May 2000 Gasification Archive

From boilrmkr at surfsouth.com Mon May 1 01:02:19 2000
From: boilrmkr at surfsouth.com (Gene Zebley)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Catostrophic Computer Crash - Requesting email resend
Message-ID: <200005010502.BAA18074@shelly.surfsouth.com>

Fellow List Members,

Please excuse the intrusion.

I am recovering from a recent computer crash and I've lost all email which
may have been sent my way over the last 6 days. (Talk about email withdrawl!)

If you sent a message to my attention recently, please resend ASAP.

From arcate at email.msn.com Mon May 1 02:21:02 2000
From: arcate at email.msn.com (Jim Arcate)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: hazardous wastes gasification
Message-ID: <004d01bfb335$5a9954e0$0100007f@localhost>

Hello Gasification:

Is anyone doing anything on gasification of Creosote wood railroad ties
and/or telephone poles treated with Creosote and Pentachlorophenol ?

I saw a paper about work by the Danish Technological Institute on updraft
gasification of hazardous organic waste with high contents of chromium,
copper and arsenic.
Are there commercial plants in operation?

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 bbell at Princeton.EDU Mon May 1 13:30:39 2000
From: bbell at Princeton.EDU (Brien Cameron Bell)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass Gasifier
Message-ID: <200005011730.KAA04776@secure.crest.net>

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am currently a student at Princeton University in Princeton, New
Jersey. As part of a freshman seminar class on sustainable development
and the environment, I am undertaking a project to examine the
feasibility of alternate energy sources. I will be looking specifically

at the energy needs of the University, which currently uses a
cogeneration facility to generate power. Using biomass as a substitue
fuel (instead of natural gas, which has many negative environmental
effects) seems to be a good idea. If you could provide answers to the
following questions, or refer me to someone or an organization that
could help me, I would greatly appreciate it.

What would be a rough estimate for construction of a gasifier to be
linked to an existing cogeneration facility with a capacity of 14 MW?

What is a rough estimate of the amount of wood biomass fuel needed (in
tons) per year to sustain a 14 MW plant?

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Sincerely,
Brien Bell

From dschmidt at undeerc.org Mon May 1 13:30:43 2000
From: dschmidt at undeerc.org (Schmidt, Darren)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal Combustion with Producer Gas
Message-ID: <200005011730.KAA04793@secure.crest.net>

25:1

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: Peter Singfield [mailto:snkm@btl.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 12:31 PM
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: Re: RE: GAS-L: Internal Combustion with Producer Gas

Hi;

Also -- what is the standard compression ratios for a diesel engine?? I
should know but have forgotten!

Peter/Belize

At 01:47 PM 4/26/00 EDT, you wrote:
>Dear Mrs Parikh,
> How high a compression ratio can you go with producer gas?
>
>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 rbaileys at prmenergy.com Mon May 1 13:53:48 2000
From: rbaileys at prmenergy.com (Ron Bailey, Sr)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass Gasifier
In-Reply-To: <200005011730.KAA04776@secure.crest.net>
Message-ID: <000501bfb396$0193e840$0501a8c0@Ronsr>

Dear Brien Cameron Bell:
For Biomass Gasification of wood waste and other biomass fuels, please visit
the following web sites:
http://www.prmenergy.com
http://www.primenergy.com
http://www.guascor.com
Regards,
Ron Bailey
PRM Energy Systems, Inc.

From LINVENT at aol.com Mon May 1 17:02:24 2000
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal Combustion with Producer Gas
Message-ID: <38.5552ea3.263f4abb@aol.com>

Peter in Belize,
Diesel engine compression can go from 10:1 up to 25:1. Depends upon the
structure of the engine, i.e., how sturdy it is made and how much noise you
are willing to tolerate.
How about looking at some websites: Caterpillar, Detroit Diesel, Cummins,
Superior, and others? That would be the definitive answer to the question?

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 May 1 17:59:40 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal Combustion with Producer Gas
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000501155913.0092f770@wgs1.btl.net>

Thanks Tom and everyone else -- I always figured 16 to 18:1 as the
"practical" range -- am soaking in the info coming at us on the list --
very interesting!

So here is my contribution -- scanned in --

It can be proven by a thermodynamic analysis that the efficiency of an
internal combustion engine operating on either the two-stroke or the
four-stroke cycle depends principally upon the ratio by which the charge is
compressed before its combustion.

The compression ratio is found by dividing the volume in the cylinder when
the piston is at its lowest point by the volume of the combustion chamber
when the piston is at its highest point. The range of compression ratios at
which diesel engines operate is from 12 to 18, which is considerably higher
than knock-limited compression ratios for spark-ignition engines.

Analyses also show that combustion should be as rapid as is practical,
limited by rough running, and that a high ratio of air to fuel increases
thermal efficiency. The diesel engine meets these requirements for maximum
efficiency more effectively than other type engines.

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

OK -- if producer gas works fine in a regular diesel using fuel injection
ignition -- why can't is work at those same compression ratios using spark
ignition??

That is the question??

Maybe with a precombustion -- spark ignition area?? Easy enough to do. Then
it is a flame -- not a spark -- igniting the main charge.

My little old Volk's Rabbit diesel uses a precombustion chamber to do its
thingy -- or should I say a separate chamber?

It would be easy to machine a spark plug adapter that would fit into the
injection fitting port -- that would increase volume as much as one
required as well as being a precombustion chamber.

One could easily "tinker" out the proper dimensions for ideal running
without losing their shirt in machine shop charges.

And not other changes need be made to that engine -- except clipping a
magnetic transducer at the right place on the pulley riding the front of
the crankshaft.

You could then plug the timing into your PC and move it around as one
wanted -- by simply clicking the keyboard.

I imagine spark advance -- or timing -- is part of the formula as well.

So -- why doesn't some one do this? Looks so easy to me.

Peter/Belize

At 05:01 PM 5/1/00 EDT, you wrote:
>Peter in Belize,
> Diesel engine compression can go from 10:1 up to 25:1. Depends upon the
>structure of the engine, i.e., how sturdy it is made and how much noise you
>are willing to tolerate.
> How about looking at some websites: Caterpillar, Detroit Diesel,
Cummins,
>Superior, and others? That would be the definitive answer to the question?
>
>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 tmiles at teleport.com Mon May 1 20:14:21 2000
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CHX Engineering, Gasifier in Enerby, Okanagan
Message-ID: <4.3.2.20000501170932.0171eb00@mail.teleport.com>

Two companies have been mentioned in regard to gasification that I do not
know.

Can anyone tell me about CHX Engineering on the upper peninsula in Michigan
(Presque Isle?). The name Robert Graham was mentioned. Is he formerly of
Ensyn and Forintek?

Has anyone heard of a gasifier made by a company in Enerby, Okanagan,
British Columbia?

Thanks

Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas R. Miles tmiles@teleport.com
Technical Consultants, Inc. Tel (503) 292-0107/646-1198
1470 SW Woodward Way Fax (503) 292-2919/646-4406
Portland, Oregon, USA 97225

From rabello at uniserve.com Mon May 1 23:04:52 2000
From: rabello at uniserve.com (robert luis rabello)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal Combustion with Producer Gas
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000501155913.0092f770@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <390E4642.7131E631@uniserve.com>

Peter Singfield wrote:

> OK -- if producer gas works fine in a regular diesel using fuel injection
> ignition -- why can't is work at those same compression ratios using spark
> ignition??

The actual fuel burned in the engine shouldn't matter, as long as the
internal parts can handle the stress and everything is set up to avoid pre
ignition. Pilot diesel injection is an effective strategy because it requires
little, if any, modifications to the engine itself. The diesel injectors run in
"idle" continuously and the externally mixed gas takes up the rest of the load.

Some hydrogen conversions I've read about use modified spark plugs installed
where the diesel glow plugs are normally found. In this manner, little
machining, if any, is necessary, and again, the fuel is mixed outside the
cylinder.

I think direct injection is a better strategy because it avoids throttling
losses, backfire and a host of other woes. (With producer gas as the fuel, high
pressures would be necessary to get sufficient power. This is certainly
possible, but I wonder if it's really viable. The big engine makers like
Caterpillar still rely on external mixing for natural gas.) Roy McAlister of the
American Hydrogen Association advocates a "spark ignitor/injector" that serves to
deliver fuel to the cylinder AND fire it off with a spark. In this way, any
engine can be easily modified for direct injection. I've been waiting for many
years for his prototype to become a reality, yet no product appears imminent as I
write this.

> It would be easy to machine a spark plug adapter that would fit into the
> injection fitting port -- that would increase volume as much as one
> required as well as being a precombustion chamber.

Direct injecting a gaseous fuel creates a "variable compression ratio"
engine. The compression ratio would fluctuate according to demand, and if
controlled by a microprocessor with an appropriate fuel map, could produce more
power than an externally mixed gasoline engine of equal displacement.

I would love to see an engine operating with such a direct injection
strategy, coupled with variable valve timing and intercooled turbo charging! In
your words, Peter, we'd be moving out of the flathead age, for sure! (Ok, if I'm
going to dream, I'd want a cross flow hemi head too. . .)

> And not other changes need be made to that engine -- except clipping a
> magnetic transducer at the right place on the pulley riding the front of
> the crankshaft.

Four stroke engines only take in fuel on every other crankshaft
rotation--that's why cam sprockets are twice the size of crank sprockets. I'm
sure you know this. One strategy that may work for popular engines (like the
small block Chevrolet) is a belt driven distributor that bolts onto the front
part of the timing cover. These are manufactured for racing engines, but can be
adapted to serve as timing devices for direct injection.

> You could then plug the timing into your PC and move it around as one
> wanted -- by simply clicking the keyboard.

Companies like Eco Fuels in Langley, B.C. are working on fuel maps for
various computerized engine applications. I've heard discussion that some of
these may be effective for the type of thing you are proposing here.

> imagine spark advance -- or timing -- is part of the formula as well.

Modern turbo diesels utilize engine speed, air density, turbo boost and
throttle position as variables in their fuel maps. Torque and horsepower can be
altered with a laptop computer. I've seen the system for Cummins N14 engines
(these displace about 10 liters), and it's very impressive!

> So -- why doesn't some one do this? Looks so easy to me.

I think it can be done. Where is the market for producer gas engines?

robert luis rabello

From mlrollins at tva.gov Mon May 1 23:42:33 2000
From: mlrollins at tva.gov (Rollins, Martha L.)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: hazardous wastes gasification
Message-ID: <2ADF1FA34AB1D111ADB30000F80148CC0600EC32@chachaois2b.cha.tva.gov>

Phil Goldberg at the NETL has some results. Think this is with their
combustor. May be of value. He can be reached at 412/386-5806.

> ----------
> From: Jim Arcate[SMTP:arcate@email.msn.com]
> Reply To: gasification@crest.org
> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2000 2:20 AM
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: GAS-L: hazardous wastes gasification
>
> Hello Gasification:
>
> Is anyone doing anything on gasification of Creosote wood railroad ties
> and/or telephone poles treated with Creosote and Pentachlorophenol ?
>
> I saw a paper about work by the Danish Technological Institute on updraft
> gasification of hazardous organic waste with high contents of chromium,
> copper and arsenic.
> Are there commercial plants in operation?
>
> 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 parikh at me.iitb.ernet.in Tue May 2 03:25:40 2000
From: parikh at me.iitb.ernet.in (Prof P P Parikh)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal Combustion with Producer Gas
In-Reply-To: <38.5552ea3.263f4abb@aol.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.96.1000502131055.10621A-100000@agni.me.iitb.ernet.in>

Compression ratio of 10 is too low for any kind of diesel engine, even for
highly turbocharged engine!!
Mrs Parikh

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Mon, 1 May 2000 LINVENT@aol.com wrote:

> Peter in Belize,
> Diesel engine compression can go from 10:1 up to 25:1. Depends upon the
> structure of the engine, i.e., how sturdy it is made and how much noise you
> are willing to tolerate.
> How about looking at some websites: Caterpillar, Detroit Diesel, Cummins,
> Superior, and others? That would be the definitive answer to the question?
>
> 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 Tue May 2 10:18:35 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal Combustion with Producer Gas
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000502081806.00918830@wgs1.btl.net>

At 08:06 PM 5/1/00 -0700, you wrote:
>
>
>Peter Singfield wrote:
>
>> OK -- if producer gas works fine in a regular diesel using fuel injection
>> ignition -- why can't is work at those same compression ratios using spark
>> ignition??
>
> The actual fuel burned in the engine shouldn't matter, as long as the
>internal parts can handle the stress and everything is set up to avoid pre
>ignition. Pilot diesel injection is an effective strategy because it
requires
>little, if any, modifications to the engine itself. The diesel injectors
run in
>"idle" continuously and the externally mixed gas takes up the rest of the
load.

Obviously there is an ignition problem with just "spark". The diesel
principle is injection of a fuel into an atmosphere heated to the flash
point of that fuel with enough oxygen present to accomplish combustion.

Some gasses -- such as ethel ether -- ignite at lower temperatures -- ergo
-- ether is used for cold starting diesels.

Other gasses require to high a temperature to ignite??? Why will producer
gas not ignite in that highly heated environment?

As it stands now -- the little bit of diesel fuel injected into that
heated, compressed, mixture of producer gas with air -- does ignite and
that "flame" ignites the entire charge of air and producer gas.

My suggestion is to ignite a part of compressed producer gas air charge in
a spark plug "chamber" and then the flame from that would ignite the main
chamber mixture -- closely approximating what diesel injection does in that
same circumstance. This would allow running at standard diesel compression
ratios.

Since diesel engines are relatively low RPM compared to high performance
gasoline engines -- there is no problem in the delayed firing due to flame
ignition verses direct spark ignition. And simply adjusting timing will
properly compensate.

Mind you -- there is one more factor -- it is called detonation. Better
known as "knocking". The small amount of diesel fuel being injected may
well be required to control detonation. If so -- water injection (much
cheaper than diesel fuel) might well achieve the same results.

>
> Some hydrogen conversions I've read about use modified spark plugs
installed
>where the diesel glow plugs are normally found. In this manner, little
>machining, if any, is necessary, and again, the fuel is mixed outside the
>cylinder.

what do you do when there are no glow plugs?? The injector is easily
replaced with a spark ignition device.

>
> I think direct injection is a better strategy because it avoids
throttling
>losses, backfire and a host of other woes. (With producer gas as the
fuel, high
>pressures would be necessary to get sufficient power. This is certainly
>possible, but I wonder if it's really viable. The big engine makers like
>Caterpillar still rely on external mixing for natural gas.)

Good points. I believe that one has to live with the throttling losses in
this case. I can see methods to inject producer gas at 2000 PSI plus -- but
it become a very expensive modification.

Roy McAlister of the
>American Hydrogen Association advocates a "spark ignitor/injector" that
serves to
>deliver fuel to the cylinder AND fire it off with a spark. In this way, any
>engine can be easily modified for direct injection. I've been waiting for
many
>years for his prototype to become a reality, yet no product appears
imminent as I
>write this.

Pure hydrogen is far richer than producer gas with all that nitrogen.

>> It would be easy to machine a spark plug adapter that would fit into the
>> injection fitting port -- that would increase volume as much as one
>> required as well as being a precombustion chamber.
>
> Direct injecting a gaseous fuel creates a "variable compression ratio"
>engine. The compression ratio would fluctuate according to demand, and if
>controlled by a microprocessor with an appropriate fuel map, could produce
more
>power than an externally mixed gasoline engine of equal displacement.

Probably true.
>
> I would love to see an engine operating with such a direct injection
>strategy, coupled with variable valve timing and intercooled turbo
charging! In
>your words, Peter, we'd be moving out of the flathead age, for sure! (Ok,
if I'm
>going to dream, I'd want a cross flow hemi head too. . .)
>
>> And not other changes need be made to that engine -- except clipping a
>> magnetic transducer at the right place on the pulley riding the front of
>> the crankshaft.
>
> Four stroke engines only take in fuel on every other crankshaft
>rotation--that's why cam sprockets are twice the size of crank sprockets.
I'm
>sure you know this. One strategy that may work for popular engines (like the
>small block Chevrolet) is a belt driven distributor that bolts onto the front
>part of the timing cover. These are manufactured for racing engines, but
can be
>adapted to serve as timing devices for direct injection.
>

No -- the programming would ignore the non compression pulse. The trigger
transducer would give top dead center of the first cylinder. RPM is a given
(the computer counts and gets the exact RPM) and the firing order is
calculated -- with advance -- accordingly. One need a pressure transducer
built into that first cylinder spark plug device -- to tell the computer
which is the "beginning" power stroke. On the other hand -- a simple limit
switch on an exhaust valve (or intake) would do the same. This could be a
simple, solid state, proximity switch. Many ways to skin that cat -- but
under computer control -- you only need that one indexing point -- plus a
yes/no.

But your also right -- it probably would be quicker to adapt a distributer
to the cam.

>> You could then plug the timing into your PC and move it around as one
>> wanted -- by simply clicking the keyboard.
>
> Companies like Eco Fuels in Langley, B.C. are working on fuel maps for
>various computerized engine applications. I've heard discussion that some of
>these may be effective for the type of thing you are proposing here.

Take a look at this Url:

http://www.rodi.com/Products/Engine/engine.html

This should be very enlightening regarding complete computer control of a
diesel -- just as one example.

>
>> imagine spark advance -- or timing -- is part of the formula as well.
>
> Modern turbo diesels utilize engine speed, air density, turbo boost and
>throttle position as variables in their fuel maps. Torque and horsepower
can be
>altered with a laptop computer. I've seen the system for Cummins N14 engines
>(these displace about 10 liters), and it's very impressive!
>
>> So -- why doesn't some one do this? Looks so easy to me.
>
> I think it can be done. Where is the market for producer gas engines?
>

Right now -- not so great. But it is that old -- which come first -- the
chicken or the egg?

There are so many diesel engines out there of all sizes. A simple diesel
engine conversion kit for spark ignition using producer gas would
definitely open much more interest in this area.

The ideal producer gas engine is one that does the job well and does not
require any diesel fuel.

If one bought a new diesel -- with out the injection system -- the saving
in costs should more than pay for the spark ignition device.

The real question is can a diesel be converted in such a manner?? That is
without having to reduce it's compression ratios -- be that purely due to
piston/combustion chamber configuration -- or due to super/turbo charging.

Remember -- the "charged" diesel has a lower compression ration in
consideration of the forced loading. In the end -- it is the pressure --
not so much the compression ration -- that is important in modern, high
efficiency, diesels.

As it stands now -- we are told this must be reduced in order to operate
using producer gas.

This is a major "mechanical" adaptation. I simple wonder why compression
must be lowered when running producer gas only -- when it does not need to
be when running a small amount of diesel??

Pre-ignition in a small "squeeze" chamber -- built into an adaptor that
retrofits right into the same place the standard diesel injector fits --
would seem to be a viable direction of investigation.

Hooking up a spark ignition system -- be it totally computerized -- or by
simply fitting a distributer to the cam -- is not a problem.

Finding the ideal method to ignite the compressed producer gas appears to
be a problem -- why else the reduction in compression ratios?

That is the question here??

If I was still in Canada -- I would be picking up a scrap Cummins truck
diesel for next to nothing and doing some quick experimenting. An old 220
Cummins -- as example. Or even an old 185 HP Mack diesel. Nobody runs these
engines anymore. So even in still good running condition -- they are very
cheap. And so many were made!

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

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

From tmiles at teleport.com Tue May 2 21:39:48 2000
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Please Complete CREST Survey
Message-ID: <4.3.2.20000502184029.042ef100@mail.teleport.com>

The Bioenergy Discussion Lists are Hosted by CREST

CREST Survey 2000
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://solstice.crest.org/survey2000
Win Fantastic Prizes, CD-ROMs and Ultimate Frisbees (tm)
( see http://solstice.crest.org/software-central for software
descriptions).

Fill out our 6th anniversary survey and we'll throw your name into a hat
to win CD-ROMs and glow-in-the-dark CREST Frisbees (tm)! REPP-CREST's
award-winning web site, Solstice, was launched on Earth Day 1994. Please
take a minute to help us celebrate our anniversary, and we'll use the
information you provide to improve our services to you. Don't forget your
email so we can notify you when you've won!
Note: while the survey will be up through June, you must fill out the
survey before May 31 in order to to be entered in the drawing for prizes.

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Wed May 3 08:53:54 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass Gasifier
Message-ID: <73.2ec9f41.26417b3e@cs.com>

Dear Brien:

In addition to the links that Ron Bailey mentions, please visit

The Biomass Energy Foundation website at www.woodgas.com

and the Community Power site at www.gocpc.com

Yours truly, Thomas Reed BEF/CPC

In a message dated 5/1/00 10:56:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
rbaileys@prmenergy.com writes:

<<
Dear Brien Cameron Bell:
For Biomass Gasification of wood waste and other biomass fuels, please visit
the following web sites:
http://www.prmenergy.com
http://www.primenergy.com
http://www.guascor.com
Regards,
Ron Bailey
PRM Energy Systems, Inc.
>>
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 May 3 08:54:03 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal Combustion with Producer Gas
Message-ID: <63.5135d8a.26417b40@cs.com>

Dear Darren, Peter et al:

I'm sure others will answer the question " Also -- what is the standard
compression ratios for a diesel engine?? I should know but have forgotten!"
and I look forward to Prof. Parikh's answer, but for now...

There is no generic answer. Small diesels can be as high as 25/1 (hard to
light the fire in tiny chambers) and I believe large diesels can be as low as
14/1.

Yours, TOm REED CPC/BEF

In a message dated 5/1/00 10:34:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dschmidt@undeerc.org writes:

Hi;

Also -- what is the standard compression ratios for a diesel engine?? I
should know but have forgotten!

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 Reedtb2 at cs.com Wed May 3 08:54:04 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Torrefied wood's Future...
Message-ID: <15.34bc109.26417b46@cs.com>

Dear Jim:

Thanks so much for doing my homework for me on Torrefied wood. I'm starting
a file on this subject.

I believe a plant was started in Spain in the mid-1980s to make TW, but has
closed down. Does anyone know more about this? (I presume the economics
were projected to be marvellous, but turned out to be terrible at a time when
oil costs were plummeting. No doubt, someday we'll do it again. Meanwhile
we need to preserve the technology in musty files.)

Thanks, TOM REED CPC/BEF

In a message dated 4/30/00 8:10:25 AM Pacific Daylight Time, larcon@sni.net
writes:

<<

Dear Tom Reed et al:

The French paper "Charcoal production and pyrolysis technologies". REUR
Technical Series No. 20, 1991, p.101 - 114, publ. by the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, is on
my web site at http://www.techtp.com/torrefied%20wood.htm

The French also have a patent US 4,787,917: Method for producing torrefied
wood, product obtained thereby, and application to the production of energy
Leclerc de Bussy; Jacques (80290 Poix de Picardie, Bussy, FR) Issued
November 29, 1988

Abstract

New product consisting of wood which is torrefied between 250.degree. and
280.degree. C. in a non oxidizing atmosphere, in the form of sticks of
uniform length: 15 mm for example and having a diameter comprised between 5
and 20 mm, which are not disbarked. The preparation of the method comprised
the obtention by culture of rectilinear ligneous rejections, the cutting,
drying and torrefaction thereof preferably in a vertical reactor where the
material to be torrefied is traversed by a gas stream circulating at high
speed. See http://www.techtp.com/patents.htm

more:

Pentananunt, R. ,Rahman, A.N.M.M. and Bhattacharya, S.C.
(1990), Upgrading of biomass by means of torrefaction, Energy, Vol.15,
No.12, pp.1175-1179.

Fonseca Felfli, F, Luengo, C.A., Bezzon G. and Beaton Soler, P. (1998),
Bench unit for biomass residues torrefaction, Biomass for Energy and
Industry, Proceedings of the International Conference, W¸rzburg, Germany,
8-11 June 1998, Ed. by Kopetz, Weber, Palz, Chartier and Ferrero,
C.A.R.M.E.N., Rimpar Germany, 1998, p.1593-1595.

Fonseca Felfli, F, Luengo, C.A., Bezzon G., Beaton Soler, P. and Suros Mora,
W.(1998), A numerical model for biomass torrefaction, Biomass for Energy and
Industry, Proceedings of the International Conference, W¸rzburg, Germany,
8-11 June 1998, Ed. by Kopetz, Weber, Palz, Chartier and Ferrero,
C.A.R.M.E.N., Rimpar Germany, 1998, p.1596-1599.

==============

Tom Reed said "However, even better than roasting the wood would be roasting
followed by densification to pellets or briquettes while it is in its hot,
weak state. Should reduce the energy for briquetting by a factor of 2-5.
(See our 1981 paper.)

Where is this paper ? on line ?

We could also produce the briquettes first (e.g., from "preheated" sawdust &
bark) and then torrefy the briquettes. Which is "better" ? Please see page
66 of Section
7.4 of Carbonization & Torrefaction of Briquettes at
http://www.rwedp.org/acrobat/rm23.pdf

RWEDP Report No. 23 REGIONAL WOOD ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME IN ASIA
GCP/RAS/154/NET Proceedings OF THE INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON BIOMASS
BRIQUETTING NEW DELHI, INDIA (3- 6 APRIL 1995).

best regards to all,

Jim Arcate
Transnational Technology
www.techtp.com

----- Original Message -----
From: <Reedtb2@cs.com>
To: <arcate@email.msn.com>; <gasification@crest.org>; <stoves@crest.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2000 3:29 AM
Subject: Re: Torrefied Wood (TW)

Dear Jim et al:

The French know most about this, so the following is off the top of my head
and I applaud your effort to assemble better data on your site. Run it by
me if you like.

By "roasting" wood and other biomass at about 250 C (?) one removes physical
water, plus some water and CO2 of constitution and produces a fuel with ~25
MJ/kg (?) rather than the typical 18 MJ of 10% moisture fuel. This is
better for storing, shipping and burning biomass.

The roasted wood has a chocolate color and ignites instantly with a match.
I believe the origins come from charcoal making in piles where the outer few
pieces haven't gone all the way to charcoal, but are great cooking wood.
They are sometimes called "brands".
I became interested in Torrefied wood about 1980 and have followed its
fortunes out of the corner of my eye. (Does anyone know the derivation of
"torrified"? - sounds like vacuumified rather than roastedified.)

I believe a plant operated for a while in Spain, but the poor economics of
all biomass in a period of low oil costs may have shut it down.

However, even better than roasting the wood would be roasting followed by
densification to pellets or briquettes while it is in its hot, weak state.
Should reduce the energy for briquetting by a factor of 2-5.
(See our 1981 paper.)

Keep me posted....

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF/CPC

>>
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 May 3 08:54:09 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal Combustion with Producer Gas
Message-ID: <be.359aa46.26417b39@cs.com>

Dear Peter et al:

Duh. You said :

WRONG WRONG! No problem with "spark", except the trouble of converting. The
trouble with not converting is (1) you continue to use 20% diesel and (2) you
are always tempted to trash the gasifier and use pure diesel. If you convert
to spark you'll be OK.

Maybe my earlier message was unclear. The reason the producer gas doesn';t
ignite in pressure ignition is that it has a very high octane - and a very
low cetane number. Ergo, you can use spark ignition or pilot diesel.

Lots of labs are now using "spark converted diesel" engines. See Prof.
Parikh/Shashikantha excellent paper at recent ASME meeting based on SHshi's 8
year thesis. Can you post Mrs. P?

~~~~

>Pure hydrogen is far richer than producer gas with all that nitrogen.

Wrong. Pure hydrogen contains 300 Btu/scf and producer gas is typically 150
Btu/scf. Not "far" richer, but a factor of two for sure.

FUel injection is of course out of the question, since compressing the weak
producer gas - or the hydrogen (unless at tank pressure) would be
prohibitively expensive.

~~~~~~~

This is a major "mechanical" adaptation. I simple wonder why compression
must be lowered when running producer gas only -- when it does not need to
be when running a small amount of diesel??

Probably doesn't need to be reduced, due to the reduced charge, even at the
high CR. BUt I hope we hear form Prof. P. on why she thinks 11-3 CR is
optimum.

I presume one can add an extra head gasket to reduce CR?

YOurs truly, 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 Wed May 3 08:54:20 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Warning on: bunsen burner flame temp
Message-ID: <28.51cfc87.26417b47@cs.com>

Dear Casie et al:

You need to be warned that this is a very complicated subject and I have been
dancing around in the answer for 50 years.

When gas burns a certain amount of heat is released and that heat is
distributed amongst the combustion products, the CO2, and H2O from combustion
of the gas; the N2 from the air if exactly the right mixture is used; and
excess air for too lean a mixture and excess CO and H2 if too rich a mixture
is used.

For the perfect mixture the "adiabatic flame temperature" is around 3000 C
for oxygen flames and 2000 C for air flames. THese temperatures are all
listed for various gases in the North American Combustion Handbook.

However, in order to measure the temperature it is necessary to use "sodium
line reversal or other fancy techniques.

If you put a wire or thermocouple in the flame it will reach a temperature
such that the heat from the flame is exactly balanced by the heat loss by
radiation or other cooling. That is NOT the flame temperature. However,
naive people often think it is.

So your project could take the rest of your life!

Yours truly, TOM REED

In a message dated 4/29/00 10:08:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
CCDream19@aol.com writes:

<<

Hi, Im doing a lab in my chemistry class where we have to find the
temperature of a bunsen burner flame. We can use any materials in the lab
station and by finding the melting point of some chemicals we've determined
its between 1063- and 1535 degrees C. But I dont know where do go from here
to find the exact temp. My teacher is hinting at using a calorimeter and
water for something but I'm lost. If you have any suggestions I would
greatly
appreciate it! Thanks!
Casie

>>
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 maximilian.lauer at joanneum.ac.at Wed May 3 09:27:25 2000
From: maximilian.lauer at joanneum.ac.at (Lauer, Maximilian)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:27 2004
Subject: AW: GAS-L: Torrefied Wood (TW)
Message-ID: <200005031327.GAA22462@secure.crest.net>

AAA32349
Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: gasification@crest.org

For papers and references on torrified wood please contact

Mr. Philippe Girard at
Cirad Foret, Montpellier, France;
philippe.girard@cirad.fr

Regards

Maximilian Lauer
JOANNEUM RESEARCH
A-8010 Graz, Elisabethstrasse 5
Tel: +43 (0)316 876 1336
Fax: +43 (0)316 876 1320
e-mail: max.lauer@joanneum.ac.at

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Jim Arcate [mailto:arcate@email.msn.com]
Gesendet am: Freitag, 28. April 2000 21:35
An: stoves@crest.org; bioenergy@crest.org; gasification@crest.org
Betreff: GAS-L: Torrefied Wood (TW)

Hello Everyone:

I request your assistance in compiling a bibliography of papers and other
references about biomass torrefaction, torrefied wood (TW) etc. to publish
on my web site www.techtp.com

Work on biomass torrefaction has been done in different locations, different
time periods and for different reasons. Through the web we can "concentrate"
people and know-how to apply "old technology" to new uses (e.g., TW for
co-firing with coal at utility PC power plants as well as for regional
applications in the 2nd and 3rd world).

The TW bibliography will help convince those allocating development funds
that TW is a viable bioenergy option, and true to Transnational Technology's
goals indicate the "width" of the concept internationally.

Thank You.

Jim Arcate
Transnational Technology
www.techtp.com

From energy2 at vsnl.com Wed May 3 09:27:27 2000
From: energy2 at vsnl.com (A.K. Sachdeva)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal Combustion with Producer Gas
Message-ID: <200005031327.GAA22476@secure.crest.net>

Is there anyone doing the experimentation on / developing producer gas or
any other gas conversion kits for Diesel Engines . Some time back I did
come across a company but have lost track of it .

Anil K Sachdeva
Consulting Engineers Company
New Delhi
India

energy2@vsnl.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Singfield <snkm@btl.net>
To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Date: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 6:23 AM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Internal Combustion with Producer Gas

>At 08:06 PM 5/1/00 -0700, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>Peter Singfield wrote:
>>
>>> OK -- if producer gas works fine in a regular diesel using fuel
injection
>>> ignition -- why can't is work at those same compression ratios using
spark
>>> ignition??
>>
>> The actual fuel burned in the engine shouldn't matter, as long as the
>>internal parts can handle the stress and everything is set up to avoid pre
>>ignition. Pilot diesel injection is an effective strategy because it
>requires
>>little, if any, modifications to the engine itself. The diesel injectors
>run in
>>"idle" continuously and the externally mixed gas takes up the rest of the
>load.
>
>Obviously there is an ignition problem with just "spark". The diesel
>principle is injection of a fuel into an atmosphere heated to the flash
>point of that fuel with enough oxygen present to accomplish combustion.
>
>Some gasses -- such as ethel ether -- ignite at lower temperatures -- ergo
>-- ether is used for cold starting diesels.
>
>Other gasses require to high a temperature to ignite??? Why will producer
>gas not ignite in that highly heated environment?
>
>As it stands now -- the little bit of diesel fuel injected into that
>heated, compressed, mixture of producer gas with air -- does ignite and
>that "flame" ignites the entire charge of air and producer gas.
>
>My suggestion is to ignite a part of compressed producer gas air charge in
>a spark plug "chamber" and then the flame from that would ignite the main
>chamber mixture -- closely approximating what diesel injection does in that
>same circumstance. This would allow running at standard diesel compression
>ratios.
>
>Since diesel engines are relatively low RPM compared to high performance
>gasoline engines -- there is no problem in the delayed firing due to flame
>ignition verses direct spark ignition. And simply adjusting timing will
>properly compensate.
>
>Mind you -- there is one more factor -- it is called detonation. Better
>known as "knocking". The small amount of diesel fuel being injected may
>well be required to control detonation. If so -- water injection (much
>cheaper than diesel fuel) might well achieve the same results.
>
>>
>> Some hydrogen conversions I've read about use modified spark plugs
>installed
>>where the diesel glow plugs are normally found. In this manner, little
>>machining, if any, is necessary, and again, the fuel is mixed outside the
>>cylinder.
>
>what do you do when there are no glow plugs?? The injector is easily
>replaced with a spark ignition device.
>
>>
>> I think direct injection is a better strategy because it avoids
>throttling
>>losses, backfire and a host of other woes. (With producer gas as the
>fuel, high
>>pressures would be necessary to get sufficient power. This is certainly
>>possible, but I wonder if it's really viable. The big engine makers like
>>Caterpillar still rely on external mixing for natural gas.)
>
>Good points. I believe that one has to live with the throttling losses in
>this case. I can see methods to inject producer gas at 2000 PSI plus -- but
>it become a very expensive modification.
>
>
> Roy McAlister of the
>>American Hydrogen Association advocates a "spark ignitor/injector" that
>serves to
>>deliver fuel to the cylinder AND fire it off with a spark. In this way,
any
>>engine can be easily modified for direct injection. I've been waiting for
>many
>>years for his prototype to become a reality, yet no product appears
>imminent as I
>>write this.
>
>Pure hydrogen is far richer than producer gas with all that nitrogen.
>
>
>>> It would be easy to machine a spark plug adapter that would fit into the
>>> injection fitting port -- that would increase volume as much as one
>>> required as well as being a precombustion chamber.
>>
>> Direct injecting a gaseous fuel creates a "variable compression ratio"
>>engine. The compression ratio would fluctuate according to demand, and if
>>controlled by a microprocessor with an appropriate fuel map, could produce
>more
>>power than an externally mixed gasoline engine of equal displacement.
>
>Probably true.
>>
>> I would love to see an engine operating with such a direct injection
>>strategy, coupled with variable valve timing and intercooled turbo
>charging! In
>>your words, Peter, we'd be moving out of the flathead age, for sure! (Ok,
>if I'm
>>going to dream, I'd want a cross flow hemi head too. . .)
>>
>>> And not other changes need be made to that engine -- except clipping a
>>> magnetic transducer at the right place on the pulley riding the front of
>>> the crankshaft.
>>
>> Four stroke engines only take in fuel on every other crankshaft
>>rotation--that's why cam sprockets are twice the size of crank sprockets.
>I'm
>>sure you know this. One strategy that may work for popular engines (like
the
>>small block Chevrolet) is a belt driven distributor that bolts onto the
front
>>part of the timing cover. These are manufactured for racing engines, but
>can be
>>adapted to serve as timing devices for direct injection.
>>
>
>No -- the programming would ignore the non compression pulse. The trigger
>transducer would give top dead center of the first cylinder. RPM is a given
>(the computer counts and gets the exact RPM) and the firing order is
>calculated -- with advance -- accordingly. One need a pressure transducer
>built into that first cylinder spark plug device -- to tell the computer
>which is the "beginning" power stroke. On the other hand -- a simple limit
>switch on an exhaust valve (or intake) would do the same. This could be a
>simple, solid state, proximity switch. Many ways to skin that cat -- but
>under computer control -- you only need that one indexing point -- plus a
>yes/no.
>
>But your also right -- it probably would be quicker to adapt a distributer
>to the cam.
>
>
>>> You could then plug the timing into your PC and move it around as one
>>> wanted -- by simply clicking the keyboard.
>>
>> Companies like Eco Fuels in Langley, B.C. are working on fuel maps for
>>various computerized engine applications. I've heard discussion that some
of
>>these may be effective for the type of thing you are proposing here.
>
>Take a look at this Url:
>
>http://www.rodi.com/Products/Engine/engine.html
>
>This should be very enlightening regarding complete computer control of a
>diesel -- just as one example.
>
>
>>
>>> imagine spark advance -- or timing -- is part of the formula as well.
>>
>> Modern turbo diesels utilize engine speed, air density, turbo boost
and
>>throttle position as variables in their fuel maps. Torque and horsepower
>can be
>>altered with a laptop computer. I've seen the system for Cummins N14
engines
>>(these displace about 10 liters), and it's very impressive!
>>
>>> So -- why doesn't some one do this? Looks so easy to me.
>>
>> I think it can be done. Where is the market for producer gas engines?
>>
>
>Right now -- not so great. But it is that old -- which come first -- the
>chicken or the egg?
>
>There are so many diesel engines out there of all sizes. A simple diesel
>engine conversion kit for spark ignition using producer gas would
>definitely open much more interest in this area.
>
>The ideal producer gas engine is one that does the job well and does not
>require any diesel fuel.
>
>If one bought a new diesel -- with out the injection system -- the saving
>in costs should more than pay for the spark ignition device.
>
>The real question is can a diesel be converted in such a manner?? That is
>without having to reduce it's compression ratios -- be that purely due to
>piston/combustion chamber configuration -- or due to super/turbo charging.
>
>Remember -- the "charged" diesel has a lower compression ration in
>consideration of the forced loading. In the end -- it is the pressure --
>not so much the compression ration -- that is important in modern, high
>efficiency, diesels.
>
>As it stands now -- we are told this must be reduced in order to operate
>using producer gas.
>
>This is a major "mechanical" adaptation. I simple wonder why compression
>must be lowered when running producer gas only -- when it does not need to
>be when running a small amount of diesel??
>
>Pre-ignition in a small "squeeze" chamber -- built into an adaptor that
>retrofits right into the same place the standard diesel injector fits --
>would seem to be a viable direction of investigation.
>
>Hooking up a spark ignition system -- be it totally computerized -- or by
>simply fitting a distributer to the cam -- is not a problem.
>
>Finding the ideal method to ignite the compressed producer gas appears to
>be a problem -- why else the reduction in compression ratios?
>
>That is the question here??
>
>If I was still in Canada -- I would be picking up a scrap Cummins truck
>diesel for next to nothing and doing some quick experimenting. An old 220
>Cummins -- as example. Or even an old 185 HP Mack diesel. Nobody runs these
>engines anymore. So even in still good running condition -- they are very
>cheap. And so many were made!
>
>
>Peter Singfield
>COROGEN
>Executive Director
>Xaibe Village
>Corozal District
>Belize, Central America
>Tel 501-4-35213
>E-mail: snkm@btl.net
>
>
>>robert luis rabello
>>
>>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>>
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>

From e.a.bramer at wb.utwente.nl Wed May 3 09:27:27 2000
From: e.a.bramer at wb.utwente.nl (e.a.bramer@wb.utwente.nl)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: vacancy Post-doc
Message-ID: <200005031327.GAA22478@secure.crest.net>

Dear Colleagues,

We are involved in a project to reduce tar formation by
process modifications for biomass fuelled fluidised bed
gasifiers.

We are looking for a Post-doc (mechanical or chemical
engineering) on a temporary basis for approximately 12
months.

The activities of the post-doc will be the classification of tars
in characteristic groups. The classification will be directed by
the problems of the tars in the downstream equipment. Then a
relation between the tar formation an tar behaviour for the
different classes has to be found. Also research has to be done
on possible measures to reduce the formation of different tar
classes.

Information about the group and the position can be found at:
www.thw.wb.utwente.nl

>
> Should any one be interested, please contact us.
>
>
> Yours sincerely,
> Eddy Bramer
Ir. E.A. Bramer |e-mail:e.a.bramer@wb.utwente.nl
P.O.Box 217
7500 AE Enschede
The Netherlands
tel +31 53-4892597/2530
fax +31 53-4893663

From snkm at btl.net Wed May 3 10:03:12 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal Combustion with Producer Gas
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000503080235.008b77a0@wgs1.btl.net>

Tom;

Bare with me here --

Yes -- we all know producer gas has a high very high octane - and a very
low cetane number. But why can't spark ignition be done at the 16 to 18:1
compression ratios of the standard diesel -- why must it be reduced to 12:1??

That my friend is the question -- not whether spark ignition works. We know
it works.

But why only at 12 to 1 maximum??

When combined with diesel injection -- it works at regular compression levels.

There is two reasons it would be nice not to have to reduce compression
ratios in that "standard" diesel.

One -- higher efficiencies.

Two -- much lest retrofitting.

Do you grasp what we are trying to derive here yet??

Prof. Parikh/Shashikantha has stated that twelve to one is the highest
optimal compression ratio for spark ignition.

I am simply trying to deduce why.

My "theory" is that direct spark ignition of the charge is not suitable
(Based on Prof.Parikh/Shashikantha actual observations!) -- ergo am
suggesting spark then flame ignition -- which more closely approximates
fuel injection ignition. Ergo -- then we could stay at those higher
compression ratios.

Can you understand any of this?? Sorry -- I have this habit of thinking
people are following my thought patterns. Maybe I jumped ahead to fast??

Hopefully -- the repetition above of what I am trying to discuss here can
be understood now???

So -- lets try again ----

Peter/Belize

At 08:53 AM 5/3/00 EDT, you wrote:
>Dear Peter et al:
>
>Duh. You said :
>
> Obviously there is an ignition problem with just "spark". The diesel
> principle is injection of a fuel into an atmosphere heated to the flash
> point of that fuel with enough oxygen present to accomplish combustion.
>
>WRONG WRONG! No problem with "spark", except the trouble of converting.
The
>trouble with not converting is (1) you continue to use 20% diesel and (2)
you
>are always tempted to trash the gasifier and use pure diesel. If you
convert
>to spark you'll be OK.
>
>Maybe my earlier message was unclear. The reason the producer gas doesn';t
>ignite in pressure ignition is that it has a very high octane - and a very
>low cetane number. Ergo, you can use spark ignition or pilot diesel.
>
> Lots of labs are now using "spark converted diesel" engines. See Prof.
>Parikh/Shashikantha excellent paper at recent ASME meeting based on
SHshi's 8
>year thesis. Can you post Mrs. P?
>
> ~~~~
>
>
>>Pure hydrogen is far richer than producer gas with all that nitrogen.
>
>Wrong. Pure hydrogen contains 300 Btu/scf and producer gas is typically 150
>Btu/scf. Not "far" richer, but a factor of two for sure.
>
>FUel injection is of course out of the question, since compressing the weak
>producer gas - or the hydrogen (unless at tank pressure) would be
>prohibitively expensive.
>
> ~~~~~~~
>
>This is a major "mechanical" adaptation. I simple wonder why compression
>must be lowered when running producer gas only -- when it does not need to
>be when running a small amount of diesel??
>
>Probably doesn't need to be reduced, due to the reduced charge, even at the
>high CR. BUt I hope we hear form Prof. P. on why she thinks 11-3 CR is
>optimum.
>
>I presume one can add an extra head gasket to reduce CR?
>
>YOurs truly, 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
>
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 costaeec at kcnet.com Wed May 3 10:18:26 2000
From: costaeec at kcnet.com (Jim Dunham)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Reports on biomass gasification
Message-ID: <001a01bfb512$c9137e80$4365f0d1@default>

Thanks for the helpfull list.

How do we contact TERI's library?

Jim Dunham
-----Original Message-----
From: V V N Kishore <vvnk@teri.res.in>
To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Date: Thursday, April 06, 2000 3:44 AM
Subject: GAS-L: Reports on biomass gasification

>Dear All,
>
>Following reports pertaining to Biomass Energy Technology Applications area
on biomass gasification are available in TERI's library. Any body who is
interested in procuring the copy will directly get in touch with the
library.
>
>1. Design, fabrication, testing and field demonstration of biomass
gasifier systems for irrigation pumping (December 1990).
>
>2. Guidelines for the appraisal of investment plans for briquetting plants
and study of social acceptability of briquettes as a fuel (February 1995).
>
>3. Study of ovens in silk reeling units (1995).
>
>4. A study of cardamom curing chambers in Sikkim with reference to energy
efficiency and technology upgradation (April 1996).
>
>5. Advanced solar-hybrid adsorption cooling system for decentralised
storage of agricultural products in India - final report phase 1 (October
1996).
>
>6. Development of briquetting gasification system for utilisation of
biomass wastes (August 1996).
>
>7. Development of gasifier based silk reeling oven - Phase 1 (January
1997).
>
>8. Development of wood-gas based silk reeling oven - Phase 2 (June 1997).
>
>9. Greenhouse gases from small scale combustion in developing countries
(1997)
>
>10. Design, development and field testing of an advanced cardamom curing
chamber prototype for Sikkim (Action Research Phase) (December 1998).
>
>11. Developing and field testing industrial prototype of wood
gasifier-based silk reeling oven and other related activities (December
1998).
>
>12. Design, development and field testing of an advanced cardamom curing
chamber prototype for Sikkim ( Pilot scale phase) (1999).
>
>
>
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>

From snkm at btl.net Wed May 3 10:23:14 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal Combustion with Producer Gas
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000503082232.008b58b0@wgs1.btl.net>

Agreed Tom -- but for "practical" applications where standard diesel motors
will actually be used for running diesel/producer gas -- would this not be
around 16 to 18:1??

Now -- here is another question -- of great importance!

What about two stroke diesels! They normally use pressurized (like in turbo
or super charging) air to scavenge the cylinder. It has always been my
impression -- having operated many GMC diesels -- that a great surplus of
that air is blown out the exhaust.

This is not going to be good for producer gas enriched air intake systems
-- efficiencies will drop with all the producer gas going through and not
being combusted.

Comments??

I have one such application at hand now. Am thinking I can probably burn
the exhaust to produce further heat.

This is OK -- as it is a rice producing facility and they need the heat for
drying.

But they are running GMC diesels for power generation -- and the expense to
change those motors kills the deal.

Geez -- I hope I am not getting to far ahead of this list again!!! Like in
nobody being able to grasp the compression thingy. So important -- yet so
"ignored"!!

Now Tom -- seems to me you are in the business of selling gasifiers for
applications just as I am presently involved in.

I was hoping for a broader understanding of the principles involved.

In this application -- they would like to go 100% producer gas. But again
-- tearing down diesels to alter compression ratios kills the deal.

Can you understand any of this?? We are talking real projects in real time
now --

And yes -- can you gasify rice husks to do this??

They are presently spending $10,000 US per month for diesel fuel.

I have a number of such prospects. Here in Belize alone!

Now if this gasifier business works -- I need answers -- not stone walling!

It also has to be just as reliable -- and save money -- not cost more.

Ergo -- my sudden interest in the producer gas to engine subject!

Your "pining" away on the wrong details is not constructive at all. I know
all about "smoke-screening". That simply hides facts that show the device
in a bad light -- and does not lead to any solutions of the problems.

Which I believe have been very clearly stated.

We are not dealing with 25:1 -- or 14:1 but with standard diesel power
plant diesel engines! and we can't tell the customer to change them for
something "special" in order for the gasifier to work! Not in this "real"
world -- where there is not funding or subsidizing. If it don't work the
buyer goes broke!

My job is to make sure it works!

Peter

At 08:53 AM 5/3/00 EDT, you wrote:
>Dear Darren, Peter et al:
>
>I'm sure others will answer the question " Also -- what is the standard
>compression ratios for a diesel engine?? I should know but have forgotten!"
>and I look forward to Prof. Parikh's answer, but for now...
>
>There is no generic answer. Small diesels can be as high as 25/1 (hard to
>light the fire in tiny chambers) and I believe large diesels can be as low
as
>14/1.
>
>Yours, TOm REED CPC/BEF
>
>
>
>
>In a message dated 5/1/00 10:34:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
>dschmidt@undeerc.org writes:
>
>
> Hi;
>
> Also -- what is the standard compression ratios for a diesel engine?? I
> should know but have forgotten!
>
> 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 LINVENT at aol.com Wed May 3 10:45:14 2000
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal Combustion with Producer Gas
Message-ID: <79.392cc80.26419558@aol.com>

Peter in Belize,
Most diesels do not need compression changing to operate directly on
producer gas. 2 cycle engines do blow air through the cylinder and often this
is excess air. However, just imagine if you have an air fuel mixture in the
blower, manifold and the piston drops down to let air in and exhaust out and
hits the incoming air:fuel mixture? I have wanted to experiment with 2 cycle
diesel with all of the GMC engines I have, but this appears to be a severely
limiting factor in conversion of those types of engines. Used engine
generator sets are fairly inexpensive if bought right.
Our systems are generally too big for the small size load which you have
indicated. We are building a smaller unit for general heating applications
which is less expensive and may be applicable.

From rbaileys at prmenergy.com Wed May 3 12:00:29 2000
From: rbaileys at prmenergy.com (Ron Bailey, Sr)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal Combustion with Producer Gas
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000503082232.008b58b0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <000901bfb518$91d28a00$0501a8c0@Ronsr>

Dear Peter:
What size are your "number of projects" for rice husk fired engine generator
systems?
Ron Bailey
PRM Energy Systems, Inc.

From snkm at btl.net Wed May 3 12:52:06 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal Combustion with Producer Gas
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000503101540.008b6c60@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Tom T;

I see no reason it will not work for a two stroke diesel except efficiency
will be lost due to exhaust losses.

However -- in applications where heat is needed -- such as drying rice --
this should not be a problem. Further mixing with the right amount air (say
even hot air from the radiator) should also allow that residual gas to burn.

There probably is already enough air just in that scavenging!

The experiment would be simply hooking up to the 2 stroke as is presently
achieved with the four stroke. Except the gasifier will have to be much
larger than for the same HP 4 stroke.

Most electrical power diesel gen sets here -- those around the 100 kwh size
-- are GMC two strokes. They "gang" these together to produce the total
amount required.

Even the saw mills use a lot of GMC's. Though Caterpillar bull dozer
engines are used as well.

Interesting what happens when we try to apply this technology to real
circumstances in 3rd world. Totally different scenario than a modern
industrial country with all those Government grants.

Personally -- I feel gasification must be geared to 3rd world -- where the
demand for such exists now -- rather than more exotic "experiments" in 1st
world.

Peter/Belize

At 10:44 AM 5/3/00 EDT, you wrote:
>Peter in Belize,
> Most diesels do not need compression changing to operate directly on
>producer gas. 2 cycle engines do blow air through the cylinder and often
this
>is excess air. However, just imagine if you have an air fuel mixture in the
>blower, manifold and the piston drops down to let air in and exhaust out and
>hits the incoming air:fuel mixture? I have wanted to experiment with 2
cycle
>diesel with all of the GMC engines I have, but this appears to be a severely
>limiting factor in conversion of those types of engines. Used engine
>generator sets are fairly inexpensive if bought right.
> Our systems are generally too big for the small size load which you have
>indicated. We are building a smaller unit for general heating applications
>which is less expensive and may be applicable.
>
>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 Wed May 3 12:52:11 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: stratified charge combustion
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000503105135.008d8100@wgs1.btl.net>

Ok Folks:

http://www.pegasuspower.com/The%20Product.htm

The following from that source:

The patented stratified charge combustion concept is used by Rotary
Power in its SCORETM engines in order to optimize burning of fuel in
the elongated combustion chamber. In this process, there are two
high-pressure injection nozzles. The pilot injector injects a small
amount of fuel that is ignited by an electrically energized source.
This creates a pilot flame which ignites a larger amount of fuel
which is injected by the main injector as the rotor sweeps past it,
creating a layered (stratified) charge. This dual injection system
results in more complete combustion of the fuel thus reducing
emissions and improving fuel economy.

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

Now that is what I was talking about!

By the way -- Pegasus Power is based around a Wankel design rotary engine.
They have just announced a partnership development program with BG. We are
talking motors up to 3000 HP here!

Further -- at:

http://www.pegasuspower.com/bgjointvent.htm

BG supplies a gasifier based on the India technology. That is producer gas
well adapted (cleaned) for I.C. engines.

They make gasifiers to size to operate 400 kwh diesel/producer gas power
plants.

Check them out at:

http://www.bgtechnologies.net

I have been under the impression everyone on this list was up to date
regarding the technology. If not -- here is your chance to update your files.

By the way -- my job in all this is to guide people to the best that is
available at the most plausible costs.

My "hobby" is tinkering.

The two do combine at times. Such as at present -- to tinker a series of
two stroke diesel gen sets to run on pure producer gas and using the
residuals in the exhaust to meet heating needs.

While most of the people on this list would attempt to achieve such through
a well written grant proposal -- I have to supply it in real world for real
applications -- with absolutely no outside funding. Which boils down to
meaning -- for free or less!

But it allows me not to be stuck in a rut!

I'm surprised and even a little shocked that there has been no greater
investigation in the directions this present thread has been involved with!

To me -- the question of running a diesel 100% on producer gas with minimum
of modifications would be of prime concern in the promotion of gasifiers
for real time applications.

Especially in the 100 to 400 KWH range.

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

From snkm at btl.net Wed May 3 13:45:43 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Retrofit kits --
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000503112902.008d9620@wgs1.btl.net>

Aside from those Url's I just posted Anil -- those dealing with new rotary
engines and BG technology -- there is not much else.

BG is very involved in retrofitting producer gas to intake diesel injection
ignition situations.

But 100% producer gas in diesel engines is practically non existent.

Which aspect of conversion are you interested in??

Do you have experience in this domain?

Such a fascinating subject!

Peter/Belize

At 10:53 AM 5/3/00 +0530, you wrote:
>Is there anyone doing the experimentation on / developing producer gas or
>any other gas conversion kits for Diesel Engines . Some time back I did
>come across a company but have lost track of it .
>
>Anil K Sachdeva
>Consulting Engineers Company
>New Delhi
>India
>
>energy2@vsnl.com
>

From snkm at btl.net Wed May 3 13:45:49 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal Combustion with Producer Gas
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000503114334.008e2670@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Ron;

>Peter,
>I just got an inquire ,for the gasifier. The client is interested in running
>a 150KW gen set on rice husk. Very interested, would also look on
>financing.Actually there are two potential client. The engine for the first
>one is a 6-71 in line Detroit Diesel.They will also be looking at the drying
>aspect for rice etc.
>Please let me know if we can get a quote.
>Zain
>Sealand Harvesters Ltd.

This was followed by a long phone call -- and in the next few days I will
need to make an on site appraisal.

I would say at least 5 operations of this size -- some a little smaller --
some a little large.

I forward this as example of where the market is here in Belize -- a very
small country. 230,000 population.

The market across the border in Mexico and Guatemala would be much larger.

The point is that these "plants" are already existing and operating on
diesel fuel. You find so much of that here -- where power grids do not
exist and electricity costs 18 cents (US) per KWH.

While people in modern countries "play" with gasification -- here is could
be a viable alternative. But no funding!! So tricky to proceed.

I am basically a one man operation here. Would be nice to co-venture with
another company to ease the "load". To date -- no such interest -- but I
proceed just the same.

At present -- India seems to be the most developed area of practical
application of Gasification. I imagine they face the same problems as well.
That is lack of capital for the conversion -- so we all just continue to
waste money.

One would think there would be bankers from the richer countries interested
in this aspect of technology -- as they are rather secure investments.
(meaning they pay for their diesel consumption at present) But to date --
nothing -- oh -- but lot's of talk!!

Certainly money around to pay for Phd's to study the exotica -- like that
last posting on tars.

Peter/Belize

At 10:59 AM 5/3/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Dear Peter:
>What size are your "number of projects" for rice husk fired engine generator
>systems?
>Ron Bailey
>PRM Energy Systems, Inc.
>
>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 rbaileys at prmenergy.com Wed May 3 14:47:59 2000
From: rbaileys at prmenergy.com (Ron Bailey, Sr)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal Combustion with Producer Gas
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000503114334.008e2670@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <000c01bfb52f$f711ea20$0501a8c0@Ronsr>

Dear Peter:
Sorry, wish we could help. We "play" with megawatts.
Ron Bailey
PRM Energy Systems Inc.
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 Wed May 3 16:45:19 2000
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal Combustion with Producer Gas
Message-ID: <d3.3e15152.2641e9ba@aol.com>

Peter in Belize,
The point I was trying to make was that the combusting gas when exposed
to the incoming air fuel mixture would detonate in the inlet manifold, and if
this did not result in explosion, it would deplete the fuel from entering in
the cylinder denying the engine power for the next stroke. Two strokes have
never been used for naturag gas firing have they in spite of the fact that
most are in an acceptable compression ratio to be used on natural gas.
Cummins and Cat both use the diesel blocks for natural gas engines,
changing out the compression, injectors for spark plugs and electronic
ignition for injector pump where applicable.
I don't think converting GMC 2 stroke engines will work.

From arnt at c2i.net Wed May 3 17:43:15 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal Combustion with Producer Gas
In-Reply-To: <d3.3e15152.2641e9ba@aol.com>
Message-ID: <39109DA0.A0AC01F2@c2i.net>

LINVENT@aol.com wrote:
>
> Peter in Belize,
> The point I was trying to make was that the combusting gas when exposed
> to the incoming air fuel mixture would detonate in the inlet manifold, and if
> this did not result in explosion, it would deplete the fuel from entering in
> the cylinder denying the engine power for the next stroke. Two strokes have
> never been used for naturag gas firing have they in spite of the fact that
> most are in an acceptable compression ratio to be used on natural gas.

..I beg to differ; the big Wartzilas up to65MW _are_ two-strokes.
The fuel gas is pressurized to 4 Bar? (if memory serves) and is piped
into the combustion chamber. See http://power.wartsila-nsd.com/ for
correct info ;-)

> Cummins and Cat both use the diesel blocks for natural gas engines,
> changing out the compression, injectors for spark plugs and electronic
> ignition for injector pump where applicable.
> I don't think converting GMC 2 stroke engines will work.

..gmc new name for detroit diesel?

--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt ;-)

scenario, n.:
An imagined sequence of events that provides the context in
which a business decision is made. Scenarios always come in
sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case.
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

From arnt at c2i.net Wed May 3 17:51:51 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: stratified charge combustion
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000503105135.008d8100@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <39109FA6.49857663@c2i.net>

Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> Ok Folks:
>
> http://www.pegasuspower.com/The%20Product.htm

..did these people ever do aero engines?

--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt ;-)

From snkm at btl.net Wed May 3 19:02:23 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal Combustion with Producer Gas
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000503170120.008aa830@wgs1.btl.net>

Tom T;

Excellent point!! So the only way that could work would be by high pressure
injection of producer gas -- hardly feasible.

And really great to know about those new diesels already set up for gas.

That might mean that simply buying their injector conversion and electronic
ignition set up -- without changing compression -- could work on producer
gas??

My -- now we certainly are learning so much!

Oops -- had a nagging memory that early electric power plants were using
gas powering two stroke diesel engines -- so went and checked it out --

Scanned in:

Gas Diesels-

These engines induct an appropriate amount of gas with the air charge and
inject a small amount of diesel fuel about 5% of the total fuel, at the
proper time to act as a pilot charge to produce ignition. The amount of
fuel oil injected is the minimum that can be dispersed throughout the lean
gas-air mixture in the combustion chamber to ensure ignition at many
scattered points, and is constant for all loads. The amount of gas inducted
is varied by a governor to meet the load requirement.

A second type of gas-burning diesel is called dual-fuel diesel; it differs
from the gas diesel in that provision is made to supply more fuel oil and
induct less gas when the supply of gas is inadequate.

A governor automatically increases the fuel oil injected from minimum 5% to
as much as 100% of the total fuel as the available gas decreases.

Fig.7 is a sectional view of a four-stroke-cycle, dual-fuel diesel, showing
the timed valve for introducing gas into the air stream outside the inlet
valve and the injection system for spraying oil into the combustion chamber.

Two-stroke-cycle gas diesels are equipped with timed gas valves in the
cylinder heads to admit the gas immediately after scavenging has been
completed, preventing its escape with the exhaust gases.

All large stationary-power-plant diesels are built to burn gas because the
cost per unit of energy supplied is much less for natural by-product gases
than for even the cheapest fuel oils.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. - American Society of Mechanical Engineers, The Fifty Years
of the Diesel Engine in America (1949)

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

Are you sure that the charge would be ignited when the blower scavengers
the cylinder. Have you tried it??

Hey!! -- seems they were doing OK pre 1949 -- they show a nice picture of a
12 cyl., 8650 h.p. unit for the above purposes.

Why are we always re-inventing the wheel on this list?? Now I could live
with five percent diesel. And also -- it clarifies my comment about
flaming, rather than spark igniting -- the charge -- for 100% operation of
producer gas in a standard diesel engine without lowering compression!

I hope that point is taken properly this time around?? I do believe Prof.
Parikh/Shashikantha did once mention that "knocking" becomes a problem past
the 12:1 ratio if operating direct spark ignition using producer gas??

That is detonation rather than ignition. "Flaming" would probably make sure
it was ignited -- not detonated -- allowing greater over all efficiencies.
It would flame rather than detonate in the chamber machined into the
injection hole plus adapter because of the much smaller volume. The flame
so created would more equally ignite the main charge mixture.

Comments??

Peter/Belize

At 04:44 PM 5/3/00 EDT, you wrote:
>Peter in Belize,
> The point I was trying to make was that the combusting gas when exposed
>to the incoming air fuel mixture would detonate in the inlet manifold, and
if
>this did not result in explosion, it would deplete the fuel from entering in
>the cylinder denying the engine power for the next stroke. Two strokes have
>never been used for naturag gas firing have they in spite of the fact that
>most are in an acceptable compression ratio to be used on natural gas.
> Cummins and Cat both use the diesel blocks for natural gas engines,
>changing out the compression, injectors for spark plugs and electronic
>ignition for injector pump where applicable.
> I don't think converting GMC 2 stroke engines will work.
>
>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 Wed May 3 19:20:39 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal Combustion with Producer Gas
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000503172012.008c19d0@wgs1.btl.net>

Thanks Arnt -- I just posted regarding two stroke diesels on gas -- using
my old books. Good to know that the technology did not stop and get "lost"
from that point on. 65 mwe eh!!

GMC (Diesel) or Jimmy -- local slang for these engines where I grew up --
sorry!

Peter/Belize

At 11:44 PM 5/3/00 +0200, you wrote:
>LINVENT@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> Peter in Belize,
>> The point I was trying to make was that the combusting gas when exposed
>> to the incoming air fuel mixture would detonate in the inlet manifold,
and if
>> this did not result in explosion, it would deplete the fuel from
entering in
>> the cylinder denying the engine power for the next stroke. Two strokes
have
>> never been used for naturag gas firing have they in spite of the fact that
>> most are in an acceptable compression ratio to be used on natural gas.
>
>..I beg to differ; the big Wartzilas up to65MW _are_ two-strokes.
>The fuel gas is pressurized to 4 Bar? (if memory serves) and is piped
>into the combustion chamber. See http://power.wartsila-nsd.com/ for
>correct info ;-)
>
>> Cummins and Cat both use the diesel blocks for natural gas engines,
>> changing out the compression, injectors for spark plugs and electronic
>> ignition for injector pump where applicable.
>> I don't think converting GMC 2 stroke engines will work.
>
>..gmc new name for detroit diesel?
>
>--
>..mvh/wKRf Arnt ;-)
>
> scenario, n.:
> An imagined sequence of events that provides the context in
> which a business decision is made. Scenarios always come in
> sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case.
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

From snkm at btl.net Wed May 3 19:20:49 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Present state of Wankel use.
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000503171611.008b0e40@wgs1.btl.net>

At 11:52 PM 5/3/00 +0200, you wrote:
>Peter Singfield wrote:
>>
>> Ok Folks:
>>
>> http://www.pegasuspower.com/The%20Product.htm
>
>..did these people ever do aero engines?
>
>--
>..mvh/wKRf Arnt ;-)

Ask and you shall recieve -- kind of a long reply -- but many interesting
figures here.

"Raided" from their Url:

http://www.pegasuspower.com/The%20Market.htm

(But to save you a long read:

-- Aviation - experimental aircraft,)

The market growth potential is substantial on a national as well as
an international scale. Around the world stringent requirements for
reduced levels of emissions are being legislated. There is a sense
of urgency to replace higher cost fuels and to perfect the technology
to use waste to produce gaseous fuels. Light weight, transportable
compact power systems incorporating the aforementioned attributes
present a market of huge proportions.

A careful analysis of the advantages of Rotary Power's engines versus
the competition reveals segments of the general engine market in
which Rotary Power can realize rapid sales and achieve significant
penetration rates. These fall into three categories: marine, power
generation and pumping. Supplementary to these classifications are
smaller markets in which Rotary Power already has a following:
refrigeration, cogeneration, chillers and renewable energy.

Marine:

-- General Shipping - deck engines for hoists, hydraulics, anchoring,
etc.,

-- Fast Ferries - high-speed passenger craft to 500 tonnes,<o:p>

-- Yachts - high end power boats 40 to 100 feet LOA,<o:p> </o:p>

-- Fishing Vessels - groundfish and pelagic fishing from 26 to 150
feet,

-- Pleasure Craft - OEM speedboats, sportfishers, and cruisers from
26 feet to 65 feet,

-- Crew Boats - offshore oil and gas service vessels,

-- Military Vessels - special Ops, submersibles,

-- Auxiliary - AC/DC gensets, desalinators, HVAC for marine use.

Power Generation:

-- Primary Power - local and industrial power generation, especially
in remote areas,

-- Standby Generators - emergency and backup to the power grid,

-- Peaking Generators - supermarket refrigeration, air conditioning,
retail and industrial,

-- Portable Power - portable and truck-mounted generators, movie
sets, welders, etc.,

-- Petroleum - electrical power for oil and gas fields, sour gas and
natural gas.

Pumping:

-- Fire Pumps - marine, mobile and fixed,

-- Flood Control - 24" to 40" flood control pumps,

-- Natural Gas Pipelines - main compressors up to 36",<o:p> </o:p>

-- Air Compressors - portable industrial.

Additional Markets:

-- Hard Rock Mining - low profile haulers and service
vehicles,

-- Aviation - experimental aircraft,

-- Renewable Energy - biogas from waste converters and digesters,
alcohol and organic fuels,

-- Refrigeration - remote areas, food production, fish processing,
dairy,

-- Chillers - rooftop and mobile,

-- Cogeneration - office buildings, apartment complexes, shopping
centers, residential.

Potential and Promising Markets

1) The commercial and recreational marine market is a burgeoning
one. For the commercial market Rotary Power sees a substantial
demand for the SCORETM S580 family of diesel fueled rotary engines in
the 1000 to 3000 horsepower range for high speed ferry boats,
commercial fishing boats and other high speed commercial marine craft
and yachts. New hull designs strongly favour lightweight, powerful
engines. As well, a combination of environmental pressures are
forcing redesign of many marine engines, such as two-stroke diesels,
outboards, ship engines and stationary generators, all developments
favourable to Rotary Power's products since its rotary engines
already meet these goals.

In the recreational marine market, the jet boat segment of the
personal watercraft market represents a huge source of business for
Rotary Power's 40 Series and 70 Series marine engines. Outboard
motors from 40 to 100 horsepower are candidates for a rotary engine
design and would be cleaner, lighter, more fuel efficient and durable
than existing alternatives.

2) The market for stationary Rotary Gas Engines (RG) for use in air
conditioners, water chillers, air compression and purification
systems and process and supermarket refrigeration systems is a
substantial one.

3) Hybrid electric vehicles which use a combination of electric
storage and internal combustion engine for propulsion represent an
especially significant potential market for Rotary Power's rotary
engines. Compared to vehicles that run entirely on internal
combustion, hybrid electric vehicles can be extremely efficient,
resulting in higher mileage performance as well as lower emissions.

A hybrid electric city bus utilizing two rotary engines was
successfully tested in 1996. The bus was operated by batteries
driving DC motors in the wheels. The bus used two compact rotary
engines, located in the bus motor compartment to recharge these
batteries, drive the bus accessory systems and provide heating.<o:p>

4) Rotary Power's SCORETM engines, running on gaseous fuels,
including natural gas and producer gas (derived from biomass),
together with light weight screw compressors, satisfy a large market
for electricity peak - shaving in buildings, shopping malls,
supermarkets, gas field storage facilities. The engines are also
appropriate for land-fill power generation and remote power
generation in farming and logging areas (using biomass to generate
fuel).

Electricity supplied by large utilities remains scarce in
developing nations and is expensive in countries with limited natural
energy resources.

Deregulation of the power industry has caused rivalries among
suppliers to the North American Power Grid, resulting in recent
outages, extended black outs and rolling black outs, particularly in
peak demand periods. Major suppliers are ordering mobile and fixed
substation generators to relieve spot shortages and increase peaking
capacity in critical areas.

The S580 gensets are ideal for these applications because they
can be installed in panel trucks instead of 18 wheel Class 8 trucks
or they can be mounted on roof tops without structural
reinforcement. In both cases, the savings in cost and mobility
strongly favour Rotary Power's S580 SCORETM and S580 RG product
lines.

Rotary Power is currently in various stages of negotiations with
three major oil and gas companies and a significant marine customer.
The magnitude of the potential orders from these companies is such
that the entire capacity of Pegasus for the first two years could be
filled. Other orders of importance but lesser significance are also
on the horizon.

Worldwide Market

The U.S. Domestic Market for engines and turbines is about $27.6
billion and is growing 17.6% annually. Census reports list only
seven companies in the key segments. These obviously include
Caterpillar, Cummins, Detroit Diesel, Deere and Navistar in the lower
HP ranges and Waukesha and G.E. (Turbines) in higher power ranges.
Historically, it has shown growth of from 10% to 21%, averaging close
to 13%. This segment does not include shipping, trucks, autos and
power generation, each of which all contain engines. The value of
engines in these segments is about $90 billion, for a domestic total
of about $117.6 billion.

Several of the largest engine manufacturers in the world are in
Europe (Mercedes/MTU, MAN, Volvo) and in Japan (Yanmar, Komatsu,
Mitsubishi). Engine markets are international in scope and it is
difficult to factor out production accredited to U.S. based companies
from production actually shipped from the U.S. Nevertheless,
estimates of the U.S. portion of the worldwide market vary from 30%
to 50%. Adopting the 50% number results in an estimated worldwide
engine market of $235 billion which is consistent with studies quoted
by competitive sources. The engine market is one of the world's
largest, exceeding communications and computer markets.

Competition

The numerous advantages of the rotary engine design and, in
particular, Rotary Power's patented SCORETM and RG engines, puts
Rotary Power in a very enviable position as the world moves into the
new millennium. With the growing worldwide legislation requiring
reduced levels of emissions and the need to discover the ultimate
fuel efficiency, the large engine manufacturers of diesel and
gasoline powered piston combustion engines are facing an inexorable
erosion of their market.

As the world looks for lighter, more compact and more efficient
sources of power that create less pollution, while at the same time
requiring less maintenance, Rotary Power's engines are going to face
unprecedented demand.

Companies such as Caterpillar, MTU, Detroit Diesel, Cummins,
Navistar, Mercedes, MAN, Volvo, Deere, Yanmar, Komatsu and Mitsubishi
all produce large, heavy engines that represent competition, if for
no other reason than the fact that they are engines built by
established companies. On the other hand, their weight, bulkiness
and other negatives place them at a serious disadvantage relative to
the rotary engine. This is being borne out by current demands of the
marketplace.

There are no other companies in the world producing engines, rotary
or otherwise that have all the advantages of Rotary Power's S580
SCORETM and S580 RG engines. Mercury Marine, OMC and Volvo all
produce smaller power piston engines and will remain competition for
some time. However, the piston engine is well known for its high
rate of pollution and the rotary engine is being looked at by the
market as the logical alternative, especially given its other
positive features.

*** References from this document ***

[orig] http://www.pegasuspower.com/The%20Market.htm
[1] http://www.pegasuspower.com/Right%20Page.htm
[2] http://www.pegasuspower.com/The%20Company.htm
[3] http://www.pegasuspower.com/The%20Executive.htm
[4] http://www.pegasuspower.com/The%20Product.htm
[5] http://www.pegasuspower.com/FINANCIAL%20STATEMENTS.htm
[6] http://www.pegasuspower.com/press_releases.htm
[7] http://www.pegasuspower.com/PICT.GAL2.htm

From snkm at btl.net Wed May 3 19:20:53 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: More Wankel/Producer-Gas news
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000503171802.008bcb50@wgs1.btl.net>

NEW JOINT VENTURE

Columbia, Maryland – Wednesday, April 12, 2000 - Mr. Ken Brody, President
and Chief Executive Officer of Rotary Power International, Inc. (“RPI”) and
Mr. William Partanen, President and Chief Executive Officer of BG
Technologies USA, Inc. (“BGT”) of Columbia MD, a company controlled by Swiss
Re Investors of Zurich, Switzerland are pleased to announce that they have
signed a Letter of Intent to form a joint venture.

The joint venture is proceeding to set up a pilot plant to demonstrate the
technology and economics of a BGT gasification system producing low BTU
gases to fuel an RPI rotary engine to generate electricity. No other engine
can operate solely on the low BTU producer gas at the level of efficiency
that can be achieved with the rotary engines.

BGT’s primary focus is integrated biomass gasifier-based energy systems for
industrial and domestic applications. BGT’s gasification technology
provides for an environmentally sound method of disposing of various biomass
waste materials that now threaten water and air resources throughout the
world. By using these waste materials to generate electrical and thermal
energy, BGT solves both an environmental problem and produces low cost
energy for consumption.

For further information: 1) William E. Partanen , President and CEO, BG
Technologies USA Inc. at (410) 740-3025, e-mail bpartanen@bgtllc.com OR 2)
Ronald G. McKeown, Londonderry Capital Structuring Ltd. at (905) 888-0500,
e-mail: london.derry@sympatico.ca OR 3 ) Ken Brody, President and CEO,
Rotary Power International, Inc., at (973) 470-7001, e-mail:
kenlbear@msn.com

From arnt at c2i.net Wed May 3 19:35:47 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Present state of Wankel use.
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000503171611.008b0e40@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3910B7FE.664BBA9C@c2i.net>

Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> At 11:52 PM 5/3/00 +0200, you wrote:
> >Peter Singfield wrote:
> >>
> >> Ok Folks:
> >>
> >> http://www.pegasuspower.com/The%20Product.htm
> >
> >..did these people ever do aero engines?
> >
> >--
> >..mvh/wKRf Arnt ;-)
>
> Ask and you shall recieve -- kind of a long reply -- but many interesting
> figures here.
>
> "Raided" from their Url:
>
> http://www.pegasuspower.com/The%20Market.htm
>

..thanks, it came back to me, I was thinking of http://www.dynacam.com/
A couple of years ago, they had no interest of power generation. ;-)

--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt... who asked. ;-)

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Wed May 3 20:33:24 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Natural Capitalism
Message-ID: <99.452c25c.26421f28@cs.com>

Dear Crest members:

(If this has appeared here before, accept my apologies).

22 years ago Amory Lovins wrote several books that fundamentally changed the
wa that the utility industries looked at their business. He and wife Hunter
have founded the Rocky Mountain Institute in Snowmass, CO to teach and
experiment on sustaina ability.

Now Paul Hawken, Amory and Hunter have written a book "Natural Capitalism"
(Little Brown, 1999) that may have an even greater impact. I am currently
reading a short version in the Harvard BUsiness Review (Reprint 99309) and
you can see summaries of their new philosophy at www.natural capitalism.org.

Briefly, they advocate

o Radically increasing the productivity of natural resources

o A shift to biologically inspired production models and materials

o A move to a "service-and-flow" business model (such as selling
illumination rather than light bulbs)

o Major reinvestment in our natural capital

Peter Senge, (author of the Fifth Disciple) said "If Adam Smith's "Wealth of
Nations" was the bible for the first Industrial Revolution, then "Natural
Capital" may well prove to be it for the next."

CHeck out the website and see if this starts a brushfire of discussion.

Yours truly, TOM REED CPC/BEF

From arnt at c2i.net Wed May 3 19:27:03 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal Combustion with Producer Gas
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000503172012.008c19d0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3910B5E4.A756D3FC@c2i.net>

Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> Thanks Arnt -- I just posted regarding two stroke diesels on gas -- using
> my old books. Good to know that the technology did not stop and get "lost"
> from that point on. 65 mwe eh!!
>
> GMC (Diesel) or Jimmy -- local slang for these engines where I grew up --
> sorry!

..why sorry? I learned something here. ;-)

--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt ;-)

From vanderdrift at ecn.nl Thu May 4 02:31:49 2000
From: vanderdrift at ecn.nl (Drift, A. van der)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: hazardous wastes gasification
Message-ID: <50B56D407D2DD31191DE00902771E9F4C7DB8B@ecntex.ecn.nl>

We have done some CFB air-blown gasification experiments in 1998 with
railroad ties in our 500 kWth test facility. Although we didn't have the
advanced tar measurement techniques we now have, it was clear that (heavy)
tar concentrations in the fuel gas was not higher than with "normal" wood.
The tested fuel contained 1.5 wt% PAH's. Because the metal concentration
(except Fe) is very low compared to almost all other wood, railroad ties
seem to be a perfect (and cheap) fuel.

A paper has been submitted to Biomass and Bioenergy with the numerical
results.

Bram van der Drift
ECN, POBox 1
NL-1755 ZG Petten
the Netherlands
tel: (31) 224-564515
fax: (31) 224-563487
Email: vanderdrift@ecn.nl
Email: biomass@ecn.nl

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Jim Arcate [SMTP:arcate@email.msn.com]
> Verzonden: maandag, 01 mei, 2000 8:21
> Aan: gasification@crest.org
> Onderwerp: GAS-L: hazardous wastes gasification
>
> Hello Gasification:
>
> Is anyone doing anything on gasification of Creosote wood railroad ties
> and/or telephone poles treated with Creosote and Pentachlorophenol ?
>
> I saw a paper about work by the Danish Technological Institute on updraft
> gasification of hazardous organic waste with high contents of chromium,
> copper and arsenic.
> Are there commercial plants in operation?
>
> 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 parikh at me.iitb.ernet.in Thu May 4 05:20:26 2000
From: parikh at me.iitb.ernet.in (Prof P P Parikh)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal Combustion with Producer Gas
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000503080235.008b77a0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.96.1000504150533.10582H-100000@agni.me.iitb.ernet.in>

Spark ignition engines definitely knock at compression ratios beyond
14/15. May be deposits formed due to contaminants provide preignition
spots and cause knocking! Even other wise over a period of operation
deposits could be formed bue to lub-oil burning. The fact is the engine
knocks!
Mrs Parikh

On Wed, 3 May 2000, Peter Singfield wrote:

> Tom;
>
> Bare with me here --
>
> Yes -- we all know producer gas has a high very high octane - and a very
> low cetane number. But why can't spark ignition be done at the 16 to 18:1
> compression ratios of the standard diesel -- why must it be reduced to 12:1??
>
> That my friend is the question -- not whether spark ignition works. We know
> it works.
>
> But why only at 12 to 1 maximum??
>
> When combined with diesel injection -- it works at regular compression levels.
>
> There is two reasons it would be nice not to have to reduce compression
> ratios in that "standard" diesel.
>
> One -- higher efficiencies.
>
> Two -- much lest retrofitting.
>
> Do you grasp what we are trying to derive here yet??
>
> Prof. Parikh/Shashikantha has stated that twelve to one is the highest
> optimal compression ratio for spark ignition.
>
> I am simply trying to deduce why.
>
> My "theory" is that direct spark ignition of the charge is not suitable
> (Based on Prof.Parikh/Shashikantha actual observations!) -- ergo am
> suggesting spark then flame ignition -- which more closely approximates
> fuel injection ignition. Ergo -- then we could stay at those higher
> compression ratios.
>
> Can you understand any of this?? Sorry -- I have this habit of thinking
> people are following my thought patterns. Maybe I jumped ahead to fast??
>
> Hopefully -- the repetition above of what I am trying to discuss here can
> be understood now???
>
> So -- lets try again ----
>
> Peter/Belize
>
> At 08:53 AM 5/3/00 EDT, you wrote:
> >Dear Peter et al:
> >
> >Duh. You said :
> >
> > Obviously there is an ignition problem with just "spark". The diesel
> > principle is injection of a fuel into an atmosphere heated to the flash
> > point of that fuel with enough oxygen present to accomplish combustion.
> >
> >WRONG WRONG! No problem with "spark", except the trouble of converting.
> The
> >trouble with not converting is (1) you continue to use 20% diesel and (2)
> you
> >are always tempted to trash the gasifier and use pure diesel. If you
> convert
> >to spark you'll be OK.
> >
> >Maybe my earlier message was unclear. The reason the producer gas doesn';t
> >ignite in pressure ignition is that it has a very high octane - and a very
> >low cetane number. Ergo, you can use spark ignition or pilot diesel.
> >
> > Lots of labs are now using "spark converted diesel" engines. See Prof.
> >Parikh/Shashikantha excellent paper at recent ASME meeting based on
> SHshi's 8
> >year thesis. Can you post Mrs. P?
> >
> > ~~~~
> >
> >
> >>Pure hydrogen is far richer than producer gas with all that nitrogen.
> >
> >Wrong. Pure hydrogen contains 300 Btu/scf and producer gas is typically 150
> >Btu/scf. Not "far" richer, but a factor of two for sure.
> >
> >FUel injection is of course out of the question, since compressing the weak
> >producer gas - or the hydrogen (unless at tank pressure) would be
> >prohibitively expensive.
> >
> > ~~~~~~~
> >
> >This is a major "mechanical" adaptation. I simple wonder why compression
> >must be lowered when running producer gas only -- when it does not need to
> >be when running a small amount of diesel??
> >
> >Probably doesn't need to be reduced, due to the reduced charge, even at the
> >high CR. BUt I hope we hear form Prof. P. on why she thinks 11-3 CR is
> >optimum.
> >
> >I presume one can add an extra head gasket to reduce CR?
> >
> >YOurs truly, 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
> >
> 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 May 4 10:50:48 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal Combustion with Producer Gas
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000504084010.008c6980@wgs1.btl.net>

Thank you Mrs Parikh;

I quoted you poorly. You had mentioned 12:1 at the best upper level due to
knocking beyond that range. Thank you for supplying the upper limit -- 14/15:1

Wish I was at your facilities in India -- I am sure with a little fine
tuning -- that can be over come -- and for an economic investment.

>Even other wise over a period of operation
>deposits could be formed bue to lub-oil burning.

Yes -- possible -- but then consider -- it doesn't happen when using diesel
fuel injection ignition!

When one considers this -- ????

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

At 03:07 PM 5/4/00 +0530, you wrote:
>Spark ignition engines definitely knock at compression ratios beyond
>14/15. May be deposits formed due to contaminants provide preignition
>spots and cause knocking! Even other wise over a period of operation
>deposits could be formed bue to lub-oil burning. The fact is the engine
>knocks!
>Mrs Parikh
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~
>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
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>On Wed, 3 May 2000, Peter Singfield wrote:
>
>> Tom;
>>
>> Bare with me here --

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

From donaldp at marick.co.uk Thu May 4 17:53:58 2000
From: donaldp at marick.co.uk (donaldp)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: hazardous wastes gasification
In-Reply-To: <004d01bfb335$5a9954e0$0100007f@localhost>
Message-ID: <200005042153.OAA01476@secure.crest.net>

Please see www.marick.co.uk may be in a position to assist

At 20:20 30/04/00 -1000, you wrote:
>Hello Gasification:
>
>Is anyone doing anything on gasification of Creosote wood railroad ties
>and/or telephone poles treated with Creosote and Pentachlorophenol ?
>
>I saw a paper about work by the Danish Technological Institute on updraft
>gasification of hazardous organic waste with high contents of chromium,
>copper and arsenic.
>Are there commercial plants in operation?
>
>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 parikh at me.iitb.ernet.in Fri May 5 02:09:57 2000
From: parikh at me.iitb.ernet.in (Prof P P Parikh)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal Combustion with Producer Gas
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000504084010.008c6980@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0005051106510.4281-100000@epsilon.me.iitb.ernet.in>

Mr. Peter Singfield and all

Thanks for your mail. When a pilot spray is used there are reasons for
knocking even at high compression ratios because
(a) diesel by itself has a lot of excess air provision
(b) due to pilot spray the amount of energy input through gas is only
about 75-80% (generally).

Due to these two factors the pre-mixed mixture is extremely lean. Moreover
ignition from pilot spray would mean multi-point ignition and hence much
reduced maximum flame travel. All these factors counter the knocking
tendency. All the same even in dual-fuel engine knocking has been reported
at high loads and low pilot spray quantities. In fact dual-fuel operation
gets bracketed between the lean misfire limit and the rich knocking limit
(which also is in fact lean). This means there is a bracket to the minimum
and maximum load for which dual-fuel operation can be carried out. An
extension to this logic is that even 17 as a compression ratio can be used
but the richness of the pre-mixed mixture need to be limited thereby
limiting the max load for load-fuel operation. I hope this clarifies what
I mentioned in my previous mail.

Prof. Parikh

On Thu, 4 May 2000, Peter Singfield wrote:

> Thank you Mrs Parikh;
>
> I quoted you poorly. You had mentioned 12:1 at the best upper level due to
> knocking beyond that range. Thank you for supplying the upper limit -- 14/15:1
>
> Wish I was at your facilities in India -- I am sure with a little fine
> tuning -- that can be over come -- and for an economic investment.
>
> >Even other wise over a period of operation
> >deposits could be formed bue to lub-oil burning.
>
> Yes -- possible -- but then consider -- it doesn't happen when using diesel
> fuel injection ignition!
>
> When one considers this -- ????
>
>
> Peter Singfield
> COROGEN
> Executive Director
> Xaibe Village
> Corozal District
> Belize, Central America
> Tel 501-4-35213
> E-mail: snkm@btl.net
>
>
> At 03:07 PM 5/4/00 +0530, you wrote:
> >Spark ignition engines definitely knock at compression ratios beyond
> >14/15. May be deposits formed due to contaminants provide preignition
> >spots and cause knocking! Even other wise over a period of operation
> >deposits could be formed bue to lub-oil burning. The fact is the engine
> >knocks!
> >Mrs Parikh
> >
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~~
> >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
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >On Wed, 3 May 2000, Peter Singfield wrote:
> >
> >> Tom;
> >>
> >> Bare with me here --
>
> 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
>

From parikh at me.iitb.ernet.in Fri May 5 07:15:04 2000
From: parikh at me.iitb.ernet.in (Prof P P Parikh)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal Combustion with Producer Gas
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0005051106510.4281-100000@epsilon.me.iitb.ernet.in>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.96.1000505165940.6137D-100000@agni.me.iitb.ernet.in>

Sorry there are some corrections in the passage below -- typographical
errors!!

READ IT AS BELOW: THE CAPITAL WORDS/LETTERS ARE THE CORRECTIONS:

>
> Mr. Peter Singfield and all
>
> Thanks for your mail. When a pilot spray is used there are reasons for
> NOT knocking even at high compression ratios because
> (a) diesel ENGINE by itself has a lot of excess air provision
> (b) due to pilot spray the amount of energy input through gas is only
> about 75-80% (generally).
>
> Due to these two factors the pre-mixed mixture is extremely lean. Moreover
> ignition from pilot spray would mean multi-point ignition and hence much
> reduced maximum flame travel. All these factors counter the knocking
> tendency. All the same even in dual-fuel engine knocking has been reported
> at high loads and low pilot spray quantities. In fact dual-fuel operation
> gets bracketed between the lean misfire limit and the rich knocking limit
> (which also is in fact lean). This means there is a bracket to the minimum
> and maximum load for which dual-fuel operation can be carried out. An
> extension to this logic is that even 17 as a compression ratio can be used
> but the richness of the pre-mixed mixture need to be limited thereby
> limiting the max load for load-fuel operation. I hope this clarifies what
> I mentioned in my previous mail.
>
> Prof. Parikh
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 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
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> On Thu, 4 May 2000, Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> > Thank you Mrs Parikh;
> >
> > I quoted you poorly. You had mentioned 12:1 at the best upper level due to
> > knocking beyond that range. Thank you for supplying the upper limit -- 14/15:1
> >
> > Wish I was at your facilities in India -- I am sure with a little fine
> > tuning -- that can be over come -- and for an economic investment.
> >
> > >Even other wise over a period of operation
> > >deposits could be formed bue to lub-oil burning.
> >
> > Yes -- possible -- but then consider -- it doesn't happen when using diesel
> > fuel injection ignition!
> >
> > When one considers this -- ????
> >
> >
> > Peter Singfield
> > COROGEN
> > Executive Director
> > Xaibe Village
> > Corozal District
> > Belize, Central America
> > Tel 501-4-35213
> > E-mail: snkm@btl.net
> >
> >
> > At 03:07 PM 5/4/00 +0530, you wrote:
> > >Spark ignition engines definitely knock at compression ratios beyond
> > >14/15. May be deposits formed due to contaminants provide preignition
> > >spots and cause knocking! Even other wise over a period of operation
> > >deposits could be formed bue to lub-oil burning. The fact is the engine
> > >knocks!
> > >Mrs Parikh
> > >
> > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > ~~~~
> > >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
> > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > >On Wed, 3 May 2000, Peter Singfield wrote:
> > >
> > >> Tom;
> > >>
> > >> Bare with me here --
> >
> > 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
> >
>
> 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 May 5 10:20:50 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal Combustion with Producer Gas
Message-ID: <ae.4a51733.26443299@cs.com>

Dear Peter, Prof. Parikh et al:

My head is spinning from all this interesting discussion of diesel options.
I don't set myself up as a diesel expert, just a learning observer, so I bow
to Prof. Parikh's overall expertise and Peter's practical experience (GMC
"Jimmys" indeed).

I commented on the "throttle losses " of the spark engine favoring diesel
efficiency over spark. Now I wonder about "pumping losses" of all that extra
air at part load being pushed out the diesel exhaust. Does that favor spark
ignition?

Just asking....

TOM REED

In a message dated 5/3/00 7:23:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time, snkm@btl.net
writes:

<<
Agreed Tom -- but for "practical" applications where standard diesel motors
will actually be used for running diesel/producer gas -- would this not be
around 16 to 18:1??

Now -- here is another question -- of great importance!

What about two stroke diesels! They normally use pressurized (like in turbo
or super charging) air to scavenge the cylinder. It has always been my
impression -- having operated many GMC diesels -- that a great surplus of
that air is blown out the exhaust.

This is not going to be good for producer gas enriched air intake systems
-- efficiencies will drop with all the producer gas going through and not
being combusted.

Comments??

I have one such application at hand now. Am thinking I can probably burn
the exhaust to produce further heat.

This is OK -- as it is a rice producing facility and they need the heat for
drying.

But they are running GMC diesels for power generation -- and the expense to
change those motors kills the deal.

Geez -- I hope I am not getting to far ahead of this list again!!! Like in
nobody being able to grasp the compression thingy. So important -- yet so
"ignored"!!

Now Tom -- seems to me you are in the business of selling gasifiers for
applications just as I am presently involved in.

I was hoping for a broader understanding of the principles involved.

In this application -- they would like to go 100% producer gas. But again
-- tearing down diesels to alter compression ratios kills the deal.

Can you understand any of this?? We are talking real projects in real time
now --

And yes -- can you gasify rice husks to do this??

They are presently spending $10,000 US per month for diesel fuel.

I have a number of such prospects. Here in Belize alone!

Now if this gasifier business works -- I need answers -- not stone walling!

It also has to be just as reliable -- and save money -- not cost more.

Ergo -- my sudden interest in the producer gas to engine subject!

Your "pining" away on the wrong details is not constructive at all. I know
all about "smoke-screening". That simply hides facts that show the device
in a bad light -- and does not lead to any solutions of the problems.

Which I believe have been very clearly stated.

We are not dealing with 25:1 -- or 14:1 but with standard diesel power
plant diesel engines! and we can't tell the customer to change them for
something "special" in order for the gasifier to work! Not in this "real"
world -- where there is not funding or subsidizing. If it don't work the
buyer goes broke!

My job is to make sure it works!

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 snkm at btl.net Fri May 5 15:07:54 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal Combustion with Producer Gas
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000505130715.008d9a00@wgs1.btl.net>

Prof. Parikh

Thank you for the clear explanation. Experimentation in flame ignition may
be a valid direction of investigation to over come the knocking
difficulties inherent in present state of the art retro fits.

On the other hand -- if I needed to convert -- say a Cummins 250 (that is
the old truck motor -- natural aspiration -- very tough -- rated 250 HP --
very common in all "scrap" yards in North America) -- I would be lowering
compression to 12:1 and following your advice -- based on your practical
experience in this matter.

I also would calculate on derating that same motor from 250 HP to 125 HP.

In other words -- a very strong and reliable 100 kwh power plant for very
low price -- that would run for a very long time.

Prof. Parikh -- where could I find a gasifier -- affordable by 3rd world
standards -- for the 80% producer gas needed for this 100kwh plant?

I have been checking current state of the art suppliers -- prices are from
(Quoting!)

"For a rough estimate, a system
retrofit might vary between $800 and
$1900 per kW depending upon what needs
to be provided as part of the quote"

While this may be good pricing for the modern industrialized nations it is
like reaching to touch the moon for the rest of this planet!

I know India is operating this technology at these sizes on a daily basis.
Surely they are not making these kinds of capital investments to do it??

We would have a hard time convincing an operation here to spend $50,000 US
on such a device -- never mind $190,000!!

And to be quite honest -- I can't imagine it costing even close to 50K to
build such a device!

Gasification will remain an untouchable esoteric as long as prices are in
those ranges!

The rice producer in the example I posted spends $5000 per month in diesel
(at $1.98 per gallon) to operate. But that is only when he is producing
product!

When business gets slow -- he stops spending for diesel!

The lowest interest rate available here is 13% and the more common rate is
18%!! for a 3rd world country -- Belize is favored with low rates! Our
neighbors are often paying much more!

So estimating a $100,000 price tag -- that would be $13,000 (minimum!!) per
year interest alone!

If the producer is operating 3 months -- his fuel cost savings would not
even pay the interest!!

Now -- that is where gasification becomes a total failure and a waste of
everyone's time!

It is a technology of no value to 1st world countries with their cheap
power rates -- and far to expensive for 3rd world countries with expensive
rates.

I believe that problem must be confronted and solved before we need worry
more about retrofitting diesels to burn producer gas.

That problem being a reasonably priced gasifier!

Now -- how is India managing this??

Peter/Belize

At 05:02 PM 5/5/00 +0530, you wrote:
>Sorry there are some corrections in the passage below -- typographical
>errors!!
>
>READ IT AS BELOW: THE CAPITAL WORDS/LETTERS ARE THE CORRECTIONS:
>
>>
>> Mr. Peter Singfield and all
>>
>> Thanks for your mail. When a pilot spray is used there are reasons for
>> NOT knocking even at high compression ratios because
>> (a) diesel ENGINE by itself has a lot of excess air provision
>> (b) due to pilot spray the amount of energy input through gas is only
>> about 75-80% (generally).
>>
>> Due to these two factors the pre-mixed mixture is extremely lean. Moreover
>> ignition from pilot spray would mean multi-point ignition and hence much
>> reduced maximum flame travel. All these factors counter the knocking
>> tendency. All the same even in dual-fuel engine knocking has been reported
>> at high loads and low pilot spray quantities. In fact dual-fuel operation
>> gets bracketed between the lean misfire limit and the rich knocking limit
>> (which also is in fact lean). This means there is a bracket to the minimum
>> and maximum load for which dual-fuel operation can be carried out. An
>> extension to this logic is that even 17 as a compression ratio can be used
>> but the richness of the pre-mixed mixture need to be limited thereby
>> limiting the max load for load-fuel operation. I hope this clarifies what
>> I mentioned in my previous mail.
>>
>> Prof. Parikh
>>
>>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~
>> 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
>>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> On Thu, 4 May 2000, Peter Singfield wrote:
>>
>> > Thank you Mrs Parikh;
>> >
>> > I quoted you poorly. You had mentioned 12:1 at the best upper level
due to
>> > knocking beyond that range. Thank you for supplying the upper limit --
14/15:1
>> >
>> > Wish I was at your facilities in India -- I am sure with a little fine
>> > tuning -- that can be over come -- and for an economic investment.
>> >
>> > >Even other wise over a period of operation
>> > >deposits could be formed bue to lub-oil burning.
>> >
>> > Yes -- possible -- but then consider -- it doesn't happen when using
diesel
>> > fuel injection ignition!
>> >
>> > When one considers this -- ????
>> >
>> >
>> > Peter Singfield
>> > COROGEN
>> > Executive Director
>> > Xaibe Village
>> > Corozal District
>> > Belize, Central America
>> > Tel 501-4-35213
>> > E-mail: snkm@btl.net
>> >
>> >
>> > At 03:07 PM 5/4/00 +0530, you wrote:
>> > >Spark ignition engines definitely knock at compression ratios beyond
>> > >14/15. May be deposits formed due to contaminants provide preignition
>> > >spots and cause knocking! Even other wise over a period of operation
>> > >deposits could be formed bue to lub-oil burning. The fact is the engine
>> > >knocks!
>> > >Mrs Parikh
>> > >
>> >
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> > ~~~~
>> > >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
>> >
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> > >
>> > >On Wed, 3 May 2000, Peter Singfield wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Tom;
>> > >>
>> > >> Bare with me here --
>> >
>> > 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
>> >
>>
>> 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 snkm at btl.net Fri May 5 15:37:16 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal Combustion with Producer Gas
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000505133641.008e6c40@wgs1.btl.net>

High Tom R.

Diesels do much better at stop and go jobs -- ergo "city" buses running
diesels are much more economic than gasoline engines. (and then there is
retrofitting those with flywheel devices!!)

But if both engines are running at constant optimal conditions -- the
difference decreases dramatically. The diesel will still come out more
efficient though -- due to the higher compression ratio.

Pumping losses are theoretically nil -- just like pushing and releasing a
spring. Though in real time -- there must be a small mechanical loss -- I
would not lose any sleep over it!

On the other hand -- if you take the pedal off the metal on a diesel -- it
certainly slows down a lot faster than if you threw it into neutral.

And then there is the Jacob's Brake -- which is a diesel engine compression
device to save on friction braking -- your brake pads live longer.

So I guess intake and exhaust restrictions are responsible?? Valve timing??
Water cooling the jackets??

But certainly -- a reciprocating compressing and releasing uses no energy
beyond small mechanical losses. Oh -- make that an "insulated" cylinder!

Tricky question Tom --

I was just looking over some huge diesels -- they get 46% over all
efficiencies now!! Incredible!! (that burning crude oil!!)

Peter

At 10:20 AM 5/5/00 EDT, you wrote:
>Dear Peter, Prof. Parikh et al:
>
>My head is spinning from all this interesting discussion of diesel options.
>I don't set myself up as a diesel expert, just a learning observer, so I bow
>to Prof. Parikh's overall expertise and Peter's practical experience (GMC
>"Jimmys" indeed).
>
>I commented on the "throttle losses " of the spark engine favoring diesel
>efficiency over spark. Now I wonder about "pumping losses" of all that
extra
>air at part load being pushed out the diesel exhaust. Does that favor spark
>ignition?
>
>Just asking....
>
>TOM REED
>
>In a message dated 5/3/00 7:23:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time, snkm@btl.net
>writes:
>
><<
> Agreed Tom -- but for "practical" applications where standard diesel motors
> will actually be used for running diesel/producer gas -- would this not be
> around 16 to 18:1??
>
> Now -- here is another question -- of great importance!
>
> What about two stroke diesels! They normally use pressurized (like in turbo
> or super charging) air to scavenge the cylinder. It has always been my
> impression -- having operated many GMC diesels -- that a great surplus of
> that air is blown out the exhaust.
>
> This is not going to be good for producer gas enriched air intake systems
> -- efficiencies will drop with all the producer gas going through and not
> being combusted.
>
> Comments??
>
> I have one such application at hand now. Am thinking I can probably burn
> the exhaust to produce further heat.
>
> This is OK -- as it is a rice producing facility and they need the heat for
> drying.
>
> But they are running GMC diesels for power generation -- and the expense to
> change those motors kills the deal.
>
> Geez -- I hope I am not getting to far ahead of this list again!!! Like in
> nobody being able to grasp the compression thingy. So important -- yet so
> "ignored"!!
>
> Now Tom -- seems to me you are in the business of selling gasifiers for
> applications just as I am presently involved in.
>
> I was hoping for a broader understanding of the principles involved.
>
> In this application -- they would like to go 100% producer gas. But again
> -- tearing down diesels to alter compression ratios kills the deal.
>
> Can you understand any of this?? We are talking real projects in real time
> now --
>
> And yes -- can you gasify rice husks to do this??
>
> They are presently spending $10,000 US per month for diesel fuel.
>
> I have a number of such prospects. Here in Belize alone!
>
> Now if this gasifier business works -- I need answers -- not stone walling!
>
> It also has to be just as reliable -- and save money -- not cost more.
>
> Ergo -- my sudden interest in the producer gas to engine subject!
>
> Your "pining" away on the wrong details is not constructive at all. I know
> all about "smoke-screening". That simply hides facts that show the device
> in a bad light -- and does not lead to any solutions of the problems.
>
> Which I believe have been very clearly stated.
>
> We are not dealing with 25:1 -- or 14:1 but with standard diesel power
> plant diesel engines! and we can't tell the customer to change them for
> something "special" in order for the gasifier to work! Not in this "real"
> world -- where there is not funding or subsidizing. If it don't work the
> buyer goes broke!
>
> My job is to make sure it works!
>
> Peter
> >>
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

From Mbobker at aol.com Sat May 6 15:32:30 2000
From: Mbobker at aol.com (Mbobker@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Natural Capitalism
Message-ID: <df.3dac9f5.26423b82@aol.com>

Reed -

Your brief summary misses what, to practitioners in the field, may be one of
the most stimulating and controversial points of discussion in the book: to
tackle first those energy measures which, by usual project evaluation
procedures, have the poorest investment returns. The poorest returns, that
is, if we look at a project just standing on its own, which is what is
normally done. But if you sort of "stand the problem on its head" and look
at the system-wide effects, as Amory, Hunter and Paul suggest, it turns out
that it is these very same investments have the greatest system impacts.

Using a simplified metaphor, you would typically tune the boiler (best
payback) and, well, maybe never replace the windows, not until you had to for
other reasons (like rain coming in). By the logic presented, to maximize the
system impact replace the windows and....perhaps...huh?....never tune the
boiler? But really, if we look at all measures together and assume that they
will all get done in a reasonably close time frame, then the order shouldn't
make any difference. It is just a matter of justifying how deep an
investment you can convince the money-guys to make.

Regards,

Mike Bobker
NYC

From rkrishnan at urlgurgaon.com Sat May 6 15:32:37 2000
From: rkrishnan at urlgurgaon.com (Ramesh Krishnan)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Rice Husk gasification
Message-ID: <200005061932.MAA05865@secure.crest.net>

Dear Sirs,

We are putting up a rice project in India and would be interested in
gasification of the rice husk and utilising the gas to fire generator sets.
Can you let us know of some organisation which sells such technology or
would you be interested in giving this technology to us ? I got your
reference from the internet.

Thanks and regards,

RAMESH KRISHNAN

From donaldp at marick.co.uk Sat May 6 15:32:36 2000
From: donaldp at marick.co.uk (donaldp)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: hazardous wastes gasification
In-Reply-To: <004d01bfb335$5a9954e0$0100007f@localhost>
Message-ID: <200005061932.MAA05858@secure.crest.net>

Please see www.marick.co.uk may be in a position to assist

From donaldp at marick.co.uk Sat May 6 15:32:39 2000
From: donaldp at marick.co.uk (donaldp)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal Combustion with Producer Gas
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000503114334.008e2670@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <200005061932.MAA05876@secure.crest.net>

Hello Peter,
read your plight. Will see if we could assist.
Please contact me on:
E-mail:..... DCP@pec.gibros.nl
or my UK E-mail...... Donaldp@marick.co .uk

Website.......www.marick.co.uk

Kind regards

Donald Patrick

At 11:46 03/05/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi Ron;
>
>>Peter,
>>I just got an inquire ,for the gasifier. The client is interested in running
>>a 150KW gen set on rice husk. Very interested, would also look on
>>financing.Actually there are two potential client. The engine for the first
>>one is a 6-71 in line Detroit Diesel.They will also be looking at the drying
>>aspect for rice etc.
>>Please let me know if we can get a quote.
>>Zain
>>Sealand Harvesters Ltd.
>
>This was followed by a long phone call -- and in the next few days I will
>need to make an on site appraisal.
>
>I would say at least 5 operations of this size -- some a little smaller --
>some a little large.
>
>I forward this as example of where the market is here in Belize -- a very
>small country. 230,000 population.
>
>The market across the border in Mexico and Guatemala would be much larger.
>
>The point is that these "plants" are already existing and operating on
>diesel fuel. You find so much of that here -- where power grids do not
>exist and electricity costs 18 cents (US) per KWH.
>
>While people in modern countries "play" with gasification -- here is could
>be a viable alternative. But no funding!! So tricky to proceed.
>
>I am basically a one man operation here. Would be nice to co-venture with
>another company to ease the "load". To date -- no such interest -- but I
>proceed just the same.
>
>At present -- India seems to be the most developed area of practical
>application of Gasification. I imagine they face the same problems as well.
>That is lack of capital for the conversion -- so we all just continue to
>waste money.
>
>One would think there would be bankers from the richer countries interested
>in this aspect of technology -- as they are rather secure investments.
>(meaning they pay for their diesel consumption at present) But to date --
>nothing -- oh -- but lot's of talk!!
>
>Certainly money around to pay for Phd's to study the exotica -- like that
>last posting on tars.
>
>Peter/Belize
>
>At 10:59 AM 5/3/00 -0500, you wrote:
>>Dear Peter:
>>What size are your "number of projects" for rice husk fired engine generator
>>systems?
>>Ron Bailey
>>PRM Energy Systems, Inc.
>>
>>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>>
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
>

From andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com Sun May 7 05:31:06 2000
From: andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal Combustion with Producer Gas
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000505130715.008d9a00@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <smdahs0djhpnmjdtlea154elnoeu086fqg@4ax.com>

On Fri, 05 May 2000 13:08:04 -0500, Peter Singfield wrote:

>
>While this may be good pricing for the modern industrialized nations it is
>like reaching to touch the moon for the rest of this planet!
Which is why I responded to the posting by Joacim about charcoal
gasifiers. The commonly held view is that charcoal production is
polluting and inefficient. This is not necessarily the case.

Both Tom Reed and Doug Williams have acknowledged a charcoal gasifier
is simple to construct, with low volatiles char there is little tar
problem. The offgas CO is of low calorific value and will probably
derate the engine.
<snip>
>If the producer is operating 3 months -- his fuel cost savings would not
>even pay the interest!!
>
>Now -- that is where gasification becomes a total failure and a waste of
>everyone's time!
>
>It is a technology of no value to 1st world countries with their cheap
>power rates -- and far to expensive for 3rd world countries with expensive
>rates.
Which is the dilemma of most renewable technologies. It is the high
return on huge capital spending that has benefited the current system
to exploit fossil reserves. Without which industrialisation would not
have occurred in the Northern Hemisphere. I suggest biomass is more
distributed and less responsive to capital investment. How humankind
addresses this is an off topic subject, interesting though the debate
on natural capital is!
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 andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com Sun May 7 05:31:07 2000
From: andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Internal Combustion with Producer Gas
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000501155913.0092f770@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <sgdahs40qum7i01u9v5jsjt2s9fpho2dcp@4ax.com>

On Mon, 01 May 2000 20:06:43 -0700, robert luis wrote:

>
> The actual fuel burned in the engine shouldn't matter, as long as the
>internal parts can handle the stress and everything is set up to avoid pre
>ignition. Pilot diesel injection is an effective strategy because it requires
>little, if any, modifications to the engine itself. The diesel injectors run in
>"idle" continuously and the externally mixed gas takes up the rest of the load.
Also Prof Parikh points out that the burning diesel effectively acts
as a multi point ignition source, with multiple flame fronts I can see
this would prevent pockets of high pressure in the offgas/air mix and
move the onset of detonation, this is a concept new to me and would be
an advantage over a spark plug conversion.
<snip>

> Direct injecting a gaseous fuel creates a "variable compression ratio"
>engine. The compression ratio would fluctuate according to demand, and if
Not necessarily a good thing, it was you who pointed out that
compression pressure was the measure of stress on components. I agree
engine management could be very beneficially used here. I suggest the
management system would be to optimise compression pressure without
reducing thermodynamic efficiency. To my mind, in your scenario of
making a direct injection of gas operate a diesel cycle, this would
mean reducing air intake as gas injection increased. It would of
course still need pilot oil injection. The gas would need to be very
clean as the injection would need to be at high pressure and by
solenoid operated injectors.
<snip>

> Modern turbo diesels utilize engine speed, air density, turbo boost and
>throttle position as variables in their fuel maps. Torque and horsepower can be
>altered with a laptop computer. I've seen the system for Cummins N14 engines
>(these displace about 10 liters), and it's very impressive!
Eventually it may come to biomass powered ic engines but by then what
is the chance of NREL's molten carbonate fuel cell running on biomass
via a flash pyrolysis method?
>
>> So -- why doesn't some one do this? Looks so easy to me.
>
> I think it can be done. Where is the market for producer gas engines?
In places where there is no money for investment in this technology!
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 donaldp at marick.co.uk Sun May 7 11:36:38 2000
From: donaldp at marick.co.uk (donaldp)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: OIive oil wastes gasification
In-Reply-To: <000a01bf3664$1c6e8da0$714b05c3@servidorint>
Message-ID: <200005071536.IAA30555@secure.crest.net>

Ref. Olive mark and biomass gasification.
We specialise in biomass gasification.

Tried many times to contact you with no success.

If you are serious about olive gasification please contact me.

Hq....... Netherlands

Tel. 0031 (0) 186. 65 00 00
Fax. 0031 (0) 186. 65 43 80
Mobile Tel..... 0031. (0) 651-85. 2169

E-mail.... dcp@pec.gibros.nl
Website.. www.marick.co.uk
We are also shortly opening up offices in Madrid and Sevillia

Hope to hear from you.

Kind regards

Dr. Donald C. Patrick

At 11:10 24/11/99 +0100, you wrote:
> Dear All, and energy problems arise and new solutions must be put at
>work. Here, in the Southern European Countries we are working hard and
>achieving some results, but I would like to heard what about abroad. Can
>anybody give me information about what is being done outside the European
>Union? Guillermo J. Escobar
>tel. +34914516910; fax +34914429309
> E-28003-Madrid. Spain

From carbex at rdsor.ro Sun May 7 19:00:57 2000
From: carbex at rdsor.ro (Cornel Ticarat)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Sparks extinguisher.
Message-ID: <200005072300.QAA09875@secure.crest.net>

Dear Gasifiers,

I plan to make a retort for producing charcoal, using indirect heating
method. I have allready started to build it. In order to get the maximum
benefit from the sistem, I want to use the hot flue gases resulted from the
wood firebox to pre-dry first the wood. The problem is in this case with
the sparks coming out of the wood firebox heating the retort. There is the
danger of ignition of the wood to be pre-dryed which is located in
pre-dryer. As far as I know there are some simple devices (or methods ?) to
extinguish the sparks coming out from a fire wood.
Should anyone of you give me some information on this, I would be very
grateful to him.

Best regards,

Cornel Ticarat

From marekg at wasko.pl Mon May 22 02:44:29 2000
From: marekg at wasko.pl (=?iso-8859-2?B?TWFyZWsgR3fzvGS8?=)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: request from student
Message-ID: <030b01bfc319$c67ddfc0$3011a0d4@default>

Dear Sears,
In this year I will finished my study. My
profession is: Engineering Environment and Energetics (faculty: Gas Energetics).
At the moment Im writting my diploma about Combination Cycles with biomass
gasification- gas turbines systems. Im doing termodynamic-economic complete
systems analyse. Unfortunately I haven't enough details about this system. Could
you send me some information about costs of particulary elements and about
parametrs of instalation.
Thank you for your help.
I'm looking forward to heaving from
you.
Yours Faithfully
Marek Gwó¼d¼

<FONT face="Arial CE"
size=2>
ps. I request
answer to a letter by e-mail
<FONT face="Arial CE"
size=2>xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxPozdrawiamMarek
Gwó¼d¼ul. Królowej Jadwigi 5/941-940 Piekary ¦l±skie
Polska e-mail: <A
href="mailto:marekg@wasko.pl">marekg@wasko.pltel. (sms) +48 603 42 25
52

From Helena_Chum at nrel.gov Mon May 22 13:22:09 2000
From: Helena_Chum at nrel.gov (Chum, Helena)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: RE: Natural Capitalism
Message-ID: <200005221722.KAA04766@secure.crest.net>

Those interested in these subjects could look up a new but very interesting
journal:

Journal of Industrial Ecology from the School of Forestry and Environmental
Studies from Yale University that is published by MIT Press. The Editors
include Reid Leifset (Yale), David Allen (University of Texas at Austin),
John Ehrenfeld (MIT), etc.

Check it out.

Helena

-----Original Message-----
From: Reedtb2@cs.com [mailto:Reedtb2@cs.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 5:33 PM
To: bioenergy@crest.org; gasification@crest.org; stoves@crest.org;
normc@rmi.org; amoryl@rmi.org; Paulh@rmi.org
Subject: Natural Capitalism

Dear Crest members:

(If this has appeared here before, accept my apologies).

Briefly, they advocate

o Radically increasing the productivity of natural resources

o A shift to biologically inspired production models and materials

o A move to a "service-and-flow" business model (such as selling
illumination rather than light bulbs)

o Major reinvestment in our natural capital

Peter Senge, (author of the Fifth Disciple) said "If Adam Smith's "Wealth of
Nations" was the bible for the first Industrial Revolution, then "Natural
Capital" may well prove to be it for the next."

CHeck out the website and see if this starts a brushfire of discussion.

Yours truly, TOM REED CPC/BEF

The Bioenergy List is sponsored by:
David M. Gubanc.P.E. http://www.gubanc.com and
dk-TEKNIK ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT http://www.dk-teknik.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information:
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/bioenergy-list-archive/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

From info at pctel.com.ar Mon May 22 20:37:45 2000
From: info at pctel.com.ar (Info@Pctel.com.ar)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasification plant
Message-ID: <00b501bfc44e$97fe93c0$75c110c8@pc-tel>

I would like to know where could I find some
information on the typical cost of a 2Ton/Hour biomass gasification plant for
electric energy production. What should be the typical payback, the operation
costs and the cost of the produced Kw-hr?
Thank you
Carlos Cabanillas
Argentina

From snkm at btl.net Mon May 22 22:05:45 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasification plant
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000522194556.008b7140@wgs1.btl.net>

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1125 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/20000522/f3781637/attachment.bin
From BronzeoakC at aol.com Tue May 23 09:42:26 2000
From: BronzeoakC at aol.com (BronzeoakC@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasification plant
Message-ID: <29.57985b8.265be498@aol.com>

Dear Peter,

Assuming that the 2 te/h has 20% moisture or less, you can expect to
generateabout 2 MWe (gross). Allowing 10% for parasitic loads leaves anout
1.8 MW (net).

The cost of a fairly simple system based on downdraft gasifiers, diesel gen
sets adapted to burn 30% diesel and 70% biogas would be around $1,300/kWe
(gross) fully installed (EPC scope). In order to avoid using diesel, one
would need to chose a much more expensive spark ignition gen set designed for
low CV biogas. This would raise the price to about $2000/kWe (gross). In
the end the economics will depend on many factors including: the cost of the
fuel (it may be negative, if their is a waste disposal cost), the regularity
of fuel supply (is it all year round or only seasonal), the value of the
electrcity produced (self use and/or sell to utility).

We develop biomass to energy systems. If you have a specific case and would
care to send me more details, I would be pleased to take a look at the
feasibility.

Best regards
David Walden
Bronzeoak Corporation
Bradenton Florida

In a message dated 5/22/2000 10:07:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, snkm@btl.net
writes:

<< Subj: Re: GAS-L: gasification plant
Date: 5/22/2000 10:07:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: snkm@btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
Reply-to: gasification@crest.org
To: gasification@crest.org

At 09:34 PM 5/22/00 -0300, you wrote:

>>>>

<excerpt><bigger>I would like to know where could I find some
information on the typical cost of a 2Ton/Hour biomass gasification plant
for electric energy production. What should be the typical payback, the
operation costs and the cost of the produced Kw-hr?</bigger>
<bigger>Thank you</bigger> <bigger> Carlos Cabanillas</bigger>
<bigger>Argentina</bigger>

</excerpt>

Ok Carlos -- you are asking for a "free" engineering study. But before
you can even start getting one -- you have to specify what the 2 tons per
hour is and what it's humidity (moisture) levels are. From that can be
worked out an energy figure.

Peter Singfield

COROGEN

Executive Director

Xaibe Village

Corozal District

Belize, Central America

Tel 501-4-35213

E-mail: snkm@btl.net

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
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-zb01.mx.aol.com (rly-zb01.mail.aol.com [172.31.41.1]) by
air-zb01.mail.aol.com (v73.13) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 May 2000 22:07:15 2000
Received: from secure.crest.net (secure.crest.net [216.200.135.128]) by
rly-zb01.mx.aol.com (v71.10) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 May 2000 22:06:52 -0400
Received: from localhost (mail@localhost)
by secure.crest.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA30207;
Mon, 22 May 2000 19:05:56 -0700
Received: by secure.crest.net (bulk_mailer v1.9); Mon, 22 May 2000 19:05:49
-0700
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
by secure.crest.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA30183
for gasification-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 19:05:45 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: secure.crest.net: majordomo set sender to
owner-gasification@crest.org using -f
Received: from wgs1.btl.net (wgs1.btl.net [206.27.238.5])
by secure.crest.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA30180
for <gasification@crest.org>; Mon, 22 May 2000 19:05:42 -0700
Received: from n245p38.btl.net ([206.27.245.38]) by wgs1.btl.net
(Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA4DDF
for <gasification@crest.org>; Mon, 22 May 2000 20:05:23 +0600
Message-Id: <3.0.32.20000522194556.008b7140@wgs1.btl.net>
X-Sender: snkm@wgs1.btl.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 20:05:13 -0500
To: gasification@crest.org
From: Peter Singfield <snkm@btl.net>
Subject: Re: GAS-L: gasification plant
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
Reply-To: gasification@crest.org

>>
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 jlsance at posta.unizar.es Fri May 26 02:58:51 2000
From: jlsance at posta.unizar.es (posta)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: plant start-up
Message-ID: <200005260657.IAA18169@posta.unizar.es>

Dear gasification friends:

I am a student, and I am developing a graduation project on gasification.
I would like to get information about different ways of heating a
gasification reactor (my project is about fluid bed reactors, but any other
information is welcome) to start the reaction.

Any reference or idea will be appreciated.

Thanks

Jose Luis

email: jlsance@posta.unizar.es
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 May 28 20:53:38 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: San Francisco Bay Area is Banning Masonry He
Message-ID: <2b.6452130.26631967@cs.com>

Dear Thomas Stubbing et al:

Here at the Colorado School of Mines we agree with your "Biomass Based Noah's
Ark" warning.

Incidentally, an EXCELLENT book on Noah's flood by ? Ryan tells in
geological/archeological/anthropological/classical literature detail the
reasons why the flood occured 5600 (?) years ago when the Mediteranean broke
through the Bosphorus straights and filled a neary empty Black Sea basin
around which civilications had been forming. The shoreline retreated at 1-2
miles/day, enough to drown most inhabitants and give the rest something to
tell their grandchildren about.

I hope we don't have such stories to tell our grandchildren ( I have 7) of
the exhaustion of cheap fossil fuels.

Yours truly, TOM REED

In a message dated 5/26/00 8:03:52 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
heat-win@cwcom.net writes:

>
> WHY WE NEED A FORESTRY BASED NOAHâ€™S ARK
>
> Within a lengthy paper dated 29th March 2000 on the subject of global
> energy supply William E. Rees, an ecological economist and professor
> at the University of British Columbia's School of Community and
> Regional Planning wrote the following:
>
> "The world is running out of oil. Recent price hikes are mere tremors
> heralding the real price shock to come.
>
> Oil "production" (i.e., extraction) peaked in North America in 1984.
> Several recent studies project world oil production to peak by 2013
> or sooner, possibly as soon as 2007. Even the necessarily
> conservative International Energy Agency in its World Energy Outlook,
> 1998 concurred for the first time that global output could top out
> between 2009 and 2012 and decline rapidly thereafter. IEA data
> project a nearly 20-per-cent shortfall of supply relative to demand
> by 2020 that will have to be made up of from "unidentified
> unconventional" sources (i.e., known oil-sands deposits have already
> been taken into account). Other studies show that by 2040 total oil
> output from all sources may fall to less than half of today's 25-26
> billion barrels of oil per year.
>
> And running out of oil is not running out of just oil. Oil is the
> means by which industrial society obtains (and overexploits) all
> other resources. The world's fishing fleets, its forest sector, its
> mines, and its agriculture all are powered by liquid portable fossil
> fuels -- 17 per cent of the U.S. energy budget, most of it oil, is
> used just to grow, process, and transport food alone. Keep in mind
> too that petroleum is not just a fuel. Oil and natural gas are the
> raw material for medicines, paints, plastics, agricultural
> fertilizers and pesticides. Since oil is directly or indirectly a
> part of everything else, the scarcity of oil and the coming price
> shock means higher prices all round.
>
> Some economists argue that rising prices enable us to exploit less
> accessible deposits, that the resource is "constantly renewed as it
> is extracted." This is grossly misleading. The physical stock of
> exploitable oil is not being "renewed." Improved technology has
> simply made a dwindling supply more accessible. Abundant short-term
> market supplies then effectively short-circuit the price increases
> that would otherwise signal impending real scarcity, even as finite
> stocks are depleted.
>
> Moreover, oil exploration is very much subject to diminishing
> material returns. Despite increasing effort, we currently discover
> less than six billion barrels of new oil a year, not even a quarter
> of present consumption. In much of the world, oil extractors used to
> discover 50 barrels of oil for every barrel consumed in drilling and
> pumping. Today the ratio is five to one, heading to one for one by
> 2005. At that point, there will no point in extracting oil at any
> price even though plenty will be left in the ground.
>
> What about substitutes? The fact is that no suitable substitutes are
> yet in sight for the fossil fuels used in heavy farm machinery,
> construction and mining equipment, diesel trains and trucks, and
> ocean-going freighters. Jet aircraft cannot be powered by
> electricity, whatever its source. It is also no small irony that we
> need high-intensity fossil fuel to produce the machinery and
> infrastructure required for most alternative forms of energy.
> Sunlight is simply too "dilute" to use in manufacturing the high-tech
> devices and equipment required for its own conversion to heat and
> electricity. Industrial civilization faces a paradox: we need oil to
> move beyond the age of oil.
>
> The human population has grown six-fold in less than 200 years. The
> global economy has quintupled in less than 50. No factor has played
> a greater role in the explosive growth of the human enterprise than
> abundant, cheap fossil fuel. No other resource has changed the
> structure of economies, the nature of technologies, the balance of
> geopolitics, and the quality of human life as much as petroleum.
> Little wonder that some scientists believe that passing the peak of
> world oil production will be a shock to the human enterprise like no
> other event in history. Population and consumption are still on a
> steep trajectory but the rocket is running out of fuel."
>
> Noah built his ark before the flood. Today we need to build an ark
> by planting trees and other energy crops and constructing the
> facilities needed to produce solid and liquid fuels from them before
> the oil needed to do so runs out. If we wait it will be too late!
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Regards,
>
> Thomas J Stubbing
> Heat-Win Limited
> Ludlow, 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 LINVENT at aol.com Mon May 29 01:11:58 2000
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: San Francisco Bay Area is Banning Masonry He
Message-ID: <44.4076540.266355f1@aol.com>

Dear Tom Reed and others,
Unfortunately for all of the doomsayers about the end of the fossil fuel
era, there are more discoveries made each day and as one Secretary of State
said "The world is floating on a pool of oil". Even some recent discoveries
have cast doubt upon the theory of oil being derived from biological sources,
i.e., plant matter and occurred in the formation of the earth which gives
rise to even larger possibilities of oil existence on the earth. Some time
ago Omni magazine had an article on the radical thinkers who came up with
alternative theories and one of them was relating to the nature of occurrence
of oil on earth. If this is true, then we should be able to find it on other
planets also, a real impetus to do additional planetary exploration.
Oil, costs, are all the political game which like war, man is hard
pressed to give up because it is a mechanism by which power is concentrated.
Once concentrated, it can be sought and controlled. Do we absolutely need
the Mideast Oil? Probably not. If we exerted the same influence over
Mexican, Venezulan, and other oil sources we could do without it and the
political and economic millstone which it represents. Our dependence upon
foreign crude is the single most debilitating factor which our country allows
to occur. It gives rise to various forms of blackmail and extortion renamed
to Mideast Policy, plus a huge drain on our cash reserves AKA foreign balance
of payments. I recently had a conversation with a DOE director of oil and
gas operations (the current DOE Secretary is from New Mexico and appointed
him), and he said we do not have an energy policy.
Our technical abilities will certainly allow us to implement any numbers
of forms of improved energy conversion and use besides petroleum, either here
or foreign derived, however, until we take the easy way out and pump other's
oil, we will continue to make buggy whips and use them when we could be doing
much more interesting things.
Write your congressman, boycott oil, disconnect from the grid, etc., and
they will get the picture.
Anyone have any idea how much it is going to cost to decommission Palo
Verde Nuclear Generating Facility? Any wheeled or alternative power has to
contribute to the costs of decommissioning of the plant. Ouch! You send a
rescue craft to save the ship and the ship throws their anchor on your deck.
What idiots. Politics at it's worst. Probably take a Federal Court decision
to get rid of that law. We have the same here in the State of New Mexico
under the guise of "deregulation". We pay for any "stranded costs" incurred
by the large public utility PNM, if wheeling or other generation power is
used in the State. How much? Who knows, you can't connect to hook up the
power without PNM's blessing.
So, it isn't energy policy, it is politics which keeps technology down.
Imagine regulating computer chips? We would still be using abacus.

From arcate at msn.com Mon May 29 17:33:26 2000
From: arcate at msn.com (Jim Arcate)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:28 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Torrefied Wood (TW)
Message-ID: <200005292133.OAA04880@secure.crest.net>

Hello Tom Reed & Gasification:

Tom Reed you indicated interest in Torrefied Wood, perhaps you and others
can help me with this:

If we torrefy wood at ~ 270 degrees C. (by Airless Drying using superheated
steam at atmospheric pressure) typically, what volatile compounds will be
released, over what temperature ranges; in particular combustible gases that
could be used as fuel for the AD's indirect heater ?

Thank you,

Jim Arcate
Transnational Technology

Reference: Table 1. in DEVELOPMENTS ON TORREFIED WOOD AN ALTERNATIVE TO
CHARCOAL FOR REDUCING DEFORESTATION on my web site at
http://www.techtp.com/FAO%20Paper.htm indicates ~ 2,257.50 kJ of energy is
"lost" per kg of dry wood converted to TW.

This energy could be used as input to the Airless Dryer's indirect heater
for drying wood & making TW.

GCV kJ/kg:
Raw Wood (dry) 19,350.00
TW 270 C. 21,500.00
% Yield of TW 79.5%

Torrefy 1 kg of Raw Wood (dry) to make 0.795 kg TW
kJ in TW 17,092.50
Energy Lost, kJ 2,257.50 per kg of dry wood converted to TW
--------------------------------------

BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

May 2000 Gasification Archive