BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

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

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

July 2000 Gasification Archive

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

From joacim at artech.se Sun Jul 2 16:06:09 2000
From: joacim at artech.se (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: scrubber cleaner/cooler/condenser
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10007021955280.805-100000@localhost>

 

For my next wood gas car, I'd like to try out a scrubber cleaner and
condenser that I've been pondering for some time now: I figure I could
lead the hot dusty gas (well, after passing it through a cyclone and a heat
exchanger anyway; still quite hot and rather sooty), to a sort of
scrubber placed under the bonnet. The scrubber would be continuously
flushed and cooled with condense water from the gas, pumped through an old
car cooler placed in front of the regular motor cooler. The gas coming in
at the bottom, by a small condense water tank and taken out at the top;
water from the cooler going the other way back down to the tank. The
scrubber would consist of a cylinder of yet unknown dimensions, filled with
some sort of porous material to yield a large area inside it. (like metal
lathe shavings, ceramic rings, whatever works)

I don't see any problems with this in principle, but how do I calculate the
dimensions for the scrubber? I think I could estimate the size of it from
the amount of heat being transferred, and regarding cooling it also depends
on just how cold I can make the water in the cooler I suppose, but are
there any thumb rules for scrubber dimensions? (cooling, filtering
effect and pressure drop?) Are there any problems or phenomenons
regarding scrubbers that I should take into consideration? foaming perhaps?

(I have a 2.1 litre motor, and guesstimate the maximum gas flow, cold "dry"
gas, to at most 30-50 l/s at max rpm and full throttle. At normal operation
it should stay well below half of that I think. I also plan for coping with
a lot of steam in the raw gas, whatever "a lot" is.)

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
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 Greko40 at aol.com Tue Jul 4 10:42:03 2000
From: Greko40 at aol.com (Greko40@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: scrubber cleaner/cooler/condenser
Message-ID: <46.7998a73.26935198@aol.com>

Joacim,
It sounds like you have built a car that runs on wood gas. I would love to
hear more about that. Where did you get the plans for it and how does it
work? Have you logged many miles with it?

I am going to build a gasifier and I am in the information gathering stage.
I have read about a filter that was made from an old water tank. It bubbled
the wood gas up under a baffle plate. From under the baffle it flowed up the
outside of the tank and then back down to the bottom of an inverted inner
tank where it bubbled up through a submerged grate that broke the flow into
small bubbles. The tanks were less than a quarter full of fluid.
In addition they had a cooling coil inside the liquid that was connected to
the cars cooling system. They had placed an airconditioning cooler in front
of the cars radiator and used the cars own cooling fluid and pump to move the
fluid throught the system. Basically they had tapped into the car heater
hoses and let the motor pump water through the airconditioning radiator and
from there to the cooling coil in the water tank condenser and from there
back to the motor.
To the water that stayed in the tank that the smoke bubbled through they
added dishwasher soap as a wetting and non-foaming agent. They said the
wetting agent in the soap interacts with the ash and tars in the smoke
forcing them to sink. They used one small box of dishsoap per charge of the
gasifier.
They flushed the tank out with a garden hose every ten to twenty hours of
operation.

They said that this system had lowered the temperature of the smoke to 120
degrees fahrenheit. The temperature on a stationary unit they had for
generating electricity was somewhat higher at 135 fahrenheit.

Your idea of flowing water over porous medium in a tank sounds interesting.
It reminds me of an alchohol still plan that I saw once where they filled
the condenser column with glass marbles of the type that kids play with. I
have also heard of water filters that use glass marbles and place an
electrical charge on them to attract impurities. The marbles are flushed
clean periodically.

Kirk
USA, Washington state
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 e.a.bramer at WB.UTWENTE.NL Tue Jul 4 12:13:20 2000
From: e.a.bramer at WB.UTWENTE.NL (Bramer E.A.)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: PhD vancany
Message-ID: <200007041613.JAA12676@secure.crest.net>

Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 10:05:36 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"

Dear Colleagues,

We are looking for a PhD-student chemical or mechanical
engineering for a project on high temperature tar removal from
syngas of biomass fuelled gasifiers.

More information about the position can be found at:
www.thw.wb.utwente.nl

>
> Should any one be interested, please contact us.
>
>
> Yours sincerely,
> E.A. Bramer

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 pmcnee at pittards.com Tue Jul 4 12:13:24 2000
From: pmcnee at pittards.com (pmcnee@pittards.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Small scale fixed bed gasifiers
Message-ID: <00256911.005A26F5.00@mail.pittards.com>

Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

My name is Phil McNee, Group Environmental Manager with Pittards plc. We are a
UK leather manufacturing Group specialising in high tech, high performance
leathers for the sports and fashion industries.

I got the mail list details from an internet search I did on gasification - we
are currently evaluating small scale downdraft gasification technology for some
of the wastes that we generate.

I have one or two contacts for manufacturers of this type of gasifier in the UK
but I would appreciate contact from anyone who has a UK list. I would greatly
appreciate contact from anyone who has had experience in trials and commercial
scale up of this type of gasification technology. I can be contacted on

Tel: 01935 474321
Fax: 01935 427145
Mobile: 07977 979045
email: pmcnee@pittards.com

Best Regards

Phil McNee

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 kearns.kds at ns.sympatico.ca Tue Jul 4 12:15:35 2000
From: kearns.kds at ns.sympatico.ca (John Kearns)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:30 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasification over disintegration
Message-ID: <200007041615.JAA12952@secure.crest.net>

Please could you tell me the advantages of your product over high
temperature disintegration. Also, is it more practical in cases of small
daily audits of say; MSW?
Our equipment has lower quantity operating limitations. We currently
have several applications that require small autothermic solutions.
Thanking you in advance, Yours sincerely, John Kearns.

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 Wed Jul 5 08:33:13 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: scrubber cleaner/cooler/condenser
Message-ID: <79.6594495.269484e5@cs.com>

Dear Joachim, Kirk et al:

It sounds like you may be getting in trouble.

Gasifiers for cars run on a VERY small pressure drop budget, usually less
than 30 inches of water pressure (about 1 psi, 1/15 th atmosphere) to run the
gasifier, the cyclone (if present), baghouse, various tar filters if present,
cooler, etc. So bubbling gases through a 10 inch deep water path would take
1/3 of the pressure drop available.

Sounds like you may be re-inventing a few wheels. Check out our Handbook
etc. below to find what's known before you invest time energy and thought.

Yours truly, TOM REED

~~~~~
ORDER LIST - Biomass Energy Books
(Nicknames in Bold, book descriptions follow)

1. A SURVEY OF BIOMASS GASIFICATION 2000: $25

2. BIOMASS DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS HANDBOOK: $25

3. CONTAMINANT TESTING FOR GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS: $10

4. BIOMASS GASIFIER "TARS": THEIR NATURE, FORMATION, AND CONVERSION: $25

5. GENGAS: THE SWEDISH CLASSIC ON WOOD FUELED VEHICLES: $30

6. SMALL SCALE GAS PRODUCER ENGINE SYSTEMS: $30

7. PRODUCER-GAS: ANOTHER FUEL FOR MOTOR TRANSPORT: $10

8. FUNDAMENTAL STUDY AND SCALEUP OF THE AIR-OXYGEN STRATIFIED
DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER: $30

9. EVALUATION OF GASIFICATION AND NOVEL THERMAL PROCESSES
FOR THE TREATMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE - MSW $25

10. DENSIFIED BIOMASS: A NEW FORM OF SOLID FUEL: $12

11. WOOD GAS GENERATORS FOR VEHICLES: $4

12. CONSTRUCTION OF A SIMPLIFIED WOOD GAS GENERATOR: $15

13. BIOMASS TO METHANOL SPECIALISTS' WORKSHOP: $30

14. THE PEGASUS UNIT: THE LOST ART OF DRIVING WITHOUT GASOLINE: $20

15. GASIFICATION OF RICE HULLS: THEORY AND PRAXIS: $30

16. TREES: $1

17. TREE CROPS FOR ENERGY CO-PRODUCTION ON FARMS: $30

18. FROM THE FRYER TO THE FUEL TANK: HOW TO MAKE CHEAP,
CLEAN FUEL FROM FREE VEGETABLE OIL: $20

19. Modern Gas Producers by N. E. Rambush (1923) $30

20. Free Energy of Binary Compounds $25

TOTAL FOR BOOKS ___________
ORDER BLANK
-10% if 3 or more books ordered or to booksellers $3 handling + (US and
Canada
$1.50 (bookrate, or request air, $3) or (other foreign, $9/large book- air
only) ___________
TOTAL ORDER ___________
E-mail order to reedtb2@CS.com or Mail orders to The Biomass Energy
Foundation Press (BEFP), 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401; FAX 303-278 0560;
call 303 278 0558. We'll send invoice with books. Pay by postal order or
check on US Banks (no foreign), or electronic deposit to Bank No. 10 20000
76, Acct. No. 300800 2911.
BOOKS FROM THE BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION PRESS

NEW: A SURVEY OF BIOMASS GASIFICATION 2000: T. Reed and S. Gaur have
surveyed the biomass gasification scene for the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory and the Biomass Energy Foundation. 180 pages of large gasifiers
systems, small gasifiers and gasifier research institutions with descriptions
of the major types of gasifiers and a list of most world gasifiers. ISBN
1-890607-13-4 180 pp $25 _________

NEW: BIOMASS GASIFIER "TARS": THEIR NATURE, FORMATION, AND CONVERSION: T.
Milne, N. Abatzoglou, & R. J. Evans. Tars are the Achilles Heel of
gasification. This thorough work explores the chemical nature of tars, their
generation, and methods for testing and destroying them.
ISBN 1-890607-14-2 180 pp $25________

NEW: EVALUATION OF GASIFICATION AND NOVEL THERMAL PROCESSES FOR THE
TREATMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE - W. Niessen et al. 1996 NREL report by
Camp Dresser and McKee on MSW conversion processes. ISBN 1-890607-15-0 198
pp $25_______

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

NEW/OLD: DENSIFIED BIOMASS: A NEW FORM OF SOLID FUEL: Tom Reed and Becky
Bryant, A "State of the Art evaluation of densified biomass fuels" with
documentation of processes, energy balance, economics and applications.
First published in 1978, & still good. ISBN 1-890607-16-9 35 pp
$12 __________

NEW/OLD: MODERN GAS PRODUCERS: N. E. Rambush, the most complete collection
of information on the golden age of coal gasificaiton, when every city had a
"gasworks" . 550 pp $30 __________

NEW/OLD: FREE ENERGY OF BINARY COMPOUNDS: AN ATLAS OF CHARTS FOR
HIGH-TEMPERATRUE CALCULATIONS, 2nd edition, Thomas B. Reed. I published this
book with MIT Press in 1971 when I was working in high temperature materials
research. The data and charts apply to all of chemistry, so you can
calculate th thermodynamics of almost any reaction., MIT Press, 1971. My
magnum opus!
90 pp $20 _________
******
BIOMASS DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS HANDBOOK: T. Reed and A. Das,
(SERI-1988) Over a million wood gasifiers were used to power cars and trucks
during World War II. Yet, after over two decades of interest, there are only
a few companies manufacturing gasifier systems. The authors have spent more
than 20 years working with various gasifier systems, In this book they
discuss ALL the factors that must be correct to have a successful "gasifier
power system." Our most popular book, the "new Testament" of gasification
ISBN 1-890607-00-2 140 pp $25 ________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

Biomass Energy Books - Description and Order Blank
ORDER LIST - Biomass Energy Books
(Nicknames in Bold)

21. A SURVEY OF BIOMASS GASIFICATION 2000: $25

22. BIOMASS DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS HANDBOOK: $25

23. CONTAMINANT TESTING FOR GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS: $10

24. BIOMASS GASIFIER "TARS": THEIR NATURE, FORMATION, AND CONVERSION: $25

25. GENGAS: THE SWEDISH CLASSIC ON WOOD FUELED VEHICLES: $30

26. SMALL SCALE GAS PRODUCER ENGINE SYSTEMS: $30

27. PRODUCER-GAS: ANOTHER FUEL FOR MOTOR TRANSPORT: $10

28. FUNDAMENTAL STUDY AND SCALEUP OF THE AIR-OXYGEN STRATIFIED
DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER: $30

29. EVALUATION OF GASIFICATION AND NOVEL THERMAL PROCESSES
FOR THE TREATMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE - MSW $25

30. DENSIFIED BIOMASS: A NEW FORM OF SOLID FUEL: $12

31. WOOD GAS GENERATORS FOR VEHICLES: $4

32. CONSTRUCTION OF A SIMPLIFIED WOOD GAS GENERATOR: $15

33. BIOMASS TO METHANOL SPECIALISTS' WORKSHOP: $30

34. THE PEGASUS UNIT: THE LOST ART OF DRIVING WITHOUT GASOLINE: $20

35. GASIFICATION OF RICE HULLS: THEORY AND PRAXIS: $30

36. TREES: $1

37. TREE CROPS FOR ENERGY CO-PRODUCTION ON FARMS: $30

38. FROM THE FRYER TO THE FUEL TANK: HOW TO MAKE CHEAP,
CLEAN FUEL FROM FREE VEGETABLE OIL: $20

ORDER BLANK
-10% if 3 or more books ordered or to booksellers + $3 handling
+ (US & Canada $1.50/book) or (Other foreign, $8/book air)
TOTAL ORDER ___________
E-mail order to reedtb2@CS.com or Mail orders to The Biomass Energy
Foundation Press (BEFP), or mail to 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401; FAX
303-278 0560; call 303 278 0558. We'll send invoice with books. Pay by
postal order or check on US Banks, or electronic deposit to Bank No. 10 20000
76, Acct. No. 300800 2911. (No foreign checks - can cost $25 to clear!)

 

In a message dated 7/4/00 8:43:58 AM Mountain Daylight Time, Greko40@aol.com
writes:

<<
Joacim,
It sounds like you have built a car that runs on wood gas. I would love to
hear more about that. Where did you get the plans for it and how does it
work? Have you logged many miles with it?

I am going to build a gasifier and I am in the information gathering stage.
I have read about a filter that was made from an old water tank. It bubbled
the wood gas up under a baffle plate. From under the baffle it flowed up the
outside of the tank and then back down to the bottom of an inverted inner
tank where it bubbled up through a submerged grate that broke the flow into
small bubbles. The tanks were less than a quarter full of fluid.
In addition they had a cooling coil inside the liquid that was connected to
the cars cooling system. They had placed an airconditioning cooler in front
of the cars radiator and used the cars own cooling fluid and pump to move
the
fluid throught the system. Basically they had tapped into the car heater
hoses and let the motor pump water through the airconditioning radiator and
from there to the cooling coil in the water tank condenser and from there
back to the motor.
To the water that stayed in the tank that the smoke bubbled through they
added dishwasher soap as a wetting and non-foaming agent. They said the
wetting agent in the soap interacts with the ash and tars in the smoke
forcing them to sink. They used one small box of dishsoap per charge of the
gasifier.
They flushed the tank out with a garden hose every ten to twenty hours of
operation.

They said that this system had lowered the temperature of the smoke to 120
degrees fahrenheit. The temperature on a stationary unit they had for
generating electricity was somewhat higher at 135 fahrenheit.

Your idea of flowing water over porous medium in a tank sounds interesting.
It reminds me of an alchohol still plan that I saw once where they filled
the condenser column with glass marbles of the type that kids play with. I
have also heard of water filters that use glass marbles and place an
electrical charge on them to attract impurities. The marbles are flushed
clean periodically.


Kirk
USA, Washington state
The Gasification List is spons >>
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 joacim at artech.se Wed Jul 5 20:59:55 2000
From: joacim at artech.se (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: scrubber cleaner/cooler/condenser
In-Reply-To: <46.7998a73.26935198@aol.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10007051119310.805-100000@localhost>

On Tue, 4 Jul 2000 Greko40@aol.com wrote:

> Joacim,
> It sounds like you have built a car that runs on wood gas. I would love to
> hear more about that. Where did you get the plans for it and how does it
> work? Have you logged many miles with it?

I built a gasifier this winter/spring, and tested it on my beat-up Volvo
343, which was a little on the small side when it comes to attaching more
and more gadgets to it. It also only have a small B14 (1400cc) motor,
which has seen its best days (weak on petrol too). At best the car got a
top speed of 80-90 km/h on dry wood and (also /at best/) 60-70 on damp such
(flat road, no wind). Uphill was like riding a moped. I had no filter or
cleaning of the gas apart from the cyclone, and got quite some soot in the
gas. I drove it for a week, to/from work etc to get the hang of it. The
fuel I used was dry stems from small birch trees (leftovers from a thinning
a couple of years ago) cut up in pieces of about the size of golf balls. 10
minutes sawing plus some cutting of the big ones was enought for one
filling, lasting about 50-60 km. (the tank is a former army cantin on 70
litre with inner walls attached for condensing water; I estimate it's
effective volume to 50-60 litre. It should be possible to lower the
consumption a bit I think, with drier fuel, not to mention a more
experienced driver/stoker. ;)

One thing I wanted to find out was how accepting the gasifier was on wet
fuel, and if I could cope with really bad fuel in an emergency. So one
rainy day I drove into one of the forestry roads near my home and gathered
up whatever looked burnable; pine cones, charcoal from a fireplace, chopped
up some sticks lying around; all quite wet. And drove on that back home and
to/from work the next day. I did have some trouble starting it on the
second day, and the motor was quite weak, but it ran on it. I've gotten the
impression that damper fuel hangs more easily.

The next project is a Volvo 245 (station wagon), which I'm converting to a
2-seat pickup, planning to place the gasifier were the rear seat was. I
couldn't find a "ready-made" pickup that was both suitable and affordable.
Old volvos are practically given away for free here, and there's plenty of
spare parts at the junk yards. So I had a breif chat with the head of the
vehicle inspection station in town, and it didn't seem to be any problem
with converting it (basically just weld the rear doors stuck) .
One funny note though: according to the inspector, there are /no/
directions issued at all regarding producer gas-powered vehicles in Sweden
nowadays. The directions that are mentioned in Gengas, were not "official",
i.e. "Gengaskommisionen" was not a governmental agency if understand it
right. The "rules" were just recommendations. As mentioned in Gengas, the
authorities made the deliberate choice in 1939 not to issue directions
regarding the designs, to speed development. And speeded it was. The only
"rule" there is nowadays is a rule stating that a producer gas vehicle
shall be equipped with a fire extinguisher. There are, however, no note of
what class of fire extinguisher there should be, so I reckon a bucket of
water or a water pistol should fulfill that demand. ;) I really don't
understand what I need a fire extinguisher for anyway. It would make more
sense to keep one in an ordinary petrol car with a 70 litre tank of
explosives attached to it; or any car equipped with a cigarette lighter and
seat stuffing that burns. I also don't see the point with taking a car to
inspection to have someone check that the vehicle conforms to non-existent
regulations. ?:-P Ah, the marvels of bureaucracy!

>
> I am going to build a gasifier and I am in the information gathering stage.
> I have read about a filter that was made from an old water tank. It bubbled
> the wood gas up under a baffle plate. From under the baffle it flowed up the
> outside of the tank and then back down to the bottom of an inverted inner
> tank where it bubbled up through a submerged grate that broke the flow into
> small bubbles. The tanks were less than a quarter full of fluid.

I suspect some pressure drop there. Maybe it's less than gas flowing
through the filling I have in mind though.

> In addition they had a cooling coil inside the liquid that was connected to
> the cars cooling system. They had placed an airconditioning cooler in front
> of the cars radiator and used the cars own cooling fluid and pump to move the
> fluid throught the system. Basically they had tapped into the car heater
> hoses and let the motor pump water through the airconditioning radiator and
> from there to the cooling coil in the water tank condenser and from there
> back to the motor.

Abusing the AC is an excellent idea I think; that way the coolant could be
colder than the surrounding air, even when the car is standing still.
There's a cost of power for the AC of course, and perhaps it would be
better to use separate systems for the coolant, as the motor coolant is
rather hot even when leaving the cooler, isnt it? Maybe they removed the
thermostat as well?

I've seen recommendations on having about 5 m² cooling surface when cooling
by regular gas->metal>air (the metal is insignificant regarding heat transfer
resistance, a layer of dust on it is more of a problem). The highest heat
transfer resistance is at the transition from gas to metal and metal to
gas.

When exchanging heat (in a scrubber) from gas -> filling -> fluid, we would
do with a smaller surface than for the regular gas->metal wall-> air cooler.
(and then, maybe not...? that must depend on the temperature of the coolant)
If we ignore the heat transfer resistance from the filling to the fluid
(Actually, one could view the filling as just something to support the
fluid for it to have a large enough surface, so ignoring that is correct I
suspect; heat is transferred from the gas to the coolant, if there's enough
of it), the area of the filling could be perhaps just half of that, i.e.
2.5 m². On the other hand, the fluid will warm up as it travels down the
scrubber, so it takes more surface for that reason; lets say 5 m² filling
surface is about enough.

* Filling (gas->fluid):
If we have, let's say, 1 cm² surface per cm³ filling (on the lower side I
think), we'd get 1 m² per litre filling, so a 5 litre scrubber should be
enough. (with my completely fictive figures of course)
A 5 litre scrubber is a /lot/ smaller than a 5 m² gas cooler, and would
easily fit under the bonnet of a not too modern car. I could easily fit one
4 times the size of that in mine. Some cars have different motor
alternatives like a straight 4-cyl motor vs a V6 motor and such; even a
modern 4-cyl equipped car with a V6-alternative should have some extra room
under the bonnet then. A lot of gadgets for pollution control for petrol
power, which is useless and pointless for producer gas power (EGR valves
and whatnot), could be perhaps be ripped out to make more room. The
scrubber could be placed anywhere and not necessarily under the bonnet, but
I figured it could be handy to have it next to the motor, rather than
having hoses for the coolant going from the motor to the gasifier and back
(to have the cooler placed in the front where it should be). If the gas
being led from the gasifier to the front of the car is still hot and above
dewpoint, there should be less problems with condense and thus dirty gas
pipes, particulary if the pipes are mounted under the car rather than going
over the top of it.

* water cooler #2 (fluid-->air):
I don't know how big the surface of a plain car cooler is, but surely it
must be much more than 5 m². Recall that the cooler transfers about as much
power from the coolant to the air, as the power on the main shaft (and
about as much as is heat in the exhaust gases). That's a lot of heat being
cooled away. Of course it's easier to cool away heat from a 90-95°C coolant
to air of normal temperatures, than cooling away heat from a coolant which
must stay below the dew point of the gas. (around 40°C ?) A car cooler is
probably big enough, but would be useless directly as a gas cooler I think;
it would probably clobber up with soot in a jiffy.

* Coolant flow?
The more coolant that flows through the scrubber, the less warm it will be
leaving it. The faster it flows through the cooler, the less cold it would be
leaving it, but the more net heat it would deliver to the air. The more
coolant there is in the filling in the scrubber at one time, the larger the
pressure drop, not? If there's /too much/ coolant in the scrubber, some of
it will be dragged along with the gas. Perhaps a simple valve for adjusting
the flow could be useful when experimenting. (How large a flow of coolant
that is sufficient could be calculated from the dewpoint of the gas, how
dry we want it, heat capacity numbers etc)

* Gas speed, scrubber cross section-area vs length?
I suspect it goes for scrubbers as with (other) heat exchangers; the longer
and leaner they are, the more efficient, the shorter and wider, the less
pressure drop they have. If it's too wide, it may be difficult to
distribute the coolant evenly across the cross sections of it. If it is too
narrow, the gas velocity may get so high the gas drags the coolant with it.
(How fast does a raindrop fall btw? 10 m/s?)
I have no idea on what the optimal cs-area/length ratio would be for the
scrubber. :P Twice as tall as wide, perhaps?

> To the water that stayed in the tank that the smoke bubbled through they
> added dishwasher soap as a wetting and non-foaming agent.

That makes sense, for several reasons. Thanks for the tip.
(lower surface tension could perhaps also make the coolant flow more easily
on each piece of the filling, rather than as drops, if that should be a
problem)

>
> They said that this system had lowered the temperature of the smoke to 120
> degrees fahrenheit. The temperature on a stationary unit they had for
> generating electricity was somewhat higher at 135 fahrenheit.
>
> Your idea of flowing water over porous medium in a tank sounds interesting.
> It reminds me of an alchohol still plan that I saw once where they filled
> the condenser column with glass marbles of the type that kids play with.

Glass pieces from a broken side window of a car are often used by, um,
"hobbyist" distillers. ;) (front wind shields are laminated, side windows
are made from plain hardend glass, which brakes into small cubicles)
I was thinking of lathe shavings (large surface, and I doubt if it would
rust as there should be no oxygen in the gas); there is also some sort of
metal dishing cloths in the form of little balls of stainless steel
(coarse) wool being sold. The friend of mine with the Ford uses that in his
gas filter. Glass on the other hand has perhaps an advantage in less weight
and a surface which probably keeps clean better than metal.

One problem that just struck my mind, regarding the cooling pump, is that
if it's powered by the motor, it (naturally) won't pump any water until the
motor is running, so an (additional) electric pump may be necessary anyway.
(same goes for cooling with the AC)
Perhaps an electric fan for the cooler is necessary as well.

...one could mix the gas first, then dry it. The advantage would be that
the air would cool the gas some, the trade-off is a time delay
(corresponding to the scrubber volume - probably not a lot) when adjusting
the mixture. But since the air is most likely drier than the gas, the
dewpoint would drop as well, making it more difficult to cool and dry.

Enough ranting for tonight, off to bed,

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
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 markus.almroth at connection.se Thu Jul 6 05:02:46 2000
From: markus.almroth at connection.se (Markus Almroth)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: scrubber cleaner/cooler/condenser
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10007051119310.805-100000@localhost>
Message-ID: <38C5212B.36DD88A@connection.se>

>
> The next project is a Volvo 245 (station wagon), which I'm converting to a
> 2-seat pickup, planning to place the gasifier were the rear seat was. I
> couldn't find a "ready-made" pickup that was both suitable and affordable.
> Old volvos are practically given away for free here, and there's plenty of
> spare parts at the junk yards. So I had a breif chat with the head of the
> vehicle inspection station in town, and it didn't seem to be any problem
> with converting it (basically just weld the rear doors stuck) .
> One funny note though: according to the inspector, there are /no/
> directions issued at all regarding producer gas-powered vehicles in Sweden
> nowadays. The directions that are mentioned in Gengas, were not "official",
> i.e. "Gengaskommisionen" was not a governmental agency if understand it
> right. The "rules" were just recommendations. As mentioned in Gengas, the
> authorities made the deliberate choice in 1939 not to issue directions
> regarding the designs, to speed development. And speeded it was. The only
> "rule" there is nowadays is a rule stating that a producer gas vehicle
> shall be equipped with a fire extinguisher. There are, however, no note of
> what class of fire extinguisher there should be, so I reckon a bucket of
> water or a water pistol should fulfill that demand. ;) I really don't
> understand what I need a fire extinguisher for anyway. It would make more
> sense to keep one in an ordinary petrol car with a 70 litre tank of
> explosives attached to it; or any car equipped with a cigarette lighter and
> seat stuffing that burns. I also don't see the point with taking a car to
> inspection to have someone check that the vehicle conforms to non-existent
> regulations. ?:-P Ah, the marvels of bureaucracy!

Att bygga om till pickup är förmodligen inget problem, värre då med gengasen.
Det finns visserligen inga specifika regler för gengas, men det är tyvärr ingen
fördel för oss eftersom det innebär att vi måste följa de regler som gäller för
andra
bränslen. D.v.s. om bilen är av 1976 års modell eller senar skall motorn vara
godkänd
av eh. tror det är naturvårdsverket. Den skall vara avgastestad av Svensk
Provningsanstalt
(har jag för mig att de hette). Allt det här är en apparat som tydligen kostar
ganska
MYCKET pengar. Se därför till att bilen är en 75:a !!! Jag letar själv efter en
245:a
från det året.

Ett hål som verkar finnas i den här lagstiftningen gäller ombyggda bilar. Så om du
får
din pickup registrerad som ombyggt fordon finns det inga avgasbestämmelser alls.
Det samma gäller för direktimporterade bilar har jag hört, men kan inte svära på.
Tyvärr är det en ganska rubbad praxis vad gäller ombyggda fordon, man måste bygga
om dem ganska mycket. Typ byta motor och transmission, enbart att byta motor eller

drivmedel räcker tydligen inte.

Detta är i min mening helt fel. I lagstiftningen står det att man skall få
registrera ett fordon
som ombyggt om det inte kan anses fylla tillverkarens specifikationer (vilket det
inte gör om
man byter drivmedel - avgasspecifikationerna) och om det tillverkas i
entusiastsyfte och
i enstaka exemplar. (ungefär så var det formulerat),
Utifrån detta kan jag inte förstå hur man kan neka till att registrera en
gengasbil som
ombyggt fordon, men det görs genomgående.

En annan möjlighet borde kunna vara att ansöka om dispens hos Naturvårdsverket,
(något som jag försökt) men detta verkar också helt omöjligt, inga sådana
dispenser
har någonsin beviljats, vilket i och för sig kan bero på att tillräckligt
tillförlitliga
mätningar av avgashalter inte har genomförts på gengasdrivna motorer.

Min förhoppning är att det EU-projekt som bedrivs på SMP i Umeå kommer att
bidra med några sådana mätningar som man kan referera till i kampen mot den
byråkratiska ondskan...

Mvh
/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

 

From markus.almroth at connection.se Thu Jul 6 10:13:31 2000
From: markus.almroth at connection.se (Markus Almroth)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Building description of gasifier.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10007051119310.805-100000@localhost>
Message-ID: <38C56A00.5E27957C@connection.se>

There is a building description available of Harry LaFountain's simple
woodgas generator at http://www.gengas.nu/byggbes/index.shtml

Build one!

/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

 

From arcate at msn.com Thu Jul 6 20:11:32 2000
From: arcate at msn.com (Jim Arcate)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas-L: Downdraft Gasifiers
Message-ID: <200007070011.RAA18925@secure.crest.net>

Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 14:00:38 -1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0029_01BFE752.9090B380"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0029_01BFE752.9090B380
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear Tom Reed & Gasification:

Would you please tell me the advantages (if any) of downdraft vs. =
updraft biomass gasification ?=20
Are there any downdraft gasifiers in operation on biomass ?=20
Are they available commercially ?=20

Thank you,

Jim Arcate

------=_NextPart_000_0029_01BFE752.9090B380
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
Dear Tom Reed & = Gasification:

Would you please tell me the = advantages (if=20 any) of downdraft vs.
updraft biomass gasification=20 ?
Are there any downdraft gasifiers = in operation=20 on biomass ?
Are they available commercially ? =

Thank you,

Jim Arcate

------=_NextPart_000_0029_01BFE752.9090B380--

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 vvnk at teri.res.in Thu Jul 6 20:12:31 2000
From: vvnk at teri.res.in (V V N Kishore)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Where in Europe can we pelletize straw?
Message-ID: <200007070012.RAA18980@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
DAA04153

Pelletisation of straw is generally considered difficult. A better option
will be baling. I suppose baling machines are available easily in Europe.
Kishore.

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 Arotstein at ormat.com Thu Jul 6 20:13:21 2000
From: Arotstein at ormat.com (Ariel Rotstein)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification
Message-ID: <200007070013.RAA19085@secure.crest.net>

Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 08:00:25 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain

Dear Tom Reed

I got your e-mail from letters you replied on the web.
I am interested in gasification process for gas engines and have some
queries.
What modifications have to take place to run a gas engine on biogas ?
What would be the drop in efficiency of the gas engine running on
biogas ?
To run a 500 kW gas engine what is the consumption rate of wood biomass
?
Is there any commercial technology for a gasifier for biogas clean
enough to feed a gas engine ?

Thanks
Ariel Rotstein
Ormat

 

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 kearns.kds at ns.sympatico.ca Thu Jul 6 20:14:12 2000
From: kearns.kds at ns.sympatico.ca (John Kearns)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasification over disintegration
Message-ID: <200007070014.RAA19186@secure.crest.net>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Please could you tell me the advantages of your product over high
temperature disintegration. Also, is it more practical in cases of small
daily audits of say; MSW?
Our equipment has lower quantity operating limitations. We currently
have several applications that require small autothermic solutions.
Thanking you in advance, Yours sincerely, John Kearns.

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 Greko40 at aol.com Fri Jul 7 00:38:25 2000
From: Greko40 at aol.com (Greko40@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: scrubber cleaner/cooler/condenser
Message-ID: <7b.658c257.2696b89a@aol.com>

Joacim,
Thanks so much for telling about your experience with wood gas. I am even
more inspired to build one now.

Kirk
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 fkuzel at cglg.org Fri Jul 7 10:32:15 2000
From: fkuzel at cglg.org (Fred Kuzel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: FW: help please
Message-ID: <000101bfe81f$26398fc0$879270d8@Concentric.net>

I recently received this message and wanted to pass it on to the members to
see if anyone could provide assistance.

-Fred Kuzel

-----Original Message-----
From: adriana [mailto:adri-so@mixmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 5:28 PM
To: cglg@cglg.org
Subject: help please

Dear sir/madame

First allow us to introduce ourselves. We are a small Spanish company
working in the field of biomass and wastes and energy production. Due to the
Energy Production Regulations in our country this is a good time for biomass
and wastes use for energy production and then se have been consulted by
several customer companies in order to identify available gasification
technologies for biomass and wastes use.
We are writing you for requesting information on : your process, your
technology. Specifically we are interested in knowing the state of the/your
technology, e.g. if it is commercially available and how many plants are in
operation, what are the available sizes for plants, the materials used in
these plants and what is the current use of the produced gas. Any
additional information will be welcome in order to know availability of your
technology, e.g. costs, availability for visiting plants in operation,
availability for testing materials to be used, etc.... Please, send us as
much information as you consider that is for your interest in order to that
your technology could be considered for being used by some company for
power production. Thanking you in advance for your information and hoping
to have some future commercial collaboration.
Yours faithfully

Lázaro brothers.

Tu correo gratis en MixMail http://www.mixmail.com
Inicia tu navegacion en http://www.ya.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

 

From arcate at msn.com Fri Jul 7 10:47:29 2000
From: arcate at msn.com (Jim Arcate)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Downdraft Gasifiers
Message-ID: <200007071447.HAA16689@secure.crest.net>

Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 20:06:20 -1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600

Dear Tom Reed & Gasification:

Would you please tell me the advantages (if any) of downdraft vs. updraft
biomass gasification ?
Are there any downdraft gasifiers in operation on biomass ?
Are they available commercially ?

Thank you,

Jim Arcate

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 dschmidt at undeerc.org Fri Jul 7 12:26:07 2000
From: dschmidt at undeerc.org (Schmidt, Darren)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Downdraft Gasifiers
Message-ID: <200007071626.JAA23277@secure.crest.net>

Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 10:00:39 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"

Quick repsonse to your question:

downdraft produces less tar and is better suited for I.C. Engine
applications.
Example: Updraft 100,000 ppm, fluidized bed 10,000, downdraft 1000 ppm.

They are in operation - mostly India. Contact B.G. Technologies - U.S.
supplier.
Search for website.

Several have been built in the U.S., but no existing commercial operations.
SERI CO, MechChem NC & NY, CampLejeune NC, Marenco AK, Stwally - ref.
Bioenergy 98.

Darren D. Schmidt, Research Manager
Energy & Environmental Research Center
PO Box 9018
Grand Forks, North Dakota 58202
dschmidt@eerc.und.nodak.edu
Ph (701) 777-5120
Fax (701) 777-5181

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Arcate [mailto:arcate@msn.com]
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 9:47 AM
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: GAS-L: Downdraft Gasifiers

Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 20:06:20 -1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600

Dear Tom Reed & Gasification:

Would you please tell me the advantages (if any) of downdraft vs. updraft
biomass gasification ?
Are there any downdraft gasifiers in operation on biomass ?
Are they available commercially ?

Thank you,

Jim Arcate

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 thermogenics at worldnet.att.net Fri Jul 7 12:26:09 2000
From: thermogenics at worldnet.att.net (Thermogenics)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasification over disintegration
Message-ID: <200007071626.JAA23288@secure.crest.net>

Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 09:47:11 -0600
Message-ID: <LPBBLJABIAAJLJDBNDMEMECCCAAA.thermogenics@worldnet.att.net>
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)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
In-Reply-To: <200007070014.RAA19186@secure.crest.net>
Importance: Normal
Disposition-Notification-To: "Thermogenics" <thermogenics@worldnet.att.net>

Generally, There are less emissions as less NOx is formed and Dioxins are
less or non-existent, this depends somewhat upon the "High temperature"
regime in question.

We offer gasification which in the low temperature we operate in, will
actually reduce dioxin formation from low oxygen content. Size of system
will be in varying ranges from 300 pounds/hour to 6000# which offer a wide
degree of scaling.

Please see our website @ Thermogenics.com
If you have any further questions we will be happy reply.

Regards,

Tressa Gaskin
Administrative Assistant
Thermogenics, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gasification@crest.org
[mailto:owner-gasification@crest.org]On Behalf Of John Kearns
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 6:14 PM
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: GAS-L: gasification over disintegration

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Please could you tell me the advantages of your product over high
temperature disintegration. Also, is it more practical in cases of small
daily audits of say; MSW?
Our equipment has lower quantity operating limitations. We currently
have several applications that require small autothermic solutions.
Thanking you in advance, Yours sincerely, John Kearns.

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 Reedtb2 at cs.com Fri Jul 7 13:18:22 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Gross Energy content of biomass
Message-ID: <df.6bd01a5.26976aa5@cs.com>

Dear Don and Johannes et al:

There is entirely too much interest in the heating value of biomass. The HHV
of most biomass, bone dry and ash free, is 21 MJ/kg O+ - 1 MJ/kg. Measure
the ash and water to correct to specific fuels. Of course specific
extractives like veg oil or tallow will be different.

If you want to be more accurate, consult our "Thermal Data for Natural and
Synthetic Fuels", S. Gaur and T. Reed, Marcel Dekker, 1998.

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF PRESS

In a message dated 7/6/00 1:39:53 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
ddame@pressenter.com writes:

<<
Herr Johannes

Your study of the "gross energy content of produced biomass" seems like an
extremely useful endeavor.

Have you published any results that are publicly available?

Can you (and will you) also tabulate the estimated "input energy" which is
required to produce each biomass product, so that we can determine the net
increase in energy production, which is achieved by using biomass.

I am not sure that its useful to use large quantities of fossil fuel energy
(tractor fuel and power plant fuel) to make small quantities of biological
fuel energy, such as Ethanol for use in motor vehicles.

I have heard the assertion that it requires more fossil fuel energy to make
a gallon of ethanol, than be extracted from a gallon of ethanol. If that is
true, why are we producing biological fuels such as ethanol.

Don >>
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 Fri Jul 7 13:18:24 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Flaring &Greenhouse gasses
Message-ID: <2f.7a48118.26976ab0@cs.com>

Dear ELK, RGE et al:

Your clear, oderless flare during charcoal making, certainly produces less
greenhouse gas than for instance termite rotting (methane in gut), so your
conscience should be clear.

However, as a second target:

The flared gas contains 2/3 of the sawdust energy, so if you could put it to
good use displacing fossil fuels it would have three times as much impact.

Who is RGE??

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF/CPC

In a message dated 7/6/00 7:10:14 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
elk@net2000ke.com writes:

<<
Hello Stovers;

In carbonising sawdust, I am flaring the volatiles completely. Or at least
it seems complete- the hot gasseous product of this combustion is completely
clear. No more smoke.

Is this 'good' in terms of greenhouse gasses? Obviously, it's 'good' to
eliminate the noxious white smoke from a tangible pollution point of view,
but what's the chemistry here?

I'm afraid my college chemistry classes are so far behind me and have been
so little used in the intervening years that I can only guess that I do the
right thing......

Otherwise all is well, and the demand for my charcoal vendor's waste
briquettes is threatening to outstrip supply- even now that we've cranked up
production to close to 5 tons/day. It's easy to sell when you're cheaper
than the competition!

The hydraulic ram briquetter (which produces 150 m 'chunks') is operating
well. The chunks take three days to air/sun dry (twice as long as VWB) but
are admirably suited to space-heating in poultry and pig farms. I haven't
tried marketing anywhere else yet.

We are still looking into funding for the working prototype sawdust
briquette plant. Slow but steady progress. It'll happen some day!

rgs;

elk >>
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 donaldp at marick.co.uk Fri Jul 7 17:35:50 2000
From: donaldp at marick.co.uk (donaldp)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasification over disintegration
In-Reply-To: <200007071626.JAA23288@secure.crest.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20000707223255.00797100@195.102.240.34>

Message for Steve Brand.

Hello Steve,
not heard from you for a long time.

Please see WebSite.......www.marick.co.uk

Will telephone you soon.

Kind Regards
Donald C. Patrick ( MARICK Gasification )
At 09:26 07/07/00 -0700, you wrote:
>Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 09:47:11 -0600
>Message-ID: <LPBBLJABIAAJLJDBNDMEMECCCAAA.thermogenics@worldnet.att.net>
>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)
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
>In-Reply-To: <200007070014.RAA19186@secure.crest.net>
>Importance: Normal
>Disposition-Notification-To: "Thermogenics" <thermogenics@worldnet.att.net>
>
>Generally, There are less emissions as less NOx is formed and Dioxins are
>less or non-existent, this depends somewhat upon the "High temperature"
>regime in question.
>
>We offer gasification which in the low temperature we operate in, will
>actually reduce dioxin formation from low oxygen content. Size of system
>will be in varying ranges from 300 pounds/hour to 6000# which offer a wide
>degree of scaling.
>
>Please see our website @ Thermogenics.com
>If you have any further questions we will be happy reply.
>
>Regards,
>
>Tressa Gaskin
>Administrative Assistant
>Thermogenics, Inc.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-gasification@crest.org
>[mailto:owner-gasification@crest.org]On Behalf Of John Kearns
>Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 6:14 PM
>To: gasification@crest.org
>Subject: GAS-L: gasification over disintegration
>
>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Please could you tell me the advantages of your product over high
>temperature disintegration. Also, is it more practical in cases of small
>daily audits of say; MSW?
> Our equipment has lower quantity operating limitations. We currently
>have several applications that require small autothermic solutions.
> Thanking you in advance, Yours sincerely, John Kearns.
>
>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 cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk Fri Jul 7 18:05:24 2000
From: cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk (Cordner Peacocke)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas-L: Downdraft Gasifiers
In-Reply-To: <200007070011.RAA18925@secure.crest.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20000707230518.0090c840@pop3.demon.co.uk>

Dear Jim,

With regards to your question on commercial availability, I'm surprised
that a legion of compnaies have not been jumping up to offer you a
technology. There are several companies here in the UK who can offer
systems and some even know what the levels of ''tars'' and ''particulates''
are in the gas and have run engines, etc.

If you are looking for somthing specific, let me know. I have been working
on one small installation of 75kWe, which is also commercially available,
although it is not mine to sell. Some gasification companies in the UK are
[in no order of preference]:

B9 Energy Biomass Ltd. [downdraft]
Wellman Process Engineering Ltd. [updraft]
Shawton Engineering Ltd. [downdraft]
Rural Generation Ltd. [downdraft]
Waste to Energy Ltd. [downdraft]
Energy International, UK [not known]
Bioplex Ltd., Torftech Inc., etc.

These are all commercial, depending on the scale required, to name but a
few.......

See my recent paper for a summary of ALL UK biomass pyrolysis and
gasification activities:

GVC Peacocke and AV Bridgwater, ''Pyrolysis and Gasification of Biomass:
Status of the UK Industry'', to be published in, 'Power Generation from
Renewables', papers from seminar on 15-16th May 2000, London, I.Mech.E., 2000.

If all of our colleagues in all the countries subscribing to this group
listed the activities in downdraft gasification, it would be an impressive
list and a considerable resource.

At 17:11 06/07/00 -0700, you wrote:
>Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 14:00:38 -1000
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0029_01BFE752.9090B380"
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
>
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
>------=_NextPart_000_0029_01BFE752.9090B380
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>Dear Tom Reed & Gasification:
>
>Would you please tell me the advantages (if any) of downdraft vs. =
>updraft biomass gasification ?=20
>Are there any downdraft gasifiers in operation on biomass ?=20
>Are they available commercially ?=20
>
>Thank you,
>
>Jim Arcate
>
>------=_NextPart_000_0029_01BFE752.9090B380
>Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
>Dear Tom Reed & = Gasification:
>
>Would you please tell me the = advantages (if=20 any) of downdraft vs.
>updraft biomass gasification=20 ?
>Are there any downdraft gasifiers = in operation=20 on biomass ?
>Are they available commercially ? =
>
>Thank you,
>
>Jim Arcate
>
>------=_NextPart_000_0029_01BFE752.9090B380--
>
>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
>
Cordner Peacocke [Dr.]

Conversion And Resource Evaluation Ltd.
Registered Address:
9 Myrtle House
5 Cassowary Road
Birmingham
B20 1NE.
Tel: (44) 121 551 0344 or (44) 28 90397955
Fax: (44) 870 0542981 or (44) 121 359 6814
Internet: http://www.care.demon.co.uk/
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 cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk Sat Jul 8 02:49:00 2000
From: cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk (Cordner Peacocke)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification
In-Reply-To: <200007070013.RAA19085@secure.crest.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20000708074800.0090b220@pop3.demon.co.uk>

Dear Mr. Rotstein,

If you have access to the gasification newsgroup archives, there has been a
lot of discussion in the past year on engines and efficiencies. You refer
to the gas as ''biogas'' - I assume you d not mean gas produced by
anaerobic decompositon of biomass, but that produced by gasification, which
the general community refers to as ''producer gas''. This would be a good
starting point. Some brief answers to your questions:

>>What modifications have to take place to run a gas engine on biogas ?

In some cases, none, although some would suggest intially operating the
engine on LPG as a start up fuel to warm up the engine and avoid deposition
of ''tars'' in the producer gas.

>>What would be the drop in efficiency of the gas engine running on biogas ?

Engine deration is dependent on a number of factors [excess air, CV of
producer gas, turbo charging, temperature of mixture etc.]. In theory, as
deration can be about 25%, but typically for a normall aspirated gas engine
it is the order of 45-50%. A good paper on the subject is:

Stassen H. and Koele H.J. The Use of LCV-gas from biomass gasifiers in
internal combustion engines. In: Gasification and Pyrolysis - State of the
art and future prospects, (Ed. by M. Kaltschmitt and A.V. Bridgwater), pp.
269-281. CPL Scientific Press Ltd, Newbury.

>> To run a 500 kW gas engine what is the consumption rate of wood biomass?

Rough rule of thumb is 1 kg of wood per kWe, therefore you'll need about
500kg/h

>>Is there any commercial technology for a gasifier for biogas clean enough
to feed a gas engine ?

Yes, there are numerous companies offerring technology. If possible, I
recommend you go and see one operating, producing gas and running an engine
and get an independent report on the levels of ''tars'' and ''particulates''

-------------------------------------------------
At 17:13 06/07/00 -0700, you wrote:
>Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 08:00:25 +0200
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
>Content-Type: text/plain
>
>Dear Tom Reed
>
>I got your e-mail from letters you replied on the web.
>I am interested in gasification process for gas engines and have some
>queries.

> What would be the drop in efficiency of the gas engine running on
>biogas ?
> To run a 500 kW gas engine what is the consumption rate of wood biomass
>?
> Is there any commercial technology for a gasifier for biogas clean
>enough to feed a gas engine ?
>
>Thanks
>Ariel Rotstein
>Ormat
-------------------------

Yours,

Cordner Peacocke [Dr.]

Conversion And Resource Evaluation Ltd.
9 Myrtle House
5 Cassowary Road
Birmingham
B20 1NE.
Tel: (44) 121 551 0344 or (44) 28 90397955
Fax: (44) 870 0542981 or (44) 121 359 6814
Internet: http://www.care.demon.co.uk/
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 DMcilveenw at aol.com Sat Jul 8 02:53:54 2000
From: DMcilveenw at aol.com (DMcilveenw@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas-L: Downdraft Gasifiers
Message-ID: <cb.74eadda.269829dd@aol.com>

Cordner,

Could you send me/email me a copy/reprint of this paper, please?

Regards,

David McIlveen-Wright,
NICERT,
University of Ulster,
Coleraine BT52 1SA
N. Ireland
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 cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk Sat Jul 8 03:15:18 2000
From: cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk (Cordner Peacocke)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas-L: Downdraft Gasifiers
In-Reply-To: <cb.74eadda.269829dd@aol.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20000708080539.009af820@pop3.demon.co.uk>

David,

A copy is in the post in about 2 weeks time, as I am going on holidays
today for 12 days. Hope that's OK.

The Ballymena ECOS Millennium Park now has a fully operatinal downdraft,
supplied by Shawton Engineering Ltd. It's the only thing there that works,
as the woind turbine and solar panels have been giving them problems. The
gasifier is generating 65kWe. I have been helping them out for the past
18 months on their downdraft technology.

I am in Northern Ireland every other week. Perhaps we could meet in
Coleraine someday and discuss the possiblity of working on some project
together?

Yours,

Cordner Peacocke [Dr.]

Conversion And Resource Evaluation Ltd.
9 Myrtle House
5 Cassowary Road
Birmingham
B20 1NE.
Tel: (44) 121 551 0344 or (44) 28 90397955
Fax: (44) 870 0542981 or (44) 121 359 6814
Internet: http://www.care.demon.co.uk/
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 Sat Jul 8 10:10:45 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasification over disintegration
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000708080801.008bb7c0@wgs1.btl.net>

 

Hi Tressa;

Very interesting -- but the WWW address you supplied does not work.

Could you please post the correct one?

Also, the advantage to high temperature incineration of garbage is no need
to sort the wastes prior to combustion and only "slag" as an end product.
Very concentrated elimination.

Gasification suffers from requiring exacting fuel conditioning -- both is
size, shape and humidity. And huge amounts of ash.

I would be interested in seeing how you get around these problems.

On the other hand - -incineration such as John Kearns supplies produces no
power. Only heating the skies.

Terrible loss of energy.

However -- maybe at some future date he will fit a boiler to his design?

Does your design recover the energy?

Peter Singfield
Belize

At 09:26 AM 7/7/00 -0700, you wrote:
>Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 09:47:11 -0600
>Message-ID: <LPBBLJABIAAJLJDBNDMEMECCCAAA.thermogenics@worldnet.att.net>
>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)
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
>In-Reply-To: <200007070014.RAA19186@secure.crest.net>
>Importance: Normal
>Disposition-Notification-To: "Thermogenics" <thermogenics@worldnet.att.net>
>
>Generally, There are less emissions as less NOx is formed and Dioxins are
>less or non-existent, this depends somewhat upon the "High temperature"
>regime in question.
>
>We offer gasification which in the low temperature we operate in, will
>actually reduce dioxin formation from low oxygen content. Size of system
>will be in varying ranges from 300 pounds/hour to 6000# which offer a wide
>degree of scaling.
>
>Please see our website @ Thermogenics.com
>If you have any further questions we will be happy reply.
>
>Regards,
>
>Tressa Gaskin
>Administrative Assistant
>Thermogenics, Inc.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-gasification@crest.org
>[mailto:owner-gasification@crest.org]On Behalf Of John Kearns
>Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 6:14 PM
>To: gasification@crest.org
>Subject: GAS-L: gasification over disintegration
>
>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Please could you tell me the advantages of your product over high
>temperature disintegration. Also, is it more practical in cases of small
>daily audits of say; MSW?
> Our equipment has lower quantity operating limitations. We currently
>have several applications that require small autothermic solutions.
> Thanking you in advance, Yours sincerely, John Kearns.
>
>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 vendor_development at usa.net Sat Jul 8 12:27:57 2000
From: vendor_development at usa.net (vendor development gas division)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Calculation & formula of the Methane Index
Message-ID: <200007081627.JAA08136@secure.crest.net>

X-Mailer: USANET web-mailer (34FM1.5A.01A)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by secure.crest.net id
CAA28619

Dear Sir,

We are part of a British Gas Asia Pacific Co; engaged in secondary
distribution of Natural Gas through pipeline to Industrial, Commercial,
Domestic and Transportation sectors in the cities of Surat, Ankleshwar and
Bharuch (India) since 1989. We are also awarded with ISO-9002 certification.
At present, we are distributing 1.00 MMSCMD of Natural Gas to about 367
Industrial, 1300 commercial, 1,00,000 Domestic and 700 CNG customers through a
network of 520 Km. of MS pipe line & 1000 Km of MDPE pipe line.

We are distributing natural gas to industry. But recently one or two new
customer has asked for "METHANE INDEX NUMBER". We don't no anything about the
same. Hence,we have try to get the information through internet. And we have
got your address. We request you to send me the technical details of methane
index numer covering defination,formula for calculation etc.

Please send above detais through email OR courier at following address:

M/s. Gujarat Gas Co. Ltd.
Plot No. 88, Adajan Gam,
PB No. 915, Surat-395009,
State: Gujarat, India
Kind Attn.: Paresh Patel
Ph. No.:0091-261-686373
Fax No.:0091-261-686362
Your early response in this matter shall be highly appreciated. Should you
need any further clarifications, please feel free to contact us.

Regards,

Yours Faithfully
For Gujarat Gas Co. Ltd.

Paresh Patel
Sr. Engineer (Vendor Development)
E-Mail: vendor_development@usa.net

 

 

____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1

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 Zhivago at marick.co.uk Sat Jul 8 21:13:38 2000
From: Zhivago at marick.co.uk (Zhivago)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasification over disintegration
Message-ID: <200007090113.SAA19963@secure.crest.net>

In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000708080801.008bb7c0@wgs1.btl.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Dear Peter,
please see WebSite......www.marick.co.uk
We have a two stage gasification process, the residues being produced are:
1. Aluminium..... Cast into ingot bars for resale.
2. Basalt.......Cast into paving flags/blocks and resolf
Alternatively, used as road infill etc.
3. Elementary Sulphur
4. Common Salt

However, anually we do have to dispose of approximately three tons of
filters which are contaminated.

Should this be of interest for commercial purposes then please contact me
address etc. on WebSite......www.marick.co.uk

Regards
Donald C. Patrick
At 08:08 08/07/00 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Hi Tressa;
>
>Very interesting -- but the WWW address you supplied does not work.
>
>Could you please post the correct one?
>
>Also, the advantage to high temperature incineration of garbage is no need
>to sort the wastes prior to combustion and only "slag" as an end product.
>Very concentrated elimination.
>
>Gasification suffers from requiring exacting fuel conditioning -- both is
>size, shape and humidity. And huge amounts of ash.
>
>I would be interested in seeing how you get around these problems.
>
>On the other hand - -incineration such as John Kearns supplies produces no
>power. Only heating the skies.
>
>Terrible loss of energy.
>
>However -- maybe at some future date he will fit a boiler to his design?
>
>Does your design recover the energy?
>
>Peter Singfield
>Belize
>
>At 09:26 AM 7/7/00 -0700, you wrote:
>>Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 09:47:11 -0600
>>Message-ID: <LPBBLJABIAAJLJDBNDMEMECCCAAA.thermogenics@worldnet.att.net>
>>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)
>>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
>>In-Reply-To: <200007070014.RAA19186@secure.crest.net>
>>Importance: Normal
>>Disposition-Notification-To: "Thermogenics" <thermogenics@worldnet.att.net>
>>
>>Generally, There are less emissions as less NOx is formed and Dioxins are
>>less or non-existent, this depends somewhat upon the "High temperature"
>>regime in question.
>>
>>We offer gasification which in the low temperature we operate in, will
>>actually reduce dioxin formation from low oxygen content. Size of system
>>will be in varying ranges from 300 pounds/hour to 6000# which offer a wide
>>degree of scaling.
>>
>>Please see our website @ Thermogenics.com
>>If you have any further questions we will be happy reply.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Tressa Gaskin
>>Administrative Assistant
>>Thermogenics, Inc.
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-gasification@crest.org
>>[mailto:owner-gasification@crest.org]On Behalf Of John Kearns
>>Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 6:14 PM
>>To: gasification@crest.org
>>Subject: GAS-L: gasification over disintegration
>>
>>
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>
>>Please could you tell me the advantages of your product over high
>>temperature disintegration. Also, is it more practical in cases of small
>>daily audits of say; MSW?
>> Our equipment has lower quantity operating limitations. We currently
>>have several applications that require small autothermic solutions.
>> Thanking you in advance, Yours sincerely, John Kearns.
>>
>>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
>
>

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 Jul 9 16:19:02 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Downdraft Gasifiers
Message-ID: <bd.4fa215d.269a3825@cs.com>

Dear Jim et al:

(See Darren Schmidt's answer and my reply to him).

I am not surprised that well informed people are in general confused by the
various classifications of gasifiers, UPdraft, DOWNdraft, Fluidized beds,
Pyrolytic, (inverted downdraft, and many not currently in commercial
production). What would we call them without the gravitational arrow?

I am wrestling with more general terminology and propose the following for
discussion:

CHAR BURNING: (for instance updraft, where the incoming air enters from the
bottom and FIRST encounters charcoal, burning and gasifyng the charcoal
formed by the descending bed of biomass while the resulting hot gas
pyrolyses the fuel to charcoal and tar, and finally dries the fuel.
Sometimes called "counterflow" gasification)

TAR BURNING: (for instance downdraft and inverted downdraft, where the
incoming air FIRST meets the raw biomass and burns the volatiles off in
flaming pyrolysis while generating a moderately reduced gas that is then
further reduced by the resulting charcoa. Sometimes called co-flow
gasification.

MIXED BURNING: (for instance fluidized beds in which some air first contacts
the charcoal, other contacts fresh fuel and partially burns both the char and
tars, hence intermediate in tar content.)

In a message dated 7/7/00 8:49:52 AM Mountain Daylight Time, arcate@msn.com
writes:

<<
Dear Tom Reed & Gasification:

Would you please tell me the advantages (if any) of downdraft vs. updraft
biomass gasification ?
Are there any downdraft gasifiers in operation on biomass ?
Are they available commercially ?

Thank you,

Jim Arcate
>>
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 Jul 9 16:19:24 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Downdraft Gasifiers
Message-ID: <76.f44e1e.269a3824@cs.com>

Dear Darren et al:

Please add to your tar/particulate tabulation...

Modified downdraft < 100 ppm to << 100 ppm

See www.gocpc.com

Yours truly, TOM REED CPC/BEF

In a message dated 7/7/00 10:27:24 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
dschmidt@undeerc.org writes:

<<
Quick repsonse to your question:

downdraft produces less tar and is better suited for I.C. Engine
applications.
Example: Updraft 100,000 ppm, fluidized bed 10,000, downdraft 1000 ppm.

They are in operation - mostly India. Contact B.G. Technologies - U.S.
supplier.

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 Jul 9 16:19:32 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification
Message-ID: <e2.6df5723.269a3827@cs.com>

Dear Ariel Rotstein and Gasification:

Perhaps of general interest, though covered previously...

Ariel Rotstein wrote...

<< Dear Tom Reed

I am interested in gasification process for gas engines and have some
queries.
What modifications have to take place to run a gas engine on biogas ?
(Biogas is produced from Manure and Sewage by digestion. I presume means
Producer gas ) Producer gas is produced from most any biomas for which the
gasifier is designed.

Most engines can be easily modifier for Producer Gas. In all cases clean
gas must be mixed with the incoming air in the correct proportions. For
spark engines the ignition timing should be advanced to 30-40 degrees before
top dead center. It is also desirable to have a compression ratio of 11-13
to 1 for increased power and efficiency. Diesel engines must maintain a
"pilot" flow of 5-25% diesel to act as an ignition source, since producer gas
has such a high octane that it won't compression ignite.

What would be the drop in efficiency of the gas engine running on
biogas ?

Typical figures for gasoline engines with minimum modifications the overall
efficiency including gasification is 50-60% and the peak power is 60% of that
on gasoline. Very little derating on the pilot diesel operation.

To run a 500 kW gas engine what is the consumption rate of wood biomass
?

Rule of thumb it takes 1 to 1.5 kg of fuel per kwh.

Is there any commercial technology for a gasifier for biogas clean
enough to feed a gas engine ?

Lots and lots, over a million vehicles operated during WW II. People still
making improvements......

Thanks Ariel Rotstein Ormat

My pleasure... 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
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 Jul 9 17:04:56 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: (no subject)
Message-ID: <24.7779dab.269a42cb@cs.com>

Dear All:

Jon Rouse has had the kindness to put our book..

Construction of a Simplified Wood Gas Generator for Fueling Internal
Combustion Engines in a Petroleum emergency

on his website at http://www.gengas.nu/byggbes/index.shtml. It was written
by my very practical partner, Harry LaFontaine, who built gasifiers during
World War II while harassing the Germans while getting Niels Bohr to England
while saving 7,000 Jews from the Nazis. He had a great time.

He also had a good practical knowledge of simple construction of gasifiers
and this book illustrates clearly a design that he built for our Federal
Emergency... (FEEMA). I believe it is now in a warehouse in Gainesville
under the sign "Rust in Peace".

I would be interested in your reactions to the book distributed on a web page
vs our normal hard copies (below).

Yours truly, TOM REED THE BIOMASS
ENERGY FOUNDATION PRESS

~~~~~
ORDER LIST - Biomass Energy Books
(Nicknames in Bold, book descriptions follow)

1. A SURVEY OF BIOMASS GASIFICATION 2000: $25

2. BIOMASS DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS HANDBOOK: $25

3. CONTAMINANT TESTING FOR GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS: $10

4. BIOMASS GASIFIER "TARS": THEIR NATURE, FORMATION, AND CONVERSION: $25

5. GENGAS: THE SWEDISH CLASSIC ON WOOD FUELED VEHICLES: $30

6. SMALL SCALE GAS PRODUCER ENGINE SYSTEMS: $30

7. PRODUCER-GAS: ANOTHER FUEL FOR MOTOR TRANSPORT: $10

8. FUNDAMENTAL STUDY AND SCALEUP OF THE AIR-OXYGEN STRATIFIED
DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER: $30

9. EVALUATION OF GASIFICATION AND NOVEL THERMAL PROCESSES
FOR THE TREATMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE - MSW $25

10. DENSIFIED BIOMASS: A NEW FORM OF SOLID FUEL: $12

11. WOOD GAS GENERATORS FOR VEHICLES: $4

12. CONSTRUCTION OF A SIMPLIFIED WOOD GAS GENERATOR: $15

13. BIOMASS TO METHANOL SPECIALISTS' WORKSHOP: $30

14. THE PEGASUS UNIT: THE LOST ART OF DRIVING WITHOUT GASOLINE: $20

15. GASIFICATION OF RICE HULLS: THEORY AND PRAXIS: $30

16. TREES: $1

17. TREE CROPS FOR ENERGY CO-PRODUCTION ON FARMS: $30

18. FROM THE FRYER TO THE FUEL TANK: HOW TO MAKE CHEAP,
CLEAN FUEL FROM FREE VEGETABLE OIL: $20

19. Modern Gas Producers by N. E. Rambush (1923) $30

20. Free Energy of Binary Compounds $25

TOTAL FOR BOOKS ___________
ORDER BLANK
-10% if 3 or more books ordered or to booksellers $3 handling + (US and
Canada
$1.50 (bookrate, or request air, $3) or (other foreign, $9/large book- air
only) ___________
TOTAL ORDER ___________
E-mail order to reedtb2@CS.com or Mail orders to The Biomass Energy
Foundation Press (BEFP), 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401; FAX 303-278 0560;
call 303 278 0558. We'll send invoice with books. Pay by postal order or
check on US Banks (no foreign), or electronic deposit to Bank No. 10 20000
76, Acct. No. 300800 2911.
BOOKS FROM THE BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION PRESS

NEW: A SURVEY OF BIOMASS GASIFICATION 2000: T. Reed and S. Gaur have
surveyed the biomass gasification scene for the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory and the Biomass Energy Foundation. 180 pages of large gasifiers
systems, small gasifiers and gasifier research institutions with descriptions
of the major types of gasifiers and a list of most world gasifiers. ISBN
1-890607-13-4 180 pp $25 _________

NEW: BIOMASS GASIFIER "TARS": THEIR NATURE, FORMATION, AND CONVERSION: T.
Milne, N. Abatzoglou, & R. J. Evans. Tars are the Achilles Heel of
gasification. This thorough work explores the chemical nature of tars, their
generation, and methods for testing and destroying them.
ISBN 1-890607-14-2 180 pp $25________

NEW: EVALUATION OF GASIFICATION AND NOVEL THERMAL PROCESSES FOR THE
TREATMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE - W. Niessen et al. 1996 NREL report by
Camp Dresser and McKee on MSW conversion processes. ISBN 1-890607-15-0 198
pp $25_______

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

NEW/OLD: DENSIFIED BIOMASS: A NEW FORM OF SOLID FUEL: Tom Reed and Becky
Bryant, A "State of the Art evaluation of densified biomass fuels" with
documentation of processes, energy balance, economics and applications.
First published in 1978, & still good. ISBN 1-890607-16-9 35 pp
$12 __________

NEW/OLD: MODERN GAS PRODUCERS: N. E. Rambush, the most complete collection
of information on the golden age of coal gasificaiton, when every city had a
"gasworks" . 550 pp $30 __________

NEW/OLD: FREE ENERGY OF BINARY COMPOUNDS: AN ATLAS OF CHARTS FOR
HIGH-TEMPERATRUE CALCULATIONS, 2nd edition, Thomas B. Reed. I published this
book with MIT Press in 1971 when I was working in high temperature materials
research. The data and charts apply to all of chemistry, so you can
calculate th thermodynamics of almost any reaction., MIT Press, 1971. My
magnum opus!
90 pp $20 _________
******
BIOMASS DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS HANDBOOK: T. Reed and A. Das,
(SERI-1988) Over a million wood gasifiers were used to power cars and trucks
during World War II. Yet, after over two decades of interest, there are only
a few companies manufacturing gasifier systems. The authors have spent more
than 20 years working with various gasifier systems, In this book they
discuss ALL the factors that must be correct to have a successful "gasifier
power system." Our most popular book, the "new Testament" of gasification
ISBN 1-890607-00-2 140 pp $25 ________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

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 arcate at msn.com Sun Jul 9 23:38:41 2000
From: arcate at msn.com (Jim Arcate)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Downdraft Gasification
Message-ID: <200007100338.UAA25491@secure.crest.net>

Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 12:57:49 -1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600

Dear Gasification:

This dialog on small scale gasification (kw vs. MW) has made me realize
again
that Torrefied Wood (TW) is good for gasification. TW could be produced in
large quantities at sites with biomass for TW and distributed to small-scale
TW gasification power plants, thus eliminating the requirements for them to
pre-process biomass for gasification. Just like "they" do now in processing
and distributing petro products.

This looks like an opportunity for "downdraft gasification" and commercial
applications of Airless Drying to make TW. There are small diesel engine
driven power plants all over the world running on expensive fuel delivered
in 50 gallon drums. Some of these could be converted to TW gasification.

There seem to be quite a few companies involved in "downdraft gasification".
Let me know if anyone wants to join our TW Development Team.

best regards,

Jim Arcate
Transnational Technology
www.techtp.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

 

From Bird7890 at aol.com Mon Jul 10 11:08:32 2000
From: Bird7890 at aol.com (Bird7890@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: HELP
Message-ID: <ba.7ecc527.269b3e95@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 109

Dear Tom and others,

I have an article from a 1950s Popular Mechanics magazine that describes
the Telsa turbine and shows you how to build a working model of it. This has
always fasinated me and someday I will add it to the list of other turbines
I have experimented with. If you like I can fax or e-mail the article to
you. Let me know.

Regards,
Tom Blackburn
WE ARE LOOKING FOR THIS ARTICLE IS THERE ANY POSSIBLE WAY WE CAN GET A COPY
OF IT IT WOULD BE GREATLY APPERICATED
STEVE
PHONE 732-531-6338
FAX-732-531-3045

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 Tue Jul 11 08:46:07 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: HELP
Message-ID: <72.1037c8b.269c70fe@cs.com>

Dear Bird, Tom et al:

I am fascinated by the Tesla turbine and hope it has a future for high
temperature gases. It may bear the same relation to the conventional bucket
turbines that the Mazda rotaty engine does to the conventional piston engine:
MUCH simpler and potentially cheaper, but MUCH less developed and may take
100 years and we may never do it since conventional turbines work quite well
and have had a few billion $ poured on.

So..... I'll wait to see what transpires, but I'm not making one now.

TOM REED BEF/CPC

In a message dated 7/10/00 9:13:29 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
Bird7890@aol.com writes:

<<
Dear Tom and others,

I have an article from a 1950s Popular Mechanics magazine that describes
the Telsa turbine and shows you how to build a working model of it. This has
always fasinated me and someday I will add it to the list of other turbines
I have experimented with. If you like I can fax or e-mail the article to
you. Let me know.

Regards,
Tom Blackburn
WE ARE LOOKING FOR THIS ARTICLE IS THERE ANY POSSIBLE WAY WE CAN GET A COPY
OF IT IT WOULD BE GREATLY APPERICATED
STEVE
PHONE 732-531-6338
FAX-732-531-3045
>>
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 Tue Jul 11 08:46:30 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CORRECTION
Message-ID: <42.804788b.269c70ff@cs.com>

Dear All:

MY FACE IS SO RED.

Trouble with Email is that we don't really know who we are talking too. I
presume we will have pictures of the senders etc....

Meanwhile my appologies to both Jon Rouse and Markus Almroth.

In a message dated 7/10/00 7:17:49 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
markus.almroth@connection.se writes:

> Dear All:
>
> Jon Rouse has had the kindness to put our book..
>
> Construction of a Simplified Wood Gas Generator for Fueling Internal
> Combustion Engines in a Petroleum emergency

Jon Rouse? My name is Markus Almroth :-)
If you are'nt refferring to some other site.
>>
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 Tue Jul 11 09:14:34 2000
From: kchishol at fox.nstn.ca (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Telsa Turbine
In-Reply-To: <72.1037c8b.269c70fe@cs.com>
Message-ID: <396B1DC0.B17C2BBA@fox.nstn.ca>

The conventional gas turbine was well known in principle, even before it
was built. The developers of the day knew generally which way to go, and
what to do to build a turbine of a desired performance. It was possible
to do a calculation to approximate the expected efficiency. They knew
what to do to make the turbine more efficient and more powerful....
their limitations were mainly material.

Is there any "first principle analysis" of the Telsa Turbine? Has anyone
compared it to a gas turbine, from a theoretical standpoint? Is there
any rational basis to indicate that the Telsa system can attain better
efficiency than the conventional gas turbine cycle?

Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:
>
> Dear Bird, Tom et al:
>
> I am fascinated by the Tesla turbine and hope it has a future for high
> temperature gases. It may bear the same relation to the conventional bucket
> turbines that the Mazda rotaty engine does to the conventional piston engine:
> MUCH simpler and potentially cheaper,

Mazda and Wankle engines are, in principle, identical to the
conventional 4 cycle piston engine, in that they all employ the Otto
Cycle, and all have the same efficiency limits when operating under the
same compression ratios. Physical shape is, of course, much different,
but there are no reasons to expect a fundamental difference in
performance.

but MUCH less developed and may take
> 100 years and we may never do it since conventional turbines work quite well
> and have had a few billion $ poured on.

With hundreds of millions having been spent on the Mazda engine, over
20-30 years, why isn't it in widespread use? What breakthroughs would
have to occur before it would be commonplace?

Similarily, what are the breakthroughs necessary for the Telsa engine to
come to widespread use? What will the Telsa engine be able to do, that a
conventional gas turbine cannot do? Is the potential increment of
improvement worth the development cost?

Are there any Gas Turbine Design Engineers on this list who have
analysed the Telsa concept, to determine its potential advantages? Their
comments on their comparisons would be most welcome!

Kindest 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 antonio.hilst at merconet.com.br Tue Jul 11 18:03:20 2000
From: antonio.hilst at merconet.com.br (Antonio G. P. Hilst)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: HELP
In-Reply-To: <ba.7ecc527.269b3e95@aol.com>
Message-ID: <396B1224.62D7E07D@merconet.com.br>

Dear Mr. Blackburn,
May fax it to Antonio Hilst, +55-21-19-429-8109?
Thanks.
Antonio

Bird7890@aol.com 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 109
>
> Dear Tom and others,
>
> I have an article from a 1950s Popular Mechanics magazine that describes
> the Telsa turbine and shows you how to build a working model of it. This has
> always fasinated me and someday I will add it to the list of other turbines
> I have experimented with. If you like I can fax or e-mail the article to
> you. Let me know.
>
> Regards,
> Tom Blackburn
> WE ARE LOOKING FOR THIS ARTICLE IS THERE ANY POSSIBLE WAY WE CAN GET A COPY
> OF IT IT WOULD BE GREATLY APPERICATED
> STEVE
> PHONE 732-531-6338
> FAX-732-531-3045
>
> 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 jsmeenk at iastate.edu Wed Jul 12 16:43:43 2000
From: jsmeenk at iastate.edu (Jerod Smeenk)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:31 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Report regarding gasification and incineration of MSW
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20000712153842.009722d0@jsmeenk.mail.iastate.edu>

If I recall there was a report released recently that discussed
gasification and incineration of MSW. It contained significant discussion
regarding permitting and how the two technologies are viewed (or should be
viewed) by government agencies.

I checked the archives at CREST but couldn't find the message (I probably
overlooked it). Would someone be able to point me to this report. Thanks
in advance.

Jerod

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------
Jerod Smeenk Phone: (515) 294-6402
Iowa State University Fax: (515) 294-3261
1043 Black Engineering E-mail: jsmeenk@iastate.edu
Ames, IA 50011
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 graeme at powerlink.co.nz Thu Jul 13 03:23:26 2000
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Downdraft Gasifiers
Message-ID: <005801bfec9b$372c4f40$ef0e37d2@graeme>

Dear Tom R and gasification colleagues

While I agree that the definitions used to describe gasification process can
be confusing, existing literature provides explanation given a bit of study.
It does however require time to acquire the base knowledge, then some sort
of testing to validate the understanding of that knowledge. Is this too
much to expect of those who claim professional interest in gasification?

If we have to continually dilute what we have to teach in order to create
instant experts, or present knowledge thats just slightly skewed without
question, then we fail to provide technologies to meet current and future
needs. With this in mind, please don't use Tar Burning, as a reference to
describe all downdraught gasifiers because it does only apply to the open
core or stratified systems, where you will also find the only example of
flaming pyrolisis. The whys and wherefores have been previously discussed
in this forum and those interested should dig back in the Gasification
Archive.
In view of my above comments, you might want to read again what I reported
in the four German reports October/November 1997.

Since I wrote the German Reports 3 years ago, nothing has changed in my
opinion, so I will look forward to updating these opinions about October.

Over the next two months I will be supervising projects in Canada, Germany
and U.K. So should be able to have something interesting to report.

I leave on the 15th July, so cannot respond to comment or query until after
20th September. This is the 24th year I have spent working with gasified
engine power generation.

Its a long apprenticeship to a trade!

Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification.

> Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 16:18:45 EDT
> From: Reedtb2@cs.com
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: Downdraft Gasifiers
>
> Dear Jim et al:

<snip>

> I am wrestling with more general terminology and propose the following for
> discussion:
>
> CHAR BURNING: (for instance updraft, where the incoming air enters from
the
> bottom and FIRST encounters charcoal, burning and gasifyng the charcoal
> formed by the descending bed of biomass while the resulting hot gas
> pyrolyses the fuel to charcoal and tar, and finally dries the fuel.
> Sometimes called "counterflow" gasification)
>
> TAR BURNING: (for instance downdraft and inverted downdraft, where the
> incoming air FIRST meets the raw biomass and burns the volatiles off in
> flaming pyrolysis while generating a moderately reduced gas that is then
> further reduced by the resulting charcoa. Sometimes called co-flow
> gasification.
>
> MIXED BURNING: (for instance fluidized beds in which some air first
contacts
> the charcoal, other contacts fresh fuel and partially burns both the char
and
> tars, hence intermediate in tar content.)

 

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 Thu Jul 13 07:00:17 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Cahrcoaling & Greenhouse gasses
Message-ID: <34.7d1a8d9.269efaf6@cs.com>

Dear Skip, ELK, RGS, David Pennise etc.:

This is getting interesting.

Skip is certainly right that flaring is not NECESSARILY the way to go. I
have always been amazed that oil refineries, presumably built and operated by
chemical engineer types, often have VISIBLE (for gooness sake) flares,
presumably just to irritate the public. It is a very simple matter to admit
a sufficient quantity of air to the fuel being flared to make it totally
invisible, so no one knows how much energy you are wasting. No doubt makes
them feel macho and asserts their primacy over the rest of us.

So, I hope that this project will add sufficient air to the flare to make it
oderless and tastful.

Yours truly, TOM REED CPC/BEF

In a message dated 7/11/00 1:18:26 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
shayden@NRCan.gc.ca writes:

<<
Flaring is not necessarily the way to go, especially if the flare is subject
to fuel variations and more importantly to lateral winds.

Work that we and others are involved in shows that sidewinds can change
combustion efficiency (completeness of combustion) from 99% to perhaps as
low as 70%, with a significant amount of the incomplete products being
either a much more significant greenhouse gas than CO2 and/or extremely
toxic components.

We are presently carrying out work in a just-commissioned pilot scale flare
test facility capable of burning at up to 2 million Btu/h at lateral winds
from 10-50 km/h.

Skip Hayden

A.C.S. Hayden
Senior Research Scientist
Advanced Combustion Technologies
ETB/CETC, NRCan
1 Haanel Drive
Ottawa, Canada K1A 1M1
tel: (613) 996-3186
fax: (613) 992-9335
e-mail: skip.hayden@nrcan.gc.ca


> ----------
> From: David Pennise[SMTP:dpennise@uclink4.berkeley.edu]
> Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 7:24 PM
> To: stoves@crest.org
> Subject: Re: Cahrcoaling & Greenhouse gasses
>
> Hello Elsen,
>
> Flaring should be the way to go. Flaring will convert some of
> the incomplete combustion products, including the carbon monoxide
> and the hydrocarbons, to carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is the
> weakest greenhouse gas among them and is therefore the most
> desirable product. For example, the 1995 IPCC report lists
> the following global warming potentials (GWPs) on a molar or
> per carbon atom basis (100 year time horizon):
> CO2 = 1.0
> CH4 = 7.6
>
> Although not listed in the 1995 report due to some uncertainty,
> the 1990 IPCC report lists the following GWPs (again on a molar
> or per carbon atom basis; 100 year time horizon):
> CO = 1.9
> non-methane hydrocarbons = 4.1
>
> More recent work has tended to verify that the GWP values listed
> in IPCC 1990 for carbon monoxide and non-methane hydrocarbons are
> probably reasonable. In fact, the IPCC 1990 values lie at the
> lower end of the ranges.
>
> Keep up the good work in Nairobi.
>
> Take care,
> David Pennise
>
>
>
> At 02:27 PM 7/6/2000 +0300, you wrote:
> >Hello Stovers;
> >
> >In carbonising sawdust, I am flaring the volatiles completely. Or at
> least
> >it seems complete- the hot gasseous product of this combustion is
> completely
> >clear. No more smoke.
> >
> >Is this 'good' in terms of greenhouse gasses? Obviously, it's 'good' to
> >eliminate the noxious white smoke from a tangible pollution point of
> view,
> >but what's the chemistry here?
> >
> > I'm afraid my college chemistry classes are so far behind me and have
> been
> >so little used in the intervening years that I can only guess that I do
> the
> >right thing......
> >
> >Otherwise all is well, and the demand for my charcoal vendor's waste
> >briquettes is threatening to outstrip supply- even now that we've cranked
> up
> >production to close to 5 tons/day. It's easy to sell when you're cheaper
> >than the competition!
> >
> >The hydraulic ram briquetter (which produces 150 m 'chunks') is operating
> >well. The chunks take three days to air/sun dry (twice as long as VWB)
> but
> >are admirably suited to space-heating in poultry and pig farms. I haven't
> >tried marketing anywhere else yet.
> >
> >We are still looking into funding for the working prototype sawdust
> >briquette plant. Slow but steady progress. It'll happen some day!
> >
> >rgs;
> >
> >elk
>
>

>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> David Pennise
> Environmental Health Sciences
> School of Public Health
> University of California
> 140 Warren Hall, MC 7360 tel: 510-643-5580
> Berkeley, CA 94720 fax: 510-642-5815
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>
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 Thu Jul 13 07:01:03 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Downdraft Gasification
Message-ID: <ee.7bda7d8.269efb4b@cs.com>

Dear Jim et al:

Yes, probably torrefied wood would be good for gasification.

Probably, but I've been fooled before. Can you suggest where we could buy a
few hundred kilos for testing in our "Tarfree, Turnkey" gasifier?

And, do you have any idea of the cost for Torrefaction? I hadn't heard about
airless drying for torrefaction. Have you tried it?

Yours truly, TOM REED CPC/BEF

In a message dated 7/9/00 9:39:34 PM Mountain Daylight Time, arcate@MSN.com
writes:

<<
Dear Gasification:

This dialog on small scale gasification (kw vs. MW) has made me realize
again
that Torrefied Wood (TW) is good for gasification. TW could be produced in
large quantities at sites with biomass for TW and distributed to small-scale
TW gasification power plants, thus eliminating the requirements for them to
pre-process biomass for gasification. Just like "they" do now in processing
and distributing petro products.

This looks like an opportunity for "downdraft gasification" and commercial
applications of Airless Drying to make TW. There are small diesel engine
driven power plants all over the world running on expensive fuel delivered
in 50 gallon drums. Some of these could be converted to TW gasification.

There seem to be quite a few companies involved in "downdraft gasification".
Let me know if anyone wants to join our TW Development Team.

best regards,

Jim Arcate
Transnational Technology
www.techtp.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

 

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Fri Jul 14 08:46:29 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Downdraft Gasifiers
Message-ID: <b8.86827df.26a06582@cs.com>

Dear Doug et al:

Glad to hear that you are back in the gasification business. Hope you can
drop in here on your way back or too the UK and Canada and see what we are
doing at CPC.

(Then I'll straighter you out on "tar burning" - or maybe vice-versa).

TOM REED

In a message dated 7/13/00 1:26:32 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
graeme@powerlink.co.nz writes:

<<
Dear Tom R and gasification colleagues

While I agree that the definitions used to describe gasification process can
be confusing, existing literature provides explanation given a bit of study.
It does however require time to acquire the base knowledge, then some sort
of testing to validate the understanding of that knowledge. Is this too
much to expect of those who claim professional interest in gasification?

If we have to continually dilute what we have to teach in order to create
instant experts, or present knowledge thats just slightly skewed without
question, then we fail to provide technologies to meet current and future
needs. With this in mind, please don't use Tar Burning, as a reference to
describe all downdraught gasifiers because it does only apply to the open
core or stratified systems, where you will also find the only example of
flaming pyrolisis. The whys and wherefores have been previously discussed
in this forum and those interested should dig back in the Gasification
Archive.
In view of my above comments, you might want to read again what I reported
in the four German reports October/November 1997.

Since I wrote the German Reports 3 years ago, nothing has changed in my
opinion, so I will look forward to updating these opinions about October.

Over the next two months I will be supervising projects in Canada, Germany
and U.K. So should be able to have something interesting to report.

I leave on the 15th July, so cannot respond to comment or query until after
20th September. This is the 24th year I have spent working with gasified
engine power generation.

Its a long apprenticeship to a trade!

Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification.
>>
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 arcate at email.msn.com Fri Jul 14 18:52:25 2000
From: arcate at email.msn.com (Jim Arcate)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Wood Roasting Unit
Message-ID: <000a01bfede5$c0204fe0$625c1c3f@arcate>

Hello Gasification:

I don't consider myself an "expert" on biomass torrefaction, or anything
else for that matter, but with the help of others I have accumulated some
reference material on Torrefied Wood. Some of it is available on my
Transnational Technology web site www.techtp.com

I recently included information from a brochure about a European Community
Demonstration project, "Wood roasting unit". It can be seen at
http://www.techtp.com/EC%20TW%20demo.htm

best regards to all,

James R. Arcate
Transnational Technology

 

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 LINVENT at aol.com Sat Jul 15 12:45:49 2000
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Cahrcoaling & Greenhouse gasses
Message-ID: <2b.827c0e2.26a1ef15@aol.com>

Dear Tom and all,
I likewise share the question as to the visible flare or why they flare
at all? It is a definite emission source which requires to be put into their
permit which makes it more hassle.
Why don't they use it in a boiler, for process gas heating or other use
where the emissions would be included in some other device permit? Power
generation by use in an IC engine also makes sense. The large power lines
going into refineries are certainly a cost to the facility.
I believe the answer may lie with so many other vestiges of history, it
was easier to flare gas in the past than anything else when utility rates
were cheap and permits were virtually non-existent. I am willing to bet that
someone could go to refineries and offer to take the gas and put in power
generating equipment and sell electricity and waste heat back to the
refineries and make money.

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 andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com Sun Jul 16 06:28:45 2000
From: andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <24.7779dab.269a42cb@cs.com>
Message-ID: <7723nsshe24jemk6f1jear9iumqphr33og@4ax.com>

On Sun, 9 Jul 2000 17:04:11 EDT, Tom Reed wrote:

>I would be interested in your reactions to the book distributed on a web page
>vs our normal hard copies (below).
>
>Yours truly, TOM REED THE BIOMASS
>ENERGY FOUNDATION PRESS

I have seen no replies to your question! Have I missed them?
I will make a few comments:

1) I would prefer to download a publication to my computer than have
hard copy. There is the question of copyright, license and royalties
which you would have to sort out (it is possible to send a security
key to each buyer).

2) Downloading via a web site in HTML page at a time is time
consuming, I would prefer ftp or an auto responding email server.

3) Format: I see much use is made of Adobe Acrobat Portable Document
Format, personally I find it quirky and slow, the reader is bloatware.
I would prefer Rich Text Format, however this cannot easily handle
tables. I worry about proprietary formats like word7.doc because older
software cannot read them, and there is the question of these
documents having embedded viruses.

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 joflo at yifan.net Sun Jul 16 12:28:30 2000
From: joflo at yifan.net (Joel Florian)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <24.7779dab.269a42cb@cs.com>
Message-ID: <004f01bfef43$7eb67fc0$799570d1@joels>

(snip) replies interspersed with original text

> I have seen no replies to your question! Have I missed them?
I have not seen any replies either so I don't think you missed them, Andrew

> I will make a few comments:
>
> 1) I would prefer to download a publication to my computer than have
> hard copy. There is the question of copyright, license and royalties
> which you would have to sort out (it is possible to send a security
> key to each buyer).

I like downloading because it usually costs less.

>
> 2) Downloading via a web site in HTML page at a time is time
> consuming, I would prefer ftp or an auto responding email server.

I agree 100% I almost made the same comment about downloading being slow,
but I'm in the middle of moving from one house to another so email is not
one of my highest priorities.
>
> 3) Format: I see much use is made of Adobe Acrobat Portable Document
> Format, personally I find it quirky and slow, the reader is bloatware.

I agree. PDF files take a loooong time to read and often crash my computer

> I would prefer Rich Text Format, however this cannot easily handle
> tables. I worry about proprietary formats like word7.doc because older
> software cannot read them, and there is the question of these
> documents having embedded viruses.
I don't have a solution to the embedded virus problem, but you can very
easily download a free utility from Microsoft that enables you to read Word
7 documents. I think it's called wordview. Unzipped it's about 4 meg and a
bit faster than Adobe Acrobat.

As to the content of the pamphlet. It encouraged me to build a clunky
prototype of my idea -- sort of a proof of concept. I've been trying to
convince the board of directors to let me develop a small-scale wood chip
cogen plant utilizing gassification. Mostly I get blank stares. If someone
is curious enough to allow me to elaborate, they either get bogged down in
the details or just plain don't believe it can work. Now if I could mount a
smoking garbage can on the front of an old tractor and drive that to
work....

Joel Florian

 

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 none at none.com Wed Jul 19 00:08:56 2000
From: none at none.com (User)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gassifier
Message-ID: <200007190408.VAA01046@secure.crest.net>

how to convert a batch degassifier to a continuous one.....somethin
wrog with the seal at the top of mines.....thanks bye

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 d.j.fulford at reading.ac.uk Wed Jul 19 10:25:06 2000
From: d.j.fulford at reading.ac.uk (D.J.Fulford)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas-L: Downdraft Gasifiers
In-Reply-To: <200007070011.RAA18925@secure.crest.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20000719152624.00871400@pophost>

Dear Cordner Peacocke,

I would appreciate a reprint, if one is available, after you get back from
leave.

At 23:05 07/07/00 +0100, you wrote:
>See my recent paper for a summary of ALL UK biomass pyrolysis and
>gasification activities:
>
>GVC Peacocke and AV Bridgwater, ''Pyrolysis and Gasification of Biomass:
>Status of the UK Industry'', to be published in, 'Power Generation from
>Renewables', papers from seminar on 15-16th May 2000, London, I.Mech.E.,
2000.
>
>
Thank you,

David Fulford.
*** Dr David Fulford, Energy Group, Department of Engineering ***
*** The University of Reading, Whiteknights, ***
*** Reading RG6 6AY, UK Tel: +44-(0)118-931 8563, ***
*** Fax: +44-(0)118-931 3327 E-mail: D.J.Fulford@Reading.ac.uk ***
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 DFORTNEY at nada.org Wed Jul 19 11:35:59 2000
From: DFORTNEY at nada.org (Daniel Fortney)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Online Books, etc.
Message-ID: <s9759279.036@groupwise>

Tom,

I would be more than happy to talk with you about converting any hard copy book, publication, etc. to softcopy for downloading, viewing online, etc.

Dan Fortney

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 arcate at msn.com Fri Jul 21 21:27:24 2000
From: arcate at msn.com (arcate)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: TW for liquid bio-fuels ?
Message-ID: <200007220127.SAA04948@secure.crest.net>

Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:35:48 -1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600

Hello Gasification:

I searched the USPTO database for torrefied AND wood for all dates and had 5
hits.

PAT. NO. Title
5,110,785 Composition of matter and method of making*
4,954,620 Thermocondensed lignocellulose material, and a method and an
oven for obtaining it
4,816,572 Thermocondensed lignocellulose material, and a method and an
oven for obtaining it
4,787,917 Method for producing torrefied wood, product obtained thereby,
and application to the production of energy
4,553,978 Process for converting ligneous matter of vegetable origin by
torrefaction, and product obtained thereby

* Note: United States Patent 5,110,785 is by Thomas B Reed, et al. May 5,
1992

I found Patent 4,553,978 particularly interesting and wanted to present it
for discussion:

"It has been surprisingly observed that, in the presence of a conventional
catalyst of hydrogenation, the torrefied wood of the invention may be
rendered soluble in a solvent of the fuel, alcohol, oxo, . . type when the
torrefied wood/solvent mixture is subjected to hydrogen scavenging at
ordinary pressure, at a temperature of the order of 250.degree. C. A liquid
fuel "ex wood" is thus obtained from the torrefied wood, which may be used
in numerous ways."

Has anyone tried this ? What are the properties of the liquid fuel ? maybe
torrefy ag wastes, mix with ethanol and forget gasohol ??

Sincerely,

Jim Arcate

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 Sat Jul 22 01:09:48 2000
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas Driven Opportunities
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20000721220405.00cbb240@mail.teleport.com>

What biomass gasification opportunities does anyone see in the sharp rise
in natural gas prices we're experiencing in North America?
(Even the Canadians are getting nervous.)

Between environmental regulation (or incentives) and high gas prices is
there room for biomass?

Tom
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.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 LINVENT at aol.com Sat Jul 22 12:44:41 2000
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas Driven Opportunities
Message-ID: <ba.8827afe.26ab2952@aol.com>

Mr. Tom Miles,
Even with the current higher prices of natural gas, there are independent
producers of natural gas who are offering natural gas through wheeling
pipelines with very low costs. Many power plants are getting gas for $2-3/mm.
I have also heard of recent independent contracts for $4.75/mm in Southern
Colorado. One possible problem is also that the "bubble" of high prices is a
temporary state and until it becomes more permanent, no one is willing to
make a long term capital commitment when a short term cost is bearable. It
may take another 6mos-year before the prices sink in as permanent.
We have seen the capital costs of pure biomass projects not make
economics unless there is a waste value driven pricing added to the formula,
very high electrical prices, or other factors which are incentives.
The major limiting factor is the limited value of "avoided cost"
electricity which is a severely limiting factor in economics and getting
around this low cost is the hard part.

Sincerely,

Leland T. 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 Reedtb2 at cs.com Sun Jul 23 08:13:07 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas Driven Opportunities
Message-ID: <ca.7ccd478.26ac3b2f@cs.com>

Dear Tom et al:

Good question. I'm certainly seeing increased interest in gasification of
biomass over 2 years ago (book sales, phone calls etc.). However, I hadn't
connected it to a natural gas price increase. How much has gas gone up in
North America and are there any future projections?

I remember a major panic about gas prices in the early 1980s when they rose
briefly to $5/MBtu, then gradually dropped to under $1. This was driven by
perception rather than actuality. What's happening today?

Need more info.. TOM REED CPC/BEF

In a message dated 7/21/00 11:11:56 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
tmiles@teleport.com writes:

<<
What biomass gasification opportunities does anyone see in the sharp rise
in natural gas prices we're experiencing in North America?
(Even the Canadians are getting nervous.)

Between environmental regulation (or incentives) and high gas prices is
there room for biomass?

Tom
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.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 Jul 23 08:13:11 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas-L: Downdraft Gasifiers
Message-ID: <a7.5e808f8.26ac3b4c@cs.com>

Dear David et al:

In the future send private messages to the single person addressed, not the
whole list (as I am doing now).

TOM REED GASIFICATION WEBMASTER

In a message dated 7/19/00 8:27:43 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
d.j.fulford@reading.ac.uk writes:

<<

Dear Cordner Peacocke,

I would appreciate a reprint, if one is available, after you get back from
leave.
>>
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 Jul 23 08:13:22 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: TW for liquid bio-fuels ?
Message-ID: <5a.84fc67a.26ac3b39@cs.com>

Jim:

I'm sure we all appreciate your research efforts into "Torrefied Wood" and
their patents. Production of liquid fuel is particularly interesting, but I
can't imagine any chemical combination that would replace the ethanol for
gasohol - other components are likely to be less soluble and more corrosive.

I hope some good wood chemist gives this some thought.....

Yours truly, TOM REED

In a message dated 7/21/00 7:28:34 PM Mountain Daylight Time, arcate@msn.com
writes:

<<
Hello Gasification:

I searched the USPTO database for torrefied AND wood for all dates and had 5
hits.

PAT. NO. Title
5,110,785 Composition of matter and method of making*
4,954,620 Thermocondensed lignocellulose material, and a method and an
oven for obtaining it
4,816,572 Thermocondensed lignocellulose material, and a method and an
oven for obtaining it
4,787,917 Method for producing torrefied wood, product obtained thereby,
and application to the production of energy
4,553,978 Process for converting ligneous matter of vegetable origin by
torrefaction, and product obtained thereby

* Note: United States Patent 5,110,785 is by Thomas B Reed, et al. May 5,
1992

I found Patent 4,553,978 particularly interesting and wanted to present it
for discussion:

"It has been surprisingly observed that, in the presence of a conventional
catalyst of hydrogenation, the torrefied wood of the invention may be
rendered soluble in a solvent of the fuel, alcohol, oxo, . . type when the
torrefied wood/solvent mixture is subjected to hydrogen scavenging at
ordinary pressure, at a temperature of the order of 250.degree. C. A liquid
fuel "ex wood" is thus obtained from the torrefied wood, which may be used
in numerous ways."

Has anyone tried this ? What are the properties of the liquid fuel ? maybe
torrefy ag wastes, mix with ethanol and forget gasohol ??

Sincerely,

Jim Arcate
>>
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 Jul 23 08:13:34 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Online Books, etc.
Message-ID: <6f.80d5e78.26ac3b4b@cs.com>

Dear Dan:

Thanks for the offer to discuss electronic publishing....

The books we sell are the primary revenue source for the Biomass Energy
Foundation and they support my research, travel to conferences and more book
writing. Therefore, I am interested in selling them on line as well as in
hard copy. Cost to customers would be 1/2-2/3, since they eliminate shipping
and handling. However, they will have to either read on line (inconvenient)
or print out copies (probably more expensive than my $.05/page Xerox costs.

I'm attaching our current list of books.....

What is your expertise in this area?

Yours truly, TOM REED President, BEF Press

~~~~~~~~~
ORDER LIST - Biomass Energy Books
(Nicknames in Bold, book descriptions follow)

1. A SURVEY OF BIOMASS GASIFICATION 2000: $25

2. BIOMASS DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS HANDBOOK: $25

3. CONTAMINANT TESTING FOR GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS: $10

4. BIOMASS GASIFIER "TARS": THEIR NATURE, FORMATION, AND CONVERSION: $25

5. GENGAS: THE SWEDISH CLASSIC ON WOOD FUELED VEHICLES: $30

6. SMALL SCALE GAS PRODUCER ENGINE SYSTEMS: $30

7. PRODUCER-GAS: ANOTHER FUEL FOR MOTOR TRANSPORT: $10

8. FUNDAMENTAL STUDY AND SCALEUP OF THE AIR-OXYGEN STRATIFIED
DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER: $30

9. EVALUATION OF GASIFICATION AND NOVEL THERMAL PROCESSES
FOR THE TREATMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE - MSW $25

10. DENSIFIED BIOMASS: A NEW FORM OF SOLID FUEL: $12

11. WOOD GAS GENERATORS FOR VEHICLES: $4

12. CONSTRUCTION OF A SIMPLIFIED WOOD GAS GENERATOR: $15

13. BIOMASS TO METHANOL SPECIALISTS' WORKSHOP: $30

14. THE PEGASUS UNIT: THE LOST ART OF DRIVING WITHOUT GASOLINE: $20

15. GASIFICATION OF RICE HULLS: THEORY AND PRAXIS: $30

16. TREES: $1

17. TREE CROPS FOR ENERGY CO-PRODUCTION ON FARMS: $30

18. FROM THE FRYER TO THE FUEL TANK: HOW TO MAKE CHEAP,
CLEAN FUEL FROM FREE VEGETABLE OIL: $20

19. Modern Gas Producers by N. E. Rambush (1923) $30

20. Free Energy of Binary Compounds $25

TOTAL FOR BOOKS ___________
ORDER BLANK
-10% if 3 or more books ordered or to booksellers $3 handling + (US and
Canada
$1.50 (bookrate, or request air, $3) or (other foreign, $9/large book- air
only) ___________
TOTAL ORDER ___________
E-mail order to reedtb2@CS.com or Mail orders to The Biomass Energy
Foundation Press (BEFP), 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401; FAX 303-278 0560;
call 303 278 0558. We'll send invoice with books. Pay by postal order or
check on US Banks (no foreign), or electronic deposit to Bank No. 10 20000
76, Acct. No. 300800 2911.
BOOKS FROM THE BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION PRESS

NEW: A SURVEY OF BIOMASS GASIFICATION 2000: T. Reed and S. Gaur have
surveyed the biomass gasification scene for the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory and the Biomass Energy Foundation. 180 pages of large gasifiers
systems, small gasifiers and gasifier research institutions with descriptions
of the major types of gasifiers and a list of most world gasifiers. ISBN
1-890607-13-4 180 pp $25 _________

NEW: BIOMASS GASIFIER "TARS": THEIR NATURE, FORMATION, AND CONVERSION: T.
Milne, N. Abatzoglou, & R. J. Evans. Tars are the Achilles Heel of
gasification. This thorough work explores the chemical nature of tars, their
generation, and methods for testing and destroying them.
ISBN 1-890607-14-2 180 pp $25________

NEW: EVALUATION OF GASIFICATION AND NOVEL THERMAL PROCESSES FOR THE
TREATMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE - W. Niessen et al. 1996 NREL report by
Camp Dresser and McKee on MSW conversion processes. ISBN 1-890607-15-0 198
pp $25_______

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

NEW/OLD: DENSIFIED BIOMASS: A NEW FORM OF SOLID FUEL: Tom Reed and Becky
Bryant, A "State of the Art evaluation of densified biomass fuels" with
documentation of processes, energy balance, economics and applications.
First published in 1978, & still good. ISBN 1-890607-16-9 35 pp
$12 __________

NEW/OLD: MODERN GAS PRODUCERS: N. E. Rambush, the most complete collection
of information on the golden age of coal gasificaiton, when every city had a
"gasworks" . 550 pp $30 __________

NEW/OLD: FREE ENERGY OF BINARY COMPOUNDS: AN ATLAS OF CHARTS FOR
HIGH-TEMPERATRUE CALCULATIONS, 2nd edition, Thomas B. Reed. I published this
book with MIT Press in 1971 when I was working in high temperature materials
research. The data and charts apply to all of chemistry, so you can
calculate th thermodynamics of almost any reaction., MIT Press, 1971. My
magnum opus!
90 pp $20 _________
******
BIOMASS DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS HANDBOOK: T. Reed and A. Das,
(SERI-1988) Over a million wood gasifiers were used to power cars and trucks
during World War II. Yet, after over two decades of interest, there are only
a few companies manufacturing gasifier systems. The authors have spent more
than 20 years working with various gasifier systems, In this book they
discuss ALL the factors that must be correct to have a successful "gasifier
power system." Our most popular book, the "new Testament" of gasification
ISBN 1-890607-00-2 140 pp $25 ________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

Biomass Energy Books - Description and Order Blank
ORDER LIST - Biomass Energy Books
(Nicknames in Bold)

21. A SURVEY OF BIOMASS GASIFICATION 2000: $25

22. BIOMASS DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS HANDBOOK: $25

23. CONTAMINANT TESTING FOR GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS: $10

24. BIOMASS GASIFIER "TARS": THEIR NATURE, FORMATION, AND CONVERSION: $25

25. GENGAS: THE SWEDISH CLASSIC ON WOOD FUELED VEHICLES: $30

26. SMALL SCALE GAS PRODUCER ENGINE SYSTEMS: $30

27. PRODUCER-GAS: ANOTHER FUEL FOR MOTOR TRANSPORT: $10

28. FUNDAMENTAL STUDY AND SCALEUP OF THE AIR-OXYGEN STRATIFIED
DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER: $30

29. EVALUATION OF GASIFICATION AND NOVEL THERMAL PROCESSES
FOR THE TREATMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE - MSW $25

30. DENSIFIED BIOMASS: A NEW FORM OF SOLID FUEL: $12

31. WOOD GAS GENERATORS FOR VEHICLES: $4

32. CONSTRUCTION OF A SIMPLIFIED WOOD GAS GENERATOR: $15

33. BIOMASS TO METHANOL SPECIALISTS' WORKSHOP: $30

34. THE PEGASUS UNIT: THE LOST ART OF DRIVING WITHOUT GASOLINE: $20

35. GASIFICATION OF RICE HULLS: THEORY AND PRAXIS: $30

36. TREES: $1

37. TREE CROPS FOR ENERGY CO-PRODUCTION ON FARMS: $30

38. FROM THE FRYER TO THE FUEL TANK: HOW TO MAKE CHEAP,
CLEAN FUEL FROM FREE VEGETABLE OIL: $20

ORDER BLANK
-10% if 3 or more books ordered or to booksellers + $3 handling
+ (US & Canada $1.50/book) or (Other foreign, $8/book air)
TOTAL ORDER ___________
E-mail order to reedtb2@CS.com or Mail orders to The Biomass Energy
Foundation Press (BEFP), or mail to 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401; FAX
303-278 0560; call 303 278 0558. We'll send invoice with books. Pay by
postal order or check on US Banks, or electronic deposit to Bank No. 10 20000
76, Acct. No. 300800 2911. (No foreign checks - can cost $25 to clear!)

 

In a message dated 7/19/00 9:37:15 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
DFORTNEY@nada.org writes:

<< Tom,

I would be more than happy to talk with you about converting any hard copy
book, publication, etc. to softcopy for downloading, viewing online, etc.

Dan Fortney
>>
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 mlefcort at compuserve.com Sun Jul 23 11:33:57 2000
From: mlefcort at compuserve.com (Malcolm D. Lefcort)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas Driven Opportunities
Message-ID: <200007231133_MC2-AD24-8A8@compuserve.com>

Tom Reed, Tom Miles et al

As a "nervous" Canadian - with, admittedly, a very limited economic
background - it would appear that the rise in natural gas prices is due to
increased demand for gas in the Eastern US, aided by the recent
commissioning of new gas pipelines across North America.

Western gas is now plentiful on the east coast. Cookie cutter 640 MWe type
combined cycle power plants fueled by natural gas are popping up all over
the place. EPA pressure on older, coal-fired power plants creates further
pressure to switch to natural gas.

Malcolm Lefcort
Heuristic Engineering
Vancouver, BC
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 markus.almroth at connection.se Mon Jul 24 14:46:22 2000
From: markus.almroth at connection.se (Markus Almroth)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Exhaust loopback
Message-ID: <38DD8584.CC9E14DB@connection.se>

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)

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.

/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

 

From cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk Mon Jul 24 18:08:48 2000
From: cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk (Cordner Peacocke)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas-L: Downdraft Gasifiers
In-Reply-To: <200007070011.RAA18925@secure.crest.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20000724230423.0092b100@pop3.demon.co.uk>

Dear Jim,

With regards to your question on commercial availability, I'm surprised
that a legion of compnaies have not been jumping up to offer you a
technology. There are several companies here in the UK who can offer
systems and some even know what the levels of ''tars'' and ''particulates''
are in the gas and have run engines, etc.

If you are looking for somthing specific, let me know. I have been working
on one small installation of 75kWe, which is also commercially available,
although it is not mine to sell. Some gasification companies in the UK are
[in no order of preference]:

B9 Energy Biomass Ltd. [downdraft]
Wellman Process Engineering Ltd. [updraft]
Shawton Engineering Ltd. [downdraft]
Rural Generation Ltd. [downdraft]
Waste to Energy Ltd. [downdraft]
Energy International, UK [not known]
Bioplex Ltd., Torftech Inc., etc.

These are all commercial, depending on the scale required, to name but a
few.......

See my recent paper for a summary of ALL UK biomass pyrolysis and
gasification activities:

GVC Peacocke and AV Bridgwater, ''Pyrolysis and Gasification of Biomass:
Status of the UK Industry'', to be published in, 'Power Generation from
Renewables', papers from seminar on 15-16th May 2000, London, I.Mech.E., 2000.

If all of our colleagues in all the countries subscribing to this group
listed the activities in downdraft gasification, it would be an impressive
list and a considerable resource.

At 17:11 06/07/00 -0700, you wrote:
>Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 14:00:38 -1000
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0029_01BFE752.9090B380"
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
>
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
>------=_NextPart_000_0029_01BFE752.9090B380
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>Dear Tom Reed & Gasification:
>
>Would you please tell me the advantages (if any) of downdraft vs. =
>updraft biomass gasification ?=20
>Are there any downdraft gasifiers in operation on biomass ?=20
>Are they available commercially ?=20
>
>Thank you,
>
>Jim Arcate
>
>------=_NextPart_000_0029_01BFE752.9090B380
>Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
>Dear Tom Reed & = Gasification:
>
>Would you please tell me the = advantages (if=20 any) of downdraft vs.
>updraft biomass gasification=20 ?
>Are there any downdraft gasifiers = in operation=20 on biomass ?
>Are they available commercially ? =
>
>Thank you,
>
>Jim Arcate
>
>------=_NextPart_000_0029_01BFE752.9090B380--
>
>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 Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Jul 25 09:23:34 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Tallow as a fuel
Message-ID: <ee.8494fd9.26aeeeae@cs.com>

Dear Ian:

You wrote...

<< Dear Tom you have a page on biodiesel.

What about tallow.

I REALIZED THAT I DON'T EXACTLY UNDERSTAND THE DESIGNATION TALLOW, SO I
LOOKED IT UP IN MY MERCK INDEX. IT SAYS...

"IN NORTH AMERICA DESIGNATES THE FAT FROM THE FATTY TISSUE OF BOVINE CATTLE
AND SHEEP ONLY. (AND LOTS MORE)'"

I GUESS I HAVE ALWAYS USED THE TERMS "FATS" FOR THE SATURATED TRIGLYCERIDES
AND "OILS" FOR THE UNSATURATED VEGETABLE OILS.

Can it be used in a stationary diesel for power generation.
Without conversion to biodiesel first.

YES, PROVIDED THE ENGINE IS STARTED AND BROUGHT TO TEMPERATURE ON PETROLEUM
DIESEL AND ALSO SHUT DOWN ON CONVENTIONAL. THE TALLOW MUST BE FILTERED AND
PREHEATED TO PASS THROUGH INJECTORS.

I can get it here for 75 GBP per tonne. at about 12000 kwt a tonne it would
easily be competative with our grid prices. Could use waste heat from engine
to heat the stuff.
Government has 210000 tonnes because of our BSE crisis going for free
virtually.
Where should I go to find info on the subject.

BEFORE "BIODIESEL" (IE TRANSESTERIFIED TRIGLYCERIDES) THE USDA HOSTED THREE
SYPOSIA (ABOUT 1981) ON USING TRIGLYCERIDES FOR FUEL. THE FIRST WAS
PRIMARILY ON RAW FATS AND OILS, THE SECOND AND THIRD WERE PRIMARILY ON USING
THE METHYL ESTERS (BIODIESEL).

OTHER DATA IN BAILEY "FATS AND OILS", PREFERABLY THE FIRST 2 VOLUME EDITION.

ALSO A LOUIS WICHINSKY, THE BAGLE KING, PROMOTED UNCONVERTED FAT AND OIL USE
IN THE 1990s. I DON'T KNOW IF HE IS STILL ALIVE.

GOOD LUCK IN YOUR SEARCH - LET ME KNOW HOW IT COMES OUT.

TOM REED BEF

Jonathan Wade
Network Energy >>

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 BronzeoakC at aol.com Tue Jul 25 10:35:18 2000
From: BronzeoakC at aol.com (BronzeoakC@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas-L: Downdraft Gasifiers
Message-ID: <ea.87de81f.26aeff84@aol.com>

Dear Cordner,

Is there a way that I can read your paper?

David Walden

In a message dated 7/24/00 7:00:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
cpeacocke@care.demon.co.uk writes:

<< Subj: Re: GAS-L: Gas-L: Downdraft Gasifiers
Date: 7/24/00 7:00:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: cpeacocke@care.demon.co.uk (Cordner Peacocke)
Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
Reply-to: gasification@crest.org
To: gasification@crest.org

Dear Jim,

With regards to your question on commercial availability, I'm surprised
that a legion of compnaies have not been jumping up to offer you a
technology. There are several companies here in the UK who can offer
systems and some even know what the levels of ''tars'' and ''particulates''
are in the gas and have run engines, etc.

If you are looking for somthing specific, let me know. I have been working
on one small installation of 75kWe, which is also commercially available,
although it is not mine to sell. Some gasification companies in the UK are
[in no order of preference]:

B9 Energy Biomass Ltd. [downdraft]
Wellman Process Engineering Ltd. [updraft]
Shawton Engineering Ltd. [downdraft]
Rural Generation Ltd. [downdraft]
Waste to Energy Ltd. [downdraft]
Energy International, UK [not known]
Bioplex Ltd., Torftech Inc., etc.

These are all commercial, depending on the scale required, to name but a
few.......

See my recent paper for a summary of ALL UK biomass pyrolysis and
gasification activities:

GVC Peacocke and AV Bridgwater, ''Pyrolysis and Gasification of Biomass:
Status of the UK Industry'', to be published in, 'Power Generation from
Renewables', papers from seminar on 15-16th May 2000, London, I.Mech.E.,
2000.


If all of our colleagues in all the countries subscribing to this group
listed the activities in downdraft gasification, it would be an impressive
list and a considerable resource.

At 17:11 06/07/00 -0700, you wrote:
>Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 14:00:38 -1000
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0029_01BFE752.9090B380"
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
>
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
>------=_NextPart_000_0029_01BFE752.9090B380
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>Dear Tom Reed & Gasification:
>
>Would you please tell me the advantages (if any) of downdraft vs. =
>updraft biomass gasification ?=20
>Are there any downdraft gasifiers in operation on biomass ?=20
>Are they available commercially ?=20
>
>Thank you,
>
>Jim Arcate
>
>------=_NextPart_000_0029_01BFE752.9090B380
>Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
>Dear Tom Reed & = Gasification:
>
>Would you please tell me the = advantages (if=20 any) of downdraft vs.
>updraft biomass gasification=20 ?
>Are there any downdraft gasifiers = in operation=20 on biomass ?
>Are they available commercially ? =
>
>Thank you,
>
>Jim Arcate
>
>------=_NextPart_000_0029_01BFE752.9090B380--
>
>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


----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
Return-Path: <.owner-gasification@crest.org>
Received: from rly-yc03.mx.aol.com (rly-yc03.mail.aol.com [172.18.149.35])
by air-yc04.mail.aol.com (v75_b1.4) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 19:00:18
-0400
Received: from secure.crest.net (secure.crest.net [216.200.135.128]) by
rly-yc03.mx.aol.com (v75.18) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 18:59:48 -0400
Received: from localhost (mail@localhost)
by secure.crest.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA15554;
Mon, 24 Jul 2000 15:08:55 -0700
Received: by secure.crest.net (bulk_mailer v1.9); Mon, 24 Jul 2000 15:08:52
-0700
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
by secure.crest.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA15534
for gasification-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 15:08:48 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: secure.crest.net: majordomo set sender to
owner-gasification@crest.org using -f
Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net
[194.217.242.90])
by secure.crest.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA15526
for <.gasification@crest.org>; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 15:08:47 -0700
Received: from care.demon.co.uk ([194.222.47.8] helo=gvcp-computer)
by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1)
id 13GqOv-000ICQ-0W
for gasification@crest.org; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 23:08:42 +0100
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000724230423.0092b100@pop3.demon.co.uk>
X-Sender: cpeacocke+care@pop3.demon.co.uk
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 23:04:23 +0100
To: gasification@crest.org
From: Cordner Peacocke <.cpeacocke@care.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Gas-L: Downdraft Gasifiers
In-Reply-To: <200007070011.RAA18925@secure.crest.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
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
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 Tue Jul 25 10:37:53 2000
From: kchishol at fox.nstn.ca (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Exhaust loopback
In-Reply-To: <38DD8584.CC9E14DB@connection.se>
Message-ID: <397DA5B4.DDAFF3FE@fox.nstn.ca>

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

 

From owner-gasification at crest.org Tue Jul 25 15:17:16 2000
From: owner-gasification at crest.org (by way of Tom Miles <tmiles@teleport.com>)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Exhaust loopback (fwd)
Message-ID: <200007251917.MAA05109@secure.crest.net>

Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 17:23:49 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

We have some experience in using CO2 in engine exhaust as a source of carbon
in the gasifier unit. The fact that we need heat which is released in the
oxidation zone also for being able to maintain the temperature levels of the
reduction zone, calls for a very precise control. Only a part of the CO@ can
be utilised. The fraction depends upon the temperature of the exhaust gases.
Higher the temperature better it works. The other critical factor is the
presence of O2 which then is used for the heat release oxidation reactions.
O2 contents in the exhaust depends upon the engine load in diesel
engines/dualfuel engines. Load fluctuations disturb the reactor conditions
and the working of the gasifier. However if the engine is a spark ignition
100% producer gas engine the concept works much better. Firstly the exahust
temperatures are hoigher and then O2 is almost nil and CO2 is more. At
todays experience level it appears that with a SI engine the concept is a
technical possibilty.

Mrs Parikh

Department of Mechanical Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology
Bombay 400076, India

>From: Prof P P Parikh <parikh@me.iitb.ernet.in>
>To: crest_ppp@hotmail.com
>Subject: GAS-L: Exhaust loopback (fwd)
>Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:31:05 +0530 (IST)
>
>
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Prof. (Mrs.) P.P.Parikh Phone Office : 5723496, 5767548
>Dept. of Mechanical Engg. 5722545 Ext. 7548 / 8385
>I.I.T. Bombay Home : 5704646
>Mumbai 400 076 INDIA Fax Office : 5723496, 5723480
>
> email : parikh@me.iitb.ernet.in
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 05:35:33 +0200
>From: Markus Almroth <markus.almroth@connection.se>
>Reply-To: gasification@crest.org
>To: gasification <gasification@crest.org>
>Subject: GAS-L: Exhaust loopback
>
>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)
>
>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.
>
>/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
>

________________________________________________________________________
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

 

From tk at tke.dk Wed Jul 26 03:10:23 2000
From: tk at tke.dk (Thomas Koch)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:32 2004
Subject: Sv: GAS-L: Exhaust loopback
Message-ID: <004f01bff6d0$fe956fa0$048744c0@image.image.dk>

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

 

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Jul 27 13:03:59 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Online Books, etc.
In-Reply-To: <6f.80d5e78.26ac3b4b@cs.com>
Message-ID: <39806A90.3C34D1C7@c2i.net>

Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:
>
> Dear Dan:
>
> Thanks for the offer to discuss electronic publishing....
>
> The books we sell are the primary revenue source for the Biomass Energy
> Foundation and they support my research, travel to conferences and more book
> writing. Therefore, I am interested in selling them on line as well as in
> hard copy. Cost to customers would be 1/2-2/3, since they eliminate shipping
> and handling. However, they will have to either read on line (inconvenient)
> or print out copies (probably more expensive than my $.05/page Xerox costs.

..publish 'em as compressed searchable html-site files or pdf files.
358 page Gengas (in swedish) should fit within half a megabyte of clean
html code. All books can be password protected and encrypted too.
Easy. Saves wood for gasification too ;-).

Tom, for each of your listed books, please list the number of pages.
Also, does your prices excludee shipping?
I feel the prices excluding these costs and including the wee costs of
electronic publishing, should be attractive.

 

--
..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 Jul 27 13:25:10 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Telsa Turbine
In-Reply-To: <72.1037c8b.269c70fe@cs.com>
Message-ID: <39806F8B.D8F4F2D3@c2i.net>

Kevin Chisholm wrote:

[snip]

> Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:
> >
> > Dear Bird, Tom et al:
> >
> > I am fascinated by the Tesla turbine and hope it has a future for high
> > temperature gases. It may bear the same relation to the conventional bucket
> > turbines that the Mazda rotaty engine does to the conventional piston engine:
> > MUCH simpler and potentially cheaper,
>
> Mazda and Wankle engines are, in principle, identical to the
> conventional 4 cycle piston engine, in that they all employ the Otto
> Cycle, and all have the same efficiency limits when operating under the
> same compression ratios. Physical shape is, of course, much different,
> but there are no reasons to expect a fundamental difference in
> performance.
>
> but MUCH less developed and may take
> > 100 years and we may never do it since conventional turbines work quite well
> > and have had a few billion $ poured on.
>
> With hundreds of millions having been spent on the Mazda engine, over
> 20-30 years, why isn't it in widespread use? What breakthroughs would
> have to occur before it would be commonplace?

..my understanding is the Wankel rotor seal system was not practical for
auto use, with the normal fluctuating load cycles there. I've seen
references to aero engine makers Lycoming? or Continental?, claiming the
Wankel to be more practical in general aviation type of aircraft,
because of the less fluctuating loads incurred, power settings are
typically 55-85% cruise power, 100% take-off & initial climb power, say
15-35% flight idle/glide power to keep the (aircooled) engine safely hot
enough during landing, and a few minutes of idle to stabilize
temperatures before and after flight. Ship and power plant duty cycles
are even less complex.

..all these 'practical' users are pretty conservative. They risk their
own money, and in GA flight, lives too. So they _listen_ to other
experienced users, like wankel auto users...


> Similarily, what are the breakthroughs necessary for the Telsa engine to
> come to widespread use? What will the Telsa engine be able to do, that a
> conventional gas turbine cannot do? Is the potential increment of
> improvement worth the development cost?
>
> Are there any Gas Turbine Design Engineers on this list who have
> analysed the Telsa concept, to determine its potential advantages? Their
> comments on their comparisons would be most welcome!
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Kevin Chisholm

--
..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 IanWade at aol.com Thu Jul 27 13:36:09 2000
From: IanWade at aol.com (IanWade@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Telsa Turbine
Message-ID: <f5.143286a.26b1ccdf@aol.com>

Hi guys TT just about there.
EPI's Tesla (250 kwe) is about 23% efficient. But they are offerring them
at 750 - 850 $ per kilowatt. Ie the savings on capital cost are not what they
are meant to be.
No word from the germano mob.
Forget the wankel see
<A HREF="http://www.quasiturbine.com/">Quasiturbine (Aussi français) - Zero
vibration Rotary engine</A>
For what I call a reverse wankel see
<A HREF="http://www.machaon.ru/tetra/veselo.htm">Technologies In Stock:
VESELOVSKY Rotary-Piston Engine</A>
Ps Tom
decision being taken next week on Britains first renewable plant to burn
tallow
Just 350 kWe expected. Thanks for your help
Jonathan Wade
Network Energy
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 Jul 27 14:18:08 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Telsa Turbine
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000727121410.0094b190@wgs1.btl.net>

At 01:35 PM 7/27/00 EDT, you wrote:
>Hi guys TT just about there.
>EPI's Tesla (250 kwe) is about 23% efficient. But they are offerring them
>at 750 - 850 $ per kilowatt. Ie the savings on capital cost are not what
they
>are meant to be.

Neither is that efficiency level! A big dud on that project!

Does that price include the Generator, the condenser/cooling tower -- etc??
Or just the bare bones turbine??

And -- what steam quality?? Are they limited to low pressure and low super
heat?? That would explain the poor efficiency compared to modern steam
turbines (30% plus!) in that size range even. And there is no price
advantage by the sounds of it.

Peter/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 IanWade at aol.com Thu Jul 27 14:23:44 2000
From: IanWade at aol.com (IanWade@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Telsa Turbine
Message-ID: <76.18b67a2.26b1d80e@aol.com>

Hi Peter
The efficiency is not bad for something doing 250 kwe
That inckludes radiator engine alternator controls ie ready to go.
Their version is for direct firing on gas no steam boiler
They are doing a versions for waste oil fuels aswell I think
Jonathan
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 Jul 27 15:33:22 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Telsa Turbine - Pulse Jets
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000727132957.0094ad10@wgs1.btl.net>

At 02:23 PM 7/27/00 EDT, you wrote:
>Hi Peter
>The efficiency is not bad for something doing 250 kwe
>That inckludes radiator engine alternator controls ie ready to go.
>Their version is for direct firing on gas no steam boiler
>They are doing a versions for waste oil fuels aswell I think
>Jonathan

Oh -- OK!

But Arnt did tell me of a reciprocating engine burning producer gas getting
28% and better -- for these size ranges.

Arnt -- comments???

Still -- it is a beginning in a new form of engine.

Will it work on producer gas?

Does it need less "cleaning" than for reciprocating engines.

Also --

Piston engines -- or volume compression cycles (to thus include rotary
designs such as Wankel) -- suffer from being able to get a dense enough
charge into the combustion area.

Swept volume of the naturally aspirated piston engine is limited by stroke
and piston area.

Since producer gas is not a rich fuel -- this limits performance. We have
had discussions on this list in the past regarding this subject -- but I
feel 50% "derating" is fair.

Some suggest this can be improved by super/turbo charging.

Gasifiers supply a very hot producer gas. And part of the fuel conditioning
expense -- and loss of energy -- is cooling this gas down sufficiently
before introducing to a compression/combustion engine. Beside basic
mechanical restrictions (to hot!) there is also the point that the hot
producer gas loses to much density -- reducing the "charge" that can be
introduced -- further derating engine performance.

Now -- one of the interesting concepts Telsa put forward in his first
designs was a combination of steam with combustion gasses to power his
turbine design.

As the Tesla Turbine -- or any gas turbine -- is a flow based engine -- a
poor fuel (in btu value) does not adversly effect engine performance.
Further -- the hot producer gas could be then tempered with a water spray
-- this would greatly increase the flow volume as the spray would be
converted to steam.

The result would be a greater over all efficiency of the gasifier process.

If you are following me??

This means the recovery of at least part of the heat in the hot producer
gas exiting from the gasifier -- as well as elimination of a part of the
fuel conditioning process.

Of course -- "water-injection" is an old trick of compression ignition
designs as well. If I remember properly -- first used in early air-craft
fighter engines.

Also -- introducing steam to a fuel flow for furnace operation is a very
old and proven method of improving combustion as well. I have seen many the
Bunker C boiler where this "heavy" fuel was "vaporized" using steam.

This certainly would work for "tallow" and all waste oils as well.

Now -- in this new Telsa gas turbine design -- I would imagine the
compressor is a great part of the cost? A flow compression true -- but
certainly the compression that is required for any gas turbine design.

Also -- the fuel has to be injected under a pressure as well.

So you see -- at the very least -- the hot producer gas -- and any other
waste heat -- can be utilized to operating (at least partially) the
required compression cycles -- of both air charge and producer gas charge.

We could visualize this by considering a steam engine or turbine powering
this compressor. Or as a device along the lines of present Diesel turbo
chargers.

But then -- thinking of a pulse jet -- why not do it all in one "pipe"??

The advantage is a much smaller capacity air and producer gas compressor is
required. For the hot producer gas -- a standard diesel turbo could be
adapted -- this turbo being positioned in the line from pulse jet to gas
turbine -- using what power it requires. Think of a "topping-Turbine" flow
circuit.

Actually -- this would solve all the compression problems. As this in line
turbo charger could also compress the air charge as well -- but two
separate circuits.

As the two gases (air and producer gas) are introduced into the turbine
combustion chamber -- water is injected.

Or -- make just the producer gas injection system a pulse jet. That is
producer gas under low pressure -- but hot -- is introduced into a
prechamber pulse jet where injected water boosts pressures before
introduction into the main combustion pulse jet chamber. The advantage of
this design is a low, initial entry pressure for the hot producer gas --
plus a premixed charge ready to ignite when introduced to the low pressure
air charge in the main pulse jet chamber.

A pulse jet is a cycling turbine combustion process. The advantage is no
great amount of air compression is required. Making for a much more
economical "machine".

The pulse jet was popularized in the German V-1 missiles and is presently
famous as the motive power of modern cruise missiles.

In these cases -- the low pressure air charging is accomplished by forward
motion into the air -- as a projectile. But there is no reason such a pulse
jet would not work equally as well on a bench with low pressure air
supplied by a compressor. A compressor only a small percentage of the size
(and thus costs) required for regular gas turbine.

Then maybe -- just maybe -- they can get that price down under $200 per KWH.

Not talking new technology here -- simply shifting the orders of applications.

OK -- another one of those mental exercises -- comments??

(I have been "dreaming" pulse jets)

Peter/Belize

 

Peter/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 Jul 27 18:42:02 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Telsa Turbine - Pulse Jets
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000727132957.0094ad10@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3980B9CF.48B32BC7@c2i.net>

Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> At 02:23 PM 7/27/00 EDT, you wrote:
> >Hi Peter
> >The efficiency is not bad for something doing 250 kwe
> >That inckludes radiator engine alternator controls ie ready to go.
> >Their version is for direct firing on gas no steam boiler
> >They are doing a versions for waste oil fuels aswell I think
> >Jonathan
>
> Oh -- OK!
>
> But Arnt did tell me of a reciprocating engine burning producer gas getting
> 28% and better -- for these size ranges.
>
> Arnt -- comments???

..http://power.wartsila-nsd.com/ is one place you'll find gensets
producing power around 40-45% electric efficiency and a similar amount
of (district) heat output.

..firing these genset on solid fuels through a good gasifier,
adds the gasifier efficiency to the picture, as in multiplication
-> ee x ge = 0.45 x 0.75 = 0.3375 etc...

> Still -- it is a beginning in a new form of engine.
>
> Will it work on producer gas?
>
> Does it need less "cleaning" than for reciprocating engines.
>
> Also --
>
> Piston engines -- or volume compression cycles (to thus include rotary
> designs such as Wankel) -- suffer from being able to get a dense enough
> charge into the combustion area.
>
> Swept volume of the naturally aspirated piston engine is limited by stroke
> and piston area.
>
> Since producer gas is not a rich fuel -- this limits performance. We have
> had discussions on this list in the past regarding this subject -- but I
> feel 50% "derating" is fair.

..expect a 30% derate, or supercharge.

> Some suggest this can be improved by super/turbo charging.
>
> Gasifiers supply a very hot producer gas. And part of the fuel conditioning
> expense -- and loss of energy -- is cooling this gas down sufficiently
> before introducing to a compression/combustion engine. Beside basic
> mechanical restrictions (to hot!) there is also the point that the hot
> producer gas loses to much density -- reducing the "charge" that can be
> introduced -- further derating engine performance.
>
> Now -- one of the interesting concepts Telsa put forward in his first
> designs was a combination of steam with combustion gasses to power his
> turbine design.
>
> As the Tesla Turbine -- or any gas turbine -- is a flow based engine -- a
> poor fuel (in btu value) does not adversly effect engine performance.
> Further -- the hot producer gas could be then tempered with a water spray
> -- this would greatly increase the flow volume as the spray would be
> converted to steam.
>
> The result would be a greater over all efficiency of the gasifier process.
>
> If you are following me??
>
> This means the recovery of at least part of the heat in the hot producer
> gas exiting from the gasifier -- as well as elimination of a part of the
> fuel conditioning process.
>
> Of course -- "water-injection" is an old trick of compression ignition
> designs as well. If I remember properly -- first used in early air-craft
> fighter engines.

..actually pre WWI civil aircraft, if memory serves, Louis Bleriot
evaded ditching in the Channel due to a nice shower cooling his
overheated Anzani, back in 1909.
>
> Also -- introducing steam to a fuel flow for furnace operation is a very
> old and proven method of improving combustion as well. I have seen many the
> Bunker C boiler where this "heavy" fuel was "vaporized" using steam.
>
> This certainly would work for "tallow" and all waste oils as well.
>
> Now -- in this new Telsa gas turbine design -- I would imagine the
> compressor is a great part of the cost? A flow compression true -- but
> certainly the compression that is required for any gas turbine design.
>
> Also -- the fuel has to be injected under a pressure as well.
>
> So you see -- at the very least -- the hot producer gas -- and any other
> waste heat -- can be utilized to operating (at least partially) the
> required compression cycles -- of both air charge and producer gas charge.
>
> We could visualize this by considering a steam engine or turbine powering
> this compressor. Or as a device along the lines of present Diesel turbo
> chargers.
>
> But then -- thinking of a pulse jet -- why not do it all in one "pipe"??
>
> The advantage is a much smaller capacity air and producer gas compressor is
> required. For the hot producer gas -- a standard diesel turbo could be
> adapted -- this turbo being positioned in the line from pulse jet to gas
> turbine -- using what power it requires. Think of a "topping-Turbine" flow
> circuit.

.. why not? See below. But again, there is always a way... ;-)

> Actually -- this would solve all the compression problems. As this in line
> turbo charger could also compress the air charge as well -- but two
> separate circuits.
>
> As the two gases (air and producer gas) are introduced into the turbine
> combustion chamber -- water is injected.
>
> Or -- make just the producer gas injection system a pulse jet. That is
> producer gas under low pressure -- but hot -- is introduced into a
> prechamber pulse jet where injected water boosts pressures before
> introduction into the main combustion pulse jet chamber. The advantage of
> this design is a low, initial entry pressure for the hot producer gas --
> plus a premixed charge ready to ignite when introduced to the low pressure
> air charge in the main pulse jet chamber.
>
> A pulse jet is a cycling turbine combustion process. The advantage is no
> great amount of air compression is required. Making for a much more
> economical "machine".

..usually no turbines in pulse jets, shock waves would blow 'em out, the
shock waves and the valves _replace_ the turbine in doing its work.

> The pulse jet was popularized in the German V-1 missiles and is presently
> famous as the motive power of modern cruise missiles.
>
> In these cases -- the low pressure air charging is accomplished by forward
> motion into the air -- as a projectile. But there is no reason such a pulse
> jet would not work equally as well on a bench with low pressure air
> supplied by a compressor. A compressor only a small percentage of the size
> (and thus costs) required for regular gas turbine.
>
> Then maybe -- just maybe -- they can get that price down under $200 per KWH.
>
> Not talking new technology here -- simply shifting the orders of applications.
>
> OK -- another one of those mental exercises -- comments??
>
> (I have been "dreaming" pulse jets)
>
> Peter/Belize

--
..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 snkm at btl.net Thu Jul 27 19:39:13 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Telsa Turbine - Pulse Jets
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000727173548.008c3b20@wgs1.btl.net>

At 12:38 AM 7/28/00 +0200, you wrote:
>Peter Singfield wrote:
>> A pulse jet is a cycling turbine combustion process. The advantage is no
>> great amount of air compression is required. Making for a much more
>> economical "machine".
>

Hi Arnt;

>..usually no turbines in pulse jets, shock waves would blow 'em out, the
>shock waves and the valves _replace_ the turbine in doing its work.

True -- but put set of reed valves at the exhaust end -- stick another pipe
on after that as an accumulator -- and presto -- higher pressure -- much
higher volume -- make a turbine/Tesla spin.

Anything to make an expansion folks --

This would be so easy to build! Just buy one of those Ram Jet engine kits
they always advertize in the classifieds in Popular Mechanics -- adapt
accordingly -- and go!

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 IanWade at aol.com Fri Jul 28 05:22:57 2000
From: IanWade at aol.com (IanWade@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Telsa Turbine
Message-ID: <7a.83bbec5.26b2aacd@aol.com>

Hi peter
Yes it will work on low BTU gas
Yes You can spray water in to get steam In fact I am surprised this does not
seem to be in their concept.
Yes it will need less cleaning In fact virtually no cleaning I think.
Jonathan
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 Fri Jul 28 10:44:39 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: TESLA, not Telsa!
Message-ID: <e4.841e463.26b2f62f@cs.com>

Dear All:

I have been seeing mail on the subject "Telsa" for a month or so and no one
has corrected it. I fear if this goes on, poor Nicola Tesla will go down in
history as N. TELSA.

In any case, all searches for TESLA won't find your golden words on TELSA.
E-mail is nicely casual, but there is a certain minimum standard that should
be kept up.

Your moderator.... TOM REED

In a message dated 7/28/00 3:26:05 AM Mountain Daylight Time, IanWade@aol.com
writes:

 

<<
Hi peter
Yes it will work on low BTU gas
Yes You can spray water in to get steam In fact I am surprised this does not
seem to be in their concept.
Yes it will need less cleaning In fact virtually no cleaning I think.
Jonathan >>

 

To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: GAS-L: Telsa Turbine
From: IanWade@aol.com
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 05:24:42 -0400
Reply-To: gasification@crest.org
Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org

Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
Received: from secure.crest.net (secure.crest.net [216.200.135.128])
by sphmgaad.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-1.9) with ESMTP id FAA02350;
Fri, 28 Jul 2000 05:24:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (mail@localhost)
by secure.crest.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA17784;
Fri, 28 Jul 2000 02:23:27 -0700
Received: by secure.crest.net (bulk_mailer v1.9); Fri, 28 Jul 2000 02:23:01 -0700
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
by secure.crest.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA17758
for gasification-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 02:22:57 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: secure.crest.net: majordomo set sender to owner-gasification@crest.org using -f
Received: from imo-r04.mx.aol.com (imo-r04.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.4])
by secure.crest.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA17755
for <gasification@crest.org>; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 02:22:56 -0700
From: IanWade@aol.com
Received: from IanWade@aol.com
by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id 6.7a.83bbec5 (3989)
for <gasification@crest.org>; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 05:22:21 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <7a.83bbec5.26b2aacd@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 05:22:21 EDT
Subject: GAS-L: Telsa Turbine
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
Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
Reply-To: gasification@crest.org
Precedence: bulk


Hi peter
Yes it will work on low BTU gas
Yes You can spray water in to get steam In fact I am surprised this does not
seem to be in their concept.
Yes it will need less cleaning In fact virtually no cleaning I think.
Jonathan
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 Fri Jul 28 10:44:44 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Wankel, Fuel Cell, Tesla Turbines and Stirlings
Message-ID: <37.816cbec.26b2f636@cs.com>

Dear Kevin et al:

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?)

The Wankel engine concept is in many ways superior to the internal combustion
engine and I understand it is making a new comeback with better seals.

In one way it is inferior, I believe. The "combustion chamber" is not
cylindrical, but triangular, caught between the "figure 8 cylinder" and the
"circular triangle piston". It is my impression that combustion is not as
complete in the Wankel as the cylindrical piston because the surface to
volume ratio is higher, producing more quenching of burning gases.

I would appreciate comments on this as well.

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF

In a message dated 7/27/00 11:27:04 AM Mountain Daylight Time, arnt@c2i.net
writes:

<<

Kevin Chisholm wrote:

[snip]

> Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:
> >
> > Dear Bird, Tom et al:
> >
> > I am fascinated by the Tesla turbine and hope it has a future for high
> > temperature gases. It may bear the same relation to the conventional
bucket
> > turbines that the Mazda rotaty engine does to the conventional piston
engine:
> > MUCH simpler and potentially cheaper,
>
> Mazda and Wankle engines are, in principle, identical to the
> conventional 4 cycle piston engine, in that they all employ the Otto
> Cycle, and all have the same efficiency limits when operating under the
> same compression ratios. Physical shape is, of course, much different,
> but there are no reasons to expect a fundamental difference in
> performance.
>
> but MUCH less developed and may take
> > 100 years and we may never do it since conventional turbines work quite
well
> > and have had a few billion $ poured on.
>
> With hundreds of millions having been spent on the Mazda engine, over
> 20-30 years, why isn't it in widespread use? What breakthroughs would
> have to occur before it would be commonplace?

..my understanding is the Wankel rotor seal system was not practical for
auto use, with the normal fluctuating load cycles there. I've seen
references to aero engine makers Lycoming? or Continental?, claiming the
Wankel to be more practical in general aviation type of aircraft,
because of the less fluctuating loads incurred, power settings are
typically 55-85% cruise power, 100% take-off & initial climb power, say
15-35% flight idle/glide power to keep the (aircooled) engine safely hot
enough during landing, and a few minutes of idle to stabilize
temperatures before and after flight. Ship and power plant duty cycles
are even less complex.

..all these 'practical' users are pretty conservative. They risk their
own money, and in GA flight, lives too. So they _listen_ to other
experienced users, like wankel auto users...


> Similarily, what are the breakthroughs necessary for the Telsa engine to
> come to widespread use? What will the Telsa engine be able to do, that a
> conventional gas turbine cannot do? Is the potential increment of
> improvement worth the development cost?
>
> Are there any Gas Turbine Design Engineers on this list who have
> analysed the Telsa concept, to determine its potential advantages? Their
> comments on their comparisons would be most welcome!
>
> Kindest 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 Jul 28 12:54:45 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: TESLA, not Telsa!
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000728095313.008bd930@wgs1.btl.net>

 

Yes -- my spell checker kept spitting out Tesla when it hit Telsa in the
text -- but why bother?? Maybe everyone would have thought I was talking of
another man?

Peter

At 10:43 AM 7/28/00 EDT, you wrote:
>Dear All:
>
>I have been seeing mail on the subject "Telsa" for a month or so and no one
>has corrected it. I fear if this goes on, poor Nicola Tesla will go down in
>history as N. TELSA.
>
>In any case, all searches for TESLA won't find your golden words on TELSA.
>E-mail is nicely casual, but there is a certain minimum standard that should
>be kept up.
>
>Your moderator.... TOM REED
>
>
>In a message dated 7/28/00 3:26:05 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
IanWade@aol.com
>writes:
>
>
>
><<
> Hi peter
> Yes it will work on low BTU gas
> Yes You can spray water in to get steam In fact I am surprised this does
not
> seem to be in their concept.
> Yes it will need less cleaning In fact virtually no cleaning I think.
> Jonathan >>
>
>Return-Path: <owner-gasification@crest.org>
>Received: from rly-yg05.mx.aol.com (rly-yg05.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.5])
by air-yg02.mail.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 05:26:05
-0400
>Received: from spdmgaab.compuserve.com (ds-img-2.compuserve.com
[149.174.206.135]) by rly-yg05.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Fri, 28
Jul 2000 05:25:48 -0400
>Received: (from mailgate@localhost)
> by spdmgaab.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-1.9) id FAA09820
> for reedtb2@cs.com; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 05:25:48 -0400 (EDT)
>Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 05:24:42 -0400
>From: IanWade@aol.com
>Subject: GAS-L: Telsa Turbine
>Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
>To: gasification@crest.org
>Reply-To: gasification@crest.org
>Message-ID: <200007280525_MC2-ADCC-8698@compuserve.com>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset=us-ascii
>Content-Disposition: inline
>X-Mailer: Unknown
>
>Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
>Received: from secure.crest.net (secure.crest.net [216.200.135.128])
> by sphmgaad.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-1.9) with ESMTP id FAA02350;
> Fri, 28 Jul 2000 05:24:30 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from localhost (mail@localhost)
> by secure.crest.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA17784;
> Fri, 28 Jul 2000 02:23:27 -0700
>Received: by secure.crest.net (bulk_mailer v1.9); Fri, 28 Jul 2000
02:23:01 -0700
>Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
> by secure.crest.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA17758
> for gasification-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 02:22:57 -0700
>X-Authentication-Warning: secure.crest.net: majordomo set sender to
owner-gasification@crest.org using -f
>Received: from imo-r04.mx.aol.com (imo-r04.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.4])
> by secure.crest.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA17755
> for <gasification@crest.org>; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 02:22:56 -0700
>From: IanWade@aol.com
>Received: from IanWade@aol.com
> by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id 6.7a.83bbec5 (3989)
> for <gasification@crest.org>; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 05:22:21 -0400 (EDT)
>Message-ID: <7a.83bbec5.26b2aacd@aol.com>
>Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 05:22:21 EDT
>Subject: GAS-L: Telsa Turbine
>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
>Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
>Reply-To: gasification@crest.org
>Precedence: bulk
>
>
>Hi peter
>Yes it will work on low BTU gas
>Yes You can spray water in to get steam In fact I am surprised this does not
>seem to be in their concept.
>Yes it will need less cleaning In fact virtually no cleaning I think.
>Jonathan
>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 Fri Jul 28 12:54:46 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Wankel, Fuel Cell, Tesla Turbines and Stirlings
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000728103906.0092a440@wgs1.btl.net>

At 10:44 AM 7/28/00 EDT, you wrote:
>Dear Kevin et al:
>
>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.

Even when "playing" with a 250 KWH set-up -- you can quickly justify higher
capital investment in regards to increased efficiencies and the ability to
use a much higher humidity fuel source. Drying is a big head-ache and a
major operational cost -- lest we all forget!

And then -- a steam turbine under these same steam conditions -- will get
30 + percent efficiencies!!

Plus a lot less maintenance head aches -- and a much longer life.

We should be concentrating on simply making small, high pressure, high
efficiency boiler/turbine sets fired by gasifiers!

If such a package existed -- it would save a lot of headaches in applying
gasification to co-generation.

I am sure you are aware that in the early days of steam turbines -- many
excellent models of very high efficiencies were made at very reasonable
costs for the 250 kwh sizes.

It is simply a matter of turning the clock back rather than keep looking
for new ways to invent the same wheel.

I have studied this question to oblivion! If you try to design a simple
uniflow for 250 kwh -- and then put it into mass production -- it would be
still cheaper to make it a turbine. Especially with our modern machining
technologies!!

If China gets into this line -- watch out!

>
>The Wankel engine concept is in many ways superior to the internal
combustion
>engine and I understand it is making a new comeback with better seals.
>
>In one way it is inferior, I believe. The "combustion chamber" is not
>cylindrical, but triangular, caught between the "figure 8 cylinder" and the
>"circular triangle piston". It is my impression that combustion is not as
>complete in the Wankel as the cylindrical piston because the surface to
>volume ratio is higher, producing more quenching of burning gases.
>
>I would appreciate comments on this as well.

I agree with you 100% on this.

Though I keep searching -- and studying -- I see nothing replacing the
steam turbine yet. We just need some effort devoted to making "small"
systems in this area -- instead of wasting our time in gas turbines, IC and
diesel engines.

Designing a small single pass boiler producing 900F, 1675 psi steam is not
the nightmare it used to be since the introduction of micro-processor
controllers and modern sensor technology.

Just look at any modern IC car engine if you find this hard to follow.
Start with the fuel injection, exhaust sensors -- micro-controller -- loop.

Now -- apply this technology to a "Steam Jenny" design with the use of a
finned tubing economizer -- bingo -- your high pressure boiler -- sir!!

A "Steam Jenny" is a high pressure, single pass, water tube boiler that was
used for steam cleaning dirty equipment. Sold for around $500 -- fired with
furnace oil -- couple of gallons per hour -- 60 kwh "in".

You could easily fire one of these from a gasifier -- if one was so
inclined. You should add an economizer and a super heater to the circuit.
That is where the micro-processing controls would come in handy. Still --
one could actually build a well "balanced" design that would work on the
old fashioned, mechanical/analog controls as well.

I am quite sure I could get rich building these for $100 per kwh output --
in the 250 kwh range.

Just what happened to us?? I know -- to much "grant" money. Now we have to
wait for China to take an interest.

Just trying to put things in "perspective" here.

Are we fat, lazy and disgusting or what?

Peter

>
>Yours truly, TOM REED BEF
>
>In a message dated 7/27/00 11:27:04 AM Mountain Daylight Time, arnt@c2i.net
>writes:
>
><<
>
> Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Bird, Tom et al:
> > >
> > > I am fascinated by the Tesla turbine and hope it has a future for high
> > > temperature gases. It may bear the same relation to the conventional
>bucket
> > > turbines that the Mazda rotaty engine does to the conventional piston
>engine:
> > > MUCH simpler and potentially cheaper,
> >
> > Mazda and Wankle engines are, in principle, identical to the
> > conventional 4 cycle piston engine, in that they all employ the Otto
> > Cycle, and all have the same efficiency limits when operating under the
> > same compression ratios. Physical shape is, of course, much different,
> > but there are no reasons to expect a fundamental difference in
> > performance.
> >
> > but MUCH less developed and may take
> > > 100 years and we may never do it since conventional turbines work quite
>well
> > > and have had a few billion $ poured on.
> >
> > With hundreds of millions having been spent on the Mazda engine, over
> > 20-30 years, why isn't it in widespread use? What breakthroughs would
> > have to occur before it would be commonplace?
>
> ..my understanding is the Wankel rotor seal system was not practical for
> auto use, with the normal fluctuating load cycles there. I've seen
> references to aero engine makers Lycoming? or Continental?, claiming the
> Wankel to be more practical in general aviation type of aircraft,
> because of the less fluctuating loads incurred, power settings are
> typically 55-85% cruise power, 100% take-off & initial climb power, say
> 15-35% flight idle/glide power to keep the (aircooled) engine safely hot
> enough during landing, and a few minutes of idle to stabilize
> temperatures before and after flight. Ship and power plant duty cycles
> are even less complex.
>
> ..all these 'practical' users are pretty conservative. They risk their
> own money, and in GA flight, lives too. So they _listen_ to other
> experienced users, like wankel auto users...
>
>
> > Similarily, what are the breakthroughs necessary for the Telsa engine to
> > come to widespread use? What will the Telsa engine be able to do, that a
> > conventional gas turbine cannot do? Is the potential increment of
> > improvement worth the development cost?
> >
> > Are there any Gas Turbine Design Engineers on this list who have
> > analysed the Telsa concept, to determine its potential advantages? Their
> > comments on their comparisons would be most welcome!
> >
> > Kindest 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
>
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 Jul 28 12:55:42 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tesla Turbine
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000728105052.0094de10@wgs1.btl.net>

At 05:22 AM 7/28/00 EDT, you wrote:
>Hi peter
>Yes it will work on low BTU gas
>Yes You can spray water in to get steam In fact I am surprised this does not
>seem to be in their concept.

If they are not cooling the gas before introduction -- it does not matter.
That is if they can use the hot gas at intake. The invested btu's would do
a "Stirling" effect on the cooler air being introduced for combustion. This
is far more efficient than the steam process --

However -- if they have to cool the intake gas due to mechanical
considerations -- they would gain efficiency cooling it by generating steam
through water injection. The steam would be greatly superheated in the
combustion process -- allowing for a better than normal steam "power"
efficiency. It also would lower the flame temperature impinging on the
Tesla Turbine allowing some economy of construction there -- simpler metal
alloys for construction and less hassle protecting bearing etc.

Basic "engineering" practices.

>Yes it will need less cleaning In fact virtually no cleaning I think.

Well, good! You see -- the gas turbines presently in use need a clean gas
-- other wise turbine blades start breaking and flying about due to
deposits unbalancing them. The Tesla design looks much stronger and should
be able to handle "dirt" better. It also is a much more streamlined flow --
probably self cleaning -- especially once warmed up.

Peter

>Jonathan
>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 dschmidt at undeerc.org Fri Jul 28 12:59:38 2000
From: dschmidt at undeerc.org (Schmidt, Darren)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Wankel, Fuel Cell, Tesla Turbines and Stirlings
Message-ID: <200007281659.JAA09102@secure.crest.net>

Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:10:04 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"

Comment on Wankel:

I am not specifically familiar with the Mazda engines (an example of the
commercial application of the wankel engine), and I wonder how they are
lubricated. Intuitively, piston rings require some type of lubrication, and
I have always thought that wankels were operated like two-stroke engines
(mixing the fuel and oil to obtain lubrication). I would guess that wankel
engines would have the same emissions disadvantage that two-stroke engines
suffer. Also, using gasifier gas that is contaminated with particulate and
tar would create problems with the wankel piston seals, which are critical
to the engine life. I would imagine that a wankel engine would require a
higher level of gas purity than a reciprocating 4 stroke engine.

Does anyone really know or understand this issue?

Darren D. Schmidt, Research Manager
Energy & Environmental Research Center
PO Box 9018
Grand Forks, North Dakota 58202
dschmidt@eerc.und.nodak.edu
Ph (701) 777-5120
Fax (701) 777-5181

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Reedtb2@cs.com [mailto:Reedtb2@cs.com]
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 9:44 AM
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: GAS-L: Wankel, Fuel Cell, Tesla Turbines and Stirlings

Dear Kevin et al:

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?)

The Wankel engine concept is in many ways superior to the internal
combustion
engine and I understand it is making a new comeback with better seals.

In one way it is inferior, I believe. The "combustion chamber" is not
cylindrical, but triangular, caught between the "figure 8 cylinder" and the
"circular triangle piston". It is my impression that combustion is not as
complete in the Wankel as the cylindrical piston because the surface to
volume ratio is higher, producing more quenching of burning gases.

I would appreciate comments on this as well.

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF

In a message dated 7/27/00 11:27:04 AM Mountain Daylight Time, arnt@c2i.net
writes:

<<

Kevin Chisholm wrote:

[snip]

> Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:
> >
> > Dear Bird, Tom et al:
> >
> > I am fascinated by the Tesla turbine and hope it has a future for high
> > temperature gases. It may bear the same relation to the conventional
bucket
> > turbines that the Mazda rotaty engine does to the conventional piston
engine:
> > MUCH simpler and potentially cheaper,
>
> Mazda and Wankle engines are, in principle, identical to the
> conventional 4 cycle piston engine, in that they all employ the Otto
> Cycle, and all have the same efficiency limits when operating under the
> same compression ratios. Physical shape is, of course, much different,
> but there are no reasons to expect a fundamental difference in
> performance.
>
> but MUCH less developed and may take
> > 100 years and we may never do it since conventional turbines work quite

well
> > and have had a few billion $ poured on.
>
> With hundreds of millions having been spent on the Mazda engine, over
> 20-30 years, why isn't it in widespread use? What breakthroughs would
> have to occur before it would be commonplace?

..my understanding is the Wankel rotor seal system was not practical for
auto use, with the normal fluctuating load cycles there. I've seen
references to aero engine makers Lycoming? or Continental?, claiming the
Wankel to be more practical in general aviation type of aircraft,
because of the less fluctuating loads incurred, power settings are
typically 55-85% cruise power, 100% take-off & initial climb power, say
15-35% flight idle/glide power to keep the (aircooled) engine safely hot
enough during landing, and a few minutes of idle to stabilize
temperatures before and after flight. Ship and power plant duty cycles
are even less complex.

..all these 'practical' users are pretty conservative. They risk their
own money, and in GA flight, lives too. So they _listen_ to other
experienced users, like wankel auto users...

> Similarily, what are the breakthroughs necessary for the Telsa engine to
> come to widespread use? What will the Telsa engine be able to do, that a
> conventional gas turbine cannot do? Is the potential increment of
> improvement worth the development cost?
>
> Are there any Gas Turbine Design Engineers on this list who have
> analysed the Telsa concept, to determine its potential advantages? Their
> comments on their comparisons would be most welcome!
>
> Kindest 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

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 Fri Jul 28 14:24:46 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Wankel, Fuel Cell, Tesla Turbines and Stirlings
In-Reply-To: <200007281659.JAA09102@secure.crest.net>
Message-ID: <3981CF08.A9FE338A@c2i.net>

"Schmidt, Darren" wrote:
>
> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:10:04 -0500
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Comment on Wankel:
>
> I am not specifically familiar with the Mazda engines (an example of the
> commercial application of the wankel engine), and I wonder how they are
> lubricated. Intuitively, piston rings require some type of lubrication, and
> I have always thought that wankels were operated like two-stroke engines
> (mixing the fuel and oil to obtain lubrication). I would guess that wankel
> engines would have the same emissions disadvantage that two-stroke engines
> suffer. Also, using gasifier gas that is contaminated with particulate and
> tar would create problems with the wankel piston seals, which are critical
> to the engine life. I would imagine that a wankel engine would require a
> higher level of gas purity than a reciprocating 4 stroke engine.
>
> Does anyone really know or understand this issue?

..in Gengas, you'll find a reference to a Swede running a pre-WWII
German DKW twostroke powered auto on charcoal gas, he used a oil drip
system not too far from being a bit similar to twostroke outboard engine
lubrication: oil is sprayed/dripped/injected sometimes into the inlet
gas flow for a total loss system, sometimes through a "four-stroke" type
pressurized lube system, recovering most of the lube oil. Principally,
the seal systems are the same, mechanically however, Wankel seals are
much more complex than piston rings.

..I do not know the Mazda Wankels, I guess they use a pressurized
"4-stroke type" lube system with sump and all, to meet the emmission law
requirements around. Trailing blue smoke is illegal most places.

..particles are okay in lube oil in piston or wankel type engines, as
long as their maximum size remain below a 1/3 of the lube oil film
thickness, and in so small quantity that the lube oil film load capasity
is not disrupted or displaced by lots of particles or particle
aggregates.

..tars is less acceptable than particles, as most tars attack the lube
oil chemically, and may also corrode the engine etc.

> Darren D. Schmidt, Research Manager
> Energy & Environmental Research Center
> PO Box 9018
> Grand Forks, North Dakota 58202
> dschmidt@eerc.und.nodak.edu
> Ph (701) 777-5120
> Fax (701) 777-5181
>

--
..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 RODI.Power.Systems Fri Jul 28 16:45:00 2000
From: RODI.Power.Systems (RODI.Power.Systems)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Diesel Generators; Industrial Quality
Message-ID: <200007282045.NAA21425@secure.crest.net>

--=200007281211=
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=US-ASCII

Dear gasification@crest.org

While visiting this web page
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive/msg02762.html,
you where identified as
being someone potentially interested in Diesel Generators.

We are RODI Power Systems, Inc. and we are actively seeking
dealers and end-users to purchase our Diesel Generator products.

RODI Power Systems, Inc. has negotiated an exclusive contract
with Worldsbest Kama, Inc. of China for the sale and distribution
of Industrial Quality Diesel Powered Generators.

These Diesel Generators are designed by Yanmar and are
manufactured under license by Worldsbest Kama, Inc. using Yanmar
tooling. All units are subjected to 100% burn-in testing prior
to shipment to ensure that they meet RODI's stringent quality and
reliability standards.

Our Diesel Generators are ideally suited for all of your primary
and/or supplemental portable energy needs where the reliability
and durability of diesel operation is required. They're perfect
for diesel powered yachts, trucks, and recreational vehicles, and
they're also perfect where you need supplemental or emergencey
power for areas with anticipated brown-outs or black-outs due to
power shortages or severe storms.

Dealers and end-users can purchase our Diesel Generators directly
from the http://www.rodi.com website, or by clicking on this link:
http://ssl.adhost.com/rodi/new.cfm

Dealer discounted pricing starts with the purchase of five or more
units.

Order online with your credit card for immediate shipment or contact
Floyd at RODI Power Systems, Inc. for more information.

Phone: 253-848-4263
FAX: 253-848-4504
Toll Free: 888-414-RODI

 

PS Follow this link to Earn MONEY while surfing! It's 100% legit!
http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=QGQ-747

-------------------------------------------------------------
This letter is targeted at that select group of individuals
identified as having an interest in Diesel Generators. We
apologize if you have received this mailing in error.

To be removed from this list, please mail to:
mailto:genset@rodi.com?subject=remove
and you will be removed from our list.
------------------------------------------------------------

 

--=200007281211=--

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 Jul 28 17:07:27 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Regarding Derating with producer gas
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000728145156.0095d360@wgs1.btl.net>

 

OK folks -- we discussed this subject a while back. The people in India
that are actually using gasifiers and producer gas in IC engines say to
derate the HP by at "least" 50%.

I find that reasonable -- and maybe a little optimistic. Last we discussed
this == plenty of people on this list were stating they can get much better.

I present the following conversation with one person off list regarding
this subject -- and a new set of data that I have went to the trouble to
look up.

I am very interested if anyone can point out any errors??

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

>..doing nothing but coupling it to a gasifier derates normal gasoline
>engines ~30%.

Now wait a minute here!! If you convert a gasoline engine to propane you
derate by 20%.

Let's get this straightened out once and for all time.

A gasoline -- or diesel engine is designed for a vaporized fuel with a BTU
value of roughly 4000 btu per ft cubed. So the design is based on a swept
volume to accept and burn that amount of fuel to generate that amount of HP.

Propane is "just" 2400 btu per ft cubed.

methane is 1000 -- like natural gas

synthesis gas is 275 btu per ft cubed

Producer gas is 150 btu per ft cubed -- if you are lucky!!

The people in India say figure at least 50% derating for producer gas --
and I find that optimistic!!

Now -- if we took a 200 HP diesel and doubled the swept volume -- by
increasing bore and stroke -- then we may get the 200 hp!!

You keep coming on with this perpetual motion stuff -- you can only pack so
much combustible gasses into a cylinder!! So much value of BTU -- and get a
percentage of that back as horsepower.

You can't make more horse power if you can't get enough btu into the
cylinder!!

Now regarding super or turbo charging. It only works to a little point.
Then your compression ratios go up to high.

It works on the principle that you reduce your compression ratio -- that
does not increase the swept volume -- but does increase the total volume.
You get an extra charge because you "blow" extra fuel in under pressure to
make up for the low primary compression ratio -- ending up with the same
compression ratio -- with a slightly larger volume -- ergo -- more btu to
bang off.

Put a high boost "blower" on your engine without lowering the compression
ration -- plan to be picking motor parts out of your teeth.

There is no way you can make 150 btu fuel produce the same power in a motor
designed for 4000 btu fuel unless you have figured out some "free" energy
-- like in perpetual motion.

I know many think it can be done -- but sometimes I think those guys ride
flying saucers a lot to.

Try to be at least a little scientific. It is one thing to push an agenda
-- it is another thing to look like a fool after you have taken a pile of
some ones money based on foolish claims.

A motor built for 250 HP on producer gas would be one that has the same
crankshaft or "base" and connecting rods as a 250 HP diesel with a "top"
end of at least double the swept volume.

And if I went to all the trouble to build such a motor -- I believe I would
even increase that factor by at least another 10% or more.

Remember --

Say your engine has a 25% efficiency (thermal). If it is sucking in 100 ft
cube per minute of producer gas -- combusting it -- that means it can only
produce:

100 * 150 btu (ft. Cu.) = 15,000 btu * 25% = 3,750 btu/per min. as power

or 88.4 hp (42.43 btu per min = 1 hp)

If that same engine is sucking in 100 ft cu. per min. of gasoline vapor of
4000 btu per foot value:

100 * 4,000 btu = 400,000 btu * 25% = 100,000 btu = 2356.82 HP

now --

88.4/2356.82 = .0375

So now we see a derating of 96.25%

As that piston engine in the example above has a very fixed swept volume --
that is 100 ft cu/min -- and the fuel btu values are a known given -- where
can all the extra "claimed" HP be coming from??

OK -- here is where some of the "myth" can be accounted for.

Those engines are probably diesel supplemented. And running at 50% of their
rated HP.

The claim is 65% supplementation. But in discussion with one person who has
actually operated such a system -- he states you are lucky to get 35%!!

So in these examples -- the diesel vapor is the perpetual motion "secret".

OK list --- explain to me what I am missing here??

Is producer gas running an IC engine at more than 3.75% of it's rated power
a "myth" or what??

Going by accounts of wood gas motors during WW2 -- it is always mentioned
how extremely under powered they were.

My question to this list -- how are you packing sufficient BTU's into that
cylinder to get all that "claimed" HP???

Or have you all truly found the "brother" of the perpetual motion machine??

(Remember -- a while back I warned you I was going to math model this
question -- finally found the time to do it)

OK -- OK -- there is another important part left to be math modeled that
probably will bring this all out better -- can you guess what that is??

Next message then.

(Hint -- think of "trick" questions)

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 snkm at btl.net Fri Jul 28 18:14:29 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Trick Question -- Derating
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000728161100.00968e00@wgs1.btl.net>

 

Ok -- figure I had better let the other shoe fall now.

The swept volume does not take in pure fuel vapor -- but fuel and air mixture.

For producer gas that is 1 to 1

For gasoline -- that is 40 to one.

For Propane -- 23.80 to 1

The more btu's you have in your vaporized fuel -- the more air you need to
burn it.

OK -- lets look at the derating question again --

Producer gas example:

The "mixture" swept into the engine is 100 cfm/min

At 1:1 ratio -- air/fuel mix -- 50 cfm of 150 btu/cfm producer gas

7500 btu * 25% (efficiency) = 1875/42.43 = 44.2 HP

Gasoline example:

At 40:1 ratio --- the 100 cfm = 97.6/2.4 (air/fuel)

2.4 * 4000 = 9600 * 25% = 2400 or (/42.43) = 56.56 HP

Propane example:

At 23.8:1 ratio - 100 cfm = 95.2/4.8 (air/fuel)

4.8 * 2400 = 9600

Hey -- that is the same as gasoline!! So we should be getting no derating??

Well, here is the next tricky catch folks -- engine efficiency.

The engine in our example is rated as 25% efficiency on gasoline as the fuel.

Yet we are told to derate engine performance by 20% when we convert to
propane??

The engine does not get the same efficiency -- but 20% less.

Now -- in converting to producer gas we also have this problem.

56.56 - 44.2 = 12.36 28% derating is written in stone!!

20% rating is probably there do to lowered engine efficiency due to running
on a fuel not designed for by the engine makers.

So the 50% derating for converting an IC or a diesel to producer gas pretty
well stands. Just like the people with all the experience in India -- have
been telling us all along.

However -- there is no reason an engine of 250 kwh could not be built at
plus 28% efficiency as Arnt has suggested -- specifically designed for
producer gas!!

Modern large diesel power plant -- 5 megawatts and up -- routinely get over
45% efficiencies.

And increasing the swept volume by 28% solves the built in limitation.

Where does this leave us in regards to the latest Tesla effort???

Well -- the next math model will be on just how much heat is in the hot
producer gas coming out of a gasifier that must be gotten rid of before it
can be fed to a reciprocating engine -- and maybe that is not being done
with this latest Tesla -- but we do not know that for sure yet!

Arnt -- do you still have at hand the figure we worked out on ambient heat
content of exhausting from the gasifier producer gas??

Was it 1800 deg F ?? and do you remember the specific heat of Producer
gas?? And what temperature it is at when applied to the motor.

Just how much "energy" is lost right there folks??

Meanwhile -- look what just came in on this list:

"RODI Power Systems, Inc. has negotiated an exclusive contract
with Worlds best Kama, Inc. of China for the sale and distribution
of Industrial Quality Diesel Powered Generators."

Now -- if we could just design the perfect producer gas IC engine -- in a
great range of sizes -- and negotiate with China to build them!

Last week I was in Flores, the Peten, Guatemala. A place that would pass
for a small European coastal village anytime -- except prices are at least
1/4 if not more less -- for everything!

Just across the bay from this island village is Santa Elena. There you have
a sprawling market -- 3rd world style.

There I found a distributor for new 8 HP diesel engines that any one would
swear was a genuine Lister, single cylinder, diesel -- but was made in China.

The price -- $1000 US.

Motors to run on producer gas at just $800 per kwh???

Hey -- I am not buying any stock in that kind of venture!! Rather -- let's
get China to build the right motor for producer gas and sell it for under
$200 per kwh getting 30 + percentage efficiencies!

We'll use the waste heat from cooling the feed gas to help dry fuel.

Summer time and the living is easy --

 

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 Fri Jul 28 18:23:37 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Regarding Derating with producer gas
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000728145156.0095d360@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <39820701.C0F61E62@c2i.net>

Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> OK folks -- we discussed this subject a while back. The people in India
> that are actually using gasifiers and producer gas in IC engines say to
> derate the HP by at "least" 50%.
>
> I find that reasonable -- and maybe a little optimistic. Last we discussed
> this == plenty of people on this list were stating they can get much better.
>
> I present the following conversation with one person off list regarding
> this subject -- and a new set of data that I have went to the trouble to
> look up.
>
> I am very interested if anyone can point out any errors??
>
> ************************************
>
> >..doing nothing but coupling it to a gasifier derates normal gasoline
> >engines ~30%.
>
> Now wait a minute here!! If you convert a gasoline engine to propane you
> derate by 20%.
>
> Let's get this straightened out once and for all time.
>
> A gasoline -- or diesel engine is designed for a vaporized fuel with a BTU
> value of roughly 4000 btu per ft cubed. So the design is based on a swept
> volume to accept and burn that amount of fuel to generate that amount of HP.
>
> Propane is "just" 2400 btu per ft cubed.
>
> methane is 1000 -- like natural gas
>
> synthesis gas is 275 btu per ft cubed
>
> Producer gas is 150 btu per ft cubed -- if you are lucky!!
>
> The people in India say figure at least 50% derating for producer gas --
> and I find that optimistic!!
>
> Now -- if we took a 200 HP diesel and doubled the swept volume -- by
> increasing bore and stroke -- then we may get the 200 hp!!
>
> You keep coming on with this perpetual motion stuff -- you can only pack so
> much combustible gasses into a cylinder!! So much value of BTU -- and get a
> percentage of that back as horsepower.
>
> You can't make more horse power if you can't get enough btu into the
> cylinder!!
>
> Now regarding super or turbo charging. It only works to a little point.
> Then your compression ratios go up to high.
>
> It works on the principle that you reduce your compression ratio -- that
> does not increase the swept volume -- but does increase the total volume.
> You get an extra charge because you "blow" extra fuel in under pressure to
> make up for the low primary compression ratio -- ending up with the same
> compression ratio -- with a slightly larger volume -- ergo -- more btu to
> bang off.
>
> Put a high boost "blower" on your engine without lowering the compression
> ration -- plan to be picking motor parts out of your teeth.
>
> There is no way you can make 150 btu fuel produce the same power in a motor
> designed for 4000 btu fuel unless you have figured out some "free" energy
> -- like in perpetual motion.
>
> I know many think it can be done -- but sometimes I think those guys ride
> flying saucers a lot to.
>
> Try to be at least a little scientific. It is one thing to push an agenda
> -- it is another thing to look like a fool after you have taken a pile of
> some ones money based on foolish claims.
>
> A motor built for 250 HP on producer gas would be one that has the same
> crankshaft or "base" and connecting rods as a 250 HP diesel with a "top"
> end of at least double the swept volume.
>
> And if I went to all the trouble to build such a motor -- I believe I would
> even increase that factor by at least another 10% or more.
>
> Remember --
>
> Say your engine has a 25% efficiency (thermal). If it is sucking in 100 ft
> cube per minute of producer gas -- combusting it -- that means it can only
> produce:

..plus air to combust it. Typically a 1:1 mixture of air and producer
gas.

> 100 * 150 btu (ft. Cu.) = 15,000 btu * 25% = 3,750 btu/per min. as power
>
> or 88.4 hp (42.43 btu per min = 1 hp)
>
> If that same engine is sucking in 100 ft cu. per min. of gasoline vapor of
> 4000 btu per foot value:

..it will need about 1400 ft cu. per min to combust the gasoline vapors
stochiometrically, typically in a 14:1 air ans gasoline vapor mixture,
which is exactly what enters the cylinders.
Typical gasoline and diesel engines will burn leaner, say 15-25:1

..to evaluate the various fuel performances in i.c. engines,
divide the fuel heat values by their air-to-fuel ratios.

> 100 * 4,000 btu = 400,000 btu * 25% = 100,000 btu = 2356.82 HP
>
> now --
>
> 88.4/2356.82 = .0375
>
> So now we see a derating of 96.25%

..like 150/1=150 & 4000/20=200
-> 1-150/200=.25 -> 25% derate.

>
> As that piston engine in the example above has a very fixed swept volume --
> that is 100 ft cu/min -- and the fuel btu values are a known given -- where
> can all the extra "claimed" HP be coming from??
>
> OK -- here is where some of the "myth" can be accounted for.
>
> Those engines are probably diesel supplemented. And running at 50% of their
> rated HP.
>
> The claim is 65% supplementation. But in discussion with one person who has
> actually operated such a system -- he states you are lucky to get 35%!!
>
> So in these examples -- the diesel vapor is the perpetual motion "secret".
>
> OK list --- explain to me what I am missing here??
>
> Is producer gas running an IC engine at more than 3.75% of it's rated power
> a "myth" or what??
>
> Going by accounts of wood gas motors during WW2 -- it is always mentioned
> how extremely under powered they were.
>
> My question to this list -- how are you packing sufficient BTU's into that
> cylinder to get all that "claimed" HP???
>
> Or have you all truly found the "brother" of the perpetual motion machine??
>
> (Remember -- a while back I warned you I was going to math model this
> question -- finally found the time to do it)
>
> OK -- OK -- there is another important part left to be math modeled that
> probably will bring this all out better -- can you guess what that is??
>
> Next message then.
>
> (Hint -- think of "trick" questions)
>
> Peter Singfield -- Belize
-
..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 cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk Sat Jul 29 01:15:28 2000
From: cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk (Cordner Peacocke)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Regarding Derating with producer gas
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000728145156.0095d360@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20000729061523.007b47a0@pop3.demon.co.uk>

Dear Group,

Peter Singfield has presented some very valid arguments with regards
deration. One also needs to consider, that to meet emission requirements,
excess air may be required, possibly coupled with SCR [selective catalytic
reduction] on the exhaust gases, all adding to the costs. I reckon one
would be lucky to get away with a 1:1 stoichiometric air/fuel ratio. More
likely is 1.2:1 or higher if exhaust emissions have to be met.

As producer gas has a calorific value [CV] considerably less than that of
LPG [Liquefied Petroleum Gas] [86.4 MJ/Nm3 compared to producer gas CV of
~5.2 MJ/Nm3], the engine will be derated. The differences in LHV only
reveal part of the problem. The net CV of the air/fuel mixture is the
crucial factor and for LPG, the mixture CV is 3.1 MJ/Nm3 for LPG/air and
~2.4 MJ/Nm3 for producer gas/air [1: 1 air/fuel ratio], therefore the
engine deration will be at least 23% without turbo charging or external gas
compression. These values are applicable under ideal circumstances. In
reality, the deration will be much higher, typically 45-50% as excess air
will be used with producer gas to reduce CO emissions and the fuel/air
mixture temperature will typically be above ambient in normal gas engines.
28% excess air gives a deration of 40%, depending on the assumed gas
composition etc.

I have only one other fact to note here with regards to engine deration,
without going into the details of air/fuel ratios for the engines in
question, or the relative merits of intercooling, turbocharging, engine
efficiency, etc.

One reputable engine company that I have discussed engine deration with
quote a MINIMUM of 40% deration [on producer gas] on their engines,
originally designed for natural gas - and that's after turbo charging, 2
stage intercooling and also one of their producer gas requirements is very
simple - zero ''tar'' at 40C.

Based on my limited experience, 50% is a more reasonable deration, with no
turbocharging or secondary fuels for an LPG engine.

It would be useful if some comments were made by some of the engine
manufacturers themselves, Caterpillar, Waukesha, Wartsila, Jenbacher, etc.

I'm sorry I can't add any more at this time - engines are not my strong point.

My humble contribution to the discussion.

Yours,

Cordner Peacocke

Cordner Peacocke [Dr.]

Director
Conversion And Resource Evaluation Ltd.
9 Myrtle House
5 Cassowary Road
Birmingham
B20 1NE.
Tel: (44) 121 551 0344 or (44) 28 90422658 or (028) 90397955 [direct
business line in Northern Ireland]
Fax: (44) 870 0542981 or (44) 121 359 6814
Internet: http://www.care.demon.co.uk/
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 progress at jdweb.com Sat Jul 29 08:32:43 2000
From: progress at jdweb.com (Tom Gibson / Progressive Engineer)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: <no subject>
Message-ID: <200007291232.IAA09201@lfs1.jdweb.com>

Dear Colleagues,

Apologies for any cross-posting.

Progressive Engineer is an online magazine covering engineering activities
in the mid-Atlantic and northeast regions of the U.S. The recently-posted
July/August edition focuses on chemical and energy engineering and features
a story on recovering methane gas from landfills. It discusses the nuances
of doing this and how Bill Rowland, president of Natural Power in Raleigh,
NC became a pioneer in the field by installing the first plants on the east
coast. Two of his facilities supply power to manufacturing plants in NC for
fueling boilers to produce steam. Another LFG plant mentioned, installed in
Rhode Island, uses landfill gas to generate electricity it sells to the
local utility.

This can be seen at http://www.progressiveengineer.com.

Thanks,

Tom Gibson
Publisher
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 LINVENT at aol.com Sat Jul 29 10:15:33 2000
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Regarding Derating with producer gas
Message-ID: <57.9166476.26b440e1@aol.com>

Dear Mr. Singfeld,
If you look up the ratings on producer gas in the Caterpillar technical
applications manual, there is a discussion on running the engine on producer
gas. The discussion states that although the gas is deceptively low, it will
produce between 85-95% of the rating of natural gas due to the stiochiometric
value of the gas introduced into the cylinder. Natural gas has a
stiochiometric value of 90-95 btu/scf and producer gas has a value of 85-90
btu/scf. A typical producer gas quality methane number is 38 and the minimum
to run an engine is 33.
We have run a naturally aspirated IC engine on producer gas at over the
natural gas rating in the early 80's. I will forward the test report from
Cummins to anyone who is interested.

TomTaylor

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 Sat Jul 29 20:00:11 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: ..gas music!
In-Reply-To: <200007291232.IAA09201@lfs1.jdweb.com>
Message-ID: <39836E80.E0B84B4A@c2i.net>

Hi,

..another creative way to flare gas: http://www.lhpo.org/

--
..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 snkm at btl.net Sat Jul 29 22:00:35 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Regarding Derating with producer gas
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000729124235.00951320@wgs1.btl.net>

 

Hi Tom;

At 10:14 AM 7/29/00 EDT, you wrote:
>Dear Mr. Singfeld,
> If you look up the ratings on producer gas in the Caterpillar technical
>applications manual, there is a discussion on running the engine on producer
>gas. The discussion states that although the gas is deceptively low, it
will
>produce between 85-95% of the rating of natural gas due to the
stiochiometric
>value of the gas introduced into the cylinder.

Ok -- what is the "derating" number when converting from gasoline of Diesel
to Natural Gas?

Natural gas has a
>stiochiometric value of 90-95 btu/scf and producer gas has a value of 85-90
>btu/scf. A typical producer gas quality methane number is 38 and the
minimum
>to run an engine is 33.

Thank you for these numbers.

> We have run a naturally aspirated IC engine on producer gas at over the
>natural gas rating in the early 80's. I will forward the test report from
>Cummins to anyone who is interested.

I would be interested.

Now one more point here. The purpose I would be looking at is getting the
best over all efficiency from the engine. Not "speed" tuning.

As many on this list may realize -- you can "speed" tune an IC engine to
get well over it's makers ratings. But your fuel milage decreases more than
is required for the extra boost. You get more power -- but much less miles
per gallon.

So the question here is what is the derating factor when keeping as close
to the original engine efficiency number -- not how much power we can produce.

I would also welcome comments on the over all efficiency of an engine
converted to producer gas.

For example -- if the engine efficiency was -- say -- 25% on gasoline --
would it be higher, the same, or less running on producer gas??

But you have brought up one very good point. The best IC engine to convert
to producer gas would be one that was designed for high efficiency
operation on natural gas.

I "suspect" that in order to get the highest efficiency ratings from an
engine burning producer gas one would do well by starting of with doubling
the swept volume figure normally associated with gasoline engines.

Now we come to the interesting part. If we look at diesel engines in this
light -- they to have been "derated" from what the equivalent displacement
gasoline engine would be producing. But they get much better engine
efficiencies.

In this present example -- I am more interested in converting a cheap,
easily available, automobile engine to a good efficiency producer gas
burner. If I am to run a generator of 100 kwh -- what size gasoline engine
should I plan on adapting to do this??

I am working on the assumption that it would be "smart" to start with a 200
kwh rated gasoline engine to get my 100 kwh on producer gas??? This without
having to go to exotic attachments such as super/turbo charging. But maybe
installing higher compression ratio pistons on a 50% derated engine to get
a better over all engine efficiency.

The higher the compression the piston -- the less volume I have to pack in
that cylinder with producer gas. However -- if I double the displacement
volume ( in effect 50% derating) I just might end up with a better
efficiency when using producer gas.

The cost of a "big-block" over a "small-block" is negligible. Actually -- a
big block V-8 gasoline car engine is probably much less expensive than a
modern, high efficiency, small block four cylinder engine.

And then we have Truck motors. I feel a great starting point for building a
producer gas I.C. engine for a 100 KWH generator would be the veritable
Cummins 250.

It certainly would never wear the bottom end out! And pistons/sleeve kits
are very reasonably priced. No further need for the injection system -- etc.

In fact -- I would suspect that a Cummins 250 derated in this manner would
last generations! Yet still be able to be tuned to the same efficiency
levels -- on producer gas -- as the best of the specialized engines for
this purpose out there -- certainly doing better than the present Tesla
example -- and for a small fraction of the cost. But I believe one must
figure a 50% derating to achieve this.

Only a serious round of bench testing can ever verify all this though.

I would rather avoid Turbo Charging as it is a further complication and
expense. Just increase that swept volume instead.

This in relation to stationary power plants -- not Indy 500 racing!

Now -- I wonder just how many 250 Cummins diesel engine truck motors are
laying around in the scrap yards of the world right now?? Couple million??

I personally believe one such "250" -- totally rebuilt (Crankshaft,
pistons/sleeves and a valve job -- plus water pump -- oil pump -- etc) and
modified for optimum producer gas use -- can be put together for less than
$10,000 -- for running that 100 kwh generator -- $100 per kwh.

Ergo -- this re-opening of the "derating" question. Is it worth not
derating by at least 50% when thinking in these terms??

Thanks for the input Tom --

Peter Singfield
Belize

 

>
>TomTaylor
>
>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 Sat Jul 29 22:00:41 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Regarding Derating with producer gas
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000729135350.0096cd60@wgs1.btl.net>

 

Hi Tom;

At 10:14 AM 7/29/00 EDT, you wrote:
>Dear Mr. Singfeld,
> If you look up the ratings on producer gas in the Caterpillar technical
>applications manual, there is a discussion on running the engine on producer
>gas. The discussion states that although the gas is deceptively low, it
will
>produce between 85-95% of the rating of natural gas due to the
stiochiometric
>value of the gas introduced into the cylinder.

Ok -- what is the "derating" number when converting from gasoline of Diesel
to Natural Gas?

Natural gas has a
>stiochiometric value of 90-95 btu/scf and producer gas has a value of 85-90
>btu/scf. A typical producer gas quality methane number is 38 and the
minimum
>to run an engine is 33.

Thank you for these numbers.

> We have run a naturally aspirated IC engine on producer gas at over the
>natural gas rating in the early 80's. I will forward the test report from
>Cummins to anyone who is interested.

I would be interested.

Now one more point here. The purpose I would be looking at is getting the
best over all efficiency from the engine. Not "speed" tuning.

As many on this list may realize -- you can "speed" tune an IC engine to
get well over it's makers ratings. But your fuel milage decreases more than
is required for the extra boost. You get more power -- but much less miles
per gallon.

So the question here is what is the derating factor when keeping as close
to the original engine efficiency number -- not how much power we can produce.

I would also welcome comments on the over all efficiency of an engine
converted to producer gas.

For example -- if the engine efficiency was -- say -- 25% on gasoline --
would it be higher, the same, or less running on producer gas??

But you have brought up one very good point. The best IC engine to convert
to producer gas would be one that was designed for high efficiency
operation on natural gas.

I "suspect" that in order to get the highest efficiency ratings from an
engine burning producer gas one would do well by starting of with doubling
the swept volume figure normally associated with gasoline engines.

Now we come to the interesting part. If we look at diesel engines in this
light -- they to have been "derated" from what the equivalent displacement
gasoline engine would be producing. But they get much better engine
efficiencies.

In this present example -- I am more interested in converting a cheap,
easily available, automobile engine to a good efficiency producer gas
burner. If I am to run a generator of 100 kwh -- what size gasoline engine
should I plan on adapting to do this??

I am working on the assumption that it would be "smart" to start with a 200
kwh rated gasoline engine to get my 100 kwh on producer gas??? This without
having to go to exotic attachments such as super/turbo charging. But maybe
installing higher compression ratio pistons on a 50% derated engine to get
a better over all engine efficiency.

The higher the compression the piston -- the less volume I have to pack in
that cylinder with producer gas. However -- if I double the displacement
volume ( in effect 50% derating) I just might end up with a better
efficiency when using producer gas.

The cost of a "big-block" over a "small-block" is negligible. Actually -- a
big block V-8 gasoline car engine is probably much less expensive than a
modern, high efficiency, small block four cylinder engine.

And then we have Truck motors. I feel a great starting point for building a
producer gas I.C. engine for a 100 KWH generator would be the veritable
Cummins 250.

It certainly would never wear the bottom end out! And pistons/sleeve kits
are very reasonably priced. No further need for the injection system -- etc.

In fact -- I would suspect that a Cummins 250 derated in this manner would
last generations! Yet still be able to be tuned to the same efficiency
levels -- on producer gas -- as the best of the specialized engines for
this purpose out there -- certainly doing better than the present Tesla
example -- and for a small fraction of the cost. But I believe one must
figure a 50% derating to achieve this.

Only a serious round of bench testing can ever verify all this though.

I would rather avoid Turbo Charging as it is a further complication and
expense. Just increase that swept volume instead.

This in relation to stationary power plants -- not Indy 500 racing!

Now -- I wonder just how many 250 Cummins diesel engine truck motors are
laying around in the scrap yards of the world right now?? Couple million??

I personally believe one such "250" -- totally rebuilt (Crankshaft,
pistons/sleeves and a valve job -- plus water pump -- oil pump -- etc) and
modified for optimum producer gas use -- can be put together for less than
$10,000 -- for running that 100 kwh generator -- $100 per kwh.

Ergo -- this re-opening of the "derating" question. Is it worth not
derating by at least 50% when thinking in these terms??

Thanks for the input Tom --

Peter Singfield
Belize

 

>
>TomTaylor
>
>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 Sat Jul 29 22:00:45 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Specific Heat of Producer Gas
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000729132612.0089ce20@wgs1.btl.net>

 

Ok all --

What is the specific heat for producer gas??

Here is an example of how I derive it.

Producer Gas composition

H2 = 17.7%
CO = 24.0%
N2 = 50.0%
Other = 8.3%

Specific heats (btu per pound per deg F)

H2 = 17.7% 3.41 = 60.36
CO = 24% .24 = 5.76
N2 = 50% .24 = 12.00
Rest = 8.3% .20 = 1.66

Total = 80

Divide by 100 = .8 specific heat for this "mixed" gas.

OK -- in metric speak -- 3349.44j/kgK

Comments???

Also -- can anyone save me some time??

How many lbs (or kilos) of gas is produced for each lbs/kilo of fuel?

Say the fuel is wood.

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 snkm at btl.net Sat Jul 29 22:00:52 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Regarding Derating with producer gas
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000729182836.00934620@wgs1.btl.net>

 

Hi Tom;

At 10:14 AM 7/29/00 EDT, you wrote:
>Dear Mr. Singfeld,
> If you look up the ratings on producer gas in the Caterpillar technical
>applications manual, there is a discussion on running the engine on producer
>gas. The discussion states that although the gas is deceptively low, it
will
>produce between 85-95% of the rating of natural gas due to the
stiochiometric
>value of the gas introduced into the cylinder.

Ok -- what is the "derating" number when converting from gasoline of Diesel
to Natural Gas?

Natural gas has a
>stiochiometric value of 90-95 btu/scf and producer gas has a value of 85-90
>btu/scf. A typical producer gas quality methane number is 38 and the
minimum
>to run an engine is 33.

Thank you for these numbers.

> We have run a naturally aspirated IC engine on producer gas at over the
>natural gas rating in the early 80's. I will forward the test report from
>Cummins to anyone who is interested.

I would be interested.

Now one more point here. The purpose I would be looking at is getting the
best over all efficiency from the engine. Not "speed" tuning.

As many on this list may realize -- you can "speed" tune an IC engine to
get well over it's makers ratings. But your fuel milage decreases more than
is required for the extra boost. You get more power -- but much less miles
per gallon.

So the question here is what is the derating factor when keeping as close
to the original engine efficiency number -- not how much power we can produce.

I would also welcome comments on the over all efficiency of an engine
converted to producer gas.

For example -- if the engine efficiency was -- say -- 25% on gasoline --
would it be higher, the same, or less running on producer gas??

But you have brought up one very good point. The best IC engine to convert
to producer gas would be one that was designed for high efficiency
operation on natural gas.

I "suspect" that in order to get the highest efficiency ratings from an
engine burning producer gas one would do well by starting of with doubling
the swept volume figure normally associated with gasoline engines.

Now we come to the interesting part. If we look at diesel engines in this
light -- they to have been "derated" from what the equivalent displacement
gasoline engine would be producing. But they get much better engine
efficiencies.

In this present example -- I am more interested in converting a cheap,
easily available, automobile engine to a good efficiency producer gas
burner. If I am to run a generator of 100 kwh -- what size gasoline engine
should I plan on adapting to do this??

I am working on the assumption that it would be "smart" to start with a 200
kwh rated gasoline engine to get my 100 kwh on producer gas??? This without
having to go to exotic attachments such as super/turbo charging. But maybe
installing higher compression ratio pistons on a 50% derated engine to get
a better over all engine efficiency.

The higher the compression the piston -- the less volume I have to pack in
that cylinder with producer gas. However -- if I double the displacement
volume ( in effect 50% derating) I just might end up with a better
efficiency when using producer gas.

The cost of a "big-block" over a "small-block" is negligible. Actually -- a
big block V-8 gasoline car engine is probably much less expensive than a
modern, high efficiency, small block four cylinder engine.

And then we have Truck motors. I feel a great starting point for building a
producer gas I.C. engine for a 100 KWH generator would be the veritable
Cummins 250.

It certainly would never wear the bottom end out! And pistons/sleeve kits
are very reasonably priced. No further need for the injection system -- etc.

In fact -- I would suspect that a Cummins 250 derated in this manner would
last generations! Yet still be able to be tuned to the same efficiency
levels -- on producer gas -- as the best of the specialized engines for
this purpose out there -- certainly doing better than the present Tesla
example -- and for a small fraction of the cost. But I believe one must
figure a 50% derating to achieve this.

Only a serious round of bench testing can ever verify all this though.

I would rather avoid Turbo Charging as it is a further complication and
expense. Just increase that swept volume instead.

This in relation to stationary power plants -- not Indy 500 racing!

Now -- I wonder just how many 250 Cummins diesel engine truck motors are
laying around in the scrap yards of the world right now?? Couple million??

I personally believe one such "250" -- totally rebuilt (Crankshaft,
pistons/sleeves and a valve job -- plus water pump -- oil pump -- etc) and
modified for optimum producer gas use -- can be put together for less than
$10,000 -- for running that 100 kwh generator -- $100 per kwh.

Ergo -- this re-opening of the "derating" question. Is it worth not
derating by at least 50% when thinking in these terms??

Thanks for the input Tom --

Peter Singfield
Belize

 

>
>TomTaylor
>
>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 Sat Jul 29 22:00:57 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Specific Heat of Producer Gas
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000729182835.00936550@wgs1.btl.net>

 

Ok all --

What is the specific heat for producer gas??

Here is an example of how I derive it.

Producer Gas composition

H2 = 17.7%
CO = 24.0%
N2 = 50.0%
Other = 8.3%

Specific heats (btu per pound per deg F)

H2 = 17.7% 3.41 = 60.36
CO = 24% .24 = 5.76
N2 = 50% .24 = 12.00
Rest = 8.3% .20 = 1.66

Total = 80

Divide by 100 = .8 specific heat for this "mixed" gas.

OK -- in metric speak -- 3349.44j/kgK

Comments???

Also -- can anyone save me some time??

How many lbs (or kilos) of gas is produced for each lbs/kilo of fuel?

Say the fuel is wood.

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 LINVENT at aol.com Sun Jul 30 11:44:04 2000
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Regarding Derating with producer gas
Message-ID: <12.382e6e.26b5a71f@aol.com>

Dear Peter,
We bought a complete engine generator set from an irrigation engine
supplier with a 454 supercharged Chevy with high lift racing heads, racing
oil pan, and headers for $14,000. Rated at 75kwe, the system would put out
more if the generator was run with a gearbox or a 3600 rpm generator as the
engine does not put out full power at generator speed of 1800 rpm. Adding
extras such as valve timing adjustment, ignition timing adjustment and so on
will make a substantial improvement in output also. These are available
commercially and Caterpillar has them on their engines as do others. An
engine provided to a project we worked on had these features on it.
We are currently building a variable gas quality air/fuel mixing system
to adjust the air fuel ratio based upon gas heating value. As our gasifier
runs plastics, biomass, tires, the variations in gas heating value is such
that the air fuel ratio needs to be automatically compensated.
The one feature which our engine does not have is increased compression.
This feature is important and may raise the output substantially, above that
of gasoline operation.
I will have the 493 NA Cummins engine test scanned into electronic format
and forwarded to you sometime this week. Others have asked for it also. It
was conducted by Cummins Southwest which was the group which "invented" the
Cummins natural gas engine from a diesel design.
Sincerely,

Leland T. 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 Reedtb2 at cs.com Sun Jul 30 14:14:28 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Specific Heat of Producer Gas
Message-ID: <a0.7bfbc0d.26b5ca5c@cs.com>

Dear Peter and All:

Glad to see some science here. In answer to your question on air/fuel ratios
for biomass combustion and gasification:

The air/fuel ratio for complete combustion of biomass is 6.0

The air/fuel ratio for autothermic gasification is 1.5.

(See Desrosiers calculations in our "Handbook...or Gasification".)

~~~~~
Your specific heat calculation method looks correct, except you left out CO2
and H2O which are not insignificant for producer gas and have lower specific
heats. .

Going to fundamentals, I remember that the specific heat at constant pressure
of monatomic gases is 5/2 R Cal/C-mole (the gas constant, 1.986 cal/o-mole)),
diatomic 7/2 R (due to rotational as well as translational degrees of
freedom) and more for triatomic etc. These numbers increase gradually with
temperature and are listed in exquisite detail in the JANAF tables and other
sources.

Since these gases are mostly diatomic and have molecular weights of ~30, the
heat capacity per mole will be about 7 cal/C-mole or Btu/F-lb mole, or 0.23
cal/C-g, .97 J/C-g or 0.23 Btu/F-lb.

So, hydrogen has a disporportionate effect on the specific heat of the
product and your value is probably high, mine probably low.

Yours truly, TOM REED
In a message dated 7/29/00 8:02:29 PM Mountain Daylight Time, snkm@btl.net
writes:

<< Ok all --

What is the specific heat for producer gas??

Here is an example of how I derive it.

Producer Gas composition

H2 = 17.7%
CO = 24.0%
N2 = 50.0%
Other = 8.3%

Specific heats (btu per pound per deg F)

H2 = 17.7% 3.41 = 60.36
CO = 24% .24 = 5.76
N2 = 50% .24 = 12.00
Rest = 8.3% .20 = 1.66

Total = 80

Divide by 100 = .8 specific heat for this "mixed" gas.

OK -- in metric speak -- 3349.44j/kgK

Comments???

Also -- can anyone save me some time??

How many lbs (or kilos) of gas is produced for each lbs/kilo of fuel?

Say the fuel is wood.


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 snkm at btl.net Sun Jul 30 15:47:00 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Specific Heat of Producer Gas
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000730134048.008c38a0@wgs1.btl.net>

 

Hi Tom and all:

Boy am I embarrassed!! As Arnt quickly pointed out to me -- I made a huge
mistake!! Assuming those percentages are based by weight -- they are not.
They are by volume.

(Picture a very sheepish grin here)

>So, hydrogen has a disporportionate effect on the specific heat of the
>product and your value is probably high, mine probably low.

Yes -- mine are to high.

My second error.

I used figures for producer gas made from coal. Gasifiers will put out
varying percentages compared to this.

Anyway -- Arnt has a number that I can certainly believe in (now).

.3 btu/lb per deg F

I have been "Badgering" Arnt regarding the heat value that is "wasted" in
cooling the hot exhausting producer gas to engine manifold temperature.

I suspected that there is enough heat energy there to dry 50% or more
humidity "green" fuel down to below 20%.

Arnt came up with the figure of 2.17 to one regarding gas produced per
weight of wood fuel used -- in the average operation.

Anyway -- off list we have been making a pile of numbers. Once the smoke
has cleared -- probably will post the results for all to pick over.

As for drying wet/green fuels with that "waste" heat of the gasifier
exhaust -- yes -- there is more than enough heat energy there to do this --
even with a low efficiency heat exchanger.

But now I have spun off into getting rid of any heat exchanger and up
drafting the gas through a column of wet fuel.

Arnt points out that there is a lot of tars produced in this manner -- and
anyone can see why.

Now we are considering using a flare to fuel a steam reformation of the tars.

My next question -- just what percentage of tars would one expect from an
updraft gasifier that is passing through an incoming fuel column of 50%
humidity fuel??

I know how many btu per pound is required for this highly endothermic
reaction -- and how much steam -- but am in the middle of working out the
exact figures.

But need the percentage of tars value for a dirty, crude updraft gasifier..

Also -- how much char would be produced?? And why do we not steam reform
that as well?? Probably by going to a separate chamber. Why leave any
"organic" left over -- make it all into gas!

OK -- this is where we are spinning our wheels right now.

Thanks for the other figures Tom -- need those as well.

I believe the extra H2 levels encountered in gasifiers is coming from a
steam reformation process based on heat and humidity in the fuel.

If this is already occurring as a "natural" even in a gasifier -- why not
"tune" to enhance this effect and increase performance?? And also get a
richer, cleaner gas??

Peter

At 02:13 PM 7/30/00 EDT, you wrote:
>Dear Peter and All:
>
>Glad to see some science here. In answer to your question on air/fuel
ratios
>for biomass combustion and gasification:
>
>The air/fuel ratio for complete combustion of biomass is 6.0
>
>The air/fuel ratio for autothermic gasification is 1.5.
>
>(See Desrosiers calculations in our "Handbook...or Gasification".)
>
> ~~~~~
>Your specific heat calculation method looks correct, except you left out CO2
>and H2O which are not insignificant for producer gas and have lower specific
>heats. .
>
>Going to fundamentals, I remember that the specific heat at constant
pressure
>of monatomic gases is 5/2 R Cal/C-mole (the gas constant, 1.986
cal/o-mole)),
>diatomic 7/2 R (due to rotational as well as translational degrees of
>freedom) and more for triatomic etc. These numbers increase gradually with
>temperature and are listed in exquisite detail in the JANAF tables and other
>sources.
>
>Since these gases are mostly diatomic and have molecular weights of ~30,
the
>heat capacity per mole will be about 7 cal/C-mole or Btu/F-lb mole, or 0.23
>cal/C-g, .97 J/C-g or 0.23 Btu/F-lb.
>
>So, hydrogen has a disporportionate effect on the specific heat of the
>product and your value is probably high, mine probably low.
>
>Yours truly, TOM REED
>In a message dated 7/29/00 8:02:29 PM Mountain Daylight Time, snkm@btl.net
>writes:
>
><< Ok all --
>
> What is the specific heat for producer gas??
>
> Here is an example of how I derive it.
>
> Producer Gas composition
>
> H2 = 17.7%
> CO = 24.0%
> N2 = 50.0%
> Other = 8.3%
>
> Specific heats (btu per pound per deg F)
>
> H2 = 17.7% 3.41 = 60.36
> CO = 24% .24 = 5.76
> N2 = 50% .24 = 12.00
> Rest = 8.3% .20 = 1.66
>
> Total = 80
>
> Divide by 100 = .8 specific heat for this "mixed" gas.
>
> OK -- in metric speak -- 3349.44j/kgK
>
> Comments???
>
> Also -- can anyone save me some time??
>
> How many lbs (or kilos) of gas is produced for each lbs/kilo of fuel?
>
> Say the fuel is wood.
>
>
> 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 mnorris at dekaresearch.com Sun Jul 30 22:13:45 2000
From: mnorris at dekaresearch.com (Mike Norris)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Regarding Derating with producer gas
Message-ID: <71308BA96577D3119B1300A0C9AC08AD50434E@exchange1.dekaresearch.com>

The best emissions will likely be achieved with a 3way catalytic
converter which
requires a stoichiometric fuel-air mixture for best results. A standard
3way Cat will remove
~90% of CO and HC and 80% of NOx. It is very very difficult to do
better than this by leaning
out a gasoline/air mixture with a catalyst. In addition the
stoichiometric mixture will produce higher
power. Catalytic converters must be kept in mind anytime one starts
thinking about emissions.
They are a relatively simple device that reduces all emissions by
roughly an order of magnitude.

Mike Norris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cordner Peacocke [SMTP:cpeacocke@care.demon.co.uk]
> Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2000 1:15 AM
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: Regarding Derating with producer gas
>
> Dear Group,
>
> Peter Singfield has presented some very valid arguments with regards
> deration. One also needs to consider, that to meet emission
> requirements,
> excess air may be required, possibly coupled with SCR [selective
> catalytic
> reduction] on the exhaust gases, all adding to the costs. I reckon one
> would be lucky to get away with a 1:1 stoichiometric air/fuel ratio.
> More
> likely is 1.2:1 or higher if exhaust emissions have to be met.
>
> As producer gas has a calorific value [CV] considerably less than that
> of
> LPG [Liquefied Petroleum Gas] [86.4 MJ/Nm3 compared to producer gas CV
> of
> ~5.2 MJ/Nm3], the engine will be derated. The differences in LHV only
> reveal part of the problem. The net CV of the air/fuel mixture is the
> crucial factor and for LPG, the mixture CV is 3.1 MJ/Nm3 for LPG/air
> and
> ~2.4 MJ/Nm3 for producer gas/air [1: 1 air/fuel ratio], therefore the
> engine deration will be at least 23% without turbo charging or
> external gas
> compression. These values are applicable under ideal circumstances.
> In
> reality, the deration will be much higher, typically 45-50% as excess
> air
> will be used with producer gas to reduce CO emissions and the fuel/air
> mixture temperature will typically be above ambient in normal gas
> engines.
> 28% excess air gives a deration of 40%, depending on the assumed gas
> composition etc.
>
> I have only one other fact to note here with regards to engine
> deration,
> without going into the details of air/fuel ratios for the engines in
> question, or the relative merits of intercooling, turbocharging,
> engine
> efficiency, etc.
>
> One reputable engine company that I have discussed engine deration
> with
> quote a MINIMUM of 40% deration [on producer gas] on their engines,
> originally designed for natural gas - and that's after turbo charging,
> 2
> stage intercooling and also one of their producer gas requirements is
> very
> simple - zero ''tar'' at 40C.
>
> Based on my limited experience, 50% is a more reasonable deration,
> with no
> turbocharging or secondary fuels for an LPG engine.
>
> It would be useful if some comments were made by some of the engine
> manufacturers themselves, Caterpillar, Waukesha, Wartsila, Jenbacher,
> etc.
>
> I'm sorry I can't add any more at this time - engines are not my
> strong point.
>
> My humble contribution to the discussion.
>
> Yours,
>
>
> Cordner Peacocke
>
> Cordner Peacocke [Dr.]
>
> Director
> Conversion And Resource Evaluation Ltd.
> 9 Myrtle House
> 5 Cassowary Road
> Birmingham
> B20 1NE.
> Tel: (44) 121 551 0344 or (44) 28 90422658 or (028) 90397955 [direct
> business line in Northern Ireland]
> Fax: (44) 870 0542981 or (44) 121 359 6814
> Internet: http://www.care.demon.co.uk/
> 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 Sun Jul 30 23:12:26 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Regarding Derating with producer gas
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000730210703.009619b0@wgs1.btl.net>

 

Hi Tom;

> We are currently building a variable gas quality air/fuel mixing system
>to adjust the air fuel ratio based upon gas heating value. As our gasifier
>runs plastics, biomass, tires, the variations in gas heating value is such
>that the air fuel ratio needs to be automatically compensated.

A very good point! And with present state of the art sensors, transducers
and microcontrolers -- not that expensive to do.

>Rated at 75kwe, the system would put out
>more if the generator was run with a gearbox or a 3600 rpm generator as the
>engine does not put out full power at generator speed of 1800 rpm.

Yes -- that is the other reason I tend to look at that old cummins 250
motor -- the lower RPM for max power curve.

In your 454 example -- I am sure it is just full of after market speed
tuning parts. What we need is an after market supplier supplying parts for
converting a standard truck diesel into a stationary gas fueled power plant.

Starting with the special pistons to lower compression to 12:1. Then the
spark plug adapters, the proper intake manifold with carburetor, the
distributor and ignition set up.

Guess the market is just not there yet.

> I will have the 493 NA Cummins engine test scanned into electronic
format
>and forwarded to you sometime this week. Others have asked for it also. It
>was conducted by Cummins Southwest which was the group which "invented" the
>Cummins natural gas engine from a diesel design.

That probably will answer so many questions right there -- thanks again Tom.

Peter Singfield (Belize)

At 11:43 AM 7/30/00 EDT, you wrote:
>Dear Peter,
> We bought a complete engine generator set from an irrigation engine
>supplier with a 454 supercharged Chevy with high lift racing heads, racing
>oil pan, and headers for $14,000. Rated at 75kwe, the system would put out
>more if the generator was run with a gearbox or a 3600 rpm generator as the
>engine does not put out full power at generator speed of 1800 rpm. Adding
>extras such as valve timing adjustment, ignition timing adjustment and so on
>will make a substantial improvement in output also. These are available
>commercially and Caterpillar has them on their engines as do others. An
>engine provided to a project we worked on had these features on it.
> We are currently building a variable gas quality air/fuel mixing system
>to adjust the air fuel ratio based upon gas heating value. As our gasifier
>runs plastics, biomass, tires, the variations in gas heating value is such
>that the air fuel ratio needs to be automatically compensated.
> The one feature which our engine does not have is increased compression.
>This feature is important and may raise the output substantially, above that
>of gasoline operation.
> I will have the 493 NA Cummins engine test scanned into electronic
format
>and forwarded to you sometime this week. Others have asked for it also. It
>was conducted by Cummins Southwest which was the group which "invented" the
>Cummins natural gas engine from a diesel design.
>Sincerely,
>
>Leland T. 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
>
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 aganesh at me.iitb.ernet.in Mon Jul 31 04:22:22 2000
From: aganesh at me.iitb.ernet.in (Anuradda Ganesh)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Regarding Derating with producer gas
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000728145156.0095d360@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.96.1000731110017.9944A-100000@agni.me.iitb.ernet.in>

 

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 Reedtb2 at cs.com Mon Jul 31 09:37:28 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fwd: Fw: useful conversions
Message-ID: <a6.7cf1db9.26b6daf3@cs.com>

You may find some of these useful in your work....

TOM

<<
>> "USEFUL ENGLISH SYSTEM CONVERSIONS"
>>
>> Ratio of an igloo's circumference to its diameter =
>> Eskimo Pi
>> 2.4 statute miles of intravenous surgical tubing at
>> Yale University
>> Hospital = 1 I.V. League
>> 2,000 pounds of Chinese soup = Won Ton
>> 1 millionth mouthwash = 1 microscope
>> Speed of a tortoise breaking the sound barrier =
>> Mach Turtle
>>
>> Time it takes to sail 220 yards at 1 nautical mile
>> per hour =
>> knot-furlong
>>
>> 365.25 days of drinking low-calorie beer because
>> it's less filling = 1
>> lite year
>> 16.5 feet in the Twilight Zone = 1 Rod Sterling
>> 1/2 large intestine = 1 semicolon
>> 1,000,000 aches = 1 megahertz
>>
>> Weight an evangelist carries with God = 1 billigram
>> Basic unit of laryngitis = 1 hoarsepower
>> Shortest distance between two jokes = a straight
>> line
>> Time between slipping on a peel and smacking the
>> pavement = 1
>> bananosecond
>>
>> ½ bath = 1 demijohn
>> 453.6 graham crackers = 1 pound cake
>> Given the old adage "a journey of a thousand miles
>> begins with a single
>> step" the first step of a one-mile journey = 1 Milwaukee
>>
>> USEFUL METRIC CONVERSIONS:
>> 1 million microphones = 1 megaphone
>> 1 million bicycles = 2 megacycles
>> 365.25 days = 1 Unicycle
>> 2,000 mockingbirds = two kilomockingbirds
>> 10 cards = 1 decacards
>> 1 kilogram of falling figs = 1 Fig Newton
>>
>> 1 trillion pins = 1 terrapin
>> 1 million billion piccolos = 1 gigolo
>> 10 rations = 1 decoration
>> 100 rations = 1 C-ration
>> 1,000 grams of wet socks = 1 Liter Hosen
>> 1 millionth of a fish = 1 microfiche
>>
>>
>

Sharon K. Boatwright >>

 

To: reedtb2@cs.com
Subject: Fwd: Fw: useful conversions
From: PDKilburn@cs.com
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:59:37 -0400
Reply-To: PDKilburn@cs.com
Sender: PDKilburn@cs.com

Sender: PDKilburn@cs.com
Received: from csimo02.mx.cs.com (csimo02.mx.cs.com [205.188.156.53])
by sphmgaae.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-1.9) with ESMTP id MAA16989
for <reedtb@compuserve.com>; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:59:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: PDKilburn@cs.com
Received: from PDKilburn@cs.com
by csimo02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id f.f7.14db72d (4417)
for <reedtb@compuserve.com>; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:59:15 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <f7.14db72d.26b315e2@cs.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:59:14 EDT
Subject: Fwd: Fw: useful conversions
To: reedtb@compuserve.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_f7.14db72d.26b315e2_boundary"
X-Mailer: CompuServe 2000 32-bit sub 103



Return-Path: <sharonkb@henge.com>
Received: from rly-yg03.mx.aol.com (rly-yg03.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.3]) by air-yg01.mail.aol.com (v75_b1.4) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 10:56:32 -0400
Received: from spdmgaaa.compuserve.com (ds-img-1.compuserve.com [149.174.206.134]) by rly-yg03.mx.aol.com (v75.18) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 10:56:13 -0400
Received: (from mailgate@localhost)
by spdmgaaa.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-1.9) id KAA28103
for pdkilburn@cs.com; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 10:56:12 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 10:54:14 -0400
From: "Sharon K. Boatwright" <sharonkb@henge.com>
Subject: Fwd: Fw: useful conversions
Sender: sharonkb@henge.com
To: rogdud@rmi.net
Cc: jsp@idcomm.com, t2quirke@aol.com, ggray01@aol.com, pdkilburn@cs.com
Reply-To: "Sharon K. Boatwright" <sharonkb@henge.com>
Message-ID: <200007261055_MC2-AD8C-B7BA@compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Mailer: Unknown

Sender: sharonkb@henge.com
Received: from chevalier.rmi.net (chevalier.rmi.net [166.93.8.14])
by spdmgaad.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-1.9) with ESMTP id KAA15010
for <pdkilburn@compuserve.com>; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 10:53:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [166.93.217.34] (dial-217.34.denco.rmi.net [166.93.217.34])
by chevalier.rmi.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA11631;
Wed, 26 Jul 2000 08:53:00 -0600 (MDT)
X-Sender: sharonkb@204.144.151.2
Message-Id: <v04003a02b5a4a8774584@[166.93.218.143]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 08:39:52 -0600
To: rogdud@rmi.net
From: "Sharon K. Boatwright" <sharonkb@henge.com>
Subject: Fwd: Fw: useful conversions
Cc: ggray01@aol.com, t2quirke@aol.com, jsp@idcomm.com,
pdkilburn@compuserve.com


>>
>> "USEFUL ENGLISH SYSTEM CONVERSIONS"
>>
>> Ratio of an igloo's circumference to its diameter =
>> Eskimo Pi
>> 2.4 statute miles of intravenous surgical tubing at
>> Yale University
>> Hospital = 1 I.V. League
>> 2,000 pounds of Chinese soup = Won Ton
>> 1 millionth mouthwash = 1 microscope
>> Speed of a tortoise breaking the sound barrier =
>> Mach Turtle
>>
>> Time it takes to sail 220 yards at 1 nautical mile
>> per hour =
>> knot-furlong
>>
>> 365.25 days of drinking low-calorie beer because
>> it's less filling = 1
>> lite year
>> 16.5 feet in the Twilight Zone = 1 Rod Sterling
>> 1/2 large intestine = 1 semicolon
>> 1,000,000 aches = 1 megahertz
>>
>> Weight an evangelist carries with God = 1 billigram
>> Basic unit of laryngitis = 1 hoarsepower
>> Shortest distance between two jokes = a straight
>> line
>> Time between slipping on a peel and smacking the
>> pavement = 1
>> bananosecond
>>
>> ½ bath = 1 demijohn
>> 453.6 graham crackers = 1 pound cake
>> Given the old adage "a journey of a thousand miles
>> begins with a single
>> step" the first step of a one-mile journey = 1 Milwaukee
>>
>> USEFUL METRIC CONVERSIONS:
>> 1 million microphones = 1 megaphone
>> 1 million bicycles = 2 megacycles
>> 365.25 days = 1 Unicycle
>> 2,000 mockingbirds = two kilomockingbirds
>> 10 cards = 1 decacards
>> 1 kilogram of falling figs = 1 Fig Newton
>>
>> 1 trillion pins = 1 terrapin
>> 1 million billion piccolos = 1 gigolo
>> 10 rations = 1 decoration
>> 100 rations = 1 C-ration
>> 1,000 grams of wet socks = 1 Liter Hosen
>> 1 millionth of a fish = 1 microfiche
>>
>>
>

Sharon K. Boatwright
Specialist: Genealogy for Children
http://www.familysaplings.com

 

 

From LINVENT at aol.com Mon Jul 31 11:48:29 2000
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Regarding Derating with producer gas
Message-ID: <e8.7deaca5.26b6f9a6@aol.com>

Dear Peter,
It is not necessary to lower the compression with producer gas as the
compression is best very high and output is greater. For this reason,
producer gas is actually a better fuel than natural gas. Additional reasons
include lowered NOx and CO emissions. Running a diesel engine on producer gas
usually doesn't require compression changes.

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 snkm at btl.net Mon Jul 31 14:47:19 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Regarding Derating with producer gas
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000731112104.00796c10@wgs1.btl.net>

 

Hi Tom T;

We also went into the compression subject in the past. 12:1 appears to be
optimal. That diesel would be 18:1 or more. Ergo -- lowering compression
would be advised.

There is a problem with pre-ignition -- or knocking beyond 12:1

However -- I certainly would like to hear to the contrary as lowering
compression is an expensive modification. Know anyone that has been
operating at the standard diesel 18:1 for a period of time?

Peter

At 11:47 AM 7/31/00 EDT, you wrote:
>Dear Peter,
> It is not necessary to lower the compression with producer gas as the
>compression is best very high and output is greater. For this reason,
>producer gas is actually a better fuel than natural gas. Additional reasons
>include lowered NOx and CO emissions. Running a diesel engine on producer
gas
>usually doesn't require compression changes.
>
>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
>
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 Mon Jul 31 14:47:30 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Regarding Derating with producer gas
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000731121449.007967c0@wgs1.btl.net>

 

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)*

This represents an automatic derating of 812 - 525 = 287

287/812 = 35.3%

In my earlier attempts at mathematically defining this same figure -- I had
arrived at 28% -- but was working using the theoretical air to fuel mixture
of 1:1.

As Cordner Peacock quickly pointed out:

"I reckon one would be lucky to get away with a 1:1 stoichiometric air/fuel
ratio. More likely is 1.2:1 or higher if exhaust emissions have to be met."

Apparently this is demonstrated in the 35.2% "fixed" derating figure shown
above.

The other reason I hypothesized for further derating was improper
mechanical design. This in relationship to the combustion characteristics
of producers gas when compared with diesel.

Prof. (Mrs) Parikh puts this into a clearer perspective.

>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.

>From this we see that rpm is limited in the producer gas designed engine.

I believe Tom Taylor demonstrated this in his message where a "souped-up"
454 gasoline engine -- which must have been producing well over 400 HP --
is producing 75 kw at 1800 RPM on Producer gas. Tom feels he can increase
power by increasing RPM. But we see here that though he may get some
increase in power he will achieve it at a great loss of engine efficiency.

Why -- because the 454 in question is optimized for gasoline -- has a short
stroke and a large bore -- quite over-square -- as we used to say. This
works for tweaking more power for a given volume capacity in gasoline
engines by radically increasing rpm capabilities -- but is the death blow
to efficient operation in the producer gas engine design.

The producer gas engine would be much happier with a longer stroke -- lower
rpm -- design. Indeed -- as in my example -- an old 250 cummins diesel
engine converted to operation on producer gas.

Now -- if one wanted to further increase the engine efficiency of that old
cummins -- it could be easily done by after fitting sleeves of smaller bore
diameter to increase the stroke over piston diameter ration and actually
lower maximum RPM to say 1500 or lower. This probably would still keep that
engine in the 50% derating area but greatly increase it's fuel efficiency.

And that folks is the point I keep trying to make here -- over and over.

Derating is not a problem -- engine efficiency is!

If I can put out 25% more kwh's from the same gasifier using powering your
454 by increasing engine efficiencies -- I am putting a lot of money in the
bank!

To do this we must seriously study which engine design is best.

Prof. (Mrs) Parikh has supplied some very powerful clues here regarding
just how to achieve such an increase.

In our past discussions -- flame propagation speed came up -- at that time
I suggested stronger ignition. This either by pre-igniting a smaller
chamber to "flash" flame into the main cylinder -- or using multiple spark
plugs -- as some gasoline engines do.

Further, can we take for granted valve timing characteristics of the diesel
or Gasoline engine as being ideal for best efficiency operation of producer
gas fuel??

Tom -- going back to that speed tuned 454. It was done by the purchase of
after market parts. That is pistons, manifolds, camshaft, ignition
apparatus, blower -- etc.

All I am suggesting here is that the producer gas IC engine operators
should be considering the same route.

Pick a good block. My suggestion is that 250 Cummins.

Then change pistons, sleeves, camshaft.

A clever intake manifold carburetor -- along the lines suggested -- that is
with feed back from sensor to actuator -- under microprocessor control --
to keep air/gas mixtures optimal.

And increase the power of ignition. Either by multiple ignition points or
by a flame chamber. A flame chamber would never work on a high revving 454
racing engine -- but certainly would work extremely well on a long stroke,
1500 rpm engine.

I feel that gasification for running an IC engine technology should be a
little more realistic regarding what we are trying to achieve here. That
for, the most part, is not racing engines, but "stationary" power plants.

I find it atrocious that any suggestion requiring consideration of a 50%
derating to establish high efficiency operation is met with so much "stiff"
resistance.

What can it matter!! If one can go from an 18% engine efficiency on
producer gas at 30% derating to a 30% efficiency at 60% derating -- why
not?? Just what is the problem here??

Gasification is not a "religion" is it??

As I mentioned before -- I am beginning to see signs of cultism here --
just like I saw over at the Tesla mail lists.

Tom Tayler -- let me try one last time to put things in perspective. Yes
you can run your converted gasoline engine on producer gas and make that 75
kwh.

But I believe I can do the same with a gasifier half the size burning half
the fuel -- if I am careful about tuning for efficiency rather than
compactness.

We need to investigate the higher efficiency engine as Arnt keeps
describing. Those that get 45% and better over all efficiencies. Do you
realize that they all turn well below 1000 rpm??

No good for car racing -- but great for efficient power generation -- and
they certainly las a lot longer between over-hauls as well.

I'll stick with rebuilding that old 250 cummins for optimal performance to
turn out 75 kwh -- and it certainly will not cost me 14,000 to do it! Plus
the smaller gasifier needed to run it will be less expensive as well. And
then consider maintenance costs.

I can live with a 65% derating in that case example -- and still have more
than ample power.

Peter Singfield (Belize)

At 01:48 PM 7/31/00 +0530, you wrote:
>
>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
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 Mon Jul 31 14:47:34 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: <3.0.32.20000731124349.00936240@wgs1.btl.net>

 

OK -- here are some more thoughts to consider.

Arnt and I played around doing math models -- tied together with his
observed measurements -- and came to a figure of 9% for loss heat energy in
the hot product gas that must be cooled to 50 C before entrance into the IC
engine.

That is a pretty respectable figure!

Let me show you how we may get at least a part of that back. and save that
headache of cooling product gas.

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.

Second point -- you want a long stroke -- low rpm -- engine to get away
with this!

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.

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!

One -- the hot exhaust gas would allow more water injection.

Two -- there are always some combustibles that missed the first trip through.

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.

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?

Do you realize that with today new technology in power switching devices --
so common as uninterruptable power supplies for ones computer -- but also
available in two megawatt sized for much less than $200,000 -- can take any
DC voltage in and put out any perfect sine wave AC voltage out -- single
phase -- three phase -- at over 95% efficiency -- at the flick of a switch!

A locomotive diesel is low RPM and optimized for top efficiency. Comes with
a DC genset. Quite sure they can be well modified into a high efficiency
producer gas burner -- as discussed.

OK -- so we derate it by 2/3 rds to do all the tricks -- and have only 500 kw.

Lets break that 35% efficiency barrier at least!

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 kchishol at fox.nstn.ca Mon Jul 31 16:07:57 2000
From: kchishol at fox.nstn.ca (Kevin Chisholm)
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: <3985DC19.97219AB6@fox.nstn.ca>

Dear Peter

Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> OK -- here are some more thoughts to consider.
...del...
> available in two megawatt sized for much less than $200,000 -- can take any
> DC voltage in and put out any perfect sine wave AC voltage out -- single
> phase -- three phase -- at over 95% efficiency -- at the flick of a switch!

I am very interested in this conversion system. Would you have a
reference or site you could point me to, to get further information????

Thanks very much.

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 LINVENT at aol.com Mon Jul 31 17:10:56 2000
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Regarding Derating with producer gas
Message-ID: <55.90772f5.26b7452d@aol.com>

Dear Peter,
Many years ago Hamilton Standard ran a diesel engine with a producer gas
and medium btu gas mixture with no appreciable knocking in operation.
Cummins has advised me that the higher compression is acceptable. It would be
easy to test, take a high compression engine and either stick a hose in the
intake with the gas either made up from bottles or from a gasifier and try it
out.
I have run diesel engines on the producer gas with no appreciable
knocking and without controls on the gas flow, overspeeding at which point
the injector pump completely shuts down. I did not know the compression ratio
of the diesel engine.

Sincerely,

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 snkm at btl.net Mon Jul 31 18:49:26 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: <3.0.32.20000731164028.0098d220@wgs1.btl.net>

At 05:05 PM 7/31/00 -0300, you wrote:
>Dear Peter
>
>Peter Singfield wrote:
>>
>> OK -- here are some more thoughts to consider.
>...del...
>> available in two megawatt sized for much less than $200,000 -- can take any
>> DC voltage in and put out any perfect sine wave AC voltage out -- single
>> phase -- three phase -- at over 95% efficiency -- at the flick of a switch!
>
>I am very interested in this conversion system. Would you have a
>reference or site you could point me to, to get further information????
>
>Thanks very much.
>
>Kevin Chisholm
>

Hi Kevin;

Contact my son Jesse Singfield.

Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Email

jsingfield@oriso.com

That is his line of business.

I was just asking him regarding supplying 2 mwe to an old sugar factory.
The plant is 550 V -- 50 cycle -- 3 phase. Their power plant is shot. Grid
power is 60 cycle here. So -- use a power inverter.

They come in 500 kwh blocks -- just stack as many as you want together.
Great stuff!

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 Mon Jul 31 19:54:06 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Regarding Derating with producer gas
In-Reply-To: <55.90772f5.26b7452d@aol.com>
Message-ID: <398610CC.46E9180B@c2i.net>

Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> Hi Tom T;
>
> We also went into the compression subject in the past. 12:1 appears to be
> optimal. That diesel would be 18:1 or more. Ergo -- lowering compression
> would be advised.
>
> There is a problem with pre-ignition -- or knocking beyond 12:1
>
> However -- I certainly would like to hear to the contrary as lowering
> compression is an expensive modification. Know anyone that has been
> operating at the standard diesel 18:1 for a period of time?

..swedish John Olsson of J-Jet Konstruktion AB played with alcohol-mixed
water spraying in diesel engines burning gasoline, and otto-engines
burning diesel oil, in the early 1980'ies.

..vaporized 20 octane diesel oil knocked at 4.5 compression, with spray,
at 9.2.
93 octane gasoline + spray did fine at 21. Reported test engines; Volvo
B18, run in autos, boats and stationary, and Volvo B20E in brake bench.
Got this on paper. Dunno from where. Anyone?

..a heated diesel oil sample will burn with an orange sooty flame. Mix
water and alcohol in a pump spray bottle, have fun. ;-)

> Peter
>
> At 11:47 AM 7/31/00 EDT, you wrote:
> >Dear Peter,
> > It is not necessary to lower the compression with producer gas as the
> >compression is best very high and output is greater. For this reason,
> >producer gas is actually a better fuel than natural gas. Additional reasons
> >include lowered NOx and CO emissions. Running a diesel engine on producer
> gas
> >usually doesn't require compression changes.
> >
> >Tom Taylor

--
..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 Mon Jul 31 20:11:36 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: <3.0.32.20000731164028.0098d220@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <398614E9.C6CE2773@c2i.net>

Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> At 05:05 PM 7/31/00 -0300, you wrote:
> >Dear Peter
> >
> >Peter Singfield wrote:
> >>
> >> OK -- here are some more thoughts to consider.
> >...del...
> >> available in two megawatt sized for much less than $200,000 -- can take any
> >> DC voltage in and put out any perfect sine wave AC voltage out -- single
> >> phase -- three phase -- at over 95% efficiency -- at the flick of a switch!
> >
> >I am very interested in this conversion system. Would you have a
> >reference or site you could point me to, to get further information????
> >
> >Thanks very much.
> >
> >Kevin Chisholm
> >
>
> Hi Kevin;
>
> Contact my son Jesse Singfield.
>
> Montreal, Quebec, Canada
>
> Email
>
> jsingfield@oriso.com
>
> That is his line of business.
>
> I was just asking him regarding supplying 2 mwe to an old sugar factory.
> The plant is 550 V -- 50 cycle -- 3 phase. Their power plant is shot. Grid
> power is 60 cycle here. So -- use a power inverter.

..or speed up to 60 Hz.
If 60 Hz fries the genset, derate the engine and rewind the generator.
How many poles on that 2MWe?

> They come in 500 kwh blocks -- just stack as many as you want together.
> Great stuff!
>
> Peter Singfield (Belize)
>
--
..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 Mon Jul 31 20:14:42 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: <3986158D.4EFC9307@c2i.net>

Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> OK -- here are some more thoughts to consider.
>
> Arnt and I played around doing math models -- tied together with his
> observed measurements -- and came to a figure of 9% for loss heat energy in
> the hot product gas that must be cooled to 50 C before entrance into the IC
> engine.
>
> That is a pretty respectable figure!
>
> Let me show you how we may get at least a part of that back. and save that
> headache of cooling product gas.
>
> 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.

> 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. ;-)

> Second point -- you want a long stroke -- low rpm -- engine to get away
> with this!

..or short stroke and high rpm ;-)

..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. ;-)

> 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... ;-)

..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.

> 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.

> 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? ;-)

> Do you realize that with today new technology in power switching devices --
> so common as uninterruptable power supplies for ones computer -- but also
> available in two megawatt sized for much less than $200,000 -- can take any
> DC voltage in and put out any perfect sine wave AC voltage out -- single
> phase -- three phase -- at over 95% efficiency -- at the flick of a switch!
>
> A locomotive diesel is low RPM and optimized for top efficiency. Comes with
> a DC genset. Quite sure they can be well modified into a high efficiency
> producer gas burner -- as discussed.
>
> 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.

> Lets break that 35% efficiency barrier at least!

..hear, hear! ;-)

> Peter Singfield (Belize)

--
..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 Mon Jul 31 20:19:48 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Regarding Derating with producer gas
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000731121449.007967c0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <398616CF.D934D43C@c2i.net>

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)*
>
> This represents an automatic derating of 812 - 525 = 287
>
> 287/812 = 35.3%
>
> In my earlier attempts at mathematically defining this same figure -- I had
> arrived at 28% -- but was working using the theoretical air to fuel mixture
> of 1:1.
>
> As Cordner Peacock quickly pointed out:
>
> "I reckon one would be lucky to get away with a 1:1 stoichiometric air/fuel
> ratio. More likely is 1.2:1 or higher if exhaust emissions have to be met."
>
> Apparently this is demonstrated in the 35.2% "fixed" derating figure shown
> above.
>
> The other reason I hypothesized for further derating was improper
> mechanical design. This in relationship to the combustion characteristics
> of producers gas when compared with diesel.
>
> Prof. (Mrs) Parikh puts this into a clearer perspective.
>
> >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.

..here, read "high speed" as 'high piston speed'.

..piston speed is the figure of merit.
We want to match piston speed to "combustion speed".

> >From this we see that rpm is limited in the producer gas designed engine.
>
> I believe Tom Taylor demonstrated this in his message where a "souped-up"
> 454 gasoline engine -- which must have been producing well over 400 HP --
> is producing 75 kw at 1800 RPM on Producer gas.

..Tom's running a 4 pole generator.
Rewind to 2 poles or gear.
V-8's do fine at 3000 and better at 3600 rpm's.

> Tom feels he can increase
> power by increasing RPM. But we see here that though he may get some
> increase in power he will achieve it at a great loss of engine efficiency.

..also, peak tune power, torque, fuel economy, etc curves, to the
relevant syncroneous rpm speed. Grind new camshafts. Etc.

> Why -- because the 454 in question is optimized for gasoline -- has a short
> stroke and a large bore -- quite over-square -- as we used to say. This
> works for tweaking more power for a given volume capacity in gasoline
> engines by radically increasing rpm capabilities -- but is the death blow
> to efficient operation in the producer gas engine design.

..V-8 can use tweaks too. Higher speed "modern" engines _need_ tweaks.

> The producer gas engine would be much happier with a longer stroke -- lower
> rpm -- design. Indeed -- as in my example -- an old 250 cummins diesel
> engine converted to operation on producer gas.
>
> Now -- if one wanted to further increase the engine efficiency of that old
> cummins -- it could be easily done by after fitting sleeves of smaller bore
> diameter to increase the stroke over piston diameter ration and actually
> lower maximum RPM to say 1500 or lower. This probably would still keep that
> engine in the 50% derating area but greatly increase it's fuel efficiency.
>
> And that folks is the point I keep trying to make here -- over and over.
>
> Derating is not a problem -- engine efficiency is!
>
> If I can put out 25% more kwh's from the same gasifier using powering your
> 454 by increasing engine efficiencies -- I am putting a lot of money in the
> bank!
>
> To do this we must seriously study which engine design is best.
>
> Prof. (Mrs) Parikh has supplied some very powerful clues here regarding
> just how to achieve such an increase.
>
> In our past discussions -- flame propagation speed came up -- at that time
> I suggested stronger ignition. This either by pre-igniting a smaller
> chamber to "flash" flame into the main cylinder -- or using multiple spark
> plugs -- as some gasoline engines do.

..or spray water+ alcohol.

> Further, can we take for granted valve timing characteristics of the diesel
> or Gasoline engine as being ideal for best efficiency operation of producer
> gas fuel??

..nope. Grind new cams. Leave the inlet valve open _way thru_
compression, slam it shut as the incoming gas stops moving in against
the cylinder gas pressure. Takes advantage of the gas inertia moving at
a few hundred feet per second, supercharging the engine.

..bonuses I've experienced include a 60 tick-tack VW Beetle idle rpm,
_fat_ low-end and mid-range torque, beating racing motorcycles, and
finding a 100 knot rotating speed at 1/3 throttle, I hit the brakes hard
enough to bring the front wheels back down. The cam-grinder didnt...

> Tom -- going back to that speed tuned 454. It was done by the purchase of
> after market parts. That is pistons, manifolds, camshaft, ignition
> apparatus, blower -- etc.
>
> All I am suggesting here is that the producer gas IC engine operators
> should be considering the same route.
>
> Pick a good block. My suggestion is that 250 Cummins.
>
> Then change pistons, sleeves, camshaft.
>
> A clever intake manifold carburetor -- along the lines suggested -- that is
> with feed back from sensor to actuator -- under microprocessor control --
> to keep air/gas mixtures optimal.
>
> And increase the power of ignition. Either by multiple ignition points or
> by a flame chamber. A flame chamber would never work on a high revving 454

..we'll see. ;-)

> racing engine -- but certainly would work extremely well on a long stroke,
> 1500 rpm engine.
>
> I feel that gasification for running an IC engine technology should be a
> little more realistic regarding what we are trying to achieve here. That
> for, the most part, is not racing engines, but "stationary" power plants.
>
> I find it atrocious that any suggestion requiring consideration of a 50%
> derating to establish high efficiency operation is met with so much "stiff"
> resistance.
>
> What can it matter!! If one can go from an 18% engine efficiency on
> producer gas at 30% derating to a 30% efficiency at 60% derating -- why
> not?? Just what is the problem here??

..why not pick the best of _both_ worlds? ;-)

> Gasification is not a "religion" is it??
>
> As I mentioned before -- I am beginning to see signs of cultism here --
> just like I saw over at the Tesla mail lists.
>
> Tom Tayler -- let me try one last time to put things in perspective. Yes
> you can run your converted gasoline engine on producer gas and make that 75
> kwh.
>
> But I believe I can do the same with a gasifier half the size burning half
> the fuel -- if I am careful about tuning for efficiency rather than
> compactness.
>
> We need to investigate the higher efficiency engine as Arnt keeps
> describing. Those that get 45% and better over all efficiencies. Do you
> realize that they all turn well below 1000 rpm??
>
> No good for car racing -- but great for efficient power generation -- and
> they certainly las a lot longer between over-hauls as well.
>
> I'll stick with rebuilding that old 250 cummins for optimal performance to
> turn out 75 kwh -- and it certainly will not cost me 14,000 to do it! Plus
> the smaller gasifier needed to run it will be less expensive as well. And
> then consider maintenance costs.
>
> I can live with a 65% derating in that case example -- and still have more
> than ample power.
>
> Peter Singfield (Belize)
>
> At 01:48 PM 7/31/00 +0530, you wrote:
> >
> >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

--
..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 snkm at btl.net Mon Jul 31 23:56:10 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: <3.0.32.20000731203126.0098eac0@wgs1.btl.net>

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!

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

>
>> 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.

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

>
>..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!

>
>> 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.

>
>> 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.

Peter Singfield (Belize)

>
>> Lets break that 35% efficiency barrier at least!
>
>..hear, hear! ;-)
>
>> Peter Singfield (Belize)
>
>--
>..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 Mon Jul 31 23:56:12 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Heavy Metal vs ring-a-dings
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000731214557.009708a0@wgs1.btl.net>

 

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.

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)

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
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!

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.

Plus -- think of the fuel efficiencies!!

No thanks -- you stay in high rpm -- short stroke land. Not me!!

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)

2/ Lower the Rpm -- great increase in engine size!

Remember -- producer gas is the poorer fuel again -- by about 28%!

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.

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??

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.

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.

While you are into light little ring-a-dings -- I am into "heavy-Metal".

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)*
>>

****************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.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