January 2004 Gasification Archive

From Steve.Goldthorpe at XTRA.CO.NZ Thu Jan 1 12:06:10 2004
From: Steve.Goldthorpe at XTRA.CO.NZ (Steve Goldthorpe)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:35 2004
Subject: Flashpoints
Message-ID: <FRI.2.JAN.2004.060610.1300.STEVE.GOLDTHORPE@XTRA.CO.NZ>

Greg,

I have a copy of "Technical data on fuel" by Rose and Cooper. (7th edition
1977 UK) This very useful book has a chapter on flammability of gas
mixtures and flame speeds. It quantifies the impact of diluent gases,
temperature and pressure on flammability limits and flame speeds for
producer gas and other fuel gases, which is quite a complicated matter. I
have found this book very useful in gaining a theoretical insight into the
combustion properties of gas mixtures under certain conditions.

I will gladly send you a photocopy of a few pages of this book if you can
email me (off-list) your postal address.

I commend your effort and expense in getting a sample of your producer gas
analysed by a laboratory. It is an essential step in helping to understand
the properties and limitations of the fuel gas that you are making. Your
analysis is:-

> DB % WB %
> CO 13.2 10.5
> CO2 17.0 13.3
> CH4 2.4 1.8
> H2 22.9 17.9
> H2O 0.0 21.7
> Balance to 100% is construed as "non-ignitable" product.

Assuming that the "non-ignitable" 34.8 % of your gas mixture is nitrogen
from your gasification air, then I calculate that your gas has a gross
calorific value of 5.55 megajoules per normal cubic meter (net CV 5.0
MJ/nm3). I calculate that it has a stoichiometric air requirement of 1.072
kg air per kg whole fuel gas. I calculate that under perfect stoichoimetric
combustion conditions the theoretical maximum adiabatic flame temperature
for that gas would be 1337 centigrade.

I hope this information is useful to you.

Regards

Steve

From Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK Thu Jan 1 13:05:12 2004
From: Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:35 2004
Subject: Flashpoints
In-Reply-To: <001401c3d089$8ed9c800$2ba259db@STEVE5DVH1TDNY>
Message-ID: <THU.1.JAN.2004.180512.0000.GAVIN@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>

Greg,

<snip>
> DB % WB %
> CO 13.2 10.5
> CO2 17.0 13.3
> CH4 2.4 1.8
> H2 22.9 17.9
> H2O 0.0 21.7
> Balance to 100% is construed as "non-ignitable" product.

[GGG] gosh , that's pretty good gas, we never managed more than a CV of
4.5Mj/kf got a bit more CO but less CH4 and H2 although measurement of H2
was always a problem and was generally deduced by the loss method.
Well done

gavin

I hope this information is useful to you.

Regards

Steve

From phoenix98604 at EARTHLINK.NET Thu Jan 1 13:11:31 2004
From: phoenix98604 at EARTHLINK.NET (Art Krenzel)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:35 2004
Subject: Carbon Dioxide Emissions Science?
Message-ID: <THU.1.JAN.2004.101131.0800.PHOENIX98604@EARTHLINK.NET>

I would like to dip my oar into this discussion to present my viewpoint of
the "excess CO2 issue".

Plant growth is controlled by a series of limiting factors such as CO2
content, soil fertility, water availability, sunshine, temperature, etc.
When the environment provides a higher than traditional CO2 content, the
increase in plant growth reaches another limit which is typically soil
fertility and then the plant maintains a new, higher growth level but does
not continue increasing to infinity. Plant life is not so simple as to have
only one limit.

This growth effect can be seen in cropping systems such as in Alaska where the sunlight becomes longer than normal in the summer. Termperature then becomes the limit to the high growth season.

The reason that increasing the CO2 content of the air in the greenhouse
increases growth significantly is that the growth medium most likely has
significant excess nutrients which allows the nutrient limit to be higher.
But the crop growth is limited nonetheless.

Take if from a gardener.

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: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Carbon Dioxide Emissions Science?

> On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 12:01:02AM -0600, Greg Jahnke wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> > I have trouble with most of the anti-global warming literature not
because
> > of their argument about temperatures, but because of their argument that
the
> > excess CO2 results in additional plant life. This falls under "biology"
> > (something I am more familiar with). This is ludicrous. A plant
requires a
> > specific amount of CO2, excess CO2 will NOT lead to better growth in
plants.
> >
> I'm certainly not going to argue *against* global warming, however, I
do
> take serious issue with the above. Greenhouse gardeners have found that
> providing extra CO2 most definitely is beneficial to plant growth. There
is a
> strong commercial market for CO2 generators for greenhouse use, and it's
quite
> easy to prove that they are effective, just ask the many indoor marijuana
> growers in Holland or British Columbia.
>
>
> (snip)
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com

From andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM Thu Jan 1 16:17:18 2004
From: andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:35 2004
Subject: Flashpoints
In-Reply-To: <001401c3d089$8ed9c800$2ba259db@STEVE5DVH1TDNY>
Message-ID: <THU.1.JAN.2004.211718.0000.>

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 06:06:10 +1300, Steve Goldthorpe wrote:

>I have a copy of "Technical data on fuel" by Rose and Cooper. (7th edition
>1977 UK)

Amazon only lists a 1937 edition, can you give any more details I'd
quite like to buy a copy. Has anyone else any similar suggestions?

>This very useful book has a chapter on flammability of gas
>mixtures and flame speeds. It quantifies the impact of diluent gases,
>temperature and pressure on flammability limits and flame speeds for
>producer gas and other fuel gases, which is quite a complicated matter. I
>have found this book very useful in gaining a theoretical insight into the
>combustion properties of gas mixtures under certain conditions.
>
>I will gladly send you a photocopy of a few pages of this book if you can
>email me (off-list) your postal address.
>
>I commend your effort and expense in getting a sample of your producer gas
>analysed by a laboratory. It is an essential step in helping to understand
>the properties and limitations of the fuel gas that you are making. Your
>analysis is:-
>
>> DB % WB %
>> CO 13.2 10.5
>> CO2 17.0 13.3
>> CH4 2.4 1.8
>> H2 22.9 17.9
>> H2O 0.0 21.7
>> Balance to 100% is construed as "non-ignitable" product.
>
>Assuming that the "non-ignitable" 34.8 % of your gas mixture is nitrogen
>from your gasification air, then I calculate that your gas has a gross
>calorific value of 5.55 megajoules per normal cubic meter (net CV 5.0
>MJ/nm3). I calculate that it has a stoichiometric air requirement of 1.072
>kg air per kg whole fuel gas. I calculate that under perfect stoichoimetric
>combustion conditions the theoretical maximum adiabatic flame temperature
>for that gas would be 1337 centigrade.

I'd love to see the methods you used for this calculation. I suppose
that figure of 1337 is assuming a start point of STP?

AJH

From Steve.Goldthorpe at XTRA.CO.NZ Thu Jan 1 17:49:05 2004
From: Steve.Goldthorpe at XTRA.CO.NZ (Steve Goldthorpe)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:35 2004
Subject: Technical Data on fuel
Message-ID: <FRI.2.JAN.2004.114905.1300.STEVE.GOLDTHORPE@XTRA.CO.NZ>

Andrew,

My copy of Technical Data on Fuel was bought from a London Bookshop in 1995.

The details from the Title page are:-

Edited by JW Rose and J R Cooper

Seventh Edition 1977 (completely revised in SI units with 280 tables and 140
diagrams)

Published by The British National Committee, World Energy Conference; 34 St
James Street London SW1A1HD

Distributed by Scottish Academic Press; 33 Montgomery Street Edinburgh EH7
5JX

My copy doesn't report any ISBN number. I expect that it is now out of
print.

Happy hunting

Steve

Steve Goldthorpe Energy Analyst Limited
PO Box 96, Waipu 0254, New Zealand
and Waipu Wanderers Backpackers
25 St Mary's Road, Waipu, Northland
Phone/Fax (NZ) 09 432 0532
Mobile (NZ) 0274 849 764
Email Steve.Goldthorpe@xtra.co.nz
and Waipu.Wanderers@xtra.co.nz
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Heggie" <andrew.heggie@dtn.ntl.com>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Flashpoints

> On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 06:06:10 +1300, Steve Goldthorpe wrote:
>
> >I have a copy of "Technical data on fuel" by Rose and Cooper. (7th
edition
> >1977 UK)
>
> Amazon only lists a 1937 edition, can you give any more details I'd
> quite like to buy a copy. Has anyone else any similar suggestions?
>
>
> >This very useful book has a chapter on flammability of gas
> >mixtures and flame speeds. It quantifies the impact of diluent gases,
> >temperature and pressure on flammability limits and flame speeds for
> >producer gas and other fuel gases, which is quite a complicated matter.
I
> >have found this book very useful in gaining a theoretical insight into
the
> >combustion properties of gas mixtures under certain conditions.
> >
> >I will gladly send you a photocopy of a few pages of this book if you can
> >email me (off-list) your postal address.
> >
> >I commend your effort and expense in getting a sample of your producer
gas
> >analysed by a laboratory. It is an essential step in helping to
understand
> >the properties and limitations of the fuel gas that you are making. Your
> >analysis is:-
> >
> >> DB % WB %
> >> CO 13.2 10.5
> >> CO2 17.0 13.3
> >> CH4 2.4 1.8
> >> H2 22.9 17.9
> >> H2O 0.0 21.7
> >> Balance to 100% is construed as "non-ignitable" product.
> >
> >Assuming that the "non-ignitable" 34.8 % of your gas mixture is nitrogen
> >from your gasification air, then I calculate that your gas has a gross
> >calorific value of 5.55 megajoules per normal cubic meter (net CV 5.0
> >MJ/nm3). I calculate that it has a stoichiometric air requirement of
1.072
> >kg air per kg whole fuel gas. I calculate that under perfect
stoichoimetric
> >combustion conditions the theoretical maximum adiabatic flame temperature
> >for that gas would be 1337 centigrade.
>
> I'd love to see the methods you used for this calculation. I suppose
> that figure of 1337 is assuming a start point of STP?
>
> AJH
>

From Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK Thu Jan 1 18:32:52 2004
From: Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:35 2004
Subject: Flashpoints
In-Reply-To: <004401c3d094$42800810$2ba259db@STEVE5DVH1TDNY>
Message-ID: <THU.1.JAN.2004.233252.0000.GAVIN@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>

Steve, sorry Mj/kg I was quoting, I assume this is equivalent to Mj/Nm3 at
least roughly.

Unfortunately my data disappeared when I changed jobs and the CD I had
degraded:( so I cant go back to source for confirmation

Gavin
>

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Fri Jan 2 07:44:20 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:35 2004
Subject: What is Gasification in"Flugstrom" in German
In-Reply-To: <OFF6D22412.19A213BC-ON48256E03.001581AF-48256E03.0015821E@itri.org.tw>
Message-ID: <FRI.2.JAN.2004.064420.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Hello,

I don't know German, and only a little about gasifiers, but Updraft &
Downdraft, (counter-current & co-current) come to mind, as well as the
little used "cross draught".

Methods within the draught types include fixed bed, entrained bed, fluidized
bed, and catalyst bed.

Hope this helps.

Greg Manning,
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Keng-Tung Wu
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2003 9:55 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [GASL] What is Gasification in"Flugstrom" in German

Dear Listers

Merry Christmas!

Could any one offer the information about the "Vergasung im Flugstrom" in
German language? (The three types of gasifiers - Fixed bed, fluidized bed
and "flugstrom"??)

I don't know what the gasifier type is, and what English translation of
"flugstrom" is in the field of gasifiation.

Thank you very much for your kind assistance indeed.

Keng-Tung Wu, PhD
Researcher
Biomass Energy Lab
ITRI, Taiwan

From alyilmaz at ANET.NET.TR Fri Jan 2 07:57:34 2004
From: alyilmaz at ANET.NET.TR (ali yilmaz)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:35 2004
Subject: Enthalpy
Message-ID: <FRI.2.JAN.2004.145734.0200.ALYILMAZ@ANET.NET.TR>

Dear all,

I am looking for enthalpy table or and ampiric enthalpy equation to
calculate the energy for the flue gas.

I have several demo software where I can roughly calculate the enthalpy for
different compositons but would like to confirm what I come up with.

Regards

Ali

----- Original Message -----
From: "a31ford" <a31ford@INETLINK.CA>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] What is Gasification in"Flugstrom" in German

> Hello,
>
> I don't know German, and only a little about gasifiers, but Updraft &
> Downdraft, (counter-current & co-current) come to mind, as well as the
> little used "cross draught".
>
> Methods within the draught types include fixed bed, entrained bed,
fluidized
> bed, and catalyst bed.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Greg Manning,
> Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Gasification Discussion List
> [mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Keng-Tung Wu
> Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2003 9:55 PM
> To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: [GASL] What is Gasification in"Flugstrom" in German
>
>
> Dear Listers
>
> Merry Christmas!
>
> Could any one offer the information about the "Vergasung im Flugstrom" in
> German language? (The three types of gasifiers - Fixed bed, fluidized bed
> and "flugstrom"??)
>
> I don't know what the gasifier type is, and what English translation of
> "flugstrom" is in the field of gasifiation.
>
> Thank you very much for your kind assistance indeed.
>
>
> Keng-Tung Wu, PhD
> Researcher
> Biomass Energy Lab
> ITRI, Taiwan
>

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Fri Jan 2 08:41:28 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:36 2004
Subject: FW: [GASL] What is Gasification in "Flugstrom" in German
Message-ID: <FRI.2.JAN.2004.074128.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

LMAO ! Just looked at the word "Flugstrom" again... :) "Flung in Storm" ????
( Entrained bed ??) generally steam.

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: a31ford [mailto:a31ford@inetlink.ca]
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 6:44 AM
To: 'ktwu@ITRI.ORG.TW'; A Gasification List (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [GASL] What is Gasification in"Flugstrom" in German

Hello,

I don't know German, and only a little about gasifiers, but Updraft &
Downdraft, (counter-current & co-current) come to mind, as well as the
little used "cross draught".

Methods within the draught types include fixed bed, entrained bed, fluidized
bed, and catalyst bed.

Hope this helps.

Greg Manning,
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

Dear Listers

Merry Christmas!

Could any one offer the information about the "Vergasung im Flugstrom" in
German language? (The three types of gasifiers - Fixed bed, fluidized bed
and "flugstrom"??)

I don't know what the gasifier type is, and what English translation of
"flugstrom" is in the field of gasifiation.

Thank you very much for your kind assistance indeed.

Keng-Tung Wu, PhD
Researcher
Biomass Energy Lab
ITRI, Taiwan

From vanderdrift at ECN.NL Fri Jan 2 08:47:41 2004
From: vanderdrift at ECN.NL (Drift, A. van der)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:36 2004
Subject: What is Gasification in"Flugstrom" in German
Message-ID: <FRI.2.JAN.2004.144741.0100.VANDERDRIFT@ECN.NL>

Hi,

Flustrom Vergasung is Entrained Flow Gasification. Both German and English
are not my native languages, but I live in between. I forecast an enormous
future for this type of gasifier as a method to produce syngas (and from
that transportation fuels) from biomass.

regards

Bram van der Drift
ECN Biomass
POBox 1
NL 1755 ZG Petten, the Netherlands
tel: (31) 224-564515
fax: (31) 224-568487
Email: vanderdrift@ecn.nl

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: a31ford [SMTP:a31ford@INETLINK.CA]
> Verzonden: 02 January 2004 13:44
> Aan: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Onderwerp: Re: [GASL] What is Gasification in"Flugstrom" in German
>
> Hello,
>
> I don't know German, and only a little about gasifiers, but Updraft &
> Downdraft, (counter-current & co-current) come to mind, as well as the
> little used "cross draught".
>
> Methods within the draught types include fixed bed, entrained bed,
> fluidized
> bed, and catalyst bed.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Greg Manning,
> Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Gasification Discussion List
> [mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Keng-Tung Wu
> Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2003 9:55 PM
> To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: [GASL] What is Gasification in"Flugstrom" in German
>
>
> Dear Listers
>
> Merry Christmas!
>
> Could any one offer the information about the "Vergasung im Flugstrom" in
> German language? (The three types of gasifiers - Fixed bed, fluidized bed
> and "flugstrom"??)
>
> I don't know what the gasifier type is, and what English translation of
> "flugstrom" is in the field of gasifiation.
>
> Thank you very much for your kind assistance indeed.
>
>
> Keng-Tung Wu, PhD
> Researcher
> Biomass Energy Lab
> ITRI, Taiwan

From w.dejong at WBMT.TUDELFT.NL Fri Jan 2 09:09:46 2004
From: w.dejong at WBMT.TUDELFT.NL (jongw)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:36 2004
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [GASL] What is Gasification in "Flugstrom" in German]
Message-ID: <FRI.2.JAN.2004.150946.0100.W.DEJONG@WBMT.TUDELFT.NL>

Dear all,

Flugstrom is according to my knowledge "Entrained Flow", so an Entrained
Flow Reactor is
meant.

Best regards,

Wiebren de Jong
TU Delft
Fac. of Mechanical Engineering
Section Energy Technology
Mekelweg 2
NL-2628 CD Delft
The Netherlands

a31ford wrote:

>LMAO ! Just looked at the word "Flugstrom" again... :) "Flung in Storm" ????
>( Entrained bed ??) generally steam.
>
>Greg
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: a31ford [mailto:a31ford@inetlink.ca]
>Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 6:44 AM
>To: 'ktwu@ITRI.ORG.TW'; A Gasification List (E-mail)
>Subject: RE: [GASL] What is Gasification in"Flugstrom" in German
>
>
>Hello,
>
>I don't know German, and only a little about gasifiers, but Updraft &
>Downdraft, (counter-current & co-current) come to mind, as well as the
>little used "cross draught".
>
>Methods within the draught types include fixed bed, entrained bed, fluidized
>bed, and catalyst bed.
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>Greg Manning,
>Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: The Gasification Discussion List
>[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Keng-Tung Wu
>Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2003 9:55 PM
>To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
>Subject: [GASL] What is Gasification in"Flugstrom" in German
>
>
>Dear Listers
>
>Merry Christmas!
>
>Could any one offer the information about the "Vergasung im Flugstrom" in
>German language? (The three types of gasifiers - Fixed bed, fluidized bed
>and "flugstrom"??)
>
>I don't know what the gasifier type is, and what English translation of
>"flugstrom" is in the field of gasifiation.
>
>Thank you very much for your kind assistance indeed.
>
>
>Keng-Tung Wu, PhD
>Researcher
>Biomass Energy Lab
>ITRI, Taiwan
>
>
>
>

From floodl at INNERCITE.COM Fri Jan 2 12:48:57 2004
From: floodl at INNERCITE.COM (Laurie Flood)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:36 2004
Subject: Delete from list
Message-ID: <FRI.2.JAN.2004.094857.0800.FLOODL@INNERCITE.COM>

Delete from list

Laurie Flood
floodl@innercite.com

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Fri Jan 2 20:43:54 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (Greg Manning)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:36 2004
Subject: Postings
Message-ID: <FRI.2.JAN.2004.204354.0500.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Is there a problem with the listsrv ?

I just went to the website, I'm not getting half of what has been posted in
the last few weeks in my e-mail.

I just reset my listsrv options, hoping this helps.

Greg Manning,
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Fri Jan 2 21:04:26 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (Greg Manning)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:36 2004
Subject: Flashpoints
Message-ID: <FRI.2.JAN.2004.210426.0500.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Hello GGG, and all,

I spoke to Steve off list (haven't been receiving posts of late, and had
no idea so many had replied to my post of "flashpoints")

ANYHOW, when I spoke with Steve, I indicated that in the "balance to 100%"
there are other gases & items that would reduce the 5.5Mj/M3 to what I
assume is closer to 3.2Mj/M3 gas (It can't be that my unit is that good
first time around, can it ??) I would assume not, and Steve's calc's. ARE
based on the last 38.4% is only nitrogen, and not anything else.

I had also indicated to Steve, that some time in the future I would like to
do another gas test, in "what makes 100% of this gas", rather than simply
asking the lab for values of only a few compositions in question. (I would
assume that is like "stacking the deck in my favor") but at $12000CDN a
test, it will be a while.

If nothing else, it's a start :)

Regards & All The Best In 04

Greg Manning,
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 18:05:12 -0000, Gavin Gulliver-Goodall
<Gavin@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK> wrote:

>Greg,
>
><snip>
>> DB % WB %
>> CO 13.2 10.5
>> CO2 17.0 13.3
>> CH4 2.4 1.8
>> H2 22.9 17.9
>> H2O 0.0 21.7
>> Balance to 100% is construed as "non-ignitable" product.
>
>Assuming that the "non-ignitable" 34.8 % of your gas mixture is nitrogen
>from your gasification air, then I calculate that your gas has a gross
>calorific value of 5.55 megajoules per normal cubic meter (net CV 5.0
>MJ/nm3). I calculate that it has a stoichiometric air requirement of 1.072
>kg air per kg whole fuel gas. I calculate that under perfect
stoichoimetric
>combustion conditions the theoretical maximum adiabatic flame temperature
>for that gas would be 1337 centigrade.
>
>[GGG] gosh , that's pretty good gas, we never managed more than a CV of
>4.5Mj/kf got a bit more CO but less CH4 and H2 although measurement of H2
>was always a problem and was generally deduced by the loss method.
>Well done
>
>gavin
>
>I hope this information is useful to you.
>
>Regards
>
>Steve
>
>Steve Goldthorpe Energy Analyst Limited
>PO Box 96, Waipu 0254, New Zealand
>and Waipu Wanderers Backpackers
>25 St Mary's Road, Waipu, Northland
>Phone/Fax (NZ) 09 432 0532
>Mobile (NZ) 0274 849 764
>Email Steve.Goldthorpe@xtra.co.nz
>and Waipu.Wanderers@xtra.co.nz
>>

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Fri Jan 2 21:22:20 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (Greg Manning)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:36 2004
Subject: Operating Gasification CHP Systems in the 100-250 kWe range
Message-ID: <FRI.2.JAN.2004.212220.0500.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Hello Tom,

Long time no talk,

I would love to say "Yes" for you, but my 250KWt unit is just thermal, no
CHP or E, but has been running in pilot mode 24/7 for 3 months now (yes
there are still small bugs, but moreso, simply bumbling on my part ).

This is an experimental unit, BUT anyone with a mig welder & plasma cutter
could build it, as it is all "off the shelf" components with small changes,
except the joiner rings between upper hopper, hearth, & bottom container
these where sub-ed out to a local machine shop.

All aspects of feed (chips, ash, & gas) are automated, and after this
winter (unless a have a major problem) I will be doing a full teardown /
inspection of it in the spring.

Regards and all the best in 04

Greg Manning,
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:04:53 -0800, Tom Miles <tmiles@TRMILES.COM> wrote:

>I'm looking for recommendations from the list for operating gasifiers in
the 100-250 kWe range, either power only or CHP, for a project that has
been funded but is in the early stages of development.
>
>The gasifier(s) should be able to operate with softwood and hardwood wood
chips from a sawmill and be sufficiently automated with pollution abatement
and safety precautions to operate in a North American sawmill environment
with minimum maintenance.
>
>It is our intent to install a gasiifer capable of operating 5000 hours or
more per year so we are interested in installations that have enough
operating history to have a good understanding of operating and maintenance
costs and issues.
>
>Please name a gasifier site, capacity, supplier/engineering company and
proide any comments or observations you may have that would recommend a
particular supplier or engineering firm. (Note that sometimes an
engineering company is better at putting an operating system together than
a supplier.)
>
>Suggestions from suppliers are welcome. If you have a good system, let's
hear about it.
>
>If this technology is as "near commercial" as we seem to think it is there
should be some good, almost affordable, systems out there. (If it were
truly comercial/economic we wouldn't need public funds to do these
projects.)
>
>Thanks for your help
>
>Tom Miles
>T R Miles, Technical Consultants, Inc.
>Portland, Oregon, USA
>tmiles@trmiles.com
>www.trmiles.com
>
>

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Sat Jan 3 00:19:12 2004
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:36 2004
Subject: Operating Gasification CHP Systems in the 100-250 kWe range
Message-ID: <FRI.2.JAN.2004.211912.0800.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

Greg,

Good report. Nice to hear from you. As you know getting a thermal unit to
work reliably is an adventure of its own. At 3 months 24/7 you've put a lot
of hours on it. Great effort.

Thanks

Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Manning" <a31ford@INETLINK.CA>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>; "Tom Miles" <tmiles@TRMILES.COM>
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: Operating Gasification CHP Systems in the 100-250 kWe range

> Hello Tom,
>
> Long time no talk,
>
> I would love to say "Yes" for you, but my 250KWt unit is just thermal, no
> CHP or E, but has been running in pilot mode 24/7 for 3 months now (yes
> there are still small bugs, but moreso, simply bumbling on my part ).
>
> This is an experimental unit, BUT anyone with a mig welder & plasma cutter
> could build it, as it is all "off the shelf" components with small
changes,
> except the joiner rings between upper hopper, hearth, & bottom container
> these where sub-ed out to a local machine shop.
>
> All aspects of feed (chips, ash, & gas) are automated, and after this
> winter (unless a have a major problem) I will be doing a full teardown /
> inspection of it in the spring.
>
> Regards and all the best in 04
>
> Greg Manning,
> Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
>
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:04:53 -0800, Tom Miles <tmiles@TRMILES.COM> wrote:
>
> >I'm looking for recommendations from the list for operating gasifiers in
> the 100-250 kWe range, either power only or CHP, for a project that has
> been funded but is in the early stages of development.
> >
> >The gasifier(s) should be able to operate with softwood and hardwood wood
> chips from a sawmill and be sufficiently automated with pollution
abatement
> and safety precautions to operate in a North American sawmill environment
> with minimum maintenance.
> >
> >It is our intent to install a gasiifer capable of operating 5000 hours or
> more per year so we are interested in installations that have enough
> operating history to have a good understanding of operating and
maintenance
> costs and issues.
> >
> >Please name a gasifier site, capacity, supplier/engineering company and
> proide any comments or observations you may have that would recommend a
> particular supplier or engineering firm. (Note that sometimes an
> engineering company is better at putting an operating system together than
> a supplier.)
> >
> >Suggestions from suppliers are welcome. If you have a good system, let's
> hear about it.
> >
> >If this technology is as "near commercial" as we seem to think it is
there
> should be some good, almost affordable, systems out there. (If it were
> truly comercial/economic we wouldn't need public funds to do these
> projects.)
> >
> >Thanks for your help
> >
> >Tom Miles
> >T R Miles, Technical Consultants, Inc.
> >Portland, Oregon, USA
> >tmiles@trmiles.com
> >www.trmiles.com
> >
> >
>
>

From Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK Sat Jan 3 15:33:22 2004
From: Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:36 2004
Subject: Flashpoints
In-Reply-To: <LISTSERV%2004010221042609@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Message-ID: <SAT.3.JAN.2004.203322.0000.GAVIN@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>

Greg,
We got tests done using gas chromatography for UKP 10 per sample based on a
minimum of 10 samples.
We sampled by sucking using a calibrated pump from the gas train, through a
cooler (inverted U tube in iced water) and filter (glass wool ) though the
pump and into a tegler bag.

10 tegler bags cost about UKP 10 each and lasted for about 20 samples each.
We also had GC tests of the condensate to check for solubles and had an
activated carbon filter after the bag (between tests samples) to detect
VOC's

Our original quote for this work was ?100's but once we had worked out a
reliable and cheap method of sample collection (above) and just sent the
bags off for analysis we got a good lot of data for around a grand- enough
for my colleagues thesis anyway!

Cheers
Keep up the good work

gavin
>>

From mmbtupr at AOL.COM Sun Jan 4 09:15:08 2004
From: mmbtupr at AOL.COM (Lewis L. Smith)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:36 2004
Subject: Distribution
Message-ID: <SUN.4.JAN.2004.091508.0500.MMBTUPR@AOL.COM>

Although a long-time member, I sometimes fail to receive postings.

Does anyone else have this problem ?

What can be done ?

End

From rbwilliams at UCDAVIS.EDU Sun Jan 4 15:29:40 2004
From: rbwilliams at UCDAVIS.EDU (Rob Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:36 2004
Subject: CO2 and plant growth rate
In-Reply-To: <003b01c3d092$afdee950$28e24b43@7k6rv21>
Message-ID: <SUN.4.JAN.2004.122940.0800.RBWILLIAMS@UCDAVIS.EDU>

Here's a recent publication of work that found an increase in plant growth
rate and biomass per unit area with elevated CO2
concentrations for a fodder crop in India:

Pal, M., Karthikeyapandian, V., Jain, V., Srivastava, A. C., Raj, A., and
Sengupta, U. K. (2004). "Biomass production and nutritional levels of
berseem (Trifolium alexandrium) grown under elevated CO2." Agriculture,
Ecosystems & Environment, 101(1), 31-38.
Abstract;

There is little available information about the effect of elevated CO2 on
the growth and mineral nutrients of fodder crops. To investigate the
changes in vegetative biomass and nutrient concentration of berseem
(Trifolium alexandrium L.), an important forage legume, was grown in
ambient (360 ppm) as well as elevated (600 ppm) CO2 conditions from
germination onwards in open top chambers. Elevated CO2 increased the leaf
size, plant height and fresh and dry mass of shoots. There was more
partitioning of photosynthates towards the growth of new branches than
towards the growth of leaves. Leaf nitrogen, soluble proteins, calcium,
iron and nitrate reductase (NR) activity decreased in elevated CO2 while
leaf carbon and phosphorus contents increased. The results suggest that
berseem grown in elevated CO2 throughout the crop season can produce more
fodder in less time. The study concludes that elevated CO2 may increase the
fodder production by 3035% but will adversely affect the nutritional
quality of the forage due to reduction in nitrogen, protein, calcium and
iron concentration in leaves on a unit dry weight basis. On a unit area
basis, however, there will be an increase in total nutrient content,
including nitrogen, due to increased fodder biomass in elevated CO2.

At 10:11 AM 1/1/2004 -0800, Art Krenzel wrote:
>I would like to dip my oar into this discussion to present my viewpoint of
>the "excess CO2 issue".
>
>Plant growth is controlled by a series of limiting factors such as CO2
>content, soil fertility, water availability, sunshine, temperature, etc.
>When the environment provides a higher than traditional CO2 content, the
>increase in plant growth reaches another limit which is typically soil
>fertility and then the plant maintains a new, higher growth level but does
>not continue increasing to infinity. Plant life is not so simple as to have
>only one limit.
>
>This growth effect can be seen in cropping systems such as in Alaska where
>the sunlight becomes longer than normal in the summer. Termperature then
>becomes the limit to the high growth season.
>
>The reason that increasing the CO2 content of the air in the greenhouse
>increases growth significantly is that the growth medium most likely has
>significant excess nutrients which allows the nutrient limit to be higher.
>But the crop growth is limited nonetheless.
>
>Take if from a gardener.
>
>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: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 7:54 AM
>Subject: Re: [GASL] Carbon Dioxide Emissions Science?
>
>
> > On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 12:01:02AM -0600, Greg Jahnke wrote:
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > > I have trouble with most of the anti-global warming literature not
>because
> > > of their argument about temperatures, but because of their argument that
>the
> > > excess CO2 results in additional plant life. This falls under "biology"
> > > (something I am more familiar with). This is ludicrous. A plant
>requires a
> > > specific amount of CO2, excess CO2 will NOT lead to better growth in
>plants.
> > >
> > I'm certainly not going to argue *against* global warming, however, I
>do
> > take serious issue with the above. Greenhouse gardeners have found that
> > providing extra CO2 most definitely is beneficial to plant growth. There
>is a
> > strong commercial market for CO2 generators for greenhouse use, and it's
>quite
> > easy to prove that they are effective, just ask the many indoor marijuana
> > growers in Holland or British Columbia.
> >
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > --
> > Harmon Seaver
> > CyberShamanix
> > http://www.cybershamanix.com

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Sun Jan 4 09:33:30 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:36 2004
Subject: [STOVES] Chimneys
Message-ID: <SUN.4.JAN.2004.073330.0700.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Das and All:

I second all of Das's comments, but would like to add a few more on
chimneys.

The chimney is a good solution to combustion, but often

"THE GOOD IS THE ENEMY OF THE BEST".

The need to discard the combustion gases at a high enough temperature to
maintain good draft (say 400 C? - comment?) Means that you are limiting
heat recovery to

(Tc-Td)/Tc

(where Tc is the combustion temperature, Td is the draft temperature)

This is like a Carnot law for Chimneys: It sets the upper bound of
efficiency. If the fuel is burned near stoichimetric, Tc~1600 C, so a draft
temperature of 400 C would limit top efficiency to 75% (neglecting high/low
heating value concerns). However, it is difficult to burn coal or wood at
that temperature, so this is an upper bound for efficiency.

Today it is relatively easy and inexpensive to put an oxygen (lambda) sensor
on a stack and monitor the stoichiometry which then controls combustion
temperature and efficiency.

~~~~~~~
This efficiency loss is a high penalty for using a thermal draft. You can
avoid it for biomass fuels by using a forced draft system and more precisely
controlling the combustin conditions.

When burning coal, it is inadvisable to condense any water in the stck
because it will contain sulfuric acid and eat up your pipes. However the
sulfur concentration in most biomass is such that you can condense the water
and take advantage of the Higher heating value of the biomass. This means
that in the US where we typically rate fuels on their Higher heating value
you can approach 100% of the HHV efficiency, while in Europe where they
usually use the LHV (no condensation) they are now achieving 110% efficiency
in many condensing biomass fuel installations!

~~~~~~~
So we will all continue to use chimneys as as a practical solution to draft,
but keeping in mind that there is much better technology available when the
price is right.

Onward,

TOM REED

----- Original Message -----
From: "Das" <das@EAGLE-ACCESS.NET>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Chimneys

> A recent Stovers posting made the most sound argument for flue pipe.
> It gets the smoke and fumes of failure modes out of your living space.
> As you have seen, I have put a flue on everything that I have here.
>
> An aditional goal of improved combustion is to increase the fraction of
the
> operating time with secondary combustion lightoff. Ideally we aim to
> eliminate all release of uncombusted gases. Small grain fuels sugh as
> chips offer much more steady gas quality and combustion quality.
>
> Larger fuel such as Cord wood goes through drastic cycles with fresh fuel
> extinguishing secondary burn, then excessive heat output, then char burn,
> then repeat the cycle.
>
> You are doing good work. It is an hoonor to work with you.
>
> A. Das
> Original Sources/Biomass Energy Foundation
> Box 7137, Boulder, CO 80306
> das@eagle-access.net
>
> ----------
> > From: Dean Still <dstill@EPUD.NET>
> > To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> > Subject: Re: [STOVES] Chimneys
> > Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 12:37 AM
> >
> > Dear Alex,
> >
> > Our intention at Aprovecho is always to share all information and we
hope
> > that beginning this winter we can generate some accurate numbers for
> various
> > stoves. We received the $8,000 Enerac 3000E today! Should give us good
> > readings of CO, CO2, O2, hydrocarbons...Thanks to the Murdock
> Foundation...
> >
> > I look at chimneys in a very positive light because the cost is low and
> the
> > cure to indoor air pollution, for all practical purposes, complete. Here
> in
> > Oregon, we heat with wood, many folks use wood stoves as their only
> heating
> > source. Chimneys here need to be cleaned often, more often if the stove
> > burns badly as most do, some monthly. It is important to make the
chimney
> > easy to clean. The metal chimney in my house is twenty years old. The 55
> > gallon barrel stove that heats our lab is more than twenty years old.
> > Chimneys are the answer to IAP; the only question is how to fund their
> > installation.
> >
> > The best combustion chamber can be easily defeated by operator error.
> > Although fans and 1,000F preheated primary air are much harder to defeat
> > than stoves relying on natural draft. I love blast furnace heating
stoves
> > coupled to big heat exchangers! But simple cooking stoves without fans
> are
> > usually stuffed full of too much fuel, green as an apple. A chimney
> guards
> > the operator from their actions. Just have to clean it once in a while.
> Buy
> > good stuff...
> >
> > Larry wants us to make light weight chimneys out of ceramic. Ken Goyer
> > extruded a beauty a while back...
> >
> > All Best,
> >
> > Dean

From praufast at FREE.FR Mon Jan 5 18:52:26 2004
From: praufast at FREE.FR (Philippe)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:36 2004
Subject: Pantone GEET reactor and woodgas.
Message-ID: <TUE.6.JAN.2004.005226.0100.>

Hello !

Has someone on this list some experiance with the pantone reactor to improve the fuel efficiency of their woodgas engines ?
Maybe it can also deal with gas cleaning and tars problems ?

Pantone seems to have bad reputation in the US, but a lot of people here in France have some really good results with reactors builts from the free plans available on the internet.
Here are some links in french, please prefix url with http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/urltrurl?lp=fr_en&url= to translate in english.

A farmer has retrofitted his 3 olds tractors with great succes :
His worn out 95 hp massey went from 21 liters diesel / hour down to 5 L diesel an 10 L water (1 year after the retrofit with 7 reactors in a bigger tube, as the efficiency has improved over the time) .

http://quanthomme.free.fr/pantone/realisations/FrancePMC3.htm

Click on the links on this page to see videos of the tractor at hard work : http://quanthomme.free.fr/pantone/realisations/details22.htm

Don't miss 60 pages of very extensive building tips http://quanthomme.free.fr/pantone/PageM_David.htm

The root page http://quanthomme.free.fr/pantone.htm for general information
or in english http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/urltrurl?lp=fr_en&url=http://quanthomme.free.fr/pantone.htm

Hope you will find this usefull.

Regards, Phil.

From mmbtupr at AOL.COM Mon Jan 5 21:27:10 2004
From: mmbtupr at AOL.COM (Lewis L. Smith)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:36 2004
Subject: Carbon dioxide emissions science?
Message-ID: <MON.5.JAN.2004.212710.0500.MMBTUPR@AOL.COM>

to Gasifiers from Lewis L. Smith

After my previous posting, I thought of two curious facts which have been widely ignored,
perhaps because most people don't live in a region susceptible to hurricanes.

One of the first groups to take global warming seriously, was the casualty-property sector
of the insurance industry. Rightly or wrongly, they figured out that Global Warming was going
to make hurricanes more frequent and more violent and that this would raise their payouts
faster than they could raise premiums or the income on their reserve funds.

More recently BP-Amoco and Shell Oil have taken up the cause, in the latter case by an
open break with an anti-warming industry group of which it was a member.

Now none of these good folks are in business for their health. In fact, as we all well know,
they are in business to make $$$$ . So what do they know that the people who talk about
"junk science" don't know ???

It makes me recall the time when I was Director of the Office of Energy [of PR] and went to a
meeting of Federal and Commonwealth officials, at Roosevelt Roads Naval Station after Hugo.
The base commander, a Capt. Murphy, said something like this. We used to plan for one
monster hurricane a season, but maybe we better plan for two within a few weeks of each
other ! Well, that turned out to be a little pessimistic, but you could tell that he was worried.

End.

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Mon Jan 5 23:32:42 2004
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:36 2004
Subject: Distribution
Message-ID: <MON.5.JAN.2004.233242.0500.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

Lewis,

Thanks for bringing that to light. REPP changed listserv software last
year which seems to behave erratically sometimes. A volunteer group from
the 8 REPP lists has been looking at these problems and will probably
recommend that they change listserv programs again to one that is more
stable and can be easily searched on the web.

Tom Miles
Bioenergy Lists Administrator

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 09:15:08 -0500, Lewis L. Smith <mmbtupr@AOL.COM> wrote:

>Although a long-time member, I sometimes fail to receive postings.
>
> Does anyone else have this problem ?
>
> What can be done ?
>
> End

From sheltonvictor at YAHOO.CO.IN Wed Jan 7 08:26:28 2004
From: sheltonvictor at YAHOO.CO.IN (=?iso-8859-1?q?shelton=20victor?=)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:36 2004
Subject: AC
In-Reply-To: <005801c3d1b9$a3fe8ff0$6501a8c0@Yellow>
Message-ID: <WED.7.JAN.2004.132628.0000.SHELTONVICTOR@YAHOO.CO.IN>

hello

i have problem in evaluating the activated carbon that i have produced using fluidized bed gasification is there a simple method to detemine its quality.

Yahoo! India Mobile: Ringtones, Wallpapers, Picture Messages and more.Download now.

From dschmidt at UNDEERC.ORG Wed Jan 7 09:21:20 2004
From: dschmidt at UNDEERC.ORG (Schmidt, Darren)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:36 2004
Subject: AC
Message-ID: <WED.7.JAN.2004.082120.0600.DSCHMIDT@UNDEERC.ORG>

The most common method I am aware of is an Iodine # test. A good active
carbon will be about 1000. We have found that carbon from air fed downdraft
gasification is about 250.

D. Schmidt
EERC
University of North Dakota

-----Original Message-----
From: shelton victor [mailto:sheltonvictor@YAHOO.CO.IN]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 7:26 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [GASL] AC

hello

i have problem in evaluating the activated carbon that i have produced
using fluidized bed gasification is there a simple method to detemine its
quality.

Yahoo! India Mobile: Ringtones, Wallpapers, Picture Messages and
more.Download now.

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Wed Jan 7 12:22:17 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:36 2004
Subject: Gasifier Charcoal and clean water
Message-ID: <WED.7.JAN.2004.102217.0700.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Darren, Shelton and All:

Glad to see Darren's numbers. We have also measured iodine numbers on
gasifier carbon and find ~200, depending on intensity of operation of the
gasifier. This is NOT a commercial grade of activated carbon, but might
have some uses.

To produce activated carbon it is necessary for the carbon to be made porous
by reaction with CO2, Steam or chemicals in the temperature range 700-900C
where the kinetics of carbon gasification . Lower than that there is no
reaction, and at higher temperatures the reaction is controlled by mass flow
rather than kinetically controlled.

I have been interested in the possibility of using gasifiers for water
purification in the poorer parts of the world. Electric power from gasifiers
would give enough power to operate an ozone generator for killing
pathogens - more desirable than chlorine treatment. And the char-dust from
the gasifier could be used to remove the large brown molecules that discolor
slower moving water. Possibly the gasifier charcoal can fill this use,
having 1/5 the absorbtion capacity of "activated" charcoal.

Comments?

TOM REED

----- Original Message -----
From: "Schmidt, Darren" <dschmidt@UNDEERC.ORG>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 7:21 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] AC

> The most common method I am aware of is an Iodine # test. A good active
> carbon will be about 1000. We have found that carbon from air fed
downdraft
> gasification is about 250.
>
> D. Schmidt
> EERC
> University of North Dakota
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: shelton victor [mailto:sheltonvictor@YAHOO.CO.IN]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 7:26 AM
> To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: [GASL] AC
>
>
> hello
>
> i have problem in evaluating the activated carbon that i have produced
> using fluidized bed gasification is there a simple method to detemine its
> quality.
>
> Yahoo! India Mobile: Ringtones, Wallpapers, Picture Messages and
> more.Download now.

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Wed Jan 7 12:37:10 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:36 2004
Subject: [STOVES] Green-Manures
Message-ID: <WED.7.JAN.2004.103710.0700.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Nandu and All:

It is so nice to have top world experts here ready to comment on things I
know less about.

Prof. Karve rightly says that bacteria alone can't make for rich soils.

It is my impression from thermodynamics that the clays (montmorillonite,
bentonite, ....) "lock" up the precious minerals, being the bottom of the
energy chain.

It is also my impression that volcanoes play an active part in unlocking
these minerals by melting them into more biodegradable forms. Hence the
tremendous fertility of Indonesia, Italy and Hawaii among other volcanic
terrains. I infer from this that the tremendous fertility of volcanic soils
are do to this "thermal activation" of the clays and "dead" soils.

But inference is not as desirable as knowledge, so I'm looking for
confirmation or denial or detail.

Comments?

TOM REED

----- Original Message -----
From: "A.D. Karve" <adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 6:56 AM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Green-Manures

> Dear Peter,
> Using raw sugarcane juice is a good idea. However, my statement of 10
> kg sugar per acre was a simplification. There is a lot of charlatanary
> in the field of organic farming. Every Guru has his own recipe. None of
> them openly advocates application of sugar, but they recommend honey,
> jaggery (non-centrifuged raw sugar), butter fat, etc. We conducted a few
> pot experiments both with starch and sugar, and got good results. I
> however suspect, that in the long run, relying just on bacteria to feed
> the plants would amount to minig the soil. The bacteria can fix nitrogen
> from the air, but the other minerals like P, K, Ca, Fe, and all the
> other micronutrients have to come from the soil. The bacteria decompose
> the soil and make these minerals available to the crop plants. So if
> they are not replaced, the soils would eventually get depleted.
> Yours A.D.Karve
>
>
> Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> >Dear A.D.Karve;
> >
> >>They provide their crops with 10 kg sugar per acre
> >>instead of chemicals. I met many of them and saw their fields with my
> >>own eyes. The vigour and health of their crops and the yield levels are
> >>just unbelievable.
> >>Yours
> >>A.D.Karve
> >>
> >
> >I suspect this is applied as a solution of sugar in water??
> >
> >Saying that 30% of cane juice is sugar -- then 33 kg of cane juice is
> >sufficient to "fertilize" one acre.
> >
> >Say -- one acre of sugar cane??
> >
> >We suffer a terrible foreign exchange burden here to fertilize out cane
> >fields at present. One thta might not be sustainable.
> >
> >Peter Singfield / Belize
> >

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Wed Jan 7 13:43:41 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:36 2004
Subject: [STOVES] Green-Manures
Message-ID: <WED.7.JAN.2004.144341.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: "TBReed" <tombreed@COMCAST.NET>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] [STOVES] Green-Manures

>
> It is my impression from thermodynamics that the clays (montmorillonite,
> bentonite, ....) "lock" up the precious minerals, being the bottom of the
> energy chain.

Actually, it is a good thing that they do. Since sedimentary deposits were
involved with water transport in their previous life, if the minerals were
"readily available" they would lave been leached away long ago. Anout all
that would be left would be oxides of Aluminum, Iron, Titanium, and
silicon... like a heavily weathered bauxite.
>
> It is also my impression that volcanoes play an active part in unlocking
> these minerals by melting them into more biodegradable forms. Hence the
> tremendous fertility of Indonesia, Italy and Hawaii among other volcanic
> terrains. I infer from this that the tremendous fertility of volcanic
soils
> are do to this "thermal activation" of the clays and "dead" soils.

I don't think that volcanic action per se is the good thing. If the clays
and minerals went to a molten state, they would tend to be made relatively
dense, with relatively little surface area. I think that is what is
beneficial is that these are "virgin materials", and that all the necessary
trace elements required for growth are present.
>
> But inference is not as desirable as knowledge, so I'm looking for
> confirmation or denial or detail.

All that the sugar, and other organics, does is primarily provide "food for
the bugs", which symbiotically break down the soils and deliver the
liberated minerals to the plant rootlets. Fungus growth is very important in
this regard for provision of phosphorous to plants. Certain fungi collect
phos, and then stab the plant rootlets, so that they can trade minerals for
photosynthesised nutrients.

Fascinating, eh?

Kevin
>
> Comments?
>
> TOM REED
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "A.D. Karve" <adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
> To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 6:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [STOVES] Green-Manures
>
>
> > Dear Peter,
> > Using raw sugarcane juice is a good idea. However, my statement of 10
> > kg sugar per acre was a simplification. There is a lot of charlatanary
> > in the field of organic farming. Every Guru has his own recipe. None of
> > them openly advocates application of sugar, but they recommend honey,
> > jaggery (non-centrifuged raw sugar), butter fat, etc. We conducted a few
> > pot experiments both with starch and sugar, and got good results. I
> > however suspect, that in the long run, relying just on bacteria to feed
> > the plants would amount to minig the soil. The bacteria can fix nitrogen
> > from the air, but the other minerals like P, K, Ca, Fe, and all the
> > other micronutrients have to come from the soil. The bacteria decompose
> > the soil and make these minerals available to the crop plants. So if
> > they are not replaced, the soils would eventually get depleted.
> > Yours A.D.Karve
> >
> >
> > Peter Singfield wrote:
> >
> > >Dear A.D.Karve;
> > >
> > >>They provide their crops with 10 kg sugar per acre
> > >>instead of chemicals. I met many of them and saw their fields with my
> > >>own eyes. The vigour and health of their crops and the yield levels
are
> > >>just unbelievable.
> > >>Yours
> > >>A.D.Karve
> > >>
> > >
> > >I suspect this is applied as a solution of sugar in water??
> > >
> > >Saying that 30% of cane juice is sugar -- then 33 kg of cane juice is
> > >sufficient to "fertilize" one acre.
> > >
> > >Say -- one acre of sugar cane??
> > >
> > >We suffer a terrible foreign exchange burden here to fertilize out cane
> > >fields at present. One thta might not be sustainable.
> > >
> > >Peter Singfield / Belize
> > >

From CAVM at AOL.COM Thu Jan 8 14:11:32 2004
From: CAVM at AOL.COM (C. Van Milligen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:36 2004
Subject: Clean water
Message-ID: <THU.8.JAN.2004.141132.EST.>

Tom,

We estimated that a rather modest 2.5 million BTU combustion unit burning any
waste or byproduct locally available (wood, cow chips, etc) can distill about
30,000 gallons of water per day. Rather than use electric power from the
gasifier to ozonate water, it can be distilled.

Neal Van Milligen
www.kentuckyenrichment.com
cavm@aol.com

Comments?

TOM REED

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Thu Jan 8 14:44:42 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:36 2004
Subject: Clean water
Message-ID: <THU.8.JAN.2004.154442.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Neal
----- Original Message -----
From: "C. Van Milligen" <CAVM@AOL.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Clean water

> Tom,
>
> We estimated that a rather modest 2.5 million BTU combustion unit burning
any
> waste or byproduct locally available (wood, cow chips, etc) can distill
about
> 30,000 gallons of water per day. Rather than use electric power from the
> gasifier to ozonate water, it can be distilled.

30,000 gallons is about 300,000 pounds. At 1000 BTU/Lb, this would require
about 300,000,000 BTU, if it was a single stage still. If you had a "triple
effect evaporator, this would be reduced to about 100,000,000 BTU
requirement per day.

If your burner was 2.5 million BTU per day, then you would appear to be
short by a factor of about 40. If it was a 2.5 million BTU/Hr burner, =
about 60,000,000 BTU/Day, then you still appear to be short of energy.

This is a very simplistic set of calcs. Could you please clarify? I might
have missed something.

Thanks.

Kevin
>
> Neal Van Milligen
> www.kentuckyenrichment.com
> cavm@aol.com
>
> I have been interested in the possibility of using gasifiers for water
> purification in the poorer parts of the world. Electric power from
gasifiers
> would give enough power to operate an ozone generator for killing
> pathogens - more desirable than chlorine treatment. And the char-dust
from
> the gasifier could be used to remove the large brown molecules that
discolor
> slower moving water. Possibly the gasifier charcoal can fill this use,
> having 1/5 the absorbtion capacity of "activated" charcoal.
>
> Comments?
>
> TOM REED

From CAVM at AOL.COM Thu Jan 8 16:03:53 2004
From: CAVM at AOL.COM (C. Van Milligen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:36 2004
Subject: Clean water
Message-ID: <THU.8.JAN.2004.160353.EST.>

Kevin, You may have me there. I am an accountant and I was only passing on
what I had been told by the gentleman who presented the stove info to us. I
assure you I was not trying to pass off this information as having been
generated by yours truely.

So, let me look at these figures, ok, here is something. I meant a 2.5
million BTU per hour unit. Even allowing for inefficiencies I am not too far off.

And remember, I am not an engineer. I hope this is more reasonable.

Neal Van Milligen
www.kentuckyenrichment.com
cavm@aol.com

From Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK Thu Jan 8 18:40:01 2004
From: Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:36 2004
Subject: Clean water
In-Reply-To: <70.36d93824.2d2f1fb9@aol.com>
Message-ID: <THU.8.JAN.2004.234001.0000.GAVIN@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>

Why not use SI units - so much easier!
U need about 2600 Mj to boil 1 kg
So 1 kg/hr =2600/3600 = about ..72kW
100kg/hr=72kW
1tph = 720kW or 2.5mbtu burner?
= 2,200 lbs water/hr or 74000lbs/day?

Maybe my maths is worse than neals???
Happy days
gav

So, let me look at these figures, ok, here is something. I meant a 2.5
million BTU per hour unit. Even allowing for inefficiencies I am not too
far off.

And remember, I am not an engineer. I hope this is more reasonable.

Neal Van Milligen
www.kentuckyenrichment.com
cavm@aol.com

From sigma at IX.NETCOM.COM Fri Jan 9 14:44:25 2004
From: sigma at IX.NETCOM.COM (Len Walde)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:36 2004
Subject: Operating Gasification CHP Systems in the 100-250 kWe range
Message-ID: <FRI.9.JAN.2004.114425.0800.SIGMA@IX.NETCOM.COM>

Tom:
Try chiptec@together.net as a good bet. They have the most applied
experience. Located in NH (I think)
and good people to work with. Mention I referred.

Good luck,

Len

Sigma Energy Engineering, Inc.
Renewable Energy, Process Engineering
Serving Agriculture, Industry & Commerce
through "Symbiotic Recycling" tm

Ph: 925-254-7633
E-mail: sigma@ix.netcom.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Miles" <tmiles@TRMILES.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 9:04 PM
Subject: [GASL] Operating Gasification CHP Systems in the 100-250 kWe range

I'm looking for recommendations from the list for operating gasifiers in the
100-250 kWe range, either power only or CHP, for a project that has been
funded but is in the early stages of development.

The gasifier(s) should be able to operate with softwood and hardwood wood
chips from a sawmill and be sufficiently automated with pollution abatement
and safety precautions to operate in a North American sawmill environment
with minimum maintenance.

It is our intent to install a gasiifer capable of operating 5000 hours or
more per year so we are interested in installations that have enough
operating history to have a good understanding of operating and maintenance
costs and issues.

Please name a gasifier site, capacity, supplier/engineering company and
proide any comments or observations you may have that would recommend a
particular supplier or engineering firm. (Note that sometimes an engineering
company is better at putting an operating system together than a supplier.)

Suggestions from suppliers are welcome. If you have a good system, let's
hear about it.

If this technology is as "near commercial" as we seem to think it is there
should be some good, almost affordable, systems out there. (If it were truly
comercial/economic we wouldn't need public funds to do these projects.)

Thanks for your help

Tom Miles
T R Miles, Technical Consultants, Inc.
Portland, Oregon, USA
tmiles@trmiles.com
www.trmiles.com

From jaturnbu at IX.NETCOM.COM Fri Jan 9 17:54:17 2004
From: jaturnbu at IX.NETCOM.COM (Jane Turnbull)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:36 2004
Subject: Operating Gasification CHP Systems in the 100-250 kWe range
In-Reply-To: <000801c3ce92$77949880$6501a8c0@Yellow>
Message-ID: <FRI.9.JAN.2004.145417.0800.JATURNBU@IX.NETCOM.COM>

Dear All:

I too am looking for updated information on gasifiers in this range - for to
be used for heating - and possibly cooling. The feedstock would be
pre-commercial forest thinnings.

Jane Turnbull
Peninsula Energy Partners
650/559-1766

> I'm looking for recommendations from the list for operating gasifiers in the
> 100-250 kWe range, either power only or CHP, for a project that has been
> funded but is in the early stages of development.
>
> The gasifier(s) should be able to operate with softwood and hardwood wood
> chips from a sawmill and be sufficiently automated with pollution abatement
> and safety precautions to operate in a North American sawmill environment with
> minimum maintenance.
>
> It is our intent to install a gasiifer capable of operating 5000 hours or more
> per year so we are interested in installations that have enough operating
> history to have a good understanding of operating and maintenance costs and
> issues.
>
> Please name a gasifier site, capacity, supplier/engineering company and proide
> any comments or observations you may have that would recommend a particular
> supplier or engineering firm. (Note that sometimes an engineering company is
> better at putting an operating system together than a supplier.)
>
> Suggestions from suppliers are welcome. If you have a good system, let's hear
> about it.
>
> If this technology is as "near commercial" as we seem to think it is there
> should be some good, almost affordable, systems out there. (If it were truly
> comercial/economic we wouldn't need public funds to do these projects.)
>
> Thanks for your help
>
> Tom Miles
> T R Miles, Technical Consultants, Inc.
> Portland, Oregon, USA
> tmiles@trmiles.com
> www.trmiles.com
>
>

From Steve.Goldthorpe at XTRA.CO.NZ Fri Jan 9 22:37:12 2004
From: Steve.Goldthorpe at XTRA.CO.NZ (Steve Goldthorpe)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:36 2004
Subject: Flashpoints
Message-ID: <SAT.10.JAN.2004.163712.1300.STEVE.GOLDTHORPE@XTRA.CO.NZ>

Hi,

Just a point of clarification on Greg's gas analysis. The units of MJ/m3
need clearly defining in terms of the termperature and pressure of the gas,
its moisture content and whether the energy content is reported on a higher
or a lower heating value basis.

Greg's lab report (below) indicated that there was a large fraction of
undefined "non-ignitable product". For an air blown gasifier this will be
almost all nitrogen with a small amount of inert argon from air. It can't
really be significant amounts of anything else. Hence the calorific value
of the gas can be calculated based on the pure component CVs and the
definition of MJ/m3. On this basis I calculate the gas CV to be: -

5.548 MJ higher heating value per cubic metre of dry gas at zero centigrade
and 1 atmosphere presure
5.259 MJ higher heating value per cubic metre of dry gas at 15 degrees
centigrade and 1 atmosphere presure
4.741 MJ lower heating value per cubic metre of dry gas at 15 degrees
centigrade and 1 atmosphere presure
4.661 MJ lower heating value per cubic metre of saturated gas (1.7%
moisture) at 15 degrees centigrade and 1 atmosphere presure
3.863 MJ lower heating value per cubic metre of dry gas at 62 degrees
centigrade and 1 atmosphere presure
3.048 MJ lower heating value per cubic metre of saturated gas (21.7%
moisture) at 62 degrees centigrade and 1 atmosphere presure

The CV all depends on the definition and conditions that are used to define
MJ/m3. Any trace elements in the gas will have a minimal effect on CV.

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Fri Jan 9 23:49:11 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:36 2004
Subject: Flashpoints
In-Reply-To: <001601c3d72b$09638af0$90a559db@STEVE5DVH1TDNY>
Message-ID: <FRI.9.JAN.2004.224911.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Steve, and all

Your clarification is very enlightening, and thank you for taking the time
to do it, however, I have a hard time really believing that my unit is "that
good", I agree with your figures, based on my lab test results (simply
because most of it is way over my head) but, I really feel that what the lab
says (or something I've missed telling you) is out of wack, as in, "my info
to you is wrong" so what you are giving me is therefore also wrong (not on
your part).

I know that 3 1/2 years of reading, testing, goof's, and plain old bungling,
is NOT going to give me a 5th unit that is this good. There has to be
something I've missed.

BUT, I will say, IF I can find it (what is missing, or incorrect), I will
certainly ask, that if you could, do a "re-check" of all of this, (your time
permitting).

BTW, the unit at full bore, is about 50 Kg/hr. (calculations say this is
about 200kw/T, but only on the coldest days (minus 35c or so) does it run at
this level, most of the current winter has been on medium (about 12Kg/hr),
and on the really warm days (about minus 2c) it will kick down to low (about
8 Kg/hr )during the afternoons, and will cycle in and out of "heat dump"
(fan-coil to open air) simply because it's not being used (the heated water,
that is).

I have had quite a few requests for pictures & such, so the wife is getting
all my notes sorted, finding all the pictures, and will be doing a web page.
I would assume she will be about a month or so, will keep you all posted.

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Goldthorpe [mailto:Steve.Goldthorpe@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 9:37 PM
To: Greg Manning
Cc: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] Flashpoints

Hi,

The CV all depends on the definition and conditions that are used to define
MJ/m3. Any trace elements in the gas will have a minimal effect on CV.

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Sat Jan 10 08:23:34 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:36 2004
Subject: What Happened ?
Message-ID: <SAT.10.JAN.2004.072334.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Hi All,

I'm wondering if anyone else had the "flood" of GASL messages last night, It
appears that everything from about Dec 28/03 until yesterday was re-mailed
as if it was posted only yesterday?

Anyone else ? or does my mail client need to be visited by a priest/exorcist
?

Greg Manning,
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

From MMBTUPR at AOL.COM Sat Jan 10 22:23:01 2004
From: MMBTUPR at AOL.COM (Lewis L. Smith)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:36 2004
Subject: What Happened ?
Message-ID: <SAT.10.JAN.2004.222301.EST.>

to Gasification Group from Lewis L. Smith

My message inflow is entirely normal.

End.

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Sat Jan 10 23:40:45 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:36 2004
Subject: What Happened ?
In-Reply-To: <016901c3d7f9$cfac9b10$d45892cb@aukeufr0ppg2sw>
Message-ID: <SAT.10.JAN.2004.224045.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Hi Auke, & All, I notice that you and I are east of CST, AND outside of USA,
I wonder if this had anything to do with it?

Oh, BTW, (Steve G. & Lewis S.) I checked with my provider, and only the FTP
servers where being updated, nothing to do with SMTP or POP3, and the fact
that Auke had the same thing, would point to somewhere up stream of my/his
local provider(s).

Greg Manning,
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: Auke Koopmans [mailto:koopmans@loxinfo.co.th]
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 10:17 PM
To: a31ford
Subject: Re: [GASL] What Happened ?

Yes I also had 55 messages in one go (day).

Auke

----- Original Message -----
From: "a31ford" <a31ford@INETLINK.CA>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 8:23 PM
Subject: [GASL] What Happened ?

> Hi All,
>
> I'm wondering if anyone else had the "flood" of GASL messages last night,
It
> appears that everything from about Dec 28/03 until yesterday was re-mailed
> as if it was posted only yesterday?
>
> Anyone else ? or does my mail client need to be visited by a
priest/exorcist
> ?
>
> Greg Manning,
> Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
>

From jean-henry.ferrasse at UNIV.U-3MRS.FR Mon Jan 12 06:07:14 2004
From: jean-henry.ferrasse at UNIV.U-3MRS.FR (Jean-Henry Ferrasse)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:36 2004
Subject: Operating Gasification CHP Systems in the 100-250 kWe range
Message-ID: <MON.12.JAN.2004.120714.0100.JEANHENRY.FERRASSE@UNIV.U3MRS.FR>

Try this URL :

http://gi.grensy.info/manufacturers/index.php?order=name
I guess it is a good starting point, feed backs are wellcome.

For units, MJ/Nm3 is a good unit, it means that you consider the gas in
normal conditions (P = 1 atm, T = 0?C), but it also means that you need the
exact composition of the gas!
Then you need to precise HHV or LHV regarding the use of the gas.
For better exchange, non-ignitable product must be included orelse there
will be soon 150% ration claimed.

Jean-Henry

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Miles" <tmiles@TRMILES.COM>
> To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 9:04 PM
> Subject: [GASL] Operating Gasification CHP Systems in the 100-250 kWe
range
>
>
> I'm looking for recommendations from the list for operating gasifiers in
the
> 100-250 kWe range, either power only or CHP, for a project that has been
> funded but is in the early stages of development.
>
> The gasifier(s) should be able to operate with softwood and hardwood wood
> chips from a sawmill and be sufficiently automated with pollution
abatement
> and safety precautions to operate in a North American sawmill environment
> with minimum maintenance.
>
> It is our intent to install a gasiifer capable of operating 5000 hours or
> more per year so we are interested in installations that have enough
> operating history to have a good understanding of operating and
maintenance
> costs and issues.
>
> Please name a gasifier site, capacity, supplier/engineering company and
> proide any comments or observations you may have that would recommend a
> particular supplier or engineering firm. (Note that sometimes an
engineering
> company is better at putting an operating system together than a
supplier.)
>
> Suggestions from suppliers are welcome. If you have a good system, let's
> hear about it.
>
> If this technology is as "near commercial" as we seem to think it is there
> should be some good, almost affordable, systems out there. (If it were
truly
> comercial/economic we wouldn't need public funds to do these projects.)
>
> Thanks for your help
>
> Tom Miles
> T R Miles, Technical Consultants, Inc.
> Portland, Oregon, USA
> tmiles@trmiles.com
> www.trmiles.com

From VHarris001 at AOL.COM Mon Jan 12 09:51:40 2004
From: VHarris001 at AOL.COM (VHarris001@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:36 2004
Subject: Energy-from-waste counts as recovery, EU agrees
Message-ID: <MON.12.JAN.2004.095140.EST.>

Energy-from-waste counts as recovery, EU agrees

The European Parliament and Council have confirmed that incineration of
packaging waste will continue to count towards recovery targets but has also called
for a general review of the issue, writes Caroline Morley. The decision comes
after a meeting of the EU conciliation committee which has been ironing out
some issues over future implementation of the Packaging Waste Directive.

http://www.solidwaste.com

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Tue Jan 20 20:50:17 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:36 2004
Subject: Gasifier, cold outdoor air, inlet problems
In-Reply-To: <001001c3dc39$8f7baec0$71d00818@cwcn7uspc42i87>
Message-ID: <TUE.20.JAN.2004.195017.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Tom, and all,

I have a freezing-up issue, here are the details,

I don't know if it's known, I live in Brandon, Manitoba, Canada.

Our outdoor air temperature in winter ranges from 0c to minus -40c or so,
I would say average of -15c, anyhow, here's the problem I'm having.

The gasifier I'm running is in a building reserved strictly for the
gasifier,
(it's an old round steel grainery). (This is the first winter with it
operational).

As the outdoor temp. gets to about the -25c mark, the inlet (6"x6" square
steel duct)
start to form a ridge of ice right at the lip of where the duct protrudes
outside of the grainery wall (1/4" or so) as time progresses, and if the
temp stays below -25c
the ridge gets thicker, and thicker, to the point of the opening getting so
small, it
starts to "run away" and in the last 3" or so almost seals up solid (not
quite) here's the problem, the original inlet was a 4" round pipe, I went to
the 6x6 duct thinking
that the slower air flow, would not produce the ridge, (NOPE, both do). the
air preheater (both for gasifier, and secondary burner (NOT CHP, Just H) is
located about
40" from the inside of the wall, it's not an issue of moisture condensing in
the preheater, and then running back to the inlet, rather the moisture is
building up from
outside in ( like what happens to an air cleaner on a car motor in severe
cold ).

Oh, BTW, the air flow rate varies from about 200cfm to 650 cfm, but mostly
is around the 430cfm area.

I'm at a loss as to fixing this issue, short of running the preheater right
at the
wall, and allowing it's radiated heat to keep the ice off. (would loose
about 30c of gain doing this (50%)).

Oh, I also tried a "Velocity" stack (like what the use on hot rod
carburetors, again
thinking that the taper would "align" the air, and stop the condensation ice
forming,
and yup, it froze up also.

Any Help or suggestions ???
All Comments welcome

Greg Manning,
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Tue Jan 20 21:25:42 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:36 2004
Subject: Gasifier, cold outdoor air, inlet problems
Message-ID: <TUE.20.JAN.2004.222542.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Mark

I am not sure that I understand the problem... is it the fresh incoming air
that is depositing frost and ice on the inside of the intake opening to the
building?

If so, does the intake opening simply dump fresh cold outside air into the
building, or is it directly connected to the gasifier?

Thanks.

Kevin

----- Original Message -----
From: "a31ford" <a31ford@INETLINK.CA>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 9:50 PM
Subject: [GASL] Gasifier, cold outdoor air, inlet problems

> Tom, and all,
>
> I have a freezing-up issue, here are the details,
>
> I don't know if it's known, I live in Brandon, Manitoba, Canada.
>
> Our outdoor air temperature in winter ranges from 0c to minus -40c or so,
> I would say average of -15c, anyhow, here's the problem I'm having.
>
> The gasifier I'm running is in a building reserved strictly for the
> gasifier,
> (it's an old round steel grainery). (This is the first winter with it
> operational).
>
> As the outdoor temp. gets to about the -25c mark, the inlet (6"x6" square
> steel duct)
> start to form a ridge of ice right at the lip of where the duct protrudes
> outside of the grainery wall (1/4" or so) as time progresses, and if the
> temp stays below -25c
> the ridge gets thicker, and thicker, to the point of the opening getting
so
> small, it
> starts to "run away" and in the last 3" or so almost seals up solid (not
> quite) here's the problem, the original inlet was a 4" round pipe, I went
to
> the 6x6 duct thinking
> that the slower air flow, would not produce the ridge, (NOPE, both do).
the
> air preheater (both for gasifier, and secondary burner (NOT CHP, Just H)
is
> located about
> 40" from the inside of the wall, it's not an issue of moisture condensing
in
> the preheater, and then running back to the inlet, rather the moisture is
> building up from
> outside in ( like what happens to an air cleaner on a car motor in severe
> cold ).
>
> Oh, BTW, the air flow rate varies from about 200cfm to 650 cfm, but mostly
> is around the 430cfm area.
>
> I'm at a loss as to fixing this issue, short of running the preheater
right
> at the
> wall, and allowing it's radiated heat to keep the ice off. (would loose
> about 30c of gain doing this (50%)).
>
> Oh, I also tried a "Velocity" stack (like what the use on hot rod
> carburetors, again
> thinking that the taper would "align" the air, and stop the condensation
ice
> forming,
> and yup, it froze up also.
>
> Any Help or suggestions ???
> All Comments welcome
>
>
> Greg Manning,
> Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Tue Jan 20 21:43:05 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:36 2004
Subject: Gasifier, cold outdoor air, inlet problems
In-Reply-To: <015901c3dfc5$dfcaff40$b89a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <TUE.20.JAN.2004.204305.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Kevin,

LOL, Mark ?? try Greg :)

Anyhow,

Outside air is depositing water vapor (moisture ?) right at the lip of the
duct (the lip is just outside the building wall, and the building is
generally only 15c warmer than the outside air temp. (gasifier & all, are
insulated, except the top of the top container of the gasifier.

The intake is directly connected to the "air preheat, heat exchanger(s)(2)"
(the duct goes from outside, to Heat-X(s), from heat-X(s) to both the
gasifier, and the secondary burner, respectively

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Chisholm [mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 8:26 PM
To: a31ford; GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] Gasifier, cold outdoor air, inlet problems

Dear Mark

I am not sure that I understand the problem... is it the fresh incoming air
that is depositing frost and ice on the inside of the intake opening to the
building?

If so, does the intake opening simply dump fresh cold outside air into the
building, or is it directly connected to the gasifier?

Thanks.

Kevin

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Tue Jan 20 22:09:33 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:37 2004
Subject: Gasifier, cold outdoor air, inlet problems
Message-ID: <TUE.20.JAN.2004.230933.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Greg
----- Original Message -----
From: "a31ford" <a31ford@inetlink.ca>
To: "'Kevin Chisholm'" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>; "A Gasification List
(E-mail)" <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 10:43 PM
Subject: RE: [GASL] Gasifier, cold outdoor air, inlet problems

> Kevin,
>
> LOL, Mark ?? try Greg :)
>
Sorry about that. Call me Fred, and we are even. :-)

> Anyhow,
>
> Outside air is depositing water vapor (moisture ?) right at the lip of the
> duct (the lip is just outside the building wall, and the building is
> generally only 15c warmer than the outside air temp. (gasifier & all, are
> insulated, except the top of the top container of the gasifier.

If I understand this correctly, it is impossible for outside air to freeze
up when being heated from say -25 C to say -10 C.
>
> The intake is directly connected to the "air preheat, heat
exchanger(s)(2)"
> (the duct goes from outside, to Heat-X(s), from heat-X(s) to both the
> gasifier, and the secondary burner, respectively
>
I therefore suspect that perhaps you have occasional "Backflow" of
relatively humid air from the gasifier. One way to check for back flow would
be to look for signs of products of combustion in the air inlet, or on the
"air side" of the heat exchanger. If backflow is not possible, then you may
have a leak in your heat exchanger.

You can also check for "stability of inlet air flow" by using smoke from a
cigarette..

Does any of this apply to your conditions?

Kindest regards,

Curious Kevin!! :-)

> Greg
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Chisholm [mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 8:26 PM
> To: a31ford; GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: Re: [GASL] Gasifier, cold outdoor air, inlet problems
>
>
> Dear Mark
>
> I am not sure that I understand the problem... is it the fresh incoming
air
> that is depositing frost and ice on the inside of the intake opening to
the
> building?
>
> If so, does the intake opening simply dump fresh cold outside air into the
> building, or is it directly connected to the gasifier?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Kevin
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "a31ford" <a31ford@INETLINK.CA>
> To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 9:50 PM
> Subject: [GASL] Gasifier, cold outdoor air, inlet problems
>
>
> > Tom, and all,
> >
> > I have a freezing-up issue, here are the details,
> >
> > I don't know if it's known, I live in Brandon, Manitoba, Canada.
> >
> > Our outdoor air temperature in winter ranges from 0c to minus -40c or
so,
> > I would say average of -15c, anyhow, here's the problem I'm having.
> >
> > The gasifier I'm running is in a building reserved strictly for the
> > gasifier,
> > (it's an old round steel grainery). (This is the first winter with it
> > operational).
> >
> > As the outdoor temp. gets to about the -25c mark, the inlet (6"x6"
square
> > steel duct)
> > start to form a ridge of ice right at the lip of where the duct
protrudes
> > outside of the grainery wall (1/4" or so) as time progresses, and if the
> > temp stays below -25c
> > the ridge gets thicker, and thicker, to the point of the opening getting
> so
> > small, it
> > starts to "run away" and in the last 3" or so almost seals up solid (not
> > quite) here's the problem, the original inlet was a 4" round pipe, I
went
> to
> > the 6x6 duct thinking
> > that the slower air flow, would not produce the ridge, (NOPE, both do).
> the
> > air preheater (both for gasifier, and secondary burner (NOT CHP, Just H)
> is
> > located about
> > 40" from the inside of the wall, it's not an issue of moisture
condensing
> in
> > the preheater, and then running back to the inlet, rather the moisture
is
> > building up from
> > outside in ( like what happens to an air cleaner on a car motor in
severe
> > cold ).
> >
> > Oh, BTW, the air flow rate varies from about 200cfm to 650 cfm, but
mostly
> > is around the 430cfm area.
> >
> > I'm at a loss as to fixing this issue, short of running the preheater
> right
> > at the
> > wall, and allowing it's radiated heat to keep the ice off. (would loose
> > about 30c of gain doing this (50%)).
> >
> > Oh, I also tried a "Velocity" stack (like what the use on hot rod
> > carburetors, again
> > thinking that the taper would "align" the air, and stop the condensation
> ice
> > forming,
> > and yup, it froze up also.
> >
> > Any Help or suggestions ???
> > All Comments welcome
> >
> >
> > Greg Manning,
> > Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
>
>

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Tue Jan 20 22:15:36 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:37 2004
Subject: Gasifier, cold outdoor air, inlet problems
In-Reply-To: <016801c3dfcc$003ce8a0$b89a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <TUE.20.JAN.2004.211536.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Hold On !!

Ok, Fred ")

Only the building is only 15c warmer, the actual air that is piped to the
gasifier & burner is about 180c greater that outdoor air temp.

No, there is no "back flow" as this is a fan DRAW, based system (fans are in
the flue, NOT in the inlets), and I've checked for leaks, using compressed
air, and there are none.

The condition I'm getting is the same as what happens to the air cleaner of
a car being driven in very cold weather, the "nose" of the air cleaner will
"frost up" from the air moving through it, (I guess like the way an
airplane's wings will, when the RH is high, and the temp. is cold).

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Chisholm [mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 9:10 PM
To: a31ford; A Gasification List (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [GASL] Gasifier, cold outdoor air, inlet problems

> Kevin,
>
> LOL, Mark ?? try Greg :)
>
Sorry about that. Call me Fred, and we are even. :-)

You can also check for "stability of inlet air flow" by using smoke from a
cigarette..

Does any of this apply to your conditions?

Kindest regards,

Curious Kevin!! :-)

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Tue Jan 20 23:13:50 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:37 2004
Subject: Gasifier, cold outdoor air, inlet problems
Message-ID: <WED.21.JAN.2004.001350.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Greg
>
> Only the building is only 15c warmer, the actual air that is piped to the
> gasifier & burner is about 180c greater that outdoor air temp.
>
> No, there is no "back flow" as this is a fan DRAW, based system (fans are
in
> the flue, NOT in the inlets), and I've checked for leaks, using compressed
> air, and there are none.

OK... so the outside air is at about -25C, it heats up to about -10C on the
way to the heat exchanger, and on leaving the heat exchanger, it is about
180C.?
>
> The condition I'm getting is the same as what happens to the air cleaner
of
> a car being driven in very cold weather, the "nose" of the air cleaner
will
> "frost up" from the air moving through it, (I guess like the way an
> airplane's wings will, when the RH is high, and the temp. is cold).
>
Carburetor icing typically occurs at 25 F to 60 F, with relative Relative
Humidity in the range of 65% to 100%. Assuming that the air at -25 was
saturated and at 100% RH, then its RH would decrease as it was warmed
to -10. However, your conditions are very much different than those that
occur in carburetor icing: the evaporating gasoline CHILLS the air, and it
is the cooling effect of the evaporating fuel that causes carburetor icing.
You don't have any such cooling effects. I therefore don't think the problem
is caused by the equivalent to a "carburetor icing mechanism.

Is it possible that the warmer air inside the building is saturated with
moisture, and that it is leaking out of the building where the inlet duct
enters the building, and that it is then drawn into the inlet, where it is
freezing out its moisture? If this was the case, then it could be solved by
installing a short extension on the existing inlet duct.

Please keep us posted on the circumstances surrounding your very interesting
problem.

Kindest regards,

Kevin

> Greg
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Chisholm [mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 9:10 PM
> To: a31ford; A Gasification List (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [GASL] Gasifier, cold outdoor air, inlet problems
>
>
> Dear Greg
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "a31ford" <a31ford@inetlink.ca>
> To: "'Kevin Chisholm'" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>; "A Gasification List
> (E-mail)" <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 10:43 PM
> Subject: RE: [GASL] Gasifier, cold outdoor air, inlet problems
>
>
> > Kevin,
> >
> > LOL, Mark ?? try Greg :)
> >
> Sorry about that. Call me Fred, and we are even. :-)
>
> > Anyhow,
> >
> > Outside air is depositing water vapor (moisture ?) right at the lip of
the
> > duct (the lip is just outside the building wall, and the building is
> > generally only 15c warmer than the outside air temp. (gasifier & all,
are
> > insulated, except the top of the top container of the gasifier.
>
> If I understand this correctly, it is impossible for outside air to freeze
> up when being heated from say -25 C to say -10 C.
> >
> > The intake is directly connected to the "air preheat, heat
> exchanger(s)(2)"
> > (the duct goes from outside, to Heat-X(s), from heat-X(s) to both the
> > gasifier, and the secondary burner, respectively
> >
> I therefore suspect that perhaps you have occasional "Backflow" of
> relatively humid air from the gasifier. One way to check for back flow
would
> be to look for signs of products of combustion in the air inlet, or on the
> "air side" of the heat exchanger. If backflow is not possible, then you
may
> have a leak in your heat exchanger.
>
> You can also check for "stability of inlet air flow" by using smoke from a
> cigarette..
>
> Does any of this apply to your conditions?
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Curious Kevin!! :-)
>
> > Greg
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kevin Chisholm [mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 8:26 PM
> > To: a31ford; GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> > Subject: Re: [GASL] Gasifier, cold outdoor air, inlet problems
> >
> >
> > Dear Mark
> >
> > I am not sure that I understand the problem... is it the fresh incoming
> air
> > that is depositing frost and ice on the inside of the intake opening to
> the
> > building?
> >
> > If so, does the intake opening simply dump fresh cold outside air into
the
> > building, or is it directly connected to the gasifier?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "a31ford" <a31ford@INETLINK.CA>
> > To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 9:50 PM
> > Subject: [GASL] Gasifier, cold outdoor air, inlet problems
> >
> >
> > > Tom, and all,
> > >
> > > I have a freezing-up issue, here are the details,
> > >
> > > I don't know if it's known, I live in Brandon, Manitoba, Canada.
> > >
> > > Our outdoor air temperature in winter ranges from 0c to minus -40c or
> so,
> > > I would say average of -15c, anyhow, here's the problem I'm having.
> > >
> > > The gasifier I'm running is in a building reserved strictly for the
> > > gasifier,
> > > (it's an old round steel grainery). (This is the first winter with it
> > > operational).
> > >
> > > As the outdoor temp. gets to about the -25c mark, the inlet (6"x6"
> square
> > > steel duct)
> > > start to form a ridge of ice right at the lip of where the duct
> protrudes
> > > outside of the grainery wall (1/4" or so) as time progresses, and if
the
> > > temp stays below -25c
> > > the ridge gets thicker, and thicker, to the point of the opening
getting
> > so
> > > small, it
> > > starts to "run away" and in the last 3" or so almost seals up solid
(not
> > > quite) here's the problem, the original inlet was a 4" round pipe, I
> went
> > to
> > > the 6x6 duct thinking
> > > that the slower air flow, would not produce the ridge, (NOPE, both
do).
> > the
> > > air preheater (both for gasifier, and secondary burner (NOT CHP, Just
H)
> > is
> > > located about
> > > 40" from the inside of the wall, it's not an issue of moisture
> condensing
> > in
> > > the preheater, and then running back to the inlet, rather the moisture
> is
> > > building up from
> > > outside in ( like what happens to an air cleaner on a car motor in
> severe
> > > cold ).
> > >
> > > Oh, BTW, the air flow rate varies from about 200cfm to 650 cfm, but
> mostly
> > > is around the 430cfm area.
> > >
> > > I'm at a loss as to fixing this issue, short of running the preheater
> > right
> > > at the
> > > wall, and allowing it's radiated heat to keep the ice off. (would
loose
> > > about 30c of gain doing this (50%)).
> > >
> > > Oh, I also tried a "Velocity" stack (like what the use on hot rod
> > > carburetors, again
> > > thinking that the taper would "align" the air, and stop the
condensation
> > ice
> > > forming,
> > > and yup, it froze up also.
> > >
> > > Any Help or suggestions ???
> > > All Comments welcome
> > >
> > >
> > > Greg Manning,
> > > Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
> >
> >
>
>

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Tue Jan 20 23:52:03 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:37 2004
Subject: Gasifier, cold outdoor air, inlet problems
In-Reply-To: <018d01c3dfd4$fbd97860$b89a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <TUE.20.JAN.2004.225203.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Duh !

I gota be stupid or something ! the area (space) between the duct, and the
outside wall of the building (steel grainery) is about 1/8", no gasket, or
anything, simply a space! It has to be inside building air coming around the
edge, and mixing with he outside air!

On my way to check this, right now, as it is about -25c at writing, I'll
post my findings.

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Chisholm [mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 10:14 PM
To: a31ford; A Gasification List (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [GASL] Gasifier, cold outdoor air, inlet problems

Please keep us posted on the circumstances surrounding your very interesting
problem.

Kindest regards,

Kevin

From sheltonvictor at YAHOO.CO.IN Wed Jan 21 04:15:54 2004
From: sheltonvictor at YAHOO.CO.IN (=?iso-8859-1?q?shelton=20victor?=)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:37 2004
Subject: Flashpoints
In-Reply-To: <001601c3d72b$09638af0$90a559db@STEVE5DVH1TDNY>
Message-ID: <WED.21.JAN.2004.091554.0000.SHELTONVICTOR@YAHOO.CO.IN>

hi,

For determining iodine number for activated carbon can a wattman paper 1 or 40 can be used instead of 5 .

Yahoo! India Mobile: Ringtones, Wallpapers, Picture Messages and more.Download now.

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Wed Jan 21 15:20:56 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:37 2004
Subject: Gasifier, cold outdoor air, inlet problems
In-Reply-To: <004601c3dfda$507475a0$0200a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <WED.21.JAN.2004.142056.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Follow Up to my last post below,

Well, well, I'll tell you, I had to be sleeping the day I installed that
6"x6" duct, the solution was simply using some of that "Foam cord" (like
what is used behind caulking gaps around the outside of windows & doors) I
installed a length of it late last night (in Minus 28c) and this morning,
NOTHING ! no ice period!!

Kevin, I have to thank you, for "getting my mind going", I owe you one.

Oh, BTW, an extension on the duct would not work in my instance, as it's
just behind where the door swings, when opened.

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of a31ford
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 10:52 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] Gasifier, cold outdoor air, inlet problems

Duh !

On my way to check this, right now, as it is about -25c at writing, I'll
post my findings.

Greg

Please keep us posted on the circumstances surrounding your very interesting
problem.

Kindest regards,

Kevin

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Tue Jan 27 09:37:17 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:37 2004
Subject: [STOVES] Vortex "believer" or experiment (From stoves side)
In-Reply-To: <D11530EDCDC91E4DA22CDD64EEDE0F726860FC@TOR.cfl.local>
Message-ID: <TUE.27.JAN.2004.083717.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Hello all,

This message, was on the stoves side of things, but applies to gasifiers as
well
(sorry to those that subscribe to both), so I've posted my reply,
and started it on GASL also,
(might be interesting to see the two "sides" of things, so to speak).

The post below, I believe, for one simple fact, anything that has to move
faster "air
over a plane's wing", "wind around a round building (like a grainery)",
"the old science class "blowing out a candle on the far side of a glass,
thing", etc.
as the air has to move (or water it the case below) faster to get around, I
can see
that it would give up some of it's heat in the process to the surface it's
moving on,
and the other medium around it, when reaching the "far" side it would be
cooler, not
that we want any of this side of the effect, but simply agreeing with the
comment below.

On gasifiers, my thoughts are in agreement to vortex style air, BUT, note
the following:

Elk, had a test where air vortex in a charcoal maker, (see post > Stoves,
cookstove-vortex < )
his/her?? (assuming his) notes are that the vortex causes the velocity of
the air to speed up,
thereby making the residence time shorter (I agree with this also).

However, in gasification (downdraft in particular) the air is "injected"
above
the pyrolysis area and in this case, the flow is "PRE", therefore,
retention
time is not a factor, however, once the air IS in the pyrolysis
zone/reduction zone,
retention time DOES become a factor (are we, in using a throat, "cutting
our noses off" ??)
I have a smaller test gasifier, sitting on a bench in my shop, I think I
will try running
the unit un-throated "so to speak", rather, I'll simply place the vortex
nozzles higher up
the gasifier (this unit is in ring sections, bolted together, and is quite
easy to reconfigure)
causing a longer retention time of air before the ash (leaving the current
throat & ash area the same).
I can see a problem in this, simply that it will most likely "slag" simply
because the unit is not
designed to run with the nozzles that high, but I simply want to try it
anyhow, just "because" (yes I'm board).

I think the difference here (between Elk's findings, and gasifiers) is that
in the world of gasifiers,
the vortex is "wanted" BEFORE, the area where pyrolysis becomes reduction,
and once we enter the reduction zone, we want retention time,
after that I would assume that speed is the preferred air flow, in the
final stages.

Greg Manning,
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: The Stoves Discussion List [mailto:STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On
Behalf Of Jeff Forssell
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 5:50 AM
To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Vortex "believer" or experiement

I read something called (in swedish) "Living water" that was interesting,
but I wasn't sure how much was true and how much was wishful thinking. At
the end they talked about American military sneaking away with his stuff
after WWII, but if it were all it was said to be, they wouldn't need to be
so keen on controlling the worlds oil supply.

There's an amusing anecdote about how Shauberger took a doubting scientist
and waded out in a stream to measure the temperature behind a stone that
water swirled around and, I believe, he said that it would be lower and the
scientist said it wopuld be higher. Shauberger was according to the book
right. When I suggested to an enthusiastic "vortexite" that we go down to
the stream behind my house and try ourselves, he wasn't interested. A good
story (=scientists don't know it all) is better than a good experiment for
most people.

(I suspect the temperatur difference would be extremely difficult to measure
at all. I think I tried a quicky myself to make sure, but because I didn't
expect much I didn't try very hard. Any other experience?)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harmon Seaver [mailto:hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM]
> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 11:46 PM
> To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: [STOVES] Vortex (was Rocket Science, Rocket Engineering and
> Cookstove Design)
>
>
> Have any of you read any of the works of Viktor
> Shauberger, more or less the
> father of vortex technology? Fascinating stuff. I'd think
> from what little I've
> read that it would be fairly simple to induce a vortex with
> the use of properly
> designed nozzles that wouldn't need power other than the
> natural draft.
> Do a google on "viktor schauberger" vortex air
>
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com
>

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Tue Jan 27 13:07:11 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:37 2004
Subject: How to post messages
Message-ID: <TUE.27.JAN.2004.110711.0700.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Madhukar:

I just address it to
gaSIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG.

Yours truly, TOM REED GASIFICATION MODERATOR

----- Original Message -----
From: "Madhukar Mahishi" <mmahishi@YAHOO.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION-request@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 9:55 AM
Subject: How to post messages

> I joined GasificationListserv some time back and I
> want to post some messages. Can you pls tell me how to
> post messages?
>
> REgards,
>
> Mak
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
> http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/

From mmahishi at YAHOO.COM Sat Jan 31 14:53:39 2004
From: mmahishi at YAHOO.COM (Madhukar Mahishi)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:37 2004
Subject: Vacuum gasification and biomass pretreatment
Message-ID: <SAT.31.JAN.2004.115339.0800.MMAHISHI@YAHOO.COM>

Hello everybody,

I am a Grad student and I am currently working on
Biomass gasification to produce hydrogen.

I want information on the following:
A)vacuum gasification: what effect does operating
the gasifier under vacuum conditions have on
1) the gas yield (in particular Hydrogen yield),
2) tar yield (both tar quality and tar quantity)
3) char and ash formation and
4) operating conditions (gasifier temperature,
energy consumption).

B)pretreatment of biomass feedstock: are there any
techniques for pretreatment of biomass feedstock in
order to
1) reduce or curtail tar formation
2) improve hydrogen gas yield
3) reduce char formation

Any literature material (journal papers/conference
proceedings etc) regarding the above is also
welcome.

Your co-operation in the matter will be highly
appreciated.

Best Regards,

Mak

(Madhukar Mahishi)
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engg,
University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL, 32611

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/

BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

January 2004 Gasification Archive