December 2001 Gasification Archive

From tombreed at home.com Sat Dec 1 08:05:47 2001
From: tombreed at home.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:48 2004
Subject: Gasifier and Stove fabrication - Tincanium Plus
In-Reply-To: <3C06F177.000005.80277@default>
Message-ID: <025d01c17a67$c925c380$18e5b618@lakwod3.co.home.com>

Dear All:

It would be nice if in the grand scheme of things (GST) we could make
advanced clean stoves and gasifiers out of mud (aka ceramic, clay, cement,
....).

However ALL clean burning fossil fuel stoves and gasifiers are made of
metal. (sigh).

Tincanium is certainly one of the easiest metals for initial testing of
ideas and possibly for production models. Tin cans can be cut and shaped
with aircraft shears and pliers. However, (see below) not all stove shapes
are cylindrical and 28 gasuge metal (?) may be a little thin for some
applications.

So I have been thinking of buying a Chinese combination Bending Brake, Shear
and Roll for my shop for $179 from Harbor Freight (when I get $300 extra).
Last week I visited Harbor Freight in Eugene, OR with Ken Goyer and Larry
Winiarski. Ken has one and says it is great within its limitations. Here's
Harborfreight.com's description.
~~~~~~~~
18'' SHEET METAL FABRICATION KIT

Similar Tools Sell for Over $500!
Cut, form, roll beads, and make perfect flanges with one bench top tool.
Saves money and shop space. Comes with 1/4'', 3/8'', and 1/2'' bead
mandrels; 1/16'', 1/8'', and 1/4'' flange mandrels; and one 18-1/4''
shearing mandrel.

Perfect for auto body workers: make your own wheel tubs, battery trays,
dashboards, fire walls, floor pans, and other sheet metal parts and
accessories. (Vise sold separately.)

Order the adjustable guide fence to make precision cuts and flanges (item
36474).
Sheet metal capacity: 18 gauge
Throat depth: 18-1/4"
Shipping weight: 60 lbs.
ITEM 34104-2VGA

$179.99
~~~~~~

Dr. Thomas Reed
The Biomass Energy Foundation
1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
303 278 0558;
tombreed@home.com; www.woodgas.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchishol@fox.nstn.ca>
To: "Tim Bollman" <tbollman@twlakes.net>; <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Gasifier questions

> Dear Tim
> ...del...
> >I envision a retangular hopper with a triangular grate/reaction/pyrolisis
> chamber. Am I crazy?
>
> Why would you want to do this?
> >I am basing my design on a very effective wood fired boiler that I have
> seen (Menonite made).
>
> There is a major difference; in a gasifier, the gases must flow through
the
> bed. They don't have to in a boiler.
>
> >The fire box was deep and wide and tilted down to a point in the back of
> the stove. This made it easy to load and obviated bridging problems. The
> design I envision would also allow differing sizes of "hoppers" to be
used,
> to allow for system size adjustment etc.
>
> >I don't deal with circular fabrication as well as I do with flat surfaces
> and planes. I am a structural guy...no longer mechanical....sigh.
> Additionaly, my "shop" isn't such that I can undertake anything but the
most
> rudimentary fabrication.
>
> OK... then find a round tank. :-)
>
> > As to air flow at the corners, I anticipate feeding the process with a
> standard size black iron pipe cast into a ferro concrete grate, said pipes
> being fed via a double manifold. I will position said oxygen supplies to
> minimize the "corner" effect. I also intend to stagger the feed pipes
side
> to side to minimize any areas in the reaction area that might result in
less
> than maximum reaction.
>
> I think you wil find that a round system will be much better, in terms of
> the potential to get uniform reaction. This will certainly be the case for
> chipped fuels. With stick wood, a case can be made for rectangular
gasifying
> chambers, but wood lengths should be very uniform, and close to the length
> of the gasifying chamber.
>
> >I am still analysing the description of the Imbert gasifier in my copy of
> "Handbook of Biomass Downdraft Gasifier Engine sytems". I suspect the
final
> layout and design will only be determined by experience with a working
> gasifier.
>
> 2) Rather than using the gas at the time of generation, I plan to compress
> it (similar to LPG) for use later or as needed.
>
> > Is there compelling reasons for NOT doing this?
>
> Yes, indeed. The capital, energy, and maintenance costs associated with a
> compressor.
>
> >OK, here's the deal. I am off-grid. Supplying electricity for a fan is a
> "no-go" situation for me. Additionally, I intend to filter my gas with a
wet
> system filter (gravity fed water-bath over charcoal filter). After
> filtration, I intend to further cool my gas, as well as precipitate any
> remaining tar in my gas with a counter weighted "accumulator" surrounded
by
> a water bath/cooler/seal.
>
> >It is my intention to size the accumulator and hopper such that the fuel
in
> the hopper is close to exhausion at about the time that the accumulator
> reaches capacity. The counter weights on the accumulator will be sized to
> provide the neccessary draft thru the reaction chamber......thus no
> electricity required for operation.
>
> The interior of the accumulator is under vacuum? If there is any
> possibility of air leaks, then you might be making explosive mixtures.
> However, it is a cute concept to generate draft without a fan.
>
> >The compressor would, in this case consist of a suitable small horse
power
> engine that would be run at the begining of the gasification cycle to
> compress the gas into storage tanks, return the accumulator to it's empty
> position and fill the cooling water gravity feed tank all at once. Said
> engine to be fed by the already produced=and coloed gas. All the above
being
> done as the hopper was being re-filled, the pre-drier filled, the fire
> restarted, flaring off the "pre-gas".......etc.
>
> I gather you are running a "batch" type of peration?
>
> >I anticipate compressing to 180 psi at ambient temps (30 to 90 F) in
order
> to avail myself of commonly available LPG valves, tanks, fittings and
> gauges.
>
> 180 psi isn't much. You will need very large tankage to store a decent
> amount of energy.
>
> > As noted above, my intent is to use readily available "off the shelf"
> components to minimize costs. My LPG guy tells me their systems are rated
at
> 180 psi.
>
> Just because they are available and will work under your selected
conditions
> doesn't mean its a good idea.
>
> What do you want ot use the gas to accomplish?
>
> >In the first incarnation of this system, I would like to replace the 5
> gallons of gasoline that I purchase each week for electrical generation. I
> would like the system to operate well enough that I could store enough
> "energy" for a week or two in advance. LPG storage tanks are relatively
> cheap, if you have sufficent gas of decent quality to fill them with.
>
> Have you determined how many LPG storage tanks you would require to store
> the energy content of 1 gallon of gasoline at these low pressures?
>
> >Eventually, I would like this system to supplant all my fuel needs for 2
> trucks, 2 tractors, 2 generators, and my wifes' car.........and if I can
> replace my wood stove with a thermostatically controlled natural gas
heater
> run on wood gas......GREAT.
>
> Is there a possibility that you might be better off converting the
> generators to gasifier fuel, and use direct wood heating for your home?
>
> >Even better, if I can run my cook range, water heater and propane
> refrigerator, I will be completely energy independant......VERY COOL.
>
> Yes, it would be neat.
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Kevin Chisholm
>
>
>
> -
> Gasification List Archives:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/
>
> Gasification List Moderator:
> Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
> www.webpan.com/BEF
> List-Post: <mailto:gasification@crest.org>
> List-Help: <mailto:gasification-help@crest.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org>
>
> Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> -
> Other Gasification Events and Information:
> http://www.bioenergy2002.org
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>
>

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.bioenergy2002.org
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sun Dec 2 18:50:40 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:48 2004
Subject: Fwd: VIRUS! - And Change Address of T. Reed
Message-ID: <20.1fff4750.293c1843@cs.com>

I got an Email from you with no message, but an enclosure "Readme.mp3.scr.

This from Norton:

The first extension that is appended to the file name is one of the
following: .DOC .MP3 .ZIP
The second extension that is appended to the file name is one of the
following: .pif .scr
The resulting file name would look something like this:
CARD.DOC.PIF or NEWS_DOC.MP3.SCR etc.
When executed, this worm copies itself as kernel32.exe in the
"\windows\system" directory. It then adds the following registry value:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\RunOnce\Kernel3
2=kernel32.exe.

The best prevention is not to open any files with the extension of .pif or
.src
if you get an email with one of these files attatched then dont open it,
just delete it.

~~~~~~~~~
Yes I got it and may have sent it to you. Mea Culpa.

In trying to write to you my keyboard either skipped or gave multiple letters............. ssssssss. Bummer!

This morning I re-started my computer in DOS mode (START - ShutDown - Restart in DOS). I then went to the Windows/system directory (cd windows/system for those of you that don't remember DOS) and deleted the kernel32.exe file (del kernel32.exe). All seems to be well now.

~~~~~~~~~
I'll re-iterate my opinion that a virus like this can waste a few or a few hundred hours of each of our time. Multiply this by 20 million computer users and you have "wasted" many lives. This is equivalent to murder and terrorism.

So I believe that anyone caught spreading malicious viruses should be either executed or sentenced to LIFE WITHOUT A COMPUTER in prison. A few well publicized cases like that could reduce "the virus game" to zero. (In the old days they would have been drawn and quarterd just on suspicion.)

This is Computer Bioterrorism in its worst form, so should be stamped out along with other forms.

~~~~~~~~~
PLEASE NOTE: Due to the demise of Excite.com (bankruptcy) I have reverted to my old address,

reedtb2@cs.com

until AT&T gets a new cable provider. PLEASE CHANGE.

Yours truly, TOM REED

Dr. Thomas B. Reed
The Biomass Energy Foundation
reedtb2@cs.com
www.woodgas.com

Dr. Thomas B. Reed
The Biomass Energy Foundation
TomBReed@home.com
www.woodgas.com

To: _bphillips@kermode.net;gasification@crest.org;stoves@crest.org;rwalt@gocpc.com; vivie2000;kcochrane@earthlink.net;
Subject: VIRUS!
From: Reedtb2@cs.com
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 09:26:22 EST
Full-name: Reedtb2
Dear Ben and All:

I got an Email from you with no message, but an enclosure "Readme.mp3.scr.

This from Norton:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\RunOnce\Kernel3
2=kernel32.exe.

The best prevention is not to open any files with the extension of .pif or
.src
if you get an email with one of these files attatched then dont open it,
just delete it.

~~~~~~~~~
Yes I got it and may have sent it to you. Mea Culpa.

In trying to write to you my keyboard either skipped or gave multiple letters............. ssssssss. Bummer!

This is Computer Bioterrorism in its worst form, so should be stamped out along with other forms.

Yours truly, TOM REED

Dr. Thomas B. Reed
The Biomass Energy Foundation
TomBReed@home.com
www.woodgas.com

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Sun Dec 2 20:45:14 2001
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: engines and gasifiers.
Message-ID: <001001c17b9c$adb94780$6a3efea9@Graemewi>

Dear Tom R and Gasifier Colleagues

I do apologise for this single reply to the cascade of e-mails complete with
viruses following my last contribution to this forum, which I must add is a
hobby rather than a business.

My contributions are always signed off as Fluidyne Gasification so that its
known my offerings are from commercial experience. the Fluidyne Archive
(www.fluidynenz.250x.com) was installed to make available photographs from
our files to support my comments on various topics, and I continue to snap
away as I travel for further additions to the Archive.

Its impossible to retire from gasification and I continue to support my
younger associates in Canada, Northern Ireland and Germany. Technically,
Fluidyne Gasification the manufacturer doesn't exist anymore, but Fluidyne
technology is alive and well but out of sight, as all the donkey work of
bringing into commercial reality the first Mega Class system is demanding of
time and money. Although I am sure everyone wants to receive details of
this project, I would point out that the development programme is privately
funded and the gasifiers will be built for our own use as a waste disposal
company. Its a case of if you cannot sell high quality gas making
technology then why not grab the business opportunities and use it
ourselves. { exclusively)

Requests for my own personal input to your projects can only be declined as
I cannot work by remote control with people I have never met, in places I
have never been! Nobody of course says, Doug, please expect a cheque in the
mail for your expenses to come and assess our situation, a must for every
project. Everyone expects a few e-mails to achieve everything that needs to
be done, without consideration for the resources or the abilities to
implement a project. Its a daunting task even to mount a project for
myself!

Returning to the subject of viruses which seem to come in with all the
responses to my last posting. The infection was so bad and numerous
throughout all files that Graeme decided to dump everything so that his new
computer just being installed remains clean.

This means all my e-mail addresses, correspondence old and new are gone, so
if you need to reach me or are expecting a reply, write again, but not
before cleaning and checking your system first, as we will dump
automatically any infected mail and we will not respond to your interests.

Thanks for your co-operation.

Best Regards
Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification.

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF
List-Post: <mailto:gasification@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gasification-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Gasification Events and Information:
http://www.bioenergy2002.org
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Mon Dec 3 08:04:40 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: T Reed Change of Address
Message-ID: <59.140a17d5.293cd222@cs.com>

It is painful enough to change your email address when you plan it, but Excite and AT&T have dropped the cable server connection ball. I was cut off in midsentence 12/1/01 at 7 AM!

Fortunately, I still have my old Compuserve address

Reedtb2@cs.com

and will use it until cable service is restored. Since I will be in Boston (508 485 0017) from Dec. 11 to Jan 3 for Xmas and Nyear, the above address will be valid until then. I'll get back to you with a final (for life?) address in January.
~~~~~~~~~~
An event like this makes you appreciate how dependent we have become on Email and the Internet. I have just gone through my old list of emails and selected the most important addresses for this notice.

It also makes you appreciate how many wonderful friends we have in this Interconnected Web of All Existence. So, if we don't contact any other way (busy as we all are),

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL MY DEAR E-FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES.

Please send me a confirmation if you receive this.

Thanks - Yours truly,

TOM REED BEF PRESS - CPC - STOVEWORKS

Dr. Thomas B. Reed
The Biomass Energy Foundation
TomBReed@home.com
www.woodgas.com

From Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk Mon Dec 3 09:19:02 2001
From: Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Petes dream is a reality
Message-ID: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGMEANCEAA.Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk>

Capitano Sinfield,

Check this link, and you will be jumping through hoops!

Cheers gavin

http://www.turboden.com/

From snkm at btl.net Mon Dec 3 09:53:06 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Petes dream is a reality
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20011203084750.00a91920@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Gavin!!

Your right -- it is exactly what I have been looking for. Will have to
discuss technical matters with these people.

Thanks!

Ormat has not been answering my mails regarding technical info for an 8 meg
biomass plant being built here in Belize -- using conventional combustion
boiler (firetube) and steam turbines. I have been trying to find out if it
would be of advantage to use a refrigerant style turbine -- as these fire
tube boilers are limited in getting the high quality steam required for
efficiency of operation.

Time to move on -- you could not have sent this at a better time -- maybe
these people do answer their Email?

Peter

At 02:19 PM 12/3/2001 -0000, you wrote:
>>>>
Normal 0 DocumentEmail

face=Arial> Arial'>

face=Arial> Arial'>Capitano Sinfield,

face=Arial> Arial'>

face=Arial> Arial'>Check this link, and you will be jumping through hoops!

face=Arial> Arial'>Cheers gavin

face=Arial> Arial'>

face=Arial> Arial'>http://www.turboden.com/

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From hseaver at cybershamanix.com Mon Dec 3 16:55:02 2001
From: hseaver at cybershamanix.com (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Healed of virus...
In-Reply-To: <3C0B8F32.19067.7BAFDF@localhost>
Message-ID: <3C0BF491.690C34F7@cybershamanix.com>

Scott Willing wrote:

> (snip)
>
> Hey, I agree with the sentiment, but face it - if you don't have *and
> maintain* a good virus-checking program, you're basically having
> "unprotected internet sex" every time you download mail.
>
> On top of that, if you use Micro$loth Outlook for email, you're asking
> for it. It's wide open for abuse.
>

That's for sure -- get rid of that and you've solved 99% of the problem. But
also the list owners of these two lists should just block all/any form of
attachments, including html email. The viruses can be disguised, they don't have
to be an "attachment" per se that you have to open, it just can be html email,
and just clicking on the email itself gives you the virus. It could also appear
as a jpeg or gif.
There's just really no need for html email -- it wastes bandwidth, you can't
read it with a great many mail clients like elm and pine, and on a large list
with such a variety of recipients, the point is to communicate, which you
definitely aren't doing effectively if the person who gets it just deletes it
because it shows up as html garbage in his reader.

--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From LINVENT at aol.com Mon Dec 3 17:32:19 2001
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Healed of virus...
Message-ID: <166.4f5f4ed.293d576b@aol.com>

Dear All,
Thanks for the chuckle Scott, Micro$loth is a great name.

Sincerely,
Leland T. Taylor
President
Thermogenics Inc.
7100-2nd St. NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87107
phone 505-761-1454 fax 505-761-1456
Attached files are zipped and can be decompressed with <A
HREF="http://www.aladdinsys.com/expander/">www.aladdinsys.com/expander/ </A>

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From ZBihari at ormat.com Tue Dec 4 03:18:15 2001
From: ZBihari at ormat.com (Zoli Bihari)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:48 2004
Subject: Legislative steps for RE??
Message-ID: <727CFCBBE1C3D41181FC005004201AA0C707DD@ORMAT-NT>

Hi to all the list members,

I just received this article, published by The Denver Post a few days a go:
I wonder if this can be the real step or just another PR move for the administration??

**************
Bush Administration Looks into Renewable Power

By Mike Soraghan, The Denver Post, Nov. 29
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration sought to shine a light on the greener side of its energy agenda Wednesday, sponsoring a conference to spur development of renewable energy on public lands.

OPTIONS Printer-friendly version <http://www.energycentral.com/sections/newsroom/nr_printer_friendly.cfm?id=2534344> Related Information Products <http://www.energycentral.com/sections/marketplace/im_product_list.cfm?top=12> Other Articles - Renewables <http://www.energycentral.com/sections/newsroom/nr_article.cfm?id=2534344>
Interior Secretary Gale Norton hosted the gathering, saying geothermal, solar, biomass and hydroelectric power are important in reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil, which she described as a national-security issue.

"We must explore ways to better capture the sun's light, the sky's winds, the land's bounty and the Earth's heat to provide energy security for America's families," Norton told conference attendees.

Bush's energy plan and the Republican-drafted legislation it inspired are heavy on plans to increase oil and gas drilling on public lands in the Rocky Mountain West, tax breaks for oil companies, and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

But the administration wants to focus on the language encouraging more renewable and alternative energy. For example, the Bush plan orders the Department of the Interior to speed up leases for geothermal energy production.

Currently, the 300 geothermal leases managed by the Interior Department account for 40 percent of the nation's geothermal energy, enough to power 2 million homes. The department has wind farms in California and Wyoming and is building another in Nevada.

But industry representatives told Norton at the conference that they've run into bureaucratic obstacles that discourage companies from investing more in renewable energy. Some geothermal companies complain they've had applications pending for more than 10 years to develop projects on public lands because the Bureau of Land Management lacks the staff to get things done faster.

Representatives of the biomass industry said their work presents a solution to the accumulation of thickets of brush and small trees in national forests, which fuel catastrophic wildfires. Biomass companies take the small trees and brush from forest thinning, which might not have another commercial use, and burn them to produce electricity.

"The question is not simply what public lands can do for renewable energy, but what biomass can do for public lands," said William Carlson, vice president of the Renewable Energy Division of Wheelabrator Environmental Systems.

Carlson said that with biomass energy, whole forests could be thinned with no cost to the federal government.
But Carlson said the industry needs a tax credit to jump-start more operations. And he said that for stability, the industry needs long-term contracts on public lands that the federal government has not been willing to give.

Norton said that her department will compile suggestions from the companies at the conference and present formal proposals early next year.

-----
To see more of The Denver Post, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.denverpost.com
(c) 2001, The Denver Post. Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News
*****************************************

With regards

Zoli

Zoli Bihari
R&D - Ormat Ltd. - Israel
Tel: 972 (8) 9433894
Fax: 972 (8) 9439901
E-mail: zbihari@ormat.com

From snkm at btl.net Tue Dec 4 14:08:17 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Looking for Tom Taylor
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20011204130034.00a71100@wgs1.btl.net>

Tom -- if your out there somewhere -- send me a note -- have mail for you.

Peter Singfield / Belize

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From dparsons at pacificcoast.net Tue Dec 4 14:44:31 2001
From: dparsons at pacificcoast.net (David Parsons)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:48 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Mailing Lists
Message-ID: <002101c17cfb$9b2037e0$756656d8@dparsons>

List Supervisor

Hello. Please remove me from any and all
mailing lists that I am currently subscribed to, such as:
- gasification
- bioenergy
- stoves

Thanks very much. I have benefitted a lot
from participating, but am now doing much different work.

David C. Parsons
Riverside Consulting
Sooke, BC Canada

From parikh at me.iitb.ac.in Wed Dec 5 22:23:38 2001
From: parikh at me.iitb.ac.in (Prof P P Parikh)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier questions
In-Reply-To: <001201c17952$b90869a0$8119059a@kevin>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0112060847330.11388-100000@epsilon.me.iitb.ac.in>

One very good reason why it should be done this way is that the gasifier
design can be made lenearly modular. Increasing or decreasing the capacity
in that case becomes adding length to the gasifier!
PPP

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.ac.in
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Kevin Chisholm wrote:

> Dear Tim
> ...del...
> >I envision a retangular hopper with a triangular grate/reaction/pyrolisis
> chamber. Am I crazy?
>
> Why would you want to do this?
> >I am basing my design on a very effective wood fired boiler that I have
> seen (Menonite made).
>
> There is a major difference; in a gasifier, the gases must flow through the
> bed. They don't have to in a boiler.
>
> >The fire box was deep and wide and tilted down to a point in the back of
> the stove. This made it easy to load and obviated bridging problems. The
> design I envision would also allow differing sizes of "hoppers" to be used,
> to allow for system size adjustment etc.
>
> >I don't deal with circular fabrication as well as I do with flat surfaces
> and planes. I am a structural guy...no longer mechanical....sigh.
> Additionaly, my "shop" isn't such that I can undertake anything but the most
> rudimentary fabrication.
>
> OK... then find a round tank. :-)
>
> > As to air flow at the corners, I anticipate feeding the process with a
> standard size black iron pipe cast into a ferro concrete grate, said pipes
> being fed via a double manifold. I will position said oxygen supplies to
> minimize the "corner" effect. I also intend to stagger the feed pipes side
> to side to minimize any areas in the reaction area that might result in less
> than maximum reaction.
>
> I think you wil find that a round system will be much better, in terms of
> the potential to get uniform reaction. This will certainly be the case for
> chipped fuels. With stick wood, a case can be made for rectangular gasifying
> chambers, but wood lengths should be very uniform, and close to the length
> of the gasifying chamber.
>
> >I am still analysing the description of the Imbert gasifier in my copy of
> "Handbook of Biomass Downdraft Gasifier Engine sytems". I suspect the final
> layout and design will only be determined by experience with a working
> gasifier.
>
> 2) Rather than using the gas at the time of generation, I plan to compress
> it (similar to LPG) for use later or as needed.
>
> > Is there compelling reasons for NOT doing this?
>
> Yes, indeed. The capital, energy, and maintenance costs associated with a
> compressor.
>
> >OK, here's the deal. I am off-grid. Supplying electricity for a fan is a
> "no-go" situation for me. Additionally, I intend to filter my gas with a wet
> system filter (gravity fed water-bath over charcoal filter). After
> filtration, I intend to further cool my gas, as well as precipitate any
> remaining tar in my gas with a counter weighted "accumulator" surrounded by
> a water bath/cooler/seal.
>
> >It is my intention to size the accumulator and hopper such that the fuel in
> the hopper is close to exhausion at about the time that the accumulator
> reaches capacity. The counter weights on the accumulator will be sized to
> provide the neccessary draft thru the reaction chamber......thus no
> electricity required for operation.
>
> The interior of the accumulator is under vacuum? If there is any
> possibility of air leaks, then you might be making explosive mixtures.
> However, it is a cute concept to generate draft without a fan.
>
> >The compressor would, in this case consist of a suitable small horse power
> engine that would be run at the begining of the gasification cycle to
> compress the gas into storage tanks, return the accumulator to it's empty
> position and fill the cooling water gravity feed tank all at once. Said
> engine to be fed by the already produced=and coloed gas. All the above being
> done as the hopper was being re-filled, the pre-drier filled, the fire
> restarted, flaring off the "pre-gas".......etc.
>
> I gather you are running a "batch" type of peration?
>
> >I anticipate compressing to 180 psi at ambient temps (30 to 90 F) in order
> to avail myself of commonly available LPG valves, tanks, fittings and
> gauges.
>
> 180 psi isn't much. You will need very large tankage to store a decent
> amount of energy.
>
> > As noted above, my intent is to use readily available "off the shelf"
> components to minimize costs. My LPG guy tells me their systems are rated at
> 180 psi.
>
> Just because they are available and will work under your selected conditions
> doesn't mean its a good idea.
>
> What do you want ot use the gas to accomplish?
>
> >In the first incarnation of this system, I would like to replace the 5
> gallons of gasoline that I purchase each week for electrical generation. I
> would like the system to operate well enough that I could store enough
> "energy" for a week or two in advance. LPG storage tanks are relatively
> cheap, if you have sufficent gas of decent quality to fill them with.
>
> Have you determined how many LPG storage tanks you would require to store
> the energy content of 1 gallon of gasoline at these low pressures?
>
> >Eventually, I would like this system to supplant all my fuel needs for 2
> trucks, 2 tractors, 2 generators, and my wifes' car.........and if I can
> replace my wood stove with a thermostatically controlled natural gas heater
> run on wood gas......GREAT.
>
> Is there a possibility that you might be better off converting the
> generators to gasifier fuel, and use direct wood heating for your home?
>
> >Even better, if I can run my cook range, water heater and propane
> refrigerator, I will be completely energy independant......VERY COOL.
>
> Yes, it would be neat.
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Kevin Chisholm
>
>
>
> -
> Gasification List Archives:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/
>
> Gasification List Moderator:
> Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
> www.webpan.com/BEF
> List-Post: <mailto:gasification@crest.org>
> List-Help: <mailto:gasification-help@crest.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org>
>
> Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> -
> Other Gasification Events and Information:
> http://www.bioenergy2002.org
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>
>

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From kchishol at fox.nstn.ca Thu Dec 6 19:33:35 2001
From: kchishol at fox.nstn.ca (Fox)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier questions
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0112060847330.11388-100000@epsilon.me.iitb.ac.in>
Message-ID: <00af01c17eb6$56621260$0419059a@kevin>

Dear Prof. Parikh

> One very good reason why it should be done this way is that the gasifier
> design can be made lenearly modular. Increasing or decreasing the capacity
> in that case becomes adding length to the gasifier!

This is indeed a very good point. If you can get the gas flow patterns
satisfactory in a gasifier which is say 1 unit wide and 3 units long, is is
indeed an easy matter to add length in the middle to increase capacity.

Gasifiers are complex procedd devices. They seek to permit ".... unsteady
state 3 dimensional heat and mass transfer with a change in phase, in
non-uniform beds of broken solids...." The most difficult shape is a
relatively small square section, in that "corner effects" are a major part
of the end result. With an infinitely long rectangular gasifier, corner
effects are infinitely small. There is no question that a gasifier, with a
large "L/W ratio", with parallell sides, would be easier to construct and
oprate than is a round container. However, the construction costs per unit
of capacity would be inherently larger than would be a round system.

The key to consistent and stable gasifier operation is uniform flow of
reaction gases and reaction products through the bed. This task is a
difficult one to accomplish under the best of circumstances. A square
gasifier cross-section is the most difficult to operate successfully.

A practical compromise is to build a "rectangular section with rounded
ends."

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm
> PPP
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~
> 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.ac.in
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
>
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>
> > Dear Tim
> > ...del...
> > >I envision a retangular hopper with a triangular
grate/reaction/pyrolisis
> > chamber. Am I crazy?
> >
> > Why would you want to do this?
> > >I am basing my design on a very effective wood fired boiler that I have
> > seen (Menonite made).
> >
> > There is a major difference; in a gasifier, the gases must flow through
the
> > bed. They don't have to in a boiler.
> >
> > >The fire box was deep and wide and tilted down to a point in the back
of
> > the stove. This made it easy to load and obviated bridging problems. The
> > design I envision would also allow differing sizes of "hoppers" to be
used,
> > to allow for system size adjustment etc.
> >
> > >I don't deal with circular fabrication as well as I do with flat
surfaces
> > and planes. I am a structural guy...no longer mechanical....sigh.
> > Additionaly, my "shop" isn't such that I can undertake anything but the
most
> > rudimentary fabrication.
> >
> > OK... then find a round tank. :-)
> >
> > > As to air flow at the corners, I anticipate feeding the process with a
> > standard size black iron pipe cast into a ferro concrete grate, said
pipes
> > being fed via a double manifold. I will position said oxygen supplies to
> > minimize the "corner" effect. I also intend to stagger the feed pipes
side
> > to side to minimize any areas in the reaction area that might result in
less
> > than maximum reaction.
> >
> > I think you wil find that a round system will be much better, in terms
of
> > the potential to get uniform reaction. This will certainly be the case
for
> > chipped fuels. With stick wood, a case can be made for rectangular
gasifying
> > chambers, but wood lengths should be very uniform, and close to the
length
> > of the gasifying chamber.
> >
> > >I am still analysing the description of the Imbert gasifier in my copy
of
> > "Handbook of Biomass Downdraft Gasifier Engine sytems". I suspect the
final
> > layout and design will only be determined by experience with a working
> > gasifier.
> >
> > 2) Rather than using the gas at the time of generation, I plan to
compress
> > it (similar to LPG) for use later or as needed.
> >
> > > Is there compelling reasons for NOT doing this?
> >
> > Yes, indeed. The capital, energy, and maintenance costs associated with
a
> > compressor.
> >
> > >OK, here's the deal. I am off-grid. Supplying electricity for a fan is
a
> > "no-go" situation for me. Additionally, I intend to filter my gas with a
wet
> > system filter (gravity fed water-bath over charcoal filter). After
> > filtration, I intend to further cool my gas, as well as precipitate any
> > remaining tar in my gas with a counter weighted "accumulator" surrounded
by
> > a water bath/cooler/seal.
> >
> > >It is my intention to size the accumulator and hopper such that the
fuel in
> > the hopper is close to exhausion at about the time that the accumulator
> > reaches capacity. The counter weights on the accumulator will be sized
to
> > provide the neccessary draft thru the reaction chamber......thus no
> > electricity required for operation.
> >
> > The interior of the accumulator is under vacuum? If there is any
> > possibility of air leaks, then you might be making explosive mixtures.
> > However, it is a cute concept to generate draft without a fan.
> >
> > >The compressor would, in this case consist of a suitable small horse
power
> > engine that would be run at the begining of the gasification cycle to
> > compress the gas into storage tanks, return the accumulator to it's
empty
> > position and fill the cooling water gravity feed tank all at once. Said
> > engine to be fed by the already produced=and coloed gas. All the above
being
> > done as the hopper was being re-filled, the pre-drier filled, the fire
> > restarted, flaring off the "pre-gas".......etc.
> >
> > I gather you are running a "batch" type of peration?
> >
> > >I anticipate compressing to 180 psi at ambient temps (30 to 90 F) in
order
> > to avail myself of commonly available LPG valves, tanks, fittings and
> > gauges.
> >
> > 180 psi isn't much. You will need very large tankage to store a decent
> > amount of energy.
> >
> > > As noted above, my intent is to use readily available "off the shelf"
> > components to minimize costs. My LPG guy tells me their systems are
rated at
> > 180 psi.
> >
> > Just because they are available and will work under your selected
conditions
> > doesn't mean its a good idea.
> >
> > What do you want ot use the gas to accomplish?
> >
> > >In the first incarnation of this system, I would like to replace the 5
> > gallons of gasoline that I purchase each week for electrical generation.
I
> > would like the system to operate well enough that I could store enough
> > "energy" for a week or two in advance. LPG storage tanks are relatively
> > cheap, if you have sufficent gas of decent quality to fill them with.
> >
> > Have you determined how many LPG storage tanks you would require to
store
> > the energy content of 1 gallon of gasoline at these low pressures?
> >
> > >Eventually, I would like this system to supplant all my fuel needs for
2
> > trucks, 2 tractors, 2 generators, and my wifes' car.........and if I can
> > replace my wood stove with a thermostatically controlled natural gas
heater
> > run on wood gas......GREAT.
> >
> > Is there a possibility that you might be better off converting the
> > generators to gasifier fuel, and use direct wood heating for your home?
> >
> > >Even better, if I can run my cook range, water heater and propane
> > refrigerator, I will be completely energy independant......VERY COOL.
> >
> > Yes, it would be neat.
> >
> > Kindest regards,
> >
> > Kevin Chisholm
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > Gasification List Archives:
> > http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/
> >
> > Gasification List Moderator:
> > Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
> > www.webpan.com/BEF
> > List-Post: <mailto:gasification@crest.org>
> > List-Help: <mailto:gasification-help@crest.org>
> > List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> > List-Subscribe: <mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org>
> >
> > Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> > -
> > Other Gasification Events and Information:
> > http://www.bioenergy2002.org
> > http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> > http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From jerry5335 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 6 20:37:57 2001
From: jerry5335 at yahoo.com (jerry dycus)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Uniflow design, was Re: GAS-L: Petes dream is a reality
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20011203084750.00a91920@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <20011207013752.27937.qmail@web14001.mail.yahoo.com>

High Peter and All,
These units are 300kw and up, a little too
big for most people!
I believe what we need is a 5 + 10 kw, 8hp to
16hp units for home/ business use. In these sizes
getting biomass to run them would be easy.
I have a few questions on uniflow engines.
Do you need to have 2 cylinders?
Would a single cylinder 2 stroke motor work as
eff?
I was going to make up for the loss of heat thru
the single piston unit by insulating the bottom end
and crankcase, in fact the whole engine, boiler, but
the condenser.
What pressure do you use to fill the motor with
before use start it to get the right temps range to
work eff?
These units seem to be the only means of using
producer gas eff because they don't waste the heat of
the gasifer.
If I can use a single cyl 2 stroke engine for
the basis of an eff rakine motor it would save a lot
of work. Then all I would have to do is build a flash
boiler , comdenser and feed pump.
BTW I have a Marks Manual.
Thanks,
jerry dycus
--- Peter Singfield <snkm@btl.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Gavin!!
>
> Your right -- it is exactly what I have been looking
> for. Will have to
> discuss technical matters with these people.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Peter
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From mbalseca at uio.satnet.net Fri Dec 7 08:06:14 2001
From: mbalseca at uio.satnet.net (Milton Balseca. G)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: remove list mailing
Message-ID: <000201c17f20$a9c49bc0$76c0ddd0@waccom.net.ec>

List supervisor

Hello, please remove me from any and all mailing
lists that I am currently subscribed to, such as:

- gasification
- bioenergy
- stoves

Thanks very much

Eng. Milton Balseca
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY DIRECTOR
MINISTERY OF ENERGY AND MINES

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sat Dec 8 08:04:31 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier Scaling..
Message-ID: <17d.666000.29436986@cs.com>

In our experience and that of many others, the gas production rate of downdraft gasifiers is directly proportional down to a few inches in diameter. The length of the pyrolysis and char zones is proportional to the time required for pyrolysis and char gasificatin which in turn are proportional to fuel size, moisture content and density and must be determined for each fuel and size.

TOM REED

In a message dated 12/6/01 5:34:14 PM Mountain Standard Time, kchishol@fox.nstn.ca writes:

Dear Prof. Parikh

A practical compromise is to build a "rectangular section with rounded
ends."

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm
> PPP
>

From kchishol at fox.nstn.ca Sat Dec 8 10:33:37 2001
From: kchishol at fox.nstn.ca (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Gasifier Scaling..
In-Reply-To: <17d.666000.29436986@cs.com>
Message-ID: <003301c17ffd$36323cc0$6b19059a@kevin>

----- Original Message -----
From: Reedtb2@cs.com
To: kchishol@fox.nstn.ca ; parikh@me.iitb.ac.in
Cc: tbollman@twlakes.net ; gasification@crest.org
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2001 9:03 AM
Subject: Gasifier Scaling..

>Dear all:

>In our experience and that of many others, the gas production rate >of
downdraft gasifiers is directly proportional down to a few inches >in
diameter.

If you found that gas production is directly proportional to diameter, then
there is indeed a great opportunity for improvement. With uniform flow
conditions, the production should be proportional to the BED AREA, ie, would
be proportional to the SQUARE of the diameter.

>The length of the pyrolysis and char zones is proportional to the >time
required for pyrolysis and char gasification, which in turn are
>proportional to fuel size, moisture content and density and must be
>determined for each fuel and size.

I would suggest that it is a bit more complex than this. At a given rate of
air flow length of the pryolysis and char zones will vary with the nature of
fuel and its size. I would suggest that if there was twice the air flow
rate, then the zone heights would approximately halve.

Fuel particle size is very important. Fuel size gradation is very important;
I would suggest no more than a 2:1 size range between teh largest and
smallest particle size to improve uniformity of gas flow and reduce the
tendancy for channeling. In general the production rate varies inversely
with the square of the particle diameter, if air flows are adjusted to
utilize the reaction capability. There are, of course, limits to air flow
rate through a given bed, before spouting, fluidization, or a tendancy of
the bed to hang occur.

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm

TOM REED

In a message dated 12/6/01 5:34:14 PM Mountain Standard Time,
kchishol@fox.nstn.ca writes:

Dear Prof. Parikh

A practical compromise is to build a "rectangular section with rounded
ends."

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk Sat Dec 8 14:02:57 2001
From: Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifeir Operation and experiment
Message-ID: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGCEBKCEAA.Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk>

I’m concerned that some recent correspondents are offering advice on
matters of which they have little experience?

Yours truly, Gav (the old dog!)

From tmiles at trmiles.com Sat Dec 8 14:16:07 2001
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifeir Operation and experiment
In-Reply-To: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGCEBKCEAA.Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20011208111157.02591ec0@pop3.norton.antivirus>

Gavin,
Help us a little further with your concerns. You've raised a question
without pointing to a productive "matter" for discussion.
What specific matters to you question? What experience would you offer or
solicit from other members of the discussion list?
Thanks
Tom Miles
Bioenergy Lists Administrator

At 07:03 PM 12/8/01 +0000, Gavin Gulliver-Goodall wrote:
I m
concerned that some recent correspondents are offering advice on matters
of which they have little experience?

Yours truly, Gav (the old dog!)

Thomas R
Miles          tmiles@trmiles.com
T R Miles,
TCI                  Tel
503-292-0107
1470 SW Woodward Way    Fax
503-292-2919
Portland, OR 97225 USA

From Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk Sun Dec 9 12:22:16 2001
From: Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage
In-Reply-To: <18d.26a85b.2944f3aa@aol.com>
Message-ID: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGMEBLCEAA.Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk>

The UK govt has also woken up to this plight and is attempting to support
the Biomass heating industry as an effective way of reducing Fossil fuel
consumption (90% of UK homes are heated by Oil, Gas or electricity) and
energy dependency. (the UK govt of the 1980's closed all the coal mining in
the UK so now we buy coal from big corps. Exploiting Ex USSR states!)
However the civil servants will make the support provisions unworkable.

Even when the politicians can see sense the system and status quo prevail.

Gav (the old dog)

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From LINVENT at aol.com Sun Dec 9 13:28:03 2001
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage
Message-ID: <182.6e8f37.2945072a@aol.com>

Dear Gavin,
I understand that the Thatcher government closed the mines as retaliation
for the labor parties opposition in her election. I almost got hit by some
Brits when I mentioned Thatcher's name. Pretty cut off your nose to spite
your face kind of politics.
It is abysmally stupid not to use a resource like that for energy and
employment. Perhaps the unions are too strong, but Reagan dealt with them in
a manner befitting their position in this country. Perhaps Thatcher should
have done likewise.
If the labor laws were loosened, employment may be a boon in UK. In
today's internationalism, it is easier to hire someone cheaply offshore than
deal with attitude which tends to arise in strong unionism or "I deserve"
attitude in unionized situations. An inspired government would figure out how
to reopen the mines and the shipyards and keep union attitudes under control.
Starvation will certainly bring this on, the government dole will not.
From the very pragmatic aspects of France using nuclear power and South
Africa using coal for most of their fuels, they sound like countries which
command respect and intelligence in energy issues. We should learn from both
of them.

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From woolsey at netins.net Sun Dec 9 15:31:57 2001
From: woolsey at netins.net (Edward Woolsey)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage
In-Reply-To: <182.6e8f37.2945072a@aol.com>
Message-ID: <002401c180f0$b94fb6c0$95158ea7@ew>

Mr. Taylor,
Yee Gods man ...it's no wonder you were almost hit by the Brits. A good
British thumping may have gotten your attention since it is clear that facts
have not impacted you. For example, unions brought us the 5 day work week
and an end to abusive child labor policies...health care ....vacations ...
safe workplace laws Perhaps these were just "inefficiencies" in the global
marketplace to you.
Have unions gotten too strong? Not unless large corporations and nasty
bosses have ended their push toward unbridled greed.
Have you looked at the Climate Change data lately? To continue to build
coal plants does not lay a vision for the future which I want to follow.
That is why many here work for a rapid change to renewable energy sources.
Speaking of which ....perhaps we should stick to energy issues here!
"God bless the Queen" ;)
Sincerely,
Edward L. Woolsey
President
Applied Agricultural Technologies Inc.
Prole, Iowa
USA
515-669-7335

-----Original Message-----
From: LINVENT@aol.com [mailto:LINVENT@aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 12:28 PM
To: Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk; gasification@crest.org
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sun Dec 9 19:24:24 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: homemade forced convection woodgas stove
Message-ID: <a1.1fae9c23.29455a9f@cs.com>

It's called Thermo-Photovoltaics, TPV, if I remember correctly, and there was an article on TPV in Scientific American a few years ago by a Tim (?) at NREL, making slow progress in this field....

TOM REED

In a message dated 12/8/01 10:47:44 AM Mountain Standard Time, hotspringfreak@hotmail.com writes:

AJH wrote:

> Consider also the high emissivity mantle and a
> gallium arsenide photo voltaic device operating in the infra red
> region, this seems to give the highest conversion per photon in.

Where can I find details on this? I can't get this out of my head. Thanks for
the prod.

Chris Smith

From parikh at me.iitb.ac.in Sun Dec 9 22:51:00 2001
From: parikh at me.iitb.ac.in (Prof P P Parikh)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Gasifier Scaling..
In-Reply-To: <17d.666000.29436986@cs.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0112100914570.7310-100000@epsilon.me.iitb.ac.in>

Dear Dr. Reed and all
You are absolutely right about gas rate being proportional to square of
D. When we incres the length this has to be kept in mind tha SGR is
maintained.
PPP

On Sat, 8 Dec 2001 Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:

> Dear all:
>
> In our experience and that of many others, the gas production rate of
> downdraft gasifiers is directly proportional down to a few inches in
> diameter. The length of the pyrolysis and char zones is proportional to the
> time required for pyrolysis and char gasificatin which in turn are
> proportional to fuel size, moisture content and density and must be
> determined for each fuel and size.
>
> TOM REED
>
> In a message dated 12/6/01 5:34:14 PM Mountain Standard Time,
> kchishol@fox.nstn.ca writes:
>
>
> >
> >
> > Dear Prof. Parikh
> >
> > > One very good reason why it should be done this way is that the gasifier
> > > design can be made lenearly modular. Increasing or decreasing the capacity
> > > in that case becomes adding length to the gasifier!
> >
> > This is indeed a very good point. If you can get the gas flow patterns
> > satisfactory in a gasifier which is say 1 unit wide and 3 units long, is is
> > indeed an easy matter to add length in the middle to increase capacity.
> >
> > Gasifiers are complex procedd devices. They seek to permit ".... unsteady
> > state 3 dimensional heat and mass transfer with a change in phase, in
> > non-uniform beds of broken solids...." The most difficult shape is a
> > relatively small square section, in that "corner effects" are a major part
> > of the end result. With an infinitely long rectangular gasifier, corner
> > effects are infinitely small. There is no question that a gasifier, with a
> > large "L/W ratio", with parallell sides, would be easier to construct and
> > oprate than is a round container. However, the construction costs per unit
> > of capacity would be inherently larger than would be a round system.
> >
> > The key to consistent and stable gasifier operation is uniform flow of
> > reaction gases and reaction products through the bed. This task is a
> > difficult one to accomplish under the best of circumstances. A square
> > gasifier cross-section is the most difficult to operate successfully.
> >
> > A practical compromise is to build a "rectangular section with rounded
> > ends."
> >
> > Kindest regards,
> >
> > Kevin Chisholm
> > > PPP
> > >
>
>
>

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From parikh at me.iitb.ac.in Sun Dec 9 22:54:59 2001
From: parikh at me.iitb.ac.in (Prof P P Parikh)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Gasifier Scaling..
In-Reply-To: <003301c17ffd$36323cc0$6b19059a@kevin>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0112100917220.7310-100000@epsilon.me.iitb.ac.in>

There were some studies conducted as a part of a doctoral work at IIT
Bombay, examined by Dr Reed, about the relationship between the
biomass particle size and the min dimension at the hearth. Minimum throat
passage to be was found as 5 to 6 times. This was though for a circular
section. May be confirmatory work needs to be repeated for other sections
particularly rectangular one.
Mrs Parikh

On Sat, 8 Dec 2001, Kevin Chisholm wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Reedtb2@cs.com
> To: kchishol@fox.nstn.ca ; parikh@me.iitb.ac.in
> Cc: tbollman@twlakes.net ; gasification@crest.org
> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2001 9:03 AM
> Subject: Gasifier Scaling..
>
>
> >Dear all:
>
> >In our experience and that of many others, the gas production rate >of
> downdraft gasifiers is directly proportional down to a few inches >in
> diameter.
>
> If you found that gas production is directly proportional to diameter, then
> there is indeed a great opportunity for improvement. With uniform flow
> conditions, the production should be proportional to the BED AREA, ie, would
> be proportional to the SQUARE of the diameter.
>
> >The length of the pyrolysis and char zones is proportional to the >time
> required for pyrolysis and char gasification, which in turn are
> >proportional to fuel size, moisture content and density and must be
> >determined for each fuel and size.
>
> I would suggest that it is a bit more complex than this. At a given rate of
> air flow length of the pryolysis and char zones will vary with the nature of
> fuel and its size. I would suggest that if there was twice the air flow
> rate, then the zone heights would approximately halve.
>
> Fuel particle size is very important. Fuel size gradation is very important;
> I would suggest no more than a 2:1 size range between teh largest and
> smallest particle size to improve uniformity of gas flow and reduce the
> tendancy for channeling. In general the production rate varies inversely
> with the square of the particle diameter, if air flows are adjusted to
> utilize the reaction capability. There are, of course, limits to air flow
> rate through a given bed, before spouting, fluidization, or a tendancy of
> the bed to hang occur.
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Kevin Chisholm
>
>
> TOM REED
>
> In a message dated 12/6/01 5:34:14 PM Mountain Standard Time,
> kchishol@fox.nstn.ca writes:
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Prof. Parikh
>
> > One very good reason why it should be done this way is that the gasifier
> > design can be made lenearly modular. Increasing or decreasing the capacity
> > in that case becomes adding length to the gasifier!
>
> This is indeed a very good point. If you can get the gas flow patterns
> satisfactory in a gasifier which is say 1 unit wide and 3 units long, is is
> indeed an easy matter to add length in the middle to increase capacity.
>
> Gasifiers are complex procedd devices. They seek to permit ".... unsteady
> state 3 dimensional heat and mass transfer with a change in phase, in
> non-uniform beds of broken solids...." The most difficult shape is a
> relatively small square section, in that "corner effects" are a major part
> of the end result. With an infinitely long rectangular gasifier, corner
> effects are infinitely small. There is no question that a gasifier, with a
> large "L/W ratio", with parallell sides, would be easier to construct and
> oprate than is a round container. However, the construction costs per unit
> of capacity would be inherently larger than would be a round system.
>
> The key to consistent and stable gasifier operation is uniform flow of
> reaction gases and reaction products through the bed. This task is a
> difficult one to accomplish under the best of circumstances. A square
> gasifier cross-section is the most difficult to operate successfully.
>
> A practical compromise is to build a "rectangular section with rounded
> ends."
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Kevin Chisholm
>
>

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk Mon Dec 10 05:03:14 2001
From: Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage
In-Reply-To: <002401c180f0$b94fb6c0$95158ea7@ew>
Message-ID: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGMEBNCEAA.Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk>

Ed, Tom and others,

I think you missed my point slightly- Yes the UK govt acted short sightedly-
don't all govts elected for 4-5 years do this. My point was that at last
they have realised the error of their predecessors and ARE looking in the
longerterm... oooh shit we'll be dependant on others for all our energy
soon! And are trying to address this. Obviously they will build more Nuclear
stations they have no choice. But they are attempting to address other
issues and provide a level of indigenous energy supply-also satisfying their
Kyoto commitment and the UK agricultural community -which is struggling- and
providing some employment opportunities all at once. And once started we
hope it can only grow!- along with the trees...

Gav (the old dog)
-----Original Message-----
From: Edward Woolsey [mailto:woolsey@netins.net]
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 20:32
To: LINVENT@aol.com; Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk;
gasification@crest.org
Subject: RE: GAS-L: Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk Mon Dec 10 05:05:21 2001
From: Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifeir Operation and experiment
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011208111157.02591ec0@pop3.norton.antivirus>
Message-ID: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGKEBNCEAA.Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk>

Tom,

I have
been a member of this list for over 4 years now. And have ,during that time I
have operated 2 gasifiers and one
other wood combustion system for : 2000hrs, 500hrs and 500hrs respectively. During
all of these periods conducting research and collecting data for examination as
well as providing energy for a commercial customer from time to time. I respect
and learn from the wisdom brought to this list by others with more experience
or knowledge and generally agree with the observations comments, and
suggestions by those members of the list who have developed and experimented
with gasifiers.

I find it
a little frustrating when those who have not “been round the block” are
disputing first principles and have not read the basic texts.

Maybe I’m
just an old dog –too old to learn new tricks?

As for
experience that I would offer to the list: It is my view from experience gained
above: and observation of others systems, that small scale gasification for the
production of Motive power (i.e internal combustion engines) is not a solution
to the worlds problem: because the complexity of control of the unstable and
variable reaction to produce the gas, plus gas clean up requirements does not
end up offering a cheap, robust nor efficient solution to providing engine
fuel. On a larger scale I reserve judgement, however I believe that fast pyrolysis
is offering a more promising solution at present –as a “Biomass refinery” on a
small commercial scale is being built as I write which will produce fuel with
similar properties to Oil suitable for combustion, storage and economical
transport and hopefully also a reciprocating engine fuel.

As a
method of displacing 1st world fossil fuel consumption I believe
that there is a lot of promise for biomass/waste gasification to provide clean
controllable and efficient combustion for heat and process energy applications.
And the Stoves list is addressing the 3rd world need for more
efficient and controllable heating/cooking appliances.

That’s my
twopennorth

I hope I Havent
upset too many people!

Gav (the
old Dog)

-----Original
Message-----
From: Tom Miles
[mailto:tmiles@trmiles.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2001
19:17
To: Gavin Gulliver-Goodall;
Gasification
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Gasifeir
Operation and experiment

Gavin,

Help us a little further with your concerns. You've raised a question without
pointing to a productive "matter" for discussion. What specific
matters to you question? What experience would you offer or solicit from other
members of the discussion list?

Thanks

Tom Miles
Bioenergy Lists Administrator

At 07:03 PM 12/8/01 +0000, Gavin Gulliver-Goodall wrote:

I m
concerned that some recent correspondents are offering advice on matters of
which they have little experience?

Yours truly, Gav (the old dog!)

Thomas R Miles tmiles@trmiles.com
T R Miles, TCI Tel
503-292-0107
1470 SW Woodward Way Fax 503-292-2919
Portland, OR 97225 USA

From kssustain at provide.net Mon Dec 10 11:13:19 2001
From: kssustain at provide.net (Kermit Schlansker)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifeir Operation and experiment
Message-ID: <001f01c18195$8fb99920$925a56d8@default>

I have to
respectfully disagree with the statement that larger systems are always better.
I live in Michigan where heating is a substantial portion of the energy used.
Whatever we do there wil not be enough fuel in the future and I fear that my
grandchildren will be cold and hungry. The only answer is to live in larger
buildings and then design cogeneration and comanufacturing processes that can
heat the building from biomass. Synergism is essential. It is our job to make
such processes efficient. Even if a small process is less efficient it is still
better if it saves heating costs. .

You mention the problems with inexperienced people. I haven't earned a nickel on
engine design but I still think I could substantially increase engine efficiency
if I could lead a working team. Here in Ann Arbor it sems to me that I am almost
the only person in town who is interested in Gasification, energy, and
Sustainability. We need to get more people interested and more money in energy
R&D.

I am curious to
know if Tom Reed's wood powered tractor plowed many fields. My thoughts about
this project were that this is the ultimate project in terms of importance. Yet
it was a small scale project. However that the durability might have been
improved with a few cast iron parts. Personally it is my belief that we should
be spending a lot of money on wood powered tractors and trains. Methanol made
from a comanufacturing process might be better because more of the waste heat is
used. Methanol made from wood and solar might be even better.
 By the way isn't
the mass planting of trees a suitable social subject for a gasification group.
The environmentalists don't seem to be interested in this important subject. If
you want to sell gasification systems they will need fuel.


Kermit Schlansker
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
-----Original Message-----From:
Gavin Gulliver-Goodall <<A
href="mailto:Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk">Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk>To:
Tom Miles <<A
href="mailto:tmiles@trmiles.com">tmiles@trmiles.com>; Gasification
<<A
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org>Date:
Monday, December 10, 2001 5:06 AMSubject: RE: GAS-L: Gasifeir
Operation and experiment

Tom,
I
have been a member of this list for over 4 years now. And have ,during that
time I have operated 2
gasifiers and one other wood combustion system for : 2000hrs, 500hrs and
500hrs respectively. During all of these periods conducting research and
collecting data for examination as well as providing energy for a commercial
customer from time to time. I respect and learn from the wisdom brought to
this list by others with more experience or knowledge and generally agree
with the observations comments, and suggestions by those members of the list
who have developed and experimented with
gasifiers.
I
find it a little frustrating when those who have not â€œbeen round the
blockâ€ are disputing first principles and have not read the basic
texts.

Maybe
Iâ€™m just an old dog â€“too old to learn new
tricks?

As
for experience that I would offer to the list: It is my view from experience
gained above: and observation of others systems, that small scale
gasification for the production of Motive power (i.e internal combustion
engines) is not a solution to the worlds problem: because the complexity of
control of the unstable and variable reaction to produce the gas, plus gas
clean up requirements does not end up offering a cheap, robust nor efficient
solution to providing engine fuel. On a larger scale I reserve judgement,
however I believe that fast pyrolysis is offering a more promising solution
at present â€“as a â€œBiomass refineryâ€ on a small commercial
scale is being built as I write which will produce fuel with similar
properties to Oil suitable for combustion, storage and economical transport
and hopefully also a reciprocating engine
fuel.

As a
method of displacing 1st world fossil fuel consumption I believe
that there is a lot of promise for biomass/waste gasification to provide
clean controllable and efficient combustion for heat and process energy
applications. And the Stoves list is addressing the 3rd world
need for more efficient and controllable heating/cooking
appliances.

Thatâ€™s
my twopennorth

I
hope I Havent upset too many people!

Gav
(the old Dog)

From kchishol at fox.nstn.ca Mon Dec 10 11:35:01 2001
From: kchishol at fox.nstn.ca (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifeir Operation and experiment
In-Reply-To: <001f01c18195$8fb99920$925a56d8@default>
Message-ID: <008a01c18198$1bc9b2e0$4319059a@kevin>

Dear Kermit
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

 By the way
isn't the mass planting of trees a suitable social subject for a gasification
group. The environmentalists don't seem to be interested in this important
subject. If you want to sell gasification systems they will need
fuel.


Kermit Schlansker
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid">
I feel that tree planting is an inappropriate topic for
the Gasification list, whose prime focus is Gasification from a technical,
rather than social thrust.. Tree planting would be distractionary. Questions
such as
Who will plant the trees?
Where would they be planted?
WHat kind of trees should be planted?
and
Who will pay for the planting ofthe trees?

are very open ended, and would be difficult to address in
a conclusive manner.

Kevin
Chisholm

From murat.dogru at ncl.ac.uk Mon Dec 10 13:06:11 2001
From: murat.dogru at ncl.ac.uk (Murat DOGRU)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Gasifier Scaling..
In-Reply-To: <003301c17ffd$36323cc0$6b19059a@kevin>
Message-ID: <3C14F997.12897.10A5D31@localhost>

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 6647 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/20011210/f756cb71/attachment.bin
From Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk Mon Dec 10 14:00:24 2001
From: Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifeir Operation and experiment
In-Reply-To: <001f01c18195$8fb99920$925a56d8@default>
Message-ID: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGAECCCEAA.Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk>

Hi Kermit,

I think you are missing the point here a little. What I am saying is
that in my view, small –even up to 1MW gasifier-to internal combustion engine
systems are non starters and I gave my reasons fairly clearly.

A small community in Michigan could reasonably own and operate a
Pyrolisis plant of say 2MW capacity and produce fuel for their trucks and
tractors as well as oil for heating and electricity. However in the interests
of sustainability and maximum use of resources would probably use Biomass
fuelled heating directly of an efficient gasifier design and save the oil for
essential motive power. They might well build a district heating system to use
the waste heat form the pyrolysis and generator systems too.

I guess what they would do if they were enterprising is build a bigger
plant and supply Oil and electricity to Chicago or Detroit where there aren’t
enough trees to keep everyone warm. On the other hand they might say Hey we don’t
want a Big Biofuel refinery here in our beautiful valley- put it somewhere else
and stuff the city folks!

I would be very interested on your view on that last point?

Gav (the old dog)

-----Original
Message-----
From: Kermit Schlansker
[mailto:kssustain@provide.net]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001
14:39
To: Gavin Gulliver-Goodall; Tom
Miles; Gasification
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Gasifeir
Operation and experiment

I have to respectfully disagree with the statement that larger systems are
always better. I live in Michigan where heating is a substantial portion of the
energy used. Whatever we do there wil not be enough fuel in the future and I
fear that my grandchildren will be cold and hungry. The only answer is to live
in larger buildings and then design cogeneration and comanufacturing processes
that can heat the building from biomass. Synergism is essential. It is our job
to make such processes efficient. Even if a small process is less efficient it
is still better if it saves heating costs. .

You mention the problems with inexperienced people. I haven't earned a nickel
on engine design but I still think I could substantially increase engine
efficiency if I could lead a working team. Here in Ann Arbor it sems to me that
I am almost the only person in town who is interested in Gasification, energy,
and Sustainability. We need to get more people interested and more money in
energy R&D.

I am curious to know if Tom Reed's wood powered tractor plowed many fields. My
thoughts about this project were that this is the ultimate project in terms of
importance. Yet it was a small scale project. However that the durability might
have been improved with a few cast iron parts. Personally it is my belief that
we should be spending a lot of money on wood powered tractors and trains.
Methanol made from a comanufacturing process might be better because more of
the waste heat is used. Methanol made from wood and solar might be even better.

By the way isn't the mass planting of trees a suitable social subject for a
gasification group. The environmentalists don't seem to be interested in this
important subject. If you want to sell gasification systems they will need
fuel.

Kermit Schlansker

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:36.0pt;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:39.2pt;border:none;mso-border-left-alt:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 0cm 3.0pt'>-----Original Message-----
From: Gavin Gulliver-Goodall <<a
href="mailto:Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk">Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk>
To: Tom Miles <<a
href="mailto:tmiles@trmiles.com">tmiles@trmiles.com>; Gasification <<a
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org>
Date: Monday, December 10, 2001
5:06 AM
Subject: RE: GAS-L: Gasifeir
Operation and experiment

<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:39.2pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;border:none;
mso-border-left-alt:solid black 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 0cm 3.0pt'>I have been a member of
this list for over 4 years now. And have ,during that time I have operated 2 gasifiers and one other wood
combustion system for : 2000hrs, 500hrs and 500hrs respectively. During all of
these periods conducting research and collecting data for examination as well
as providing energy for a commercial customer from time to time. I respect and
learn from the wisdom brought to this list by others with more experience or
knowledge and generally agree with the observations comments, and suggestions
by those members of the list who have developed and experimented with gasifiers.

<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:39.2pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;border:none;
mso-border-left-alt:solid black 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 0cm 3.0pt'>As for
experience that I would offer to the list: It is my view from experience gained
above: and observation of others systems, that small scale gasification for the
production of Motive power (i.e internal combustion engines) is not a solution
to the worlds problem: because the complexity of control of the unstable and
variable reaction to produce the gas, plus gas clean up requirements does not
end up offering a cheap, robust nor efficient solution to providing engine
fuel. On a larger scale I reserve judgement, however I believe that fast
pyrolysis is offering a more promising solution at present –as a “Biomass
refinery” on a small commercial scale is being built as I write which will
produce fuel with similar properties to Oil suitable for combustion, storage
and economical transport and hopefully also a reciprocating engine fuel.

From parikh at me.iitb.ac.in Tue Dec 11 02:24:24 2001
From: parikh at me.iitb.ac.in (Prof P P Parikh)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Gasifier Scaling..
In-Reply-To: <3C14F997.12897.10A5D31@localhost>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0112111244250.28707-100000@epsilon.me.iitb.ac.in>

Dear Dr. Murat
Thanks for your mail. I think the diffrence may be due to other
properties including density of the biomass material and also the velocity
of gases past the particle bed. I shall appreciate being corrected. Our
experiemnts on hopper flow did also find that velocity and basic particle
side ( absolute ) also influences this relation between particle size and
hearth diam. Our gasifiers at IITB designed using this rule have
worked well. Thanks anyway.
Mrs Parikh

On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Murat DOGRU wrote:

>
>
> <color><param>0100,0100,0100</param><FontFamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger>Dear Parikh and Reed,
>
>
> You may be well aware but there is good reference and it
> explains this relation well in that PhD study (btw biomass fuel
> particle size and smalest hearth diameter of the gasifier):
>
>
> <flushboth>Earp D.M., 1988. “<italic>The Gasification of Biomass in a
> Downdraft Reactor</italic>”, PhD Thesis, Chemical Engineering
> Department, Aston University, United Kingdom.</flushboth>
>
>
> The relation btw heart diameter and particle size was found
> be 8:1 for downdraft-throated gasifiers.
>
>
> Regards
>
>
> Murat
>
> ---
>
> Dr Murat Dogru
>
> Chemical and Process Engineering Dept.
>
> University of Newcastle, NE1 7RU
>
> United Kingdom.<italic>
>
>
>
> Date sent: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:20:56 +0530 (IST)
>
> From: Prof P P Parikh <<parikh@me.iitb.ac.in>
>
> To: Kevin Chisholm <<kchishol@fox.nstn.ca>
>
> Copies to: Reedtb2@cs.com, tbollman@twlakes.net, gasification@crest.org
>
> Subject: GAS-L: Re: Gasifier Scaling..
>
>
> </italic><color><param>7F00,0000,0000</param><FontFamily><param>Arial</param><smaller>> There were some studies conducted as a part of a doctoral work at IIT
>
> > Bombay, examined by Dr Reed, about the relationship between the
>
> > biomass particle size and the min dimension at the hearth. Minimum throat
>
> > passage to be was found as 5 to 6 times. This was though for a circular
>
> > section. May be confirmatory work needs to be repeated for other sections
>
> > particularly rectangular one.
>
> > 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.ac.in
>
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> >
>
> > On Sat, 8 Dec 2001, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > ----- Original Message -----
>
> > > From: Reedtb2@cs.com
>
> > > To: kchishol@fox.nstn.ca ; parikh@me.iitb.ac.in
>
> > > Cc: tbollman@twlakes.net ; gasification@crest.org
>
> > > Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2001 9:03 AM
>
> > > Subject: Gasifier Scaling..
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > >Dear all:
>
> > >
>
> > > >In our experience and that of many others, the gas production rate >of
>
> > > downdraft gasifiers is directly proportional down to a few inches >in
>
> > > diameter.
>
> > >
>
> > > If you found that gas production is directly proportional to diameter, then
>
> > > there is indeed a great opportunity for improvement. With uniform flow
>
> > > conditions, the production should be proportional to the BED AREA, ie, would
>
> > > be proportional to the SQUARE of the diameter.
>
> > >
>
> > > >The length of the pyrolysis and char zones is proportional to the >time
>
> > > required for pyrolysis and char gasification, which in turn are
>
> > > >proportional to fuel size, moisture content and density and must be
>
> > > >determined for each fuel and size.
>
> > >
>
> > > I would suggest that it is a bit more complex than this. At a given rate of
>
> > > air flow length of the pryolysis and char zones will vary with the nature of
>
> > > fuel and its size. I would suggest that if there was twice the air flow
>
> > > rate, then the zone heights would approximately halve.
>
> > >
>
> > > Fuel particle size is very important. Fuel size gradation is very important;
>
> > > I would suggest no more than a 2:1 size range between teh largest and
>
> > > smallest particle size to improve uniformity of gas flow and reduce the
>
> > > tendancy for channeling. In general the production rate varies inversely
>
> > > with the square of the particle diameter, if air flows are adjusted to
>
> > > utilize the reaction capability. There are, of course, limits to air flow
>
> > > rate through a given bed, before spouting, fluidization, or a tendancy of
>
> > > the bed to hang occur.
>
> > >
>
> > > Kindest regards,
>
> > >
>
> > > Kevin Chisholm
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > TOM REED
>
> > >
>
> > > In a message dated 12/6/01 5:34:14 PM Mountain Standard Time,
>
> > > kchishol@fox.nstn.ca writes:
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Dear Prof. Parikh
>
> > >
>
> > > > One very good reason why it should be done this way is that the gasifier
>
> > > > design can be made lenearly modular. Increasing or decreasing the capacity
>
> > > > in that case becomes adding length to the gasifier!
>
> > >
>
> > > This is indeed a very good point. If you can get the gas flow patterns
>
> > > satisfactory in a gasifier which is say 1 unit wide and 3 units long, is is
>
> > > indeed an easy matter to add length in the middle to increase capacity.
>
> > >
>
> > > Gasifiers are complex procedd devices. They seek to permit ".... unsteady
>
> > > state 3 dimensional heat and mass transfer with a change in phase, in
>
> > > non-uniform beds of broken solids...." The most difficult shape is a
>
> > > relatively small square section, in that "corner effects" are a major part
>
> > > of the end result. With an infinitely long rectangular gasifier, corner
>
> > > effects are infinitely small. There is no question that a gasifier, with a
>
> > > large "L/W ratio", with parallell sides, would be easier to construct and
>
> > > oprate than is a round container. However, the construction costs per unit
>
> > > of capacity would be inherently larger than would be a round system.
>
> > >
>
> > > The key to consistent and stable gasifier operation is uniform flow of
>
> > > reaction gases and reaction products through the bed. This task is a
>
> > > difficult one to accomplish under the best of circumstances. A square
>
> > > gasifier cross-section is the most difficult to operate successfully.
>
> > >
>
> > > A practical compromise is to build a "rectangular section with rounded
>
> > > ends."
>
> > >
>
> > > Kindest regards,
>
> > >
>
> > > Kevin Chisholm
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > -
>
> > Gasification List Archives:
>
> > http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/
>
> >
>
> > Gasification List Moderator:
>
> > Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
>
> > www.webpan.com/BEF
>
> > List-Post: <<mailto:gasification@crest.org>
>
> > List-Help: <<mailto:gasification-help@crest.org>
>
> > List-Unsubscribe: <<mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>
>
> > List-Subscribe: <<mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org>
>
> >
>
> > Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
>
> > -
>
> > Other Gasification Events and Information:
>
> > http://www.bioenergy2002.org
>
> > http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>
> > http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> -
> Gasification List Archives:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/
>
> Gasification List Moderator:
> Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
> www.webpan.com/BEF
> List-Post: <mailto:gasification@crest.org>
> List-Help: <mailto:gasification-help@crest.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org>
>
> Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> -
> Other Gasification Events and Information:
> http://www.bioenergy2002.org
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>
>

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Wed Dec 12 07:47:39 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Gasifier Scaling..
Message-ID: <27.1f936dc9.2948abaf@cs.com>

Dear Ben, Prof. Paikh and all:

Let me try to be clearer on gasifier scaling and modeling.

In 1980 I began to investigate the properties of the "stratified downdraft
gasifier" (SDG) (and thought up the name about 1982) while working at SERI,
now NREL. In 1988 I wrote a 300 page book, "Fundamentals and Scaleup..."
under an NREL contract, summarizing the work of myself, Prof. Mike Graboski
of CSM and many others over an 8 year period on the SDG. Chapter 8 covers
the modelling of the SDG. I am currently working on refining the model with
CPC and ERC.

The model is based on the observation that pyrolysis (essentially completed
in the range 250-450C) and char gasification/combustion (above 800 C) are
sequential operations, as easily seen in a burning match. As long as the
pyrolysis gases are being emited, no air can reach the char; as soon as
pyrolysis ends (~450 C), the surrounding gases can then react with the
charcoal formed during pyrolysis.

A Prof. Ed Huff at the University of Maine put "legs" on this observation by
pyrolysing in a high temperature furnace and observing the time required for
pyrolysis as a function of:

Mass
Density (hardwoods, softwoods)
Shape (Sphericity)
Moisture content
Furnace Temperature (radiation heat transfer)

and developed an equation which predicted the pyrolysis time within a few
percent.
~~~~~~~~~
The "Stratified Downdraft Gasifier" is so called because it is a straight
cylinder in which these reactions occur sequentially as air passes down
through the following zones;

1) DISTRIBUTION ZONE: Air passes through unburned fuel and is distributed
evenly to the next "flaming pyrolysis" zone.

2) FLAMING PYROLYSIS ZONE:In the flaming pyrolysis zone initially excess air
burns >99% of the volatile tars as they leave the wood. By the end of this
zone, all the air has been consumed and the gas contains primarily CO, CO2,
H2, H2O, CH4, and N2, a low grade producer gas. The combustion gases are at
very high temperature, but the charcoal has remained cooled by the pyrolysis.

3) CHAR GASIFICATION ZONE: At the beginning of this zone there is a lot of
excess energy in the hot gases which then react with the charcoal in the
water gas and Boudouard reactions to make more CO and H2 and "temper" the gas
to conventional wood producer gas.

4) DEAD CHAR ZONE: Depending on superficial velocity there is still
unreacted charcoal, but it begins to break up into microparticles which leave
with the gas - or plug up the system, depending on velocity. (In the Mukunda
variation of the SDG there is a taper at this point which helps to flush out
the broken char particles. He then adds some extra air to burn out remaining
tars.)

[Unable to display image]

(The figure shows up OK on my laptop at full screed - should be OK for you.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Our modeling at that time consisted of predicting from superficial velocity,
SV, (or gas production rate, power level etc.) the length of zone 2 on the
basis of modifications of the Huff equation and the length of zone 3 on the
basis of known kinetics of char gasification. We were then able to predict
the length of gasifier required for each step. We now know or suspect a few
more effects necessary to refine the model.

In all of our work and that reported by others, the gas production only
depends on diameter, not depth of bed. We have run IDD gasifiers from 7 cm
to 150 cm in diameter with similar results as similar SV. In particular the
thesis and publications of Valentin Tiangco show very clearly that gas
production varies exactly with cross section area. (I recommend his thesis
(from U C Davis under John Goss) to all who want to think about modeling
gasifiers. Unfortunately it was all on rice hulls, not a very representative
biomass.) Valentin is now at the California ENergy COmmision helping to
solve the California power supply problems.

The advantage of the SDG over the Imbert gasifier is that ALL the air
contacts ALL the biomass uniformly, rather than irregularly in and around the
nozzles of the Imbert. The disadvantage is that char production may exceed
char conversion, so the char bed can "grow" unless steps are taken to prevent
it. In that lies all the futher advances being made today.

I hope this is useful.

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF
GASWORKS

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Wed Dec 12 07:49:15 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: knocking of spark-ignition producer-gas engines at diesel compression rat...
Message-ID: <8b.108bf148.2948ab9c@cs.com>

Dear Ms.Parikh:

Producer gas can be used at much higher ratios than 12/1, since the octane is
well over 150. However, Prof. Parikh says that the friction losses make 12/1
near optimum. I'm not sure this is the case. At higher CR than 12 producer
gas is still weak compared to an optimum diesel charge, so maybe higher
ratios are justified. It would save conversion labor if so.

I hope you will give it a try at higher CR and let us all know.

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF

I hope that you will

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From LINVENT at aol.com Wed Dec 12 10:56:06 2001
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: knocking of spark-ignition producer-gas engines at diesel compression rat...
Message-ID: <12a.8ecdafd.2948d7d4@aol.com>

Dear Prof. Parikh,
We have run a diesel engine at I believe a 16:1 compression ratio for a
short period of time without any pre-detonation. We have planned additional
tests for more information gathering.
Hamilton-Standard division of United Aircraft ran a diesel engine on
bottled make-up synthesis gas and did not have any pre-detonation. I had a
copy of the very large published research document which went into
substantial detail which was lost in a fire several years ago. They set-up
their intake manifold flooding system and ran the engine with no trouble.
Because the CO and CO2 reduce the flame propagation velocity, even higher
compression ratios are feasible, however, engines tend to have shorter
lifetimes at higher compression ratios. Increased output and higher
efficiency is seen at higher compression ratios.

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Wed Dec 12 18:20:31 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:49 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifeir Operation and experiment
Message-ID: <c5.1ac48a07.29493f85@cs.com>

Gavin and All:

You mentioned in passing generating power in the burbs and sending it to the
city.

This is a process we talked about in the 1970s and called

WOOD BY WIRE

It brings jobs to the forest and provides funds for planting and thinning,
and reduces our dependence on coal, gas and oil.

So of course nothing was done about it, since the Govt. is (was?) controlled
by coal, gas and oil interests far more than renewable energy intersts.

Has anything changed?

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF GASWORKS

In a message dated 12/10/01 11:00:38 AM Pacific Standard Time,
Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk writes:

<<
Hi Kermit,

I think you are missing the point here a little. What I am saying is that in
my view, small â€“even up to 1MW gasifier-to internal combustion engine
systems are non starters and I gave my reasons fairly clearly.
A small community in Michigan could reasonably own and operate a Pyrolisis
plant of say 2MW capacity and produce fuel for their trucks and tractors as
well as oil for heating and electricity. However in the interests of
sustainability and maximum use of resources would probably use Biomass
fuelled heating directly of an efficient gasifier design and save the oil
for essential motive power. They might well build a district heating system
to use the waste heat form the pyrolysis and generator systems too.

I guess what they would do if they were enterprising is build a bigger plant
and supply Oil and electricity to Chicago or Detroit where there arenâ€™t
enough trees to keep everyone warm. On the other hand they might say Hey we
donâ€™t want a Big Biofuel refinery here in our beautiful valley- put it
somewhere else and stuff the city folks!

I would be very interested on your view on that last point?

Gav (the old dog)
>>

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Wed Dec 12 18:21:38 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: wood-gas stove
Message-ID: <9e.1ef3e634.29493f8b@cs.com>

dEAR DAN:

ANSWERS IN UPPER CASE...

Dear Dr. Reed:
I am a biologist, woodworker and environmentalist, with a
long-standing interest in alternative energy and forest
conservation.

I read with great interest your article on wood-gas stoves that I
found on the Journey to Forever web site.
I am very interested in building one of these stoves. I am afraid

that there are a few details I did not understand in the article.

I am hoping you will be able to clarify a few points.

My understanding is that the main parts of the inverted downdraft
gasifier and the wood-gas burner are constructed from riser
sleeves. Yes? Where can I buy a riser sleeve?

THEY ARE WIDELY USED BY FOUNDRIES AND I HOPE YOU CAN FIND ONE LOCALLY THAT
WILL SELL YOU A FEW. I BUY THEM IN DENVER AT A FOUNDRY SUPPLY HOUSE.

It seems that the wood-gas burner rests on top of the downdraft
gasifier with a continuous gap between them of about 1cm.
Correct?

YOU BET.
Is the "gas wick" an open ended cylinder constructed from another

can and somehow suspended within the wood-gas burner?

YES, HUNG FROM WIRES IN OUR TEST MODEL, CLOSED BOTTOM UP.

IT ALSO WORKS WITHOUT THE "WICK", BUT THE FLAME FLOPS AROUND AND THE MIXING
ISN'T AS GOOD.
Or does the "gas wick" simply refer to the zone of combustion above the
gasifier within the wood-gas burner? Please clarify.

What is the advantage of lighting the fire from the top rather
than the bottom?

IT MAKES ALL THE DIFERENCE (AS IN "THE ROAD NOT TAKEN" BY FROST)

THE UPCOMING AIR MEETS FRESH FUEL AND BURNS THE VOLATILES, MAKING VARYING
AMOUNTS OF CHARCOAL, DEPENDING ON THE MOISTURE CONTENT OF THE FUEL.

GAS PRODUCTION RATE IS VERY CONSTANT, SINCE EACH LAYER HAS TO IGNITE THE ONE
BELOW TO GET TO THE AIR.

Is it necessary to be able to control the draft between the two sections?

YES, AIR FUEL RATIO IS IMPORTANT. RON LARSON AND I HAD THREE SCREWS I COULD
USE TO ADJUST THE GAP.

Given my interpretation of the diagrams, it is
unclear to me how a downdraft is achieved.

ME TOO! THAT IS WHY I CALLED IT "INVERTED DOWNDRAFT" - AIR FLOWS UP TO THE
PYROLYSIS ZONE, RATHER THAN DOWN AS IN CONVENTIONAL DOWNDRAFT. "UPDRAFT" AND
"DOWNDRAFT" ARE RATHER IRRELEVANT TERMS. I PREFER TO CALL THE UPDRAFT A
"CHAR BURNING, TAR MAKING" GASIFIER AND THE DOWNDRAFT A "TAR BURNING, CHAR
MAKING" GASIFIER.

Have there been any improvements or modifications to this design
since this article was published?

PAUL ANDERSON AT PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU HAS BEEN WORKING INDUSTRIOUSLY TO ADAPT
FOR AFRICA. I DON'T KNOW THE LATEST IMPROVEMENTS, SINCE I PRIMARILY WORK
WITH FORCED DRAFT.

Thank you for any comments.
Dan Longhi

MY PLEASURE, TOM REED THE BEF STOVEWORKS

----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
Return-Path: <daniel.longhi@bms.com>
Received: from rly-za02.mx.aol.com (rly-za02.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.98])
by air-za05.mail.aol.com (v82.22) with ESMTP id MAILINZA56-1210105437; Mon,
10 Dec 2001 10:54:37 -0500
Received: from usintout01.net.bms.com (usintout01.bms.com [165.89.129.231])
by rly-za02.mx.aol.com (v82.22) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINZA29-1210105433;
Mon, 10 Dec 2001 10:54:33 -0500
Received: from nsusmsg03.net.bms.com ([127.0.0.1])
by mochilla.bms.com (PMDF V5.2-32 #38470)
with ESMTP id <0GO400HOBXHN24@mochilla.bms.com> for Reedtb2@cs.com; Mon,
10 Dec 2001 15:53:47 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from bms.com ([140.176.232.96])
by nsusmsg03.net.bms.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15)
with ESMTP id GO4XHM00.2OR for <Reedtb2@cs.com>; Mon,
10 Dec 2001 15:53:46 +0000
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 10:53:24 -0500
From: Daniel Longhi <daniel.longhi@bms.com>
Subject: wood-gas stove
To: Reedtb2@cs.com
Message-id: <3C14DA74.48C74F7A@bms.com>
Organization: Bristol-Myers Squibb
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en]C-BMY (WinNT; U)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Accept-Language: en,zh-CN

>>

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Wed Dec 12 18:23:19 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Gasifier Scaling..
Message-ID: <15d.5b310b6.29493f90@cs.com>

Dear Prof. Parikh and All:

Ms P. is too kind. I don't think I ever considered the minimum diameter for
a given particle size, but her comment on 5/1 sounds reasonable. Don't
forget that during pyrolysis the original size decreases by 1/3 to 1/2 on all
dimensions.

Tom Reed BEF STOVEWORKS

In a message dated 12/9/01 7:55:20 PM Pacific Standard Time,
parikh@me.iitb.ac.in writes:

<<
There were some studies conducted as a part of a doctoral work at IIT
Bombay, examined by Dr Reed, about the relationship between the
biomass particle size and the min dimension at the hearth. Minimum throat
passage to be was found as 5 to 6 times. This was though for a circular
section. May be confirmatory work needs to be repeated for other sections
particularly rectangular one.
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.ac.in >>

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Wed Dec 12 18:24:08 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifeir Operation and experiment
Message-ID: <18c.60f887.29493f88@cs.com>

Right on, Kermit:

If bigger was always better we'd all be driving locomotives to work.
Fortunately ROckefeller, Benz and Ford made cars cheap.

If the rest of the world is going to enjoy our standard of living it will
take a LOT of time and money to develop our primative infrastructure of
telephone lines, electric lines and piplines.

Or they can learn to do it locally and use the waste heat.

The first step has been the Cell phone which has transformed most of the
world in a decade. Hope the US can catch up soon.

A second step could be small gasifiers with distributed power from biomass.
We're moving that way.

Yours truly, TOM REED THE BEF STOVEWORKS
In a message dated 12/10/01 8:13:55 AM Pacific Standard Time,
kssustain@provide.net writes:

<<
I have to respectfully disagree with the statement that larger
systems are always better. I live in Michigan where heating is a substantial
portion of the energy used. Whatever we do there wil not be enough fuel in
the future and I fear that my grandchildren will be cold and hungry. The only
answer is to live in larger buildings and then design cogeneration and
comanufacturing processes that can heat the building from biomass. Synergism
is essential. It is our job to make such processes efficient. Even if a small
process is less efficient it is still better if it saves heating costs. .

You mention the problems with inexperienced people. I haven't
earned a nickel on engine design but I still think I could substantially
increase engine efficiency if I could lead a working team. Here in Ann Arbor
it sems to me that I am almost the only person in town who is interested in
Gasification, energy, and Sustainability. We need to get more people
interested and more money in energy R&D.
I am curious to know if Tom Reed's wood powered tractor plowed
many fields. My thoughts about this project were that this is the ultimate
project in terms of importance. Yet it was a small scale project. However
that the durability might have been improved with a few cast iron parts.
Personally it is my belief that we should be spending a lot of money on wood
powered tractors and trains. Methanol made from a comanufacturing process
might be better because more of the waste heat is used. Methanol made from
wood and solar might be even better.
By the way isn't the mass planting of trees a suitable social
subject for a gasification group. The environmentalists don't seem to be
interested in this important subject. If you want to sell gasification
systems they will need fuel.

Kermit Schlansker
-----Original Message----- >>

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From parikh at me.iitb.ac.in Wed Dec 12 23:24:50 2001
From: parikh at me.iitb.ac.in (Prof P P Parikh)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: knocking of spark-ignition producer-gas engines at dieselcompression rat...
In-Reply-To: <8b.108bf148.2948ab9c@cs.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0112130920330.24686-100000@epsilon.me.iitb.ac.in>

Dear Dr Reed and all

Presence of CO2 would definitely decrease the flame velocities. What about
the ignition energy requirement and presence of about 20% or above
hydrogen? I am really not very sure about this being examined without
considering the length of flame travel within the combustion
chamber and the turbulence levels therein. Conventional Octane rating
carried out in CFR engines essentially relates to the conventional SI
engines where the diameter of the piston rarely exceeds 100mm. In
converted SIPGE however one can expect much larger piston sizes and there
it is risky to go by conventional Octane number. I do stand to be
corrected. The very fact that overheating and lesser life is reported with
use of diesel compression ratios suggest that the maximum pressures under
spark ignition operation are higher. In such case it might be best to
postively rule out detonation and get on to take advantage of higher
compression ratios. Nox measurements also need to made in such a case as
also rate of pressure rise and knock detection and surface examination
after type testing exercise-provided the engine survives the type testing
duration!. It is also most advisable to do such type testing at rated
conditions and not part loads where anyway leaner mixtures may not have
knocking combustion and this may mislead the conclusion about knocking.

I request response to the above remarks since our experience has been that
the engine of 110 dia. 1500 rpm DI(bowl in piston) engine knocked at
compression ratios higher than 12.5 so we decided on 11.5 to 12 as the
range to be adopted at which many thousand hours have been successfully
logged with only routine maintenence schedules being followed.I look
forward to sharing more experiences...

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.ac.in
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:

> Dear Ms.Parikh:
>
> Producer gas can be used at much higher ratios than 12/1, since the octane is
> well over 150. However, Prof. Parikh says that the friction losses make 12/1
> near optimum. I'm not sure this is the case. At higher CR than 12 producer
> gas is still weak compared to an optimum diesel charge, so maybe higher
> ratios are justified. It would save conversion labor if so.
>
> I hope you will give it a try at higher CR and let us all know.
>
> Yours truly, TOM REED BEF
>
> I hope that you will
>

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From psanders at ilstu.edu Thu Dec 13 01:24:18 2001
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (psanders@ilstu.edu)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:50 2004
Subject: wood-gas stove
Message-ID: <530100645.1008224660110.JavaMail.root@mail.ilstu.edu>

Dear Dan,

I am in Africa and can only respond well after 23 Dec when I am back in the states. Please re-contact me then to make sure we do not loose contact.

If you are not yet subscribed to Stoves listserve, you MUST.

Also look at the archives for some messages in the last few months about the IDD issues.

1 cm gap is too big IMHO.

What part of the world do you live in? I am in Illinois. Tom is in Colorado, and others active with IDD natural convection are scattered.

Welcome to the club !!!!!!!!!!!

Paul

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

From piolenc at mozcom.com Thu Dec 13 02:04:58 2001
From: piolenc at mozcom.com (F. Marc de Piolenc)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: knocking of spark-ignition producer-gas engines at diesel compression rat...
In-Reply-To: <12a.8ecdafd.2948d7d4@aol.com>
Message-ID: <3C1841CB.74F140D6@mozcom.com>

Are we talking about pre-ignition or detonation? These are two different
phenomena, though of course pre-ignition can lead to detonation by
increasing peak pressures.

Pre-ignition is caused by "hot spots," which are sometimes the result of
bad cylinder-head design, but more often are caused by deposits of
refractory materials on the cylinder walls and valve faces.

Detonation - more properly end-gas detonation - is what happens when the
advancing fuel/air flame front compresses and transfers sufficient heat
to the remaining unburnt mixture to cause the rest of the mixture to
ignite all at once. This is combatted by increasing the octane number of
the fuel and in design by providing a central ignition point or multiple
ignition sources.

Marc de Piolenc

LINVENT@aol.com wrote:
>
> Dear Prof. Parikh,
> We have run a diesel engine at I believe a 16:1 compression ratio for a
> short period of time without any pre-detonation.

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From parikh at me.iitb.ac.in Thu Dec 13 03:06:04 2001
From: parikh at me.iitb.ac.in (Prof P P Parikh)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: knocking of spark-ignition producer-gas engines atdiesel compression rat...
In-Reply-To: <3C1841CB.74F140D6@mozcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0112131320240.4380-100000@epsilon.me.iitb.ac.in>

Well we are talking about knocking and that means detonation occuring as
detonation by itself or due to preignition. We are talking of detonation
in producergas SI engines with full or rather greater possibility of
deposit formation due to contaminants in the gas. It is also essential to
underline the fact that many of these are converted machines from base
diesel machines and that they are quite likely to have hot spots in the
chamber the same being the derived ones and not essentially the best
designs.

The issue being raised here is about the conventional octane rating and
size of engine and that of the conventional octane rating using CFR
engines being applicable to larger size engines. What is the maximum
compression ratio that can be used for knock free producer gas SI
operation?

Mrs Parikh

On Thu, 13 Dec 2001, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote:

> Are we talking about pre-ignition or detonation? These are two different
> phenomena, though of course pre-ignition can lead to detonation by
> increasing peak pressures.
>
> Pre-ignition is caused by "hot spots," which are sometimes the result of
> bad cylinder-head design, but more often are caused by deposits of
> refractory materials on the cylinder walls and valve faces.
>
> Detonation - more properly end-gas detonation - is what happens when the
> advancing fuel/air flame front compresses and transfers sufficient heat
> to the remaining unburnt mixture to cause the rest of the mixture to
> ignite all at once. This is combatted by increasing the octane number of
> the fuel and in design by providing a central ignition point or multiple
> ignition sources.
>
> Marc de Piolenc
>
> LINVENT@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > Dear Prof. Parikh,
> > We have run a diesel engine at I believe a 16:1 compression ratio for a
> > short period of time without any pre-detonation.
>
>
>
> -
> Gasification List Archives:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/
>
> Gasification List Moderator:
> Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
> www.webpan.com/BEF
> List-Post: <mailto:gasification@crest.org>
> List-Help: <mailto:gasification-help@crest.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org>
>
> Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> -
> Other Gasification Events and Information:
> http://www.bioenergy2002.org
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>
>

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From PletkaRJ at bv.com Fri Dec 14 08:53:33 2001
From: PletkaRJ at bv.com (Pletka, Ryan J.)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: FW: Gasification Technologies 2001 Papers
Message-ID: <61BCB4275920D211AA5700A0C9DB18FB0FE6D063@BVMAIL02>

The papers from the "Gasification Technologies 2001" conference are now
publicly available. See the link below.

Most of the topics cover coal, pet coke, and heavy oil residual gasification
by Texaco, Shell and the like. However, there a few mentions of waste and
biomass. There a couple of proposed large RDF/coal gasification plants
(see Kentucky Pioneer/Lima Energy).

There are numerous groups pursuing the next generation of IGCC plants in the
US. I think the biggest lesson learned from the last round is to lessen the
amount of integration in "I"GCC -- simplify the process.

This was an interesting conference and well attended by the industry. There
seems to be an uptick in interest in gasification, at least at this level.

Ryan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Childress [SMTP:jchildress@kcihq.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 7:23 AM
> To: pletkarj@bv.com
> Subject: New Content @ http://www.gasification.org
>
> Gasification Technologies Council Email Alert Date: 12/13/2001
>
>
>
> To: Ryan Pletka
> Black & Veatch
>
> From: James Childress
>
> The papers from "Gasification Technologies 2001", held October 7-10 in
> San Francisco, California, are now available on the Gasification
> Technologies
> Council's web site.
>
> For details go to:
>
> http://www.gasification.org and select "News" for the link to the papers.
>
>
>
>
>
> .
>

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From tmiles at trmiles.com Fri Dec 14 11:13:31 2001
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: FW: Gasification Technologies 2001 Papers
In-Reply-To: <61BCB4275920D211AA5700A0C9DB18FB0FE6D063@BVMAIL02>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20011214080255.012f3188@mail.easystreet.com>

Ryan,

Thanks for the link.

I always find that the overviews by Dale Simbeck (SFA Pacific), Neville
Holt (EPRI) and Gary Stiegel (NETL) are very useful for putting biomass
gasification in an industry context. I find Gary's report on interviewing
companies involved in gasification to be very interesting. During the two
years that I served as a biomass representative on the National Coal
Council I found that many of the companies that were looking at coal
gasification were well informed about developments in biomass and waste
gasification.

Tom

At 07:53 AM 12/14/2001 -0600, Pletka, Ryan J. wrote:
>The papers from the "Gasification Technologies 2001" conference are now
>publicly available. See the link below.
>
>Most of the topics cover coal, pet coke, and heavy oil residual gasification
>by Texaco, Shell and the like. However, there a few mentions of waste and
>biomass. There a couple of proposed large RDF/coal gasification plants
>(see Kentucky Pioneer/Lima Energy).
>
>There are numerous groups pursuing the next generation of IGCC plants in the
>US. I think the biggest lesson learned from the last round is to lessen the
>amount of integration in "I"GCC -- simplify the process.
>
>This was an interesting conference and well attended by the industry. There
>seems to be an uptick in interest in gasification, at least at this level.
>
>Ryan
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: James Childress [SMTP:jchildress@kcihq.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 7:23 AM
> > To: pletkarj@bv.com
> > Subject: New Content @ http://www.gasification.org
> >
> > Gasification Technologies Council Email Alert Date: 12/13/2001
> >
> >
> >
> > To: Ryan Pletka
> > Black & Veatch
> >
> > From: James Childress
> >
> > The papers from "Gasification Technologies 2001", held October 7-10 in
> > San Francisco, California, are now available on the Gasification
> > Technologies
> > Council's web site.
> >
> > For details go to:
> >
> > http://www.gasification.org and select "News" for the link to the papers.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > .
> >
>
>-
>Gasification List Archives:
>http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/
>
>Gasification List Moderator:
>Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
>www.webpan.com/BEF
>List-Post: <mailto:gasification@crest.org>
>List-Help: <mailto:gasification-help@crest.org>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>
>List-Subscribe: <mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org>
>
>Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
>-
>Other Gasification Events and Information:
>http://www.bioenergy2002.org
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/

Thomas R Miles tmiles@trmiles.com
T R Miles, TCI Tel 503-292-0107
1470 SW Woodward Way Fax 503-292-2919
Portland, OR 97225 USA

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From motie at paulbunyan.net Fri Dec 14 16:37:28 2001
From: motie at paulbunyan.net (Motie)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification project
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011214080255.012f3188@mail.easystreet.com>
Message-ID: <004a01c184e8$3bd0bfe0$9ec3bfd1@m6o7s4>

To All,
I have a quandary. I am a truck driver in northern Minnesota's logging
country. There is a lot of biomass going to waste in this area, much of it
sawmill residues. I have been trying for a long time to find a use for it,
and researching as many options as I can find. I have concluded that
gasifying it, and catalyzing the syngas to Ethanol would be a great use for
it.
I have a site selected, and can get 100 tons/day delivered. I have an open
offer to purchase all the Ethanol I can produce.
I need a gasifier and a catalytic reactor. (And all the expert help I can
get) I am open to all the advice I can get, as to the next step. I'm not an
Engineer or Chemist, but I can follow a fairly technical conversation. I am
definitely not a Business Administrator or Lawyer.
Is anyone interested in forming a group or partnership to develop this?
I can probably hire the Engineering and Architechture. I would prefer a
Business Administrator to be a partner, not an employee.
Anyone interested?

Motie

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From joacim at ymex.net Sat Dec 15 11:16:16 2001
From: joacim at ymex.net (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage
In-Reply-To: <10.16e87845.2944dbfe@cs.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10112151528120.17159-100000@localhost>

On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:

(Thanks for the book tip)

[...]
> Cutting to the chase, DeFeyes uses his modifications of Hubbert's method to
> predict that World Oil Production will peak in 2004-2008. This is only a
> prediction based on the assumptions that mathematicians are more likely to
> right than politicians and merchants. Take your pick.

Does he mention the guesstimate for when the drop will be steepest?
(assuming a bell shaped curve)
2020's?

> DeFeyes doesn't say much about the results of world oil production peaking,
> and we are all free to make our own speculations. Mine are based on...
...
> E) The US is rich enough to buy oil when others can't, but many others will
> be left out in the cold ...

I think the wealth in the industrialised world is a product of oil
consumption per se. Less oil --> less wealth to buy oil. But... I have my
doubts that the price will be set by the market. If it pays off better to
conquer the oil by military force, that is what's going to happen. ...What
am I saying, it's happening now. :P WW2 was very much about oil too.

Joacim
-
main(){printf(&unix["\021%six\012\0"],(unix)["have"]+"fun"-0x60);}
-- David Korn

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From LINVENT at aol.com Sat Dec 15 14:42:03 2001
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: homemade forced convection woodgas stove
Message-ID: <16b.5bb5119.294d0174@aol.com>

Dear Chris and Tom R.,
Many years ago National Bureau of Standards made a photodiode which
directly rectified light and had a huge conversion rate, something like 80%,
but could not be duplicated or reproduced. The necessity of a small junction
of fraction of a wavelength of light is not easy. Impedance matching and
frequency response is tough. I never confirmed the report in writing, but it
was told to me by a solar energy researcher at Sandia National Laboratories
when I was working there.
With todays miniaturization, this may do better. Tom's experience in thin
film work could be useful in this area.

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com Sat Dec 15 17:13:52 2001
From: andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com (AJH)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: knocking of spark-ignition producer-gas engines at diesel compression rat...
In-Reply-To: <8b.108bf148.2948ab9c@cs.com>
Message-ID: <ujen1ug8t7mcu0vn0ifk1vfcl2uitdspti@4ax.com>

>On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:
>>
>> Producer gas can be used at much higher ratios than 12/1, since the octane is
>> well over 150. However, Prof. Parikh says that the friction losses make 12/1
>> near optimum. I'm not sure this is the case. At higher CR than 12 producer
>> gas is still weak compared to an optimum diesel charge, so maybe higher
>> ratios are justified. It would save conversion labor if so.

I cannot see how friction losses could not be mitigated by redesigning
bearings, I suspect wear problems lie elsewhere and are to do with
excessive pressures, please read on and see below.

On my parochial level I agree with the old dog that with UK patterns
of energy use direct combustion or gasification for heat currently
makes more sense than the gasifier to ic engine gensets that sit idle
in various establishments around the country, still no harm to carry
on trying to do better especially if other societies see a bigger
advantage, we'll surely get there in the end.

I am not familiar with producer gas engine technology but would like
to see it discussed a bit more for my own education.

On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 09:50:31 +0530 (IST), Prof P P Parikh
<parikh@me.iitb.ac.in> wrote:

>Dear Dr Reed and all
>
>Presence of CO2 would definitely decrease the flame velocities. What about
>the ignition energy requirement and presence of about 20% or above
>hydrogen?

Are you saying, in pre-mixed fuel gases and air, that the flame
velocity is that of the whole mixture and not of the highest flame
velocity?

I do know from running on propane that the ionising energy is higher
than petrol, so a good spark is essential.

>I am really not very sure about this being examined without
>considering the length of flame travel within the combustion
>chamber and the turbulence levels therein. Conventional Octane rating
>carried out in CFR engines essentially relates to the conventional SI
>engines where the diameter of the piston rarely exceeds 100mm. In
>converted SIPGE however one can expect much larger piston sizes and there
>it is risky to go by conventional Octane number. I do stand to be
>corrected. The very fact that overheating and lesser life is reported with
>use of diesel compression ratios suggest that the maximum pressures under
>spark ignition operation are higher.

Is the lesser life due to unrecognised detonation or pre ignition,
using Marc's definitions?

Again I know from results of oil analysis on propane engines that over
advanced ignition, without realising detonation might be occurring,
resulted in measurable increase of iron in the oil, the inference
being that either the rings or piston skirts were scouring the bores
under knocking or pinking conditions. This was rectified when the
ignition was retarded slightly.

In any case, and in the absence of any engine theory texts for me to
check, it seems apparent that for full throttle, 100% volumetric
efficiency intake, on the same engine and the same compression ratios
that the highest pressure is bound to occur in the si engine for two
reasons (and I hope someone will correct me).

1) A compression ignition engine *never* reaches stoichiometric
conditions, there is always excess air. Hence for a given charge of
air compressed to the same pressure the si engine will burn more fuel
and hence expand the gas from a higher temperature, and a higher
pressure, this pressure will be higher than the design pressure when
running as a CI engine. I wonder if the best way around the problem
would be to place a throttle restriction in the intake to reduce
volumetric efficiency and limit peak pressure to the design pressure.

2) The SI engine will complete its burn near tdc and expand its gases
all from this quick burn under near constant volume conditions, hence
the pressure peak will be high. The CI engine starts from the same
initial high temperature and pressure at tdc but then starts injecting
fuel, this fuel then heats the charge *as* the volume is expanding,
i.e. fuel injection takes place as the piston descends. This allows
the charge to expand under nearly constant pressure and allows the
leaner fuel air ratio overall. It does however have the disadvantage
that the fuel injected toward the end of the injection phase is less
efficiently utilised as the expansion of the charge being heated by
this later input of energy is less than from the that initially
injected.

The reasons diesel engines have a reputation for good fuel usage are:

1) As they always operate at 100% volumetric efficiency they have
better thermodynamic performance at part load.

2) Liquid fuels are sold by volume, whilst petrol and gas oil have
similar calorific value per mass the diesel has some 10% higher
calorific value per volume.

For my part I would still like to have a gasifier running my old V8
Landrover, I would prefer to dual fuel it with propane/CO. The CO,
generated with a cheap tincanium Kalle type gasifier, providing the
base load and propane injection to cope with acceleration. I think
this could be achieved with a throttle sensor and a closed loop lambda
feedback to the gasifier. Charcoal being generated by a clean
pyrolysis co product heating system.

AJH

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Thu Dec 20 06:03:21 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:50 2004
Subject: Email Forms of Address...
Message-ID: <176.10ea2f3.29531f6c@cs.com>

Dear All:

With EMAIL we need a new form of address. "Dear All" is presumably a
better address than "Dear Y'all:" or "Dear Sirs and Madams:". Please give
this some consideration and help me find a better form.

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF STOVEWORKS and BEF GASWORKS

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

From renertech at xtra.co.nz Thu Dec 20 14:50:07 2001
From: renertech at xtra.co.nz (renertech)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Email Forms of Address...
In-Reply-To: <176.10ea2f3.29531f6c@cs.com>
Message-ID: <000a01c18990$346f7460$54c636d2@p3coppermine>

How about Dear Folks,
Or just "Folks,"????
Ken C.

----- Original Message -----
From: <Reedtb2@cs.com>
To: <gasification@crest.org>; <bioenergy@crest.org>; <stoves@crest.org>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 12:03 AM
Subject: GAS-L: Email Forms of Address...

> Dear All:
>
> With EMAIL we need a new form of address. "Dear All" is presumably a
> better address than "Dear Y'all:" or "Dear Sirs and Madams:". Please give
> this some consideration and help me find a better form.
>
>
> Yours truly, TOM REED BEF STOVEWORKS and BEF GASWORKS
>
> -
> Gasification List Archives:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/
>
> Gasification List Moderator:
> Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
> www.webpan.com/BEF
> List-Post: <mailto:gasification@crest.org>
> List-Help: <mailto:gasification-help@crest.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org>
>
> Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> -
> Other Gasification Events and Information:
> http://www.bioenergy2002.org
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From hseaver at cybershamanix.com Thu Dec 20 18:29:26 2001
From: hseaver at cybershamanix.com (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Email Forms of Address...
In-Reply-To: <176.10ea2f3.29531f6c@cs.com>
Message-ID: <3C227431.A3A63824@cybershamanix.com>

Or even just nothing. E-mail isn't really in the same realm as
letter writing, I've been on numerous email lists over the last ten
years or so, and most email I get doesn't have any salutation. Perhaps
that bothers some people, as I can recall years ago someone accusing me
of being "rude" because I didn't write a formal missive, but when you're
dealing with a couple hundred emails a day as I am, brevity is of the
utmost necessity. E-mail is really a minimalist form of communication --
less is more.

renertech wrote:
>
> How about Dear Folks,
> Or just "Folks,"????
> Ken C.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Reedtb2@cs.com>
> To: <gasification@crest.org>; <bioenergy@crest.org>; <stoves@crest.org>
> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 12:03 AM
> Subject: GAS-L: Email Forms of Address...
>
> > Dear All:
> >
> > With EMAIL we need a new form of address. "Dear All" is presumably a
> > better address than "Dear Y'all:" or "Dear Sirs and Madams:". Please give
> > this some consideration and help me find a better form.
>

--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From joacim at ymex.net Thu Dec 20 18:57:12 2001
From: joacim at ymex.net (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Thermodynamic question
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10112201503230.17159-100000@localhost>

I'm only a layman in thermodynamics; perhaps someone can enlighten me:

Is there a `law of refining' in thermodynamics?

If we refine an energy source into something more energy dense, it seems,
as experince suggests, this always costs a certain amount of work/energy.

Is that a principal limitation or only practical?

If so, how can that (minimum) amount of required work be calculated from
the two energy densities?

Joacim
-
main(){printf(&unix["\021%six\012\0"],(unix)["have"]+"fun"-0x60);}
-- David Korn

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From mark at ludlow.com Thu Dec 20 22:36:55 2001
From: mark at ludlow.com (Mark E. Ludlow)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Email Forms of Address...
In-Reply-To: <3C227431.A3A63824@cybershamanix.com>
Message-ID: <MNEAKGJGHKFJKJPBPKPOOEJIMEAB.mark@ludlow.com>

Dear List? (it's hard to dispense with a term of endearment when speaking to
kindred spirits!)

-----Original Message-----
From: Harmon Seaver [mailto:hseaver@cybershamanix.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 3:29 PM
To: Gas-L
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Email Forms of Address...

renertech wrote:
>
> How about Dear Folks,
> Or just "Folks,"????
> Ken C.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Reedtb2@cs.com>
> To: <gasification@crest.org>; <bioenergy@crest.org>; <stoves@crest.org>
> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 12:03 AM
> Subject: GAS-L: Email Forms of Address...
>
> > Dear All:
> >
> > With EMAIL we need a new form of address. "Dear All" is presumably
a
> > better address than "Dear Y'all:" or "Dear Sirs and Madams:". Please
give
> > this some consideration and help me find a better form.
>

--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk Fri Dec 21 10:15:25 2001
From: Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Email Forms of Address...
In-Reply-To: <MNEAKGJGHKFJKJPBPKPOOEJIMEAB.mark@ludlow.com>
Message-ID: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGIEDMCEAA.Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk>

I go with Harmon I think Joacims note (above) epitomises the appropriate
form for a list entry.

If one was replying to Joacim via the list One would use dear Joacim.

And if the thread gets bigger then it will be appropriate to address the
reply to those whos' comments you are responding to.

I rather thought Tom was saying happy Christmas and merry New Year to us all
.

Happy New Year and Merry Christmas (to those who celebrate it) to all
gasifiers, listers or whatever the collective nouns should be- Now theres
another thread

Gav

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark E. Ludlow [mailto:mark@ludlow.com]
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 3:38
To: Gas-L
Subject: RE: GAS-L: Email Forms of Address...

Dear List? (it's hard to dispense with a term of endearment when speaking to
kindred spirits!)

-----Original Message-----
From: Harmon Seaver [mailto:hseaver@cybershamanix.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 3:29 PM
To: Gas-L
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Email Forms of Address...

renertech wrote:
>
> How about Dear Folks,
> Or just "Folks,"????
> Ken C.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Reedtb2@cs.com>
> To: <gasification@crest.org>; <bioenergy@crest.org>; <stoves@crest.org>
> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 12:03 AM
> Subject: GAS-L: Email Forms of Address...
>
> > Dear All:
> >
> > With EMAIL we need a new form of address. "Dear All" is presumably
a
> > better address than "Dear Y'all:" or "Dear Sirs and Madams:". Please
give
> > this some consideration and help me find a better form.
>

--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Sun Dec 23 04:02:44 2001
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: E mail forms of address.
Message-ID: <001501c18b91$1a1b4c80$6a3efea9@Graemewi>

Dear Gasification and Biomass Colleagues

Tom R. Poses the questions of how we should address each other, a world wide
body of individuals who choose to come together in this forum.

I have never thought of anyone as "folks" or even "friends", although its
been my good fortune to get to know many individuals who I'm sure would be
as good a friend as one could find, but we are colleagues.

It must be the time of year that is creating this feeling of despair, or
possibly the loss of a great New Zealander, Sir Peter Blake killed by river
pirates in Brazil. I just watched his memorial service on the T.V.
Tonight, and wondered just how many more of us will die pursuing a dream of
creating a cleaner planet. For those of you who don't know of Sir Peter, he
was a supreme yachtsman, round the world sailor, and in retirement champion
of the environment researching the rivers and seas in pursuit of clean
water.

In our endeavours to implement bioenergy via biomass and gasification, our
concerns for the land use and cleaner emissions from our technologies makes
us colleagues of Sir Peter, united in efforts towards developing an
environment worth living in.

The last entry of Sir Peter's log book said "You have to pursue your cause
with passion if you want to make a difference". Possibly he has provided me
personally with an explanation of how I feel about gasification, and why I
just cannot retire gracefully!

There aren't enough of us to go around to do all the work necessary in the
next few years. Don't despair as I have done at the lack of progress, or
the seemingly lack of interest in gasification, the need is there and we
just have to get on and prove it.

It wasn't my intention to end on a gloomy note, as I heard yesterday my
German associates have fired up their version of the Mega Class gasifier
and recorded 1,900M3/hr gas flows. A good way to end a slow year!

I take this opportunity to wish everyone a peaceful Festive Season and wish
for a Planet without conflict in the years ahead.

Your colleague
Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification.

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From snkm at btl.net Mon Dec 24 10:05:26 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Searching the Gas List Archives
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20011224084018.00aafc80@wgs1.btl.net>

Dear All;

In the nature of the present season -- a gift for all.

Here is a simple way to search the gasification list's archives.

Go to http://www.google.com/advanced_search

Type search words in plain English in the "all of the words" box and then:

1) Select "100 results" from the drop down menu (unless of
course you prefer to see less results at a time).
2) Select to return pages with results written in English.
3) Input to only return results from the site or domain
"www.crest.org".
4) Click on "Google Search."

And yes -- this will work with searching any WWW site.

Try this -- you'll be more than surprised at the results!

You have many more options to narrow a search down at Google "Advanced".

Go here for a detailed description:

http://www.google.com/help/refinesearch.html#domain

Well, that's it folks!

Something to play with during the Christmas "retreat".

Peter Singfield
Xaibe Village, Corozal District
Belize, Central America

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From tmiles at trmiles.com Mon Dec 24 11:52:29 2001
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Searching the Gas List Archives
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20011224084018.00aafc80@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20011224083845.013f0c68@mail.easystreet.com>

Peter,

Nice gimmick. Thanks.

We archived messages in web format when we started these lists in 1994. At
the time I thought that search engines would only get better. Voila!

Happy Holidays

Tom Miles

At 09:00 AM 12/24/2001 -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:

>Dear All;
>
>In the nature of the present season -- a gift for all.
>
>Here is a simple way to search the gasification list's archives.
>
>Go to http://www.google.com/advanced_search
>
>Type search words in plain English in the "all of the words" box and then:
>
> 1) Select "100 results" from the drop down menu (unless of
> course you prefer to see less results at a time).
> 2) Select to return pages with results written in English.
> 3) Input to only return results from the site or domain
> "www.crest.org".
> 4) Click on "Google Search."
>
>And yes -- this will work with searching any WWW site.
>
>Try this -- you'll be more than surprised at the results!
>
>You have many more options to narrow a search down at Google "Advanced".
>
>Go here for a detailed description:
>
>http://www.google.com/help/refinesearch.html#domain
>
>Well, that's it folks!
>
>Something to play with during the Christmas "retreat".
>
>
>Peter Singfield
>Xaibe Village, Corozal District
>Belize, Central America
>
>
>-
>Gasification List Archives:
>http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/
>
>Gasification List Moderator:
>Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
>www.webpan.com/BEF
>List-Post: <mailto:gasification@crest.org>
>List-Help: <mailto:gasification-help@crest.org>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>
>List-Subscribe: <mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org>
>
>Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
>-
>Other Gasification Events and Information:
>http://www.bioenergy2002.org
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/

Thomas R Miles tmiles@trmiles.com
T R Miles, TCI Tel 503-292-0107
1470 SW Woodward Way Fax 503-292-2919
Portland, OR 97225 USA

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From snkm at btl.net Mon Dec 24 12:07:25 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Searching the Gas List Archives
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20011224105657.00ab7cd0@wgs1.btl.net>

Dear Tom Miles;

There exists an incredible wealth of information in those archives -- and
now easily searchable in a most concise manner.

As Tom Reed puts it -- "Onward"!

Peter

At 08:41 AM 12/24/2001 -0800, Tom Miles wrote:
>Peter,
>
>Nice gimmick. Thanks.
>
>We archived messages in web format when we started these lists in 1994. At
>the time I thought that search engines would only get better. Voila!
>
>Happy Holidays
>
>Tom Miles
>
>At 09:00 AM 12/24/2001 -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:
>
>>Dear All;
>>
>>In the nature of the present season -- a gift for all.
>>
>>Here is a simple way to search the gasification list's archives.
>>
>>Go to http://www.google.com/advanced_search
>>
>>Type search words in plain English in the "all of the words" box and then:
>>
>> 1) Select "100 results" from the drop down menu (unless of
>> course you prefer to see less results at a time).
>> 2) Select to return pages with results written in English.
>> 3) Input to only return results from the site or domain
>> "www.crest.org".
>> 4) Click on "Google Search."
>>
>>And yes -- this will work with searching any WWW site.
>>
>>Try this -- you'll be more than surprised at the results!
>>
>>You have many more options to narrow a search down at Google "Advanced".
>>
>>Go here for a detailed description:
>>
>>http://www.google.com/help/refinesearch.html#domain
>>
>>Well, that's it folks!
>>
>>Something to play with during the Christmas "retreat".
>>
>>
>>Peter Singfield
>>Xaibe Village, Corozal District
>>Belize, Central America
>>
>>
>>-
>>Gasification List Archives:
>>http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/
>>
>>Gasification List Moderator:
>>Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
>>www.webpan.com/BEF
>>List-Post: <mailto:gasification@crest.org>
>>List-Help: <mailto:gasification-help@crest.org>
>>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>
>>List-Subscribe: <mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org>
>>
>>Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
>>-
>>Other Gasification Events and Information:
>>http://www.bioenergy2002.org
>>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>
>Thomas R Miles tmiles@trmiles.com
>T R Miles, TCI Tel 503-292-0107
>1470 SW Woodward Way Fax 503-292-2919
>Portland, OR 97225 USA
>
>

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

From ZBihari at ormat.com Sun Dec 30 05:48:34 2001
From: ZBihari at ormat.com (Zoli Bihari)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Emission regulations in California
Message-ID: <727CFCBBE1C3D41181FC005004201AA0D3E4F8@ORMAT-NT>

Hello to all the listers.

I need your help regarding the emission regulations in California.

If I have a small scale electricity generation system working on
biomass, where should I look for allowed emission
regulations?
Under DG (it is for MicroTurbines, reciprocating engines, PV, Wind & Fuel Cells)
or boilers (gasification or combustion - the same for this purpose)?

Can you also give me some references where to look up the relevant numbers?

I already found the two most relevant and updated reports from ARB:
"Guidance for the permitting of electrical generation technologies - Sept. 2001"
and
"Staff report: Initial statement of reasons for the proposal to establish
a distributed generation certification program - Sept. 2001"

In those reports I can't find anything about biomass based small electricity generation systems.

Thanks, in advance, for the help.

Happy New-Year to all from Israel.

Zoli

Zoli Bihari
R&D - Ormat Ltd. - Israel
Tel: 972 (8) 9433894
Fax: 972 (8) 9439901
E-mail: zbihari@ormat.com

From guillaume.brouillard at sympatico.ca Sun Dec 30 08:52:57 2001
From: guillaume.brouillard at sympatico.ca (Guillaume Brouillard)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification
Message-ID: <003a01c19139$53ed2b60$82d0d0d8@hppav>

Hello, I'm a science teacher working on a small gasifier
project. I just discovered this precious mailing list. Could any of you please
tell me how I could find the Handbook of Biomass Gasifier Engine Systems that
Tom Reed often refers to? Also, any available bibliography you might have on
hand on gasification of wood for engine operation as well as any diagrams, plans
or web sites would be greatly appreciated. I am also looking for more
information on these europeen wood fueled cars that were operating during world
war 2.


Thank you!

Guillaume Brouillard, Canada

From jaturnbu at ix.netcom.com Sun Dec 30 20:53:51 2001
From: jaturnbu at ix.netcom.com (Jane Turnbull)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Emission regulations in California
Message-ID: <E16Krdt-0006oC-00@barry.mail.mindspring.net>

Zoli,

It is my understanding that the local air boards set the emission standards. Thus, there is considerable variability between the South Coast region and Modoc or Siskiyou Counties. In addition, during the power crunch last spring and summer, local boards had some discretion in permitting small scale systems. I don't know whether or not that remains.

I would be interested in your small scale biomass system.

Jane Turnbull
Peninsula Energy Partners

----------
From: Zoli Bihari <ZBihari@ormat.com>
To: "CREST (E-mail)" <gasification@crest.org>, "CREST (E-mail 3)" <bioenergy@crest.org>
Subject: Emission regulations in California
Date: Sun, Dec 30, 2001, 3:47 AM

Hello to all the listers.

I need your help regarding the emission regulations in California.

Can you also give me some references where to look up the relevant numbers?

In those reports I can't find anything about biomass based small electricity generation systems.

Thanks, in advance, for the help.

Happy New-Year to all from Israel.

Zoli

Zoli Bihari
R&D - Ormat Ltd. - Israel
Tel: 972 (8) 9433894
Fax: 972 (8) 9439901
E-mail: zbihari@ormat.com

From thomas at theshastagroup.com Sun Dec 30 21:14:59 2001
From: thomas at theshastagroup.com (Thomas Deerfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:50 2004
Subject: small-scale biomass -details?
In-Reply-To: <E16Krdt-0006oC-00@barry.mail.mindspring.net>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20011230181850.02925438@mail.earthlink.net>

I would also. and I expect that many of us on this list would be
interested to hear more about your small-scale system. Can you give us
some details?
Thomas
The Shasta Group
At 06:22 PM 12/30/2001 -0700, Jane Turnbull wrote:
Zoli,
It is my understanding that the local air boards set the emission
standards. Thus, there is considerable variability between the
South Coast region and Modoc or Siskiyou Counties. In addition,
during the power crunch last spring and summer, local boards had some
discretion in permitting small scale systems. I don't know whether
or not that remains.
I would be interested in your small scale biomass system.
Jane Turnbull
Peninsula Energy Partners
----------
From: Zoli Bihari <ZBihari@ormat.com>
To: "CREST (E-mail)" <gasification@crest.org>,
"CREST (E-mail 3)" <bioenergy@crest.org>
Subject: Emission regulations in California
Date: Sun, Dec 30, 2001, 3:47 AM

Hello to all the listers.

I need your help regarding the emission regulations in
California.

If I have a small scale electricity generation system working
on
biomass, where should I look for allowed emission

regulations?
Under DG (it is for MicroTurbines, reciprocating engines, PV, Wind & Fuel Cells)
or boilers (gasification or combustion - the same for this purpose)?

Can you also give me some references where to look up the relevant numbers?

In those reports I can't find anything about biomass based small electricity generation systems.

Thanks, in advance, for the help.

Happy New-Year to all from Israel.

Zoli

Zoli Bihari
R&D - Ormat Ltd. - Israel
Tel: 972 (8) 9433894
Fax: 972 (8) 9439901
E-mail: zbihari@ormat.com

From tmiles at trmiles.com Mon Dec 31 01:49:19 2001
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification
In-Reply-To: <003a01c19139$53ed2b60$82d0d0d8@hppav>
Message-ID: <005801c191c6$79fc1400$0401a8c0@trmhp>

Guillaume,

We have compiled a list of gasification links from
this list on the Gasification Reference page at
<A
href="http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml">http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
Also Tom Reed will give you instructions for
ordering from his BEF bookstore.

Regards,

Tom Miles

Thomas R MilesTR Miles, Technical Consultants<A
href="mailto:tmiles@trmiles.com">tmiles@trmiles.com503-292-0107
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From:
<A title=guillaume.brouillard@sympatico.ca
href="mailto:guillaume.brouillard@sympatico.ca">Guillaume Brouillard

To: <A title=gasification@crest.org
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 5:53
AM
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification

Hello, I'm a science teacher working on a small gasifier
project. I just discovered this precious mailing list. Could any of you please
tell me how I could find the Handbook of Biomass Gasifier Engine Systems that
Tom Reed often refers to? Also, any available bibliography you might have on
hand on gasification of wood for engine operation as well as any diagrams,
plans or web sites would be greatly appreciated. I am also looking for
more information on these europeen wood fueled cars that were operating during
world war 2.


Thank you!

Guillaume Brouillard, Canada

BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

December 2001 Gasification Archive