September 2003 Gasification Archive

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Mon Sep 1 14:25:59 2003
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:28 2004
Subject: CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS FOR DISCUSSION ABOUT LIST IMPROVEMENTS
Message-ID: <MON.1.SEP.2003.112559.0700.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

Bioenergy List Participants

We've maintained the bioenergy lists on a mostly volunteer basis for almost 10 years. The lists and list software needs modification so that we can make the lists more responsive and more functionsl/

We're looking for volunteers who will join a discussion about improvements to the discussion lists at REPP. We're looking for people who have IT knowledge and in particular list server knowledge, to participate in discussions on how to fix the list deficiencies.

The first stage of volunteering is for discussion, brainstorming and problem solving only. From that pool of volunteers, once we have solutions, hopefully we can then get volunteers to implement the solutions.

If you are able and interested please send me an email at tmiles@trmiles.com

Thanks

Tom Miles

Bioenergy Lists Administrator

Discussion lists on REPP include:

BIOCONVERSION
The Bioconversion Discussion List (151 subscribers)
BIOENERGY
The Bioenergy Discussion List (433 subscribers)
DIGESTION
The Digestion Discussion List (297 subscribers)
GASIFICATION
The Gasification Discussion List (348 subscribers)
GREENBUILDING
The Greenbuilding Discussion List Managed by Buildinggreen.com (844 subscribers)
PVUSERS
The PV Users Discussion Group at REPP (188 subscribers)
STOVES
The Stoves Discussion List (216 subscribers)
STRAWBALE
The Strawbale Construction Discussion List at REPP.org (566 subscribers)
From arnt at C2I.NET Mon Sep 1 20:51:53 2003
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:28 2004
Subject: CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS FOR DISCUSSION ABOUT LIST IMPROVEMENTS
In-Reply-To: <00a701c370b6$8506ccc0$6401a8c0@Yellow>
Message-ID: <TUE.2.SEP.2003.025153.0200.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 11:25:59 -0700,
Tom Miles <tmiles@TRMILES.COM> wrote in message
<00a701c370b6$8506ccc0$6401a8c0@Yellow>:

> Bioenergy List Participants
>
> We've maintained the bioenergy lists on a mostly volunteer basis for
> almost 10 years. The lists and list software needs modification so
> that we can make the lists more responsive and more functionsl/
>
> We're looking for volunteers who will join a discussion about
> improvements to the discussion lists at REPP. We're looking for people
> who have IT knowledge and in particular list server knowledge, to
> participate in discussions on how to fix the list deficiencies.
>
> The first stage of volunteering is for discussion, brainstorming and
> problem solving only. From that pool of volunteers, once we have
> solutions, hopefully we can then get volunteers to implement the
> solutions.
>
> If you are able and interested please send me an email at
> tmiles@trmiles.com
>
> Thanks

..I seem to remember _having_ volonteered such improvements? ;-)

..search the Gas List, my suggestions remain volonteered. ;-)

> Tom Miles
>
> Bioenergy Lists Administrator
>
>
>
> Discussion lists on REPP include:
>
> BIOCONVERSION
> The Bioconversion Discussion List (151 subscribers)
> BIOENERGY
> The Bioenergy Discussion List (433 subscribers)
> DIGESTION
> The Digestion Discussion List (297 subscribers)
> GASIFICATION
> The Gasification Discussion List (348 subscribers)
> GREENBUILDING
> The Greenbuilding Discussion List Managed by Buildinggreen.com (844
> subscribers) PVUSERS
> The PV Users Discussion Group at REPP (188 subscribers)
> STOVES
> The Stoves Discussion List (216 subscribers)
> STRAWBALE
>

--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.

From alyilmaz at ANET.NET.TR Tue Sep 2 03:20:30 2003
From: alyilmaz at ANET.NET.TR (ali yilmaz)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:28 2004
Subject: High Temperature ESP
Message-ID: <TUE.2.SEP.2003.102030.0300.ALYILMAZ@ANET.NET.TR>

Hi all,

I am looking high temperature ESP to clean flue gas at 500 C from furnace
that is fired with wood waste, wood chips, sander dusts and etc. Any help
for names and contacts will be very much appreciated.

Best regards
Ali Yilmaz
Bersey Boiler Company
Istanbul - Turkey

From ventfory at IAFRICA.COM Tue Sep 2 04:39:15 2003
From: ventfory at IAFRICA.COM (Kobus)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:28 2004
Subject: [Fwd: [GASL] Curiosity that killed the cat]
Message-ID: <TUE.2.SEP.2003.103915.0200.VENTFORY@IAFRICA.COM>

====================
Richard Stanley wrote:

>Kobus,

>First off, thanks for getting me on the gassification list.

KV(Kobus): No problem.

>Did you see this from DougWilliams aka Grame Williams (?) of the gasifier
>list. About mid way to end of his reply to a fellow gasifier maker/operator
>(?), Doug mentions the necessity of maintaining air supply below the fuel (and
>what happens if you do not) and the necessity for a consistent fuel type and
>dimension. We are on the right track.

KV: I am not sure if our process can be compared to the above, but gasification of a biomass with power outputs of less than 5 kW (1.1 - 3 kW in our case) I would say does require similar guidelines to create optimal conditions for gas production and burning.

>As to the technicals of his information, its over to you!

KV=As I am a newcomer to this list and -biomass- gasification I can only credit other list members that have made contributions and technical information. The open way they share their accumulated knowledge speaks volumes of their caring attitude that could directly or indirectly help others. Especially those in need of technologies that sees the user save on fuel requirement (therefore also saving natural resources), reduces indoor air pollution and acquire an affordable end-use cooking medium.

I prefer to use practical ways to test ideas, as opposed to obtaining scientific data and interpreting it, but certainly I would encourage beginners to acquire the latter skill and equipment as well. It can be quite gratifying to finally visually see a stove prototype performing in the intended way and then checking the emission and efficiency data to further validate your findings. To all new members I would say just follow the guidelines and even though you might meet failure on the first few attempts, success will eventually befall you, usually aided by a bit of beginners luck!

Regards

Kobus

>Richard
============================
Graeme Williams wrote:

> Dear Tharu
>
> My apologies for not responding to your enquiry at the time of posting as I
> have just returned from four weeks in Europe. Possibly you have received
> private e-mails on the subject but as there are none on the list here
> specific to your questions, I hope the following will assist you to
> understand your gasifier.
>
> One of the easiest ways to measure the output of the gasifier is to measure
> the fuel you are gasifying, deduct the residue from the ashbox and you will
> have a thermal measurement, which will be close enough for the circumstances
> of your situation. You will find these tables on the Fluidyne archive
> www.fluidynenz.250x.com
>
> The first thing you must never do to any gasifier is to operate the system
> to a point where the fuel drops below the incoming air. Clearly in your
> case this has taken the incandescent charcoal of the oxidation zone onto the
> top of the throat causing excessive heat stress, and continued to burn down
> into the throat until all the char was consumed.
>
> On your second test after lengthening and replacing the throat material, the
> reduction zone which exists from the top of the throat to the bottom of the
> tube or grate, was clearly more stable than the original dimension of 4
> inches. The behaviour of the reduction zone is relevant to the fuel
> particle size and the way that the fuel gasifiers as it breaks down in the
> gasification process. Different woods depending on whether they are hard or
> soft, have to be cut to the right size, but where you have only one fuel
> type it is possible to tune your gasifier throat to an appropriate length
> for the best performance. The other thing that could have caused heat
> stress to the top of the throat is the size of the fuel which may have been
> too large and if it was a hard wood allowed the oxidation zone to grow and
> cover the throat area. The tar found in the hopper is consistent with that
> found in any gasifier of this type, and isn't a problem unless it sticks all
> the wood together that might be in the hopper when you shut down for the
> day. You should always stop the gasifier when the wood is just above (6
> inches) the air inlet.
>
> The fact that you were able the burn the gas coming out of the gasifier does
> mean that you have a gasifier that gasifies the fuel you used, because if it
> only burned the wood as in a furnace, you would only have CO2 coming out and
> that won't ignite. Starved air supply only means less air than needed to
> totally consume the wood as in combustion.
>
> Kindest Regards
> Doug Williams.
> Fluidyne Gasification.

From luizmagri at YAHOO.COM Tue Sep 2 13:12:02 2003
From: luizmagri at YAHOO.COM (Luiz Alberto Magri)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:28 2004
Subject: High Temperature ESP
In-Reply-To: <006d01c37122$b1855d40$0100a8c0@ali>
Message-ID: <TUE.2.SEP.2003.101202.0700.LUIZMAGRI@YAHOO.COM>

Dear Ali,

Your statement of 500 oC would be very nice for heat
recovering as - say - medium pressure steam. This
steam will have zillions of applications, from
building air-conditioning to power generation. And
then you will end up with a much more manageable
stream of hot flue gases at around 200 oC (quite OK
for standard ESP design). Why not?

Best regards,

Luiz Magri
São Paulo

--- ali yilmaz <alyilmaz@ANET.NET.TR> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am looking high temperature ESP to clean flue gas
> at 500 C from furnace
> that is fired with wood waste, wood chips, sander
> dusts and etc. Any help
> for names and contacts will be very much
> appreciated.
>
> Best regards
> Ali Yilmaz
> Bersey Boiler Company
> Istanbul - Turkey

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Wed Sep 3 23:55:11 2003
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:28 2004
Subject: IEA Bioenergy Task29 - educational web site on biomass and
bioenergy
Message-ID: <WED.3.SEP.2003.205511.0700.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

Velimir,

Biomass education is important and difficult work. Congratulations to IEA
Task 29 members for taking it on. I hope that everyone visits your draft
site at http://www.task29.epsilon.hr and comments. I have a couple of
observations and questions that may help you in developing the site:

1. Will the site be multilingual?
2. Who is the target audience? It is difficult to tell whether it is aimed
at adults or school children.
3. Do you have an estimate or definition of what the market or user of the
site will be?
4. How will your audience find the site?
5. Does your intended audience use the WWW for instructional purposes?
6. How will you measure or test the effectiveness or use of the site?
7. Will the site contents be available via CD or pdf for use in the
classroom?
8. Will there be instructional materials for teachers?
9. Will you include biomass use in cooking stoves which is the largest
consumer of biomass in quantity and in numbers of people around the world?
See http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/
10. Will you be showing comparisons with fossil fuels for each of the
biomass examples?

Kind regards,

Tom Miles
T R Miles Technical Consultants
Portland, OR
tmiles@trmiles.com
www.trmiles.com

Posted to Bioenergy@listserv.repp.org

> On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 11:28:12 +0200, Velimir Segon <vsegon@EIHP.HR> wrote:
>
> >Dear participants of the discussion list,
> >
> >IEA Bioenergy Task 29: Socio-economic drivers in implementing bioenergy
> >systems focuses its work very much on bioenergy education and promotion.
> >As one of the main activities within the task, we have developed an
> >educational website (still a draft) which can be visited at
> >www.task29.epsilon.hr . The intention is, apart of being a useful source
> >of information, the web site is meant to provide interactive learning
> >(see tools). Moreover, the web is also planned to be used as a tool to
> >generate a book in FAQ format. All reasonable questions and answers from
> >'ask-the-experts' will be stored in database and will be used to produce
> >a book entitled 'Frequently asked questions about biomass and
> >bioenergy'.
> >
> >I would like to kindly ask you to visit the web and forward the web
> >address to anyone you think might be interested, and send us any
> >comments and suggestions for improvement.
> >
> >
> >Best regards,
> >
> >Velimir Segon, M.Sc.
> >Researcher - BIOEN programme
> >Energy Institute 'Hrvoje Pozar'
> >Savska c. 163
> >10000 Zagreb
> >Croatia
> >
> >Tel: +385 1 6326 158
> >Fax: +385 1 6040 599
>

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Thu Sep 4 05:28:12 2003
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (tombreed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:28 2004
Subject: Reflective insulation
Message-ID: <THU.4.SEP.2003.032812.0600.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Dean and all:

Insulation can work in two ways - by slowing the conduction of heat or by
stopping radiation of heat by reflecting the heat back to the source. The
second method is best where it can be employed. The radiation heat loss
increases as T^4 power, while conduction is only T^1 power, so reflective
insulation is particularly important in furnace design.
~~~~~~~~~~~
The simplest example of both is the thermos bottle. There is a vacuum
between the inner and outer glass to prevent CONDUCTION of heat through the
gas. There is a layer of silver on the inside of the glass to prevent
RADIATION.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
While at MIT I developed a TRANSPARENT furnace that uses a layer of gold on
a Pyrex sleeve to reflect the heat back into the furnace. The gold is only
200 atoms thick so costs < $1 and the gold is transparent in the visible
region of the spectrum, but >99% reflective in the IR. See for instance

http://www.thermcraftinc.com/transtemp-furnaces.html

Our company, Transept sold these furnaces for 25 years and I received ~
$50,000 in royalties over that period. (MIT gave its inventors 5% of
royalties, industry gives nothing.) Now the company has been sold to others
and Bill King, President, is retired.

~~~~~~~~~~
There are many ways to stop radiation heat loss.

I was head of the crystal growth department at MIT (Lincoln Labs) and
developed many high temperature furnaces. One of the highest used similar
principles.

A tungsten heating element can achieve temperatures > 2500 C (4500 F), but
must be well insulated. We wrapped a 6 cm diameter by 10 cm high tungsten
element in a coil of ~10 layers of embossed tantalum foil. The embossing
kept contact between successive layers to a minimum.
~~~~~~~
So I would urge all of you to consider wrinkled foil as an insulation where
you can \keep it clean and where temperatures don't exceed the MP of
aluminum (~600 C).

Onward!

TOM REED BEF STOVEWORKS

Silver is the best IR reflector, Gold is one of the best, but aluminum foil
also have a very high reflectance.
Yours truly,

Dr. Thomas Reed
tombreed@comcast.com
www.woodgas.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean Still" <dstill@epud.net>
To: "ethos" <ethos@vrac.iastate.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 1:39 PM
Subject: [ethos] insulation

> Dear ETHOS:
>
> Lanny Hensen shares a great recipe for use in places where aluminum foil
> won't burn up...less than 700F, I think...
>
> I plan to add more plies of insulation to the inner
> sleeve which will be aluminum foil with sawdust and sugar water (all
common
> materials) wrapped in about 6 plies to build up about 1/2". The sawdust
and
> sugar burn to make a crusty spacer to keep the aluminum foil from touching
> itself. The aluminum foil is a good air barrier to block conduction,
> convection. I tried
> it on a camp stove, seems to work. This insulating method cheap, simple
and
> uses common materials if it proves to work.
>
> Peter Scott writes from Uganda:
>
> Just a couple of words. So I found my dream accomplice. This guy named
> George Sizoomu. He has been building stoves for years and he has already
> perfected an insulated brick in Uganda . 1 part rock dust , 1 part normal
> clay, 1 part kaolin and 1 part fine sawdust by weight. Works out to 4
parts
> sawdust , 1 part other by volume. incredibly light!We fired a couple of 6
> brick stoves using his mix and ours.
>
> Details to follow...By the way, I count 12 folks from ETHOS going to the
> conference in Boulder!
>
> All Best,
>
> Dean
>
>

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Thu Sep 4 23:19:58 2003
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:28 2004
Subject: [STOVES] IEA Bioenergy Task29 - educational web site on
biomass and bioenergy
Message-ID: <THU.4.SEP.2003.201958.0700.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

Jeff,

The author of the request to review http://www.task29.epsilon.hr is:

Velimir Segon vsegon@EIHP.HR
Researcher - BIOEN programme
Energy Institute 'Hrvoje Pozar'
Savska c. 163
10000 Zagreb
Croatia

Tel: +385 1 6326 158
Fax: +385 1 6040 599

Tom Miles

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Forssell" <jeff.forssell@cfl.se>
To: "Tom Miles" <tmiles@TRMILES.COM>; <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 12:48 AM
Subject: RE: [STOVES] IEA Bioenergy Task29 - educational web site on biomass
and bioenergy

Unfortunately there's no mailadress to the person seeking feedback on the
site.

One thing I like to check about sites is how will be be for a user that
doesn't have a giant monitor.

If I go in with my 1024*768 screen it is completely filled.

"Gibble listed the two most popular screen resolutions...
800x600 - 47%
1024x768 - 46% "

Don't know who Gibble is or when that investigation was made but I'm sure
that many of the people that site should want to reach will have small
monitors, which means that about 30% of each page will have to be
right-scrolled to reach =Terrible.

The layout dictators that made the site have also decided that everyone
should have (besides giant screens) excellent eyesight so that you aren't
allowed to increase the text size (for visibility) or decrease to fit into
your screen (or printout). An intelligent css layout using ems rather than
pixel size can make a layout size follow the size of the font (which you
should never fix!)

Navigational alternatives could be better implemented. (tabbing not always
possible because of javascripts without real functional value, accesskeys
nonexistant {but that?s something the few sites have discovered}) Some
links are just a tiny "<" or ">". No wonder so many colleagues are carrying
their mouse arm in a sling!

Shockwave usage- Shockwave can produce some very nice instructional material
and be quite compact. But it would be good it as much as possible is
presented in simpler form. Boardband Internet is not available everywhere
and especially where the needs are greatest. Consideration of that factor
must influence choices of how to present material. (If possible with
alternatives so broadband users can access good material, even if everybody
can't.

How is "our" site?
http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/
It is more flexible: you can change font sizes.

On the opening page the only thing that makes it "too big" for 800*600 is
that ther is a wide picture in the first column
http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/Oneil/nicaragua/riobravo.jpg
which is 400 px wide. I think it would be good to diminish or crop it to
about 270.

Jeff Forssell (tv? s)
SWEDISH AGENCY FOR FLEXIBLE LEARNING (CFL)
Box 3024
SE-871 03 H?RN?SAND /Sweden

<http://www.cfl.se/english/index.htm>
+46(0)611-55 79 48 (Work) +46(0)611-55 79 80 (Fax Work)
+46(0)611-22 1 44 (Home) ( mobil: 070- 35 80 306; [070-4091514])

residence:
Gamla Karlebyv?gen 14 / SE-871 33 H?rn?sand /Sweden

e-mail: every workday: jeff.forssell@cfl.se <mailto:jeff.forssell@cfl.se>
(travel, visiting: jeff_forssell@hotmail.com & MSMessenger)

Personal homepage: <http://www.torget.se/users/i/iluhya/index.htm>
My village technology page: http://home.bip.net/jeff.forssell

Instant messengers Odigo 792701 (ICQ: 55800587; NM/MSM use hotmail address)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Miles [mailto:tmiles@TRMILES.COM]
> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 5:55 AM
> To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: Re: [STOVES] IEA Bioenergy Task29 - educational web site on
> biomass and bioenergy
>
>
> Velimir,
>
> Biomass education is important and difficult work.
> Congratulations to IEA
> Task 29 members for taking it on. I hope that everyone visits
> your draft
> site at http://www.task29.epsilon.hr and comments. I have a couple of
> observations and questions that may help you in developing the site:
>
> 1. Will the site be multilingual?
> 2. Who is the target audience? It is difficult to tell
> whether it is aimed
> at adults or school children.
> 3. Do you have an estimate or definition of what the market
> or user of the
> site will be?
> 4. How will your audience find the site?
> 5. Does your intended audience use the WWW for instructional purposes?
> 6. How will you measure or test the effectiveness or use of the site?
> 7. Will the site contents be available via CD or pdf for use in the
> classroom?
> 8. Will there be instructional materials for teachers?
> 9. Will you include biomass use in cooking stoves which is the largest
> consumer of biomass in quantity and in numbers of people
> around the world?
> See http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/
> 10. Will you be showing comparisons with fossil fuels for each of the
> biomass examples?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Tom Miles
> T R Miles Technical Consultants
> Portland, OR
> tmiles@trmiles.com
> www.trmiles.com
>
> Posted to Bioenergy@listserv.repp.org
>
>
> > On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 11:28:12 +0200, Velimir Segon
> <vsegon@EIHP.HR> wrote:
> >
> > >Dear participants of the discussion list,
> > >
> > >IEA Bioenergy Task 29: Socio-economic drivers in
> implementing bioenergy
> > >systems focuses its work very much on bioenergy education
> and promotion.
> > >As one of the main activities within the task, we have developed an
> > >educational website (still a draft) which can be visited at
> > >www.task29.epsilon.hr . The intention is, apart of being a
> useful source
> > >of information, the web site is meant to provide
> interactive learning
> > >(see tools). Moreover, the web is also planned to be used
> as a tool to
> > >generate a book in FAQ format. All reasonable questions
> and answers from
> > >'ask-the-experts' will be stored in database and will be
> used to produce
> > >a book entitled 'Frequently asked questions about biomass and
> > >bioenergy'.
> > >
> > >I would like to kindly ask you to visit the web and forward the web
> > >address to anyone you think might be interested, and send us any
> > >comments and suggestions for improvement.
> > >
> > >
> > >Best regards,
> > >
> > >Velimir Segon, M.Sc.
> > >Researcher - BIOEN programme
> > >Energy Institute 'Hrvoje Pozar'
> > >Savska c. 163
> > >10000 Zagreb
> > >Croatia
> > >
> > >Tel: +385 1 6326 158
> > >Fax: +385 1 6040 599
> >
>

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Thu Sep 4 23:23:17 2003
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:28 2004
Subject: IEA Bioenergy Task29 - educational web site on biomass and
bioenergy
Message-ID: <THU.4.SEP.2003.202317.0700.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

Thanks Harrie

Tom Miles

----- Original Message -----
From: Harrie Knoef
To: Tom Miles ; GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 1:52 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] IEA Bioenergy Task29 - educational web site on biomass and bioenergy

Velimir,
This is a very good attempt to promote bioenergy.
Maybe one suggestion: the website should also include training and public relation, in particular to improve the public perception on bioenergy.
Harrie Knoef

At 20:55 3-9-2003 -0700, Tom Miles wrote:
>Velimir,
>
>Biomass education is important and difficult work. Congratulations to IEA
>Task 29 members for taking it on. I hope that everyone visits your draft
>site at http://www.task29.epsilon.hr and comments. I have a couple of
>observations and questions that may help you in developing the site:
>
>1. Will the site be multilingual?
>2. Who is the target audience? It is difficult to tell whether it is aimed
>at adults or school children.
>3. Do you have an estimate or definition of what the market or user of the
>site will be?
>4. How will your audience find the site?
>5. Does your intended audience use the WWW for instructional purposes?
>6. How will you measure or test the effectiveness or use of the site?
>7. Will the site contents be available via CD or pdf for use in the
>classroom?
>8. Will there be instructional materials for teachers?
>9. Will you include biomass use in cooking stoves which is the largest
>consumer of biomass in quantity and in numbers of people around the world?
>See http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/
>10. Will you be showing comparisons with fossil fuels for each of the
>biomass examples?
>
>Kind regards,
>
>Tom Miles
>T R Miles Technical Consultants
>Portland, OR
>tmiles@trmiles.com
>www.trmiles.com
>
>Posted to Bioenergy@listserv.repp.org
>
>
>> On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 11:28:12 +0200, Velimir Segon <vsegon@EIHP.HR> wrote:
>>
>> >Dear participants of the discussion list,
>> >
>> >IEA Bioenergy Task 29: Socio-economic drivers in implementing bioenergy
>> >systems focuses its work very much on bioenergy education and promotion.
>> >As one of the main activities within the task, we have developed an
>> >educational website (still a draft) which can be visited at
>> >www.task29.epsilon.hr . The intention is, apart of being a useful source
>> >of information, the web site is meant to provide interactive learning
>> >(see tools). Moreover, the web is also planned to be used as a tool to
>> >generate a book in FAQ format. All reasonable questions and answers from
>> >'ask-the-experts' will be stored in database and will be used to produce
>> >a book entitled 'Frequently asked questions about biomass and
>> >bioenergy'.
>> >
>> >I would like to kindly ask you to visit the web and forward the web
>> >address to anyone you think might be interested, and send us any
>> >comments and suggestions for improvement.
>> >
>> >
>> >Best regards,
>> >
>> >Velimir Segon, M.Sc.
>> >Researcher - BIOEN programme
>> >Energy Institute 'Hrvoje Pozar'
>> >Savska c. 163
>> >10000 Zagreb
>> >Croatia
>> >
>> >Tel: +385 1 6326 158
>> >Fax: +385 1 6040 599
>>
>
ir. H.A.M. Knoef

BTG biomass technology group B.V.
c/o University of Twente
P.O. Box 217
7500 AE Enschede

phone: +31 (0)53 489 2897 (general)
phone: +31 (0)53 489 4490 (direct)
fax: +31 (0)53 489 3116
Office email: office@btgworld.com
Desk email: knoef@btgworld.com

==> Visit our website at http://www.btgworld.com <==
_____________________________________________________________

From piolenc at MOZCOM.COM Fri Sep 5 03:36:41 2003
From: piolenc at MOZCOM.COM (Marc de Piolenc)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:28 2004
Subject: Looking for Kaupp book
Message-ID: <FRI.5.SEP.2003.153641.0800.>

If anybody here knows where I can get a copy of Kaupp's book
Gasification of Rice Hulls, I would be grateful. I have tried the usual
online sources, both new and used.

Also, if any member of the list has experience with gasifying rice
hulls, I would be delighted to hear from him. All I can find in my files
is information on a low-performance batch gasifier dated 1989.

Also interested in information on retorting rice hulls, and on the yield
from same, especially methanol.

Thanks in advance, and regards to all,

Marc de Piolenc
Iligan City, Philippines

From keith at JOURNEYTOFOREVER.ORG Fri Sep 5 15:45:03 2003
From: keith at JOURNEYTOFOREVER.ORG (Keith Addison)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:28 2004
Subject: Methane Digesters For Fuel Gas and Fertilizer,
With Complete Instructions For Two Working Models
Message-ID: <SAT.6.SEP.2003.044503.0900.KEITH@JOURNEYTOFOREVER.ORG>

Greetings

Just to announce a new addition to the Biofuels online library that
should be of interest:

http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library.html#methanefry
Methane Digesters For Fuel Gas and Fertilizer, With Complete
Instructions For Two Working Models -- by L. John Fry, Santa Barbara,
Calif. 93103, ? 1973, Eighth Printing (out of print). Excellent
manual on making and using methane -- biogas. Fry developed his
techniques while running a pig farm in South Africa, designing the
first full scale displacement methane plant. Good information on
integrating biogas production with gardening and farming, and with
pond-culture food production. Designs for a Sump Digester using
55-gal oil drums and an Inner Tube Digester. With thanks to Kirk
McLoren.
DjVu version: This file requires the DjVu plug-in reader, available
as a free download (about 1Mb) for Windows, Linux, Solaris and
Macintosh. View online or download the file for offline viewing.
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/MethaneDigesters.djvu
Download DjVu here:
http://www.lizardtech.com/download/?f=0&d=1
DjVu FAQ here:
http://www.lizardtech.com/support/faq/general_djvu.php

Table of Contents

1 Background
Methane-Gas Plant: Synergy at Work

2 History

3 Biology of Digestion
Bio-Succession in the Digester
pH and the Well-Buffered Digester
Temperature

4 Raw Materials
Digestible Properties of Organic Matter
Amount of Manure Collectable
Manure Production and the Livestock Unit
Carbon to Nitrogen Ratio (C/N)
Calculating C/N Ratios

5 The Gas
Composition
Fuel Value
Amount of Gas From Different Wastes

6 Digesters
Basic Digester Design
Raw Materials and Digester Design
Loading Rate, Detention Time and Digester Size
Heating Digesters
Insulating Digesters

7 Using Gas
Properties of Methane
Uses of Methane
Efficiency of Digestion

8 Using Sludge
Sludge as a Fertilizer
Sludge Gardening and Farming
Sludge-Pond Cultures

9 Building a Sump Digester
Making Starter Brew

10 Building an Inner Tube Digester
Inner Tube Digester Parts List
1. Main Chamber of the Digester
2. The Plastic Insert
3. Attaching the Cylinder to the Inner Tube
4. Inlet Fittings and Attachment of the Slurry (Feeding) Bucket
5. Fitting the Effluent Pipe
6. Fitting the Gas Outlet
7. The Scum Collector
8. Gas Yield Indicator
9. Pressure Release Bottle
10. Inner Tube Storage
11. Burner
12. Temperature
13. The Bacterial Brew
14. Feeding
15. Removing Scum and Effluent
16. Safety Precautions
17. Lighting the Flame
18. pH

11 Necessity is the Mother of Invention
Design of the First Full Scale Displacement Methane Plant
Digester Description

12 References

Biofuels Library contents

* Mother Earth Alcohol Fuel
* The Manual for the Home and Farm Production of Alcohol Fuel
* The Sunflower Seed Huller and Oil Press
* Fuel From Sawdust
* The UC Davis biodiesel study
* Straighter-than-straight vegetable oils as diesel fuels
* Palm Oil as a Fuel for Agricultural Diesel Engines: Comparative
Testing against Diesel Oil
* Kinetics of Palm Oil Transesterification in a Batch Reactor
* The Butterfield Still -- Farm-scale ethanol fuel production plant
* The Fats and Oils: a General View
* Put a chicken in your tank
* Methane Digesters For Fuel Gas and Fertilizer -- With Complete
Instructions For Two Working Models
* Micro Cogeneration: 21st Century Independent Power -- How to Design
and Construct Your Own Independent Power System
* Optimization of a Batch Type Ethyl Ester Process
* Production and Testing of Ethyl and Methyl Esters
* Transesterification Process to Manufacture Ethyl Ester of Rape Oil
* Making and Testing a Biodiesel Fuel Made From Ethanol and Waste
French-Fry Oil
* Intensive Field Trial of Ethanol/Petrol Blend in Vehicles
* NIR Helps Turn Vegetable Oil into High-Quality Biofuel
* Rapid Monitoring of Transesterification and Assessing Biodiesel
Fuel Quality by Near-infrared Spectroscopy Using a Fiber-Optic Probe
* Monitoring a Progressing Transesterification Reaction by
Fiber-Optic Near Infrared Spectroscopy with Correlation to 1H Nuclear
Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy
* Cornmeal Adsorber for Dehydrating Ethanol Vapors
* Separating Ethanol From Water
* Apparatus for the Continuous Manufacture of Absolute Alcohol
* Absolute Alcohol Using Glycerine
* Wood Alcohol
* Wood-to-Oil Process
* Liquefaction
* Biochemical Sources of Fuels

Best wishes

Keith Addison
Journey to Forever
Handmade Projects
Ichijima, Japan
http://journeytoforever.org/

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Sat Sep 6 00:46:43 2003
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:28 2004
Subject: USDA Renewable Energy and USDA/USDOE Joint Biomass R&D Awards
Message-ID: <FRI.5.SEP.2003.214643.0700.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

USDA Renewable Energy System and Energy Efficiency Improvement Grants. August 2003

http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2003/08/energylist.htm

Awards for the most recent grants of the JOINT BIOMASS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE, September 2003, can be found at:

http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2003/09/0306.htm

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Sat Sep 6 01:56:14 2003
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:28 2004
Subject: USDA/USDOE JOINT BIOMASS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE,
September 2003
Message-ID: <FRI.5.SEP.2003.225614.0700.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

I noticed that the URL didn't work for this one. Here it is again.

Awards for the most recent grants of the JOINT BIOMASS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE, September 2003, can be found at:

http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2003/09/0306.htm

The main site is http://www.usda.gov Select "Recent Releases"

Tom

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Sun Sep 7 19:14:04 2003
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:28 2004
Subject: Looking for Kaupp book
Message-ID: <SUN.7.SEP.2003.191404.0400.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 15:36:41 +0800, Marc de Piolenc <piolenc@MOZCOM.COM>
wrote:

>If anybody here knows where I can get a copy of Kaupp's book
>Gasification of Rice Hulls, I would be grateful. I have tried the usual
>online sources, both new and used.

Tom Reed has the book available at www.woodgas.com

>Also, if any member of the list has experience with gasifying rice
>hulls, I would be delighted to hear from him. All I can find in my files
>is information on a low-performance batch gasifier dated 1989.

UC Davis, John Goss, Bryan Jenkins and students did a lot of rice husk
gasification up to about 1989. Much of it was published by American
Society of Agricultural Engineers. Some work was also done at Kansas State
University, (W Walawender) and Texas Tech.

Primenergy has had fized bed updraft ricke husk gasifiers operating for
several years. Of course there is more recent experience with fluidized
bed gasifiers in China, Thailand, etc.

Velupillai et. al. review gasification in their 1997 publication "A Study
of the Market for Rice Husk to Energy Systems and Equipment" (Lousiana
State University Agricultural Center).

The San San Industrial Cooperative (Myanmar) experience is now on the web
at http://www.benergyssic.com/

Tom

From Tk at TKE.DK Mon Sep 8 05:09:30 2003
From: Tk at TKE.DK (Thomas Koch)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:28 2004
Subject: Looking for Kaupp book
Message-ID: <MON.8.SEP.2003.110930.0200.TK@TKE.DK>

I went to India in December. I am very sure that there are no ricehusk gasifiers there.

Where can I find any information about "more recent experinceses" ?

I found several fluidbed combustions systems (and some so far misadjusted that they operated close to gadsification conditions.) for ricehusk but no gasifiers.

Regards

Thomas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Miles" <tmiles@TRMILES.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 1:14 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Looking for Kaupp book

> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 15:36:41 +0800, Marc de Piolenc <piolenc@MOZCOM.COM>
> wrote:
>
> >If anybody here knows where I can get a copy of Kaupp's book
> >Gasification of Rice Hulls, I would be grateful. I have tried the usual
> >online sources, both new and used.
>
> Tom Reed has the book available at www.woodgas.com
>
>
> >Also, if any member of the list has experience with gasifying rice
> >hulls, I would be delighted to hear from him. All I can find in my files
> >is information on a low-performance batch gasifier dated 1989.
>
> UC Davis, John Goss, Bryan Jenkins and students did a lot of rice husk
> gasification up to about 1989. Much of it was published by American
> Society of Agricultural Engineers. Some work was also done at Kansas State
> University, (W Walawender) and Texas Tech.
>
> Primenergy has had fized bed updraft ricke husk gasifiers operating for
> several years. Of course there is more recent experience with fluidized
> bed gasifiers in China, Thailand, etc.
>
> Velupillai et. al. review gasification in their 1997 publication "A Study
> of the Market for Rice Husk to Energy Systems and Equipment" (Lousiana
> State University Agricultural Center).
>
> The San San Industrial Cooperative (Myanmar) experience is now on the web
> at http://www.benergyssic.com/
>
> Tom

From rbaileys at PRMENERGY.COM Mon Sep 8 09:12:28 2003
From: rbaileys at PRMENERGY.COM (Ron Bailey Sr)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:28 2004
Subject: RICE HUSK GASIFIERS
In-Reply-To: <001801c375e8$eb2c0920$6801a8c0@image.dk>
Message-ID: <MON.8.SEP.2003.081228.0500.RBAILEYS@PRMENERGY.COM>

Dear Thomas Koch:

PRM Energy Systems, Inc. is gasifying over 1/2 million tons of rice husk
annually. We have been gasifying rice husks for over 21 years in high
demand industrial applications. PRME Systems are available for 30 tons per
day to 2,000 tons per day.

The PRME Rice Husk Gasification System fires boilers, dryers, kilns,
furnaces and IC engines to produce heat, steam and electricity.

You are invited to visit PRME plants here in the US which are gasifying
1,100 tons of rice husk daily. Please visit our web sites:
http://www.prmenergy.com and http://www.primenergy.com for information on
the PRME Gasification Technology and our activities.

Regards,
Ron Bailey Sr.
rbaileys@prmenergy.com

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Thomas Koch
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 4:10 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] Looking for Kaupp book

I went to India in December. I am very sure that there are no ricehusk
gasifiers there.

Where can I find any information about "more recent experinceses" ?

I found several fluidbed combustions systems (and some so far misadjusted
that they operated close to gadsification conditions.) for ricehusk but no
gasifiers.

Regards

Thomas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Miles" <tmiles@TRMILES.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 1:14 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Looking for Kaupp book

From ctfarmer at MAIN.NC.US Mon Sep 8 11:47:38 2003
From: ctfarmer at MAIN.NC.US (chris farmer)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:28 2004
Subject: wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
In-Reply-To: <004701c3743b$97c071d0$6401a8c0@Yellow>
Message-ID: <MON.8.SEP.2003.114738.0400.CTFARMER@MAIN.NC.US>

I have recently joined the listserve. I'm really hoping I'm not asking a
very dumb or very old question here.

I am a member of the Earthaven Forestry Cooperative, a worker owned
cooperative practicing regenerative forestry and natural building. We are
presently looking to move and upgrade our lumberyard. We are wanting to run
a 30hp bandsaw mill and 15hp edger off of electric motors and run a dry kiln
off of hot water. We dream of generating that electricity and hot water
from a wood gas fueled CHP. Wood gas from chipped up slab and edger waste
(no sawdust).

I recently talked to Mike Boyette, from North Carolina State University, who
was the principal investigator for a Biomass Gasification project back in
the mid-80s. He was rather pessimistic about wood gasification. His
one-liner was, "Well, I guess you COULD try and build an airplane out of
lead."

As pessimistic as he was, he sent me off with what seems (to my
inexperienced self) to be a great suggestion: Instead of trying to run
dirty gas through an engine designed to burn clean gas (like a spark
ignition gas engine, or a diesel engine), run the dirty gas through an
engine designed to burn dirty gas. When his project's funding and time ran
out, he had been in the middle of designing and building a very simple
large, high-compression, low-rpm, single-cylinder engine with extra large
carburetor and intake valves. (The engine was simply laid in an open water
bath for cooling). He said if he had to do the whole wood gasification
project over again, that would be the line of thought he would start with.

Do any of you have feedback on that idea? Has it been tried? Are there any
commercial single cylinder engines out there?

I have heard that Ajax used to manufacture a large, low-rpm single cylinder
engine. Anybody know a source for a used one?

Anybody heard of running wood gas through one of the modern two-cylinder
Ajax engines that are designed to burn sour gas?

His line of thought came from his observation that no matter what method he
tried to clean up the gas, he found very little tar accumulating in the
filters, yet incredible amounts of tar accumulating in the carburetor and
intake valves, which was what was causing all of the problems, and seemed to
be dooming the project to failure.

He theorized that within the carburetor and intake valves, the increased
kinetic energy caused by the constrictions of and impediments to the gas
flow allowed the tar to overcome its natural resistance to adhering to
surfaces. That's when he began to 1) design the impingement plate scrubber
(long cylinder with many cross-sectional plates drilled with offset holes)
to get the tars out before the engine, and also when he decided to 2) try
another engine designed to avoid these problems.

Well, thanks very much for existing. Reading over the gasification
listserve over the last month or so has given me some new faith in this
world. I look forward to the time when I can understand more than half of
what you all say.

Thanks for your time and attention,

take care,

Chris Farmer
1025 Camp Elliott Rd.
Black Mountain, NC 28711
(828) 664-0268
ctfarmer@main.nc.us

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Mon Sep 8 12:33:35 2003
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:28 2004
Subject: wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
In-Reply-To: <IHEFIGMBEOIIGACEAOGHKEDMCEAA.ctfarmer@main.nc.us>
Message-ID: <MON.8.SEP.2003.113335.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

There are immense numbers of quite decent gas and diesel engines sitting in
junkyards all over the country. Cheap. So you rebuild (or just buy another
junker) once a year -- forget the custom engine, car and truck engines will run
just fine on woodgas. And if you get a diesel, don't forget you can also run it
on some part of the 14 million gallons of waste vegetable oil from restuarants
that goes into landfills every year in this country.
Yes, you need to filter the gas. Tom Reed has some excellent books for sale
on the subject at http://www.woodgas.com. Here's an excellent howto:
http://www.gengas.nu/byggbes/index.shtml

The guy you talked to is an idiot. All Europe drove, trucked, and farmed using
woodgas during WWII.

On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 11:47:38AM -0400, chris farmer wrote:
> I have recently joined the listserve. I'm really hoping I'm not asking a
> very dumb or very old question here.
>
> I am a member of the Earthaven Forestry Cooperative, a worker owned
> cooperative practicing regenerative forestry and natural building. We are
> presently looking to move and upgrade our lumberyard. We are wanting to run
> a 30hp bandsaw mill and 15hp edger off of electric motors and run a dry kiln
> off of hot water. We dream of generating that electricity and hot water
> from a wood gas fueled CHP. Wood gas from chipped up slab and edger waste
> (no sawdust).
>
> I recently talked to Mike Boyette, from North Carolina State University, who
> was the principal investigator for a Biomass Gasification project back in
> the mid-80s. He was rather pessimistic about wood gasification. His
> one-liner was, "Well, I guess you COULD try and build an airplane out of
> lead."
>
> As pessimistic as he was, he sent me off with what seems (to my
> inexperienced self) to be a great suggestion: Instead of trying to run
> dirty gas through an engine designed to burn clean gas (like a spark
> ignition gas engine, or a diesel engine), run the dirty gas through an
> engine designed to burn dirty gas. When his project's funding and time ran
> out, he had been in the middle of designing and building a very simple
> large, high-compression, low-rpm, single-cylinder engine with extra large
> carburetor and intake valves. (The engine was simply laid in an open water
> bath for cooling). He said if he had to do the whole wood gasification
> project over again, that would be the line of thought he would start with.
>
> Do any of you have feedback on that idea? Has it been tried? Are there any
> commercial single cylinder engines out there?
>
> I have heard that Ajax used to manufacture a large, low-rpm single cylinder
> engine. Anybody know a source for a used one?
>
> Anybody heard of running wood gas through one of the modern two-cylinder
> Ajax engines that are designed to burn sour gas?
>
>
>
> His line of thought came from his observation that no matter what method he
> tried to clean up the gas, he found very little tar accumulating in the
> filters, yet incredible amounts of tar accumulating in the carburetor and
> intake valves, which was what was causing all of the problems, and seemed to
> be dooming the project to failure.
>
> He theorized that within the carburetor and intake valves, the increased
> kinetic energy caused by the constrictions of and impediments to the gas
> flow allowed the tar to overcome its natural resistance to adhering to
> surfaces. That's when he began to 1) design the impingement plate scrubber
> (long cylinder with many cross-sectional plates drilled with offset holes)
> to get the tars out before the engine, and also when he decided to 2) try
> another engine designed to avoid these problems.
>
>
>
> Well, thanks very much for existing. Reading over the gasification
> listserve over the last month or so has given me some new faith in this
> world. I look forward to the time when I can understand more than half of
> what you all say.
>
> Thanks for your time and attention,
>
> take care,
>
> Chris Farmer
> 1025 Camp Elliott Rd.
> Black Mountain, NC 28711
> (828) 664-0268
> ctfarmer@main.nc.us

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

From snkm at BTL.NET Mon Sep 8 12:33:52 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:28 2004
Subject: wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
Message-ID: <MON.8.SEP.2003.103352.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Dear Chris;

Jumping right to the chase:

At 11:47 AM 9/8/2003 -0400, chris farmer wrote:
>he had been in the middle of designing and building a very simple
>large, high-compression, low-rpm, single-cylinder engine with extra large
>carburetor and intake valves. (The engine was simply laid in an open water
>bath for cooling). He said if he had to do the whole wood gasification
>project over again, that would be the line of thought he would start with.
>
>Do any of you have feedback on that idea? Has it been tried? Are there any
>commercial single cylinder engines out there?

Please look over the appended copy of a posting made to this list in the
past in regards to your present question.

>
>I have heard that Ajax used to manufacture a large, low-rpm single cylinder
>engine. Anybody know a source for a used one?

It sounds like you should be investigating the India made copies of the old
style lister diesels -- 650 RPM max -- slow down the engine -- works better
with tar. Big pistons -- large volume --

But the model I have tops out at just 12 HP (Two cylinder - 650 RPM) --
very fine diesel engine -- and has given exceptional service over the past
year.

You can see these at:

http://www.amproexports.com/lister-diesel-engines.html

They are economic to purchase -- probably make a good prototyping base for
your present project. Of indestructible design -- spare parts extremely
economic as well.

Read the appended -- but that suggests opening up clearances -- so order
extra piston -- valves -- etc.

Peter Singfield / Belize

>
>
>Chris Farmer
>1025 Camp Elliott Rd.
>Black Mountain, NC 28711
>(828) 664-0268
>ctfarmer@main.nc.us
>

************appended************

Return-Path: <gasification-return-4139-snkm=btl.net@crest.org>
Mailing-List: contact gasification-help@crest.org; run by ezmlm
X-No-Archive: yes
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>
Delivered-To: mailing list gasification@crest.org
From: "renertech" <renertech@xtra.co.nz>
To: "GAS-L" <gasification@crest.org>
References: <3.0.32.20010212131101.00a05520@wgs1.btl.net>
<3A885597.CFE97730@club-internet.fr>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 22:26:11 -0800
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Log gasifiers -- and cutting wood sawdustly.

Dear Gas-L'ers
> > On the 12-2- someone wrote,

> > The logs were approximately 10 to 15 cm (4" to 6") in diameter and
from 1 metre to 1 metre 80 (3' to 6') long. The gasifiers were very tall,
making possible insertion of long logs, and usually mounted just behind the
cab.
> >
> > About those long "log" gasifiers -- you mean they worked with full
length wood??
Gentlemen!
I think we could restore some perspective by re-iterating a little bit of
colonial history.
In the 1930's prior to the War, and the subsequent post war moves by the
Oil Majors to price coal and other fuels out of the market by selling
petroleum as zero price energy, virtually for what it cost to process it, it
was pumped out of the ground for nothing, things were very very different
to today.
In Australia, Malaya, New Zealand, and all the African States, Every
outback Gold mine, Sawmill, Tin mine, Coal mine was either run by Steam, or
Producer gas.
A typical Gas setup would be a giant Crossley single cylinder Gas engine
with a piston two feet in diameter and running at about 300rpm.and 200
horsepower. The clearance on the piston would be measured in sixteenths of
an inch, to allow for the build up of tars, which virtually doubled up as
the lubricating oil. (once it got hot that is.) Each engine would be fed
by a battery of five or six down draft gasifiers. The gasifiers were made
of fire bricks with a fuel hopper five or six feet in diameter and ten to
twelve feet deep and a throat at the bottom of around ten inches. These
units, usually 4 or 5 were in operation at any one time, were fired with
logs each as heavy as one man could carry. In the case of Australian
hardwood that would be a log six to eight feet long and eight to ten
inches in diameter. The logs would be seasoned for a month or so, as they
were transported into the mine, but were still green with lots of sap.
Each man staggered up the cat walk with his log and slid it from his
shoulder aiming it down into where ever he saw a hot spot in one of the
fires, to plug the hole. Gas cleanup was abysmal. A water spray gas
cooler/cleaner, and a tar beater. The beater was a straight radial bladed
centrifugal fan, which assisted the suction on the gasifiers, and slung the
water/tar droplets out to impact on and drip down the outer casing. As
one can imagine, the pollution level was horrendous, but they worked and
they worked surprising well for the time, A bit like wooden ships and
iron men, those were the Days!!!

Ken Calvert. Renertech@ xtra.co.nz

Gasification List is sponsored by
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 kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Mon Sep 8 12:39:04 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:28 2004
Subject: wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
Message-ID: <MON.8.SEP.2003.133904.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "chris farmer" <ctfarmer@MAIN.NC.US>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 12:47 PM
Subject: [GASL] wood gas in large single-cylinder engines

> I have recently joined the listserve. I'm really hoping I'm not asking a
> very dumb or very old question here.
>
> I am a member of the Earthaven Forestry Cooperative, a worker owned
> cooperative practicing regenerative forestry and natural building. We are
> presently looking to move and upgrade our lumberyard.

Have you also considered the possibility of chipping your slash and trash,
and gasifying it?

We are wanting to run
> a 30hp bandsaw mill and 15hp edger off of electric motors and run a dry
kiln
> off of hot water. We dream of generating that electricity and hot water
> from a wood gas fueled CHP. Wood gas from chipped up slab and edger waste
> (no sawdust).

Actually, it would probably be easier to start with the relatively dry
chipped slab and edger waste, then back into utilization of forest residue.
>
> I recently talked to Mike Boyette, from North Carolina State University,
who
> was the principal investigator for a Biomass Gasification project back in
> the mid-80s. He was rather pessimistic about wood gasification. His
> one-liner was, "Well, I guess you COULD try and build an airplane out of
> lead."

I guess you COULD call that pessimistic. :-)
>
> As pessimistic as he was, he sent me off with what seems (to my
> inexperienced self) to be a great suggestion: Instead of trying to run
> dirty gas through an engine designed to burn clean gas (like a spark
> ignition gas engine, or a diesel engine), run the dirty gas through an
> engine designed to burn dirty gas. When his project's funding and time
ran
> out, he had been in the middle of designing and building a very simple
> large, high-compression, low-rpm, single-cylinder engine with extra large
> carburetor and intake valves. (The engine was simply laid in an open
water
> bath for cooling). He said if he had to do the whole wood gasification
> project over again, that would be the line of thought he would start with.
>
> Do any of you have feedback on that idea? Has it been tried? Are there
any
> commercial single cylinder engines out there?

I would suggest that the fundamental problem with tar buildup at the
carburetor or intake of the engine is caused by two factors:
1: High velocity and impingement of tar droplets enables them to drop out of
the air stream.

2: The lower temperatures resulting from the higher velocity help
liquify vapors so that they can then drop out of air suspension.
>
> I have heard that Ajax used to manufacture a large, low-rpm single
cylinder
> engine. Anybody know a source for a used one?

I would suggest that unless the gas is cleaned up BEFORE the engine, you
would still have problems.
>
> Anybody heard of running wood gas through one of the modern two-cylinder
> Ajax engines that are designed to burn sour gas?

The sour gas represents another problem entirely.... acids resulting from
the combustion of biogas containing H2S can lead to an acid condition in the
engine lubricating oil. I understand the Ajax has a crosshead design, where
the piston is effectively "disconnected" from the crankcase, so that piston
blowby cannot contaminate the sump lube oil. The problem with the dirty
woodgas is an intake problem, and not a lube contamination problem.
>
>
> His line of thought came from his observation that no matter what method
he
> tried to clean up the gas, he found very little tar accumulating in the
> filters, yet incredible amounts of tar accumulating in the carburetor and
> intake valves, which was what was causing all of the problems, and seemed
to
> be dooming the project to failure.
>
> He theorized that within the carburetor and intake valves, the increased
> kinetic energy caused by the constrictions of and impediments to the gas
> flow allowed the tar to overcome its natural resistance to adhering to
> surfaces. That's when he began to 1) design the impingement plate
scrubber
> (long cylinder with many cross-sectional plates drilled with offset holes)
> to get the tars out before the engine, and also when he decided to 2) try
> another engine designed to avoid these problems.

A facetious solution is to install a false carburetor in front of the real
carburetor, so that it will attract all the tars. :-) Seriously, if you get
to understand the conditions which exist within the carburetor, you will
have an excellent basis for designing a very effective gas cleaning system.
A problem here is that there will be an extra pressure drop in the gas flow
path, and this might reduce the volumetric efficiency of the engine
considerably. This could be overcome with a gas pressure booster that
brought the gas pressure back to atmospheric.
>
Keep us posted on your thoughts, and especially on your progress, if you get
to the stage of building something.

Kevin Chisholm

From phoenix98604 at EARTHLINK.NET Mon Sep 8 12:53:22 2003
From: phoenix98604 at EARTHLINK.NET (Art Krenzel)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:28 2004
Subject: wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
Message-ID: <MON.8.SEP.2003.095322.0700.PHOENIX98604@EARTHLINK.NET>

Harmon,

The Europeans used fuel gas made from Charcoal not wood chips. It is a
world of difference as far as tar production is concerned.

I don't think his or your advice is too far off center but the problem
becomes easier when you begin with a charcoal feedstock.

Art Krenzel, P.E.
PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES
10505 NE 285TH Street
Battle Ground, WA 98604
360-666-1883 voice
phoenix98604@earthlink.net

----- Original Message -----
From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] wood gas in large single-cylinder engines

> There are immense numbers of quite decent gas and diesel engines
sitting in
> junkyards all over the country. Cheap. So you rebuild (or just buy another
> junker) once a year -- forget the custom engine, car and truck engines
will run
> just fine on woodgas. And if you get a diesel, don't forget you can also
run it
> on some part of the 14 million gallons of waste vegetable oil from
restuarants
> that goes into landfills every year in this country.
> Yes, you need to filter the gas. Tom Reed has some excellent books for
sale
> on the subject at http://www.woodgas.com. Here's an excellent howto:
> http://www.gengas.nu/byggbes/index.shtml
>
> The guy you talked to is an idiot. All Europe drove, trucked, and farmed
using
> woodgas during WWII.
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 11:47:38AM -0400, chris farmer wrote:
> > I have recently joined the listserve. I'm really hoping I'm not asking
a
> > very dumb or very old question here.
> >
> > I am a member of the Earthaven Forestry Cooperative, a worker owned
> > cooperative practicing regenerative forestry and natural building. We
are
> > presently looking to move and upgrade our lumberyard. We are wanting to
run
> > a 30hp bandsaw mill and 15hp edger off of electric motors and run a dry
kiln
> > off of hot water. We dream of generating that electricity and hot water
> > from a wood gas fueled CHP. Wood gas from chipped up slab and edger
waste
> > (no sawdust).
> >
> > I recently talked to Mike Boyette, from North Carolina State University,
who
> > was the principal investigator for a Biomass Gasification project back
in
> > the mid-80s. He was rather pessimistic about wood gasification. His
> > one-liner was, "Well, I guess you COULD try and build an airplane out of
> > lead."
> >
> > As pessimistic as he was, he sent me off with what seems (to my
> > inexperienced self) to be a great suggestion: Instead of trying to run
> > dirty gas through an engine designed to burn clean gas (like a spark
> > ignition gas engine, or a diesel engine), run the dirty gas through an
> > engine designed to burn dirty gas. When his project's funding and time
ran
> > out, he had been in the middle of designing and building a very simple
> > large, high-compression, low-rpm, single-cylinder engine with extra
large
> > carburetor and intake valves. (The engine was simply laid in an open
water
> > bath for cooling). He said if he had to do the whole wood gasification
> > project over again, that would be the line of thought he would start
with.
> >
> > Do any of you have feedback on that idea? Has it been tried? Are there
any
> > commercial single cylinder engines out there?
> >
> > I have heard that Ajax used to manufacture a large, low-rpm single
cylinder
> > engine. Anybody know a source for a used one?
> >
> > Anybody heard of running wood gas through one of the modern two-cylinder
> > Ajax engines that are designed to burn sour gas?
> >
> >
> >
> > His line of thought came from his observation that no matter what method
he
> > tried to clean up the gas, he found very little tar accumulating in the
> > filters, yet incredible amounts of tar accumulating in the carburetor
and
> > intake valves, which was what was causing all of the problems, and
seemed to
> > be dooming the project to failure.
> >
> > He theorized that within the carburetor and intake valves, the increased
> > kinetic energy caused by the constrictions of and impediments to the gas
> > flow allowed the tar to overcome its natural resistance to adhering to
> > surfaces. That's when he began to 1) design the impingement plate
scrubber
> > (long cylinder with many cross-sectional plates drilled with offset
holes)
> > to get the tars out before the engine, and also when he decided to 2)
try
> > another engine designed to avoid these problems.
> >
> >
> >
> > Well, thanks very much for existing. Reading over the gasification
> > listserve over the last month or so has given me some new faith in this
> > world. I look forward to the time when I can understand more than half
of
> > what you all say.
> >
> > Thanks for your time and attention,
> >
> > take care,
> >
> > Chris Farmer
> > 1025 Camp Elliott Rd.
> > Black Mountain, NC 28711
> > (828) 664-0268
> > ctfarmer@main.nc.us
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com

From Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK Mon Sep 8 14:32:06 2003
From: Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:28 2004
Subject: wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
In-Reply-To: <IHEFIGMBEOIIGACEAOGHKEDMCEAA.ctfarmer@main.nc.us>
Message-ID: <MON.8.SEP.2003.193206.0100.GAVIN@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>

Try peter singfield, a regular lister who recommends Lister (sic) diesel
engines for exactly that reason ;-)

See us at the Sustainable Energy Show, Olympia 21-23 October 2003
Gavin Gulliver-Goodall
3G Energi,

Tel +44 (0)1835 824201
Fax +44 (0)870 8314098
Mob +44 (0)7773 781498
E mail Gavin@3genergi.co.uk <mailto:Gavin@3genergi.co.uk>

The contents of this email and any attachments are the property of 3G Energi
and are intended for the confidential use of the named recipient(s) only.
They may be legally privileged and should not be communicated to or relied
upon by any person without our express written consent. If you are not an
addressee please notify us immediately at the address above or by email at
Gavin@3genergi.co.uk <mailto:Gavin@3genergi.co.uk>. Any files attached to
this email will have been checked with virus detection software before
transmission. However, you should carry out your own virus check before
opening any attachment. 3G Energi accepts no liability for any loss or
damage that may be caused by software viruses.

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of chris farmer
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 16:48
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [GASL] wood gas in large single-cylinder engines

I have recently joined the listserve. I'm really hoping I'm not asking a
very dumb or very old question here.

Do any of you have feedback on that idea? Has it been tried? Are there any
commercial single cylinder engines out there?

I have heard that Ajax used to manufacture a large, low-rpm single cylinder
engine. Anybody know a source for a used one?

Anybody heard of running wood gas through one of the modern two-cylinder
Ajax engines that are designed to burn sour gas?

Thanks for your time and attention,

take care,

Chris Farmer
1025 Camp Elliott Rd.
Black Mountain, NC 28711
(828) 664-0268
ctfarmer@main.nc.us

From kssustain at PROVIDE.NET Mon Sep 8 14:51:45 2003
From: kssustain at PROVIDE.NET (Kermit Schlansker)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:28 2004
Subject: Comanufacturing of Liquid Fuels
Message-ID: <MON.8.SEP.2003.135145.0500.KSSUSTAIN@PROVIDE.NET>

Comanufacturing of Liquid Fuels

I believe that wood may become our principal energy source for the winter. However it must be used very carefully because there will never be enough of it. I also believe that it is totally impossible (as it is now) for this nation to be free of imported oil. However it would be a very good idea to make agriculture and food transport to be independent of imports and oil. Oil seed is of course another good tactic.
It seems to me that gasification needs to be looked at again in view of the extreme need to conserve energy as oil and gas deplete. In this list it has been emphatically stated that only very large biomass to methanol plants could ever make a profit. I am not sure what the reasons are but I think it might have to do with lower cost and improved efficiency of very large air compressors. There are some obvious problems with large biomass plants. One is that even though they are more efficient, it is difficult to use their waste heat because there is too much of it in one location. Another problem is that the biomass must be hauled from a larger radius.
I think we should be looking at this problem as a means of heating large apartments and other large buildings in winter. This means that our possible outputs from a gasifier would be gaseous input to a cogeneration engine, heat for a steam engine, charcoal, liquid fuels, and building heat. The addition of building heat makes the whole system much more efficient. One million btus/hr input might be a representative size for the unit.
It seems to me that liquid fuels will be at a premium and that a sizeable liquid fuel output from such a system would be desirable. Historically methanol was made from the distillation of wood. I am not sure what the yield was. It may be that the gasifier needs to be designed to produce more liquids and tars and as much as possible of the tars should be converted to methanol. This changes the design of the gasifier. I believe that the waste heat from air compression would be useful in winter. All losses would be useful. A 10% output of methanol could be saved and used for tractors and trucks. Tom Reed's wood driven tractor will almost certainly be needed but the methanol might be more efficient. Charcoal might be a better fuel than wood.
One question is whether such a system would be feasible and what it might be. Another question is, if we go back to the old methanol process as a means of getting a partial methanol output, what kind of wood is needed and what the percentage yield might be. A practical system could save methanol all winter. Then it could be used in spring plowing.
Kermit Schlansker

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Mon Sep 8 11:07:19 2003
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (tombreed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:28 2004
Subject: wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
Message-ID: <MON.8.SEP.2003.090719.0600.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Chris and All;

I suppose using an engine that can burn dirty gas for power makes some
sense, but much better to make a gasifier that makes clean gas. CPC has
developed a gasifier with < 50 ppm raw gas tars. Prof. Mukunda at IISc
Bangalore has also improved gasifiers to make clean gas and Gus Johannson in
S. Africa claims clean raw gas.

However, this presumes understanding the gasification process and that is
still developing...

Good luck in your indeavor...

TOM REED Gasification

Yours truly,

Dr. Thomas Reed
tombreed@comcast.com
www.woodgas.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gavin Gulliver-Goodall" <Gavin@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] wood gas in large single-cylinder engines

> Try peter singfield, a regular lister who recommends Lister (sic) diesel
> engines for exactly that reason ;-)
>
> See us at the Sustainable Energy Show, Olympia 21-23 October 2003
> Gavin Gulliver-Goodall
> 3G Energi,
>
> Tel +44 (0)1835 824201
> Fax +44 (0)870 8314098
> Mob +44 (0)7773 781498
> E mail Gavin@3genergi.co.uk <mailto:Gavin@3genergi.co.uk>
>
> The contents of this email and any attachments are the property of 3G
Energi
> and are intended for the confidential use of the named recipient(s) only.
> They may be legally privileged and should not be communicated to or relied
> upon by any person without our express written consent. If you are not an
> addressee please notify us immediately at the address above or by email at
> Gavin@3genergi.co.uk <mailto:Gavin@3genergi.co.uk>. Any files attached to
> this email will have been checked with virus detection software before
> transmission. However, you should carry out your own virus check before
> opening any attachment. 3G Energi accepts no liability for any loss or
> damage that may be caused by software viruses.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Gasification Discussion List
> [mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of chris farmer
> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 16:48
> To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: [GASL] wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
>
> I have recently joined the listserve. I'm really hoping I'm not asking a
> very dumb or very old question here.
>
> I am a member of the Earthaven Forestry Cooperative, a worker owned
> cooperative practicing regenerative forestry and natural building. We are
> presently looking to move and upgrade our lumberyard. We are wanting to
run
> a 30hp bandsaw mill and 15hp edger off of electric motors and run a dry
kiln
> off of hot water. We dream of generating that electricity and hot water
> from a wood gas fueled CHP. Wood gas from chipped up slab and edger waste
> (no sawdust).
>
> I recently talked to Mike Boyette, from North Carolina State University,
who
> was the principal investigator for a Biomass Gasification project back in
> the mid-80s. He was rather pessimistic about wood gasification. His
> one-liner was, "Well, I guess you COULD try and build an airplane out of
> lead."
>
> As pessimistic as he was, he sent me off with what seems (to my
> inexperienced self) to be a great suggestion: Instead of trying to run
> dirty gas through an engine designed to burn clean gas (like a spark
> ignition gas engine, or a diesel engine), run the dirty gas through an
> engine designed to burn dirty gas. When his project's funding and time
ran
> out, he had been in the middle of designing and building a very simple
> large, high-compression, low-rpm, single-cylinder engine with extra large
> carburetor and intake valves. (The engine was simply laid in an open
water
> bath for cooling). He said if he had to do the whole wood gasification
> project over again, that would be the line of thought he would start with.
>
> Do any of you have feedback on that idea? Has it been tried? Are there
any
> commercial single cylinder engines out there?
>
> I have heard that Ajax used to manufacture a large, low-rpm single
cylinder
> engine. Anybody know a source for a used one?
>
> Anybody heard of running wood gas through one of the modern two-cylinder
> Ajax engines that are designed to burn sour gas?
>
>
>
> His line of thought came from his observation that no matter what method
he
> tried to clean up the gas, he found very little tar accumulating in the
> filters, yet incredible amounts of tar accumulating in the carburetor and
> intake valves, which was what was causing all of the problems, and seemed
to
> be dooming the project to failure.
>
> He theorized that within the carburetor and intake valves, the increased
> kinetic energy caused by the constrictions of and impediments to the gas
> flow allowed the tar to overcome its natural resistance to adhering to
> surfaces. That's when he began to 1) design the impingement plate
scrubber
> (long cylinder with many cross-sectional plates drilled with offset holes)
> to get the tars out before the engine, and also when he decided to 2) try
> another engine designed to avoid these problems.
>
>
>
> Well, thanks very much for existing. Reading over the gasification
> listserve over the last month or so has given me some new faith in this
> world. I look forward to the time when I can understand more than half of
> what you all say.
>
> Thanks for your time and attention,
>
> take care,
>
> Chris Farmer
> 1025 Camp Elliott Rd.
> Black Mountain, NC 28711
> (828) 664-0268
> ctfarmer@main.nc.us
>

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Mon Sep 8 11:22:19 2003
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (tombreed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:28 2004
Subject: Comanufacturing of Liquid Fuels
Message-ID: <MON.8.SEP.2003.092219.0600.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Kermit and All:

Hardwoods typically yield 2-3% methanol on destructive distillation,
softwoods zero. This is a useful amount if you have use for the 100 other
chemicals resulting from wood distillation (vanillan, acetone, acetic acid
etc.) and the last plant (Ford) closed down about 1950 because it couldn't
compete with oil as a feedstock for making these chemicals synthetically.

Wrong about biomass gasification being only economical at a large scale.
All the DOE big scale projects (Hawaii, Ferco) are closing down, but
Community Power making 20 kW generators (cogen heat as an option) is going
great guns (see www.gocpc.com) and there are others that seem to be
surviving. During WWII coal was used in all the big stationary gasifiers,
but all civilian vehicles, boats, buses, ran on woodgas.

That era could return in modified form. We now have microprocessors that
can make all the correct settings for operating on woodgas (spark, air/fuel,
temperatures etc.), so I believe that a modern car/truck burning pellets
would be an acceptable alternative to gasoline/diesel at some price.
(Pellets now much cheaper than g/diesel at Home Depot, and especially in
bulk).

However, if we are going to make methanol from biomass we need plants of at
least 20 t/day to be economically viable. They could operate at farm coops
and the farmers could densify and bring in their residues.
````````````````
Here's a table I have prepared on current total energy use and future
biomass potential for the US and the World. I'd appreciate any comments you
have....

CURRENT US AND WORLD ENERGY CONSUMPTION & BIOMASS POTENTIAL
Annual Use in ExaJoules (10^18 J) or ~in quads (10^15 Btu)
US WORLD
Current Production all forms (1) 101 420
Current Consumption all forms (1) 96 379
Current Biomass Energy Consumption (1) 3 59
Projected Biomass Potential DOE (2) 20 120
Projected Biomass Potential TBR (3) 48 533

My biomass projection is based on a yield of 2 tonnes/hectare for the land
areas of the US and World. Crude, but likely conservative when the crunch
comes.
~~~~~

That's my target and things are progressing nicely, but don't hold your
breath.
Yours truly,

Dr. Thomas Reed
tombreed@comcast.com
www.woodgas.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kermit Schlansker" <kssustain@provide.net>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 12:51 PM
Subject: [GASL] Comanufacturing of Liquid Fuels

Comanufacturing of Liquid Fuels

I believe that wood may become our principal energy source for
the winter. However it must be used very carefully because there will never
be enough of it. I also believe that it is totally impossible (as it is now)
for this nation to be free of imported oil. However it would be a very good
idea to make agriculture and food transport to be independent of imports and
oil. Oil seed is of course another good tactic.
It seems to me that gasification needs to be looked at again in view
of the extreme need to conserve energy as oil and gas deplete. In this list
it has been emphatically stated that only very large biomass to methanol
plants could ever make a profit. I am not sure what the reasons are but I
think it might have to do with lower cost and improved efficiency of very
large air compressors. There are some obvious problems with large biomass
plants. One is that even though they are more efficient, it is difficult to
use their waste heat because there is too much of it in one location.
Another problem is that the biomass must be hauled from a larger radius.
I think we should be looking at this problem as a means of heating
large apartments and other large buildings in winter. This means that our
possible outputs from a gasifier would be gaseous input to a cogeneration
engine, heat for a steam engine, charcoal, liquid fuels, and building heat.
The addition of building heat makes the whole system much more efficient.
One million btus/hr input might be a representative size for the unit.
It seems to me that liquid fuels will be at a premium and that a
sizeable liquid fuel output from such a system would be desirable.
Historically methanol was made from the distillation of wood. I am not sure
what the yield was. It may be that the gasifier needs to be designed to
produce more liquids and tars and as much as possible of the tars should be
converted to methanol. This changes the design of the gasifier. I believe
that the waste heat from air compression would be useful in winter. All
losses would be useful. A 10% output of methanol could be saved and used for
tractors and trucks. Tom Reed's wood driven tractor will almost certainly be
needed but the methanol might be more efficient. Charcoal might be a better
fuel than wood.
One question is whether such a system would be feasible and what
it might be. Another question is, if we go back to the old methanol process
as a means of getting a partial methanol output, what kind of wood is needed
and what the percentage yield might be. A practical system could save
methanol all winter. Then it could be used in spring plowing.
Kermit Schlansker

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Mon Sep 8 11:31:25 2003
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (tombreed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:29 2004
Subject: wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
Message-ID: <MON.8.SEP.2003.093125.0600.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Harmon, Art and All:

I hate to disagree with my old pal Art Krenzel, but by 1943 all gasifiers in
Sweden and Europe were using wood blocks (or chips, but the chipper hadn't
been invented yet).

Charcoal manufacture only recovers 40% of the energy in the wood, so lucky
they could change. However, the gasifiers are easier to make and use.
Visit http://www.hotel.ymex.net/~s-20222/gengas/kg_eng.html to see a great
description of the Kalle charcoal gasifier and its stages of development.

There are gasifiers in the world now that get < 50 ppm tar in the raw gas
from wood and other biomass, so no reason to go to charcoal.

Yours truly,

Dr. Thomas Reed
tombreed@comcast.com
www.woodgas.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Art Krenzel" <phoenix98604@EARTHLINK.NET>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] wood gas in large single-cylinder engines

> Harmon,
>
> The Europeans used fuel gas made from Charcoal not wood chips. It is a
> world of difference as far as tar production is concerned.
>
> I don't think his or your advice is too far off center but the problem
> becomes easier when you begin with a charcoal feedstock.
>
> Art Krenzel, P.E.
> PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES
> 10505 NE 285TH Street
> Battle Ground, WA 98604
> 360-666-1883 voice
> phoenix98604@earthlink.net
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>
> To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 9:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [GASL] wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
>
>
> > There are immense numbers of quite decent gas and diesel engines
> sitting in
> > junkyards all over the country. Cheap. So you rebuild (or just buy
another
> > junker) once a year -- forget the custom engine, car and truck engines
> will run
> > just fine on woodgas. And if you get a diesel, don't forget you can also
> run it
> > on some part of the 14 million gallons of waste vegetable oil from
> restuarants
> > that goes into landfills every year in this country.
> > Yes, you need to filter the gas. Tom Reed has some excellent books
for
> sale
> > on the subject at http://www.woodgas.com. Here's an excellent howto:
> > http://www.gengas.nu/byggbes/index.shtml
> >
> > The guy you talked to is an idiot. All Europe drove, trucked, and
farmed
> using
> > woodgas during WWII.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 11:47:38AM -0400, chris farmer wrote:
> > > I have recently joined the listserve. I'm really hoping I'm not
asking
> a
> > > very dumb or very old question here.
> > >
> > > I am a member of the Earthaven Forestry Cooperative, a worker owned
> > > cooperative practicing regenerative forestry and natural building. We
> are
> > > presently looking to move and upgrade our lumberyard. We are wanting
to
> run
> > > a 30hp bandsaw mill and 15hp edger off of electric motors and run a
dry
> kiln
> > > off of hot water. We dream of generating that electricity and hot
water
> > > from a wood gas fueled CHP. Wood gas from chipped up slab and edger
> waste
> > > (no sawdust).
> > >
> > > I recently talked to Mike Boyette, from North Carolina State
University,
> who
> > > was the principal investigator for a Biomass Gasification project back
> in
> > > the mid-80s. He was rather pessimistic about wood gasification. His
> > > one-liner was, "Well, I guess you COULD try and build an airplane out
of
> > > lead."
> > >
> > > As pessimistic as he was, he sent me off with what seems (to my
> > > inexperienced self) to be a great suggestion: Instead of trying to
run
> > > dirty gas through an engine designed to burn clean gas (like a spark
> > > ignition gas engine, or a diesel engine), run the dirty gas through an
> > > engine designed to burn dirty gas. When his project's funding and
time
> ran
> > > out, he had been in the middle of designing and building a very simple
> > > large, high-compression, low-rpm, single-cylinder engine with extra
> large
> > > carburetor and intake valves. (The engine was simply laid in an open
> water
> > > bath for cooling). He said if he had to do the whole wood
gasification
> > > project over again, that would be the line of thought he would start
> with.
> > >
> > > Do any of you have feedback on that idea? Has it been tried? Are
there
> any
> > > commercial single cylinder engines out there?
> > >
> > > I have heard that Ajax used to manufacture a large, low-rpm single
> cylinder
> > > engine. Anybody know a source for a used one?
> > >
> > > Anybody heard of running wood gas through one of the modern
two-cylinder
> > > Ajax engines that are designed to burn sour gas?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > His line of thought came from his observation that no matter what
method
> he
> > > tried to clean up the gas, he found very little tar accumulating in
the
> > > filters, yet incredible amounts of tar accumulating in the carburetor
> and
> > > intake valves, which was what was causing all of the problems, and
> seemed to
> > > be dooming the project to failure.
> > >
> > > He theorized that within the carburetor and intake valves, the
increased
> > > kinetic energy caused by the constrictions of and impediments to the
gas
> > > flow allowed the tar to overcome its natural resistance to adhering to
> > > surfaces. That's when he began to 1) design the impingement plate
> scrubber
> > > (long cylinder with many cross-sectional plates drilled with offset
> holes)
> > > to get the tars out before the engine, and also when he decided to 2)
> try
> > > another engine designed to avoid these problems.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, thanks very much for existing. Reading over the gasification
> > > listserve over the last month or so has given me some new faith in
this
> > > world. I look forward to the time when I can understand more than
half
> of
> > > what you all say.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your time and attention,
> > >
> > > take care,
> > >
> > > Chris Farmer
> > > 1025 Camp Elliott Rd.
> > > Black Mountain, NC 28711
> > > (828) 664-0268
> > > ctfarmer@main.nc.us
> >
> > --
> > Harmon Seaver
> > CyberShamanix
> > http://www.cybershamanix.com
>

From LINVENT at AOL.COM Mon Sep 8 19:28:16 2003
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:29 2004
Subject: wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
Message-ID: <MON.8.SEP.2003.192816.EDT.>

Cleaning the gas is not that difficult if you use the right principals. I
agree with Dr. Reed that starting with a clean gas is a better start, but any gas
can be cleaned up and suitable for an IC engine operation.
The issue of using a less than good clean gas in an engine has been well
described to me by a group which built a 1mwe gasifier in Europe and found
that the engine intake valves fouled after 40 hours and had to have a valve job.
Considering it was a 16 cylinder engine, this was quite an undertaking.
Although you may get the rest of the engine to tolerate dirty gas, intake valve
coking of the tars and oils present in a dirty gas will not be easily dealt with.
Ring fouling is another aspect which occurs even in diesel engines if the oil
is not changed regularly.
Gas cleaning is the only way to go if you plan on running an IC engine,
IC engines are the only way to go at small scale without large steam plants
with operator costs and the like. The ladder logic is simple conclusion
inevitable.

Leland T. Taylor
President
Thermogenics Inc.
7100-F 2nd St. NW Albuquerque, New Mexico USA 87107 Phone: 505-761-5633, fax:
341-0424, website: thermogenics.com.
In order to read the compressed files forwarded under AOL, it is necessary to
download Aladdin's freeware Unstuffit at
http://www.stuffit.com/expander/index.html

From piolenc at MOZCOM.COM Mon Sep 8 23:50:37 2003
From: piolenc at MOZCOM.COM (Marc de Piolenc)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:29 2004
Subject: Comanufacturing of Liquid Fuels
Message-ID: <TUE.9.SEP.2003.115037.0800.>

Kermit Schlansker wrote:

> One question is whether such a system would be feasible and what it might be. Another question is, if we go back to the old methanol process as a means of getting a partial methanol output, what kind of wood is needed and what the percentage yield might be.

According to H?gglund, dry distillation gives from 1 to 3% of the wood's
dry weight of methanol for a wide range of softwoods and hardwoods. He
has no figures for agwaste but it appears that lignin content is the
governing factor in methanol yield, so waste that is primarily cellulose
would not be a good bet for this method of production.

Interestingly, caustic fusion gives methanol yields up to 5.5% (H?gglund
again). If air is added during fusion, methanol can be produced from
primarily cellulose-bearing wastes.

Marc de Piolenc

From Tk at TKE.DK Tue Sep 9 05:01:10 2003
From: Tk at TKE.DK (Thomas Koch)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:29 2004
Subject: wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
Message-ID: <TUE.9.SEP.2003.110110.0200.TK@TKE.DK>

Dear Gas engine operator and potential gas engine operators.

If you take gasification gas from a staged divided gasifier you get a gas that contains very litle tar (2-20 mg/nm3) and a lot of particles.
Cool this gas to 80 oC filter it through a bag house filter and it will work in any engine.
We have operated a 3 liter 24 valve Nissan engine for aproxx 350 hours on gas from our staged gisifier with out any problems.
If a clean gas is used there are no problems using any engine, with spark plugs as well as dual-fuel.
You will find that the methane number is very high. The engine can be loaded very hard with out knocking, and thus there is a potential for a higher efficiency than for natgas.

If you use a gasifier that produce tar you have endless problems!!

Best regards

Thomas Koch

TK Energi AS
Stationsvej 4
4621 Gadstrup
Denmark

----- Original Message -----
From: "tombreed" <tombreed@COMCAST.NET>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] wood gas in large single-cylinder engines

> Dear Chris and All;
>
> I suppose using an engine that can burn dirty gas for power makes some
> sense, but much better to make a gasifier that makes clean gas. CPC has
> developed a gasifier with < 50 ppm raw gas tars. Prof. Mukunda at IISc
> Bangalore has also improved gasifiers to make clean gas and Gus Johannson in
> S. Africa claims clean raw gas.
>
> However, this presumes understanding the gasification process and that is
> still developing...
>
> Good luck in your indeavor...
>
> TOM REED Gasification
>
>
> Yours truly,
>
> Dr. Thomas Reed
> tombreed@comcast.com
> www.woodgas.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gavin Gulliver-Goodall" <Gavin@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>
> To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 12:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [GASL] wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
>
>
> > Try peter singfield, a regular lister who recommends Lister (sic) diesel
> > engines for exactly that reason ;-)
> >
> > See us at the Sustainable Energy Show, Olympia 21-23 October 2003
> > Gavin Gulliver-Goodall
> > 3G Energi,
> >
> > Tel +44 (0)1835 824201
> > Fax +44 (0)870 8314098
> > Mob +44 (0)7773 781498
> > E mail Gavin@3genergi.co.uk <mailto:Gavin@3genergi.co.uk>
> >
> > The contents of this email and any attachments are the property of 3G
> Energi
> > and are intended for the confidential use of the named recipient(s) only.
> > They may be legally privileged and should not be communicated to or relied
> > upon by any person without our express written consent. If you are not an
> > addressee please notify us immediately at the address above or by email at
> > Gavin@3genergi.co.uk <mailto:Gavin@3genergi.co.uk>. Any files attached to
> > this email will have been checked with virus detection software before
> > transmission. However, you should carry out your own virus check before
> > opening any attachment. 3G Energi accepts no liability for any loss or
> > damage that may be caused by software viruses.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: The Gasification Discussion List
> > [mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of chris farmer
> > Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 16:48
> > To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> > Subject: [GASL] wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
> >
> > I have recently joined the listserve. I'm really hoping I'm not asking a
> > very dumb or very old question here.
> >
> > I am a member of the Earthaven Forestry Cooperative, a worker owned
> > cooperative practicing regenerative forestry and natural building. We are
> > presently looking to move and upgrade our lumberyard. We are wanting to
> run
> > a 30hp bandsaw mill and 15hp edger off of electric motors and run a dry
> kiln
> > off of hot water. We dream of generating that electricity and hot water
> > from a wood gas fueled CHP. Wood gas from chipped up slab and edger waste
> > (no sawdust).
> >
> > I recently talked to Mike Boyette, from North Carolina State University,
> who
> > was the principal investigator for a Biomass Gasification project back in
> > the mid-80s. He was rather pessimistic about wood gasification. His
> > one-liner was, "Well, I guess you COULD try and build an airplane out of
> > lead."
> >
> > As pessimistic as he was, he sent me off with what seems (to my
> > inexperienced self) to be a great suggestion: Instead of trying to run
> > dirty gas through an engine designed to burn clean gas (like a spark
> > ignition gas engine, or a diesel engine), run the dirty gas through an
> > engine designed to burn dirty gas. When his project's funding and time
> ran
> > out, he had been in the middle of designing and building a very simple
> > large, high-compression, low-rpm, single-cylinder engine with extra large
> > carburetor and intake valves. (The engine was simply laid in an open
> water
> > bath for cooling). He said if he had to do the whole wood gasification
> > project over again, that would be the line of thought he would start with.
> >
> > Do any of you have feedback on that idea? Has it been tried? Are there
> any
> > commercial single cylinder engines out there?
> >
> > I have heard that Ajax used to manufacture a large, low-rpm single
> cylinder
> > engine. Anybody know a source for a used one?
> >
> > Anybody heard of running wood gas through one of the modern two-cylinder
> > Ajax engines that are designed to burn sour gas?
> >
> >
> >
> > His line of thought came from his observation that no matter what method
> he
> > tried to clean up the gas, he found very little tar accumulating in the
> > filters, yet incredible amounts of tar accumulating in the carburetor and
> > intake valves, which was what was causing all of the problems, and seemed
> to
> > be dooming the project to failure.
> >
> > He theorized that within the carburetor and intake valves, the increased
> > kinetic energy caused by the constrictions of and impediments to the gas
> > flow allowed the tar to overcome its natural resistance to adhering to
> > surfaces. That's when he began to 1) design the impingement plate
> scrubber
> > (long cylinder with many cross-sectional plates drilled with offset holes)
> > to get the tars out before the engine, and also when he decided to 2) try
> > another engine designed to avoid these problems.
> >
> >
> >
> > Well, thanks very much for existing. Reading over the gasification
> > listserve over the last month or so has given me some new faith in this
> > world. I look forward to the time when I can understand more than half of
> > what you all say.
> >
> > Thanks for your time and attention,
> >
> > take care,
> >
> > Chris Farmer
> > 1025 Camp Elliott Rd.
> > Black Mountain, NC 28711
> > (828) 664-0268
> > ctfarmer@main.nc.us
> >

From CAVM at AOL.COM Tue Sep 9 08:16:30 2003
From: CAVM at AOL.COM (Cornelius A. Van Miligen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:29 2004
Subject: Coal gasification
Message-ID: <TUE.9.SEP.2003.081630.EDT.>

With all the controversy about the effectiveness of wood gasification, is
there any likelihood that coal gasification would be more appropriate?

Neal Van Milligen
cavm@aol.com

From LINVENT at AOL.COM Tue Sep 9 09:30:43 2003
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:29 2004
Subject: wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
Message-ID: <TUE.9.SEP.2003.093043.EDT.>

In a message dated 9/9/03 2:59:58 AM, Tk@TKE.DK writes:

<< Dear Gas engine operator and potential gas engine operators.

If you take gasification gas from a staged divided gasifier you get a gas
that contains very litle tar (2-20 mg/nm3) and a lot of particles.

Cool this gas to 80 oC filter it through a bag house filter and it will work
in any engine.

We have operated a 3 liter 24 valve Nissan engine for aproxx 350 hours on gas
from our staged gisifier with out any problems.

If a clean gas is used there are no problems using any engine, with spark
plugs as well as dual-fuel.

You will find that the methane number is very high. The engine can be loaded
very hard with out knocking, and thus there is a potential for a higher
efficiency than for natgas.

If you use a gasifier that produce tar you have endless problems!!

Best regards

Thomas Koch

TK Energi AS

Stationsvej 4

4621 Gadstrup

Denmark >>

At 80?c you have lots of organic compounds such as acetic acid in the gas
which will attack the bearings, copper parts in the engine and corrode the iron
block. Aluminum as in pistons will also suffer. Special acid filters are needed
to remove acids and more frequent oil changes are recommended for dealing
with this, but the other problem is the moisture content is high in the gas
reducing the total energy put into the cylinder from the gas.
You stated that high loading can be accomplished without knocking. Has
the engine knocked on this gas? if so, this is the first account of producer gas
creating knocking.
What is your methane number? An interesting note is that some of the
calculations for methane number determination do not take into account the carbon
monoxide flame propagation rate which has a significant impact upon
pre-detonation. It is typically recommended that ignition timing be advanced due to the
slow flame propagation rate of the gas.

From dknowles at ANTARES.ORG Tue Sep 9 10:05:08 2003
From: dknowles at ANTARES.ORG (Knowles, Dave)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:29 2004
Subject: wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
Message-ID: <TUE.9.SEP.2003.100508.0400.DKNOWLES@ANTARES.ORG>

Charcoal may only recover 40% of the energy in wood, but what do simple
shaft-type gasifiers recover?

Answer: about 10% of the energy in wood with 20% mc. I'm sure you can do
the math as I have.

David Knowles, PE

-----Original Message-----
From: tombreed [mailto:tombreed@COMCAST.NET]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 11:31 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] wood gas in large single-cylinder engines

Harmon, Art and All:

I hate to disagree with my old pal Art Krenzel, but by 1943 all gasifiers in
Sweden and Europe were using wood blocks (or chips, but the chipper hadn't
been invented yet).

There are gasifiers in the world now that get < 50 ppm tar in the raw gas
from wood and other biomass, so no reason to go to charcoal.

Yours truly,

From Tk at TKE.DK Tue Sep 9 10:07:14 2003
From: Tk at TKE.DK (Thomas Koch)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:29 2004
Subject: wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
Message-ID: <TUE.9.SEP.2003.160714.0200.TK@TKE.DK>

It is not what we have seen.
We feed the gas at about 60-70 oC into the engine.
Then we see no corrosive attacs in the aluminium block or other parts.
We have observed a faster decomposition of the lubricant oil. About half the normal lifetime is approx our experince.
I agree that you need about 25-40 % more cylinder volume to obtain the same power as for natgas but that does not cost much. But by having the water vaporr in the gas you can operate at a higher peak pressure and thus obtain a higher efficiency.
That wil by far compensate for your increased engine costs.

I do not understand your coment about knocking.

It is not that easy to tell what the metahne number is and why.
But shomewhere around 150-200 is not far from the reality.

The reasons I have been explained from somebody that claim they can do integrals in 3 dimensions and pronounce very long words, is that when hydrogen is present it ignited that complete gas-air mixture almost instatneously, thus no other flame fronts can occur.
I do not have enough CPU power to evaluate if this is close to reality or just dreaming, but you can get 5-10 % higher efficiency on producergas than on nat gas, and 25-40 less power.

Best regards

Thomas
----- Original Message -----
From: <LINVENT@AOL.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] wood gas in large single-cylinder engines

> In a message dated 9/9/03 2:59:58 AM, Tk@TKE.DK writes:
>
> << Dear Gas engine operator and potential gas engine operators.
>
>
> If you take gasification gas from a staged divided gasifier you get a gas
> that contains very litle tar (2-20 mg/nm3) and a lot of particles.
>
> Cool this gas to 80 oC filter it through a bag house filter and it will work
> in any engine.
>
> We have operated a 3 liter 24 valve Nissan engine for aproxx 350 hours on gas
> from our staged gisifier with out any problems.
>
> If a clean gas is used there are no problems using any engine, with spark
> plugs as well as dual-fuel.
>
> You will find that the methane number is very high. The engine can be loaded
> very hard with out knocking, and thus there is a potential for a higher
> efficiency than for natgas.
>
>
> If you use a gasifier that produce tar you have endless problems!!
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
> Thomas Koch
>
>
> TK Energi AS
>
> Stationsvej 4
>
> 4621 Gadstrup
>
> Denmark >>
>
> At 80?c you have lots of organic compounds such as acetic acid in the gas
> which will attack the bearings, copper parts in the engine and corrode the iron
> block. Aluminum as in pistons will also suffer. Special acid filters are needed
> to remove acids and more frequent oil changes are recommended for dealing
> with this, but the other problem is the moisture content is high in the gas
> reducing the total energy put into the cylinder from the gas.
> You stated that high loading can be accomplished without knocking. Has
> the engine knocked on this gas? if so, this is the first account of producer gas
> creating knocking.
> What is your methane number? An interesting note is that some of the
> calculations for methane number determination do not take into account the carbon
> monoxide flame propagation rate which has a significant impact upon
> pre-detonation. It is typically recommended that ignition timing be advanced due to the
> slow flame propagation rate of the gas.
>
> Leland T. Taylor
> President
> Thermogenics Inc.
> 7100-F 2nd St. NW Albuquerque, New Mexico USA 87107 Phone: 505-761-5633, fax:
> 341-0424, website: thermogenics.com.
> In order to read the compressed files forwarded under AOL, it is necessary to
> download Aladdin's freeware Unstuffit at
> http://www.stuffit.com/expander/index.html

From dknowles at ANTARES.ORG Tue Sep 9 10:18:46 2003
From: dknowles at ANTARES.ORG (Knowles, Dave)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:29 2004
Subject: wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
Message-ID: <TUE.9.SEP.2003.101846.0400.DKNOWLES@ANTARES.ORG>

Dear Chris:

The route to go for you is not gasification.
First of all, you have high moisture feedstock. There's not enough energy
in green wood to cover the demands of evaporating the moisture and gasifying
wood.
Gasification with cleanup for use in a reciprocating engine or microturbine
will produce very expensive electricity.
If money doesn't matter, you should buy a Hurst (or similar) boiler to raise
steam. Use a back-pressure steam turbine to generate some power (or use
direct steam drive for your bandsaw and edger (like in olden days)). Then
route the steam in your kiln. This is done at the big mills.
The equipment will be expensive relative to electric motors with grid power,
or even diesel or propane gensets (generators).

You have to ask yourself: Why gasify? Recip engines on syngas are not
particularly efficient. What you seek is mechanical power and heat. Steam is
perfect, and will be more efficient, with WAY less worries.
With all respect, you seem to admit that you aren't an engineer. Why take
on a science project? The payoff isn't there for you.

David F. Knowles, P.E.
Sr. Program Manager, Industrial & Utility Sector
Antares Group, Inc.
dknowles@antares.org
301-731-1900 ext 18

-----Original Message-----
From: chris farmer [mailto:ctfarmer@MAIN.NC.US]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 11:48 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [GASL] wood gas in large single-cylinder engines

I have recently joined the listserve. I'm really hoping I'm not asking a
very dumb or very old question here.

Do any of you have feedback on that idea? Has it been tried? Are there any
commercial single cylinder engines out there?

I have heard that Ajax used to manufacture a large, low-rpm single cylinder
engine. Anybody know a source for a used one?

Anybody heard of running wood gas through one of the modern two-cylinder
Ajax engines that are designed to burn sour gas?

Thanks for your time and attention,

take care,

Chris Farmer
1025 Camp Elliott Rd.
Black Mountain, NC 28711
(828) 664-0268
ctfarmer@main.nc.us

From snkm at BTL.NET Tue Sep 9 11:00:23 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:29 2004
Subject: wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
Message-ID: <TUE.9.SEP.2003.090023.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Dear All;

David does an excellent point!!

About two years ago I did a model for exactly your needs using a Hurst
Boiler and thermal oil (zero pressure) -- rather than water/steam -- and
the Ormat ORC turbine sytem.

Efficiencies go way up -- reliability extremely good.

The Ormat is a hermetically sealed unit -- life span of 30 plus years --
the only servicing being the condensers (fans) -- and operates with no
"watch-man" -- think along the lines of a house hold refrigerator.

And oh -- that "work-up" was for a 250 kwh unit -- probably exactly what
you need??

I still have quotes -- delivery schedules -- etc -- on record.

Over all efficiencies were plus 15% (can go plus 20%) -- the same or better
than equivalent sized gas to IC motor units -- but so much more "reliable"
-- and not much fuel "conditioning" -- being able to run up to 50% humidity
wood.

Normal over all efficiencies using a Hurst boiler/steam turbine are 10% and
less -- for a small unit such as this -- lucky to get 5%.

Over all efficiency is power value of fuel in over power in kwh out.

Do not get fooled by just the engine efficiency numbers!!

In boiler/power plant terms -- higher efficiencies means much less capital
investment in "hardware" as well as much less fuel consumption.

Even just counting the oil changes required for an IC motor running
producer gas is an eye opener!!

And some consider that oil change a toxic waste problem!!

The Hurst/Ormat system is very green friendly -- not that this apparently
matters anymore.

Right Europeans on this list??

Peter Singfield / Belize

At 10:18 AM 9/9/2003 -0400, Knowles, Dave wrote:
>Dear Chris:
>
>The route to go for you is not gasification.
>First of all, you have high moisture feedstock. There's not enough energy
>in green wood to cover the demands of evaporating the moisture and gasifying
>wood.
>Gasification with cleanup for use in a reciprocating engine or microturbine
>will produce very expensive electricity.
>If money doesn't matter, you should buy a Hurst (or similar) boiler to raise
>steam. Use a back-pressure steam turbine to generate some power (or use
>direct steam drive for your bandsaw and edger (like in olden days)). Then
>route the steam in your kiln. This is done at the big mills.
>The equipment will be expensive relative to electric motors with grid power,
>or even diesel or propane gensets (generators).
>
>You have to ask yourself: Why gasify? Recip engines on syngas are not
>particularly efficient. What you seek is mechanical power and heat. Steam is
>perfect, and will be more efficient, with WAY less worries.
>With all respect, you seem to admit that you aren't an engineer. Why take
>on a science project? The payoff isn't there for you.
>
>David F. Knowles, P.E.
>Sr. Program Manager, Industrial & Utility Sector
>Antares Group, Inc.
>dknowles@antares.org
>301-731-1900 ext 18
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: chris farmer [mailto:ctfarmer@MAIN.NC.US]
>Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 11:48 AM
>To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
>Subject: [GASL] wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
>
>I have recently joined the listserve. I'm really hoping I'm not asking a
>very dumb or very old question here.
>
>I am a member of the Earthaven Forestry Cooperative, a worker owned
>cooperative practicing regenerative forestry and natural building. We are
>presently looking to move and upgrade our lumberyard. We are wanting to run
>a 30hp bandsaw mill and 15hp edger off of electric motors and run a dry kiln
>off of hot water. We dream of generating that electricity and hot water
>from a wood gas fueled CHP. Wood gas from chipped up slab and edger waste
>(no sawdust).
>
>I recently talked to Mike Boyette, from North Carolina State University, who
>was the principal investigator for a Biomass Gasification project back in
>the mid-80s. He was rather pessimistic about wood gasification. His
>one-liner was, "Well, I guess you COULD try and build an airplane out of
>lead."
>
>As pessimistic as he was, he sent me off with what seems (to my
>inexperienced self) to be a great suggestion: Instead of trying to run
>dirty gas through an engine designed to burn clean gas (like a spark
>ignition gas engine, or a diesel engine), run the dirty gas through an
>engine designed to burn dirty gas. When his project's funding and time ran
>out, he had been in the middle of designing and building a very simple
>large, high-compression, low-rpm, single-cylinder engine with extra large
>carburetor and intake valves. (The engine was simply laid in an open water
>bath for cooling). He said if he had to do the whole wood gasification
>project over again, that would be the line of thought he would start with.
>
>Do any of you have feedback on that idea? Has it been tried? Are there any
>commercial single cylinder engines out there?
>
>I have heard that Ajax used to manufacture a large, low-rpm single cylinder
>engine. Anybody know a source for a used one?
>
>Anybody heard of running wood gas through one of the modern two-cylinder
>Ajax engines that are designed to burn sour gas?
>
>
>
>His line of thought came from his observation that no matter what method he
>tried to clean up the gas, he found very little tar accumulating in the
>filters, yet incredible amounts of tar accumulating in the carburetor and
>intake valves, which was what was causing all of the problems, and seemed to
>be dooming the project to failure.
>
>He theorized that within the carburetor and intake valves, the increased
>kinetic energy caused by the constrictions of and impediments to the gas
>flow allowed the tar to overcome its natural resistance to adhering to
>surfaces. That's when he began to 1) design the impingement plate scrubber
>(long cylinder with many cross-sectional plates drilled with offset holes)
>to get the tars out before the engine, and also when he decided to 2) try
>another engine designed to avoid these problems.
>
>
>
>Well, thanks very much for existing. Reading over the gasification
>listserve over the last month or so has given me some new faith in this
>world. I look forward to the time when I can understand more than half of
>what you all say.
>
>Thanks for your time and attention,
>
>take care,
>
>Chris Farmer
>1025 Camp Elliott Rd.
>Black Mountain, NC 28711
>(828) 664-0268
>ctfarmer@main.nc.us
>

From LINVENT at AOL.COM Tue Sep 9 13:38:25 2003
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:29 2004
Subject: why sabotage gasification?
Message-ID: <TUE.9.SEP.2003.133825.EDT.>

In a message dated 9/9/03 9:08:44 AM, snkm@BTL.NET writes:

<< Dear All;

David does an excellent point!!

About two years ago I did a model for exactly your needs using a Hurst
Boiler and thermal oil (zero pressure) -- rather than water/steam -- and
the Ormat ORC turbine sytem.

Efficiencies go way up -- reliability extremely good.

And oh -- that "work-up" was for a 250 kwh unit -- probably exactly what
you need??

I still have quotes -- delivery schedules -- etc -- on record.

Normal over all efficiencies using a Hurst boiler/steam turbine are 10% and
less -- for a small unit such as this -- lucky to get 5%.

Over all efficiency is power value of fuel in over power in kwh out.

Do not get fooled by just the engine efficiency numbers!!

In boiler/power plant terms -- higher efficiencies means much less capital
investment in "hardware" as well as much less fuel consumption.

Even just counting the oil changes required for an IC motor running
producer gas is an eye opener!!

And some consider that oil change a toxic waste problem!!

The Hurst/Ormat system is very green friendly -- not that this apparently
matters anymore.

Right Europeans on this list??

Peter Singfield / Belize >>

Dear Peter,
I understand that you like the Ormat system as it appears to be a nice
thermodyamic and economic system, but in the real world, no one is going to pay
the price for a small system.
My serious question is why is this being promoted on a gasification
forum? All of the issues which you raise can be addressed or are prevented by the
proper use and configuration of a gasifier. The waste oil, which is not toxic
if the gas is properly cleaned, can be put back into the gasifier and add to
the heating value of the gas. Engine longevity can be equivalent to or more than
that of natural gas engine based upon standards which are stated by some
engine manufacturers who guarantee their engines for 40,000 hours before major
overhauls if the gas meets the standards, which for gasification may be easier
than landfill gas.
Waste heat recovery from the engine can operate an organic or low
temperature Rankine cycle system which will improve the "engine efficiency" to which
I wonder what is the misleading or erroneous numbers stated by the industry as
alluded to in your communique'?
So, it must appear that you have abandoned the gasification technology in
lieu of using conventional combustion technologies? It is interesting to see
the toll upon the industry taken when even the insiders are not fighting
anymore. Sorry, I have suffered through many setbacks and injuries along this path,
but continue to move forward.

From joflo at YIFAN.NET Tue Sep 9 14:39:24 2003
From: joflo at YIFAN.NET (Joel Florian)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:29 2004
Subject: wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
In-Reply-To: <608B598A10CA084B8AD019674E3D192C10CC85@mail2.antaresgroupi
nc.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.9.SEP.2003.103924.0800.JOFLO@YIFAN.NET>

Dear Chris,

If you really want to gasify wood and generate electricity -- try some
experiments. You don't have to be an engineer to solve problems. The
most experienced, respected expert in the field does not know
everything. If you have a vision for gasification and you're willing to do
a little work and not give up when you face the inevitable problems, you
might just find a solution for a problem everyone else thought was
impossible. There is certainly value in asking questions and admitting
ignorance. There are quite a few people on this list who have spent a
large portion of their lives and spent a lot of money learning what they
know. Those of us who are just beginners in gasification should be humble
enough to learn from their mistakes and glean what we can from their
postings.

So please don't be discouraged from trying to make your dreams a reality by
the fact that you are not an engineer -- or otherwise not qualified for the
job. I think the most important qualifications for making a practical
gasification generator are desire and persistance. I dare say most of the
gasifiers that ran cars in Germany were not built or operated by
engineers. It wasn't easy. They weren't all reliable. They had
problems. People got hurt. Engines died by the dozen. But those cars and
tractors still moved even without gasoline or diesel.

That being said, gasification probably may not be the easiest way to get
where you want to go. But 20 or 30 years from now when your system is
built, would you rather tell your kids -- "We went the conventional way
because it was easier and cheaper" ---- or -- "It was really difficult,
frustrating, and expensive, but we followed our dream and built a system
that powers this operation off it's own waste."

You'll learn a lot more and have more character to give your children if
you follow your dreams. You might not make as much money or have as much
free time....

I felt compelled to write this because I fear we are entering another dark
age. Back in medieval times the Church told everyone what to think and how
to act -- everyone else was a "serf" -- a slave to their whims. (OK a
slight oversimplification, but you get the idea) The new religion seems to
be centered not on God (or an interpretation of God) but around Science and
Technology. The High Priests of this religion like to tell everyone else
that Science is out of our reach -- that we can only know the truth (and
use Science to our benefit) if we come to them as our mediators. I say
this carefully and with extreme respect for professors and engineers --
most of my family and friends are one or the other. Some of my dearest
friends are professional engineers. They know much more than I do about a
lot of things -- but they can be very close-minded and dogmatic. I fear
that our university system has trained researchers not to solve problems
but primarily to find innovative ways to continue researching. A simple
solution can be very expensive to a research program. Correct me if I am
wrong.

So to recap -- Chris -- If you really want to generate electricity with
gasification -- glean what you can from these guys and then get busy. If
you can be easily dissuaded by a negative expert, then I guess you'd
probably give up after your first engine seized or gasifier exploded
etc. If you're determined to try anyway -- read the archives -- read Tom's
books -- read everything you can get your hands on about gasification and
then get an old engine from a junkyard, fabricate a simple gasifier from
Arnt's or Tom's drawings and try it out. When you have trouble, read some
more -- you'll say "Oh, THAT'S what they meant...." your comprehension
will increase after you've got your hands dirty. Fix the problem or get
around the trouble somehow and then tackle it again. You might get lucky
and have a running prototype in the first year or two -- or you could buy
a system from one the gasifier manufacturers represented on this list if
you need it to work sooner. It can be done. It has been done. You can
do it if you really want to. Remember the electric lightbulb? People said
it couldn't be done but Edison kept trying. People questioned his ability,
his intelligence, and even his motives -- but he got what he wanted --
eventually. Science (like God's principles) works for everyone whether
you're a janator or a specialist consulting engineer. If you can replace
the trap under your sink, change the oil in your car, you can probably
build an operational gasifier-generator combo.

And -- uh -- I'd try to modify a stock engine before I'd try building one
from scratch -- though it is tempting.....

But enough dreaming - I've got to lay a couple thousand more feet of
heating pipes before winter.

Joel Florian
Alaska
At 10:18 AM 9/9/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>Dear Chris:
>
>The route to go for you is not gasification.
>First of all, you have high moisture feedstock. There's not enough energy
>in green wood to cover the demands of evaporating the moisture and gasifying
>wood.
>Gasification with cleanup for use in a reciprocating engine or microturbine
>will produce very expensive electricity.
>If money doesn't matter, you should buy a Hurst (or similar) boiler to raise
>steam. Use a back-pressure steam turbine to generate some power (or use
>direct steam drive for your bandsaw and edger (like in olden days)). Then
>route the steam in your kiln. This is done at the big mills.
>The equipment will be expensive relative to electric motors with grid power,
>or even diesel or propane gensets (generators).
>
>You have to ask yourself: Why gasify? Recip engines on syngas are not
>particularly efficient. What you seek is mechanical power and heat. Steam is
>perfect, and will be more efficient, with WAY less worries.
>With all respect, you seem to admit that you aren't an engineer. Why take
>on a science project? The payoff isn't there for you.
>
>David F. Knowles, P.E.
>Sr. Program Manager, Industrial & Utility Sector
>Antares Group, Inc.
>dknowles@antares.org
>301-731-1900 ext 18
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: chris farmer [mailto:ctfarmer@MAIN.NC.US]
>Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 11:48 AM
>To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
>Subject: [GASL] wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
>
>I have recently joined the listserve. I'm really hoping I'm not asking a
>very dumb or very old question here.
>
>I am a member of the Earthaven Forestry Cooperative, a worker owned
>cooperative practicing regenerative forestry and natural building. We are
>presently looking to move and upgrade our lumberyard. We are wanting to run
>a 30hp bandsaw mill and 15hp edger off of electric motors and run a dry kiln
>off of hot water. We dream of generating that electricity and hot water
>from a wood gas fueled CHP. Wood gas from chipped up slab and edger waste
>(no sawdust).
>
>I recently talked to Mike Boyette, from North Carolina State University, who
>was the principal investigator for a Biomass Gasification project back in
>the mid-80s. He was rather pessimistic about wood gasification. His
>one-liner was, "Well, I guess you COULD try and build an airplane out of
>lead."
>
>As pessimistic as he was, he sent me off with what seems (to my
>inexperienced self) to be a great suggestion: Instead of trying to run
>dirty gas through an engine designed to burn clean gas (like a spark
>ignition gas engine, or a diesel engine), run the dirty gas through an
>engine designed to burn dirty gas. When his project's funding and time ran
>out, he had been in the middle of designing and building a very simple
>large, high-compression, low-rpm, single-cylinder engine with extra large
>carburetor and intake valves. (The engine was simply laid in an open water
>bath for cooling). He said if he had to do the whole wood gasification
>project over again, that would be the line of thought he would start with.
>
>Do any of you have feedback on that idea? Has it been tried? Are there any
>commercial single cylinder engines out there?
>
>I have heard that Ajax used to manufacture a large, low-rpm single cylinder
>engine. Anybody know a source for a used one?
>
>Anybody heard of running wood gas through one of the modern two-cylinder
>Ajax engines that are designed to burn sour gas?
>
>
>
>His line of thought came from his observation that no matter what method he
>tried to clean up the gas, he found very little tar accumulating in the
>filters, yet incredible amounts of tar accumulating in the carburetor and
>intake valves, which was what was causing all of the problems, and seemed to
>be dooming the project to failure.
>
>He theorized that within the carburetor and intake valves, the increased
>kinetic energy caused by the constrictions of and impediments to the gas
>flow allowed the tar to overcome its natural resistance to adhering to
>surfaces. That's when he began to 1) design the impingement plate scrubber
>(long cylinder with many cross-sectional plates drilled with offset holes)
>to get the tars out before the engine, and also when he decided to 2) try
>another engine designed to avoid these problems.
>
>
>
>Well, thanks very much for existing. Reading over the gasification
>listserve over the last month or so has given me some new faith in this
>world. I look forward to the time when I can understand more than half of
>what you all say.
>
>Thanks for your time and attention,
>
>take care,
>
>Chris Farmer
>1025 Camp Elliott Rd.
>Black Mountain, NC 28711
>(828) 664-0268
>ctfarmer@main.nc.us

From renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ Wed Sep 10 05:16:02 2003
From: renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ (Ken Calvert)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:29 2004
Subject: wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20030909094143.00b1d0f0@yifan.net>
Message-ID: <WED.10.SEP.2003.211602.1200.RENERTECH@XTRA.CO.NZ>

Chris,
you are getting lots of advice from all quarters, and reading some
of it does make me think twice.
Anyway heres my two bits worth. I would hazard a guess that your main
constraint will be finance and more than one of the suggestions put to
you look a tad more expensive than needs be.
1/. It is a lot cheaper to clean up gas than to get a special engine
that will run on dirty gas. Those wonderful old gas engines of
yester year are just not around. And even if you can get hold of an
Indian remake of a Lister or something like that you will still have
problems. A Major problem is acid tar aerosols sticking onto the
lubrication on the cylinder walls and getting down into the sump from
where the acid will eat out all the bronze bearings. Tar aerosols are
notoriously difficult to filter. Electrostatic precipitators seem to be
the best bet, but that adds complications and expense. However, that
kind of problem is away down line. First is tar then Tar then TAR! One
of my friends has a delightful story from when he was a young boy in
Holland during the second world war who had to help his dad every
morning to take the tappet cover off their truck and hit all the valve
stem tops with a large mallet to unstick the valves. Then they went
through the start up proceedure which included boiling water into the
radiator to heat it up, and get the motor running on gas. Then the truck
was left running all day. It would do that quite happily, but you dare
not stop it because as soon as the tar cooled it would be all glued up
again.
2/. The cheapest way to go about making you own power is to buy an old
junked V8 or something that will burn lots of oil and use that with old
oil collected up from your friends. And when it falls apart then buy
another. M You can start it on petrol and then use the vacuum created
in the engine manifold to start up your gasifier. When people had to
use these things because there was nothing else, they got quite
ingenious. When you closed down at night you put a burst of steam
through the system which killed off the fire quickly and left a good
deep bed of charcoal in the throat of the gasifier. If you just
switched off and left it by the next morning everything would be burnt
down to ash, and you had to go through the whole complicated start up
from scratch procedure, which was a real pain. You had two throttle
pedals on your car. The normal gas (petrol carburettor)pedal, and one
on the producer gas line. You put a rag soaked in kero or diesel into
the tuyere and through in the match. Then you started the car on petrol
with the choke fully out on the carby and burped both pedals together so
that the motor would run on a rich mixture from the carby plus a lean
mix (just air) through the gasifier, but which would reignite very
quickly with nice dry charcoal dried by the heat of the cooling producer
the night before. If you got good you could the car out of the shed,
and by working both gas pedals with two feet you could have the choke in
by the end of the drive and running on pure producer gas by half a mile
down the road. If you were really economical you stopped then and
turned off the petrol tap to the carby, because if you kept going, the
vacuum pulled by the engine working against the closed carby pedal would
continue to drain your carburettor. If you do get an old diesel engine
then you can start up your gasifier the same way using the manifold
vacuum of the diesel against the pressure drop through an oil bath air
cleaner.

3/. To clean and cool your gas, by modern technology, you need to start
digging into the literature from the Indian Institute of Technology in
New Delhi. They have developed a water cooled wet wall cyclone which
does both jobs at once.

4/. When you use air dry wood instead of charcoal, you will find that
you need very little if any steam at all into the system, because even
the H20 chemical component of the cellulose in the wood all ends up as
steam equivalent through the tuyeres, to give the maximum hydrogen
component of the producer gas.
All the Best with your endeavours.
Ken Calvert.

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG] On Behalf Of Joel Florian
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 6:39 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] wood gas in large single-cylinder engines

From mwsys at SLT.LK Wed Sep 10 05:46:50 2003
From: mwsys at SLT.LK (MINI WELL SYSTEMS [PVT] LTD)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:29 2004
Subject: Coconut Power
Message-ID: <WED.10.SEP.2003.154650.0600.MWSYS@SLT.LK>

Can anybody tell me if the following can be true

Sri Lanka produces about 3,600,000,000 coconuts per year
At 5 nuts per kg shells this equals 720,000,000kg shells
At 2,500 K cal equals 2,093,023,256 KWH energy
I believe this can be greater for shells
Say at 25% equals 523,255,814 KWH power
Over 8640 hours equals 60,562 KW.
At the moment shells are used wastefully in copra production.
We have produced copra with 20% shells.

For the last few years there has been a debate on using
coal, LPG or Liqiud fuels for futute energy
with hydro resources coming to an end.
I suppose the real debate is on who gets to make the money.

With coconut power, there need be no debate
as the country will be making the money

Tharu

V.Tharumaratnam
2A/98 Shantha Place
Kotalawela
Kaduwela

Tel 01-539108

From arnt at C2I.NET Wed Sep 10 14:42:00 2003
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:29 2004
Subject: wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
In-Reply-To: <000001c3777c$296a7ac0$aa0258db@coppermine>
Message-ID: <WED.10.SEP.2003.204200.0200.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 21:16:02 +1200,
Ken Calvert <renertech@XTRA.CO.NZ> wrote in message
<000001c3777c$296a7ac0$aa0258db@coppermine>:

> got quite ingenious. When you closed down at night you put a burst of
> steam through the system which killed off the fire quickly and left a
> good deep bed of charcoal in the throat of the gasifier.

..classic mistake: Steam promotes gas production and heat production,
you often see firemen screw up trying putting out landfill fires with
water vaporizing into steam, a month ago they totalled my competition.
;-)

..to kill a gasifier in an economically reusable state, use CO2 gas.

..if CO2 gas is not available, close the gasifiers air supply
and pipe in all exhaust gas from your engines.

> 3/. To clean and cool your gas, by modern technology, you need to
> start digging into the literature from the Indian Institute of
> Technology in New Delhi. They have developed a water cooled wet wall
> cyclone which does both jobs at once.

..url?

> 4/. When you use air dry wood instead of charcoal, you will find that
> you need very little if any steam at all into the system, because even
> the H20 chemical component of the cellulose in the wood all ends up as
> steam equivalent through the tuyeres, to give the maximum hydrogen
> component of the producer gas.

..chk out the WWII K?lle gasifier for exhaust gas recycling, K?lle
used exhaust gas to cool his air-n-gas tubing, and reports finding
a ~20% improvement in fuel economy.

--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.

From arnt at C2I.NET Wed Sep 10 14:44:12 2003
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:29 2004
Subject: Coconut Power
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.20030910154606.0e471dfc@slt.lk>
Message-ID: <WED.10.SEP.2003.204412.0200.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 15:46:50 +0600,
"MINI WELL SYSTEMS [PVT] LTD" <mwsys@SLT.LK> wrote in message
<1.5.4.16.20030910154606.0e471dfc@slt.lk>:

> Can anybody tell me if the following can be true
>
> Sri Lanka produces about 3,600,000,000 coconuts per year
> At 5 nuts per kg shells this equals 720,000,000kg shells
> At 2,500 K cal equals 2,093,023,256 KWH energy
> I believe this can be greater for shells
> Say at 25% equals 523,255,814 KWH power
> Over 8640 hours equals 60,562 KW.
> At the moment shells are used wastefully in copra production.
> We have produced copra with 20% shells.
>
> For the last few years there has been a debate on using
> coal, LPG or Liqiud fuels for futute energy
> with hydro resources coming to an end.
> I suppose the real debate is on who gets to make the money.
>
> With coconut power, there need be no debate
> as the country will be making the money
>
>
> Tharu
>
>
> V.Tharumaratnam
> 2A/98 Shantha Place
> Kotalawela
> Kaduwela
>
> Tel 01-539108

..are you in a position to take advantage of this knowledge,
as in approaching the people in charge?

--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.

From renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ Wed Sep 10 16:24:39 2003
From: renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ (Ken Calvert)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:29 2004
Subject: wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
Message-ID: <THU.11.SEP.2003.082439.1200.RENERTECH@XTRA.CO.NZ>

Well Arnt, classic mistake or not it sure did work. And it was all for
free. With a water cooled tuyere there was always lots of steam around,
which I will correct to very wet steam, and I will tell you what, we didn't
have a CO2
cylinder. O.K. my advice is a mixture of old and new , and that snippet was
a bit of old, but my present viewpoint is in terms of helping folks to get
started and build up their own experience at a minimum of financial outlay.
Cheers, Ken C.

When you closed down at night you put a burst of
> > steam through the system which killed off the fire quickly and left a
> > good deep bed of charcoal in the throat of the gasifier.
>
> ..classic mistake: Steam promotes gas production and heat production,
> you often see firemen screw up trying putting out landfill fires with
> water vaporizing into steam, a month ago they totalled my competition.
> ;-)

From kenboak at STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK Wed Sep 10 17:54:29 2003
From: kenboak at STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK (Ken Boak)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:29 2004
Subject: wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
Message-ID: <WED.10.SEP.2003.225429.0100.KENBOAK@STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK>

Arnt, Ken,& Listers

I thought that when superheated steam was passed over hot charcoal, it led
to the production of "water gas", comprising of carbon monoxide and
Hydrogen, both of which are combustible.

H2O +C -> H2 +CO

( Does anyone know of a practical demonstration of this reaction - what
temperature do you need to disassociate the steam?)

Similarly if carbon dioxide is passed over hot charcoal is leads to the
formation of more carbon monoxide

CO2 + C --> 2CO

This is why I believe that the Kalle gasifier fed back 17% of the engine
exhaust gases to produce more CO.

So how much CO2 do you have to use to effectively smother/shut down the
gasifier reaction?

I think the Kalle gasifier was an ingenious product, and the use of the
bellows mounted air-tube tuyere and the exhaust gas driven cyclone to
extract the dust and fines from the gas output and return the fines to the
combustion zone is an extremely practical solution.

For those wanting to learn from the 1943 Kalle Gasifier design - the English
translation of the 1943 article is available at the following site:

http://www.hotel.ymex.net/~s-20222/gengas/kg_eng.html

regards,

Ken Boak

From renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ Wed Sep 10 19:11:27 2003
From: renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ (Ken Calvert)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:29 2004
Subject: wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
Message-ID: <THU.11.SEP.2003.111127.1200.RENERTECH@XTRA.CO.NZ>

Heh fellers, we need a bit of thermodynamics and a bit of practicality in
here. Superheat needs super high pressures in order to maintain those kinds
of high temperatures in the steam. Nothing like that ever occurs in small
size gasifiers. We are talking about wet steam which as well as blanketing
out air/oxygen will drag all the heat out of glowing charcoal in two
seconds flat, in order to make two teaspoons of carbon monoxide and
hydrogen, and from then on its a dead duck. Reacting low pressure steam
with red hot carbon is a highly endothermic reaction, and all the 'glowing'
reports as to how much steam one can crack into hydrogen on the side of a
producer gas reaction are highly overemotional in my opinion.
Furthermore, the moment that you get within a bulls roar of half of the
pressure required to start superheating steam you are operating 'pressure
vessels' that can be highly lethal and you are up to your neck in Govt.
rules and regulations and the the legal requirement to have a certified
engineer on shift around the clock. Forget it fellers! Ken C.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Boak" <kenboak@STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] wood gas in large single-cylinder engines

> Arnt, Ken,& Listers
>
> I thought that when superheated steam was passed over hot charcoal, it
led
> to the production of "water gas", comprising of carbon monoxide and
> Hydrogen, both of which are combustible.
>
> H2O +C -> H2 +CO
>
> ( Does anyone know of a practical demonstration of this reaction - what
> temperature do you need to disassociate the steam?)
>
>
> Similarly if carbon dioxide is passed over hot charcoal is leads to the
> formation of more carbon monoxide
>
> CO2 + C --> 2CO
>
> This is why I believe that the Kalle gasifier fed back 17% of the engine
> exhaust gases to produce more CO.
>
> So how much CO2 do you have to use to effectively smother/shut down the
> gasifier reaction?
>
> I think the Kalle gasifier was an ingenious product, and the use of the
> bellows mounted air-tube tuyere and the exhaust gas driven cyclone to
> extract the dust and fines from the gas output and return the fines to the
> combustion zone is an extremely practical solution.
>
> For those wanting to learn from the 1943 Kalle Gasifier design - the
English
> translation of the 1943 article is available at the following site:
>
> http://www.hotel.ymex.net/~s-20222/gengas/kg_eng.html
>
>
>
> regards,
>
>
>
> Ken Boak
>

From VHarris001 at AOL.COM Wed Sep 10 20:17:26 2003
From: VHarris001 at AOL.COM (VHarris001@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:29 2004
Subject: High temperature Diesel cycle
Message-ID: <WED.10.SEP.2003.201726.EDT.>

In a message dated 08/29/2003 12:00:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
graeme@POWERLINK.CO.NZ writes:

> Tar in itself is an excellent fuel if you can get it
> passed the valve stems which make them sticky and blocking the manifold on
> its way into the engine.
>

Hi Doug,

Will you comment about whether or not there is complete combustion of tar
particles in an IC spark ignition engine? Is the dwell time of a tarry charge in
the cylinder sufficient for complete combustion? Is there sufficient oxygen
in the intake stroke to combust all the liquid tar? If there are incomplete
combustion problems with high-tar wood-gas, are there work-arounds? Any other
observations would also be appreciated.

Thanks,

Vernon Harris

From snkm at BTL.NET Wed Sep 10 22:59:26 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:29 2004
Subject: High temperature Diesel cycle
Message-ID: <WED.10.SEP.2003.205926.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Or -- would just the "tars" fuel a low RPM diesel when directly injected --
either straight or mixed with diesel??

I can run these old Listers on straight (but filtered) crude oil!!

Can't see what they would not run on injected tars??

Certainly -- they will not be fouling the intake valves then.

A good work around is what Kevin called a cross head and piston engine --
like the old steam engines.

I like to call that a displacement piston --

The point being you have a piston that is physically separated from the
crank case -- but still connected for transmission of power. Thus acid blow
by -- etc -- is of little to no problems.

It is extremely easy to fit such on these old listers -- and my plan is --
to one day -- do exactly that.

As for fouling valves -- one could go "Two-stroke" --- still using an
isolated piston design.

Granted -- going to be very hard to do any of that with a used car/truck
engine from the scrap yard.

And one last point -- these old listers are indirect injection into a
squish head and have a built in device to actually vary compression ratio
-- even on the "fly".

Peter / Belize

At 08:17 PM 9/10/2003 EDT, you wrote:
>In a message dated 08/29/2003 12:00:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>graeme@POWERLINK.CO.NZ writes:
>
>
>> Tar in itself is an excellent fuel if you can get it
>> passed the valve stems which make them sticky and blocking the manifold on
>> its way into the engine.
>>
>
>Hi Doug,
>
>Will you comment about whether or not there is complete combustion of tar
>particles in an IC spark ignition engine? Is the dwell time of a tarry
charge in
>the cylinder sufficient for complete combustion? Is there sufficient oxygen
>in the intake stroke to combust all the liquid tar? If there are incomplete
>combustion problems with high-tar wood-gas, are there work-arounds? Any
other
>observations would also be appreciated.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Vernon Harris
>

From dknowles at ANTARES.ORG Thu Sep 11 10:05:09 2003
From: dknowles at ANTARES.ORG (Knowles, Dave)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:29 2004
Subject: wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
Message-ID: <THU.11.SEP.2003.100509.0400.DKNOWLES@ANTARES.ORG>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel Florian [mailto:joflo@YIFAN.NET]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 2:39 PM
>
> If you really want to gasify wood and generate electricity -- try some
> experiments. You don't have to be an engineer to solve problems.

... And you don't have to be a pilot to fly an airplane, but the landings
can be rough.

No, engineers don't have a corner on intelligence or insight or resolve.
However, why repeat the mistakes of the past? (Unless you have a lot of free
time and money to burn.)

Training goes a long way. I don't know why non-technical people have to
discount education in the sciences and engineering.

David Knowles

From dknowles at ANTARES.ORG Thu Sep 11 10:37:21 2003
From: dknowles at ANTARES.ORG (Knowles, Dave)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:29 2004
Subject: wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
Message-ID: <THU.11.SEP.2003.103721.0400.DKNOWLES@ANTARES.ORG>

Ken:

I don't disagree with any of your remarks, except to say you don't need high
pressures for superheated steam. At atmospheric pressure, water boils at
212 degF. To obtain superheated steam, aka "dry" steam, just heat a little
more.

Dave Knowles

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Calvert [mailto:renertech@XTRA.CO.NZ]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 7:11 PM
> To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: Re: [GASL] wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
>
> Heh fellers, we need a bit of thermodynamics and a bit of practicality in
> here. Superheat needs super high pressures in order to maintain those
> kinds
> of high temperatures in the steam. Nothing like that ever occurs in small
> size gasifiers. We are talking about wet steam which as well as
> blanketing
> out air/oxygen will drag all the heat out of glowing charcoal in two
> seconds flat, in order to make two teaspoons of carbon monoxide and
> hydrogen, and from then on its a dead duck. Reacting low pressure steam
> with red hot carbon is a highly endothermic reaction, and all the
> 'glowing'
> reports as to how much steam one can crack into hydrogen on the side of a
> producer gas reaction are highly overemotional in my opinion.
> Furthermore, the moment that you get within a bulls roar of half of the
> pressure required to start superheating steam you are operating 'pressure
> vessels' that can be highly lethal and you are up to your neck in Govt.
> rules and regulations and the the legal requirement to have a certified
> engineer on shift around the clock. Forget it fellers! Ken C.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ken Boak" <kenboak@STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK>
> To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 9:54 AM
> Subject: Re: [GASL] wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
>
>
> > Arnt, Ken,& Listers
> >
> > I thought that when superheated steam was passed over hot charcoal, it
> led
> > to the production of "water gas", comprising of carbon monoxide and
> > Hydrogen, both of which are combustible.
> >
> > H2O +C -> H2 +CO
> >
> > ( Does anyone know of a practical demonstration of this reaction - what
> > temperature do you need to disassociate the steam?)
> >
> >
> > Similarly if carbon dioxide is passed over hot charcoal is leads to the
> > formation of more carbon monoxide
> >
> > CO2 + C --> 2CO
> >
> > This is why I believe that the Kalle gasifier fed back 17% of the engine
> > exhaust gases to produce more CO.
> >
> > So how much CO2 do you have to use to effectively smother/shut down
> the
> > gasifier reaction?
> >
> > I think the Kalle gasifier was an ingenious product, and the use of the
> > bellows mounted air-tube tuyere and the exhaust gas driven cyclone to
> > extract the dust and fines from the gas output and return the fines to
> the
> > combustion zone is an extremely practical solution.
> >
> > For those wanting to learn from the 1943 Kalle Gasifier design - the
> English
> > translation of the 1943 article is available at the following site:
> >
> > http://www.hotel.ymex.net/~s-20222/gengas/kg_eng.html
> >
> >
> >
> > regards,
> >
> >
> >
> > Ken Boak
> >

From dglickd at PIPELINE.COM Thu Sep 11 13:26:21 2003
From: dglickd at PIPELINE.COM (Dick Glick)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:29 2004
Subject: wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
Message-ID: <THU.11.SEP.2003.132621.0400.DGLICKD@PIPELINE.COM>

Do you mean superheated or supercritical -- the critical point of water (H20) is 374 degrees Centigrade (647 Kelvin) and 221 atmospheres of pressure -- water -- later from: http://www.science-house.org/CO2/teaching/facts.html -- Dick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Knowles, Dave" <dknowles@ANTARES.ORG>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] wood gas in large single-cylinder engines

> Ken:
>
> I don't disagree with any of your remarks, except to say you don't need high
> pressures for superheated steam. At atmospheric pressure, water boils at
> 212 degF. To obtain superheated steam, aka "dry" steam, just heat a little
> more.
>
> Dave Knowles
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ken Calvert [mailto:renertech@XTRA.CO.NZ]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 7:11 PM
> > To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> > Subject: Re: [GASL] wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
> >
> > Heh fellers, we need a bit of thermodynamics and a bit of practicality in
> > here. Superheat needs super high pressures in order to maintain those
> > kinds
> > of high temperatures in the steam. Nothing like that ever occurs in small
> > size gasifiers. We are talking about wet steam which as well as
> > blanketing
> > out air/oxygen will drag all the heat out of glowing charcoal in two
> > seconds flat, in order to make two teaspoons of carbon monoxide and
> > hydrogen, and from then on its a dead duck. Reacting low pressure steam
> > with red hot carbon is a highly endothermic reaction, and all the
> > 'glowing'
> > reports as to how much steam one can crack into hydrogen on the side of a
> > producer gas reaction are highly overemotional in my opinion.
> > Furthermore, the moment that you get within a bulls roar of half of the
> > pressure required to start superheating steam you are operating 'pressure
> > vessels' that can be highly lethal and you are up to your neck in Govt.
> > rules and regulations and the the legal requirement to have a certified
> > engineer on shift around the clock. Forget it fellers! Ken C.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ken Boak" <kenboak@STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK>
> > To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> > Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 9:54 AM
> > Subject: Re: [GASL] wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
> >
> >
> > > Arnt, Ken,& Listers
> > >
> > > I thought that when superheated steam was passed over hot charcoal, it
> > led
> > > to the production of "water gas", comprising of carbon monoxide and
> > > Hydrogen, both of which are combustible.
> > >
> > > H2O +C -> H2 +CO
> > >
> > > ( Does anyone know of a practical demonstration of this reaction - what
> > > temperature do you need to disassociate the steam?)
> > >
> > >
> > > Similarly if carbon dioxide is passed over hot charcoal is leads to the
> > > formation of more carbon monoxide
> > >
> > > CO2 + C --> 2CO
> > >
> > > This is why I believe that the Kalle gasifier fed back 17% of the engine
> > > exhaust gases to produce more CO.
> > >
> > > So how much CO2 do you have to use to effectively smother/shut down
> > the
> > > gasifier reaction?
> > >
> > > I think the Kalle gasifier was an ingenious product, and the use of the
> > > bellows mounted air-tube tuyere and the exhaust gas driven cyclone to
> > > extract the dust and fines from the gas output and return the fines to
> > the
> > > combustion zone is an extremely practical solution.
> > >
> > > For those wanting to learn from the 1943 Kalle Gasifier design - the
> > English
> > > translation of the 1943 article is available at the following site:
> > >
> > > http://www.hotel.ymex.net/~s-20222/gengas/kg_eng.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ken Boak
> > >

From dknowles at ANTARES.ORG Thu Sep 11 14:14:16 2003
From: dknowles at ANTARES.ORG (Knowles, Dave)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:29 2004
Subject: wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
Message-ID: <THU.11.SEP.2003.141416.0400.DKNOWLES@ANTARES.ORG>

I'd be interested in hearing from Community Power about their 15kW system,
specifically with regard to tar. I believe they use a downdraft gasifier, as
did many of the WWII vintage systems.
Anybody out there from CPC who wish to give us some field data?
Or anyone else who knows?

David Knowles
Antares Group

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arnt Karlsen [mailto:arnt@C2I.NET]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 2:42 PM
> To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: Re: [GASL] wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
>
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 21:16:02 +1200,
> Ken Calvert <renertech@XTRA.CO.NZ> wrote in message
> <000001c3777c$296a7ac0$aa0258db@coppermine>:
>
> > got quite ingenious. When you closed down at night you put a burst of
> > steam through the system which killed off the fire quickly and left a
> > good deep bed of charcoal in the throat of the gasifier.
>
> ..classic mistake: Steam promotes gas production and heat production,
> you often see firemen screw up trying putting out landfill fires with
> water vaporizing into steam, a month ago they totalled my competition.
> ;-)
>
> ..to kill a gasifier in an economically reusable state, use CO2 gas.
>
> ..if CO2 gas is not available, close the gasifiers air supply
> and pipe in all exhaust gas from your engines.
>
> > 3/. To clean and cool your gas, by modern technology, you need to
> > start digging into the literature from the Indian Institute of
> > Technology in New Delhi. They have developed a water cooled wet wall
> > cyclone which does both jobs at once.
>
> ..url?
>
> > 4/. When you use air dry wood instead of charcoal, you will find that
> > you need very little if any steam at all into the system, because even
> > the H20 chemical component of the cellulose in the wood all ends up as
> > steam equivalent through the tuyeres, to give the maximum hydrogen
> > component of the producer gas.
>
> ..chk out the WWII K?lle gasifier for exhaust gas recycling, K?lle
> used exhaust gas to cool his air-n-gas tubing, and reports finding
> a ~20% improvement in fuel economy.
>
> --
> ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
> ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
> Scenarios always come in sets of three:
> best case, worst case, and just in case.

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Sun Sep 14 00:05:57 2003
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (tombreed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:29 2004
Subject: wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
Message-ID: <SAT.13.SEP.2003.220557.0600.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear David and ALL:

I have worked with Community Power and many others to develop a low (<50
ppm) raw gas gasifier. It is NOT a WWII (Imbert, Nozzle) type. It is based
on the work that we did at NREL and SynGas Inc. in the 1980s on air and
oxygen gasification, and is called variously a "stratified downdraft
gasifier", an "Open Top Gasifier" or "Topless" gasifier. Also, I believe
Ali Kaupp called it an "Open Core" gasifier, but I've talked to him and he
doesn't know where he got that name.

The principles we developed then have been modified by Prof. Mukunda and his
Pyrolysis, Gasification and Combusting (PGC) lab at IISC Bangalore in the
1990s to produce lower tars by injecting additional air into the char zone.

CPC has made many improvements beyond these foundations, adding modern
computer control and full automation to make the gasifier commercial.

Hard to summarize 25 years of work in a short note, but this is the essence.

Yours truly, TOM REED THE BEF GASWORKS

Yours truly,

Dr. Thomas Reed
tombreed@comcast.com
www.woodgas.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Knowles, Dave" <dknowles@ANTARES.ORG>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] wood gas in large single-cylinder engines

David Knowles
Antares Group

From Andries.Weststeijn at ESSENT.NL Sun Sep 14 20:36:31 2003
From: Andries.Weststeijn at ESSENT.NL (Weststeijn, Andries)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:29 2004
Subject: wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
Message-ID: <MON.15.SEP.2003.023631.0200.ANDRIES.WESTSTEIJN@ESSENT.NL>

On supercritical and superheated...
Good question from Dick.

I looked at my water/steam Temperature-Entropy (or T-S) diagram hanging from
the wall (what would I do without it..).
A few words from the floor to put supercritical and superheating in
perspective:

---"Supercritical" is a "state" condition.
In this case a condition where water and steam can't coexist any longer.
It simply becomes one and the same fluid.
Kind of without allowing a clear "surface" between the liquid water and
gaseous steam phases.

The supercritical point is reached at a temperature and (absolute) pressure
of 374.15 Centigrade and 221.20 bar.
From krishnakumar_07 at YAHOO.CO.UK Mon Sep 15 02:15:22 2003
From: krishnakumar_07 at YAHOO.CO.UK (=?iso-8859-1?q?krishna=20kumar?=)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:29 2004
Subject: information-"juntos natural draft stove"
Message-ID: <MON.15.SEP.2003.071522.0100.KRISHNAKUMAR07@YAHOO.CO.UK>

sir,
i would like to have information on
"juntos natural draft stove"
its basics and its operation.

=====
krish

________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk

From krishnakumar_07 at YAHOO.CO.UK Mon Sep 15 02:24:10 2003
From: krishnakumar_07 at YAHOO.CO.UK (=?iso-8859-1?q?krishna=20kumar?=)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:29 2004
Subject: information regarding natural draft gasifier
In-Reply-To: <ea.3dd08a6e.2c8f6a11@aol.com>
Message-ID: <MON.15.SEP.2003.072410.0100.KRISHNAKUMAR07@YAHOO.CO.UK>

sir
i am second year student doing my post graduate
in energy engineering.

i would like to have the information on
"natural draft gasifier"
thankyou.

=====
krish

________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk

From dknowles at ANTARES.ORG Mon Sep 15 09:57:41 2003
From: dknowles at ANTARES.ORG (Knowles, Dave)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:29 2004
Subject: wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
Message-ID: <MON.15.SEP.2003.095741.0400.DKNOWLES@ANTARES.ORG>

Tom:
Maybe you can tell us a little more about why CP's approach is any different
than what has been attempted before, and why they should succeed better than
others in the past. I have read many of your reports, and the reports by
others of gasification technology. Many gasifier-gensets of this type are,
of course and by nature, similar, and they ALL encounter similar problems.

CP has been working on this approach for years. Now they are using US Dept
of Energy and US Dept of Agriculture money to further their approach.

I received a response from CP to my earlier inquiry, which was sent to me
alone, so I assume they prefer it not be made available to the group. It
said they weren't ready to release any information nor any products for at
least another year. Yet they are engaged in a 12 unit "demonstration"
project on Indian Reservations funded by USDA. If the product isn't
advanced to the point of commercialization, what's the use of a large
demonstration project? Couldn't those taxpayer dollars be better spent on
more engineering?

My purpose here is not to attack CP, although surely they are "collateral
damage," to the extent that my comments can wound.

My point is to ask why are we spending the money like this? Isn't there
enough history to conclude that we need to do something rather different if
we are going to crack this nut?

I know this list has two audiences: those who are working on industrial
systems and those who have a local self-reliance bent. My comments will
always be directed towards the industrial development, because I feel that's
the way the world is going (like it or not).

I'm of the opinion that 15 kW systems in the US have a tiny market because
the cost of labor (real and opportunity) is so high here in the US. I
personally can't imagine too many farmers wanting to spend time preparing
and loading their generator. Look at sales of corn-fired parlor stoves.
Look at the percentage of the market they occupy. Anyone who has used a
wood stove for domestic heating (as I have) knows what a chore it is. Plus
the pollution from individual stoves, which are poorly regulated, I
typically much higher than the established standards. I know this first
hand, having been in charge of product development for Vermont Castings for
several years.

The R&D budget of Dept of Energy is less than a zero sum game.... it's now
shrinking due to other budget needs, like building more tanks and bombs.
[ed]. Let's spend it wisely.

David Knowles, PE

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tombreed [mailto:tombreed@comcast.net]
> Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 12:06 AM
> To: Knowles, Dave; GASIFICATION
> Cc: Robb Walt; artsolar@aol.com
> Subject: Re: [GASL] wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
>
> Dear David and ALL:
>
> I have worked with Community Power and many others to develop a low (<50
> ppm) raw gas gasifier. It is NOT a WWII (Imbert, Nozzle) type. It is
> based
> on the work that we did at NREL and SynGas Inc. in the 1980s on air and
> oxygen gasification, and is called variously a "stratified downdraft
> gasifier", an "Open Top Gasifier" or "Topless" gasifier. Also, I believe
> Ali Kaupp called it an "Open Core" gasifier, but I've talked to him and he
> doesn't know where he got that name.
>
> The principles we developed then have been modified by Prof. Mukunda and
> his
> Pyrolysis, Gasification and Combusting (PGC) lab at IISC Bangalore in the
> 1990s to produce lower tars by injecting additional air into the char
> zone.
>
> CPC has made many improvements beyond these foundations, adding modern
> computer control and full automation to make the gasifier commercial.
>
> Hard to summarize 25 years of work in a short note, but this is the
> essence.
>
> Yours truly, TOM REED THE BEF GASWORKS
>
> Yours truly,
>
> Dr. Thomas Reed
> tombreed@comcast.com
> www.woodgas.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Knowles, Dave" <dknowles@ANTARES.ORG>
> To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 12:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [GASL] wood gas in large single-cylinder engines
>
>
> I'd be interested in hearing from Community Power about their 15kW system,
> specifically with regard to tar. I believe they use a downdraft gasifier,
> as
> did many of the WWII vintage systems.
> Anybody out there from CPC who wish to give us some field data?
> Or anyone else who knows?
>
> David Knowles
> Antares Group
>
>

From sensiblesteam at AOL.COM Tue Sep 16 01:36:15 2003
From: sensiblesteam at AOL.COM (Skip Goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:29 2004
Subject: outside furnace
Message-ID: <TUE.16.SEP.2003.013615.0400.SENSIBLESTEAM@AOL.COM>

i am curious as to the discussion of gassification going to an i.c. engine
vs. running the gas into a boiler.
of course, the latter is commonplace, but nowadays, there is a glut of gas
fired boilers on the used or 'free if you remove' market. mostly in the 50-
200hp size or about 2million to 6 million btu.

i just got for free a 70 three pass water tube kiwanne and it is the
membrane water wall type. here in alaska, such things are free and wood
here is mostly of pulp quality and not much else.
of course, it would not be a replacement for energy sources used now, but
then again, with landfills charging for even sawdust, it brings to mind
such places that make furniture from particle board and pay expensive dump
fees for the sawdust.
perhaps, a gassifier and boiler set up for less than 50 grand vs. 700k-
1mil. might make it a worthwhile option. if the steam was used for
nothing more than process, it would work.
on the other side, i have seen setups of this size for example at lazyboy
furniture, and the whole thing cost 3 mil. and....... it didnt save them
money, in fact you could haul the whole plant away for free right now!
turbines and all. it was that bad a deal.
but that is what happens when things look good on paper - and someone else
pays for it.
my point is, for less than 50 grand, how could one go wrong? and of
course, gassification would be crucial to making it work as long as the
material handling was already in place.

skip goebel
sensible steam
anchorage, ak
907 952 0795 sensiblesteam@aol.com

From dknowles at ANTARES.ORG Tue Sep 16 09:29:54 2003
From: dknowles at ANTARES.ORG (Knowles, Dave)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:29 2004
Subject: outside furnace
Message-ID: <TUE.16.SEP.2003.092954.0400.DKNOWLES@ANTARES.ORG>

Skip: What's your point? Good luck getting a gasifier and boiler setup for
50K. You might be able to cob something together and erect and commission
it with sweat equity -OK. But what would it prove? It would be one of a
kind. These other projects reflect the costs involved. Too many start to
believe the biomass promises, try it out, and then are so disappointed they
won't ever touch a biomass energy project again. Who did the financial
feasibility for the Lazyboy plant? They didn't do anyone any favors.

David Knowles.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Skip Goebel [mailto:sensiblesteam@AOL.COM]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 1:36 AM
> To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: [GASL] outside furnace
>
> i am curious as to the discussion of gassification going to an i.c. engine
> vs. running the gas into a boiler.
> of course, the latter is commonplace, but nowadays, there is a glut of gas
> fired boilers on the used or 'free if you remove' market. mostly in the
> 50-
> 200hp size or about 2million to 6 million btu.
>
> i just got for free a 70 three pass water tube kiwanne and it is the
> membrane water wall type. here in alaska, such things are free and wood
> here is mostly of pulp quality and not much else.
> of course, it would not be a replacement for energy sources used now, but
> then again, with landfills charging for even sawdust, it brings to mind
> such places that make furniture from particle board and pay expensive dump
> fees for the sawdust.
> perhaps, a gassifier and boiler set up for less than 50 grand vs. 700k-
> 1mil. might make it a worthwhile option. if the steam was used for
> nothing more than process, it would work.
> on the other side, i have seen setups of this size for example at lazyboy
> furniture, and the whole thing cost 3 mil. and....... it didnt save them
> money, in fact you could haul the whole plant away for free right now!
> turbines and all. it was that bad a deal.
> but that is what happens when things look good on paper - and someone else
> pays for it.
> my point is, for less than 50 grand, how could one go wrong? and of
> course, gassification would be crucial to making it work as long as the
> material handling was already in place.
>
> skip goebel
> sensible steam
> anchorage, ak
> 907 952 0795 sensiblesteam@aol.com

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Tue Sep 16 14:38:51 2003
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:29 2004
Subject: outside furnace
In-Reply-To: <LISTSERV%2003091601361556@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Message-ID: <TUE.16.SEP.2003.133851.0500.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Skip, Moderator Tom, and others,

I found the message from Skip and the reply by Dave to be stimulating.

As most of you know, I work on the VERY small gasifiers like Tom Reed's
Woodgas Camp Stove where we are burning the tars and never worry about
cleaning them out of the gases because we never cool the gases.

My question: In the larger gasifiers, when used to fire up a boiler (not
to feed an IC engine), do you remove or scrub or whatever to avoid tars and
other such problems? Said differently, who makes or runs a gasifier that
burns the gases immediately? How well developed is the "heat production"
aspect of large/commercial gasifiers (in contrast to the "gas production"
aspect that offers more flexibility of use but requires more care and
control.)?

I for one am interested in Skip's thoughts on using the boiler
approach. How many others are interested in something like what he discusses?

Thanks in advance for any replies.

Paul

At 01:36 AM 9/16/03 -0400, Skip Goebel wrote:
>i am curious as to the discussion of gassification going to an i.c. engine
>vs. running the gas into a boiler.
>of course, the latter is commonplace, but nowadays, there is a glut of gas
>fired boilers on the used or 'free if you remove' market. mostly in the 50-
>200hp size or about 2million to 6 million btu.
>
>i just got for free a 70 three pass water tube kiwanne and it is the
>membrane water wall type. here in alaska, such things are free and wood
>here is mostly of pulp quality and not much else.
>of course, it would not be a replacement for energy sources used now, but
>then again, with landfills charging for even sawdust, it brings to mind
>such places that make furniture from particle board and pay expensive dump
>fees for the sawdust.
>perhaps, a gassifier and boiler set up for less than 50 grand vs. 700k-
>1mil. might make it a worthwhile option. if the steam was used for
>nothing more than process, it would work.
>on the other side, i have seen setups of this size for example at lazyboy
>furniture, and the whole thing cost 3 mil. and....... it didnt save them
>money, in fact you could haul the whole plant away for free right now!
>turbines and all. it was that bad a deal.
>but that is what happens when things look good on paper - and someone else
>pays for it.
>my point is, for less than 50 grand, how could one go wrong? and of
>course, gassification would be crucial to making it work as long as the
>material handling was already in place.
>
>skip goebel
>sensible steam
>anchorage, ak
>907 952 0795 sensiblesteam@aol.com

Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
Rotary University Teacher Grantee to Mozambique >10 mo of 2001-2003
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

From jean-henry.ferrasse at UNIV.U-3MRS.FR Wed Sep 17 02:29:26 2003
From: jean-henry.ferrasse at UNIV.U-3MRS.FR (Jean-Henry Ferrasse)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:29 2004
Subject: : cost of biomass
Message-ID: <WED.17.SEP.2003.082926.0200.JEANHENRY.FERRASSE@UNIV.U3MRS.FR>

All,

a study for a remaining question.
"Feedstock cost analysis of corn stover residues for further processing".
R.D. Perlack & A.F. Turhollow in Energy 28 (2003) 1395-1403.
Can someone on the list explain me what is E10 and what is its main use?

--
Jean-Henry Ferrasse

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Wed Sep 17 08:56:06 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:30 2004
Subject: : cost of biomass
Message-ID: <WED.17.SEP.2003.095606.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Jean

Is that Study available on-line? If so, would you have an URL?

Thanks.

Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean-Henry Ferrasse" <jean-henry.ferrasse@univ.u-3mrs.fr>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 3:29 AM
Subject: [GASL] : cost of biomass

> All,
>
> a study for a remaining question.
> "Feedstock cost analysis of corn stover residues for further processing".
> R.D. Perlack & A.F. Turhollow in Energy 28 (2003) 1395-1403.
> Can someone on the list explain me what is E10 and what is its main use?
>
>
> --
> Jean-Henry Ferrasse

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Thu Sep 18 01:29:10 2003
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (tombreed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:30 2004
Subject: [STOVES] RE :paraffin
Message-ID: <WED.17.SEP.2003.232910.0600.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Crispin, Paul, Stoves and Gasifiers:

Here's the elephant and the blind men again trying to agree on a single
definition for pyrolysis products and uses. I hope we can agree on
acceptable terminology, even if we choose to use different terms in
different situations.

We have been over this a number of times before. Since pyrolysis produces
1/3 charcoal, 1/3 combustible gas and 1/3 volatile tars, also combustible.
It is unfortunate that pyrolysis can't make up it's mind, but that's the way
it is! You will call a pyrolyser a charcoal producer, a gas producer or a
liquid producer, depending on what you do with the products.

Since a pyrolysis stage is necessary for both gasification and combustion,
there is a continuum between pyrolysis and gasification and combustion and a
continuum between the uses for heat, fuel and chemical uses. But words
don't like continuums. Let's stop insisting on rigid categories and just be
more specific and polite about what we are talking about.

Our gasifier stove produces 2/3 of the energy as a combustible gas on the
first downward pass, leaving 1/3 of the energy in the charcoal. Continuing
the supply of the same primary air to the charcoal then produces charcoal
gas which also burns beautifully if the A/F ratios are right. SO, WE ARE
CALLING IT A GASIFIER STOVE. It produces gas, then supplies the CORRECT
amount of air to burn the gas. The main purpose is cooking. If you want to
stop after the first phase, it is also an efficient charcoal producer,
provided you use dry biomass.

When Ron Larson called me in 1995 asking how can we use the gases coming
from making charcoal, we collaborated on the
natural-draft-woodgas-cooking-charcoal-producer. But He saw it as a
charcoal producer with cooking as a by product, I saw it as a stove with
charcoal as a potential by product. He has always resisted my names;
currently toplit updraft gasifier, or tar burning char making gasifier
(previously upsidedowndraft, inverted downdraft gasifier) and I have
resisted his names (toplit charcoal producer). But we still manage to talk
to each other.

Back to work!

TOM REED
Yours truly,

Dr. Thomas Reed
tombreed@comcast.com
www.woodgas.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Crispin" <crispin@newdawn.sz>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 4:18 AM
Subject: [STOVES] RE :paraffin

> Dear Ron
>
> I hope, a couple of clarifications:
>
> Paul
> >>>1. I strongly urge not calling any such device a "gasifier" - but
> >>>rather call it a "pyrolyzer" - as the word "gasifier" typically means
> >>>striving for minimum charcoal production.
>
> I think we need to look at this definition closely. I agree with it
because
> if I am making a grass gasifier, I don't expect there to be anything left
at
> the end. Although the 'burning' of charcoal was mentioned further down, I
> am still thinking of gasifying it - i.e. driving off the carbon as CO and
> burning it close to the pot with some distance, perhaps, between the
carbon
> and the pot.
>
> and Paul says:
> >>A. When speaking to the general citizen (and the poorly
> >>educated in some communities), the word "pyrolysis" and
> >>"pyrolyzer" are not well understood.
>
> I certainly agree there. I haven't met anyone outside this group who
knows
> what the words mean at all.
>
> >>A "gasifier" is much more easily understood.
>
> I agree with this in principle as 'gas' is knows to be just that:
'Handigas'
> or 'propane' or 'natural gas' or 'methane' or 'biogas'. A 'wood gasifier'
> gives one the idea that the wood is turned into gas. A 'pyrolyzer' that
> turns wood into gas with a slightly different co-intention is still a type
> of gasifier: it turns wood into gas.
>
> In Swaziland there is the additional complication that 'gezi' which is the
> word for 'gas' also means electricity as all lighting used to be piped gas
> and 'gezi' came to mean 'light' and fitting electricity is of course
adding
> 'lights' to your house. The best local name would be 'wood-gas stove'.
>
> >RWL: Note that A.D. and Crispin are asking how to make
> >charcoal at the household level - not how to consume it.
>
> Actually it was my unexpressed vision that the fuel be totally consumed as
> in a Vesto. This happens in two stages at a low power setting: wood is
> largely charcoaled then the charcoal is burned by opening the air supply.
I
> was thinking of a gasifier in which there is a physical separation between
> the initial combustion and production of gases and the subsequent burning
of
> them. I think Paul described this definition first.
>
> >RWL: I'm anxious to see how efficient your charcoal combustion is
> >within the original charcoal-maker.
>
> This differs from my vision of the gasifying device. If the charcoal is
> burned to CO2 somewhere in the gas-producing chanber, it might be
difficult
> to deliver the heat to the pot unless it is well insulated or entrained in
a
> vortex passing through a reflective pipe, or moving the whole fire towards
> the pot.
>
> >RWL: My prediction is that it will be close to zero -
> >i.e. not able to keep at a boiling water temperature - the
> >combustion of the charcoal being too far from the pot.
> >That has been the experience of others.
>
> Well...OK,...but maybe others will have different approaches to getting
the
> heat to the pot, or else will be able to create CO at a reasonable
> efficiency and deliver the (very hot) CO to the pot 'burner' and reduce it
> to CO2 giving a useful heat output. One might also be able to lift the
> charcoal produced towards the pot with a lever and burn it directly to
CO2.
> It seems unwise to limit a designer too much by saying that the charcoal
is
> 'too far from the pot' and therefore a stove of that type can't be made to
> work usefully.
>
> I feel that this name splitting are really semantical and not based on a
> technical analysis because if challenged theoretically, one can put up a
> good case that all fires are gas fires, thus all stoves are wood or coal
or
> charcoal 'gasifiers'. These definitions sound arbitrary, especially when
> one gets innovative about the layout and function.
>
> I can't defend the division of products into stove groups based on the
> amount of charcoal left. If it has, say, 15% charcoal production, then a
> Welcome Dover coal stove with wood burning in it would be classified as a
> pyrolyzer, as it produces more % charcoal than many semi-professional
> Mo?ambicano 'charcoal makers' working in the forest.
>
> I am worried that handy definitions that apply to particular situations or
> constructions will lend people to think that other layouts will not
provide
> better or workable stoves.
>
> One example I can give, sourced from this list, is the idea that _only_ a
> high hot gas velocity past the pot can give better heat transfer rates.
> This is frequently mentioned and ideas about scrubbing and boundary layers
> are cited, as well as good quality emperical data from tests to show the
> idea correct. However this is only one man's view of the elephant.
>
> Feeding hot gases past the pot at a very low speed is also an effective
way
> to very high heat transfer. Thus to say that the _only_ way to get higher
> heat transfer (implying that this is true under all conditions) is to
speed
> up the gas flow past the pot, limits ones approach to heat transfer and
> therefore stove design problems. This limitation and the statement
creating
> it are rooted in an inaccurate conceptualization of how heat transfers
from
> molecule to molecule in gases. I mentioned this before: all heat transfer
> from gas to pot is by radiation, not 'conduction' (unless the gas
> temporarily becomes attached to the crystal structure of the pot).
> Bascially there is no such thing as 'conduction' of heat between fire
> combustion products and the pot though we tolerate the term in discussion.
>
> Given a 'normal' stove with a certain amount of heat being transferred,
> there are two ways to increase the heat transfer efficiency: close the gap
> and increase the speed of gas flow, or close the gap and _reduce_ the
speed
> of gas flow. At very low speeds, one might not need to reduce the gap to
> get an increase. This is 'apples'.
>
> This analysis says nothing about the losses one might have in the stove
body
> between the fire and heat transfer zone which is a completely separate
issue
> ('oranges') and is related to the device, not the theory and practice of
> heat transfer. It would be incorrect to reply to my argument, "The losses
to
> the stove body would reduce the _overall_ efficiency of the device if the
> gas flow is reduced." So what. That may or may not be true depending on
> the device - you could design your way around it.
>
> Having a cute statement about or name for a practical truth in an average
> situation may not illuminate a student about the theory underlying it and
> therefore poses the risk of railroading stove builders into certain ways
of
> thinking about what is possible. Such cute statements are like charts: an
> inaccurate representation of a partially understood truth.
>
> Gasifier? Pyrolyzer? To the average user it is still just a stove.
>
> Thanks for the opportunity to ruminate
> Crispin

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Thu Sep 18 11:29:27 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:30 2004
Subject: Fw: [GASL] [STOVES] RE :paraffin
Message-ID: <THU.18.SEP.2003.122927.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>
To: "tombreed" <tombreed@COMCAST.NET>; <GASIFICATION@listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] [STOVES] RE :paraffin

Dear Tom

I checked with Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: gas?i?fy
Pronunciation: 'ga-s&-"fI
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -i?fied; -i?fy?ing
Date: circa 1828
transitive senses : to convert into gas <gasify coal>
intransitive senses : to become gaseous
- gas?ifi?er /'ga-s&-"fI(-&)r/ noun

and again,

Main Entry: py?ro?lyze
Variant(s): also py?ro?lize /'pI-r&-"lIz/
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -lyzed also -lized; -lyz?ing also -liz?ing
Date: 1932
: to subject to pyrolysis
- py?ro?lyz?able /"pI-r&-'lI-z&-b&l/ adjective
- py?ro?lyz?er noun

and still again...

Main Entry: py?rol?y?sis
Pronunciation: pI-'r?-l&-s&s
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin
Date: circa 1890
: chemical change brought about by the action of heat
- py?ro?lyt?ic /"pI-r&-'li-tik/ adjective
- py?ro?lyt?i?cal?ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

and again

Main Entry: 1stove
Pronunciation: 'stOv
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, heated room, steam room, from Middle Dutch or
Middle Low German, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin extufa, ultimately from Latin
ex- + Greek typhein to smoke -- more at DEAF
Date: 1591
1 a : a portable or fixed apparatus that burns fuel or uses electricity to
provide heat (as for cooking or heating) b : a device that generates heat
for special purposes (as for heating tools or heating air for a hot blast)

and again..
Main Entry: fur?nace
Pronunciation: 'f&r-n&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English furnas, from Old French fornaise, from Latin
fornac-, fornax; akin to Latin formus warm -- more at THERM
Date: 13th century
: an enclosed structure in which heat is produced (as for heating a house or
for reducing ore)
----- Original Message -----
From: "tombreed" <tombreed@COMCAST.NET>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 2:29 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] [STOVES] RE :paraffin

Dear Crispin, Paul, Stoves and Gasifiers:

We have been over this a number of times before. Since pyrolysis produces
1/3 charcoal, 1/3 combustible gas and 1/3 volatile tars, also combustible.

KC: Pyrolysis does not "produce" charcoal, gas and tars. It is
" a chemical change brought about by the action of heat"

It is unfortunate that pyrolysis can't make up it's mind, but that's the way
it is! You will call a pyrolyser a charcoal producer, a gas producer or a
liquid producer, depending on what you do with the products.

KC: The definition of pyrolysis seems clear. It has nothing to do with what
products are produced, or how they are used.

KC: According to the definition of pyrolysis, there is no continuum. There
is simply a heating process to bring about a chemical change.

KC: All stoves that consume solid or liquid fuels are "gasifier stoves."
Solids and liquids do not "burn" unless they are gasified.

It produces gas,

KC: All stoves produce gas

then supplies the CORRECT
amount of air to burn the gas.

K: The "correct" amount of air to burn the gas is the amount of air that
"burns" the gas. The "correct amount of air to burn the gas" is not
necessarily the "stoichemetrically correct" air. The "correct" amount of air
to "burn" the gas is that amount of air which results in no unburned gas
leaving the stove.

The main purpose is cooking.

KC: That is one view. Actually, the main purpose of a stove is heating. It
could be heating domestic water, room air, a pot of rice, a loaf of bread,
etc.

If you want to
stop after the first phase, it is also an efficient charcoal producer,
provided you use dry biomass.

KC: If so, should it not then be simply called a "charcoal producer?"
Perhaps the problem stems from calling a charcoal producer a "stove"; it
should more correctly be called a "charcoal furnace." The objective of a
"charcoal furnace" is charcoal, not heat. The objective of a "stove" is
heat, not charcoal.

KC: Have you asked him why he was being so disagreeable?? :-)

currently toplit updraft gasifier, or tar burning char making gasifier
(previously upsidedowndraft, inverted downdraft gasifier) and I have
resisted his names (toplit charcoal producer). But we still manage to talk
to each other.

KC: I feel that a "toplit updraft gasifier" is a device to produce gas for
use elsewhere. (For example, in an engine.) If so, then the name is apt. If
the device is to be used as a cooking stove, then it should be called a
"toplit updraft stove."

KC: The purpose of names and labels is to communicate an idea. If the chosen
name or label communicates the idea effectively and accurately to others,
then it is a good and correct name. If there is confusion, then it is not a
correct name.

Best wishes.

Kevin Chisholm

Back to work!

TOM REED
Yours truly,

From joflo at YIFAN.NET Thu Sep 18 13:48:38 2003
From: joflo at YIFAN.NET (Joel Florian)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:30 2004
Subject: gasification syntax
In-Reply-To: <02c501c37da5$cb4c0aa0$b5affd0c@TOMBREED>
Message-ID: <THU.18.SEP.2003.094838.0800.JOFLO@YIFAN.NET>

Dear Tom,

Thank you for encouraging polite dialogue about terminology.

Confusion can be the reader's (or listener's) fault as much as the writer's
(or speaker's). Certainly when we chose a word or name to convey an idea,
we should choose it with the idea of communicating an idea. But we have no
control over people's associations with a particular word. Different types
of people have different associations with words, and indeed different
reasons for using words. For example, politicians have different motives
for choosing a word than say a lawyer or an engineer. I think you get my
point without elaborating further.
I've interspersed a few comments below.

At 11:29 PM 9/17/2003 -0600, tombreed wrote:
>Dear Crispin, Paul, Stoves and Gasifiers:
>
>Here's the elephant and the blind men again trying to agree on a single
>definition for pyrolysis products and uses. I hope we can agree on
>acceptable terminology, even if we choose to use different terms in
>different situations.

To carry your analogy further, if those blind men were on radio (or had an
blind audience) each one of their descriptions would have conjured up a
different image in each listener's mind. Consider the blind man who was
holding the elephant's leg and said "An Elephant is a Tree!" There are
about as many varieties, shapes, sizes, textures, etc of trees as there are
different kinds of biomass. Even if we don't agree on terminology, we
should agree that a word is only a tool for communication and as such, it
is only as effective as its use matches the recipient's comprehension.

<snip>
>Our gasifier stove produces 2/3 of the energy as a combustible gas on the
>first downward pass, leaving 1/3 of the energy in the charcoal. Continuing
>the supply of the same primary air to the charcoal then produces charcoal
>gas which also burns beautifully if the A/F ratios are right. SO, WE ARE
>CALLING IT A GASIFIER STOVE. It produces gas, then supplies the CORRECT
>amount of air to burn the gas. The main purpose is cooking. If you want to
>stop after the first phase, it is also an efficient charcoal producer,
>provided you use dry biomass.

I believe the inventor and developer have naming rights. There's no way
one single name could encompass every possible use. Duct tape has hundreds
of uses other than sealing "ducts".

>When Ron Larson called me in 1995 asking how can we use the gases coming
>from making charcoal, we collaborated on the
>natural-draft-woodgas-cooking-charcoal-producer. But He saw it as a
>charcoal producer with cooking as a by product, I saw it as a stove with
>charcoal as a potential by product. He has always resisted my names;
>currently toplit updraft gasifier, or tar burning char making gasifier
>(previously upsidedowndraft, inverted downdraft gasifier) and I have
>resisted his names (toplit charcoal producer). But we still manage to talk
>to each other.
>
>Back to work!

Tom, I really like your original name -- the upsidedowndraft gasifier. It
works for me. It helps me remember that it works similarly to the
historically significant downdraft gasifier yet it is lit from the
top. Therefore it burns most of the tars yet doesn't need a high
temperature grate or throat (can't think of the right word, sorry) and can
be conveniently lit from the top. The best of downdraft as well as updraft
technology. Plus it's a catchy name. Inverted downdraft is almost as good
but it is a little longer and doesn't imply the advantages of the
updraft. It's really hard to name something based on the desired output
because different people want different things.

I operate a piece of heating equipment that I call a "sawdust boiler." It
burns sawdust, woodchips, and hog fuel (I even burned some moldy pinto
beans in it --- PHEW). I suppose it operates on what could be termed
"close-coupled thermal gasification" since it has two chambers and (at
least theoretically) two stages of combustion. I suppose some might even
argue with the term "boiler" since the
3-pass-return-tube-hot-gas-to-glycol/water-heat-exchanger only makes hot
water and the water never "boils".

The word is not the thing.

So Tom, go ahead and name your "babies" what you want to name them. If we
don't understand, we'll ask what you mean. In the dialogue, we might learn
something.

Joel Florian, Alaska

>TOM REED
>Yours truly,
>
>Dr. Thomas Reed
>tombreed@comcast.com
>www.woodgas.com
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Crispin" <crispin@newdawn.sz>
>To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 4:18 AM
>Subject: [STOVES] RE :paraffin
>
>
> > Dear Ron
> >
> > I hope, a couple of clarifications:
> >
> > Paul
> > >>>1. I strongly urge not calling any such device a "gasifier" - but
> > >>>rather call it a "pyrolyzer" - as the word "gasifier" typically means
> > >>>striving for minimum charcoal production.
> >
> > I think we need to look at this definition closely. I agree with it
>because
> > if I am making a grass gasifier, I don't expect there to be anything left
>at
> > the end. Although the 'burning' of charcoal was mentioned further down, I
> > am still thinking of gasifying it - i.e. driving off the carbon as CO and
> > burning it close to the pot with some distance, perhaps, between the
>carbon
> > and the pot.
> >
> > and Paul says:
> > >>A. When speaking to the general citizen (and the poorly
> > >>educated in some communities), the word "pyrolysis" and
> > >>"pyrolyzer" are not well understood.
> >
> > I certainly agree there. I haven't met anyone outside this group who
>knows
> > what the words mean at all.
> >
> > >>A "gasifier" is much more easily understood.
> >
> > I agree with this in principle as 'gas' is knows to be just that:
>'Handigas'
> > or 'propane' or 'natural gas' or 'methane' or 'biogas'. A 'wood gasifier'
> > gives one the idea that the wood is turned into gas. A 'pyrolyzer' that
> > turns wood into gas with a slightly different co-intention is still a type
> > of gasifier: it turns wood into gas.
> >
> > In Swaziland there is the additional complication that 'gezi' which is the
> > word for 'gas' also means electricity as all lighting used to be piped gas
> > and 'gezi' came to mean 'light' and fitting electricity is of course
>adding
> > 'lights' to your house. The best local name would be 'wood-gas stove'.
> >
> > >RWL: Note that A.D. and Crispin are asking how to make
> > >charcoal at the household level - not how to consume it.
> >
> > Actually it was my unexpressed vision that the fuel be totally consumed as
> > in a Vesto. This happens in two stages at a low power setting: wood is
> > largely charcoaled then the charcoal is burned by opening the air supply.
>I
> > was thinking of a gasifier in which there is a physical separation between
> > the initial combustion and production of gases and the subsequent burning
>of
> > them. I think Paul described this definition first.
> >
> > >RWL: I'm anxious to see how efficient your charcoal combustion is
> > >within the original charcoal-maker.
> >
> > This differs from my vision of the gasifying device. If the charcoal is
> > burned to CO2 somewhere in the gas-producing chanber, it might be
>difficult
> > to deliver the heat to the pot unless it is well insulated or entrained in
>a
> > vortex passing through a reflective pipe, or moving the whole fire towards
> > the pot.
> >
> > >RWL: My prediction is that it will be close to zero -
> > >i.e. not able to keep at a boiling water temperature - the
> > >combustion of the charcoal being too far from the pot.
> > >That has been the experience of others.
> >
> > Well...OK,...but maybe others will have different approaches to getting
>the
> > heat to the pot, or else will be able to create CO at a reasonable
> > efficiency and deliver the (very hot) CO to the pot 'burner' and reduce it
> > to CO2 giving a useful heat output. One might also be able to lift the
> > charcoal produced towards the pot with a lever and burn it directly to
>CO2.
> > It seems unwise to limit a designer too much by saying that the charcoal
>is
> > 'too far from the pot' and therefore a stove of that type can't be made to
> > work usefully.
> >
> > I feel that this name splitting are really semantical and not based on a
> > technical analysis because if challenged theoretically, one can put up a
> > good case that all fires are gas fires, thus all stoves are wood or coal
>or
> > charcoal 'gasifiers'. These definitions sound arbitrary, especially when
> > one gets innovative about the layout and function.
> >
> > I can't defend the division of products into stove groups based on the
> > amount of charcoal left. If it has, say, 15% charcoal production, then a
> > Welcome Dover coal stove with wood burning in it would be classified as a
> > pyrolyzer, as it produces more % charcoal than many semi-professional
> > Mo?ambicano 'charcoal makers' working in the forest.
> >
> > I am worried that handy definitions that apply to particular situations or
> > constructions will lend people to think that other layouts will not
>provide
> > better or workable stoves.
> >
> > One example I can give, sourced from this list, is the idea that _only_ a
> > high hot gas velocity past the pot can give better heat transfer rates.
> > This is frequently mentioned and ideas about scrubbing and boundary layers
> > are cited, as well as good quality emperical data from tests to show the
> > idea correct. However this is only one man's view of the elephant.
> >
> > Feeding hot gases past the pot at a very low speed is also an effective
>way
> > to very high heat transfer. Thus to say that the _only_ way to get higher
> > heat transfer (implying that this is true under all conditions) is to
>speed
> > up the gas flow past the pot, limits ones approach to heat transfer and
> > therefore stove design problems. This limitation and the statement
>creating
> > it are rooted in an inaccurate conceptualization of how heat transfers
>from
> > molecule to molecule in gases. I mentioned this before: all heat transfer
> > from gas to pot is by radiation, not 'conduction' (unless the gas
> > temporarily becomes attached to the crystal structure of the pot).
> > Bascially there is no such thing as 'conduction' of heat between fire
> > combustion products and the pot though we tolerate the term in discussion.
> >
> > Given a 'normal' stove with a certain amount of heat being transferred,
> > there are two ways to increase the heat transfer efficiency: close the gap
> > and increase the speed of gas flow, or close the gap and _reduce_ the
>speed
> > of gas flow. At very low speeds, one might not need to reduce the gap to
> > get an increase. This is 'apples'.
> >
> > This analysis says nothing about the losses one might have in the stove
>body
> > between the fire and heat transfer zone which is a completely separate
>issue
> > ('oranges') and is related to the device, not the theory and practice of
> > heat transfer. It would be incorrect to reply to my argument, "The losses
>to
> > the stove body would reduce the _overall_ efficiency of the device if the
> > gas flow is reduced." So what. That may or may not be true depending on
> > the device - you could design your way around it.
> >
> > Having a cute statement about or name for a practical truth in an average
> > situation may not illuminate a student about the theory underlying it and
> > therefore poses the risk of railroading stove builders into certain ways
>of
> > thinking about what is possible. Such cute statements are like charts: an
> > inaccurate representation of a partially understood truth.
> >
> > Gasifier? Pyrolyzer? To the average user it is still just a stove.
> >
> > Thanks for the opportunity to ruminate
> > Crispin

From CAVM at AOL.COM Thu Sep 18 19:05:39 2003
From: CAVM at AOL.COM (Cornelius A. Van Miligen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:30 2004
Subject: Oklahoma project to convert gasified products to ethanol
Message-ID: <THU.18.SEP.2003.190539.EDT.>

http://www.westbioenergy.org/dec2002/01.htm

They used a 10" fluidized bed gasifier to produce the gas mixture. A
separate process converts it to ethanol.

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Fri Sep 19 01:29:28 2003
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (tombreed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:30 2004
Subject: "Combustor", Gasifier" or Pyrolyser"
Message-ID: <THU.18.SEP.2003.232928.0600.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

All Stovers (and gasification):

The premier biomass thermal conversion lab in India is the Pyrolysis,
Gasification, Combustion, the PGC lab at IISC, Bangalore of Prof. Mukunda.
You can't do gasification of solid fuels without initial pyrolysis; you
can't do combustion without initial gasification. So the three are sister
technologies, and anyone interested in one should be interested in all
three.

Yesterday I gave a number of reason to call stoves that burn the gas
separately from the pyrolysis stage "gasifiers". Here are two more.

Ron says below that most people can recognize "pyrolyser" from its roots.
OK, maybe. However, by the same token they will recognize "gasifier" from
its roots. While many people might be able to derive "pyrolyser", the word
has no association with cooking. The billions of people now burning methane
and propane at high cost will be led to burning WoodGas through association
of the words.

AND its roots are deeply into modern technology where every city had
(usually coal) gasifiers supplying city gas, often by a process of pyrolysis
to make coke as a co-product. So we are doing the same thing at a smaller
scale, and the charcoal is a co-product while the majority product is the
gas.

And in the case of our stoves, the PURPOSE of the stove is to make a gas for
CLEAN combustion because it is very difficult to simultaneously burn the
gas/vapors and the charcoal. If you choose to stop the process half way
through and take the charcoal as a by-product, fine, but the PURPOSE is
still "cooking with gas".

Finally, note that we don't have a "Pyrolysis" section here at REPP, but we
do have a "Gasification" section, so that newcomers will find information on
the processes involved.
~~~~~~~~
So, I hope that I can get Ron Larson to at least use the names "gasifier"
and "pyrolyser" together.
Most gasifiers need to have their names modified, as in "tar burning, char
making gasifier" = "updraft gasifier", .... etc. so I'd recommend the
longer name top be "PYROLYSIS GASIFIER" if it will make Ron happy and
terminate this interminable discussion.

Onward to better "cooking with gas",

TOM REED (Gasification list moderator)

Yours truly,

Dr. Thomas Reed
tombreed@comcast.com
www.woodgas.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Larson" <ronallarson@QWEST.NET>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 9:00 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] paraffin

> Stovers:
>
> Today, Paul Anderson noted that I had said:
> >
> > > 1. I strongly urge not calling any such device a "gasifier" - but
> > > rather call it a "pyrolyzer" - as the word "gasifier" typically
means
> > > striving for minimum charcoal production.
> >
> and Paul says:
> >
> > A. When speaking to the general citizen (and the poorly educated in
some
> > communities), the word "pyrolysis" and "pyrolyzer" are not well
> > understood. A "gasifier" is much more easily understood.
>
> RWL: I doubt this. Almost every culture will translate "pyrolysis"
as
> "charcoal making" (and get the concept right away) - and you will find
that
> I usually use this term ("charcoal-making" - not "pyrolysis") when talking
> about a top-lit stove. On this list, I think it safe to talk about
> pyrolysis and the distinction between it and gasification.
>
> If you use "gasifier", I think the translation is apt to come out as
> something very foreign to what we are talking about. Anyone out there in
a
> position to check my claim with some group that has never seen a
"gasifier"?
>
>
> >
> > B. In my Juntos gasifier that is developing well (and will have a major
> > message within 5 weeks), developments are moving that will ALLOW (user
> > option) the burning of a much greater portion of the charcoal than was
the
> > case in the initial Reed - Larson IDD stoves. That would pull the name
> > back toward use of "gasifier" instead of "pyrolyzer." The people for
whom
> > A.D. Karve is producing charcoal from agro-wastes will not need to
produce
> > or use much charcoal if (a big IF that is getting smaller) they can use
> the
> > agro-wastes directly for their cooking.
>
> RWL: Note that A.D. and Crispin are asking how to make charcoal at
the
> household level - not how to consume it.
> I'm anxious to see how efficient your charcoal combustion is within
the
> original charcoal-maker. My prediction is that it will be close to zero -
> i.e. not able to keep at a boiling water temperature - the combustion of
the
> charcoal being too far from the pot. That has been the experience of
> others.
>
> Ron
>
> > C. INHO, It is still too early to lock onto one name for this
relatively
> > very new type of biomass-using stove.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> RWL: Understood your position - but think it wrong. Still think
there
> are big problems in calling a charcoal-making stove a "gasifier" - where
> minimum charcoal production seems to be a goal.
> I have no problem with having "gasifier" stoves - but much prefer that
> the name "gasifier" not be used for stoves intended to make charcoal - as
> A.D. and Crispin seem to desire.
>
> Ron

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Fri Sep 19 10:30:25 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:30 2004
Subject: [STOVES] "Combustor", Gasifier" or Pyrolyser"
Message-ID: <FRI.19.SEP.2003.113025.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Tom

The "interminable discussion" is probably such, simply because there is
considerable divergence on understanding of terms. This divergence on
understanding leads to confusion. If people "in the trade" are not fully
satisfied with terminology, then it will be very difficult to communicate
desired meanings to the average stove/gasifier/pyrolizer/furnace/combustor
user. I would suggest that it is thus important that this confusion be "run
to ground."

----- Original Message -----
From: "tombreed" <tombreed@COMCAST.NET>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 2:29 AM
Subject: [STOVES] "Combustor", Gasifier" or Pyrolyser"

> All Stovers (and gasification):
>
> The premier biomass thermal conversion lab in India is the Pyrolysis,
> Gasification, Combustion, the PGC lab at IISC, Bangalore of Prof. Mukunda.
> You can't do gasification of solid fuels without initial pyrolysis;

That is very true, but pyrolysis does not imply gasification: the pyrolysis
process can stop at the Torrification level.

you
> can't do combustion without initial gasification.

That is true also, but you may not wish to use the gases for combustion
(they may be intended as a feedstock for a chemical reactor) or for stove
purposes (it may be intended for combustion in an engine.)

So the three are sister
> technologies, and anyone interested in one should be interested in all
> three.

Well, the three girls could be sisters, but they may also only be
girl friends. :-) Obviously a person operating a wood gasifier for
production of wood gas for use in an engine does not have to be interesated
in stoves fueled with wood gas.
>
> Yesterday I gave a number of reason to call stoves that burn the gas
> separately from the pyrolysis stage "gasifiers". Here are two more.
>
> Ron says below that most people can recognize "pyrolyser" from its roots.
> OK, maybe. However, by the same token they will recognize "gasifier" from
> its roots.

OK...

While many people might be able to derive "pyrolyser", the word
> has no association with cooking.

True. However, these millions don't need to know about pyrolysis any more
than they need to know how an engine works in order to drive a car.
Howwever, the pyrolysis term is very important to stove and gasifier system
designers and builders.

The billions of people now burning methane
> and propane at high cost will be led to burning WoodGas through
association
> of the words.

OK.... in this case it could simply be called a "Wood Gas Stove"
>
> AND its roots are deeply into modern technology where every city had
> (usually coal) gasifiers supplying city gas, often by a process of
pyrolysis
> to make coke as a co-product. So we are doing the same thing at a smaller
> scale, and the charcoal is a co-product while the majority product is the
> gas.

Tat is different. That would be a "Charcoal Producing Wood Gas Stove"
>
> And in the case of our stoves, the PURPOSE of the stove is to make a gas
for
> CLEAN combustion because it is very difficult to simultaneously burn the
> gas/vapors and the charcoal. If you choose to stop the process half way
> through and take the charcoal as a by-product, fine, but the PURPOSE is
> still "cooking with gas".

I would suggest that a device intended to make a fuel gas for cooking and to
make charcoal at the same time is a very special case. I would suggest that
the terminology should be set up to handle more general and common cases.
Note also, that the use of the gas may not be for cooking... In Dr. Karve's
case, it is used for process heat, but it could also be used in an engine.
>
> Finally, note that we don't have a "Pyrolysis" section here at REPP, but
we
> do have a "Gasification" section, so that newcomers will find information
on
> the processes involved.

I would suggest that you don't need a "Pyrolysis Section" If you did, that
would suggest that the desired objective was "pyrolysis", rather than
"Charcoal" or "Gasification" or "Stoves" or "Combustion"
> ~~~~~~~~
> So, I hope that I can get Ron Larson to at least use the names "gasifier"
> and "pyrolyser" together.
> Most gasifiers need to have their names modified, as in "tar burning, char
> making gasifier" = "updraft gasifier", .... etc.

OK, but would that be a "top lit updraft gasifier", or a "bottom lit updraft
gasifier" :-)
so I'd recommend the
> longer name top be "PYROLYSIS GASIFIER" if it will make Ron happy and
> terminate this interminable discussion.

The "pyrolysis" term is redundant. If it was a "cooking device using biomass
fuel that was pyrolized to yield a wood gas fuel for burning in situ", why
not simply call it a "wood stove"?

Note that a "wood gas stove", to be consistent with a "propane gas stove" or
a "natural gas stove" implies that a "prepared gas fuel" is supplied to the
stove. The mess and bother associated with wood is separated from the stove
function.
>
> Onward to better "cooking with gas",
>
Yes, indeed!!

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm

From graeme at POWERLINK.CO.NZ Sun Sep 21 00:46:27 2003
From: graeme at POWERLINK.CO.NZ (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:30 2004
Subject: High temperature Diesel cycle
Message-ID: <SUN.21.SEP.2003.164627.1200.GRAEME@POWERLINK.CO.NZ>

Hello Vernon

Sorry for the delayed response, but have only just returned from Canada.

Tar combustion in an engine will be dependent on how it gets there. If for
instance it is arriving at the engine intake literally trickling down the
pipeline, you will have incomplete combustion. There is then the other
situation of low tar gas which sees the tar vapour forming as an aerosol
under the butterfly in the manifold vacuum.

In this situation the gas/air ratio can be set for complete combustion,
evidenced by the smooth running and clean exhaust gases. No doubt there are
variations to contend with but modern electronic sensors can smooth this
out.

I cannot comment about changing dwell angles, but what might be worth trying
is to lower the engine speed and drive the alternator via belts. The lower
speed will then take advantage of the slower burning heavy hydrocarbons.

Regards
Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification.

> In a message dated 08/29/2003 12:00:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> graeme@POWERLINK.CO.NZ writes:
>
>
> > Tar in itself is an excellent fuel if you can get it
> > passed the valve stems which make them sticky and blocking the manifold
on
> > its way into the engine.
> >
>
> Hi Doug,
>
> Will you comment about whether or not there is complete combustion of tar
> particles in an IC spark ignition engine? Is the dwell time of a tarry
charge in
> the cylinder sufficient for complete combustion? Is there sufficient
oxygen
> in the intake stroke to combust all the liquid tar? If there are
incomplete
> combustion problems with high-tar wood-gas, are there work-arounds? Any
other
> observations would also be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Vernon Harris
>

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Sun Sep 21 19:45:13 2003
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (tombreed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:30 2004
Subject: gasification syntax
Message-ID: <SUN.21.SEP.2003.174513.0600.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Joel:

Thanks for your thoughtful analysis and preferences and semantic comments
below. While our words are necessary to our thoughts, we are also their
prisoners. Nature presents us with a continuum of data and we try to
quantify it as best we can. We escape from this prison by doing experiments
which may disagree without presumptions - then we learn.

Yours truly,

TOM REED

From: "Joel Florian" <joflo@YIFAN.NET>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 11:48 AM
Subject: [GASL] gasification syntax

> Dear Tom,
>
> Thank you for encouraging polite dialogue about terminology.
>
> Confusion can be the reader's (or listener's) fault as much as the
writer's
> (or speaker's). Certainly when we chose a word or name to convey an idea,
> we should choose it with the idea of communicating an idea. But we have
no
> control over people's associations with a particular word. Different
types
> of people have different associations with words, and indeed different
> reasons for using words. For example, politicians have different motives
> for choosing a word than say a lawyer or an engineer. I think you get my
> point without elaborating further.
> I've interspersed a few comments below.
>
> At 11:29 PM 9/17/2003 -0600, tombreed wrote:
> >Dear Crispin, Paul, Stoves and Gasifiers:
> >
> >Here's the elephant and the blind men again trying to agree on a single
> >definition for pyrolysis products and uses. I hope we can agree on
> >acceptable terminology, even if we choose to use different terms in
> >different situations.
>
> To carry your analogy further, if those blind men were on radio (or had an
> blind audience) each one of their descriptions would have conjured up a
> different image in each listener's mind. Consider the blind man who was
> holding the elephant's leg and said "An Elephant is a Tree!" There are
> about as many varieties, shapes, sizes, textures, etc of trees as there
are
> different kinds of biomass. Even if we don't agree on terminology, we
> should agree that a word is only a tool for communication and as such, it
> is only as effective as its use matches the recipient's comprehension.
>
> <snip>
> >Our gasifier stove produces 2/3 of the energy as a combustible gas on the
> >first downward pass, leaving 1/3 of the energy in the charcoal.
Continuing
> >the supply of the same primary air to the charcoal then produces charcoal
> >gas which also burns beautifully if the A/F ratios are right. SO, WE ARE
> >CALLING IT A GASIFIER STOVE. It produces gas, then supplies the CORRECT
> >amount of air to burn the gas. The main purpose is cooking. If you want
to
> >stop after the first phase, it is also an efficient charcoal producer,
> >provided you use dry biomass.
>
> I believe the inventor and developer have naming rights. There's no way
> one single name could encompass every possible use. Duct tape has
hundreds
> of uses other than sealing "ducts".
>
>
>
> >When Ron Larson called me in 1995 asking how can we use the gases coming
> >from making charcoal, we collaborated on the
> >natural-draft-woodgas-cooking-charcoal-producer. But He saw it as a
> >charcoal producer with cooking as a by product, I saw it as a stove with
> >charcoal as a potential by product. He has always resisted my names;
> >currently toplit updraft gasifier, or tar burning char making gasifier
> >(previously upsidedowndraft, inverted downdraft gasifier) and I have
> >resisted his names (toplit charcoal producer). But we still manage to
talk
> >to each other.
> >
> >Back to work!
>
> Tom, I really like your original name -- the upsidedowndraft gasifier.
It
> works for me. It helps me remember that it works similarly to the
> historically significant downdraft gasifier yet it is lit from the
> top. Therefore it burns most of the tars yet doesn't need a high
> temperature grate or throat (can't think of the right word, sorry) and can
> be conveniently lit from the top. The best of downdraft as well as
updraft
> technology. Plus it's a catchy name. Inverted downdraft is almost as good
> but it is a little longer and doesn't imply the advantages of the
> updraft. It's really hard to name something based on the desired output
> because different people want different things.
>
> I operate a piece of heating equipment that I call a "sawdust boiler."
It
> burns sawdust, woodchips, and hog fuel (I even burned some moldy pinto
> beans in it --- PHEW). I suppose it operates on what could be termed
> "close-coupled thermal gasification" since it has two chambers and (at
> least theoretically) two stages of combustion. I suppose some might even
> argue with the term "boiler" since the
> 3-pass-return-tube-hot-gas-to-glycol/water-heat-exchanger only makes hot
> water and the water never "boils".
>
> The word is not the thing.
>
> So Tom, go ahead and name your "babies" what you want to name them. If
we
> don't understand, we'll ask what you mean. In the dialogue, we might
learn
> something.
>
> Joel Florian, Alaska
>
>
> >TOM REED
> >Yours truly,
> >
> >Dr. Thomas Reed
> >tombreed@comcast.com
> >www.woodgas.com
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Crispin" <crispin@newdawn.sz>
> >To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> >Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 4:18 AM
> >Subject: [STOVES] RE :paraffin
> >
> >
> > > Dear Ron
> > >
> > > I hope, a couple of clarifications:
> > >
> > > Paul
> > > >>>1. I strongly urge not calling any such device a "gasifier" - but
> > > >>>rather call it a "pyrolyzer" - as the word "gasifier" typically
means
> > > >>>striving for minimum charcoal production.
> > >
> > > I think we need to look at this definition closely. I agree with it
> >because
> > > if I am making a grass gasifier, I don't expect there to be anything
left
> >at
> > > the end. Although the 'burning' of charcoal was mentioned further
down, I
> > > am still thinking of gasifying it - i.e. driving off the carbon as CO
and
> > > burning it close to the pot with some distance, perhaps, between the
> >carbon
> > > and the pot.
> > >
> > > and Paul says:
> > > >>A. When speaking to the general citizen (and the poorly
> > > >>educated in some communities), the word "pyrolysis" and
> > > >>"pyrolyzer" are not well understood.
> > >
> > > I certainly agree there. I haven't met anyone outside this group who
> >knows
> > > what the words mean at all.
> > >
> > > >>A "gasifier" is much more easily understood.
> > >
> > > I agree with this in principle as 'gas' is knows to be just that:
> >'Handigas'
> > > or 'propane' or 'natural gas' or 'methane' or 'biogas'. A 'wood
gasifier'
> > > gives one the idea that the wood is turned into gas. A 'pyrolyzer'
that
> > > turns wood into gas with a slightly different co-intention is still a
type
> > > of gasifier: it turns wood into gas.
> > >
> > > In Swaziland there is the additional complication that 'gezi' which is
the
> > > word for 'gas' also means electricity as all lighting used to be piped
gas
> > > and 'gezi' came to mean 'light' and fitting electricity is of course
> >adding
> > > 'lights' to your house. The best local name would be 'wood-gas
stove'.
> > >
> > > >RWL: Note that A.D. and Crispin are asking how to make
> > > >charcoal at the household level - not how to consume it.
> > >
> > > Actually it was my unexpressed vision that the fuel be totally
consumed as
> > > in a Vesto. This happens in two stages at a low power setting: wood
is
> > > largely charcoaled then the charcoal is burned by opening the air
supply.
> >I
> > > was thinking of a gasifier in which there is a physical separation
between
> > > the initial combustion and production of gases and the subsequent
burning
> >of
> > > them. I think Paul described this definition first.
> > >
> > > >RWL: I'm anxious to see how efficient your charcoal combustion is
> > > >within the original charcoal-maker.
> > >
> > > This differs from my vision of the gasifying device. If the charcoal
is
> > > burned to CO2 somewhere in the gas-producing chanber, it might be
> >difficult
> > > to deliver the heat to the pot unless it is well insulated or
entrained in
> >a
> > > vortex passing through a reflective pipe, or moving the whole fire
towards
> > > the pot.
> > >
> > > >RWL: My prediction is that it will be close to zero -
> > > >i.e. not able to keep at a boiling water temperature - the
> > > >combustion of the charcoal being too far from the pot.
> > > >That has been the experience of others.
> > >
> > > Well...OK,...but maybe others will have different approaches to
getting
> >the
> > > heat to the pot, or else will be able to create CO at a reasonable
> > > efficiency and deliver the (very hot) CO to the pot 'burner' and
reduce it
> > > to CO2 giving a useful heat output. One might also be able to lift
the
> > > charcoal produced towards the pot with a lever and burn it directly to
> >CO2.
> > > It seems unwise to limit a designer too much by saying that the
charcoal
> >is
> > > 'too far from the pot' and therefore a stove of that type can't be
made to
> > > work usefully.
> > >
> > > I feel that this name splitting are really semantical and not based on
a
> > > technical analysis because if challenged theoretically, one can put up
a
> > > good case that all fires are gas fires, thus all stoves are wood or
coal
> >or
> > > charcoal 'gasifiers'. These definitions sound arbitrary, especially
when
> > > one gets innovative about the layout and function.
> > >
> > > I can't defend the division of products into stove groups based on the
> > > amount of charcoal left. If it has, say, 15% charcoal production,
then a
> > > Welcome Dover coal stove with wood burning in it would be classified
as a
> > > pyrolyzer, as it produces more % charcoal than many semi-professional
> > > Mo?ambicano 'charcoal makers' working in the forest.
> > >
> > > I am worried that handy definitions that apply to particular
situations or
> > > constructions will lend people to think that other layouts will not
> >provide
> > > better or workable stoves.
> > >
> > > One example I can give, sourced from this list, is the idea that
_only_ a
> > > high hot gas velocity past the pot can give better heat transfer
rates.
> > > This is frequently mentioned and ideas about scrubbing and boundary
layers
> > > are cited, as well as good quality emperical data from tests to show
the
> > > idea correct. However this is only one man's view of the elephant.
> > >
> > > Feeding hot gases past the pot at a very low speed is also an
effective
> >way
> > > to very high heat transfer. Thus to say that the _only_ way to get
higher
> > > heat transfer (implying that this is true under all conditions) is to
> >speed
> > > up the gas flow past the pot, limits ones approach to heat transfer
and
> > > therefore stove design problems. This limitation and the statement
> >creating
> > > it are rooted in an inaccurate conceptualization of how heat transfers
> >from
> > > molecule to molecule in gases. I mentioned this before: all heat
transfer
> > > from gas to pot is by radiation, not 'conduction' (unless the gas
> > > temporarily becomes attached to the crystal structure of the pot).
> > > Bascially there is no such thing as 'conduction' of heat between fire
> > > combustion products and the pot though we tolerate the term in
discussion.
> > >
> > > Given a 'normal' stove with a certain amount of heat being
transferred,
> > > there are two ways to increase the heat transfer efficiency: close the
gap
> > > and increase the speed of gas flow, or close the gap and _reduce_ the
> >speed
> > > of gas flow. At very low speeds, one might not need to reduce the gap
to
> > > get an increase. This is 'apples'.
> > >
> > > This analysis says nothing about the losses one might have in the
stove
> >body
> > > between the fire and heat transfer zone which is a completely separate
> >issue
> > > ('oranges') and is related to the device, not the theory and practice
of
> > > heat transfer. It would be incorrect to reply to my argument, "The
losses
> >to
> > > the stove body would reduce the _overall_ efficiency of the device if
the
> > > gas flow is reduced." So what. That may or may not be true depending
on
> > > the device - you could design your way around it.
> > >
> > > Having a cute statement about or name for a practical truth in an
average
> > > situation may not illuminate a student about the theory underlying it
and
> > > therefore poses the risk of railroading stove builders into certain
ways
> >of
> > > thinking about what is possible. Such cute statements are like
charts: an
> > > inaccurate representation of a partially understood truth.
> > >
> > > Gasifier? Pyrolyzer? To the average user it is still just a stove.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the opportunity to ruminate
> > > Crispin
>

From Carefreeland at AOL.COM Sun Sep 21 22:33:29 2003
From: Carefreeland at AOL.COM (Carefreeland@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:30 2004
Subject: Scam Warning for E-mail friends
Message-ID: <SUN.21.SEP.2003.223329.EDT.>

Dear E-mail Friends,
The following E-mail was sent to my address. This is a scam. I have
reported it to aol and have been informed that it is being investigated. I
almost clicked on the blue link instinctively in anger at the false billing. I
changed the "click here" and the addresses, from blue to black type by
deleting and rewriting. Then I cut and pasted this current letter to this warning
letter.
Please be warned and if anything like this is sent to you, please
report to the person you are supposedly being billed by as well as your ISP. DO
NOT click on the link. Thank you, the computer you save may be yours.

Subj: Your Order Confirmation Response:?
Date: 9/21/03 4:37:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Koosh925
BCC: Carefreeland

Dear AOL member,

There has been a purchase added to your AOL billing method. This purchase
took place at 1-800-FLOWERS.com. If this order was unauthorized and you would
like to cancel or review this order Please click here
Below is listed information about your order.
Produce - Chocolate-Covered Strawberries in Velvet Heart Box

Price - $89.99
Shipment Type - 3-5 Day Ground
Shipping and handling - $13.65
Total Price - $103.64

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Thu Sep 25 18:06:30 2003
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:30 2004
Subject: Fwd: Early TLUD (ala Tom Reed) gasifiers
Message-ID: <THU.25.SEP.2003.170630.0500.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

In case those on the Gasification list serve are interested, here is the
starting message. But the discussion will be on the Stoves List Serve (to
avoid clutter on the Gasification list serve).

Paul

>Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 17:04:29 -0500
>To: Stoves list-serv
>From: "Paul S. Anderson" <psanders@ilstu.edu>
>Subject: Early TLUD (ala Tom Reed) gasifiers
>Cc: psanders
>Bcc: ETHOS List Serve
>
>Stovers and ETHOS readers (sorry for duplicates, but I do not want to miss
>anyone with this message.)
>
>For the "History of the TLUD Gasifiers," I would like to know names and
>places and dates of those who made such a device in the early years, and
>in recent years.
>
>TLUD refers to Top-Lit Up-Draft gasifiers, also known as
>
>IDD (inverted down draft)
>Reed-Larson 1995
>Juntos-type (Paul Anderson)
>charcoal-making pyrolyzers
>etc.
>
>The story says that Tom Reed thought it up in 1985. I am asking Tom for
>early diagrams or photos, but others might have some documentation also.
>
>1995 Peko Pe stove in Denmark by Norwegian Paal Wendelbo (
>
>In 1995 - 96 Tom and Ronal Larson do work together and the result is the
>1996 conference paper (on the web now) and the Reed-Larson 1995 unit that
>I have and will bring to Boulder next week.
>
>1997 - 98 Richard Boyd does his Ten Can stove !! (I recently RE-found
>my printout of his work. You should see it
>at http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Tencan.htm The T must be
>capitalized in the word /Tencan .) Dick, how many did you
>build? What other details can you tell us.
>
>2001 Paul Anderson gets started after meeting Tom Reed.
>We also know of John Davies (TLUD gasifier of coal)
>And now Kobus and Stanley have a TLUD gasifier of charcoal (to be seen at
>Boulder meeting)
>
>But I think there was also some units built by Alex English and
>by Andrew Heggie, and
>by Agua Das, and
>perhaps others?
>
>Something done in China??? Hardly ever any information from there. No
>evidence that it is actually TLUD gasification.
>
>And the "J" stove? Tom R, can you give more info? (see you in Boulder)
>
>And is the Z-stove really a TLUD gasifier?
>
>Anybody else?
>
>Please be as specific as you can, and be sure it gets sent to the whole
>stoves list. (ETHOS readers who want this should be sure that they get
>the Stove messages or have someone forward the replies.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Paul
>

BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

September 2003 Gasification Archive