March 2001 Gasification Archive

From kenboak at stirlingservice.freeserve.co.uk Fri Mar 2 04:02:32 2001
From: kenboak at stirlingservice.freeserve.co.uk (Ken Boak)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:13 2004
Subject: Can Stove (John Davies)
Message-ID: <20010302090341.20747.qmail@fsmail.net>

John and fellow Gasifiers

Thank you for the sketch of your can stove.

A simple question would be whether it is more efficient to insulate the gasification zone, or wrap the unit with a second skin (larger can) and form an annular pre-heater for the secondary combustion air? Or a combination of the two - insulate the lower half of the unit but form an air pre-heater around the gas-delivery tube.

What weight of fuel will the combustion zone handle in a charge? What is the approximate burn time?

FYI. I have posted your design up onto my Personal Website at:

http://www.geocities.com/kenboak/index.html

I shall be saving tin cans from this point onwards.

Regards,

Ken Boak

_______________________________________________________________________
FSmail - Get your free web-based email from Freeserve: www.fsmail.net

From JWCARTER33 at aol.com Fri Mar 2 10:22:39 2001
From: JWCARTER33 at aol.com (JWCARTER33@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:13 2004
Subject: Diesel trucks
Message-ID: <d9.10eefbd8.27d114be@aol.com>

friends:
this is somewhat off the gasification topic area "actually quite a bit" but
I'm looking for information on the kWh output of a typical diesel truck
idling is? if anyone could help me and my search for this information I
would greatly appreciate it
thank you
Jeff Carter
jcarter@biofuels.com

From jmdavies at xsinet.co.za Fri Mar 2 16:06:06 2001
From: jmdavies at xsinet.co.za (John Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:13 2004
Subject: Trials and other thoughts
Message-ID: <008201c0a35b$294c6dc0$dfd4ef9b@p>

Hi All,

Firstly I must say thank you to the many people who have responded to my
stove project requests.
With a special thanks to Tom, Alex and Prof. Bhattacharya. and not
forgetting Vernon for introducing me to this excellent and helpful forum.

As a result of your positive feedback, I succeeded in improving the flame at
the burner.
This was done by mixing more air into the gas, resulting in a flame that has
a blue component and hisses and rumbles in a similar way to a high pressure
propane gas burner.

This was achieved by making 4 cuts of about 1 1/4" transversely across the
perimeter of the 2" gas pipe. the lower side of the cuts was depressed
inward about 1/3" leaving triangular vertical air inlets. These were spread
90 degrees apart and spread out along the length of the pipe at 20, 40, 60,
and 80% . This has the effect of sucking air into the gas flow on the way
up the pipe, This extra small volume of air has made the flame hotter, and
has allowed the primary air to be throttled giving control to the burning
rate.

The latest burn:

FUEL
Dry hardwood twigs ( privet ) varying in size from 3/16" to 1/2" diameter
and length of between 1 to 3 ". with a mass of 700g. the upper 100g being
wetted with kerosene to start the process.

LIGHTING
This was sluggish and took about 5 minutes. after which the burner was
placed. Another 4 primary holes should speed up this process.

IGNITING THE BURNER
The ignition flame had to be maintained for about 5 minutes before a self
supporting flame was established.
Again about 6" high. The extra primary air as above will help again.

THE PYROLYSING BURN
As the flame height increased the eight primary air holes were plugged one
at
a time. controlling the flame at a constant height with the chimney diameter
filled with flame.. In order to keep the chimney diameter filled with flame
the top section had to be removed reducing the length above the burner holes
to 5".

When the 4th hole was plugged the diameter of the flame reduced leaving an
air gap which caused cooling of the chimney sides, and smoky perimeter
around the flame. this cooling effect led to the flame dying. 2 plugs were
removed ant the flame recovered, after which 1 was replaced. the rest of the
burn was constant with 3 of the 8 holes plugged.

The burn time was about 25 minutes, after which the flame rapidly died At
this point the bottom third of the fuel container could be seen glowing
through the ceramic wool insulation.

The CHARCOAL BURN.
It was not possible to obtain a flame at this stage, and the heat produced
was reducing rapidly. All 8 holes were opened and the charcoal temperature
increased, burning without any smoke. A good simmering heat continued for
another 25 minutes. and the last remaining embers took about 15 minutes to
burn out.
An additional 4 holes would have allowed a shorter but hotter burn during
this stage.

THE FLAME CHARACTERISTICS..
The flame was spear shaped with the centre having double the height of that
of the sides. while some blue could be seen throughout the flame, the centre
was more yellow and the sides more blue. This is obviously an air mixing
problem. dividing the gas pipe into 3 smaller pipes below the burner should
have the effect of equalising the flame characteristics, ( a longer burner
mixing chamber might also work and be simpler) and allow increased primary
air throttling with a cooler longer initial burn.

CONCLUSION. Further improvement is possible, but the system will become more
complicated.

FUTURE PLANS.
As a home heating system is the aim, with burn times of up to six hours, or
longer. The next logical step is to follow the system introduced by Prof.
Bhattacharya. and developing it for the purposes of water and space heating.
Naturally further burner development will follow.

One last burn will be conducted with this pile of tins, incorporating the
extra holes and the longer air/gas mixer.
Then onto something more sophisticated.

Keep Bio-Gassing,
John Davies.

PS. Tom would you be so kind as to add this to the Stoves list. I promise to
sign up there in a few days.

From p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au Sat Mar 3 18:11:31 2001
From: p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au (Peter M. Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:13 2004
Subject: Gas air mixer
In-Reply-To: <008201c0a35b$294c6dc0$dfd4ef9b@p>
Message-ID: <000d01c0a42c$a3b46a00$c31828cb@M.Davies>

Dear All,

Has anyone tried the "twisted ribbon" system for swirling and hence mixing
the gas / air for combustion from a small gasifier stove ?

These are simple flat metal strips given a 1 1/2 twist and inserted in the
flue. They were/are used on old kerosene fridges and some gas appliances.

Cheers,
Peter Davies

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Mar 6 18:09:06 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:13 2004
Subject: Vermiculite and asbestos... NOT
Message-ID: <a8.12085bd2.27d6e34e@cs.com>

This from the site

http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/asbestos/verm.htm

Vermiculite
What is it?
Vermiculite is the mineralogical name given to hydrated laminar
magnesium-aluminum-iron-silicate
which resembles mica in appearance. All vermiculite ores contain a range of
other
minerals that were formed along with the vermiculite in the rock. Vermiculite
ores from some
sources have been found to contain asbestos minerals but asbestos is not
intrinsic to vermiculite
and only a few ore bodies have been found to contain more than tiny trace
amounts.
Vermiculite mines are surface operations where ore is separated from other
minerals, and then
screened or classified into several basic particle sizes.

When subjected to heat, vermiculite has the unusual property of exfoliating
or expanding into
worm-like pieces (the name vermiculite is derived from the Latin
'vermiculare' - to breed worms).
This characteristic of exfoliation, the basis for commercial use of the
mineral, is the result of the
mechanical separation of the layers by the rapid conversion of contained
water to steam. The
increase in bulk volume of commercial grades is 8 to 12 times, but individual
flakes may exfoliate
as many as 30 times. There is a color change during expansion that is
dependent upon the
composition of the vermiculite and furnace temperature.

Vermiculite is found in various parts of the world. Locations of the
predominant commercial
mines are in Australia, Brazil, China, Kenya, South Africa, USA and Zimbabwe.

~~~~~~~~~~~
So it would seem that all the worrying I have done about recommending
vermiculite for insulation , about possible asbestos contamination ... is
very unlikely. But maybe use a dust mask if handling a lot of it ANYHOW.

TOM REED BEF

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Mar 6 18:09:18 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fireballs! Increasing volume energy density and porosity
Message-ID: <3f.1197e54b.27d6e347@cs.com>

My sawdust balls turned out to be very hard - couldn't break them apart by
hand! I probably used more starch than necessary, but not much.

On my first try in the Turbo stove they smouldered and went out. They have
such low themal conductivity that only the surface charred (like burning
paper).

But today, I built a good chip fire on top of the fireballs and they burned
up nicely.

So, fireballs should be here to stay, considering your experience and mine....

TOM REED BEF .

In a message dated 3/5/01 3:41:20 AM Mountain Standard Time, vvnk@teri.res.in
writes:

Tom,
Several years ago we made low pressure briquettes of saw dust ,coconut pith
etc by adding a small amount of cattle dung and extruding the mixture in a
low cost ,low power extruder.The sun-dried briquettes were used in our
gasifier in a village called Dhanavas near Delhi. John Tatom has seen this
plant. This is slightly high tech compared to making dung cakes.We also
used molasses and starch as binders with equally good results,but the costs
were higher.
-Kishore(TERI)

From jmdavies at xsinet.co.za Wed Mar 7 12:19:34 2001
From: jmdavies at xsinet.co.za (John Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:13 2004
Subject: Tin Can Stove
Message-ID: <000501c0a73b$b4436a80$88d4ef9b@p>

Hi All,

After several mails' to the gasification site, this is my first to the
stoves site. Subsequent to my last report, which may or may not have reached
the stoves site.

Lighting of the stove has been greatly improved by increasing the primary
air holes from 8 to 16.

The Flame at the burner has been further improved by doubling the length of
the mixing zone under the burner.
This has produced an almost perfect flame, of even spread and height. Short
and blue with yellow tails with a height of about 3", sticking to the burner
surface and very hot. This has come at a price, a stable flame is only
achieved where the gas volume is in a very narrow band, any change to the
primary air resulted in a flame out. More primary air was needed but the
flame duration was still about 25minutes. The charcoal produced was less. It
is suspected that some was reduced to gas during the first stage. This might
explain the dramatic increase in heat, with the same duration burn.

A flame at the burner was still not achieved during the charcoal burn. I am
sure that persistence would pay off, but it is now time to divert my
experiments to the cross draft " Institutional Stove " . This direction is
in order to try and produce another tin can stove, with continuous heat
output and a gas of constant quality and volume which will better suit a
finely tuned burner.

The next stove will require more thought and effort as horizontal pipes will
have to be joined to the combustion can. The requirement would be that the
stove be built entirely from waste, using simple hand tools.
This will be the only way to bring this technology to the poorest of the
poor, which in turn could create jobs in that community and clean up the
thick environmental smog in which they live, from the improper burning of
low grade coal, which is their only affordable source of heating.

Any ideas for this type of construction will be welcome.

Regards,
John Davies.
Secunda.
South Africa.

PS. The stove sketch can be seen at :
http://www.geocities.com/kenboak/index.html
Thanks to Ken Boak who has kindly added it to his personal web site.

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Thu Mar 8 07:15:49 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:13 2004
Subject: Volatile - Char burning difficulties
Message-ID: <7f.112cfc97.27d8ed3f@cs.com>

I too have trouble burning the charcoal in the same stove as the volatiles
from biomass. One solution is to accept the charcoal as a gift - it has high
value in many parts of the world.

The second solution is to get the Air-Fuel ratio right. You need six times
as much air to generate char-gas and 1/6th as much to burn the CO. I am
currently building a Turbo stove that will do that - I hope.

When CO is burned correctly there is no more beautiful flame pattern.

The Imbert gasifier nicely balances burning volatiles and char by having only
one air supply and if charcoal production increases, more is burned.

An ordinary fireplace solves the problem with large quantities of excess air,
burning first the volatiles (poorly, dirty) and then the charcoal.

It is the pesky nature of wood and coal and you need to work around it.

TOM REED BEF

In a message dated 3/7/01 12:16:40 PM Mountain Standard Time,
jmdavies@xsinet.co.za writes:

Hi All,

After several mails' to the gasification site, this is my first to the
stoves site. Subsequent to my last report, which may or may not have reached
the stoves site.

Lighting of the stove has been greatly improved by increasing the primary
air holes from 8 to 16.

Any ideas for this type of construction will be welcome.

Regards,
John Davies.
Secunda.
South Africa.

PS. The stove sketch can be seen at :
http://www.geocities.com/kenboak/index.html
Thanks to Ken Boak who has kindly added it to his personal web site.

From kchishol at fox.nstn.ca Thu Mar 8 07:41:58 2001
From: kchishol at fox.nstn.ca (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:13 2004
Subject: Volatile - Char burning difficulties
In-Reply-To: <7f.112cfc97.27d8ed3f@cs.com>
Message-ID: <NEBBLHHHOLFOEGCILKHEKEMBCHAA.kchishol@fox.nstn.ca>

Dear
Tom
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
-----Original Message-----From: Reedtb2@cs.com
[mailto:Reedtb2@cs.com]Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 10:12
AMTo: jmdavies@xsinet.co.za; gasification@crest.orgCc:
stoves@crest.orgSubject: Volatile - Char burning
difficulties
Dear John and all: I too have
trouble burning the charcoal in the same stove as the volatiles from
biomass. One solution is to accept the charcoal as a gift - it has high
value in many parts of the world. The second solution is to get
the Air-Fuel ratio right. You need six times as much air to generate
char-gas and 1/6th as much to burn the CO. I am currently building a
Turbo stove that will do that - I hope. 

If we burn a mole of carbon, we need 1/2 mole
Oxygen:
 C + 1/2O2 =
CO

If we then burn
the CO to CO2, we also need 1/2 mole O2:
 CO + 1/2 O2 =
CO2

Am I missing
something here? It looks like the air requirement to gasify the char is the
same as the air requirement to burn the CO
resulting.

Where does the
"factor of 6" come in?

Thanks

Kevin
Chisholm

From kenboak at stirlingservice.freeserve.co.uk Sun Mar 11 11:54:28 2001
From: kenboak at stirlingservice.freeserve.co.uk (Ken Boak)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Dean Kamen (& Co) patent
Message-ID: <00af01c0aa4b$e863d620$4bb4883e@boakk>

Sunday is traditionally a day for pawing over the papers so here is the
complete patent analysis of the recent Dean Kamen Stirling Engine patent.

http://www.stirlingengine.com/kamen/dean_kamen_patent.html

Brent, if you're reading this, thanks for your time and effort in
deciphering this lot. Thanks go to the American Stirling Engine Co.

Any one wish to read this and comment later on?

D.K. certainly knows how to generate a lot of media noise, and has some
pretty well-connected friends. Could this be what the Stirling engine
needs, to move it along at last - Forget Holland - Think Hollywoood (via
New Hampshire of course).

A small Stirling cheap enough to put into a scooter, could be applied in
many other applications including the most likely distributed generation or
combined heat and power - at a price to compete with conventional heating
equipment. Get the utilities interested in this and they would not have to
spend money to upgrade their grid. The responsibility for maintaining supply
is partly handed over to the end user.

(Cynics may say that this is just what D.K. needs - a lot of publicity on a
fairly obscure bit of hardware, at a time when energy is very much a hot
topic in the news).

Biodieselers and Gasifiers might just be interested in this one too.

For enumerous links on this one try " Dean Kamen Stirling" on any search
engine

regards

Ken

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Mon Mar 12 09:36:42 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: hi
Message-ID: <b8.128c3dfc.27de385a@cs.com>

Nice to hear from you. Please pass the following on to Prof. Mukuna with our
regards.

I can tell you quite a bit about the McNeil Power plant and FERCO. It is a
double fluidized bed gasifier in which biomass is pyrolysed in the first bed
using hot sand and the char from the first bed is burned in the second bed to
make the hot sand that goes to the first bed that pyrolyses the biomass to
make the char that goes to the second bed where it is burned to heat the sand
that goes to the first bed where.....

A neat concept. It produces gas with an energy content of 20 MJ/m3. It can
run on a variety of feedstocks. It has been in development since about 1980
at the Battelle labs in Columbus Ohio. They have worked with the National
Renewable Energy Lab on analysis of the gas. Commercial development began at
the McNeil pilot plant in Burlington Vt. about 1992 and is now advertised as
a commercial success. If you have a copy of our "Survey of Biomass
Gasification - 2000 (or the new edition 2001)", it is pictured on the cover
in color, and there are many pages devoted to both the development stage and
the McNeil plant. I have been to both sites a number of times.

Mark Paisley has been with both the development stage at Battelle and now the
commercialization at FERCO. He visited us at Community Power Corporation a
few weeks ago and gave us a nice presentation. For more information you can
Email him at

markpaisley@columbus.rr.com

Maybe you should feature it in your BUN.

~~~~~
Other than that, CPC has shipped our first "turnkey. tar-free" power system
to the Philippines and are awaiting installation while we catch our breath.
My turbo-stove is ready for a cooperative program with any country which is
serious about replacing kerosene and LPG with wood-gas.

We had dinner with Ali Kaupp and Petra last night. I guess you saw them in
Bangalore recently.

Spring is coming ... enjoy

Your pal, TOM REED BEF/CPC

Dr. Thomas B. Reed, President, The Biomass Energy Foundation, 1810 Smith Rd.,
Golden, CO 80401
Email reedtb2@cs.com; www.woodgas.com; 303 278 0558 home; 303 278 0560 Fax

Dr. Thomas B. Reed, Principal Scientist,
The Community Power Corporation, Reedtb2@cs.com; www.gocpc.com; 303 278 0558

In a message dated 3/12/01 2:28:12 AM Mountain Standard Time,
gayathri@cgpl.iisc.ernet.in writes:

hi tom,
hi tom how are u? no mails long time.
I came across this interesting report.
can u tell me more about this tom? have u seen this place?
Cheers
GPal
Biomass Gas Development Fueled with Turner Foundation Funds

ATLANTA, Georgia, March 8, 2000 (ENS) - An Atlanta company has received $16
million to commercialize its biomass gasification technology.

Future Energy Resources Corporation (FERCO) says the Turner Foundation was
the major donor among private investors who are supporting the technology
that currently is in operation at the McNeil Generating Station in
Burlington, Vermont.

"The Turner Foundation is investing in this technology because it fits our
social agenda of conservation and environmental preservation," says Taylor
Glover, financial advisor to Ted Turner.

The investment demonstrates that FERCO is "serious about commercialization
and shows the investment community considers us a formidable player,"
explains chairman Milton Farris. Investors received an undisclosed share of
the company and representation on the FERCO board.

Switchgrass is one of the most promising energy crops in the southern United
States. Now that gasification is being developed to turn feedstocks like
switchgrass into electricity, farmers have the option to plant these hardy
grasses to restore eroded land and gain flexibility in crop planning and
rotation. (Photo by warren Gretz courtesy National Renewable Energy Lab)
Gasification technology can convert biomass such as wood, grass or sugar
cane waste into a liquid or gas that can be burned in a combustion turbine.
Almost any type of biomass material can be used in the gasification process,
including wood chips, sawdust, agricultural residues and a variety of crops
grown specifically to produce energy.

Biomass power plants using conventional steam turbines currently generate
7000 megawatts (MW) of power annually in the United States. Biomass
gasifiers could increase the generating capacity to 10,000 MW by 2010. A
megawatt is enough electricity to power 200-300 homes.

Control room at the McNeil Generating Station, one of the largest
wood-burning power plants in the Northeast. (Photo courtesy National
Renewable Energy Lab)
The McNeil Generating Station now generates 50 MW of electric power for the
city's residents using wood from nearby forestry operations - forest
thinnings and discarded wood pallets - in a conventional boiler and turbine
generator.
The gasifier, which uses a more advanced technology, is housed in an
adjoining building. The gasifier is capable of converting 200 tons of wood
chips per day into a gaseous fuel that is currently fed directly into the
McNeil Station boiler, enough to generate 8 MW of power.

The gasifier mixes wood with sand heated to 1800 degrees Fahrenheit, which
causes the carbon, hydrogen and oxygen in the biomass to form combustible
gases.

"We're literally surrounding every particle of biomass with hot sand and
that makes it break down very quickly and produces as much gas as possible,"
says Mark Paisley, the gasifier's inventor.

At capacity, the gasifier will be capable of producing up to 12 megawatts of
electricity and generate it more efficiently, and with less pollution, than
conventional boiler/turbine technology.

McNeil Generating Station turns wood waste into power. (Photo courtesy
National Renewable Energy Lab)
FERCO will use the new funding to complete some modifications to the McNeil
unit and to conduct a comprehensive testing plan for different biomass
fuels. It will also start development of commercial projects that can use
the technology and initiate discussions with potential partners.
The U.S. Department of Energy provided $27 million to FERCO during its
development phase.

"The conversion process is considered by many to be a significant
technological advance,â€ says DOEâ€™s Dan Reicher. â€The gas it produces will
deliver not only economic electrical power, but can be used as a
transportation fuel and as a base chemical in the production of synthetic
petrochemicals, all derived from biomass."

The FERCO biomass process is the first to generate electricity directly from
biomass fuel using unmodified product gas in a gas turbine. It is also the
first process that accepts a wide range of feed stocks, such as energy crops
and forestry and municipal waste. When these fuels are converted to replace
natural gas, the renewable energy reduces emissions of greenhouse gases and
solves waste management issues.

Cross section of the McNeil gasifier. (Design drawing by Zurn/NEPCO courtesy
Dept. of Energy)
"Our technology, now proven with more than 22,000 hours of pilot plant
operation, will make bioenergy facilities significantly more competitive
with fossil fuels and provide a sound solution to several waste management
issues," says Farris. FERCO is committed to commercialization of biomass
gasification as a renewable energy source and a solution to waste management
and other environmental issues.
FERCO was created in 1992 to commercialize a biomass gasification process
developed by the Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus, Ohio during the
1980s.

The new biomass gasification process was recognized by R&D Magazine as one
of the 100 most significant technological innovations of 1998.

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Mar 13 09:49:50 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: air-fuel ratios
Message-ID: <31.11b139c6.27df8d10@cs.com>

You can work out the air/fuel ratio for charcoal gasification from

MW: 12 (32 + 105) 68.6 80.6
C + 1/2 (O2 + 3.76 N2) = CO + 1.88 N2

68.6/12 = 5.72 ~ 6

To burn this 80.6 g of CO-N2 gas, you need another 68.6 g of air, so A/F for
combustion is 68.6/80.6 = 0.85.

The complete combustion of carbon to CO2 has an air fuel ratio of
137.2/12 = 11.4/1 but carbon doesn't usually burn that way because the heat
generated (red and above) favors formation of CO in the first stage.
~~~~
Total combustion of biomass (C H1.4 O 0.6) can be worked out similarly to
require a total of about 6/1 air fuel; the pyrolysis, (not consuming the
charcoal requires < 1/1, but depends on conditions.

Can you imagine trying to build a gasoline engine without knowing how much
air is required to burn it? Yet most people wade into biomass gasification
followed by wood-gas combustion without knowing these numbers.

(I didn't do the C numbers until a few months ago and I was VERY surprised.)

Catch up.

YOurs truly, TOM REED

In a message dated 3/9/01 11:47:38 AM Mountain Standard Time,
jmdavies@xsinet.co.za writes:

Kevin wrote,

>Am I missing something here? It looks like the air requirement to gasify
the char is the same as the air >requirement to burn the CO resulting.

>Where does the "factor of 6" come in?

I am also pondering this fact, although at my last burn a blue flame was
seen just above the burning charcoal.
at the bottom of the gas tube.

John.

From arcate at msn.com Tue Mar 13 18:49:55 2001
From: arcate at msn.com (Jim Arcate)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tree Bark Composition
Message-ID: <OE156bJuhUQOjn4beH1000128b9@hotmail.com>

Hello Gasification:

Can someone help me re the average composition of bark from hardwood &
softwood trees ?

Is bark dead wood with ~ the same "biochemical composition" (wt.% dry)
Cellulose, Hemicellulose, Lignin, Lipids & Protein as "wood" ?

I looked at PHYLLIS, a database containing information on the composition of
biomass and waste at http://www.ecn.nl/phyllis/cgi-bin/search.asp It has
lots of useful info but I cannot find biochemical composition for bark.

Does anybody gasify bark ? trouble with Alkali metals ? higher ash content
?
Do they still use bark to make charcoal ? (see below) how about fuel pellets
?

Thank you,

Jim Arcate

PS: From: FAO 1985 Industrial charcoal making at
http://www.fao.org/docrep/X5555E/x5555e00.htm#Contents

4.4 Bark waste

Although not strictly an agricultural waste it is convenient to discuss here
the use of bark waste from timber processing as a raw material for charcoal.
Logs typically carry about 10% of their volume as bark. Both softwood and
hardwood bark can be made into charcoal, in both cases the charcoal is in
the form of powder, and after briquetting can be sold for barbecue purposes.

The best known example of the use of bark waste is in the south-east of the
United States in the southern pine processing belt. In the large sawmills
and other processing plants of the region it is the practice to debark the
logs so that solid wood residues can be used for pulping and particle board
production. Hence there is an accumulation of bark and sawdust which has
rather limited economic outlets.

This industry based on bark waste must always compare the relative profit of
burning the bark directly for energy instead of turning it into charcoal
briquettes.

From jmdavies at xsinet.co.za Tue Mar 13 23:17:21 2001
From: jmdavies at xsinet.co.za (John Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: air-fuel ratios
In-Reply-To: <31.11b139c6.27df8d10@cs.com>
Message-ID: <003d01c0ac3e$31047760$8fd4ef9b@p>

Thanks Tom,
This has cleared up the confusion, could not see the wood for the trees.
I was completely forgetting that only a small portion of the volatiles, ( or
carbon ) was burned to produce gas

Now up to date,
John.

> Dear Kevin, John and all:
>
> You can work out the air/fuel ratio for charcoal gasification from
>

From kchishol at fox.nstn.ca Tue Mar 13 23:34:40 2001
From: kchishol at fox.nstn.ca (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: air-fuel ratios
In-Reply-To: <31.11b139c6.27df8d10@cs.com>
Message-ID: <NEBBLHHHOLFOEGCILKHEGEBMCIAA.kchishol@fox.nstn.ca>

Dear
Tom

Thanks
for the explanation. I see where the confusion came in:

1: You
are calculating based on: The air required to burn the wood
carbon to CO, and then the air required to burn the (CO+N2) to
CO2.
2: I
was figuring on the air requirement to burn the wood carbon to CO, and then the
air required to burn the carbon in the CO to CO2.

On the
overall, however, the same amount of air is required to burn C to CO as is
required to burn CO to CO2. Not 6 times as much.

Kindest regards,

Kevin
Chisholm
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
-----Original Message-----From: Reedtb2@cs.com
[mailto:Reedtb2@cs.com]Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 10:48
AMTo: jmdavies@xsinet.co.za;
gasification@crest.orgSubject: GAS-L: air-fuel
ratiosDear Kevin,
John and all: You can work out the air/fuel ratio for charcoal
gasification from MW: 12
(32
+ 105) 68.6
80.6
C
+ 1/2 (O2 + 3.76 N2) =
CO + 1.88 N2
68.6/12
= 5.72 ~ 6 To burn this 80.6 g of CO-N2 gas, you need another 68.6 g
of air, so A/F for combustion is 68.6/80.6 = 0.85. The
complete combustion of carbon to CO2 has an air fuel ratio of 137.2/12 =
11.4/1 but carbon doesn't usually burn that way because the heat generated
(red and above) favors formation of CO in the first stage.
~~~~
Total combustion of biomass (C H1.4 O 0.6) can be worked out similarly to
require a total of about 6/1 air fuel; the pyrolysis, (not consuming
the charcoal requires < 1/1, but depends on conditions.
Can you imagine trying to build a gasoline engine without knowing how
much air is required to burn it? Yet most people wade into biomass
gasification followed by wood-gas combustion without knowing these
numbers. (I didn't do the C numbers until a few months ago and
I was VERY surprised.) Catch up. YOurs truly,
TOM
REED In a message dated 3/9/01 11:47:38 AM Mountain Standard Time,
jmdavies@xsinet.co.za writes: 
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"
TYPE="CITE">Kevin wrote, >Am I missing something here? It looks
like the air requirement to gasify the char is the same as the air
>requirement to burn the CO resulting. >Where does the "factor
of 6" come in? I am also pondering this fact, although at my last
burn a blue flame was seen just above the burning charcoal. at the
bottom of the gas tube. John.

From snkm at btl.net Wed Mar 14 14:35:47 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Prophecy
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010314122147.009315a0@wgs1.btl.net>

Well, here is one prophecy I made that has come full circle and is now fact
(appended)

But that was an easy call to make! There is always one thing you can depend
on -- that being "Greed". Modern World's aggressive denials that it was
"better" -- well, we can bury that now.

And how many on this list have seen that Email broadcast:

"20,000 scientists around the globe have stated in all certainty that CO2
does not trigger global warming -- rather it is good for the planet"??

You know -- they might even be right -- but ---

As far is the purpose of this list -- biomass energy through gasification.
One of the greater justifications for continued research in this area was
carbon credits, you know, renewable carbon rather than fossil fuel carbon.
Well, what do you think the results of this proclamations will be for this
industry - now?

Peter / Belize

*** Bush won't regulate carbon dioxide

WASHINGTON (AP) - Backing off a campaign pledge, President Bush told
Congress Tuesday he will not regulate carbon dioxide emissions from
power plants. The decision, outlined in a letter sent to a
Republican senator, came after furious lobbying from the coal
industry. It was a blow to conservationists who see curbing
emissions of such "greenhouse gases" as key to reducing global
warming. Greenhouse gases - primarily carbon dioxide produced by
burning fossil fuels like coal and oil - are widely believed to trap
heat in the atmosphere, causing the phenomenon known as global
warming. The letter cited skyrocketing energy costs, particularly in
the West, as one reason for Bush's about-face. Bush said he supports
a "comprehensive and balanced energy policy that takes into account
the importance of improving air quality." "I do not believe,
however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory
emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant'
under the Clean Air Act," Bush wrote to Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.

Full article at: http://www.infobeat.com/fullArticle?article=406385709

From arnt at c2i.net Wed Mar 14 17:32:15 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: NEWS: Nashwauk, Minn., Considers Building Nation's First Waste-Fed Power Facility
In-Reply-To: <61BCB4275920D211AA5700A0C9DB18FB0A44957C@BVMAIL02>
Message-ID: <3AAFF15C.BD48ABFE@c2i.net>

Jim Bland wrote:
>
> This sounds too good to be true. If it is true, we should all be buying
> stock in it.
>
> Some of the details provided make it obvious that the figures are wrong.
>
> What are the 80 employees doing? I would have thought it would take no more
> than 20 to operate a plant like this.

..you forget about the bureaucrats, and the voters.
16 % can win you a nice seat... ;-)

> 40 000 sq feet area is nowhere near big enough. It's only a few suburban
> house blocks. You'd need more than this just for truck unloading and
> turning.
>
> 4 MW is a huge consumption for a town of 500. I would have expected a
> consumption of 500 kW.

..4000 kW / 500 = 8 kW, reasonable.
Compare to inlet fuse amperage versus grid voltage.
Over here (Norway): 230 V x 63 A = 14.5 kW.

..normal loads: about a 1/3 of this. In the winter,
say 2/3. Yet, you need the full capacity, to handle
all the appliances restarting after grid outages.
And you need to split up those 500 in a few zones,
to spread out those restart loads.

..any decent utility will want to serve its own area,
and sell surplus power, for a nice profit.

> 12 MW of power at $100/MWh is around $10 million revenue per year. 1
> million gallons of fuel at $5/gallon is only $5 million revenue per year.
> Where does the remaining $221 million revenue come from ?
>
..does it? Does it have to? ;-)

--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)

Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.

From LINVENT at aol.com Wed Mar 14 20:12:57 2001
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Press release
Message-ID: <bd.c818b47.27e170a3@aol.com>

Dear those who responded to the Minnesota project:
If you have ever had any contact with city administrators, they are not
particularly astute in these areas unless they have specific experience such
as engineering.
The capital cost numbers are probably low. Many of the processes which
are not referred to, doable but very costly. There are only a few commercial
operations of this type of technology, one cost $850mm, had a fire and then
cost $150mm more to fix.
In my experience, city fathers will do things like this to gain a lot of
excitement and enthusiasm for a project and stimulate interest in the
municipality. Bonding it is an interesting exercise. It depends upon the
bonding capacity of the County and/or the city, depending upon the nature of
the bond. I doubt if a city of 500 (people is less than that in houses and
load which is max. 20Kw/house) can bond a project of this nature unless they
are like the 24 member Indian Tribe each member of which has a 7 figure
income.
These flashes in the pan disappear as soon as they appear.

Amusingly,

Leland T. Taylor
President
Thermogenics Inc.
7100-2nd St. NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87107
phone 505-344-4846 fax 505-344-6090

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Thu Mar 15 09:03:02 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:13 2004
Subject: INCINERATOR.
Message-ID: <8b.3b05c7b.27e2252c@cs.com>

It sounds as if you have been getting good advice here at GASIFICATION on
combustion. Your use of insulation indicates you are benefiting from it.

You ask if there is a simple, cheap method of monitoring fire emissions from
your incinerator/combustor.

You could spend $20,000 on sophisticated emissions equipment.

However, there is one single instrument that would enable you to control the
fire to minimize emissions:

First, to remove all organic molecules you need to burn with a little excees
air - but not too much. You need the "Three Ts", time, temperature and
turbulence. It sounds like you are achieving reasonably complete combustion.

The oxygen sensor found on all modern cars (Price about $100) can make this
determination as a single voltage reading.

When maintained in a flowing stream of the combustion products at a
temperature of ~727C, it produces a voltage

V = RT/nF [log p(O2 in sample = 0.21)/p(O2 in air = 0.21
atm)]

where R is the gas constant, T is the ABSOLUTE temperature of the cell, (add
273 to T in C to get 1,000K, chosen for convenience), n the number of
electron involved in the reaction (4 for O2), and F is the Faraday.)

As your flame progresses from 1% lean to 1% rich the voltage changes
dramatically - a step change used in modern cars to "incinerate" gasoline
with minimum emissions by burning completely without excess air (which
produces NOx) or excess fuel (which produces CO and unburned hydrocarbons).

Such a meter could be mounted at in a sidearm of your stack and would
continuously monitor excess air and how much. You would then need to control
your fans etc. to keep on a target of X% excess air - possibly 3%.

It is my belief that all clean combustion units should include such a
measuring and control unit.

Please keep me posted on your advances.

Yours truly, TOM REED
BEF/GASIFICATION
In a message dated 3/14/01 1:26:45 AM Mountain Standard Time,
reecon@mitsuminet.com writes:

I have been following closely the discussion on the insulation materials
for fireboxes and now the emissions. We have developed a Local incinerator
which is working on the pyrolysis principle for the disposal of municipal
solid waste. With the problem of energy shortages in Kenya we aim to use
this incinerator to not only generate electricity from Municipal solid
waste- presently a major problem in Kenya but also for use as an
alternative energy feed for Boilers in agro-based manufacturing Industries
such as Sugar factories, tea factories and even coffee mills. We project
that with a bit of adjustment the incinerator could be applied to water
heating in hotels and other institutions.

Our main problem is that in Kenya presently their are no test facilities
for emissions. We have in build a second combustion chamber to ensure
complete combustion. We have however not been able to determine the
emissions since we have no equipment for that. is there a simple method and
or type of equipment that would assist in this determination. The
information we have in relation to power generation from municipal urban
waste sounds prohibitively costly, if any one has experience in this areas
we would be happy to hear from you.
Regards,
Musungu.

From snkm at btl.net Thu Mar 15 09:15:08 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: 20,000 politically correct scientists??
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010315074454.009393a0@wgs1.btl.net>

Maybe that should be changed to 20,000 politically correct scientists
signed a document stating CO2 is not detrimental to the world's health??
(Regarding previous posting on this subject)

Bush is clear on this subject though -- CO2 is "legally" not classified as
a hazardous gas -- so there you go --- don't you just love lawyers?

*** Greenhouse effect said to be proved

(AP) - A comparison of satellite data from 1970 and 1997 has yielded
what scientists say is the first direct evidence that so-called
greenhouse gases are building up in Earth's atmosphere and allowing
less heat to escape into space. The study contains no evidence on
whether Earth's surface temperature is actually increasing. In fact,
whether this greenhouse effect will lead to global warming or global
cooling is unclear, the scientists said. That is because the
greenhouse effect could start a cycle in which more clouds are
formed, stopping the sun's energy from reaching Earth's surface in
the first place. Scientists have long theorized that carbon dioxide
and other waste gases are increasing the trapping of heat close to
Earth in what is called a greenhouse effect. Evidence was also found
of smaller increases in chlorofluorocarbons, refrigerants blamed for
destroying the ozone layer that protects Earth from ultraviolet
radiation.

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Mar 15 10:01:47 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: 20,000 politically correct scientists??
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010315074454.009393a0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3AB0D94B.E782B976@c2i.net>

Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> Maybe that should be changed to 20,000 politically correct scientists
> signed a document stating CO2 is not detrimental to the world's health??
> (Regarding previous posting on this subject)
>
> Bush is clear on this subject though -- CO2 is "legally" not classified as
> a hazardous gas -- so there you go --- don't you just love lawyers?

..use of hazardous gases was banned in 1925 as a war crime.
The 4 Geneva Conventions of 1948 follow up on this, and expand
the legal scope to include the use of "other means" as arms in
conflicts; an hydro power dam _can_ be used as a veapon.
Obviously, so can "other substances" and their sources.

> *** Greenhouse effect said to be proved
>
> (AP) - A comparison of satellite data from 1970 and 1997 has yielded
> what scientists say is the first direct evidence that so-called
> greenhouse gases are building up in Earth's atmosphere and allowing
> less heat to escape into space. The study contains no evidence on
> whether Earth's surface temperature is actually increasing. In fact,
> whether this greenhouse effect will lead to global warming or global
> cooling is unclear, the scientists said. That is because the
> greenhouse effect could start a cycle in which more clouds are
> formed, stopping the sun's energy from reaching Earth's surface in
> the first place. Scientists have long theorized that carbon dioxide
> and other waste gases are increasing the trapping of heat close to
> Earth in what is called a greenhouse effect. Evidence was also found
> of smaller increases in chlorofluorocarbons, refrigerants blamed for
> destroying the ozone layer that protects Earth from ultraviolet
> radiation.

..this proves the fact that fear is an _excellent_ motivator
and fundraiser.

--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)

Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.

From thomas at biopilze.de Thu Mar 15 10:24:56 2001
From: thomas at biopilze.de (Thomas Ziegler)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: INCINERATOR.
In-Reply-To: <8b.3b05c7b.27e2252c@cs.com>
Message-ID: <3AB0DE1C.FFBD9C76@biopilze.de>

>...oxygen sensor found on all modern cars (Price about $100) can make > >this determination as a single voltage reading...
as though being new to the list details how to use it and best regulate
the combustion/gasification with this (over here called lamda-) sensor
would be fine to use it quite practically...!, thomas, (-a guy driving
his diesel-car (if really inevitable to drive, -else riding bike) with
used veggie-oil...)
--
der kleine deutsche oeko-pilz-anbauer \
the small german organic mushroomer http://www.biopilze.de/wir.htm
le petit eco - champignoneur allemand /

From snkm at btl.net Thu Mar 15 11:06:31 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: *** Update: Bush won't regulate carbon dioxide
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010315083912.008fced0@wgs1.btl.net>

I am curious as to how the Europeans on this list are taking this news??

(you know -- this unilateral proclamation that you can take the "Kyoto
Accord" and stick it where the sun can't shine)

As a 3rd world "spectator" --

Well, wars stop economic melt downs best of all! We can put those 20,000
"Scientists out on the front line to defend their results. That should get
the argument started in no time.

Peter/Belize

*** Update: Bush won't regulate carbon dioxide

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush said Wednesday the nation's energy
problems rather than pressure from lobbyists prompted his change of
heart away from regulating carbon dioxide emissions from
coal-burning power plants. "We've got an energy crisis in America
that we have to deal with in a common-sense way," Bush told
reporters while visiting East Brunswick, N.J. "We use a lot of coal
and we need a lot of coal to fuel our plans, to make sure Americans
have got the ability to heat and cool their homes." He said
regulating carbon dioxide emissions would hinder the efficiency of
coal-burning power plants and force greater use of natural gas, a
fuel that has more than doubled in price in the past year and a
factor in California's electricity shortages. Despite Bush's
reversal, lawmakers in both parties said they still intend to pursue
legislation that would regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant
beginning in 2007.

Full article at: http://www.infobeat.com/fullArticle?article=406395262

From thomas at biopilze.de Thu Mar 15 11:53:47 2001
From: thomas at biopilze.de (Thomas Ziegler)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: *** Update: Bush won't regulate carbon dioxide
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010315083912.008fced0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3AB0F2E5.D4E7C751@biopilze.de>

>...curious as to how the Europeans on this list are taking this news...
NOTHING from this man (and those behind him can astonish us anymore...!)
we know the planet will give us the receipt, sooner as they can imagine,
and fortunately many young people over here have understood that we have
change our habits... -as proof see the protests in: Den Haag, The
Netherlands where the last meeting took place and further actions are
planned at the next "half meeting" here in Germany..., thomas
--
der kleine deutsche oeko-pilz-anbauer \
the small german organic mushroomer http://www.biopilze.de/wir.htm
le petit eco - champignoneur allemand /

From snkm at btl.net Thu Mar 15 13:35:44 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: INCINERATOR.
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010315123027.00938740@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Tom;

You would not have a part number or other info for:

"The oxygen sensor found on all modern cars (Price about $100)"

I'll research it for you -- $100 sounds awful steep. One can probably buy
the "chip/sensor" for a fraction of that cost and make the mounting.

Any good data acquisition board -- that slides into a standard PC -- will
do the rest -- charting/logging, graphing, even triggering valves at
variable set points -- etc.

The reason to get lower pricing is that one may want many of these
positioned in different areas. A standard data logging card is at least 16
channels.

Course -- can throw a few thermo-couples in some appropriate points -- data
log those as well.

Peter / Belize

At 09:01 AM 3/15/2001 EST, you wrote:
>>>>
Dear Musungu:

It sounds as if you have been getting good advice here at GASIFICATION on
combustion. Your use of insulation indicates you are benefiting from it.

You ask if there is a simple, cheap method of monitoring fire emissions from
your incinerator/combustor.

You could spend $20,000 on sophisticated emissions equipment.

However, there is one single instrument that would enable you to control the
fire to minimize emissions:

The oxygen sensor found on all modern cars (Price about $100) can make this
determination as a single voltage reading.

When maintained in a flowing stream of the combustion products at a
temperature of ~727C, it produces a voltage

V = RT/nF [log p(O2 in sample = 0.21)/p(O2 in air = 0.21
atm)]

Such a meter could be mounted at in a sidearm of your stack and would
continuously monitor excess air and how much. You would then need to
control
your fans etc. to keep on a target of X% excess air - possibly 3%.

It is my belief that all clean combustion units should include such a
measuring and control unit.

Please keep me posted on your advances.

Yours truly, TOM REED
BEF/GASIFICATION
In a message dated 3/14/01 1:26:45 AM Mountain Standard Time,
reecon@mitsuminet.com writes:

From gary at privacy.nu Thu Mar 15 14:22:30 2001
From: gary at privacy.nu (Gary)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:13 2004
Subject: Fw: GAS-L: Re: INCINERATOR.
Message-ID: <002501c0ad84$e9ff87e0$310a0341@mdlnd1.tx.home.com>

here is partsamerica.com price for a universal 1 wire bosch oxygen sensor
$16.49

BOSCH

11025

SINGLE WIRE UNIVERSAL OXYGEN SENSOR

List Price:$32.00

PartsAmerica.com Price:
only $16.49

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm@btl.net>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 12:31 PM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Re: INCINERATOR.

>
> Hi Tom;
>
> You would not have a part number or other info for:
>
> "The oxygen sensor found on all modern cars (Price about $100)"
>
> I'll research it for you -- $100 sounds awful steep. One can probably buy
> the "chip/sensor" for a fraction of that cost and make the mounting.
>
> Any good data acquisition board -- that slides into a standard PC -- will
> do the rest -- charting/logging, graphing, even triggering valves at
> variable set points -- etc.
>
> The reason to get lower pricing is that one may want many of these
> positioned in different areas. A standard data logging card is at least 16
> channels.
>
> Course -- can throw a few thermo-couples in some appropriate points --
data
> log those as well.
>
> Peter / Belize
>
> At 09:01 AM 3/15/2001 EST, you wrote:
> >>>>
> Dear Musungu:
>
> It sounds as if you have been getting good advice here at GASIFICATION on
> combustion. Your use of insulation indicates you are benefiting from it.
>
> You ask if there is a simple, cheap method of monitoring fire emissions
from
> your incinerator/combustor.
>
> You could spend $20,000 on sophisticated emissions equipment.
>
> However, there is one single instrument that would enable you to control
the
> fire to minimize emissions:
>
> First, to remove all organic molecules you need to burn with a little
excees
> air - but not too much. You need the "Three Ts", time, temperature and
> turbulence. It sounds like you are achieving reasonably complete
> combustion.
>
>
> The oxygen sensor found on all modern cars (Price about $100) can make
this
> determination as a single voltage reading.
>
> When maintained in a flowing stream of the combustion products at a
> temperature of ~727C, it produces a voltage
>
> V = RT/nF [log p(O2 in sample = 0.21)/p(O2 in air =
0.21
> atm)]
>
> where R is the gas constant, T is the ABSOLUTE temperature of the cell,
(add
> 273 to T in C to get 1,000K, chosen for convenience), n the number of
> electron involved in the reaction (4 for O2), and F is the Faraday.)
>
> As your flame progresses from 1% lean to 1% rich the voltage changes
> dramatically - a step change used in modern cars to "incinerate" gasoline
> with minimum emissions by burning completely without excess air (which
> produces NOx) or excess fuel (which produces CO and unburned
hydrocarbons).
>
> Such a meter could be mounted at in a sidearm of your stack and would
> continuously monitor excess air and how much. You would then need to
> control
> your fans etc. to keep on a target of X% excess air - possibly 3%.
>
> It is my belief that all clean combustion units should include such a
> measuring and control unit.
>
> Please keep me posted on your advances.
>
> Yours truly, TOM REED
> BEF/GASIFICATION
> In a message dated 3/14/01 1:26:45 AM Mountain Standard Time,
> reecon@mitsuminet.com writes:
>
>
>
> I have been following closely the discussion on the insulation materials
> for fireboxes and now the emissions. We have developed a Local incinerator
> which is working on the pyrolysis principle for the disposal of municipal
> solid waste. With the problem of energy shortages in Kenya we aim to use
> this incinerator to not only generate electricity from Municipal solid
> waste- presently a major problem in Kenya but also for use as an
> alternative energy feed for Boilers in agro-based manufacturing Industries
> such as Sugar factories, tea factories and even coffee mills. We project
> that with a bit of adjustment the incinerator could be applied to water
> heating in hotels and other institutions.
>
> Our main problem is that in Kenya presently their are no test facilities
> for emissions. We have in build a second combustion chamber to ensure
> complete combustion. We have however not been able to determine the
> emissions since we have no equipment for that. is there a simple method
and
> or type of equipment that would assist in this determination. The
> information we have in relation to power generation from municipal urban
> waste sounds prohibitively costly, if any one has experience in this areas
> we would be happy to hear from you.
> Regards,
> Musungu.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
> -
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Mar 15 15:15:55 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: INCINERATOR.
In-Reply-To: <8b.3b05c7b.27e2252c@cs.com>
Message-ID: <3AB122D9.15818FBA@c2i.net>

> The oxygen sensor found on all modern cars (Price about $100) can make this
> determination as a single voltage reading.

..$20 tru $60 in a local supply house over here.
Includes about 1/4 of those US$ as Norwegian sales tax.

>
> When maintained in a flowing stream of the combustion products at a
> temperature of ~727C, it produces a voltage
>
> V = RT/nF [log p(O2 in sample = 0.21)/p(O2 in air = 0.21 atm)]
>

RT p(O2)ex (in sample ? atm)
..as in V = ---- x log ---------
nF p(O2)air (in air = 0.21 atm)

...or, imho less likely...

RT log p(O2)ex (in sample ? atm)
...as in, V = ---- x -------------
nF p(O2)air (in air = 0.21 atm)

..pressure is not neccesarily the same in the sample and in free air.
The formula remains the same. Neat engine control, add an exhaust
manifold gas thermometer and lean the mixture until it peaks, for
any power setting, to maximize fuel economy. For maximum profits,
you will want to stay within the approved operating parameters.

> where R is the gas constant, T is the ABSOLUTE temperature of the cell, (add
> 273 to T in C to get 1,000K, chosen for convenience), n the number of
> electron involved in the reaction (4 for O2), and F is the Faraday.)

..I dug up: F = 96.485 kC/mol (kiloCoulomb per mole)?

--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt...

Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.

From houmoller at dk-TEKNIK.dk Thu Mar 15 15:24:35 2001
From: houmoller at dk-TEKNIK.dk (=?iso-8859-1?Q?S=F8ren__Houm=F8ller?=)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: *** Update: Bush won't regulate carbon dioxide
Message-ID: <792C83154B0CD311AF1B0004AC4CD276A97F0E@EXCHANGE>

Hi,

A few weeks ago, one of my American friends told me that the Bush
administration was unfairly accused of supporting traditional fuels and
being against renewable fuels - it was just the focus the media gave on, for
instance, oil exploration in Alaska. My friend is not on this list, so I
think I will forward this news to him and wait for his reaction.

Although the European Union is a big ship to turn around, the Commission has
now faced the fact that the energy policy must have three legs:

1) Reduction of environmental strain (meet Kyoto)
2) Security of supply
3) Economical efficiency (read: Market liberalisation)

Several forms of renewable energy provide solutions that meet these three
demands.

It seems that the American administration has it's eyes on 3) - and only
that - in a short term perspective.

I believe, referring to the original posting from Peter Singfield, that 1)
is in a very dark place.

Some of the reasons that 2) is important to EU are that we are growing more
and more dependent of natural gas from Russia and oil from the Middle East.
In fact, the energy import share will increase from 50% now to 71% in 2030
if no action is taken. This dependency is alarming, so the politicians have
realised that action must be taken.

The British oil geologist Colin Campbell suggests that the oil resources in
the fields in northern America are exaggerated. I heard him explain on a
meeting in the Danish Parliament in December that the true numbers for the
reserves would shift the power balance between the US and Saddam with
friends. And we can't have that.

But hey, Campbell is probably wrong, the environmental concerns and climate
changes are probably due to the sun's electromagnetic pulses, the renewable
sources have failed in the liberal energy market, the oil resources bluff
will probably not be called, and the coal resources are vast.

Søren

Søren Houmøller
Head of Department - Fuels, Combustion and Residues
dk-TEKNIK ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
http://www.dk-teknik.dk
houmoller@dk-teknik.dk

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Singfield [mailto:snkm@btl.net]
Sent: 15. marts 2001 17:03
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: GAS-L: *** Update: Bush won't regulate carbon dioxide

I am curious as to how the Europeans on this list are taking this news??

(you know -- this unilateral proclamation that you can take the "Kyoto
Accord" and stick it where the sun can't shine)

As a 3rd world "spectator" --

Well, wars stop economic melt downs best of all! We can put those 20,000
"Scientists out on the front line to defend their results. That should get
the argument started in no time.

Peter/Belize

*** Update: Bush won't regulate carbon dioxide

Full article at: http://www.infobeat.com/fullArticle?article=406395262

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Mar 15 15:29:49 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: NEWS: Nashwauk, Minn., Considers Building Nation's First Waste-Fed Power Facility
In-Reply-To: <8a.3b651db.27e27686@aol.com>
Message-ID: <3AB12632.2F53A401@c2i.net>

LINVENT@aol.com wrote:
>
> Here are some of the defects of the CO2 issue: 1. CO2 is highly soluble
> in water and rain will wash it out of the air. 2. Plants will absorb CO2 as
> quickly as it is produced. 3. Seawater absorbs CO2 and precipitates it in the
> minerals at the bottom of the ocean floor. 4. Insolation of sunlight has a

..what about plants in the sea water (algea etc)?
Overall mass of such biomass is considerable, as it feeds
_everything_ in the oceans, including sharks and whales.

..me european? Why? I voted no on joining.
So we didn't. Saves aaa looooot of worries. ;-)
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)

Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.

From A.Weststeijn at epz.nl Thu Mar 15 15:37:42 2001
From: A.Weststeijn at epz.nl (Weststeijn A)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: *** Update: Bush won't regulate carbon dioxide
Message-ID: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4F46@sp0016.epz.nl>

> Peter Singfield[SMTP:snkm@btl.net]
asks donderdag 15 maart 2001 17:02

> I am curious as to how the Europeans on this list are taking this news??
>
This is important.
I was not amused reading the news.

As an European I compare this news with the mix-up president Bush recently
had regarding world population programs (aimed at family planning through
elevating living standards, education etc) and outright abortion. In his
zeal to appease the anti-abortion crowd by cutting all related US int'l
support programs, he mixed apples with pears and cut everything across the
board.
A few days later he made a partial about-face after American and
international groups pointed out the mix-up he made.

It appears that another round of enlightening is in order, this time on
GHGes.
It is plain irresponsible to talk about CO2 in terms of not being defined as
a hazardous gas in the war gases treaty from just after WW1 (as I recently
read on this List). Don't ridicule war gases. It is plain unprofessional to
mix CO2 into the acid rain and mercury issues (as I read in certain press
releases). They are unrelated. Please let's not talk about CO2 as a
pollutant. Talk about it for what it is under debate for: CO2 as a potential
contributor to climate change. Agree or disagree on its assumed effects, but
don't foul up the issues.

Obviously, coal plants are not going to be closed overnight just for CO2
emissions reasons only. Not in the US and not anywhere else. Especially not
in and around California where the great NorthWest Salmon Debate is about to
begin (kWh's for Cal or run off for salmon).
Possibly coal plants will be only sparingly replaced. But possibly also, in
another 10 years time, in the middle of the IPCC 2008-2012 objectives
period, people might view natural gas again as too valuable to simply fire
away in bulk in single point emitting power plants.
Just in my years, in my country, we went from coal-to-gas-to-coal-to-gas as
"the thing to do", and although gas appears to be the winner now, those
swings will not stop here.

So, where does this news leave us. The US, being such an enormous economy,
cannot possibly be left behind in a world planning for sustainable
development. Other issues might be left to stagnate within national borders,
this issue by virtue of its nature, is truly international, and too
important to be left to any sudden inward-looking political relapse. The US
needs to be tagged along one way or the other, but it will take time
(compare the WTO negotiations).
At best we can hope that this is a temporary relapse only, or better yet,
hope that the Bush government will distinguish between short term statements
for internal political use and long term int'l cooperation.

Fortunately, however, there are so many US citizens with an open eye for the
future. The debate in the US will increasingly be about responsible energy
usage rather than about coal and regulated CO2. This will typically not be a
technical debate, but a debate about choices and standard of living.
Remember how the California automobile emission requirements have set world
standards (the "1 versus the 49 states" rules from the 70-ties). Just about
all urbanized regions in the world benefit today from that foresight!
If the US sets itself to it, big things can happen!

In the mean time, some short term damage control is in order indeed.

Andries Weststeijn

From keith at journeytoforever.org Thu Mar 15 15:44:14 2001
From: keith at journeytoforever.org (Keith Addison)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: *** Update: Bush won't regulate carbon dioxide
In-Reply-To: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4F46@sp0016.epz.nl>
Message-ID: <v0421010fb6d6db2ef1d7@[61.121.36.192]>

Some more news, with international reaction.

http://ens.lycos.com/ens/mar2001/2001L-03-14-06.html
Environment News Service:
Bush Blames Energy Shortage for Environmental Rollbacks

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=10103
Planet Ark
Bush slammed for abandoning pollution pledge

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=10104
Planet Ark
Japan regrets Bush stance on pollution

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=10096
Planet Ark
Kyoto accord may be ratified without US - Germany

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=10107
Planet Ark
EU "concerned" over Bush's CO2 and climate stance

http://www.usnewswire.com:80/topnews/Current_Releases/0314-131.html
Clean Air Trust: Bush Takes A Powder On Clean-Air Issue; Why We
Weren't Surprised

Keith Addison

From snkm at btl.net Thu Mar 15 16:15:36 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:14 2004
Subject: Fw: GAS-L: Re: INCINERATOR.
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010315151116.009577e0@wgs1.btl.net>

At 01:19 PM 3/15/2001 -0600, Gary wrote:
>here is partsamerica.com price for a universal 1 wire bosch oxygen sensor
>$16.49
>
>BOSCH
>
> 11025
>
>SINGLE WIRE UNIVERSAL OXYGEN SENSOR
>
>List Price:$32.00
>
>PartsAmerica.com Price:
>only $16.49

More info at:

http://www.boschusa.com/Business/Automotive/Gasoline/ExhaustSensors/

(Nice diagrams there)

But still can't find the technical spec sheet ---

And oh -- part numbers are:

Oxygen Sensor LSU 4 --- and/or --- Oxygen Sensor LSF 4

Plus if you browse around that site -- lots of interesting control
instrumentation stuff.

Peter / Belize

>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm@btl.net>
>To: <gasification@crest.org>
>Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 12:31 PM
>Subject: Re: GAS-L: Re: INCINERATOR.
>
>
>>
>> Hi Tom;
>>
>> You would not have a part number or other info for:
>>
>> "The oxygen sensor found on all modern cars (Price about $100)"
>>
>> I'll research it for you -- $100 sounds awful steep. One can probably buy
>> the "chip/sensor" for a fraction of that cost and make the mounting.
>>
>> Any good data acquisition board -- that slides into a standard PC -- will
>> do the rest -- charting/logging, graphing, even triggering valves at
>> variable set points -- etc.
>>
>> The reason to get lower pricing is that one may want many of these
>> positioned in different areas. A standard data logging card is at least 16
>> channels.
>>
>> Course -- can throw a few thermo-couples in some appropriate points --
>data
>> log those as well.
>>
>> Peter / Belize
>>
>> At 09:01 AM 3/15/2001 EST, you wrote:
>> >>>>
>> Dear Musungu:
>>
>> It sounds as if you have been getting good advice here at GASIFICATION on
>> combustion. Your use of insulation indicates you are benefiting from it.
>>
>> You ask if there is a simple, cheap method of monitoring fire emissions
>from
>> your incinerator/combustor.
>>
>> You could spend $20,000 on sophisticated emissions equipment.
>>
>> However, there is one single instrument that would enable you to control
>the
>> fire to minimize emissions:
>>
>> First, to remove all organic molecules you need to burn with a little
>excees
>> air - but not too much. You need the "Three Ts", time, temperature and
>> turbulence. It sounds like you are achieving reasonably complete
>> combustion.
>>
>>
>> The oxygen sensor found on all modern cars (Price about $100) can make
>this
>> determination as a single voltage reading.
>>
>> When maintained in a flowing stream of the combustion products at a
>> temperature of ~727C, it produces a voltage
>>
>> V = RT/nF [log p(O2 in sample = 0.21)/p(O2 in air =
>0.21
>> atm)]
>>
>> where R is the gas constant, T is the ABSOLUTE temperature of the cell,
>(add
>> 273 to T in C to get 1,000K, chosen for convenience), n the number of
>> electron involved in the reaction (4 for O2), and F is the Faraday.)
>>
>> As your flame progresses from 1% lean to 1% rich the voltage changes
>> dramatically - a step change used in modern cars to "incinerate" gasoline
>> with minimum emissions by burning completely without excess air (which
>> produces NOx) or excess fuel (which produces CO and unburned
>hydrocarbons).
>>
>> Such a meter could be mounted at in a sidearm of your stack and would
>> continuously monitor excess air and how much. You would then need to
>> control
>> your fans etc. to keep on a target of X% excess air - possibly 3%.
>>
>> It is my belief that all clean combustion units should include such a
>> measuring and control unit.
>>
>> Please keep me posted on your advances.
>>
>> Yours truly, TOM REED
>> BEF/GASIFICATION
>> In a message dated 3/14/01 1:26:45 AM Mountain Standard Time,
>> reecon@mitsuminet.com writes:
>>
>>
>>
>> I have been following closely the discussion on the insulation materials
>> for fireboxes and now the emissions. We have developed a Local incinerator
>> which is working on the pyrolysis principle for the disposal of municipal
>> solid waste. With the problem of energy shortages in Kenya we aim to use
>> this incinerator to not only generate electricity from Municipal solid
>> waste- presently a major problem in Kenya but also for use as an
>> alternative energy feed for Boilers in agro-based manufacturing Industries
>> such as Sugar factories, tea factories and even coffee mills. We project
>> that with a bit of adjustment the incinerator could be applied to water
>> heating in hotels and other institutions.
>>
>> Our main problem is that in Kenya presently their are no test facilities
>> for emissions. We have in build a second combustion chamber to ensure
>> complete combustion. We have however not been able to determine the
>> emissions since we have no equipment for that. is there a simple method
>and
>> or type of equipment that would assist in this determination. The
>> information we have in relation to power generation from municipal urban
>> waste sounds prohibitively costly, if any one has experience in this areas
>> we would be happy to hear from you.
>> Regards,
>> Musungu.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Gasification List is sponsored by
>> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>> -
>> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>> http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/
>> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>>
>
>
>Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>-
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
>

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Mar 15 16:43:47 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: *** Update: Bush won't regulate carbon dioxide
In-Reply-To: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4F46@sp0016.epz.nl>
Message-ID: <3AB136F1.3E99A609@c2i.net>

Weststeijn A wrote:
>
> > Peter Singfield[SMTP:snkm@btl.net]
> asks donderdag 15 maart 2001 17:02
>
> > I am curious as to how the Europeans on this list are taking this news??
> >
> This is important.
> I was not amused reading the news.

> It is plain irresponsible to talk about CO2 in terms of not being defined as
> a hazardous gas in the war gases treaty from just after WW1 (as I recently
> read on this List). Don't ridicule war gases. It is plain unprofessional to
> mix CO2 into the acid rain and mercury issues (as I read in certain press

..chances are you missed my point: CO2 and water are
essensial substances for life, it be for grass, mankind or
mad cows. Now, hydro power dams _were_ used as veapons both
in the Rühr, Germany in WWII, in the Korea War, and in the
Former Yugoslavia. Such use of dams are _generally_ banned
as war crimes, for many good reasons outlined in the 4
Geneva Conventions and their 2 Protocols Additional.

..as a professional engineer, soldier, president or
whatever, you may want to carefully consider all allegation,
beliefs, and myths, and try to find the facts. Furthermore,
you may want to consider the overall effect of your own work,
is this of use to mankind, or is it of us use just to a pink
skinned elite who likes to ingrigue and screw their dumber
friends.

..this "CO2-debate" or "CO2 consern" essensially boils down
"to the fact there is not enough for Asians and Africans too".

.."So something must happen." Here I find it worthwhile to
point out the fact that the EU (France and the UK) has
_enough_ thermo-nuclear devices to be able to get both
Bush and Putin to believe "the other guy _has_ launched".

..then there is India, Pakistan and China. Neither has
enough nukes to "cleanse" their land, so they will need
"help". Which, can be arranged. And "removes the consern".

..I recommend these powers use their intelligence forces to
keep an eye on the whereabouts of the governing elites, if
these suddenly visit "sivilian facilities" deep in mountain
rock, you might want to follow suit.

..my preferred alternative: cooperate with the Asians and
Africans etc making _fat_ profits gasifying coal outcompeting
the traditional petroleum based energy industries.
The technology is here, and you guys actually helped provide
part of it.

--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)

Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.

From snkm at btl.net Thu Mar 15 17:03:30 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: *** Update: Bush won't regulate carbon dioxide
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010315155857.0095cb60@wgs1.btl.net>

Excellent replies -- Soren and Andries.

Now -- has anyone else noticed some drastic changes in global weather in
these past few years? Or I am I just imagining things?

And of course -- regarding carbon emissions in the production of electrical
power.

The technology to solve that problem was developed so many years ago -- it
is called nuclear energy.

However -- this mass media driven global "democracy" decided this was not a
viable option -- so now we cook.

Nature has an incredible resiliency in these style matters -- that is the
ability to get back on an even keel -- one way or the other.

In this case the solution is quite simple -- get rid of this crazy human
species.

Easy to -- just let them off themselves.

And oh -- read history -- any time a great majority of scientists agree in
complete harmony that something is so -- be sure it is not!

So there we end it -- to many people living to richly -- and nobody wanting
to lighten this load.

Hey -- in the great over-view -- the nature of everything -- who/what need
humans?

Especially these days ---

One last point -- there is more than one kind of melt-down. Here/now we
discuss a global melt-down (ice caps) due to global warming -- but is it
only me noticing an economic meltdown in process as well?

Am I the only one that has been reading the projected costs to "modern"
existence due to increase in adverse weather conditions? (We will not touch
ground on the topic that "warming" is also responsible for more earthquakes
and volcanoes -- though any warming would trigger crust movements --
through many different ways -- and I am sure there are 50,000 scientists
waiting to sign sworn testimony that is not happening)

And this with all these great, modern, nations so deep in deficit.

We are over extended in every direction -- even our food production
capacity -- especially in view of adverse weather coming down the tubes --
yet the only concern is that California can justifiably burn more carbon to
sustain their energy gluttony.

And they being the "heart" of the world conservation movement. Has the word
hypocrisy been stricken out of the human language and all dictionaries?

You all missed the point -- it does not matter if CO2 is responsible or not
-- we have just seen this fact drove home -- that being total ignoring of
world consensus on any plan to stop global warming at any time is it
effects life style in modern nations now -- and who really cares about
after?? Children and their future -- bah -- humbug! There is no future --
just keep the good time rolling "now".

And of course "God" loves us all -- and has given this one and only world
to us -- to do what we will with -- and nothing bad can we do -- and always
remember -- it never can happen here -- and finally -- what -- me worry?

With these thoughts we march over the cliff.

Suggest we review this question in another five years time --- when it
surely will be to late to do anything.

Why does this concern me -- probably because I live outdoors. That is I
see, feel and hear the climate every minute of the 24 hour day. Have been
doing so for 12 years now. Believe me -- times are a changing. We see much
colder times in "winter" -- much hotter times in "summer" and much more winds.

Peter Singfield / Belize

From snkm at btl.net Thu Mar 15 17:05:41 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Oxygen Sensors
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010315153201.008e5580@wgs1.btl.net>

Another interesting source:

http://www.kings.vispa.co.uk/

Peter / Belize

From thomas at biopilze.de Thu Mar 15 17:15:30 2001
From: thomas at biopilze.de (Thomas Ziegler)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: INCINERATOR.
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010315123027.00938740@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3AB13E81.83364FB0@biopilze.de>

Peter Singfield wrote:
>...oxygen sensor...I'll research it...buy the "chip/sensor"...make the >mounting...any good data acquisition board...standard PC...charting >logging, graphing, even triggering valves...

so folks lets get more detailed!
suggest to put all necessary data on a site so that everyone can get it
and make it and we together get it running for everyone...:

best would be to know where:
first to buy such cheap sensors/ data aqisition modules and
then develop the necessary electronic circuits and
the software sources in say BASIC / PASCAL / C++ /...

-can well imagine that this is the key to optimum NOX / CO values for
all wood-gasifiers, -those for cars, too...
-well, the latter interest me personally most... .-) , thomas

--
der kleine deutsche oeko-pilz-anbauer \
the small german organic mushroomer http://www.biopilze.de/wir.htm
le petit eco - champignoneur allemand /

From snkm at btl.net Thu Mar 15 19:26:43 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: INCINERATOR.
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010315180732.009553e0@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Tom Reed

At 05:44 PM 3/15/2001 EST, Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:
>>>>
>Dear Peter and Musungu:

>Are you the same? Working together?

No -- just a curiosity on my part. Figure it is time to bone up on the
present state of sensors and controllers.

>The oxygen sensors are made by Bosch (mostly?) and would
>have different model numbers on different cars. You can
>find used ones in a junk yard.

I posted the Url -- but here it is again -- with a few extras:

http://www.boschusa.com/Consumer/Automotive/OxygenSensors/

http://www.boschusa.com/Business/Automotive/Gasoline/ExhaustSensors/

http://www.boschusa.com/Business/Automotive/Gasoline/ProdExhSensors/

But still not data/application sheets found -- anyone else having any luck?

Would be nice to know --

>I think one would be sufficient after final combustion to
>determine A/F ratio which you can then adjust to the ratio you want.

You'll find some nice diagrams of application at those sites -- they always
use two -- works by comparism.

Like I keep saying -- we need those data sheets. Might have to contact the
company rep directly to get such though. All I found is leads to some very
expensive books on automotive electronics -- that promise to supply that
kind of in depth technical info.

Makes the job a lot easier.

>Keep me posted.......

Got a feeling that whatever is out there will show up on this list in the
near future Tom.

Peter Singfield / Belize

TOM REED BEF

From snkm at btl.net Thu Mar 15 19:28:14 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: *** Update: Bush won't regulate carbon dioxide
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010315182221.0095e7f0@wgs1.btl.net>

At 10:41 PM 3/15/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>Weststeijn A wrote:
>..chances are you missed my point: CO2 and water are
>essensial substances for life, it be for grass, mankind or
>mad cows.

So is salt Arnt -- but to much and what have you got?

>..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
>

From snkm at btl.net Thu Mar 15 19:29:54 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: NEWS: Nashwauk, Minn., Considers Building Nation's First Waste-Fed Power Facility
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010315181857.008e9e40@wgs1.btl.net>

At 06:30 PM 3/15/2001 -0400, Kevin Chisholm wrote:

*****************snipped************

*********now shuffled*********

>These are things we can all see. They speak for themselves.
>
>If I had to bet, I would indeed bet that there was a Greenhouse Effect
>underway.
>
>Kevin Chisholm

Folks -- I believe Kevin -- like me -- is often actually in the great
"outdoors". We might have to divide this discussion between those that live
in this world's atmospheric conditions on a daily basis and those that just
get that info from TV -- or whatever.

For my part -- I started researching this issue on the WWW a few years back
-- not to debate on this list -- but in honest curiosity regarding some
rather extreme changes in "climate" for here in Belize.

For many years the hottest is got in the summer was 86 to 88 F --

The coldest it got in the Winter was 58 to 63 F

Now -- just a week ago -- we just went through our first 50 F

and since then the temp has climbed to a steady 95F --

Last summer is was 95 to 98 -- expect higher this year -- hey -- its still
March!

Also -- how can I put it -- OK -- windmills would be making a lot more
power -- averaged per year -- these times.

Absorption of heat -- means the heat engine accelerates. For earth that
means movement of air is faster as the delta T is greater. The "potential
is higher so more energy can be released.

This is a steady trend from my observations here.

We do not know for a fact that CO2 is the culprit. But hey -- we do know
there is radicle change -- just go out --

We do not know what the results will be -- but hey -- wait and we will find
out.

Peter

>Leland, good people on both sides of the issue have sincerely raised
>relevant points. Right or wrong, truth and reality will win out in the end.
>How do we know who is right, and what is true and real? One way is to look
>around us and see what is happening:
>
>1: How come Old Cities like Venice are now being flooded?
>
>2: How come the glaciers are now the smallest they have ever been known to
>be in the past few thousand years?
>
>3: How come Northern Ice leaves earlier in the Spring than it has ever been
>known to leave previously? Polar bears are in danger of extinction because
>their "feeding window" is very much narrowed.
>
>4: How come the 10 hottest years in recorded history occurred within the
>last 11 or 12 years?
>
>These are things we can all see. They speak for themselves.
>
>If I had to bet, I would indeed bet that there was a Greenhouse Effect
>underway.
>
>Kevin Chisholm
>
>
>
>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>>
>> Leland T. Taylor
>> President
>> Thermogenics Inc.
>> 7100-2nd St. NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87107
>> phone 505-344-4846 fax 505-344-6090
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>-
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
>

From snkm at btl.net Thu Mar 15 20:00:35 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: INCINERATOR -- more --
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010315185559.00968910@wgs1.btl.net>

Ok -- the controller is:

http://www.boschusa.com/Business/Automotive/Gasoline/ECU/

Which also can be found in a scrap car --

But not spec sheets ,data manuals -- yet!

And with out that info -- it is all just so much "junk".

Now -- for those with more time and greater interest --

Start by using this search term: oxygen sensor

At this search engine:

http://www.alltheweb.com/

Lots of good leads right there!

Peter / Belize

From snkm at btl.net Thu Mar 15 20:02:12 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Oxygen sensor stuff
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010315184958.009383b0@wgs1.btl.net>

Ok folks -- some more raw info.

From:

http://atlantis.austin.apple.com/people.pages/Jimbo/o2info.html

(Enjoy -- Peter / Belize)

Comment:

In response to several requests for more information about Oxygen (O2
sensors, perhaps the following information will help.

These procedures are only for self powered conventional sensors. Some very
new cars are using a different style sensor that is powered. *Many* Oxygen
sensors are replaced that are good to excellent. *Many* people don't know
how to test them. They routinely last 50,000 or more miles, and if the
engine is in good shape, can last the life of the car.

What does the O2 sensor do?

It is the primary measurement device for the fuel control computer in your
car to know if the engine is too rich or too lean. The O2 sensor is active
anytime it is hot enough, but the computer only uses this information in
the closed loop mode. Closed loop is the operating mode where all engine
control sensors including the Oxygen sensor are used to get best fuel
economy, lowest emissions, and good power.

Should the O2 sensor be replaced when the sensor light comes on in your car?
Probably not, but you should test it to make sure it is alive and well.
This assumes that the light you see is simply an emissions service reminder
light and not a failure light. A reminder light is triggered by a mileage
event (20-40,000 miles usually) or something like 2000 key start cycles.
EGR dash lights usually fall into the reminder category. Consult your
owners manual, auto repair manual, dealer, or repair shop for help on what
your light means.

How do I know if my O2 sensor may be bad?

If your car has lost several miles per gallon of fuel economy and the usual
tune up steps do not improve it. This *is not* a pointer to O2 failure, it
just brings up the possibility. Vacuum leaks and ignition problems are
common fuel economy destroyers. As mentioned by others, the on board
computer may also set one of several failure "codes". If the computer has
issued a code pertaining to the O2 sensor, the sensor and it's wiring
should be tested. Usually when the sensor is bad, the engine will show some
loss of power, and will not seem to respond quickly.

What will damage my O2 sensor?

Home or professional auto repairs that have used silicone gasket sealer
that is not specifically labeled "Oxygen sensor safe", "Sensor safe", or
something similar, if used in an area that is connected to the crankcase.
This includes valve covers, oil pan, or nearly any other gasket or seal
that controls engine oil. Leaded fuel will ruin the O2 sensor in a short
time. If a car is running rich over a long period, the sensor may become
plugged up or even destroyed. Just shorting out the sensor output wire will
not usually hurt the sensor. This simply grounds the output voltage to
zero. Once the wiring is repaired, the circuit operates normally.
Undercoating, antifreeze or oil on the *outside* surface of the sensor can
kill it. See how does an Oxygen sensor work.

Will testing the O2 sensor hurt it?

Almost always, the answer is no. You must be careful to not *apply* voltage
to the sensor, but measuring it's output voltage is not harmful. As noted
by other posters, a cheap voltmeter will not be accurate, but will cause no
damage. This is *not* true if you try to measure the resistance of the
sensor. Resistance measurements send voltage into a circuit and check the
amount returning.

How does an O2 sensor work?

An Oxygen sensor is a chemical generator. It is constantly making a
comparison between the Oxygen inside the exhaust manifold and air outside
the engine. If this comparison shows little or no Oxygen in the exhaust
manifold, a voltage is generated. The output of the sensor is usually
between 0 and 1.1 volts. All spark combustion engines need the proper air
fuel ratio to operate correctly. For gasoline this is 14.7 parts of air to
one part of fuel. When the engine has more fuel than needed, all available
Oxygen is consumed in the cylinder and gasses leaving through the exhaust
contain almost no Oxygen. This sends out a voltage greater than 0.45 volts.
If the engine is running lean, all fuel is burned, and the extra Oxygen
leaves the cylinder and flows into the exhaust. In this case, the sensor
voltage goes lower than 0.45 volts. Usually the output range seen seen is
0.2 to 0.7 volts.

The sensor does not begin to generate it's full output until it reaches
about 600 degrees F. Prior to this time the sensor is not conductive. It is
as if the circuit between the sensor and computer is not complete. The mid
point is about 0.45 volts. This is neither rich nor lean. A fully warm O2
sensor *will not spend any time at 0.45 volts*. In many cars, the computer
sends out a bias voltage of 0.45 through the O2 sensor wire. If the sensor
is not warm, or if the circuit is not complete, the computer picks up a
steady 0.45 volts. Since the computer knows this is an "illegal" value, it
judges the sensor to not be ready. It remains in open loop operation, and
uses all sensors except the O2 to determine fuel delivery. Any time an
engine is operated in open loop, it runs somewhat rich and makes more
exhaust emissions. This translates into lost power, poor fuel economy and
air pollution.

The O2 sensor is constantly in a state of transition between high and low
voltage. Manfucturers call this crossing of the 0.45 volt mark O2 cross
counts. The higher the number of O2 cross counts, the better the sensor and
other parts of the computer control system are working. It is important to
remember that the O2 sensor is comparing the amount of Oxygen inside and
outside the engine. If the outside of the sensor should become blocked, or
coated with oil, sound insulation, undercoating or antifreeze, (among other
things), this comparison is not possible.

How can I test my O2 sensor?

They can be tested both in the car and out. If you have a high impedence
volt meter, the procedure is fairly simple. It will help you to have some
background on the way the sensor does it's job. Read how does an O2 sensor
work first.

Testing O2 sensors that are installed

The engine must first be fully warm. If you have a defective thermostat,
this test may not be possible due to a minimum temperature required for
closed loop operation. Attach the positive lead of a high impedence DC
voltmeter to the Oxygen sensor output wire. This wire should remain
attached to the computer. You will have to back probe the connection or use
a jumper wire to get access. The negative lead should be attached to a good
clean ground on the engine block or accessory bracket. Cheap voltmeters
will not give accurate results because they load down the circuit and
absorb the voltage that they are attempting to measure. A acceptable value
is 1,000,000 ohms/volt or more on the DC voltage. Most (if not all) digital
voltmeters meet this need. Few (if any) non-powered analog (needle style)
voltmeters do. Check the specs for your meter to find out. Set your meter
to look for 1 volt DC. Many late model cars use a heated O2 sensor. These
have either two or three wires instead of one. Heated sensors will have 12
volts on one lead, ground on the other, and the sensor signal on the third.
If you have two or three wires, use a 15 or higher volt scale on the meter
until you know which is the sensor output wire.

When you turn the key on, do not start the engine. You should see a change
in voltage on the meter in most late model cars. If not, check your
connections. Next, check your leads to make sure you won't wrap up any
wires in the belts, etc. then start the engine. You should run the engine
above 2000 rpm for two minutes to warm the O2 sensor and try to get into
closed loop. Closed loop operation is indicated by the sensor showing
several cross counts per second. It may help to rev the engine between idle
and about 3000 rpm several times. The computer recognizes the sensor as hot
and active once there are several cross counts.

You are looking for voltage to go above and below 0.45 volts. If you see
less than 0.2 and more than 0.7 volts and the value changes rapidly, you
are through, your sensor is good. If not, is it steady high (> 0.45) near
0.45 or steady low (< 0.45). If the voltage is near the middle, you may not
be hot yet. Run the engine above 2000 rpm again. If the reading is steady
low, add richness by partially closing the choke or adding some propane
through the air intake. Be very careful if you work with any extra
gasoline, you can easily be burned or have an explosion. If the voltage now
rises above 0.7 to 0.9, and you can change it at will by changing the extra
fuel, the O2 sensor is usually good.

If the voltage is steady high, create a vacuum leak. Try pulling the PCV
valve out of it's hose and letting air enter. You can also use the power
brake vacuum supply hose. If this drives the voltage to 0.2 to 0.3 or less
and you can control it at will by opening and closing the vacuum leak, the
sensor is usually good.

If you are not able to make a change either way, stop the engine, unhook
the sensor wire from the computer harness, and reattach your voltmeter to
the sensor output wire. Repeat the rich and lean steps. If you can't get
the sensor voltage to change, and you have a good sensor and ground
connection, try heating it once more. Repeat the rich and lean steps. If
still no voltage or fixed voltage, you have a bad sensor.

If you are not getting a voltage and the car has been running rich lately,
the sensor may be carbon fouled. It is sometimes possible to clean a sensor
in the car. Do this by unplugging the sensor harness, warming up the
engine, and creating a lean condition at about 2000 rpm for 1 or 2 minutes.
Create a big enough vacuum leak so that the engine begins to slow down. The
extra heat will clean it off if possible. If not, it was dead anyway, no
loss. In either case, fix the cause of the rich mixture and retest. If you
don't, the new sensor will fail.

Testing O2 sensors on the workbench

Use a high impedence DC voltmeter as above. Clamp the sensor in a vice, or
use a plier or vice-grip to hold it. Clamp your negative voltmeter lead to
the case, and the positive to the output wire. Use a propane torch set to
high and the inner blue flame tip to heat the fluted or perforated area of
the sensor. You should see a DC voltage of at least 0.6 within 20 seconds.
If not, most likely cause is open circuit internally or lead fouling. If OK
so far, remove from flame. You should see a drop to under 0.1 volt within 4
seconds. If not likely silicone fouled. If still OK, heat for two full
minutes and watch for drops in voltage. Sometimes, the internal connections
will open up under heat. This is the same a loose wire and is a failure. If
the sensor is OK at this point, and will switch from high to low quickly as
you move the flame, the sensor is good. Bear in mind that good or bad is
relative, with port fuel injection needing faster information than
carbureted systems.

ANY O2 sensor that will generate 0.9 volts or more when heated, show 0.1
volts or less within one second of flame removal, AND pass the two minute
heat test is good regardless of age. When replacing a sensor, don't miss
the opportunity to use the test above on the replacement. This will
calibrate your evaluation skills and save you money in the future. There is
almost always *no* benefit in replacing an oxygen sensor that will pass the
test in the first line of this paragraph.

---

Rick Kirchhof Austin, Texas | Experience is what you
Domain: rick@posms.cactus.org | get when you don't
Bang path: ...!cs.utexas.edu!peyote!posms!rick | get what you want.

From gary at privacy.nu Thu Mar 15 20:12:56 2001
From: gary at privacy.nu (Gary)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: INCINERATOR.
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010315180732.009553e0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <010b01c0adb5$c02af360$310a0341@mdlnd1.tx.home.com>

peter,

i'm not an engineer but i found two different sites with possible useful
info.

(members.nbci.com/craigpage/IDEAS.HTM ) relevant part copied below
30 LED Air-Fuel ratio meter
Here's a curcuit diagram for a 30 LED air-fuel ratio meter using a standard
automotive oxygen (aka "lamda") sensor.
I built one about two years ago and found it worked reasonably
well-certainly much better than a 10 led meter.
The design is by Khouri Giordano and he posted it to the RX7 mailing list
back in 1994.

GIF FORMAT http://members.nbci.com/craigpage/AFMETER.GIF

National Semiconductor Website - LM3914 data sheet
Note that the LM1964 is now obsolete (Sometime before September 1997-Don't
you hate that!) It was an op amp specifically designed for oxygen sensor
interfacing. I intend to come up with an alternate solution, probably using
a common device. Until then you might like to look at:
National Semiconductor Website - LM9040 data sheet (Dual sensor inputs)
National Semiconductor Website - LM9044 data sheet (Single sensor input)
National Semiconductor Website - LMC6492 may be another alternative

These meters work by displaying the voltage on an exhaust "oxygen" sensor -
all modern EFI cars use these to tune the engine continually.
The sensor is essentially a small battery that varies it's voltage depending
on the oxygen content in the exhaust, which reflects the air-fuel ratio the
engine is currently tuned at.
Unfortunately the common (cheap to make) ones have a very sharp response, ie
only a fraction of a volt seperates a wide range of air fuel ratios -
furthermore the voltage output changes quite dramatically depending on the
temperature.
Standard EFI systems work by slightly richening and leaning the air-fuel mix
by changing the pulse width of the injectors. The idea of using the sensor
is that the air-fuel mix will be slighly lean 50% of the time, slightly rich
rich 50% of the time.. Generally speaking these systems DO NOT directly
measure the air fuel ratio.
If you are adding this meter and a sensor to a car without an existing
sensor, a heated sensor will give more consistent results as these tend to
have more stable temperature (temperature plays a big part in the output
voltage of these sensors). Just about all new cars will have a heated
sensor. These cost about $50-$100 (us dollars).

Aparrently the VTEC-E Honda Civic used a "UEGO" (univeral exhaust gas oxygen
sensor), which has a much more linear output voltage making small changes in
the air-fuel ratio more easily resolved. UEGOs are used in most portable
commercial air-fuel meters, and are usually quite expensive (eg the Horiba
UEGO is around $700 US). Rumor has it that the Civic UEGO is about $150US.
However I have not been able to find out any more information about it.

This meter will give an indication of air-fuel ratios, but is by no means a
calibrateable instrument - mainly due to the sensor. It is possible to use a
standard sensor for instrumentation, but these need to have an exhaust
temperature sensor and go through a complex set of mathematics.
The best reference for further reading is the Bosch automotive electrical
handbook. This goes into detail about how the sensors work.

www.houlihane.co.uk/tweaks.htm diagrams copied below
Lambda Sensor
Much has been written about the lambda sensor and it's replacement, and also
air/fuel ratio meters.

To allow the fuel system to run closed loop, and effectivly re-tune itself
on the fly, the exhaust gas is measured to determine the amount of oxygen in
the exhaust gas.

Complete combustion will occur with a 14.7:1 ratio of air to fuel (by
mass?). This statement obviously incorrect as it doesn't define the fuel,
but the correct ratio gives 100% combustion with no residual oxygen. For
best power, a richer mixture is required. A richer mixture is also required
for the engine to run when it's cold. If the mixture become too lean,
especially if the inducted air is hot, the chances of detonation are
increased.

The lambda sensor is an oxygen concentration meter. It doesn't measure fuel
at all, but it can tollerate being placed in the exhaust gas stream. Lambda
is defined as the excess air factor with lambda=1 being the stociometric
ratio (nominally 14.7:1) With lambda less than 1, (i.e. rich mixture) the
output is >800mV. At lambda=1, the output changes rapidly. For lambda=1.2
(3.3% O2) the output is approximately 25mV.

These graphs are taken from the Bosch 0 258 104 002 data sheet.

The Rx7 uses it's lambda sensor for idle and light load conditions. At least
that's what everyone else says. Under heavy load, the system goes open loop
due to the response time for the sensors. Fuel is despensed based on
temperature, boost, rpm, throttle opening, etc. This is fine until you
decide to go for more boost, install an FCD and end up with the ECU thinking
it's got 7psi boost whilst the motor is receiving 12psi boost and almost
twice as much air. Yes, we all know the system is conservative and uses more
fuel than is neccesary to prevent dettonation with 95 octane, but it's nice
to be sure.

There is a digital A/F ratio display design published on the FC3S web page,
but I've gone for the analogue version. Take a 5V regulator, a reasonable
op-amp and a meter. Three 100k resistors make the opamp into a gain=2
non-inverting amplifier. Add a suitable (32k) resistor and trimmer in series
with the output and connect the meter so 1/2 scale corresponds to 800mv
input. Find the ECU under the carpet on the passenger side footwell (under a
metal plate about 1' square) and connect to the centre connector, 4th from
the right on the bottom row. If you've got this far you should be able to
confirm that this sits at about 1V diring idle.

The important thing to remember once this gauge is installed is that there
is significant variation in lambda sensor output under different conditions.
This gauge is intended to show when the motor is running under too-lean
conditions under load. Don't expect it to show an idle mixture of lambda=1.
You should expect to see lean running when you ease off, and more rich under
load. Limited tests on my car show full-scale (very rich) under acceleration
when 'reasonably warm'. Minimum reading was about 40% with 50%=800mV.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm@btl.net>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 6:23 PM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Re: INCINERATOR.

>
> Hi Tom Reed
>
> At 05:44 PM 3/15/2001 EST, Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >Dear Peter and Musungu:
>
> >Are you the same? Working together?
>
> No -- just a curiosity on my part. Figure it is time to bone up on the
> present state of sensors and controllers.
>
> >The oxygen sensors are made by Bosch (mostly?) and would
> >have different model numbers on different cars. You can
> >find used ones in a junk yard.
>
> I posted the Url -- but here it is again -- with a few extras:
>
> http://www.boschusa.com/Consumer/Automotive/OxygenSensors/
>
> http://www.boschusa.com/Business/Automotive/Gasoline/ExhaustSensors/
>
> http://www.boschusa.com/Business/Automotive/Gasoline/ProdExhSensors/
>
> But still not data/application sheets found -- anyone else having any
luck?
>
> Would be nice to know --
>
>
> >I think one would be sufficient after final combustion to
> >determine A/F ratio which you can then adjust to the ratio you want.
>
> You'll find some nice diagrams of application at those sites -- they
always
> use two -- works by comparism.
>
> Like I keep saying -- we need those data sheets. Might have to contact the
> company rep directly to get such though. All I found is leads to some very
> expensive books on automotive electronics -- that promise to supply that
> kind of in depth technical info.
>
> Makes the job a lot easier.
>
> >Keep me posted.......
>
> Got a feeling that whatever is out there will show up on this list in the
> near future Tom.
>
> Peter Singfield / Belize
>
> TOM REED BEF
>
>
>
> Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
> -
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: jpg00301.jpg
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 16072 bytes
Desc: ""
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/20010315/4f5afd4a/jpg00301.obj
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: jpg00300.jpg
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 15784 bytes
Desc: ""
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/20010315/4f5afd4a/jpg00300.obj
From snkm at btl.net Thu Mar 15 20:23:50 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Global warming chatting
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010315191922.00968910@wgs1.btl.net>

At 07:46 PM 3/15/2001 EST, you wrote:
>Dear Peter,
> I agree with the velocity or energy of the weather, but this does not
>necessarily mean warming. Higher atmospheric conductivity means faster winds
>and other weather intensity. Higher highs and lower lows. Imagine that the
>cold poles are the sink for the heat and the equator is the source, with
>conductivity increase, the energy flow would increase.
>Tom Taylor
>

All true -- but where else could the energy to do all this be coming from??

Maybe that nuclear reactor at the core of the earth is putting out extra??

The planet absorbing more heat than normal from the sun?

By they way -- water with dissolved CO2 releases CO2 when it warms up. Just
keep an eye on an open bottle of soft drink when taken from the cooler.

So just a little increase in ocean temperatures triggers a huge release of
CO2 -- huge!!

And -- anyone else out there read the book "Antarctica" yet?? I found it a
pretty accurate -- if conservative -- representation on global warming at
this present slope in the curve.

The changing social patterns of the modern countries hypothosized is
interesting as well.

Peter / Belize

From LINVENT at aol.com Thu Mar 15 20:44:17 2001
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Global warming chatting
Message-ID: <4c.121d967e.27e2c98b@aol.com>

Peter,
I am not saying that the overall effect is heating, but merely the heat
transfer rate is higher, more transfer of heat from the equator to the
poles. The poles are the sinks. Average temperature is the same. The
equatorial zone as you are located is lowered in temperature and the poles
are raised. Hence, the 50F temperature at your place.

TomTaylor

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Mar 15 21:26:22 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: *** Update: Bush won't regulate carbon dioxide
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010315182221.0095e7f0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3AB179C3.65F36FE6@c2i.net>

Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> At 10:41 PM 3/15/2001 +0100, you wrote:
> >Weststeijn A wrote:
> >..chances are you missed my point: CO2 and water are
> >essensial substances for life, it be for grass, mankind or
> >mad cows.
>
> So is salt Arnt -- but to much and what have you got?

..madness?... ;-)

--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)

Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.

From snkm at btl.net Thu Mar 15 21:37:33 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Oxygen sensor stuff
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010315202823.008d4a30@wgs1.btl.net>

At 07:09 PM 3/15/2001 -0600, you wrote:
>peter,
>
>i'm not an engineer but i found two different sites with possible useful
>info.
>

Well Gary -- you certainly have supplied a lot of information!

It is over 14 years now since I worked in instrumentation and controls --
no longer have my extensive -- always kept up to date -- data manual library.

Just realizing that this same info is now available on the WWW!!

>National Semiconductor Website -

Guess I lazy -- but rather than have to search is out -- do you have the
Url National Semiconductor Website?

Regarding signal conditioning and interfacing.

This device is working along the lines of a thermocouple -- that is putting
out a varying voltage. I understand your hard wiring an Op-Amp. But even in
1986 I was using an Omega analogue devices I believe) data logging card
with programmable Op-amps that simply plugged into an XT slot -- mind you
-- very lazy.

At the time -- Omega supplied diskettes of software -- all in GW-Basic --
for everything from basic voltmeter functions, to thermocouple and pressure
transducers.

The thermocouple look-up tables supplied -- of course.

The end results was a data logged ASCII file -- time stamped -- etc -- that
could also be observed real time on your screen. You set the "timing" --
one reading every millionth of a second if required.

Mostly we just logged and fed those ASCII files to a data base manager (I
was using the old Dos -- Q&A software)

If I needed graphs -- I would export the "arranged" data from the data base
to Harvard Graphics.

Pretty simply high level software -- easy learning curve.

Those Omega cards cost around $250 US back then -- 16 channels -- 12 bit A
to D converter with programmable op-amps for each channel.

They also supplied exterior terminal boards and analogue output/switching
boards that also ate a slot in the old XT.

another solution was to get a 68hc11 motorola micro-controller development
board. These came with an 8 channel 8 bit A to D converter -- 8 channel
output with drivers -- built in modem -- plus an rs-232 for communication
with any computer by serial port. I believe they had a parallel port as well.

These were stand alone cards. Cost was around $100 US each -- part of
motorola's promotional kits to introduce their technology.

They came in various programming languages -- but I always found "Tiny
Basic" easy to use and more than sufficient for any of my needs.

Today -- I realize this all would be technology well applied to the needs
of the people here on this list in monitoring exactly what is happening in
a gasifier at any given moment -- plus be able to analyse "tweaks" in great
detail after a session.

A quick look at automotive electronics has shown that just about every form
of sensor, actuator and switching device is now offered at incredibly
reasonable pricing.

A quick look at Motorola also shows that the 68hc11 has become a huge
family of microcontrollers! And much better/powerful than those early
models we were using over 20 years back.

Anyway Gary -- that is great stuff you have psoted -- and almost tempts me
to get back into this field of endevor -- almost -- but not quite.

Peter Singfield / Belize

From gary at privacy.nu Thu Mar 15 21:53:47 2001
From: gary at privacy.nu (Gary)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Oxygen sensor stuff
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010315202823.008d4a30@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <013e01c0adc3$fb55b520$310a0341@mdlnd1.tx.home.com>

sorry about not putting the url in the message.
single sensor http://www.national.com/pf/LM/LM9044.html
dual sensor http://www.national.com/pf/LM/LM9040.html

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm@btl.net>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 8:33 PM
Subject: GAS-L: Oxygen sensor stuff

> At 07:09 PM 3/15/2001 -0600, you wrote:
> >peter,
> >
> >i'm not an engineer but i found two different sites with possible useful
> >info.
> >
>
> Well Gary -- you certainly have supplied a lot of information!
>
> It is over 14 years now since I worked in instrumentation and controls --
> no longer have my extensive -- always kept up to date -- data manual
library.
>
> Just realizing that this same info is now available on the WWW!!
>
> >National Semiconductor Website -
>
> Guess I lazy -- but rather than have to search is out -- do you have the
> Url National Semiconductor Website?
>
> Regarding signal conditioning and interfacing.
>
> This device is working along the lines of a thermocouple -- that is
putting
> out a varying voltage. I understand your hard wiring an Op-Amp. But even
in
> 1986 I was using an Omega analogue devices I believe) data logging card
> with programmable Op-amps that simply plugged into an XT slot -- mind you
> -- very lazy.
>
> At the time -- Omega supplied diskettes of software -- all in GW-Basic --
> for everything from basic voltmeter functions, to thermocouple and
pressure
> transducers.
>
> The thermocouple look-up tables supplied -- of course.
>
> The end results was a data logged ASCII file -- time stamped -- etc --
that
> could also be observed real time on your screen. You set the "timing" --
> one reading every millionth of a second if required.
>
> Mostly we just logged and fed those ASCII files to a data base manager (I
> was using the old Dos -- Q&A software)
>
> If I needed graphs -- I would export the "arranged" data from the data
base
> to Harvard Graphics.
>
> Pretty simply high level software -- easy learning curve.
>
> Those Omega cards cost around $250 US back then -- 16 channels -- 12 bit A
> to D converter with programmable op-amps for each channel.
>
> They also supplied exterior terminal boards and analogue output/switching
> boards that also ate a slot in the old XT.
>
> another solution was to get a 68hc11 motorola micro-controller development
> board. These came with an 8 channel 8 bit A to D converter -- 8 channel
> output with drivers -- built in modem -- plus an rs-232 for communication
> with any computer by serial port. I believe they had a parallel port as
well.
>
> These were stand alone cards. Cost was around $100 US each -- part of
> motorola's promotional kits to introduce their technology.
>
> They came in various programming languages -- but I always found "Tiny
> Basic" easy to use and more than sufficient for any of my needs.
>
> Today -- I realize this all would be technology well applied to the needs
> of the people here on this list in monitoring exactly what is happening in
> a gasifier at any given moment -- plus be able to analyse "tweaks" in
great
> detail after a session.
>
> A quick look at automotive electronics has shown that just about every
form
> of sensor, actuator and switching device is now offered at incredibly
> reasonable pricing.
>
> A quick look at Motorola also shows that the 68hc11 has become a huge
> family of microcontrollers! And much better/powerful than those early
> models we were using over 20 years back.
>
> Anyway Gary -- that is great stuff you have psoted -- and almost tempts me
> to get back into this field of endevor -- almost -- but not quite.
>
>
> Peter Singfield / Belize
>
>
>
> Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
> -
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>

From snkm at btl.net Thu Mar 15 22:39:00 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Global warming chatting
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010315210125.008fdd10@wgs1.btl.net>

At 08:42 PM 3/15/2001 EST, you wrote:
>Peter,
> I am not saying that the overall effect is heating, but merely the heat
>transfer rate is higher, more transfer of heat from the equator to the
>poles. The poles are the sinks. Average temperature is the same. The
>equatorial zone as you are located is lowered in temperature and the poles
>are raised. Hence, the 50F temperature at your place.
>
>TomTaylor
>

no -- not more heat -- but more energy. The planet has become a more
efficient solar energy collector which is manifested in more mechanical
energy production -- winds.

A hurricane is equal to how many hydrogen bombs worth of energy?? Or a
blizzard, thunderstorm, squall, twister -- etc.

The terminology is bad -- global warming should be increased solar energy
absorption.

If we were really smart we would figure out how to harness this bounty of
new mechanical energy to make electrical power and then burn far less
fossil fuels.

Everything from wave energy (noticing that is increasing here) to wind
mills???

Zillions of kwh's there -- just for the "picking". Just a question of how
to harvest.

Peter

From thomas at biopilze.de Fri Mar 16 07:05:37 2001
From: thomas at biopilze.de (Thomas Ziegler)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Oxygen sensor stuff
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010315202823.008d4a30@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3AB20119.94295009@biopilze.de>

>...great stuff you have posted...tempts me to get back into this...
to make it easier, i suggest we use an url where we all have access to:

http://back.to/woodgas

-how about to translate all data in english/german/french/espaniol/...

though the path to get there is still not ok, (-am sure to cope with
that the next days it finally ends at fortunecity.com (the exact path
will finally be http://members.fortunecity.com/woodgas/, here we have
100MB (and more) for free, to put data on to: the upload-parameters are:
Host: ftp.fortunecity.com / User: woodgas / Password: woodgas
(you can make upload with your browser or with a so-called ftp-software
(e.g. ws-ftp.exe, -find this program on the net and get it instantly
downloaded and installed with http://ftpsearch.lycos.com )... for those
who want to build, too..., thomas
--
der kleine deutsche oeko-pilz-anbauer \
the small german organic mushroomer http://www.biopilze.de/wir.htm
le petit eco - champignoneur allemand /

From A.Weststeijn at epz.nl Fri Mar 16 08:34:52 2001
From: A.Weststeijn at epz.nl (Weststeijn A)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: *** Update: Bush won't regulate carbon dioxide
Message-ID: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4F48@sp0016.epz.nl>

> Arnt Karlsen[SMTP:arnt@c2i.net]
wrote donderdag 15 maart 2001 22:41

> ..chances are you missed my point: CO2 and water are
> essensial substances for life, it be for grass, mankind or
> mad cows. Now, hydro power dams _were_ used as veapons both
> in the Rühr, Germany in WWII, in the Korea War, and in the
> Former Yugoslavia. Such use of dams are _generally_ banned
> as war crimes, for many good reasons outlined in the 4
> Geneva Conventions and their 2 Protocols Additional.
>
and connects it with:

> ..this "CO2-debate" or "CO2 consern" essensially boils down
> "to the fact there is not enough for Asians and Africans too".
> .."So something must happen."
>
OK, Arnt, I see your point. You actually take the CO2 debate a full
dimension further and question whether honest CO2 concerns could be
misconstrued in time for projecting classic power politics around the globe
etc.

In essence I am afraid you are right to have this concern. But I don't have
an idea how far in the future that point (of actively projecting power)
might be reached. It probably would be overtaken in time by the secundary
spin off effects predicted, as rising sea level and shifting desert lands.
That this could lead to grave tensions in densely populated area's..... (me
saying so is an open door).

The key to make macro change more manageable, to me appears to be the factor
of time. Plain time. Time to adept. This would be nothing new to nature (or
to humans over the past 3 million odd years). I guess you can call that
"mitigating the consequences".
In other words: slowing down the process sufficiently in order to allow for
an orderly transition etc. Try to spread the required adaptations out over
more generations. We sure can't stop nature, but we sure do can influence
the add-on effects as created by humans since the industrial revolution.

What I begin to understand is that our habitat might be hanging more in a
precarious balance than anticipated earlier. Compare the deep sea "ocean
conveyor belt" theory, and the possibly very sudden turn-around between a
period of slow heating up and fast cooling down.
If this were to be true (i.e. that precarious balance), human influence in
its potential consequences could be much more influential (i.e. to tip the
scales) than believed earlier. The question then becomes: is there a not yet
fully understood multiplier effect of human behaviour in the works?
Until more is known about these effects, to me it looks like sound policy to
stay at the modest end of impacting nature. That's what I call prudency.

And in the mean time, by being a bit prudent, we don't hurt a soul! That
fact in itself is unique in history!
(give or take a few handful's of individuals trying to continue in classic
wild west rip off style: that's the transition friction to be overcome)

best regards,
Andries Weststeijn

From delange at bioelettrica.it Fri Mar 16 08:43:25 2001
From: delange at bioelettrica.it (Henk de Lange)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: A 12 MW biomass-fuelled IGCC project in India
Message-ID: <000401c0ae1e$89461fa0$0c20a8c0@bioelettrica.it>

The following announcement came to me via internet. It is perhaps
of interest to this list. Source of the more detailed description is:

http://wire0.ises.org/wire/exchanges/Projects.nsf/H/O?Open&5DAED88C6DC58989C
1256A0000433536

Abstract is below.

Biomass to Energy in Rural India 12MW Biomass IGCC Power Plant

The State of Andhra Pradesh in South West India is facing an
ever-increasing demand for electricity, particularly by the industrial
sector. A significant turnaround of its energy industry has encouraged new
investment into electricity generation projects, with particular incentives
being made available to environmentally benign processes. RR Bio Energies
Ltd. have proposed the development of a 12MW biomass-based power plant in
West Godavari using an application of the Integrated Gasification Combined
Cycle (IGCC) combustion technology. This would in effect recycle the
regions agro waste into energy by-products for the production of
electricity whilst providing an array of benefits to both the local
community and the environment.
The total cost of the project is $15.2 million. The project will be
financed by equity from the promoters and an external investor as well as
debt from suppliers credit, external investors and possibly Indian
Financial Institutions. Assuming, all of the power generated is sold to
APTRANSCO at a beginning tariff of $0.074 and a plant load factor of 90% in
the third year, the project will generate revenues of $7.8m (at current
exchange rates) and net profits of $1.6 m in year 5 of operations.

Regards, Henk

--------------------------------------------------
H.J. de Lange M.Sc.(M.Eng.)
Technical Manager
Bioelettrica S.p.A.
Via Cesare Battisti, 47
56125 PISA
ITALY
Tel. +39-050-535479
Fax +39-050-535477
e-mail: delange@bioelettrica.it

From Carl.Carley at eml.ericsson.se Fri Mar 16 09:42:50 2001
From: Carl.Carley at eml.ericsson.se (Carl Carley (EML))
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:14 2004
Subject: FW: GAS-L: Re: INCINERATOR.
Message-ID: <5F052F2A01FBD11184F00008C7A4A800048623E6@EUKBANT101>

Gary
Good stuff eh?
How about wiring a solenoid from say every third LED output (via a small solid state relay as a buffer) to open or close extra air holes on the main air intake. Once you've got it all running and calibrated it would be self tuning so to speak, and you get a visual indication of what's happening.
Just a thought

Carl

-----Original Message-----
From: Gary [mailto:gary@privacy.nu]
Sent: 16 March 2001 01:09
To: gasification@crest.org; Peter Singfield
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Re: INCINERATOR.

peter,

i'm not an engineer but i found two different sites with possible useful
info.

GIF FORMAT http://members.nbci.com/craigpage/AFMETER.GIF

www.houlihane.co.uk/tweaks.htm diagrams copied below
Lambda Sensor
Much has been written about the lambda sensor and it's replacement, and also
air/fuel ratio meters.

To allow the fuel system to run closed loop, and effectivly re-tune itself
on the fly, the exhaust gas is measured to determine the amount of oxygen in
the exhaust gas.

These graphs are taken from the Bosch 0 258 104 002 data sheet.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm@btl.net>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 6:23 PM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Re: INCINERATOR.

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Fri Mar 16 09:53:29 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:14 2004
Subject: Air/Fuel ratio sensor measures HHV of fuels.....
Message-ID: <ea.12c6bf13.27e3827d@cs.com>

What a wonderful compendium of operational and info sources from Gary on
Lamda sensors. Introduction of this now common technology to other
combustion processes could make this a much cleaner planet. If you can tune
the A/F ratio on your car as each cylinder fires, you can certainly tune your
stove, heater, furnace etc. However, it depends on having a cheap,
dependable sensor and the info here will permit us to build one.
~~~~~~
The voltage change of the lambda meter is so sensitive to oxygen pressure
change, that it changes by an order of magnitude as you pass from 1% rich to
1% lean. Therefore the temperature of the sensor is not so important if you
only want to find the switch point. However, if you want to operate rich or
lean on purpose, you need to keep the sensor at a fixed temperature, say 777C
(makes 727+273 = 1,000K, hot enough for the sensor and makes calculations
easy from V = RT/NF ln (p2/p1).
~~~~~~~~
At Community Power Corporation we use a closed loop sensor on our 12 kW
generator. While this is desirable for cars, it is a necessity for gasifier
engine systems, since the A/F ratio changes continuously with gasifier
operation.
~~~~~~~
Another use for knowing the exact A/F ratio is that it gives the heating
value of the fuel. Each kg of air burned generates about 3.3 MJ of heat.

HHV Fuel = 3.3 * A/F

An A/F ratio of 14.7 (gasoline at lamda =1) implies a fuel value of 48.5
MJ/kg. (My North American Combustion Handbook, V I lists gasoline at 48.37
MJ/kg or 20,796 Btu/lb for Octane). A producer gas with 6.0 MJ/m3, ~ 7.8
MJ/kg should have an A/F ratio of 2.36 (7.8/3.3).

As far as I know, no one has discovered this simple relationship. If anyone
has met it, let me know. It depends on the fact that the heat for combustion
of oxygen with ANY fuel is about 3.3. I'll try to refine this number farther
and post the exceptions. (Pure H2, C, maybe).

I'll see if we are recording the output of our Lambda sensor at CPC.
~~~~~~~
The lambda sensor is a necessary part to bringing "turnkey" gasification into
the 21st century.

Onward........ TOM REED

In a message dated 3/15/01 6:13:15 PM Mountain Standard Time, gary@privacy.nu
writes:

peter,

i'm not an engineer but i found two different sites with possible useful
info.

GIF FORMAT http://members.nbci.com/craigpage/AFMETER.GIF

www.houlihane.co.uk/tweaks.htm diagrams copied below
Lambda Sensor
Much has been written about the lambda sensor and it's replacement, and also
air/fuel ratio meters.

To allow the fuel system to run closed loop, and effectivly re-tune itself
on the fly, the exhaust gas is measured to determine the amount of oxygen in
the exhaust gas.

These graphs are taken from the Bosch 0 258 104 002 data sheet.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm@btl.net>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 6:23 PM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Re: INCINERATOR.

From snkm at btl.net Fri Mar 16 10:12:46 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:14 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Oxygen sensor stuff
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010316090225.009498a0@wgs1.btl.net>

At 08:48 PM 3/15/2001 -0600, "gary" <garyfranklin3@home.com> wrote:
>sorry about not putting the url in the message.
>single sensor http://www.national.com/pf/LM/LM9044.html
>dual sensor http://www.national.com/pf/LM/LM9040.html
>

Gary -- you have just opened a new world for me!! Thank you for turning me
on to sourcing the data sheets by WWW!

Ok listers -- as an example of what we are discussing here -- download this
file:

http://www.national.com/ds/LM/LM9040.pdf

This is the data sheet for the LM9040 Dual Lambda Sensor Interface
Amplifier. Exactly what you would need to apply an oxygen sensing device to
your gasifier -- or whatever.

This PDF file is more than explicit! From this you can easily build your
device.

In my case -- a lazy man -- I would simply port the output to an A to D
converter card sitting in my computer. I would then be able to monitor and
data log oxygen conditions from two sources.

Of course -- this design begs for at least two thermo-couples positioned at
the oxygen sensors. With the input from those streaming in along the input
from the sensors -- a simple programming can make temperature corrections.
Readings would then be very accurate indeed.

Total cost of parts folks? Well, can't count the A/D card or computer --
that is a tool that is part of the game. The rest --

Well, if you get your sensors from the scrap yard -- and twist your own
T/C's -- under $10 US for a dual sensor - temperature corrected -- set-up.

Hard to beat that eh! What say Tom R!!

And that is a bloated estimate for a single unit pricing. Start putting
these into production -- heck -- costs could go under $2.00 per unit! But
then -- you would have ot be buying new oxygen sensors.

Immagine how the availability of such a monitoring device would advance
gasifier design, control and developement!

Could be sold as a "kit". The sensors -- the wiring -- the "black-box" --
the A/D card --the software.

The Bosch WWW site is still in the dark ages compared to the National
Semiconductor site. Wow! Took me all of five minutes to get everything I
wanted to my hard drive. And that from here in Belize -- Central America!

Truly -- we have entered a new era of scientific advancement.

Thanks for enlightening me Gary!

Peter Singfield / Belize

From snkm at btl.net Fri Mar 16 10:20:46 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Oxygen sensor stuff
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010316090940.009439b0@wgs1.btl.net>

Thom --

If your serious -- Gary has just supplied everything you need to do this.
With a little help from me.

I have no doubts that Gary can also put together that "kit" I suggest in
the other posting on this subject.

Now folks -- you might have an idea how I made my living in Montreal Quebec
-- 20 plus years back? Only with big building boilers and Air-conditioning
units.

Control instrumentation is everything --- I advise you gasifiers "bone-up"
on it.

Or encourage people like Gary to post more often?

So Thom -- take what has been shown here and mount it!

Peter Singfield / Belize

At 10:06 AM 3/16/2001 +0100, Thomas Ziegler <thomas@biopilze.de> wrote:
>>...great stuff you have posted...tempts me to get back into this...
>to make it easier, i suggest we use an url where we all have access to:
>
>http://back.to/woodgas
>
>-how about to translate all data in english/german/french/espaniol/...
>
>though the path to get there is still not ok, (-am sure to cope with
>that the next days it finally ends at fortunecity.com (the exact path
>will finally be http://members.fortunecity.com/woodgas/, here we have
>100MB (and more) for free, to put data on to: the upload-parameters are:
>Host: ftp.fortunecity.com / User: woodgas / Password: woodgas
>(you can make upload with your browser or with a so-called ftp-software
>(e.g. ws-ftp.exe, -find this program on the net and get it instantly
>downloaded and installed with http://ftpsearch.lycos.com )... for those
>who want to build, too..., thomas
>--
>der kleine deutsche oeko-pilz-anbauer \
>the small german organic mushroomer http://www.biopilze.de/wir.htm
>le petit eco - champignoneur allemand /
>
>

From snkm at btl.net Fri Mar 16 11:01:36 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Air/Fuel ratio sensor measures HHV of fuels.....
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010316095607.009431c0@wgs1.btl.net>

At 09:51 AM 3/16/2001 EST, you wrote:
>>>>
Dear Gary, Peter and all:

********** ~~~~~~
The voltage change of the lambda meter is so sensitive to oxygen pressure
change, that it changes by an order of magnitude as you pass from 1% rich to
1% lean. Therefore the temperature of the sensor is not so important if you
only want to find the switch point. However, if you want to operate rich or
lean on purpose, you need to keep the sensor at a fixed temperature, say
777C
(makes 727+273 = 1,000K, hot enough for the sensor and makes calculations
easy from V = RT/NF ln (p2/p1).

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

No Problemo Tom R. -- put a pressure sensor in their at the same time --
again -- use the automotive ones.

Apply all your formulas using any software your comfortable with -- change
variables on the fly -- observe the results -- etc. etc.

This is all old technology for control instrumentation "hackers".

sure -- once you have everything set up -- put it in a "black=box"
dedicated to that function.

But then -- computers are so cheap (Even an old XT is over kill for these
applications!!) -- and gasifiers so expensive -- why not just keep the
computer?

Still -- with a dedicated controller -- based along the lines I worked with
-- the 68hc11 -- it is easy to put it all in an Eprom and simply hit switches.

Lets see -- switch number one for bagasse. Switch number two for rice husks
-- so on.
**************
~~~~~~~
The lambda sensor is a necessary part to bringing "turnkey" gasification
into
the 21st century.

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

Put Gary, you and me under the same roof for one week with a good soldering
gun and you would have it! (probably in two days)

You have no idea how easy this is to do --- the formulas are the hardest
part. The control instrumentation the easiest.

I take it you have only worked with "qualified" engineers all your life?
Never met the hands on "hacker" crowd??

Control instrumentation is a field of endeavor that changed so rapidly --
no one with classical education could be trained in it. "Hackers" were born
to do this however. But never had qualifications to get a job in any
"legitimate" research center.

In your case -- are you now ready to betray the school tie? That is -- do
you want progress or political correctness?

Most scientific "institutions" are interested in school tie connections
rather than progress.

So they lost out in the control instrumentation revolution -- always
staying years behind the leading edge technology.

For instance -- even this simple project -- which I have a hard time
believing was not done 25 years ago -- would be a major bureaucratic hurdle
to do under modern institutional research patterns.

Just the process of hiring your technicians would take so long that by the
time you went into development you would already be obsolete.

You need to hire the person that reads Data-Books while in the bathroom on
the can -- not the person with the official qualifications.

Ergo -- you honestly do not have an idea how easy it is to do what you
suggest above.

In my old company in Montreal I would have done the entire job in one week.
That is I would return to your offices in one week with a finished product.
In reality is would have take me les than one day -- with the team I had
then to do it.

I would probably charge you $5000 for everything. The "client" would be
either a respectable engineering firm a research laboratory. They would
charge their clients a 1/4 million or so for "their" development. Sometimes
I would have to "rent" them one of the kids to run the demonstration.

I would be doing two or three such minor jobs per week -- plus a major (say
$50,000) job once per month.

We were also making a lot of direct applications in controls on large
buildings. In those days controls were mostly vacuum/sensor operated. Very
expensive. We would apply modern digital technology and were making a
fortune. Two of the staff were "enlightened-plumbers" --

In these cases we would sub contract through a legitimate company -- charge
them -- say $2000 -- and they would charge -- say -- $25,000.

My staff was 8 people. 4 of them were under 16 years of age -- the youngest
-- Tapio -- was 13 when we started. "Raided" him from a Radio Shack Store
where I found him dissembling game packs in machine language to boot-leg
them on tapes -- you know -- that old Radio Shack Color Computer.

This was how "America" was actually built -- then it became over
"institutionalized" -- and here we are now -- a simple device -- easy to
make up -- crucial to gasifier development -- and not yet available.

Now you can truly understand why I took off for Belize? I hate
institutionalized technology. I hate being the man doing the work and never
being recognized for it --

The technological playing field is more level -- though still not level --
in 3rd world countries -- or developing countries -- and that is why the
Western countries are losing it right now.

Stock market manipulators get filthy rich -- while technicians barely survive.

Well, look around you in these coming days -- the Western Civilization is
going to learn about productive workers and parasites. They probably still
will not learn to reward productive workers -- and their parasites will get
even fatter -- and their house of cards will crumble.

But Tom -- if you move fast enough -- you may still get that device you need.

Looks like we are heading into a serious global economy set-back.

Peter

Onward........ TOM REED

From kchishol at fox.nstn.ca Fri Mar 16 13:02:52 2001
From: kchishol at fox.nstn.ca (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:15 2004
Subject: Air/Fuel ratio sensor measures HHV of fuels.....
In-Reply-To: <ea.12c6bf13.27e3827d@cs.com>
Message-ID: <NEBBLHHHOLFOEGCILKHEGEFKCIAA.kchishol@fox.nstn.ca>

Dear
Tom
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
-----Original Message-----From: Reedtb2@cs.com
[mailto:Reedtb2@cs.com]Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 10:52
AMTo: gary@privacy.nu; gasification@crest.org; dduncan@gocpc.com;
adas@gocpc.com; treed@gocpc.com; rwalt@gocpc.com; kbeard@gocpc.com;
Artsolar@aol.com; kbrowne@gocpc.com; jdiebold@gocpc.com; jscahill@gocpc.com;
jreardon@gocpc.comCc: stoves@crest.orgSubject: Air/Fuel
ratio sensor measures HHV of fuels.....
 ...del... ~~~~~~~
Another use for knowing the exact A/F ratio is that it gives the heating
value of the fuel. Each kg of air burned generates about 3.3 MJ of
heat.
HHV
Fuel = 3.3 * A/F An A/F ratio of 14.7 (gasoline at lamda =1) implies a
fuel value of 48.5 MJ/kg. (My North American Combustion Handbook, V
I lists gasoline at 48.37 MJ/kg or 20,796 Btu/lb for Octane). A
producer gas with 6.0 MJ/m3, ~ 7.8 MJ/kg should have an A/F ratio of 2.36
(7.8/3.3). As far as I know, no one has discovered this simple
relationship. If anyone has met it, let me know. It depends on
the fact that the heat for combustion of oxygen with ANY fuel is about
3.3. I'll try to refine this number farther and post the exceptions.
(Pure H2, C, maybe). 

I have a Combustion Handbook, written prior to WW2, that
covers this point. Basically, 1 cubic foot of air will liberate 100 BTU from
most fuels....wood, coal, oil, etc. This is a very simple "Rule of Thumb" for sizing air requirements for
combustion systems.

Kindest
regards,

Kevin
Chisholm

From A.Weststeijn at epz.nl Fri Mar 16 15:39:19 2001
From: A.Weststeijn at epz.nl (Weststeijn A)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:15 2004
Subject: CO2 /EPA data on rising sea level at US east coast /Venice
Message-ID: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4F4D@sp0016.epz.nl>

Dear List members

Below an interesting article citing EPA on rising sea levels and "close to
home" for our US East Coast friends.
Full article at http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=10098

And to the occasional List member living high and dry in the Rockies, and
doubting if this is all a hoax: go vacationing in Venice and actually get
your feed wet on the historic city square now lying about precisely at sea
level (without a dyke). Admittedly a combination of sinking foundations and
steadily rising sea level, but it's for real there now and it's going to
cost more than a few pennies to fix (talk about impact on the economy!).
http://www.vu.nl/english/o_o/instituten/IVM/research/venice.htm
http://www.unesco.org/culture/heritage/tangible/venice/html_eng/novembre.htm

More interesting sites leading to info on sea level rise:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0102/earthpulse/
http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/impacts/sealevel/index.html

best regards,
Andries Weststeijn
(indeed, living at sea level....fortunately safely behind a huge dyke
without finger holes...which is more than the people in Bangla Desh can
say...)

-------------------
Quote:

The Environmental Protection Agency says the sea level is rising faster
along U.S. coasts than the worldwide average, and fastest of all in
Chesapeake Bay. Along the Atlantic coast and the Gulf of Mexico, it says, a
one-foot (30 cm) rise in the sea level is likely by 2050 but could occur as
early as 2025.

At Newport News, Virginia, the EPA says the sea level could rise by 23.3
inches (59 cm) by 2100. In Delaware, it says, a rise in the sea level will
lead to beach erosion, flooding of coastal property, loss of wetlands and
contamination of drinking water while destroying spawning grounds for the
horseshoe crab.

In Florida the sea level is seen rising 12-20 inches (30-50 cm) by 2100. The
likely impact: loss of land, structures and wildlife habitat and increased
flooding and salination of rivers, bays and aquifers, threatening the water
supply.

-------
Located near the shores of Chesapeake Bay, the largest estuary in the United
States, the preserve is like a natural laboratory where processes that
threaten to sweep the world in the course of the 21st century are already
plain to see.

Stevenson has studied documents dating back to 1670 when land in Blackwater
was surveyed and sold by British settlers. At that time the middle of the
refuge was an oak forest. Later it became a tobacco farm, but farmers
abandoned it in the middle of the 19th century when it began turning into a
marsh.

"We've gone in just over three centuries from an oak forest to tobacco, to a
freshwater marsh, to a brackish marsh and now it's open water," he said.

In the middle portion of the Chesapeake Bay, researchers have documented the
disappearance of at least 13 islands.

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

From thomas at biopilze.de Fri Mar 16 16:04:32 2001
From: thomas at biopilze.de (Thomas Ziegler)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Air/Fuel ratio sensor measures HHV of fuels.....
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010316095607.009431c0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3AB27F63.A7911869@biopilze.de>

>...So Thom -- take what has been shown here and mount it!...
ok, lets put together all necessary data from the web about lambda-
sensors, instrumentation and control...

just some more ideas:
>...voltage change...by an order of magnitude...from 1% rich to 1% lean. >...want to operate rich or lean...need to keep...a fixed temperature...
what is the range lean to rich (at most) we are working within??

>...Apply all your formulas using any software your comfortable with... >...worked with...68hc11...put it all in an Eprom...simply hit switches.
>...once you have everything set up -- put it in a "black=box"...
we should keeep it open to keep it easily adaptable to different needs,
eg. those for small devices: -best battery driven (nowadays cheap
CMOS-MCs fit best eg a so called BASIC-STAMP...) -if necessary, as imho
the best electronic is the left-out one...

some typical application examples eg 2-point "regulator": open/ close
with a solenoid-valve and/or relais and for stepper motors/ servo-motors
eg up to environments with a real PID-regulator-unit...

(maybe look-up-tables to get the values linear would be good, if
necessary at all? suppose LM... does all linearisation already...did not
reach this manual...)

and with eg different soft -to hardware- "switches" for different type
of stuff >"...bagasse...rice husks..."

>...scientific "institutions" are interested in school tie connections
> rather than progress...
finally young people will bring the revolution with this biomass energy:
then the "establishment" is no more than just a stone in the bed of this
stream: what does water? it flows around and finds its way, you can drop
in as many stones as you want: it will find its way, anyway...

>...This was how "America" was actually built -- then it became over
> "institutionalized" -- and here we are now -- a simple device -- easy > to make up -- crucial to gasifier development -- and not yet > available...
but soon now!

>...understand why I took off for Belize?...
or why i did no longer work as engineer of physics or environmental
protection (tech and environment -the way we (ab)used it -till now- wont
fit the long run...) but started to grow mushrooms...

>...The technological playing field is more level -- though still not > level -- in 3rd world countries -- or developing countries -- and that > is why the Western countries are losing it right now...
>...if you move fast enough -- you may still get that device you need...
> Looks like we are heading into a serious global economy set-back...
so the simpler the better...
thomas
--
der kleine deutsche oeko-pilz-anbauer \
the small german organic mushroomer http://www.biopilze.de/wir.htm
le petit eco - champignoneur allemand /

From arnt at c2i.net Fri Mar 16 17:18:25 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: *** Update: Bush won't regulate carbon dioxide
In-Reply-To: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4F48@sp0016.epz.nl>
Message-ID: <3AB290E2.13FD6DD1@c2i.net>

Weststeijn A wrote:
>
> > Arnt Karlsen[SMTP:arnt@c2i.net]
> wrote donderdag 15 maart 2001 22:41
>
> > ..chances are you missed my point: CO2 and water are
> > essensial substances for life, it be for grass, mankind or
> > mad cows. Now, hydro power dams _were_ used as veapons both
> > in the Rühr, Germany in WWII, in the Korea War, and in the
> > Former Yugoslavia. Such use of dams are _generally_ banned
> > as war crimes, for many good reasons outlined in the 4
> > Geneva Conventions and their 2 Protocols Additional.
> >
> and connects it with:
>
> > ..this "CO2-debate" or "CO2 consern" essensially boils down
> > "to the fact there is not enough for Asians and Africans too".
> > .."So something must happen."
> >
> OK, Arnt, I see your point. You actually take the CO2 debate a full
> dimension further and question whether honest CO2 concerns could be
> misconstrued in time for projecting classic power politics around the globe
> etc.
>
> In essence I am afraid you are right to have this concern. But I don't have
> an idea how far in the future that point (of actively projecting power)

..I do. ;-)

..do not underestimate the power of innovation and free
enterprise, capitalisms main means of survival of the
fittest, and victory over obsolete institutionalized
petroleumbased technology. Adversative lobbys exist.

..Jim Allchin of Microsoft Corp. spoke recently of outlawing
open source software development under the GNU public license,
which by coincidence, just so happens to be the main software
license in use by the Gnu/Linux community.

..as in, "If you can't beat them, try ban them." ;-)
The best part was, "I believe in the American Way" and
the "need to protect American Industry." ;-D

.._over_half_ of todays electric power comes from coal.
The overall electric yield is about 20% from the mine,
thru the plant and grid, to the light bulb. (The average
light bulb dump about 80% of its incoming energy as heat.
Inside an house, this adds to heat budget.)

..similar numbers are seen in transportation. These two
sectors cover about 2/3 to 3/4 of the global energy market.

..to get people like G. W. Bush's attention, best way is
beat them. Hot American gas guzzling Muscle Cars will be
beaten. Just like Microsoft Windows and the Soviet Union.
By electric flywheel-powered autos, Linux and Russians.

..on peeling madly about, see:

..on Gnu/Linux, see: http://www gnu.org/ and
http://linux.org/ etc., on Russians see etc.

..the flywheels are now being used for spacecraft attitude
control, simply feeding electricity from one wheel to the
other in any axis pair, to rotate the spacecraft as needed.
Which is a more profitable way to operate both flywheels
and spacecraft, providing far more funds for the flywheels
than any automotive user is ready to pay now.
So, a new competive business _is_ being built.

..on the supply side: We need to close the Gates of Waste,
here thermochemical gasification and fuel cells will be
used to produce an easy 70 thru an hard 92% electricity
out of the infired coal, based on a new patent we gas
listers helped inspire here.

..should happen in the next 5-15 years, unless some idiot
launches.

..there _is_enough_ for _all_ of mankind, even living
the American Way, will not produce more pollutant or
CO2 emissions if we manage to triple to quadruple the
current _overall_ energy efficiency. Which we will.

..unless some idiot launches. Fear can make him launch.

--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)

Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.

From arnt at c2i.net Fri Mar 16 17:32:14 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: ..trying again, was: GAS-L: *** Update: Bush won't regulate carbon dioxide
In-Reply-To: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4F48@sp0016.epz.nl>
Message-ID: <3AB2945A.CB0EC1E7@c2i.net>

..I do. ;-)

..Jim Allchin of Microsoft Corp. spoke recently of outlawing
open source software development under the GNU public license,
which, by coincidence, just so happens to be the main software
license in use by the Gnu/Linux community.

..as in, "If you can't beat them, try ban them." ;-)
The best part was, "I believe in the American Way" and
the "need to protect American Industry." ;-D

..similar numbers are seen in transportation. These two
sectors cover about 2/3 to 3/4 of the global energy market.

..on peeling madly about, see:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.05/flywheel_pr.html
http://www.launchspace.com/archive/2000/081400.htm

..on Gnu/Linux, see: http://www gnu.org/ and
http://linux.org/ etc., on Russians see etc.

..should happen in the next 5-15 years, unless some idiot
launches.

..unless some idiot launches. Fear can make him launch.

--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)

Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.

From gary at privacy.nu Fri Mar 16 17:41:47 2001
From: gary at privacy.nu (Gary)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:15 2004
Subject: Fw: GAS-L: Oxygen sensor stuff
Message-ID: <006f01c0ae69$ee26e760$310a0341@mdlnd1.tx.home.com>

> peter,
>
> i started looking for the a/d computer cards you referenced, at first all
i
> could find where in the $1200 range, but i finally find a supplier with
> better prices.
>
> $149 for 8 channel 12bit resolution on isa bus (older computers but still
> available on some new models )
>
http://www.measurementcomputing.com/cbicatalog/cbiproduct.asp?dept%5Fid=234&
> pf%5Fid=183&mscssid=9SUXQ51E39SR2JNS000JU4JKR458CW91
>
> $199 for 8channel 12bit a/d plus 2 channel d/a for control purposes on isa
> bus
>
http://www.measurementcomputing.com/cbicatalog/cbiproduct.asp?dept%5Fid=234&
> pf%5Fid=184&mscssid=9SUXQ51E39SR2JNS000JU4JKR458CW91
>
> $249 for 8 channel 12bit resolution on pci bus (newer standard)
>
http://www.measurementcomputing.com/cbicatalog/cbiproduct.asp?dept%5Fid=238&
> pf%5Fid=1103&mscssid=9SUXQ51E39SR2JNS000JU4JKR458CW91
>
> they also have stand alone data loggers that can store data samples to be
> downloaded to your computer later
>
> gary
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm@btl.net>
> To: <gasification@crest.org>
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 9:08 AM
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: Oxygen sensor stuff
>
>
> > In my case -- a lazy man -- I would simply port the output to an A to D
> > converter card sitting in my computer. I would then be able to monitor
and
> > data log oxygen conditions from two sources.
> >
> > Of course -- this design begs for at least two thermo-couples positioned
> at
> > the oxygen sensors. With the input from those streaming in along the
input
> > from the sensors -- a simple programming can make temperature
corrections.
> > Readings would then be very accurate indeed.
> >
> > Total cost of parts folks? Well, can't count the A/D card or computer --
> > that is a tool that is part of the game. The rest --
> > Peter Singfield / Belize
> >
> > Gasification List is sponsored by
> > USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> > and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
> > -
> > Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> > http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/
> > http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> > http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> > http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> > http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
> >
>

From arnt at c2i.net Fri Mar 16 17:43:36 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: ..got it right now: GAS-L: *** Update: Bush won't regulate carbon dioxide
In-Reply-To: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4F48@sp0016.epz.nl>
Message-ID: <3AB296A3.7202228C@c2i.net>

..I do. ;-)

..as in, "If you can't beat them, try ban them." ;-)
The best part was, "I believe in the American Way" and
the "need to protect American Industry." ;-D

..similar numbers are seen in transportation. These two
sectors cover about 2/3 to 3/4 of the global energy market.

..on peeling madly about, see:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.05/flywheel_pr.html
http://www.launchspace.com/archive/2000/081400.htm

..on Gnu/Linux, see: http://www.gnu.org/ and
http://linux.org/ etc., on Russians see etc.

..should happen in the next 5-15 years, unless some idiot
launches.

..unless some idiot launches. Fear can make him launch.

--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)

Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.

From kenboak at stirlingservice.freeserve.co.uk Fri Mar 16 18:13:35 2001
From: kenboak at stirlingservice.freeserve.co.uk (Ken Boak)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Oxygen sensor stuff - ADCs
In-Reply-To: <006f01c0ae69$ee26e760$310a0341@mdlnd1.tx.home.com>
Message-ID: <017001c0ae6e$aca4f020$57a1883e@boakk>

Great discussion about Lambda sensors - this one really has stirred up some
interest - keep up the good work everyone. Rewarding to see a list really
go to town on a single practical subject and get loads of good input. ( Too
many lists seem to end up as slanging matches between the self-righteous -
and no-one else cotributes).

Re ADC - Possibly consider using the A/D converter present in the sound card
and the MS sound sampler application to see the changing data.

In the UK a company called Picotech do a A/D which plugs into the serial
port - about $95

http://www.picotech.com/

http://www.picotech.com/data-logging-software.html

Alternatively buy a PIC 16F877 and you have an 8 channel 10 bit converter on
a single chip. You couldrun the whole control system - relays, fans etc from
the PIC.

Check out www.microchip.com

I have a board that takes an '877 and powers it from the serial port. You
can then read the A/D readings as a series of serial readings - say one per
second.

You can store these readings to a file with a simple VB program and "Robert
is your father's brother"!

Total cost - $10

Regards

Ken.

From gary at privacy.nu Fri Mar 16 18:17:42 2001
From: gary at privacy.nu (Gary)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: re: GAS-L Oxygen sensor stuff
Message-ID: <00d001c0ae6e$e2b19ba0$310a0341@mdlnd1.tx.home.com>

sorry i messed up the links, these should
work

peter,i started looking for the a/d
computer cards you referenced, at first all icould find where in the $1200
range, but i finally find a supplier withbetter prices.$149 for 8
channel 12bit resolution on isa bus (older computers but stillavailable on
some new models )
<A
href="http://www.measurementcomputing.com/cbicatalog/cbiproduct.asp?dept_id=117&pf_id=183&mscssid=K3VPQ51E39SR2JNS000JU4JKRCC7BSME">http://www.measurementcomputing.com/cbicatalog/cbiproduct.asp?dept_id=117&pf_id=183&mscssid=K3VPQ51E39SR2JNS000JU4JKRCC7BSME$199
for 8channel 12bit a/d plus 2 channel d/a for control purposes on
isabus<A
href="http://www.measurementcomputing.com/cbicatalog/cbiproduct.asp?dept_id=117&pf_id=184&mscssid=K3VPQ51E39SR2JNS000JU4JKRCC7BSME">http://www.measurementcomputing.com/cbicatalog/cbiproduct.asp?dept%5Fid=117&pf%5Fid=184&mscssid=K3VPQ51E39SR2JNS000JU4JKRCC7BSME
$249 for 8 channel 12bit resolution on pci bus
(newer standard)<A
href="http://www.measurementcomputing.com/cbicatalog/cbiproduct.asp?dept_id=138&pf_id=1103&mscssid=K3VPQ51E39SR2JNS000JU4JKRCC7BSME">http://www.measurementcomputing.com/cbicatalog/cbiproduct.asp?dept%5Fid=138&pf%5Fid=1103&mscssid=K3VPQ51E39SR2JNS000JU4JKRCC7BSMEthey
also have stand alone data loggers that can store data samples to
bedownloaded to your computer latergary----- Original
Message -----From: "Peter Singfield" <<A
href="mailto:snkm@btl.net">snkm@btl.net>To: <<A
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org>Sent:
Friday, March 16, 2001 9:08 AMSubject: Re: GAS-L: Oxygen sensor
stuff> In my case -- a lazy man -- I would simply port the output
to an A to D> converter card sitting in my computer. I would then be able
to monitor and> data log oxygen conditions from two
sources.>> Of course -- this design begs for at least two
thermo-couples positionedat> the oxygen sensors. With the input from
those streaming in along the input> from the sensors -- a simple
programming can make temperature corrections.> Readings would then be
very accurate indeed.>> Total cost of parts folks? Well, can't
count the A/D card or computer --> that is a tool that is part of the
game. The rest --> Peter Singfield / Belize>> Gasification
List is sponsored by> USDOE BioPower Program <A
href="http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/">http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/>
and PRM Energy Systems <A
href="http://www.prmenergy.com">http://www.prmenergy.com> ->
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information> <A
href="http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/">http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/> <A
href="http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive">http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive>
<A
href="http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml">http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml>
<A
href="http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/">http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/>
<A
href="http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml">http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml>

From snkm at btl.net Fri Mar 16 18:19:45 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:15 2004
Subject: Fw: GAS-L: Oxygen sensor stuff
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010316171451.0093a7c0@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Gary;

Ok --- just so happens I had brought down one of the spare cards I had when
I moved here -- over 12 years ago -- let me go see if I can find it ---

Ok -- found it -- but I have to go out now -- tomorrow --

Hey -- I can even take digital pics of it all -- plus I have the manual
that goes with it.

Everything still looks like it would function -- but the supplied software
is on 5 in floppies!!

If you want to check it out on the WWW (might still be something out there)

It was bought from Omega Engineering Inc.

Model DAS-8 A/D Converter

Also -- comes with the Model EXP-16 -- Analog Input Multiplexer

This is a terminal board that sits outside the computer and interfaces with
the card in the computer slot by ribbon cable -- hmm -- bet I still have
those somewhere as well.

Hmm -- looking over that board with a large magnifying glass -- also has 8
output channels with power transistor drivers!!

And 16 channel inputs -- to a 12 bit A/D converter. That works by
multiplexing on the 8 channel card -- cute!

See you can "chain" at least 8 more cards like this besides!!

Hmm -- both boards are in excellent condition under a strong glass
examination -- still new!!

Gary - I can send you very detailed close up pictures with all the chip
number clear.

Got a feeling this unit is all we need for proto-typing a gasifier oxygen
sensor to computer project.

Well folks --- now I really have to go. Came back in and there was a
special invitation from our Prime Minister to meet him at 7:00 PM -- it is
now 5:15 -- and my "whites" need to be found, pressed -- and I have to get
bathed and dressed.

Hmm -- wonder which of my old projects they are interested in now??

Peter Singfield / Belize

At 04:39 PM 3/16/2001 -0600, you wrote:
>
>
>> peter,
>>
>> i started looking for the a/d computer cards you referenced, at first all
>i
>> could find where in the $1200 range, but i finally find a supplier with
>> better prices.
>>
>> $149 for 8 channel 12bit resolution on isa bus (older computers but still
>> available on some new models )
>>
>http://www.measurementcomputing.com/cbicatalog/cbiproduct.asp?dept%5Fid=234&
>> pf%5Fid=183&mscssid=9SUXQ51E39SR2JNS000JU4JKR458CW91
>>
>> $199 for 8channel 12bit a/d plus 2 channel d/a for control purposes on isa
>> bus
>>
>http://www.measurementcomputing.com/cbicatalog/cbiproduct.asp?dept%5Fid=234&
>> pf%5Fid=184&mscssid=9SUXQ51E39SR2JNS000JU4JKR458CW91
>>
>> $249 for 8 channel 12bit resolution on pci bus (newer standard)
>>
>http://www.measurementcomputing.com/cbicatalog/cbiproduct.asp?dept%5Fid=238&
>> pf%5Fid=1103&mscssid=9SUXQ51E39SR2JNS000JU4JKR458CW91
>>
>> they also have stand alone data loggers that can store data samples to be
>> downloaded to your computer later
>>
>> gary
>>

From ericbj at club-internet.fr Sat Mar 17 06:38:02 2001
From: ericbj at club-internet.fr (Eric Bruce Johnston)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Bush won't regulate carbon dioxide
In-Reply-To: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4F48@sp0016.epz.nl>
Message-ID: <3AB34E78.E85DA7F2@club-internet.fr>

One factor in this exchange of views on climate change - the whether or not
and wherefore - is perhaps receiving scant attention, since the participants
are from the wealthier parts of the world.

The lives of most people on earth hang by a thin thread.
Industrial "civilisation" is stretching that thread to breaking-point.
(Not least by the destruction of social cohesion)

The assumption is often made that we can adapt to changing environment.
Tell that to the dead of the Sahel, of Bangladesh, of Mozambique ...

Our technology must adapt to take care of the environment.
Failing which, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that people will rise
against the system and smash it.

The tide is turning.
(It is just that some people have not seen the writing on the wall)

From arnt at c2i.net Sat Mar 17 09:35:44 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Bush won't regulate carbon dioxide
In-Reply-To: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4F48@sp0016.epz.nl>
Message-ID: <3AB37639.7CBFF64F@c2i.net>

Eric Bruce Johnston wrote:
>
> One factor in this exchange of views on climate change - the whether or not
> and wherefore - is perhaps receiving scant attention, since the participants
> are from the wealthier parts of the world.
>
> The lives of most people on earth hang by a thin thread.
> Industrial "civilisation" is stretching that thread to breaking-point.
> (Not least by the destruction of social cohesion)
>
> The assumption is often made that we can adapt to changing environment.
> Tell that to the dead of the Sahel, of Bangladesh, of Mozambique ...
>
> Our technology must adapt to take care of the environment.
> Failing which, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that people will rise
> against the system and smash it.

..very true. Few people I know are willing to open fire on
hungry people asking for a wee part of the wealth.

..most people I know can be _brought_ to believe the hungry
ones will try firearms next, as they _experience_ current and
past Realpolitik. _Then_, they can be brought to the _next_
_step_, firing back. Which is _as_ effective as Auschwitz.

..because _nobody_ comes up with better alternatives than
running around in rings, screaming and shouting, with your
eyes open, and, with your eyes shut.

> The tide is turning.

...and, this is _the_ profitable opportunity. Quit whining.
Or move the Global Warming Noise to its own list. Leave it
to the obsolete petroleumbased traditionalists, their whining
will help boost the stock value of our solutions to the "problem."

..willage stoves are fine to learn about thermochemistry, carbon
and gasification. Like Linux in the early days, amateurs share
their knowledge. No _money_ in that, its idealism.
As one understands the needs of profitable businesses, _and_
how to serve those needs _profitably_, profits can be had.

..for us, the big businesses are coal burning power plants.
Produces over half of all electricity on this planet.
So, we turn the tide. as we please.

..watch Microsoft and Linux. Same story.

> (It is just that some people have not seen the writing on the wall)

..all I see is fat people running in rings carrying nukes.
Now, get back to work. ;-)
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)

Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.

From LINVENT at aol.com Sat Mar 17 10:32:40 2001
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: *** Update: Bush won't regulate carbon dioxide
Message-ID: <73.be55521.27e4dd33@aol.com>

Dear Global warmers social activists:
If you would like to see what the "haves" are doing for the "have nots",
take a look at the projects which the World Bank is doing at worldbank.com.
It will blow your mind. Billiions and billions of dollars for helping poor
nations. I cannot feel guilty seeing this.
So, to those who feel guilty, there is a site for contributing to the
cause, send your money in.

Tom Taylor

From kssustain at provide.net Sat Mar 17 10:59:28 2001
From: kssustain at provide.net (Kermit Schlansker)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass scenarion
Message-ID: <001101c0aefa$11bc8b40$ec4256d8@default>

Biomass Fact and Scenario Sheet
Total energy used in USA=96 quadrillion Btus (Quads)/yr. USA area =2.37
billion acres. Assuming 1 billion acres useable, producing 4000lbs/acre/yr at
6000 btus/lb, per acre energy production/yr would be 24 million btus. Total
energy produceable/yr from biomass would be 24 quads. These numbers can be
massaged up or down. However, biomass growth is limited by fertilizer, water,
soil quality, labor, and governmental wisdom. We need a mass tree planting
program right now. It seems unlikely that we could produce more than 20 quads of
biomass per year. However biomass is the most useful alternate energy because it
is useful in the winter, at night, when the wind is not blowing, and the sun is
not shining. The ashes may be crucial for fertilizer, and legumes in bio
digesters may be able to produce food, energy, and nitrogen fertilizer.
For trees planted on a 10 feet grid, 400 trees could be planted on 1 acre, so
400 billion trees could be planted on 1 billion acres. Assume 100 billion trees
in US at 1000 lbs/tree, 6000 btus/lb. Assume that it takes 50 years say the tree
reaches 1000 lbs. The accumulated energy storage would be 2.4 billion btus/acre.
The total US energy storage of wood, would be 2400 quads. At $1 per tree the
cost of planting would be 100 billion dollars. This calculation shows double the
yearly energy production the previous one did. However these numbers are
accurate enough to show how valuable a mass tree planting program would be to
our grandchildren. Also Global Warming would be reduced by the storage of
carbon.
Since there will not be enough Biomass it should be used primarily in winter
for cogeneration and co-manufacturing. By doing this any waste heat can be used
to heat buildings and much energy is saved.
Wood should not be burned in fireplaces or wood stoves to heat houses because
that is too inefficient. Instead wood energy must be converted to both energy
and heat. The traditional way of doing this is by boiler and steam engine. This
system will undoubtedly be used. However another way is to gasify the wood by
burning it with insufficient oxygen. This produces a poisonous burnable gas
which can be used in internal combustion engines, thus eliminating the boiler
and condenser. From this gas it is also possible to make methanol which is a
possibility for tractor fuel. It is also possible to power tractors and other
vehicles from wood by mounting the wood gas generator directly on the vehicle.
My belief is that making methanol in winter as a co-manufacturing process would
be the best way to provide fuel for agriculture which does not depend on oil.
Charcoal is a better fuel than wood and is easier to adapt to vehicular
operation. However there is much heat and gaseous energy lost in making it.
Therefore charcoal could also possibly be manufactured in winter as a
co-manufacturing process.
Bio-methane can also be made in a large vessel using soft biomass such as
sewage, leaves, grasses, paper, saw dust, and stalks using an anaerobic
bacterial digestion process. From this gas it is also possible to make methanol.
Again a co-manufacturing process is best. The biggest advantage of this
biodigestion is that nitrogen is retained in the effluent from the process. This
means that it is possible to manufacture both energy and fertilizer from
leguminous plants and sewage.
Using fermented grain to make ethanol has been characterized as a break- even
energy process not worth doing. However if the fermentation and distillation
processes were done in winter as co-manufacturing processes then the energy
balance would be much more favorable. It also might be possible to grow wood and
fruit by mass planting apple trees. Any surplus of apples could also be used to
make ethanol with no plowing costs. Potatoes might be a more energy effective
ethanol crop than grain.
Since fertilizer will also be scarce all sewage, manure, ashes, and residues
from biomass processing must be carefully saved and used as fertilizer.
In my opinion, a mass planting of fruit and nut trees might save millions of
lives in 2050. The question is whether the people care enough about the little
children to plant them.
Kermit Schlansker PE

From jgordes at earthlink.net Sat Mar 17 11:13:19 2001
From: jgordes at earthlink.net (jgordes)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Bush won't regulate carbon dioxide
In-Reply-To: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4F48@sp0016.epz.nl>
Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.0.20010317105444.009f9990@127.0.0.1>

Dear All,

It seems that there is a certain amount of mean-spirited communications
taking place regarding the climate change and global equity issues. Let me
say, as US citizen, I am not proud of the positions of some of my
countrymen in this dialogue. As for the World Bank investments, I wonder
just how much the billions and billions of dollars translate into on a per
capita basis. Not much is my guess. Finally, one of the nice things I can
say about the military (went to fine little school for this "down the road"
from Tom Reed) is that at least they can tell friend from foe by the
uniforms they wear. Not so with us as it is almost inconceivable to me
that folks who promote gasified biomass energy would alienate climate
activists from their conversation. It's like attacking some of your biggest
supporters but, then, some techies are not as politically astute as others
from my observations.

I do hope some civility returns to the conversation BUT allows dialogue on
all driver for biomass gasification (which I consider a no-regrets
strategy) including climate change. One reason it is a "no regrets"
strategy is that one of my main purposes to endorse this technology is so
we are not so dependent on oil that we have to go to war to protect
undemocratic nations because they literally have us over a barrel. My oath
of office was to the Constitution of the US not to preserve oil supply
because we wasted our own. A lot of other ex-military feel the same. So do
it for some other reason BUT if it benefits climate change mitigation that
is great too. As the insurers say "absence of certainty does not mean
absence of risk" and that certainly covers climate change for them as well

Yours in Peace Through Gasification
Joel N. Gordes

"The answer to pollution, revolution and economic prostitution rises in the
East every morning."

At 03:35 PM 03/17/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>Eric Bruce Johnston wrote:
> >
> > One factor in this exchange of views on climate change - the whether
> or not
> > and wherefore - is perhaps receiving scant attention, since the
> participants
> > are from the wealthier parts of the world.
> >
> > The lives of most people on earth hang by a thin thread.
> > Industrial "civilisation" is stretching that thread to breaking-point.
> > (Not least by the destruction of social cohesion)
> >
> > The assumption is often made that we can adapt to changing environment.
> > Tell that to the dead of the Sahel, of Bangladesh, of Mozambique ...
> >
> > Our technology must adapt to take care of the environment.
> > Failing which, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that people
> will rise
> > against the system and smash it.
>
>..very true. Few people I know are willing to open fire on
>hungry people asking for a wee part of the wealth.
>
>..most people I know can be _brought_ to believe the hungry
>ones will try firearms next, as they _experience_ current and
>past Realpolitik. _Then_, they can be brought to the _next_
>_step_, firing back. Which is _as_ effective as Auschwitz.
>
>..because _nobody_ comes up with better alternatives than
>running around in rings, screaming and shouting, with your
>eyes open, and, with your eyes shut.
>
> > The tide is turning.
>
>...and, this is _the_ profitable opportunity. Quit whining.
>Or move the Global Warming Noise to its own list. Leave it
>to the obsolete petroleumbased traditionalists, their whining
>will help boost the stock value of our solutions to the "problem."
>
>..willage stoves are fine to learn about thermochemistry, carbon
>and gasification. Like Linux in the early days, amateurs share
>their knowledge. No _money_ in that, its idealism.
>As one understands the needs of profitable businesses, _and_
>how to serve those needs _profitably_, profits can be had.
>
>..for us, the big businesses are coal burning power plants.
>Produces over half of all electricity on this planet.
>So, we turn the tide. as we please.
>
>..watch Microsoft and Linux. Same story.
>
> > (It is just that some people have not seen the writing on the wall)
>
>..all I see is fat people running in rings carrying nukes.
>Now, get back to work. ;-)
>--
>..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
>
> Scenarios always come in sets of three:
> best case, worst case, and just in case.
>
>
>Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>-
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

Joel N. Gordes
Environmental Energy Solutions
P.O. Box 101
Riverton, CT 06065
(860) 379-2430

"Dedicated to executing ideas, not killing them!"

Be sure to visit our web site at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~jgordes

From A.Weststeijn at epz.nl Sat Mar 17 11:19:29 2001
From: A.Weststeijn at epz.nl (Weststeijn A)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: ..got it right now
Message-ID: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4F4E@sp0016.epz.nl>

> Arnt Karlsen[SMTP:arnt@c2i.net]
wrote vrijdag 16 maart 2001 23:41

> ..do not underestimate the power of innovation and free
> enterprise, capitalisms main means of survival of the
> fittest, and victory over obsolete institutionalized
> petroleumbased technology. Adversative lobbys exist.
>
For the purpose of this debate, let's split your reference to free
enterprise and capitalism in two stages:
stage 1) stimulating innovation
stage 2) monopolizing innovation
It usually starts with 1) and may turn into 2) when sufficient scale in the
reference area has been reached and no checks and balances are in place.

What we need in this renewable energy, energy conservation and CO2 emissions
debate is the inspiration and capabilities of stage 1), without ending up
with the negative side of stage 2).
It is not my intention to debate politics here, but it is clear that an
final resource like fossil energy (like available drinking and irrigation
water) belongs to the set of potential sources of future multinational
friction if nothing would be done to prevent that happening. Especially when
that friction is being multiplied by hard to accommodate climate changes
etc.
So obviously we have to make sure NOW, that it will not get out of hand
LATER.
We indeed should not go to war over oil, but neither over the right (or
practice) of emitting CO2. So far Arnt's point.

Enters the importance of innovation in a free enterprise climate! That will
make for clever and early market introductions! I am convinced that there is
a lot of room for types of applications and yet not thought off
combinations, best handled by the smaller flexible outfits (example: the
wind turbine industry, parts of the H2 fuel cell development).
Next to that there is and will be a need for long term basic research, to be
funded by major corporations and government by mere virtue of its long term
nature and long payback periods. And not to forget the capital outlay for
scaling up to production to competitive prices (example: upscaling of
PVcells production).

Most of us on this List are fortunate enough to work under the free
enterprise system allowing for freedom of innovation and application. The
shorter the time scale of our work, the higher the chance that that work is
privately funded. The longer the time scale, the higher the chance that it
is corporation or government funded.
In the renewable energy field there are many mixes as well: privately funded
short time work stimulated (subsidized) by government.

In this matrix of developments some will try and claim exclusivity again
pushing others out. That is my stage 2) above. Nothing new, it has been
going on since the industrial revolution. But it also is already 100 years
ago that the Standard Oil monopoly was broken, so lots of experience is
available to counter act.

> ..Jim Allchin of Microsoft Corp. spoke recently of outlawing
> open source software development under the GNU public license,
> which, by coincidence, just so happens to be the main software
> license in use by the Gnu/Linux community.
>
Good example of what I mean with my stage 2), the monopolizing phase, which
with help of anti trust experience needs to be channeled properly (I try to
avoid the word regulated whereas that instills anger in some).

> ..as in, "If you can't beat them, try ban them." ;-)
> The best part was, "I believe in the American Way" and
> the "need to protect American Industry." ;-D
>
The interesting thing is that the American Way shows excellent examples of
the innovative side, but also of the monopolizing side. It is fine to stand
up for one's interest but call it what it is: plain own interest. Which is
different from free enterprise or capitalism. Free enterprise is
characterized by the freedom of initiative, not by the freedom of unlimited
wielding power. Excellent examples of attempts to wield power can be found
in the Word Trade Association negotiations.
Depending where you live in the world the emphasis of the news shifts.
Fortunately, through media like these Lists, the degree of objectivity in
the news is now being helped, since subjectivity directly unleashes a flood
of comments. Great.

> .._over_half_ of todays electric power comes from coal.
> The overall electric yield is about 20% from the mine,
> thru the plant and grid, to the light bulb. (The average
> light bulb dump about 80% of its incoming energy as heat.
> Inside an house, this adds to heat budget.)
>
Bad enough. Comes close to my work. People in my line of work try to
optimize under a financial ceiling: the going rate for electricity.
That's a debate in itself: how that rate comes about in a playing field of
commercial and political forces.
>
> ..similar numbers are seen in transportation. These two
> sectors cover about 2/3 to 3/4 of the global energy market.
>
True

> ..to get people like G. W. Bush's attention, best way is
> beat them. Hot American gas guzzling Muscle Cars will be
> beaten.
>
They basically were beaten, by the Japanese and the Europeans.
But now a new generation of heavy private vehicles pops up: heavy RV's and
pick-ups bringing back the macho image of big CC engines. You can't beat
that by better technology, that simply is elected life style. Only financial
constraints help to influence that, moral appeals etc are not enough.

> Just like Microsoft Windows
>
Microsoft has brought about a lot of changes and opened up a world of new
options for many millions. By bringing it out of the lab and on to the
masses. That's good, that my stage 1.
Now the monopolizing forces need to be channeled correctly, without killing
the innovative and entrepreneurial spirit.
Checks and balances.

> and the Soviet Union.
>
Is different.
I don't think they were beaten as much as they blew themselves up from
within.
That has been a close call though, to sit out that stand-off period without
a mutually unwanted accident triggering something terrible in the
meantime...

> ..the flywheels are now being used for spacecraft attitude
> control, simply feeding electricity from one wheel to the
> other in any axis pair, to rotate the spacecraft as needed.
> Which is a more profitable way to operate both flywheels
> and spacecraft, providing far more funds for the flywheels
> than any automotive user is ready to pay now.
> So, a new competive business _is_ being built.
>
Reading up on the flywheels links, like:
Riding magnetic bearings inside a vacuum container,
it reminds me of the technology of centrifuge uranium enrichment.
So if one combines material and manufacturing inventions from aerospace and
nuclear applications (both well funded etc), that will no doubt lead to
complete new applications for daily life, including conventional energy
storage.
After the basic research problems are solved in these expensive industries,
it is just a matter of time for prices to come down when manufacturing
volume goes up.

> ..on the supply side: We need to close the Gates of Waste,
> here thermochemical gasification and fuel cells will be
> used to produce an easy 70 thru an hard 92% electricity
> out of the infired coal, based on a new patent we gas
> listers helped inspire here.
>
Why not. This List type of interaction has the ability to easily reach
across professional borders and thereby cross-fertilize industrial
development.

> ..should happen in the next 5-15 years, unless some idiot
> launches.
>
> ..there _is_enough_ for _all_ of mankind, even living
> the American Way, will not produce more pollutant or
> CO2 emissions if we manage to triple to quadruple the
> current _overall_ energy efficiency. Which we will.
>
Let's start with doubling that efficiency for bulk usage, and create some
more time for adaptation to the climate change. In the meantime, the tripled
and quadrupled efficiencies may be tried out in small special applications.

> ..unless some idiot launches. Fear can make him launch.
>
Fear comes from lack of info and/or feelings of isolation.
Clear what needs to be done there.

Best regards,
Andries Weststeijn

From A.Weststeijn at epz.nl Sat Mar 17 13:07:34 2001
From: A.Weststeijn at epz.nl (Weststeijn A)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: *** Update: Bush won't regulate carbon dioxide
Message-ID: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4F4F@sp0016.epz.nl>

Tom Tayler LINVENT@aol.com[SMTP:LINVENT@aol.com]
writes zaterdag 17 maart 2001 16:30

> Dear Global warmers social activists:
> If you would like to see what the "haves" are doing for the "have
> nots",
> take a look at the projects which the World Bank is doing at
> worldbank.com.
> It will blow your mind. Billiions and billions of dollars for helping poor
>
> nations. I cannot feel guilty seeing this.
> So, to those who feel guilty, there is a site for contributing to the
> cause, send your money in.
>
Dear Tom Taylor,
I am sorry to say but the issue at hand is not about have's and have not's,
or helping poor nations abroad on a per capita basis. It is about emissions
and its impact, and that stuff tends to blow around the globe, making it
everybody's business.

Let me be clear in order not to be misunderstood: there certainly are other
examples of human activities with major global emissions impact, like land
clearing by burning tropical forests, or release of coal methane from coal
mines. This is not about singling out the US (US bashing) if that is what
you are afraid of (considering your heading "dear social activists").

The mere fact that this thread started with the news of president Bush's
recent action on CO2 made the initial comments to be US-oriented. However,
what it is really all about is a world scale issue which ought to be
quantified and made manageable. And due to the huge US economy (multiplied
by its energy-intensity) the US simply NEEDS to be included for any solution
to have a sufficiently "global" effect. That point will be kept driven home
by many people and institutions inside and outside the US.

Blowing vulcano's are bad enough as to their effects on the subject at stake
but are obviously outside our grasp. However, the world is getting too small
to leave the man-made influence out of the international cooperation.
Fortunately the required frame work for that cooperation has been shaping
over the past 10 years. Now the assorted national interests need to be
hashed out and fitted in. Perhaps partly in terms of "national green
credits" (basically dividing a pro capita right to emit). But probably not
in terms of "buying-off" in straight dollars as you seem to suggest.

best regards,
Andries Weststeijn

From snkm at btl.net Sat Mar 17 15:04:43 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: re: GAS-L Oxygen sensor stuff
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010317135955.008fec60@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Gary;

Yes - went and got them -- good stuff. Some look exactly the same as what I
have at hand.

But am seriously side tracked now looking at stand alone controllers.

First -- the 68HC11 is alive and well -- piles of stuff out there -- but
here is a good place to start:

http://nav.webring.yahoo.com/hub?ring=hc11&list

Motorola has a huge line of controllers now -- and "kits"

roam around from:

http://mot-sps.com/products/

That will keep any one busy for a week or two.

Now -- on to another method of digital entry -- "Trainers"

I found one really good one at:

http://www.tri-plc.com/index.htm

The actual "trainer" they offer cost $299.00 US and will do a zillion times
more than what anyone on this list needs.

"Trainers" are used as training devices for people getting into micro
processor based control instrumentation.

Trilogi offers the complete course -- for free -- just download and study
-- though eventually you will buy their devices -- both they and I are sure.

Folks -- their is a veritable treasure chest of stuff out there!

Well, I guess if we get serious about digitalizing gasifiers -- we must
start a development program.

I imagine we can do this right on line -- here on this list. Easy as making
a pie.

But before we start building electronic devices -- we should start by flow
diagraming the control functions.

Some examples.

Temperature
Pressure
Oxygen sensing
Timing and time stamping
and ????

That is make a concise a list of what we would like to know about the
process.

Then:

Controls --

Fuel feeding
Air inlets
Suction pressures
and???

You will notice when going over those Urls I supplied above that stepping
motors are "big" for control functions -- that is as "actuators" that can
be indexed, have the brake put on -- etc.

Stepping motors are big and expensive and require complicated electronics
to operate.

Many years back I was using the cheapest Black and Decker hand drills I
could find to do all this.

I would have to "practice-up" again -- but believe we worked these on DC
voltage. We rigged a 3rd brush -- which was both indexer and brake.

Anyway -- you have to pay 1000's of dollars to get a stepping motor with
the same strength available for actuation in a 3/8 in, B&D, common hand
drill -- which sells for under $50.

Rule of thumb when doing control instrumentation -- you can never have to
many sensors covering your process.

As example -- the Lamba sensor is both pressure and temperature variable.
So instead of blowing your wad on a heated lamba -- it is cheaper to twist
a thermocouple together. By that way -- simply buy a 100 feet of small
guage thermocouple lead wire -- cheap -- cut into the lenghts you want.
Then tightly twist one end and attach the other to your board -- if you
want extra -- silver solder the twist. Or if to high heat -- spot weld the
twist. Or if your rich -- buy one ready made.

K or J type are the easiest to work with.

Low pressure sensors are common in automotives these days. So put one of
those besides the lamba sensor as well.

Now -- when all three readings come steaming in -- run your look-up tables
and get a compensated reading into your data base -- very accurate.

Besides -- keep the temp and pressure readings seperated as well -- as they
say -- knowlege is power -- data logging is knowlege -- right?

Peter Singfield / Belize

At 05:14 PM 3/16/2001 -0600, you wrote:
>>>>
sorry i messed up the links, these should work peter,

i started looking for the a/d computer cards you referenced, at first all i
could find where in the $1200 range, but i finally find a supplier with
better prices.

$149 for 8 channel 12bit resolution on isa bus (older computers but still
available on some new models )
&pf_id=183&mscssid=K3VPQ51E39SR2JNS000JU4JKRCC7BSME">http://www.measurementc
omputing.com/cbicatalog/cbiproduct.asp?dept_id=117&pf_id=183&mscssid=K3VPQ51
E39SR2JNS000JU4JKRCC7BSME

$199 for 8channel 12bit a/d plus 2 channel d/a for control purposes on isa
bus
&pf_id=184&mscssid=K3VPQ51E39SR2JNS000JU4JKRCC7BSME">http://www.measurementc
omputing.com/cbicatalog/cbiproduct.asp?dept%5Fid=117&pf%5Fid=184&mscssid=K3V
PQ51E39SR2JNS000JU4JKRCC7BSME
$249 for 8 channel 12bit resolution on pci bus (newer standard)
&pf_id=1103&mscssid=K3VPQ51E39SR2JNS000JU4JKRCC7BSME">http://www.measurement
computing.com/cbicatalog/cbiproduct.asp?dept%5Fid=138&pf%5Fid=1103&mscssid=K
3VPQ51E39SR2JNS000JU4JKRCC7BSME

they also have stand alone data loggers that can store data samples to be
downloaded to your computer later

gary

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm@btl.net>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Oxygen sensor stuff

> In my case -- a lazy man -- I would simply port the output to an A to D
> converter card sitting in my computer. I would then be able to monitor and
> data log oxygen conditions from two sources.
>
> Of course -- this design begs for at least two thermo-couples positioned
at
> the oxygen sensors. With the input from those streaming in along the input
> from the sensors -- a simple programming can make temperature corrections.
> Readings would then be very accurate indeed.
>
> Total cost of parts folks? Well, can't count the A/D card or computer --
> that is a tool that is part of the game. The rest --
> Peter Singfield / Belize
>
> Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
> -
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>

From arnt at c2i.net Sat Mar 17 15:32:46 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Bush won't regulate carbon dioxide
In-Reply-To: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4F48@sp0016.epz.nl>
Message-ID: <3AB3C9EB.FF3D0321@c2i.net>

jgordes wrote:

> activists from their conversation. It's like attacking some of your biggest
> supporters but, then, some techies are not as politically astute as others
> from my observations.

..much of what I hear from the concerned environmentalists,
tend to confirm Vladimir Lenins wise words on useful idiots.
Much of this is a product of deterioating education in the
4 principal sciences, in both the US, and in Europe.

> I do hope some civility returns to the conversation BUT allows dialogue on
> all driver for biomass gasification (which I consider a no-regrets
> strategy) including climate change. One reason it is a "no regrets"
> strategy is that one of my main purposes to endorse this technology is so
> we are not so dependent on oil that we have to go to war to protect
> undemocratic nations because they literally have us over a barrel. My oath
> of office was to the Constitution of the US not to preserve oil supply
> because we wasted our own. A lot of other ex-military feel the same. So do
> it for some other reason BUT if it benefits climate change mitigation that
> is great too. As the insurers say "absence of certainty does not mean
> absence of risk" and that certainly covers climate change for them as well

..agreed. Whenever I screw up, I want to have my friends
and coworker tell me, and as bluntly as they have to, to
have me understand how etc I screw up. So I can fix it.
Its called criticism.

> Yours in Peace Through Gasification
> Joel N. Gordes
>
> "The answer to pollution, revolution and economic prostitution rises in the
> East every morning."

..yep. Meanwhile we'll build a _global_ market for it,
gasifying coal, spinning flywheels, peeling madly and
making fat profits. Face it, boring japanese or european
autos may be more economic, but they do not outperform
the fun muscle cars. Do that in an electric vehicle,
with MW power, that runs cheaper than the Japanese and
European imports, and it's a winner. These auto _has_
to be fun rides. Just like Linux.

..drop one of these requirements, and the average man
will hang on to the petroleum burners for more decades.
Which again will keep 3/4 of mankind out of the party,
like now. And the average man will feel guilty.

..once the coal energy prices approach petroleum in
the next 30 year or so, solar energy should have a real
market. Cheer up, it's not all that hard.

..the only major problem I see, is EUropean nukes.
Remove them, and I shall feel _much_ safer.

> >Now, get back to work. ;-)

--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)

Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.

From LINVENT at aol.com Sat Mar 17 17:51:22 2001
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Bush won't regulate carbon dioxide
Message-ID: <a5.130633ca.27e54406@aol.com>

Dear Global Warming worriers...
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself...
Without knowing what the solar output is this cycle, we are still arguing
about how many angels dancing on a pinhead. Pitting egos against each other.
The World Bank has a large number of agricultural projects, CO2 eaters, so
send your checks to them.
Plants absorb CO2 during sunlight and give is off at night by using oxygen
when they burn the sugars they make during sunlight.
I have an overall arrogance that mankind will survive and prevail. It has
dealt with many disasters, regulated it's activities and fun to watch. To
those who think, life is a comedy to those who feel, it is a tragedy.
Otherwise, gasification is an interesting challenge and a real opportunity to
solve many major social problems. I do not need irrational reasons to pursue
it as I have for the last 25 years. They will often come around and bite you.
They are a two edged sword and I prefer not to embrace them.

Sincerely,

Leland T. Taylor
President
Thermogenics Inc.
7100-2nd St. NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87107
phone 505-344-4846 fax 505-344-6090

From ericbj at club-internet.fr Sat Mar 17 18:33:36 2001
From: ericbj at club-internet.fr (Eric Bruce Johnston)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: *** Update: Bush won't regulate carbon dioxide
In-Reply-To: <73.be55521.27e4dd33@aol.com>
Message-ID: <3AB3F631.7D42D79F@club-internet.fr>

LINVENT@aol.com a écrit:

> Dear Global warmers social activists:
> If you would like to see what the "haves" are doing for the "have nots",
> take a look at the projects which the World Bank is doing at worldbank.com.
> It will blow your mind. Billiions and billions of dollars for helping poor
> nations. I cannot feel guilty seeing this.

Intoxication ! And my mind is still intact.

The World Bank represents the interests of the world's big businesses,
opening up new markets for them. Otherwise how come it is so successful
at provoking food riots amongst the world's poorest?

As an instance of World Bank policy, see a recent article in the
Washington Post, republished in the Courrier International under the
title "The World Bank, Gravedigger of the Mozambique economy". And
along the way take a look at their "Energy from Biomass" report and tell
me how much of that would be of use to third world villagers. But maybe
I'm just prejudiced.

If you could do with a narrow shaft of light on a single instance of how
transnationals can bring development to an "underdeveloped" people, take
a look at my site:

http://www.geocities.com/rainbowendsfr/

(Some, but not all, is in French : mainly aimed at a French audience)
Don't all rush to it, the site is dreadfully slow ; which is why I shall
be moving it soon.

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sun Mar 18 08:26:51 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:15 2004
Subject: Wit Kniters - C<-->F
Message-ID: <1e.12c867d6.27e6113d@cs.com>

Most of us are faced with frequent conversion of C to F and F to C - in our
daily weather thinking and in our stoves and gasifiers.

We all know (?) that

F = 9/5 C + 32, F = 1.8 C + 32,
C = 5/9 (F-32) C = 0.555 (F-32)

Unfortunately, I was never taught my tables of 1.8 or 0.555. However,
multiplying and dividing by 2 or 0.2 is quite easy.

So, try

F = 2C - 0.2 C + 32

(eg 100 C = 200-20+32 = 212 is easy to do "in the head".)

It's a little harder going the other way, since multiplying by .555... is
harder.

C = 1/2 (F - 32) + 1/20 (F - 32) + 1/200 (F - 32)
+ ...

(The first two steps are usually sufficient.)

eg 212 F = (180)/2 + 180/20 + 180/200 + ... = 99.999.. = 100

~~~~~~~~`
Here's a "wit knitter":

What centigrade temperature is exactly half of it's fahrenheit equivalent?

~~~~~~~

I'm getting older, but currently I'm only [(24 C) F] years old

All work and no play makes Jack a dull Boy (and Jill a dull Dame)

TOM REED GASIFICATION MODERATOR

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sun Mar 18 08:29:27 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Extended List Names...
Message-ID: <ca.1252cd06.27e61140@cs.com>

Dear Tom and ALL

It would be useful to have an extended name for the various lists and the
subjects that arise spontaneously, eg

GASIFICATION = GASIFICATION (Pyrolysis, Combustion, General Thermal
Conversion, Torrefied Biomass, Engines, Fuel Cells, Air-Fuel ratios, ....)

What else would members like to see?
~~~~
I should think you might get the other list moderators to check their files
and make an extended list.

TOM REED

From arnt at c2i.net Sun Mar 18 09:16:30 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Extended List Names...
In-Reply-To: <ca.1252cd06.27e61140@cs.com>
Message-ID: <3AB4C29B.19ACB445@c2i.net>

Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:
>
> Dear Tom and ALL
>
> It would be useful to have an extended name for the various lists and
> the
> subjects that arise spontaneously, eg
>
> GASIFICATION = GASIFICATION (Pyrolysis, Combustion, General Thermal
> Conversion, Torrefied Biomass, Engines, Fuel Cells, Air-Fuel ratios,
> ....)
>
> What else would members like to see?

..something like 'NOT: "Global Warming Conserns"' or
whatever else we're not interested in, and want to weed out.

..also, I want to weed out the "html" part of the messages,
and have the htmlese, pictures, or Microsoft Word ".doc"'s,
available as a link, I click at my own discretion whenever
my curiosity is tickled, rather than tying up my line for
no apparent reason for about 25 minutes.

..some people might want _only_ the digest, it should be
available as _both_ an alternative to todays one-by-one
message lists, _and_ as a supplement for those who want both.

~~~~
> I should think you might get the other list moderators to check their
> files
> and make an extended list.
>
> TOM REED

..these message headers;
> 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>

..should read:
List-Post: <gasification@crest.org>
List-Help: <gasification-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <gasification-subscribe@crest.org>

..for compliance and to avoid the triple message confusion
we have now, I get each message 2 or 3 times because of
the erroneous "mailto:" in the headers. To answer,
I need to hand-edit _all_ recepient adresses.

..fix it.
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)

Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sun Mar 18 10:02:48 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: *** Update: Bush won't regulate carbon dioxide
Message-ID: <bb.c96c833.27e627b2@cs.com>

I read these exchanges with interest and amusement and occasionally write a
few myself.

I hope Tom Miles will take my suggestion to give our list the subtitles:

GASIFICATION: (And combustion, pyrolysis, torrefaction, engines, fuel cells,
a/f ratios, and.... please submit more).

Makes sense to me. How about LIST?

TOM REED GASIFICATION (and...) MODERATOR

I hope we can then post all the more general philosophical issues at
BIOENERGY and keep gasification for technical issues.

In a message dated 3/17/01 11:06:42 AM Mountain Standard Time,
A.Weststeijn@epz.nl writes:

Subj:RE: GAS-L: *** Update: Bush won't regulate carbon dioxide
Date:3/17/01 11:06:42 AM Mountain Standard Time
From:    A.Weststeijn@epz.nl (Weststeijn A)
Reply-to:    gasification@crest.org (Crest Gasification List)
To:    gasification@crest.org
CC:    LINVENT@aol.com ('LINVENT@aol.com')

Tom Tayler LINVENT@aol.com[SMTP:LINVENT@aol.com]
writes zaterdag 17 maart 2001 16:30

best regards,
Andries Weststeijn

From snkm at btl.net Sun Mar 18 11:32:57 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass scenario
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010318102324.008f38f0@wgs1.btl.net>

Well put Kermit -- but do not hold your breath waiting for this to happen.

Let me add my conclusions to date regarding applying biomass to energy
production in 3rd world at small/micro scale.

List -- I have to say that Skip Goebel has the best application to date.

www.sensiblesteam.com

But I certainly would love to convert his boiler to a butane working system
power cycle and get his over all efficiencies up there.

That is building a uniflow engine specifically for that application.

However -- his present engine would operate on Butane as working fluid --
and be happier -- as well as put out much more power for fuel consumed. All
that would be required is a heat exchanger to convert his saturated steam
to super heated, high efficiency, butane vapor.

Then building the entire unit in an industrialized 3rd world nation so as
to bring prices down to practical levels for 3rd world use.

That would solve power production using biomass for about 2/3 of this
worlds present population --

But modern world and its love affair with "grid" -- huge power plants --
and extreme appetite for power per capita -- well, they are truly lost now
-- and unfortunately -- in the position to take down the entire planet --
no matter what the rest of us do.

Peter Singfield / Belize

At 10:50 AM 3/17/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>>>>
Biomass Fact and Scenario Sheet

Total energy used in USA=96 quadrillion Btus (Quads)/yr. USA area =2.37
billion acres. Assuming 1 billion acres useable, producing 4000lbs/acre/yr
at 6000 btus/lb, per acre energy production/yr would be 24 million btus.
Total energy produceable/yr from biomass would be 24 quads. These numbers
can be massaged up or down. However, biomass growth is limited by
fertilizer, water, soil quality, labor, and governmental wisdom. We need a
mass tree planting program right now. It seems unlikely that we could
produce more than 20 quads of biomass per year. However biomass is the
most useful alternate energy because it is useful in the winter, at night,
when the wind is not blowing, and the sun is not shining. The ashes may be
crucial for fertilizer, and legumes in bio digesters may be able to
produce food, energy, and nitrogen fertilizer.

For trees planted on a 10 feet grid, 400 trees could be planted on 1 acre,
so 400 billion trees could be planted on 1 billion acres. Assume 100
billion trees in US at 1000 lbs/tree, 6000 btus/lb. Assume that it takes
50 years say the tree reaches 1000 lbs. The accumulated energy storage
would be 2.4 billion btus/acre. The total US energy storage of wood, would
be 2400 quads. At $1 per tree the cost of planting would be 100 billion
dollars. This calculation shows double the yearly energy production the
previous one did. However these numbers are accurate enough to show how
valuable a mass tree planting program would be to our grandchildren. Also
Global Warming would be reduced by the storage of carbon.

Since there will not be enough Biomass it should be used primarily in
winter for cogeneration and co-manufacturing. By doing this any waste heat
can be used to heat buildings and much energy is saved.

Wood should not be burned in fireplaces or wood stoves to heat houses
because that is too inefficient. Instead wood energy must be converted to
both energy and heat. The traditional way of doing this is by boiler and
steam engine. This system will undoubtedly be used. However another way is
to gasify the wood by burning it with insufficient oxygen. This produces a
poisonous burnable gas which can be used in internal combustion engines,
thus eliminating the boiler and condenser. From this gas it is also
possible to make methanol which is a possibility for tractor fuel. It is
also possible to power tractors and other vehicles from wood by mounting
the wood gas generator directly on the vehicle. My belief is that making
methanol in winter as a co-manufacturing process would be the best way to
provide fuel for agriculture which does not depend on oil. Charcoal is a
better fuel than wood and is easier to adapt to vehicular operation.
However there is much heat and gaseous energy lost in making it. Therefore
charcoal could also possibly be manufactured in winter as a
co-manufacturing process.

Bio-methane can also be made in a large vessel using soft biomass such as
sewage, leaves, grasses, paper, saw dust, and stalks using an anaerobic
bacterial digestion process. From this gas it is also possible to make
methanol. Again a co-manufacturing process is best. The biggest advantage
of this biodigestion is that nitrogen is retained in the effluent from the
process. This means that it is possible to manufacture both energy and
fertilizer from leguminous plants and sewage.

Using fermented grain to make ethanol has been characterized as a break-
even energy process not worth doing. However if the fermentation and
distillation processes were done in winter as co-manufacturing processes
then the energy balance would be much more favorable. It also might be
possible to grow wood and fruit by mass planting apple trees. Any surplus
of apples could also be used to make ethanol with no plowing costs.
Potatoes might be a more energy effective ethanol crop than grain.

Since fertilizer will also be scarce all sewage, manure, ashes, and
residues from biomass processing must be carefully saved and used as
fertilizer.

In my opinion, a mass planting of fruit and nut trees might save millions
of lives in 2050. The question is whether the people care enough about the
little children to plant them.

Kermit Schlansker PE

From snkm at btl.net Sun Mar 18 12:25:04 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass scenario - Correction
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010318104624.00953a10@wgs1.btl.net>

Listers;

Have not checked over Skip's site for a while -- just did.

www.sensiblesteam.com

Regarding:

"Then building the entire unit in an industrialized 3rd world nation so as
to bring prices down to practical levels for 3rd world use."

I see Skip is already there -- here is a statement from this same site:

ATTENTION!

Sensible Steam has recently merged with APIN S.A. boiler company in
Lima, Peru, to become Sensible Steam International . We are now producing
piston engines up to 150hp and gensets of up to 200kw. Single acting, high
speed, enclosed crankcase and steam consumption only half that of a turbine
with an unbeatable warrantee, can reduce powerplant costs anywhere in the
world. Gas, oil, biomass and bio fuels powered boilers all available in
short order with no restrictions. Call the oldest and most respected
boiler company in South America today.

Again -- Peter / Belize

From A.Weststeijn at epz.nl Sun Mar 18 13:58:19 2001
From: A.Weststeijn at epz.nl (Weststeijn A)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:15 2004
Subject: GAS-L: *** Update: Bush won't regulate carbon dioxide
Message-ID: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4F52@sp0016.epz.nl>

Tom Reed Reedtb2@cs.com[SMTP:Reedtb2@cs.com]
writes zondag 18 maart 2001 16:01

> Dear Andries, TOm Taylor and Debaters:
> I read these exchanges with interest and amusement and occasionally write
> a
> few myself.
> I hope Tom Miles will take my suggestion to give our list the subtitles:
> GASIFICATION: (And combustion, pyrolysis, torrefaction, engines, fuel
> cells,
> a/f ratios, and.... please submit more).
>
I vote for adding circulating fluidized bed (CFB) gasification and (CFB)
combustion.
Perhaps also fuel preparation (if that is not an entirely different
subject).

> I hope we can then post all the more general philosophical issues at
> BIOENERGY and keep gasification for technical issues.
>
I second this motion to separate the technical from the more general
discussion.
Perhaps we can arrange it such that interested people can quickly "switch"
to a separate Gas-L sublist, or to the Bioenergy-List, to continue their
discussions if a subject catches on, in order not to inconvenience others.

Occasionally discussing broader issues with people who -like me- have a
nuts-and-bolts side to their biomass work and interests as well, I find
gratifying and would appreciate a continued opportunity.

Isn't that what we do it all for: ..to get that stupid CO2 down...(as
opposed to finding an excuse to happily twist T/C's ever after?) I'm sure
not everybody sees it in this order :) !

best regards,
Andries Weststeijn
>
>

From tmiles at teleport.com Sun Mar 18 15:47:16 2001
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Extended List Names...
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010318124426.02cd77b0@mail.easystreet.com>

List Concerns,

SPONSORS. List members who are willing to contribute to the costs of
maintaining and administering the gasification list should direct their
funds to Tayleah Jones at tjones@repp.org Tayleah coordinates the list
management for our host, REPP-CREST (Renewable Energy Policy Project which
acquired the Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainable Technology). List
moderation is volunteer. Information management, data mining, or other
service that have been suggested cost money. We would appreciate your
efforts to help find sponsors for the list.

TOPICS. A topic definition is probably a good idea to focus discussion. The
topic list could be periodically sent to the list with the list commands as
a reminder. A good monthly job for the list moderator(s).

HTML. Arnt. by "weed out the html part of the messages," do you mean the
code? Most messages contain links exactly as you have requested,
occasionally a mailer will transcribe the code so that it appears in the
message. This happens most often when people use a web based mailer like
Outlook Express to post to the list.

DIGEST. The list digest is available as an alternative or supplement. To
subscribe to the digest send email to:
gasification-digest-subscribe@crest.org. To unsubscribe from the
gasification list send email to gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org

MAILTO:. The "mailto:" command automatically brings up the message window
and inserts "gasification@crest.org" in the To: field. I have never had a
problem with the mailto: nor have I heard that anyone else on the five
lists has. Is this a problem or Arnt it? If it's only your problem then fix
your email program.

Tom Miles

At 03:13 PM 3/18/01 +0100, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:
> >
> > Dear Tom and ALL
> >
> > It would be useful to have an extended name for the various lists and
> > the
> > subjects that arise spontaneously, eg
> >
> > GASIFICATION = GASIFICATION (Pyrolysis, Combustion, General Thermal
> > Conversion, Torrefied Biomass, Engines, Fuel Cells, Air-Fuel ratios,
> > ....)
> >
> > What else would members like to see?
>
>..something like 'NOT: "Global Warming Conserns"' or
>whatever else we're not interested in, and want to weed out.
>
>..also, I want to weed out the "html" part of the messages,
>and have the htmlese, pictures, or Microsoft Word ".doc"'s,
>available as a link, I click at my own discretion whenever
>my curiosity is tickled, rather than tying up my line for
>no apparent reason for about 25 minutes.
>
>..some people might want _only_ the digest, it should be
>available as _both_ an alternative to todays one-by-one
>message lists, _and_ as a supplement for those who want both.
>
> ~~~~
> > I should think you might get the other list moderators to check their
> > files
> > and make an extended list.
> >
> > TOM REED
>
>..these message headers;
> > 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>
>
>..should read:
> List-Post: <gasification@crest.org>
> List-Help: <gasification-help@crest.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> List-Subscribe: <gasification-subscribe@crest.org>
>
>..for compliance and to avoid the triple message confusion
>we have now, I get each message 2 or 3 times because of
>the erroneous "mailto:" in the headers. To answer,
>I need to hand-edit _all_ recepient adresses.
>
>..fix it.
>--
>..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
>
> Scenarios always come in sets of three:
> best case, worst case, and just in case.
>
>
>Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>-
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

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

From andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com Sun Mar 18 18:17:10 2001
From: andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Extended List Names...
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010318124426.02cd77b0@mail.easystreet.com>
Message-ID: <pufabt8s57fk1si9j18qnddmn3stvabdeq@4ax.com>

I shall adapt to what ever becomes the norm however I found the more
traditional e-mail compliance with RFCs more useful, my twopenneth
below:
>HTML. Arnt. by "weed out the html part of the messages," do you mean the
>code? Most messages contain links exactly as you have requested,
>occasionally a mailer will transcribe the code so that it appears in the
>message. This happens most often when people use a web based mailer like
>Outlook Express to post to the list.

Some lists I subscribe to have a bot which deletes attachments and
html (I tend not to read e-mail containing HTML as it is often UCE),
posting only the ascii text. This makes for smaller downloads where
the connection is slow or expensive, though I imagine it is of no
concern in richer countries. Any pictures are then uploaded to a list
owned file space so anyone can see them. There is probably a means to
prevent repeated quoting of the same text which happens when web based
software places a reply at the beginning of quoted text without making
reference to the text, in this event the original post should be
deleted (as the reference headers should maintain the thread). Your
reply to Arnt contained all his quoted text and doubled the size.

>
>MAILTO:. The "mailto:" command automatically brings up the message window
>and inserts "gasification@crest.org" in the To: field. I have never had a
>problem with the mailto: nor have I heard that anyone else on the five
>lists has. Is this a problem or Arnt it? If it's only your problem then fix
>your email program.

I would guess the relevant RFC refers to a:
Reply-To: gasification@crest.org
tag in the headers, this is what the previous list software did. The
current set up needs manual setting of replies in my software, and
there is quite a good reason for using non microsoft products for
system stability even in their own operating system.

AJH

From arnt at c2i.net Sun Mar 18 20:45:26 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Extended List Names...
In-Reply-To: <ca.1252cd06.27e61140@cs.com>
Message-ID: <3AB5640A.FEFB685A@c2i.net>

Tom Miles wrote:
>
> List Concerns,

[...]

> HTML. Arnt. by "weed out the html part of the messages," do you mean the
> code? Most messages contain links exactly as you have requested,

..weed out the html code, yes. I want 'plain text' with links to
pictures etc, so leave the links in, so I decide what I want to
see, when I want to see it. The html-messages come with _both_
plain text _and_ a html formatted part, with exactly the same text
and links, and is _easy_ to strip off in a mail list server.

..much harder in an isp's pop server. Can easily tie up a modem.
In several countries which can use what we provide on these lists,
modem links are slow and expensive. Do we really want to fend
away the Indian, Chinese, Latin-American and Africans?

> occasionally a mailer will transcribe the code so that it appears in the
> message. This happens most often when people use a web based mailer like
> Outlook Express to post to the list.

..all modern e-mail readers allow a text format choice here,
on the outgoing message you send out. Problem is on the
incoming messages, where most e-mail readers software
effectively deny you control over your own email loading.
I _hate_ that.

> DIGEST. The list digest is available as an alternative or supplement. To
> subscribe to the digest send email to:
> gasification-digest-subscribe@crest.org. To unsubscribe from the
> gasification list send email to gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org
>
> MAILTO:. The "mailto:" command automatically brings up the message window
> and inserts "gasification@crest.org" in the To: field. I have never had a

.._this_ is what the "Reply-To: "-tag is made for.

..gas list messages should have a
"Reply-To: "-tag in the message header, which should read
"Reply-To: gasification@crest.org".

..ditto for the Stove- and other lists.
Check out these headers from a gas list message a couple
of years back, it worked fine then.

X-daxnet-delivery-id: 199911240619
Received: from solstice.crest.org ([206.161.8.50])
by falk.c2i.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA24053 for
<arnt@c2i.net>; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 07:19:05 +0100 (MET)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by solstice.crest.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id BAA14099;
Wed, 24 Nov 1999 01:22:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: by solstice.crest.org (bulk_mailer v1.5);
Wed, 24 Nov 1999 01:18:05 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by
solstice.crest.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA13939 for gasification-outgoing;
Wed, 24 Nov 1999 01:17:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.snowcrest.net (mail.snowcrest.net
[216.102.43.227]) by solstice.crest.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with
ESMTP id BAA13935 for <gasification@crest.org>;
Wed, 24 Nov 1999 01:17:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from q3c2c0 (stkfrC005.snowcrest.net
[209.78.174.5]) by mail.snowcrest.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with
SMTP id WAA03709 for <gasification@crest.org>;
Tue, 23 Nov 1999 22:23:05 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <000801bf3644$5ee364a0$05ae4ed1@q3c2c0>
From: "Tom Blackburn" <tomb@snowcrest.net>
To:<gasification@crest.org>
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier Pictures
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 22:23:04 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01BF3601.4F367760"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: gasification@crest.org
X-Mozilla-Status: 8001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: ec683ef66572a6629514e9c97af79746

> problem with the mailto: nor have I heard that anyone else on the five
> lists has. Is this a problem or Arnt it? If it's only your problem then fix
> your email program.

..I might well be unique, running linux and being on this list.

..anyone else on the list _not_ reading it using
Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Outlook, or some other
Microsoft email product?

..specificly, anyone using Netscape 4.7x in Microsoft
Windows, _without_ using Microsofts email software?

..anyone else using linux/unix or mac on these lists?

> Tom Miles
>
> At 03:13 PM 3/18/01 +0100, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>
> >..these message headers;
> > > 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>
> >
> >..should read:
> > List-Post: <gasification@crest.org>
> > List-Help: <gasification-help@crest.org>
> > List-Unsubscribe: <gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> > List-Subscribe: <gasification-subscribe@crest.org>

..this belongs here: Reply-To: gasification@crest.org
Or, like this: List-Reply-To: <gasification@crest.org> etc.

> >..for compliance and to avoid the triple message confusion
> >we have now, I get each message 2 or 3 times because of
> >the erroneous "mailto:" in the headers. To answer,
> >I need to hand-edit _all_ recepient adresses.
> >
> >..fix it.

--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)

Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.

From snkm at btl.net Sun Mar 18 22:32:44 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Extended List Names...
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010318204028.009526a0@wgs1.btl.net>

I "second" Art on his comments below --

This "bloat-ware" may be exceptable in the countries where WWW connection
is $19.95 per month -- but is terrible for countries like Belize -- where
we pay $8.00 per hour.

Plus -- our line connections are much slower!!

And many other 3rd world countries pay even more and have even slower line
connections!

Plus -- all those bells and whistles simply distract from the purpose of
communication.

If you send Urls in plain text -- I can simple copy and paste them to my
browser.

All because people are to lazy to hit the TEXT Only button!

Peter

At 02:42 AM 3/19/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>Tom Miles wrote:
>>
>> List Concerns,
>
>[...]
>
>> HTML. Arnt. by "weed out the html part of the messages," do you mean the
>> code? Most messages contain links exactly as you have requested,
>
>..weed out the html code, yes. I want 'plain text' with links to
>pictures etc, so leave the links in, so I decide what I want to
>see, when I want to see it. The html-messages come with _both_
>plain text _and_ a html formatted part, with exactly the same text
>and links, and is _easy_ to strip off in a mail list server.
>
>..much harder in an isp's pop server. Can easily tie up a modem.
>In several countries which can use what we provide on these lists,
>modem links are slow and expensive. Do we really want to fend
>away the Indian, Chinese, Latin-American and Africans?
>
>> occasionally a mailer will transcribe the code so that it appears in the
>> message. This happens most often when people use a web based mailer like
>> Outlook Express to post to the list.
>
>..all modern e-mail readers allow a text format choice here,
>on the outgoing message you send out. Problem is on the
>incoming messages, where most e-mail readers software
>effectively deny you control over your own email loading.
>I _hate_ that.
>
>> DIGEST. The list digest is available as an alternative or supplement. To
>> subscribe to the digest send email to:
>> gasification-digest-subscribe@crest.org. To unsubscribe from the
>> gasification list send email to gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org
>>
>> MAILTO:. The "mailto:" command automatically brings up the message window
>> and inserts "gasification@crest.org" in the To: field. I have never had a
>
>
>.._this_ is what the "Reply-To: "-tag is made for.
>
>..gas list messages should have a
>"Reply-To: "-tag in the message header, which should read
>"Reply-To: gasification@crest.org".
>
>..ditto for the Stove- and other lists.
>Check out these headers from a gas list message a couple
>of years back, it worked fine then.
>
>
>X-daxnet-delivery-id: 199911240619
> Received: from solstice.crest.org ([206.161.8.50])
>by falk.c2i.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA24053 for
><arnt@c2i.net>; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 07:19:05 +0100 (MET)
> Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
>by solstice.crest.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id BAA14099;
>Wed, 24 Nov 1999 01:22:09 -0500 (EST)
> Received: by solstice.crest.org (bulk_mailer v1.5);
>Wed, 24 Nov 1999 01:18:05 -0500
> Received: (from majordom@localhost) by
>solstice.crest.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA13939 for gasification-outgoing;
>Wed, 24 Nov 1999 01:17:55 -0500 (EST)
> Received: from mail.snowcrest.net (mail.snowcrest.net
>[216.102.43.227]) by solstice.crest.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with
>ESMTP id BAA13935 for <gasification@crest.org>;
>Wed, 24 Nov 1999 01:17:52 -0500 (EST)
> Received: from q3c2c0 (stkfrC005.snowcrest.net
>[209.78.174.5]) by mail.snowcrest.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with
>SMTP id WAA03709 for <gasification@crest.org>;
>Tue, 23 Nov 1999 22:23:05 -0800 (PST)
> Message-ID: <000801bf3644$5ee364a0$05ae4ed1@q3c2c0>
> From: "Tom Blackburn" <tomb@snowcrest.net>
> To:<gasification@crest.org>
> Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier Pictures
> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 22:23:04 -0800
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01BF3601.4F367760"
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
> Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
> Precedence: bulk
> Reply-To: gasification@crest.org
> X-Mozilla-Status: 8001
> X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
> X-UIDL: ec683ef66572a6629514e9c97af79746
>
>
>> problem with the mailto: nor have I heard that anyone else on the five
>> lists has. Is this a problem or Arnt it? If it's only your problem then fix
>> your email program.
>
>..I might well be unique, running linux and being on this list.
>
>..anyone else on the list _not_ reading it using
>Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Outlook, or some other
>Microsoft email product?
>
>..specificly, anyone using Netscape 4.7x in Microsoft
>Windows, _without_ using Microsofts email software?
>
>..anyone else using linux/unix or mac on these lists?
>
>
>> Tom Miles
>>
>> At 03:13 PM 3/18/01 +0100, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>>
>> >..these message headers;
>> > > 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>
>> >
>> >..should read:
>> > List-Post: <gasification@crest.org>
>> > List-Help: <gasification-help@crest.org>
>> > List-Unsubscribe: <gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>
>> > List-Subscribe: <gasification-subscribe@crest.org>
>
>
>..this belongs here: Reply-To: gasification@crest.org
>Or, like this: List-Reply-To: <gasification@crest.org> etc.
>
>
>> >..for compliance and to avoid the triple message confusion
>> >we have now, I get each message 2 or 3 times because of
>> >the erroneous "mailto:" in the headers. To answer,
>> >I need to hand-edit _all_ recepient adresses.
>> >
>> >..fix it.
>
>--
>..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
>
> Scenarios always come in sets of three:
> best case, worst case, and just in case.
>
>
>Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>-
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
>

From arnt at c2i.net Mon Mar 19 07:25:05 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Extended List Names...
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010318204028.009526a0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3AB5FA01.9EAFCEC6@c2i.net>

Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> I "second" Art on his comments below --
>
> This "bloat-ware" may be exceptable in the countries where WWW connection
> is $19.95 per month -- but is terrible for countries like Belize -- where
> we pay $8.00 per hour.
>
> Plus -- our line connections are much slower!!
>
> And many other 3rd world countries pay even more and have even slower line
> connections!
>
> Plus -- all those bells and whistles simply distract from the purpose of
> communication.
>
> If you send Urls in plain text -- I can simple copy and paste them to my
> browser.

..most modern software will _interpret_ plain text strings like
"http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/" and _create_ a link on the fly.
I just click 'em.

> All because people are to lazy to hit the TEXT Only button!
>
> Peter
>

--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)

Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.

From kssustain at provide.net Mon Mar 19 10:44:38 2001
From: kssustain at provide.net (Kermit Schlansker)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass subjects
Message-ID: <004401c0b08a$4bca52e0$874756d8@default>

Subject: Re: GAS-L: Extended List Names...
Dear Tom and all,

Some of the subjects I would like to
see discussed are:

1 Processing biomass to liquid fuel using heat energy from
large solar mirrors.

2 Using windmill power to process wood. (I can't
think of a good way to do this one)

3 Heat recovery to run a steam engine from
gas cooling and motor exhaust.
{boiler
fouling might be a problem)

4 Use of injected steam to reduce tar and resin
formation.

5 Methods of using bigger chunks of wood.

6 How to
get the biomass planted.

7 Pyrolysis versus partial combustion. Is it possible to use
or eliminate the heavy oils from pyrolysis?

8 The use
of gasification in co-generation and co-manufacturing to heat large buildings in
winter while producing liquid fuels and electricity.

9 The possibility of burning powdered charcoal
directly in Diesel engines. Rudolph Diesel tried to use coal. Charcoal may have
less grit than coal.


Kermit Schlansker

From arnt at c2i.net Mon Mar 19 17:20:54 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass subjects
In-Reply-To: <004401c0b08a$4bca52e0$874756d8@default>
Message-ID: <3AB68598.A87BEE30@c2i.net>

> Kermit Schlansker wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: Extended List Names...
>
> Dear Tom and all,
>
> Some of the subjects I would like to see discussed are:
>
> 1 Processing biomass to liquid fuel using heat energy from large solar
> mirrors.
>
> 2 Using windmill power to process wood. (I can't think of a good way
> to do this one)

.. ;-)

..hydropower actually works. Goes back some 400-500 years here,
in large scale, as the Brits "ran out" of wood for their coal mines
Also possible to use waste wood, saw dust, shavings etc to fuel
wood processing. Fire boilers or gasify and run ic engines.

> 3 Heat recovery to run a steam engine from gas cooling and motor
> exhaust.
> {boiler fouling might be a problem)

...that can be solved.

> 4 Use of injected steam to reduce tar and resin formation.

..how do we maximize them? (If we want to.)

> 5 Methods of using bigger chunks of wood.
>
> 6 How to get the biomass planted.
>
> 7 Pyrolysis versus partial combustion. Is it possible to use or
> eliminate the heavy oils from pyrolysis?

..both, plus then some. Why partial combustion, when we can gasify?

> 8 The use of gasification in co-generation and co-manufacturing to
> heat large buildings in winter while producing liquid fuels and
> electricity.

..aaah. Here is a market builder.

> 9 The possibility of burning powdered charcoal directly in Diesel
> engines. Rudolph Diesel tried to use coal. Charcoal may have less grit
> than coal.

..I've _seen_ a _wood_dust_ "diesel" _run_ in -84.
Jan Åbom, professor? at Chalmers Tekniska Högskola in
Gothenburg, Swedenn used compressed air to blow the
wood dust into the combustion chamber, about the same
way Rudolf Diesel blew diesel oil into the combustion
chamber of early diesels. On wood dust, exhaust smells
like an open fireplace or bonfire. Fuel processing was
_another_ story, I saw an autoclave in his lab...

..yes, you _can_ run a chain saw on the wood it cuts, in _theory_.

--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)

Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Mon Mar 19 18:20:52 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Extended List Names...
Message-ID: <c.12cda315.27e7ecd5@cs.com>

Kermit's letter (below) illustrates some of the problem of dividing biomass
into nice cubby holes.

1 Processing biomass to liquid fuel using heat energy from large solar
mirrors.

DOESN'T BELONG IN GASIFICATION, PROBABLY IN BIOMASS FUELS

2 Using windmill power to process wood. (I can't think of a good way to do
this one)

DOESN'T BELONG IN GASIFICATION. PROBABLY IN BIOENERGY WHICH DEALS WITH THE
OVERALL PROBLEMS OF MAKING AND HARVESTING BIOMASS.

3 Heat recovery to run a steam engine from gas cooling and motor exhaust.
{boiler fouling might be a problem)

OK HERE...

4 Use of injected steam to reduce tar and resin formation.

5 Methods of using bigger chunks of wood.

DOESN'T BELONG IN GASIFICATION. PROBABLY IN BIOENERGY WHICH DEALS WITH THE
OVERALL PROBLEMS OF MAKING AND HARVESTING BIOMASS.

(ACTUALLY THE FOREST SERVICE DEVELOPED A NEAT "CHUNKING MACHING" AT THEIR
MICHIGAN LABS. CHUNKS DRY BETTER THAN EITHER CHIPS OR LOGS.)

6 How to get the biomass planted.

DOESN'T BELONG IN GASIFICATION. PROBABLY IN BIOENERGY WHICH DEALS WITH THE
OVERALL PROBLEMS OF MAKING AND HARVESTING BIOMASS.

7 Pyrolysis versus partial combustion. Is it possible to use or eliminate
the heavy oils from pyrolysis?

OK HERE....

8 The use of gasification in co-generation and co-manufacturing to heat large
buildings in winter while producing liquid fuels and electricity.

OK HERE

9 The possibility of burning powdered charcoal directly in Diesel engines.
Rudolph Diesel tried to use coal. Charcoal may have less grit than coal.

OK HERE. RUDOLF BLEW UP THE ENGINE WITH POWERED COAL.

SO, LET'S THINK WHICH FORUM WE WANT TO SUBMIT OUR COMMENTS TO, AND IF IT
DOESN'T INVOLVE GASIFICATION, COMBUSTION AND PYROLYSIS AND THE DOWNSTREAM
ENGINES AND BURNERS NEEDED, GO TO ANOTHER FORUM.

THANKS, TOM REED MODERATOR
In a message dated 3/18/01 7:44:09 AM Mountain Standard Time,
kssustain@provide.net writes:

Dear Tom and all,

Some of the subjects I would like to see discussed are:

1 Processing biomass to liquid fuel using heat energy from large solar
mirrors.

2 Using windmill power to process wood. (I can't think of a good way to do
this one)

3 Heat recovery to run a steam engine from gas cooling and motor exhaust.
{boiler fouling might be a problem)

4 Use of injected steam to reduce tar and resin formation.

5 Methods of using bigger chunks of wood.

6 How to get the biomass planted.

7 Pyrolysis versus partial combustion. Is it possible to use or eliminate
the heavy oils from pyrolysis?

8 The use of gasification in co-generation and co-manufacturing to heat
large buildings in winter while producing liquid fuels and electricity.

9 The possibility of burning powdered charcoal directly in Diesel engines.
Rudolph Diesel tried to use coal. Charcoal may have less grit than coal.

Kermit Schlansker

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Mar 20 08:57:55 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Countries represented on gasification list and during WWII
Message-ID: <f7.842e33f.27e8bb75@cs.com>

The GASIFICATION list currently stands at 294 members. I was curious to know
how many countries we represent. One frustration with Email is that it is
often hard to know where a particular correspondant is from. Many Email
addresses end in the country of origin, but many end with com, net, edu, etc.

I word processed the list to separate out the identifiable countries and 162
look like country names. They are, with the number of members, listed below.
Many of the countries are obvious. Look at your own address and let me know
what countries these are (if not obvious) or which aren't countries.

ar - 3
at - 3
au - 15
az - 1
be - 5
boc - 1
br - 4
ca - 3
cr - 1
cz -1
de - 3
dk - 13
es - 3
fi - 4
fr - 5
gr - 1
ie - 2
in - 7
it - 5
lk - 1
lt - 2
my -1
nl - 24
no - 6
ntl - 1
nu - 1
nz - 10
ph - 1
ro - 1
rr - 3
saic - 2
se - 4
th - 4
tw - 1
ua - 1
uga - 2
uk - 13
yu - 1
za - 4

It is interesting to see what countries are focusing on gasification. I
re-ordered the list by numbers of entries and got....

24 nl
15 au
13 dk
13 uk
10 nz
7 in
6 no
5 be
5 fr
5 it
4 br
4 fi
4 se
4 th
4 za
3 ar
3 at
3 ca
3 de
3 es
3 rr
2 ie
2 lt
2 saic
2 uga
1 az
1 boc
1 cr
1 cz
1 gr
1 lk
1 my
1 ntl
1 nu
1 ph
1 ro
1 tw
1 ua
1 yu

It is surprising which countries are most interested - some of the smallest,
with the least biomass. Those not represented may have the most members in
the list, but they may use servers that don't identify the country.

So, this is only a partial list of countries subscribing to GASIFICATION, but
indicates the wide interest now forming up in gasification

During WW II a surprisingly large number of countries were interested in
gasification. In the book Producer Gas: Another FUel for Motor Transport
there is a table listing number of gas producer vehicles reported in use in
1942: 923,000 vehicles.

Germany tops the list with 350,000, then France, 110,000; Japan, 100,000,
USSR 100,000, Sweden 73,000, Australia 45,000, and on down to Canada with 1
vehicle. (6 in the U.S.)

These figures are amazing, considering the war had only been on 3 years in
Europe. We always hear "over a million vehicles" using producer gas in WW
II, but it may have been way over a million by the end of the war.
(Alternatively it may have been much fewer if the users didn't clean their
gas filters often enough. Many an engine has died of tar...)

I hope this modern census and piece of history will be interesting to the
group....

Yours truly, TOM REED
BEF/CPC

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Mar 20 09:00:27 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Introducing Ali Kaupp and A/F sensor
Message-ID: <ee.12b20198.27e8bb73@cs.com>

I'd like you all to Emeet Ali Kaupp, my friend for 16 years. He got a PhD
with Prof. John Goss, of the U. of Cal., Davis about 1984. In addition to
his thesis,

GASIFICATION OF RICE HULLS: THEORY AND PRAXIS: A. Kaupp. (Veiweg, 1984) Ali's
thesis applies gasification to rice hulls, since rice hulls are potentially a
major energy source - yet have unique problems in gasification.

he wrote (with Prof. Goss) the wide ranging and emininently sensible

SMALL SCALE GAS PRODUCER-ENGINE SYSTEMS: A. Kaupp and J. Goss. Updates GENGAS
and contains critical engineering data indispensable for the
serious gasifier projects. Ali Kaupp is thorough and knowledgeable and still
active in the field!

These two books were republished by the German foreign aid support group GTZ
and we have republished them with their permission.

During Ali's thesis he developed the "open core gasifier", a name which no
one can explain and which behaves like the "stratified downdraft gasifier".
Since then he has worked as contract officer for GTZ in the Philippines and
India, overseeing multimillion dollar contracts in the field of biomass and
related activities.
~~~~~~~
Ali and his lovely wife Petra have gotten tired of breathing the polluted air
of Manilla, Bangalore and Delhi, and have established residences in Boulder
and bought land in Pristine Crestone, Colorado. While still working with GTZ,
they hope to spend more time breathing in Colorado and arrived for a few
months last week. Petra served us a lovely dinner on Saturday night.
~~~~~~~~
I told Ali about the intense discussion of A/F, Lambda meters at gasification
last week.

He says he stronly supports better combustion and gasification, using a
lambda meter and has written several papers on this subject.

He also says that he has given a contract to an Indian Instrumentation
company to incorporate the zirconia sensors in a low cost instrument for
boiler control and the prototype should be ready in a few months.

He says that for IC engines, the two wire (uncontrolled temperature) sensors
are sufficient if not optimum, since the aim is to burn the fuel exactly at
stoichiometric, neither rich nor lean, and there is a step change in voltage
for the sensor at this point.

However, in boilers it is desirable to operate a few % lean, to burn the CO
formation from the cold walls. Unfortunately, small boiler operators can't
afford the accurate industrial meters costing $3,000-$10,000, and they rely
on looking at the stack and (hopefully) staying above the lean smoke point
which occurs around 12% excess air. This costs the operators $$$ in lost
efficiency.

The four wire sensor maintains the zirconia accurately at ~700C and permits
accurate measurement of excess air. I am looking forward to the availability
of this instrument soon.

I hope Ali will post his papers on the lambda meter here or at his website
(now under construction) at www.kaupp.net.

Yours truly, TOM REED CPC/BEF

~~~~~~~~~~`
BOOKS FROM THE BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION PRESS
Classic Books on Biomass and Alternate Energy
Book Descriptions - Order Blank Follows

NEW OR REVISED:

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

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

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

NEW: FROM THE FRYER TO THE FUEL TANK: HOW TO MAKE CHEAP, CLEAN FUEL FROM FREE
VEGETABLE OIL: J. & K. Tickell, (1998) Resale from Greenteach
Publishing Co. J & K Tickell have done an excellent job of collecting both
theory and praxis on producing Biodiesel fuel from vegetable oils,
particularly used oil. Nice instructions for kitchen or large scale. ISBN
0-9664616-0-6 90 pp $25

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

NEW/OLD: MODERN GAS PRODUCERS: N. E. Rambush, the most complete collection
of information on the golden age of coal gasification, when every city had a
"gasworks" . Lots of food for thought on biomass gasification and why it's
different. 550 pp $30

NEW/OLD: FREE ENERGY OF BINARY COMPOUNDS: AN ATLAS OF CHARTS FOR
HIGH-TEMPERATURE CALCULATIONS, 2nd edition, Thomas B. Reed. I published this
book with MIT Press in 1971 when I was working in high temperature materials
research. The data and charts apply to all of chemistry, so you can
calculate the thermodynamics of almost any reaction., MIT Press, 1971. My
magnum opus! 90 pp $20

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

CLASSICS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~~~~~~

COPY THIS ORDER BLANK - Delete unwanted books and Email your order to
reedtb2@cs.com
(Nicknames in Bold, see book descriptions, p. 1 and 2)

1. A SURVEY OF BIOMASS GASIFICATION 2000: $25

2. BIOMASS DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS HANDBOOK: $25

3. CONTAMINANT TESTING FOR GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS: $10

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

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

6. SMALL SCALE GAS PRODUCER ENGINE SYSTEMS: $30

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

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

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

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

11. WOOD GAS GENERATORS FOR VEHICLES: $4

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

13. BIOMASS TO METHANOL SPECIALISTS' WORKSHOP: $30

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

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

16. TREES: $1

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

18. FROM THE FRYER TO THE FUEL TANK: HOW TO MAKE CHEAP,
CLEAN FUEL FROM FREE VEGETABLE OIL: $25

19. MODERN GAS PRODUCERS by N. E. Rambush (1923) $30

20. FREE ENERGY OF BINARY COMPOUNDS $20

TOTAL FOR BOOKS ___________
ORDER BLANK
-10% if 3 or more books ordered or to booksellers ______+ $3 handling + (US
and Canada
$1.50 (bookrate, or request air, $3) or (other foreign, $9/large book- air
only) TOTAL___________

E-mail order to reedtb2@CS.com or Mail orders to The Biomass Energy
Foundation Press, 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401; FAX 303-278 0560; call
303 278 0558.
We'll send invoice with books. Pay by postal order or check on US Banks (no
foreign checks - can cost $25 to clear), or Electronic payment to Wells Fargo
Bank, Golden, CO 80401, Bank No. 102 0000 76, Account 300 800 2911.

NAME:

SHIPPING ADDRESS:

~~~~

THE BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION

The Biomass Energy Foundation was founded in 1984 by Dr. Harry LaFontaine as
a 501(c) 3, not for profit organization to do research and educational tasks
in the field of biomass, the environment and related areas. With Harry's
death in April, 1994, the work of the foundation has been taken over by the
new president, Dr. Thomas B. Reed

The Biomass Energy Foundation operates a small press, archiving and printing
books useful in the field of biomass and the environment. We are able to
print, and attractively bind, out -of-print books in this field at reasonable
prices (i.e. far less than NTIS).

Tom Reed has a wide interest and experience in the energy and environmental
areas and has specialized in biomass thermal conversion, (gasification,
pyrolysis and combustion) since the first energy crisis in 1973. Tom is
currently working with the Community Power Corporation to develop Small
Modular BIomass Power Systems and clean wood-gas cooking stoves for
deployment in developing countries. Tom won an R&D-100 award (best invention
of the year) for the high pressure oxygen gasifier in 1982, and he thinks
we'll need that technology soon, as the oil runs dry.

Tom is also currently working on woodgas stoves for developing countries and
"tarfree, Turnkey" power systems with the Community Power Corporation. Dr.
Reed continues his research in other
fields of biomass and gives lectures in these fields. He is available for
consulting in his fields of interest.

LINKS

To find out more about us, visit our websites at www.woodgas.com and www.
webpan.com/bef. (We hope to update the former ASAP, but...). To find out
about the Community Power Corporation, visit www.gocpc.com.

To find out more about biomass, visit the Center for Renewable Energy and
Sustainable Technology's site at www.crest.org. They maintain discussion
groups on gasification, stoves, biomass energy etc. and archives of all
letters that have ever been sent. I am webmaster at the GASIFICATION site.
They also maintain links to the other important biomass energy sites.

From ericbj at club-internet.fr Tue Mar 20 17:32:33 2001
From: ericbj at club-internet.fr (Eric Bruce Johnston)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Countries represented on gasification list and during WWII
Message-ID: <3AB7DCA3.E239DADD@club-internet.fr>

Reedtb2@cs.com a écrit:

> We always hear "over a million vehicles" using producer gas in WW
> II, but it may have been way over a million by the end of the war.
> (Alternatively it may have been much fewer if the users didn't clean
> their
> gas filters often enough. Many an engine has died of tar...)

Not so sure. The number of vehicles got less and less as the war
progressed ; in France falling from some 2 million in 1938 to 100,000 by

late 1944, nearly 90% of them running on gas producers. Maybe they did
not clean their filters !

From tmiles at teleport.com Tue Mar 20 18:24:34 2001
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Countries represented on gasification list and during WWII
In-Reply-To: <f7.842e33f.27e8bb75@cs.com>
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010320145700.00e43cd0@mail.teleport.com>

Tom,

What about the US addresses: .com, .edu, .org, .net etc.

Tom

At 08:56 AM 3/20/01 -0500, Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:
>Dear Gasification List:
>
>The GASIFICATION list currently stands at 294 members. I was curious to know
>how many countries we represent. One frustration with Email is that it is
>often hard to know where a particular correspondant is from. Many Email
>addresses end in the country of origin, but many end with com, net, edu, etc.
>
>
>I word processed the list to separate out the identifiable countries and 162
>look like country names. They are, with the number of members, listed below.
> Many of the countries are obvious. Look at your own address and let me
> know
>what countries these are (if not obvious) or which aren't countries.
>
>ar - 3
>at - 3
>au - 15
>az - 1
>be - 5
>boc - 1
>br - 4
>ca - 3
>cr - 1
>cz -1
>de - 3
>dk - 13
>es - 3
>fi - 4
>fr - 5
>gr - 1
>ie - 2
>in - 7
>it - 5
>lk - 1
>lt - 2
>my -1
>nl - 24
>no - 6
>ntl - 1
>nu - 1
>nz - 10
>ph - 1
>ro - 1
>rr - 3
>saic - 2
>se - 4
>th - 4
>tw - 1
>ua - 1
>uga - 2
>uk - 13
>yu - 1
>za - 4
>
>It is interesting to see what countries are focusing on gasification. I
>re-ordered the list by numbers of entries and got....
>
>24 nl
>15 au
>13 dk
>13 uk
>10 nz
> 7 in
> 6 no
> 5 be
> 5 fr
> 5 it
> 4 br
> 4 fi
> 4 se
> 4 th
> 4 za
> 3 ar
> 3 at
> 3 ca
> 3 de
> 3 es
> 3 rr
> 2 ie
> 2 lt
> 2 saic
> 2 uga
> 1 az
> 1 boc
> 1 cr
> 1 cz
> 1 gr
> 1 lk
> 1 my
> 1 ntl
> 1 nu
> 1 ph
> 1 ro
> 1 tw
> 1 ua
> 1 yu
>
>It is surprising which countries are most interested - some of the smallest,
>with the least biomass. Those not represented may have the most members in
>the list, but they may use servers that don't identify the country.
>
>So, this is only a partial list of countries subscribing to GASIFICATION, but
>indicates the wide interest now forming up in gasification
>
>During WW II a surprisingly large number of countries were interested in
>gasification. In the book Producer Gas: Another FUel for Motor Transport
>there is a table listing number of gas producer vehicles reported in use in
>1942: 923,000 vehicles.
>
>Germany tops the list with 350,000, then France, 110,000; Japan, 100,000,
>USSR 100,000, Sweden 73,000, Australia 45,000, and on down to Canada with 1
>vehicle. (6 in the U.S.)
>
>These figures are amazing, considering the war had only been on 3 years in
>Europe. We always hear "over a million vehicles" using producer gas in WW
>II, but it may have been way over a million by the end of the war.
>(Alternatively it may have been much fewer if the users didn't clean their
>gas filters often enough. Many an engine has died of tar...)
>
>I hope this modern census and piece of history will be interesting to the
>group....
>
>Yours truly, TOM REED
>BEF/CPC

From VHarris001 at aol.com Wed Mar 21 01:39:08 2001
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Reduction and dissociation in gasification
Message-ID: <96.11ac88c9.27e9a622@aol.com>

Dear list members,

Having done poorly in high school chemistry low those many years ago, and
never having revisited the subject since, I'm struggling with the processes
of gasification. Does someone have

From VHarris001 at aol.com Wed Mar 21 01:40:59 2001
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Commercial Gasification Operations
Message-ID: <88.3fba426.27e9a623@aol.com>

Dear James,
Glad to hear that the oxygen is becoming cheaper. What sort of costs are
involved in handling the oxygen, getting it into the gasifier in appropriate
amounts, dealing with the slag and adding a water quench, etc? Is adding
oxygen complex? Can it be done at a reasonable cost on a small scale?

In a message dated 10/28/98 5:27:32 PM Eastern Standard Time,
james@sri.org.au writes:

> Date: 10/28/98 5:27:32 PM Eastern Standard Time
> From: james@sri.org.au (James Joyce)
> Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
> Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org
</A>
> To: gasification@crest.org
>
> Pure oxygen is expensive (although getting cheaper thanks to non-
> cryogenic processes) but low purity oxygen (less than 95% O2) or oxygen
> enriched air (greater than 28% O2) are much cheaper, thanks to pressure
> swing adsorption techniques and membrane technologies.
>
> This is really all you need for gasification ... especially if you just
> need to improve your gas heating value just above that necessary for
> stable gas turbine combustion.
>

From VHarris001 at aol.com Wed Mar 21 01:42:43 2001
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: IC Engine Using Dirty Gas? was - use of ether for starting
Message-ID: <4f.90afb49.27e9a629@aol.com>

Dear Tom Taylor, others,

Do you have an opinion regarding whether or not an IC engine can be modified
to run on hot / dirty producer gas? If producer gas were run through a
cyclone to eliminate most ash (the easy part), can an engine be operated at
high enough temperature that tars won't condense prior to combustion? Will
tars mostly combust in an IC engine combustion chamber or do they just pass
through the system mostly uncombusted?

In a message dated 8/27/99 8:05:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LINVENT@aol.com
writes:

> Regarding using ether for starting engines:
> High compression diesel engines will predetonate on ether which causes
> gases and other materials to blow past the rings. It will also remove the
> oil from the cylinder walls and cause the engine to lock up from lack of
> lubrication and will damage the rings, score the cylinder walls.
> Predetonation is the knocking sound which you hear with the spraying of
> ether
> into the engine.
> Once an engine has been exposed to ether use, it becomes an "ether
> addict" and will require ether, sometimes larger amounts to get started.
> Requiring ether is a sign of a worn out engine, with little
compression,
>
> poor injectors, fouled or out of adjustment valves, cracked heads, bad
> gaskets or a variety of other problems.
> Other materials can be used instead of ether such as a gasoline soaked
> rag over the air cleaner, WD-40, I have even used oxygen where it was so
> cold
> that ether had very little pressure or the engine was so badly worn out
that
>
> it would not start otherwise. Of course oxygen is dangerous as it can
> accumulate in the crankcase and detonate off of fumes or oil droplets. I
> guess I have been lucky.
> If an engine requires any option such as heating it up, using some
other
>
> low vapor pressure hydrocarbon other than ether, use it. Ether will
> accelerate the deterioration of an engine unnecessarily.
> I have had lots of heavy equipment at my mining operation over the
years
>
> and much too much engine wear from ether and other bad practices.
>
> Tom Taylor

From VHarris001 at aol.com Wed Mar 21 01:44:24 2001
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The inverted downdraft gasifier
Message-ID: <7f.11cba9c8.27e9a631@aol.com>

In a message dated 09/03/2000 8:42:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Reedtb2@cs.com writes:

> Dear Vern and Gasification:
>
> I am wrestling with these same questions and hope to bring out eventually
a
> Volume II of "Survey of Biomass Gasificatin - 2000" (or 2001 or 2010,
> whenever I get it all sorted out). Meanwhile, I am writing subsections
> covering exactly what Vern has asked about.
>

I'm anxiously awaiting the publication of your text. Hope you are able to
get to it in 2000, or 2001 rather than 2010!

> I have said that the superficial velocity (throughput = gas produced/area,
> in
> m/s, m3/m2-sec or hour or Btu or whatever) is critical in determining the
> output and behavior of any gasifier. Equally important is the air-fuel
> ratio
> for gasification. The ideal air/fuel is 1.5 kg air/kg biomass (dry basis)
> and this produces the lowest tar and charcoal, but the lowest (5 MJ/nm3)
> energy content in the gas. SV and AF vary together in ways that I am
> putting
> together now.
>

We know combustion is dependant on time, temperature and turbulance.
Assuming that all other parameters remain the same, then is it fair to say
that the air to fuel ratio (AF) is primarily dependant on superficial
velocity (SV)? That is to say, as superficial velocity increases, the air to
fuel ratio always increases and becomes closer and closer to stoichiometric?
Can we also conclude that as SV increases, the Calorific Value (CV) of the
off gas always decreases?

> PRODUCER GASIFICATION:
> At at high SV, temperatures in the flaming pyrolysis zone can exceed 1000C
> and this can gasify the charcoal as it is produced. Any excess heat in
the
> gas is immediately converted to gas by passing through whatever charcoal
> remains, and so can give a final char yield well bewlow 5%. I describe
this
>
> operating point as the "sweet spot" of the gasifier. As one drops below
> this
> intensity you get more tars and char.
>

Are you yet able to say what the process is that generates producer gas from
excess heat passing through the bed of charcoal? That is to say, it would
seem that there are only a few possibilities: 1) *Mostly* oxygen free hot
producer gas would simply liberate volatiles from the charcoal - which would
seemingly *increase* the calorific value of the gas; 2) *Mostly* oxygen
free hot producer gas causes reduction or water-gas reaction to occur in the
carbon bed, reducing substantially the heat, but also still *increasing* the
calorific value of the gas; 3) Heat and *oxygen* pass through the fuel and
into the charcoal, first liberating volatiles then combusting those
volatiles, resulting in *decreasing* the calorific value of the gas. Since
the off-gas appears to be a *lower* CV gas as SV *increases*, would it be
fair to conclude that what is actually happening is the latter case above -
that the charcoal is simply being *burned*? That is, as SV increases and the
volume of primary air increases relative to fuel, it increases the volatiles
liberated but also increases the *percentage* of volatiles combusted.

When SV is increased and all the heat is not already being consumed in
volatizing and combusting the green fuel, then the excess heat can reach the
charcoal bed and volatize and combust there as well. Thus, it would seem
that the charcoal bed is merely another source of fuel, or another source of
volatiles to be liberated and partially combusted. If so, is the charcoal
bed actually superfluous to the gasification process?

> PYROLYTIC GASIFICATION:
> At the other end of the SV and AF spectrum, (low SV, <0.05 and low A/F,
<0.5)
>
> we enter what I would like to call "pyrolytic gasification" in which we
> produce lots of charcoal (10-25%) and tar (0.1-1%) and a rich gas (20
> MJ/nm3?).

And the inverse of what I wrote above would seem to me to be the case here.
SV is low, thus total heat is low relative to the cross-section of the mass
of fuel. This means that the heat that is produced is used primarily in
volatizing *local* fuel and the available oxygen is used in combusting
*local* volatiles. Thus heat is not available to decend into a charcoal bed
and volatize the fuel there, nor is there available oxygen to combust
anything volatized in the charcoal bed. It would seem that in this instance,
the charcoal bed is also superfluous.

> The charcoal is valuable and the tar can be burned if you are
> only
> interested in heat applications, but for powering engines etc. the tar is
a
> great nuisance.
>

Not having studied a great deal about the subject, perhaps I'm
oversimplifying the matter. However, on the surface, it seems that
gasification is simply starved air combustion - with pyrolitic gasification
being a low air to fuel ratio, and producer gasification being a higher air
to fuel ratio. Thus, gasification is just one portion of the combustion
range in general - that is, in a range from, say, cool smoulder to intense
excess air combustion.

If this is the case, then, isn't gasification simply a two stage combustion
process, that is, starved air primary combustion and excess air secondary
combustion? In an internal combustion engine (ICE), the engine itself acts
as the second stage combustor. In an ECE (External Combustion Engine), a
burner acts as the second stage combustor, to heat a boiler and provide
steam. However, even though the mechanisms that produce the power vary
greatly, don't the combustion prinicples remain the same? Thus, gasification
= the first stage of a two stage combustion process.

Finally, as you point out in your "Handbook of Biomass Downdraft Gasifier
Engine Systems," using the illustration of a burning match, combustion is a
series of processes, all of which are required in order to achieve
combustion. Thus, a two stage combustion process is in reality simply a
combination of these steps, all of which are occuring in the first stage, and
probably all of which are occuring in the second stage as well. Therefore
the only *real* difference in single stage combustion and two stage
combustion is that there is a pipe between two areas, separating the primary
locations where the solid fuel is partly combusted and mostly volatized - and
the location where the off gas is combusted. As you have also pointed out
previously, the definition of a gasifier (two-stage combustor) is that there
is some distinct point between primary and secondary stages where you can
draw off a distinct pyrolysis gas.

> Since most people don't characterize their gasifiers in these terms, it is
> necessary to do some calculations to know where you are in this SV-AF
> spectrum.
>

My point being that it would seem that traditional combustion technology
sufficiently describes and explains the rudimentary processes involved in
gasification. Although gasification, particularly finding the "sweet spot"
for IC engine producer gas, is a very specialized and not well understood
segment of combustion, it nonetheless is simply starved air combustion and
can be described with combustion technology terminology. That is, a
downdraft gasifier is a co-flow primary stage combustor.

What are your thoughts? Am I missing something or off the mark somehow?

> If this is less than crystal clear, my apologies. My understanding
> increases
> daily as I work with the thermodynamics, kinetics and the actual gasifiers
> we
> are building and testing.
>
> Yours truly, TOM REED BEF/CPC
>

Thanks for your continued research into gasification. It seems that your
efforts, along with others who continue research into this area, have helped
to focus attention on superficial velocity as the primary factor in obtaining
low tar gas and helping to demistify the gasification process.

Best,
Vernon Harris

From VHarris001 at aol.com Wed Mar 21 01:46:23 2001
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: grates
Message-ID: <d1.3fed129.27e9a62a@aol.com>

Dear Doug and others,

While I'm quite sure I can't trick any molecules, I suppose I'm under the
distinct impression that a gasifier with sufficient internal superficial
velocity is rather unlike a large smudge pot. Although I'm not quite sure
how to characterize the difference, it must be some function of the
temperature and heat of the process causing a sufficient intensity to
permanently gasify a significant portion of the fuel's volatiles, whereas a
smudge pot smoulders away with barely enough intensity to just liberate the
volatiles - and no more. Does starved air pyrolysis, by necessity, be

At any rate, if MSW produces copious quantities of black liquor, can the
black liquor itself be gasified?

In a message dated 09/01/1999 3:43:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
graeme@powerlink.co.nz writes:

> To answer your questions in detail will only add to the confusion regarding
> how your process will work, so will stick to "your" facts.
>
> 1: Grates, plates or ash domes are only where the descending fuel ends up
> either as char or ash. The key is whether the ash or char is permeable and
> the gas can permeate through without channelling.
>
> 2: In an earlier post you identified your proposed system with staved air
> pyrolysis. The gases from pyrolysis are distillation gases which are very
> unstable, and apart from combustible gas, produce copious amounts of black
> liquor. Because of the tar content, it certainly runs an engine but you
may
> find the valves seize.
>
> 3: I burnt our household paper this morning, so took the opportunity to
> study how each type reacted to oxidation. You should do the same, for it
> appears no two cartons or packets char the same way. The bottom line is
> that you cannot make gas of any sort without a reasonable quantity of close
> contact carbon. This doesn't include the problems caused by wet peelings,
> egg shells, and disposable diapers or plastics.
>
> 4: I have applied every test of my knowledge to your quest and really
> cannot offer you more, but maybe you can trick the molecules to behave and
> you won't know that until you try. There is no magic process only trial
and
> error.
>
> Regards
> Doug Williams.

From VHarris001 at aol.com Wed Mar 21 01:54:28 2001
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Apologies - VHarris001 auto mailer button hit by accident
Message-ID: <b4.12f6134b.27e9a9be@aol.com>

My most sincere apologies to everyone - I accidentally clicked to send all
the mail in my "send later" file, mostly stuff that was draft of other posts
I'd already sent. Please disregard!

Vernon Harris

From claush at mek.dtu.dk Wed Mar 21 04:49:13 2001
From: claush at mek.dtu.dk (Claus Hindsgaul)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: IC Engine Using Dirty Gas?
In-Reply-To: <4f.90afb49.27e9a629@aol.com>
Message-ID: <01032110482401.00906@ip132.et.dtu.dk>

Wednesday March 21. 2001 07:37 vharris wrote:
> Do you have an opinion regarding whether or not an IC engine can be
> modified to run on hot / dirty producer gas? If producer gas were run
> through a cyclone to eliminate most ash (the easy part), can an engine be
> operated at high enough temperature that tars won't condense prior to
> combustion? Will tars mostly combust in an IC engine combustion chamber or
> do they just pass through the system mostly uncombusted?

Your question depends very much on the properties of the "dirty gas".

If you remove large particles, but the gas still contain SOOT, it may end up
in the lubrication oil of the engine causing it to thicken. Well, soot is
very similar to graphite, so depending on the engine, this may not be so bad.
Change your oil more often.

If your gas contain LIGHT TARS (present in high amounts in up-draft
gasifiers), some of these may be corrosive. Their willingness to combust in
the engine rather than pass through to the exhaust is not well known (please
prove me wrong :-) ). If they pass through, the carcinogenic PAHs should be a
serious concern.
Some of the light tars will polymerise on the machinery surfaces leaving hard
coatings on hot surfaces.
Currently research is going on here at DTU and RISOE in Denmark covering:
(1) the breakdown of PAHs in IC engines fuelled by woodgas.
(2) surface fouling caused by polymerisation of phenol and guaiacol.
This research is managed by Mr. Jesper Ahrenfeldt ja@mek.dtu.dk .

HEAVY TARS (much of the tars from downdraft gasifiers) condense at high
temperatures (some do above 200-300C). You dont want to try to run your
engine above these temperatures, so they will cause fouling. You'd better
eliminate or remove these tars before fuelling your engine.

It all depends on your gas (and your engine)...

Sincerly
Claus Hindsgaul

--
Research Assistant Claus Hindsgaul
Danish Technical University (DTU), Dept. of Mechanical Engineering.
Phone: (+45) 4525 4174, Fax: (+45) 4593 5761
claush@mek.dtu.dk

From jmdavies at xsinet.co.za Wed Mar 21 07:45:22 2001
From: jmdavies at xsinet.co.za (John Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Countries represented on gasification list and during WWII
In-Reply-To: <f7.842e33f.27e8bb75@cs.com>
Message-ID: <006601c0b205$39b02680$46d4ef9b@p>

Tom Wrote,
>
> The GASIFICATION list currently stands at 294 members. I was curious to
know
> how many countries we represent. One frustration with Email is that it is
> often hard to know where a particular correspondant is from. Many Email
> addresses end in the country of origin, but many end with com, net, edu,
etc.
>
>
> I word processed the list to separate out the identifiable countries and
162
> look like country names. They are, with the number of members, listed
below.
> Many of the countries are obvious. Look at your own address and let me
know
> what countries these are (if not obvious) or which aren't countries.

I have gone through my address book and find the followong in use:
I have not listed the obvious.

South Africa. za, Others - com, net. org

UK uk Others - fsn, fr ( France ? )

Cook Islands ck. ( less obvious )

Hotmail world wide com.

Companies ISP,s ( world wide ) com

I hope this may be of help,

John Davies.

From LINVENT at aol.com Wed Mar 21 09:07:14 2001
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: IC Engine Using Dirty Gas? was - use of ether for starting
Message-ID: <ea.12fe8ed6.27ea0f2a@aol.com>

In a message dated 3/21/01 12:43:28 AM, VHarris001@aol.com writes:

<<
Do you have an opinion regarding whether or not an IC engine can be modified
to run on hot / dirty producer gas? If producer gas were run through a
cyclone to eliminate most ash (the easy part), can an engine be operated at
high enough temperature that tars won't condense prior to combustion? Will
tars mostly combust in an IC engine combustion chamber or do they just pass
through the system mostly uncombusted? >>
Dear Mr. Harris,
Perhaps it is possible to build an engine to run on the rather severely
fouling tars and oils present in producer gas if not cleaned. I am not aware
of a commercial one available at this point however. It would have to have:
Rings that would not coat up and foul with tars which are present in the gas
bearings, piping, heat exchangers, seals, sleeves, bushings which are not
attacked by a ammonia, or any hydroxide formed from ammonia, ammonia acetate
or acetic acid and other acids, both organic and inorganic.
Plugs that do not foul over time from these same compounds.
Valves which do not coat up, either with the direct tars or with tars which
crack from heat and coat the surfaces with coked carbon deposits.
Particulate and tar separation are virtually impossible to differentiate.
Any one interested in this challenge?

Tom Taylor

From arnt at c2i.net Wed Mar 21 10:12:55 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Apologies - VHarris001 auto mailer button hit by accident
In-Reply-To: <b4.12f6134b.27e9a9be@aol.com>
Message-ID: <3AB8C45A.2746DB65@c2i.net>

VHarris001@aol.com wrote:
>
> My most sincere apologies to everyone - I accidentally clicked to send all
> the mail in my "send later" file, mostly stuff that was draft of other posts
> I'd already sent. Please disregard!
>
> Vernon Harris

..when we screw up like this, I like to be able to cancel
my message, and replace it with a corrected version.
Easy on usenet, should be possible in a mail list too.

--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)

Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.

From jmdavies at xsinet.co.za Wed Mar 21 12:46:46 2001
From: jmdavies at xsinet.co.za (John Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:16 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Apologies - VHarris001 auto mailer button hit by accident
In-Reply-To: <b4.12f6134b.27e9a9be@aol.com>
Message-ID: <00e301c0b22e$5b40ff80$46d4ef9b@p>

Hello Vernon,
Thanks for you mistake, I learned something new, and I am sure that I am not
the only one.
Your mail has answered some questions, before I had a chance to ask.
John Davies.

> My most sincere apologies to everyone - I accidentally clicked to send all
> the mail in my "send later" file, mostly stuff that was draft of other
posts
> I'd already sent. Please disregard!

From amsebbit at techmuk.ac.ug Thu Mar 22 00:38:13 2001
From: amsebbit at techmuk.ac.ug (adam sebbit)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:16 2004
Subject: Incenarotors
Message-ID: <002501c0b290$17c38c20$1b0112ac@techmuk.ac.ug>

Dear colleagues

I interested in designing and construction of small
biomass incinerator for rural clinics.

I would like to get in touch with colleagues
in that areas.

Regards

Adam
------------------------------------------------------------------------Adam.M.SebbitMakerere
UniversityDepartment of Mechanical EngineeringP.O.Box 7062Kampala,
UGANDATel: 256 -41-541173 / 545029Cell
077-485803Fax: 256-41-542377

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Thu Mar 22 07:28:53 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:17 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Goss Gasifiers
Message-ID: <11.117c370e.27eb49a7@cs.com>

Yes, Goss and team made many gasifiers. In particular, having seen a WWII
Imbert (nozzle) gasifier working well, they built one ten times as big for
the California Energy Commission and it was the biggest tar producer of all
time.

The nozzles that supplied air at the small scale to burn the tars merely
roaster the fuel in the larger size. If they had scaled the fuel to larger
sizes it might have worked. But then no one has ever bothered to understand
the Imbert gasifier principles.....

Maybe someday we'll get GOOD gasifiers. (100 monkeys at 100 typewriters will
eventually produce all the works of Shakespeare.)

TOM REED

In a message dated 3/20/01 8:19:45 AM Mountain Standard Time, LINVENT@aol.com
writes:

Dear Tom,
Dr. Goss made a gasifier which operated for some time for the
University of California and I think the California Energy Commission.

Tom Taylor

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Thu Mar 22 07:31:04 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:17 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Impure oxygen
Message-ID: <8.11f4940f.27eb49b4@cs.com>

If all you want is a higher energy gas, an oxygen gasifier produces 12 MJ/m3
gas rather than air gasification's 6 MJ gas, and so any degree of oxygen
enrichment will move that way. (However, the Otto cycle was first developed
for 6 MJ gas, and it ran a million vehicles 1942-45, so why bother).

One reason to "bother" is to make producer gas, a mixture of CO and H2 from
which you can make

methanol
ammonia
gasoline
diesel
etc.

In this case 95% O2 isn't good enough and you will begin to make methyl amine
and your fuel will smell like fish.

TOM REED

In a message dated 3/20/01 11:40:11 PM Mountain Standard Time,
VHarris001@aol.com writes:

>
> Pure oxygen is expensive (although getting cheaper thanks to non-
> cryogenic processes) but low purity oxygen (less than 95% O2) or oxygen
> enriched air (greater than 28% O2) are much cheaper, thanks to pressure
> swing adsorption techniques and membrane technologies.
>
> This is really all you need for gasification ... especially if you just
> need to improve your gas heating value just above that necessary for
> stable gas turbine combustion.
>

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Thu Mar 22 07:33:34 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:17 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Oxygen Sensor from A Kaupp...
Message-ID: <4d.9192ed4.27eb49c7@cs.com>

Dear All;

I am forwarding Ali Kaupp's lectures on clean combustion as the two zipped
files, THAILEC6 and 9.

Thay make very clear why we need to use oxygen meters.

TOm Reed

In a message dated 3/20/01 8:22:13 PM Mountain Standard Time,
Energetica@aol.com writes:

Dear Tom,
I found two of my lecture notes about the topic. See attachment
Cheers ali

Thailec6.zip

Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
-
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: zip00076.zip
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 51705 bytes
Desc: "http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml"
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/20010322/e1d34aa1/zip00076.obj
From snkm at btl.net Thu Mar 22 09:06:02 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:17 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Impure oxygen
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010322080015.0095e470@wgs1.btl.net>

At 07:27 AM 3/22/2001 EST, you wrote:

Or get back to doing gasification by steam reformation. To bad 1 million
cars in WWII have set out minds so firmly on partial combustion processes
instead. So now we can't see the trees for the forest.

You get the same quality and better from steam reformation as using O2 in a
partial combustion process.

What is so confusing to me is that the original process of making synthetic
gasoline -- as invented by the Germans -- was based on steam reformation of
coal. Also a technology driven to the front during WWII.

How fast we forget -- incredible!

The partial combustion process was for "micro" applications only -- the
steam reformation was for "industrial" purposes. Now we try to take a
relatively "inefficient" micro process that does not grow well to replace a
successful industrial process.

Just read a large report on agricultural technology -- comparing the US to
Brazil. We are slipping fast folks -- just can't seem the get a good grip
on how to advance technology in the right direction anymore. And I believe
this is true of gasification as well.

We certainly can "GO" -- but I question the "forward" part.

Peter Singfield / Belize

>>>>
Dear Vern and all:

One reason to "bother" is to make producer gas, a mixture of CO and H2 from
which you can make

methanol
ammonia
gasoline
diesel
etc.

In this case 95% O2 isn't good enough and you will begin to make methyl
amine
and your fuel will smell like fish.

TOM REED

In a message dated 3/20/01 11:40:11 PM Mountain Standard Time,
VHarris001@aol.com writes:

From shaase at mcneiltech.com Thu Mar 22 11:19:08 2001
From: shaase at mcneiltech.com (Scott Haase)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:17 2004
Subject: Incenarotors
In-Reply-To: <002501c0b290$17c38c20$1b0112ac@techmuk.ac.ug>
Message-ID: <NEBBKHCFCLICBAKHAPDGGECMCEAA.shaase@mcneiltech.com>

Adam,

Here
is one link:

<A
href="http://www.gocpc.com/">http://www.gocpc.com/

Community
Power Corporation has a technology for biomass
gasifiers targete towards village applications. They may be able to help
you.


Scott HaaseMcNeil Technologies143 Union Blvd., Suite 900Lakewood,
CO 80228303-273-0071 (p)302-273-0074 (f)Visit our website:
www.mcneiltech.com

-----Original Message-----From: adam sebbit
[mailto:amsebbit@techmuk.ac.ug]Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001
10:22 PMTo: gasification@crest.orgCc:
StoversSubject: Incenarotors
Dear colleagues

I interested in designing and construction of
small biomass incinerator for rural clinics.

I would like to get in touch with
colleagues in that areas.

Regards

Adam
------------------------------------------------------------------------Adam.M.SebbitMakerere
UniversityDepartment of Mechanical EngineeringP.O.Box 7062Kampala,
UGANDATel: 256 -41-541173 / 545029Cell
077-485803Fax: 256-41-542377

From joseph.fonio at oser.net Fri Mar 23 05:01:16 2001
From: joseph.fonio at oser.net (Joseph FONIO)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:17 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Treated wood valorisation
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010322080015.0095e470@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <009701c0b381$001b0de0$0f0aa8c0@sct.fr>

Dear everyone at the gasification list,

Has anybody heard of a technology to recycle the pieces of wood crossing the
railroads (sorry, I do not know the exact english word for this) ? As it is
treated wood, the pollutants are likely to cause problems for combustion or
gasification. Anyway there are huge ressources of this treated wood and any
technology able to make something out of it would surely make a lot of
money.

Best regards.

Joseph Fonio

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Fri Mar 23 09:10:35 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:17 2004
Subject: Country Abreviation List
Message-ID: <90.11e1b1c4.27ecb2c0@cs.com>

Peter Singfeld kindly sent the following "country abreviation" list. Maybe
print and post to inspire you with the targets of our efforts to help.

We are an eclectic bunch and learning a lot of geography fast....

TOM REED

AC    FI   * C Ascension Island
AD    FI   *    Andorra
AE    FI   *    United Arab Emirates
AF         P C Afghanistan(Islamic State)
AG    FI   *    Antigua and Barbuda
AI    FI   *    Anguilla
AL    FI   *    Albania
AM    FI   *    Armenia                    Ex-USSR
AN    FI   *    Netherland Antilles
AO    FI   *    Angola (Republic of)
AQ    FI   *    Antarctica                 intermittent
AR    FI   *    Argentina
AS    FI   *    American Samoa
AT    FI   *    Austria
AU    FI   *    Australia
AW    FI   *    Aruba
AZ    FI   *    Azerbaijan Ex-USSR
BA    FI   *    Bosnia-Herzegovina
BB    FI   *    Barbados
BD    FI   * Bangladesh
BE    FI   *    Belgium
BF    FI   *    Burkina Faso
BG    FI   *    Bulgaria
BH    FI   *    Bahrain
BI    FI   *    Burundi
BJ    FI   *    Benin
BM    FI   *    Bermuda
BN    FI   *    Brunei Darussalam
BO    FI   *    Bolivia
BR    FI   *    Brazil
BS    FI   *    Bahamas
BT    FI   * C Bhutan
BV              Bouvet Island
BW    FI   *    Botswana
BY    FI   *    Belarus            Ex-USSR
BZ    FI   *    Belize
CA    FI B *    Canada
CC    FI   * C Cocos (Keeling) Islands
CD    FI   *    Democratic Republic of Congo
CF    FI   *    Central African Republic
CG    FI   * C Congo
CH    FI   *    Switzerland
CI    FI   *    Ivory Coast
CK    FI   *    Cook Islands
CL    FI B *    Chile
CM    FI   *    Cameroon
CN    FI   *    China
CO    FI   *    Colombia
CR    FI   *    Costa Rica
CU    FI   *    Cuba
CV    FI   *    Cape Verde
CX           C Christmas Island
CY    FI   *    Cyprus
CZ    FI   *    Czech Republic
DE    FI   *    Germany
DJ    FI   *    Djibouti
DK    FI   *    Denmark
DM    FI   *    Dominica
DO    FI   *    Dominican Republic
DZ    FI   *    Algeria
EC    FI   *    Ecuador
EE    FI   *    Estonia
EG    FI   * Egypt
EH              Western Sahara
ER    FI   *    Eritrea
ES    FI   *    Spain
ET    FI   *    Ethiopia
FI    FI B *    Finland
FJ    FI   *    Fiji
FK    FI   * C Falkland (Malvinas)
FM    FI   *    Micronesia
FO    FI   *    Faroe Islands
FR    FI   *    France
FX              France (European Ter.)   France Metropolitaine
GA    FI   *    Gabon
GB    FI   *    Great Britain (UK)       X.400 & IP both use this TLD
GD    FI   * Grenada
GE    FI   *    Georgia                  Ex-USSR
GF    FI   *    Guiana (French)
GG    FI   *    Guernsey (Channel Island)
GH    FI   *    Ghana
GI    FI   *    Gibraltar
GL    FI   * Greenland
GM    FI   *    Gambia
GN    FI   *    Guinea
GP    FI   *    Guadeloupe (French)
GQ    FI   *    Equatorial Guinea
GR    FI   *    Greece
GS      South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands
GT    FI   *    Guatemala
GU    FI   *    Guam (US)                 US domains
GW    FI   *    Guinea Bissau
GY    FI   *    Guyana
HK    FI   *    Hong Kong
HM           C Heard & McDonald Islands
HN    FI   *    Honduras
HR    FI   *    Croatia
HT    FI   *    Haiti
HU    FI   *    Hungary
ID    FI   *    Indonesia
IE    FI   *    Ireland
IL    FI   *    Israel
IN    FI   *    India
IM    FI   *    Isle of Man
IO    FI   * British Indian Overseas Territory
IQ              Iraq
IR    FI   *    Iran
IS    FI B *    Iceland
IT    FI B *    Italy
JE    FI   *    Jersey (Channel Islands)
JM    FI   *    Jamaica
JO    FI   *    Jordan
JP    FI   *    Japan
KE    FI   *    Kenya
KG    FI   *    Kyrgyz Republic    Ex-USSR (in .su domain)
KH    FI   *    Cambodia
KI FI   *    Kiribati
KM    FI   *    Comoros
KN    PFI P C St.Kitts Nevis Anguilla
KP         P    Korea (North)
KR    FI   *    Korea (South)
KW    FI   *    Kuwait
KY    FI   *    Cayman Islands
KZ    FI   *    Kazakstan                 Ex-USSR
LA    FI   *    Laos
LB    FI   *    Lebanon
LC    FI   *    Saint Lucia
LI    FI   *    Liechtenstein
LK    FI   *    Sri Lanka
LR    FI   *    Liberia
LS    FI   *    Lesotho
LT    FI   *    Lithuania                 Ex-USSR
LU    FI   *    Luxembourg
LV    FI   *    Latvia                    Ex-USSR
LY   PFI   * C Libya
MA    FI   *    Morocco
MC    FI   *    Monaco
MD    FI   * C Moldova                   Ex-USSR
MG    FI   *    Madagascar
MH           C Marshall Islands
MK    FI   *    Macedonia (Former Yugoslav Republic Of)
ML    FI   *    Mali
MM         *    Myanmar
MN    FI   *    Mongolia
MO    FI   * Macau
MP    FI   * C Northern Mariana Islands
MQ    FI   *    Martinique (French)
MR    FI   *    Mauritania
MS           C Montserrat
MT    FI   *    Malta
MU    FI   *    Mauritius
MV    FI   *    Maldives
MW    FI   *    Malawi
MX    FI   *    Mexico
MY    FI   *    Malaysia
MZ    FI   *    Mozambique
NA    FI   *    Namibia
NC    FI   *    New Caledonia (French)
NE    FI   *    Niger
NF    FI   * C Norfolk Island
NG    FI   F    Nigeria
NI    FI   *    Nicaragua
NL    FI   *    Netherlands
NO    FI B *    Norway
NP    FI   *    Nepal
NR              Nauru
NU    FI   * C Niue
NZ    FI   *    New Zealand
OM    FI   *    Oman
PA    FI   *    Panama
PE    FI   *    Peru
PF    FI   *    Polynesia (French)
PG FI   *    Papua New Guinea
PH    FI   *    Philippines
PK    FI   *    Pakistan
PL    FI   *    Poland
PM           C St. Pierre & Miquelon
PN              Pitcairn
PR    FI B *    Puerto Rico (US)
PS    FI   *    Palestinian Territories, Occupied
PT    FI   *    Portugal
PW    FI   *    Palau
PY    FI   *    Paraguay
QA    FI   *    Qatar
RE    FI   *    Reunion (France)
RO    FI   *    Romania
RU    FI   *    Russian Federation        Ex-USSR
RW    FI   *    Rwanda
SA    FI   *    Saudi Arabia
SB    FI   *    Solomon Islands
SC    FI   *    Seychelles
SD    FI   *    Sudan
SE FI B *    Sweden
SG    FI   *    Singapore
SH    FI   * C St. Helena
SI    FI   * Slovenia
SJ    FI   *    Svalbard & Jan Mayen Islands (in .no domain)
SK    FI   *    Slovakia (Slovak Republic)
SL    FI   *    Sierra Leone
SM FI   *    San Marino
SN    FI   *    Senegal
SO    FI   *    Somalia
SR    FI   *    Suriname
ST    FI   * C St. Tome and Principe
SU    FI   *    Soviet Union              Still used.
SV FI   *    El Salvador
SY    FI   *    Syria
SZ    FI   *    Swaziland
TC    FI   *    Turks & Caicos Islands
TD    FI   *    Chad
TF           C French Southern Territories
TG    FI   *    Togo
TH    FI   *    Thailand
TJ    FI   * C Tadjikistan               Ex-USSR
TK              Tokelau
TM    FI   *    Turkmenistan              Ex-USSR
TN    FI   *    Tunisia
TO    FI   *    Tonga
TP    FI   * C East Timor
TR    FI   *    Turkey
TT    FI   *    Trinidad & Tobago
TV    FI   * C Tuvalu
TW    FI   *    Taiwan
TZ    FI   *    Tanzania
UA    FI   *    Ukraine
UG    FI   *    Uganda
UK    FI   *    United Kingdom            ISO 3166 is GB
UM              US Minor outlying Islands
US    FI   *    United States             see note (4)
UY    FI   *    Uruguay
UZ    FI   *    Uzbekistan                Ex-USSR
VA    FI   *    Vatican City State
VC         P    St.Vincent & Grenadines
VE FI   *    Venezuela
VG    FI   *    Virgin Islands (British)
VI    FI   *    Virgin Islands (US)
VN    FI   *    Vietnam
VU    FI   *    Vanuatu
WF              Wallis & Futuna Islands
WS    FI   * C Western Samoa
YE    FI   *    Yemen
YT              Mayotte
YU    FI   *    Yugoslavia
ZA    FI   *    South Africa
ZM    FI   *    Zambia                     intermittent
ZR              Dem. Rep. of Congo         deleted and replaced by CD
ZW    FI   *    Zimbabwe

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Fri Mar 23 09:46:58 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:17 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Steam gasification???
Message-ID: <a1.12e300c7.27ecbb82@cs.com>

Coal is typically 80% fixed carbon and 20% volatile matter;

Biomass is typically 20% fixed carbon and 80% volatile matter.

So the processes for gasification of coal and biomass are very different.
Those who ignore this are in deep doo doo.

TOM REED

In a message dated 3/22/01 7:04:55 AM Mountain Standard Time, snkm@btl.net
writes:

You get the same quality and better from steam reformation as using O2 in a
partial combustion process.

How fast we forget -- incredible!

We certainly can "GO" -- but I question the "forward" part.

Peter Singfield / Belize

From snkm at btl.net Fri Mar 23 10:52:29 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:17 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Steam gasification???
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010323093221.0095ed70@wgs1.btl.net>

At 09:45 AM 3/23/2001 EST, you wrote:
>>>>
Dear Peter and All:

Coal is typically 80% fixed carbon and 20% volatile matter;

Biomass is typically 20% fixed carbon and 80% volatile matter.

So the processes for gasification of coal and biomass are very different.
Those who ignore this are in deep doo doo.

TOM REED

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

Correct Tom!

Steam reformation depends on a carbon and steam reduction reaction --
highly endothermic. The the first step is concentrate the carbon.

In the coal process -- they first pyrolize the coal driving off the
volatiles (producing coke)-- resulting in a very high value gas -- coal gas.

They then steam reform the concentrated carbon (coke) to synthesis gas.

The process for biomasses stays the same -- pyrolization then steam
reformation of the charcoal. Be it 20% or 80%.

One argument it that pyrolization of biomasses does not produce such
quality gas as pyrolization of coal. That is true. Many tars and other
objectionable products are also produced -- as well as combustible gas. The
tar/water result is liquid and attempts are always in process to use this
as a liquid fuel in its own rights.

(See: producing hydrogen from pyroligneous oils appended)

However -- those tars and other by-products will also steam reform to
synthesis gas.

Now one would suppose this is a complicated process.

Yet research has shown that simply immersing biomass in a water bath of the
correct temperature and pressures will do all of this in one "pass". Have
appended an item on this. (appended 2)

In any even -- the end result of both processes is to achieve a maximum
production of gas from biomass. The difference is the steam reforming gives
a higher quality gas (roughly double the btu content) and more suited for
chemical transformations into high quality liquid fuels.

Now -- what is the real reason for not studying steam reformation processes
on this list?

I suspect it is tunnel vision only?

Actually -- just pulling you leg -- now look at appended 3 -- from this
same gas list archives.

My point being -- is this a gasification list or a dedicated forum for
partial combustion gasifier technology only?? If the latter is the case --
should not the title of this list be changed from the more broad definition
gasification?

You all no well my stand -- partial combustion gasification requires to
much fuel conditioning to be a viable process for large operations. And
even on micro scale -- regular combustion (also a gasification process --
let us not forget) firing a boiler still being a much more reliable
conversion method of biomass to power. And by simply innovating the
fluid/vapor cycle for more efficient lower temperature operations -- a
minor complication -- we can double over all efficiencies when compared to
the best offered by partial combustion gasifiers powering IC engines.

I have not yet seen higher over all efficiencies demonstrated involving the
complicated partial combustion gasifier process. Yet we all can certainly
attest to the much greater amounts of complications introduced to achieve
same.

If we are being advised to live with these onerous complications -- let us
at least get a high quality product as result -- as in steam reformation.

Peter Singfield / Belize

*****appended examples*****

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Hydrogen Production/Recovery/Storage

DOE (Government) Funded

--------------------------------------------------------------------

BIOMASS TO HYDROGEN VIA PYROLYSIS AND REFORMING
[IMAGE]

--------------------------------------------------------------------

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project is intended to demonstrate cost-effective means of
producing hydrogen from pyroligneous oils produced from the pyrolysis
of lignocellulosic biomass. The objective is to demonstrate the
feasibility of a regionalized system of small- and medium-sized
pyrolysis units which supply oil into a centralized reformer for
hydrogen production. The technical approach involves (1) studies on
the composition of pyrolysis oils and the technology of steam
reforming to hydrogen (completed); (2) thermodynamic modeling to
guide the experimental design (completed); (3) experimental research
and catalyst testing; (4) process development; (5) economic
evaluation; and (6) environmental impact studies. The fast pyrolysis
technology developed at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
provides technical and economic benefits to this process development.
Preliminary economics, with a price for biomass at $42/dry ton,
suggest that H2 cost (at 70 percent of the maximum stoichiometric
yield from biocrude) will be $13.50/MM Btu. Alternatively, if waste
biomass at $15/dry ton can be used, the necessary selling price will
be $12.50/MM Btu.
PARTICIPANT

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)

STATUS
Project is ongoing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

FUNDING PROFILE

Funding Source: DOE/Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy-Office of
Utility Technologies

Funding Mechanism: Field Work Proposal
Funding Level (in thousands):
-----------------------------------------
FY94 FY95 FY96 TOTAL
_________________________________________
NREL $400 $438 $382 $1220
-----------------------------------------

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/
POINT OF CONTACT

NREL:
Esteban Chornet
Phone: 303-384-6240
Fax: 303-384-6103
chornete@tcplink.nrel.gov

***********appended 2************

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Hydrogen Production/Recovery/Storage

DOE (Government) Funded

--------------------------------------------------------------------

HYDROGEN PRODUCTION FROM HIGH-MOISTURE CONTENT BIOMASS IN
SUPERCRITICAL WATER
[IMAGE]

--------------------------------------------------------------------

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project is investigating the use of water as the medium for
converting biomass to gas. Previous work showed that low
concentrations of a model compound (glucose) and various wet biomass
species could be completely gasified in supercritical water at 600C
and 34.5 MPa (5,000 psi) after 30 seconds. But higher concentrations
of glucose resulted in incomplete conversion. For this reason, flow
reactors have been constructed that accommodate packed beds of
catalyst. The goal is to identify active catalysts for steam
reforming biomass slurries in supercritical water. Carbon-based
catalysts promote complete conversion (>99%) of high-concentration
glucose (up to 22% by weight) to a hydrogen-rich synthesis gas. The
catalyst is stable over a period of several hours, is inexpensive,
and exists in a wide variety of forms. The gaseous products
(primarily hydrogen, CO2, and methane) separate from the water upon
cooling at the reactor exit and are then available for storage or
further processing at a pressure of 34.5 MPa.
PARTICIPANT

University of Hawaii

STATUS
Project is ongoing

--------------------------------------------------------------------

FUNDING PROFILE

Funding Source: DOE/Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy-Office of
Utility Technologies

Funding Mechanism: Grant
Funding Level (in thousands):Funding Level (in thousands):
------------------------------------------------
FY94 FY95 FY96 TOTAL
________________________________________________
U of Hawaii $140 $150 $200 $490
------------------------------------------------

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/
POINT OF CONTACT

U. OF HAWAII
M. Antal
Phone: 808-956-8346
Fax : 808-956-2335

*****************appended 3************
Return-Path: <owner-gasification@crest.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: secure.crest.net: majordomo set sender to
owner-gasification@crest.org using -f
X-Sender: cpeacocke+care@pop3.demon.co.uk
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 07:56:07 +0100
To: gasification@crest.org
From: Cordner Peacocke <cpeacocke@care.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: GAS-L: BIOMASS TO HYDROGEN VIA PYROLYSIS AND REFORMING
Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
Reply-To: gasification@crest.org

Dear Group,

For those interested in the steam reforming of biomass, here are a couple
of references. I suggest contacting Dr. Stefan Czernik at NREL for further
information. I think that they have added polymers to their list of
feedstocks.

Chornet, E., Czernik, S., Wang, D., Gregorie, C. and Mann, M., 'Biomass to
hydrogen via pyrolysis and reforming', in Proc. 1994 DOE/NREL Hydrogen
Program Review, 1994, pp. 407-432.

Wang, D., Czernik, S., Montane, D., Mann, M. and Chornet, E., 'Biomass to
hydrogen via fast pyrolysis and catalytic steam reforming of the pyrolysis
oil or its fractions', Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., May 1997, vol. 36, no. 5, pp.
1507-1518.

Here's the abstract for this one:

Pyrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass and reforming of the pyroligneous oils
are being studied as a strategy for producing hydrogen. A process of this
nature has the potential to be cost competitive with conventional means of
producing hydrogen. We propose a regionalized system of hydrogen
production, where small- and medium-sized pyrolysis units (<500 Mg/day)
provide bio-oil to a central reforming unit to be catalytically converted
to H2 and CO2. Thermodynamic modeling of the major constituents of the
bio-oil has shown that reforming is possible within a wide range of
temperatures and steam-to- carbon ratios. In addition, screening tests
aimed at catalytic reforming of model compounds to hydrogen using Ni-based
catalysts have achieved essentially complete conversion to H2. Existing
data on the catalytic reforming of oxygenates have been studied to guide
catalyst selection. A process diagram for the pyrolysis and reforming
operation is discussed, as are initial production cost estimates. A window
of opportunity clearly exists if the bio-oil is first refined to yield
valuable oxygenates so that only a residual fraction is used for hydrogen
production.

Cordner

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

In a message dated 3/22/01 7:04:55 AM Mountain Standard Time, snkm@btl.net
writes:

You get the same quality and better from steam reformation as using O2 in a
partial combustion process.

How fast we forget -- incredible!

We certainly can "GO" -- but I question the "forward" part.

Peter Singfield / Belize

From snkm at btl.net Fri Mar 23 11:38:51 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:17 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Oxygen Sensor from A Kaupp...
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010323102935.0095a100@wgs1.btl.net>

Tom Reed and listers;

Have been chatting with Dennis at www.innovatia.com where they specialize
in control instrumentation. By the way - some nice stand alone controllers
there as well.

He would be prepared to put together a set-up as required specifically for
running any furnace or gasifier. That is thermocouples, oxygen sensing --
some simply flow measuring devices -- low pressure readings -- etc. etc.

All this at a very reasonable price -- if a market exists.

Peter Singfield / Belize

At 07:27 AM 3/22/2001 EST, you wrote:
>>>>
Dear All;

I am forwarding Ali Kaupp's lectures on clean combustion as the two zipped
files, THAILEC6 and 9.

Thay make very clear why we need to use oxygen meters.

TOm Reed

In a message dated 3/20/01 8:22:13 PM Mountain Standard Time,
Energetica@aol.com writes:

Dear Tom,
I found two of my lecture notes about the topic. See attachment
Cheers ali

Attachment Converted: "c:\XAIBE\ATTACH\Thailec6.zip"
Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
-
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

From ericbj at club-internet.fr Fri Mar 23 15:53:10 2001
From: ericbj at club-internet.fr (Eric Bruce Johnston)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:17 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Treated wood valorisation
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010322080015.0095e470@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3ABBB9B2.5C1B98E7@club-internet.fr>

Joseph FONIO a écrit:

> Dear everyone at the gasification list,
>
> Has anybody heard of a technology to recycle the pieces of wood crossing the
> railroads (sorry, I do not know the exact english word for this) ?

"Sleepers". Some years back the French railways round here were selling a lot
of them off, and they were great recycled as floor joists, window lintels etc.
All hardwood : oak, beech, etc.

> As it is
> treated wood, the pollutants are likely to cause problems for combustion or
> gasification. Anyway there are huge ressources of this treated wood and any
> technology able to make something out of it would surely make a lot of
> money.

The ones around here were pressure treated with creosote, I am fairly certain,
and since creosote is a product of destructive distillation of wood should be no
problem in a gasifier. However probably dangerous on an open hearth fire.
Highly toxic. I often suffer dreadful headaches after using it for treating
outdoor timbers.

From arnt at c2i.net Fri Mar 23 16:42:35 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:17 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Treated wood valorisation
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010322080015.0095e470@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3ABBC260.3E0EB642@c2i.net>

Eric Bruce Johnston wrote:
>
> Joseph FONIO a écrit:
>
> > Dear everyone at the gasification list,
> >
> > Has anybody heard of a technology to recycle the pieces of wood crossing the
> > railroads (sorry, I do not know the exact english word for this) ?
>
> "Sleepers". Some years back the French railways round here were selling a lot
> of them off, and they were great recycled as floor joists, window lintels etc.
> All hardwood : oak, beech, etc.
>
> > As it is
> > treated wood, the pollutants are likely to cause problems for combustion or
> > gasification. Anyway there are huge ressources of this treated wood and any
> > technology able to make something out of it would surely make a lot of
> > money.
>
> The ones around here were pressure treated with creosote, I am fairly certain,
> and since creosote is a product of destructive distillation of wood should be no
> problem in a gasifier. However probably dangerous on an open hearth fire.
> Highly toxic. I often suffer dreadful headaches after using it for treating
> outdoor timbers.
>

..is creosote still legal anywhere? I thought it had been
banned everywhere? Mean stuff. Some leach out, if left in
place, almost everything is released when burned. I believe
sleepers are burned in cement furnaces here Norway.
Best way is gasify it.

--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)

Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.

From ericbj at club-internet.fr Fri Mar 23 18:02:53 2001
From: ericbj at club-internet.fr (Eric Bruce Johnston)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:17 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Treated wood valorisation
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010322080015.0095e470@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3ABBD820.1EA86EE4@club-internet.fr>

Arnt Karlsen a écrit:

> .is creosote still legal anywhere? I thought it had been
> banned everywhere? Mean stuff.

Sold here under the trade name of "Carbocaf". I get it from the agricultural
co-operative. Cheap and effective. Guaranteed to kill everything. Once upon a time
I treated someone's greenhouse with it and the fumes killed all the tomato plants.
I even used it for my roof timbers. They were supposed to have been treated at the
saw-mill using metal-salt solution (no toxic vapours). It was a wet autumn and they
were stored outside under plastic. Started sprouting fungus. Not satisfied, I
re-treated them with creosote. Ever wondered why I am still living in a caravan ?
No, seriously, the vapours are dissipated after a couple of years (at least that's
what my nose tells me). Normally for treating indoor timbers I use an aqueous
solution of borax. Again purchased from the agricultural co-op (they sell it for
boron-impoverished soils). Totally harmless and dirt cheap. You can also buy it at
the pharmacists' (much more expensive) where they sell it as a mouth-disinfectant.

From arnt at c2i.net Fri Mar 23 18:08:17 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:17 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Treated wood valorisation
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010322080015.0095e470@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3ABBD6CB.69FF88BF@c2i.net>

Eric Bruce Johnston wrote:
>
> Arnt Karlsen a écrit:
>
> > .is creosote still legal anywhere? I thought it had been
> > banned everywhere? Mean stuff.
>
> Sold here under the trade name of "Carbocaf". I get it from the agricultural
> co-operative. Cheap and effective. Guaranteed to kill everything. Once upon a time
> I treated someone's greenhouse with it and the fumes killed all the tomato plants.
> I even used it for my roof timbers. They were supposed to have been treated at the
> saw-mill using metal-salt solution (no toxic vapours). It was a wet autumn and they
> were stored outside under plastic. Started sprouting fungus. Not satisfied, I
> re-treated them with creosote. Ever wondered why I am still living in a caravan ?
> No, seriously, the vapours are dissipated after a couple of years (at least that's
> what my nose tells me). Normally for treating indoor timbers I use an aqueous
> solution of borax. Again purchased from the agricultural co-op (they sell it for
> boron-impoverished soils). Totally harmless and dirt cheap. You can also buy it at
> the pharmacists' (much more expensive) where they sell it as a mouth-disinfectant.
>

..it was banned here due to the cancer risk.

--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)

Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.

From snkm at btl.net Fri Mar 23 18:34:48 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:17 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Steam reforming tars from a combustion Gasifiaction process.
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010323172942.0097f3b0@wgs1.btl.net>

OK -- as directly steam reforming biomass is not popular on this list --
would you at least consider steam reforming the tars out of your gasifier
product?

That is what they suggest doing below. To some of us -- it would appear
easier and simpler to pyrolize and then steam reform the biomasses. But --
that would make partial combustion gasifiers redundant. And they are so
"cute". Plus we would then miss all the fun of having to condition the fuel
source to such exacting conditions!

To simple a solution by far. No -- lets keep on designing these plumber's
night-mares and making people cut their pure biomass fuels into exact
physical sizes, of very exacting humidity levels, to preform a very
variable and "finicky" partial combustion gasification that may or may not
achieve a product that may or may not be suitable.

Still -- I have to comment on this "line" from below --

"Carbon dioxide from combustion of biomass derived fuels becomes
the starting material to regenerate the biomass feedstock through
photosynthesis, thus closing the carbon cycle as the biomass
crops are grown on a closed-cycle loop."

Some of us would think it would be more efficient to avoid all CO2
production by steam reforming from the beginning. Thus a higher yielding of
synthesis gas per unit mass of biomass processed. Then burning that product
for production of CO2 to recycle back to growing plants. Why not get as
much bang as possible out of this process?

Folks -- OK -- the above is meant as tongue in cheek engineering humor. But
surely -- is it not time a little investigation by some of the "hackers" of
this list out there be made to steam reforming apparatus?

Hmm -- "Golden, CO" -- I believe that is right in Tom R's area?

Peter Singfield / Belize

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

From:

http://www.nrel.gov/research/industrial_tech/syngas.html

Synthesis Gas Conditioning for Thermochemically Producing Methanol
and Other Oxygenates from Biomass
==================================================================

Researchers at NREL are developing a direct, on-line, catalytic
process to purify and optimize the composition of synthesis gas
produced by biomass gasification for subsequent use in methanol and
related syntheses. Synthesis gas (syngas) is a mixture of carbon
monoxide and hydrogen used as the feedstock in commercial methanol
production. Methanol synthesis is a catalytic process that requires
very pure syngas. Raw syngas from leading biomass gasifiers contains
significant concentrations of particulate matter, light hydrocarbons
(HCs), and tar, which must be removed from the product stream.

Developing a direct catalytic conditioning process to purify hot, raw
syngas will significantly improve biomass-to-methanol process
economics. Methanol produced from this technology represents a
renewable resource fuel, and as an added benefit, does not contribute
to the net concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Quartz gasifier used for studying gasification of biomass.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Biomass-to-Methanol Cycle:
--------------------------

During gasification hydrogen and carbon monoxide are produced.
However, unacceptable concentrations of methane and low molecular
weight HCs (ca. 5-10%), and tar (0.5-2%) are also formed and these
impurities must be removed. Additionally, the raw gas stream hydrogen
to carbon monoxide ratio is typically about 0.7. This must be
adjusted to approximately 2.0 for methanol synthesis. The focus of
this research is to develop a one-step catalytic conditioning process
to remove tar and HCs, and adjusting the hydrogen to carbon monoxide
ratio. In methanol synthesis copper-based catalysts used are
sensitive to deactivation by coking and other poisoning mechanisms.
Other uses include producing MTBE and blending it with gasoline.
Other syngas-derived products can also be made from biomass. Carbon
dioxide from combustion of biomass derived fuels becomes the starting
material to regenerate the biomass feedstock through photosynthesis,
thus closing the carbon cycle as the biomass crops are grown on a
closed-cycle loop.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Approach
--------

The tar produced during biomass gasification is a complex mixture.
However the NREL MBMS permits real-time
analysis of product streams and thus, the study of high molecular
weight polynuclear aromatic HC chemistry. Both steady-state and
transient behavior can be monitored. Gasification temperatures are
typically around 800 C and at these high temperatures, products of
biomass pyrolysis thermally react to produce tertiary tars containing
stable aromatics and some light HCs. The spectrum of heavy
condensates (Figure 1) shows significant concentrations of phenol (MW
= 94), naphthalene (MW = 128), acenaphthylene (MW = 152),
anthracene/phenanthrene (MW = 178), pyrene (MW = 202), perylene (and
others at MW = 252), and their methylated analogs (MW + 14). More
volatile HCs were not collected with this sample. A synthetic tar has
been formulated to contain the compounds found in the highest
concentrations in real tar for catalyst micro-scale testing at NREL.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Results
-------

A variety of catalysts have been examined for suitability to
eliminate high molecular weight tar species, as well as light HCs in
raw biomass-produced syngas. Figure 2 shows the results of an early
study with toluene steam reforming as a model reaction for tar
destruction. ICI 46-1 is a commercial, K-promoted, nickel steam
reforming catalyst that performed well. ICI 46-1 exhibited good
activity at 700 C and lower temperatures, and did not deactivate
significantly during the experiment (approximately 5 hours). Three
levels of space velocity, temperature, and steam-to-carbon ratio were
examined. Work is progressing with synthetic tar and other catalysts
under different conditions.

A proprietary catalyst, designated DN-34, has recently been developed
from a collaborative research effort between NREL and Battelle
Columbus Laboratory. This new catalyst has been tested in a
slipstream fluidized-bed reactor on a 9 ton-per-day indirect biomass
gasifier and at the micro-scale at NREL, and has been effective for
tar destruction in syngas conditioning. Additionally, this catalyst
has operated in excess of 160 hours on the full-size gasifier without
any measurable deactivation. In addition to being long-lived, this
catalyst is inexpensive and not nickel based, and thus has
significant economic advantages in terms of spent catalyst disposal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Future Research
---------------

Research is in progress to understand the catalytic chemistry of
DN-34 and similar catalysts to develop catalysts with improved
performance. Experiments are in progress to study the reactions of
these compounds over a variety of new catalysts in detail. Catalyst
lifetime studies are also in progress. Real-time monitoring of the
product stream from the 9-ton-per-day indirectly heated biomass
gasifier is under way at Battelle Columbus Laboratory with the <A
HREF="mbms.html"#mbms>TMBMS. Catalyst performance in slipstream
reactors on the gasifier will be monitored and analytical procedures
verified.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

MBMS, TMBMS Staff
-----------------

* Steven C. Gebhard, staff chemical engineer
* Dingneng Wang, staff scientist
* Matthew Ratcliff, staff scientist
* Richard J. French, staff scientist
* David A. Gratson, associate research scientist
* Christine J. Roth, chemical technician
* Robin L. Vojdani, chemical technician

--------------------------------------------------------------------

For further technical information, contact: Steven C. Gebhard,
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, CO
80401-3393, (303) 384-6249, (303) 384-6103 (FAX)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

From ericbj at club-internet.fr Fri Mar 23 18:56:38 2001
From: ericbj at club-internet.fr (Eric Bruce Johnston)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:17 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Treated wood valorisation
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010322080015.0095e470@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3ABBE4C9.26AD967C@club-internet.fr>

Arnt Karlsen a écrit:

> .it was banned here due to the cancer risk.

Well, I shall be careful ! Years ago, I used to work in an asbestos factory in between
studying furniture-making. All a question of exposure. And other factors. Cancer is a
"multifactorial disease". (I worked one and a half years as a volunteer in an alternative
cancer centre)

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sat Mar 24 08:27:31 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:17 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Mel Strand back in gasifier Business
Message-ID: <89.42a2190.27edfa55@cs.com>

Power is dear to our hearts, but transport vital to our existance... Will
"wood-gas" cars come back?

Our new member Mel Strand was born in Mineapolis but returned to Norway with
his parents in the thirties. He was stranded there when war broke out in
1940 and spent 5 years delivering produce in a gasifier truck in the daytime
... and delivering arms to the underground at night.

He returned to the U.S. after the war and has been a machinist in Colorado
Springs. About 8 years ago he decided to make a gasifier truck and bought a
1948 Chevy truck here in Golden. He has completely renovated it and added a
gasifier on the oak truck bed.

On March 10 I drove to the Springs (on dumb old gasoline) and had the
pleasure of driving around with Mel in his gorgeous truck. We started up
with charcoal of course and then switched to Aspen blocks the size of my
fist. I brought along a 40 lb bag of sawdust pellets and we loaded them in
on top of the blocks. We drove around for several hours and couldn't tell
the difference as the truck switched fuels.

I was impressed by Mel's artistry in driving smoothly through the streets,
hills and traffic while

adjusting the spark advance
adjusting air/fuel ratio
adjusting the throttle to store energy going down hills for the next climb
carrying on a lively conversation about many subjects.

What an artist, but of course he had 5 years practice in Norway. How long
would it take to train the average housewife to do all this? Or me?

The gasifier was extra simple and had only one Imbert type nozzle - you might
call it a hybrid crossdraft-downdraft gasifier. The gas went from the
gasifier to an extra radiator in the front for cooling/condensing moisture,
then to a "wood wool" (excelsior ?) filter, then finally to the engine and
fan/flare for startup. After several hours of driving there were only a few
drops of condensate. But of course we have dry wood and weather here in
Colorado.

Mel mostly uses the truck around the Springs in parades etc., but has climbed
Pike's Peak in it and is thinking of doing it again. If any of you get to
the Springs he would probably be glad to show you the truck.
~~~~~

I have a vision: The modern car probably wouldn't like Mel's gasifier and
all the manual controls, and neither would I. However, with our "turnkey,
tarfree" gasifiers, densified biomass fuels and closed loop control,
gasifiers could make an end run around the perpetually promised, but yet
unrealized gasoline from coal, nuclear energy too cheap to measure, hydrogen
fuels and the Stirling, fuel cell and microturbine engines we are promised.

Fill her up - with pellets.

Onward - TOM REED BEF

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sat Mar 24 08:35:48 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:17 2004
Subject: GAS-L: File names
Message-ID: <f9.863b9ab.27edfc40@cs.com>

I get a half dozen file transfers/day, mostly with obscure names like
"unknown 7", "7pic" etc. What with mad cow and other deiseases spread by
viruses in files, I would appreciate your using more descriptive names to
help me sort through the files.

It would also be appreciated if you would send an Email copy of the file as
well as the file where practical so I can decide whether I am motivated to
look at the full document. Sometimes I can't even open the "mime etc."
downloaded files.

Yours truly, TOM REED

From jmdavies at xsinet.co.za Sat Mar 24 15:33:32 2001
From: jmdavies at xsinet.co.za (John Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:17 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Steam gasification???
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010323093221.0095ed70@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <000701c0b4a1$d3b89e80$a4d4ef9b@p>

Hi All,

Tom wrote,
> Coal is typically 80% fixed carbon and 20% volatile matter;
>
> Biomass is typically 20% fixed carbon and 80% volatile matter.
>
> So the processes for gasification of coal and biomass are very different.
> Those who ignore this are in deep doo doo.

I totally disagree:
As an example there is coal of 50% fixed carbon and 30% volatile matter.
So your typical coal is only typical for a particular coal field. Try
processing this under the same conditions as your typical coal, and we are
back to the "deep doo doo".

Then again coal is biomass which has been conditioned by nature, as we are
doing with wood and grass pellets, and what about lignite and peat.

I put forward the argument that all of these fuels including biomass are
gasified by the same process.
with the same exo and endothermic reactions taking place. The only
difference being that the ratios of fixed carbon to volatiles differ, and
again that the composition of the volatiles also differ.

Peter wrote:

> Steam reformation depends on a carbon and steam reduction reaction --
> highly endothermic. The first step is concentrate the carbon.
>
> In the coal process -- they first pyrolize the coal driving off the
> volatiles (producing coke)-- resulting in a very high value gas -- coal
gas.
>
> They then steam reform the concentrated carbon (coke) to synthesis gas.
>
> The process for biomasses stays the same -- pyrolization then steam
> reformation of the charcoal. Be it 20% or 80%.

So at this point I agree with Peter to a degree. But Peter wishes to gasify
by steam reforming only, with it's highly endothermic reactions. In a
previous mail he disagrees with the partial combustion route, and implies
( tongue in cheek ) that the list is pro this method. ( Peter you have found
a supporter, But the support is limited, read on )

So we have two opposing gasification processes. Partial combustion method
generating it's own heat for the process. Then we have steam gasification,
requiring an external heat source and a steam supply ( additional external
heat ), but in return we produce a gas of superior heat value due to the
watergas reaction.

Both processes have their pros and cons. But we are forgetting that both
these processes co-exist in reactors which use both simultaneously. i.e.
the Lurgi Coal Gasification process where superheated steam, and pure
oxygen are passed under a coal bed under pressure resulting in synthesis gas
for liquid fuel manufacture. A similar approach is used by the Haldor Topse
( spelling ? ) process which is used for open flame auto reforming of
methane to produce synthesis gas. Both burn a fraction of the fuel with
pure oxygen. producing the heat for a steam reforming reaction with carbon,
depending on the way that the reaction is controlled. a gas mixture of CO
and H2 results containing a small variable CO2 content.

These processes are used in multi million dollar fuel and chemical
industries, but are not feasable for the small
producer of heat, steam, or powering of IC engines, But small scale systems
do exist.

We have seen Tom Blackburn's integrated plant on a trailer, where an IC
engine ran on wet sawdust., but as far as I can make out did not use a steam
reaction. But it could have been included, maybe in this case is was not
economically worth while. This did however reinject the tars and liquids
into the gasifier for gasifying, so maybe there was a steam component.

But one application of the above combined process was perfected by Porta in
his GPCS system on a steam locomotive. In this application under conditions
of forced upward draft, using coal . A portion of the coke is burned to CO2
and Heat at the grate level. The heat then allows the CO2 and Steam to react
with the coke above this to produce CO and H2. ( this steam is waste steam
from the system, which would have been exhausted to the atmosphere, so
special generation is not necessary ).These hot gasses at 800 C then
pyrolise coal giving off the volatiles. So we have a mixture of producer gas
and watergas, with a very low CO2 content. and some Nitrogen. In the case of
the locomotive where steam is to be generated the gas is burned immediately
above the fuel bed with secondary air. For other applications the gas could
be cooled and cleaned, with the by products fed back to the gasifier as Tom
did. This system allowed coal to be burned cleanly and produced more heat
per unit of fuel than with conventional combustion, and burned it without
smoke.

My aim is to adapt this system to burn wood. ( Porta is busy with a bagasse
burning gasifier ) Some feel that there will not be enough heat in the
charcoal section of the bed to allow steam reforming of the carbon. This
needs a temperature in excess of 800 C. (Carbon is Carbon, whether from
wood or coal ) With the forced draft. I am hopeful
that it can be achieved. Another possibility is to enrich the gasifier bed
with a small mass of coal to help achieve the required temperatures.

As Tom pointed out, it is essential to have the correct air/ fuel ratio at
each stage. This also applies to the steam. So no matter what the fuel is
the process will work providing the correct control at each stage
is applied.

One might ask just how small this system can be built, as a steam locomotive
is a relatively large piece of machinery. Well I applied it with success to
a miniature steam locomotive. The gasifier including the gas burning section
had the following dimensions. Area of grate 42 sq. in. depth of gasifier
bed 3 1/2 in. Depth of combustion chamber 3 1/2 in. So the whole process was
carried out in a cube measuring 6 1/2 x 6 1/2 x 7 inches. The resulting
steam production propelled a train of 2 tons over an undulating track at 6
MPH.( It would have managed 4 tons on a level track.) With a better boiler
the steam generation could be improved by 15%.

Summing up, partial combustion gasification and steam reforming gasification
cannot be separated, as Peter implied the benefits of steam gasification
should not be overlooked, but it needs to be used in a system that is
practical for the environment in which it is used.

Keep Gassing,
John Davies.

From CAVM at aol.com Sat Mar 24 15:52:26 2001
From: CAVM at aol.com (CAVM@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:17 2004
Subject: Fwd: GAS-L: Re: Steam gasification???
Message-ID: <104.c19f82.27ee6293@aol.com>

To: jmdavies@xsinet.co.za
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Re: Steam gasification???
From: CAVM@aol.com
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 15:49:38 EST
Full-name: CAVM

In a message dated 3/24/2001 2:34:33 PM Central Standard Time,
jmdavies@xsinet.co.za writes:

<< So we have two opposing gasification processes. Partial combustion method
generating it's own heat for the process. Then we have steam gasification,
requiring an external heat source and a steam supply ( additional external
heat ), but in return we produce a gas of superior heat value due to the
watergas reaction. >>

Suppose I was working on a 1000 cow dairy and had a fair amount of waste
water and wet manure to put into an anaerobic digester. I also would have
about 5 tons per day of dry manure from the loafing areas which could be
burned in a direct combustion unit to make heat, steam or hot water.

So could these materials be used to do something exotic like steam
reformation of some biomass, maybe even tires?

Cornelius A. Van Milligen

From arnt at c2i.net Sat Mar 24 18:15:47 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:17 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Steam gasification???
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010323093221.0095ed70@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3ABD2A15.2ED612AA@c2i.net>

John Davies wrote:
>
> oxygen are passed under a coal bed under pressure resulting in synthesis gas
> for liquid fuel manufacture. A similar approach is used by the Haldor Topse
> ( spelling ? ) process which is used for open flame auto reforming of

..Haldor Topsøe, http://www.haldortopsoe.com/

--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)

Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.

From LINVENT at aol.com Sat Mar 24 19:02:50 2001
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:17 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Steam gasification???
Message-ID: <d7.419a9d5.27ee8f34@aol.com>

Dear Mr. Davies,
Your explaination of steam reforming is indeed correct. The process which
you described is very clever and useful.
Biomass does have in general a higher volatile content. The intrinsic
moisture acts as the steam source in the proper configuration for water shift
reaction. However, in many geometries, the water is gone by the time the char
is formed.
I doubt if you can convince many coal gasifier operators to use high
volatile coal in their gasifier as it will foul up the system. They are very
careful and sensitive to the coal type.
Each party was correct, just required distinct clarification.

Sincerely,
Leland T. Taylor
President
Thermogenics Inc.
7100-2nd St. NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87107
phone 505-344-4846 fax 505-344-6090

From snkm at btl.net Sun Mar 25 09:55:44 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:17 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Zip?
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010325084341.0096cd70@wgs1.btl.net>

Folks -- this morning a little educational stuff. A lot of people are
confused about compressing files -- here is an easy intro.

Zip is everything to us 3rd world dudes.

Peter Singfield / Belize

----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOURBUS Volume 6, Number 67 -- 22 March 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------

----
ZIP?
----

Have you ever had a file on your computer that was so ridiculously
large that it was all but impossible for you to put it on a floppy
disk or send it to a friend as an email attachment? Even better, have
you ever wanted to email someone a BUNCH of different files at the
same time but didn't want to go through the tedious process of having
to attach the files to the email one after the other? That's where
zip technology comes in.

In the computer world, "zip" has two meanings. The first meaning is
actually a trademark of the Iomega corporation. Iomega makes
something called a Zip Drive that uses special disks ("Zip disks")
that hold either 100 or 250 megabytes of stuff. The second definition
of "zip," and the one I want to talk about, is a tool/algorithm that
lets your compress and uncompress computer files. The reason why I
want to talk about zip compression is that a few people were confused
by the fact that the PowerPoint files I mentioned in my last post [see
http://www.netsquirrel.com/classroom/ ] were zipped. I apologize for
the confusion.

The reason why I zipped those PowerPoint files in the first place is
so that you can download them quicker. However, to be able to use
those files -- or any zipped file for that matter -- you have to first
unzip them.

Fortunately, unzipping files is simple so long as you have the right
tools. The first thing you need to do is download and install a
special piece of software that will zip and unzip files. This may
sound like more trouble than it is worth, but a zip/unzip program is
an ESSENTIAL tool, especially if you are going to be using the
Internet a lot. In fact, call someone you know who is a computer
guru, someone whose advice you trust implicitly, and ask her if she
could live without her zip program. She'll laugh. Zip programs are
THAT important.

Where can you get a zip program? Well, for PC users, I recommend
WinZip. You can download a free evaluation version of WinZip at

<A HREF="http://www.winzip.com/ddchomea.htm">
http://www.winzip.com/ddchomea.htm </A>

It has been a while since I have unzipped a file on a Mac, but I seem
to remember that Aladdin's free StuffIt Expander worked pretty well.
You can download StuffIt expander for Mac, PC, and even Linux at

<A HREF="http://www.aladdinsys.com/expander/">
http://www.aladdinsys.com/expander/ </A>

Download either program and then install it. After that, whenever you
encounter a zipped file (a file that ends in ".zip"), just
double-click on that file. Your unzip program will automatically
open, and you can then choose where you want the unzipped version of
that file to be saved on your computer.

That's it. :)

By the way, one of the reason why I prefer WinZip over StuffIt
Expander for the PC is that WinZip adds unzip capabilities to Windows
Explorer's context menus. To see what that means, install WinZip,
right-click on any zipped file on your computer, and then choose
"extract" from the pop-up window. No more double-clicking.

Happy uncompressing!

http://www.TOURBUS.com
=====================================================================

From thomas at biopilze.de Mon Mar 26 06:28:38 2001
From: thomas at biopilze.de (Thomas Ziegler)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:17 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasifiers for cars: questions and ideas
Message-ID: <3ABF272B.6068B821@biopilze.de>

though a real "newby" i wonder about the following:

1.) how to build a good gasifier to run eg a "rabbit"?
is FEMA-downdraft-gasifier still state of the art??

2.) what i understood the last days:
it seems, the main problem to keep the engines healthy is to
minimize tars in gasifiers... right? and further: how??

3.) ok i saw the archives and have ploughed through for quite a while...
BUT: is isnt there a FAQ??

4.) so finally would like to put all neccessary data on the web eg on
http://back.to/woodgas
where everyone interested can add valuable data to make home-built
gasifiers for cars available for mankind and for free!!
would also like to translate all english texts into german, french,
spanish,... and vice versa... -anyone interested and ready to help?

btw
over here firms like eg german-babcock/noell have quite good experiences
on pyrolysis/ huge waste-incineration/ power-generation-plants (-as
most wastes over here are no more thrown onto deposits but are burnt
first... maybe out of that "manouvres" we could learn for our small
gasifier constructions...)
-for sure: those on "small cars" pricipally can never reach the quality
of huge plants as they are immobile and SIZE is no problem so they also
have a huge expenditure to stay within strict limits of allowed
air-pollution (imagine their "small ovens" and HUGE filters behind:
electrostatic-filters, washers etc. of thousands to millions cube-meters
of extension...),
thomas
--
der kleine deutsche oeko-pilz-anbauer \
the small german organic mushroomer http://www.biopilze.de/wir.htm
le petit eco - champignoneur allemand /

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Mon Mar 26 08:52:50 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:17 2004
Subject: Simple tar measurements...
Message-ID: <ce.128456b3.27f0a1d5@cs.com>

Biomass gasification and incomplete combustion produces LOTS of tars and
particulates. They are the Achilles heel of biomass. If we can't measure
them it makes it hard to fix them. I am submitting the following abstract to
the Fifth Biomass Conference of the Americas, Orlando, Florida, September
17-21, 2001.

A SIMPLE SPOT MEASUREMENT FOR GASIFIER PARTICULATES AND TARS
Thomas B. Reed
The Biomass Energy Foundation, Golden, CO 80401

Since biomass pyrolysis typically produces 70-90% volatile material,
converting these volatiles (sometimes called "tars") to gas is the primary
problem of biomass gasification.

Yet, there is no general agreement on what constitutes "tar" or how to
reliably measure or estimate it. Millions of dollars have been spent
establishing tar measurement protocols which seem to satisfy no one.

A simple "spot" tar and particulate (T&P) test which gives a semiquantitative
estimate of T&P level is described here. It uses a Bacharach "True Spot
Smoke Test Kit" (cost $82) which is widely available for testing smoke in
boilers. It looks like a hand bicycle pump and draws a measured quantity of
sample (about 1 liter per stroke) through a filter paper which traps T&Ps,
forming a spot about 6 mm in diameter. One stroke (~ l liter of gas)
collects enough to be visible (about 50 ppm T&P) from most producer gas
samples. Any number of strokes can be used to increase sensitivity and
produce a suitably gray spot which is then viewed through a standard
gray-scale matching card, yielding an opacity number from 0 to 10.

The meter is used for instance in Germany to test all fireplaces and those
not passing must be fixed. If ten strokes produces a spot of > 5 opacity,
you are legally required to get your chimney or fireplace fixed!

The True Spot tester can also be used to measure T&P from gasifiers once it
has been calibrated against another gravimetric method. We report
calibration and tar data on various power and cooking gasifiers.

In addition, paper chromatography can be applied to the spots to separate the
major components of the tars in order to give a fingerprint of the gasifier
in terms of primary/secondary or tertiary tars.

~~~~
Beware gasifier manufacturers who claim there gas is "too clean to measure".
Get a Bachrach spot testor and protect your $1000 engine.

Yours truly, TOM REED

From Arotstein at ormat.com Tue Mar 27 03:21:12 2001
From: Arotstein at ormat.com (Ariel Rotstein)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:17 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas genset
Message-ID: <727CFCBBE1C3D41181FC005004201AA049BFD2@www.ormat.com>

Hello,

I am running an experiment of producing syngas (Gas reach with Hydrogen) and
feeding it to a recipocating gas engine, the composition of the syngas
varies according to the process temperature from syngas I to syngas III as
follows:.

<<...OLE_Obj...>>

The gas can be supplied at 10-50 Deg. C and at constant pressure in the
range of 10-15 barg to the engine.
If needed it is also possible to start the engine with liquid fuel or LPG
and then change over to the syngas.

The area the engine will be placed is classified as Class 1 Div.2 Group B
because of the Hydrogen presence.
The electrical output of the engine should be in the range of 100-400
kWe.(No heat recovery needed)

Can anyone direct me to a company that could supply a gas engine that could
stand in this specifications?

Regards,

Ariel Rotstein

From Arotstein at ormat.com Tue Mar 27 03:35:58 2001
From: Arotstein at ormat.com (Ariel Rotstein)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:17 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas genset inquiry
Message-ID: <727CFCBBE1C3D41181FC005004201AA049BFDC@www.ormat.com>

Hello,

I have noticed the syngas composition did not go through so Ii am re-sending
my inquiry:

Methane 0.296037
0.14331 0.020385
Carbon Monoxide 0.038796
0.100443 0.189042
Carbon Dioxide 0.185704
0.14857 0.088326
Hydrogen 0.477759
0.607774 0.702234

Density 6.22
5.35 4.54
Net heating value (60 Deg. F) [kj/kg] 24353 22592
21968
Vol. LHV [kj/m^3] 151398
120783 99694

The gas conditions are at 25 Deg. C and 10 bar

Can anyone direct me to a company that could supply a gas engine that could
stand in this specifications?

Regards,

Regards,
Ariel Rotstein
R&D Dept.

Ormat Industries Ltd.
Box 68.
Yavne, 81100

Israel
Tel: 972-8-9433860
Fax: 972-8-9439901
e-mail: arotstein@ormat.com

From Arotstein at ormat.com Tue Mar 27 07:28:42 2001
From: Arotstein at ormat.com (Ariel Rotstein)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:17 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Syngas genset
Message-ID: <727CFCBBE1C3D41181FC005004201AA049C08A@www.ormat.com>

Hello,

I have noticed the syngas composition did not go through so I am re-sending
my inquiry:

I am running an experiment of producing syngas (Gas rich with Hydrogen) and
feeding it to a reciprocating gas engine, the composition of the syngas
varies according to the process temperature from syngas I to syngas III as
follows:.

Composition [moll - %]
Gas Syngas I
Syngas II Syngas III

Methane 0.296037
0.14331 0.020385
Carbon Monoxide 0.038796 0.100443
0.189042
Carbon Dioxide 0.185704 0.14857
0.088326
Hydrogen 0.477759
0.607774 0.702234

Density 6.22
5.35 4.54
Net heating value (60 Deg. F) [kj/kg] 24353 22592
21968
Vol. LHV [kj/m^3] 151398 120783
99694

The gas conditions are at 25 Deg. C and 10 bar

Can anyone direct me to a company that could supply a gas engine that could
stand in this specifications?

Regards,
Ariel Rotstein

From snkm at btl.net Tue Mar 27 10:41:28 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:18 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Syngas genset
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010327092845.00973100@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Ariel;

I have reformatted your chart by "guess" -- could you verify if this is
correct?

One question -- your gas products appear to be the result of steam
reformations under 3 differing conditions. Probably just temperature?
Methane being the product of steam reformation at lower temperatures.

What process are you using and with what carbon material as charge?

Could you enlighten us please?

Peter Singfield

****reformat of original message******

Hello,

I have noticed the syngas composition did not go through so I am re-sending
my inquiry:

Methane 0.296037
0.14331 0.020385
Carbon Monoxide 0.038796 0.100443
0.189042
Carbon Dioxide 0.185704 0.14857
0.088326
Hydrogen 0.477759
0.607774 0.702234

Density 6.22
5.35 4.54
Net heating value (60 Deg. F) [kj/kg] 24353 22592
21968
Vol. LHV [kj/m^3] 151398 120783
99694

The gas conditions are at 25 Deg. C and 10 bar

Can anyone direct me to a company that could supply a gas engine that could
stand in this specifications?

Regards,
Ariel Rotstein
R&D Dept.

Ormat Industries Ltd.
Box 68.
Yavne, 81100

Israel
Tel: 972-8-9433860
Fax: 972-8-9439901
e-mail: arotstein@ormat.com

From Arotstein at ormat.com Tue Mar 27 10:52:31 2001
From: Arotstein at ormat.com (Ariel Rotstein)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:18 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Syngas composition
Message-ID: <727CFCBBE1C3D41181FC005004201AA049C11D@www.ormat.com>

Hello,

The gas engine will be fed by the gas coming from a buffer tank so the
composition will not change fast as a function of time.
Here is the gas composition in excel format, I can not manage to send it
correctly in the editor format.

The three different compositions that enter the tank are factors of the
temperature of the reforming.
The richer Methane composition is received when reforming is not at full
load.

<<Syngas comp..xls>>
Regards,
Ariel Rotstein

Syngas comp..xls

Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
-
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: xls00043.xls
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 14848 bytes
Desc: "http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml"
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/20010327/fbe3a06b/xls00043.obj
From Reedtb2 at cs.com Wed Mar 28 09:35:01 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:18 2004
Subject: Gas Terminology: Syngas is not producer gas is not woodgas
Message-ID: <8.1241c17e.27f35030@cs.com>

"Synthesis gas" is a very specific name for a gas composed largely of H2 and
CO, and NO N2. Cleaned up and passed over the appropriate catalyst, it can
make methanol (CO + 2 H2); ammonia (shift CO to H2 and use iron catalyst);
and many hydrocarbons (Fischer Tropsch catalyst).

"Producer-Gas" is the gas that was made from coal and distributed in most
world cities until natural gas (methane) came in after 1930. It consists
primarily of CO, H2, CH4, and N2 with many cats and dogs and varying with the
gasifier and city and coal.

"Wood-Gas" is my name for a similar gas made by partial oxidation of biomass
(usually in a downdraft gasifier) and containing typically 50% N2, 8% CO2,
22%CO, 18% H2 and 2% CH4. It was the gas produced by wood gasifiers during
WW II and now being produced by most wood gasification wannabees. (Also can
contain up to 2,000 ppm tar, and down to <50 ppm if you do it right.)

"Biogas" is the gas produced by the fermentation of organic materials in big
wet tanks. It typically contains 60% CH4 and 40% CO2. Not having any cows,
I don't do biogas, but it is an excellent gas. Similar gas comes from
landfills.

Any corrections? I hope we can all agree on these terms for future
discussions.

Your moderator, TOM REED

In a message dated 3/27/01 5:27:42 AM Mountain Standard Time,
Arotstein@ormat.com writes:

Hello,

I have noticed the syngas composition did not go through so I am re-sending
my inquiry:

From LINVENT at aol.com Wed Mar 28 10:44:00 2001
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:18 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas Terminology: Syngas is not producer gas is not woodgas
Message-ID: <16.adc759c.27f36045@aol.com>

Dear Tom Reed,
Optimum syngas composition for catalysis is 1.5:1 H2 to CO, but this will
vary with catalysis system.
I am glad someone clarified the definitions.

Sincerely,
Leland T. Taylor
President
Thermogenics Inc.
7100-2nd St. NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87107
phone 505-344-4846 fax 505-344-6090
Attached files are zipped and can be decompressed with <A
HREF="http://www.aladdinsys.com/expander/">www.aladdinsys.com/expander/ </A>

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Thu Mar 29 09:13:43 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:18 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Tom Reeds definitions
Message-ID: <26.13481ff5.27f49c7e@cs.com>

Thanks for the first hand observations...

If you had had wood pellets you could have gone 150 miles between fillups.

TOM REED

In a message dated 3/28/01 11:04:12 AM Mountain Standard Time,
ovencrft@nbn.com writes:

Just a minor point that in Australia during the WW11 the popular name for
the solid fuel (charcoal I think) auto truck and tractor gasifiers was "gas
producers". They were on every car on the runing board or mounted on the
rear luggage rack. They took 1/2 hour to get going and took a car 50 miles
before refuelling was necessary. This was always a good time to boil up a
"billy" of water for a hot cuppa tea and a smoke before continuing on the
way (not easy to find your way as all the road signs were removed to hinder
the Japanese invaders).

Check out the web site for OVENCRAFTERS at http://www.nbn.com/~ovncraft

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Thu Mar 29 09:16:42 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:18 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas Terminology: Syngas is not producer gas is not woodgas
Message-ID: <4a.138ae6ac.27f49d51@cs.com>

Dear Tom Reed,
Optimum syngas composition for catalysis is 1.5:1 H2 to CO, but this will
vary with catalysis system.
I am glad someone clarified the definitions.

ACTUALLY, FOR AMMONIA YOU NEED TO REMOVE ALL CO; FOR METHANOL AS ABOVE ETC.

FORTUNATELY THE WATER GAS SHIFT REACTION MAKES IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE ANY RATIO
YOU WANT SIMPLY BY ADJUSTING THE TEMPERATURE. (lOW TEMPERATURE FAVORS MORE
HYDROGEN; HIGH FAVORS CO.

CO + H2O <---> CO2 + H2

The reaction is autothermic and requires very little energy...

TOM REED

Sincerely,
Leland T. Taylor
President

From thomas at biopilze.de Thu Mar 29 11:12:49 2001
From: thomas at biopilze.de (Thomas Ziegler)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:18 2004
Subject: GAS-L: chemistry of gasification vs lambda-sensor -use
In-Reply-To: <4a.138ae6ac.27f49d51@cs.com>
Message-ID: <3AC35E3D.8FA18352@biopilze.de>

>... CO + H2O <---> CO2 + H2
isnt it like that, too? C + H2O <---> CO + H2 at high temps??
(doesnt this result in CH4-production also???)

i wonder if all this works well just by regulation of the O2- content
to get a good gasification (of say wood) AND a low tar-content...

can someone clarify this, too?? thomas
--
der kleine deutsche oeko-pilz-anbauer \
the small german organic mushroomer http://www.biopilze.de/wir.htm
le petit eco - champignoneur allemand /

From snkm at btl.net Thu Mar 29 12:36:49 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:18 2004
Subject: GAS-L: "The" Chemistry of Gasification/"Combustion"
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010329113114.0098b190@wgs1.btl.net>

Well Listers -- what a good topic -- the Chemistry of Gasification/Combustion!

At 06:09 PM 3/29/2001 +0200, you wrote:
>>... CO + H2O <---> CO2 + H2
>isnt it like that, too? C + H2O <---> CO + H2 at high temps??
>(doesnt this result in CH4-production also???)
>

Yes -- but in the reverse order -- as Ariel Rotstein demonstrates so well
in the info he sent us -- which I have hand formatted into a chart that can
work in this standard format Email. Lower temp steam reforming yields
methane. Higher yield H2. His results bare out a steam reformation process
for his synthesis gas product -- but he does not tell us!

We can notice other trends in his results -- more on this later.

We are extremely fortunate to have such "given" to us. I believe these are
actual results from some form of steam reformation device Ariel is working
with. It would be wonderful to have more details regarding their process --

But before we get into the details as represented in this chart --

>i wonder if all this works well just by regulation of the O2- content
>to get a good gasification (of say wood) AND a low tar-content...
>
>can someone clarify this, too?? thomas

Gasification -- as this list defines it -- is nothing short of an attempt
at controlled combustion of biomasses.

In any combustion process at any time one is dealing with the highly
exothermic "oxidation" process as well as the highly endothermic steam
reformation process.

How well one can "tweak" the combinations of these two processes in real
time dictates -- as just one example -- what tar levels will be in the
product gas.

For instance -- it has been mentioned often that fuel which is to dry does
not "gasify" well. Correct me if I am wrong listers -- but 17% humidity
seems to be about the ideal. Probably because that 17% is what is best
required to sustain the required steam reformation end of the controlled
combustion process -- less will not reform enough tars (etc) -- more will
chill out the reaction.

To much "water" in this process would result in to much endothermic
reaction cooling the process below a functional "set" point. This probably
varies a lot -- biomass fuel to fuel -- depending on volatiles -- as just
one example.

In theory and practice tars can be steam reformed. The good controlled
combustion gasifier design tries to harness this reaction as much as
possible to end up with a low as possible tar content in the end gas product.

The first rule to achieving this balance is extremely uniform fuel
"conditioning" -- which is the problem with controlled combustion gasifiers
-- this is hard to achieve on a regular operational basis.

Ergo -- my suggestion to investigate steam reforming much closer.

Theoretically -- and also in practice -- any biomass can be completely
steam reformed. The volatiles and tars as well as the char, charcoal and
any other forms of derived carbon.

The problem is to balance the thermodynamics of this process.

Further -- we have a large problem with all the atmospheric nitrogen
introduced in a partial combustion process oxygenated from "air". This has
been addressed by gasifiers operating on pure O2 -- and has achieved good
results in concentrated fuels -- such as coal. Certainly would work well on
charcoal as well. But problems again arise regarding what to do with the
volatiles. Even in these pure oxygen systems tar formation is controlled by
steam reforming them -- ergo -- even the coal plants gasifying with pure O2
inject steam as required.

This leaves us with two desirable paths of gas production.

1/ Pure O2 "partial" combustion combines with "enough" steam to handle tars.

2/ Pure steam reformation -- no other gasses at all present.

By the way -- synthesis gas is a term originally associated with pure steam
reformation.

Now -- on to the "results" of a reformation process that Ariel Rotstein has
kindly supplied to this mail list. But remember -- he never mentioned the
actual process -- or the raw material being reformed. I am "guessing" that
he is steam reforming "something".

I would love to see this conversation continued in regards to making a
simple steam reforming device for all biomass gasification. But first --
quick analysis of the following:

Syngas composition

FUEL VARIES IN COMPOSITION BETWEEN SYNGAS-I AND SYNGAS-III

1/ SyngasI SyngasII SyngasIII
2/Composition [moll-%] [T=600øC] [T=700øC] [T=850øC]
3/Temperature [øC] 10 to 50 10 to 50 10 to 50
4/Pressure [bar absolute] 10 10 10
5/Methane 0.296037 0.14331 0.020385
6/Carbon Monoxide 0.038796 0.100443 0.189042
7/Carbon Dioxide 0.185704 0.148457 0.088326
8/Hydrogen 0.477759 0.607774 0.702234
9/"Density [kg/m3, at
10 bar pressure]" 6.216807 5.346278 4.538137
10/Net Heating Value
at 60øF [kJ/kg] 24353 22592 21968
11/Vol. LHV [kj/m^3] 151398 120783 99694

Line "1" Describes the 3 states of product gas

Line "2" Composition [moll-%] of the product of steam reformation
at three different temperature ranges

Line "3" Temperature of the product gas at end of process.

Line "4" Pressure of product gas 10 bar = 145 PSI

Line "5" moll-% of methane for each "reaction" temperature

Line "6" Ditto for CO

Line "7" Ditto for CO2

Line "8" Ditto for H2

Line "9" Density in kg/m3, at 10 bar pressure for each reaction product

Line "10" Net Heating Value at 60 deg F in kJ/kg

Line "11" Volumetric Low Heating Value in kj/meter cubed

OK folks -- check the above and my comments -- time to correct any mistakes.

It appears Ariel Rotstein had dropped this on us and gone on to Greener
Pastures. Still -- this "gift" of raw information could not have come at a
better time! Thank you Ariel Rotstein -- where ever you are!

So it is up to the sorry bunch of people on this mail list to work out the
details. And we should start by refuting any point I have made above that
is not correct and concise.

In the world of gasification I dream of -- you flush the toilet and the
sewage is steam reformed to high quality synthesis gas. You dump the
garbage and it is steam reformed. As well as the lawn clippings and
everything else of "organic" nature that is a "waste". And if you still
need more "power" -- start chopping a tree or two and feed that to the
steam reformer.

You can easily isolate the H2 -- pure -- for running a high efficiency fuel
cell.

The other gases can be used to fire the process.

Any left over heat can be used for domestic heating purposes -- or for
further reforming some of the synthesis gas product into portable liquid
fuels of high quality. And while we are at it -- some fertilizer for the
garden as well!

Sounds impossible?? Not-at-all!! Take the blinders off and walk on the wild
side for a bit!

For a minuscule percentage of the funds poured into partial combustion
gasifier tweaking -- reaching for mister perfecto -- all prototyping could
be easily accomplished to realize that "dream" stipulated above. The only
problem is a mind set that wishes no changes to its favored "ideology".
Sometimes I wonder if this list is more of a "religious" forum than a
technical discussion forum regarding the conversion of biomasses to high
quality gas products.

Oh well -- I can simply wait for Ariel Rotstein and his colleagues to
finish their work and present it to this world.

Come on people -- I am trying to lift you our of a "rut"!! Let's get going!!

Peter Singfield -- Belize, Central America

From VHarris001 at aol.com Thu Mar 29 14:47:16 2001
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:18 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Ejecting and Burning High Tar Wood-Gas
Message-ID: <d6.45409fe.27f4eac9@aol.com>

In a message dated 03/28/2001 9:37:05 AM Eastern Standard Time,
Reedtb2@cs.com writes:

> "Wood-Gas" is my name for a similar gas made by partial oxidation of
biomass
> (usually in a downdraft gasifier) and containing typically 50% N2, 8% CO2,
> 22%CO, 18% H2 and 2% CH4. It was the gas produced by wood gasifiers
during
> WW II and now being produced by most wood gasification wannabees. (Also
can
> contain up to 2,000 ppm tar, and down to <50 ppm if you do it right.)

Hi Tom Reed,

Thanks for posting (again) the composition of wood-gas. It arrived in my
mailbox just in time so that I didn't have to go look it up (again) :-).

I'm working on plans for direct combustion of the wood-gas to take advantage
of the heat content of the tars (rather than having to scrub them out). The
air-jet gas ejector manufacturer I approached wants to know the molecular
weight, and specific heat of the wood-gas to be ejected from the gasifier.
They have hinted that, at the pressures I've specified, the volume of air
required to eject the wood-gas might be too great to deliver a good,
combustable mixture of air and wood-gas to the burner. I'm wondering though,
if the wood gas is laden with tar, then considerable excess air would be
required for combustion anyway. So perhaps a tar laden wood gas would be
beneficial in air ejection and direct combustion system.

If I've done my math correctly, I get the molecular weight of 24.37 for the
wood-gas composition you describe above.

Does this ratio of component gases in wood-gas change substantially as
superficial velocity is decreased and tar increases from 50 ppm to 2,000 ppm?
So does the molecular weight vary from high tar to low tar content wood gas?

What is the specific heat of high tar to low tar wood-gas?

And finally, what is the best way to calculate:

1) the energy content of high tar wood-gas?

2) the air/fuel ratio needed to combust a high tar wood-gas?

Thanks and best wishes,
Vernon Harris

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Mar 29 15:20:44 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:18 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Ejecting and Burning High Tar Wood-Gas
In-Reply-To: <d6.45409fe.27f4eac9@aol.com>
Message-ID: <3AC38A47.639BF418@c2i.net>

VHarris001@aol.com wrote:

> If I've done my math correctly, I get the molecular weight of 24.37 for the
> wood-gas composition you describe above.

..if you want me/us to verify your math, post it.

This will also help the newbies learn how, and improves
everybody else's understanding of what we really do here.

--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)

Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.

From tmiles at teleport.com Thu Mar 29 16:25:39 2001
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:18 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Tom Reeds definitions
In-Reply-To: <26.13481ff5.27f49c7e@cs.com>
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010329125128.0300c7b0@mail.teleport.com>

Tom Reed,

I'm reminded of the discussion about vehicle gasifiers at your 1979
Workshop on Air Gasification with Eric Johannson who was then Director of
the National Swedish Testing Institute for Agricultural Machinery. When we
asked him about the reliability of producer gas vehicles he said: "Oh
you'll get where you want to go . . . but you have to have the time."

Tom M.

At 09:11 AM 3/29/01 -0500, Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:
>Dear Alan:
>
>Thanks for the first hand observations...
>
>If you had had wood pellets you could have gone 150 miles between fillups.
>
>TOM REED
>
>In a message dated 3/28/01 11:04:12 AM Mountain Standard Time,
>ovencrft@nbn.com writes:
>
>
>>
>>Just a minor point that in Australia during the WW11 the popular name for
>>the solid fuel (charcoal I think) auto truck and tractor gasifiers was "gas
>>producers". They were on every car on the runing board or mounted on the
>>rear luggage rack. They took 1/2 hour to get going and took a car 50 miles
>>before refuelling was necessary. This was always a good time to boil up a
>>"billy" of water for a hot cuppa tea and a smoke before continuing on the
>>way (not easy to find your way as all the road signs were removed to hinder
>>the Japanese invaders).
>>
>>Check out the web site for OVENCRAFTERS at http://www.nbn.com/~ovncraft
>

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 claus_h at image.dk Fri Mar 30 05:29:28 2001
From: claus_h at image.dk (Claus Hindsgaul)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:18 2004
Subject: GAS-L: "The" Chemistry of Gasification/"Combustion"
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010329113114.0098b190@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <01033012280702.00936@ip132.et.dtu.dk>

Torsdag 29. Marts 2001 19:31 skrev Peter Singfield:
> For instance -- it has been mentioned often that fuel which is to dry does
> not "gasify" well. Correct me if I am wrong listers -- but 17% humidity
> seems to be about the ideal. Probably because that 17% is what is best
> required to sustain the required steam reformation end of the controlled
> combustion process -- less will not reform enough tars (etc) -- more will
> chill out the reaction.

Regarding the total humidity (water contents in fuel + added steam), it does
have competing influences on tar removal.
You pointed out its tar reforming properties. I would be very interested, if
someone could quantify these.
On the down side, high steam contents can be a problem, if tars are removed
by high temperature tar cracking (>1150C). It will be harder to reach these
temperatures (more high-temperature energy required) with higher steam
contents.
In the DTU Two Stage Gasifier, we have observed very similar tar
concentrations in gas from the reactor with steam:biomass ratios of 6% and
100% (25-40ppm).

Regarding fuel humidity, one goal could be to be water neutral (neither water
producing og consuming). In our case, this happen at approx. 23% humidity.

--
Claus Hindsgaul
Reberbanegade 53, 4. th - 2300 KBH S
Tlf (+45) 3297 3640
claus_h@image.dk (PGP-nøgle: http://www.image.dk/~claus_h/PGP.htm )

From Carl.Carley at eml.ericsson.se Fri Mar 30 08:33:33 2001
From: Carl.Carley at eml.ericsson.se (Carl Carley (EML))
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:18 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Continuous small gasifier diagram?
Message-ID: <5F052F2A01FBD11184F00008C7A4A80004862410@EUKBANT101>

Hi Tom,
I'm trying (operative word) to build a gasifier similar to the one on your web site, question, what material did you use to build the reaction chamber from?
I've be advised really thick stainless as temperatures get 'white hot'.

cheers
Carl
England

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Blackburn [mailto:tomb@snowcrest.net]
Sent: 30 January 2001 21:24
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Continuous small gasifier diagram?

Dear Graeme and list members,

Last year I spent hundreds of hours building, studying and modifying a
gasifier for the purpose of turning sawdust and wood chips into producer gas
to power an IC engine coupled to a 7.5 kw generator. The finished unit
pre-dries the mixture, automatically feeds the gasifier and rakes the ash
out on a continuous basis. This unit produces a clean blue flame within 3
minutes of ignition from a propane torch. My project has been sitting on a
trailer, outside, with a tarp over it, for almost a year now. My Y2K
enthusiasm has waned and our electric rate is 8.4 cents per kwh!
I don't have any plans for this unit, but if anyone would like to discuss
some of the problems I encountered and overcame, I would be willing to do so
privately. Also, this gasifier needs a good home. Probably someone who likes
to tinker. If anyone wants to chat, I can be reached at; tomb@snowcrest.net

Regards,
Tom C. Blackburn

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

From VHarris001 at aol.com Fri Mar 30 11:32:01 2001
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:18 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Ejecting and Burning High Tar Wood-Gas
Message-ID: <f8.894e83b.27f60e84@aol.com>

In a message dated 03/29/2001 3:20:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, arnt@c2i.net
writes:

> > If I've done my math correctly, I get the molecular weight of 24.37 for
the
> > wood-gas composition you describe above.
>
> ..if you want me/us to verify your math, post it.
>
> This will also help the newbies learn how, and improves
> everybody else's understanding of what we really do here.
>

Hi Arnt, good suggestion.

I calculated the molecular weight of the wood-gas by multiplying the
molecular weight of each component gas by it's molecular weight then summing
the total.

N2 50% * 28.01 = 14.005
CO2 8% * 44.01 = 3.5208
CO 22% * 28.01 = 6.1622
H2 18% * 2.02 = 0.3636
CH4 2% * 16.04 = 0.3208

The total for the wood gas should be 24.37. I found the information on the
gases at:

http://www.concoa.com/frames/technical/gases/gases.htm

Best wishes,
Vernon Harris

From jmdavies at xsinet.co.za Sat Mar 31 01:46:14 2001
From: jmdavies at xsinet.co.za (John Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:18 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Ejecting and Burning High Tar Wood-Gas
In-Reply-To: <d6.45409fe.27f4eac9@aol.com>
Message-ID: <000801c0b9ae$cd2b7800$cdd4ef9b@p>

Vernon wrote,

> I'm working on plans for direct combustion of the wood-gas to take
advantage
> of the heat content of the tars (rather than having to scrub them out).
The
> air-jet gas ejector manufacturer I approached wants to know the molecular
> weight, and specific heat of the wood-gas to be ejected from the gasifier.
> They have hinted that, at the pressures I've specified, the volume of air
> required to eject the wood-gas might be too great to deliver a good,
> combustable mixture of air and wood-gas to the burner. I'm wondering
though,
> if the wood gas is laden with tar, then considerable excess air would be
> required for combustion anyway. So perhaps a tar laden wood gas would be
> beneficial in air ejection and direct combustion system.

Hi Vernon and members,

The idea of using an ejector is indeed intriguing, and should give good
mixing. Without doing any calculations one would expect the air volume to be
greater than that of the gas. If one is using compressed air to energise the
ejector there should not be a problem, as the ejecting ability is in
proportion to the pressure. So the pressure and nozzles are adjusted to give
the ideal air gas mixture.

Alternatively if this will not be feasible, the steam locomotive approach
could be used, where one ejects the combusted product at the chimney. The
vacuum produced at the combustion chamber then sucks in the required air,
which can be regulated according to the gas composition. The energy for this
ejection would come from waste steam, or the most economical power source
available. Excess air required to burn the tars could be possibly be reduced
by the addition of a little steam to the combustion air, which would promote
auto reforming within the flame.

Just some thoughts,
John Davies.

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sat Mar 31 09:30:01 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:18 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Ejecting and Burning High Tar Wood-Gas
Message-ID: <4a.13a72e05.27f74370@cs.com>

Calculation of MW fine.

However, be aware that if the gas cools below the "dew point" of the tar (50
to 400C, depending on concentration), an aerosol mist will also be in the gas
with unstated MW. (The tar MWs are in the 100-1000 range).

Anyone know how to handle this in an ejector?

In a message dated 3/30/01 9:30:45 AM Mountain Standard Time,
VHarris001@aol.com writes:

In a message dated 03/29/2001 3:20:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,
arnt@c2i.net
writes:

Hi Arnt, good suggestion.

I calculated the molecular weight of the wood-gas by multiplying the
molecular weight of each component gas by it's molecular weight then
summing
the total.

N2    50% * 28.01 = 14.005
CO2   8% * 44.01 = 3.5208
CO   22% * 28.01 = 6.1622
H2    18% * 2.02 = 0.3636
CH4 2% * 16.04 = 0.3208

The total for the wood gas should be 24.37. I found the information on the
gases at:

http://www.concoa.com/frames/technical/gases/gases.htm

Best wishes,
Vernon Harris

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sat Mar 31 10:04:02 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:18 2004
Subject: PRE-, PAN-, and POST- payment for goods and energy`
Message-ID: <c8.128a864a.27f74b67@cs.com>

Dear All:

Most of us are used to paying for goods before we use them... clothes,
food,
entertainment etc. This PREpayment is the norm in a world of occasional
welshers and deadbeats.

Sometimes for large ticket, long lasting items like houses and cars it
makes
sense to pay while using them - the PANpayment scheme. (For a while it
made
sense to postpone payment of 6% on a house when the stock market was
paying
20%/yr. Now not so sure....)

However, in the U.S. utility and telephone has always been POSTpayment,
since
no one knew exactly how much they would use a month. So, to the cost of
these services add the bookkeeping and bill collecting.

However, in many countries energy costs are increased 50-100% because
people
aren't used to paying "up front" and are used to avoiding payment where
possible. So, ultimately, those who do pay can wind up paying 50-100% more
postpayment than the service would cost if prepaid.

Now comes telephone prepayment cards - a great invention for millions of
people. If you want to use it, buy as much as you need, but probably you
won't waste it.

~~~~~

I work with a company, Community Power Corporation (CPC) that has developed
a
prepayment energy meter. Decide how many kWh you need next week and buy it
on an electonic chip at the local grocery store or utility office. When it
starts running out, get more or turn off a few lights. PREpaying is
probably
an energy saving strategy in the long run.

Maybe PREpay would help the Californians to reduce their energy appetites?

Yours for a better world... TOM REED

To: <Reedtb2@cs.com>
Subject: RE: PRE-, PAN-, and POST- payment for goods and energy`
From: "Robb Walt" <rwalt@gocpc.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 08:43:22 -0700
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <43.122d2d8b.27e6113a@cs.com>

Tom,

Discussed with Art, no
problem!

Robb

-----Original Message-----From: Reedtb2@cs.com
[mailto:Reedtb2@cs.com]Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2001 6:25
AMTo: rwalt@gocpc.com; Artsolar@aol.comSubject: PRE-,
PAN-, and POST- payment for goods and energy`Dear Robb and Art: I'd like to send
this to the Crest sites. OK? Improvements? TOM
Dear All: Most of us are used to paying for goods before we
use them... clothes, food, entertainment etc. This PREpayment is the
norm in a world of occasional welshers and deadbeats. Sometimes
for large ticket, long lasting items like houses and cars it makes sense
to pay while using them - the PANpayment scheme. (For a while it made
sense to postpone payment of 6% on a house when the stock market was
paying 20%/yr. Now not so sure....) However, in the U.S.
utility and telephone has always been POSTpayment, since no one knew
exactly how much they would use a month. So, to the cost of these
services add the bookkeeping and bill collecting. However, in
many countries energy costs are increased 50-100% because people aren't
used to paying "up front" and are used to avoiding payment where possible.
So, ultimately, those who do pay can wind up paying 50-100% more
postpayment than the service would cost if prepaid. Now
comes telephone prepayment cards - a great invention for millions of
people. If you want to use it, buy as much as you need, but probably
you won't waste it.
~~~~~
I work with a company, Community Power Corporation (CPC) that has
developed a prepayment energy meter. Decide how many kWh you need
next week and buy it on an electonic chip at the local grocery store or
utility office. When it starts running out, get more or turn off a
few lights. PREpaying is probably an energy saving strategy in the
long run. Maybe PREpay would help the Californians to reduce
their energy appetites? Yours for a better world...
TOM REED

The Stoves List is Sponsored by
Pyromid Inc. http://www.pyromid.net
Stoves Webpage, Charcoal, Activated Carbon
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
Other Sponsors, Archive and Information
http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
For information about CHAMBERS STOVES

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sat Mar 31 10:10:58 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:18 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Ejecting and Burning High Tar Wood-Gas
Message-ID: <13.139c310b.27f74b64@cs.com>

Here at CPC we always use an ejector to run our flare. It is insensitive to
tars if properly designed. Pictures of ejectors in our Handbook...

TOM REED

In a message dated 3/30/01 11:44:51 PM Mountain Standard Time,
jmdavies@xsinet.co.za writes:

Vernon wrote,

Hi Vernon and members,

Just some thoughts,
John Davies.

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sat Mar 31 10:14:10 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:18 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: VISIT TO COSTA RICA
Message-ID: <85.8f79a7d.27f74b68@cs.com>

Dave Elliott in Boulder, CO buys and sells generators....

Call 303 449 8632.

TOM REED

In a message dated 3/29/01 7:32:56 AM Mountain Standard Time,
RKopper@volcafe.co.cr writes:

Hello.
I might need 100 to 300 KW gen set to burn methane. good price, probably
used equipment in excelente condition. I will probably expando our
anaerobic reactors and produce a little more methane.
any contact you may have I could reach?
thanks
Roberto

From Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk Sat Mar 31 14:07:30 2001
From: Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk (Gavin GG)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:18 2004
Subject: GAS-L: sawdust combustor
Message-ID: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGOEPDCBAA.Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk>

Gasifiers,
Has anyone any experience of burning very fine sawdust - around 100kg
(200lb) per hour of very fine dry (<15%wb) sawdust. I am hopeful of a
practical, proven, simple and not extortionately expensive solution?
I have looked at cyclone burners but they seem very bulky and costly.
Many thanks in advance for your suggestions

Gavin Gulliver-Goodall

From snkm at btl.net Sat Mar 31 14:14:26 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:18 2004
Subject: GAS-L: sawdust combustor
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010331130835.00987100@wgs1.btl.net>

Interesting solution here Gavin:

www.burnchips.com

Peter / Belize

At 08:05 PM 3/31/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>Gasifiers,
>Has anyone any experience of burning very fine sawdust - around 100kg
>(200lb) per hour of very fine dry (<15%wb) sawdust. I am hopeful of a
>practical, proven, simple and not extortionately expensive solution?
>I have looked at cyclone burners but they seem very bulky and costly.
>Many thanks in advance for your suggestions
>
>Gavin Gulliver-Goodall
>
>
>
>Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>-
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
>

From tmiles at teleport.com Sat Mar 31 22:15:25 2001
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:18 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Bioenergy Lists Update
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010331190926.020632e0@mail.teleport.com>

Members of CREST Bioenergy Discussion Lists (stoves, bioenergy,
bioconversion, gasification, anaerobic digestion):

Archives:
Solarhost.com, our ISP, has been working on getting the list archives in
working order. Following that they'll implement some of the suggestions
that you have made since we changed list serve software in February.

Reference pages:
You'll find that the bioenergy reference pages are mostly updated with dead
links removed and others added. Let us know if there are links that you
think would be useful to other list members.

Bioenergy: http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
Charcoal: http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
Gasification: http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml

New Lists:
Several lists have been requested. The next lists we intend to create will
be for renewable carbons (charcoal@crest.org) and greenhouse gases
(biomass-ghg@crest.org). The latter will be hosted by the International
Energy Agency Task 38.

New Services:
We would like to create the ability for list members to post electronic
pre-publication papers "preprints" or other original papers to be
downloaded from the web and for comment by other list members. But to do
that we need Sponsors.

Sponsors:
To sponsor a list or contribute to their maintenance contact:
Tayleah L. Jones, Internet and Publications Manager
Renewable Energy Policy Project (REPP)
Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainable Technology (CREST)
1612 K St, NW #202, Washington, DC 20006
202.293.2898; Fax: 202.293.5857
www.repp.org and www.crest.org
Email: tjones@repp.org

Thank you for your patience and for your lively discussions.

Kind regards,

Tom Miles
Bioenergy Lists Administrator

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

BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

March 2001 Gasification Archive