P.O. Box 101
Riverton, CT 06065
(860) 379-2430

"Dedicated to executing ideas, not killing them!"

From HMcBrayer at harbert.net Thu Aug 24 15:39:05 2000
From: HMcBrayer at harbert.net (McBrayer, Howell)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:40 2004
Subject: GAS-L: De-rating & Scrubber Contaminant Products
Message-ID: <91CB5993BC5ED211A7DD00105A1058EE04A7EB@nthc01.harbert.net>

To: jgordes
Re: Turbine Rerate

The following guide lines come from performing a similar derate study.
1. Yes it can be done, one or more exhaust end wheels will need to be
removed otherwise you start condensing within the
case.
2. You will loose several percentage points in efficiency, say 5%.
3. In our case a new turbine cost $3,000,000, the rerate would have cost
about $500,000.
4. If the vendor of your type turbine is still in business most likely they
will run a new performance projection for free.
Howell McBrayer
Harbert Power

----Original Message-----
From: jgordes [mailto:jgordes@earthlink.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2000 1:08 PM
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: GAS-L: De-rating & Scrubber Contaminant Products

Dear All,

There are two questions I have for the group and would appreciate any
guidance on this:

Thank you.

Best,

Joel N. Gordes
Environmental Energy Solutions
P.O. Box 101
Riverton, CT 06065
(860) 379-2430

"Dedicated to executing ideas, not killing them!"

Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Thu Aug 24 16:54:16 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:40 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Getting Rid of those Tars!
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000824144838.008b77c0@wgs1.btl.net>

A proprietary catalyst, designated DN-34, has recently been developed
from a collaborative research effort between NREL and Battelle
Columbus Laboratory. This new catalyst has been tested in a
slipstream fluidized-bed reactor on a 9 ton-per-day indirect biomass
gasifier and at the micro-scale at NREL, and has been effective for
tar destruction in syngas conditioning. Additionally, this catalyst
has operated in excess of 160 hours on the full-size gasifier without
any measurable deactivation. In addition to being long-lived, this
catalyst is inexpensive and not nickel based, and thus has
significant economic advantages in terms of spent catalyst disposal.

From:

http://www.nrel.gov/research/industrial_tech/syngas.html

Peter Singfield / Belize
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Thu Aug 24 17:41:45 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:40 2004
Subject: GAS-L: BIOMASS TO HYDROGEN VIA PYROLYSIS AND REFORMING
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000824153523.00898ba0@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi folks;

More steam reforming as a method of making gas from biomass. This dated
1996. Wonder what ever came out of this research??

Peter Singfield
Belize

**********************************

http://search.dis.anl.gov/plweb-cgi/idoc_oit.pl?220+unix+\
op+no+_free_user_+search.dis.anl.gov+oit-db+oit-db+oit+oit+++++1\
%20minute+3+http://refining.dis.anl.gov/oit/toc/h2proc_8.html+Re\
turn_to_Hydrogen_Production/Recovery/Storage_TOC

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Hydrogen Production/Recovery/Storage

DOE (Government) Funded

--------------------------------------------------------------------

BIOMASS TO HYDROGEN VIA PYROLYSIS AND REFORMING
[IMAGE]

--------------------------------------------------------------------

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project is intended to demonstrate cost-effective means of
producing hydrogen from pyroligneous oils produced from the pyrolysis
of lignocellulosic biomass. The objective is to demonstrate the
feasibility of a regionalized system of small- and medium-sized
pyrolysis units which supply oil into a centralized reformer for
hydrogen production. The technical approach involves (1) studies on
the composition of pyrolysis oils and the technology of steam
reforming to hydrogen (completed); (2) thermodynamic modeling to
guide the experimental design (completed); (3) experimental research
and catalyst testing; (4) process development; (5) economic
evaluation; and (6) environmental impact studies. The fast pyrolysis
technology developed at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
provides technical and economic benefits to this process development.
Preliminary economics, with a price for biomass at $42/dry ton,
suggest that H2 cost (at 70 percent of the maximum stoichiometric
yield from biocrude) will be $13.50/MM Btu. Alternatively, if waste
biomass at $15/dry ton can be used, the necessary selling price will
be $12.50/MM Btu.
PARTICIPANT

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)

STATUS
Project is ongoing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

FUNDING PROFILE

Funding Source: DOE/Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy-Office of
Utility Technologies

Funding Mechanism: Field Work Proposal
Funding Level (in thousands):
-----------------------------------------
FY94 FY95 FY96 TOTAL
_________________________________________
NREL $400 $438 $382 $1220
-----------------------------------------

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/
POINT OF CONTACT

NREL:
Esteban Chornet
Phone: 303-384-6240
Fax: 303-384-6103
chornete@tcplink.nrel.gov

--------------------------------------------------------------------

6-12

--------------------------------------------------------------------

*** References from this document ***

[orig] http://search.dis.anl.gov/plweb-cgi/idoc_oit.pl?220+unix+\
op+no+_free_user_+search.dis.anl.gov+oit-db+oit-db+oit+oit+++++1\
%20minute+3+http://refining.dis.anl.gov/oit/toc/h2proc_8.html+Re\
turn_to_Hydrogen_Production/Recovery/Storage_TOC
[1] http://refining.dis.anl.gov/oit/toc/h2proc_8.html
[2] http://search.dis.anl.gov/plweb-cgi/idoc_oit.pl?219+unix+op+\
no+_free_user_+search.dis.anl.gov..+oit-db+oit-db+oit+oit+++++1%\
20minute+3+http://refining.dis.anl.gov/oit/toc/h2proc_8.html+Ret\
urn_to_Hydrogen_Production/Recovery/Storage_TOC
[3] http://search.dis.anl.gov/plweb-cgi/idoc_oit.pl?221+unix+op+\
no+_free_user_+search.dis.anl.gov..+oit-db+oit-db+oit+oit+++++1%\
20minute+3+http://refining.dis.anl.gov/oit/toc/h2proc_8.html+Ret\
urn_to_Hydrogen_Production/Recovery/Storage_TOC

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From ges at iies.es Fri Aug 25 02:51:57 2000
From: ges at iies.es (BESEL, S.A.)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:40 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Coffee pulp
Message-ID: <001601c00e61$6eb8b830$af4c05c3@arrakis.es>

Dear Darren D. Smith,
I am the responsible for Renewable Energy
Technologies in (BESEL, S.A.) a Spanish Consulting and Engineering
firm.
As regards the coffee pulp project, I am working
together a recently created company and a Portuguese Technological Institute,
find /develop a good system (energy eff., environment, and economics) to make
profit from that kind of industrial waste.
Therefore, we are screening for reliable equipments
and process, at the time we are studying innovative solutions, far beyond the
current state of the art.
By the next winter, we will be installing the
energy plant, which in the first stage should generate about 250 kW gross
electricity. In few weeks we would design and install a 500 kW system. The final
goal is 1 MW, which is the limit fixed by the biomass availability.
Eventually, any comment/idea/etc. is welcome and
had in mind.
I mentioned tesla turbine, since my colleague in
Portugal has achieved some promising lab-level results while trying to optimise
the overall efficiency of that device. It is just a way to be furtherly
explored.

Guillermo J. EscobarHead of UnitNEW
ADDRESS, TEL, FAXAddress: Pº General Martínez Campos,
11
E-28010-Madrid. SpainTel +34 91 444 59 01Fax +34 91 447 75 27

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Fri Aug 25 09:29:29 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:40 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The inverted downdraft gasifier
Message-ID: <61.6acd3e4.26d7ce90@cs.com>

Dear Peter and all:

I developed the "inverted downdraft gasifier" in 1985 during a trip to South
Africa withTom Miles. Could hardly wait to get back to the Solar Energy
Research Institute (SERI) to try it out. Here's the reasoning:
~~~~~
In the conventional downdraft gasifier air is drawn by a blower or engine
from nozzles (Imbert starting 1938) or from the top of a cylindrical tube
(stratified downdraft downdraft, starting at SERI, 1980). It first meets
unburned biomass and burns it in the process I call "flaming pyrolysis".
(Flaming combustion is like the flame of the match; flaming pyrolysis is
similar, but has limited air.) This produces a gas containing considerable
CO, H2 and CH4, but also CO2 and H2O at temperatures of 1000-1500C and
produces from 5-25% charcoal, depending on the superficial velocity of the
gases.

These HOT gases pass over the resulting charcoal and are further reduced by
the charcoal to producer gas. If the superficial velocity is about 0.4 m/s
and the gas has a heating value of 5 MJ/nm3, the output will be 2 MJ/m2-s or
2,000 kWth/m2, or 0.2 kW/cm2, an amazing throughput.
~~~~~
In 1985 I became concerned about the problem of domestic cooking with
woodfires and the black clouds of pollution over the black townships in South
Africa from wood cooking.

Waking at 3 AM from too much food, I designed a downdraft gasifier in my mind
using the above figures and found that a 3 kW stove, typical of gas/electric
cooking in the U.S. would have an area of (3/0.2) 15 cm2 and a diameter of
4.4 cm if it were operated in CONVENTIONAL downdraft mode. And not much more
if operated with a turndown ratio of 2, below which DOWNDRAFT gasification
can become unstable.

Why is there so little turndown ratio in DOWNDRAFT GASIFIERS? I decided that
it is because it is necessary to PULL the gas down through the fuel, even
though hot gases desperately want to rise due to natural convection! So, how
about turning it upside down so that the natural convection AIDS the motion
of gas rather than opposing it?

Stopping at my Daughters's house in Massachusetts on the way home, I took a 1
lb coffee can, punched holes in the bottom, filled it with wood chips, lit it
ON TOP (with a torch or some alcohol on the top layer of fuel) and was
delighted to find that it burned steadily for about 15 minutes to produce a
combustible gas - and a yield of 20-25% charcoal if you close the air holes
after the volatiles have all been consumed. EUREKA, the INVERTED DOWNDRAFT
GASIFIER was born!

A conventional gas stove not only needs gas, but also needs to mix air with
the gas in the right proportions and maintain a stable flame. I have been
working on that problem ever since, first with natural convection (possible,
but lazy flames) and now with the Turbo stove (fierce, clean flames from a 3
Watt blower.)

Let me urge you to try the inverted downdraft gasifier. Add a second can on
top with lots of air holes to get a better gas flame. Venturi mixers, more
chimney etc. all help, but the main problem is mixing the gas with the 4 to
10 X air required for combustion.

I first called the gasifier an "upside downdraft" (UPSIDE DOWN + DOWNDRAFT =
UPSIDE DOWNDRAFT) gasifier (little joke - : ) ) but that confused non English
natives. I then called it an INVERTED DOWNDRAFT gasifier. but even that
seems too much for others. It has since been called "charcoal making"
gasifier (Ron Larson) or open top . . or other names. Lots of papers out
there by myself and others on the subject. I'll post a list soon, but we
have been cautioned not to send files to the LIST.

~~~~~~~
We are currently working at the Community Power Corporation to propogate the
3 kW Turbo Stove in the countries around the world where it is sorely needed.

Yours truly, TOM REED CPC/BEF

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Fri Aug 25 09:29:42 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:40 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Getting Rid of those Pesky Tars!
Message-ID: <9e.8deec45.26d7ce9c@cs.com>

Dear Gasifiers:

Congratulations to the FERCO-VERMONT-DOUBLE FLUIDIZED BED project announced
by John Irwin this week.

And congratulations to Battelle for their new catalyst (below). Fluidized
bed gasisifers typically produce 1-5% tar and require a catalyst, preferably
cheap, to bring these down.

~~~~~

We who work in downdraft gasification at smaller sizes (0.1 to 1000 kW) are
also to be congratulated.

In fixed bed downdraft gasifiers, the incoming air gasifies 99.9% of the
biomass, leaving typically 0.1% or 1000 ppm tars. New modifications are
bringing raw gas tars below 100 ppm and we're working our way down below
that. No catalysts required.

Onward for biomass gasification, TOM REED BEF/CPC

In a message dated 8/24/00 3:02:17 PM Mountain Daylight Time, snkm@btl.net
writes:

<<
A proprietary catalyst, designated DN-34, has recently been developed
from a collaborative research effort between NREL and Battelle
Columbus Laboratory. This new catalyst has been tested in a
slipstream fluidized-bed reactor on a 9 ton-per-day indirect biomass
gasifier and at the micro-scale at NREL, and has been effective for
tar destruction in syngas conditioning. Additionally, this catalyst
has operated in excess of 160 hours on the full-size gasifier without
any measurable deactivation. In addition to being long-lived, this
catalyst is inexpensive and not nickel based, and thus has
significant economic advantages in terms of spent catalyst disposal.
>>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From 146942 at email.msn.com Fri Aug 25 09:34:19 2000
From: 146942 at email.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:40 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Coffee pulp
Message-ID: <003d01c00e99$b3fc1080$5f3d1b3f@oemcomputer>

What about using that free heat energy for freeze drying the coffee?
It seems that byproducts and value added products would be more profitable than
trying to make electricity. Chasing the Tesla turbine seems to be a waste
of valuable brainpower and time and money.

Isnt there some alkeloyds also available in the pulp that is of some
value?

I have found that in pulp, a net output of 4,000btu's /lb is all you get
and the stuff with oil (coffee maybe?) is 7-8000btu's. again that is
net.

Turning that into mechanical energy isn't cost effective unless there is
very little material handling. What is the possibility of hand-firing
/cheap labor in your country?

Skip Goebel
Sensible Steam Consultants <A
href="http://www.sensiblesteam.com">www.sensiblesteam.com
and also
Sensible Steam International in Peru.... <A
href="http://www.apin.com.pe">www.apin.com.pe

From 146942 at email.msn.com Fri Aug 25 10:02:59 2000
From: 146942 at email.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:40 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The inverted downdraft gasifier
Message-ID: <004e01c00e9d$b5693840$5f3d1b3f@oemcomputer>

Tom,
In my Audel's mechanical library, I have a handbook on gasifiers utilized
for the gasification of coal. These units were about 12' in dia. and
apparantly were used for gas lighting and heat in the Michigan area.
Smaller units were used on coal ships on the great lakes that were about
500hp and used i.c. engines.
The gasifiers are all downdraft and have a slow rotating agitator that
allows ash to drip from the bottom. Steam was also injected at the coal bed
for better quality gas. Steam was generated from the exhaust of the
gasifiers which also helped cool the fuel. One system had water spraying to
cool the gas and clean it and then the gas was drawn thru a cylclone filter.

I have made a video on how to build a 5 dollar woodstove out of a 55 gal
barrel. The key is to use wood chips and burn them in a coffee can with as
many holes as you can poke into it. Your deal reminded me of this. I made
this after a trip to Kosovo revealed the need for highly efficient wood heat
in a refugee camp. I plan to return this fall and will be building a
thousand or so of these. These stoves only give off a gentle heat, which is
what is neccessary in a 10x10 tent. Turns out that they make good smokers
too! As a side note, chipping the wood and putting in a pile and then paper
bags is a much more space efficient and clean and most of all,
understandable for women. If you have seen how the area surrounding a
refugee camp gets denuded, then you can understand the need to chip all the
brush, etc.. and avoid the waste of open fires. It could be a chipper is
one of the most valuable humanitarian tools available these days.
Skip
www.sensiblesteam.com
www.apin.com.pe (Sensiblesteam International)

PS.... Our 100kw steam engine generators should be coming off line in two
months. contact APIN

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From sunil at uniplyindia.com Fri Aug 25 10:53:38 2000
From: sunil at uniplyindia.com (sunil)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:40 2004
Subject: GAS-L: from UNIPLY
Message-ID: <200008251453.HAA32171@secure.crest.net>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: gasification@crest.org
X-Return-Path: sunil@uniplyindia.com

We are interested in bagasse based MDF. Please furnish the details and
our e-mail
address are:
uniply@md3.vsnl.net.in
sunil@uniplyindia.com

Regards,

SUNIL KUMAR BOTHRA

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From tmiles at teleport.com Fri Aug 25 10:53:41 2000
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:40 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The inverted downdraft gasifier
In-Reply-To: <61.6acd3e4.26d7ce90@cs.com>
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20000825074019.00da44e0@mail.teleport.com>

Thank you Tom,

I think the real story went something like this:

You were making your usual entertaining presentation on how gasification
gasification works by using a cigarette. But since you don't smoke, and you
were talking more than smoking, the cigarette began to droop. Pretty soon
it drooped so low that it became an upside-down gasifier. Voila, the
inverted downdraft.

I'm sure the thought process was further stimulated by our visit to a
downdraft gasifier that Fred Hose had installed in a woodworking plant.
While we were there the draft on the dry fuel "changed" and we had a rather
dramatic inversion of the gasification process with lots of flaming
pyrolysis. Water was then added, and not just to test the theories of M.
Boudard.

The real treat on that trip was to see the Fluidyne gasifier light off in a
few minutes and be generating power in a few more. So what areas of small
scale gasification have advanced in the last 15 years?

Tom Miles

At 09:28 AM 8/25/00 -0400, Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:
>Dear Peter and all:
>
>I developed the "inverted downdraft gasifier" in 1985 during a trip to South
>Africa withTom Miles. Could hardly wait to get back to the Solar Energy
>Research Institute (SERI) to try it out. Here's the reasoning:
> ~~~~~
>In the conventional downdraft gasifier air is drawn by a blower or engine
>from nozzles (Imbert starting 1938) or from the top of a cylindrical tube
>(stratified downdraft downdraft, starting at SERI, 1980). It first meets
>unburned biomass and burns it in the process I call "flaming pyrolysis".
>(Flaming combustion is like the flame of the match; flaming pyrolysis is
>similar, but has limited air.) This produces a gas containing considerable
>CO, H2 and CH4, but also CO2 and H2O at temperatures of 1000-1500C and
>produces from 5-25% charcoal, depending on the superficial velocity of the
>gases.
>
>These HOT gases pass over the resulting charcoal and are further reduced by
>the charcoal to producer gas. If the superficial velocity is about 0.4 m/s
>and the gas has a heating value of 5 MJ/nm3, the output will be 2 MJ/m2-s or
>2,000 kWth/m2, or 0.2 kW/cm2, an amazing throughput.
> ~~~~~
>In 1985 I became concerned about the problem of domestic cooking with
>woodfires and the black clouds of pollution over the black townships in South
>Africa from wood cooking.
>
>Waking at 3 AM from too much food, I designed a downdraft gasifier in my mind
>using the above figures and found that a 3 kW stove, typical of gas/electric
>cooking in the U.S. would have an area of (3/0.2) 15 cm2 and a diameter of
>4.4 cm if it were operated in CONVENTIONAL downdraft mode. And not much more
>if operated with a turndown ratio of 2, below which DOWNDRAFT gasification
>can become unstable.
>
>Why is there so little turndown ratio in DOWNDRAFT GASIFIERS? I decided that
>it is because it is necessary to PULL the gas down through the fuel, even
>though hot gases desperately want to rise due to natural convection! So, how
>about turning it upside down so that the natural convection AIDS the motion
>of gas rather than opposing it?
>
>Stopping at my Daughters's house in Massachusetts on the way home, I took a 1
>lb coffee can, punched holes in the bottom, filled it with wood chips, lit it
>ON TOP (with a torch or some alcohol on the top layer of fuel) and was
>delighted to find that it burned steadily for about 15 minutes to produce a
>combustible gas - and a yield of 20-25% charcoal if you close the air holes
>after the volatiles have all been consumed. EUREKA, the INVERTED DOWNDRAFT
>GASIFIER was born!
>
>A conventional gas stove not only needs gas, but also needs to mix air with
>the gas in the right proportions and maintain a stable flame. I have been
>working on that problem ever since, first with natural convection (possible,
>but lazy flames) and now with the Turbo stove (fierce, clean flames from a 3
>Watt blower.)
>
>Let me urge you to try the inverted downdraft gasifier. Add a second can on
>top with lots of air holes to get a better gas flame. Venturi mixers, more
>chimney etc. all help, but the main problem is mixing the gas with the 4 to
>10 X air required for combustion.
>
>I first called the gasifier an "upside downdraft" (UPSIDE DOWN + DOWNDRAFT =
>UPSIDE DOWNDRAFT) gasifier (little joke - : ) ) but that confused non English
>natives. I then called it an INVERTED DOWNDRAFT gasifier. but even that
>seems too much for others. It has since been called "charcoal making"
>gasifier (Ron Larson) or open top . . or other names. Lots of papers out
>there by myself and others on the subject. I'll post a list soon, but we
>have been cautioned not to send files to the LIST.
>
> ~~~~~~~
>We are currently working at the Community Power Corporation to propogate the
>3 kW Turbo Stove in the countries around the world where it is sorely needed.
>
>
>Yours truly, TOM REED CPC/BEF
>
>
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

Thomas R Miles tmiles@teleport.com
T R Miles, TCI Tel 503-292-0107
1470 SW Woodward Way Fax 503-292-2919
Portland, OR 97225 USA

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk Mon Aug 28 02:56:15 2000
From: cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk (Cordner Peacocke)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:40 2004
Subject: GAS-L: BIOMASS TO HYDROGEN VIA PYROLYSIS AND REFORMING
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000824153523.00898ba0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20000828075607.007c3d70@pop3.demon.co.uk>

Dear Group,

For those interested in the steam reforming of biomass, here are a couple
of references. I suggest contacting Dr. Stefan Czernik at NREL for further
information. I think that they have added polymers to their list of
feedstocks.

Chornet, E., Czernik, S., Wang, D., Gregorie, C. and Mann, M., 'Biomass to
hydrogen via pyrolysis and reforming', in Proc. 1994 DOE/NREL Hydrogen
Program Review, 1994, pp. 407-432.

Wang, D., Czernik, S., Montane, D., Mann, M. and Chornet, E., 'Biomass to
hydrogen via fast pyrolysis and catalytic steam reforming of the pyrolysis
oil or its fractions', Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., May 1997, vol. 36, no. 5, pp.
1507-1518.

Here's the abstract for this one:

Pyrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass and reforming of the pyroligneous oils
are being studied as a strategy for producing hydrogen. A process of this
nature has the potential to be cost competitive with conventional means of
producing hydrogen. We propose a regionalized system of hydrogen
production, where small- and medium-sized pyrolysis units (<500 Mg/day)
provide bio-oil to a central reforming unit to be catalytically converted
to H2 and CO2. Thermodynamic modeling of the major constituents of the
bio-oil has shown that reforming is possible within a wide range of
temperatures and steam-to- carbon ratios. In addition, screening tests
aimed at catalytic reforming of model compounds to hydrogen using Ni-based
catalysts have achieved essentially complete conversion to H2. Existing
data on the catalytic reforming of oxygenates have been studied to guide
catalyst selection. A process diagram for the pyrolysis and reforming
operation is discussed, as are initial production cost estimates. A window
of opportunity clearly exists if the bio-oil is first refined to yield
valuable oxygenates so that only a residual fraction is used for hydrogen
production.

Cordner

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From marekg at wasko.pl Mon Aug 28 08:22:55 2000
From: marekg at wasko.pl (=?iso-8859-1?B?TWFyZWsgR3fzWWRZ?=)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:40 2004
Subject: GAS-L: remove
In-Reply-To: <001601c00e61$6eb8b830$af4c05c3@arrakis.es>
Message-ID: <001301c010e7$a414f2e0$c29ffea9@pocztowy>

Please remove my from crest list
(gasification).
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial ce; font-color: black">From:
BESEL, S.A.
To: <A
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org" title=gasification@crest.org>Gasificación
Lista distribución
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 8:55
AM
Subject: GAS-L: Coffee pulp

Dear Darren D. Smith,
I am the responsible for Renewable Energy
Technologies in (BESEL, S.A.) a Spanish Consulting and Engineering
firm.
As regards the coffee pulp project, I am working
together a recently created company and a Portuguese Technological Institute,
find /develop a good system (energy eff., environment, and economics) to make
profit from that kind of industrial waste.
Therefore, we are screening for reliable
equipments and process, at the time we are studying innovative solutions, far
beyond the current state of the art.
By the next winter, we will be installing the
energy plant, which in the first stage should generate about 250 kW gross
electricity. In few weeks we would design and install a 500 kW system. The
final goal is 1 MW, which is the limit fixed by the biomass
availability.
Eventually, any comment/idea/etc. is welcome and
had in mind.
I mentioned tesla turbine, since my colleague in
Portugal has achieved some promising lab-level results while trying to
optimise the overall efficiency of that device. It is just a way to be
furtherly explored.

Guillermo J. EscobarHead of UnitNEW
ADDRESS, TEL, FAXAddress: Pº General Martínez Campos,
11
E-28010-Madrid. SpainTel +34 91 444 59 01Fax +34 91 447 75 27

From marekg at wasko.pl Mon Aug 28 08:23:00 2000
From: marekg at wasko.pl (=?iso-8859-1?B?TWFyZWsgR3fzWWRZ?=)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:40 2004
Subject: GAS-L: remove
In-Reply-To: <003d01c00e99$b3fc1080$5f3d1b3f@oemcomputer>
Message-ID: <000701c010e7$9f88b400$c29ffea9@pocztowy>

Please remove my from crest list
(gasification).
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial ce; font-color: black">From:
skip
goebel
To: <A
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org"
title=gasification@crest.org>gasification@crest.org
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 3:37
PM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Coffee pulp

What about using that free heat energy for freeze drying the
coffee? It seems that byproducts and value added products would be more
profitable than trying to make electricity. Chasing the Tesla turbine
seems to be a waste of valuable brainpower and time and money.

Isnt there some alkeloyds also available in the pulp that is of some
value?

I have found that in pulp, a net output of 4,000btu's /lb is all you get
and the stuff with oil (coffee maybe?) is 7-8000btu's. again that is
net.

Turning that into mechanical energy isn't cost effective unless there is
very little material handling. What is the possibility of hand-firing
/cheap labor in your country?

Skip Goebel
Sensible Steam Consultants <A
href="http://www.sensiblesteam.com">www.sensiblesteam.com
and also
Sensible Steam International in Peru.... <A
href="http://www.apin.com.pe">www.apin.com.pe

From marekg at wasko.pl Mon Aug 28 08:26:59 2000
From: marekg at wasko.pl (=?iso-8859-1?B?TWFyZWsgR3fzWWRZ?=)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:40 2004
Subject: GAS-L: remove
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20000825074019.00da44e0@mail.teleport.com>
Message-ID: <000501c010e7$9bf6b3a0$c29ffea9@pocztowy>

Please remove my from crest list (gasification).
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Miles <tmiles@teleport.com>
To: <gasification@crest.org>; <stoves@crest.org>
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: The inverted downdraft gasifier

> Thank you Tom,
>
> I think the real story went something like this:
>
> You were making your usual entertaining presentation on how gasification
> gasification works by using a cigarette. But since you don't smoke, and
you
> were talking more than smoking, the cigarette began to droop. Pretty soon
> it drooped so low that it became an upside-down gasifier. Voila, the
> inverted downdraft.
>
> I'm sure the thought process was further stimulated by our visit to a
> downdraft gasifier that Fred Hose had installed in a woodworking plant.
> While we were there the draft on the dry fuel "changed" and we had a
rather
> dramatic inversion of the gasification process with lots of flaming
> pyrolysis. Water was then added, and not just to test the theories of M.
> Boudard.
>
> The real treat on that trip was to see the Fluidyne gasifier light off in
a
> few minutes and be generating power in a few more. So what areas of small
> scale gasification have advanced in the last 15 years?
>
> Tom Miles
>
>
> At 09:28 AM 8/25/00 -0400, Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:
> >Dear Peter and all:
> >
> >I developed the "inverted downdraft gasifier" in 1985 during a trip to
South
> >Africa withTom Miles. Could hardly wait to get back to the Solar Energy
> >Research Institute (SERI) to try it out. Here's the reasoning:
> > ~~~~~
> >In the conventional downdraft gasifier air is drawn by a blower or engine
> >from nozzles (Imbert starting 1938) or from the top of a cylindrical tube
> >(stratified downdraft downdraft, starting at SERI, 1980). It first meets
> >unburned biomass and burns it in the process I call "flaming pyrolysis".
> >(Flaming combustion is like the flame of the match; flaming pyrolysis is
> >similar, but has limited air.) This produces a gas containing
considerable
> >CO, H2 and CH4, but also CO2 and H2O at temperatures of 1000-1500C and
> >produces from 5-25% charcoal, depending on the superficial velocity of
the
> >gases.
> >
> >These HOT gases pass over the resulting charcoal and are further reduced
by
> >the charcoal to producer gas. If the superficial velocity is about 0.4
m/s
> >and the gas has a heating value of 5 MJ/nm3, the output will be 2 MJ/m2-s
or
> >2,000 kWth/m2, or 0.2 kW/cm2, an amazing throughput.
> > ~~~~~
> >In 1985 I became concerned about the problem of domestic cooking with
> >woodfires and the black clouds of pollution over the black townships in
South
> >Africa from wood cooking.
> >
> >Waking at 3 AM from too much food, I designed a downdraft gasifier in my
mind
> >using the above figures and found that a 3 kW stove, typical of
gas/electric
> >cooking in the U.S. would have an area of (3/0.2) 15 cm2 and a diameter
of
> >4.4 cm if it were operated in CONVENTIONAL downdraft mode. And not much
more
> >if operated with a turndown ratio of 2, below which DOWNDRAFT
gasification
> >can become unstable.
> >
> >Why is there so little turndown ratio in DOWNDRAFT GASIFIERS? I decided
that
> >it is because it is necessary to PULL the gas down through the fuel, even
> >though hot gases desperately want to rise due to natural convection! So,
how
> >about turning it upside down so that the natural convection AIDS the
motion
> >of gas rather than opposing it?
> >
> >Stopping at my Daughters's house in Massachusetts on the way home, I took
a 1
> >lb coffee can, punched holes in the bottom, filled it with wood chips,
lit it
> >ON TOP (with a torch or some alcohol on the top layer of fuel) and was
> >delighted to find that it burned steadily for about 15 minutes to produce
a
> >combustible gas - and a yield of 20-25% charcoal if you close the air
holes
> >after the volatiles have all been consumed. EUREKA, the INVERTED
DOWNDRAFT
> >GASIFIER was born!
> >
> >A conventional gas stove not only needs gas, but also needs to mix air
with
> >the gas in the right proportions and maintain a stable flame. I have
been
> >working on that problem ever since, first with natural convection
(possible,
> >but lazy flames) and now with the Turbo stove (fierce, clean flames from
a 3
> >Watt blower.)
> >
> >Let me urge you to try the inverted downdraft gasifier. Add a second can
on
> >top with lots of air holes to get a better gas flame. Venturi mixers,
more
> >chimney etc. all help, but the main problem is mixing the gas with the 4
to
> >10 X air required for combustion.
> >
> >I first called the gasifier an "upside downdraft" (UPSIDE DOWN +
DOWNDRAFT =
> >UPSIDE DOWNDRAFT) gasifier (little joke - : ) ) but that confused non
English
> >natives. I then called it an INVERTED DOWNDRAFT gasifier. but even that
> >seems too much for others. It has since been called "charcoal making"
> >gasifier (Ron Larson) or open top . . or other names. Lots of papers
out
> >there by myself and others on the subject. I'll post a list soon, but we
> >have been cautioned not to send files to the LIST.
> >
> > ~~~~~~~
> >We are currently working at the Community Power Corporation to propogate
the
> >3 kW Turbo Stove in the countries around the world where it is sorely
needed.
> >
> >
> >Yours truly, TOM REED CPC/BEF
> >
> >
> >The Gasification List is sponsored by
> >USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> >and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
> >
> >Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> >http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
> >http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> >http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> >http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> >http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
> Thomas R Miles tmiles@teleport.com
> T R Miles, TCI Tel 503-292-0107
> 1470 SW Woodward Way Fax 503-292-2919
> Portland, OR 97225 USA
>
> The Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From marekg at wasko.pl Mon Aug 28 08:29:29 2000
From: marekg at wasko.pl (=?iso-8859-2?B?TWFyZWsgR3fzvGS8?=)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:40 2004
Subject: GAS-L: remove
In-Reply-To: <004e01c00e9d$b5693840$5f3d1b3f@oemcomputer>
Message-ID: <000601c010e7$9e1770c0$c29ffea9@pocztowy>

Please remove my from crest list (gasification).
----- Original Message -----
From: skip goebel <146942@email.msn.com>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: The inverted downdraft gasifier

> Tom,
> In my Audel's mechanical library, I have a handbook on gasifiers
utilized
> for the gasification of coal. These units were about 12' in dia. and
> apparantly were used for gas lighting and heat in the Michigan area.
> Smaller units were used on coal ships on the great lakes that were about
> 500hp and used i.c. engines.
> The gasifiers are all downdraft and have a slow rotating agitator that
> allows ash to drip from the bottom. Steam was also injected at the coal
bed
> for better quality gas. Steam was generated from the exhaust of the
> gasifiers which also helped cool the fuel. One system had water spraying
to
> cool the gas and clean it and then the gas was drawn thru a cylclone
filter.
>
> I have made a video on how to build a 5 dollar woodstove out of a 55 gal
> barrel. The key is to use wood chips and burn them in a coffee can with
as
> many holes as you can poke into it. Your deal reminded me of this. I
made
> this after a trip to Kosovo revealed the need for highly efficient wood
heat
> in a refugee camp. I plan to return this fall and will be building a
> thousand or so of these. These stoves only give off a gentle heat, which
is
> what is neccessary in a 10x10 tent. Turns out that they make good smokers
> too! As a side note, chipping the wood and putting in a pile and then
paper
> bags is a much more space efficient and clean and most of all,
> understandable for women. If you have seen how the area surrounding a
> refugee camp gets denuded, then you can understand the need to chip all
the
> brush, etc.. and avoid the waste of open fires. It could be a chipper is
> one of the most valuable humanitarian tools available these days.
> Skip
> www.sensiblesteam.com
> www.apin.com.pe (Sensiblesteam International)
>
> PS.... Our 100kw steam engine generators should be coming off line in two
> months. contact APIN
>
>
>
> The Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From marekg at wasko.pl Mon Aug 28 08:29:48 2000
From: marekg at wasko.pl (=?iso-8859-2?B?TWFyZWsgR3fzvGS8?=)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:40 2004
Subject: GAS-L: remove
In-Reply-To: <200008251453.HAA32171@secure.crest.net>
Message-ID: <000401c010e7$9b041640$c29ffea9@pocztowy>

Please remove my from crest list (gasification).
----- Original Message -----
From: sunil <sunil@uniplyindia.com>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 4:53 PM
Subject: GAS-L: from UNIPLY

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: gasification@crest.org
> X-Return-Path: sunil@uniplyindia.com
>
> We are interested in bagasse based MDF. Please furnish the details and
> our e-mail
> address are:
> uniply@md3.vsnl.net.in
> sunil@uniplyindia.com
>
> Regards,
>
> SUNIL KUMAR BOTHRA
>
> The Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From marekg at wasko.pl Mon Aug 28 08:37:36 2000
From: marekg at wasko.pl (=?iso-8859-1?B?TWFyZWsgR3fzWWRZ?=)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:40 2004
Subject: GAS-L: remove
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.96.1000731110017.9944A-100000@agni.me.iitb.ernet.in>
Message-ID: <001401c010e7$a62e0ee0$c29ffea9@pocztowy>

Please remove my from crest list (gasification).
----- Original Message -----
From: Anuradda Ganesh <aganesh@me.iitb.ernet.in>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Regarding Derating with producer gas

>
> Dear gasification-crest friends,
>
> In regard to the discussion on derating, I would like to bring an
> excellent discussion to your notice-- which is a part of the introductory
> chapters to the State-of-Art Report on Gasification of biomass, written by
> Prof. (Mrs) Parikh. I am presenting that portion (as it is) for all of
> you. I hope it will be of interest.
>
> ChapterIV,(Scope and limitations of utilisation of biomass based producer
> gas in dual-fuel operation of existing diesel engines"
> page A-51, 3.1.1
>
> FUEL PROPERTIES
>
> Power capacity of a given engine provided with a certain stroke volume
> (litre capacity) depends upon the maximum possible heat input per cycle
> and the number of cycles per unit time (32). In case of diesel engine,
> since the stroke volume contains only air and the volume of fuel is
> negligible the power capacity becomes a function of the amount of fuel
> that can be burnt per unit air volume contained in the cylinder. When all
> the air available is utilised and all the fuel injected is completely
> burnt, the combustion is referred to as the stoichiometric combustion. In
> case stoichiometric combustion, we can then define the quantity, Mixture
> calorific value Hmix'as:
>
> Hmix = Calorific value of diesel, kJ/kg
> --------------------------------
> Stoichiometric quantity of air expressed in std. m3
>
> = kJ/std.m3 of air.
>
> The Hmix values for various other fuels can also be calculated according
> to this definition but with a difference that if the fuel is gaseous, the
> Hmix will be the amount of heat input per unit volume of the mixture of
> fuel and air instead of air alone. This is because a substantial fraction
> of volume is occupied by the fuel itself. Therefore for a given cylinder
> volume which is occupied partially by fuel and partially by air, the
> amount of heat input per cycle will depend upon this quantity i.e. Hmix.
> Calculations for Hmix for diesel fuel as well for gaseous fuels have been
> carried out and the results are tabulated in table.
>
> Fuel Mixture Calorific value
> MJ/std.m3
> Diesel 3.4 (812)
> Petrol 3.5 (835)
> Ethanol 3.5 (835)
> Methanol 3.7 (884)
> Biogas 2.8 (668)
> Natural Gas 3.0 (716)
> Producer Gas 2.2 (525)*
>
> *Values in Kcal/m3
>
> In dual-fuel operation of an engine, the major fraction of heat input is
> drawn from the premixed mixture of air and the supplementary fuel. The
> maxima of heat input per cycle therefore, will be a direct function of
> Hmix. Comparing the two situations, in both of which the diesel rate is
> kept constant for want of ignition requirement (and therefore certain
> fraction of stroke volume has to be set aside for providing the
> stoichiometric amount of air for combustion of this pilot diesel quantity)
> the volume available to accommodate the premixed mixture is same. If we
> use two different supplementary fuels for example, Natural gas (having
> Hmix = 3MJ/m3) and Producer gas (Hmix = 2.2 MJ/m3) it is not difficult to
> see that the heat contribution under dual-fuel operation with producer gas
> as supplementary fuel will be lower than that with Natural gas by a
> fraction of 2.2/3.0. Since the calorific value of the gas and its
> stoichiometric air/fuel ratio are the two parameters on which the Hmix
> depends, we can certainly state that power capacity of a dual-fuel engine
> depend upon the properties of the supplementary fuel.
>
> In case of engines of higher speed ranges, limitations on power capacity
> are imposed due to the need of reducing the engine operating speed to
> accommodate lower flame velocities of fuels like producer gas. Derating
> due to speed reduction is a very prominent factor while considering high
> speed spark ignition engines. The power capacity of the engine reduces in
> proportion to the speed reduction.
>
>
>
> Prof. Anuradda Ganesh
> Energy System Engg.
> IIT Bombay
>
>
> The Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From marekg at wasko.pl Mon Aug 28 09:10:21 2000
From: marekg at wasko.pl (=?iso-8859-1?B?TWFyZWsgR3fzWWRZ?=)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:40 2004
Subject: GAS-L: remove
In-Reply-To: <61.6acd3e4.26d7ce90@cs.com>
Message-ID: <000801c010e7$a0b6d3c0$c29ffea9@pocztowy>

Please remove my from crest list (gasification).
----- Original Message -----
From: <Reedtb2@cs.com>
To: <gasification@crest.org>; <stoves@crest.org>
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 3:28 PM
Subject: GAS-L: The inverted downdraft gasifier

> Dear Peter and all:
>
> I developed the "inverted downdraft gasifier" in 1985 during a trip to
South
> Africa withTom Miles. Could hardly wait to get back to the Solar Energy
> Research Institute (SERI) to try it out. Here's the reasoning:
> ~~~~~
> In the conventional downdraft gasifier air is drawn by a blower or engine
> from nozzles (Imbert starting 1938) or from the top of a cylindrical tube
> (stratified downdraft downdraft, starting at SERI, 1980). It first meets
> unburned biomass and burns it in the process I call "flaming pyrolysis".
> (Flaming combustion is like the flame of the match; flaming pyrolysis is
> similar, but has limited air.) This produces a gas containing
considerable
> CO, H2 and CH4, but also CO2 and H2O at temperatures of 1000-1500C and
> produces from 5-25% charcoal, depending on the superficial velocity of the
> gases.
>
> These HOT gases pass over the resulting charcoal and are further reduced
by
> the charcoal to producer gas. If the superficial velocity is about 0.4
m/s
> and the gas has a heating value of 5 MJ/nm3, the output will be 2 MJ/m2-s
or
> 2,000 kWth/m2, or 0.2 kW/cm2, an amazing throughput.
> ~~~~~
> In 1985 I became concerned about the problem of domestic cooking with
> woodfires and the black clouds of pollution over the black townships in
South
> Africa from wood cooking.
>
> Waking at 3 AM from too much food, I designed a downdraft gasifier in my
mind
> using the above figures and found that a 3 kW stove, typical of
gas/electric
> cooking in the U.S. would have an area of (3/0.2) 15 cm2 and a diameter
of
> 4.4 cm if it were operated in CONVENTIONAL downdraft mode. And not much
more
> if operated with a turndown ratio of 2, below which DOWNDRAFT gasification
> can become unstable.
>
> Why is there so little turndown ratio in DOWNDRAFT GASIFIERS? I decided
that
> it is because it is necessary to PULL the gas down through the fuel, even
> though hot gases desperately want to rise due to natural convection! So,
how
> about turning it upside down so that the natural convection AIDS the
motion
> of gas rather than opposing it?
>
> Stopping at my Daughters's house in Massachusetts on the way home, I took
a 1
> lb coffee can, punched holes in the bottom, filled it with wood chips, lit
it
> ON TOP (with a torch or some alcohol on the top layer of fuel) and was
> delighted to find that it burned steadily for about 15 minutes to produce
a
> combustible gas - and a yield of 20-25% charcoal if you close the air
holes
> after the volatiles have all been consumed. EUREKA, the INVERTED
DOWNDRAFT
> GASIFIER was born!
>
> A conventional gas stove not only needs gas, but also needs to mix air
with
> the gas in the right proportions and maintain a stable flame. I have been
> working on that problem ever since, first with natural convection
(possible,
> but lazy flames) and now with the Turbo stove (fierce, clean flames from a
3
> Watt blower.)
>
> Let me urge you to try the inverted downdraft gasifier. Add a second can
on
> top with lots of air holes to get a better gas flame. Venturi mixers,
more
> chimney etc. all help, but the main problem is mixing the gas with the 4
to
> 10 X air required for combustion.
>
> I first called the gasifier an "upside downdraft" (UPSIDE DOWN + DOWNDRAFT
=
> UPSIDE DOWNDRAFT) gasifier (little joke - : ) ) but that confused non
English
> natives. I then called it an INVERTED DOWNDRAFT gasifier. but even that
> seems too much for others. It has since been called "charcoal making"
> gasifier (Ron Larson) or open top . . or other names. Lots of papers out
> there by myself and others on the subject. I'll post a list soon, but we
> have been cautioned not to send files to the LIST.
>
> ~~~~~~~
> We are currently working at the Community Power Corporation to propogate
the
> 3 kW Turbo Stove in the countries around the world where it is sorely
needed.
>
>
> Yours truly, TOM REED CPC/BEF
>
>
> The Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From VHarris001 at aol.com Wed Aug 30 22:32:34 2000
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:40 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Condensing; Steam Power and V8 Engine Conversion Help
Message-ID: <e.1b85ba5.26df1d9f@aol.com>

In a message dated 08/22/2000 8:59:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
kchishol@fox.nstn.ca writes:

> Dear Vern
>
> VHarris001@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > In a message dated 08/22/2000 10:38:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > kchishol@fox.nstn.ca writes:
> >

> > VHarris wrote:
> > Someone told me they thought the water inlet and outlet orifice would
restrict the
> > flow of the expanded steam too much to put *all* the steam through, but
> that
> > I could put some of it through. I'd have to do the calculations to find
> out
> > the volume of steam at, say 5 psia out (versus 800 psia in) and see what
> > cross-section I need to accomodate that volume.
>
> OK.... but the steam is condensing along the way. As it condenses, then
> you have a reduced volume.

Yes, but if the *peak* thruput is 2000 lbs per hour (max throttle at heavy
load) and at the exhaust port the pressure is 5 psia, the specific volume of
steam is, I believe, 73.5 ft^3 per lb, you will pass (73.5 * 2000) 147,000
ft^3 per hour or 2,450 cfm through the water inlet passage (2 or 2.5 inch
diameter?) per hour. I think that volume of thruput is the reason someone
speculated that the *standard* water inlet and outlet were too small to
handle the entire flow of steam.

> > I've been toying with the idea of trying to achieve 250 hp from the
engine
> > (at maximum power) but that might be too high a number. Even at a "very
> > efficient" 8 lbs of steam per hp hour, that would require the system to
> pass
> > through 2000 lbs of water per hour. The radiator then would need to
throw
> > off (2000 lbs. * 1000 btu per lb) (phase change plus), or 2,000,000 btu
> per
> > hour or more. Of course, that much power would rarely be needed - but it
> > must be designed in in order for it to be achieved.
>
> A 250 HP engine would probably be about 25% efficient; input heat would
> thus be about 1000 HP. Roughly half the inefficiency would go out the
> tailpipe, and 1/4 out the radiator. Thus "Rad Power = Mech. Power." A
> radiator for a 250 HP engine would prolly have to pass 250 x 3412 =
> 853,000 BTU/Hr.

I'd love to achieve 25 percent efficiency. Do you think an IC engine
conversion is capable of achieving that? I had been planning on about 12-15
percent *overall* efficiency. During full throttle and heavy load
conditions, what do you think the efficiency will drop to? I suppose the
condenser will have to be sized to accomodate the relatively poor efficiency
of heavy load conditions, so while 853,000 BTU/Hr. might be a good number for
25 percent efficiency, do you think it will remain a valid number for full
throttle and heavy load conditions?

> >
> > Also, due to the low density of steam, it is not a good conductor of
heat
> so
> > won't give up it's heat to the radiator tubes and fins nearly as well as
> does
> > automotive coolant, which I believe will require a larger cooling
surface.
>
> "Au contraire, mon ami." :-) With steam, you can get dropwise or film
> condensation, and lots of scouring velocity, so you will prolly have
> much greater heat transfer coefficients on the steam side. The problem,
> if any, will be on "air side heat remval."
>

Will you explain dropwise condensation and scouring velocity more fully? I
think I understand the problems associated with the mass of airflow problem,
but I'm not sure how mass air flow relates to the difference between the
effect of cooling high density water versus low density steam (73.5 cu ft per
lb) as the medium in a radiator.

> > Some methods to help relieve this problem is to have the steam enter the
> > bottom of the radiator on the assumption that it will percolate up
through
> > already condensed water, helping to transfer the heat of the steam to
> cooler
> > water. Another method I've heard is to run the steam through an area
> being
> > sprayed with atomized water to assist in the cooling.
> >
> This will prolly not be necesary or desirable.
>

Will you also elaborate on your reasoning here?

> >
> > Thanks for your post,
>
> No prollem!!! You have a fun project!! :-)
>
> Kevin Chisholm

Thanks Kevin,
Vern
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From VHarris001 at aol.com Wed Aug 30 22:33:06 2000
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:40 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Condensing; Steam Power and V8 Engine Conversion Help
Message-ID: <db.90e4c21.26df1db5@aol.com>

Hi Joel,

If it's not too inconvenient, I would appreciate a peek at the engineering
data on those radiators. I suppose most important to the discussion at hand
is what vacuum level they will withstand.

I'm looking at a steam conversion calculator that says at, say 5 psia,
saturated steam has a temperature of 162.2F, a specific volume of 73.5 ft^3
per lb, and a heat content of 1131 btu/lb. So it would appear that when
operating at a vacuum, the condenser temperature is actually lower than the
normal 185-195F operating temperature of a typical automotive type radiator.
However, if I understand what is happening correctly (and I'm not entirely
sure I do :-)) the uncondensed steam, having a much lower density, will
require a considerably larger radiator surface area in order to exchange the
same btu's with the passing air mass per pound of steam than would the same
weight of water in a radiator.

Please don't hesitate to correct me if I am wrong!

Thanks,
Vern

In a message dated 08/22/2000 6:33:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
joflo@yifan.net writes:

> Vern,
>
> Our greenhouse heat exchangers are about the same size as an automotive rad
> and are rated at 220,000btu/H with 180F water flowing through at 10 gpm and
> 65F ambient. Steam will be much hotter (at least until it condenses) so
> you'll have a bigger delta T which might double the output of a radiator.
> I've experimented with rads as heat exhangers in the greenhouse and they
> seem on a par with the $500 engineered ones. I can scare up some
> engineering data from the heat exchangers if you think it would help.
>
> Joel Florian -- Alaska
>
> > Any ideas on how much heat a large automotive (or Ford F350 truck)
> radiator
> > will remove and how many gallons of water throughput they are capable of?
>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From VHarris001 at aol.com Wed Aug 30 23:15:55 2000
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:40 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The inverted downdraft gasifier
Message-ID: <e8.95313ab.26df27c5@aol.com>

In a message dated 08/25/2000 9:31:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
Reedtb2@cs.com writes:

> ~~~~~
> In the conventional downdraft gasifier air is drawn by a blower or engine
> from nozzles (Imbert starting 1938) or from the top of a cylindrical tube
> (stratified downdraft downdraft, starting at SERI, 1980). It first meets
> unburned biomass and burns it in the process I call "flaming pyrolysis".
> (Flaming combustion is like the flame of the match; flaming pyrolysis is
> similar, but has limited air.) This produces a gas containing
considerable
>
> CO, H2 and CH4, but also CO2 and H2O at temperatures of 1000-1500C and
> produces from 5-25% charcoal, depending on the superficial velocity of the
> gases.
>
> These HOT gases pass over the resulting charcoal and are further reduced
by
> the charcoal to producer gas. If the superficial velocity is about 0.4
m/s
>
> and the gas has a heating value of 5 MJ/nm3, the output will be 2 MJ/m2-s
or
>
> 2,000 kWth/m2, or 0.2 kW/cm2, an amazing throughput.
>

Hi Tom (Reed),

I continue to struggle with the definition of "gasification." I note that
you again discuss pyrolysis gases, which are further reduced by passing
through a bed of hot charcoal, resulting in "producer gas."

I was wondering if you would take the time to compare and contrast "pyrolysis
gases" and how they are produced versus "producer gases" and how they are
produced.

Is a bed of charcoal, or other carbon bed, *required* in order to generate
"producer gas" in a gasifier? If so, does that imply that energy sources
that do not produce a bed of charcoal when "gasified" (or contain little
moisture available for the water-gas reaction) are not actually being
"gasified?" That is to say, if there is no charcoal present for reduction to
occur, is the resulting gas still considered "producer gas?"

If the off-gas isn't considered producer gas, then isn't there actually a
considerable degree of reduction and/or water gas reaction occuring (highly
endothermic, correct)? On the other hand, if the off-gas is considered
producer gas, then isn't the charcoal bed somewhat superfluous to
gasification?

Finally, your continued research into the subject indicates that superficial
velocity is of considerable importance in producing tar-free producer gas.
However, if the material being gasified does not produce a bed of charcoal,
will an appropriate superficial velocity still result in crack tars and thus
a low tar content pyrolysis gas?

Thanks for your continued contributions to gasification!

Best,

Vernon Harris
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From 146942 at email.msn.com Thu Aug 31 00:14:18 2000
From: 146942 at email.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:40 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Condensing; Steam Power and V8 Engine Conversion Help
Message-ID: <001e01c01302$8f8515e0$8ba4013f@oemcomputer>

you can save yourself a lot of grief if you will contact the steam auto club
america s.a.c.a. on the net, check out the library of old books and plans
and go with something tried and true. as far back as 90 years ago, there
were engines pulling 15-20% efficiency with boilers in the 70-80% range.
there is even some old engines and boilers out there for a couple grand.
skip

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From 146942 at email.msn.com Thu Aug 31 00:14:40 2000
From: 146942 at email.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:40 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Condensing; Steam Power and V8 Engine Conversion Help
Message-ID: <001f01c01302$9077b340$8ba4013f@oemcomputer>

radiators can handle strong vacuums. unless you have a cooling source below
80 degrees, dont expect a vacuum. you might try water injecting on hard
loads. it is noisy, but it works, and keeps the vacuum pump primed.
skip

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From kchishol at fox.nstn.ca Thu Aug 31 09:16:37 2000
From: kchishol at fox.nstn.ca (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:40 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Condensing; Steam Power and V8 Engine Conversion Help
In-Reply-To: <e.1b85ba5.26df1d9f@aol.com>
Message-ID: <39AE5A5A.F8A395BC@fox.nstn.ca>

Dear Vern

VHarris001@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 08/22/2000 8:59:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> kchishol@fox.nstn.ca writes:
>
...del...
> > > I could put some of it through. I'd have to do the calculations to find
> > out
> > > the volume of steam at, say 5 psia out (versus 800 psia in) and see what
> > > cross-section I need to accomodate that volume.
> >
> > OK.... but the steam is condensing along the way. As it condenses, then
> > you have a reduced volume.
>
> Yes, but if the *peak* thruput is 2000 lbs per hour (max throttle at heavy
> load) and at the exhaust port the pressure is 5 psia, the specific volume of
> steam is, I believe, 73.5 ft^3 per lb, you will pass (73.5 * 2000) 147,000
> ft^3 per hour or 2,450 cfm through the water inlet passage (2 or 2.5 inch
> diameter?) per hour. I think that volume of thruput is the reason someone
> speculated that the *standard* water inlet and outlet were too small to
> handle the entire flow of steam.

Volume is thus about 40 cubic feet per second; doing a simple Q=AV
calculation suggests a velocity of about 1900 feet per second. Wow!!

Thats one reason why my idea won't work!! :-) Another factor which I
overlooked was that the block temperature will be higher than the
expanded steam temperature, so you will get no condensation within the
block.... just large pressure drops on the way to a condenser.
>
> > > I've been toying with the idea of trying to achieve 250 hp from the
> engine
> > > (at maximum power) but that might be too high a number. Even at a "very
> > > efficient" 8 lbs of steam per hp hour, that would require the system to
> > pass
> > > through 2000 lbs of water per hour. The radiator then would need to
> throw
> > > off (2000 lbs. * 1000 btu per lb) (phase change plus), or 2,000,000 btu
> > per
> > > hour or more. Of course, that much power would rarely be needed - but it
> > > must be designed in in order for it to be achieved.
> >
> > A 250 HP engine would probably be about 25% efficient; input heat would
> > thus be about 1000 HP. Roughly half the inefficiency would go out the
> > tailpipe, and 1/4 out the radiator. Thus "Rad Power = Mech. Power." A
> > radiator for a 250 HP engine would prolly have to pass 250 x 3412 =
> > 853,000 BTU/Hr.
>
> I'd love to achieve 25 percent efficiency. Do you think an IC engine
> conversion is capable of achieving that? I had been planning on about 12-15
> percent *overall* efficiency.

I don't know what efficiency you could attain in your steam engine. The
25% figure I used above referrred to an estimated efficiency of the
original IC engine, so that I could approximate heat flows.

During full throttle and heavy load
> conditions, what do you think the efficiency will drop to?

This is a very deep question that I cannot answer with the information
available. Firstly, there is the "theoretically attainable eficiency"
which is a basic function of "conditions of state." (eg, the T&P of
steam at cylinder entry and exit)
Then there is a "real world deduction" to cover such things as heat
loss, blowby, pattern of injection of steam, pressure drops, etc.

I suppose the
> condenser will have to be sized to accomodate the relatively poor efficiency
> of heavy load conditions, so while 853,000 BTU/Hr. might be a good number for
> 25 percent efficiency, do you think it will remain a valid number for full
> throttle and heavy load conditions?

Firstly, the 853,000 BTU/Hr was an estimate of the heat dissipated from
the IC engine system by the radiator; it was not intended to be an
estimate of how much heat your steam engine application would have to
dissipate to maintain desired condenser conditions. As noted above, you
would have to estimate the conditions at various points in your cycle,
and determine a likely heat load under the conditions you expected to
operate.
>
> > >
> > > Also, due to the low density of steam, it is not a good conductor of
> heat
> > so
> > > won't give up it's heat to the radiator tubes and fins nearly as well as
> > does
> > > automotive coolant, which I believe will require a larger cooling
> surface.
> >
> > "Au contraire, mon ami." :-) With steam, you can get dropwise or film
> > condensation, and lots of scouring velocity, so you will prolly have
> > much greater heat transfer coefficients on the steam side. The problem,
> > if any, will be on "air side heat remval."
> >
>
> Will you explain dropwise condensation and scouring velocity more fully?
Its been a while since I studied this phenomenon, but basically, with
dropwise condensation, the heat transfer coefficient goes up by a factor
of 10 to 20. With laminar flow, a "dead layer" of gas can act as an
insulating layer on the condenser surface, but with highly turbulent
flow, the "dead air" is scoured away to allow new, hotter fluids access
to the condensing surface. Note that the quantity of air in the
condenser should be kept as low as possible, to ensure that this
condition is minimized, and to ensure that full condenser area is
available, and not "airlocked."

Dropwise condensation is promoted by "oily steam", which you will likely
have. I can't tell you much more about dropwise condensation, but most
heat transfer texts would cover the subject in detail.
I
> think I understand the problems associated with the mass of airflow problem,
> but I'm not sure how mass air flow relates to the difference between the
> effect of cooling high density water versus low density steam (73.5 cu ft per
> lb) as the medium in a radiator.
>
> > > Some methods to help relieve this problem is to have the steam enter the
> > > bottom of the radiator on the assumption that it will percolate up
> through
> > > already condensed water, helping to transfer the heat of the steam to
> > cooler
> > > water. Another method I've heard is to run the steam through an area
> > being
> > > sprayed with atomized water to assist in the cooling.
> > >
> > This will prolly not be necesary or desirable.
> >
>
> Will you also elaborate on your reasoning here?
>
If you have adequate condenser area, the sprays won't be necessary.
Sprays would not be desirable because of the extra system complexity,
and the pumping energy necessary to run it.

That hang together for you?

Kevin Chisholm
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From 146942 at email.msn.com Thu Aug 31 10:35:40 2000
From: 146942 at email.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:40 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Condensing; Steam Power and V8 Engine Conversion Help
Message-ID: <000f01c01359$54c6b6a0$033d1b3f@oemcomputer>

ok, enough groping in the dark.
first, on a steam engine (or piston engine) hp = PLAN/33000
P= pressure (average or 'mean' effective pressure-not inlet
L= length of stroke in feet
A= area of piston in inches
N= number of revolutions per minute
divide by 33/000

this is for the power stroke. a 4 cycle is cofactored by .5 and a double
acting is by 2

as far as your exhaust and even the intake, it is a wise and common practice
to have an accumulator immediately before and after the cylinder so as to
maintain pressure in and kill velocity out. often, steam jacketing the
cylinder before the steam enters acts thusly and a large condensor or as i
use a feed preheater (coil in chamber) is used. you cannot imagine the rate
of transfer of heat with steam but let me tell you a lot happens in a few
inches.
if you want to experiment, try passing a lazer thru the piping to line up
the molecules and give laminar flow.
remember, pressure drops are not as big a deal as heat drop, and you will
lose heat at every valve, turn or anywhere it has to change shape. also,
your engine efficiency is proportional to the expansion ratio. old engines
that expand about 1 to 1.5 give 35 lbs/hp.at the lower pressures. about 5
expansions will give 20 lbs and 20 expansions will give 10lbs /hp
consumption (all theory). if you do the math, the heat drops in the
cylinder and the tdc and bdc rob you past 3 expansions. you will have to
compound into two or more cylinders. now extreeme heat and pressure change
the equations dramatacally. if you can get above 450psi and keep temps over
600 degrees, double your efficiency ratio. even the old stanley was capable
of 600 psi and 1000degrees. also, your inlet ports should be at least 10%
in area compared to the piston (if piston speed is over 600fpm.)

so, if your bash valve v8 conversion is going to work, it will have to be
figured on a 5 to 1 expansion and if you can get your heat over 600 degrees,
at a good speed you possibly could get about 15 lbs/hp net output.
unfortuneately, a gas engine will not handle those high cylinder pressures.
you need a diesel.
on my 100kw engines, i use the entire piston / rod assembly from detroit
series 140 engines as it is the only thing strong enough to handle 400+psi.
one more thing......watch out for aluminum pistons. they grow under that
kind of heat!

skip
sensible steam consultants

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Thu Aug 31 11:23:37 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:40 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Condensing; Steam Power and V8 Engine Conversion Help
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000831091654.008b9100@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Skip;

>on my 100kw engines, i use the entire piston / rod assembly from detroit
>series 140 engines as it is the only thing strong enough to handle 400+psi.
>one more thing......watch out for aluminum pistons. they grow under that
>kind of heat!

Are you using the unaflow principle and exhausting through the side ports?

What is your expansion ratio?

I believe the idea of steam jacketing cylinders is to keep temperatures up
-- not down. But with high temperature high pressure steam -- they usually
just insulate the motor well.

If you ran your exhaust through the jacket you would be seriously
compromising engine efficiencies. Using heat from "live" steam in the
cylinder to heat exhaust steam rather than make power in expansion.

I do not believe there is any point to running a "vacuum" condenser on a
motor that is only 5 to one expansion ratio.

Say 600 psi in -- that would be 125 psi out the exhaust. As Skip points out
-- that is still plenty enough to run another steam engine!

Unless you go to 25 to one and greater expansion ratios -- you need to
compound that steam through a number of cylinder expansion cycles. 4 stage
compound motors were used often for this. Very complicated -- very expensive.

I'd stick with a high expansion rate unaflow design -- single cylinder
expansion -- and like Skip -- go with the GMC cylinders -- if I were you.
Or start linking a bunch of v-8 gasoline engines together.

And remember -- the higher the expansion ratio -- the cooler your steam
engine runs.

At 125 psi exhaust -- the coolest that steam can be -- saturated -- is
around 345 F -- and then average that up to your inlet temp!!

One very hot machine you will be running.

I believe we already discussed this??

Peter Singfield
Belize

>
>skip
>sensible steam consultants
>
>
>
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From 146942 at email.msn.com Thu Aug 31 13:35:11 2000
From: 146942 at email.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:40 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Condensing; Steam Power and V8 Engine Conversion Help
Message-ID: <006c01c01372$68dbab00$0100007f@oemcomputer>

PETE
use the hot steam for the cylinder jacketing. always. you want to be as
close to adibiatic expansion as possible. it means a lot on the bigger
stuff. vacuum is mandatory on uniflows if you want efficiency. the idea is
to get all the old steam out so it wont cool the new steam. however, in the
real world, the steam is used in some kind of processing and therefore,
engine/turbine efficiency is irrelevant. and if youwant to expand 5-1 in a
cylinder, you better have 200+superheat.
skip

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From VHarris001 at aol.com Thu Aug 31 13:38:18 2000
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:40 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Steam Power and V8 Engine Conversion - Valves
Message-ID: <df.9529d13.26dff1e1@aol.com>

Hi Peter,

I had in mind using steam about 800 psia and 850F at the inlet. I think that
works out to about 330 degrees F superheat. The IC engine conversion head
will run close to that temperature, but the block will run considerably
cooler. Modern lubricants should be able to withstand that temperature. I
believe the Navy uses an additive called 2180TEP that might perform well.

Of course, the valve inlet design will have to withstand full temperature and
pressure on a continual basis. That is why I am having trouble figuring out
how best to implement the inlet valve design.

For anyone interested, I have a simple diagram of the valve design I'm
currently considering posted online. It is, in essence, a piston valve, or
half of a spool valve, designed with close tolerances. You can see it at:

http://hometown.aol.com/vharris001/myhomepage/profile.html

(Valve stem clearance in a new engine is 0.001 inches and can grow to 0.027
inches prior to replacement. I'm wondering if this clearance is sufficient
for this valve design to allow for efficienct operation or if this clearance
is still too great and will permit too much blowby into the cylinder when the
valve is closed. Any comments would be appreciated.)

As you know, in a typical IC engine, combustion pressure can momentarily
reach 800 psi or more, and combustion temperature can momentarily reach 4000
F. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that an IC engine conversion
will fail in operation with momentary steam conditions at 800 psia and 850F.

However, there is no reason the engine piston should *ever* be permitted to
see that great a pressure. The reason this is not needed is because a large
displacement IC engine is more than ample in displacement to produce
sufficient power with only a fraction of the steam throughput it should be
capable of handling. This is so because an IC engine conversion is 2
strokes, not 4, therefore to produce the same power as it would in IC
operation, only half the BMEP is needed for steam operation. Since only half
the BMEP is needed to produce the same power, there is no reason to permit
more steam into the cylinder than the engine can withstand.

The trick, then, is controlling the steam being admitted into the cylinder.
I concede your point that this is quite a trick. I'm looking at two
approaches to controlling steam admission: First is a fixed cutoff inlet
valve (at 10 percent cutoff) and using throttling to control admission. With
a fixed cutoff engine, the actual valve cutoff point is largely irrelevant
except during full throttle, high speed and heavy load conditions, where a 10
percent cutoff may actually limit power due to the increasing velocity of the
piston as it accelerates away from TDC (rapidly increasing the volume of the
interstitial space in the cylinder available to be filled by steam) and the
problem of overcoming the inertial mass of the steam in short burst intervals.

Other than at this high speed and heavy load operation, the throttle acts as
the limiting mechanism controlling expansions in the cylinder. So even
though the engine as designed might have a theoretical 5:1 expansion ratio,
the practical expansion ratio is much higher under normal operating
conditions due to the limiting effect of the throttle.

As you have discussed, throttling considerably reduces efficiency, but it may
be the only alternative available. The second alternative I've been looking
into for controlling steam admission is by devising a variable cutoff system.
This would be more efficient but presents engineering challenges that may be
far beyond my ability and financial resources to undertake.

A good cam engineer can design a camshaft to control the valve in nearly any
manner imaginable. I don't think the cam or the lifters or pushrods or
rocker arms or springs or any other part will be all that difficult. The
only real difficulty I seem to be encountering is figuring out that inlet
valve. And it's a real bugger!

Your thoughts, comments, criticisms etc. and those of any one else are more
than welcome. Do you think a 0.001 inch clearance between the valve stem and
the inlet port wall is sufficiently small to maintain engine efficiency *and*
still achieve reliable (non sticking, non binding) operation?

I appreciate any peer review that anyone is willing to provide!

Thanks much,
Vernon
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From VHarris001 at aol.com Thu Aug 31 14:02:39 2000
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:40 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Steam Power and V8 Engine Conversion - Valve Size
Message-ID: <7d.9ca38ea.26dff79b@aol.com>

In a message dated 08/31/2000 10:37:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
146942@email.msn.com writes:

> if you can get above 450psi and keep temps over
> 600 degrees, double your efficiency ratio. even the old stanley was
capable
> of 600 psi and 1000degrees. also, your inlet ports should be at least 10%
> in area compared to the piston (if piston speed is over 600fpm.)
>

Hi Skip,

The steam I'm planning on using is 800 psia and 850F at the inlet port at
full throttle (at partial throttle it will be considerably less).

I'll have to calculate the piston speed and get back to you. Of course, the
piston accelerates as it moves away from top dead center. Also, the inlet
valve is also rapidly closing just as the piston is rapidly accelerating away
from TDC, creating both a mathematical computational nightmare *and* a severe
wire drawing condition!

I've been told that a half inch valve with 0.090 inches of lift is enough to
run a typical automotive type cylinder (assuming 4 inch bore and 4 inch
stroke) at 1000 psia steam up to 3000 rpm, but I have no numbers to either
prove or disprove it. If I do my math right, the area of that valve would be
( diameter * pi * lift ) or ( 0.5 * 3.14159 * 0.090) = 0.1414 square inches
of port area. If the piston is 4 inches in diameter, the total area of the
piston is 12.57 inches, for a port to piston area ratio of ( 0.1414 / 12.57 )
= 1.12 percent. That is considerably less than your 10 percent figure.

I would like to figure out the right size of the valve needed, but I believe
it will take a complex software program to do so. Do you have access to
valve sizing software that could run different scenario's and thus optimize
valve size?

Thanks,
Vernon
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Thu Aug 31 17:12:17 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:41 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Methanol
Message-ID: <55.a56ac53.26e023d8@cs.com>

Dear Kermit and Gasification network:

The letter below outlines the possible future for methanol and is not very
different from what I was proposing at the time of the first energy crisis in
1974. (See METHANOL: A VERSATILE FUEL FOR IMMEDIATE USE, SCIENCE,pp.
1299-1304, 28 Dec., 1973). Ha! This article moved me out of Material
Science at MIT and into alternate fuels - much too early.

Methanol is

o easily made from natural gas, coal, wood, or waste - any carbonaceous
material - using current technology for less than $1/gal (equivalent to 1/2
gas gasoline). (We developed a high pressure oxygen biomass gasifier at
SERI/NREL 1980-88)

o is high octane and burns very clean in the IC engine

o is used in preference to gasoline at the race track

So, what's preventing us from becoming energy independent in the U.S. (now >
50% dependent on imports)

o low cost oil, still less than $30/bbl, but rising....

o the interest of the oil companies in using it up ASAP

o the natural inertia of humans to abandon well established habits

o The US Dept. of Agriculture and U.S. farmers who would rather raise more
corn for ethanol that use the corn stover as a second product for making
methanol

So, I have learned patience. I believe we'll get around to this sensible
option sooner or later.

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF/CPC

In a message dated 8/30/00 7:42:32 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
kssustain@provide.net writes:

<<

Methanol

Recently there was a post on energyresources about a Barney Foran of
Australia who was proposing a mass planting of trees which could be made into
methanol and used to keep their fleet of cars running. I am too pessimistic
to think that many cars or airplanes will be running in 50 years. However if
there is life, the Methanol would still be useful for running tractors,
trains, and trucks. In my opinion we had better find renewable energy for the
essential things rather than the luxuries and I think some elements of this
idea should be touted in the USA. Note that Methanol has been touted as a
fuel for fuel cells. We might be able to use fuel cells and methanol to run
trains.
The efficiency of conversion of wood energy to Methanol probably is not
much greater than 50% (guess). It would seem to me that if solar energy were
used to pyrolize the wood then the total output could be equal to the entire
wood energy. This whole process would entail the generation of synthesis gas,
the reduction to Methanol in a catalytic converter, a steam system to convert
any waste heat into shaft energy, and possibly an apartment building which
could be heated from the waste heat. I can see a lot of problems with fouling
of boilers but I would hope they are surmountable.
A place like New Mexico where there is both timber and sun might be a
good place to start this. Obviously a lot of work needs to be done on solar
mirrors. In my opinion solar energy using mirrors on boilers will be cheaper
than solar cells. Therefore a lot of the success in the survival of the human
race will depend on the cost of mirrors.
This is not an activist network and after seeing the junk on some of
the other nets I can see why. However it would seem to me that a mass tree
planting program would serve the purpose of both the futurists and the people
who are in the biomass business. The lack of a decent biofuel program is one
of the reasons for the forest fires. A lot of natural gas is being used
because pollution is causing the biomass and waste fuel programs to be in bad
repute. Surely biomass is less polluting than coal. We also need more ideas
to write proposals to the US government about new systems and machines which
will help in the coming shortages. I can think of many but have no power to
do anything.
It is my belief that this net should unite with other nets and advocate
mass tree planting programs as a means of saving the children. Does anyone
know what it costs per tree to plant multi culture trees in quantity? Even
Bush talked about a tree planting program. I have not heard Clinton or Gore
do this.

Kermit Schlansker PE

>>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

November 2000 Gasification Archive