BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

For more information about Gasifiers and Gasification, please see our web site: http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org

To join the discussion list and see the current archives, please use this page: http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org

March 2004 Gasification Archive

For more messages see our 1996-2004 Gasification Discussion List Archives.

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Mon Mar 1 01:07:17 2004
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:38 2004
Subject: Incentives for CHP Gasification
Message-ID: <SUN.29.FEB.2004.220717.0800.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

What countires have financial incentives for CHP using biomass gasification?

I think in Denmark utilities will pay more for biomass or renewable CHP than for oil or natural gas. HowI much?

What other countries pay enough more for biomass heat and power compared with fossil fuels to justify gasification?

Tom Miles

From joacim at YMEX.NET Mon Mar 1 21:15:28 2004
From: joacim at YMEX.NET (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:39 2004
Subject: Woodchip driers?
In-Reply-To: <403AE2BE.5070100@ic.org>
Message-ID: <TUE.2.MAR.2004.031528.0100.JOACIM@YMEX.NET>

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Wynn wrote:

> Hello All,
> As i understand it, woodchip fed to a gassifier should be low moisture
> content.
> Has anyone come up with a relatively cheap design to air or solar dry chips?

Funny noone mentioned the obvious (?): drying fuel using the exhaust from
the motor powered by the gasifier. This of course assuming you are using
producer gas for powering a motor with.

Just let the exhaust blow through the fuel using an old steel barrel.
Beware of heating the fuel to the point of initiating charification though.
(>270?C or so) Heat from the (water) cooler can be used as well, but the
temperature is of course lower. The fuel obviuously dries faster if it's
heated above boiling temp for water.

The overall effiency of the system gasifier--motor can be raised by
recycling "waste" heat from the motor, or the extra heat can be used for
running the system drier--gasifier--motor on moister fuel, reducing storage
costs/inconveniences. Most of the energy in the gas eventually becomes
waste heat. Pity to waste it.

Let's make an outline of the numbers we have to play with here:

Assume 80% efficiency for the gasifier. Assume that 40% of the gas energy
becomes exhaust heat (half of the losses from the motor). Assume 50%
efficiency (blind guess) of the drying process (leading exhaust gas
directly through the raw fuel without heat exchanger).

0.8*0.4*0.5=0.16, i.e. 16% of the energy of the dried fuel can effectively
be used for drying raw fuel.

Assume 15 MJ/kg heat value for dry fuel. 15*0.16=2.40 MJ/kg (dry w) of the
available heat can be used for drying fuel.

Vaporisation heat for water is 2.26 MJ/kg.

Vaporising water corresponding to the dry weight of the fuel is realistic
(with the assumed numbers above, nota bene). >100% moisture (of dry
weight). That sounds to me like soaking wet fuel. How wet can it be really?

If that amount of heat isn't enough, there is more available. But as
mentioned above, these are heat sources of lower temperatures (coolant
heat, gas cooler heat). Lower temperature (difference) --> less work.

P. Anderson mentioned the monorator article.
(at http://www.hotel.ymex.net/~s-20222/gengas/ )
There is another article there about some experiments carried out by Lutz
during ww2. Lutz took it a bit further (before the monorator) by combining
the dryer with the gasifier to make the process more continuous. This
however took a heat exchanger. I suspect the top cooler, not to mention
the fan, would clog up with tars though. But laws of physics has given its
approval: wet wood /do/ burn. The rest is engineering.

Joacim
(occasional collector of ancient gasification research scrolls)

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Mon Mar 1 21:09:27 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:39 2004
Subject: Woodchip driers?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403020219050.7278-100000@trix.ixum>
Message-ID: <MON.1.MAR.2004.200927.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Peter didn't mention that "Monorator" article, I did.

And as far as wood chip driers, you should read the last couple of months of
posts, as THAT is what I've been doing for over a year.

AS WELL as using exhaust as a pre-dry. (2 stage system)

My 2 stage downdraft is running 24/7 and has been since October 15/03

It is a heating only unit (CHP to follow)

Greg Manning,
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

 

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Joacim Persson
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 8:15 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: Woodchip driers?

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Wynn wrote:

> Hello All,
> As i understand it, woodchip fed to a gassifier should be low moisture
> content.
> Has anyone come up with a relatively cheap design to air or solar dry
chips?

Funny noone mentioned the obvious (?): drying fuel using the exhaust from
the motor powered by the gasifier. This of course assuming you are using
producer gas for powering a motor with.

Just let the exhaust blow through the fuel using an old steel barrel.
Beware of heating the fuel to the point of initiating charification though.
(>270?C or so) Heat from the (water) cooler can be used as well, but the
temperature is of course lower. The fuel obviuously dries faster if it's
heated above boiling temp for water.

The overall effiency of the system gasifier--motor can be raised by
recycling "waste" heat from the motor, or the extra heat can be used for
running the system drier--gasifier--motor on moister fuel, reducing storage
costs/inconveniences. Most of the energy in the gas eventually becomes
waste heat. Pity to waste it.

Let's make an outline of the numbers we have to play with here:

Assume 80% efficiency for the gasifier. Assume that 40% of the gas energy
becomes exhaust heat (half of the losses from the motor). Assume 50%
efficiency (blind guess) of the drying process (leading exhaust gas
directly through the raw fuel without heat exchanger).

0.8*0.4*0.5=0.16, i.e. 16% of the energy of the dried fuel can effectively
be used for drying raw fuel.

Assume 15 MJ/kg heat value for dry fuel. 15*0.16=2.40 MJ/kg (dry w) of the
available heat can be used for drying fuel.

Vaporisation heat for water is 2.26 MJ/kg.

Vaporising water corresponding to the dry weight of the fuel is realistic
(with the assumed numbers above, nota bene). >100% moisture (of dry
weight). That sounds to me like soaking wet fuel. How wet can it be really?

If that amount of heat isn't enough, there is more available. But as
mentioned above, these are heat sources of lower temperatures (coolant
heat, gas cooler heat). Lower temperature (difference) --> less work.

P. Anderson mentioned the monorator article.
(at http://www.hotel.ymex.net/~s-20222/gengas/ )
There is another article there about some experiments carried out by Lutz
during ww2. Lutz took it a bit further (before the monorator) by combining
the dryer with the gasifier to make the process more continuous. This
however took a heat exchanger. I suspect the top cooler, not to mention
the fan, would clog up with tars though. But laws of physics has given its
approval: wet wood /do/ burn. The rest is engineering.

Joacim
(occasional collector of ancient gasification research scrolls)

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Mon Mar 1 21:43:05 2004
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:39 2004
Subject: DK teknik >Force Technology?
Message-ID: <MON.1.MAR.2004.184305.0800.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

All,

Messages to dk-teknik.dk have been bouncing and the English link on the website http://www.dk-teknik.dk/ didn't work today.

It appears to me that the organization has changed to Force Technology - Division of Energy

Can someone tell us the story?

Thanks

Tom Miles

From arnt at C2I.NET Mon Mar 1 23:29:50 2004
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:39 2004
Subject: DK teknik >Force Technology?
In-Reply-To: <00cf01c40000$5875ed60$6401a8c0@OFFICE3>
Message-ID: <TUE.2.MAR.2004.042950.0000.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 18:43:05 -0800,
Tom Miles <tmiles@TRMILES.COM> wrote in message
<00cf01c40000$5875ed60$6401a8c0@OFFICE3>:

> All,
>
> Messages to dk-teknik.dk have been bouncing and the English link on
> the website http://www.dk-teknik.dk/ didn't work today.
>
> It appears to me that the organization has changed to Force Technology
> - Division of Energy
>
> Can someone tell us the story?

..Tom M, your danish is pretty damned good, you just did. ;-)

..their press release only gives some dates and the usual marketeer
shill talk, so for the details, we need _real_ info.

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

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Mon Mar 1 23:50:54 2004
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:39 2004
Subject: DK teknik >Force Technology?
Message-ID: <MON.1.MAR.2004.235054.0500.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

Thanks Arnt. I'm sure that someone like Thomas Koch will fill us in before
long.

There used to be a Force Technology in AArhus. I imagine that it's
probably the same organization.

Tom

From snkm at BTL.NET Thu Mar 4 23:56:14 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:39 2004
Subject: Bagasse Gasification
Message-ID: <THU.4.MAR.2004.225614.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Dear Gas List;

Can anyone help in regards to this message below??

Peter Singfield -- Belize

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

Dear Peter,

Please could you assist us. We heard there is a gasification facility using
bagasse operating in Florida. If so, please could you let us know where we
can find more detailed information?

Thanks and regards,
Anita

Anita Khuller
Program Officer
Winrock International India
1 Navjeevan Vihar
New Delhi 110 017, India
Tel: 91-11-26693868; Fax: 91-11-26693881
Email: akhuller@winrockindia.org
Web: www.winrockindia.org / www.renewingindia.org

PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW CONTACT DETAILS ABOVE!

From sho at FORCE.DK Sat Mar 6 05:22:22 2004
From: sho at FORCE.DK (=?iso-8859-1?Q?S=F8ren_Houm=F8ller?=)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:39 2004
Subject: dk-TEKNIK and FORCE
Message-ID: <SAT.6.MAR.2004.112222.0100.SHO@FORCE.DK>

Dear list members,

Thank you for the interest shown to FORCE and dk-TEKNIK on the lists.

I am sorry for the apparent sudden "dive" dk-TEKNIK has had from the surface
of the Earth. It is, in fact, quite un-dramatic, except for the pressure our
IT-people have been under.

In mid-2003 FORCE and dk-TEKNIK decided to collaborate closely and a merger
was planned to take place in 2004. The two boards agreed in December to
speed up the process and by January 1st, 2004, dk-TEKNIK was bought by FORCE
Technology. FORCE is - like dk-TEKNIK - an independent research and
innovation company and part of the network Advanced Technology Group, which
is the core of technological infrastructure in Denmark. See more on the
network on http://www.atg.dk.

We are very happy with the new situation and we feel very welcome in FORCE.

We are now a division in FORCE working with the same areas as before:
- Gasification and combustion
- Fuels, fuel analyses and fuel markets
- Technology development
- Emission control
- Process control, optimisation, and regulation
- Environmental assessments.

As we are now part of a 1,000 employee company, we now also provide
knowledge within areas such as:
- Energy system CFD
- Sensor technology
- Materials and corrosion
- Certification
- Product innovation.

We have had some email problems during the transition from dk-TEKNIK to
FORCE systems, but they should be resolved by now. If you still have
problems with an old dk-TEKNIK email address or web site, please contact me.

Our project sites should be up and running by now, too. I just checked
these:
http://fuels.dk-teknik.dk - department description
http://liftoff.dk-teknik.dk - the LIFT-OFF gasification demonstration
project
http://www.dk-teknik.dk/cms/site.asp?p=802 - the European Biomass CHP in
Practice project.
http://pellets.dk-teknik.dk - the website for the Danish wood pellets
handbook and the national Danish wood pellets conference.
http://www.pelletcentre.info - the European Pellet Centre
http://www.videncenter.dk - Centre for Biomass Technology
http://www.ref-lab.dk/ - Danish National reference laboratory on air
emissions.

We expect to be able to update the web sites next week.

We will attend the conference in Rome in May and look forward to talking to
all partners and colleagues.

Thanks to Erik Balck S?rensen of TK Energy for pointing me towards the
discussion on dk-TEKNIK and FORCE on the gasification list.

S?ren Houm?ller

Head of Department
Energy and Environment. Technology and Processes

FORCE Technology, S?borg
Gladsaxe M?llevej 15
2860 S?borg
Denmark
WWW: www.force.dk

**************************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential
information intended for the addressee(s) only. The information is not to be
surrendered or copied to unauthorised persons. If you have received
this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email at:
force@force.dk
**************************************************************************

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Sat Mar 6 09:34:58 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:39 2004
Subject: [STOVES] Rootfuels
Message-ID: <SAT.6.MAR.2004.073458.0700.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Harmon or All:

I have long admired the sugar cane plant as a potential source of so much
more than sugar. It is a C4 solar collector par excellence. By itself,
properly used, it could fill much of the energy needs of the equatorial
countries. However, for each answer I find, I generate more questions.

1) I like to use molasses to make my bread. My impression is that the
molasses is the mother liquor left after the white sugar has been extracted,
and that it still has all the original nutrients from 10-50 times as much
liquid. And it should be cheap, but in the US is pricey because we don't
use much.

Is there a downside? Comments?

2) There is much more energy in the bagasse than required for boiling
sugar, so the old boilers were made inefficient so they could also dispose
of the balance. Winrock International has had a program for many years to
lend money to the sugar plants to upgrade the boilers so that electric power
could also be generated, in some places as valuable as the sugar. How's
that doing? (Does anyone know Dan Jantzen's current address?)

3) I was in Brazil working on a sugar cane pellet gasifier several years
ago. The cane pellets were the best biomass pellets I have ever seen. They
cost $5/ton in Brazil. Unfortunately, the production at the plant I saw has
been shut down. It was initially intended for making cattle feed. They
boiled the trash for an hour to hydrolyse the cellulose/hemicellulose before
pelletizing. I don't know whether this helped the densification process or
not, but the pellets sure smelled lovely - vanillan I would guess.

4) I have long suspected that the pellet industry does very little
thinking. It takes >10,000 psi and 100 hp hr/ton to pelletize sawdust. But
wood is cellular and strong. It should take much less to pelletize paper or
cane trash because the cellular structure has already been collapsed. But
the machines made for sawdust seem to take as much power for paper and
bagasse as they do for sawdust. Is this flaw in the machine design?

5) I am 15 lb lighter with a lower carb diet, and so are 10-40 Million
other USAnians. What is this going to do to the sugar industry if it
spreads worldwide.

Lots to ponder here... Hope I get some good answers from our crop of
experts.

Onward and Upward,

TOM REED BEF

 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm@BTL.NET>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Rootfuels

> Yes -- and we have two very potent versions of Kava Kava here if your
> suffering from sleep disturbance syndrome.
>
> The absolutely best medicine for that problem --
>
> But they can be used for Date Rape -- so highly illegal -- course anyone
> that is going to rape in that manner has pocket fulls of lethal
> pharmaceuticals that can do the same -- but are FDA approved. Halcyon
> (spelling??) comes to mind -- GWB father's favorite. Remember when he fell
> "asleep" into his plate of food in Japan -- that was from to much Halcyon.
>
> The American "public" must all wear rings in their noses so they can be
led
> around so easily??
>
> Well -- we better get back to stoves --
>
> Oh -- one of the by products from my research into setting for hydrous
> ethanol production is cane wine.
>
> Not only is that wine rich in dietary minerals -- but it makes and
> excellent potion for easy sleeping -- euphoria -- etc. And especially --
> very little -- mostly (if you don't abuse) no hangover. Actually the
> opposite -- you wake up charging -- raring to go.
>
> The cane vinger I am producing is simply incredibly delicious -- we soak
> jabenaro chili peppers with onion and garlic -- wow!!
>
> Here is a comment -- from an American -- from another list:
>
> (If every American thought like this there would be no energy crunch!)
>
> Life affirming principles for the 21st century...
>
> A man has billions and yet, he's still not satisfied, he has no peace, no
> love, no hope, and extreme fear of the wrath of God!...truly, I feel for
> him. he has forgotten that his time in this world is by necessity
> limited...for those who believe that death is a tragedy, aren't you glad
it
> exists? imagine living forever under such tyranny, without death as an
> equalizer...just imagine having to scratch to feed your family and provide
> them shelter...now I have these twelve words for you that you might avoid
> the fate of the insatiably greedy billionaire and here they are:
>
> DON'T BEG, DON'T BORROW, DON'T STEAL, SPEND LESS, WORK CREATIVELY, LOVE
> MORE...that's it folks! live these principles, and you'll be far wealthier
> and happier than the billiinoaire and have more peace of mind too...peace
> Love life, not filthy lucre!..
>
> And finally for today, here's an introspective thought for you to
> ponder...if you had all the money in the world, what would you do with it?
> if you could have anything you wanted without struggle, how interesting
> would your life be? if you knew that no matter how much wealth you
> ACCUMULATED, someone else would spend it once you wre gone, how would you
> feel?...now, if your goal in life is the accumulation of wealth, remember
> this: it is far easier to accumulate wealth, than to hold on to it, you'll
> be constantly worried and harried...so whatever you do, put things,
> especially money, in perspective and work only for that which you TRULY
> NEED, let the deluded spend the precious little time alloted to them in
the
> pursuit of money...
>
> As the saying goes, money by itself is neither good nor bad but "THE BLIND
> LOVE OF MONEY, IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL"...nobody needs a billion to live
> comfortably!...btw, what do you need a superduper mansion for? to house
> your clones? get real good friends?
>
> SEEK YE FIRST THE KINGDOM OF GOD, AND ALL THESE THINGS SHALL BE ADDED UNTO
> YOU "FREELY"
>
> The irony of God's promise is that by the time you receive the promised
> blessings, you'd only want to give it away,...
>
> peace
>
> ******************
>
> course -- it must be illigal by now in the US not to be a consumer??
>
> i keep hoping the good guys will win --
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> At 02:04 PM 3/5/2004 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
> > Yes, or maybe the DEA will make it a Schedule I drug like they did
recently
> >with GHB (Gamma Hydroxy Butrate). Sold in healthfood stores for at least
30
> >years with no problem, GHB is in every cell of your body, you can't live
> without
> >it. But now possession is as illegal as heroin. Why? Because it's
> >non-patentable, dirt cheap to make, and is the best cure for anxiety,
> >depression, and insomnia in the world. Also a super good inebriant that
> causes
> >no brain or liver damage, and best of all, absolutely zero hangover. Of
> course
> >they had to make it illegal, it was becoming too popular, and would have
> put the
> >liquor industry out of business, also severly damaged the pharmacuetical
> >industry.
> > That's the way things work in the biggest criminal enterprise in the
> world,
> >the US gov't.
> >
> >
> >
> >On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 12:54:03PM -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:
> >> At 11:36 AM 3/5/2004 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
> >> >On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 11:24:15AM -0400, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
> >> >> Dear Peter and Harmon
> >> >>
> >> >> The Cat Tail we have here grows in boggy areas, and has a root
system
> that
> >> >> extends 3/4 of the way to hell.
> >> >>
> >> >> Is there any easy and practical way to harvest cat tail roots?
> >> >
> >> > If forgot to also say that in the sense that the roots are to be
> used by
> >> >individuals for either food or in a small digester, hand digging is
> entirely
> >> >suitable. That's how the indigs did it, also how the muskrats do it.
> And of
> >> >course, even in commercial harvest, you don't want to remove every
last
> >> scrap of
> >> >root, since the plant sprouts again from even small sections of root.
> >> Harvesting
> >> >in strips was decided upon in MN as the best method, leaving
alternating
> >> strips
> >> >growing to propagate into the harvested area by adjoining roots.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >Harmon Seaver
> >>
> >>
> >> I harvested a lot of Calamus (Sweet Flag) root in my time -- which is
just
> >> like Cat Tail.
> >>
> >> I also noted you mentioned harvesting in October. That is correct.
Harvest
> >> is just after the freeze sets in and just after the thaw starts -- in
> >> Canada -- that was like April.
> >>
> >> So let me warn some of you!!
> >>
> >> You need good hip waders -- and a very strong constitution -- to hand
> >> harvest these roots in 32 F water/mud??
> >>
> >> Calamus is the universe's absolutely best "stomachic" and if that
secret
> >> ever got out the FDA approved -- 1 trillion dollars per year --
anti-acid
> >> industry would go broke in a week!
> >>
> >> Good thing moderns are so well programmed to accept only what they are
told
> >> to take -- eh??
> >>
> >> I can see the whole complex of industrialized nations going to deep
> >> economic collapse if people ever found out Calamus is the absolutely
best
> >> medicine for heart burn -- stimulating sex drive -- and many other
> >> "properties".
> >>
> >> The version growing to the North can't even "seed" as it originally
came
> >> with the British soldiers that defeated the French -- "gaining" Canada
in
> >> the late 1700's.
> >>
> >> The British military served such terrible fare for food that the India
vets
> >> soon learned to carry Calamus everywhere. Some soldiers planted Calamus
> >> around my area of Quebec -- and the plant ended up thriving -- but
> >> propagating only by root.
> >>
> >> Early settlers soon learned of it's values and the root was set in
every
> >> colonized area's wet spots -- often displacing Cattail.
> >>
> >> This northern version of the plant is far more medicinally potent than
the
> >> India original it derived from.
> >>
> >> Organized medicine and the FDA condemned Calamus as a cancer precursor
> >> (Carcinogenic) about 50 years or so ago -- a total fabrication that all
the
> >> "sheeple" believe in so well to this day.
> >>
> >> Ergo -- the anti-acid industry is worth one trillion per year now!!
> >>
> >> They also sold the same load of goods on people in regards to coconut
oil
> >> being bad for heart -- causing heart disease -- and only modern
process --
> >> hydrogeneated oils -- are healthy. Today we have orders higher heart
> >> disease simply because the body required ancestrial diet "lipids" to
resist
> >> arteriorslerosis!! So coconut oil is good -- fresh pig lard is good --
not
> >> bad as presented by your own organized medicine machinery.
> >>
> >> See capitalism work -- eh?? Anything for that Buck!
> >>
> >> Me thinks you all up in modern lands have a lot more problems than just
oil
> >> running out.
> >>
> >> Stay away from the Goombah machines (Aka the Super Mario Movie) -- eh??
> >>
> >> Peter
> >
> >--
> >Harmon Seaver
> >CyberShamanix
> >http://www.cybershamanix.com
> >

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Sat Mar 6 10:30:35 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:39 2004
Subject: [STOVES] Rootfuels
Message-ID: <SAT.6.MAR.2004.113035.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: "TBReed" <tombreed@COMCAST.NET>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] [STOVES] Rootfuels

> Dear Harmon or All:
>
> I have long admired the sugar cane plant as a potential source of so much
> more than sugar. It is a C4 solar collector par excellence. By itself,
> properly used, it could fill much of the energy needs of the equatorial
> countries. However, for each answer I find, I generate more questions.
>
> 1) I like to use molasses to make my bread. My impression is that the
> molasses is the mother liquor left after the white sugar has been
extracted,
> and that it still has all the original nutrients from 10-50 times as much
> liquid. And it should be cheap, but in the US is pricey because we don't
> use much.
>
> Is there a downside? Comments?

Generally, blackstrap molasses and refined molasses are too valuable, as a
feedstock for animal, rum making, and people, to use it as an energy source.
Energy is too cheap. As circumstances change, then there can be a "cane
based energy economy." Peter is doing a lot of really practical work in this
regard.

>
> 2) There is much more energy in the bagasse than required for boiling
> sugar, so the old boilers were made inefficient so they could also dispose
> of the balance. Winrock International has had a program for many years to
> lend money to the sugar plants to upgrade the boilers so that electric
power
> could also be generated, in some places as valuable as the sugar. How's
> that doing? (Does anyone know Dan Jantzen's current address?)

Peculiar local circumstances can make such ventures profitable....
Government grant, limited storage space for surplus bagasse, very high local
energy pricing, etc.
>
> 3) I was in Brazil working on a sugar cane pellet gasifier several years
> ago. The cane pellets were the best biomass pellets I have ever seen.
They
> cost $5/ton in Brazil. Unfortunately, the production at the plant I saw
has
> been shut down.

At $5 per ton, no wonder!! :-)

It was initially intended for making cattle feed. They
> boiled the trash for an hour to hydrolyse the cellulose/hemicellulose
before
> pelletizing. I don't know whether this helped the densification process
or
> not, but the pellets sure smelled lovely - vanillan I would guess.
>
Is this the Iotech Process, where they "explode" the woody biomass, to
expose the cellulose within the lignin sheath to the cows digestive process?
This enables about 90% digestibility of wood.

> 4) I have long suspected that the pellet industry does very little
> thinking. It takes >10,000 psi and 100 hp hr/ton to pelletize sawdust.
But
> wood is cellular and strong. It should take much less to pelletize paper
or
> cane trash because the cellular structure has already been collapsed. But
> the machines made for sawdust seem to take as much power for paper and
> bagasse as they do for sawdust. Is this flaw in the machine design?

No.... the "power" is basically consumed as "internal heating" to soften the
lignin so that the stuff will stick together on cooling.
>
> 5) I am 15 lb lighter with a lower carb diet, and so are 10-40 Million
> other USAnians. What is this going to do to the sugar industry if it
> spreads worldwide.
>
The World sugar industry is very much distorted by subsidies and protective
tariffs. The effect could be to pay subsidies for USA cane farming
Corporations to take cane field out of production. Or, they could get paid
to dump sugar on the World Market. I would doubt that you would see any drop
in sugar and molasses pricing in the USA because of the policy of
Argicultural Protectionism.

> Lots to ponder here... Hope I get some good answers from our crop of
> experts.
>
It is hard to do something sound and real when the playing field is so
tilted by hidden subsidies.

Kindest regards,

Kevin

From snkm at BTL.NET Sat Mar 6 10:55:37 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:39 2004
Subject: [STOVES] Rootfuels
Message-ID: <SAT.6.MAR.2004.095537.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Dear Tom and all;

At 07:34 AM 3/6/2004 -0700, TBReed wrote:
>Dear Harmon or All:
>
>I have long admired the sugar cane plant as a potential source of so much
>more than sugar. It is a C4 solar collector par excellence. By itself,
>properly used, it could fill much of the energy needs of the equatorial
>countries. However, for each answer I find, I generate more questions.
>
>1) I like to use molasses to make my bread. My impression is that the
>molasses is the mother liquor left after the white sugar has been extracted,
>and that it still has all the original nutrients from 10-50 times as much
>liquid. And it should be cheap, but in the US is pricey because we don't
>use much.
>
>Is there a downside? Comments?

Molasses is a sugar factory by product. Cane syrup is the full bodied
product you should be using for your bread making.

>
>2) There is much more energy in the bagasse than required for boiling
>sugar, so the old boilers were made inefficient so they could also dispose
>of the balance. Winrock International has had a program for many years to
>lend money to the sugar plants to upgrade the boilers so that electric power
>could also be generated, in some places as valuable as the sugar. How's
>that doing? (Does anyone know Dan Jantzen's current address?)

Most -- if not all -- sugar factories generate their own electric power
requirements from their boilers. Steam is a required processing agent in
the sugar making industry.

Due to the high ash content of sugar cane -- specifically the silicates --
use of modern, high efficiency, water tube boilers are not feasible.

The silicates coat all exposed surfaces -- and boiler tubes are changed one
per year. To expensive for a water tube boiler.

Ergo -- they use large diameter (relatively) fire tube boilers. Easy to
maintain as in changing tubes.

As the steam is such low quality (average is around 350 F -- super
saturated) they get 3% and less over all efficiencies with their turbines.

Remember my series of posting on using traditional, conventional, fire tube
boilers but exporting the low quality steam to geothermal ORC turbines??

The then low quality steam converts to electric power at 20% plus
efficiencies. ORC geothermal turbines as produced by ORMAT are hermetically
sealed and extremely reliable. They have units that have been running
continuously for 35 years or more -- maintenance free.

The price is right.

I was in touch with our one single sugar factory here in Belize in these
regards. But the engineers are dead set against it -- and instead went with
a plan using higher pressure fire tube boilers.

The refit with ORMATS works out to about $1500 US capital expenditure per
kwh produced.

The installing of new high pressure fire tube boilers costs $2640 per kwh.

And the efficiency after is 16% -- if they are lucky.

However -- the sugar industry here is in such serious decline they could
not raise the funding -- so the project is dead -- and the factory will
probably close soon.

I guess engineering has gone the same way as medicine -- both being to
"conventional" in thought processes and mentality -- and especially their
respective bureaucracies.

>
>3) I was in Brazil working on a sugar cane pellet gasifier several years
>ago. The cane pellets were the best biomass pellets I have ever seen. They
>cost $5/ton in Brazil. Unfortunately, the production at the plant I saw has
>been shut down. It was initially intended for making cattle feed. They
>boiled the trash for an hour to hydrolyse the cellulose/hemicellulose before
>pelletizing. I don't know whether this helped the densification process or
>not, but the pellets sure smelled lovely - vanillan I would guess.

This sounds very interesting Tom!!

>
>4) I have long suspected that the pellet industry does very little
>thinking. It takes >10,000 psi and 100 hp hr/ton to pelletize sawdust. But
>wood is cellular and strong. It should take much less to pelletize paper or
>cane trash because the cellular structure has already been collapsed. But
>the machines made for sawdust seem to take as much power for paper and
>bagasse as they do for sawdust. Is this flaw in the machine design?
>
>5) I am 15 lb lighter with a lower carb diet, and so are 10-40 Million
>other USAnians. What is this going to do to the sugar industry if it
>spreads worldwide.

Sugar cane produces excellent "food" -- but white sugar is deadly!!

Again -- it is the processing industry's mentality that is the factor in
the decline of this once great industry.

Raw cane sugar is know locally here as panela -- in India as Guri -- or
Jaggery.

This is a good food!! But no corporate brain-washed citizen in the modern
industrialized nations of this planet would ever consider using it as such!

Same problem as with hydrogenated over natural oils.

I worry Tom -- that the entire structure must be collapsed -- and maybe
from the ashes -- a second attempt will do things righter??

Say in 10,000 plus years or so -- eh??

Here is an url in regard to cane syrup --

http://www.steensyrup.com/

and another:

http://www.crosbys.com/what.htm

Where you have definitions of molasses.

There is much more to this subject -- basically -- cane juice can be
transmuted to many kinds of healthy foods -- starting with excellent cane
wine and cane vinegar.

But going further -- feed for animals to make meat.

As "perspective" -- AD -- you might find this interesting:

PREAMBLE:India produces 240 to 260 million tonnes of sugarcane,out of which
about 50% sugarcane is crushed in 400 giant sugar factories producing 11 to
12 million tonnes of white sulphitation sugar. In India,big sugar factories
use vacuum pan boiling system and sulphitation process which is highly
capital intensive having very complicated machinery and equipments.Our
sugar factories produce one more by-product unfit for human consumption
namely molasses.In India, over 4 million tonnes of molasses is produced
every year using half a million kg.of sulphur.Khandsari sugar factories,
too use sulphitation process and produce molasses.This quantity of molasses
is equivalent to providing 35 gms of jaggery everyday to all the 350
million children of India throughout the year.Hence such an enormous
quantity of high calory food is wasted by the use of sulphitation process.

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

For the curious -- I have appended an analysis of cane syrup's food values.

Certainly -- a very rich source of micronutrients -- most of which are
lacking in present modern nations agricultural products -- and people are
paying for that in regards to deteriorating health!

So try some cane syrup in your bread Tom -- you'll feel better for it!!

If it was possible to re-educate the masses in the modern industrialized
nations in regard to healthy eating there would be no emerging global
energy crisis! 3rd world nations would be able to exist economically
furnishing the better foods -- as well.

Though in reality -- the USA can grow a lot of cane if it was so "motivated"!

Work out what 20% over all btu extraction to electrical energy supplies to
the power equation using available sugar production.

Roughly: for every pound sugar you have 12,000 btu of bagasse produced.

This figure might stand correcting -- any experts out there??

Course -- one has to convince sugar plant operators that:

#1: There presently existing low quality steam boilers can be ported to a
geothermal ORC turbine (at present the mind set says that is "impossible"
-- not in practice -- but due to "bureaucracy"!!)

#2: That there are already many large ORC turbines in operation all over
this plant in the geothermal power industry and they have proven extremely
reliable and efficient.

To date it has proven impossible to get any "engineer" in the sugar
industry to co-operate!!

Still -- it is a very real alternative -- an "immediate" source of
renewable energy at levels only the Gasification mail list could ever even
dream of!

Peter / Belize

>
>Lots to ponder here... Hope I get some good answers from our crop of
>experts.
>
>Onward and Upward,

Some times I think the mainspring on the get up and go machinery is all
broke down!!

Maybe next spin of this wheel??

This one has hopelessly bogged down!!

See you all in 10,000 or so years -- eh??

>
>TOM REED BEF
>

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

Syrups, table blends, cane
NDB No: 19361 Date: 3/6/2004 9:34
Measure: 100 gram
Gram weight (edible portion): 100.00 g
Refuse: 0%

Nutrient Units Value
Water g 24.20
Energy kcal 279
Energy kj 1167
Protein g 0.10
Total lipid (fat) g 0.10
Ash g 0.40
Carbohydrate, by difference g 75.20
Fiber, total dietary g 0.0
Calcium, Ca mg 13
Iron, Fe mg 0.82
Magnesium, Mg mg 4
Phosphorus, P mg 2
Potassium, K mg 34
Sodium, Na mg 104
Zinc, Zn mg 0.64
Copper, Cu mg 0.020
Manganese, Mn mg 0.569
Selenium, Se mcg 0.7
Vitamin C, total ascorbic acid mg 0.0
Thiamin mg 0.010
Riboflavin mg 0.010
Niacin mg 0.021
Pantothenic acid mg 0.025
Vitamin B-6 mg 0.008
Folate, total mcg 0
Folic acid mcg 0
Folate, food mcg 0
Folate, DFE mcg_DFE 0
Vitamin B-12 mcg 0.00
Vitamin A, IU IU 0
Vitamin A, RAE mcg_RAE 0
Retinol mcg 0
Vitamin E mg_ATE 0.000
Fatty acids, total saturated g 0.018
4:0 g 0.000
6:0 g 0.000
8:0 g 0.000
10:0 g 0.000
12:0 g 0.000
14:0 g 0.000
16:0 g 0.018
18:0 g 0.002
Fatty acids, total monounsaturated g 0.032
16:1 undifferentiated g 0.000
18:1 undifferentiated g 0.032
20:1 g 0.000
22:1 undifferentiated g 0.000
Fatty acids, total polyunsaturated g 0.050
18:2 undifferentiated g 0.050
18:3 undifferentiated g 0.000
18:4 g 0.000
20:4 undifferentiated g 0.000
20:5 n-3 g 0.000
22:5 n-3 g 0.000
22:6 n-3 g 0.000
Cholesterol mg 0

From MMBTUPR at AOL.COM Sat Mar 6 21:04:31 2004
From: MMBTUPR at AOL.COM (Lewis L. Smith)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:39 2004
Subject: [STOVES] Rootfuels
Message-ID: <SAT.6.MAR.2004.210431.EST.>

to Gasifiers from Lewis L. Smith

Traditional cane mill boilers burn bagasse in a pile on the floor of the
firebox and produce steam at between 150 and 250 pounds per square inch
"gauge", that is, above atmospheric pressure of 14 plus pounds. Temperature is
around 200 deg F, if memory fails not.

As several people have pointed out, a traditional cane mill is
deliberately designed to be inefficient, both in the consumption and production of
energy. The idea is to exactly use up all the bagasse by the end of the grinding
season. As one says in Spanish, "Zero bagazo en el piso al fin de zafra".
[Bagasse should not be considered a waste but a valuable intermediate coproduct of
cane, but that is a story for another day.]

However, as Tom surmised, it is possible to extract a great deal more
energy from a given quantity of bagasse by increasing boiler pressures and
temperatures ["boiler conditions"] . Typical pressures are 450, 650, 850 and 1,250
lb psig. There is also an increase in efficiency. The end result is that a
great many more kWh's are available for "export" to the electric grid.

There is of course a tradeoff. More money, better steels, better water
treatment and better personnel, with 850 psig probably the best choice in most
cases. In particular, note the following. If something goes wrong with a 200
psig boiler, one has anywhere from half an hour to half a day to detect it and
fix it. If an 850 psig, five minutes. If a 1,200 psig, two minutes ! So
the key factor is the kind of people one can hire, train, supervise, retrain
and retain. In this regard, a big problem is that 1,200 psig is at the lower
end of pressure range for electric utility boilers in many developing
countries, so if you go for that pressure, the local utility may eventually hire away
your best personnel !

Incidentally I don't why people think sugar is all that bad. When the
cane plant is growing, most of the sugars are in the form of glucose [as in
corn] and fructose [as in fruits] . When the harvest approaches, any
irrigation-water supply is cut off to make the cane store energy in the form of sucrose
[glucose plus fructose] . Or by good timing, one finds oneself with dry weather.
Then, when the sugar [96% sucrose] gets into your stomach, it quickly breaks
up into glucose and fructose again.

Cordially.

End.

From snkm at BTL.NET Tue Mar 9 15:22:58 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:39 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
Message-ID: <TUE.9.MAR.2004.142258.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Just went and refreshed a few old Urls -- and found one sight that does a
very good job of explaining this emerging technology.

http://www.freepower.co.uk/WH-info.htm

This in regards to their presently marketing 6 kw model -- nice and small.

It does have relevance to the gasifier topic -- great way to recover energy
lost from any gasifier system!

At this Url:

http://www.freepower.co.uk/LS-GSE.htm

They have an interesting over all efficiency chart.

There in house built turbine (or shall we call it a turbo extractor) gets
70% efficiencies. not bad ---

Yet there over all system efficiency -- at 375 C temp -- is an amazing 26%!!

At 200 C -- 21%!!

That is electric power extracted from heat applied to this device.

Ok -- many on this list find it hard to get excited over this -- but Your
old style steam plant operating at 400 F steam temps had a hard time
getting even 5% over all efficiencies.

Certainly - -this gets much worse when you factor in furnace efficiency.

So with the sugar cane factory -- your lucky to get 3% out of that bagasse
into electrical power using the conventional steam turbines.

The larger ORC turbines get better efficiencies -- mechanical being 80% or
over -- ergo -- the same boiler gets 20% over all out of the bagasse --
rather than 3% or less.

A small -- well designed -- reciprocating ORC (say 5 kw) could get better
than 90% mechanical efficiencies.

But Turbo extractors are much more economical -- plus long term reliable.

Turbo extractors is the polite name for turbochargers -- as used in the
automotive/trucking industry. so yes -- lot's of development energy has
been applied to this field of engineering endeavors.

There are some very nice thermal gasifiers out there that could benefit
with an ORC turbine married to them.

These ORC turbines are all hermetically sealed and maintenance free. Think
refrigerator motor.

Closed systems.

Anyway -- if you have heat and you want power -- this is a viable
alternative. And yes -- even for the small guy --

If your using a thermal oil as transfer medium -- your "boiler" need be no
more than a large pan sitting over a fire -- with a small circulation pump.

It just does not get any simpler folks. And certainly not for these kind of
efficiencies.

Peter

************some specs*********

Rankine Cycle closed circuit 2 stage radial inflow turbine overhung on high
speed
generator shaft extension.

Turbine specs

Power Output: 9 kW
Turbine Speed: 45,000 rpm
Operating pressure: 11.6 bar abs.
Operating temperature: 165?C
Turbine: efficiency 73%
Mass flow: 0.5 kg/sec
Working fluid: Hydrofluoroether

Generator

High Speed two pole rare earth permanent magnet alternator.

Power Output 8.8kWe 750hz
Magnets Nd F Be
Rotor Stainless Steel
Rotor Containment Carbon fibre sleeve
Bearings Pregreased, sealed hybrid ceramic rolling element
Cooling Working fluid from condenser
Voltage output 160v rms for 48v DC system
or 320v rms for 230v 50/60hz AC system

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Tue Mar 9 15:53:16 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:39 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040309142148.009b1810@btlmail.btl.net>
Message-ID: <TUE.9.MAR.2004.145316.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

But what do they cost? I can't find any prices anywhere on the site.

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

From billkichman at COMCAST.NET Tue Mar 9 20:27:23 2004
From: billkichman at COMCAST.NET (Bill Kichman)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:39 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
In-Reply-To: <20040309205316.GA25968@cybershamanix.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.9.MAR.2004.202723.0500.BILLKICHMAN@COMCAST.NET>

IS that site all screwed up, with pics over top of the text or is that just
my browser's antics? Very unprofessional presentation. Hope there is more
substance to the product than the site! :-)

R. William Kichman, P.E.
Kichman Engineering Associates
103 Old Furnace Road
Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
tel/fax 717/270-0714

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Harmon Seaver
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 3:53 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??

But what do they cost? I can't find any prices anywhere on the site.

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

From Arotstein at ORMAT.COM Wed Mar 10 02:37:22 2004
From: Arotstein at ORMAT.COM (Ariel Rotstein)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:39 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
Message-ID: <WED.10.MAR.2004.093722.0200.AROTSTEIN@ORMAT.COM>

For small ORC units in scale of 1 to 6 kW see the Ormat Closed Cycle Vapor Turbo-generators (CCVT). They are in market since 1965, with great reliability.
http://www.ormat.com/index_technology.htm

There is also the E4V unit that receives the heat for direct combustion of biomass.
http://www.ormat.com/index_technology.htm

Ariel

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Singfield [mailto:snkm@BTL.NET]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 10:23 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [GASL] ORCs are coming??

Just went and refreshed a few old Urls -- and found one sight that does a
very good job of explaining this emerging technology.

http://www.freepower.co.uk/WH-info.htm

This in regards to their presently marketing 6 kw model -- nice and small.

It does have relevance to the gasifier topic -- great way to recover energy
lost from any gasifier system!

At this Url:

http://www.freepower.co.uk/LS-GSE.htm

They have an interesting over all efficiency chart.

There in house built turbine (or shall we call it a turbo extractor) gets
70% efficiencies. not bad ---

Yet there over all system efficiency -- at 375 C temp -- is an amazing 26%!!

At 200 C -- 21%!!

That is electric power extracted from heat applied to this device.

Ok -- many on this list find it hard to get excited over this -- but Your
old style steam plant operating at 400 F steam temps had a hard time
getting even 5% over all efficiencies.

Certainly - -this gets much worse when you factor in furnace efficiency.

So with the sugar cane factory -- your lucky to get 3% out of that bagasse
into electrical power using the conventional steam turbines.

The larger ORC turbines get better efficiencies -- mechanical being 80% or
over -- ergo -- the same boiler gets 20% over all out of the bagasse --
rather than 3% or less.

A small -- well designed -- reciprocating ORC (say 5 kw) could get better
than 90% mechanical efficiencies.

But Turbo extractors are much more economical -- plus long term reliable.

Turbo extractors is the polite name for turbochargers -- as used in the
automotive/trucking industry. so yes -- lot's of development energy has
been applied to this field of engineering endeavors.

There are some very nice thermal gasifiers out there that could benefit
with an ORC turbine married to them.

These ORC turbines are all hermetically sealed and maintenance free. Think
refrigerator motor.

Closed systems.

Anyway -- if you have heat and you want power -- this is a viable
alternative. And yes -- even for the small guy --

If your using a thermal oil as transfer medium -- your "boiler" need be no
more than a large pan sitting over a fire -- with a small circulation pump.

It just does not get any simpler folks. And certainly not for these kind of
efficiencies.

Peter

************some specs*********

Rankine Cycle closed circuit 2 stage radial inflow turbine overhung on high
speed
generator shaft extension.

Turbine specs

Power Output: 9 kW
Turbine Speed: 45,000 rpm
Operating pressure: 11.6 bar abs.
Operating temperature: 165?C
Turbine: efficiency 73%
Mass flow: 0.5 kg/sec
Working fluid: Hydrofluoroether

Generator

High Speed two pole rare earth permanent magnet alternator.

Power Output 8.8kWe 750hz
Magnets Nd F Be
Rotor Stainless Steel
Rotor Containment Carbon fibre sleeve
Bearings Pregreased, sealed hybrid ceramic rolling element
Cooling Working fluid from condenser
Voltage output 160v rms for 48v DC system
or 320v rms for 230v 50/60hz AC system

From snkm at BTL.NET Wed Mar 10 09:12:59 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:39 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
Message-ID: <WED.10.MAR.2004.081259.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 09:37 AM 3/10/2004 +0200, Ariel Rotstein wrote:
>For small ORC units in scale of 1 to 6 kW see the Ormat Closed Cycle Vapor
Turbo-generators (CCVT). They are in market since 1965, with great
reliability.
>http://www.ormat.com/index_technology.htm
>
>There is also the E4V unit that receives the heat for direct combustion of
biomass.
>http://www.ormat.com/index_technology.htm
>
>Ariel
>
>

Hi Ariel and list;

http://www.offshore-technology.com/contractors/power/ormat/index.html

Very nice overview of ORC turbine heat recover.

http://www.offshore-technology.com/contractors/power/ormat/ormat1.html

Flow diagram is very informative.

The problem at present is capital costs combined with no more long term
investments.

100 years ago it was common practice for - -saying -- a sawmill to invest
heavily in a boiler and steam power plant to reliable power for an extended
period. They built for their future.

In today's modern world of business -- capital expenditures are held to a
minimum -- and the general concept is one of no future at all.

Beyond the years dividends -- of course.

These small power plants should be able to be made an marketed at a very
reasonable cost. ORMAT could source components in China -- to their
specifications.

I lately received 3 DEK 6 HP diesel engines from China. These are excellent
quality air cooled diesels -- $195 US each.

There is more machining -- more components -- more fine construction of
delicate components -- involved in these engines than in the ORC turbine
power plant.

I noted -- while going through my archives -- that China is indeed already
in production of Turbo Expanders -- as is Russia.

China:

http://www.saspg.com/info/Edwb.html

Russia:

http://www.cryogenmash.ru/production/zip/turbodet_e4.htm

Three phase permanent magnet alternators are an expensive item -- even when
sourced in China.

Though these are capable of the high rpm operation required -- thus gaining
on mechanical efficiency losses due to sever gear reduction otherwise
required -- and also that they are 90% plus efficient in power generation
besides -- they are pricy to source.

Further they require a battery of expensive electronics to condition power
output to desired ranges.

On the other hand -- gear reduction units that would be required as
alternative are also expensive and prone to wear.

For quite some time -- as this list knows -- I have been promoting the
concept of using lower RPM to conventional generator heads reciprocating
ORC engines -- especially for the 6 kw and less niche.

I understand clearly why turbines are the choice for ORC systems -- because
of "back-pressure" -- there is no expansion to atmospheric pressure --
there can be no negative pressure at the exhaust.

So straight though flow converters -- such as turbines -- become the
obvious choice.

However -- I visualize designs for reciprocating engines that can work well
in this area.

There are also other alternative power converters being experimented with
-- scroll compressors converted to scroll engines -- is but one example.

I suspect more work in investigating these areas must be undertaken to
reduce costs for the small to micro ORC power plants.

Certainly -- companies such as ORMAT have already well proven the viability
of lower temperature power recovery using a refrigerant and the ORC turbines.

As for the gasifier --

The hugest problem is supply a product gas that is next to totally clean
and tar free to combust in gas turbine or gas engine.

Certainly -- a thermal only gasifier -- that is a product for burning to
produce heat -- is a mush simpler and reliable device. And as such is idea
for operation of an ORMAT such as we see demonstrated in those Urls.

25 years of maintenance free operation!!

If only we had the confidence in our future to warrant these style
investments -- one would then find these present systems as an extremely
economical power solution!

No reciprocating device can match these long term reliability criteria --
but they certainly can be used to lower capital costs dramatically -- and
still have a ten year or plus life span!

Think hermetically sealed -- reciprocating refrigeration compressors!

We are simply using off the shelf components -- and applying these in novel
ways. The durability and practicality of these items already well proven by
time.

Peter / Belize

From Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK Wed Mar 10 16:41:55 2004
From: Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:39 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040310081121.009b14f0@btlmail.btl.net>
Message-ID: <WED.10.MAR.2004.214155.0000.GAVIN@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>

Peter,
<snip>

I think that close rpm control of high revving GT with geared drive to
50/60HZ alternator might be tricky. If not frequency controlled by prime
mover rpm then any alternator will require (now relatively cheap) power
electronics.

I like you reciprocating Ideas but worry about lubricant contamination of
the working fluid - and pressure leaks- for instance most auto engines and
all Listers suffer some "blow though" to the sump which is just another
small loss in a Carnot engine but will knacker the performance of a closed
loop rankine machine
Maybe some working fluids can act as lubricants too, but "blow through"
would still represent a considerable loss.

I will look forward to your working prototype and expect great things form
your website -compared the UK outfit!
Kind regards
Gavin

From snkm at BTL.NET Wed Mar 10 18:55:25 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:39 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
Message-ID: <WED.10.MAR.2004.175525.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 09:41 PM 3/10/2004 -0000, Gavin Gulliver-Goodall wrote:
>Peter,
><snip>
>
>I think that close rpm control of high revving GT with geared drive to
>50/60HZ alternator might be tricky. If not frequency controlled by prime
>mover rpm then any alternator will require (now relatively cheap) power
>electronics.

I have been getting quotes from China on generators. The very nice ST
series -- with four poles -- good efficiency (say 85%??) -- 1800 rpm -- 3kw
is $95.00 US

A 2000 watt permanent magnet -- 3 phase alternator -- probably 95% or
better efficiencies -- $1600 US -- and without the electronics!! Which at
that point I did not bother asking a price quote for.

So -- if your talking economical small power plants -- it dies right there!

>
>I like you reciprocating Ideas but worry about lubricant contamination of
>the working fluid - and pressure leaks- for instance most auto engines and
>all Listers suffer some "blow though" to the sump which is just another
>small loss in a Carnot engine but will knacker the performance of a closed
>loop rankine machine
>Maybe some working fluids can act as lubricants too, but "blow through"
>would still represent a considerable loss.

You thinking along present system designs. Many years back I worked out a
very simple -- 100% sealing -- piston using plain virgin nylon along with
brass plates -- hard to describe -- but easy to make -- very economic --
needs no lube -- seals 100% -- and due to almost no coefficient of friction
-- lasts very long.

This was used to seal a cylinder and then release -- at a continuous rate
-- 15,000 PSI super critical water heated to 850 F.

In testing -- we held a full charge (850F - 15,000 PSI) for 24 hours
without moving the pressure gauge.

The plan is to sit one of those on top of the existing Lister cylinder --
as in a cylinder extension.

The Lister piston becomes an oil lubricated longitudinal bearing -- with a
rod bolted to the head running to the above nylon piston above it -- which
of course -- will be activated from both sides -- as in the old style steam
engines. so two power stroked per revolution.

The valving will be the tried and true "pop" valve as intake -- with an
actuated pop valve for exhaust. Pop valves being easy to make -- cheap!
(just use hydraulic quick coupler parts)

Remember -- top RPM will be 650 -- max output power will be 6 HP. The
engine weighs in at 840 lbs as is and the crank shaft is 2 inches in diameter.

So a very solid base to build up on.

>
>I will look forward to your working prototype and expect great things form
>your website -compared the UK outfit!
>Kind regards
>Gavin

Ha -- don't hold your breath on that! Maybe in ten years -- maybe never --
but I do have the engine to start with at hand.

Next will be a good metal lathe --

I'm in no rush -- have not need for this style of power plant. The other
two old Listers will be running on used engine oil -- which I have acquired
quite a stock of -- and are settling in their respective tanks.

Right now i have sufficient for 20 years of operation!

I no longer believe innovation is a viable business venture base. Actually
-- it appears the opposite these days.

The only incentive is my personal curiosity -- and the challenge inherent.

Anyway -- there will be no blowback -- there will be no lubrication required.

For 6 HP -- the boiler will probably be a flat pan filled with a suitable
"salt" that melts and maintains a sufficiently hot temperature -- say 500 F
-- along the lines they used for propelling some torpedoes during WWII.
This being far more stable than thermal oil -- plus having the added
advantage of a latent heat of fusion factor.

A simple steel coil -- probably made from truck brake line -- will run
through this bath -- and the working fluid (probably butane) will be pumped
through that.

With the possibility of a super heater coil in the flue.

Actually -- you could call this a "STOVE"!! And when not used for making
power -- you could cook over it!

Power output would be about 4 kw.

Say a modest over all efficiency of 10% -- so max power would require
40,000 watts of biomass energy.

Switching units -- 3414 BTU per kwh -- 34,140 btu per kwh -- say 5000 BTU
per pound of biomass.

Say 7 pounds of biomass per kwh produced.

Relatively speaking I use a lot of power here. Due to the machinery running
-- maybe 15 kwh per day.

So I would need to consume not more than 105 lbs of biomass per day.

My present operations supply biomass "wastes" of bagasse (from cane
crushing), cohune nut shells from cohune oil making (8500 btu per pound),
coconut shell from coconut oil making.

When running the small cane crusher we produce over 1000 lbs of bagasse per
day -- nothing to do with -- even though it is burned in the "boiler" for
evaporating cane juice!

Certainly -- if i believed in a world where mechanization will forever
increase -- I might be interested in putting in a power plant for the
entire village needs.

But you see -- I do not believe in that manner. Rather -- I believe we all
should -- and especially here -- start getting used to the least amount of
mechanical "wonders".

So a reciprocating ORC is not the highest thing on my agenda.

The old Listers are rated at 25 years service at 12 hours per day. And I
have sufficient new spare parts at hand to double this. These Listers will
live longer than I will.

Peter / Belize

From Arotstein at ORMAT.COM Thu Mar 11 10:22:53 2004
From: Arotstein at ORMAT.COM (Ariel Rotstein)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:39 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
Message-ID: <THU.11.MAR.2004.172253.0200.AROTSTEIN@ORMAT.COM>

A main differences between a diesel generator and an ORC unit are the O&M costs.
Even though you cant compare the installed capacity cost of an ORC to a diesel generator, if you consider the O&M costs, you will see that the ORC is in the competition.
Also take into considiration that for rural locations it is difficult to supply the parts and fuel.

Ariel

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Thu Mar 11 12:14:27 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:39 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040310175227.009c2ec0@btlmail.btl.net>
Message-ID: <THU.11.MAR.2004.111427.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:55:25PM -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:
> I have been getting quotes from China on generators. The very nice ST
> series -- with four poles -- good efficiency (say 85%??) -- 1800 rpm -- 3kw
> is $95.00 US
>
Is that $95.00 or $950.00? If the former, can you give me the website or
address for that. Or is that price only in container lots?

> A 2000 watt permanent magnet -- 3 phase alternator -- probably 95% or
> better efficiencies -- $1600 US -- and without the electronics!! Which at
> that point I did not bother asking a price quote for.

That is pretty crazy, you can get a 3hp induction motor and run it as a
generator for only $100-200. You still need some electronics or a good governor
on the engine, unless you're hooking it up to the grid.

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

From billkichman at COMCAST.NET Thu Mar 11 12:51:38 2004
From: billkichman at COMCAST.NET (Bill Kichman)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:39 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
In-Reply-To: <20040311171427.GA28656@cybershamanix.com>
Message-ID: <THU.11.MAR.2004.125138.0500.BILLKICHMAN@COMCAST.NET>

This is an interesting topic to me at the moment, as I am in the midst of
obtaining materials to start a cogen diesel waste veggie oil setup. I offer
the following information related to materials pricing obtained thus far. I
will run separate 10hp and 12hp stationary Lister diesel engines, running
surplus induction squirrel cage motors as generators as indicated in the
post below by Harmon. The new "Listeroid"engine prices, since they weigh in
the neighborhood of 750 pounds, are following steel upwards rapidly, but I
obtained the 2 engines for $2k plus shipping, total. The motor/generators
are good surplus models, and run for $10 per horsepower, used, in my
neighborhood when available. I am told most of our used motors are now sent
to China where they are rapidly being put into use in their booming
manufacturing economy. But I obtained a 2-pole 10hp 3600 rpm for $100, and
a 20hp 6-pole 1200rpm model for $150. The latter motor weighs about 350
pounds. Add to that the necessary capacitors for self-excitation, I found
surplus motor run 40uF caps for $1.30 apiece. So far I have been lucky
obtaining good prices in this endeavor. Next week the engines will arrive
and in 2 or 3 weeks I should have some results of initial testing of these
engines on waste veggie oil, it looks promising based on initial research.

On another topic, I would be very interested in obtaining some means of PLC
control of the plant, and power quality monitoring(PQM) at a reasonable
cost, however without spending at least $10k and more, it appears that a PQM
meter and PLC with all the required analog and digital transducers and
sensors is out of reach of the hobbyist or part time scientist. I did find
a PQM family of microprocessors available from Analog Devices, the heart of
many such commercial devices, but it looks like a huge task to set up a
working model based on that chip. It might make sense to band together with
like minded individuals in need of such current, voltage, power factor and
harmonic distortion measurements of their generated electrical power, to
design and make available some plans kits or parts. Does anybody else here
see such a need? I would think that anybody making power would need a
method to accurately measure and monitor produced power.

R. William Kichman, P.E.
Kichman Engineering Associates
103 Old Furnace Road
Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
tel/fax 717/270-0714

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Harmon Seaver
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 12:14 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:55:25PM -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:
> I have been getting quotes from China on generators. The very nice ST
> series -- with four poles -- good efficiency (say 85%??) -- 1800 rpm --
3kw
> is $95.00 US
>
Is that $95.00 or $950.00? If the former, can you give me the website or
address for that. Or is that price only in container lots?

> A 2000 watt permanent magnet -- 3 phase alternator -- probably 95% or
> better efficiencies -- $1600 US -- and without the electronics!! Which at
> that point I did not bother asking a price quote for.

That is pretty crazy, you can get a 3hp induction motor and run it as a
generator for only $100-200. You still need some electronics or a good
governor
on the engine, unless you're hooking it up to the grid.

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

From snkm at BTL.NET Thu Mar 11 13:09:23 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:39 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
Message-ID: <THU.11.MAR.2004.120923.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 05:22 PM 3/11/2004 +0200, Ariel Rotstein wrote:
>A main differences between a diesel generator and an ORC unit are the O&M
costs.
>Even though you cant compare the installed capacity cost of an ORC to a
diesel generator, if you consider the O&M costs, you will see that the ORC
is in the competition.
>Also take into considiration that for rural locations it is difficult to
supply the parts and fuel.
>
>Ariel
>

Yes, I find that quite true. Returning to the village unit demonstrated at:

>There is also the E4V unit that receives the heat for direct combustion of
biomass.

http://www.ormat.com/index_technology.htm

Though I understand well the principles of the ORC system involved -- am
very curious as to the combustion unit.

Combustion unit or gasifier??

What type of fuel --

What moisture levels --

How intensive is the "fire" management procedure?

How much fuel per hour for rated max output --

To partially answer some of these from information at the site:

"The Biomass Fueled OEC is a self contained, factory tested, fully
automatic power unit, easy to install and operate by local farmers. The
unit is virtually maintenance-free, requiring daily load of biomass and
periodic simple ash removal"

Question -- what condition of biomass?? Chips -- pellets?? Or chunks of
woody biomass?

"The Biomass Fueled OECcan use various agricultural residue types, such as:
coffee husks and pulp, rice husks, maize cobs, cacao husks, sugarcane tops,
wood (trimmings and chips), and others."

Looking at the graphic -- it appears that the hopper is filled -- and as
such -- must be small biomass chunks??

Is the unit a thermal gasifier capable of mositure levels to 50%??

This is a very interesting device!

I note that Ormat has some financial assistance in place? As in arranging
loans to cover cost of purchase and installation?

Certainly -- I know of a few jungle villages here in Belize that should be
very interested in such.

6 kw is more than sufficient for an entire village.

Though the battery system is far easier to "run" -- batteries are a problem
in the tropics.

The direct supply of power to demand would be of interest in lowering
capital costs and maintenance costs.

I note both systems are available. Very good!

Belize has a few such villages -- about 18. But in the surrounding
countries of Central America -- there exists thousands.

My congratulations to ORMAT for developing such a fine, village level,
power system!

How is it possible to get price estimates?

For both the 4 and 6 kw models.

Peter / Belize

From snkm at BTL.NET Thu Mar 11 13:39:55 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:39 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
Message-ID: <THU.11.MAR.2004.123955.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

It's $95 Harmon --

I have been a busy little Canuck Beaver in Belize and opened up my own
account directly with main-land China sales office.

And -- no -- not container loads. The last shipment was 2100 lbs -- total
-- cost $250 US transport from China to Belize.

The heaviest part of that shipment was:

2 ST 5 kw generators ($135 per)

3 ST 3 kw generators ($95 per)

24 lead acid power plant stationary batteries -- 2 volt -- 300 Amp hour
each. ($60 US each)

3 DEK small air cooled diesels -- 6 HP ($195 US each)

Everything of excellent quality!!

But this is a 3rd world to 3rd world deal. And I "begged" for a year as it
is such a hassle for them there to do part container loads.

and oh -- it took 8 months for the shipment to get here -- rather than the
3 weeks to one month a container does the same trip in.

Hmm -- that kind of puts some new writing up on that old wall -- eh??

I am working on my next order right now ---

I have a really good sales agent -- he sources everything and sends me back
full technical info -- then I select.

This next order is in relationship to some really cute diesel outboards --
for my marine operation. Some more diesel engines -- but different models
and more HP

Hopefully a good small lathe and milling machine.

some more generators -- some specialized transformers -- etc.

Each year I put in one order -- cute!

Remember -- except for the US and possibly a number of modern
industrialized nations -- the whole world is just one big village -- eh??

The rest is one big "CITY" with one hell of a slum!!

You ever think of moving your cabin to the village Harmon??

> That is pretty crazy, you can get a 3hp induction motor and run it as a
>generator for only $100-200. You still need some electronics or a good
governor
>on the engine, unless you're hooking it up to the grid.

Any idea of what generator efficiency is on those converted motors?? I'll
stick with the ST "Heads" from China.

If you want the real lowdown on those -- browse over to:

http://www.utterpower.com/ST.htm

But I pulled two down just to really look -- they are incredible!!
Certainly they will dance with the Listers for 25 years or more!!

They hold their frequency to one Hz on the DEK's when coming on to a strong
load (skill saw or 2 motor on cane crusher) and do not drop voltage by more
than 2%!!

Plus a good sine wave --

And this with the 3kw head!!

I'm ordering more ----

Peter / Belize

At 11:14 AM 3/11/2004 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:55:25PM -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:
>> I have been getting quotes from China on generators. The very nice ST
>> series -- with four poles -- good efficiency (say 85%??) -- 1800 rpm -- 3kw
>> is $95.00 US
>>
> Is that $95.00 or $950.00? If the former, can you give me the website or
>address for that. Or is that price only in container lots?
>
>
>> A 2000 watt permanent magnet -- 3 phase alternator -- probably 95% or
>> better efficiencies -- $1600 US -- and without the electronics!! Which at
>> that point I did not bother asking a price quote for.
>
>
> That is pretty crazy, you can get a 3hp induction motor and run it as a
>generator for only $100-200. You still need some electronics or a good
governor
>on the engine, unless you're hooking it up to the grid.
>
>--
>Harmon Seaver
>CyberShamanix
>http://www.cybershamanix.com
>

From ken at BASTERFIELD.COM Fri Mar 12 14:40:02 2004
From: ken at BASTERFIELD.COM (Ken Basterfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:39 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
In-Reply-To: <20040311171427.GA28656@cybershamanix.com>
Message-ID: <FRI.12.MAR.2004.194002.0000.KEN@BASTERFIELD.COM>

Harmon,
How would you be supplying the exciting current for the induction motor
when it is run as an induction generator if it is not connected to the
grid?
Sincerely
Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG] On Behalf Of Harmon Seaver
Sent: 11 March 2004 17:14
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:55:25PM -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:
> I have been getting quotes from China on generators. The very nice ST
> series -- with four poles -- good efficiency (say 85%??) -- 1800 rpm
-- 3kw
> is $95.00 US
>
Is that $95.00 or $950.00? If the former, can you give me the website
or
address for that. Or is that price only in container lots?

> A 2000 watt permanent magnet -- 3 phase alternator -- probably 95% or
> better efficiencies -- $1600 US -- and without the electronics!! Which
at
> that point I did not bother asking a price quote for.

That is pretty crazy, you can get a 3hp induction motor and run it as
a
generator for only $100-200. You still need some electronics or a good
governor
on the engine, unless you're hooking it up to the grid.

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

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Fri Mar 12 15:01:56 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:39 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
In-Reply-To: <000001c40869$d0937710$6702a8c0@KenThinkPad>
Message-ID: <FRI.12.MAR.2004.140156.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

You do that with capacitors. Here's a website on using induction motors as
generators:

http://www.qsl.net/ns8o/Induction_Generator.html

And another selling electronic controls:

http://www.scs-www.com/Igc.html

 

On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 07:40:02PM -0000, Ken Basterfield wrote:
> Harmon,
> How would you be supplying the exciting current for the induction motor
> when it is run as an induction generator if it is not connected to the
> grid?
> Sincerely
> Ken
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Gasification Discussion List
> [mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG] On Behalf Of Harmon Seaver
> Sent: 11 March 2004 17:14
> To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:55:25PM -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:
> > I have been getting quotes from China on generators. The very nice ST
> > series -- with four poles -- good efficiency (say 85%??) -- 1800 rpm
> -- 3kw
> > is $95.00 US
> >
> Is that $95.00 or $950.00? If the former, can you give me the website
> or
> address for that. Or is that price only in container lots?
>
>
> > A 2000 watt permanent magnet -- 3 phase alternator -- probably 95% or
> > better efficiencies -- $1600 US -- and without the electronics!! Which
> at
> > that point I did not bother asking a price quote for.
>
>
> That is pretty crazy, you can get a 3hp induction motor and run it as
> a
> generator for only $100-200. You still need some electronics or a good
> governor
> on the engine, unless you're hooking it up to the grid.
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com

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

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Fri Mar 12 15:07:38 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:39 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
In-Reply-To: <000001c40869$d0937710$6702a8c0@KenThinkPad>
Message-ID: <FRI.12.MAR.2004.140738.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

Here's another one:

http://home.carolina.rr.com/microhydro/asynchronous_generator_induction_motor_as_a_generator.html

On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 07:40:02PM -0000, Ken Basterfield wrote:
> Harmon,
> How would you be supplying the exciting current for the induction motor
> when it is run as an induction generator if it is not connected to the
> grid?
> Sincerely
> Ken
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Gasification Discussion List
> [mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG] On Behalf Of Harmon Seaver
> Sent: 11 March 2004 17:14
> To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:55:25PM -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:
> > I have been getting quotes from China on generators. The very nice ST
> > series -- with four poles -- good efficiency (say 85%??) -- 1800 rpm
> -- 3kw
> > is $95.00 US
> >
> Is that $95.00 or $950.00? If the former, can you give me the website
> or
> address for that. Or is that price only in container lots?
>
>
> > A 2000 watt permanent magnet -- 3 phase alternator -- probably 95% or
> > better efficiencies -- $1600 US -- and without the electronics!! Which
> at
> > that point I did not bother asking a price quote for.
>
>
> That is pretty crazy, you can get a 3hp induction motor and run it as
> a
> generator for only $100-200. You still need some electronics or a good
> governor
> on the engine, unless you're hooking it up to the grid.
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com

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

From cmurphy at PRESSENTER.COM Fri Mar 12 15:09:53 2004
From: cmurphy at PRESSENTER.COM (Craig P. Murphy)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:39 2004
Subject: Biodiesel Engines
Message-ID: <FRI.12.MAR.2004.140953.0600.CMURPHY@PRESSENTER.COM>

Maybe not the best place to ask this question, but.....
Does any one out there know of a source of (reasonably priced) diesel
engines, 1800rpm, 12 to 20hp, with documented history running on straight
biodiesel (or blend of 80% bio/20% fossil)?
Any input will be appreciated.
Thanks.
Craig Murphy
Broad Street Resources,Inc.

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Fri Mar 12 17:20:03 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:39 2004
Subject: Biodiesel Engines
In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20040312140619.00a345d0@pop.pressenter.com>
Message-ID: <FRI.12.MAR.2004.162003.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Craig and all,

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but Doug Williams from fluidyne in New
Zealand would be able to answer this question,
http://www.fluidynenz.250x.com/

however, I will attempt a small answer, Lister Engines
http://www.lister-petter.com/lpi/engines/lister_content.htm

Is one good source of small frame, heavy duty diesel, engines.

A good reference is the LPA3
http://www.lister-petter.com/lpi/pdfs/LPA2_3_datasheet.pdf air cooled
diesel, 20hp @ 3000rpm

I know they deal in biodiesel equipped units..

Greg Manning,
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Craig P. Murphy
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 2:10 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Biodiesel Engines

Maybe not the best place to ask this question, but.....
Does any one out there know of a source of (reasonably priced) diesel
engines, 1800rpm, 12 to 20hp, with documented history running on straight
biodiesel (or blend of 80% bio/20% fossil)?
Any input will be appreciated.
Thanks.
Craig Murphy
Broad Street Resources,Inc.

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Fri Mar 12 18:17:05 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:39 2004
Subject: Biodiesel Engines
In-Reply-To: <000301c40880$2af175c0$0200a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <FRI.12.MAR.2004.171705.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

I'm a bit mystified at the question -- looking for diesels with a "history" of
biodiesel use is almost irrelevent. Any diesel engine will run on biodiesel, the
only problems that might occur are with older engines that don't have
alcohol-proof seals in their pumps -- and that only matters if the biodiesel is
poorly made and the methanol/ethanol wasn't properly removed after the reaction,
which is more than a bit stupid since recovery is simple and *not* doing it
expensive. Not to mention that installing the newer seals in the pumps isn't a
big deal.

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

From snkm at BTL.NET Fri Mar 12 18:55:14 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:39 2004
Subject: Biodiesel Engines
Message-ID: <FRI.12.MAR.2004.175514.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 02:09 PM 3/12/2004 -0600, Craig P. Murphy wrote:
>Maybe not the best place to ask this question, but.....
>Does any one out there know of a source of (reasonably priced) diesel
>engines, 1800rpm, 12 to 20hp, with documented history running on straight
>biodiesel (or blend of 80% bio/20% fossil)?
>Any input will be appreciated.
>Thanks.
>Craig Murphy
>Broad Street Resources,Inc.
>

Just so happens ---

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T4470E/t4470e08.htm

Huge engineering article -- have appended just the intro to the veggie oil
as fuel section.

You will be studying a lot in relationship to alternative fuels and systems
for applying -- the veggie oil is just one small part.

(I'm in process of ordering a few of these myself)

The table of contents -- many interesting engineering studies -- on
everything from gasification (including fluid bed) to pelletizing.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T4470E/T4470E00.htm

All very detailed studies -- a gold mine for this list.

I probably already posted it a few years ago to the list.

Peter / Belize

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

5.4. Studies on using vegetable oil for diesel engine
5.4.1. Characteristics of fuel

In order to study the possibility of cotton oil being used with diesel. We
experimented with a mixture of diesel oil and cotton oil in a model 170F
diesel engine for 300 hours.

During the experiment, we measured the performances of the model 170F while
using pure diesel oil, 30/70 cotton-diesel oil mixture, 50/50 cotton-diesel
oil mixture and pure cotton oil.

Because of the differences in structure and composition between diesel oil
and cotton oil, their fuel characteristics differ greatly. Their
differences are shown in Table 5.12

Table 5.12 indicates that cotton oil has a higher viscosity, lower heat
value, greater specific gravity and a higher flash point than diesel oil.

The higher viscosity of cotton oil makes for reduced injection quality,
incomplete burning, severe accumulation of carbon and dirty lubricant.

The experiment indicated that the viscosity of cotton fell sharply when
temperature rose, the viscosity-temperature characteristics of several oils
is shown in Fig. 5.15.

5.4.2. Model 2100 engine test

Model 2100 engine had been fueled with nutsedge tube oil, sunflower oil,
cotton oil and diesel fuel blends. With the blend, the power output was
similar to that of diesel fuel. But with the straight vegetable oil, the
maximum power output dropped by seven percent, and the fuel consumption
increased by 14%-16% around the rated power. As a example, the performance
curve of model 2100 engine is shown in Fig. 5.16.

5.4.3. The model 170F diesel's performance while using cotton oil, diesel
oil and mixture oils.

The experimental model was the 170F diesel engine. That's a single
cylinder, horizontal, air-cooled, four-stroke and whirl chamber type
combustion chamber. Its rated speed is 2600 rpm, and its rated power is 4
horsepower.

The experimental instruments were a model SCJ-1 hydraulic dynamometer, a
model TCY-69 fuel consumption recorder and a temperature dial gauge.

Fig. 5.16. The performance of Model 2100 engine

The experimental procedure

The model 170F diesel requires to change lubricant every 100 working hours
according to its instruction manual. Thus the experiment was divided into 3
parts, of 100 hours each.

The experiment was made by means of the cyclic load method, with 2 hours in
each cycle.

The detailed running procedures are as follows:

Start for 2 minutes; low speed without load for 5 minutes; 1 kw load for 50
minutes; 2 kw load for 60 minutes; without load for 3 minutes; and then
stop: a total of 2 hours. After a rest, the test was rerun according to the
same procedure for another cycle.

The experiment recorded the consumption of fuel. A sample of lubricant
every 100 hours was taken and analyzed for the content of iron and copper
in the oil. The measurements of piston and cylinder sleeves. the shaft neck
of the crank's connection rod and crank pin bearings, and the weight of the
piston rings were carried out . The experimental results are shown in Table
5.13, 5.14, 5.15.

Table 5.13. The Experimental Result

 

****snipped*****

If the Url no longer works I have the entire paper archives on hard drive
-- for reference.

From snkm at BTL.NET Fri Mar 12 19:57:23 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:39 2004
Subject: Biodiesel Engines
Message-ID: <FRI.12.MAR.2004.185723.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

How about just running straight veggie oil??

Sorry -- that is the way I took it -- guess I was wrong.

Peter / Belize

At 05:17 PM 3/12/2004 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
> I'm a bit mystified at the question -- looking for diesels with a
"history" of
>biodiesel use is almost irrelevent. Any diesel engine will run on
biodiesel, the
>only problems that might occur are with older engines that don't have
>alcohol-proof seals in their pumps -- and that only matters if the
biodiesel is
>poorly made and the methanol/ethanol wasn't properly removed after the
reaction,
>which is more than a bit stupid since recovery is simple and *not* doing it
>expensive. Not to mention that installing the newer seals in the pumps
isn't a
>big deal.
>
>--
>Harmon Seaver
>CyberShamanix
>http://www.cybershamanix.com
>

From rbwilliams at UCDAVIS.EDU Fri Mar 12 21:33:56 2004
From: rbwilliams at UCDAVIS.EDU (Rob Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:39 2004
Subject: Biodiesel Engines
Message-ID: <FRI.12.MAR.2004.183356.0800.RBWILLIAMS@UCDAVIS.EDU>

I believe you can run any diesel engine on properly prepared biodiesel
(either 100% biodiesel [B100], or mixed with petroleum diesel) without
problems. The biodiesel mixture should be lower in sulfur, and emit less
particulate matter, CO and unburned hydrocarbons, but tends towards higher
NOx emissions.

Diesel engines will run well on straight vegetable oil for a time but is
not recommended (U. Idaho biodiesel research and others report that
straight vegetable oil tends to leave coke and carbon deposits inside
cylinders or on valves, thickens lubricating oil, and may reduce bearing life).

Regards,
Rob Williams

At 06:57 PM 3/12/2004 -0600, you wrote:
>How about just running straight veggie oil??
>
>Sorry -- that is the way I took it -- guess I was wrong.
>
>Peter / Belize
>
>At 05:17 PM 3/12/2004 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
> > I'm a bit mystified at the question -- looking for diesels with a
>"history" of
> >biodiesel use is almost irrelevent. Any diesel engine will run on
>biodiesel, the
> >only problems that might occur are with older engines that don't have
> >alcohol-proof seals in their pumps -- and that only matters if the
>biodiesel is
> >poorly made and the methanol/ethanol wasn't properly removed after the
>reaction,
> >which is more than a bit stupid since recovery is simple and *not* doing it
> >expensive. Not to mention that installing the newer seals in the pumps
>isn't a
> >big deal.
> >
> >--
> >Harmon Seaver
> >CyberShamanix
> >http://www.cybershamanix.com
> >

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Sat Mar 13 00:50:24 2004
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:39 2004
Subject: Bibliography and References on Engine Performance
Message-ID: <FRI.12.MAR.2004.215024.0800.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

Has anyone developed a bibliography on engine performance from producer gas that they would share with the discussion group?

Are there individuals, or departments, at specific engine manufacturers or engine test laboratories who are experienced with producer gas?

Thanks

Tom Miles

From FMurrl at AOL.COM Sat Mar 13 08:11:48 2004
From: FMurrl at AOL.COM (FMurrl@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:40 2004
Subject: Biodiesel Engines
Message-ID: <SAT.13.MAR.2004.081148.EST.>

In a message dated 3/12/2004 6:54:04 PM Eastern Standard Time,
hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM writes:
Any diesel engine will run on biodiesel, the
only problems that might occur are with older engines that don't have
alcohol-proof seals in their pumps
At the risk of jumping in without reading all the postings on a topic, I
wonder if the issue here isn't one of definition.

I agree with the statement that virtually any diesel engine can run on
biodiesel, but I have seen several interested persons in the recent past confuse the
term "biodiesel" with the term "bio-based-oil" or "bio-oil."

The first, of course, is generally made from cooking fats and vegetable oils,
while bio-oil is a product of fast pyrolysis of any of several organic
materials. Used commercially today as a source of chemicals and flavorings, bio-oil
also shows promise as a renewable fuel.

Due to lubricity issues and other disamenities, operating issues have not
been entirely resolved regarding the use of bio-oil in diesel engines. Also, so
far as I know, bio-oil won't blend homogeneously with petroleum diesel without
the use of surfactants.

Fred Murrell
Biomass Development Company
Bradenton Florida USA

From snkm at BTL.NET Sat Mar 13 08:38:18 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:40 2004
Subject: Bibliography and References on Engine Performance
Message-ID: <SAT.13.MAR.2004.073818.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 09:50 PM 3/12/2004 -0800, Tom Miles wrote:
>Has anyone developed a bibliography on engine performance from producer
gas that they would share with the discussion group?
>
>Are there individuals, or departments, at specific engine manufacturers or
engine test laboratories who are experienced with producer gas?
>
>Thanks
>
>Tom Miles
>

Dear Tom;

Here is one such:

Study on performance of biomass gasifier-engine systems and their
environmental aspects

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T4470E/t4470e0i.htm

Zhang Baozhao
Xu Yicheng
China National Rice Research Institute, Hangzhou, 310006, China

Paper No.9403

Abstract

The 25 cm diameter gasifier developed by the University of California at
Davis was matched with a Chinese S-195 diesel engine to characterize the
performance of Gasifier-Engine System. An average gas flow of 18.44 Nm?/h,
cold gas efficiency of 52.4 % of the gasifier and output of 5.59 kW which
was 63.37 % of that rated diesel power, brake thermal efficiency of 0.306
of the dual fueled engine were obtained at a rated engine speed. A 60 hour
continuous test of this system for pumping water was conducted with
satisfactory results. However, the environmental impact of the system
should be studied.

Introduction
With current annual world paddy rice production at 518* 106 rice husks are
produced, which create a significant disposal problem today (1)(4).
Although some rice husks are used for fuel, the design of small rice husk
gasifier for power or electricity generation is a lost art (5).

The present work involves further development on adapting the UC, Davis
designed rice husk gasifier which was coupled to a Chinese diesel engine
with dual-fueling operation.

Peter / Belize

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Sat Mar 13 10:18:44 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:40 2004
Subject: Biodiesel Engines
In-Reply-To: <194.25ed6a53.2d846294@aol.com>
Message-ID: <SAT.13.MAR.2004.091844.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 08:11:48AM -0500, FMurrl@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 3/12/2004 6:54:04 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM writes:
> Any diesel engine will run on biodiesel, the
> only problems that might occur are with older engines that don't have
> alcohol-proof seals in their pumps
> At the risk of jumping in without reading all the postings on a topic, I
> wonder if the issue here isn't one of definition.
>
> I agree with the statement that virtually any diesel engine can run on
> biodiesel, but I have seen several interested persons in the recent past confuse the
> term "biodiesel" with the term "bio-based-oil" or "bio-oil."
>
> The first, of course, is generally made from cooking fats and vegetable oils,
> while bio-oil is a product of fast pyrolysis of any of several organic
> materials. Used commercially today as a source of chemicals and flavorings, bio-oil
> also shows promise as a renewable fuel.
>
> Due to lubricity issues and other disamenities, operating issues have not
> been entirely resolved regarding the use of bio-oil in diesel engines. Also, so
> far as I know, bio-oil won't blend homogeneously with petroleum diesel without
> the use of surfactants.

But that's not available anywhere that I know of, whereas biodiesel is easily
available to anyone who wants it. I doubt he was asking about "bio-oil".

From FMurrl at AOL.COM Sat Mar 13 10:55:18 2004
From: FMurrl at AOL.COM (FMurrl@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:40 2004
Subject: Biodiesel Engines
Message-ID: <SAT.13.MAR.2004.105518.EST.>

In a message dated 3/13/2004 10:19:26 AM Eastern Standard Time,
hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM writes:
But that's not available anywhere that I know of, whereas biodiesel is easily
available to anyone who wants it. I doubt he was asking about "bio-oil".
That's a fair statement. I am sure you have made the correct assumption.

FJM

From renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ Sun Mar 14 03:56:56 2004
From: renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ (Ken Calvert)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:40 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
In-Reply-To: <IFEOJELEEFHNMELLPIHDKEPNCIAA.billkichman@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <SUN.14.MAR.2004.215656.1300.RENERTECH@XTRA.CO.NZ>

Dear Bill,
If you are planning to use your new plant to work in
conjunction with the local grid, you have no need to spend $10,000. I am
assuming that you will be selling you surplus power back to the local
authority and using the local grid as the virtual battery bank in the
sky??!!! Don't break you wrist by hand starting your diesels. Just switch
on the electric motors from the grid and use them to motor the diesel
engines up to speed before activating the fuel injectors.
Your plant will be then be solidly, in fact very solidly, locked into the
local grid. When you open the throttles on the diesels instead of dragging
power out of the grid at say 1480rpm, the rated speed and slip for a 4 pole
motor, you will very easily move through to 1500rpm, when the electric motor
is running free on no load at all. From that speed on the motor will become
increasing ly hard to drive, until at 1520rpm you be pouring the rated horse
power back into the grid. If you can manage to drive that motor up to say
1530rpm, then your diesel engine will be pouring black smoke, in extreme
overload, and your electric motor will be starting to smoke too, because it
will be generating something like 50% more than it was rated for. If you
want to know more, I can dig out an interesting article out of my files
which would be only Quasi legal in the USofA, but still uuseful info! Ken
Calvert.

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List [mailto:] On Behalf Of Bill Kichman
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 6:52 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??

This is an interesting topic to me at the moment, as I am in the midst of
obtaining materials to start a cogen diesel waste veggie oil setup. I offer
the following information related to materials pricing obtained thus far. I
will run separate 10hp and 12hp stationary Lister diesel engines, running
surplus induction squirrel cage motors as generators as indicated in the
post below by Harmon. The new "Listeroid"engine prices, since they weigh in
the neighborhood of 750 pounds, are following steel upwards rapidly, but I
obtained the 2 engines for $2k plus shipping, total. The motor/generators
are good surplus models, and run for $10 per horsepower, used, in my
neighborhood when available. I am told most of our used motors are now sent
to China where they are rapidly being put into use in their booming
manufacturing economy. But I obtained a 2-pole 10hp 3600 rpm for $100, and
a 20hp 6-pole 1200rpm model for $150. The latter motor weighs about 350
pounds. Add to that the necessary capacitors for self-excitation, I found
surplus motor run 40uF caps for $1.30 apiece. So far I have been lucky
obtaining good prices in this endeavor. Next week the engines will arrive
and in 2 or 3 weeks I should have some results of initial testing of these
engines on waste veggie oil, it looks promising based on initial research.

On another topic, I would be very interested in obtaining some means of PLC
control of the plant, and power quality monitoring(PQM) at a reasonable
cost, however without spending at least $10k and more, it appears that a PQM
meter and PLC with all the required analog and digital transducers and
sensors is out of reach of the hobbyist or part time scientist. I did find
a PQM family of microprocessors available from Analog Devices, the heart of
many such commercial devices, but it looks like a huge task to set up a
working model based on that chip. It might make sense to band together with
like minded individuals in need of such current, voltage, power factor and
harmonic distortion measurements of their generated electrical power, to
design and make available some plans kits or parts. Does anybody else here
see such a need? I would think that anybody making power would need a
method to accurately measure and monitor produced power.

R. William Kichman, P.E.
Kichman Engineering Associates
103 Old Furnace Road
Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
tel/fax 717/270-0714

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Harmon Seaver
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 12:14 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:55:25PM -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:
> I have been getting quotes from China on generators. The very nice ST
> series -- with four poles -- good efficiency (say 85%??) -- 1800 rpm
> --
3kw
> is $95.00 US
>
Is that $95.00 or $950.00? If the former, can you give me the website or
address for that. Or is that price only in container lots?

> A 2000 watt permanent magnet -- 3 phase alternator -- probably 95% or
> better efficiencies -- $1600 US -- and without the electronics!! Which
> at that point I did not bother asking a price quote for.

That is pretty crazy, you can get a 3hp induction motor and run it as a
generator for only $100-200. You still need some electronics or a good
governor on the engine, unless you're hooking it up to the grid.

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

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Sun Mar 14 11:11:12 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:40 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
In-Reply-To: <20040314085658.LTGZ9867.web2-rme.xtra.co.nz@coppermine>
Message-ID: <SUN.14.MAR.2004.101112.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 09:56:56PM +1300, Ken Calvert wrote:
> Dear Bill,
> If you are planning to use your new plant to work in
> conjunction with the local grid, you have no need to spend $10,000. I am
> assuming that you will be selling you surplus power back to the local
> authority and using the local grid as the virtual battery bank in the
> sky??!!! Don't break you wrist by hand starting your diesels. Just switch
> on the electric motors from the grid and use them to motor the diesel
> engines up to speed before activating the fuel injectors.
> Your plant will be then be solidly, in fact very solidly, locked into the
> local grid. When you open the throttles on the diesels instead of dragging
> power out of the grid at say 1480rpm, the rated speed and slip for a 4 pole
> motor, you will very easily move through to 1500rpm, when the electric motor
> is running free on no load at all. From that speed on the motor will become
> increasing ly hard to drive, until at 1520rpm you be pouring the rated horse
> power back into the grid. If you can manage to drive that motor up to say
> 1530rpm, then your diesel engine will be pouring black smoke, in extreme
> overload, and your electric motor will be starting to smoke too, because it
> will be generating something like 50% more than it was rated for. If you
> want to know more, I can dig out an interesting article out of my files
> which would be only Quasi legal in the USofA, but still uuseful info! Ken
> Calvert.
>

Only "Quasi legal in the USofA"? Depends on where you live, I guess, but in
many states it's extremely legal, as long as you go thru the proper
procedures and it's renewable fueled. In Wisconsin, for example, you can run a
20kwh plant 24/7 into the grid and get paid back at the retail rate. If you want
to run a larger plant, you then only get compensated at the price your electric
utility pays wholesale. In Minnesota, the limit was 40kwh, and I think
California is 100kwh. Here's a site with info:

http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/netmetering/index.shtml

Or just google on "netmetering".

 

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

From billkichman at COMCAST.NET Sun Mar 14 12:21:28 2004
From: billkichman at COMCAST.NET (Bill Kichman)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:40 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
In-Reply-To: <20040314161112.GA3842@cybershamanix.com>
Message-ID: <SUN.14.MAR.2004.122128.0500.BILLKICHMAN@COMCAST.NET>

As it turns out, Harmon is correct, with some revisions by state. It starts
out with the feds, which mandated that the utilities buy back our home
generated power. Of course they didn't go the distance and mandate how
much and at what rate, so it seems every utility is different. Here is how
Met-Ed in my area will work with us: A producer up to 10kW may use the grid
(by entering into a binding agreement and providing the required materials
such as automatic disconnect on power outage and electrical inspection to
protect against feeding back into a dead line, etc.) as a battery bank as
was mentioned. No payment for surplus, and we get billed for any deficit as
normal. So the best option there is to just offset through production, on a
monthly net, of expected consumption. The second arrangement requires
higher expense and a different agreement, a second meter and they still bill
you the retail rate, and pay back only what they call the "avoided rate" or
wholesale rate as was mentioned earlier. So I have 3 choices (4 if you
count doing nothing ;-)). As my electric retail rate is 8.3 cents per kWh,
and the avoided rate was quoted as 2-4 cents per, the latter arrangement
isn't a money maker per se. Likely I will just test the system per the
first arrangement for awhile prior to enterin into any agreement, just to
see how reliable my setup is, and then just disconnect from the grid
altogether, or at least keep the account open but disconnected unless
needed.

R. William Kichman, P.E.
Kichman Engineering Associates
103 Old Furnace Road
Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
tel/fax 717/270-0714

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Harmon Seaver
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 11:11 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??

On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 09:56:56PM +1300, Ken Calvert wrote:
> Dear Bill,
> If you are planning to use your new plant to work in
> conjunction with the local grid, you have no need to spend $10,000. I am
> assuming that you will be selling you surplus power back to the local
> authority and using the local grid as the virtual battery bank in the
> sky??!!! Don't break you wrist by hand starting your diesels. Just
switch
> on the electric motors from the grid and use them to motor the diesel
> engines up to speed before activating the fuel injectors.
> Your plant will be then be solidly, in fact very solidly, locked into the
> local grid. When you open the throttles on the diesels instead of dragging
> power out of the grid at say 1480rpm, the rated speed and slip for a 4
pole
> motor, you will very easily move through to 1500rpm, when the electric
motor
> is running free on no load at all. From that speed on the motor will
become
> increasing ly hard to drive, until at 1520rpm you be pouring the rated
horse
> power back into the grid. If you can manage to drive that motor up to say
> 1530rpm, then your diesel engine will be pouring black smoke, in extreme
> overload, and your electric motor will be starting to smoke too, because
it
> will be generating something like 50% more than it was rated for. If you
> want to know more, I can dig out an interesting article out of my files
> which would be only Quasi legal in the USofA, but still uuseful info! Ken
> Calvert.
>

Only "Quasi legal in the USofA"? Depends on where you live, I guess, but
in
many states it's extremely legal, as long as you go thru the proper
procedures and it's renewable fueled. In Wisconsin, for example, you can run
a
20kwh plant 24/7 into the grid and get paid back at the retail rate. If you
want
to run a larger plant, you then only get compensated at the price your
electric
utility pays wholesale. In Minnesota, the limit was 40kwh, and I think
California is 100kwh. Here's a site with info:

http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/netmetering/index.shtml

Or just google on "netmetering".

 

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

From billkichman at COMCAST.NET Sun Mar 14 12:28:56 2004
From: billkichman at COMCAST.NET (Bill Kichman)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:40 2004
Subject: Biodiesel Engines
In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20040312183149.01802678@mailbox.ucdavis.edu>
Message-ID: <SUN.14.MAR.2004.122856.0500.BILLKICHMAN@COMCAST.NET>

With regards to running straight filtered Waste Veggie Oil, I have located
and discussed this with a few motorists who run WVO, as it is called. They
seem to be in agreement that just the opposite is true, that the veggie oil
acts to clean the system ,and in fact many had problems soon after
changeover, with the oil having dislodged the old pre-existing contaminants
and dirt from the tank and lines, and clogged up the fuel filter. After
replacing the filter, it actually runs as well or better than using
petro-diesel. Like with other alternative energy solutions there seems to be
as much misinformation as fact. For what it is worth, in a couple weeks I
will be able to report back with initial results running WVO in my Lister
clones. IF the worst that can happen is requirements for decoking
occasionally, well the manufacturer requires that already at approx 500 hour
intervals for petrodiesel operation anyway. Results to follow.

R. William Kichman, P.E.
Kichman Engineering Associates
103 Old Furnace Road
Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
tel/fax 717/270-0714

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Rob Williams
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 9:34 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] Biodiesel Engines

I believe you can run any diesel engine on properly prepared biodiesel
(either 100% biodiesel [B100], or mixed with petroleum diesel) without
problems. The biodiesel mixture should be lower in sulfur, and emit less
particulate matter, CO and unburned hydrocarbons, but tends towards higher
NOx emissions.

Diesel engines will run well on straight vegetable oil for a time but is
not recommended (U. Idaho biodiesel research and others report that
straight vegetable oil tends to leave coke and carbon deposits inside
cylinders or on valves, thickens lubricating oil, and may reduce bearing
life).

Regards,
Rob Williams

At 06:57 PM 3/12/2004 -0600, you wrote:
>How about just running straight veggie oil??
>
>Sorry -- that is the way I took it -- guess I was wrong.
>
>Peter / Belize
>
>At 05:17 PM 3/12/2004 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
> > I'm a bit mystified at the question -- looking for diesels with a
>"history" of
> >biodiesel use is almost irrelevent. Any diesel engine will run on
>biodiesel, the
> >only problems that might occur are with older engines that don't have
> >alcohol-proof seals in their pumps -- and that only matters if the
>biodiesel is
> >poorly made and the methanol/ethanol wasn't properly removed after the
>reaction,
> >which is more than a bit stupid since recovery is simple and *not* doing
it
> >expensive. Not to mention that installing the newer seals in the pumps
>isn't a
> >big deal.
> >
> >--
> >Harmon Seaver
> >CyberShamanix
> >http://www.cybershamanix.com
> >

From billkichman at COMCAST.NET Sun Mar 14 12:46:02 2004
From: billkichman at COMCAST.NET (Bill Kichman)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:40 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
In-Reply-To: <20040312200156.GB32383@cybershamanix.com>
Message-ID: <SUN.14.MAR.2004.124602.0500.BILLKICHMAN@COMCAST.NET>

Yes, all that second link's product does is load down the genset when it is
lightly loaded to keep the voltage down. Not exactly what I would call
"controls"
What is really needed is an automatic bank of capacitors to keep the voltage
within a tolerable window, about +/- 10% would be fine. Remember that the
frequency is determined by the rpm, and the voltage by the net capacitance
of the load. Another good thing to do in that respect is to simply add the
recommended capacitance to each motor load, so that when the motor's
inductance is kicked in, it doesn't greatly detract from the net capacitance
(opposite of inductance!) and so greatly affect the voltage. Remember your
electric classes? Think of the motor as being a resistor (zero vector angle)
in series with a big inductor. The inductor's phasor is 180 degrees
opposite to that of the capacitor, which is why, when sized correctly it may
completely negate the inductance of the motor, from a reactance point of
view. This is done as a matter of course, in industrial plants, as big
electric consumers are heavily penalized for low power factor ( high net
inductance) and peak power draws. We residential consumers don't have
enough inductive load for them to pay any mind to it, so they just bill us
for kWh and be done with it.

Realistically, all one needs to do for island generation, then is, after
adding motor compensation, add enough capacitance to get the no load voltage
to an acceptable high limit, then monitor its fully loaded condition, and
worst case, add an automatic voltage sensitive relay to insert another bank
of caps to raise the voltage. That brings other possible considerations
though, such as voltage spikes at switching, so the normal practice is to
insert a temporary discharge series resistor or reactor when switching.

All this is trivial. Not so trivial for me, if I decide to go with the
island arrangement is setting up a monitoring/control scheme. Ideally, a
networked SCADA-type arrangement with monitoring and control capability
would be ideal. I took a look at LAbview, a well liked product from
National, the same manufacturer as that energy metering IC I spoke of
earlier. A case could be made for using LAbview as the heart of such a
system. Just wish my programming talents were stronger.
R. William Kichman, P.E.
Kichman Engineering Associates
103 Old Furnace Road
Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
tel/fax 717/270-0714

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Harmon Seaver
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 3:02 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??

You do that with capacitors. Here's a website on using induction motors
as
generators:

http://www.qsl.net/ns8o/Induction_Generator.html

And another selling electronic controls:

http://www.scs-www.com/Igc.html

 

On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 07:40:02PM -0000, Ken Basterfield wrote:
> Harmon,
> How would you be supplying the exciting current for the induction motor
> when it is run as an induction generator if it is not connected to the
> grid?
> Sincerely
> Ken
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Gasification Discussion List
> [mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG] On Behalf Of Harmon Seaver
> Sent: 11 March 2004 17:14
> To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:55:25PM -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:
> > I have been getting quotes from China on generators. The very nice ST
> > series -- with four poles -- good efficiency (say 85%??) -- 1800 rpm
> -- 3kw
> > is $95.00 US
> >
> Is that $95.00 or $950.00? If the former, can you give me the website
> or
> address for that. Or is that price only in container lots?
>
>
> > A 2000 watt permanent magnet -- 3 phase alternator -- probably 95% or
> > better efficiencies -- $1600 US -- and without the electronics!! Which
> at
> > that point I did not bother asking a price quote for.
>
>
> That is pretty crazy, you can get a 3hp induction motor and run it as
> a
> generator for only $100-200. You still need some electronics or a good
> governor
> on the engine, unless you're hooking it up to the grid.
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com

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

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Sun Mar 14 13:35:12 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:40 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
Message-ID: <SUN.14.MAR.2004.143512.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Bill

Thanks for your comments!!

Heres a question:
If I simply hook an induction motor/generator to the utility, and drive it
at a speed to generate power that flows back to the utility, is the nature
of all house metering such that the meter would "run backward?"

Thanks!

Kevin Chisholm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Kichman" <billkichman@COMCAST.NET>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 1:21 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??

> As it turns out, Harmon is correct, with some revisions by state. It
starts
> out with the feds, which mandated that the utilities buy back our home
> generated power. Of course they didn't go the distance and mandate how
> much and at what rate, so it seems every utility is different. Here is
how
> Met-Ed in my area will work with us: A producer up to 10kW may use the
grid
> (by entering into a binding agreement and providing the required materials
> such as automatic disconnect on power outage and electrical inspection to
> protect against feeding back into a dead line, etc.) as a battery bank as
> was mentioned. No payment for surplus, and we get billed for any deficit
as
> normal. So the best option there is to just offset through production, on
a
> monthly net, of expected consumption. The second arrangement requires
> higher expense and a different agreement, a second meter and they still
bill
> you the retail rate, and pay back only what they call the "avoided rate"
or
> wholesale rate as was mentioned earlier. So I have 3 choices (4 if you
> count doing nothing ;-)). As my electric retail rate is 8.3 cents per kWh,
> and the avoided rate was quoted as 2-4 cents per, the latter arrangement
> isn't a money maker per se. Likely I will just test the system per the
> first arrangement for awhile prior to enterin into any agreement, just to
> see how reliable my setup is, and then just disconnect from the grid
> altogether, or at least keep the account open but disconnected unless
> needed.
>
> R. William Kichman, P.E.
> Kichman Engineering Associates
> 103 Old Furnace Road
> Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
> tel/fax 717/270-0714
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Gasification Discussion List
> [mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Harmon Seaver
> Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 11:11 AM
> To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 09:56:56PM +1300, Ken Calvert wrote:
> > Dear Bill,
> > If you are planning to use your new plant to work in
> > conjunction with the local grid, you have no need to spend $10,000. I
am
> > assuming that you will be selling you surplus power back to the local
> > authority and using the local grid as the virtual battery bank in the
> > sky??!!! Don't break you wrist by hand starting your diesels. Just
> switch
> > on the electric motors from the grid and use them to motor the diesel
> > engines up to speed before activating the fuel injectors.
> > Your plant will be then be solidly, in fact very solidly, locked into
the
> > local grid. When you open the throttles on the diesels instead of
dragging
> > power out of the grid at say 1480rpm, the rated speed and slip for a 4
> pole
> > motor, you will very easily move through to 1500rpm, when the electric
> motor
> > is running free on no load at all. From that speed on the motor will
> become
> > increasing ly hard to drive, until at 1520rpm you be pouring the rated
> horse
> > power back into the grid. If you can manage to drive that motor up to
say
> > 1530rpm, then your diesel engine will be pouring black smoke, in extreme
> > overload, and your electric motor will be starting to smoke too, because
> it
> > will be generating something like 50% more than it was rated for. If
you
> > want to know more, I can dig out an interesting article out of my files
> > which would be only Quasi legal in the USofA, but still uuseful info!
Ken
> > Calvert.
> >
>
> Only "Quasi legal in the USofA"? Depends on where you live, I guess,
but
> in
> many states it's extremely legal, as long as you go thru the proper
> procedures and it's renewable fueled. In Wisconsin, for example, you can
run
> a
> 20kwh plant 24/7 into the grid and get paid back at the retail rate. If
you
> want
> to run a larger plant, you then only get compensated at the price your
> electric
> utility pays wholesale. In Minnesota, the limit was 40kwh, and I think
> California is 100kwh. Here's a site with info:
>
> http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/netmetering/index.shtml
>
> Or just google on "netmetering".
>
>
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Sun Mar 14 15:02:32 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:40 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
In-Reply-To: <007501c409f3$25e7fd00$bb9a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <SUN.14.MAR.2004.140232.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 02:35:12PM -0400, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
> Dear Bill
>
> Thanks for your comments!!
>
> Heres a question:
> If I simply hook an induction motor/generator to the utility, and drive it
> at a speed to generate power that flows back to the utility, is the nature
> of all house metering such that the meter would "run backward?"
>

Not all -- some do, some don't. Most do, but some utility companies use the
other kind. One fellow, I think he was in Montana or Wyoming, told us that when
he queried his utility about netmetering, they promptly came out and removed his
meter, which would run backwards, and installed the other kind.
Depending upon where you live, netmetering can be painless (in WI we just got
a new law making it even easier than before, and even the utilities who were
dragging their feet are now cooperating fully), but in some states like MN even
with fairly good laws, some utilities still try to stonewall their customers who
want to netmeter, usually by trying to charge them outrageous engineering fees
or the like. Some utilities in WI, for instance, under our previous netmetering
law, were demanding $1,000,000 insurance policies. That ended with the new law,
now your normal home insurance covers it.
It's best to investigate your local situation *before* talking to the utility
company, and if it looks like people in your area are getting the run around,
just do it and don't tell them, and watch the meter so you don't run it into the
negative at the end of the month. 8^)

 

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

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Sun Mar 14 15:26:03 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:40 2004
Subject: Biodiesel Engines
In-Reply-To: <IFEOJELEEFHNMELLPIHDGEBECJAA.billkichman@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <SUN.14.MAR.2004.142603.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 12:28:56PM -0500, Bill Kichman wrote:
> With regards to running straight filtered Waste Veggie Oil, I have located
> and discussed this with a few motorists who run WVO, as it is called. They
> seem to be in agreement that just the opposite is true, that the veggie oil
> acts to clean the system ,and in fact many had problems soon after

Yeah, I don't know where that stuff about coking and oil dilution, etc is
coming from. I've read an awful lot about running both biodiesel and straight
veggie oil, and also talked to quite a few people doing it, both on the net and
in person at the Energy Fairs, and don't believe that to be true. There *are*
known problems with running the TDI engines on SVO, but that can be solved
simply by starting and stopping the engine on biodiesel, which is a super
solvent. You have to get the engine up to running temp on either biodiesel or
dynodiesel anyway before switching to SVO, so that shouldn't be a problem even
with the TDI's, but with IDI's and older designed diesels like the lister it
shouldn't ever be a problem.

> changeover, with the oil having dislodged the old pre-existing contaminants
> and dirt from the tank and lines, and clogged up the fuel filter.

That's definitely going to happen with biodiesel, not so much with SVO.

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

From LINVENT at AOL.COM Sun Mar 14 15:28:48 2004
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:40 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
Message-ID: <SUN.14.MAR.2004.152848.EST.>

Dear Backward running utility meter operators,
Many years ago at the local Cummins engine sales office here in
Albuquerque, one of their technicians hooked up a natural gas fired engine/generator
set and ran the main meter backwards. It was incredible to watch. It was not
done with utility knowledge or approval. Later we set up 2 200 Kw natural gas
engine generator sets at a local particle board plant and ran them to run the
meter backwards, but after a month of operation, the plant manager said that the
electric bill did not go down any, but the gas bill sure went up. That
facility was approved by the electric utility with a one page letter and drawing with
the engineer's stamp on it. A few years later when it came around to discuss
reviving the project, the utility went through the roof and withdrew the
original approval and said "don't try it again" period. As I am aware, there are no
non-utility generation systems connected to the PNM (New Mexico) grid except
for the City of Albuquerque's waste water treatment plant which has 1 mwe
biogas generators hooked up, and this only because the City has a lot of political
clout. The typical 10kwe systems in most of the states allowed are a joke and
only a way of protecting the utiliities from any outside generation capacity
of size.
Net metering doesn't have much of a chance in NM. The reality is that if
you run an induction generator into your load, even if the meter doesn't run
backwards, you are charged for less power because it generates it into your
load. This is power at retail price savings.
If you hook up an induction motor/generator backwards, it will either
promptly trip the breaker when you have it running and connect it to the line or
will run your engine backwards when if you use it to start your engine by
connecting it to the load. They have to synchronize to the phase just like any
motor and when they are running close to rated speed, they will at most connect
to the utility line with a surge.

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

From billkichman at COMCAST.NET Sun Mar 14 15:47:47 2004
From: billkichman at COMCAST.NET (Bill Kichman)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:40 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
In-Reply-To: <007501c409f3$25e7fd00$bb9a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <SUN.14.MAR.2004.154747.0500.BILLKICHMAN@COMCAST.NET>

Absolutely! A standard meter will run backwards. Some though, time-of-day
or for other arrangements may have a ratchet in them to prevent this but a
standard meter will go backwards just as well, just as fast as forwards, and
this is an assumed part of selling back to the utility.

R. William Kichman, P.E.
Kichman Engineering Associates
103 Old Furnace Road
Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
tel/fax 717/270-0714

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Chisholm [mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 1:35 PM
To: Bill Kichman; GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??

Dear Bill

Thanks for your comments!!

Heres a question:
If I simply hook an induction motor/generator to the utility, and drive it
at a speed to generate power that flows back to the utility, is the nature
of all house metering such that the meter would "run backward?"

Thanks!

Kevin Chisholm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Kichman" <billkichman@COMCAST.NET>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 1:21 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??

> As it turns out, Harmon is correct, with some revisions by state. It
starts
> out with the feds, which mandated that the utilities buy back our home
> generated power. Of course they didn't go the distance and mandate how
> much and at what rate, so it seems every utility is different. Here is
how
> Met-Ed in my area will work with us: A producer up to 10kW may use the
grid
> (by entering into a binding agreement and providing the required materials
> such as automatic disconnect on power outage and electrical inspection to
> protect against feeding back into a dead line, etc.) as a battery bank as
> was mentioned. No payment for surplus, and we get billed for any deficit
as
> normal. So the best option there is to just offset through production, on
a
> monthly net, of expected consumption. The second arrangement requires
> higher expense and a different agreement, a second meter and they still
bill
> you the retail rate, and pay back only what they call the "avoided rate"
or
> wholesale rate as was mentioned earlier. So I have 3 choices (4 if you
> count doing nothing ;-)). As my electric retail rate is 8.3 cents per kWh,
> and the avoided rate was quoted as 2-4 cents per, the latter arrangement
> isn't a money maker per se. Likely I will just test the system per the
> first arrangement for awhile prior to enterin into any agreement, just to
> see how reliable my setup is, and then just disconnect from the grid
> altogether, or at least keep the account open but disconnected unless
> needed.
>
> R. William Kichman, P.E.
> Kichman Engineering Associates
> 103 Old Furnace Road
> Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
> tel/fax 717/270-0714
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Gasification Discussion List
> [mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Harmon Seaver
> Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 11:11 AM
> To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 09:56:56PM +1300, Ken Calvert wrote:
> > Dear Bill,
> > If you are planning to use your new plant to work in
> > conjunction with the local grid, you have no need to spend $10,000. I
am
> > assuming that you will be selling you surplus power back to the local
> > authority and using the local grid as the virtual battery bank in the
> > sky??!!! Don't break you wrist by hand starting your diesels. Just
> switch
> > on the electric motors from the grid and use them to motor the diesel
> > engines up to speed before activating the fuel injectors.
> > Your plant will be then be solidly, in fact very solidly, locked into
the
> > local grid. When you open the throttles on the diesels instead of
dragging
> > power out of the grid at say 1480rpm, the rated speed and slip for a 4
> pole
> > motor, you will very easily move through to 1500rpm, when the electric
> motor
> > is running free on no load at all. From that speed on the motor will
> become
> > increasing ly hard to drive, until at 1520rpm you be pouring the rated
> horse
> > power back into the grid. If you can manage to drive that motor up to
say
> > 1530rpm, then your diesel engine will be pouring black smoke, in extreme
> > overload, and your electric motor will be starting to smoke too, because
> it
> > will be generating something like 50% more than it was rated for. If
you
> > want to know more, I can dig out an interesting article out of my files
> > which would be only Quasi legal in the USofA, but still uuseful info!
Ken
> > Calvert.
> >
>
> Only "Quasi legal in the USofA"? Depends on where you live, I guess,
but
> in
> many states it's extremely legal, as long as you go thru the proper
> procedures and it's renewable fueled. In Wisconsin, for example, you can
run
> a
> 20kwh plant 24/7 into the grid and get paid back at the retail rate. If
you
> want
> to run a larger plant, you then only get compensated at the price your
> electric
> utility pays wholesale. In Minnesota, the limit was 40kwh, and I think
> California is 100kwh. Here's a site with info:
>
> http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/netmetering/index.shtml
>
> Or just google on "netmetering".
>
>
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com

From billkichman at COMCAST.NET Sun Mar 14 16:04:09 2004
From: billkichman at COMCAST.NET (Bill Kichman)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:40 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
In-Reply-To: <1ed.1b76dbaf.2d861a80@aol.com>
Message-ID: <SUN.14.MAR.2004.160409.0500.BILLKICHMAN@COMCAST.NET>

Leland, thanks for your comments, I think though, they need some added
clarifications. There are different rate schedules and types of electric
power accounts. Indeed the customer running his own commercial power
production plant may not have seen a reduction in his cost from the utility,
if he has a typical commercial account. They are typically charged very
differently from the residential customer, and penalized very heavily like I
previously stated, for both their PEAK one time usage, and if their power
factor is low, penalized even more heavily. Not to mention the kWh rates
are usually 3-4 times that of residential customers, from my limited
experience. So an uninitiated, non-technical producer not watching for, or
providing built-in controls to protect from, these very issues may indeed
see no reduction. And maybe even worse, if he uses a huge induction motor
with its huge surge startup currents to help fire up that genset :-)

I can understand the utility's getting anxious about non-approved feedback
of power, and do believe it is a conspiracy to kill the small producers, but
they are regardless required to work with you based on federal law to buy
back your power. Of course like you stated, your mileage may vary with
different utilities and states.

Not sure where you were heading with the "connecting motor backwards"
comment, did you mean, wire the thing so that it runs the opposite direction
intended? Or did you mean that there is a huge spike potentially of current
if you connect the motor after it is up and running? The latter is correct,
and is also handled easily, by connecting 2 light bulbs in series between a
set of the leads that is to be connected. Vary the engine's speed slightly
and when the bulbs go out, the potential is nearest zero, thus the spike
will be near zero. Voila'. You are absolutely correct, I just thought it
needed clarification for understanding. Also another item that is fairly
easily automated with a control scheme.

R. William Kichman, P.E.
Kichman Engineering Associates
103 Old Furnace Road
Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
tel/fax 717/270-0714

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of LINVENT@AOL.COM
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 3:29 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??

Dear Backward running utility meter operators,
Many years ago at the local Cummins engine sales office here in
Albuquerque, one of their technicians hooked up a natural gas fired
engine/generator
set and ran the main meter backwards. It was incredible to watch. It was not
done with utility knowledge or approval. Later we set up 2 200 Kw natural
gas
engine generator sets at a local particle board plant and ran them to run
the
meter backwards, but after a month of operation, the plant manager said that
the
electric bill did not go down any, but the gas bill sure went up. That
facility was approved by the electric utility with a one page letter and
drawing with
the engineer's stamp on it. A few years later when it came around to discuss
reviving the project, the utility went through the roof and withdrew the
original approval and said "don't try it again" period. As I am aware, there
are no
non-utility generation systems connected to the PNM (New Mexico) grid except
for the City of Albuquerque's waste water treatment plant which has 1 mwe
biogas generators hooked up, and this only because the City has a lot of
political
clout. The typical 10kwe systems in most of the states allowed are a joke
and
only a way of protecting the utiliities from any outside generation capacity
of size.
Net metering doesn't have much of a chance in NM. The reality is that if
you run an induction generator into your load, even if the meter doesn't run
backwards, you are charged for less power because it generates it into your
load. This is power at retail price savings.
If you hook up an induction motor/generator backwards, it will either
promptly trip the breaker when you have it running and connect it to the
line or
will run your engine backwards when if you use it to start your engine by
connecting it to the load. They have to synchronize to the phase just like
any
motor and when they are running close to rated speed, they will at most
connect
to the utility line with a surge.

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

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Sun Mar 14 16:39:07 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:40 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
Message-ID: <SUN.14.MAR.2004.173907.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Bill

OK!! Thanks very much!!

Another question: Can you please comment on the efficiency of a motor when
used as a generator?

More specifically, for example, there are motors of many different qualities
and efficiencies. For example, a 10 HP motor may range from say 75% to
perhaps as high as 90% for a new "High Efficiency Motor." Is it as simple
that "When used as a generator, the generator efficiency will be 90% (for
example) of the efficiency when operated as a motor." (If this was the case,
we would get 67.5% and 81% generating efficiencies)

Is there a simple "rule of thumb" that would give us some guidance as to the
point where it is cheaper to use a "free but inefficient motor", and when it
is really worth the cost of buying a new high efficiency motor for use as a
generator?

Thanks!!

Kevin Chisholm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Kichman" <billkichman@comcast.net>
To: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>;
<GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 4:47 PM
Subject: RE: [GASL] ORCs are coming??

> Absolutely! A standard meter will run backwards. Some though,
time-of-day
> or for other arrangements may have a ratchet in them to prevent this but a
> standard meter will go backwards just as well, just as fast as forwards,
and
> this is an assumed part of selling back to the utility.
>
> R. William Kichman, P.E.
> Kichman Engineering Associates
> 103 Old Furnace Road
> Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
> tel/fax 717/270-0714
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Chisholm [mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net]
> Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 1:35 PM
> To: Bill Kichman; GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??
>
>
> Dear Bill
>
> Thanks for your comments!!
>
> Heres a question:
> If I simply hook an induction motor/generator to the utility, and drive it
> at a speed to generate power that flows back to the utility, is the nature
> of all house metering such that the meter would "run backward?"
>
> Thanks!
>
> Kevin Chisholm
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Kichman" <billkichman@COMCAST.NET>
> To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 1:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??
>
>
> > As it turns out, Harmon is correct, with some revisions by state. It
> starts
> > out with the feds, which mandated that the utilities buy back our home
> > generated power. Of course they didn't go the distance and mandate how
> > much and at what rate, so it seems every utility is different. Here is
> how
> > Met-Ed in my area will work with us: A producer up to 10kW may use the
> grid
> > (by entering into a binding agreement and providing the required
materials
> > such as automatic disconnect on power outage and electrical inspection
to
> > protect against feeding back into a dead line, etc.) as a battery bank
as
> > was mentioned. No payment for surplus, and we get billed for any
deficit
> as
> > normal. So the best option there is to just offset through production,
on
> a
> > monthly net, of expected consumption. The second arrangement requires
> > higher expense and a different agreement, a second meter and they still
> bill
> > you the retail rate, and pay back only what they call the "avoided rate"
> or
> > wholesale rate as was mentioned earlier. So I have 3 choices (4 if you
> > count doing nothing ;-)). As my electric retail rate is 8.3 cents per
kWh,
> > and the avoided rate was quoted as 2-4 cents per, the latter arrangement
> > isn't a money maker per se. Likely I will just test the system per the
> > first arrangement for awhile prior to enterin into any agreement, just
to
> > see how reliable my setup is, and then just disconnect from the grid
> > altogether, or at least keep the account open but disconnected unless
> > needed.
> >
> > R. William Kichman, P.E.
> > Kichman Engineering Associates
> > 103 Old Furnace Road
> > Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
> > tel/fax 717/270-0714
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: The Gasification Discussion List
> > [mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Harmon Seaver
> > Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 11:11 AM
> > To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> > Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 09:56:56PM +1300, Ken Calvert wrote:
> > > Dear Bill,
> > > If you are planning to use your new plant to work in
> > > conjunction with the local grid, you have no need to spend $10,000. I
> am
> > > assuming that you will be selling you surplus power back to the local
> > > authority and using the local grid as the virtual battery bank in the
> > > sky??!!! Don't break you wrist by hand starting your diesels. Just
> > switch
> > > on the electric motors from the grid and use them to motor the diesel
> > > engines up to speed before activating the fuel injectors.
> > > Your plant will be then be solidly, in fact very solidly, locked into
> the
> > > local grid. When you open the throttles on the diesels instead of
> dragging
> > > power out of the grid at say 1480rpm, the rated speed and slip for a 4
> > pole
> > > motor, you will very easily move through to 1500rpm, when the electric
> > motor
> > > is running free on no load at all. From that speed on the motor will
> > become
> > > increasing ly hard to drive, until at 1520rpm you be pouring the rated
> > horse
> > > power back into the grid. If you can manage to drive that motor up to
> say
> > > 1530rpm, then your diesel engine will be pouring black smoke, in
extreme
> > > overload, and your electric motor will be starting to smoke too,
because
> > it
> > > will be generating something like 50% more than it was rated for. If
> you
> > > want to know more, I can dig out an interesting article out of my
files
> > > which would be only Quasi legal in the USofA, but still uuseful info!
> Ken
> > > Calvert.
> > >
> >
> > Only "Quasi legal in the USofA"? Depends on where you live, I guess,
> but
> > in
> > many states it's extremely legal, as long as you go thru the proper
> > procedures and it's renewable fueled. In Wisconsin, for example, you can
> run
> > a
> > 20kwh plant 24/7 into the grid and get paid back at the retail rate. If
> you
> > want
> > to run a larger plant, you then only get compensated at the price your
> > electric
> > utility pays wholesale. In Minnesota, the limit was 40kwh, and I think
> > California is 100kwh. Here's a site with info:
> >
> > http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/netmetering/index.shtml
> >
> > Or just google on "netmetering".
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Harmon Seaver
> > CyberShamanix
> > http://www.cybershamanix.com
>
>
>

From billkichman at COMCAST.NET Sun Mar 14 16:55:57 2004
From: billkichman at COMCAST.NET (Bill Kichman)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:40 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
In-Reply-To: <00c501c40a0c$d42de780$bb9a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <SUN.14.MAR.2004.165557.0500.BILLKICHMAN@COMCAST.NET>

Kevin,
for reference, a squirrel cage induction motor is mathematically modeled
just like a 2-winding transformer, and acts very similarly electrically. I
have no definitive written reference at my fingertips, but I can say that I
remember reading that the motor actually operates even more efficiently as
when used as a motor. How much, I suspect, is very small increase, not more
than a percentage point. The reason so many surplus cheap 3-phase motors
are (were actually, China is buying up every motor around here that isn't
nailed down) available is that premium efficiency motors in the order of 93%
or so efficient, as compared to the older say, 84-85% efficient motors,
payback and actually earn money at a super fast clip. No brainier decision.
Add to that the better construction of newer motors with higher insulation
windings that are tolerant of variable frequency drives, permitting reduced
starting currents and variable speed, along with possible savings but
running slower in some applications by implementing soft-start and VFD
drives.

Back to the discussion, we benefit greatly if we can find these cheap
motors, cause for us, a couple percentage points don't really matter.

R. William Kichman, P.E.
Kichman Engineering Associates
103 Old Furnace Road
Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
tel/fax 717/270-0714

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Chisholm [mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 4:39 PM
To: Bill Kichman; GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??

Dear Bill

OK!! Thanks very much!!

Another question: Can you please comment on the efficiency of a motor when
used as a generator?

More specifically, for example, there are motors of many different qualities
and efficiencies. For example, a 10 HP motor may range from say 75% to
perhaps as high as 90% for a new "High Efficiency Motor." Is it as simple
that "When used as a generator, the generator efficiency will be 90% (for
example) of the efficiency when operated as a motor." (If this was the case,
we would get 67.5% and 81% generating efficiencies)

Is there a simple "rule of thumb" that would give us some guidance as to the
point where it is cheaper to use a "free but inefficient motor", and when it
is really worth the cost of buying a new high efficiency motor for use as a
generator?

Thanks!!

Kevin Chisholm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Kichman" <billkichman@comcast.net>
To: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>;
<GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 4:47 PM
Subject: RE: [GASL] ORCs are coming??

> Absolutely! A standard meter will run backwards. Some though,
time-of-day
> or for other arrangements may have a ratchet in them to prevent this but a
> standard meter will go backwards just as well, just as fast as forwards,
and
> this is an assumed part of selling back to the utility.
>
> R. William Kichman, P.E.
> Kichman Engineering Associates
> 103 Old Furnace Road
> Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
> tel/fax 717/270-0714
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Chisholm [mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net]
> Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 1:35 PM
> To: Bill Kichman; GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??
>
>
> Dear Bill
>
> Thanks for your comments!!
>
> Heres a question:
> If I simply hook an induction motor/generator to the utility, and drive it
> at a speed to generate power that flows back to the utility, is the nature
> of all house metering such that the meter would "run backward?"
>
> Thanks!
>
> Kevin Chisholm
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Kichman" <billkichman@COMCAST.NET>
> To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 1:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??
>
>
> > As it turns out, Harmon is correct, with some revisions by state. It
> starts
> > out with the feds, which mandated that the utilities buy back our home
> > generated power. Of course they didn't go the distance and mandate how
> > much and at what rate, so it seems every utility is different. Here is
> how
> > Met-Ed in my area will work with us: A producer up to 10kW may use the
> grid
> > (by entering into a binding agreement and providing the required
materials
> > such as automatic disconnect on power outage and electrical inspection
to
> > protect against feeding back into a dead line, etc.) as a battery bank
as
> > was mentioned. No payment for surplus, and we get billed for any
deficit
> as
> > normal. So the best option there is to just offset through production,
on
> a
> > monthly net, of expected consumption. The second arrangement requires
> > higher expense and a different agreement, a second meter and they still
> bill
> > you the retail rate, and pay back only what they call the "avoided rate"
> or
> > wholesale rate as was mentioned earlier. So I have 3 choices (4 if you
> > count doing nothing ;-)). As my electric retail rate is 8.3 cents per
kWh,
> > and the avoided rate was quoted as 2-4 cents per, the latter arrangement
> > isn't a money maker per se. Likely I will just test the system per the
> > first arrangement for awhile prior to enterin into any agreement, just
to
> > see how reliable my setup is, and then just disconnect from the grid
> > altogether, or at least keep the account open but disconnected unless
> > needed.
> >
> > R. William Kichman, P.E.
> > Kichman Engineering Associates
> > 103 Old Furnace Road
> > Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
> > tel/fax 717/270-0714
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: The Gasification Discussion List
> > [mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Harmon Seaver
> > Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 11:11 AM
> > To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> > Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 09:56:56PM +1300, Ken Calvert wrote:
> > > Dear Bill,
> > > If you are planning to use your new plant to work in
> > > conjunction with the local grid, you have no need to spend $10,000. I
> am
> > > assuming that you will be selling you surplus power back to the local
> > > authority and using the local grid as the virtual battery bank in the
> > > sky??!!! Don't break you wrist by hand starting your diesels. Just
> > switch
> > > on the electric motors from the grid and use them to motor the diesel
> > > engines up to speed before activating the fuel injectors.
> > > Your plant will be then be solidly, in fact very solidly, locked into
> the
> > > local grid. When you open the throttles on the diesels instead of
> dragging
> > > power out of the grid at say 1480rpm, the rated speed and slip for a 4
> > pole
> > > motor, you will very easily move through to 1500rpm, when the electric
> > motor
> > > is running free on no load at all. From that speed on the motor will
> > become
> > > increasing ly hard to drive, until at 1520rpm you be pouring the rated
> > horse
> > > power back into the grid. If you can manage to drive that motor up to
> say
> > > 1530rpm, then your diesel engine will be pouring black smoke, in
extreme
> > > overload, and your electric motor will be starting to smoke too,
because
> > it
> > > will be generating something like 50% more than it was rated for. If
> you
> > > want to know more, I can dig out an interesting article out of my
files
> > > which would be only Quasi legal in the USofA, but still uuseful info!
> Ken
> > > Calvert.
> > >
> >
> > Only "Quasi legal in the USofA"? Depends on where you live, I guess,
> but
> > in
> > many states it's extremely legal, as long as you go thru the proper
> > procedures and it's renewable fueled. In Wisconsin, for example, you can
> run
> > a
> > 20kwh plant 24/7 into the grid and get paid back at the retail rate. If
> you
> > want
> > to run a larger plant, you then only get compensated at the price your
> > electric
> > utility pays wholesale. In Minnesota, the limit was 40kwh, and I think
> > California is 100kwh. Here's a site with info:
> >
> > http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/netmetering/index.shtml
> >
> > Or just google on "netmetering".
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Harmon Seaver
> > CyberShamanix
> > http://www.cybershamanix.com
>
>
>

From billkichman at COMCAST.NET Sun Mar 14 17:01:08 2004
From: billkichman at COMCAST.NET (Bill Kichman)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:40 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
In-Reply-To: <00c501c40a0c$d42de780$bb9a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <SUN.14.MAR.2004.170108.0500.BILLKICHMAN@COMCAST.NET>

Sorry, Kevin, I hadn't fully read your post. Frankly, I haven't looked at
the issue that hard, because, for one, I can't be sure of the efficiency of
a particular motor I find available to me. Actually I was glad when I found
a 10hp and 20hp motor locally, and that they were of newer construction,
relatively. And I wouldn't personally spend $1500 or $2000 for a premium
efficiency motor anyway for this use when a surplus motor is almost free for
the taking. But sure, if you go in with the idea that a higher efficiency
motor is going to have almost the same efficiency as a generator, yes, that
helps your decision, but that's all I can offer you without further
research. Again, it's an easy decision for me based on where I want to go.
Efficiencies related to time far outweigh those of a few percentage points
on motor efficiency, and that's where I hope to maximize my gains.
hope that helps.

Cheers
R. William Kichman, P.E.
Kichman Engineering Associates
103 Old Furnace Road
Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
tel/fax 717/270-0714

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Kevin Chisholm
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 4:39 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??

Dear Bill

OK!! Thanks very much!!

Another question: Can you please comment on the efficiency of a motor when
used as a generator?

More specifically, for example, there are motors of many different qualities
and efficiencies. For example, a 10 HP motor may range from say 75% to
perhaps as high as 90% for a new "High Efficiency Motor." Is it as simple
that "When used as a generator, the generator efficiency will be 90% (for
example) of the efficiency when operated as a motor." (If this was the case,
we would get 67.5% and 81% generating efficiencies)

Is there a simple "rule of thumb" that would give us some guidance as to the
point where it is cheaper to use a "free but inefficient motor", and when it
is really worth the cost of buying a new high efficiency motor for use as a
generator?

Thanks!!

Kevin Chisholm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Kichman" <billkichman@comcast.net>
To: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>;
<GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 4:47 PM
Subject: RE: [GASL] ORCs are coming??

> Absolutely! A standard meter will run backwards. Some though,
time-of-day
> or for other arrangements may have a ratchet in them to prevent this but a
> standard meter will go backwards just as well, just as fast as forwards,
and
> this is an assumed part of selling back to the utility.
>
> R. William Kichman, P.E.
> Kichman Engineering Associates
> 103 Old Furnace Road
> Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
> tel/fax 717/270-0714
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Chisholm [mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net]
> Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 1:35 PM
> To: Bill Kichman; GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??
>
>
> Dear Bill
>
> Thanks for your comments!!
>
> Heres a question:
> If I simply hook an induction motor/generator to the utility, and drive it
> at a speed to generate power that flows back to the utility, is the nature
> of all house metering such that the meter would "run backward?"
>
> Thanks!
>
> Kevin Chisholm
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Kichman" <billkichman@COMCAST.NET>
> To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 1:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??
>
>
> > As it turns out, Harmon is correct, with some revisions by state. It
> starts
> > out with the feds, which mandated that the utilities buy back our home
> > generated power. Of course they didn't go the distance and mandate how
> > much and at what rate, so it seems every utility is different. Here is
> how
> > Met-Ed in my area will work with us: A producer up to 10kW may use the
> grid
> > (by entering into a binding agreement and providing the required
materials
> > such as automatic disconnect on power outage and electrical inspection
to
> > protect against feeding back into a dead line, etc.) as a battery bank
as
> > was mentioned. No payment for surplus, and we get billed for any
deficit
> as
> > normal. So the best option there is to just offset through production,
on
> a
> > monthly net, of expected consumption. The second arrangement requires
> > higher expense and a different agreement, a second meter and they still
> bill
> > you the retail rate, and pay back only what they call the "avoided rate"
> or
> > wholesale rate as was mentioned earlier. So I have 3 choices (4 if you
> > count doing nothing ;-)). As my electric retail rate is 8.3 cents per
kWh,
> > and the avoided rate was quoted as 2-4 cents per, the latter arrangement
> > isn't a money maker per se. Likely I will just test the system per the
> > first arrangement for awhile prior to enterin into any agreement, just
to
> > see how reliable my setup is, and then just disconnect from the grid
> > altogether, or at least keep the account open but disconnected unless
> > needed.
> >
> > R. William Kichman, P.E.
> > Kichman Engineering Associates
> > 103 Old Furnace Road
> > Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
> > tel/fax 717/270-0714
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: The Gasification Discussion List
> > [mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Harmon Seaver
> > Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 11:11 AM
> > To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> > Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 09:56:56PM +1300, Ken Calvert wrote:
> > > Dear Bill,
> > > If you are planning to use your new plant to work in
> > > conjunction with the local grid, you have no need to spend $10,000. I
> am
> > > assuming that you will be selling you surplus power back to the local
> > > authority and using the local grid as the virtual battery bank in the
> > > sky??!!! Don't break you wrist by hand starting your diesels. Just
> > switch
> > > on the electric motors from the grid and use them to motor the diesel
> > > engines up to speed before activating the fuel injectors.
> > > Your plant will be then be solidly, in fact very solidly, locked into
> the
> > > local grid. When you open the throttles on the diesels instead of
> dragging
> > > power out of the grid at say 1480rpm, the rated speed and slip for a 4
> > pole
> > > motor, you will very easily move through to 1500rpm, when the electric
> > motor
> > > is running free on no load at all. From that speed on the motor will
> > become
> > > increasing ly hard to drive, until at 1520rpm you be pouring the rated
> > horse
> > > power back into the grid. If you can manage to drive that motor up to
> say
> > > 1530rpm, then your diesel engine will be pouring black smoke, in
extreme
> > > overload, and your electric motor will be starting to smoke too,
because
> > it
> > > will be generating something like 50% more than it was rated for. If
> you
> > > want to know more, I can dig out an interesting article out of my
files
> > > which would be only Quasi legal in the USofA, but still uuseful info!
> Ken
> > > Calvert.
> > >
> >
> > Only "Quasi legal in the USofA"? Depends on where you live, I guess,
> but
> > in
> > many states it's extremely legal, as long as you go thru the proper
> > procedures and it's renewable fueled. In Wisconsin, for example, you can
> run
> > a
> > 20kwh plant 24/7 into the grid and get paid back at the retail rate. If
> you
> > want
> > to run a larger plant, you then only get compensated at the price your
> > electric
> > utility pays wholesale. In Minnesota, the limit was 40kwh, and I think
> > California is 100kwh. Here's a site with info:
> >
> > http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/netmetering/index.shtml
> >
> > Or just google on "netmetering".
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Harmon Seaver
> > CyberShamanix
> > http://www.cybershamanix.com
>
>
>

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Sun Mar 14 17:20:35 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:40 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
Message-ID: <SUN.14.MAR.2004.182035.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Kichman" <billkichman@COMCAST.NET>

Thanks again!!

> Kevin,
> for reference, a squirrel cage induction motor is mathematically modeled
> just like a 2-winding transformer, and acts very similarly electrically.

OK: This is a very helpful analogy. Please correct me if I am wrong, but my
understanding is that the "stationary" wire coils are the equivalent to the
"primary", and the rotor is equivalent to a "shorted secondary." When the
motor is driven over the synchronous speed, then, then it "overpowers" the
Utility, and drives power back into the Utility.

The next case is where the motor is used as a "stand alone generator".
Because there is no Utility Connection, then there is no excitation, and the
motor will not work as a generator. However, if a suitable quantity of
capacitance is installed, then this provides excitation for the motor to
function as a generator, even though there is only a connected load, and no
connected source of power.

OK so far?
I
> have no definitive written reference at my fingertips, but I can say that
I
> remember reading that the motor actually operates even more efficiently as
> when used as a motor. How much, I suspect, is very small increase, not
more
> than a percentage point.

OK!! This is plenty good as a rule of thumb.

...del...
>
> Back to the discussion, we benefit greatly if we can find these cheap
> motors, cause for us, a couple percentage points don't really matter.
>
OK. That puts a very good perspective on things.

Now heres another question:
"If a given motor was run as a generator, would it have a similar generating
efficiency when operated as a "stand alone" generator with capacitor
excitation, as it would have when tied to the Utility?"

Thanks very much!!

Kevin Chisholm

> R. William Kichman, P.E.
> Kichman Engineering Associates
> 103 Old Furnace Road
> Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
> tel/fax 717/270-0714
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Chisholm [mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net]
> Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 4:39 PM
> To: Bill Kichman; GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??
>
>
> Dear Bill
>
> OK!! Thanks very much!!
>
> Another question: Can you please comment on the efficiency of a motor when
> used as a generator?
>
> More specifically, for example, there are motors of many different
qualities
> and efficiencies. For example, a 10 HP motor may range from say 75% to
> perhaps as high as 90% for a new "High Efficiency Motor." Is it as simple
> that "When used as a generator, the generator efficiency will be 90% (for
> example) of the efficiency when operated as a motor." (If this was the
case,
> we would get 67.5% and 81% generating efficiencies)
>
> Is there a simple "rule of thumb" that would give us some guidance as to
the
> point where it is cheaper to use a "free but inefficient motor", and when
it
> is really worth the cost of buying a new high efficiency motor for use as
a
> generator?
>
> Thanks!!
>
> Kevin Chisholm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Kichman" <billkichman@comcast.net>
> To: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>;
> <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 4:47 PM
> Subject: RE: [GASL] ORCs are coming??
>
>
> > Absolutely! A standard meter will run backwards. Some though,
> time-of-day
> > or for other arrangements may have a ratchet in them to prevent this but
a
> > standard meter will go backwards just as well, just as fast as forwards,
> and
> > this is an assumed part of selling back to the utility.
> >
> > R. William Kichman, P.E.
> > Kichman Engineering Associates
> > 103 Old Furnace Road
> > Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
> > tel/fax 717/270-0714
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kevin Chisholm [mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net]
> > Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 1:35 PM
> > To: Bill Kichman; GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> > Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??
> >
> >
> > Dear Bill
> >
> > Thanks for your comments!!
> >
> > Heres a question:
> > If I simply hook an induction motor/generator to the utility, and drive
it
> > at a speed to generate power that flows back to the utility, is the
nature
> > of all house metering such that the meter would "run backward?"
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Kevin Chisholm
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bill Kichman" <billkichman@COMCAST.NET>
> > To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 1:21 PM
> > Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??
> >
> >
> > > As it turns out, Harmon is correct, with some revisions by state. It
> > starts
> > > out with the feds, which mandated that the utilities buy back our home
> > > generated power. Of course they didn't go the distance and mandate
how
> > > much and at what rate, so it seems every utility is different. Here
is
> > how
> > > Met-Ed in my area will work with us: A producer up to 10kW may use
the
> > grid
> > > (by entering into a binding agreement and providing the required
> materials
> > > such as automatic disconnect on power outage and electrical inspection
> to
> > > protect against feeding back into a dead line, etc.) as a battery bank
> as
> > > was mentioned. No payment for surplus, and we get billed for any
> deficit
> > as
> > > normal. So the best option there is to just offset through
production,
> on
> > a
> > > monthly net, of expected consumption. The second arrangement requires
> > > higher expense and a different agreement, a second meter and they
still
> > bill
> > > you the retail rate, and pay back only what they call the "avoided
rate"
> > or
> > > wholesale rate as was mentioned earlier. So I have 3 choices (4 if
you
> > > count doing nothing ;-)). As my electric retail rate is 8.3 cents per
> kWh,
> > > and the avoided rate was quoted as 2-4 cents per, the latter
arrangement
> > > isn't a money maker per se. Likely I will just test the system per
the
> > > first arrangement for awhile prior to enterin into any agreement, just
> to
> > > see how reliable my setup is, and then just disconnect from the grid
> > > altogether, or at least keep the account open but disconnected unless
> > > needed.
> > >
> > > R. William Kichman, P.E.
> > > Kichman Engineering Associates
> > > 103 Old Furnace Road
> > > Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
> > > tel/fax 717/270-0714
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: The Gasification Discussion List
> > > [mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Harmon Seaver
> > > Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 11:11 AM
> > > To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> > > Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 09:56:56PM +1300, Ken Calvert wrote:
> > > > Dear Bill,
> > > > If you are planning to use your new plant to work in
> > > > conjunction with the local grid, you have no need to spend $10,000.
I
> > am
> > > > assuming that you will be selling you surplus power back to the
local
> > > > authority and using the local grid as the virtual battery bank in
the
> > > > sky??!!! Don't break you wrist by hand starting your diesels. Just
> > > switch
> > > > on the electric motors from the grid and use them to motor the
diesel
> > > > engines up to speed before activating the fuel injectors.
> > > > Your plant will be then be solidly, in fact very solidly, locked
into
> > the
> > > > local grid. When you open the throttles on the diesels instead of
> > dragging
> > > > power out of the grid at say 1480rpm, the rated speed and slip for a
4
> > > pole
> > > > motor, you will very easily move through to 1500rpm, when the
electric
> > > motor
> > > > is running free on no load at all. From that speed on the motor
will
> > > become
> > > > increasing ly hard to drive, until at 1520rpm you be pouring the
rated
> > > horse
> > > > power back into the grid. If you can manage to drive that motor up
to
> > say
> > > > 1530rpm, then your diesel engine will be pouring black smoke, in
> extreme
> > > > overload, and your electric motor will be starting to smoke too,
> because
> > > it
> > > > will be generating something like 50% more than it was rated for.
If
> > you
> > > > want to know more, I can dig out an interesting article out of my
> files
> > > > which would be only Quasi legal in the USofA, but still uuseful
info!
> > Ken
> > > > Calvert.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Only "Quasi legal in the USofA"? Depends on where you live, I
guess,
> > but
> > > in
> > > many states it's extremely legal, as long as you go thru the proper
> > > procedures and it's renewable fueled. In Wisconsin, for example, you
can
> > run
> > > a
> > > 20kwh plant 24/7 into the grid and get paid back at the retail rate.
If
> > you
> > > want
> > > to run a larger plant, you then only get compensated at the price your
> > > electric
> > > utility pays wholesale. In Minnesota, the limit was 40kwh, and I think
> > > California is 100kwh. Here's a site with info:
> > >
> > > http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/netmetering/index.shtml
> > >
> > > Or just google on "netmetering".
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Harmon Seaver
> > > CyberShamanix
> > > http://www.cybershamanix.com
> >
> >
> >

From snkm at BTL.NET Sun Mar 14 19:01:22 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:40 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
Message-ID: <SUN.14.MAR.2004.180122.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 04:04 PM 3/14/2004 -0500, Bill Kichman wrote:
by connecting 2 light bulbs in series between a
>set of the leads that is to be connected. Vary the engine's speed slightly
>and when the bulbs go out, the potential is nearest zero, thus the spike
>will be near zero. Voila'.

Sounds very neat.

So -- If I wish add another generator on line to one presently operating --
this same system should work??

Hook up the two lights in series between generator coming on line and
generator on line. Adjust RPM until lights go out -- then slam in main
switch connecting generator "B" to already operational Generator "A".

Like you -- I plan top have two old style Listers in the house power plant
-- and this is the way to shunt from one to the other for servicing -- or
even for meeting an exceptional extra load -- with both operating in phase.

Have I got this right.

Peter / Belize

From billkichman at COMCAST.NET Sun Mar 14 20:01:21 2004
From: billkichman at COMCAST.NET (Bill Kichman)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:40 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
Message-ID: <MON.15.MAR.2004.010121.0000.>

Pretty much, because what yuo are doing is gettting the instantaneous voltage nearly the same on the sine wave by varying the frequency somewhat. You will likely see a "beat" that slows as the frequencies I suspect in any case there will be some voltage and current fluctuations during switchovers, you just need to minimize them, but I trust in this day and age of well protected nonlinear power supplies, the effect on your various electronic and sensitive loads would be negligent. Just a flicker of lights most likely.
> At 04:04 PM 3/14/2004 -0500, Bill Kichman wrote:
> by connecting 2 light bulbs in series between a
> >set of the leads that is to be connected. Vary the engine's speed slightly
> >and when the bulbs go out, the potential is nearest zero, thus the spike
> >will be near zero. Voila'.
>
> Sounds very neat.
>
> So -- If I wish add another generator on line to one presently operating --
> this same system should work??
>
> Hook up the two lights in series between generator coming on line and
> generator on line. Adjust RPM until lights go out -- then slam in main
> switch connecting generator "B" to already operational Generator "A".
>
> Like you -- I plan top have two old style Listers in the house power plant
> -- and this is the way to shunt from one to the other for servicing -- or
> even for meeting an exceptional extra load -- with both operating in phase.
>
> Have I got this right.
>
>
> Peter / Belize

From billkichman at COMCAST.NET Sun Mar 14 20:07:32 2004
From: billkichman at COMCAST.NET (Bill Kichman)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:40 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
Message-ID: <MON.15.MAR.2004.010732.0000.>

Yes, you pretty much have it, and my motors classes were over 20 years ago so pardon my rough description. What the capacitors do, is to provide a "leading" reactive current to promote excitation, in absence of the utility. The additive effect is that the amount of capacitance sets your voltage in a rough way. One of those times when there is a really cheap way of getting around a problem. Just make sure you use a run type cap, not a 'startin cap or Independence Day (July 4th here in USA) comes early.

> Dear Bill
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Kichman" <billkichman@COMCAST.NET>
>
> Thanks again!!
>
>
> > Kevin,
> > for reference, a squirrel cage induction motor is mathematically modeled
> > just like a 2-winding transformer, and acts very similarly electrically.
>
> OK: This is a very helpful analogy. Please correct me if I am wrong, but my
> understanding is that the "stationary" wire coils are the equivalent to the
> "primary", and the rotor is equivalent to a "shorted secondary." When the
> motor is driven over the synchronous speed, then, then it "overpowers" the
> Utility, and drives power back into the Utility.
>
> The next case is where the motor is used as a "stand alone generator".
> Because there is no Utility Connection, then there is no excitation, and the
> motor will not work as a generator. However, if a suitable quantity of
> capacitance is installed, then this provides excitation for the motor to
> function as a generator, even though there is only a connected load, and no
> connected source of power.
>
> OK so far?
> I
> > have no definitive written reference at my fingertips, but I can say that
> I
> > remember reading that the motor actually operates even more efficiently as
> > when used as a motor. How much, I suspect, is very small increase, not
> more
> > than a percentage point.
>
> OK!! This is plenty good as a rule of thumb.
>
> ...del...
> >
> > Back to the discussion, we benefit greatly if we can find these cheap
> > motors, cause for us, a couple percentage points don't really matter.
> >
> OK. That puts a very good perspective on things.
>
> Now heres another question:
> "If a given motor was run as a generator, would it have a similar generating
> efficiency when operated as a "stand alone" generator with capacitor
> excitation, as it would have when tied to the Utility?"
>
> Thanks very much!!
>
> Kevin Chisholm
>
> > R. William Kichman, P.E.
> > Kichman Engineering Associates
> > 103 Old Furnace Road
> > Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
> > tel/fax 717/270-0714
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kevin Chisholm [mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net]
> > Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 4:39 PM
> > To: Bill Kichman; GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> > Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??
> >
> >
> > Dear Bill
> >
> > OK!! Thanks very much!!
> >
> > Another question: Can you please comment on the efficiency of a motor when
> > used as a generator?
> >
> > More specifically, for example, there are motors of many different
> qualities
> > and efficiencies. For example, a 10 HP motor may range from say 75% to
> > perhaps as high as 90% for a new "High Efficiency Motor." Is it as simple
> > that "When used as a generator, the generator efficiency will be 90% (for
> > example) of the efficiency when operated as a motor." (If this was the
> case,
> > we would get 67.5% and 81% generating efficiencies)
> >
> > Is there a simple "rule of thumb" that would give us some guidance as to
> the
> > point where it is cheaper to use a "free but inefficient motor", and when
> it
> > is really worth the cost of buying a new high efficiency motor for use as
> a
> > generator?
> >
> > Thanks!!
> >
> > Kevin Chisholm
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bill Kichman" <billkichman@comcast.net>
> > To: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>;
> > <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 4:47 PM
> > Subject: RE: [GASL] ORCs are coming??
> >
> >
> > > Absolutely! A standard meter will run backwards. Some though,
> > time-of-day
> > > or for other arrangements may have a ratchet in them to prevent this but
> a
> > > standard meter will go backwards just as well, just as fast as forwards,
> > and
> > > this is an assumed part of selling back to the utility.
> > >
> > > R. William Kichman, P.E.
> > > Kichman Engineering Associates
> > > 103 Old Furnace Road
> > > Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
> > > tel/fax 717/270-0714
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Kevin Chisholm [mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net]
> > > Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 1:35 PM
> > > To: Bill Kichman; GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> > > Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Bill
> > >
> > > Thanks for your comments!!
> > >
> > > Heres a question:
> > > If I simply hook an induction motor/generator to the utility, and drive
> it
> > > at a speed to generate power that flows back to the utility, is the
> nature
> > > of all house metering such that the meter would "run backward?"
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > Kevin Chisholm
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Bill Kichman" <billkichman@COMCAST.NET>
> > > To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> > > Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 1:21 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??
> > >
> > >
> > > > As it turns out, Harmon is correct, with some revisions by state. It
> > > starts
> > > > out with the feds, which mandated that the utilities buy back our home
> > > > generated power. Of course they didn't go the distance and mandate
> how
> > > > much and at what rate, so it seems every utility is different. Here
> is
> > > how
> > > > Met-Ed in my area will work with us: A producer up to 10kW may use
> the
> > > grid
> > > > (by entering into a binding agreement and providing the required
> > materials
> > > > such as automatic disconnect on power outage and electrical inspection
> > to
> > > > protect against feeding back into a dead line, etc.) as a battery bank
> > as
> > > > was mentioned. No payment for surplus, and we get billed for any
> > deficit
> > > as
> > > > normal. So the best option there is to just offset through
> production,
> > on
> > > a
> > > > monthly net, of expected consumption. The second arrangement requires
> > > > higher expense and a different agreement, a second meter and they
> still
> > > bill
> > > > you the retail rate, and pay back only what they call the "avoided
> rate"
> > > or
> > > > wholesale rate as was mentioned earlier. So I have 3 choices (4 if
> you
> > > > count doing nothing ;-)). As my electric retail rate is 8.3 cents per
> > kWh,
> > > > and the avoided rate was quoted as 2-4 cents per, the latter
> arrangement
> > > > isn't a money maker per se. Likely I will just test the system per
> the
> > > > first arrangement for awhile prior to enterin into any agreement, just
> > to
> > > > see how reliable my setup is, and then just disconnect from the grid
> > > > altogether, or at least keep the account open but disconnected unless
> > > > needed.
> > > >
> > > > R. William Kichman, P.E.
> > > > Kichman Engineering Associates
> > > > 103 Old Furnace Road
> > > > Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
> > > > tel/fax 717/270-0714
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: The Gasification Discussion List
> > > > [mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Harmon Seaver
> > > > Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 11:11 AM
> > > > To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> > > > Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 09:56:56PM +1300, Ken Calvert wrote:
> > > > > Dear Bill,
> > > > > If you are planning to use your new plant to work in
> > > > > conjunction with the local grid, you have no need to spend $10,000.
> I
> > > am
> > > > > assuming that you will be selling you surplus power back to the
> local
> > > > > authority and using the local grid as the virtual battery bank in
> the
> > > > > sky??!!! Don't break you wrist by hand starting your diesels. Just
> > > > switch
> > > > > on the electric motors from the grid and use them to motor the
> diesel
> > > > > engines up to speed before activating the fuel injectors.
> > > > > Your plant will be then be solidly, in fact very solidly, locked
> into
> > > the
> > > > > local grid. When you open the throttles on the diesels instead of
> > > dragging
> > > > > power out of the grid at say 1480rpm, the rated speed and slip for a
> 4
> > > > pole
> > > > > motor, you will very easily move through to 1500rpm, when the
> electric
> > > > motor
> > > > > is running free on no load at all. From that speed on the motor
> will
> > > > become
> > > > > increasing ly hard to drive, until at 1520rpm you be pouring the
> rated
> > > > horse
> > > > > power back into the grid. If you can manage to drive that motor up
> to
> > > say
> > > > > 1530rpm, then your diesel engine will be pouring black smoke, in
> > extreme
> > > > > overload, and your electric motor will be starting to smoke too,
> > because
> > > > it
> > > > > will be generating something like 50% more than it was rated for.
> If
> > > you
> > > > > want to know more, I can dig out an interesting article out of my
> > files
> > > > > which would be only Quasi legal in the USofA, but still uuseful
> info!
> > > Ken
> > > > > Calvert.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Only "Quasi legal in the USofA"? Depends on where you live, I
> guess,
> > > but
> > > > in
> > > > many states it's extremely legal, as long as you go thru the proper
> > > > procedures and it's renewable fueled. In Wisconsin, for example, you
> can
> > > run
> > > > a
> > > > 20kwh plant 24/7 into the grid and get paid back at the retail rate.
> If
> > > you
> > > > want
> > > > to run a larger plant, you then only get compensated at the price your
> > > > electric
> > > > utility pays wholesale. In Minnesota, the limit was 40kwh, and I think
> > > > California is 100kwh. Here's a site with info:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/netmetering/index.shtml
> > > >
> > > > Or just google on "netmetering".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Harmon Seaver
> > > > CyberShamanix
> > > > http://www.cybershamanix.com
> > >
> > >
> > >

From billkichman at COMCAST.NET Sun Mar 14 20:11:53 2004
From: billkichman at COMCAST.NET (Bill Kichman)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:40 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
Message-ID: <MON.15.MAR.2004.011153.0000.>

Your shorted secondary comment...yes, at startup, the motor is seen as almost a dead short, which is why they pull approximately 5-6 times full load current and dim the lights :-). But at no load full speed, they simply draw the power required to overcome the friction and magnetizing losses, much like a transformer, and pass the load along as it is applied. And just like a transformer, if you overload it, it slows down (transformer voltage drops) proportionately, and burns up if you aren't careful. Which is why motor starters with their carefully matched heaters are so important- they really should be used in our application also, unless you can ensure the motor is larger than the engine driving it, which is what I plan to do. You still need a disconnect switch in any case though.
> Dear Bill
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Kichman" <billkichman@COMCAST.NET>
>
> Thanks again!!
>
>
> > Kevin,
> > for reference, a squirrel cage induction motor is mathematically modeled
> > just like a 2-winding transformer, and acts very similarly electrically.
>
> OK: This is a very helpful analogy. Please correct me if I am wrong, but my
> understanding is that the "stationary" wire coils are the equivalent to the
> "primary", and the rotor is equivalent to a "shorted secondary." When the
> motor is driven over the synchronous speed, then, then it "overpowers" the
> Utility, and drives power back into the Utility.
>
> The next case is where the motor is used as a "stand alone generator".
> Because there is no Utility Connection, then there is no excitation, and the
> motor will not work as a generator. However, if a suitable quantity of
> capacitance is installed, then this provides excitation for the motor to
> function as a generator, even though there is only a connected load, and no
> connected source of power.
>
> OK so far?
> I
> > have no definitive written reference at my fingertips, but I can say that
> I
> > remember reading that the motor actually operates even more efficiently as
> > when used as a motor. How much, I suspect, is very small increase, not
> more
> > than a percentage point.
>
> OK!! This is plenty good as a rule of thumb.
>
> ...del...
> >
> > Back to the discussion, we benefit greatly if we can find these cheap
> > motors, cause for us, a couple percentage points don't really matter.
> >
> OK. That puts a very good perspective on things.
>
> Now heres another question:
> "If a given motor was run as a generator, would it have a similar generating
> efficiency when operated as a "stand alone" generator with capacitor
> excitation, as it would have when tied to the Utility?"
>
> Thanks very much!!
>
> Kevin Chisholm
>
> > R. William Kichman, P.E.
> > Kichman Engineering Associates
> > 103 Old Furnace Road
> > Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
> > tel/fax 717/270-0714
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kevin Chisholm [mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net]
> > Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 4:39 PM
> > To: Bill Kichman; GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> > Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??
> >
> >
> > Dear Bill
> >
> > OK!! Thanks very much!!
> >
> > Another question: Can you please comment on the efficiency of a motor when
> > used as a generator?
> >
> > More specifically, for example, there are motors of many different
> qualities
> > and efficiencies. For example, a 10 HP motor may range from say 75% to
> > perhaps as high as 90% for a new "High Efficiency Motor." Is it as simple
> > that "When used as a generator, the generator efficiency will be 90% (for
> > example) of the efficiency when operated as a motor." (If this was the
> case,
> > we would get 67.5% and 81% generating efficiencies)
> >
> > Is there a simple "rule of thumb" that would give us some guidance as to
> the
> > point where it is cheaper to use a "free but inefficient motor", and when
> it
> > is really worth the cost of buying a new high efficiency motor for use as
> a
> > generator?
> >
> > Thanks!!
> >
> > Kevin Chisholm
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bill Kichman" <billkichman@comcast.net>
> > To: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>;
> > <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 4:47 PM
> > Subject: RE: [GASL] ORCs are coming??
> >
> >
> > > Absolutely! A standard meter will run backwards. Some though,
> > time-of-day
> > > or for other arrangements may have a ratchet in them to prevent this but
> a
> > > standard meter will go backwards just as well, just as fast as forwards,
> > and
> > > this is an assumed part of selling back to the utility.
> > >
> > > R. William Kichman, P.E.
> > > Kichman Engineering Associates
> > > 103 Old Furnace Road
> > > Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
> > > tel/fax 717/270-0714
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Kevin Chisholm [mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net]
> > > Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 1:35 PM
> > > To: Bill Kichman; GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> > > Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Bill
> > >
> > > Thanks for your comments!!
> > >
> > > Heres a question:
> > > If I simply hook an induction motor/generator to the utility, and drive
> it
> > > at a speed to generate power that flows back to the utility, is the
> nature
> > > of all house metering such that the meter would "run backward?"
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > Kevin Chisholm
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Bill Kichman" <billkichman@COMCAST.NET>
> > > To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> > > Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 1:21 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??
> > >
> > >
> > > > As it turns out, Harmon is correct, with some revisions by state. It
> > > starts
> > > > out with the feds, which mandated that the utilities buy back our home
> > > > generated power. Of course they didn't go the distance and mandate
> how
> > > > much and at what rate, so it seems every utility is different. Here
> is
> > > how
> > > > Met-Ed in my area will work with us: A producer up to 10kW may use
> the
> > > grid
> > > > (by entering into a binding agreement and providing the required
> > materials
> > > > such as automatic disconnect on power outage and electrical inspection
> > to
> > > > protect against feeding back into a dead line, etc.) as a battery bank
> > as
> > > > was mentioned. No payment for surplus, and we get billed for any
> > deficit
> > > as
> > > > normal. So the best option there is to just offset through
> production,
> > on
> > > a
> > > > monthly net, of expected consumption. The second arrangement requires
> > > > higher expense and a different agreement, a second meter and they
> still
> > > bill
> > > > you the retail rate, and pay back only what they call the "avoided
> rate"
> > > or
> > > > wholesale rate as was mentioned earlier. So I have 3 choices (4 if
> you
> > > > count doing nothing ;-)). As my electric retail rate is 8.3 cents per
> > kWh,
> > > > and the avoided rate was quoted as 2-4 cents per, the latter
> arrangement
> > > > isn't a money maker per se. Likely I will just test the system per
> the
> > > > first arrangement for awhile prior to enterin into any agreement, just
> > to
> > > > see how reliable my setup is, and then just disconnect from the grid
> > > > altogether, or at least keep the account open but disconnected unless
> > > > needed.
> > > >
> > > > R. William Kichman, P.E.
> > > > Kichman Engineering Associates
> > > > 103 Old Furnace Road
> > > > Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
> > > > tel/fax 717/270-0714
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: The Gasification Discussion List
> > > > [mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Harmon Seaver
> > > > Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 11:11 AM
> > > > To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> > > > Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 09:56:56PM +1300, Ken Calvert wrote:
> > > > > Dear Bill,
> > > > > If you are planning to use your new plant to work in
> > > > > conjunction with the local grid, you have no need to spend $10,000.
> I
> > > am
> > > > > assuming that you will be selling you surplus power back to the
> local
> > > > > authority and using the local grid as the virtual battery bank in
> the
> > > > > sky??!!! Don't break you wrist by hand starting your diesels. Just
> > > > switch
> > > > > on the electric motors from the grid and use them to motor the
> diesel
> > > > > engines up to speed before activating the fuel injectors.
> > > > > Your plant will be then be solidly, in fact very solidly, locked
> into
> > > the
> > > > > local grid. When you open the throttles on the diesels instead of
> > > dragging
> > > > > power out of the grid at say 1480rpm, the rated speed and slip for a
> 4
> > > > pole
> > > > > motor, you will very easily move through to 1500rpm, when the
> electric
> > > > motor
> > > > > is running free on no load at all. From that speed on the motor
> will
> > > > become
> > > > > increasing ly hard to drive, until at 1520rpm you be pouring the
> rated
> > > > horse
> > > > > power back into the grid. If you can manage to drive that motor up
> to
> > > say
> > > > > 1530rpm, then your diesel engine will be pouring black smoke, in
> > extreme
> > > > > overload, and your electric motor will be starting to smoke too,
> > because
> > > > it
> > > > > will be generating something like 50% more than it was rated for.
> If
> > > you
> > > > > want to know more, I can dig out an interesting article out of my
> > files
> > > > > which would be only Quasi legal in the USofA, but still uuseful
> info!
> > > Ken
> > > > > Calvert.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Only "Quasi legal in the USofA"? Depends on where you live, I
> guess,
> > > but
> > > > in
> > > > many states it's extremely legal, as long as you go thru the proper
> > > > procedures and it's renewable fueled. In Wisconsin, for example, you
> can
> > > run
> > > > a
> > > > 20kwh plant 24/7 into the grid and get paid back at the retail rate.
> If
> > > you
> > > > want
> > > > to run a larger plant, you then only get compensated at the price your
> > > > electric
> > > > utility pays wholesale. In Minnesota, the limit was 40kwh, and I think
> > > > California is 100kwh. Here's a site with info:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/netmetering/index.shtml
> > > >
> > > > Or just google on "netmetering".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Harmon Seaver
> > > > CyberShamanix
> > > > http://www.cybershamanix.com
> > >
> > >
> > >

From billkichman at COMCAST.NET Sun Mar 14 20:19:28 2004
From: billkichman at COMCAST.NET (Bill Kichman)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
Message-ID: <MON.15.MAR.2004.011928.0000.>

You asked:
"If a given motor was run as a generator, would it have a similar generating
efficiency when operated as a "stand alone" generator with capacitor
excitation, as it would have when tied to the Utility?"

I believe yes. What's great in our scheme (as I am sure you are aware) as a small cogen user, all the transmission and heat losses are mostly gone from the picture. We use as much of the 73% heat lost up the smokestack as we can, for building heat and water heating, etc. No transmission losses to speak of. So the total system efficiency is hugely greater than the utility, and I am sure they are aware of this which is partially why they want to thwart it. Soon enough people will buy cogen heating plants though, I understand that is already happening in central Europe. We here in the states will probably be last to effect such implementation of course, because we are energy stupid and spoiled.

Now if I can only think of something to do with all that heat in the summer...anybody got good plans for an absorptive chiller?

Bill Kichman
> Dear Bill
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Kichman" <billkichman@COMCAST.NET>
>
> Thanks again!!
>
>
> > Kevin,
> > for reference, a squirrel cage induction motor is mathematically modeled
> > just like a 2-winding transformer, and acts very similarly electrically.
>
> OK: This is a very helpful analogy. Please correct me if I am wrong, but my
> understanding is that the "stationary" wire coils are the equivalent to the
> "primary", and the rotor is equivalent to a "shorted secondary." When the
> motor is driven over the synchronous speed, then, then it "overpowers" the
> Utility, and drives power back into the Utility.
>
> The next case is where the motor is used as a "stand alone generator".
> Because there is no Utility Connection, then there is no excitation, and the
> motor will not work as a generator. However, if a suitable quantity of
> capacitance is installed, then this provides excitation for the motor to
> function as a generator, even though there is only a connected load, and no
> connected source of power.
>
> OK so far?
> I
> > have no definitive written reference at my fingertips, but I can say that
> I
> > remember reading that the motor actually operates even more efficiently as
> > when used as a motor. How much, I suspect, is very small increase, not
> more
> > than a percentage point.
>
> OK!! This is plenty good as a rule of thumb.
>
> ...del...
> >
> > Back to the discussion, we benefit greatly if we can find these cheap
> > motors, cause for us, a couple percentage points don't really matter.
> >
> OK. That puts a very good perspective on things.
>
> Now heres another question:
> "If a given motor was run as a generator, would it have a similar generating
> efficiency when operated as a "stand alone" generator with capacitor
> excitation, as it would have when tied to the Utility?"
>
> Thanks very much!!
>
> Kevin Chisholm
>
> > R. William Kichman, P.E.
> > Kichman Engineering Associates
> > 103 Old Furnace Road
> > Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
> > tel/fax 717/270-0714
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kevin Chisholm [mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net]
> > Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 4:39 PM
> > To: Bill Kichman; GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> > Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??
> >
> >
> > Dear Bill
> >
> > OK!! Thanks very much!!
> >
> > Another question: Can you please comment on the efficiency of a motor when
> > used as a generator?
> >
> > More specifically, for example, there are motors of many different
> qualities
> > and efficiencies. For example, a 10 HP motor may range from say 75% to
> > perhaps as high as 90% for a new "High Efficiency Motor." Is it as simple
> > that "When used as a generator, the generator efficiency will be 90% (for
> > example) of the efficiency when operated as a motor." (If this was the
> case,
> > we would get 67.5% and 81% generating efficiencies)
> >
> > Is there a simple "rule of thumb" that would give us some guidance as to
> the
> > point where it is cheaper to use a "free but inefficient motor", and when
> it
> > is really worth the cost of buying a new high efficiency motor for use as
> a
> > generator?
> >
> > Thanks!!
> >
> > Kevin Chisholm
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bill Kichman" <billkichman@comcast.net>
> > To: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>;
> > <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 4:47 PM
> > Subject: RE: [GASL] ORCs are coming??
> >
> >
> > > Absolutely! A standard meter will run backwards. Some though,
> > time-of-day
> > > or for other arrangements may have a ratchet in them to prevent this but
> a
> > > standard meter will go backwards just as well, just as fast as forwards,
> > and
> > > this is an assumed part of selling back to the utility.
> > >
> > > R. William Kichman, P.E.
> > > Kichman Engineering Associates
> > > 103 Old Furnace Road
> > > Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
> > > tel/fax 717/270-0714
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Kevin Chisholm [mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net]
> > > Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 1:35 PM
> > > To: Bill Kichman; GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> > > Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Bill
> > >
> > > Thanks for your comments!!
> > >
> > > Heres a question:
> > > If I simply hook an induction motor/generator to the utility, and drive
> it
> > > at a speed to generate power that flows back to the utility, is the
> nature
> > > of all house metering such that the meter would "run backward?"
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > Kevin Chisholm
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Bill Kichman" <billkichman@COMCAST.NET>
> > > To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> > > Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 1:21 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??
> > >
> > >
> > > > As it turns out, Harmon is correct, with some revisions by state. It
> > > starts
> > > > out with the feds, which mandated that the utilities buy back our home
> > > > generated power. Of course they didn't go the distance and mandate
> how
> > > > much and at what rate, so it seems every utility is different. Here
> is
> > > how
> > > > Met-Ed in my area will work with us: A producer up to 10kW may use
> the
> > > grid
> > > > (by entering into a binding agreement and providing the required
> > materials
> > > > such as automatic disconnect on power outage and electrical inspection
> > to
> > > > protect against feeding back into a dead line, etc.) as a battery bank
> > as
> > > > was mentioned. No payment for surplus, and we get billed for any
> > deficit
> > > as
> > > > normal. So the best option there is to just offset through
> production,
> > on
> > > a
> > > > monthly net, of expected consumption. The second arrangement requires
> > > > higher expense and a different agreement, a second meter and they
> still
> > > bill
> > > > you the retail rate, and pay back only what they call the "avoided
> rate"
> > > or
> > > > wholesale rate as was mentioned earlier. So I have 3 choices (4 if
> you
> > > > count doing nothing ;-)). As my electric retail rate is 8.3 cents per
> > kWh,
> > > > and the avoided rate was quoted as 2-4 cents per, the latter
> arrangement
> > > > isn't a money maker per se. Likely I will just test the system per
> the
> > > > first arrangement for awhile prior to enterin into any agreement, just
> > to
> > > > see how reliable my setup is, and then just disconnect from the grid
> > > > altogether, or at least keep the account open but disconnected unless
> > > > needed.
> > > >
> > > > R. William Kichman, P.E.
> > > > Kichman Engineering Associates
> > > > 103 Old Furnace Road
> > > > Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
> > > > tel/fax 717/270-0714
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: The Gasification Discussion List
> > > > [mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Harmon Seaver
> > > > Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 11:11 AM
> > > > To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> > > > Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 09:56:56PM +1300, Ken Calvert wrote:
> > > > > Dear Bill,
> > > > > If you are planning to use your new plant to work in
> > > > > conjunction with the local grid, you have no need to spend $10,000.
> I
> > > am
> > > > > assuming that you will be selling you surplus power back to the
> local
> > > > > authority and using the local grid as the virtual battery bank in
> the
> > > > > sky??!!! Don't break you wrist by hand starting your diesels. Just
> > > > switch
> > > > > on the electric motors from the grid and use them to motor the
> diesel
> > > > > engines up to speed before activating the fuel injectors.
> > > > > Your plant will be then be solidly, in fact very solidly, locked
> into
> > > the
> > > > > local grid. When you open the throttles on the diesels instead of
> > > dragging
> > > > > power out of the grid at say 1480rpm, the rated speed and slip for a
> 4
> > > > pole
> > > > > motor, you will very easily move through to 1500rpm, when the
> electric
> > > > motor
> > > > > is running free on no load at all. From that speed on the motor
> will
> > > > become
> > > > > increasing ly hard to drive, until at 1520rpm you be pouring the
> rated
> > > > horse
> > > > > power back into the grid. If you can manage to drive that motor up
> to
> > > say
> > > > > 1530rpm, then your diesel engine will be pouring black smoke, in
> > extreme
> > > > > overload, and your electric motor will be starting to smoke too,
> > because
> > > > it
> > > > > will be generating something like 50% more than it was rated for.
> If
> > > you
> > > > > want to know more, I can dig out an interesting article out of my
> > files
> > > > > which would be only Quasi legal in the USofA, but still uuseful
> info!
> > > Ken
> > > > > Calvert.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Only "Quasi legal in the USofA"? Depends on where you live, I
> guess,
> > > but
> > > > in
> > > > many states it's extremely legal, as long as you go thru the proper
> > > > procedures and it's renewable fueled. In Wisconsin, for example, you
> can
> > > run
> > > > a
> > > > 20kwh plant 24/7 into the grid and get paid back at the retail rate.
> If
> > > you
> > > > want
> > > > to run a larger plant, you then only get compensated at the price your
> > > > electric
> > > > utility pays wholesale. In Minnesota, the limit was 40kwh, and I think
> > > > California is 100kwh. Here's a site with info:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/netmetering/index.shtml
> > > >
> > > > Or just google on "netmetering".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Harmon Seaver
> > > > CyberShamanix
> > > > http://www.cybershamanix.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
>

From billkichman at COMCAST.NET Sun Mar 14 20:25:51 2004
From: billkichman at COMCAST.NET (Bill Kichman)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
Message-ID: <MON.15.MAR.2004.012551.0000.>

Just a clarification...in my system I will be using a 3-phase motor, and will add an inexpensive 3-phase power panel to accomodate the changes. It is understood that I am a typical residence and use single phase service. So to balance out the phases, with the understanding that a single phase panel uses 2-phases of a 3-phase wye connection, as I have 2 panelboards already, one in my house and one in my workshop, I will feed 2 phases to one panel, and the other leg plus the lighter loaded leg of the other 2 to the other panel. Thus using all 3 phases so as to most efficiently load the generator.

A clarification to the light bulb method...you MUST connect between similar phases of course...A to A (just one phase is needed) and so forth as the 3 phases are 120 degrees apart and thins method will not work with opposing phases. 2 light bulbs IN SERIES of course because the instantaneous worst case is double the voltage, dropped across 2 bulbs, meaning each one gets full voltage. You probably knew that but it's better to write it than assume.
> At 04:04 PM 3/14/2004 -0500, Bill Kichman wrote:
> by connecting 2 light bulbs in series between a
> >set of the leads that is to be connected. Vary the engine's speed slightly
> >and when the bulbs go out, the potential is nearest zero, thus the spike
> >will be near zero. Voila'.
>
> Sounds very neat.
>
> So -- If I wish add another generator on line to one presently operating --
> this same system should work??
>
> Hook up the two lights in series between generator coming on line and
> generator on line. Adjust RPM until lights go out -- then slam in main
> switch connecting generator "B" to already operational Generator "A".
>
> Like you -- I plan top have two old style Listers in the house power plant
> -- and this is the way to shunt from one to the other for servicing -- or
> even for meeting an exceptional extra load -- with both operating in phase.
>
> Have I got this right.
>
>
> Peter / Belize

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Sun Mar 14 20:48:50 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040314165322.0095c9f0@btlmail.btl.net>
Message-ID: <SUN.14.MAR.2004.194850.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Peter and Bill, and all,

The 2 generators is a neat idea, however, simply using one generator and 2
motors is a way more economical approach (at least in Canada it is).

the motors are what will need rebuilding or servicing (Ever done an oil
change "live" ?) and simply using a "over center style" clutch on each and a
common drive, is much more reliable.

Moving from one motor to another is even easier as a cheap tachometer is all
that is needed for each motor.

This method is, in my eyes, the KISS method, as the generator would only
need bearings at the 3000 to 5000's of hours area, however the motors would
need oil in the 30-100 hours area.

(we change the oil in our cars roughly every 50-100 hours).

Clutch assy's are cheaper than interconnect wiring & safety devices
(breakers, control boxes, permits, etc.)

Greg Manning,

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Peter Singfield
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 6:01 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: ORCs are coming??

At 04:04 PM 3/14/2004 -0500, Bill Kichman wrote:
by connecting 2 light bulbs in series between a
>set of the leads that is to be connected. Vary the engine's speed slightly
>and when the bulbs go out, the potential is nearest zero, thus the spike
>will be near zero. Voila'.

Sounds very neat.

So -- If I wish add another generator on line to one presently operating --
this same system should work??

Hook up the two lights in series between generator coming on line and
generator on line. Adjust RPM until lights go out -- then slam in main
switch connecting generator "B" to already operational Generator "A".

Like you -- I plan top have two old style Listers in the house power plant
-- and this is the way to shunt from one to the other for servicing -- or
even for meeting an exceptional extra load -- with both operating in phase.

Have I got this right.

Peter / Belize

From billkichman at COMCAST.NET Sun Mar 14 21:10:10 2004
From: billkichman at COMCAST.NET (Bill Kichman)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
In-Reply-To: <000101c40a2f$aaea02a0$0200a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <SUN.14.MAR.2004.211010.0500.BILLKICHMAN@COMCAST.NET>

Hi Greg, how's the gasifier holding up? Has it started to look like spring
like down here?
On your comments, I am not sure what you meant but here goes. Do you
interchange "motor" for "engine" in Canada? I know motor is often slang for
engine. I think then what you are saying is to use 2 engines adapted
through a clutch to one induction motor/generator. That's another approach,
but in my opinion a clutch adds complexity. The motors are cheap. In that
case too, I would need a 25 to 30 hp motor. Not a problem but the fixed
losses are much larger than for a 10Hp and when you are running light, the
losses are more significant. Once the 2 motor/generators are synched they
add load together. The engines we will use are Lister style and will likely
not need rebuilding for maybe 10 years, but of course oil changes more often
as you indicate. If you are more comfortable installing a clutch then maybe
that would be a better scenario, if you can get an induction motor large
enough to handle all your load at once, and if your engines are matched well
to the induction motor. It just depends on what you are trying to achieve,
of course. I will run my 6kW base system off a 10Hp Lister, which will run
all the time, and an 8kW in addition off a 12Hp Lister in parallel to enable
picking up my central air and/or my shop tools on top of the base load.
Works for what I need, and my solution is certainly not for everybody. This
setup really is simply, and can be easily manually operated, I just want to
go the extra mile (that's my nature) and add some nice control scheme and
metering so I can watch the numbers from my laptop(grin).

R. William Kichman, P.E.
Kichman Engineering Associates
103 Old Furnace Road
Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
tel/fax 717/270-0714

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of a31ford
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 8:49 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??

Peter and Bill, and all,

The 2 generators is a neat idea, however, simply using one generator and 2
motors is a way more economical approach (at least in Canada it is).

the motors are what will need rebuilding or servicing (Ever done an oil
change "live" ?) and simply using a "over center style" clutch on each and a
common drive, is much more reliable.

Moving from one motor to another is even easier as a cheap tachometer is all
that is needed for each motor.

This method is, in my eyes, the KISS method, as the generator would only
need bearings at the 3000 to 5000's of hours area, however the motors would
need oil in the 30-100 hours area.

(we change the oil in our cars roughly every 50-100 hours).

Clutch assy's are cheaper than interconnect wiring & safety devices
(breakers, control boxes, permits, etc.)

Greg Manning,

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Peter Singfield
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 6:01 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: ORCs are coming??

At 04:04 PM 3/14/2004 -0500, Bill Kichman wrote:
by connecting 2 light bulbs in series between a
>set of the leads that is to be connected. Vary the engine's speed slightly
>and when the bulbs go out, the potential is nearest zero, thus the spike
>will be near zero. Voila'.

Sounds very neat.

So -- If I wish add another generator on line to one presently operating --
this same system should work??

Hook up the two lights in series between generator coming on line and
generator on line. Adjust RPM until lights go out -- then slam in main
switch connecting generator "B" to already operational Generator "A".

Like you -- I plan top have two old style Listers in the house power plant
-- and this is the way to shunt from one to the other for servicing -- or
even for meeting an exceptional extra load -- with both operating in phase.

Have I got this right.

Peter / Belize

From wynn at IC.ORG Sun Mar 14 21:34:06 2004
From: wynn at IC.ORG (Wynn)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: 2 phase/3 phase
In-Reply-To: <031520040125.27214.2544@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <SUN.14.MAR.2004.213406.0500.WYNN@IC.ORG>

I'm confused as to who has said what, but I think this came from Bill.

WHOA!!!!!

From what I understand from the post below, the writer seems to have a
misunderstanding about what 2 phase vs 3 phase means.

Regular, household current is often referred to as "2 phase", but in
reality it is just ONE phase.
"Phase" refers to the relationship of waveforms *_in time_*. The two
"hot" wires of standard household electrical service are mirror images
of each other; their peak voltages both occur at the same instant, so a
load connected across both hot wires experiences twice the
hot-to-neutral voltage.

In a three phase circuit each phase is "out of time" with the others by
120 degrees [or 1/3 of a cycle].

The sentence below, "a single phase panel uses 2-phases of a 3-phase wye
connection" IS INCORRECT!

"I will feed 2 phases to one panel" may work OK, IF YOU HAVE NO 240V loads connected across both hot lines.

"and the other leg plus the lighter loaded leg of the other 2 to the other panel" This I don't understand at all, and urge you to check this out very carefully before you hook it up. High power "dead shorts" aren't just fireworks. They can include exploding switch-boxes, melted conductors [slugs of molten metal sprayed around], and fireballs!

Good luck,
Wynn

Bill Kichman wrote:

>Just a clarification...in my system I will be using a 3-phase motor, and will add an inexpensive 3-phase power panel to accomodate the changes. It is understood that I am a typical residence and use single phase service. So to balance out the phases, with the understanding that a single phase panel uses 2-phases of a 3-phase wye connection, as I have 2 panelboards already, one in my house and one in my workshop, I will feed 2 phases to one panel, and the other leg plus the lighter loaded leg of the other 2 to the other panel. Thus using all 3 phases so as to most efficiently load the generator.
>
>
>

From renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ Sun Mar 14 23:12:41 2004
From: renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ (Ken Calvert)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: Biodiesel Engine Cleanup.
In-Reply-To: <20040314202603.GA13006@cybershamanix.com>
Message-ID: <MON.15.MAR.2004.171241.1300.RENERTECH@XTRA.CO.NZ>

Gentlemen, my two cents worth again in the conversation. The major problem
with vegetable oils either straight or esterised with alcohol is that any
rancidity or incomplete combustion will form scvfa's or short chain volatile
fatty acids. Like formic and acetic acid, they are very cleansing and after
cleaning out your fuel lines, and your piston rings, they will continue to
slide down your cylinder bores and clean out the copper and bronze in your
bearing shells and any other easily corrodible sites that your lubricating
oil will touch. From OPEC 1, in the mid 1970's up until OPEC 2 crashed in
July 1982, I was living on a remote pacific island where we couldn't afford
to ship in diesel fuel in drums, so we ran our generators and heavy boat
engines on rancid coconut oil, coconut esters or cocohol, and even beef
tallow from the islands little abattoir. We used two sets of fuel filters,
one for petroleum diesel for starting and stopping and the other for ersatz
as we called it. The ersatz fuel lines were twisted round or wired to the
exhaust pipe, and that filter unit was nestled on top of a hot spot. Once
the engine was hot you could switch back and forwards no trouble, but to
stop you had to get back onto straight diesel for 10 minutes to keep your
injectors clear of solids. By running the shitty fuel so hot that the
viscosity was kept low, we could get about 500 hours between cleanup of the
injectors. Any thickening of the fuel, or extended running and the
injectors would coke up to the point where injection was impaired and
droplets of uncombusted fuel were leaking down the cylinder bores with
predictable results. However, one of my mates ran a soap factory and all the
coconut oil that was too bad to make soap with was put through a pair of
Petter 50kva diesel alternators and, after we had ironed out the wrinkles,
they ran many hours a day for over 10 years with a regular decoke and about
two sets of bearing shells, but no wear on the crankshafts or camshafts etc.
The chemistry of vege oils is such that rancidity and acid formation is more
likely than not, and it would pay to regularly take a sample of crankcase
oil
To someone who can analyze it for metals content. In theory totally
dehydrated vege oil will give 100% esters, and all the acid is removed.
But I have yet to see anyone get their oil so dry that total reaction ever
occurs and all the glycerol etc is able to be separated out.
ATB with all your efforts,
Sincerely,
Ken Calvert.
Renertech Renewable Energy Services.
159 St Andrew St.
Invercargill
New Zealand 9501.
Ph. +64 3217 7015
Fax +64 3217 7032
Email renertech@xtra.co.nz
Web. www.coffee.20m.com

 

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG] On Behalf Of Harmon Seaver
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 9:26 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] Biodiesel Engines

On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 12:28:56PM -0500, Bill Kichman wrote:
> With regards to running straight filtered Waste Veggie Oil, I have
> located and discussed this with a few motorists who run WVO, as it is
> called. They seem to be in agreement that just the opposite is true,
> that the veggie oil acts to clean the system ,and in fact many had
> problems soon after

From Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK Mon Mar 15 03:03:55 2004
From: Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
In-Reply-To: <IFEOJELEEFHNMELLPIHDOEBECJAA.billkichman@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <MON.15.MAR.2004.080355.0000.GAVIN@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>

[GGG] Bill,

<snip>
a case could be made for using LAbview as the heart of such a
system. Just wish my programming talents were stronger.

try Visidaq from Advantech.com, a) it is cheaper than labview, b) it is a
graphical programming system which is pretty easy to use (although quite
system resources greedy) c) it is possible to download a complete "older
version" from their website.

You need to use their own special data collection modules with I , which is
fine as they again are cheaper thatn the alternatives (except building
boards from scratch and writing your own code!

Kind regards
Gavin

From joacim at YMEX.NET Mon Mar 15 04:15:49 2004
From: joacim at YMEX.NET (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040309142148.009b1810@btlmail.btl.net>
Message-ID: <MON.15.MAR.2004.101549.0100.JOACIM@YMEX.NET>

On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, Peter Singfield wrote:

> If your using a thermal oil as transfer medium -- your "boiler" need be no
> more than a large pan sitting over a fire -- with a small circulation pump.

It also seems easier (cheaper) to store heat than work. Batteries are
expensive, rocks comes for free.

Add an insulated container with a suitable media (bricks, rocks, sand,
metal, whatever) and lead a coil of pipes for the thermal oil through it.
Then you can heat it up again once a day or perhaps once a week, rather
than having a flame burning or combustion motor running all the time.

It still depends on the price tag of whatever waste heat motor being added
to it, ORC or other principle. Something small and cheap would be nice.

What are the operating temperatures for thermal oil by the way?

Now, if heat could be stored for months.... Ice for ice boxes and ice
cubes in the old days used to be cut up from frozen lakes and stored in
large piles insulated with straw.

Joacim

From keith at JOURNEYTOFOREVER.ORG Mon Mar 15 05:09:37 2004
From: keith at JOURNEYTOFOREVER.ORG (Keith Addison)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: Biodiesel Engines
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040312182400.009c1bf0@btlmail.btl.net>
Message-ID: <MON.15.MAR.2004.190937.0900.KEITH@JOURNEYTOFOREVER.ORG>

>How about just running straight veggie oil??
>
>Sorry -- that is the way I took it -- guess I was wrong.
>
>Peter / Belize
>
>At 05:17 PM 3/12/2004 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
> > I'm a bit mystified at the question -- looking for diesels with a
>"history" of
> >biodiesel use is almost irrelevent. Any diesel engine will run on
>biodiesel, the
> >only problems that might occur are with older engines that don't have
> >alcohol-proof seals in their pumps -- and that only matters if the
>biodiesel is
> >poorly made and the methanol/ethanol wasn't properly removed after the
>reaction,
> >which is more than a bit stupid since recovery is simple and *not* doing it
> >expensive. Not to mention that installing the newer seals in the pumps
>isn't a
> >big deal.
> >
> >--
> >Harmon Seaver
> >CyberShamanix
> >http://www.cybershamanix.com
> >

That isn't so Harmon - pure, top-quality biodiesel, thoroughly
washed, with all impurities and excess methanol removed, will degrade
rubber fuel-system parts, though not as rapidly as when the excess
methanol isn't removed. (Ethanol can be used instead of methanol, but
it's more difficult - ethyl esters biodiesel is rare.) It only
applies to older motors though (pre-early 90s for EU/Japan,
pre-mid-90s latest for US motors), and not even all of those.

Also the filter-clogging factor can be exaggerated. It happens, but
maybe not very quickly, and maybe not very severely either - we
changed the filter after more than a month running B100, and it
didn't need changing (in a 13-year-old motor running on not very
high-quality Japanese petro-diesel all that time). A friend left it
for a year without any problems. Always best to have a spare filter
handy anyway, however.

Lots of information on biodiesel here:
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel.html
Biodiesel

And on SVO/WVO here:
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_svo.html
Straight vegetable oil as diesel fuel

See also Biofuels Library:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library.html

The Biofuels mailing list archive is a treasurehouse of information
on all aspects of biofuels, especially biodiesel:
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/

Best wishes

Keith Addison

From keith at JOURNEYTOFOREVER.ORG Mon Mar 15 07:44:51 2004
From: keith at JOURNEYTOFOREVER.ORG (Keith Addison)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: Biodiesel Engine Cleanup.
In-Reply-To: <20040315041241.VSPW9271.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@coppermine>
Message-ID: <MON.15.MAR.2004.214451.0900.KEITH@JOURNEYTOFOREVER.ORG>

Hello Ken

>Gentlemen, my two cents worth again in the conversation. The major problem
>with vegetable oils either straight or esterised with alcohol is that any
>rancidity or incomplete combustion will form scvfa's or short chain volatile
>fatty acids. Like formic and acetic acid, they are very cleansing and after
>cleaning out your fuel lines, and your piston rings, they will continue to
>slide down your cylinder bores and clean out the copper and bronze in your
>bearing shells and any other easily corrodible sites that your lubricating
>oil will touch. From OPEC 1, in the mid 1970's up until OPEC 2 crashed in
>July 1982, I was living on a remote pacific island where we couldn't afford
>to ship in diesel fuel in drums, so we ran our generators and heavy boat
>engines on rancid coconut oil, coconut esters or cocohol, and even beef
>tallow from the islands little abattoir. We used two sets of fuel filters,
>one for petroleum diesel for starting and stopping and the other for ersatz
>as we called it. The ersatz fuel lines were twisted round or wired to the
>exhaust pipe, and that filter unit was nestled on top of a hot spot. Once
>the engine was hot you could switch back and forwards no trouble, but to
>stop you had to get back onto straight diesel for 10 minutes to keep your
>injectors clear of solids. By running the shitty fuel so hot that the
>viscosity was kept low, we could get about 500 hours between cleanup of the
>injectors. Any thickening of the fuel, or extended running and the
>injectors would coke up to the point where injection was impaired and
>droplets of uncombusted fuel were leaking down the cylinder bores with
>predictable results. However, one of my mates ran a soap factory and all the
>coconut oil that was too bad to make soap with was put through a pair of
>Petter 50kva diesel alternators and, after we had ironed out the wrinkles,
>they ran many hours a day for over 10 years with a regular decoke and about
>two sets of bearing shells, but no wear on the crankshafts or camshafts etc.
>The chemistry of vege oils is such that rancidity and acid formation is more
>likely than not, and it would pay to regularly take a sample of crankcase
>oil

This can apply to straight vegetable oil (SVO) use, but not to
biodiesel - high-quality biodiesel without any of the impurities you
mention can easily be made at backyard-level from very poor quality
used cooking oil.

>To someone who can analyze it for metals content. In theory totally
>dehydrated vege oil will give 100% esters, and all the acid is removed.
>But I have yet to see anyone get their oil so dry that total reaction ever
>occurs and all the glycerol etc is able to be separated out.

There's never a "total reaction", it never reaches 100% - it's like
the story about travelling half the remaining distance to your
destination each day, of course you never get there. But how close is
close enough? There's been more than enough research on biodiesel,
both lab and on-road, to conclude how close is close enough,
including much research by the various national standards bodies.
Anybody can make biodiesel that falls well within the national
standards limits, including the limits on content of tri-, di-,
mono-, and free glycerine, as well as acids, and no way is it "shitty
fuel" - it's MUCH better fuel than petro-diesel, especially in the US
(which has some of the worst-quality petro-diesel fuel in the world).
Quite a lot of home-brewers have submitted their fuel for standards
testing and passed easily - the German, French and US ASTM tests at
least, and probably others. The only problems have been with a few
cases of poor-quality commercial fuel, where people thinking too much
about their bottom-line have cut corners and fuel has had to be
recalled. But this is only a very tiny amount of the many millions of
gallons of biodiesel being sold commercially every year (into the
billions by now I think). Nobody knows how much fuel home-brewers are
making and using, but it would have to be well into the millions of
gallons a year by now. No problems - they tend to take quality issues
seriously.

A lot has changed since 1982, and especially in the last four years
since home-brewing started to boom, worldwide.

What you describe sounds similar to these tests using crude palm oil,
a different matter to well-made biodiesel:
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_SVO-Allen.html
Straighter-than-straight vegetable oils as diesel fuels
Michael Allen
Visiting Professor
Prince of Songkla University
Thailand

Diesel generators are probably the best application for using SVO
without engine modifications, with minimal starts and stops and
protracted periods at constant load. For vehicles, there's a useful
guide here:
Guide to using vegetable oil as diesel fuel
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_svo.html#guide

It needs (at least) a two-tank system where you start up and shut
down on petrodiesel or biodiesel and the SVO is heated before it
reaches the filter. The more responsible vendors advise using virgin
oil (unused, uncooked) or only good-quality WVO (used), which can
easily be determined by titration. Much attention is paid to careful
filtering.

The German Elsbett system is the only one we recommend, however. This
is not a two-tank system, it's a proper conversion with a range of
modifications, including different injectors, and is the only system
that acknowledges that there's more to it than simply improving the
viscosity of the SVO. See for instance the report of the European
Advanced Combustion Research for Energy from Vegetable Oils (ACREVO)
study of the use of straight vegetable oil as diesel fuel:
http://www.nf-2000.org/secure/Fair/F484.htm

A vehicle with an Elsbett system can run on petro-diesel, biodiesel,
SVO, or any combination of the three, with no fuel-switching or
preamble, switch on and go, stop and switch off, just like any other
car. It's also the only system suitable for running Direct Injection
diesels on SVO, and the only one that comes with a full warranty.
http://www.elsbett.com/

There is no problem with using alkyl esters biodiesel in diesel
motors, apart from the minor problems already discussed - corrosion
of rubber fuel system parts, and initial filter-clogging as biodiesel
clears the petro-diesel sludge in the tank and fuel lines, and both
these tend to be exaggerated. See "Biodiesel and your vehicle":
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_vehicle.html

Best wishes

Keith Addison

>ATB with all your efforts,
>Sincerely,
>Ken Calvert.
>Renertech Renewable Energy Services.
>159 St Andrew St.
>Invercargill
>New Zealand 9501.
>Ph. +64 3217 7015
>Fax +64 3217 7032
>Email renertech@xtra.co.nz
>Web. www.coffee.20m.com
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: The Gasification Discussion List
>[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG] On Behalf Of Harmon Seaver
>Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 9:26 AM
>To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
>Subject: Re: [GASL] Biodiesel Engines
>
>On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 12:28:56PM -0500, Bill Kichman wrote:
> > With regards to running straight filtered Waste Veggie Oil, I have
> > located and discussed this with a few motorists who run WVO, as it is
> > called. They seem to be in agreement that just the opposite is true,
> > that the veggie oil acts to clean the system ,and in fact many had
> > problems soon after

From billkichman at COMCAST.NET Mon Mar 15 08:10:43 2004
From: billkichman at COMCAST.NET (Bill Kichman)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: 2 phase/3 phase
In-Reply-To: <4055161E.6040801@ic.org>
Message-ID: <MON.15.MAR.2004.081043.0500.BILLKICHMAN@COMCAST.NET>

Wynn,
With regards to your electrical comments,
I suspect I left out some explanation or you may have missed something in
the message or in electrical theory. Please allow me to explain. My
electrical service is 120/240V single phase. Our typical 3-phase service is
208V 3 phase or 480v 3 phase, 60 Hz. As you are most certainly aware, the
208V standard wasn't pulled out of a hat, it is simply the sq.rt. of 3 times
the old standard 120V single phase and is the three phase standard here in
the states. Now assuming my genset is set up to generate 208V 3-phase, the
line-to-line voltage will be 208V, and the line to NEUTRAL voltage will be
120V all around the 3 phases, with slight variations due to loading. Now
ASSUMING YOU CARRY A FULL NEUTRAL, you can tap 120V all day from any one or
all or 2 of the phases, with respect to neutral, and you can tap 208V all
day from any 2 of the phase legs with complete impunity. This is why I
wrote " a single phase is really 2-phases of a 3-phase panel), well
technically it is not, but it works out just the same more or less to the
observer. So if you extend any 2 of the phases and A FULL SIZED
NEUTRAL-SAME SIZE AS THE PHASE CONDUCTORS, you can power up a single phase
panel or any similar load. We do this all the time in fact, I design
building electrical systems for industrial, commercial and institutional
sites. I have several "Subway" restaurants recently where we had to do
this, they had an old single phase 240V service that was gutted, we added a
208V service and back fed the old single phase panel. OR for example, we
power parking lot lighting higher voltage to reduce copper losses at 208V
single phase, allowing reduced wire sizes to boot.

Some caveats: Understand you are getting 208V full voltage and not 240V.
That is 99.9% of the time not a problem. Things such as heaters just have
to work slightly longer for the same joule output, and motors will run
slightly hotter, as they are constant-KVA machines, so they will draw
slightly more current, which is what makes motors warm, to make up for the
lost voltage and maintain constant KVA (KVA = volts times current...). Most
larger motors are rated such that they can accept the lower voltage just
fine, and remember that the speed will be the same because it is dependent
on frequency, which hasn't changed, not voltage. Now, if you set your
generator to get 240V line-to-line, your phase voltage will be 139V, which
is a bit too high, and will likely fry something, though likely not with
fireworks. Switching power supplies will work fine, and light bulbs will
likely live shorter lives but you just want to avoid doing this, it's too
far from 120V standard. If there is a problem where you need 240V
absolutely, you can use a simple and very inexpensive buck-boost
autotransformer to boost the voltage and life goes on merrily.

Remember you must carry the full neutral, this is standard practice, the
neutral current must have a way back home (caps above are intended) to
handle imbalanced loads, as a perfectly balanced 3-phase load such as a
motor has ZERO neutral current, while a typical imbalanced load like a
panelboard almost never does, that's the job of the neutral to handle the
imbalanced current, there is nothing inherently wrong with this.

Just a side note, the 208V standard is super-great for buildings where the
load isn't too great, because it eliminates all the step down transformers
to get 208 from 480V.

Hopefully my explanations aid in clarifying this confusing subject.

R. William Kichman, P.E.
Kichman Engineering Associates
103 Old Furnace Road
Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
tel/fax 717/270-0714

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Wynn
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 9:34 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [GASL] 2 phase/3 phase

I'm confused as to who has said what, but I think this came from Bill.

WHOA!!!!!

From what I understand from the post below, the writer seems to have a
misunderstanding about what 2 phase vs 3 phase means.

Regular, household current is often referred to as "2 phase", but in
reality it is just ONE phase.
"Phase" refers to the relationship of waveforms *_in time_*. The two
"hot" wires of standard household electrical service are mirror images
of each other; their peak voltages both occur at the same instant, so a
load connected across both hot wires experiences twice the
hot-to-neutral voltage.

In a three phase circuit each phase is "out of time" with the others by
120 degrees [or 1/3 of a cycle].

The sentence below, "a single phase panel uses 2-phases of a 3-phase wye
connection" IS INCORRECT!

"I will feed 2 phases to one panel" may work OK, IF YOU HAVE NO 240V loads
connected across both hot lines.

"and the other leg plus the lighter loaded leg of the other 2 to the other
panel" This I don't understand at all, and urge you to check this out very
carefully before you hook it up. High power "dead shorts" aren't just
fireworks. They can include exploding switch-boxes, melted conductors [slugs
of molten metal sprayed around], and fireballs!

Good luck,
Wynn

Bill Kichman wrote:

>Just a clarification...in my system I will be using a 3-phase motor, and
will add an inexpensive 3-phase power panel to accomodate the changes. It
is understood that I am a typical residence and use single phase service.
So to balance out the phases, with the understanding that a single phase
panel uses 2-phases of a 3-phase wye connection, as I have 2 panelboards
already, one in my house and one in my workshop, I will feed 2 phases to one
panel, and the other leg plus the lighter loaded leg of the other 2 to the
other panel. Thus using all 3 phases so as to most efficiently load the
generator.
>
>
>

From billkichman at COMCAST.NET Mon Mar 15 08:14:26 2004
From: billkichman at COMCAST.NET (Bill Kichman)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: Biodiesel Engine Cleanup.
In-Reply-To: <20040315041241.VSPW9271.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@coppermine>
Message-ID: <MON.15.MAR.2004.081426.0500.BILLKICHMAN@COMCAST.NET>

Ken, you comments are extremely well timed and helpful. This makes sense.
So the remedy really is, if you want to run WVO, heat the oil just as I have
learned elsewhere, and exactly as you described, and decoke as recommended
anyway, and change out the acidic oil often. Spare parts are cheap for this
engine so I will plan to buy a few sets :-)
Care to comment on fuel filters and what worked best?

R. William Kichman, P.E.
Kichman Engineering Associates
103 Old Furnace Road
Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
tel/fax 717/270-0714

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Ken Calvert
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 11:13 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] Biodiesel Engine Cleanup.

Gentlemen, my two cents worth again in the conversation. The major problem
with vegetable oils either straight or esterised with alcohol is that any
rancidity or incomplete combustion will form scvfa's or short chain volatile
fatty acids. Like formic and acetic acid, they are very cleansing and after
cleaning out your fuel lines, and your piston rings, they will continue to
slide down your cylinder bores and clean out the copper and bronze in your
bearing shells and any other easily corrodible sites that your lubricating
oil will touch. From OPEC 1, in the mid 1970's up until OPEC 2 crashed in
July 1982, I was living on a remote pacific island where we couldn't afford
to ship in diesel fuel in drums, so we ran our generators and heavy boat
engines on rancid coconut oil, coconut esters or cocohol, and even beef
tallow from the islands little abattoir. We used two sets of fuel filters,
one for petroleum diesel for starting and stopping and the other for ersatz
as we called it. The ersatz fuel lines were twisted round or wired to the
exhaust pipe, and that filter unit was nestled on top of a hot spot. Once
the engine was hot you could switch back and forwards no trouble, but to
stop you had to get back onto straight diesel for 10 minutes to keep your
injectors clear of solids. By running the shitty fuel so hot that the
viscosity was kept low, we could get about 500 hours between cleanup of the
injectors. Any thickening of the fuel, or extended running and the
injectors would coke up to the point where injection was impaired and
droplets of uncombusted fuel were leaking down the cylinder bores with
predictable results. However, one of my mates ran a soap factory and all the
coconut oil that was too bad to make soap with was put through a pair of
Petter 50kva diesel alternators and, after we had ironed out the wrinkles,
they ran many hours a day for over 10 years with a regular decoke and about
two sets of bearing shells, but no wear on the crankshafts or camshafts etc.
The chemistry of vege oils is such that rancidity and acid formation is more
likely than not, and it would pay to regularly take a sample of crankcase
oil
To someone who can analyze it for metals content. In theory totally
dehydrated vege oil will give 100% esters, and all the acid is removed.
But I have yet to see anyone get their oil so dry that total reaction ever
occurs and all the glycerol etc is able to be separated out.
ATB with all your efforts,
Sincerely,
Ken Calvert.
Renertech Renewable Energy Services.
159 St Andrew St.
Invercargill
New Zealand 9501.
Ph. +64 3217 7015
Fax +64 3217 7032
Email renertech@xtra.co.nz
Web. www.coffee.20m.com

 

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG] On Behalf Of Harmon Seaver
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 9:26 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] Biodiesel Engines

On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 12:28:56PM -0500, Bill Kichman wrote:
> With regards to running straight filtered Waste Veggie Oil, I have
> located and discussed this with a few motorists who run WVO, as it is
> called. They seem to be in agreement that just the opposite is true,
> that the veggie oil acts to clean the system ,and in fact many had
> problems soon after

From billkichman at COMCAST.NET Mon Mar 15 08:59:06 2004
From: billkichman at COMCAST.NET (Bill Kichman)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
In-Reply-To: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGAEBADHAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
Message-ID: <MON.15.MAR.2004.085906.0500.BILLKICHMAN@COMCAST.NET>

Thanks for the note, GGG.
I do frown on software that "only works with our hardware" though. There are
just too many variables, and other equipment that might need tied in and
monitored, that would make proprietary hardware a no-no at least for me.

R. William Kichman, P.E.
Kichman Engineering Associates
103 Old Furnace Road
Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
tel/fax 717/270-0714

-----Original Message-----
From: Gavin Gulliver-Goodall [mailto:Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 3:04 AM
To: Bill Kichman; GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: RE: [GASL] ORCs are coming??

[GGG] Bill,

<snip>
a case could be made for using LAbview as the heart of such a
system. Just wish my programming talents were stronger.

try Visidaq from Advantech.com, a) it is cheaper than labview, b) it is a
graphical programming system which is pretty easy to use (although quite
system resources greedy) c) it is possible to download a complete "older
version" from their website.

You need to use their own special data collection modules with I , which is
fine as they again are cheaper thatn the alternatives (except building
boards from scratch and writing your own code!

Kind regards
Gavin

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Mon Mar 15 10:11:55 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
Message-ID: <MON.15.MAR.2004.091155.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Bill and all,

The gasifier is running well, no real major problems, just small ones.

As far as motors, yes, IC Engine is what I'm referring to.

I think we are in a different mind set however, as I'm talking about a pair
of Chevy 350's on a 35kw x 2 pole (70kw) generator (true generator) the
Chevy engines are the replacement for my existing 2nd burner approach to a
heat only system, moving me to a full blown CHP system.

we will NOT be using any "Grid" electricity unless my system has problems.
Our local elec utility has no interest in purchase from us, but will give us
a special arrangement for "Emergency Grid Service" Oh My, did I just type
that ? :)

The larger engines and huge generator, is plenty of electricity for our
lifestyle "back in the bush" and the only extra investment was an "A-B"
switch box, that we could choose which source of electricity we are going to
use, there's or ours.

As far as the clutches, since my system MUST be operational 24/7 I looked at
the reliability factor of both the engine & generator side of things, since
car motors are quite cheap around here, but generators are quite expensive,
I invested my money in the latter, getting a unit that is much larger than
we really need. (time has told me that usage only goes up as you get older
though ;). so instead of buying a "great engine" and trying to get
electricity from old used electric motors running backward, I bought a great
generator, and I'm using old cheap car engines to run it.

Greg Manning,
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Bill Kichman
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 8:10 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: ORCs are coming??

Hi Greg, how's the gasifier holding up? Has it started to look like spring
like down here?
On your comments, I am not sure what you meant but here goes. Do you
interchange "motor" for "engine" in Canada? I know motor is often slang for
engine. I think then what you are saying is to use 2 engines adapted
through a clutch to one induction motor/generator. That's another approach,
but in my opinion a clutch adds complexity. The motors are cheap. In that
case too, I would need a 25 to 30 hp motor. Not a problem but the fixed
losses are much larger than for a 10Hp and when you are running light, the
losses are more significant. Once the 2 motor/generators are synched they
add load together. The engines we will use are Lister style and will likely
not need rebuilding for maybe 10 years, but of course oil changes more often
as you indicate. If you are more comfortable installing a clutch then maybe
that would be a better scenario, if you can get an induction motor large
enough to handle all your load at once, and if your engines are matched well
to the induction motor. It just depends on what you are trying to achieve,
of course. I will run my 6kW base system off a 10Hp Lister, which will run
all the time, and an 8kW in addition off a 12Hp Lister in parallel to enable
picking up my central air and/or my shop tools on top of the base load.
Works for what I need, and my solution is certainly not for everybody. This
setup really is simply, and can be easily manually operated, I just want to
go the extra mile (that's my nature) and add some nice control scheme and
metering so I can watch the numbers from my laptop(grin).

R. William Kichman, P.E.
Kichman Engineering Associates
103 Old Furnace Road
Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
tel/fax 717/270-0714

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of a31ford
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 8:49 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??

Peter and Bill, and all,

The 2 generators is a neat idea, however, simply using one generator and 2
motors is a way more economical approach (at least in Canada it is).

the motors are what will need rebuilding or servicing (Ever done an oil
change "live" ?) and simply using a "over center style" clutch on each and a
common drive, is much more reliable.

Moving from one motor to another is even easier as a cheap tachometer is all
that is needed for each motor.

This method is, in my eyes, the KISS method, as the generator would only
need bearings at the 3000 to 5000's of hours area, however the motors would
need oil in the 30-100 hours area.

(we change the oil in our cars roughly every 50-100 hours).

Clutch assy's are cheaper than interconnect wiring & safety devices
(breakers, control boxes, permits, etc.)

Greg Manning,

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Peter Singfield
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 6:01 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: ORCs are coming??

At 04:04 PM 3/14/2004 -0500, Bill Kichman wrote:
by connecting 2 light bulbs in series between a
>set of the leads that is to be connected. Vary the engine's speed slightly
>and when the bulbs go out, the potential is nearest zero, thus the spike
>will be near zero. Voila'.

Sounds very neat.

So -- If I wish add another generator on line to one presently operating --
this same system should work??

Hook up the two lights in series between generator coming on line and
generator on line. Adjust RPM until lights go out -- then slam in main
switch connecting generator "B" to already operational Generator "A".

Like you -- I plan top have two old style Listers in the house power plant
-- and this is the way to shunt from one to the other for servicing -- or
even for meeting an exceptional extra load -- with both operating in phase.

Have I got this right.

Peter / Belize

From billkichman at COMCAST.NET Mon Mar 15 10:34:37 2004
From: billkichman at COMCAST.NET (Bill Kichman)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
In-Reply-To: <000401c40a9f$db3f8ef0$0200a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <MON.15.MAR.2004.103437.0500.BILLKICHMAN@COMCAST.NET>

Greg, glad to hear the gasifier is going ok. Thanks for the clarification.
There is nothing better or worse in doing this differently from what I
proposed, it's just a different set of constraints and decisions in getting
to the same end. One downfall to what you have selected is less redundancy
with just one generator, however the mean time between failure rates and low
maintenance for generators makes it not such an issue IMO. Bearings will
need replaced some day, or you might lose a voltage regulator. For my
situation, the Chevy 350 scenario won't work, unless I use the infamous
Chevy 350 cu.in.. diesel that pretty much single-handedly killed the
automotive diesel use in this country (aided by super poor fuel quality
here), and then that probably won't be real cheap like a gasoline engine is.
One generator does keep things simpler from a synchronizing point of view of
course. And with an A/B transfer switch you have made the utility very
happy- no linesman will get killed fixing a supposedly dead line due to
accidentally powering back to the grid. On the generator issue, it would be
fairly cheap to locate a surplus genset from a building renovation, I see
them often available fairly cheap from school and other renovation projects
here. Remove the engine, install another of your choosing. So the induction
motor scenario isn't the only inexpensive alternative by any means.

R. William Kichman, P.E.
Kichman Engineering Associates
103 Old Furnace Road
Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
tel/fax 717/270-0714

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of a31ford
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 10:12 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??

Bill and all,

The gasifier is running well, no real major problems, just small ones.

As far as motors, yes, IC Engine is what I'm referring to.

I think we are in a different mind set however, as I'm talking about a pair
of Chevy 350's on a 35kw x 2 pole (70kw) generator (true generator) the
Chevy engines are the replacement for my existing 2nd burner approach to a
heat only system, moving me to a full blown CHP system.

we will NOT be using any "Grid" electricity unless my system has problems.
Our local elec utility has no interest in purchase from us, but will give us
a special arrangement for "Emergency Grid Service" Oh My, did I just type
that ? :)

The larger engines and huge generator, is plenty of electricity for our
lifestyle "back in the bush" and the only extra investment was an "A-B"
switch box, that we could choose which source of electricity we are going to
use, there's or ours.

As far as the clutches, since my system MUST be operational 24/7 I looked at
the reliability factor of both the engine & generator side of things, since
car motors are quite cheap around here, but generators are quite expensive,
I invested my money in the latter, getting a unit that is much larger than
we really need. (time has told me that usage only goes up as you get older
though ;). so instead of buying a "great engine" and trying to get
electricity from old used electric motors running backward, I bought a great
generator, and I'm using old cheap car engines to run it.

Greg Manning,
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Bill Kichman
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 8:10 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: ORCs are coming??

Hi Greg, how's the gasifier holding up? Has it started to look like spring
like down here?
On your comments, I am not sure what you meant but here goes. Do you
interchange "motor" for "engine" in Canada? I know motor is often slang for
engine. I think then what you are saying is to use 2 engines adapted
through a clutch to one induction motor/generator. That's another approach,
but in my opinion a clutch adds complexity. The motors are cheap. In that
case too, I would need a 25 to 30 hp motor. Not a problem but the fixed
losses are much larger than for a 10Hp and when you are running light, the
losses are more significant. Once the 2 motor/generators are synched they
add load together. The engines we will use are Lister style and will likely
not need rebuilding for maybe 10 years, but of course oil changes more often
as you indicate. If you are more comfortable installing a clutch then maybe
that would be a better scenario, if you can get an induction motor large
enough to handle all your load at once, and if your engines are matched well
to the induction motor. It just depends on what you are trying to achieve,
of course. I will run my 6kW base system off a 10Hp Lister, which will run
all the time, and an 8kW in addition off a 12Hp Lister in parallel to enable
picking up my central air and/or my shop tools on top of the base load.
Works for what I need, and my solution is certainly not for everybody. This
setup really is simply, and can be easily manually operated, I just want to
go the extra mile (that's my nature) and add some nice control scheme and
metering so I can watch the numbers from my laptop(grin).

R. William Kichman, P.E.
Kichman Engineering Associates
103 Old Furnace Road
Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
tel/fax 717/270-0714

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of a31ford
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 8:49 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??

Peter and Bill, and all,

The 2 generators is a neat idea, however, simply using one generator and 2
motors is a way more economical approach (at least in Canada it is).

the motors are what will need rebuilding or servicing (Ever done an oil
change "live" ?) and simply using a "over center style" clutch on each and a
common drive, is much more reliable.

Moving from one motor to another is even easier as a cheap tachometer is all
that is needed for each motor.

This method is, in my eyes, the KISS method, as the generator would only
need bearings at the 3000 to 5000's of hours area, however the motors would
need oil in the 30-100 hours area.

(we change the oil in our cars roughly every 50-100 hours).

Clutch assy's are cheaper than interconnect wiring & safety devices
(breakers, control boxes, permits, etc.)

Greg Manning,

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Peter Singfield
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 6:01 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: ORCs are coming??

At 04:04 PM 3/14/2004 -0500, Bill Kichman wrote:
by connecting 2 light bulbs in series between a
>set of the leads that is to be connected. Vary the engine's speed slightly
>and when the bulbs go out, the potential is nearest zero, thus the spike
>will be near zero. Voila'.

Sounds very neat.

So -- If I wish add another generator on line to one presently operating --
this same system should work??

Hook up the two lights in series between generator coming on line and
generator on line. Adjust RPM until lights go out -- then slam in main
switch connecting generator "B" to already operational Generator "A".

Like you -- I plan top have two old style Listers in the house power plant
-- and this is the way to shunt from one to the other for servicing -- or
even for meeting an exceptional extra load -- with both operating in phase.

Have I got this right.

Peter / Belize

From LINVENT at AOL.COM Mon Mar 15 11:18:17 2004
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: 2 phase/3 phase
Message-ID: <MON.15.MAR.2004.111817.EST.>

For several decades I ran a mining operation on 220V 1? 400 amp service. The
rural utility wanted a huge amount of money for running 3? lines, so we ran up
to 50 hp 440v 3? motors on this service with minimal problems. The power
rates were fairly low until they raised the demand charge to $14.00/kw and it
tripled in one month, so we put our own generator in. I figured that over the
years, I saved $100,000 in utility bills from this arrangement.
The trick is to generate the third phase which can be done on any 3?
motor by providing single phase and free-running it. We ran a whole bunch of
motors, 5 hp, 10 hp, 15 hp, before we started up the main mill motor at 50 hp. Our
biggest problem was the main disconnect which was rated at 400 amp, but still
overheated.
The utility was bothered by the fact that we transformed the power up to
440 directly off the main disconnect and did not ground the center tap. I told
them that grounding the secondary center tap was asking for trouble with more
potential ground outs. They didn't do much but grumble and interestingly in
the US , mines do not have to comply with NEC past the main disconnect because
MSHA administers the safety at mines. MSHA says that if you comply with NEC,
you comply with their laws which is true to an extent with some variations such
as being able to use rubber coated MSHA certified cable instead of conduit.

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

From ken at BASTERFIELD.COM Mon Mar 15 16:54:05 2004
From: ken at BASTERFIELD.COM (Ken Basterfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: ORCs are coming??
In-Reply-To: <007501c409f3$25e7fd00$bb9a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <MON.15.MAR.2004.215405.0000.KEN@BASTERFIELD.COM>

Dear All,
For the old fashioned huff & puff types, the answer is yes, try
connecting a house meter backwards by feeding the supply into the load
terminals and the load on the original supply terminals. It goes
backwards.

Does anyone know what happens with the modern digital house meters? I
don't have one to try.
Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG] On Behalf Of Kevin Chisholm
Sent: 14 March 2004 18:35
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??

Dear Bill

Thanks for your comments!!

Heres a question:
If I simply hook an induction motor/generator to the utility, and drive
it
at a speed to generate power that flows back to the utility, is the
nature
of all house metering such that the meter would "run backward?"

Thanks!

Kevin Chisholm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Kichman" <billkichman@COMCAST.NET>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 1:21 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??

> As it turns out, Harmon is correct, with some revisions by state. It
starts
> out with the feds, which mandated that the utilities buy back our home
> generated power. Of course they didn't go the distance and mandate
how
> much and at what rate, so it seems every utility is different. Here
is
how
> Met-Ed in my area will work with us: A producer up to 10kW may use
the
grid
> (by entering into a binding agreement and providing the required
materials
> such as automatic disconnect on power outage and electrical inspection
to
> protect against feeding back into a dead line, etc.) as a battery bank
as
> was mentioned. No payment for surplus, and we get billed for any
deficit
as
> normal. So the best option there is to just offset through
production, on
a
> monthly net, of expected consumption. The second arrangement requires
> higher expense and a different agreement, a second meter and they
still
bill
> you the retail rate, and pay back only what they call the "avoided
rate"
or
> wholesale rate as was mentioned earlier. So I have 3 choices (4 if
you
> count doing nothing ;-)). As my electric retail rate is 8.3 cents per
kWh,
> and the avoided rate was quoted as 2-4 cents per, the latter
arrangement
> isn't a money maker per se. Likely I will just test the system per
the
> first arrangement for awhile prior to enterin into any agreement, just
to
> see how reliable my setup is, and then just disconnect from the grid
> altogether, or at least keep the account open but disconnected unless
> needed.
>
> R. William Kichman, P.E.
> Kichman Engineering Associates
> 103 Old Furnace Road
> Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
> tel/fax 717/270-0714
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Gasification Discussion List
> [mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Harmon Seaver
> Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 11:11 AM
> To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: Re: [GASL] ORCs are coming??
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 09:56:56PM +1300, Ken Calvert wrote:
> > Dear Bill,
> > If you are planning to use your new plant to work in
> > conjunction with the local grid, you have no need to spend $10,000.
I
am
> > assuming that you will be selling you surplus power back to the
local
> > authority and using the local grid as the virtual battery bank in
the
> > sky??!!! Don't break you wrist by hand starting your diesels. Just
> switch
> > on the electric motors from the grid and use them to motor the
diesel
> > engines up to speed before activating the fuel injectors.
> > Your plant will be then be solidly, in fact very solidly, locked
into
the
> > local grid. When you open the throttles on the diesels instead of
dragging
> > power out of the grid at say 1480rpm, the rated speed and slip for a
4
> pole
> > motor, you will very easily move through to 1500rpm, when the
electric
> motor
> > is running free on no load at all. From that speed on the motor
will
> become
> > increasing ly hard to drive, until at 1520rpm you be pouring the
rated
> horse
> > power back into the grid. If you can manage to drive that motor up
to
say
> > 1530rpm, then your diesel engine will be pouring black smoke, in
extreme
> > overload, and your electric motor will be starting to smoke too,
because
> it
> > will be generating something like 50% more than it was rated for.
If
you
> > want to know more, I can dig out an interesting article out of my
files
> > which would be only Quasi legal in the USofA, but still uuseful
info!
Ken
> > Calvert.
> >
>
> Only "Quasi legal in the USofA"? Depends on where you live, I
guess,
but
> in
> many states it's extremely legal, as long as you go thru the proper
> procedures and it's renewable fueled. In Wisconsin, for example, you
can
run
> a
> 20kwh plant 24/7 into the grid and get paid back at the retail rate.
If
you
> want
> to run a larger plant, you then only get compensated at the price your
> electric
> utility pays wholesale. In Minnesota, the limit was 40kwh, and I think
> California is 100kwh. Here's a site with info:
>
> http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/netmetering/index.shtml
>
> Or just google on "netmetering".
>
>
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com

From sho at FORCE.DK Tue Mar 16 14:09:20 2004
From: sho at FORCE.DK (=?iso-8859-1?Q?S=F8ren_Houm=F8ller?=)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: Incentives for CHP Gasification
Message-ID: <TUE.16.MAR.2004.200920.0100.SHO@FORCE.DK>

Hi,

It is kinda hard to get a clear picture of the financial incentives in
Denmark right now. I guess that is why many technologies are stuck in the
lab. Who wants to invest in new, riskier technology when it is impossible to
get an overview over the financial conditions under which the plant will run
in the future?

It is all politics and we need either a good, old-fashioned oil crisis or
John Kerry in the White House - and hence some signals from the US - to make
the current Danish conservative-liberal government see that energy is as
important as unemployment, health care and immigrants.

The left wing is fighting for concessions in a current, large energy deal,
which is being made in the Parliament right now. They want more renewables
and better terms for renewables to vote for a more liberal energy sector.
One of these terms is exactly clear financial incentives.

S?ren Houm?ller

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Miles [mailto:tmiles@TRMILES.COM]
Sent: 1. marts 2004 07:07
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [GASL] Incentives for CHP Gasification

What countires have financial incentives for CHP using biomass gasification?

I think in Denmark utilities will pay more for biomass or renewable CHP than
for oil or natural gas. HowI much?

What other countries pay enough more for biomass heat and power compared
with fossil fuels to justify gasification?

Tom Miles

From billkichman at COMCAST.NET Tue Mar 16 14:44:00 2004
From: billkichman at COMCAST.NET (Bill Kichman)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: Incentives for CHP Gasification
In-Reply-To: <158D3E70A961D5118E02000629A8D7830577239E@ntbrb01.force.dk>
Message-ID: <TUE.16.MAR.2004.144400.0500.BILLKICHMAN@COMCAST.NET>

Please excuse the rant, but it still blows me away to see what influence our
country has on the world. And a shame to see such a rotten influence our
current president has on both this country and the world's economy, security
and energy policy. What's even more sorry is that most likely given the
present terrorist fear here, our moronic society is likely to keep the
goofy-eyed sloppy talking Texan in the White House another 4 years. Sorry
again for the rant, I just couldn't help myself.

R. William Kichman, P.E.
Kichman Engineering Associates
103 Old Furnace Road
Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
tel/fax 717/270-0714

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of S?ren Houm?ller
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 2:09 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] Incentives for CHP Gasification

Hi,

It is kinda hard to get a clear picture of the financial incentives in
Denmark right now. I guess that is why many technologies are stuck in the
lab. Who wants to invest in new, riskier technology when it is impossible to
get an overview over the financial conditions under which the plant will run
in the future?

It is all politics and we need either a good, old-fashioned oil crisis or
John Kerry in the White House - and hence some signals from the US - to make
the current Danish conservative-liberal government see that energy is as
important as unemployment, health care and immigrants.

The left wing is fighting for concessions in a current, large energy deal,
which is being made in the Parliament right now. They want more renewables
and better terms for renewables to vote for a more liberal energy sector.
One of these terms is exactly clear financial incentives.

S?ren Houm?ller

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Miles [mailto:tmiles@TRMILES.COM]
Sent: 1. marts 2004 07:07
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [GASL] Incentives for CHP Gasification

What countires have financial incentives for CHP using biomass gasification?

I think in Denmark utilities will pay more for biomass or renewable CHP than
for oil or natural gas. HowI much?

What other countries pay enough more for biomass heat and power compared
with fossil fuels to justify gasification?

Tom Miles

From FMurrl at AOL.COM Tue Mar 16 15:48:51 2004
From: FMurrl at AOL.COM (FMurrl@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: Incentives for CHP Gasification
Message-ID: <TUE.16.MAR.2004.154851.EST.>

In a message dated 3/16/2004 2:46:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,
billkichman@COMCAST.NET writes:
Please excuse the rant, but it still blows me away to see what influence our
country has on the world. And a shame to see such a rotten influence our
current president has on both this country and the world's economy, security
and energy policy. What's even more sorry is that most likely given the
present terrorist fear here, our moronic society is likely to keep the
goofy-eyed sloppy talking Texan in the White House another 4 years. Sorry
again for the rant, I just couldn't help myself.
I have to say that I think this is out of bounds for the type of technical
posting site that this should be. If you want to make political ravings, please
go to the appropriate site, and leave this list to the issues of how to
effectively convert energy though gasification.

Fred Murrell
Biomass Development Company
Bradenton Florida USA
www.biomassdev.com

From sho at FORCE.DK Tue Mar 16 16:16:07 2004
From: sho at FORCE.DK (=?iso-8859-1?Q?S=F8ren_Houm=F8ller?=)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: Incentives for CHP Gasification
Message-ID: <TUE.16.MAR.2004.221607.0100.SHO@FORCE.DK>

I'm sorry, I did not want to abuse the list with subjects out of bounds.

However, we do work in an area where all the tech stuff is heavily
influenced by politics. In Denmark we lost all our national development
funding and 3/4 of our research funding within energy.

This means that we are no longer able to "effectively convert energy though
gasification" as we were before.

So, an understanding of the framework we all work in is essential in my
opinion. And that was my point, which I believe is very nicely illustrated
by the lack of market pull for our gasifiers.

S?ren Houm?ller
Executive MBA, M.Sc.Eng.

Head of Department
Energy and Environment. Technology and Processes

FORCE Technology, S?borg
Gladsaxe M?llevej 15
2860 S?borg
Denmark

Phone: +45 39 55 59 99
Direct: +45 39 55 59 19
Mobile: +45 40 44 67 14
Fax: +45 39 69 60 02
e-mail: sho@force.dk <mailto:sho@force.dk>
WWW: www.force.dk <http://www.force.dk/>

****************************************************************************
*****
This email and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential
information intended for the addressee(s) only. The information is not to be
surrendered or copied to unauthorised persons. If you have received
this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email at:
force@force.dk
****************************************************************************
*****

 

-----Original Message-----
From: FMurrl@AOL.COM [mailto:FMurrl@AOL.COM]
Sent: 16. marts 2004 21:49
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] Incentives for CHP Gasification

In a message dated 3/16/2004 2:46:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,
billkichman@COMCAST.NET writes:
Please excuse the rant, but it still blows me away to see what influence our
country has on the world. And a shame to see such a rotten influence our
current president has on both this country and the world's economy, security
and energy policy. What's even more sorry is that most likely given the
present terrorist fear here, our moronic society is likely to keep the
goofy-eyed sloppy talking Texan in the White House another 4 years. Sorry
again for the rant, I just couldn't help myself.
I have to say that I think this is out of bounds for the type of technical
posting site that this should be. If you want to make political ravings,
please
go to the appropriate site, and leave this list to the issues of how to
effectively convert energy though gasification.

Fred Murrell
Biomass Development Company
Bradenton Florida USA
www.biomassdev.com

From FMurrl at AOL.COM Tue Mar 16 16:37:29 2004
From: FMurrl at AOL.COM (FMurrl@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: Incentives for CHP Gasification
Message-ID: <TUE.16.MAR.2004.163729.EST.>

In a message dated 3/16/2004 4:17:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, sho@FORCE.DK
writes:
However, we do work in an area where all the tech stuff is heavily
influenced by politics.
I certainly agree with this.

I get frustrated often, as well. I am just hoping to keep the postings on
topic.

Thanks,
Fred Murrell
Biomass Development Company
Bradenton Florida USA

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Tue Mar 16 16:41:48 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: Incentives for CHP Gasification
In-Reply-To: <158D3E70A961D5118E02000629A8D783057723A1@ntbrb01.force.dk>
Message-ID: <TUE.16.MAR.2004.154148.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

Yup, pretty difficult to divorce any alternative energy from
politics. Especially in the current dire straits, which looks to become the
future as well.

On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 10:16:07PM +0100, S?ren Houm?ller wrote:
> I'm sorry, I did not want to abuse the list with subjects out of bounds.
>
> However, we do work in an area where all the tech stuff is heavily
> influenced by politics. In Denmark we lost all our national development
> funding and 3/4 of our research funding within energy.
>
> This means that we are no longer able to "effectively convert energy though
> gasification" as we were before.
>
> So, an understanding of the framework we all work in is essential in my
> opinion. And that was my point, which I believe is very nicely illustrated
> by the lack of market pull for our gasifiers.
>
> S?ren Houm?ller
> Executive MBA, M.Sc.Eng.
>
> Head of Department
> Energy and Environment. Technology and Processes
>
> FORCE Technology, S?borg
> Gladsaxe M?llevej 15
> 2860 S?borg
> Denmark
>
> Phone: +45 39 55 59 99
> Direct: +45 39 55 59 19
> Mobile: +45 40 44 67 14
> Fax: +45 39 69 60 02
> e-mail: sho@force.dk <mailto:sho@force.dk>
> WWW: www.force.dk <http://www.force.dk/>
>
> ****************************************************************************
> *****
> This email and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential
> information intended for the addressee(s) only. The information is not to be
> surrendered or copied to unauthorised persons. If you have received
> this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email at:
> force@force.dk
> ****************************************************************************
> *****
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: FMurrl@AOL.COM [mailto:FMurrl@AOL.COM]
> Sent: 16. marts 2004 21:49
> To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: Re: [GASL] Incentives for CHP Gasification
>
>
> In a message dated 3/16/2004 2:46:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> billkichman@COMCAST.NET writes:
> Please excuse the rant, but it still blows me away to see what influence our
> country has on the world. And a shame to see such a rotten influence our
> current president has on both this country and the world's economy, security
> and energy policy. What's even more sorry is that most likely given the
> present terrorist fear here, our moronic society is likely to keep the
> goofy-eyed sloppy talking Texan in the White House another 4 years. Sorry
> again for the rant, I just couldn't help myself.
> I have to say that I think this is out of bounds for the type of technical
> posting site that this should be. If you want to make political ravings,
> please
> go to the appropriate site, and leave this list to the issues of how to
> effectively convert energy though gasification.
>
> Fred Murrell
> Biomass Development Company
> Bradenton Florida USA
> www.biomassdev.com

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

From tk at TKE.DK Tue Mar 16 17:41:57 2004
From: tk at TKE.DK (Thomas Koch)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: SV: [GASL] Incentives for CHP Gasification
In-Reply-To: <158D3E70A961D5118E02000629A8D783057723A1@ntbrb01.force.dk>
Message-ID: <TUE.16.MAR.2004.224157.0000.TK@TKE.DK>

As A producer of gasifiers I can tell you that my consist of 90 % politics
and 10 % technology.

It is only when you are developing gasification technology you can allow
your selves to ignore politics.

As soon as you have to sell your technology the first question the customer
ask is "what is the electricity price" and the second question is "what will
it be in the future" And .......... after dozens of questions like that the
customer might start to look at the technology if you have been able to give
sensible ansvers to the first 10-20 question concerning the future political
decisions.

Thomas Koch
Gasifier producer
Denmark

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG] P? vegne af S?ren Houm?ller
Sendt: 16. marts 2004 21:16
Til: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Emne: Re: [GASL] Incentives for CHP Gasification

I'm sorry, I did not want to abuse the list with subjects out of bounds.

However, we do work in an area where all the tech stuff is heavily
influenced by politics. In Denmark we lost all our national development
funding and 3/4 of our research funding within energy.

This means that we are no longer able to "effectively convert energy though
gasification" as we were before.

So, an understanding of the framework we all work in is essential in my
opinion. And that was my point, which I believe is very nicely illustrated
by the lack of market pull for our gasifiers.

S?ren Houm?ller
Executive MBA, M.Sc.Eng.

Head of Department
Energy and Environment. Technology and Processes

FORCE Technology, S?borg
Gladsaxe M?llevej 15
2860 S?borg
Denmark

Phone: +45 39 55 59 99
Direct: +45 39 55 59 19
Mobile: +45 40 44 67 14
Fax: +45 39 69 60 02
e-mail: sho@force.dk <mailto:sho@force.dk>
WWW: www.force.dk <http://www.force.dk/>

****************************************************************************
*****
This email and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential
information intended for the addressee(s) only. The information is not to be
surrendered or copied to unauthorised persons. If you have received
this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email at:
force@force.dk
****************************************************************************
*****

 

-----Original Message-----
From: FMurrl@AOL.COM [mailto:FMurrl@AOL.COM]
Sent: 16. marts 2004 21:49
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] Incentives for CHP Gasification

In a message dated 3/16/2004 2:46:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,
billkichman@COMCAST.NET writes:
Please excuse the rant, but it still blows me away to see what influence our
country has on the world. And a shame to see such a rotten influence our
current president has on both this country and the world's economy, security
and energy policy. What's even more sorry is that most likely given the
present terrorist fear here, our moronic society is likely to keep the
goofy-eyed sloppy talking Texan in the White House another 4 years. Sorry
again for the rant, I just couldn't help myself.
I have to say that I think this is out of bounds for the type of technical
posting site that this should be. If you want to make political ravings,
please
go to the appropriate site, and leave this list to the issues of how to
effectively convert energy though gasification.

Fred Murrell
Biomass Development Company
Bradenton Florida USA
www.biomassdev.com

From oscar at GEPROP.CU Tue Mar 16 16:56:34 2004
From: oscar at GEPROP.CU (=?utf-8?Q?Oscar_Jim=C3=A9nez?=)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: SV: [GASL] Incentives for CHP Gasification
Message-ID: <TUE.16.MAR.2004.165634.0500.OSCAR@GEPROP.CU>

Dear All.

I am really convinced that success in life is just getting the balance among the many factors influencing it. The problem is to find out where is the balance for everyone. There is no an absolute balance in life. So between technology vs. politics where is it????

Oscar.

 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Thomas Koch [mailto:tk@TKE.DK]
Enviado el: mar 16/03/2004 17:41
Para: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
CC:
Asunto: [GASL] SV: [GASL] Incentives for CHP Gasification

 

As A producer of gasifiers I can tell you that my consist of 90 % politics
and 10 % technology.

It is only when you are developing gasification technology you can allow
your selves to ignore politics.

As soon as you have to sell your technology the first question the customer
ask is "what is the electricity price" and the second question is "what will
it be in the future" And .......... after dozens of questions like that the
customer might start to look at the technology if you have been able to give
sensible ansvers to the first 10-20 question concerning the future political
decisions.

Thomas Koch
Gasifier producer
Denmark

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG] P? vegne af S?ren Houm?ller
Sendt: 16. marts 2004 21:16
Til: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Emne: Re: [GASL] Incentives for CHP Gasification

I'm sorry, I did not want to abuse the list with subjects out of bounds.

However, we do work in an area where all the tech stuff is heavily
influenced by politics. In Denmark we lost all our national development
funding and 3/4 of our research funding within energy.

This means that we are no longer able to "effectively convert energy though
gasification" as we were before.

So, an understanding of the framework we all work in is essential in my
opinion. And that was my point, which I believe is very nicely illustrated
by the lack of market pull for our gasifiers.

S?ren Houm?ller
Executive MBA, M.Sc.Eng.

Head of Department
Energy and Environment. Technology and Processes

FORCE Technology, S?borg
Gladsaxe M?llevej 15
2860 S?borg
Denmark

Phone: +45 39 55 59 99
Direct: +45 39 55 59 19
Mobile: +45 40 44 67 14
Fax: +45 39 69 60 02
e-mail: sho@force.dk <mailto:sho@force.dk>
WWW: www.force.dk <http://www.force.dk/>

****************************************************************************
*****
This email and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential
information intended for the addressee(s) only. The information is not to be
surrendered or copied to unauthorised persons. If you have received
this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email at:
force@force.dk
****************************************************************************
*****

 

-----Original Message-----
From: FMurrl@AOL.COM [mailto:FMurrl@AOL.COM]
Sent: 16. marts 2004 21:49
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] Incentives for CHP Gasification

In a message dated 3/16/2004 2:46:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,
billkichman@COMCAST.NET writes:
Please excuse the rant, but it still blows me away to see what influence our
country has on the world. And a shame to see such a rotten influence our
current president has on both this country and the world's economy, security
and energy policy. What's even more sorry is that most likely given the
present terrorist fear here, our moronic society is likely to keep the
goofy-eyed sloppy talking Texan in the White House another 4 years. Sorry
again for the rant, I just couldn't help myself.
I have to say that I think this is out of bounds for the type of technical
posting site that this should be. If you want to make political ravings,
please
go to the appropriate site, and leave this list to the issues of how to
effectively convert energy though gasification.

Fred Murrell
Biomass Development Company
Bradenton Florida USA
www.biomassdev.com

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Tue Mar 16 19:46:41 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: Incentives for CHP Gasification
In-Reply-To: <158D3E70A961D5118E02000629A8D7830577239E@ntbrb01.force.dk>
Message-ID: <TUE.16.MAR.2004.184641.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Tom, S?ren, and all

Here In Manitoba, Canada, they are funding research to the tune of 1M cdn$
over 4 years (this is like "at the state level" in the U.S.) for bio-mass
and related subjects re: the Climatic Change Branch
http://www.gov.mb.ca/est/climatechange/mccaf.html

It is not only bio-mass, but a good portion has moved in that direction.

Greg Manning,

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of S?ren Houm?ller
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 1:09 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: Incentives for CHP Gasification

Hi,

It is kinda hard to get a clear picture of the financial incentives in
Denmark right now. I guess that is why many technologies are stuck in the
lab. Who wants to invest in new, riskier technology when it is impossible to
get an overview over the financial conditions under which the plant will run
in the future?

It is all politics and we need either a good, old-fashioned oil crisis or
John Kerry in the White House - and hence some signals from the US - to make
the current Danish conservative-liberal government see that energy is as
important as unemployment, health care and immigrants.

The left wing is fighting for concessions in a current, large energy deal,
which is being made in the Parliament right now. They want more renewables
and better terms for renewables to vote for a more liberal energy sector.
One of these terms is exactly clear financial incentives.

S?ren Houm?ller

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Miles [mailto:tmiles@TRMILES.COM]
Sent: 1. marts 2004 07:07
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [GASL] Incentives for CHP Gasification

What countires have financial incentives for CHP using biomass gasification?

I think in Denmark utilities will pay more for biomass or renewable CHP than
for oil or natural gas. HowI much?

What other countries pay enough more for biomass heat and power compared
with fossil fuels to justify gasification?

Tom Miles

From Steven.Gust at FORTUM.COM Wed Mar 17 02:46:30 2004
From: Steven.Gust at FORTUM.COM (Gust Steven)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: Conflict resolution
Message-ID: <WED.17.MAR.2004.094630.0200.STEVEN.GUST@FORTUM.COM>

I have been following this list with interest as it has, in my opinion,
a good mix of opinions on technologies and also on the environment in
which thses operate. I do not think that the non-technology issues have
received too much attention and once in a while it is good to also hear
opinions on these matters. I have a delete key here on my computer and
it works very good on removing messages I am not interested in.

In just about all cases, the introduction of new energy technologies
requires government programmes, incentives, tax credtis etc. In order to
compete with the existing energy systems which already having their
development fully subsidized (but in most cases forgten) have now
achieved economies of scale which permit unit prices to be reduced to
low and competitive levels, some type of assistance is required.

So what arguments do new technologies like fuel cells, wind turbines,
ethanol and the like use to obtain the required funds to develop and
compete. The climate change argument is valid but it seems to be bogged
down right now with people not wanting to accept reality and with the
sheer magnitude of the problem and with the argument that our climate
has always changed so we should just adapt to it! But there is one
argument that is not used today as much or often as it should be. These
technologies are attempting to replace fossil fuels. I think everyone
knows where the word "fossil" comes from. But of course, as all the
studies show, the potential to replace the current amount of fossil
fuels that our western societies currently use is rather limited. I
suppose we need a another oil crises or two to wake everyone up again.
Actually I believe the real goal should be to try to replace the
increase in fossil fuel use with renewables. Why isn't this argument
used more?

So lets keep this discussion going! Both technical and non-technical!!

Steven Gust
Fortum Oil & Gas
P.O. Box 310, 06101 PORVOO

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Gavin Gulliver-Goodall [mailto:Gavin@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK]
Sent: 21. helmikuuta 2004 15:11
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] Conflict resolution

There are several issues here:
1: Is there Global Climate Change?
2: If there is global climate change, is the globe warming or cooling?
3: Which , any, of the above, are due to the activities of Man? [GGG]
Or 4) If there is, whichever it is and however caused is it a good
thing, a bad thing, anything we can or should be doing anything about?
[GGG] Since the earth 's climate had been constantly slowly changing
over its whole life and Life on earth has (as a Darwinian) evolved to
meet /follow/respond to those climatic changes, should we not just be
evolving according to the climatic, social and technical changes?

Just a thought

Yours aye
Gavin

From CAVM at AOL.COM Wed Mar 17 09:17:45 2004
From: CAVM at AOL.COM (C. Van Milligen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: Rant
Message-ID: <WED.17.MAR.2004.091745.EST.>

In a message dated 3/16/2004 11:02:23 PM Central Standard Time,
LISTSERV@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG writes:
Sorry
again for the rant, I just couldn't help myself.

R. William Kichman, P.E.
I have an idea. Keep your stupid political opinions to yourself.

Neal Van Milligen
Kentucky Enrichment Inc
cavm@aol.com

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Wed Mar 17 10:34:46 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: Rant
In-Reply-To: <10e.2d85604d.2d89b809@aol.com>
Message-ID: <WED.17.MAR.2004.093446.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 09:17:45AM -0500, C. Van Milligen wrote:
> In a message dated 3/16/2004 11:02:23 PM Central Standard Time,
> LISTSERV@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG writes:
>> Sorry
>> again for the rant, I just couldn't help myself.
>>
>> R. William Kichman, P.E.
>
> I have an idea. Keep your stupid political opinions to yourself.
>
> Neal Van Milligen
> Kentucky Enrichment Inc
> cavm@aol.com

There was nothing "stupid" about his opinion, and, in fact, it's undoubtedly
widely shared by most if not all of the non-Amerikans and a good share of the
Amerikans on this list as well. I personally find it extremely embarrassing (and
also quite frightening) to be a citizen of the US these days -- my wife and I
wish greatly that we had the money to leave and move someplace sane. It's like
watching the Nazis take over Germany all over again -- like a nightmare that
doesn't go away when you wake up.

 

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

From billkichman at COMCAST.NET Wed Mar 17 11:30:30 2004
From: billkichman at COMCAST.NET (Bill Kichman)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: Rant
Message-ID: <WED.17.MAR.2004.163030.0000.>

There's nothing like politics to get people stirred up. Maybe I flavored the comments a little much, but the problems are there, and they are very serious, and they affect our alternative energy subject as much if not more than most other life issues here in the states and abroad, with the possible exceptions of privacy and financial security, which are in even more jeopardy. THe previous comment about a Nazi-takeover feeling here are not way off IMO. But I do regret making the political comments here nonetheless, if only because they tend to move the topic off-subject. So please accept my regrets.
Happy Spring!

R. William Kichman, P.E.
Kichman Engineering Associates
Cornwall, PA USA
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 09:17:45AM -0500, C. Van Milligen wrote:
> > In a message dated 3/16/2004 11:02:23 PM Central Standard Time,
> > LISTSERV@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG writes:
> >> Sorry
> >> again for the rant, I just couldn't help myself.
> >>
> >> R. William Kichman, P.E.
> >
> > I have an idea. Keep your stupid political opinions to yourself.
> >
> > Neal Van Milligen
> > Kentucky Enrichment Inc
> > cavm@aol.com
>
> There was nothing "stupid" about his opinion, and, in fact, it's undoubtedly
> widely shared by most if not all of the non-Amerikans and a good share of the
> Amerikans on this list as well. I personally find it extremely embarrassing (and
> also quite frightening) to be a citizen of the US these days -- my wife and I
> wish greatly that we had the money to leave and move someplace sane. It's like
> watching the Nazis take over Germany all over again -- like a nightmare that
> doesn't go away when you wake up.
>
>
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com

From snkm at BTL.NET Wed Mar 17 11:33:34 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: Rant
Message-ID: <WED.17.MAR.2004.103334.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Harmon -- for the record -- I sympathize 100% with your feelings.

However -- I know of a couple of mailists lately that have totally self
destructed -- or close to it -- due to this very same topic.

The world is polarizing rapidly into different schools of thought -- this
is always a prelude to global war -- on the total holocaust level.

It is a good time to keep one's head down -- and concentrate on personal
survival.

We have so little time left -- like the story of the great library burning
and one old Monk trying to save the best books for the posterity of mankind
-- running around -- this one -- no -- this one!! Until nothing is saved --
the library burns to the ground -- the librarian trying to save the "best"
burning down with it.

>my wife and I wish greatly that we had the money to
>leave and move someplace sane.

If you don't mind living like an Appalachians Hill-Billy in the tropics --
your always welcome to have refuge here -- you certainly seem like the type
of fellow that can put his shoulder to the wheel -- and pay his way.

It is no longer about money -- it soon will be about subsistence survival.
All working for the common good.

Strange words these days -- agreed.

"All working for the common good"

Wish the Global Corporations could understand those words and act accordingly!

Peter

 

At 09:34 AM 3/17/2004 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 09:17:45AM -0500, C. Van Milligen wrote:
>> In a message dated 3/16/2004 11:02:23 PM Central Standard Time,
>> LISTSERV@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG writes:
>>> Sorry
>>> again for the rant, I just couldn't help myself.
>>>
>>> R. William Kichman, P.E.
>>
>> I have an idea. Keep your stupid political opinions to yourself.
>>
>> Neal Van Milligen
>> Kentucky Enrichment Inc
>> cavm@aol.com
>
> There was nothing "stupid" about his opinion, and, in fact, it's
undoubtedly
>widely shared by most if not all of the non-Amerikans and a good share of the
>Amerikans on this list as well. I personally find it extremely
embarrassing (and
>also quite frightening) to be a citizen of the US these days -- my wife and I
>wish greatly that we had the money to leave and move someplace sane. It's
like
>watching the Nazis take over Germany all over again -- like a nightmare that
>doesn't go away when you wake up.
>
>
>
>--
>Harmon Seaver
>CyberShamanix
>http://www.cybershamanix.com
>

From VHarris001 at AOL.COM Wed Mar 17 12:45:11 2004
From: VHarris001 at AOL.COM (VHarris001@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: US Energy, Economic Policy
Message-ID: <WED.17.MAR.2004.124511.EST.>

Bill Kichman <billkichman@COMCAST.NET wrote:

>
>And a shame to see such a rotten influence ourcurrent president has on both
this >country and the world's economy, security and energy policy.
>

I can appreciate that you're begging off for the political attack nature of
your post. Let's skip the security issue as off-topic for this list, but do
you stand by the essence of your comments with respect to problematic policy on
energy and economy?

If so, what is the basis of your complaint with US energy policy, and how is
economic policy contributing to or influencing that energy policy for the US
and the world?

Best wishes,

Vernon Harris
Lancaster, PA, USA

From VHarris001 at AOL.COM Wed Mar 17 13:33:42 2004
From: VHarris001 at AOL.COM (VHarris001@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: Conflict resolution
Message-ID: <WED.17.MAR.2004.133342.EST.>

In a message dated 2004-03-17 3:02:31 AM Eastern Standard Time,
Steven.Gust@FORTUM.COM writes:

> I
> suppose we need a another oil crises or two to wake everyone up again.
> Actually I believe the real goal should be to try to replace the
> increase in fossil fuel use with renewables. Why isn't this argument
> used more?
>

Economics.

The only way to change the behavior of producers and consumers is to change
the economic equation. But as long as producers are willing to sell oil to
consumers at a lower price than the oil consumers can produce it themselves, the
importation of oil will continue apace. And as long as oil remains relatively
inexpensive to import and process, consumption will continue unabated.

Government can intervene. It can either intervene on the supply side by
limiting supply, or it can intervene on the demand side restricting consumption.
Neither approach is very appealing, economically or politically.

If there is another, better solution to the existing reliance on fossil
fuels, the market would sieze upon it.

Best wishes,

Vernon Harris

From billkichman at COMCAST.NET Wed Mar 17 13:39:14 2004
From: billkichman at COMCAST.NET (Bill Kichman)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: US Energy, Economic Policy
Message-ID: <WED.17.MAR.2004.183914.0000.>

Vernon,

Hey, we are neighbors! Anyway, yes of course I stand by my comments. I'd rather not continue a political discussion seen by many as unrelated to gasification, though. Though they weren't meant to be a political attack but frustration at the direction the country is heading,I have received too many personal attacks by the politically correct and otherwise biased, offline, since. And I need to get back to paying work rather than get pulled into heated political discussions. But to respond with just a couple points to back up my initial comments:

Our administration is clearly interested in oil-period. Alternative energy is given tiny R&D assistance in any at all. Of course when they talk about a hydrogen economy, it's still about "big oil" and "big government" controlling delivery of energy, since hydrogen itself is of course not a fuel source but a carrier of the same energy they wish to remain in control of. That's how they want it-period. This hasn't radically changed actually since the last 3 or so administrations but has gotten worse in the recent past. Add to that the pullback on climate change policy and pollution limitations easing. Enough on that, case made already IMO.

With regards to economic policy, our country is the most influential (some say way too influential) economy on the planet, and our continued fray into record budget deficits puts us ever nearer to financial collapse. This would of course spill out into the world if the dollar takes a nose dive into oblivion.
We depend on foreign investment to "hold up" these deficits through loans of course, since nearly nobody here in the public sector has any substantial personal savings (unlike Japan and other countries) and there is a limit to the amount foreign governments are willing to lend, especially as the risk rises with the size of the deficit. This may be oversimplification, but is one of the main cruxes of my reasoning. We can go on and on about other related supporting issues but I don't think people want to read all this political stuff.
Anyway...my Lister engines arrive tomorrow. Will do some WVO fuel testing this weekend to see how things go, and hopefully have an operational veggie oil fueled genset next week.

R. WIlliam Kichman, P.E.
Kichman Engineering Associates
Cornwall, PA USA
> Bill Kichman <billkichman@COMCAST.NET wrote:
>
> >
> >And a shame to see such a rotten influence ourcurrent president has on both
> this >country and the world's economy, security and energy policy.
> >
>
> I can appreciate that you're begging off for the political attack nature of
> your post. Let's skip the security issue as off-topic for this list, but do
> you stand by the essence of your comments with respect to problematic policy on
> energy and economy?
>
> If so, what is the basis of your complaint with US energy policy, and how is
> economic policy contributing to or influencing that energy policy for the US
> and the world?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Vernon Harris
> Lancaster, PA, USA

From MMBTUPR at AOL.COM Wed Mar 17 14:39:59 2004
From: MMBTUPR at AOL.COM (Lewis L. Smith)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: US Energy, Economic Policy
Message-ID: <WED.17.MAR.2004.143959.EST.>

to Gasifiers from Lewis L. Smith

The sender is an energy economist, a "Mideast Watcher" since 1961, a
former director of Puerto Rico's Office of Energy [now the Energy Affairs
Administration] and currently an advisor on energy to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
[USA].

As a witness to "in-house" debates between California conservatives and
Federal conservatives during the Reagan administration, my impression is that
the fundamental principal of conservative energy policy at the Federal level
was to preserve oil's share of the energy market in the USA, to preserve the
power of the oil companies to obtain windfall profits during any energy crisis
and to minimize the cost of environmental protection to the oil companies. By
contrast, states [regardless of ideology] had sets of principles which could
vary widely. Implicitly then, at the Federal level, energy policy took
precedence over economic policy. For example, during an energy crisis, the growth of
the money supply should be sufficient to support any inflation in oil prices,
although it is my impression that such implications were not fully understood by
many Reagan-administration decision makers.

During the two Bush administrations, several new dimensions have been
added. On one hand, there is the use of armed force to maintain order in the
Middle East, which strongly implies that energy policy is more important than
economic policy.

On the other, the substantial contribution of open-ended defense
commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq to current and future deficits makes it more
difficult for the US economy to absorb the inflationary impact of high oil prices.
The cumulative effect of repeated tax cuts aggravates this problem even more.
Good example are the airlines, which may have to face a "double whammy" of
higher fuel prices and higher interest rates for the next several years. So
given the sequence of these commitments, it is just as clear that fiscal policy is
more important than economic policy ! Obviously both of these "more than"
statements cant be true, and there is an inconsistency here.

My own suggestion for reducing the conflict between the two sets of
policies, is to rapidly and significantly decrease the US dependence on oil
imports, so as to improve our bargain power with the oil-exporting countries and
reduce the price of oil. This can be done by substantially raising and extending
gasoline-milage requirements, by making peak-load pricing a standard practice
for electric utilities which depend on gas and/or oil and by pushing both
energy efficiency and those renewable energy sources with near-term payoffs a lot
harder than we are doing now. This sort of energy policy would not undermine
but rather would be compatible with a broad range of economic policies.

Incidentally hydrogen [like Brazil] has a great future, but it is well
off in the future ! Until we get cheap fuel cells which can obtain their
hydrogen cheaply from "H2 filling stations", don't expect a big impact from this
source of energy. While personally I believe in a "hydrogen economy" [someday]
, the present hoopla is just for show. It doesn't threaten the near-term profit
s of the oil companies and gives the impression that the present Bush
administration is doing something about energy.

Please note that H2 is or is not "renewable" depending on its source.
For example, H2 derived from natural gas is not. H2 derived from the
electrolysis of water may be.

Also H2 is seldom found free but almost always is attached to bigger
atoms, in a molecule of some kind. So it takes energy to dislodge it. Also it
requires compressors to put it into storable form, which also take energy.
Needless to say, this energy must be accounted for in evaluating H2-based projects.

Cordially.

End.

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Wed Mar 17 15:36:04 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: Conflict resolution
In-Reply-To: <111.2f83d8d4.2d89f406@aol.com>
Message-ID: <WED.17.MAR.2004.143604.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 01:33:42PM -0500, VHarris001@AOL.COM wrote:
> In a message dated 2004-03-17 3:02:31 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> Steven.Gust@FORTUM.COM writes:
>
>
> > I
> > suppose we need a another oil crises or two to wake everyone up again.
> > Actually I believe the real goal should be to try to replace the
> > increase in fossil fuel use with renewables. Why isn't this argument
> > used more?
> >
>
> Economics.
>
> The only way to change the behavior of producers and consumers is to change
> the economic equation. But as long as producers are willing to sell oil to
> consumers at a lower price than the oil consumers can produce it themselves, the
> importation of oil will continue apace. And as long as oil remains relatively
> inexpensive to import and process, consumption will continue unabated.

It's not, it's just that the US gov't subsidizes it so heavily. If gasoline
sold at it's true price here, it would be at least $10 @ gallon.

>
> Government can intervene. It can either intervene on the supply side by
> limiting supply, or it can intervene on the demand side restricting consumption.
> Neither approach is very appealing, economically or politically.
>
> If there is another, better solution to the existing reliance on fossil
> fuels, the market would sieze upon it.
>
The corporate welfare scams (including the farm welfare scams) run by the
criminal enterprise we call the US gov't, and it's clear willingness to murder
tens of thousands of innocent people to steal their resources as we've seen over
and over for the last 100 years really makes "market forces" irrelevant. The
"market" is what the arch criminal conspirators make it, for their benefit.

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

From hauserman at CORPCOMM.NET Wed Mar 17 16:30:14 2004
From: hauserman at CORPCOMM.NET (Bill Hauserman)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: US Economic Energy Policy
Message-ID: <WED.17.MAR.2004.153014.0600.HAUSERMAN@CORPCOMM.NET>

The increasingly overriding characteristic of our bi-polar* political discourse of the past decade is that The Cause of any perceived problem must be blamed directly on policies of The Other political party, or whatever group appears to be one of their major contributors. To appear to address The Problem, whatever it may be, any successful politician must propose solutions that impose all costs or inconvenience on some relative minority of voters - preferably those supporting The Other party. The Hydrogen Economy, greatly increased biomass use and unsubsidized ethanol production are not charging ahead, simply because the cost, $/kW or $/mile on the road are still just too damm high, compared with conventional usage of petroleum.

So here's a simple, non-partisan solution to getting these things moving ahead: Simply quit worrying about whose R&D to subsidize and impose an additional tax of $2 to 3.00 per gallon on petroleum derived fuels!

ADVANTAGES.
# It will encourage Big Oil, Big Cars and Big Utilities to apply their vast resources to developing these alternatives, and/or simply increasing efficiency in all areas.
# It would encourage the far bigger energy consuming public to take energy efficiency seriously, avoid waste and shop around for newly competititive options.
# It would involve little or no knowledge by politicians (which they and their lobbyists lack anyway) as to just which alternatives might work and whose research to support, since they would not be making the decisions.
# It would reduce the current crippling levels of risk for all those entrepreneurs with technically demonstrated solutions to push ahead into the newly competitive markets. (You know, like free enterprise.)
# It would reduce consumption of petroleum products, thus reducing pollution and CO2 emissions, as an afterthought..
# And politically best of all: It'll bring in lotsa tax money for the federal government to use to off-set tax cuts and spend on wars, public works, entitlements, social programs and -Now here's a revolutionary idea! - paying down the national debt.

DISADVANTAGES
# It would be political suicide for whoever proposes it. It would have to be spun through the labyrinth congressional and media channels in some way to get apparent bi-partisan support, while putting all the blame for it on The Other party. As a mere Engineer, I have no idea how this could be done.

Bill Hauserman

(* Note that Bi-polar is also a politically correct euphemism for manic-depressive or schizophrenic.)

From kenboak at STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK Wed Mar 17 18:30:37 2004
From: kenboak at STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK (Ken Boak)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:41 2004
Subject: US Economic Energy Policy
Message-ID: <WED.17.MAR.2004.233037.0000.KENBOAK@STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK>

Bill,

Your suggestions do not work - in Britain we have had a massive tax imposed
on all petroleum fuels for over 20 years:

We are currently paying $5.50 per US gallon for gasoline in the UK, and
there are still no signs of a healthy emergent renewable/bio-energy
industry.

 

regards,

Ken

disgruntled UK taxpayer

From VHarris001 at AOL.COM Wed Mar 17 18:47:10 2004
From: VHarris001 at AOL.COM (VHarris001@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:42 2004
Subject: US Energy, Economic Policy
Message-ID: <WED.17.MAR.2004.184710.EST.>

In a message dated 2004-03-17 1:39:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,
billkichman@COMCAST.NET writes:

> Our administration is clearly interested in oil-period. Alternative energy
> is given tiny R&D assistance in any at all. Of course when they talk about a
> hydrogen economy, it's still about "big oil" and "big government" controlling
> delivery of energy, since hydrogen itself is of course not a fuel source but
> a carrier of the same energy they wish to remain in control of. That's how
> they want it-period. This hasn't radically changed actually since the last 3
> or so administrations but has gotten worse in the recent past.

Hi Bill,

It seems reasonable to concede the gist of all your points above, but I don't
see them (at least from a US centric point of view) as problematic. Energy
in all it's forms has been phenomenally cheap and reliable since the dawn of
the industrial revolution.

Pollution excepted for this discussion, I don't see anything that has "gotten
worse." Perhaps you could be a bit more specific?

I snipped your discussion re: the economic problems. I do agree that the US
is deficit spending its way into trouble, and with a President at the helm
that I originally thought was fiscally conservative. But I don't see energy as a
big contributor to that problem so will skip a response for now.

Best wishes,

Vernon Harris

From graeme at POWERLINK.CO.NZ Wed Mar 17 23:05:53 2004
From: graeme at POWERLINK.CO.NZ (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:42 2004
Subject: Incentives for CHP Gasification
Message-ID: <THU.18.MAR.2004.170553.1300.GRAEME@POWERLINK.CO.NZ>

Hi Fred,
You wrote:

If you want to make political ravings, please
> go to the appropriate site, and leave this list to the issues of how to
> effectively convert energy though gasification.

You were quicker off the mark than I was to respond to the political
comment, but I was still reeling from the inflow of Orcs, which until now I
thought were dug out of the clay pits of New Zealand by Peter Jackson to
make the Lord of the Ring movies! Not only do we have Orcs competing with
second hand electric motors masquerading as generators, but we have used
Lister engines running on waste oil and fat. This might be a fascinating
topic for survivalists but it is off topic and certainly doesn't involve
biomass or gasification.

This forum was set up I do believe, to facilitate better communication
between those of us seriously involved with gasification and biomass, and
hopefully produce an archive of useful information that could be accessed by
students etc. I have no idea how anyone outside of the discussion group can
follow the topic headings as they currently stand. Maybe our Moderator can
wave a big stick!

Having contributed to this forum since its formation, I could suggest that
you take note of those people with similar interests to your own, and
communicate privately. While we have commercial sensitivity in many areas
of our business activity, I personally have managed to have a good
friendship with many of my colleagues, and even competitors, but we don't
agree on everything. Sometimes its just not possible to discuss some things
in an open forum like this, as you have to be really involved to appreciate
the dedication required in our chosen field of expertise.

Despite the doom and gloom of politics and bureaucrats, misinformed analysts
etc. we are gradually approaching the time when all that we have done and
yet to do, will be needed throughout the world. When we started in the
1970s, we had an oil price crisis, a cold war, and threat of nuclear winter,
and we also knew that it would be somewhere about 30 years into the future
before our technology would be needed. As it turns out the signs are that
it was about right, but the only disappointing thing is that the power
generation technology has not taken the opportunity to evolve at the same
time.

Keep plugging away and honing your skill and knowledge of what we do, and
before you know it, things will be swinging our way as reality begins to
sink in. (I hope).

Regards

Doug Williams.
Fluidyne Gasification.

From VHarris001 at AOL.COM Thu Mar 18 00:53:26 2004
From: VHarris001 at AOL.COM (VHarris001@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:42 2004
Subject: US Economic Energy Policy
Message-ID: <THU.18.MAR.2004.005326.EST.>

In a message dated 2004-03-17 11:44:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,
hauserman@CORPCOMM.NET writes:

> So here's a simple, non-partisan solution to getting these things moving
> ahead: Simply quit worrying about whose R&D to subsidize and impose an
> additional tax of $2 to 3.00 per gallon on petroleum derived fuels!
>
>

Gosh. I can hardly conceive of a more partisan approach. I guess where you
stand depends on where you sit.

Vernon Harris

From VHarris001 at AOL.COM Thu Mar 18 02:07:42 2004
From: VHarris001 at AOL.COM (VHarris001@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:42 2004
Subject: US Energy, Economic Policy
Message-ID: <THU.18.MAR.2004.020742.EST.>

In a message dated 2004-03-17 2:39:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, MMBTUPR
writes:

> to Gasifiers from Lewis L. Smith
>
> The sender is an energy economist, a "Mideast Watcher" since 1961, a
> former director of Puerto Rico's Office of Energy [now the Energy Affairs
> Administration] and currently an advisor on energy to the Commonwealth of Puerto
> Rico [USA].
>
> As a witness to "in-house" debates between California conservatives and
> Federal conservatives during the Reagan administration, my impression is
> that the fundamental principal of conservative energy policy at the Federal
> level was to preserve oil's share of the energy market in the USA, to preserve
> the power of the oil companies to obtain windfall profits during any energy
> crisis and to minimize the cost of environmental protection to the oil
> companies. By contrast, states [regardless of ideology] had sets of principles which
> could vary widely. Implicitly then, at the Federal level, energy policy took
> precedence over economic policy.

Drawing this conclusion seems to be quite a leap. Couldn't one just as
easily conclude that federal reasoning was that liberating big oil from capricious
state regulation/taxation would reduce big oil's total cost of compliance,
free it to charge 'market rates' for it's product, increase the quantity supplied
to that demanded, and so boost US economic performance?

> During the two Bush administrations, several new dimensions have been
> added. On one hand, there is the use of armed force to maintain order in the
> Middle East,

Do you merely note this point, or is this meant to be a criticism? If a
criticism, what do you perceive to be appropriate?

which strongly implies that energy policy is more important than economic
policy.
>
>
Again, this seems to be a conclusion that could just as well be drawn in the
reverse; that the importance of the economic considerations were the reason
for the energy policy.

> On the other, the substantial contribution of open-ended defense
> commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq to current and future deficits makes it more
> difficult for the US economy to absorb the inflationary impact of high oil
> prices. The cumulative effect of repeated tax cuts aggravates this problem even
> more. Good example are the airlines, which may have to face a "double whammy"
> of higher fuel prices and higher interest rates for the next several years.

I'll concede all these points but I'm afraid their relevance is lost on me.
A Bush I and II policy to maintain order in producing nations seems beneficial
to the US economy, which then contributes to the cost of the defense
commitments.

So given the sequence of these commitments, it is just as clear that fiscal
policy
> is more important than economic policy ! Obviously both of these "more
> than" statements cant be true, and there is an inconsistency here.

Again, I don't follow the argument here. Could you further explain about the
fiscal policy and how it relates to the economic policy.

>
> My own suggestion for reducing the conflict between the two sets of
> policies, is to rapidly and significantly decrease the US dependence on oil
> imports,

I presume you would advocate that this be accomplished by force of law, not
by reliance on market forces?

so as to improve our bargain power with the oil-exporting countries and
reduce the
> price of oil. This can be done by substantially raising and extending
> gasoline-milage requirements, by making peak-load pricing a standard practice for
> electric utilities which depend on gas and/or oil and by pushing both energy
> efficiency and those renewable energy sources with near-term payoffs a lot
> harder than we are doing now. This sort of energy policy would not undermine
> but rather would be compatible with a broad range of economic policies.
>

I must differ. These remedies seem typical of government mandates which I
think naively attempt to circumvent economic realities and progressively
implement a 'central planning' system.

What's your position on government moving toward deregulation and reliance on
market mechanisms for energy supply? A free market should automatically set
the appropriate price for, and produce the efficient distribution of, energy
(including peak-load pricing) and will reward technological innovation in
energy consumption via market adoption.

True that this is a philosophical argument, but one that is highly relevant
here in gasification. While government's wealth redistribution policy can give
a significant boost to the R & D effort on alternative energy sources, my
position is that the stronger case can almost always be made for voluntary market
solutions as preferable to compulsory governement solutions.

Vernon Harris

From Steven.Gust at FORTUM.COM Thu Mar 18 02:35:51 2004
From: Steven.Gust at FORTUM.COM (Gust Steven)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:42 2004
Subject: US Energy, Economic Policy
Message-ID: <THU.18.MAR.2004.093551.0200.STEVEN.GUST@FORTUM.COM>

Why don't we all just agree to disagree. Since most of us have a
technical background, maybe we are not the best ones to argue the merits
of fiscal and economic policies. How much regulation is good? What is
unfair competition? When do the market forces have to be controlled?
What is governments role is ensuring that new technologies are developed
in a timely fashion so that they may be implemented when they will be
needed? Will subsidies for one energy carrier reduce free competion in
the market place? Who decides? What is the role of industry? of BIG
industry? So many questions and I suppose we really can't ever find
common ground but does attacking someone who holds a different opinion
help? Maybe we should all just go back to the lab or to the bench or the
pilot plant and get on with what we know how (or at least what we can
influence) and let the list carry on with technical topics.

Steven Gust
Fortum

 

-----Original Message-----
From: VHarris001@AOL.COM [mailto:VHarris001@AOL.COM]
Sent: 18. maaliskuuta 2004 9:08
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] US Energy, Economic Policy

In a message dated 2004-03-17 2:39:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, MMBTUPR
writes:

> to Gasifiers from Lewis L. Smith
>
> The sender is an energy economist, a "Mideast Watcher" since
> 1961, a former director of Puerto Rico's Office of Energy [now the
> Energy Affairs Administration] and currently an advisor on energy to
> the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico [USA].
>
> As a witness to "in-house" debates between California
> conservatives and Federal conservatives during the Reagan
> administration, my impression is that the fundamental principal of
> conservative energy policy at the Federal level was to preserve oil's
> share of the energy market in the USA, to preserve the power of the
> oil companies to obtain windfall profits during any energy crisis and
> to minimize the cost of environmental protection to the oil companies.

> By contrast, states [regardless of ideology] had sets of principles
> which could vary widely. Implicitly then, at the Federal level, energy

> policy took precedence over economic policy.

Drawing this conclusion seems to be quite a leap. Couldn't one just as
easily conclude that federal reasoning was that liberating big oil from
capricious state regulation/taxation would reduce big oil's total cost
of compliance, free it to charge 'market rates' for it's product,
increase the quantity supplied to that demanded, and so boost US
economic performance?

> During the two Bush administrations, several new dimensions have
> been added. On one hand, there is the use of armed force to maintain
> order in the Middle East,

Do you merely note this point, or is this meant to be a criticism? If a
criticism, what do you perceive to be appropriate?

which strongly implies that energy policy is more important than
economic policy.
>
>
Again, this seems to be a conclusion that could just as well be drawn in
the reverse; that the importance of the economic considerations were the
reason for the energy policy.

> On the other, the substantial contribution of open-ended defense
> commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq to current and future deficits
> makes it more difficult for the US economy to absorb the inflationary
> impact of high oil prices. The cumulative effect of repeated tax cuts
> aggravates this problem even more. Good example are the airlines,
> which may have to face a "double whammy" of higher fuel prices and
> higher interest rates for the next several years.

I'll concede all these points but I'm afraid their relevance is lost on
me. A Bush I and II policy to maintain order in producing nations seems
beneficial to the US economy, which then contributes to the cost of the
defense commitments.

So given the sequence of these commitments, it is just as clear that
fiscal policy
> is more important than economic policy ! Obviously both of these
> "more than" statements cant be true, and there is an inconsistency
> here.

Again, I don't follow the argument here. Could you further explain
about the fiscal policy and how it relates to the economic policy.

>
> My own suggestion for reducing the conflict between the two sets
> of policies, is to rapidly and significantly decrease the US
> dependence on oil imports,

I presume you would advocate that this be accomplished by force of law,
not by reliance on market forces?

so as to improve our bargain power with the oil-exporting countries and
reduce the
> price of oil. This can be done by substantially raising and extending
> gasoline-milage requirements, by making peak-load pricing a standard
> practice for electric utilities which depend on gas and/or oil and by
> pushing both energy efficiency and those renewable energy sources with

> near-term payoffs a lot harder than we are doing now. This sort of
> energy policy would not undermine but rather would be compatible with
> a broad range of economic policies.
>

I must differ. These remedies seem typical of government mandates which
I think naively attempt to circumvent economic realities and
progressively implement a 'central planning' system.

What's your position on government moving toward deregulation and
reliance on market mechanisms for energy supply? A free market should
automatically set the appropriate price for, and produce the efficient
distribution of, energy (including peak-load pricing) and will reward
technological innovation in energy consumption via market adoption.

True that this is a philosophical argument, but one that is highly
relevant here in gasification. While government's wealth redistribution
policy can give a significant boost to the R & D effort on alternative
energy sources, my position is that the stronger case can almost always
be made for voluntary market solutions as preferable to compulsory
governement solutions.

Vernon Harris

From tk at TKE.DK Thu Mar 18 05:12:02 2004
From: tk at TKE.DK (Thomas Koch)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:42 2004
Subject: SV: [GASL] US Energy, Economic Policy
In-Reply-To: <3930BE7C23933042A55E61A53F31DC2A5B5894@FIESPC0021.adinfra.net>
Message-ID: <THU.18.MAR.2004.101202.0000.TK@TKE.DK>

Yes --- lets all agree that we disagree!!!
Lets us stop all political discussion and lets all develop our small pilot
scale gasifier without talking too each other.
And lets us not worry about the oil and coal industry and their political
lobbying.
And lets us not worry about global warming and pollution!!
Just have fun and play with small gasifiers!!!

Now -- dear list members.

The difference between the members of this list and a similar group of
people playing with model trains is politics.

We need a market for our products.!!!!!
The model train people don?t!!

Thus, to the members of this list making upset remarks about politics I
would suggest they read and learn for some month.

To have success we need all elements in developing and introduction of a new
product to the market to be handled at a professional level.
Fuel logistics
Fuel preparation
Gasifier development
Thermodynamics
Gastreatmnent
Electricity production
Electricity price
Financial incentives
++
++
++
++

Thus please respect that we need a group of experts to have success and that
they are all equally important.
If the welder dose not do his job properly we will have no gasifier
If the electricity is too low we will have no gasifiers.

Best regards

Thomas Koch

 

 

 

 

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG] P? vegne af Gust Steven
Sendt: 18. marts 2004 07:36
Til: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Emne: Re: [GASL] US Energy, Economic Policy

Why don't we all just agree to disagree. Since most of us have a
technical background, maybe we are not the best ones to argue the merits
of fiscal and economic policies. How much regulation is good? What is
unfair competition? When do the market forces have to be controlled?
What is governments role is ensuring that new technologies are developed
in a timely fashion so that they may be implemented when they will be
needed? Will subsidies for one energy carrier reduce free competion in
the market place? Who decides? What is the role of industry? of BIG
industry? So many questions and I suppose we really can't ever find
common ground but does attacking someone who holds a different opinion
help? Maybe we should all just go back to the lab or to the bench or the
pilot plant and get on with what we know how (or at least what we can
influence) and let the list carry on with technical topics.

Steven Gust
Fortum

 

-----Original Message-----
From: VHarris001@AOL.COM [mailto:VHarris001@AOL.COM]
Sent: 18. maaliskuuta 2004 9:08
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] US Energy, Economic Policy

In a message dated 2004-03-17 2:39:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, MMBTUPR
writes:

> to Gasifiers from Lewis L. Smith
>
> The sender is an energy economist, a "Mideast Watcher" since
> 1961, a former director of Puerto Rico's Office of Energy [now the
> Energy Affairs Administration] and currently an advisor on energy to
> the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico [USA].
>
> As a witness to "in-house" debates between California
> conservatives and Federal conservatives during the Reagan
> administration, my impression is that the fundamental principal of
> conservative energy policy at the Federal level was to preserve oil's
> share of the energy market in the USA, to preserve the power of the
> oil companies to obtain windfall profits during any energy crisis and
> to minimize the cost of environmental protection to the oil companies.

> By contrast, states [regardless of ideology] had sets of principles
> which could vary widely. Implicitly then, at the Federal level, energy

> policy took precedence over economic policy.

Drawing this conclusion seems to be quite a leap. Couldn't one just as
easily conclude that federal reasoning was that liberating big oil from
capricious state regulation/taxation would reduce big oil's total cost
of compliance, free it to charge 'market rates' for it's product,
increase the quantity supplied to that demanded, and so boost US
economic performance?

> During the two Bush administrations, several new dimensions have
> been added. On one hand, there is the use of armed force to maintain
> order in the Middle East,

Do you merely note this point, or is this meant to be a criticism? If a
criticism, what do you perceive to be appropriate?

which strongly implies that energy policy is more important than
economic policy.
>
>
Again, this seems to be a conclusion that could just as well be drawn in
the reverse; that the importance of the economic considerations were the
reason for the energy policy.

> On the other, the substantial contribution of open-ended defense
> commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq to current and future deficits
> makes it more difficult for the US economy to absorb the inflationary
> impact of high oil prices. The cumulative effect of repeated tax cuts
> aggravates this problem even more. Good example are the airlines,
> which may have to face a "double whammy" of higher fuel prices and
> higher interest rates for the next several years.

I'll concede all these points but I'm afraid their relevance is lost on
me. A Bush I and II policy to maintain order in producing nations seems
beneficial to the US economy, which then contributes to the cost of the
defense commitments.

So given the sequence of these commitments, it is just as clear that
fiscal policy
> is more important than economic policy ! Obviously both of these
> "more than" statements cant be true, and there is an inconsistency
> here.

Again, I don't follow the argument here. Could you further explain
about the fiscal policy and how it relates to the economic policy.

>
> My own suggestion for reducing the conflict between the two sets
> of policies, is to rapidly and significantly decrease the US
> dependence on oil imports,

I presume you would advocate that this be accomplished by force of law,
not by reliance on market forces?

so as to improve our bargain power with the oil-exporting countries and
reduce the
> price of oil. This can be done by substantially raising and extending
> gasoline-milage requirements, by making peak-load pricing a standard
> practice for electric utilities which depend on gas and/or oil and by
> pushing both energy efficiency and those renewable energy sources with

> near-term payoffs a lot harder than we are doing now. This sort of
> energy policy would not undermine but rather would be compatible with
> a broad range of economic policies.
>

I must differ. These remedies seem typical of government mandates which
I think naively attempt to circumvent economic realities and
progressively implement a 'central planning' system.

What's your position on government moving toward deregulation and
reliance on market mechanisms for energy supply? A free market should
automatically set the appropriate price for, and produce the efficient
distribution of, energy (including peak-load pricing) and will reward
technological innovation in energy consumption via market adoption.

True that this is a philosophical argument, but one that is highly
relevant here in gasification. While government's wealth redistribution
policy can give a significant boost to the R & D effort on alternative
energy sources, my position is that the stronger case can almost always
be made for voluntary market solutions as preferable to compulsory
governement solutions.

Vernon Harris

From FMurrl at AOL.COM Thu Mar 18 08:36:32 2004
From: FMurrl at AOL.COM (FMurrl@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:42 2004
Subject: Incentives for CHP Gasification
Message-ID: <THU.18.MAR.2004.083632.EST.>

In a message dated 3/17/2004 11:44:31 PM Eastern Standard Time,
graeme@POWERLINK.CO.NZ writes:

> Despite the doom and gloom of politics and bureaucrats, misinformed
> analysts
> etc. we are gradually approaching the time when all that we have done and
> yet to do, will be needed throughout the world. When we started in the
> 1970s, we had an oil price crisis, a cold war, and threat of nuclear winter,
> and we also knew that it would be somewhere about 30 years into the future
> before our technology would be needed. As it turns out the signs are that
> it was about right, but the only disappointing thing is that the power
> generation technology has not taken the opportunity to evolve at the same
> time.
>

Doug:

Thanks for your studied comments. I couldn't agree with you more, and I
happen to be quite optimistic about renewables in general and biomass in
particular. As you point out, developments are bringing about the correct conditions to
finally put some push behind renewables. In island economies, which depend
largely on petroleum, the need to seek alternatives has never been greater. Even
in the US, where misguided politicians have failed to proffer a decent energy
policy, conditions are gradually getting better and renewables are gaining
"legs" as we say of political matters in Washington, D.C.

Quite recently, I have even become more optimistic about developments in some
of the technologies. Clearly, if we had the support of coal or oil, we would
be farther along. However, even largely unsupported, some technologies are
showing real promise.

My earlier comments were a little misinterpreted. I didn't mean to suggest
that we can ignore politics or even be inactive in the political arena. What I
intended to say is that simple-minded comments like "I hate Bush" or
"Washington is run by crooks" are a complete waste of time and not worthy of this
discussion group. Not only that, they make this discussion list look a little
"Mickey Mouse."

This list will be much more valuable to all of us if we focus on technology
discussions and leave our personality assessments out of our postings.

Regards,
Fred Murrell
Biomass Development Company
Bradenton Florida USA
biomassdev.com

From snkm at BTL.NET Thu Mar 18 09:22:13 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:42 2004
Subject: US Economic Energy Policy
Message-ID: <THU.18.MAR.2004.082213.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 12:53 AM 3/18/2004 EST, VHarris001@AOL.COM wrote:
>In a message dated 2004-03-17 11:44:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>hauserman@CORPCOMM.NET writes:
>
>
>> So here's a simple, non-partisan solution to getting these things moving
>> ahead: Simply quit worrying about whose R&D to subsidize and impose an
>> additional tax of $2 to 3.00 per gallon on petroleum derived fuels!
>>
>>
>
>Gosh. I can hardly conceive of a more partisan approach. I guess where you
>stand depends on where you sit.
>
>Vernon Harris

Dear Vernon and list:

It's called musical chairs Vernon -- the music stops -- you have to sit.
There is always the lack of sufficient chairs -- so if your not wise -- no
chair -- and your out of the game.

Peter

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Thu Mar 18 10:07:11 2004
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:42 2004
Subject: Incentives for CHP Gasification
Message-ID: <THU.18.MAR.2004.100711.0500.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

All,

I received three specific replies to my original question about
incentives - from the UK, Denmark and Austria. I'll summarize and post
these for further discussion when I have time. Thank you all.

In these three countries the government has made clear policy decisions at
some time to support heat and power from renewable energy. At the moment
in North America power generation via gasification appears marginal
without some form of subsidy to offset the complicated rules that make it
impossible for a small generator to compete on a straight economic basis.
If plants are to be installed we need returns that will cover the costs
and profit. Public policy is still necessary here to make that happen. So
while political rantings are tiresome, political action is probably needed
to bridge the gap between today's artifical energy economics and
tomorrow's need.

Tom

From VHarris001 at AOL.COM Thu Mar 18 10:14:13 2004
From: VHarris001 at AOL.COM (VHarris001@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:42 2004
Subject: US Economic Energy Policy
Message-ID: <THU.18.MAR.2004.101413.EST.>

> > And as long as oil remains relatively
> inexpensive to import and process, consumption will continue unabated.

It's not, it's just that the US gov't subsidizes it so heavily. If
gasoline
sold at it's true price here, it would be at least $10 @ gallon.

I'm hoping there is an energy expert on-list who would be willing discuss
this point more fully. Debunking the notion would help clarify or reinforce the
context in which many of us view alternative energy (e.g. gasification).

On the other hand, confirming this hypothesis would have far reaching
implications for a bright future of alternative energy, as the withdrawal of gov't
subsidies from petroleum products would immediately create huge demand for the
other alternatives.

A little help from the experts would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Vernon Harris

From arnt at C2I.NET Thu Mar 18 10:36:26 2004
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:42 2004
Subject: Conflict resolution
In-Reply-To: <20040317203604.GA20119@cybershamanix.com>
Message-ID: <THU.18.MAR.2004.163626.0100.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 14:36:04 -0600,
Harmon Seaver <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM> wrote in message
<20040317203604.GA20119@cybershamanix.com>:
>
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 01:33:42PM -0500, VHarris001@AOL.COM wrote:
> > In a message dated 2004-03-17 3:02:31 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> > Steven.Gust@FORTUM.COM writes:
> >
> >
> > > I suppose we need a another oil crises or two to wake everyone up
> > > again. Actually I believe the real goal should be to try to
> > > replace the increase in fossil fuel use with renewables. Why
> > > isn't this argument used more?
> >
> > Economics.
> >
> > The only way to change the behavior of producers and consumers is
> > to change the economic equation. But as long as producers are
> > willing to sell oil to consumers at a lower price than the oil
> > consumers can produce it themselves, the importation of oil will
> > continue apace. And as long as oil remains relatively inexpensive
> > to import and process, consumption will continue unabated.
>
> It's not, it's just that the US gov't subsidizes it so heavily. If
> gasoline sold at it's true price here, it would be at least $10
> @ gallon.

..huh? The US Govt sends troops to pillage oil and then needs to
subsidize it??? Come _on_! ;-)

..if you said gasoline in US is cheap because it is tax free or
somesuch, I could believe it.

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

From claush at MEK.DTU.DK Thu Mar 18 10:52:50 2004
From: claush at MEK.DTU.DK (Claus Hindsgaul)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:42 2004
Subject: Technical discussion list
In-Reply-To: <ae.53081010.2d8b16c5@aol.com>
Message-ID: <THU.18.MAR.2004.165250.0100.CLAUSH@MEK.DTU.DK>

tor, 2004-03-18 kl. 16:14 skrev VHarris001@AOL.COM:
> It's not, it's just that the US gov't subsidizes it so heavily. If
> gasoline
> sold at it's true price here, it would be at least $10 @ gallon.
>
>
> I'm hoping there is an energy expert on-list who would be willing discuss
> this point more fully. Debunking the notion would help clarify or reinforce the
> context in which many of us view alternative energy (e.g. gasification).

I suggest you please consult an (other) list where this is more
on-topic. If you are looking for a serious discussion on US economic
policy or politics with devoted people, you would be better of on a
non-technical list. There is no reason why you can not subscribe to
several lists and keep politic discussions from this one.

I think this gasification list is dying due to the lack of postings on
gasification and high noise level. Personally I am giving it a few more
days before I unsubscribe if the signal to noise ratio does not change.

Claus

--
Ph.D. Student Claus Hindsgaul
CHEC, Dept. Chemical Eng. (KT), DTU
and Biomass Gasification Group, Dept. Mechanical Eng. (MEK), DTU
DTU Building 229 room 114, Phone +45 4525 2831
http://bgg.mek.dtu.dk/ and http://www.kt.dtu.dk/

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Thu Mar 18 11:12:21 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:42 2004
Subject: US Economic Energy Policy
In-Reply-To: <ae.53081010.2d8b16c5@aol.com>
Message-ID: <THU.18.MAR.2004.101221.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 10:14:13AM -0500, VHarris001@AOL.COM wrote:
> > > And as long as oil remains relatively
> > inexpensive to import and process, consumption will continue unabated.
>
> It's not, it's just that the US gov't subsidizes it so heavily. If
> gasoline
> sold at it's true price here, it would be at least $10 @ gallon.
>
>
> I'm hoping there is an energy expert on-list who would be willing discuss
> this point more fully. Debunking the notion would help clarify or reinforce the
> context in which many of us view alternative energy (e.g. gasification).
>

Here's a couple of sites on US fossil fuel subsidies:

http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/fuelsubfact.htm
http://www.moles.org/ProjectUnderground/drillbits/6_09/vs.html

Note that these are *old* figures, and don't include the military spending,
especially that of the 20 years which was almost entirely for oil. Now the US
spends 4 billion a month on oil subsidies just for the military portion.

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

From oscar at GEPROP.CU Thu Mar 18 11:28:08 2004
From: oscar at GEPROP.CU (=?utf-8?Q?Oscar_Jim=C3=A9nez?=)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:42 2004
Subject: US Economic Energy Policy
Message-ID: <THU.18.MAR.2004.112808.0500.OSCAR@GEPROP.CU>

Dear Vernon Harris.

Not being exactly an energy expert I will dare to sharing some of my modest point of view on this field taking into consideration that we all, attending to the list, are strongly interested in developing a technology which is pollution free, sustainable and beneficial to human being.
I think that an Economic Energy Policy, no matter where it comes from or set up, must take into account issues such as: technologies, environmental, health, social, financing, marketing etc. In other words such policy should ensure getting the society, it is linked with, to improving mostly its quality of life. Once any of these factors get stronger over the others or become overpriorized, then a distorted picture comes up. I am wholly aware that mixing these components, and others not mentioned above, in an appropiate way is not and easy task. But observing the real world we are living in, the policies so far set up had a bit oversized one or two elements of the mix, so forgetting the real objective, that people like us, are fighting for... ensuring a better world.
Unfortunately, decision makers so far seem to forget the main objective in developing and economic energy policy.

Thanks a lot.

Oscar.

 

 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: VHarris001@AOL.COM [mailto:VHarris001@AOL.COM]
Enviado el: jue 18/03/2004 10:14
Para: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
CC:
Asunto: Re: [GASL] US Economic Energy Policy

 

> > And as long as oil remains relatively
> inexpensive to import and process, consumption will continue unabated.

It's not, it's just that the US gov't subsidizes it so heavily. If
gasoline
sold at it's true price here, it would be at least $10 @ gallon.

I'm hoping there is an energy expert on-list who would be willing discuss
this point more fully. Debunking the notion would help clarify or reinforce the
context in which many of us view alternative energy (e.g. gasification).

On the other hand, confirming this hypothesis would have far reaching
implications for a bright future of alternative energy, as the withdrawal of gov't
subsidies from petroleum products would immediately create huge demand for the
other alternatives.

A little help from the experts would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Vernon Harris

From VHarris001 at AOL.COM Thu Mar 18 11:39:17 2004
From: VHarris001 at AOL.COM (VHarris001@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:42 2004
Subject: Technical discussion list
Message-ID: <THU.18.MAR.2004.113917.EST.>

In a message dated 2004-03-18 10:51:24 AM Eastern Standard Time,
claush@MEK.DTU.DK writes:

> I suggest you please consult an (other) list where this is more
> on-topic. If you are looking for a serious discussion on US economic
> policy or politics with devoted people, you would be better of on a
> non-technical list. There is no reason why you can not subscribe to
> several lists and keep politic discussions from this one.
>
> I think this gasification list is dying due to the lack of postings on
> gasification and high noise level. Personally I am giving it a few more
> days before I unsubscribe if the signal to noise ratio does not change.
>

Apologies. I didn't realize that this was a purely technical discussion
list. One might presume that, being hosted by REPP (Renewable Energy Policy
Project), the on-list discussion of policy related to renewable energy was
acceptable. Perhaps not.

Nonetheless, in the interest of list decorum, I'll refrain from further
non-technical posts until (hopefully) the list moderator clarifies the matter.

Best wishes,

Vernon Harris

From joacim at YMEX.NET Thu Mar 18 13:32:52 2004
From: joacim at YMEX.NET (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:42 2004
Subject: US Energy, Economic Policy
In-Reply-To: <031720041839.4383.5879@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <THU.18.MAR.2004.193252.0100.JOACIM@YMEX.NET>

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Bill Kichman wrote:

> Vernon,
>
> Hey, we are neighbors! Anyway, yes of course I stand by my comments.
> I'd rather not continue a political discussion seen by many as unrelated
> to gasification, though.

To the list maintainers:
Would it perhaps be possible to set up another mailing list at CREST for
miscellaneous holistic energy-related topics issues, like energy future and
energy politics? I for one find this debate (and other off-topic issues
being raised here from time to time) interesting, and would join that list
immediately. But I suspect there are quite a few others who are on /this/
list only to share thoughts about biomass gasification, which happens to be
the topic of it! ;) The holistics /around/ specific energy technologies is
big enough for a mailing list of it's own, not?

I think the main idea behind the somewhat colonial activity in the Middle
East is to buy time -- to delay Hubbart's Peak 2.0 a few years by turning
the bell-shaped curve into a sawtooth shaped curve, buying time for the
price of a steeper fall once the final peak is passed. This can be achieved
by a great increase in oil production from Iraqi oil fields, emptying the
reserves in a shorter time. The hour is late and the train has not yet
reached a station. If it doesn't keep running a little bit more, we are all
up for a long walk. A high game indeed, immoral perhaps, but
understandable if you see it from the politicians view. (They are only
hired to think one mandate period ahead, and to deliver...) I'm not sure
they can pull it through though. So many wolves to hold by the ears.

Oil has been the single most important factor for creating wealth in this
world for almost a century and the last 50 years in particular. There are
pros and cons with that. The cons are well known. The pros are too, I hope?

There is no single source of energy /and/ raw material which can replace
oil all by itself. I doubt it is fully replacable at all. But biomass
gasification can make a small contribution to keep mankind from completely
fall back to the stone age once the oil party is over. It's been one
helluva party: some people had a laugh, others copulated and multiplied in
the corners, and some picked a fight. But on the Monday morning of mankind
we have to be back on work again, cutting wood for the home fire and fixing
something to eat. Tomorrow is Sunday, it's near dawn, and we'll probably
have a terrible hangover while cleaning up the house. Was it worth it? Sure
it was. ;)

Joacim

From snkm at BTL.NET Thu Mar 18 13:52:22 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:42 2004
Subject: Technical discussion list
Message-ID: <THU.18.MAR.2004.125222.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Dear Claus;

I have been a member of this list for quite some time and remember well the
early days when "political" encouragement for this search of alternative
energies was given.

In those times this list fairly hummed with activity!!

I humbly suggest that for many of us on this list a true knowledge of just
where political winds are blowing is of prime importance.

For us here in the Americas -- it has shifted dead against us -- and the
result has been no more innovation activity in this direction.

Ergo -- we discuss generators -- diesel engines -- etc.

If indeed petroleum energy is subsidized to the extent mentioned -- it
could mean that eventually there is a true opportunity to return to
gasification topics.

As all subsidies eventually must come to an ending.

Then -- with a truly level playing field -- gasification becomes a viable
alternative.

On the other hand -- bureaucratically endowed gasification research centers
are certainly not interested in economic realities -- so I sympathize with
your comments.

Maybe we need two mail list for this very same subject??

One for the bureaucratic gasification establishments that are super funded
to perpetuity -- and the other for practically minded people that are
actually charging this "windmill" in an attempt to make things work.

Right now we have only one valid contributor for the second category --
that being
Greg Manning in Manitoba Canada.

It is always so refreshing to see postings on this subject from Greg.

True -- the list is vastly outnumbered by the bureaucratic gasification
segment -- the ivory tower researchers.

So -- if this another polarization complex?? Should we go to war over this??

Or is it just possible that we can all learn to live together??

Certainly -- people have just about much chance these days to aspire to a
fixed income bureaucratic position in Gasification technologies as there is
of the subsidies stopping for petroleum energy. Ergo -- none at all!!

I personally see both scenarios as highly contra-productive to real results
in advancing this science.

I'll put my hat in with Greg style works.

But then -- we people of 3rd world have a different agenda -- more result
oriented -- not bureaucratic career oriented -- as out governments are far
to poor to support such. And probably all for the better -- in the end.

India was producing the most interesting results on biomass gasification --
in regards to hands on small power plants competing directly for
alternative methology of power production.

We had a number of members to this list from India directly involved in
this field.

Are any still on it??

Certainly -- from this point on -- innovation in this area will have to be
driven by 3rd world efforts. It is the only place left where when people
walk around their feet actually still touch the ground!

Besides -- our petroleum products prices are much more realistic already --
and soon to go way over bounds -- adding even greater incentive.

Whereby in your modern industrialized nations everything is slanted -- so
very -- very slanted.

Maybe it is war that the human race requires to level the global playing
field again??

 

Peter / Belize

At 04:52 PM 3/18/2004 +0100, Claus Hindsgaul wrote:
>tor, 2004-03-18 kl. 16:14 skrev VHarris001@AOL.COM:
>> It's not, it's just that the US gov't subsidizes it so heavily. If
>> gasoline
>> sold at it's true price here, it would be at least $10 @ gallon.
>>
>>
>> I'm hoping there is an energy expert on-list who would be willing discuss
>> this point more fully. Debunking the notion would help clarify or
reinforce the
>> context in which many of us view alternative energy (e.g. gasification).
>
>I suggest you please consult an (other) list where this is more
>on-topic. If you are looking for a serious discussion on US economic
>policy or politics with devoted people, you would be better of on a
>non-technical list. There is no reason why you can not subscribe to
>several lists and keep politic discussions from this one.
>
>I think this gasification list is dying due to the lack of postings on
>gasification and high noise level. Personally I am giving it a few more
>days before I unsubscribe if the signal to noise ratio does not change.
>
>Claus
>
>--
>Ph.D. Student Claus Hindsgaul
>CHEC, Dept. Chemical Eng. (KT), DTU
>and Biomass Gasification Group, Dept. Mechanical Eng. (MEK), DTU
>DTU Building 229 room 114, Phone +45 4525 2831
>http://bgg.mek.dtu.dk/ and http://www.kt.dtu.dk/
>

From joel at EMSJOFLO.COM Thu Mar 18 14:25:23 2004
From: joel at EMSJOFLO.COM (Joel Florian)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:42 2004
Subject: Heat and CO2 enrichement for Greenhouses
Message-ID: <THU.18.MAR.2004.102523.0900.JOEL@EMSJOFLO.COM>

Dear Gasification friends,

Tom Reed listed his handy little gasifier stove a few months back (Tom,
could you give us that link again I lost it) and I've been wondering if it
would be appropriate for use inside a greenhouse -- for Carbon Dioxide
enrichment. It would also provide a bit of heat.

I'm thinking about running a greenhouse into the winter here in Alaska and
I'm told that a tightly sealed greenhouse (to keep heat from excaping) will
soon run short on CO2 during the day.

I'm wondering if the exhaust from Tom's stove would be suitable for plants
to "breathe". I guess on a larger scale, I'd be interested in purifying
the smoke from our thermal-gasifier boiler and venting some of that inside
our greenhouses -- either that or somehow "scrubbing" the CO2 from the
exhaust stream and then releasing it into the greenhouse. I remember
reading about a CO2 scrubber for increasing the energy density of biogas
and remember thinking that it sounded complicated, expensive, and
maintenance intensive -- but now I'm thinking that if the CO2 can be
utilized, then the economics and labor might be worth it. Any thoughts?

Someday maybe I can build unified systems as I envision: Woodchips and
biomass waste producing heat, power, CO2 and nutrients for greenhouse
growers.

Joel Florian
Alaska
-------------- next part --------------

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.622 / Virus Database: 400 - Release Date: 3/13/2004
From snkm at BTL.NET Thu Mar 18 15:34:59 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:42 2004
Subject: Technical discussion list
Message-ID: <THU.18.MAR.2004.143459.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 01:55 PM 3/18/2004 -0600, Greg Jahnke wrote:

****snipped*****

>Encouraging home builders can only help the cause. Guys who want to build
>units utilizing old motors as generators (I have a rough Idea of how this
>works, but would like some more info) should be encouraged.

Greg brings up the big point in regards to "politics" --

We have had battles here in the past over Gasification "politics"

The Bigger is Better Crowd against the Small is Beautiful Crowd.

Unfortunately -- in very real terms -- super sized central gasification
power plants are contradictions to themselves -- as transport costs alone
soon end up taking more energy than the power produced!

The solution is many "small" units working within localized areas.

For instance -- the idea that many small producers could be feeding grid
rather than one single large power plant is totally against the politics of
power generation corps.

And that folks -- more than any "who you are voting for" is the real problem.

And probably why all those small gasifier producers in India are so low
profile these days as well!

Or windmills -- or solar power -- or even recycling used oil (Veggie or
engine oil) -- or using old car tires -- or recycling garbage -- or 100's
of other "small" ways to produce power that when all added together make to
much power!

It is about corporations and their whores -- who I often define as the
upper crust intelligiae that feed on huge projects that can never go
anywhere but down and out -- just so they have an easy means of raking in
inflated salaries.

how much "research" assets have been invested in "small" power production
in these modern industrialized nations??

How much in pre-ordained doomed to failure mega projects??

We need a list for the small -- the big look after themselves.

Peter / Belize

At 01:55 PM 3/18/2004 -0600, Greg Jahnke wrote:
>It think Peter makes some valid points.
>
>I am currently powering my house using a gasifier turning a chevy straight
>6.
>
>I think one of the biggest problems that gasification advocates face is
>awareness of the technology. Right now, it seems like awareness is pretty
>low (you should see some of the looks I get when I tell people I am running
>an engine off of wood chips).
>
>Encouraging home builders can only help the cause. Guys who want to build
>units utilizing old motors as generators (I have a rough Idea of how this
>works, but would like some more info) should be encouraged.
>
>

From MMBTUPR at AOL.COM Thu Mar 18 16:07:18 2004
From: MMBTUPR at AOL.COM (Lewis L. Smith)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:42 2004
Subject: US Economic Energy Policy
Message-ID: <THU.18.MAR.2004.160718.EST.>

to Gasifiers from Lewis L. Smith

Ref. Ken Boak's posting of 18 March.

It would be interesting to see what the average miles-per-gallon rating
is in the UK versus the USA, after adjusting for the difference between the
Imperial and the US gallon.

In other words, has the higher gasoline price created by the higher tax
in the UK lead to any fuel economies ?

Cordially.

End.

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Thu Mar 18 16:13:01 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:42 2004
Subject: Heat and CO2 enrichement for Greenhouses
In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.3.0.20040318102521.024974e8@mail.emsjoflo.com>
Message-ID: <THU.18.MAR.2004.151301.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 10:25:23AM -0900, Joel Florian wrote:
> Dear Gasification friends,
>
> Tom Reed listed his handy little gasifier stove a few months back (Tom,
> could you give us that link again I lost it) and I've been wondering if it
> would be appropriate for use inside a greenhouse -- for Carbon Dioxide
> enrichment. It would also provide a bit of heat.
>
> I'm thinking about running a greenhouse into the winter here in Alaska and
> I'm told that a tightly sealed greenhouse (to keep heat from excaping) will
> soon run short on CO2 during the day.

We use an unvented natural gas fired infrared burner in our greenhouse which
provides both heat and C02 (and H20) enrichment, and I don't think it would be
all the difficult to feed it from either a methane digester or a gasifier. What
I want to do, however, is to build a gasifier to feed one of the three diesel
engines I currently have, use the waste heat from that to heat the house and
greenhouse, the electricity from the generator for same and to provide extra
growlights in the Winter, and also then feed the exhaust from the engine into
the greenhouse. The VW diesel I have would be very easy to convert to spark
ignition since it uses many of the same parts as the VW gasoline engines, and
then the exhaust of the gasifier fed engine should be pretty much just C02 &
H20, plus the NOx, of course, much of which could be cleaned up with cat.
Definitely would want to have some good CO sensors around with any such
arrangement though, eh? 8-)

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

From oscar at GEPROP.CU Thu Mar 18 16:46:00 2004
From: oscar at GEPROP.CU (=?utf-8?Q?Oscar_Jim=C3=A9nez?=)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:42 2004
Subject: Technical discussion list
Message-ID: <THU.18.MAR.2004.164600.0500.OSCAR@GEPROP.CU>

>Unfortunately -- in very real terms -- super sized central gasification
power plants are contradictions to themselves -- as transport costs alone
soon end up taking more energy than the power produced!

>The solution is many "small" units working within localized areas.

This issue has been a very important one we have been thinking about from the very beginning our project received the take off signal.
We are interested in precising the advisable gasifiers size range for power generation running on commercial basis. We envisage to install 3.5 MWe biomass gasification power plant. The question is: How many "small" biomass gasification power plants and on what sizes would be recomended to implement on commercial basis???

Thanking you in advance.

Oscar.

 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Peter Singfield [mailto:snkm@BTL.NET]
Enviado el: jue 18/03/2004 15:34
Para: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
CC:
Asunto: Re: [GASL] Technical discussion list

 

At 01:55 PM 3/18/2004 -0600, Greg Jahnke wrote:

****snipped*****

>Encouraging home builders can only help the cause. Guys who want to build
>units utilizing old motors as generators (I have a rough Idea of how this
>works, but would like some more info) should be encouraged.

Greg brings up the big point in regards to "politics" --

We have had battles here in the past over Gasification "politics"

The Bigger is Better Crowd against the Small is Beautiful Crowd.

Unfortunately -- in very real terms -- super sized central gasification
power plants are contradictions to themselves -- as transport costs alone
soon end up taking more energy than the power produced!

The solution is many "small" units working within localized areas.

For instance -- the idea that many small producers could be feeding grid
rather than one single large power plant is totally against the politics of
power generation corps.

And that folks -- more than any "who you are voting for" is the real problem.

And probably why all those small gasifier producers in India are so low
profile these days as well!

Or windmills -- or solar power -- or even recycling used oil (Veggie or
engine oil) -- or using old car tires -- or recycling garbage -- or 100's
of other "small" ways to produce power that when all added together make to
much power!

It is about corporations and their whores -- who I often define as the
upper crust intelligiae that feed on huge projects that can never go
anywhere but down and out -- just so they have an easy means of raking in
inflated salaries.

how much "research" assets have been invested in "small" power production
in these modern industrialized nations??

How much in pre-ordained doomed to failure mega projects??

We need a list for the small -- the big look after themselves.

Peter / Belize

At 01:55 PM 3/18/2004 -0600, Greg Jahnke wrote:
>It think Peter makes some valid points.
>
>I am currently powering my house using a gasifier turning a chevy straight
>6.
>
>I think one of the biggest problems that gasification advocates face is
>awareness of the technology. Right now, it seems like awareness is pretty
>low (you should see some of the looks I get when I tell people I am running
>an engine off of wood chips).
>
>Encouraging home builders can only help the cause. Guys who want to build
>units utilizing old motors as generators (I have a rough Idea of how this
>works, but would like some more info) should be encouraged.
>
>

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Thu Mar 18 16:42:15 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:42 2004
Subject: US Economic Energy Policy
In-Reply-To: <11197F61CBF36942AC3D9C998E99960B42ADEC@ntserver.geprop.cu>
Message-ID: <THU.18.MAR.2004.154215.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

Here's the site I was looking for, although this report too was done before
the current insanity adding over $4billion @ month to the subsidy.

http://www.icta.org/projects/trans/rlprexsm.htm

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

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Thu Mar 18 16:49:17 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:42 2004
Subject: US Economic Energy Policy
In-Reply-To: <11197F61CBF36942AC3D9C998E99960B42ADEC@ntserver.geprop.cu>
Message-ID: <THU.18.MAR.2004.154917.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

Here's a site that has the full-text of the Feb. issue of Harpers, "The Oil
We Eat", by Richard Manning. This is a must read for anyone interested in energy
issues. More than a bit scary.

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/02/280191.shtml

 

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

From santo at POCZTA.FM Thu Mar 18 16:49:39 2004
From: santo at POCZTA.FM (Krzysztof Lis)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:42 2004
Subject: Technical discussion list
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040318143333.009bc510@btlmail.btl.net>
Message-ID: <THU.18.MAR.2004.224939.0100.SANTO@POCZTA.FM>

P> For instance -- the idea that many small producers could be feeding
P> grid rather than one single large power plant is totally against
P> the politics of power generation corps.

It is not only the "power gen corps' conspiracy", as some might think.
This might be somewhat off topic, but I must say, that there are only
few "green" ways of generating energy -- water plants, biomass gasifi-
cation / other usage (but only if works 24/7), nuclear plants. But for
sure windmills are not of this kind. And also small gasifiers connec-
ted to IC engines are not of this kind, as long as they're not
propelled 24/7 or at least most of the time (I mean 'large most').
Why? Let's say it in somewhat descriptive way.

So you have a solar cell at your roof. And this cell gives you some
energy, so you think that you're more enviro-friendly by having it.
But you are mistaken. What will you do if the day is rainy, and you
need to watch tv? You take the energy from public grid, which is powe-
red by conventional plants. The fact you own a cell doesn't help a
bit, because those plants must operate on nominal parameters (because
changing the energy output takes much time). In a short way -- all the
possible energy requirements of economy must be secured by conventio-
nal energy sources -- coal / gas / biomass powered power plants, nuke
plants, which are stable sources of energy and are not dependent on
weather.

Of course I don't say, that adding to your home/company it's own,
eco power sources makes no sense. It does, but only if you may be
fully independent from outer sources. Only this way the energy requi-
rements inside the public grid may become smaller and lead to drop of
energy production in conventional power plants.

--
Best regards,
Krzysztof Lis / Poland

From MMBTUPR at AOL.COM Thu Mar 18 17:17:19 2004
From: MMBTUPR at AOL.COM (Lewis L. Smith)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:42 2004
Subject: Gasification of Napier grass
Message-ID: <THU.18.MAR.2004.171719.EST.>

to Gasifiers from Lewis L. Smith

I am working on a proposal for gasifying Napier grass to feed modular
turbo-generator sets which would be scattered about the Puerto Rican country
side in clusters of 30-50 MW, for "wheeling green energy" to selected
manufacturing operations.

But first a clarification of a matter which continues to cause
confusion throughout the world.

?? Napier grass [Pennisetum purpureum] is also know as "elephant grass" or
"Uganda grass". It was brought to California, Puerto Rico and the southeastern
USA from Africa and during the 1980's?was popular in Puerto?Rico as a cattle
forage. When used as forage, it is harvested every two months; for energy, every
six months. In either case, all operations can be carried with conventional
equipment such as a standard conditioner and a New Holland baler.

???However, another grass, miscanthus [Miscanthus x giganteus] is also
sometimes called "elephant grass". It was introduced into Denmark from Japan and is
being pushed hard as an energy crop in by the European Union and a few
institutions in the northern USA.

??The two grasses are quite similar. In fact, some varieties of each can be
crossed with some of sugar cane !

??The characteristics of Napier grass can vary considerably with agronomic
conditions, climate, time of year and above all, the age of the plant. However,
in my experience, the following data for the variety "Super Merker" at four
months are fairly typical of what one might expect for an energy crop.

??The standing plant is about 75% moisture and 25% solids but can be field
dried in bales to 30% moisture. At the latter moisture content, the grass will
have a high heating value of about 11.7 million BTU's per short ton. In a
traditional sugar-mill boiler, Napier grass pile burns pretty much like bagasse,
and one has no problem making steam at the required pressure.

??The composition of Super Merker at four months is 33.0% cellulose, 28.4%
hemicellulose, 10.0% ash, 4.8% lignin and 23.8% other.

??I do not have a breakdown for the ash, but European data a few years old
for mercanthus indicates the following ? SiO2? 30%, K2O? 20-25%, P2O5? 5%, MgO?
5% and sulfur?? 0.1% .

??The reason for gasifying for turbines rather than for boilers, is that the
grass would be grown in areas where the annual rainfall is mostly within the
range 20" to 60" and ground water is quite variable as to supply and quality,
and we want to avoid requirements for boiler makeup water due to blowdown and
leakage.

Over the last year and a half, I have been doing quite a bit of research
on the Internet and have come up with some candidate processes, both for
gasification and for gas cleanup, which is an important issued when the gas is to
be fed to a turbine. Nevertheless, I am sure that there are a lot of
experienced persons in our Discussion Group who could make suggestions.

Two points in particular trouble me.

[1] Quite a few sites on the web [NREL, a biomass
conference in Slovakia, some European research institutes] say that no? commercially
proven techniques exist for biomass gasification !? Yet in a year and a half of
searching, this "boiler man" has found quite a few, including PRME with 20
years experience with a rice hulls, a really nasty feedstock !? What gives ??
There seems to be a real disconnect here, between the operators and the
researchers.

[2] A very experienced gasifier strongly recommends
boilers and steam turbines, rather than gas turbines, because no good cleanup system
is commercially available. Yet there are a number of turbine manufaturers who
claim that their commercial models can handle a wide variety of gases,
ranging from digester gas [very low BTU and lots of sulfur] to pipeline quality
natural gas. Again there seems to be some lind of disconnect, this time within
related industries.

Hope this gives everybody a rest from politics ! [Important, however,
if one wants to replace petroleum everywhere, as I do !]

Comments would be appreciated.

Cordially.

End.

From koopmans at LOXINFO.CO.TH Thu Mar 18 17:48:33 2004
From: koopmans at LOXINFO.CO.TH (Auke Koopmans)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:42 2004
Subject: US Economic Energy Policy
Message-ID: <FRI.19.MAR.2004.054833.0700.KOOPMANS@LOXINFO.CO.TH>

A quick Google search showed:

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

UK -
http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/sustainable/quality99/chap4/04d15.
htm

The average fuel consumption of new cars improved from 31 miles per gallon
in 1978 to 38 miles per gallon in 1987, and has since remained at a level of
36-38 miles per gallon.

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

USA - Ohio http://www.dot.state.ia.us/dot_overview/transportationfacts.htm

The fuel rate for passenger cars in 2000 was 22 miles per gallon, compared
to 13.4 miles per gallon in 1973.

The fuel rate for vans, pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles in 2000 was
17.5 miles per gallon, compared to 10.5 miles per gallon in 1973.

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

These figures have not been adjusted for the type of gallon

Auke

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lewis L. Smith" <MMBTUPR@AOL.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 4:07 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] US Economic Energy Policy

> to Gasifiers from Lewis L. Smith
>
> Ref. Ken Boak's posting of 18 March.
>
> It would be interesting to see what the average miles-per-gallon
rating
> is in the UK versus the USA, after adjusting for the difference between
the
> Imperial and the US gallon.
>
> In other words, has the higher gasoline price created by the higher
tax
> in the UK lead to any fuel economies ?
>
> Cordially.
>
> End.
>

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Thu Mar 18 18:27:35 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:42 2004
Subject: Technical discussion list
In-Reply-To: <196723032.20040318224939@poczta.fm>
Message-ID: <THU.18.MAR.2004.172735.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 10:49:39PM +0100, Krzysztof Lis wrote:
>
> So you have a solar cell at your roof. And this cell gives you some
> energy, so you think that you're more enviro-friendly by having it.
> But you are mistaken. What will you do if the day is rainy, and you
> need to watch tv? You take the energy from public grid, which is powe-
> red by conventional plants.

This isn't ever remotely a good arguement. Most, if not all, solar
installations are either going to have their own battery bank to store power for
the dark times, or they are going to use the grid as their battery bank. That's
what netmetering is all about. Same with windpower.
And nuclear is "clean" energy? Since when? They're still trying to clean up
Chernobyl, and the victims of that one still suffer and die even today. And it's
funny how desperate the nuke facilities here in the US are to find someplace to
put all their waste -- what's clean about it?

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

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Thu Mar 18 18:51:07 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:42 2004
Subject: US Economic Energy Policy
Message-ID: <THU.18.MAR.2004.195107.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Harmon

Thanks very much for this URL. It gives an excellent insight into the real
cost of gasoline. If anything, it understates the true cost of gasoline.

This site suggests that the real price of gasoline should be between $US5.60
and $US15.14 per gallon.

The War in Iraq is said by some to be driven by a desire to secure petroleum
resources. It is costing about $1 Billion per week, and Iraq petroleum
production is at the most 1 million barrels per day, or 7 million per week.
Protecting the Iraq oil thus costs about $150 per barrel, or about $US4 per
gallon.

Best wishes,

Kevin Chisholm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] US Economic Energy Policy

> Here's the site I was looking for, although this report too was done
before
> the current insanity adding over $4billion @ month to the subsidy.
>
> http://www.icta.org/projects/trans/rlprexsm.htm
>
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com

From snkm at BTL.NET Thu Mar 18 19:02:05 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:42 2004
Subject: Heat and CO2 enrichement for Greenhouses
Message-ID: <THU.18.MAR.2004.180205.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 03:13 PM 3/18/2004 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:

**********snip*********

>The VW diesel I have would be very easy to convert to spark
>ignition since it uses many of the same parts as the VW gasoline engines, and
>then the exhaust of the gasifier fed engine should be pretty much just C02 &
>H20, plus the NOx, of course, much of which could be cleaned up with cat.

***********snip*******

I to am a great believer in those four cylinder volk's diesels and gasoline
engines and have a number in "stock".

The diesel is of squish-head design -- or IDI (indirect injection)

I suppose one can fit a spark plug to the existing injector port -- and no
problem fitting the gasoline engine distributor -- changing one pulley for
proper indexing.

But still -- would it not be much simpler to just dual fuel it??

As in use a little diesel fuel to ignite the mixture??

Or veggie oil??

Eventually I plan to experiment with one of my old volk's diesels -- as in
adding a stream of carbureted hydrous alcohol (strong rum) to the intake.

Strong Rum takes very high compression ratios -- does not "knock" --
actually increases combustion efficiencies. A fuel easy to produce here.

The intake manifold with carb fits right on to the diesel head.

Idea is to lock the diesel governor on "idle" and use the carburetor for
load adjustments. Literature speaks of 5% fuel oil and 95% alcohol.

Need to drill out the main jet of course.

I can use coconut oil for diesel fuel -- and probably -- should the
desperate need arise -- as lubricant in crank as well.

This same setup could be easily converted to run on producer gas -- I do
have an excellent fuel in cohune nut shells available.

For producer gas the carb serves only as the butterfly valve.

Would be interesting to know what a combination of all three "fuels" would
result in??

Air intake being producer gas/air -- then enriched by carburation with rum
-- ignited with coconut oil.

As this list is hosted by:

REPP (Renewable Energy Policy Project)

This posting should be politically correct?? Tri-fueling with only
renewables??

Wonder if it is possible to produce biogas (methane) from bagasse mixed
with pan scum??

Peter / Belize

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Thu Mar 18 22:35:38 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:42 2004
Subject: Heat and CO2 enrichement for Greenhouses
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040318154719.009c2710@btlmail.btl.net>
Message-ID: <THU.18.MAR.2004.213538.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 06:02:05PM -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:
> At 03:13 PM 3/18/2004 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
>
> **********snip*********
>
> >The VW diesel I have would be very easy to convert to spark
> >ignition since it uses many of the same parts as the VW gasoline engines, and
> >then the exhaust of the gasifier fed engine should be pretty much just C02 &
> >H20, plus the NOx, of course, much of which could be cleaned up with cat.
>
> ***********snip*******
>
> I to am a great believer in those four cylinder volk's diesels and gasoline
> engines and have a number in "stock".
>
> The diesel is of squish-head design -- or IDI (indirect injection)
>
> I suppose one can fit a spark plug to the existing injector port -- and no
> problem fitting the gasoline engine distributor -- changing one pulley for
> proper indexing.
>
> But still -- would it not be much simpler to just dual fuel it??
>
> As in use a little diesel fuel to ignite the mixture??
>
> Or veggie oil??
>

Oh, yes, and I think that's the way most do it. I'm only thinking of the
spark conversion for the purposes of having a bit cleaner exhaust from the
engine to feed into the greenhouse. With the high compression of the diesel,
feeding it strictly on producer gas should give an exhaust that would provide
plenty of CO2 and humidity and no CO. If you dual fuel with oil, there would be
some CO at least.
Mixing the oil with ethanol would reduce that, I guess.

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

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Thu Mar 18 22:56:14 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:42 2004
Subject: Heat and CO2 enrichement for Greenhouses
Message-ID: <THU.18.MAR.2004.235614.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Harmon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 11:35 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Heat and CO2 enrichement for Greenhouses

> > As in use a little diesel fuel to ignite the mixture??
> >
> > Or veggie oil??
> >
>
> Oh, yes, and I think that's the way most do it. I'm only thinking of
the
> spark conversion for the purposes of having a bit cleaner exhaust from the
> engine to feed into the greenhouse. With the high compression of the
diesel,
> feeding it strictly on producer gas should give an exhaust that would
provide
> plenty of CO2 and humidity and no CO. If you dual fuel with oil, there
would be
> some CO at least.
> Mixing the oil with ethanol would reduce that, I guess.
>
Is it possible that you are better off with a SI ignition to start with? Is
there a danger of knocking of the engine with such a high compression ratio?
It is not like you have an efficiency advantage with the higher
compression... you can still use the "waste heat" for greenhouse heating.

Your reason for going "single fuel" is very interesting. Given that you
would be fuelling the engine with a cleaned gaseous fuel, you should have
the greatest potential for a clean exhaust. It may be comparable to the
exhaust from a Natural Gas or a LPG fuelled engine.

Have you (or anyone) seen figures for the analysis of exhaust from a NG or
LPG engine?

How beneficial would it be to use an exhaust catalyst? Possibly a
conventional automotive catalytic converter?

Best wishes with your very interesting project.

Kevin Chisholm

From graeme at POWERLINK.CO.NZ Thu Mar 18 23:02:13 2004
From: graeme at POWERLINK.CO.NZ (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:42 2004
Subject: Heat and CO2 enrichement for Greenhouses
Message-ID: <FRI.19.MAR.2004.170213.1300.GRAEME@POWERLINK.CO.NZ>

Peter,
You would also have to drop the compression ratio if dual fuelling this
engine on producer gas. At 22:1, (I think) it would need to drop down to
17:1 max to prevent pre-ignition.

> The diesel is of squish-head design -- or IDI (indirect injection)

Doug Williams.
>

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Fri Mar 19 01:09:26 2004
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:42 2004
Subject: US Energy, Economic Policy
Message-ID: <FRI.19.MAR.2004.010926.0500.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Fri Mar 19 01:47:09 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:42 2004
Subject: Heat and CO2 enrichement for Greenhouses
In-Reply-To: <008101c40d69$2320dd20$0bff58db@newpc>
Message-ID: <FRI.19.MAR.2004.004709.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 05:02:13PM +1300, Graeme Williams wrote:
> Peter,
> You would also have to drop the compression ratio if dual fuelling this
> engine on producer gas. At 22:1, (I think) it would need to drop down to
> 17:1 max to prevent pre-ignition.
>
> > The diesel is of squish-head design -- or IDI (indirect injection)
>
> Doug Williams.
> >

There was a report on this list a few years ago, done in India, on using
diesels with producer gas, and the gist of it was they had no problem with
pre-detonation. After all, that's what diesels are essentially built to do, with
heavier piston crowns and heavier connecting rods, bigger bearings, etc. to
withstand those stresses. It might be advantageous to adjust the valve timing
for this as well.
And that also is the attractiveness of diesels to run on producer gas,
because gasoline engines don't have anywhere near high enough compression to
burn producer gas efficiently. Same with running alcohol, a gasoline engine
needs the compression boosted to at least 14:1 and more, or a turbo added to
that, be run right. If it were necessary to adjust compression ratio, it'd be
much easier (and a whole lot cheaper -- probably just a double head gasket would
do it) to lower a diesel than to raise the petrol engine high enough.

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

From w.dejong at WBMT.TUDELFT.NL Fri Mar 19 02:23:44 2004
From: w.dejong at WBMT.TUDELFT.NL (jongw)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:42 2004
Subject: Heat and CO2 enrichement for Greenhouses
In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.3.0.20040318102521.024974e8@mail.emsjoflo.com>
Message-ID: <FRI.19.MAR.2004.082344.0100.W.DEJONG@WBMT.TUDELFT.NL>

Dear Joel and gasification list members,

Does anyone of you have information on plant growth characteristics
when such a gasifier-stove is applied for CO2 enrichment in greenhouses?
I know that already traces of ethylene would be bad for vegetable
growth; but how about species typical in combustion product gas, like
NOX (and N2O
in Fluidised bed boiler gas), CO, SO2, ...?

best regards,

Wiebren de Jong MSc.

Ir. Wiebren de Jong
TU Delft
Faculty of mechanical engineering
Section Energy Technology,
Mekelweg 2, 2628CD Delft
The Netherlands
Ph: +31-15 2789476 (office)
+31-651236425 (mobile)
Fax: +31-15 2782460

Joel Florian wrote:

> Dear Gasification friends,
>
> Tom Reed listed his handy little gasifier stove a few months back (Tom,
> could you give us that link again I lost it) and I've been wondering if it
> would be appropriate for use inside a greenhouse -- for Carbon Dioxide
> enrichment. It would also provide a bit of heat.
>
> I'm thinking about running a greenhouse into the winter here in Alaska and
> I'm told that a tightly sealed greenhouse (to keep heat from excaping) will
> soon run short on CO2 during the day.
>
> I'm wondering if the exhaust from Tom's stove would be suitable for plants
> to "breathe". I guess on a larger scale, I'd be interested in purifying
> the smoke from our thermal-gasifier boiler and venting some of that inside
> our greenhouses -- either that or somehow "scrubbing" the CO2 from the
> exhaust stream and then releasing it into the greenhouse. I remember
> reading about a CO2 scrubber for increasing the energy density of biogas
> and remember thinking that it sounded complicated, expensive, and
> maintenance intensive -- but now I'm thinking that if the CO2 can be
> utilized, then the economics and labor might be worth it. Any thoughts?
>
> Someday maybe I can build unified systems as I envision: Woodchips and
> biomass waste producing heat, power, CO2 and nutrients for greenhouse
> growers.
>
> Joel Florian
> Alaska
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.622 / Virus Database: 400 - Release Date: 3/13/2004

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Fri Mar 19 06:44:50 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:42 2004
Subject: US Energy, Economic Policy
In-Reply-To: <LISTSERV%2004031901092627@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Message-ID: <FRI.19.MAR.2004.054450.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Tom,

With Tongue in Cheek, can I say, you made that post very "politically
correct" ?

I had to ;)

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Tom Miles
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 12:09 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: US Energy, Economic Policy

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Fri Mar 19 07:00:02 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:43 2004
Subject: Octane and Compression ratio relationship...
Message-ID: <FRI.19.MAR.2004.050002.0700.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Harmon and All:

Using Tom Reed's octane/compression rule (required octane = 10 X CR; CR =
octane/10) and the fact that producer gas won't preignite in small diesels
with CR>18, the "octane" of producer gas is > 180!

However, while high CR is desirable for both power and efficiency, some say
that this is counteracted by the high friction losses for CR> 13. But
increasing the CR of spark engines to 10-13 from 8 results in increase of
power and efficiency of 25 to 62%.

Go for it...

Tom Reed BEF
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 11:47 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Heat and CO2 enrichement for Greenhouses

> On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 05:02:13PM +1300, Graeme Williams wrote:
> > Peter,
> > You would also have to drop the compression ratio if dual fuelling this
> > engine on producer gas. At 22:1, (I think) it would need to drop down to
> > 17:1 max to prevent pre-ignition.
> >
> > > The diesel is of squish-head design -- or IDI (indirect injection)
> >
> > Doug Williams.
> > >
>
> There was a report on this list a few years ago, done in India, on
using
> diesels with producer gas, and the gist of it was they had no problem with
> pre-detonation. After all, that's what diesels are essentially built to
do, with
> heavier piston crowns and heavier connecting rods, bigger bearings, etc.
to
> withstand those stresses. It might be advantageous to adjust the valve
timing
> for this as well.
> And that also is the attractiveness of diesels to run on producer gas,
> because gasoline engines don't have anywhere near high enough compression
to
> burn producer gas efficiently. Same with running alcohol, a gasoline
engine
> needs the compression boosted to at least 14:1 and more, or a turbo added
to
> that, be run right. If it were necessary to adjust compression ratio, it'd
be
> much easier (and a whole lot cheaper -- probably just a double head gasket
would
> do it) to lower a diesel than to raise the petrol engine high enough.
>
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Fri Mar 19 07:09:12 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:43 2004
Subject: Octane and Compression ratio relationship...
In-Reply-To: <000e01c40da9$b67a77d0$6401a8c0@TOM>
Message-ID: <FRI.19.MAR.2004.060912.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Tom, and all,

I don't understand your comment "some say friction losses on CR > 13" etc.

Are you or they, implying that at some point friction gets "in the way" of
torque or HP gain from an engine after a CR of 13 is reached ??

What happens to turbo or super charged engines then ?

Sorry, I think I'm missing something here..

Greg Manning

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

 

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of TBReed
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 6:00 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Octane and Compression ratio relationship...

Dear Harmon and All:

Using Tom Reed's octane/compression rule (required octane = 10 X CR; CR =
octane/10) and the fact that producer gas won't preignite in small diesels
with CR>18, the "octane" of producer gas is > 180!

However, while high CR is desirable for both power and efficiency, some say
that this is counteracted by the high friction losses for CR> 13. But
increasing the CR of spark engines to 10-13 from 8 results in increase of
power and efficiency of 25 to 62%.

Go for it...

Tom Reed BEF
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 11:47 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Heat and CO2 enrichement for Greenhouses

> On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 05:02:13PM +1300, Graeme Williams wrote:
> > Peter,
> > You would also have to drop the compression ratio if dual fuelling this
> > engine on producer gas. At 22:1, (I think) it would need to drop down to
> > 17:1 max to prevent pre-ignition.
> >
> > > The diesel is of squish-head design -- or IDI (indirect injection)
> >
> > Doug Williams.
> > >
>
> There was a report on this list a few years ago, done in India, on
using
> diesels with producer gas, and the gist of it was they had no problem with
> pre-detonation. After all, that's what diesels are essentially built to
do, with
> heavier piston crowns and heavier connecting rods, bigger bearings, etc.
to
> withstand those stresses. It might be advantageous to adjust the valve
timing
> for this as well.
> And that also is the attractiveness of diesels to run on producer gas,
> because gasoline engines don't have anywhere near high enough compression
to
> burn producer gas efficiently. Same with running alcohol, a gasoline
engine
> needs the compression boosted to at least 14:1 and more, or a turbo added
to
> that, be run right. If it were necessary to adjust compression ratio, it'd
be
> much easier (and a whole lot cheaper -- probably just a double head gasket
would
> do it) to lower a diesel than to raise the petrol engine high enough.
>
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Fri Mar 19 07:13:33 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:43 2004
Subject: Heat and CO2 enrichement for Greenhouses
Message-ID: <FRI.19.MAR.2004.051333.0700.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Joel and All:

Our WoodGas campstove is for sale at www.woodgasllc.com. However, the 3 kW
generated for camp cooking would get lost in a large greenhouse. You should
check it out, then scale it up.... We've made larger ones based on the same
principles (1) top lit updraft gasification (2) forced convection of the
secondary air for good clean mixing and combustion.

Yours truly, TOM REED
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel Florian" <joel@EMSJOFLO.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 12:25 PM
Subject: [GASL] Heat and CO2 enrichement for Greenhouses

> Dear Gasification friends,
>
> Tom Reed listed his handy little gasifier stove a few months back (Tom,
> could you give us that link again I lost it) and I've been wondering if
it
> would be appropriate for use inside a greenhouse -- for Carbon Dioxide
> enrichment. It would also provide a bit of heat.
>
> I'm thinking about running a greenhouse into the winter here in Alaska and
> I'm told that a tightly sealed greenhouse (to keep heat from excaping)
will
> soon run short on CO2 during the day.
>
> I'm wondering if the exhaust from Tom's stove would be suitable for plants
> to "breathe". I guess on a larger scale, I'd be interested in purifying
> the smoke from our thermal-gasifier boiler and venting some of that
inside
> our greenhouses -- either that or somehow "scrubbing" the CO2 from the
> exhaust stream and then releasing it into the greenhouse. I remember
> reading about a CO2 scrubber for increasing the energy density of biogas
> and remember thinking that it sounded complicated, expensive, and
> maintenance intensive -- but now I'm thinking that if the CO2 can be
> utilized, then the economics and labor might be worth it. Any thoughts?
>
> Someday maybe I can build unified systems as I envision: Woodchips and
> biomass waste producing heat, power, CO2 and nutrients for greenhouse
> growers.
>
> Joel Florian
> Alaska
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.622 / Virus Database: 400 - Release Date: 3/13/2004
>

From luizmagri at YAHOO.COM Fri Mar 19 07:41:02 2004
From: luizmagri at YAHOO.COM (Luiz Alberto Magri)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:43 2004
Subject: Octane and Compression ratio relationship...
In-Reply-To: <000e01c40da9$b67a77d0$6401a8c0@TOM>
Message-ID: <FRI.19.MAR.2004.044102.0800.LUIZMAGRI@YAHOO.COM>

I must be missing something in here. I understand
pre-ignition will never be a concern in Diesel
engines, for that they are supplied clean air only
through the admission valve, and fuel will burn as
soon as it enters the engine. Actually, auto-ignition
(which is often the same as pre-ignition) is a
requirement due to the want of sparking probes.

Regarding the increasing in compression ratio, I doubt
there will be any measurable increase in friction
losses. Compression work increases but will be
restored at expansion step - with extra work added by
combustion gases - and the net result should be always
more power and efficiency, the limitation being
related to allowable mechanical stress only.

Luiz Magri
São Paulo

--- TBReed <tombreed@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
> Dear Harmon and All:
>
> Using Tom Reed's octane/compression rule (required
> octane = 10 X CR; CR =
> octane/10) and the fact that producer gas won't
> preignite in small diesels
> with CR>18, the "octane" of producer gas is > 180!
>
> However, while high CR is desirable for both power
> and efficiency, some say
> that this is counteracted by the high friction
> losses for CR> 13. But
> increasing the CR of spark engines to 10-13 from 8
> results in increase of
> power and efficiency of 25 to 62%.
>
> Go for it...
>
> Tom Reed BEF

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Fri Mar 19 07:34:31 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:43 2004
Subject: Octane and Compression ratio relationship...
Message-ID: <FRI.19.MAR.2004.083431.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: "TBReed" <tombreed@COMCAST.NET>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 8:00 AM
Subject: [GASL] Octane and Compression ratio relationship...

> Dear Harmon and All:
>
> Using Tom Reed's octane/compression rule (required octane = 10 X CR; CR =
> octane/10) and the fact that producer gas won't preignite in small diesels
> with CR>18, the "octane" of producer gas is > 180!

I would like to understand your "Octane/Compression Rule" better...
Could you please elaborate a bit on how much gas composition can vary, with
the rule still being valid?

Thanks.

Kevin Chisholm

From JMonteroA at ICE.GO.CR Fri Mar 19 08:43:32 2004
From: JMonteroA at ICE.GO.CR (Montero Arguedas Jorge Mario)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:43 2004
Subject: Technical discussion list
Message-ID: <FRI.19.MAR.2004.074332.0600.JMONTEROA@ICE.GO.CR>

In other words, the electricity company must have the capacity to back
you up (those overcast days if your own solar for example... yeah),
unless your are totally out of the grid. And having all those plants idle
costs a lot of money, and guess who they would be charging for them ?

So if you really don't want to make things worse, environmentally and
considering social cost altogether, you better be generating 24 hr
continously or even better, unplug from the grid.

Jorge

 

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Krzysztof Lis [mailto:santo@poczta.fm]
> Enviado el: Thursday, March 18, 2004 3:50 PM
> Para: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Asunto: Re: [GASL] Technical discussion list
>
>
> P> For instance -- the idea that many small producers could be feeding
> P> grid rather than one single large power plant is totally against
> P> the politics of power generation corps.
>
> It is not only the "power gen corps' conspiracy", as some might think.
> This might be somewhat off topic, but I must say, that there are only
> few "green" ways of generating energy -- water plants, biomass gasifi-
> cation / other usage (but only if works 24/7), nuclear plants. But for
> sure windmills are not of this kind. And also small gasifiers connec-
> ted to IC engines are not of this kind, as long as they're not
> propelled 24/7 or at least most of the time (I mean 'large most').
> Why? Let's say it in somewhat descriptive way.
>
> So you have a solar cell at your roof. And this cell gives you some
> energy, so you think that you're more enviro-friendly by having it.
> But you are mistaken. What will you do if the day is rainy, and you
> need to watch tv? You take the energy from public grid, which is powe-
> red by conventional plants. The fact you own a cell doesn't help a
> bit, because those plants must operate on nominal parameters (because
> changing the energy output takes much time). In a short way -- all the
> possible energy requirements of economy must be secured by conventio-
> nal energy sources -- coal / gas / biomass powered power plants, nuke
> plants, which are stable sources of energy and are not dependent on
> weather.
>
> Of course I don't say, that adding to your home/company it's own,
> eco power sources makes no sense. It does, but only if you may be
> fully independent from outer sources. Only this way the energy requi-
> rements inside the public grid may become smaller and lead to drop of
> energy production in conventional power plants.
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof Lis / Poland
>

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Fri Mar 19 09:01:19 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:43 2004
Subject: Octane and Compression ratio relationship...
In-Reply-To: <20040319124103.12635.qmail@web11704.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <FRI.19.MAR.2004.080119.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 04:41:02AM -0800, Luiz Alberto Magri wrote:
> I must be missing something in here. I understand
> pre-ignition will never be a concern in Diesel
> engines, for that they are supplied clean air only
> through the admission valve, and fuel will burn as
> soon as it enters the engine. Actually, auto-ignition
> (which is often the same as pre-ignition) is a
> requirement due to the want of sparking probes.
>
Yes, this is true in a normal diesel, since there is no fuel in the
cylinder, just plain air, during compression. Then at the optimum moment, the
injector receives the pressurized fuel and sprays it into the cylinder, where
upon it instantly ignites from the heat and pressure. When using a diesel engine
with producer gas, however, the air is already mixed with the producer gas as it
comes into the cylinder, so there is a possibility that pre-ignition could
occur, if the CR is high enough, and octane low enough.

(snip)

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

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Fri Mar 19 09:25:14 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:43 2004
Subject: Technical discussion list
In-Reply-To: <545D8126A497834C8B7813C612FF0AC902845E3A@SABEXC07.sabana.ice>
Message-ID: <FRI.19.MAR.2004.082514.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 07:43:32AM -0600, Montero Arguedas Jorge Mario wrote:
> In other words, the electricity company must have the capacity to back
> you up (those overcast days if your own solar for example... yeah),
> unless your are totally out of the grid. And having all those plants idle
> costs a lot of money, and guess who they would be charging for them ?
>
> So if you really don't want to make things worse, environmentally and
> considering social cost altogether, you better be generating 24 hr
> continously or even better, unplug from the grid.

Have you seen the new fuel cell home cogeneration units that
are being test marketed around the US? Like this one, for instance:

http://www.idatech.com/

They cost about the same as a good home boiler, and provide all the heat and
electricity quite cheaply and run on natural gas, propane, or fuel oil. And
there is no reason they couldn't run on producer gas as well. So when things
like this become more widely used, along with solar, wind, etc., the day of the
big generating plants will be over.

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

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Fri Mar 19 09:41:25 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:43 2004
Subject: Octane and Compression ratio relationship...
Message-ID: <FRI.19.MAR.2004.074125.0700.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Kevin:

The rule of thumb (but thumbs do vary somewhat) is based on the observation
that

6/1 engines in the 1930s only had 60 octane fuels. With tetra ethyl leaad
we could have 80 octane lead used in 8/1 CR cars or 11/1 CR airplane engines
with 110 octane fuel. On the racetrack they use methanol with a 130 octane
value in 13/1 CR fuels. Since producer gas won't ignite in 18/1 CR engines,
I infer >180 octane for producer gas.

You are correct that all these numbers will probably also vary with other
factors, such as spark advance, so don't push it too hard.

For most of my automotive life it has been conventional wisdom that cars
can't use more octane than they were designed for, so don't buy hi-test
unless low test knocks.

However, knock is also produced by advancing the spark beyond the design
point. Now, with electronic control, and knock sensors cars can take
advantage of higher octane fuels and all the octane available.

Yours truly, TOM REED

Director of Research for the National ALternative Fuels Foundation, NAFF
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 5:34 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Octane and Compression ratio relationship...

> Dear Tom
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "TBReed" <tombreed@COMCAST.NET>
> To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 8:00 AM
> Subject: [GASL] Octane and Compression ratio relationship...
>
>
> > Dear Harmon and All:
> >
> > Using Tom Reed's octane/compression rule (required octane = 10 X CR; CR
=
> > octane/10) and the fact that producer gas won't preignite in small
diesels
> > with CR>18, the "octane" of producer gas is > 180!
>
> I would like to understand your "Octane/Compression Rule" better...
> Could you please elaborate a bit on how much gas composition can vary,
with
> the rule still being valid?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Kevin Chisholm

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Fri Mar 19 09:45:10 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:43 2004
Subject: Octane and Compression ratio relationship...
Message-ID: <FRI.19.MAR.2004.074510.0700.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Greg and All:

The theory of the Otto cycle engine predicts that efficiency and power
increase linearly with CR - indefinitely. However, Prof. Parrikh at IIT
Bombay says that this approximation begins to fail above 12/1 due to
friction losses.

However, my 40 mpg Jetta has a CR of 19/1, so can't be failing too badly. I
hope someone has better data on the high end.

TOM RED

 

----- Original Message -----
From: "a31ford" <a31ford@INETLINK.CA>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 5:09 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Octane and Compression ratio relationship...

> Tom, and all,
>
> I don't understand your comment "some say friction losses on CR > 13" etc.
>
> Are you or they, implying that at some point friction gets "in the way" of
> torque or HP gain from an engine after a CR of 13 is reached ??
>
> What happens to turbo or super charged engines then ?
>
> Sorry, I think I'm missing something here..
>
> Greg Manning
>
> Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Gasification Discussion List
> [mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of TBReed
> Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 6:00 AM
> To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: Octane and Compression ratio relationship...
>
>
> Dear Harmon and All:
>
> Using Tom Reed's octane/compression rule (required octane = 10 X CR; CR =
> octane/10) and the fact that producer gas won't preignite in small diesels
> with CR>18, the "octane" of producer gas is > 180!
>
> However, while high CR is desirable for both power and efficiency, some
say
> that this is counteracted by the high friction losses for CR> 13. But
> increasing the CR of spark engines to 10-13 from 8 results in increase of
> power and efficiency of 25 to 62%.
>
> Go for it...
>
> Tom Reed BEF
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>
> To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 11:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [GASL] Heat and CO2 enrichement for Greenhouses
>
>
> > On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 05:02:13PM +1300, Graeme Williams wrote:
> > > Peter,
> > > You would also have to drop the compression ratio if dual fuelling
this
> > > engine on producer gas. At 22:1, (I think) it would need to drop down
to
> > > 17:1 max to prevent pre-ignition.
> > >
> > > > The diesel is of squish-head design -- or IDI (indirect injection)
> > >
> > > Doug Williams.
> > > >
> >
> > There was a report on this list a few years ago, done in India, on
> using
> > diesels with producer gas, and the gist of it was they had no problem
with
> > pre-detonation. After all, that's what diesels are essentially built to
> do, with
> > heavier piston crowns and heavier connecting rods, bigger bearings, etc.
> to
> > withstand those stresses. It might be advantageous to adjust the valve
> timing
> > for this as well.
> > And that also is the attractiveness of diesels to run on producer
gas,
> > because gasoline engines don't have anywhere near high enough
compression
> to
> > burn producer gas efficiently. Same with running alcohol, a gasoline
> engine
> > needs the compression boosted to at least 14:1 and more, or a turbo
added
> to
> > that, be run right. If it were necessary to adjust compression ratio,
it'd
> be
> > much easier (and a whole lot cheaper -- probably just a double head
gasket
> would
> > do it) to lower a diesel than to raise the petrol engine high enough.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Harmon Seaver
> > CyberShamanix
> > http://www.cybershamanix.com

From luizmagri at YAHOO.COM Fri Mar 19 10:22:32 2004
From: luizmagri at YAHOO.COM (Luiz Alberto Magri)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:43 2004
Subject: Octane and Compression ratio relationship...
In-Reply-To: <013801c40dc0$c7f52430$6401a8c0@TOM>
Message-ID: <FRI.19.MAR.2004.072232.0800.LUIZMAGRI@YAHOO.COM>

Dear Tom,

The information from Prof. Parriksh must be OK since
based on actual observation, but did they assess the
origin of the reduction in power and efficiency? It
can be a result of valves leakage eg. I understand the
increasing in CR in an existing engine is oabtained by
means of cilinder head machining only, what means the
other mechanical parts will be the same as designed
for the previous - not so hard - conditions.

Luiz Magri
São Paulo

--- TBReed <tombreed@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
> Dear Greg and All:
>
> The theory of the Otto cycle engine predicts that
> efficiency and power
> increase linearly with CR - indefinitely. However,
> Prof. Parrikh at IIT
> Bombay says that this approximation begins to fail
> above 12/1 due to
> friction losses.
>
> However, my 40 mpg Jetta has a CR of 19/1, so can't
> be failing too badly. I
> hope someone has better data on the high end.
>
> TOM RED
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "a31ford" <a31ford@INETLINK.CA>
> To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 5:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [GASL] Octane and Compression ratio
> relationship...
>
>
> > Tom, and all,
> >
> > I don't understand your comment "some say friction
> losses on CR > 13" etc.
> >
> > Are you or they, implying that at some point
> friction gets "in the way" of
> > torque or HP gain from an engine after a CR of 13
> is reached ??
> >
> > What happens to turbo or super charged engines
> then ?
> >
> > Sorry, I think I'm missing something here..
> >
> > Greg Manning
> >
> > Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: The Gasification Discussion List
> > [mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf
> Of TBReed
> > Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 6:00 AM
> > To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> > Subject: Octane and Compression ratio
> relationship...
> >
> >
> > Dear Harmon and All:
> >
> > Using Tom Reed's octane/compression rule (required
> octane = 10 X CR; CR =
> > octane/10) and the fact that producer gas won't
> preignite in small diesels
> > with CR>18, the "octane" of producer gas is > 180!
> >
> > However, while high CR is desirable for both power
> and efficiency, some
> say
> > that this is counteracted by the high friction
> losses for CR> 13. But
> > increasing the CR of spark engines to 10-13 from 8
> results in increase of
> > power and efficiency of 25 to 62%.
> >
> > Go for it...
> >
> > Tom Reed BEF
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>
> > To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 11:47 PM
> > Subject: Re: [GASL] Heat and CO2 enrichement for
> Greenhouses
> >
> >
> > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 05:02:13PM +1300, Graeme
> Williams wrote:
> > > > Peter,
> > > > You would also have to drop the compression
> ratio if dual fuelling
> this
> > > > engine on producer gas. At 22:1, (I think) it
> would need to drop down
> to
> > > > 17:1 max to prevent pre-ignition.
> > > >
> > > > > The diesel is of squish-head design -- or
> IDI (indirect injection)
> > > >
> > > > Doug Williams.
> > > > >
> > >
> > > There was a report on this list a few years
> ago, done in India, on
> > using
> > > diesels with producer gas, and the gist of it
> was they had no problem
> with
> > > pre-detonation. After all, that's what diesels
> are essentially built to
> > do, with
> > > heavier piston crowns and heavier connecting
> rods, bigger bearings, etc.
> > to
> > > withstand those stresses. It might be
> advantageous to adjust the valve
> > timing
> > > for this as well.
> > > And that also is the attractiveness of
> diesels to run on producer
> gas,
> > > because gasoline engines don't have anywhere
> near high enough
> compression
> > to
> > > burn producer gas efficiently. Same with running
> alcohol, a gasoline
> > engine
> > > needs the compression boosted to at least 14:1
> and more, or a turbo
> added
> > to
> > > that, be run right. If it were necessary to
> adjust compression ratio,
> it'd
> > be
> > > much easier (and a whole lot cheaper -- probably
> just a double head
> gasket
> > would
> > > do it) to lower a diesel than to raise the
> petrol engine high enough.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Harmon Seaver
> > > CyberShamanix
> > > http://www.cybershamanix.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com

From hlbrodie at BLUECRAB.ORG Fri Mar 19 10:21:48 2004
From: hlbrodie at BLUECRAB.ORG (hlbrodie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:43 2004
Subject: fuel cells
Message-ID: <FRI.19.MAR.2004.102148.0500.HLBRODIE@BLUECRAB.ORG>

Harmon Seaver wrote:

> Have you seen the new fuel cell home cogeneration units that
>are being test marketed around the US? Like this one, for instance:
>
>http://www.idatech.com/
>
> They cost about the same as a good home boiler, and provide all the heat and
>electricity quite cheaply and run on natural gas, propane, or fuel oil. And
>there is no reason they couldn't run on producer gas as well. So when things
>like this become more widely used, along with solar, wind, etc., the day of the
>big generating plants will be over.
>
>
>--
>
Last month I was enthused about the application of fuel cell technology
for generating electric at a remote research site. A 5 kw unit (not
from Idatech) was priced at $125,000 US (www.acumentrics.com). The
provider said it was a bata unit and made no guarantee of life
expectancy. I read Idatech's stuff and see that they are making fuel
processors (making hydrogen from other fuels) and the equipment to use
that hydrogen is being developed only for those folks willing to be
partners in development (for probably big bucks). Hopefully, the
development time will be short. But, I believe it will be some time
before fuel cells replace big generating plants at the cost of a home
boiler.

Herb Brodie
Professor Emeritus
University of Maryland

From snkm at BTL.NET Fri Mar 19 10:42:10 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:43 2004
Subject: Heat and CO2 enrichement for Greenhouses
Message-ID: <FRI.19.MAR.2004.094210.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 05:02 PM 3/19/2004 +1300, Graeme Williams wrote:
>Peter,
>You would also have to drop the compression ratio if dual fuelling this
>engine on producer gas. At 22:1, (I think) it would need to drop down to
>17:1 max to prevent pre-ignition.
>
>> The diesel is of squish-head design -- or IDI (indirect injection)
>
>Doug Williams.
>>

I believe these old Volks diesels are at about 18:1

My old style Listers are 17:1 -- and can be easily adjusted a point or two
in either direction by simply moving the variable compression plug.

I keep "suspecting" that these old style Listers (650 RPM) with their extra
large pistons -- extra heavy frame weights -- easy take down and overhaul
-- would be the perfect engine for small gasifier operations.

Unfortunately prices have just about doubled -- and they are hard to source
now.

The old Volks diesel is rated at 45 HP -- I suspect it would make a good
gasifier engine running highly derated. Lower RPM -- so that is would
produce 8 to 10 HP only.

Peter

From snkm at BTL.NET Fri Mar 19 10:42:12 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:43 2004
Subject: Heat and CO2 enrichement for Greenhouses
Message-ID: <FRI.19.MAR.2004.094212.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 09:35 PM 3/18/2004 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 06:02:05PM -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:
>> At 03:13 PM 3/18/2004 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
>>
********snipped*******
>>
>> But still -- would it not be much simpler to just dual fuel it??
>>
>> As in use a little diesel fuel to ignite the mixture??
>>
>> Or veggie oil??
>>
>
> Oh, yes, and I think that's the way most do it. I'm only thinking of the
>spark conversion for the purposes of having a bit cleaner exhaust from the
>engine to feed into the greenhouse. With the high compression of the diesel,
>feeding it strictly on producer gas should give an exhaust that would provide
>plenty of CO2 and humidity and no CO. If you dual fuel with oil, there
would be
>some CO at least.
> Mixing the oil with ethanol would reduce that, I guess.
>
>

Oops -- I missed that point -- your right!! Better just go with spark
ignition!!

What power are you expecting to produce??

Peter / Belize

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Fri Mar 19 11:17:34 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:43 2004
Subject: fuel cells
In-Reply-To: <405B100C.7050509@bluecrab.org>
Message-ID: <FRI.19.MAR.2004.101734.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 10:21:48AM -0500, hlbrodie wrote:

(snip)

> Last month I was enthused about the application of fuel cell technology
> for generating electric at a remote research site. A 5 kw unit (not
> from Idatech) was priced at $125,000 US (www.acumentrics.com). The
> provider said it was a bata unit and made no guarantee of life
> expectancy. I read Idatech's stuff and see that they are making fuel
> processors (making hydrogen from other fuels) and the equipment to use
> that hydrogen is being developed only for those folks willing to be
> partners in development (for probably big bucks). Hopefully, the
> development time will be short. But, I believe it will be some time
> before fuel cells replace big generating plants at the cost of a home
> boiler.
>

I think I first read about Idatech about 5 years ago, and at the time, they
were, with their utility company development partners in the Pacific Northwest,
installing these units in homes for about $5,000.00 for, IIRC, a 5KW cogen unit.
Another company that I can't recall the name of was doing the same thing in New
England. And someone on another list told me awhile back that they were
available in Minnesota. What I read back then was that they were going to be
more widely available thru the rural electric co-ops.
Even tho we just bought a higher efficiency gas boiler a few years ago, I'd
certainly pop for one of these if they were for sale here, even if they are beta
test units. Our utility bill for December was about $500, and $600 for January.
I think the truly distributed power grid is closer than you think, and I'd
think the gov't would be pushing it simply for security reasons. Now if someone
like Kuenzel would adapt one of their beautiful gasifying boilers to feed a fuel
cell, this thing could really take off.

 

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

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Fri Mar 19 11:27:56 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:43 2004
Subject: Octane and Compression ratio relationship...
In-Reply-To: <20040319152233.28594.qmail@web11703.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <FRI.19.MAR.2004.102756.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 07:22:32AM -0800, Luiz Alberto Magri wrote:
> Dear Tom,
>
> The information from Prof. Parriksh must be OK since
> based on actual observation, but did they assess the
> origin of the reduction in power and efficiency? It
> can be a result of valves leakage eg. I understand the
> increasing in CR in an existing engine is oabtained by
> means of cilinder head machining only, what means the
> other mechanical parts will be the same as designed
> for the previous - not so hard - conditions.

It depends on the engine -- for some gasoline engines, especially those
popular with hotrodders, higher compression pistons are available, and that's a
better way to go, since milling the head can cause problems in some modern
engines which have very little clearance between valves and piston. If you look
at most newer engines, you'll see the valve relief cutouts in the piston
top.
But another simple way to effectively increase compression is to add a
turbocharger. And especially if you intercool the turbo, you can increase the
compression ratio and pack a lot more producer gas into the cylinder all at the
same time. And, of course, there are quite a variety of sizes of turbos
available in the junkyards at this point. 8-)

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

From santo at POCZTA.FM Fri Mar 19 11:12:39 2004
From: santo at POCZTA.FM (Krzysztof Lis)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:43 2004
Subject: Technical discussion list
In-Reply-To: <20040318232735.GA23171@cybershamanix.com>
Message-ID: <FRI.19.MAR.2004.171239.0100.SANTO@POCZTA.FM>

H> This isn't ever remotely a good arguement. Most, if not all,
H> solar installations are either going to have their own battery bank
H> to store power for the dark times, or they are going to use the
H> grid as their battery bank. That's what netmetering is all about.
H> Same with windpower.

Yes, batteries somehow help solving this problem, but it's still not
enought. If for some reasons you run out of energy stored in batteries
and still have no sunglight (or wind) you must do one of two follo-
wing:
- start up some backup energy source, e.g. woodgas fueled engine with
generator
- take energy from the grid.

And also I don't think that those large wind plants have their own
batteries, because storing large amounts of energy is very expensive
(if even possible).

H> And nuclear is "clean" energy? Since when? They're still trying
H> to clean up Chernobyl, and the victims of that one still suffer and
H> die even today. And it's funny how desperate the nuke facilities
H> here in the US are to find someplace to put all their waste --
H> what's clean about it?

I knew that writing about nuke plants will be like putting your hand
into the bees' hive. :) There are some myths about nuclear energy and
also some facts. Those facts are:
- waste (used) fuel is still radioactive and must be stored safely in
not-so-cheap-to-build storages (but old salt mines are quite good,
cheap and easy to use places)
- Chernobyl is not as polluted as one might think -- some scientists
even believe that Ukraine (Chernobyl is located in Ukraine) exaggera-
tes effect of that 'incident' -- few people from university at which I
study (Warsaw University of Technology) were there with their own Gei-
ger counters and found out that the radiation levels there are as high
as those just in front of my university's building, in the middle of
Warsaw...
- nuclear plants don't create greenhouse gasses, nor NOx and SO2
- some kinds of nuclear plants are able to produce fuel for themselves
and also give some surplus, which may be used to power another plant
(this kind of reactor is called (AFAIR) replicating reactor), so why
don't we build many of this kind of reactors next to see and generate
hydrogen to propell planes, cars, etc.?

To come back to the main topic of this discussion list, I'll just say
that energy we make in small scale will be clean if we will make our
installation independent and able to create required amount of energy
at all time. :)

--
Best regards,
Krzysztof Lis / Poland

From CAVM at AOL.COM Fri Mar 19 15:21:11 2004
From: CAVM at AOL.COM (C. Van Milligen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:43 2004
Subject: Liquid fuel by gasification
Message-ID: <FRI.19.MAR.2004.152111.EST.>

While we are tied up trying to decide how many angels should be allowed to
dance on the head of a pin, and at what fee, the USDA-ARS researchers are
building a gasifier for straw in Washington State. For an estimated $300,000 this
gasifier will power a diesel engine and produce carbon. Their economic goal is
an 18%-20% return on investment.

What is unusual is that they derive some of this economic return from liquid
fuels produced by the gasifier. I don't understand this, but they say that
they produce a liquid similar to ethanol which can be used in farm equipment or
to generate electricity.

For more information contact Larry Albin, Farm Power CEO and director of the
Straw to Energy Project at LarryAlbin@msn.com

This information came from a story in 3-2004 Hayandforage.com

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

From renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ Fri Mar 19 17:20:03 2004
From: renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ (Ken Calvert)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:43 2004
Subject: Octane and Compression ratio relationship..
Message-ID: <SAT.20.MAR.2004.112003.1300.RENERTECH@XTRA.CO.NZ>

Dear Greg, Tom, and all,
Its all very well to discuss octane
ratings and preignition, but in my experience the major factor is the very
low flame speed of carbon monoxide. I was interested to read of Janze
running a 6 cylinder chev motor to generate CHP, or was it just P. What I
would be interested to know is what speed did he run his engine at? Our
personal experience and I say our, because there were three of us in the
team and I was only number 2, but we ran a Toyota land cruiser engine on
wood gas, and we had a serious drop off in power at anything much over
2,000rpm. and at just over 3000, it just ran out of revs and would not go
any faster until we got the gasifier running hot enough to crack a bit
more steam and up the hydrogen content. Our very much empirical conclusion,
aided by the SERI translation of the Swedish Gasifier book, was that the
very high flame speed of the hydrogen was assisting the combustion of the
CO. We had magnificent low speed torque but ran out of puff at speed???
Theories and answers please?
Ken C. <mailto:renertech@xtra.co.nz> renertech@xtra.co.nz
<http://www.coffee.20m.com/>

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Fri Mar 19 17:53:07 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:43 2004
Subject: Octane and Compression ratio relationship..
In-Reply-To: <20040319222000.VSZI3651.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@coppermine>
Message-ID: <FRI.19.MAR.2004.165307.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 11:20:03AM +1300, Ken Calvert wrote:
> Dear Greg, Tom, and all,
> Its all very well to discuss octane
> ratings and preignition, but in my experience the major factor is the very
> low flame speed of carbon monoxide. I was interested to read of Janze
> running a 6 cylinder chev motor to generate CHP, or was it just P. What I
> would be interested to know is what speed did he run his engine at? Our
> personal experience and I say our, because there were three of us in the
> team and I was only number 2, but we ran a Toyota land cruiser engine on
> wood gas, and we had a serious drop off in power at anything much over
> 2,000rpm. and at just over 3000, it just ran out of revs and would not go
> any faster until we got the gasifier running hot enough to crack a bit
> more steam and up the hydrogen content. Our very much empirical conclusion,
> aided by the SERI translation of the Swedish Gasifier book, was that the
> very high flame speed of the hydrogen was assisting the combustion of the
> CO. We had magnificent low speed torque but ran out of puff at speed???
> Theories and answers please?
> Ken C. <mailto:renertech@xtra.co.nz> renertech@xtra.co.nz
> <http://www.coffee.20m.com/>

My first question would be whether this was an unmodified engine, i.e.,
compression *not* increased, and (2) did you advance the spark a good bit as you
should have, and (3) was the gasifier sized large enough for the engine?

 

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

From praufast at FREE.FR Fri Mar 19 19:57:43 2004
From: praufast at FREE.FR (Philippe)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:43 2004
Subject: Woodgas and fuelcells
Message-ID: <SAT.20.MAR.2004.015743.0100.>

Hello,

Woodgas is mainly CO and hydrogen content is low. Fuel reformers are not magical boxes, CO will be dumped out and not transformed into H2, so the overall efficiency will be really low. Or is there something i've misunderstood ?

Regards, Philippe.

From praufast at FREE.FR Fri Mar 19 19:57:45 2004
From: praufast at FREE.FR (Philippe)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:43 2004
Subject: Humphrey pumps and liquid piston engines
Message-ID: <SAT.20.MAR.2004.015745.0100.>

Humphrey pumps and liquid piston engines : arent thoses good canditates to be fuelled with woodgas ?
Moving parts and rpm are low, but i think LPE are still experimental ?

Regards, Philippe.

From praufast at FREE.FR Fri Mar 19 19:57:47 2004
From: praufast at FREE.FR (Philippe)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:43 2004
Subject: Enginion SteamCell
Message-ID: <SAT.20.MAR.2004.015747.0100.>

Hello !

Maybe what we are waiting for: thermal output of up to 25 kW and maximum electrical output of 4,6 kW, developped by a German compagny :

http://www.enginion.com/en/web/produktedienstleistungen/steamcell_stationaer/SteamCell_stationaer.htm

I think this document i no more available, but try the link :
http://www.enginion.com/press/SteamCell_white20_paper.pdf

"Apart from its ultra-low emissions and cost profile the novel system offers numerous further
advantages; very high fuel efficiency; practically silent operation; environment and service
friendliness; broad fuel flexibility including natural gas, heating oil, propane and renewable
fuels.

The SteamCell™ provides a highly innovative external combustion engine, which achieves an
emissions profile that is among the lowest of any fossil and renewable fuel combustion
technology. It is based on a patented “Caloric Porous Structure Cell” (CPS Cell), employing a
recently developed thermo-chemical combustion process, and an electronically controlled, oil
free steam drive. The drive can be connected with a generator in order to produce electrical
power."

The burner :

"An integral part of the Steam Cell . is a patented “Caloric Porous Structure Cell (CPS Cell)”,
occasionally also referred to as “heat cell” or “combustion matrix”. It is a newly developed
device capable of oxidizing a fuel with extremely low pollutant emissions. The CPS Cell can
theoretically process any fuel that can be vaporized and pre-mixed with air - liquid or gaseous,
fossil or renewable. The result is a clean stream of hot exhaust gas that we use to power our
innovative steam drive.
The CPS Cell is made of a highly developed ceramic foam. While an air/fuel mixture flows
through its sponge like structure, the fuel does not burn up like in a conventional burner. In the
CPS Cell it oxidizes from pore to pore without open flame - similar to a thermal reactor. The
pores have a precisely defined structure and size that prevents the fuel from flaming up and
therefore developing thermal pollutant emissions. A simple yet sophisticated heat control
system keeps the cell’s temperature at a moderate temperature of around 1200 Degrees
Celsius."

Steam generator and super-heater :

"The pre-heated water flows into a steam generator, which is heated by the hot exhaust gas of
two CPS Cells. Hence their thermal energy gets transferred into the water, which turns into
highly energetic steam with a temperature of 500 Degrees Celsius and a pressure of up to 500
bar.
With an electronically controlled injection system a precisely defined amount of steam is
injected into the engine’s expansion chambers. On top of its piston/liner combination resides a
super heater unit as part of the cylinder’s headroom. The super heater is directly fired by one of
the CPS Cells. When the steam is injected the super heater provides an abrupt temperature
boost that can go up to 900 Degrees Celsius. This translates into a powerful expansion plus
superb efficiency, as more energy can be “pumped” into the thermodynamic cycle."
It needs only 4 litres of water, sealed.

The expander :

It's of Wankel type, carbon ceramic coated, Oil Free Lubrication and 35 000 hours engine-life.
The first prototype was a 2 stroke, 3 cylinders, 1 litre and was fitted in a subcompact VW car.

Availability :

"At the ISH 2003 in Frankfurt the SteamCell was presented to the public for the first time.
The distribution of the SteamCell will be done in cooperation with selected heating equipment manufacturers."

All this seems really serious and i hope it's not the usual "pick up the money and disappear" scam....

Regards, Philippe.

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Fri Mar 19 16:26:21 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:43 2004
Subject: Woodgas and fuelcells
In-Reply-To: <20040320005728.E54BEC40B0@postfix3-1.free.fr>
Message-ID: <FRI.19.MAR.2004.152621.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

The ones I was reading about being built in Germany were designed to run on
producer gas, no reformer.

On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 01:57:43AM +0100, Philippe wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Woodgas is mainly CO and hydrogen content is low. Fuel reformers are not magical boxes, CO will be dumped out and not transformed into H2, so the overall efficiency will be really low. Or is there something i've misunderstood ?
>
> Regards, Philippe.

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

From renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ Sat Mar 20 05:56:56 2004
From: renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ (Ken Calvert)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:43 2004
Subject: Octane and Compression ratio relationship..
In-Reply-To: <20040319225307.GB25506@cybershamanix.com>
Message-ID: <SAT.20.MAR.2004.235656.1300.RENERTECH@XTRA.CO.NZ>

No we did not increase the compression, yes we carefully optimized the
ignition advance. In fact we also ran it with a super ignition kit. And the
gasifier ran a 4" throat in a 20" diameter carbo chamber. Plenty big
enough. The major difference in the performance came after we increased the
hydrogen content of the gas. With extra hydrogen we had all the power and
rpm we wanted. Ken C.

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List [mailto:] On Behalf Of Harmon Seaver
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 11:53 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] Octane and Compression ratio relationship..

On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 11:20:03AM +1300, Ken Calvert wrote:
> Dear Greg, Tom, and all,
> Its all very well to discuss
> octane ratings and preignition, but in my experience the major factor
> is the very low flame speed of carbon monoxide. I was interested to read
of Janze
> running a 6 cylinder chev motor to generate CHP, or was it just P. What
I
> would be interested to know is what speed did he run his engine at? Our
> personal experience and I say our, because there were three of us in
> the team and I was only number 2, but we ran a Toyota land cruiser
> engine on wood gas, and we had a serious drop off in power at
> anything much over 2,000rpm. and at just over 3000, it just ran out of
revs and would not go
> any faster until we got the gasifier running hot enough to crack a bit
> more steam and up the hydrogen content. Our very much empirical
> conclusion, aided by the SERI translation of the Swedish Gasifier
> book, was that the very high flame speed of the hydrogen was assisting
the combustion of the
> CO. We had magnificent low speed torque but ran out of puff at speed???
> Theories and answers please?
> Ken C. <mailto:renertech@xtra.co.nz> renertech@xtra.co.nz
> <http://www.coffee.20m.com/>

My first question would be whether this was an unmodified engine, i.e.,
compression *not* increased, and (2) did you advance the spark a good bit as
you should have, and (3) was the gasifier sized large enough for the engine?

 

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

From andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM Sat Mar 20 07:19:25 2004
From: andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:43 2004
Subject: Octane and Compression ratio relationship..
In-Reply-To: <20040320105649.MWH3651.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@coppermine>
Message-ID: <SAT.20.MAR.2004.121925.0000.>

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 23:56:56 +1300, Ken Calvert wrote:

>
>No we did not increase the compression, yes we carefully optimized the
>ignition advance. In fact we also ran it with a super ignition kit. And the
>gasifier ran a 4" throat in a 20" diameter carbo chamber. Plenty big
>enough. The major difference in the performance came after we increased the
>hydrogen content of the gas. With extra hydrogen we had all the power and
>rpm we wanted. Ken C

The implication being that the faster flames speed of the H2
propagates the flame front smoothly through the slower burning CO?
What is the relationship between flame speeds in gaseous mixtures?

AJH

From LINVENT at AOL.COM Sat Mar 20 08:09:03 2004
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:43 2004
Subject: Woodgas and fuelcells
Message-ID: <SAT.20.MAR.2004.080903.EST.>

Molten carbonate fuel cells can use CO and H2 as energy sources for fuel
cells. They cannot tolerate any particulate, tars, Cl, F, S, or any metallic ions
in the gas stream. An Italian firm has 500 kw versions in beta or further
demonstration and a US firm has at least one in the field. The CO has a low energy
contribution level but is used.

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

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Sat Mar 20 08:32:03 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:43 2004
Subject: Woodgas and fuelcells
Message-ID: <SAT.20.MAR.2004.093203.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Leland
...del...

... An Italian firm has 500 kw versions in beta or further
> demonstration and a US firm has at least one in the field. The CO has a
low energy
> contribution level but is used.

Isn't the use here of CO sort of a major breakthrough?? Is it used in the
direct probuction of electricity, or simply as a fuel to keep the fuel cell
salts molten?

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm
>

From snkm at BTL.NET Sat Mar 20 09:47:38 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:43 2004
Subject: Heat and CO2 enrichement for Greenhouses
Message-ID: <SAT.20.MAR.2004.084738.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 07:21 AM 3/20/2004 -0600, a31ford wrote:
>Peter and all,
>
>Lister, in my eyes is "king" for the reasons you say, (piston size, etc.)
>But the cost factor is a big one for me.
>
>However, for those that can't afford Lister, Wisconsin would be one
>alternative. Wiscon total power is the new company, they only sell 4cyl. V
>models, but there are many dealers that rebuild the older smaller twins and
>singles.
>
>Greg
>

Greg and all;

"Heavy-Metal" engines have historically worked well on producer gas -- even
gas not cleaned -- loaded with tars -- etc.

What got me looking for heavy metal engines still being produced -- and
acquiring some of the same -- was a result of discussions on this very same
list. At the beginning of 2001 -- Ken Calvert (Renertech@ xtra.co.nz)
posted a message to this list that summed up "why" one should have interest
in this direction.

I note that the Gas List archives are no longer out there -- or I have not
been able to find them??

But I still have Ken's posting on record. See below.

But high-lighting:

"A typical Gas setup would be a giant Crossley single cylinder Gas engine
with a piston two feet in diameter and running at about 300rpm and 200
horsepower."

Now -- doesn't this give one something to consider??

Peter / Belize

********************
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 22:26:11 -0800
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Log gasifiers -- and cutting wood sawdustly.

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

> > The logs were approximately 10 to 15 cm (4" to 6") in diameter and
from 1 metre to 1 metre 80 (3' to 6') long. The gasifiers were very tall,
making possible insertion of long logs, and usually mounted just behind the
cab.
> >
> > About those long "log" gasifiers -- you mean they worked with full
length wood??

Gentlemen!

I think we could restore some perspective by re-iterating a little bit of
colonial history.

In the 1930's prior to the War, and the subsequent post war moves by the
Oil Majors to price coal and other fuels out of the market by selling
petroleum as zero price energy, virtually for what it cost to process it, it
was pumped out of the ground for nothing, things were very very different
to today.

In Australia, Malaya, New Zealand, and all the African States, Every
outback Gold mine, Sawmill, Tin mine, Coal mine was either run by Steam, or
Producer gas.

A typical Gas setup would be a giant Crossley single cylinder Gas engine
with a piston two feet in diameter and running at about 300rpm.and 200
horsepower. The clearance on the piston would be measured in sixteenths of
an inch, to allow for the build up of tars, which virtually doubled up as
the lubricating oil. (once it got hot that is.) Each engine would be fed
by a battery of five or six down draft gasifiers. The gasifiers were made
of fire bricks with a fuel hopper five or six feet in diameter and ten to
twelve feet deep and a throat at the bottom of around ten inches. These
units, usually 4 or 5 were in operation at any one time, were fired with
logs each as heavy as one man could carry. In the case of Australian
hardwood that would be a log six to eight feet long and eight to ten
inches in diameter. The logs would be seasoned for a month or so, as they
were transported into the mine, but were still green with lots of sap.
Each man staggered up the cat walk with his log and slid it from his
shoulder aiming it down into where ever he saw a hot spot in one of the
fires, to plug the hole. Gas cleanup was abysmal. A water spray gas
cooler/cleaner, and a tar beater. The beater was a straight radial bladed
centrifugal fan, which assisted the suction on the gasifiers, and slung the
water/tar droplets out to impact on and drip down the outer casing. As
one can imagine, the pollution level was horrendous, but they worked and
they worked surprising well for the time, A bit like wooden ships and
iron men, those were the Days!!!

Ken Calvert. Renertech@ xtra.co.nz

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Sat Mar 20 11:28:04 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:43 2004
Subject: Gasifier Engine Specifications
Message-ID: <SAT.20.MAR.2004.122804.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Peter

You bring up a very good point about what constitutes an "excellent engine
for wood gas."

I would like to pursue this a bit further with a view to determining what
constitutes a "good" and a "bad" engine for operating on wood gas.

Some of the parameters of importance would include:

1: Ignition System:
1:1 Duel fuel versus spark ignition? Are there fundamental merits and
disadvantages?
1:2 If dual fuel, what would be a typical pilot fuel requirement, and how
can it be minimized?
1:3 If Spark ignition, is conventional "automotive intensity" adequate, or
is a more intense ignition system advantageous? If so, what voltage, spark
energy, and spark plug configurations would work best?

2: Valving: What are the optimal valving requirements, in terms of size,
configuration, and timing in relation to standard engine valving practise?

3: Compression ratio: What is the optimal compression ratio, and how would
it be expected to vary with changes in CO/H2 ratio and total energy content?

4: Pistons: Optimal bore/stroke ratio. Optimum mean piston speed

5: Piston rings: number and design, to minimize sealing and wear problems.

6: Lubrication: Best kind of lubricant for the anticipated contamination.

7: Crank: Best bearing material.

Other relevant specifications??

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm@BTL.NET>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Heat and CO2 enrichement for Greenhouses

> At 07:21 AM 3/20/2004 -0600, a31ford wrote:
> >Peter and all,
> >
> >Lister, in my eyes is "king" for the reasons you say, (piston size, etc.)
> >But the cost factor is a big one for me.
> >
> >However, for those that can't afford Lister, Wisconsin would be one
> >alternative. Wiscon total power is the new company, they only sell 4cyl.
V
> >models, but there are many dealers that rebuild the older smaller twins
and
> >singles.
> >
> >Greg
> >
>
> Greg and all;
>
> "Heavy-Metal" engines have historically worked well on producer gas --
even
> gas not cleaned -- loaded with tars -- etc.
>
> What got me looking for heavy metal engines still being produced -- and
> acquiring some of the same -- was a result of discussions on this very
same
> list. At the beginning of 2001 -- Ken Calvert (Renertech@ xtra.co.nz)
> posted a message to this list that summed up "why" one should have
interest
> in this direction.
>
> I note that the Gas List archives are no longer out there -- or I have not
> been able to find them??
>
> But I still have Ken's posting on record. See below.
>
> But high-lighting:
>
> "A typical Gas setup would be a giant Crossley single cylinder Gas engine
> with a piston two feet in diameter and running at about 300rpm and 200
> horsepower."
>
> Now -- doesn't this give one something to consider??
>
>
> Peter / Belize
>
>
> ********************
> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 22:26:11 -0800
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: Log gasifiers -- and cutting wood sawdustly.
>
> Dear Gas-L'ers
> > > On the 12-2- someone wrote,
>
> > > The logs were approximately 10 to 15 cm (4" to 6") in diameter
and
> from 1 metre to 1 metre 80 (3' to 6') long. The gasifiers were very tall,
> making possible insertion of long logs, and usually mounted just behind
the
> cab.
> > >
> > > About those long "log" gasifiers -- you mean they worked with full
> length wood??
>
>
> Gentlemen!
>
> I think we could restore some perspective by re-iterating a little bit of
> colonial history.
>
> In the 1930's prior to the War, and the subsequent post war moves by the
> Oil Majors to price coal and other fuels out of the market by selling
> petroleum as zero price energy, virtually for what it cost to process it,
it
> was pumped out of the ground for nothing, things were very very different
> to today.
>
> In Australia, Malaya, New Zealand, and all the African States, Every
> outback Gold mine, Sawmill, Tin mine, Coal mine was either run by Steam,
or
> Producer gas.
>
> A typical Gas setup would be a giant Crossley single cylinder Gas
engine
> with a piston two feet in diameter and running at about 300rpm.and 200
> horsepower. The clearance on the piston would be measured in sixteenths
of
> an inch, to allow for the build up of tars, which virtually doubled up as
> the lubricating oil. (once it got hot that is.) Each engine would be fed
> by a battery of five or six down draft gasifiers. The gasifiers were
made
> of fire bricks with a fuel hopper five or six feet in diameter and ten
to
> twelve feet deep and a throat at the bottom of around ten inches.
These
> units, usually 4 or 5 were in operation at any one time, were fired with
> logs each as heavy as one man could carry. In the case of Australian
> hardwood that would be a log six to eight feet long and eight to ten
> inches in diameter. The logs would be seasoned for a month or so, as they
> were transported into the mine, but were still green with lots of sap.
> Each man staggered up the cat walk with his log and slid it from his
> shoulder aiming it down into where ever he saw a hot spot in one of the
> fires, to plug the hole. Gas cleanup was abysmal. A water spray gas
> cooler/cleaner, and a tar beater. The beater was a straight radial
bladed
> centrifugal fan, which assisted the suction on the gasifiers, and slung
the
> water/tar droplets out to impact on and drip down the outer casing. As
> one can imagine, the pollution level was horrendous, but they worked and
> they worked surprising well for the time, A bit like wooden ships and
> iron men, those were the Days!!!
>
> Ken Calvert. Renertech@ xtra.co.nz

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Sat Mar 20 12:23:31 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:43 2004
Subject: Octane and Compression ratio relationship..
In-Reply-To: <20040320105649.MWH3651.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@coppermine>
Message-ID: <SAT.20.MAR.2004.112331.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

4"? That's a 230c.i. engine, isn't it? I'd think you'd need a 10" at least
for that size.

On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 11:56:56PM +1300, Ken Calvert wrote:
> No we did not increase the compression, yes we carefully optimized the
> ignition advance. In fact we also ran it with a super ignition kit. And the
> gasifier ran a 4" throat in a 20" diameter carbo chamber. Plenty big
> enough. The major difference in the performance came after we increased the
> hydrogen content of the gas. With extra hydrogen we had all the power and
> rpm we wanted. Ken C.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Gasification Discussion List [mailto:] On Behalf Of Harmon Seaver
> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 11:53 AM
> To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: Re: [GASL] Octane and Compression ratio relationship..
>
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 11:20:03AM +1300, Ken Calvert wrote:
> > Dear Greg, Tom, and all,
> > Its all very well to discuss
> > octane ratings and preignition, but in my experience the major factor
> > is the very low flame speed of carbon monoxide. I was interested to read
> of Janze
> > running a 6 cylinder chev motor to generate CHP, or was it just P. What
> I
> > would be interested to know is what speed did he run his engine at? Our
> > personal experience and I say our, because there were three of us in
> > the team and I was only number 2, but we ran a Toyota land cruiser
> > engine on wood gas, and we had a serious drop off in power at
> > anything much over 2,000rpm. and at just over 3000, it just ran out of
> revs and would not go
> > any faster until we got the gasifier running hot enough to crack a bit
> > more steam and up the hydrogen content. Our very much empirical
> > conclusion, aided by the SERI translation of the Swedish Gasifier
> > book, was that the very high flame speed of the hydrogen was assisting
> the combustion of the
> > CO. We had magnificent low speed torque but ran out of puff at speed???
> > Theories and answers please?
> > Ken C. <mailto:renertech@xtra.co.nz> renertech@xtra.co.nz
> > <http://www.coffee.20m.com/>
>
> My first question would be whether this was an unmodified engine, i.e.,
> compression *not* increased, and (2) did you advance the spark a good bit as
> you should have, and (3) was the gasifier sized large enough for the engine?
>
>
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com

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

From snkm at BTL.NET Sat Mar 20 12:40:28 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:43 2004
Subject: Gasifier Engine Specifications
Message-ID: <SAT.20.MAR.2004.114028.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 12:28 PM 3/20/2004 -0400, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>Dear Peter

>1:1 Duel fuel versus spark ignition? Are there fundamental merits and
>disadvantages?

In dual fuel you have to consider the type of diesel engine -- direct
injection or indirect injection into a compact -- globe shaped chamber.

One might believe that ignition/fame speed propagation is much faster in
the smaller area -- and instead of aided by extra H2 for flame speed -- the
fine mist of diesel fuel probably does the same -- if not better.

But know of no studies on this matter -- though there should be some done!

>1:2 If dual fuel, what would be a typical pilot fuel requirement, and how
>can it be minimized?

Governor set at "idle" -- pilot fuel can be anything that runs in a diesel
engine --again -- the IDI is known for using a broader range of fuels well.

Another point about the IDI -- it is lower compression -- can't be as high
as DI. This is a disadvantage to engine efficiencies for modern diesel
engine use -- but of advantage to conversion to dual fuel using producer
gas (or alcohol)

With a dual fuel setup running a power plant operation there is no problem
with sudden additions of extra loading as the diesel governor will
immediatly inject greater amounts of fuel to over come the lack of producer
gas that might occur.

It has been stated that to operate in dual fuel mode at continuous RPM and
continuous load -- never changing -- as little as five percent of the power
comes from the injection of fuel.

In reality -- it is more like 35%/65% -- 35% diesel -- 65% producer gas.

Also -- in effect -- there is little or no derating of maximum engine power
-- though you pay for that in greater diesel fuel costs.

The best would be to run diesel loading at 50% rated maximum power if one
was to economize.

The people in India have accumulated huge amounts of hands on running
experience in this domain -- hope some are still out there on this list??
Certainly they can answer better with more.

Bottom line goes probably something like this.

An engine running on just producer gas will definitely be much more
economical.

An engine running dual fuel mode will definitely be more convenient to
operate. And one will never lack for rated power output.

Peter / Belize

From LINVENT at AOL.COM Sat Mar 20 17:00:46 2004
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:43 2004
Subject: Gasifier Engine Specifications
Message-ID: <SAT.20.MAR.2004.170046.EST.>

In a message dated 3/20/04 10:41:35 AM, snkm@BTL.NET writes:

<< At 12:28 PM 3/20/2004 -0400, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>Dear Peter

>1:1 Duel fuel versus spark ignition? Are there fundamental merits and
>disadvantages?

In dual fuel you have to consider the type of diesel engine -- direct
injection or indirect injection into a compact -- globe shaped chamber.

One might believe that ignition/fame speed propagation is much faster in
the smaller area -- and instead of aided by extra H2 for flame speed -- the
fine mist of diesel fuel probably does the same -- if not better.

But know of no studies on this matter -- though there should be some done!

>1:2 If dual fuel, what would be a typical pilot fuel requirement, and how
>can it be minimized?

Governor set at "idle" -- pilot fuel can be anything that runs in a diesel
engine --again -- the IDI is known for using a broader range of fuels well.

Another point about the IDI -- it is lower compression -- can't be as high
as DI. This is a disadvantage to engine efficiencies for modern diesel
engine use -- but of advantage to conversion to dual fuel using producer
gas (or alcohol)

With a dual fuel setup running a power plant operation there is no problem
with sudden additions of extra loading as the diesel governor will
immediatly inject greater amounts of fuel to over come the lack of producer
gas that might occur.

It has been stated that to operate in dual fuel mode at continuous RPM and
continuous load -- never changing -- as little as five percent of the power
comes from the injection of fuel.

In reality -- it is more like 35%/65% -- 35% diesel -- 65% producer gas. How
do you arrive at this amount? Running an injection pump could not possibly
take this much power. Producer gas is sucked into the engine which likewise
cannot take much power.

Also -- in effect -- there is little or no derating of maximum engine power
-- though you pay for that in greater diesel fuel costs.I have run a diesel 2
cycle Detroit Diesel engine on producer gas with more output than just
diesel, it quickly overheated.

The best would be to run diesel loading at 50% rated maximum power if one
was to economize.

The people in India have accumulated huge amounts of hands on running
experience in this domain -- hope some are still out there on this list??
Certainly they can answer better with more.

Bottom line goes probably something like this.

An engine running on just producer gas will definitely be much more
economical.

An engine running dual fuel mode will definitely be more convenient to
operate. And one will never lack for rated power output.It is also a cheaper
capital investment.

Peter / Belize >>

 

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

From snkm at BTL.NET Sat Mar 20 20:14:48 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:43 2004
Subject: Gasifier Engine Specifications
Message-ID: <SAT.20.MAR.2004.191448.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 05:00 PM 3/20/2004 EST, LINVENT@aol.com wrote:
>
>>In a message dated 3/20/04 10:41:35 AM, snkm@BTL.NET writes:
>
><< At 12:28 PM 3/20/2004 -0400, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>>Dear Peter

>In reality -- it is more like 35%/65% -- 35% diesel -- 65% producer gas.

>>How
>>do you arrive at this amount?

That is what the guys in India averaged -- in real applications.

>Running an injection pump could not possibly
>take this much power. Producer gas is sucked into the engine which likewise
>cannot take much power.

I believe the problem was sudden loading overwhelming the gasifier's
ability to supply the extra producer gas -- so the diesel fuel comes on
line "automatically" as the governor ranges out for more power.

>
>Also -- in effect -- there is little or no derating of maximum engine power
>-- though you pay for that in greater diesel fuel costs.

>>I have run a diesel 2
>>cycle Detroit Diesel engine on producer gas with more output than just
>>diesel, it quickly overheated.

Wow -- but Tom -- you have exceptional gasifiers!! Maybe less N2 and other
inert gasses??

>
>An engine running dual fuel mode will definitely be more convenient to
>operate. And one will never lack for rated power output.

>>It is also a cheaper
>>capital investment.

Yes -- simpler -- easier to implement -- ergo -- less expensive.

In the above -- I should have stated "designed-power" rather than rated
power -- which insinuates the diesel fuel only rating.

True gas engines that are designed for maximum efficiency running gas are
expensive!

But they also last much longer than a converted gasoline engine.

The diesel is already beefed up -- and truck diesels are a dime a dozen at
scrap yards everywhere!

Even here in Belize!!

They come in large sizes -- so can be run highly derated and still give all
the power required. So your 350 HP cummins can happily run producing a
maximum load of -- say -- 50 kw electric.

Large pistons -- low RPM -- what more --

Gas designed engines are also large pistons -- low RPM -- but custom built
-- hard to find used -- and expensive new.

Oh -- the 5% injector figure comes from an old engineering hand book
showing dual fuel power plants operating on natural gas. Book published
1954. Using squish head (IDI) system.

So there is a long history of such application.

Peter

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

From MMBTUPR at AOL.COM Sat Mar 20 21:48:32 2004
From: MMBTUPR at AOL.COM (Lewis L. Smith)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:43 2004
Subject: Promotion of gasification technologies
Message-ID: <SAT.20.MAR.2004.214832.EST.>

to? Gasifiers???? ???? from? Lewis L. Smith

As Tom Miles and some others have noted, the technical, the economic and the
political are ? in the final analysis ? inextricably entwined. And let me
add. So are marketing and environmental considerations.

For example, if we want to get our favorite gasification process into in the
market place, we have to recognize that we do not merely face obstacles of a
marketing and technical nature. The plain truth of the matter is that our
principal competition is oil and that oil has unfair advantages, is deeply
entrenched, has enormous wealth and freely uses that wealth to stubbornly defend its
position, including its privileges and its share of the energy market,
especially through campaign contributions and lobbying. At the margin, natural gas and
liquefied natural gas are following close behind oil in all respects.

For example, many Republican and some Democratic committee chairpersons in
the US Congress have no compunctions about inviting industry lobbyists into the
committee chambers to help write legislation. Moreover [and to a degree which
varies from time to time and bill to bill] this practice has? been tolerated
throughout all of American history.? In brief, in every session of the US
Congress, at least some parts of some legislation are FOR SALE, and it is seldom
the advocates of renewable energy who benefit from this situation. In recent
years, the most notable exception has been processes for deriving ethanol as a
byproduct of corn milling, and this is only because of a ?strange-bedfellows?
alliance of big corn farmers, big milling corporations and some
environmentalists.

Having been involved with the promotion of renewable energy off and on since
1979 and having participated [honorably] in both hearings and lobbying, in
both the Congress and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico?s Legislative Assembly, I
speak from some experience.

So at some point, the following questions may become relevant to our
Discussion Group : What are these advantages ?? How do we measure them ?? What
measures should we propose to ?level the playing field?. What are the most ?
politically sexy? forms of renewable energy and why ? How do we ?package? our
position for public-sector executives, for legislatures, for the media, for the
general public ?? In particular, what are the current legislative needs of
gasification community, and how do we fit those into ?the package?.

It is within this framework, that I have read recent postings to this
Discussion Group ?on political matters? and? the two papers recommended by Harmon
Seaver, Robert Freeman?s ?Will the end of oil mean the end of America ?? and
the ICTA?a ?The real price of gas?. While I was both amused an impressed by
Freeman?s metaphor of the monkey trap, I feel that none of the approaches
suggested to date will ?cut the mustard?. My reasons are as follows :

First of all, there is an unvoiced but widespread belief among the American
people that the right to cheap gasoline is one of those rights in the
Constitution [like the right to privacy] which are reserved to the States and the
people, without being spelled out. Possibly this conviction is an offshoot of the
freedom of movement implied by the interstate-commerce clause. Whatever its
origin, the belief is dearly held, and woe to the legislator who forgets it.

Needless to say, this puts a big crimp on efforts to use fiscal policy to
redress some of the disadvantages from which renewable energy suffers. For
example, at my behest, an organization with some clout in the Congress once proposed
a modest carbon tax to finance renewable-energy R&D. The idea was passed on
in writing to 100 carefully selected members of the House. Not one of them was
so bold as to take it up !? And it is even rarer to find someone to propose a
tax high enough to discourage the use of gas guzzling cars. In fact, anything
that directly increases the price of gasoline, except a tax to build more
roads in a period of declining gas prices, may seriously endanger the political
future of the legislator who advocates it. The American people may be ?blind?
in this regard, but they are stubborn in their ?blindness?. [Because its
impact is on the price of the more expensive cars, increasing gasoline-milage
requirements has much more support.]

Secondly proposals which take away existing benefits from one? group in order
to finance new benefits for another group usually arouse more ire among the
first than they generate support among the second, especially when the second
is a small group of pioneers trying out a new technology. This implies that new
benefits to new groups and new technologies should be paid for out of the
growth of Federal revenues and that tax cuts are [potentially at least] an
indirect enemy of renewable energy !

Thirdly, in our arguments for ?leveling the playing field?, we should
distinguish between reasons for reducing US consumption and imports of petroleum and
the means by which we propose to accomplish this purpose. If we are not
careful in this regard, opposition to specific means will spill over into
opposition to our basic objective. As a corollary, we must be more flexible with regard
to means than to ends and ? at times ? even be opportunistic with regard to
the former, while stubbornly insisting on the latter.

Finally we should avoid like a plague the uncertainty which surrounds the
quantification of so many environmental and energy issues. It is this uncertainty
which sinks so many environmentalists and supporters of renewables when, for
example, they attempt to defend a highly uncertain best estimate, or at the
other? extreme give a very broad range of estimates. Most political leaders,
when they see that ?the waters are muddy?, either bring in their own ?expert?
with another [very different] ?best estimate?, mumble about ?junk science? or
throw up their hands in mock despair. The issue of global warming is a good
example.

In particular, we should avoid arguments to the effect that oil is going to
run out and when, about other peoples motives or about the cost of some arcane
externality. As far as motive go, we all have ?an ax to grind?, even though ?
our ax? is by far the better one and our motives are pure as the driven snow
!? Instead we should concentrate on things which our opponents cannot deny and
on things which the undecided can verify for themselves.

If these principles are acceptable to most the group, I will proceed to make
some suggestions in subsequent postings, including some with specific
reference to gasification.

Cordially.

End.

 

 

From renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ Sun Mar 21 05:12:03 2004
From: renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ (Ken Calvert)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:43 2004
Subject: Promotion of gasification technologies
In-Reply-To: <112.301c60c3.2d8e5c80@aol.com>
Message-ID: <SUN.21.MAR.2004.221203.1200.RENERTECH@XTRA.CO.NZ>

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG] On Behalf Of Lewis L. Smith
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 2:49 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [GASL] Promotion of gasification technologies

>to Gasifiers from Lewis L. Smith

>As Tom Miles and some others have noted, the technical, the economic and
the political >>are ? in the final analysis ? inextricably entwined. And let
me add. So are marketing >and environmental considerations.

Dear Lewis and all,
You can rail on about Big Oil, but your shot came on my
screen right after Peter Singfield made my day by reminding me of those
Crossley Tar Monsters, and that has stimulated me to shoot my mouth again!
The stories about loading up a line of Gasifiers with logs as heavy as a man
could carry
was told to me by a couple of old timers, one from a goldmine in outback Oz
and the other from a Malayan tin mine. However, what I am going to say now
I can personally vouch for, because it happened to me! In 1981, when OPEC 1
was in full swing, I was the National Energy Planner for a small Pacific
Island State. We were in seventh heaven, because Big Oil, and their
Multilateral Aid cohorts, had decided that the first place in the World
where new energy technology would be viable would be in the remote Pacific
Islands where everything ran out of diesel in 44 gallon drums. We were
flooded with all sorts of schemes, good and bad. and lots of financial
inducements to try them out. Because we already had a bit of experience with
wood gas, that was the Toyota land cruiser engine and a few more Listers,
Petters and other heavy iron, as Peter so nicely called them, we were
approached by a small European Company, funded by the E.U., with a beautiful
50kva gasifier plant, complete with a German hi-stride 4WD UniMog truck,
just to help us to carry the wood around with. My mate Rod Newell and
his cohorts kept that plant running for over 15 years to 1996, and clocked
up more hours than any gasifier built after the 1930s Crossley era. We all,
including Big Oil, learned a lot!

We knew exactly who was interested in us when the Shell Pacific Rep for,
'Unconventional Energy Sources', I have his card still, called on several
occasions to see how we were doing? He was quite open, about not just their
plans, but Big Oil's plans to get familiar with every alternative energy
technology. Well that all fell flat in July 1982, when Sheik Yamani got his
come-uppance! However, since then I have noted how there has been very
little overlap between the Biggies in regard to who supports wind energy,
who is into biodiesel technology and who has PhotoVoltaics all sewn up??

The interesting part of the story however begins 18 months ago, when Rod
got presented with a ticket to fly over to BTG in Europe to get debriefed
and rebriefed on the 'New Gasifier' situation! In brief, this time round,
even the Oil companies know that petroleum sources really are going to dry
up. They reckon that prices will really start to hurt by 2015, and they
aimed to be in control of all the leading edge technology
And major alternative energy sources by 2010! So, my mate Rod came home
with a contract to do a Phoenix job on the old gasifier to a new improved
set of plans and with lots of lovely goodies shipped out to him, and start
clocking up the thousands of hours once again.

So, Lewis and all you fellers out there! If you can develop something that
comes into the category of a better mouse trap, then don't start looking,
they will find you, but just make sure you get a good patent ASAP. If it
isn't ground breaking, then don't bother trying to talk any body connected
with 'Energy' to listen to you! They know it already!!
If you have a small but viable source of energy in your neck of the woods,
then don't be tempted to part with it until at least 2012, and you will be
in the money! And in the meantime, just keep learning and doing your thing,
because you never know what you might come up with! If you do want to try it
on with Gasifier Technology, don't bother Mobil, Atlantic B.P or whoever
else. Head for your nearest Shell Office!
However, be assured that, in a lot of very remote places in the World,
where those workshops and working plants are a long way away from industrial
spies and where editors of Renewable Home Power Magazines do not go, that a
lot of leading edge technology is getting well work tested and waiting for
the big day. And, all of us on this discussion Group, are as far as they
are concerned, very small beer!
Sincerely,
Ken Calvert.
Renertech Renewable Energy Services.
159 St Andrew St.
Invercargill
New Zealand 9501.
Ph. +64 3217 7015
Fax +64 3217 7032
Email renertech@xtra.co.nz
Web. www.coffee.20m.com

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Sun Mar 21 08:55:52 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:44 2004
Subject: Promotion of gasification technologies
Message-ID: <SUN.21.MAR.2004.065552.0700.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Lewis and All:

Having been fighting for renewable energy since 1974 (see "Methanol: A
Versatile Fuel for Immediate Use", T. Reed and R. Lerner, Science, 28 Dec.,
1973, pp 1299-1304) I appreciate all of LL Smith's points in the battle
between the here and now and those worried about what next. We may not like
his facts of life, but we will probably have to live with them. (One of my
ultimate aims is that civilization will survive the end of fossil fuels and
so will my children and grandchildren and so will yours.)

So the best you can hope for is that some of the oil companies will resist
the temptation to chase the political here and now (the wonders of hydrogen)
and look at the practical subsitutes for petroleum (wood-gas which fueled >
1 million cars during WWII) before it is too late. We can run
demonstrations in our favorite areas and someday attract the attention
needed.

Time is running out...

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lewis L. Smith" <MMBTUPR@AOL.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 7:48 PM
Subject: [GASL] Promotion of gasification technologies

> to Gasifiers from Lewis L. Smith
>
>
> As Tom Miles and some others have noted, the technical, the economic and
the
> political are ? in the final analysis ? inextricably entwined. And let me
> add. So are marketing and environmental considerations.
>
> For example, if we want to get our favorite gasification process into in
the
> market place, we have to recognize that we do not merely face obstacles of
a
> marketing and technical nature. The plain truth of the matter is that our
> principal competition is oil and that oil has unfair advantages, is deeply
> entrenched, has enormous wealth and freely uses that wealth to stubbornly
defend its
> position, including its privileges and its share of the energy market,
> especially through campaign contributions and lobbying. At the margin,
natural gas and
> liquefied natural gas are following close behind oil in all respects.
>
> For example, many Republican and some Democratic committee chairpersons in
> the US Congress have no compunctions about inviting industry lobbyists
into the
> committee chambers to help write legislation. Moreover [and to a degree
which
> varies from time to time and bill to bill] this practice has been
tolerated
> throughout all of American history. In brief, in every session of the US
> Congress, at least some parts of some legislation are FOR SALE, and it is
seldom
> the advocates of renewable energy who benefit from this situation. In
recent
> years, the most notable exception has been processes for deriving ethanol
as a
> byproduct of corn milling, and this is only because of a
?strange-bedfellows?
> alliance of big corn farmers, big milling corporations and some
> environmentalists.
>
> Having been involved with the promotion of renewable energy off and on
since
> 1979 and having participated [honorably] in both hearings and lobbying, in
> both the Congress and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico?s Legislative
Assembly, I
> speak from some experience.
>
> So at some point, the following questions may become relevant to our
> Discussion Group : What are these advantages ? How do we measure them ?
What
> measures should we propose to ?level the playing field?. What are the most
?
> politically sexy? forms of renewable energy and why ? How do we ?package?
our
> position for public-sector executives, for legislatures, for the media,
for the
> general public ? In particular, what are the current legislative needs of
> gasification community, and how do we fit those into ?the package?.
>
> It is within this framework, that I have read recent postings to this
> Discussion Group ?on political matters? and the two papers recommended by
Harmon
> Seaver, Robert Freeman?s ?Will the end of oil mean the end of America ??
and
> the ICTA?a ?The real price of gas?. While I was both amused an impressed
by
> Freeman?s metaphor of the monkey trap, I feel that none of the approaches
> suggested to date will ?cut the mustard?. My reasons are as follows :
>
> First of all, there is an unvoiced but widespread belief among the
American
> people that the right to cheap gasoline is one of those rights in the
> Constitution [like the right to privacy] which are reserved to the States
and the
> people, without being spelled out. Possibly this conviction is an offshoot
of the
> freedom of movement implied by the interstate-commerce clause. Whatever
its
> origin, the belief is dearly held, and woe to the legislator who forgets
it.
>
> Needless to say, this puts a big crimp on efforts to use fiscal policy to
> redress some of the disadvantages from which renewable energy suffers. For
> example, at my behest, an organization with some clout in the Congress
once proposed
> a modest carbon tax to finance renewable-energy R&D. The idea was passed
on
> in writing to 100 carefully selected members of the House. Not one of them
was
> so bold as to take it up ! And it is even rarer to find someone to propose
a
> tax high enough to discourage the use of gas guzzling cars. In fact,
anything
> that directly increases the price of gasoline, except a tax to build more
> roads in a period of declining gas prices, may seriously endanger the
political
> future of the legislator who advocates it. The American people may be
?blind?
> in this regard, but they are stubborn in their ?blindness?. [Because its
> impact is on the price of the more expensive cars, increasing
gasoline-milage
> requirements has much more support.]
>
> Secondly proposals which take away existing benefits from one group in
order
> to finance new benefits for another group usually arouse more ire among
the
> first than they generate support among the second, especially when the
second
> is a small group of pioneers trying out a new technology. This implies
that new
> benefits to new groups and new technologies should be paid for out of the
> growth of Federal revenues and that tax cuts are [potentially at least] an
> indirect enemy of renewable energy !
>
> Thirdly, in our arguments for ?leveling the playing field?, we should
> distinguish between reasons for reducing US consumption and imports of
petroleum and
> the means by which we propose to accomplish this purpose. If we are not
> careful in this regard, opposition to specific means will spill over into
> opposition to our basic objective. As a corollary, we must be more
flexible with regard
> to means than to ends and ? at times ? even be opportunistic with regard
to
> the former, while stubbornly insisting on the latter.
>
> Finally we should avoid like a plague the uncertainty which surrounds the
> quantification of so many environmental and energy issues. It is this
uncertainty
> which sinks so many environmentalists and supporters of renewables when,
for
> example, they attempt to defend a highly uncertain best estimate, or at
the
> other extreme give a very broad range of estimates. Most political
leaders,
> when they see that ?the waters are muddy?, either bring in their own
?expert?
> with another [very different] ?best estimate?, mumble about ?junk science?
or
> throw up their hands in mock despair. The issue of global warming is a
good
> example.
>
> In particular, we should avoid arguments to the effect that oil is going
to
> run out and when, about other peoples motives or about the cost of some
arcane
> externality. As far as motive go, we all have ?an ax to grind?, even
though ?
> our ax? is by far the better one and our motives are pure as the driven
snow
> ! Instead we should concentrate on things which our opponents cannot deny
and
> on things which the undecided can verify for themselves.
>
> If these principles are acceptable to most the group, I will proceed to
make
> some suggestions in subsequent postings, including some with specific
> reference to gasification.
>
> Cordially.
>
> End.
>
>
>
>
>
>

From Ascinc6 at CS.COM Sun Mar 21 09:48:03 2004
From: Ascinc6 at CS.COM (Ascinc6@CS.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:44 2004
Subject: US Energy, Economic Policy
Message-ID: <SUN.21.MAR.2004.094803.EST.>

The "Precautionary Principle" shall expedite technological solutions as the
burden of proof makes the government and industry accountable before harm is
done. San
Fransisco passed it last year. Research this approach so that others may be
come
aware to empower this ordinance within their community.

Thanks,

Penelope deSimone
Worldwide Eco Technology
Ascinc6@cs.com

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Sun Mar 21 18:56:28 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:44 2004
Subject: Gasifier Engine Specifications
Message-ID: <SUN.21.MAR.2004.165628.0700.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Peter and All:

Prof. Mike Graboski ran a 350 kW (Waukeshaw?) diesel here in Denver on
producer gas from a 25 t/d gasifier for several years in the period 1987-89.

Among other things he found that he could run on as little as 5% injection
fuel - provided he changed the injectors. The problem (according to
Waukeshaw) is that at full power with only 20% liquid fuel injection, the
mist and spray aren't well developed. With smaller injectors you can get a
good spray (but can't go to full diesel power).

With current diesel prices and gasifiers, we probably don't need to minimize
diesel consumption, but as time goes by and diesel becomes more expensive
relative to producer gas there will be efforts to minimize - or eliminate -
the liquid ignition portion. Of course the simplest method of elimination
is to convert to spark ignition, easily accomplished with a distributor on
the end of the injector shaft.

Onward... TOM REED BEF

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm@BTL.NET>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Gasifier Engine Specifications

> At 12:28 PM 3/20/2004 -0400, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
> >Dear Peter
>
> >1:1 Duel fuel versus spark ignition? Are there fundamental merits and
> >disadvantages?
>
> In dual fuel you have to consider the type of diesel engine -- direct
> injection or indirect injection into a compact -- globe shaped chamber.
>
> One might believe that ignition/fame speed propagation is much faster in
> the smaller area -- and instead of aided by extra H2 for flame speed --
the
> fine mist of diesel fuel probably does the same -- if not better.
>
> But know of no studies on this matter -- though there should be some done!
>
> >1:2 If dual fuel, what would be a typical pilot fuel requirement, and how
> >can it be minimized?
>
> Governor set at "idle" -- pilot fuel can be anything that runs in a diesel
> engine --again -- the IDI is known for using a broader range of fuels
well.
>
> Another point about the IDI -- it is lower compression -- can't be as high
> as DI. This is a disadvantage to engine efficiencies for modern diesel
> engine use -- but of advantage to conversion to dual fuel using producer
> gas (or alcohol)
>
> With a dual fuel setup running a power plant operation there is no problem
> with sudden additions of extra loading as the diesel governor will
> immediatly inject greater amounts of fuel to over come the lack of
producer
> gas that might occur.
>
> It has been stated that to operate in dual fuel mode at continuous RPM and
> continuous load -- never changing -- as little as five percent of the
power
> comes from the injection of fuel.
>
> In reality -- it is more like 35%/65% -- 35% diesel -- 65% producer gas.
>
> Also -- in effect -- there is little or no derating of maximum engine
power
> -- though you pay for that in greater diesel fuel costs.
>
> The best would be to run diesel loading at 50% rated maximum power if one
> was to economize.
>
> The people in India have accumulated huge amounts of hands on running
> experience in this domain -- hope some are still out there on this list??
> Certainly they can answer better with more.
>
> Bottom line goes probably something like this.
>
> An engine running on just producer gas will definitely be much more
> economical.
>
> An engine running dual fuel mode will definitely be more convenient to
> operate. And one will never lack for rated power output.
>
> Peter / Belize

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Sun Mar 21 19:18:23 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:44 2004
Subject: Straw gasification
Message-ID: <SUN.21.MAR.2004.171823.0700.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Larry:

I understand that you will be operating a gasifier to power a diesel engine. Also that you will be generating a liquid fuel. I would like more details if they are available.

Do you know about the GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG network? THere are about 300 of us that discuss all the technical details of gasification. If interested in joining go to LISTSERV.REPP.ORG.

YOurs truly, TOM REED LIST MODERATOR

From snkm at BTL.NET Sun Mar 21 20:10:55 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:44 2004
Subject: Gasifier Engine Specifications
Message-ID: <SUN.21.MAR.2004.191055.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Tom and all;

At 04:56 PM 3/21/2004 -0700, TBReed wrote:
>Peter and All:
>
>Prof. Mike Graboski ran a 350 kW (Waukeshaw?) diesel here in Denver on
>producer gas from a 25 t/d gasifier for several years in the period 1987-89.
>
>Among other things he found that he could run on as little as 5% injection
>fuel - provided he changed the injectors. The problem (according to
>Waukeshaw) is that at full power with only 20% liquid fuel injection, the
>mist and spray aren't well developed. With smaller injectors you can get a
>good spray (but can't go to full diesel power).

Well -- that makes a lot of sense! And a clue well worth remembering! Of
course a diesel injector is optimized for maximum rated performance and as
such will give pour service at minimum power levels.

And

>>run on as little as 5% injection

Hey -- good to know the old handbook is accurate -- and also -- history
does indeed repeat! Those old gas power plants were specifically for dual
fuel use only -- probably had the proper sized injection system.

>
>With current diesel prices and gasifiers, we probably don't need to minimize
>diesel consumption, but as time goes by and diesel becomes more expensive
>relative to producer gas there will be efforts to minimize - or eliminate -
>the liquid ignition portion.

Not so fast now!! We have a plethora of plant oils that can replace diesel
for this and keep ignition going!

>Of course the simplest method of elimination
>is to convert to spark ignition, easily accomplished with a distributor on
>the end of the injector shaft.

OK -- on to the next subject -- in real terms -- the difficulty of spark
ignition of a producer gas charge in a cylinder.

I lost that old hand book years back -- but it seems to me for spark
ignition -- and mind you -- huge pistons -- low rpm -- they actually had a
small combustion chamber -- such as the diesel squish head design -- to
spark ignite the "slow" producer gas thus shooting a flame into the actual
combustion chamber.

Well -- one could always rig up something the same for the old Chevy engine
-- just by adding an extension between spark plug and combustion chamber.

That might of helped the situation

"but we ran a Toyota land cruiser engine on
wood gas, and we had a serious drop off in
"power at anything much over 2,000rpm. and
"at just over 3000, it just ran out of revs
"and would not go any faster

Ken was discussing in regards to real terms.

Onward -- and preferably -- upwards.

Peter in Belize

>
>Onward... TOM REED BEF
>
>

From bpjackso at YAHOO.COM Sun Mar 21 20:24:14 2004
From: bpjackso at YAHOO.COM (Bruce Jackson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:44 2004
Subject: Is anyone doing anything practical on this list?
Message-ID: <SUN.21.MAR.2004.172414.0800.BPJACKSO@YAHOO.COM>

Hi,
I just waded through 125 messages from this list.
Remarkably, the only thing of practical value was the
trials of the engineer from Pennsylvania who is
setting up a WVO powered induction generator. Hardly
involves gasification.
The two Canadians seem to be doing the most
interesting things. I certainly am not up to the scale
of Mr. Manning. Peter in Belize is very entertaining
and probably doing the things that I am most
interested in.
I can imagine this won't rub anyone the right way but
at this point I need to fire some of you up who are
actually doing something. I need some practical
commentary and I don't know any of the buzz words.

First, Who has the smallest practical gasifier? What
is it using for fuel? What type?

Second, is anyone using a suction gasifier with
vaporizer?

Third, Who is powering a vehicle with a gasifier?
Hopefully someone has some sort of off road
application.

Pictures, pictures, pictures, can we post pictures
with our replys?

It would help me a lot if I could post a picture of
what I have done so far. I would probably be spared a
lot of extra work if someone spotted a mistake I made
ahead of me.

How would a Dodge 230cid six or a Farmall H engine do
with producer gas?

Is anyone gasifying cardboard?

Thanks BPJ

PS Peter I too loved your comments about the Crosleys.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Sun Mar 21 21:02:19 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:44 2004
Subject: Is anyone doing anything practical on this list?
Message-ID: <SUN.21.MAR.2004.220219.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Bruce
----- Original Message -----
Subject: [GASL] Is anyone doing anything practical on this list?

>...del...
>
> First, Who has the smallest practical gasifier? What
> is it using for fuel? What type?
>
We have a small practical gasifier, designed to produce gas clean enough for
running a stove type burner. Capacity is about 5 kW.

Basically, it is an open hopper, refractory lined, downdraft gasifier,
complete with a water wash bath that scrubs the gas. It requires biomass
dried to about 20% moisture content.

It can nominally use any fuel that air can draft through, and that will flow
in a bin. Chopped straw, wood chips, small wood off-cuts, nut hulls, etc.

I did a test run with small chips, 37% moisture, and it was not satisfactory
as a gasifier. Very smoky, and chips hung in the feed hopper. I haven't yet
run a test with adequately dry wood chips. I am guessing that "wood
choppings" of the size that one gets when one chops a tree with an axe would
work quite well also.

At our site http://www.wattpower.com/wpindex6.html you can see a picture...
The cylinder on the right is the gasifier/fuel feed hopper. The box in the
middle is the "gas cleaning column". In the rear is a 80 watt fan that
recirculates the dirty gas through suitable media, and delivers the cleaned
gas to the outlet pipe.

On the left is the two burner gas stove, included with the package. The
vertical pipe is a "start-up vent", where weak gas is vented until "good
gas" is being produced.

If you have any further questions, please let me know, and I'll try to
address them.

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm,
www.Wattpower.com.

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Sun Mar 21 21:07:49 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:44 2004
Subject: Is anyone doing anything practical on this list?
In-Reply-To: <20040322012414.29733.qmail@web40605.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <SUN.21.MAR.2004.200749.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

LMAO, Bruce, and all,

I wanted to comment on Peters Crosley's also, but couldn't
find a reason to reply (other than simply wasting server
space) However, you have now given me a good reason,
so here goes.

Those "huge" piston motors, would love to find even just
one... I could listen to that soothing thump, thump, thump
for years ! it's a sound that really gets to you, doesn't
it Peter ??? :)

Anyhow, Bruce, trust me, I have had many a problem with my
setup, but so far, the last month has been quite good,
other than the fact that the last 3 inspections the tuyeres
have been getting eaten (notched), I knew this would happen,
however I was hoping to get more than 5 months out if a set
of 9 (304 SS). at $150.00 cdn a set.

As far as

1) Smallest gasifier, I think Tom Miles ? from the "stoves"
side of things would qualify ?? (no idea),

2) Suction, I am, Vaporizer ? pleases clarify.

3) Vehicle ?? LMAO the "Bush Buggy" I have, it's an old Chevy Van,
with a radical set of rear tires (tractor) and a 3 to 1
reduction gear set because of the tall rears, the gasifier
is a monorator top, downdraft unit, it is a bit small for
the motor, but does the job of wood gathering, when needed.
(it's no longer a van really, rather a truck)...

Pictures... there's a real sore spot, I know everyone would
LOVE pictures, Not just mine, but all everyone else's as well,
however, (TBR correct me if I'm wrong) server space IS a
costly thing these days, AND getting someone to upload them
for free is another factor, so we are left with a great list,
but no way to visualize it. I have a bit of server space
available to me, but as far as "hosting" a picture depot,
I don't think my ISP would like too many "hits" to do it for
free, and I certainly can't afford to pay for extra bandwidth
if everyone starts viewing them.

However, IF you need a place to "set" a picture or 2 so the
great people of this list can see them, I would be happy to
offer a tiny portion of server, and the way to place them
for you, at no cost, for a month or so.

As far as Dodge, or Farmall (I have an M-M Z) I don't see any
problems, advance will need to be changed, and it wouldn't
hurt to look at different weights in the distributor
or springs.

Cardboard ? haven't heard of anyone, but sounds interesting
for a larger center, where a good supply could be found.

Let Me Know,

Greg Manning,
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Bruce Jackson
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 7:24 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Is anyone doing anything practical on this list?

Hi,
I just waded through 125 messages from this list.
Remarkably, the only thing of practical value was the
trials of the engineer from Pennsylvania who is
setting up a WVO powered induction generator. Hardly
involves gasification.
The two Canadians seem to be doing the most
interesting things. I certainly am not up to the scale
of Mr. Manning. Peter in Belize is very entertaining
and probably doing the things that I am most
interested in.
I can imagine this won't rub anyone the right way but
at this point I need to fire some of you up who are
actually doing something. I need some practical
commentary and I don't know any of the buzz words.

First, Who has the smallest practical gasifier? What
is it using for fuel? What type?

Second, is anyone using a suction gasifier with
vaporizer?

Third, Who is powering a vehicle with a gasifier?
Hopefully someone has some sort of off road
application.

Pictures, pictures, pictures, can we post pictures
with our replys?

It would help me a lot if I could post a picture of
what I have done so far. I would probably be spared a
lot of extra work if someone spotted a mistake I made
ahead of me.

How would a Dodge 230cid six or a Farmall H engine do
with producer gas?

Is anyone gasifying cardboard?

Thanks BPJ

PS Peter I too loved your comments about the Crosleys.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

From LINVENT at AOL.COM Sun Mar 21 22:04:01 2004
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:44 2004
Subject: Gasifier Engine Specifications
Message-ID: <SUN.21.MAR.2004.220401.EST.>

In a message dated 3/21/04 4:57:08 PM, tombreed@COMCAST.NET writes:

<< Peter and All:

Prof. Mike Graboski ran a 350 kW (Waukeshaw?) diesel here in Denver on

producer gas from a 25 t/d gasifier for several years in the period 1987-89.

Among other things he found that he could run on as little as 5% injection

fuel - provided he changed the injectors. The problem (according to

Waukeshaw) is that at full power with only 20% liquid fuel injection, the

mist and spray aren't well developed. With smaller injectors you can get a

good spray (but can't go to full diesel power).

With current diesel prices and gasifiers, we probably don't need to minimize

diesel consumption, but as time goes by and diesel becomes more expensive

relative to producer gas there will be efforts to minimize - or eliminate -

the liquid ignition portion. Of course the simplest method of elimination

is to convert to spark ignition, easily accomplished with a distributor on

the end of the injector shaft.

Onward... TOM REED BEF >>

Dear Tom and practical gasifier guys,
In 1983 we ran a Cummins 495 engine on sander dust from a local particle
board facility. The gasifier had an assorted gas cleaning train and was a top
fed countercurrent gasifier which had lots of problems with this type of fuel
and fuels in general. It also ran on sugar cane bagasse from US Sugar
Corporation from Florida.
Although not operated with a turbocharger, i.e., NA nomenclature, it ran
at above theoretical output based upon heating value of the gas. Upon
inspection, there was minor discoloring of the inlet manifold, but no accumulations of
tar on any parts. It ran an induction generator and had to have a synchronous
generator and load bank to make determination of the output power. An
engineer wrote up a complete report on the test.
Since then we have run a Hercules flat head 6-cylinder gasoline engine
modified for gasoline or producer gas operation. This engine was run at a mining
operation for the Chief process engineer for PPG using waste paint sludge
from a Ford plant in Michigan. It snowed 14" the night before and hit 20 below
and the paint sludge had to be chiseled out of the drums. The road to the mine
was so bad that we had to be towed in by a front end loader to get to the
gasifier. Later that night, she commented at dinner that that was the most amazing
field demonstration she had ever attended.
This same engine operated at a facility in Norfolk, Va. for several
groups including Chinese, Americans, the environment dept of Va. and others. It
then ended up in Houston and ran for Gas Research Institute, a large subsidiary
of Vivende, a water treatment company who saw the engine operate on sawdust,
sewage sludge Houactinite, dried sewage sludge from Houston, and tires, msw/rdf
from San Diego North Counties Association MRF. It resulted in a research
contract from GRI, San Diego's recycling facility closed later, but the analysis of
the operation by their operating engineer was good enough to encourage them
to move forward, but the financial drain was so great from not being able to
use enough recycled materials that they had to close and the bond buyers took a
$150mm hit. Gas Research Institute studied 22 other technologies, selected
ours for funding of a small gasification facility to handle heterogeneous wastes
and then they lost 40% of their revenue from deregulated transportation of
natural gas, that they had to cancel our contract. That equipment is in our
possession and to be used for upcoming 20MWE power plant in Washington State.
Subsequently, a 75kwe Chevy 454 supercharged engine/generator set was
purchased, operated for several hundred hours on other gasification systems built
and is sitting in Italy awaiting the client's completion of financing of the
project to complete the infrastructure there. The engine has operated there
for a few hours and is expected to be operated full time later on. It is an
interesting thing, when I told the Italians that we needed to have a "load bank"
to test the engine, they were totally puzzled and asked what interest it
charged?
A Detroit Diesel 3-71 2 cycle engine with 100kw generator set has been
operated on producer gas which was running slow due to the load on it and when
the producer gas was introduced, it sped up to full speed, showing that it was
producing more power on producer gas/diesel than on producer gas alone.
We currently have a 100 kwe Climax V-8 with the last date on it of 1953
which has operated for short periods on the gasifier here, (rated at 1mw
capabilty of output) and pulled a wrist pin out of a piston but is being repaired
and will be operational in a few days. Rust has been the biggest enemy. We have
constructed a fully automatic gas analyzer, mixing, system with oxygen
monitoring for control of the engine producer gas supply.
We also have a 200 kw Mack Maxidyne engine/generator set set up
specifically for gasifier gas operation. It was part of a trailer which had a gasifier
in it and the inventor was killed operating the system one night. The gasifier
and engine/generator set was still running when he was found dead in front of
the control panel. We bought the trailer from a dealer and it was delivered
to East Texas, near Beaumont where we were working on gasifiers, and the
contractor called us and said, "what is all of this stuff in the rest of the
trailer?" A local Mack dealer went out and saw it and had never seen a Mack engine
modified for this operation. He was stunned.
So, if one wants to know how to do something in the gasification field,
take a deep breath and plan on spending a long time and lots of money doing it.
If anyone would like videos, reprints of data or other information, let us
know. In the 30 years which I have been developing this technology, there are
lots more stories and more happening every day.
By the way Tom Reed, the gasifier you saw at the mine is now sitting in a
swamp in East Texas.
Leland T. Taylor
President
Thermogenics Inc.
7100-F 2nd St. NW Albuquerque, New Mexico USA 87107 Phone: 505-761-5633, fax:
341-0424, website: thermogenics.com.
In order to read the compressed files forwarded under AOL, it is necessary to
download Aladdin's freeware Unstuffit at
http://www.stuffit.com/expander/index.html

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Sun Mar 21 22:08:39 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:44 2004
Subject: Gasifier Engine Specifications
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040321190631.00a22e90@btlmail.btl.net>
Message-ID: <SUN.21.MAR.2004.210839.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 07:10:55PM -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:

(snip)

>
> OK -- on to the next subject -- in real terms -- the difficulty of spark
> ignition of a producer gas charge in a cylinder.
>
> I lost that old hand book years back -- but it seems to me for spark
> ignition -- and mind you -- huge pistons -- low rpm -- they actually had a
> small combustion chamber -- such as the diesel squish head design -- to
> spark ignite the "slow" producer gas thus shooting a flame into the actual
> combustion chamber.
>
I think an engine with longer stroke than bore size is preferable to big
piston engines. That's pretty much true with all slow flame fuels, and also
contributes to good running at low rpm. The "over square" engines -- bore larger
than stroke -- are more suited to high rpm. Longer stroke gives more burn time.

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

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Sun Mar 21 22:40:34 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:44 2004
Subject: Is anyone doing anything practical on this list?
In-Reply-To: <000201c40fb2$7a8ad250$0200a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <SUN.21.MAR.2004.214034.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

I think there is space on the server for pictures, at least that doesn't seem
to be a problem with the stoves list, plenty of pictures get posted there. You
have to send them to Tom Miles for posting. Pictures can't be sent to the list
itself, as attachments are banned.

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

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Sun Mar 21 23:58:11 2004
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:44 2004
Subject: Is anyone doing anything practical on this list?
Message-ID: <SUN.21.MAR.2004.235811.0500.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

RE: Pictures

We can post pictures to a web page on the REPP server. We've been doing
this for some years on the Stoves list and in a limited fashion for the
Gasification list. Just send the pictures with a description in your email
message to tmiles@trmiles.com and I'll put them up.

We stopped allowing pictures attached to email because we were getting
viruses which were spreading around the list.

Kind regards,

Tom Miles

See:
http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html
http://www.repp.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html
http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Mon Mar 22 00:09:11 2004
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:44 2004
Subject: Promotion of gasification technologies
Message-ID: <MON.22.MAR.2004.000911.0500.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

Lewis,

As you can see below your message came through to the list digest and to
the list archive on the web as a series of unintelligible characters. I
suspect that you posted an embeded image. Simple text works best.

For those voluble political posters - your rantings are driving serious
gasification enthusiasts from the list. Let's focus on useful work.

Regards,

Tom Miles

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 21:48:32 EST, Lewis L. Smith <MMBTUPR@AOL.COM> wrote:
>IHRvwqAgR2FzaWZpZXJzwqDCoMKgwqAgwqDCoMKgwqAgZnJvbcKgIExld2lzIEwuIFNtaXRo
>CgoKQXMgVG9tIE1pbGVzIGFuZCBzb21lIG90aGVycyBoYXZlIG5vdGVkLCB0aGUgdGVjaG5p

From andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM Mon Mar 22 07:07:09 2004
From: andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:44 2004
Subject: Plant Sizing
In-Reply-To: <11197F61CBF36942AC3D9C998E99960B42ADEE@ntserver.geprop.cu>
Message-ID: <MON.22.MAR.2004.120709.0000.>

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 16:46:00 -0500, Oscar Jim?nez wrote:

>We are interested in precising the advisable gasifiers size range for power generation running on commercial basis. We envisage to install 3.5 MWe biomass gasification power plant. The question is: How many "small" biomass gasification power plants and on what sizes would be recomended to implement on commercial basis???

OK I have changed the subject name to see if we can address some
technical issues, not that I am against the political debate, just
that I want to learn some pertinent points in a focussed way. So I'll
star with a few confused thoughts of my own. Feel free to cut them and
comment on individual bits in new threads.

Ken Boak has pointed out that we pay a high price for transport fuel
in UK, so at the small scale there would seem to be a bigger advantage
in a gasifier for automobile use than a static plant, indeed there is
an exemption from road fund duty on "gas generating" vehicles in UK.
The thing is nobody does it because the perceived cost, in difficulty
and inconvenience, is too high. I would guess an average car user will
spend GBP165/annum on road fund and GBP1450/annum fuel out of an
average annual wage of ~GBP25k. So there is some scope for reducing a
small portion (6%) of his wage by eliminating fossil fuel transport
costs, how much will his biomass cost him though?

On the small scale we can co generate power and heat. With a small
fossil fueled diesel plant we might get 33% conversion to electricity
and gain ~60% as usable heat. Move to a conventional gasifier feeding
an ic genset and the ratio of power to heat drops to 20:70ish.

Greg mentions that he intends to connect his gasifier to a large,
used, petrol engine and spin a 2 pole alternator synchronously. There
has also been talk of using capacitively coupled excitation of stand
alone 3ph induction motors as asynchronous generators. A couple of
points spring up here, one is that if a reactive load comes onto the
induction generator it can destroy the self excitation, the engine
will happily sit at synchronous revs and there will be no output. We
have an asynchronous generator on a Lister 3 cylinder diesel and its
voltage stability leaves a lot to be desired compared with its
predecessor, a 2 cylinder air cooled Petter coupled to a synchronous
generator. Also Greg's option will require the genset to run at
3600rpm, this is far higher than a car with the same engine would
cruise, so life may be short. For my part, having learned about the
high specific consumption at low average loads, I would avoid a
synchronous set next time and would run with two inverter sets split
60:40.

I also have a marked leaning toward the use of a small gas turbine for
cogen, and still have a truck turbo sitting in my garage waiting for
some round tuits.

So on the small scale the discussion has centred on ic engines, yet
stirling engines seem to have a niche where the ratio of power to heat
is 10:1. Is this because the stirling can be hermetically sealed, like
a refrigeration unit, which many of us will have experience of
maintenance free use for over 20 years. Both Microgen and Whispergen
seem to have 1kW(e)+10kW(t) on the UK market (high cost at ~GBP4k),
there seems little reason they would not run with producer gas.

So to my main quest this time, is there a graphical resource which
shows the typical costs of different prime movers varying with size?

I am thinking in terms of a graph of price verses power with curves
for capital, fuel and O+M costs for gensets. If someone has figures
for typical systems I'll have a bash at creating a spreadsheet from
which I can get a graphical output.

I already have some figures passed to me that suggests the O+M costs
of a 10MW(e) steam turbine are a fifth of those for a 1MW(e) class IC
genset.

If we are using a high cost fuel (biomass is high cost compared with
fossil diesel) then there is more incentive to have better efficiency
of conversion, so a permanent magnet alternator at 90% efficiency will
compare well with an induction generator at 85% efficiency, given the
same thermal input, after how much electrical energy is generated??

A little calculation using figures quoted of USD95 for a 3kW induction
head and USD1600 for a 2kW permanent magnet alternator head with
respective conversion efficiencies of 85% and 95%, converted to UK
prices suggests the induction motor has a price of GBP20/kW and the
permanent magnet GBP500/kW. Valuing electrical output only, at
domestic rates, I get the permanent magnet providing GBP61 worth of
electrical value over the cheaper unit per kW per year of continuous
use. About 13% return on the extra spending, this is sensitive to
electricity price and of course the running life of the alternator.

AJH

From andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM Mon Mar 22 07:07:14 2004
From: andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:44 2004
Subject: Promotion of gasification technologies
Message-ID: <MON.22.MAR.2004.120714.0000.>

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 00:09:11 -0500, Tom Miles wrote:

>Lewis,
>
>As you can see below your message came through to the list digest and to
>the list archive on the web as a series of unintelligible characters. I
>suspect that you posted an embeded image.

It was posted encoded base 64.

>Simple text works best.

Yes

AJH

From snkm at BTL.NET Mon Mar 22 07:59:09 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:44 2004
Subject: Is anyone doing anything practical on this list?
Message-ID: <MON.22.MAR.2004.065909.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Hi Bpj;

> First, Who has the smallest practical gasifier? What
>is it using for fuel? What type?
>

You bring up some very valid points. OK -- the field you are interested in
has been well "applied" in India. Many of those entrepreneurs were (or
maybe still are) on this very same mail list.

Either they left this list -- or small time gasification left India??

However -- checking my extensive archives (all saved WWW sites to hard
drive) I did found this Url:

http://aewgasifiers.netfirms.com/

Further -- I just now checked and it still works.

Suggest you look over everything you can there -- maybe even communicate
with the owners -- then come back and tell us about small gasification.

You'll might also notice that the prices are very "right" -- though they
may appear high -- they are as good as it gets -- by several levels.

If anyone from modern industrialized nations have ever availed themselves
of India gasifiers of this nature -- certainly -- we have never heard about
it on this list.

Perhaps you might be the first??

Peter / Belize

At 05:24 PM 3/21/2004 -0800, Bruce Jackson wrote:
> Hi,
> I just waded through 125 messages from this list.
>Remarkably, the only thing of practical value was the
>trials of the engineer from Pennsylvania who is
>setting up a WVO powered induction generator. Hardly
>involves gasification.
> The two Canadians seem to be doing the most
>interesting things. I certainly am not up to the scale
>of Mr. Manning. Peter in Belize is very entertaining
>and probably doing the things that I am most
>interested in.
> I can imagine this won't rub anyone the right way but
>at this point I need to fire some of you up who are
>actually doing something. I need some practical
>commentary and I don't know any of the buzz words.
>
> First, Who has the smallest practical gasifier? What
>is it using for fuel? What type?
>
> Second, is anyone using a suction gasifier with
>vaporizer?
>
> Third, Who is powering a vehicle with a gasifier?
>Hopefully someone has some sort of off road
>application.
>
> Pictures, pictures, pictures, can we post pictures
>with our replys?
>
> It would help me a lot if I could post a picture of
>what I have done so far. I would probably be spared a
>lot of extra work if someone spotted a mistake I made
>ahead of me.
>
> How would a Dodge 230cid six or a Farmall H engine do
>with producer gas?
>
> Is anyone gasifying cardboard?
>
>Thanks BPJ
>
>PS Peter I too loved your comments about the Crosleys.
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
>http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
>

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Mon Mar 22 09:28:12 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:44 2004
Subject: Gasifier Engine Specifications
Message-ID: <MON.22.MAR.2004.072812.0700.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Leland (TOM):

You and I must be nuts to be in this field when we could be rolling in
fossil fuel generated energy money. Some of us prefer adventure to golf,
yachts and other percs of excess money.

Your historical document is invaluable and I'll save it for when the true
history of biomass gasification is written after it replaces oil. Since I
not live more than another 40 years, someone else should keep this data too.

As Research Director for the National Alternative Fuel Foundation, I have
been diverted from gasifier research for a year. However, we have moved out
of my lab/garage to a larger facility with a full time director of fuel
research, so I can convert my lab back to gasification and stoves. There is
still a lot of basic research to be done. Understanding how to do something
does not necesarily include understanding why. I hope to help.

Yours truly, TOM REED NAFF BEF

----- Original Message -----
From: <LINVENT@aol.com>
To: <tombreed@COMCAST.NET>; <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Gasifier Engine Specifications

>
> In a message dated 3/21/04 4:57:08 PM, tombreed@COMCAST.NET writes:
>
> << Peter and All:
>
>
> Prof. Mike Graboski ran a 350 kW (Waukeshaw?) diesel here in Denver on
>
> producer gas from a 25 t/d gasifier for several years in the period
1987-89.
>
>
> Among other things he found that he could run on as little as 5% injection
>
> fuel - provided he changed the injectors. The problem (according to
>
> Waukeshaw) is that at full power with only 20% liquid fuel injection, the
>
> mist and spray aren't well developed. With smaller injectors you can get
a
>
> good spray (but can't go to full diesel power).
>
>
> With current diesel prices and gasifiers, we probably don't need to
minimize
>
> diesel consumption, but as time goes by and diesel becomes more expensive
>
> relative to producer gas there will be efforts to minimize - or
eliminate -
>
> the liquid ignition portion. Of course the simplest method of elimination
>
> is to convert to spark ignition, easily accomplished with a distributor on
>
> the end of the injector shaft.
>
>
> Onward... TOM REED BEF >>
>
> Dear Tom and practical gasifier guys,
> In 1983 we ran a Cummins 495 engine on sander dust from a local
particle
> board facility. The gasifier had an assorted gas cleaning train and was a
top
> fed countercurrent gasifier which had lots of problems with this type of
fuel
> and fuels in general. It also ran on sugar cane bagasse from US Sugar
> Corporation from Florida.
> Although not operated with a turbocharger, i.e., NA nomenclature, it
ran
> at above theoretical output based upon heating value of the gas. Upon
> inspection, there was minor discoloring of the inlet manifold, but no
accumulations of
> tar on any parts. It ran an induction generator and had to have a
synchronous
> generator and load bank to make determination of the output power. An
> engineer wrote up a complete report on the test.
> Since then we have run a Hercules flat head 6-cylinder gasoline engine
> modified for gasoline or producer gas operation. This engine was run at a
mining
> operation for the Chief process engineer for PPG using waste paint sludge
> from a Ford plant in Michigan. It snowed 14" the night before and hit 20
below
> and the paint sludge had to be chiseled out of the drums. The road to the
mine
> was so bad that we had to be towed in by a front end loader to get to the
> gasifier. Later that night, she commented at dinner that that was the most
amazing
> field demonstration she had ever attended.
> This same engine operated at a facility in Norfolk, Va. for several
> groups including Chinese, Americans, the environment dept of Va. and
others. It
> then ended up in Houston and ran for Gas Research Institute, a large
subsidiary
> of Vivende, a water treatment company who saw the engine operate on
sawdust,
> sewage sludge Houactinite, dried sewage sludge from Houston, and tires,
msw/rdf
> from San Diego North Counties Association MRF. It resulted in a research
> contract from GRI, San Diego's recycling facility closed later, but the
analysis of
> the operation by their operating engineer was good enough to encourage
them
> to move forward, but the financial drain was so great from not being able
to
> use enough recycled materials that they had to close and the bond buyers
took a
> $150mm hit. Gas Research Institute studied 22 other technologies, selected
> ours for funding of a small gasification facility to handle heterogeneous
wastes
> and then they lost 40% of their revenue from deregulated transportation of
> natural gas, that they had to cancel our contract. That equipment is in
our
> possession and to be used for upcoming 20MWE power plant in Washington
State.
> Subsequently, a 75kwe Chevy 454 supercharged engine/generator set was
> purchased, operated for several hundred hours on other gasification
systems built
> and is sitting in Italy awaiting the client's completion of financing of
the
> project to complete the infrastructure there. The engine has operated
there
> for a few hours and is expected to be operated full time later on. It is
an
> interesting thing, when I told the Italians that we needed to have a "load
bank"
> to test the engine, they were totally puzzled and asked what interest it
> charged?
> A Detroit Diesel 3-71 2 cycle engine with 100kw generator set has been
> operated on producer gas which was running slow due to the load on it and
when
> the producer gas was introduced, it sped up to full speed, showing that it
was
> producing more power on producer gas/diesel than on producer gas alone.
> We currently have a 100 kwe Climax V-8 with the last date on it of
1953
> which has operated for short periods on the gasifier here, (rated at 1mw
> capabilty of output) and pulled a wrist pin out of a piston but is being
repaired
> and will be operational in a few days. Rust has been the biggest enemy. We
have
> constructed a fully automatic gas analyzer, mixing, system with oxygen
> monitoring for control of the engine producer gas supply.
> We also have a 200 kw Mack Maxidyne engine/generator set set up
> specifically for gasifier gas operation. It was part of a trailer which
had a gasifier
> in it and the inventor was killed operating the system one night. The
gasifier
> and engine/generator set was still running when he was found dead in front
of
> the control panel. We bought the trailer from a dealer and it was
delivered
> to East Texas, near Beaumont where we were working on gasifiers, and the
> contractor called us and said, "what is all of this stuff in the rest of
the
> trailer?" A local Mack dealer went out and saw it and had never seen a
Mack engine
> modified for this operation. He was stunned.
> So, if one wants to know how to do something in the gasification
field,
> take a deep breath and plan on spending a long time and lots of money
doing it.
> If anyone would like videos, reprints of data or other information, let us
> know. In the 30 years which I have been developing this technology, there
are
> lots more stories and more happening every day.
> By the way Tom Reed, the gasifier you saw at the mine is now sitting
in a
> swamp in East Texas.
> Leland T. Taylor
> President
> Thermogenics Inc.
> 7100-F 2nd St. NW Albuquerque, New Mexico USA 87107 Phone: 505-761-5633,
fax:
> 341-0424, website: thermogenics.com.
> In order to read the compressed files forwarded under AOL, it is necessary
to
> download Aladdin's freeware Unstuffit at
> http://www.stuffit.com/expander/index.html

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Mon Mar 22 09:45:44 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:44 2004
Subject: Spark advance vs engine efficiency vs fuel vs octane
Message-ID: <MON.22.MAR.2004.074544.0700.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Greg and all:

(How do you get the address a31ford out of Greg Manning?)

It's so satisfying to have members of Gasification that have real experience
with real gasification. I believe there are ~300 members, but most of them
are lurkers.

Here's a question I hope will bring some answers.

~~~~~~

Producer gas burning velocity is low and variable (with more or less
hydrogen in the mix. My North American Combustion Handbook lists the
maximum air flame velocity (m/s) as 0.52 for CO; 0.26 for producer gas; 0.66
for carbureted water gas; 2.67 for acetylene and 2.83 for H2. (All very
suspect, especially the CO and producer (what kind) gas. How can producer
gas be less than CO?).

So all IC engines "light the fire" well before top dead center of the piston
travel in order to burn the fuel in the alloted RPM time. Spark advance for
gasoline engines is typically 20-40 degrees before top dead center, DBTDC.
For producer gas it should be 40-80 DBTDC, but it is difficult to achieve 80
degrees of advance.

I believe that there is an optimum spark advance, less than that which gives
audible knock, where you achieve maximum engine efficiency. However, unless
you have the ability to measure engine efficiency vs spark advance you would
never know where this is.

Most modern engines have knock detectors so that they can take advantage of
excess octane by advancing the spark. We should use these on producer gas
engines as well. However, the octane of producer gas is >180, so knock is
unlikely.

I hope this sets off a string of educated comments on a subject that I know
a little about.

Yours very truly,

TOM REED NAFF BEF
----- Original Message -----
From: "a31ford" <a31ford@INETLINK.CA>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 7:07 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Is anyone doing anything practical on this list?

> LMAO, Bruce, and all,
>
> I wanted to comment on Peters Crosley's also, but couldn't
> find a reason to reply (other than simply wasting server
> space) However, you have now given me a good reason,
> so here goes.
>
> Those "huge" piston motors, would love to find even just
> one... I could listen to that soothing thump, thump, thump
> for years ! it's a sound that really gets to you, doesn't
> it Peter ??? :)
>
> Anyhow, Bruce, trust me, I have had many a problem with my
> setup, but so far, the last month has been quite good,
> other than the fact that the last 3 inspections the tuyeres
> have been getting eaten (notched), I knew this would happen,
> however I was hoping to get more than 5 months out if a set
> of 9 (304 SS). at $150.00 cdn a set.
>
>
> As far as
>
> 1) Smallest gasifier, I think Tom Miles ? from the "stoves"
> side of things would qualify ?? (no idea),
>
> 2) Suction, I am, Vaporizer ? pleases clarify.
>
> 3) Vehicle ?? LMAO the "Bush Buggy" I have, it's an old Chevy Van,
> with a radical set of rear tires (tractor) and a 3 to 1
> reduction gear set because of the tall rears, the gasifier
> is a monorator top, downdraft unit, it is a bit small for
> the motor, but does the job of wood gathering, when needed.
> (it's no longer a van really, rather a truck)...
>
>
> Pictures... there's a real sore spot, I know everyone would
> LOVE pictures, Not just mine, but all everyone else's as well,
> however, (TBR correct me if I'm wrong) server space IS a
> costly thing these days, AND getting someone to upload them
> for free is another factor, so we are left with a great list,
> but no way to visualize it. I have a bit of server space
> available to me, but as far as "hosting" a picture depot,
> I don't think my ISP would like too many "hits" to do it for
> free, and I certainly can't afford to pay for extra bandwidth
> if everyone starts viewing them.
>
> However, IF you need a place to "set" a picture or 2 so the
> great people of this list can see them, I would be happy to
> offer a tiny portion of server, and the way to place them
> for you, at no cost, for a month or so.
>
>
> As far as Dodge, or Farmall (I have an M-M Z) I don't see any
> problems, advance will need to be changed, and it wouldn't
> hurt to look at different weights in the distributor
> or springs.
>
> Cardboard ? haven't heard of anyone, but sounds interesting
> for a larger center, where a good supply could be found.
>
> Let Me Know,
>
> Greg Manning,
> Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Gasification Discussion List
> [mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Bruce Jackson
> Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 7:24 PM
> To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: Is anyone doing anything practical on this list?
>
>
> Hi,
> I just waded through 125 messages from this list.
> Remarkably, the only thing of practical value was the
> trials of the engineer from Pennsylvania who is
> setting up a WVO powered induction generator. Hardly
> involves gasification.
> The two Canadians seem to be doing the most
> interesting things. I certainly am not up to the scale
> of Mr. Manning. Peter in Belize is very entertaining
> and probably doing the things that I am most
> interested in.
> I can imagine this won't rub anyone the right way but
> at this point I need to fire some of you up who are
> actually doing something. I need some practical
> commentary and I don't know any of the buzz words.
>
> First, Who has the smallest practical gasifier? What
> is it using for fuel? What type?
>
> Second, is anyone using a suction gasifier with
> vaporizer?
>
> Third, Who is powering a vehicle with a gasifier?
> Hopefully someone has some sort of off road
> application.
>
> Pictures, pictures, pictures, can we post pictures
> with our replys?
>
> It would help me a lot if I could post a picture of
> what I have done so far. I would probably be spared a
> lot of extra work if someone spotted a mistake I made
> ahead of me.
>
> How would a Dodge 230cid six or a Farmall H engine do
> with producer gas?
>
> Is anyone gasifying cardboard?
>
> Thanks BPJ
>
> PS Peter I too loved your comments about the Crosleys.
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

From bpjackso at YAHOO.COM Mon Mar 22 09:58:33 2004
From: bpjackso at YAHOO.COM (Bruce Jackson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:44 2004
Subject: Thanks for the links....
Message-ID: <MON.22.MAR.2004.065833.0800.BPJACKSO@YAHOO.COM>

Peter,
Interesting Indian link, although not very practical
in my case. Although it sure does point out that
anything of practical value on a small scale that can
be purchased "off the shelf" is available from China
or India. China's example would be those Gen Heads
from Utterpower and India's (in addition to the
gasifiers) would be the Lister clones.

Is anyone familiar with Mathot's book (1905) on
gasifiers?
He shows vaporizers as an intergal part of the
gasifier. It was a method of injecting steam into the
gasifier. Are you guys doing that?

The million dollar armchair question is why can't
producer gas be compressed and stored? I haven't
researched this at all so forgive me if the answer is
patently obvious. Still Mathot shows positive pressure
gasifiers with gas storage in the form of "bells."
What is the clue there?
Storage was something that I thought of when I looked
at Kevin's website. Natuarally the thoroughly modern
American bush wife will have her husband out there
stoking the gasifier so she can cook breakfast. At
least thats what I envisioned myself doing when I
looked at the setup. Well why can't I stoke it later
and store the gas for use in the morning? That way the
thoroughly modern American bush husband can have his
coffee in bed?
Of course storage has another application too. Mainly
commuting without bring along the Beverly Hillbillys
gasifier on a trailer. So whats up with that?
Very glad to read about a hercules flat six being
powered with producer gas. Certainly, something with a
really low compression ratio will have no trouble with
producer gas. Ex. 4 to 1 ?
Anyhow, this getting terribly exciting. I just can't
understand why there isn't that many small gasifiers
out there. I know of and have seen two just in my
county. The first one I saw was for sale for two years
and I drove right by it every day only never knew what
it was. The other is sitting in a junk yard and like a
fool I told the guy what it was and now he won't part
with it.
Thanks.
Bruce Jackson

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

From kenboak at STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK Mon Mar 22 10:22:26 2004
From: kenboak at STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK (Ken Boak)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:44 2004
Subject: Plant Sizing
Message-ID: <MON.22.MAR.2004.152226.0000.KENBOAK@STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK>

Andrew, & listers

Thanks for your informative posting.

As you know I am a proponent of Stirling , and other external combustion
engines as an alternative to IC engines, however we do face a distinct
world shortage of any practical examples.

Small, amateur built Stirling engines of at most 1kW are available, and have
been tried on gasified pellets: see

http://members.aol.com/bkammerich/stirleengl.htm - and look under New
Projects

Enginion - also in Germany, have produced a novel flash steam generator,
which another lister has mentioned, integrated into the cylinder head of a 3
cylinder car engine. Water is injected into the superheater zone just
before TDC, and evaporates explosively providing the expansion for the
piston power stroke. Perhaps this technology could be implemented onto a
converted diesel engine?

Sunpower of Athens, Ohio, demonstrated a 1.1kW Stirling driven linear
alternator, fuelled on gasified biomass - and this basic arrangement has
been taken by www.microgen.com and turned into a natural gas fuelled
domestic micro CHP.

Solo Kleinmotoren of Stuttgart have a 15kW Stirling coupled to a 10kW
alternator, one of which I believe has been tried in a hybrid car.

I prefer the approach of the electric vehicle with range extender trailer.
The trailer would contain the gasifier and engine/alternator combination.

When not needed for long trips, the trailer is decoupled from the tow hitch,
and plumbed into the domestic heating and power feeds. This way the waste
heat can be put to use for domestic heating and supplement the recharging of
the vehicle batteries.

Even if you only get 10% conversion of fuel energy into power, you are
still off-setting your grid requirement - and all the waste heat is
available for domestic heating. I consider this as one would have had to
burn the wood anyway to keep warm (in the UK) and any power you generate is
a bonus.

regards

Ken Boak

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Mon Mar 22 10:21:48 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:44 2004
Subject: Spark advance vs engine efficiency vs fuel vs octane
Message-ID: <MON.22.MAR.2004.112148.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Tom

The question of "Spark Advance" must be addressed in the context of "piston
speed". A long stroke, slow speed engine will inherently require much less
spark advance than short stroke, high speed engine.

Consider an engine with a piston where bore diameter = stroke length,
running at a given speed of say 1,800 RPM. The same displacement could be
attained if the piston had bore of reduced diameter, but an appropriately
longer length of stroke. If rotating at the same RPM's, then the piston
speed would have to be greater, and the advance would have to be greater.

On the other hand, if the bore was increased and the stroke was reduced to
attain the same displacement, the piston speed would be reduced, so that the
spark advance could be reduced.

There is a limit to the Bore/Stroke ratio that is determined by the
expansion characteristics of the gas. Too long a stroke, for a given
diameter, and the gas is "expanded to death" and is doing no useful work at
the end of its stroke. Too short a stroke, and expansion efficiency is lost.

This has the makings of a wonderful optimization. :-)

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm
----- Original Message -----
From: "TBReed" <tombreed@COMCAST.NET>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 10:45 AM
Subject: [GASL] Spark advance vs engine efficiency vs fuel vs octane

> Dear Greg and all:
>
> (How do you get the address a31ford out of Greg Manning?)
>
> It's so satisfying to have members of Gasification that have real
experience
> with real gasification. I believe there are ~300 members, but most of
them
> are lurkers.
>
> Here's a question I hope will bring some answers.
>
> ~~~~~~
>
> Producer gas burning velocity is low and variable (with more or less
> hydrogen in the mix. My North American Combustion Handbook lists the
> maximum air flame velocity (m/s) as 0.52 for CO; 0.26 for producer gas;
0.66
> for carbureted water gas; 2.67 for acetylene and 2.83 for H2. (All very
> suspect, especially the CO and producer (what kind) gas. How can producer
> gas be less than CO?).
>
> So all IC engines "light the fire" well before top dead center of the
piston
> travel in order to burn the fuel in the alloted RPM time. Spark advance
for
> gasoline engines is typically 20-40 degrees before top dead center, DBTDC.
> For producer gas it should be 40-80 DBTDC, but it is difficult to achieve
80
> degrees of advance.
>
> I believe that there is an optimum spark advance, less than that which
gives
> audible knock, where you achieve maximum engine efficiency. However,
unless
> you have the ability to measure engine efficiency vs spark advance you
would
> never know where this is.
>
> Most modern engines have knock detectors so that they can take advantage
of
> excess octane by advancing the spark. We should use these on producer gas
> engines as well. However, the octane of producer gas is >180, so knock is
> unlikely.
>
> I hope this sets off a string of educated comments on a subject that I
know
> a little about.
>
> Yours very truly,
>
> TOM REED NAFF BEF
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "a31ford" <a31ford@INETLINK.CA>
> To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 7:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [GASL] Is anyone doing anything practical on this list?
>
>
> > LMAO, Bruce, and all,
> >
> > I wanted to comment on Peters Crosley's also, but couldn't
> > find a reason to reply (other than simply wasting server
> > space) However, you have now given me a good reason,
> > so here goes.
> >
> > Those "huge" piston motors, would love to find even just
> > one... I could listen to that soothing thump, thump, thump
> > for years ! it's a sound that really gets to you, doesn't
> > it Peter ??? :)
> >
> > Anyhow, Bruce, trust me, I have had many a problem with my
> > setup, but so far, the last month has been quite good,
> > other than the fact that the last 3 inspections the tuyeres
> > have been getting eaten (notched), I knew this would happen,
> > however I was hoping to get more than 5 months out if a set
> > of 9 (304 SS). at $150.00 cdn a set.
> >
> >
> > As far as
> >
> > 1) Smallest gasifier, I think Tom Miles ? from the "stoves"
> > side of things would qualify ?? (no idea),
> >
> > 2) Suction, I am, Vaporizer ? pleases clarify.
> >
> > 3) Vehicle ?? LMAO the "Bush Buggy" I have, it's an old Chevy Van,
> > with a radical set of rear tires (tractor) and a 3 to 1
> > reduction gear set because of the tall rears, the gasifier
> > is a monorator top, downdraft unit, it is a bit small for
> > the motor, but does the job of wood gathering, when needed.
> > (it's no longer a van really, rather a truck)...
> >
> >
> > Pictures... there's a real sore spot, I know everyone would
> > LOVE pictures, Not just mine, but all everyone else's as well,
> > however, (TBR correct me if I'm wrong) server space IS a
> > costly thing these days, AND getting someone to upload them
> > for free is another factor, so we are left with a great list,
> > but no way to visualize it. I have a bit of server space
> > available to me, but as far as "hosting" a picture depot,
> > I don't think my ISP would like too many "hits" to do it for
> > free, and I certainly can't afford to pay for extra bandwidth
> > if everyone starts viewing them.
> >
> > However, IF you need a place to "set" a picture or 2 so the
> > great people of this list can see them, I would be happy to
> > offer a tiny portion of server, and the way to place them
> > for you, at no cost, for a month or so.
> >
> >
> > As far as Dodge, or Farmall (I have an M-M Z) I don't see any
> > problems, advance will need to be changed, and it wouldn't
> > hurt to look at different weights in the distributor
> > or springs.
> >
> > Cardboard ? haven't heard of anyone, but sounds interesting
> > for a larger center, where a good supply could be found.
> >
> > Let Me Know,
> >
> > Greg Manning,
> > Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: The Gasification Discussion List
> > [mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Bruce Jackson
> > Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 7:24 PM
> > To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> > Subject: Is anyone doing anything practical on this list?
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> > I just waded through 125 messages from this list.
> > Remarkably, the only thing of practical value was the
> > trials of the engineer from Pennsylvania who is
> > setting up a WVO powered induction generator. Hardly
> > involves gasification.
> > The two Canadians seem to be doing the most
> > interesting things. I certainly am not up to the scale
> > of Mr. Manning. Peter in Belize is very entertaining
> > and probably doing the things that I am most
> > interested in.
> > I can imagine this won't rub anyone the right way but
> > at this point I need to fire some of you up who are
> > actually doing something. I need some practical
> > commentary and I don't know any of the buzz words.
> >
> > First, Who has the smallest practical gasifier? What
> > is it using for fuel? What type?
> >
> > Second, is anyone using a suction gasifier with
> > vaporizer?
> >
> > Third, Who is powering a vehicle with a gasifier?
> > Hopefully someone has some sort of off road
> > application.
> >
> > Pictures, pictures, pictures, can we post pictures
> > with our replys?
> >
> > It would help me a lot if I could post a picture of
> > what I have done so far. I would probably be spared a
> > lot of extra work if someone spotted a mistake I made
> > ahead of me.
> >
> > How would a Dodge 230cid six or a Farmall H engine do
> > with producer gas?
> >
> > Is anyone gasifying cardboard?
> >
> > Thanks BPJ
> >
> > PS Peter I too loved your comments about the Crosleys.
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
> > http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

From bpjackso at YAHOO.COM Mon Mar 22 11:19:50 2004
From: bpjackso at YAHOO.COM (Bruce Jackson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:44 2004
Subject: Spark advance and electric cars....
Message-ID: <MON.22.MAR.2004.081950.0800.BPJACKSO@YAHOO.COM>

Hi,
Just some comments on electric vehicles. Ken, I would
like nothing more than to put the wife in an electric
for her commute to work every day. Trouble is, we live
in an enviroment that just is not friendly to
batteries. Also the more important question of how to
keep Mrs Jackson warm on her way to and from. Here the
only answer is to park the electric in winter and then
use the batteries in the battery bank til the weather
warms up.
Asking her to pull a trailer and try and park it in a
commuter gated lot is asking too much even from the
endlessly patient and steadfast Mrs. Jackson.
A friend of mine is going to try it though.

Tom,
Is the spark advance issue concerning stationary
constant rpm engines? It may help to visualize the
advance requirements of an automotive engine. Part
throttle conditions require additional advance because
of a slower burning mixture. Full acceleration
requires no vacuum advance.
It would stand to reason that less advance would be
required on a stationary engine if it were operating
closer to full throttle condition.
I have an idea that the reason producer gas has a
slower flame speed than CO is because producer gas
probably carries a more inert mixture than pure CO
has. (Nitrogen, CO2)

Thanks Greg for the Gif.
BPJ

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

From snkm at BTL.NET Mon Mar 22 11:26:44 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:44 2004
Subject: Spark advance vs engine efficiency vs fuel vs octane
Message-ID: <MON.22.MAR.2004.102644.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 07:45 AM 3/22/2004 -0700, TBReed wrote:
>Dear Greg and all:
>
>How can producer
>gas be less than CO?).

Dilution in all that nitrogen??

Peter / Belize

From snkm at BTL.NET Mon Mar 22 11:26:49 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:44 2004
Subject: Gasifier Engine Specifications
Message-ID: <MON.22.MAR.2004.102649.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 09:08 PM 3/21/2004 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
>On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 07:10:55PM -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> (snip)

****snip*****

> I think an engine with longer stroke than bore size is preferable to big
>piston engines. That's pretty much true with all slow flame fuels, and also
>contributes to good running at low rpm. The "over square" engines -- bore
larger
>than stroke -- are more suited to high rpm. Longer stroke gives more burn
time.
>

Your probably right. And let me correct myself. When looking for Mr. Right
Gasifier motor -- and settling on what could be found out there for
reasonable cost.

You can search the WWW for old engines -- antique engines -- and find many
that appear they would do good service today as gasifier engines.

Unfortunately most are collector items and as such difficult to acquire.

However -- the basic formula was always -- large pistons -- long stroke --
low RPM.

The Listers are:

Cylinder bore: 4.5 inches

Stroke : 5.5 inches

Further -- it is a relatively easy refit to these old style Listers to
reduce cylinder size -- say to 3.5 inches -- by machining a new sleeve --
thicker walls.

One can also easily machine the new piston to fit.

As it is of squish head design with a plug that can be adjusted for varying
compression ratios -- no problems adjusting for reduced swept volume to
still have compression in the right range.

Answering Greg --

>>I could listen to that soothing thump, thump, thump
>>for years ! it's a sound that really gets to you, doesn't
>>it Peter ??? :)

Yes -- so very true!! And noted by many.

Here is an excellent url on this exact subject -- addiction to sound of
running lister -- and all about these copy-cat India Listers. Very detailed
-- very entertaining reading!!

http://www.utterpower.com/

Enjoy!! And Tom -- this should certainly bring you up to speed!

Part of the attractiveness of that sound of a running old style Lister is
lack of that ugly high compression diesel knock -- which simply can't be
muffled in modern diesel engines -- short of a running in a super sound
proofed room.

Further -- the exhaust smell is much better than modern diesels -- though
still bad for your health -- along the line of expended black gunpowder
after a cannon has fired.

To answer Kevin:

>We have a small practical gasifier, designed to produce gas
>clean enough for running a stove type burner. Capacity is
>about 5 kW.

Yes -- we discussed this on list a while back and I have pictures etc on
archive. What a fantastic small gasifier for prototyping!!

Now Kevin -- if you ever become the hands on type person -- suggest you
acquire one old style 6 HP Lister -- reduce piston diameter as described
above -- and it should then be a perfect match for this stove gasifier output.

You then could offer the first ever small gasifier unit that would be
economical -- long living -- easy maintenance -- or in short "real"!!

Expect a max power of 2 kw to the line. Use and ST 3 kw head.

Read about ST generators at:

http://www.utterpower.com/ST.htm

2 kw is nothing for all people living "modern" style -- but any 3rd world
village I know around here would power at least 5 houses with but one of
these!

The whole point to this exercise is that we can prototype the better
gasifier system using already -- economical -- off the shelf items.

And once many of these are out there operating -- maybe -- just maybe -- a
major player (in China -- not the US) will start developing larger engines
suited in such manner for gasifiers.

So --

One Old style lister engine

One ST generator head

One Chinese gasifier cooking stove.

Development of a good gas scrubber.

And there you are --

Now Kevin -- if you could get here to Belize with your Gasifier stove -- I
have all the rest in "stock".

We can dual fuel using coconut oil and producer gas! And from past history
here in Central America -- they ran the original Listers -- made by Lister
-- many years back -- on coconut oil for fuel and "lubrication"

Talk about a 100% green machine -- eh??

OK folks -- put your wallets where your dreams are -- eh??

To the newbees on this list:

All the above is highly recycled info -- having been discussed in great
depth on this very list years ago -- and over and over and over.

Our problem is lack of self initiative -- and everyone interested only in
big to huge projects -- so they can attract government handouts.

Ergo -- we wallow in our dreams --

Except I am slowly accumulating the equipment -- and even on my extremely
limited budget.

If any "real" person on this list is willing to contribute a good design
for a gasifier to run in my existing 6 HP Lister -- derated to say 3 HP
(probably by further lowering RPM and optimizing compression -- etc -- for
efficient running) to produce 2 kw net of power -- well -- I'll build it!

In other words -- now that the world is at the brink -- I "call" -- let's
see what cards you all really have in your hands -- eh??

I am so tired of the perpetual spin this list produces. As Tom put it so well:

Oops -- lost that posting -- where Tom "defines" the Spin cycles of this
list. About a week ago -- really wanted to save that one to!

Tom -- how about a little larger version of your gasifier stove to run this
old Lister??

Peter / Belize

 

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

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Mon Mar 22 12:12:35 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:44 2004
Subject: Answers...
Message-ID: <MON.22.MAR.2004.101235.0700.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Bruce and All:

Nice to have new members with new questions...

> Peter,

> Is anyone familiar with Mathot's book (1905) on
> gasifiers?
> He shows vaporizers as an intergal part of the
> gasifier. It was a method of injecting steam into the
> gasifier. Are you guys doing that?

We sell the book "Modern Gasifiers" (1923) along with many modern books on
biomass gasification. It is big on steam and vaporizers. However it is all
about coal, formula CH, so lots of fixed carbon to be gasified. With carbon
you need air or oxygen, preferably moderated with steam because of their
VERY high temperatures of gasification.

Biomass is C H1.4 O 0.5, so is typically 80% volatiles and only 20% fixed
carbon, so doesn't require steam to moderate the char gasification section,
but can use some excess oxygen in that section, depending on the superficial
velocity.

> The million dollar armchair question is why can't
> producer gas be compressed and stored? I haven't
> researched this at all so forgive me if the answer is
> patently obvious. Still Mathot shows positive pressure
> gasifiers with gas storage in the form of "bells."
> What is the clue there?

The energy content of producer gas is typically 5.5 MJ/m3. The energy
content of methane is ~36 MJ/m3 and propane and butane are much higher than
that. So it would require 5 times the volume or pressure to store producer
gas as methane.

And the energy content of the wood is typically 20 GJ/m3, so we store the
wood instead and generate the gas on the spot. However, small amounts of
the gas for starting can certainly be stored. Or generate electricity and
store that.

> Storage was something that I thought of when I looked
> at Kevin's website. Natuarally the thoroughly modern
> American bush wife will have her husband out there
> stoking the gasifier so she can cook breakfast. At
> least thats what I envisioned myself doing when I
> looked at the setup. Well why can't I stoke it later
> and store the gas for use in the morning? That way the
> thoroughly modern American bush husband can have his
> coffee in bed?
> Of course storage has another application too. Mainly
> commuting without bring along the Beverly Hillbillys
> gasifier on a trailer. So whats up with that?
> Very glad to read about a hercules flat six being
> powered with producer gas. Certainly, something with a
> really low compression ratio will have no trouble with
> producer gas. Ex. 4 to 1 ?
> Anyhow, this getting terribly exciting. I just can't
> understand why there isn't that many small gasifiers
> out there. I know of and have seen two just in my
> county. The first one I saw was for sale for two years
> and I drove right by it every day only never knew what
> it was. The other is sitting in a junk yard and like a
> fool I told the guy what it was and now he won't part
> with it.

Nope! A direct conversion of a gasoline engine to producer gas will give
about 40% derating of power. (100 HP ==> 60HP), giving producer gas a bad
name. However, producer gas has an octane of >180, so you can shave the
heads of the gasoline engine to get 12/1 CR and gain back all that power.

> Thanks.
> Bruce Jackson

It's a pleasure to have good questions (preferably with available answers.)

TOM REED BEF
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Jackson" <bpjackso@YAHOO.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 7:58 AM
Subject: [GASL] Thanks for the links....

From snkm at BTL.NET Mon Mar 22 13:12:46 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:44 2004
Subject: Plant Sizing
Message-ID: <MON.22.MAR.2004.121246.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 03:22 PM 3/22/2004 -0000, Ken Boak wrote:
>Andrew, & listers

*********snip**********

>Enginion - also in Germany, have produced a novel flash steam generator,
>which another lister has mentioned, integrated into the cylinder head of a 3
>cylinder car engine. Water is injected into the superheater zone just
>before TDC, and evaporates explosively providing the expansion for the
>piston power stroke. Perhaps this technology could be implemented onto a
>converted diesel engine?
>

That goes along the lines of my other on going experiment -- very slowly
advancing.

Using standard combustion techniques -- but of course -- could use thermal
gasifier -- heat a receptacle (steel pot) of suitable metal to it's melting
point (Zinc Die Cast alloy fits the bill perfectly) -- submerge your flash
steam evaporation coil into this hot metal bath.

Inject exactly the amount of water required for power stoke --

"BANG"

This allows on to generated extremely high quality steam with very little
equipments -- easy to modulate power -- long living -- and much safer.

You can recover a good amount of flu gas losses by putting a coil there to
preheat the feed water -- as in pressurized hot water.

So --

Injection of water into submerged in metal bath flash coil.

Direct injection into engine -- one might not even need an intake valve if
rpm slow enough!!

Using Uniflow design -- exhaust through ports at bottom of cylinder sleeve
(again -- no valving required)

Exhausted steam goes to condenser (the only way a uniflow can work)

The cooled condensate is then pressurized by small pump.

That is fed through flu gas "economizer" coil -- picking up some free BTU's
-- then to an accumulator -- then injection controlled by solenoid valve
into flash steam boiler.

Bang -- bang -- bang.

Just remember to lift your coil out of the metal bath before the metal
solidifies -- when shutting down -- else your coil will be flattened due to
metal shrinkage on cooling.

Not so hard as it sounds -- either.

The solenoid injection system is easily ported to any micro-processor for
perfect engine control (governor)

Fire maintenance is not so critical -- as the larger the liquid metal bath
-- the greater is the heat capacitor effect.

Extremely high quality steam can thus be generated without worrying about
blowing up tubes -- as there can be no hot spots -- all is emersed in a
liquid metal bath of one temperature.

The standard problem with flame operated flash coil boilers at high quality
steam levels is almost instantaneous over heating of sections when running
at such hot temperatures -- causing ballooning of metal and resulting "POW"
-- or KABOOM"

The liquid metal bath is the great stabilizer. You can never believe how
fast coefficient of heat transfer is in a liquid metal bath!!

Another good alternative allow to use is engine pistons.

But all the above is very simple to implement -- even the solenoid --

It can be set at the condenser side -- cool water --so a standard off the
shelf hydraulic solenoid can work. The accumulator as well. At the hot end
-- just before the submerged coil -- one makes up a pressure relief valve
based on the trusty and tried steel hydraulic coupler (ball valve) with a
variable spring detent -- so than when pressure jumps sufficiently it fires
off into the coil.

Thus one could easily operate at 400F to 500 F feed water temps -- 260 to
700 psi range -- which means very efficient flu gas recovery.

The metal boiler operating at 1000 F (super critical steam!!) would pass on
a flu gas of probably around 1200 to 1600 F -- so well worth the economizer
circuit!

Played with this stuff 26 years ago -- now. Hey -- it works -- OK??

But we were porting the steam so involved to the ocean for creating seismic
sound shots.

One might adapt another hydraulic quick coupler as a pop valve in the
cylinder head -- no big deal either.

What is a POP valve uniflow steam engine you might all ask??

Well --

http://people.linux-gull.ch/rossen/solar/wcengine.html

Learn all about one such. See some text appended.

But:

Measured Efficiency (at Steam Pressure 42 kg/cm2, Temperature 415?C): 21.9%

Not bad at all -- eh guys??

 

Peter / Belize

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

Most of the engine is made from parts of two diesel engines (Lister and
Ceneral Motors) which are on the market. The general form of the engine is
shown in Figure 42. Steam is supplied to a chamber in the head of each
cylinder; the engine is started by a standard electric motor. As a piston
approaches top dead centre, the pins in its crown lift the three ball
valves from their seats and steam enters the cylinder until the valves seat
again past dead centre. The steam expands while applying pressure to the
piston until the piston exposes the normal exhaust ports in the cylinder
liner which was made for a 2-stroke diesel engine. The cylinders, cylinder
heads, valve seats and steam chambers, that is, the conversion components,
can be produced by relatively simple workshop techniques from cast iron,
mild steel and stainless steel.

All parts of the engine are inexpensive, do not require special machine
tools to fabricate, and two men could rebuild the engine with replacement
parts between sunset and sunrise should that ever prove to be necessary.

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

The White Cliffs engine configuration is:

Bore: 98.4mm
Stroke: 114.3mm
Number of Cylinders: 3
Maximum Steam Pressure: 70 kg/cm2 (abs) (6.9 MPa)
Maximum Steam Temperature: 450?
Condenser Pressure: 0.25 kg/cm2 (abs) (24.5 KPa)
Expansion Ratio (Adjustable): 1.25 (used)
Lubrication: as in Lister engine
Lubricant: specially selected
Measured Efficiency (at Steam Pressure 42 kg/cm2, Temperature 415?C): 21.9%

From MMBTUPR at AOL.COM Mon Mar 22 15:28:13 2004
From: MMBTUPR at AOL.COM (Lewis L. Smith)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:44 2004
Subject: Promotion of gasification technologies
Message-ID: <MON.22.MAR.2004.152813.EST.>

to Gasifiers from Lewis L. Smith

Some people got this posting all right, since I have received some
comments. Any one who didn't, feel free to send me a snail mail address, and I will
gladly send a hard copy.

Have now idea why this happened.

Cordially.

End.

From MMBTUPR at AOL.COM Mon Mar 22 15:52:54 2004
From: MMBTUPR at AOL.COM (Lewis L. Smith)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:44 2004
Subject: Promotion of gasification technologies
Message-ID: <MON.22.MAR.2004.155254.EST.>

to Gasifiers from Lewis L. Smith

Ref. Ken Calvert's posting this subject of 12 March.

I am afraid that I don't share Ken's optimism. I grew up in a
new-venture environment. My father had one bankruptcy, several shutdowns, and the two
family "home runs" were brought in after his death by my mother, my brother and
I. My uncle pioneered the application of computers to banks in the Depression.
And cousin of my father invented and profitably sold the patents to the
world's first plastic-extrusion machinery, a noisy "Rube Golberg" device which
occupied most of his basement. In recent years, my wife and I [in various
capacities] participated in five startups, and came out ahead on points, batting 1.5
out of 5.0.

Conclusion : the world does not beat a path to the door of the
inventor of the better mousetrap. The inventor has to beat endless paths to the doors
of potential customers, most of whom will find a reason not to buy or may
even shut the door in your face before you get a chance to give your spiel ! In
brief, marketing can be as important as invention and technology.

My comments on oil are again based on experience and numerous project
appraisals performed since 1961. I stand by them. However, big oil companies
have their uses.

Chevon once paid $150 million for rights to a drilling location in
Canada and millions more to drill an exploratory well. They found that much oil had
once been there but all but traces had migrated somewhere else ! You can
only take that kind of risk if you have deep pockets.

Also in every energy crisis since 1973, big oil companies have helped
the importing countries [with the connivance of their suppliers] to avoid the
worst impact of any export embargoes that were put in place. I am a witness !

Cordially.

End.

From snkm at BTL.NET Mon Mar 22 16:09:38 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:44 2004
Subject: Plant Sizing
Message-ID: <MON.22.MAR.2004.150938.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 01:33 PM 3/22/2004 -0500, Mike Norris wrote:
>You have to careful about material compatibility.
>I have seen tin melt inconel tubes way below the
>inconel melting temperature. I was told that some
>liquid metals such as Tin form alloys with
>the tube metal. The two elements form a eutectic
>that melts one of the elements directly out of the
>heater tube.
>
>Have you found capatible materials? What is your experience?
>
>Mike Norris
>

Zinc die cast alloys were specifically designed not to erode or degrade
steel molds.

Steel is far stronger than stainless steel -- with much better heat
transmission properties -- less thermal expansion than stainless as well.

Peter

From andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM Mon Mar 22 17:24:35 2004
From: andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:44 2004
Subject: Plant Sizing
In-Reply-To: <019f01c41021$7c3fd5e0$0100a8c0@dell3>
Message-ID: <MON.22.MAR.2004.222435.0000.>

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:22:26 -0000, Ken Boak wrote:

>
>As you know I am a proponent of Stirling , and other external combustion
>engines as an alternative to IC engines, however we do face a distinct
>world shortage of any practical examples.

Do you not consider the Microgen and Whispergen offerings as
practical? I feel they are likely to be limited to a small niche, and
low power. It's the potential for a long trouble free life and direct
coupling to a gasifier that interest me.

>Sunpower of Athens, Ohio, demonstrated a 1.1kW Stirling driven linear
>alternator, fuelled on gasified biomass - and this basic arrangement has
>been taken by www.microgen.com and turned into a natural gas fuelled
>domestic micro CHP.

Of which there are a number of working versions in UK, none using a
gasifier yet though.

>I prefer the approach of the electric vehicle with range extender trailer.
>The trailer would contain the gasifier and engine/alternator combination.

There we will have to differ then, to my mind armageddon will have
happened for this to interest the (remaining) population.

>Even if you only get 10% conversion of fuel energy into power, you are
>still off-setting your grid requirement - and all the waste heat is
>available for domestic heating. I consider this as one would have had to
>burn the wood anyway to keep warm (in the UK) and any power you generate is
>a bonus.

Yes and the point I was getting at was that the conversion might be 2%
electrical 98% heat with thermionics, 10% electrical 90% heat with
small stirling, 16% electrical 84% heat with simple 40kW gt, 35%
electrical 65% heat with 100kW diesel, 55% electrical 45% (v low
grade) heat with combined cycle gt, etc. but this conversion
efficiency is only part of the picture. Complexity adds capital cost
and operation and maintenance per kWhr are very significant, I was
looking for the break points (well blurred areas really) between the
technologies.

AJH

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Mon Mar 22 17:44:07 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:44 2004
Subject: Plant Sizing
In-Reply-To: <j7ou50h2at2kcl03c0sul9fvn34t1pr8n3@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <MON.22.MAR.2004.164407.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 10:24:35PM +0000, Andrew Heggie wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:22:26 -0000, Ken Boak wrote:
>
> >
> >As you know I am a proponent of Stirling , and other external combustion
> >engines as an alternative to IC engines, however we do face a distinct
> >world shortage of any practical examples.
>
> Do you not consider the Microgen and Whispergen offerings as
> practical? I feel they are likely to be limited to a small niche, and
> low power. It's the potential for a long trouble free life and direct
> coupling to a gasifier that interest me.

Just that they're far too expensive for what you're getting. Somebody needs
to get them made in China. For my pocketbook, they're going to have to get
pretty cheap to compete with all the cheap or free junkyard engines
available.
Extreme efficiency is nice to think about, but at this point gasifier fuel
can be almost or even totally free (or you can even get paid to take it as in
dried biosolids) so you can afford to let a lot of efficiency go by the wayside,
at least for the small, personal use.

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

From kenboak at STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK Mon Mar 22 18:03:40 2004
From: kenboak at STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK (Ken Boak)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:44 2004
Subject: Plant Sizing
Message-ID: <MON.22.MAR.2004.230340.0000.KENBOAK@STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK>

Andrew, Harmon & Listers

I believe that the Microgen and Whispertech products are practical, and if
you consider 12 million homes in the UK, with gas central heating to
potentially be a small niche market - that's fine!

However, I think that the robustness of the products perhaps questionable,
and the service interval is likely to be too short for the unit to be ideal
for running on gasified biomass.

Mass manufacture in China or India certainly would make the product more
affordable.

The Sunpower free-piston SE and linear alternator design is interesting -
and
removes the additional complexity of rotating cranks and generators. I
have a Sunpower paper on this unit which I will try to look out. - or you
can find them all here:

www.sunpower.com/technology/public.html

What we really need is the equivalent of the old "heavy iron" Lister, which
Peter Singfield is in favour of.

Totally bombproof, and will run continuously with minimum of maintenance and
not fussy on the particular mix of fuels.

With regard to plant sizing - I need just 12kWh of electricity per day for
my home/office requirements - and 6kWh of that is just keeping my computers
on 24/7.

For 6 months of the winter I need 120kWh thermal, dropping to 30kWh in the
summer months - but this could almost be eliminated with solar water
heating. Running the boiler pilot light 24/7 uses 8kWh per day in the
Summer.

Give me a 10% efficient, quiet, biomass/veg-oil fuelled prime mover and I
will be happy as Larry...............

regards

Ken

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Mon Mar 22 18:22:58 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:44 2004
Subject: Low producer gas flame speed...
Message-ID: <MON.22.MAR.2004.162258.0700.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Peter:

> >Dear Greg and all:
> >
> >How can producer
> >gas be less than CO?).
>
> Dilution in all that nitrogen??
>
> Peter / Belize

Probably correct. I should have thought of that.

TOM REED

From snkm at BTL.NET Mon Mar 22 20:08:28 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:44 2004
Subject: Plant Sizing and pricing
Message-ID: <MON.22.MAR.2004.190828.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 11:03 PM 3/22/2004 -0000, Ken Boak wrote:

>With regard to plant sizing - I need just 12kWh of electricity per day for
>my home/office requirements - and 6kWh of that is just keeping my computers
>on 24/7.

My -- that is less then I consume here in Belize -- which is 15 kwh per day.

A 3 kva genset is over kill for my needs -- on real trial runs.

>
>For 6 months of the winter I need 120kWh thermal, dropping to 30kWh in the
>summer months - but this could almost be eliminated with solar water
>heating. Running the boiler pilot light 24/7 uses 8kWh per day in the
>Summer.
>
>Give me a 10% efficient, quiet, biomass/veg-oil fuelled prime mover and I
>will be happy as Larry...............

Or a 27% efficient old style Lister -- as can still be sourced in India --
running on straight veggie oil -- the other 17% running resistant electric
heaters.

Certainly -- the cooling system of these old listers -- convection current
to a drum of water -- is one of the easiest to recover for thermal use.

A small fire tube style boiler can be easily implemented into the muffler
for more waste heat recovery -- and all part of the same "drum"

The 6 HP Lister will produce 3500 watts continuously -- 4000 watts for
periods of one hour.

I suppose in winter one could fire up and extra one. That also gives one as
spare most of the time.

Great way to "burn" used veggie oil -- used car engine oil -- etc.

For the curious -- here is one supplier in India that delivers to the world
-- and gives valid quotes.

LOVSON EXPORTS LTD.
98 Bajaj Bhawan, Nariman Point,
Mumbai 400021, INDIA.

Tel : 91-22-2024071 , 2021918 , 2021555
Fax: 91-22-2045488 , 2027355
www.lovson.com
www.lovson.co.in

I'd quote prices -- but everything just went up -- shipping costs -- cast
iron costs -- etc.

But in 2002 -- prices were -- see appended quotation.

And this but one supplier -- and not even the one I purchased from!!

Rajan supplied me a 6 HP for $425 -- belts -- pulleys -- and all.

And by the time there be no more used veggie oil and old crank-case oil --
your gasifier should be up and running! Then fuel them with producer gas!
Either spark ignition -- pure producer -- or dual fuel with a little waste
oil.

by the way -- spare parts are very reasonable!! So order extra head gaskets
-- rings -- bearings -- seals --

Further -- you can't beat their prices for pulleys and belts!!

You certainly do not want to be having to buy a 12 inch -- two groove --
pulley -- for 5/8 V-belt in any modern country! Cost half the price of that
engine right there!

They like to use long belts -- that way the belts run much cooler -- and
last much longer (much more belt to wear) -- and great isolation of
vibration between engine and generator.

The "B 150" below is 150 inches long! Price a 5/8 in by 150 in belt in your
area!!

The ones running 12 HP oil expressor (and it pushes at maximum at all time)
show no wear yet!

Some examples:

`V' BELT (SIZE : B 150) 12.00 EACH
PISTON RING 4.00 SET
C.R. BEARING 2.90 PAIR
MAIN BEARING 5.15 EACH
CYLINDER HEAD GASKET 2.00 EACH
OIL SEAL 1.00 EACH
4" * 1 1/2" BORE THREE GROOVE `B' - SECTION PULLEY 14.00 EACH
12" SIZE 2" BORE THREE GROOVE `B' SECTION PULLEY 45.00 EACH
12" SIZE 2" BORE TWO GROOVE `B' SECTION PULLEY 33.00 EACH
5" 1 1/2" BORE THREE GROOVE `B' SECTION PULLEY 17.50 EACH

The 12 inch pulley comes with the engine --

Remember -- these are low RPM -- so everything gears up -- not down!

I begin to wonder sometimes where all our modern technology is taking us --
when we have such fine examples of historical equipments available??

I guess most people drive without looking in the rear view mirror??

Peter / Belize

>
>regards
>
>
>Ken
>

***********appended quote**************

Dear Mr Peter Singfield,

Thank you for your E-mail of 26th July,2002 and the interest shown in our
Company.

We are glad to offer:

LISTER TYPE DIESEL ENGINE WATER COOLED

US$ HP RPM CYL
FOB MUMBAI
PER NO
295.00 6 650 1

550.00 12 650 2

PAYMENT : CONFIRMED SIGHT L/C

QUANTITY : 1 X 20'CONTAINER = 34 NOS FOR 6HP
1 X 20'CONTAINER = 26 NOS FOR 12HP

COST OF ONE FULL CONTAINER IS US$3345/- TO BELIZE

VALIDITY : 26.08.2002.

PLEASE INFORM YOUR INTEREST.

Regards,

Joanna

From MMBTUPR at AOL.COM Mon Mar 22 21:21:45 2004
From: MMBTUPR at AOL.COM (Lewis L. Smith)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:44 2004
Subject: US Economic Energy Policy
Message-ID: <MON.22.MAR.2004.212145.EST.>

to Gasifiers from Lewis L. Smith

Thanks to Auke Koopmans for the British gasoline mileage data. Following
are some ruminations.

Since mileage hasn't changed significantly since 1987, one wonders when
the heavy taxes were imposed. Perhaps when mileage gets that high, either it
is very expensive for manufacturers to go any higher, the total gasoline bill
is reduced to the point where consumption is insensitive to most changes in
price [whether OPEC or tax induced] or all of the above.

Cordially.

End.

From VHarris001 at AOL.COM Mon Mar 22 21:42:12 2004
From: VHarris001 at AOL.COM (VHarris001@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:44 2004
Subject: US Energy, Economic Policy
Message-ID: <MON.22.MAR.2004.214212.EST.>

Unfortunately I remain unclear regarding whether it is permissible to discuss
energy policy / energy politics on the gasification list. So I too am
petitioning REPP to create another discussion topic specifically targeted to
discussion of the non-technical aspects of renewable energy.

Sincerely imploring,

Vernon Harris

From MMBTUPR at AOL.COM Mon Mar 22 22:04:43 2004
From: MMBTUPR at AOL.COM (Lewis L. Smith)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:44 2004
Subject: US Energy, Economic Policy
Message-ID: <MON.22.MAR.2004.220443.EST.>

to Grasifiers from Lewis L. Smith

Ref. Penelope deSimone's posting of 21 March about "the precautionary
principal".

In commenting, I make reference to McQuillan, Alan G. and Preston,
Ashley L. : Globally and locally ? seeking a middle path to sustainable development
, University Press of America, New York 1998. [Ethical note. McQuillan is a
relative of some of my nephews.]

John G. Photiades, a contributor to this volume, defines this principle
as "the commitment of resources now to safeguard against potentially adverse
future outcomes" of a given decision. "As a
practical matter, this principle argues in favor of a risk-adverse strategy
of conserving what there is of natural capital, rather than hoping that future
technology will mitigate the [noxive future] effects [of the decision] ."
He recommends the application of this principle in situations where there is
significant uncertainty and/or ignorance, in addition to risk. [Only in the
latter case, can the outcomes be enumerated and their probabilities of occurrence
be estimated.] [See p. 27.]

Penelope concurs, and I do too.

But this still does not change the problem that to use numbers tainted
by uncertainty in a presentation or a promotion is to undermine ones cause. It
is my experience that quantifications should be as strong as possible and that
while the issue of uncertainty should be treated, it should be treated
separately.

For example, in making the case for gasification of biomass as a
replacement for No. 6 fuel oil, I would say that I am "absolutely" or "95%" certain
that the hidden environmental cost of burning No. 6 is "at least" $10 barrel in
Puerto Rico, even when all the regulations are complied with. Then later on,
I would say [in response to the inevitable question from a legislator] , We
don't know what the exact number is, but it could be as high as $25. So as a
precautionary measure, we recommend the following actions [1] .... n . Or as one
says in Spanish, "Por si las moscas" or "Para curarnos en salud".

On the other hand, if I go into a hearing and come down hard on $15.23
as the exact number, somebody is sure to bring in another "expert" who will
argue for a different number, the legislators will end up mistrusting one or both
and ? in the end ? nothing will be done.

Note that while the precautionary principle is a good principle, it
doesn't guarantee absolute protection against "ambushes" or "potholes" as we
proceed down "the road of life" and shouldn't be sold as such. It is a kind of
insurance policy, but one with an ambiguous coverage.

Cordially.

End.

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Mon Mar 22 22:27:21 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: US Energy, Economic Policy
In-Reply-To: <123.2c5bb9b2.2d90fe04@aol.com>
Message-ID: <MON.22.MAR.2004.212721.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

No, no, no, no -- most of us belong to far too many lists already. There
really isn't all that much discussion of any kind here that is that far off
topic in the first place. Energy and politics go hand in hand, and, in reality,
the "political" messages so far in the few years I've been on this list
(6? 7?) amount to nothing. I don't recall anything like a real flame war. And,
as others have noted, most of the time there is almost no traffic at all.
The bottom line, for those who really can't tolerate anything but pure
"tech" talk -- learn to use your delete key. If you're all that "techy" you
ought to be able to figure at least that out. And if you're really techy, you
should have, by now, learned to use a mail filter, so you just don't have any
reason to complain whatsoever. If you find some people posting too many topic on
subjects you aren't interested in - or you just despise them for some reason --
you just put their name/address in your mail filter and Wahzooo -- you never,
ever see their posts again. Or you can just send those post to another folder on
your machine to look at if you have some spare time.
So what's the problem? If you claim to be techy enough to build a gasifier
or tear apart an engine, and you can't figure out how to work the built in mail
filter on every mailreader -- I have no sympathy for you, and I sincerely doubt
your abilities to even drive a car.

On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 09:42:12PM -0500, VHarris001@AOL.COM wrote:
> Unfortunately I remain unclear regarding whether it is permissible to discuss
> energy policy / energy politics on the gasification list. So I too am
> petitioning REPP to create another discussion topic specifically targeted to
> discussion of the non-technical aspects of renewable energy.
>
> Sincerely imploring,
>
> Vernon Harris

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

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Tue Mar 23 00:29:38 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: US Energy, Economic Policy
Message-ID: <MON.22.MAR.2004.232938.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Harmon, & all,

Even though I'm NOT inclined to the "political" side of things, I DO agree
with Harmon on this, the delete key is a very simple tool that most of us
do, at times forget how to use, and of coarse gets us into trouble. (mostly
in the fact of being way to outspoken in our own personal political views).

Alas, I ask of all of us (myself included) that we moderate our Own portion
of this political section of the discussion and attempt an "open mind" on
it, just as we have an open mind on the creation/transfer and use of
"alternative energy".

Regards,

Greg Manning,

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Harmon Seaver
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 9:27 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: US Energy, Economic Policy

No, no, no, no -- most of us belong to far too many lists already. There
really isn't all that much discussion of any kind here that is that far off
topic in the first place. Energy and politics go hand in hand, and, in
reality,
the "political" messages so far in the few years I've been on this list
(6? 7?) amount to nothing. I don't recall anything like a real flame war.
And,
as others have noted, most of the time there is almost no traffic at all.
The bottom line, for those who really can't tolerate anything but pure
"tech" talk -- learn to use your delete key. If you're all that "techy" you
ought to be able to figure at least that out. And if you're really techy,
you
should have, by now, learned to use a mail filter, so you just don't have
any
reason to complain whatsoever. If you find some people posting too many
topic on
subjects you aren't interested in - or you just despise them for some
reason --
you just put their name/address in your mail filter and Wahzooo -- you
never,
ever see their posts again. Or you can just send those post to another
folder on
your machine to look at if you have some spare time.
So what's the problem? If you claim to be techy enough to build a
gasifier
or tear apart an engine, and you can't figure out how to work the built in
mail
filter on every mailreader -- I have no sympathy for you, and I sincerely
doubt
your abilities to even drive a car.

On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 09:42:12PM -0500, VHarris001@AOL.COM wrote:
> Unfortunately I remain unclear regarding whether it is permissible to
discuss
> energy policy / energy politics on the gasification list. So I too am
> petitioning REPP to create another discussion topic specifically targeted
to
> discussion of the non-technical aspects of renewable energy.
>
> Sincerely imploring,
>
> Vernon Harris

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

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Tue Mar 23 02:12:16 2004
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: Fw: Gasification of Napier Grass
Message-ID: <MON.22.MAR.2004.231216.0800.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

----- Original Message -----
From: Malcolm Lefcort mlefcort@telus.net
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERVE.REPP.ORG
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 3:22 PM
Subject: Gasification of Napier Grass

Lewis,

A slightly different approach would be to burn 3" minus shredded, 50% to 60% moisture content, Napier grass in a two-stage Heuristic EnvirOcycler. The EnvirOcycler gasifies wet biomass in a large first stage of gentle updraft gasification and then burns the producer gas, so formed, is a second stage of vigorous, double vortex cyclonic combustion.

You can avoid the boiler feedwater problem by indirectly firing a gas turbine generator set with the EnvirOcycler's products of combustion. See "Sawmill, Wood Waste Fuelled, 100% Recuperated, 5 MWe Gas Turbine Co-Generation Plant", International Gas Turbine & Aeroengine Congress & Exhibition, Stockholm, Sweden, 2nd - 5th June 1998, ASME Paper 98-GT-62 on http://www.heuristicengineering.com/papers/papers.html

The paper examines the use of the Nuovo Pignone PGT-5 (now GE-5) with its external combustion chamber replaced by a moderately high temperature gas-to-air heat exchanger with the shell side of the heat exchanger fired by EnvirOcycler's 1,850oF exhaust. To ensure a heat exchanger life of 100,000 hours, the air temperature leaving the tube side of the heat exchanger is set at 1,550oF, thereby reducing the turbines rated 5 MWe output to 3.5 MWe (the PGT-5's design TIT is 1,896oF).

However, as the ASME paper shows, there is plenty of sensible heat available in the turbine discharge (air) and the heat exchanger discharge (spent EnvirOcycler products of combustion). It can be used to fire a rugged waste heat boiler and generate a nominal 1.5 MWe of power with a condensing steam turbine generator. Then you'd have what I call a "poor man's combined cycle".

One can spend a great deal of money in drying, pulverizing and then gasifying almost any biomass - and using the producer gas in a suitably modified gas turbine combustion chamber to make power (which the Swedes have done in the heart of Stockholm) - but why bother when a simpler, more nuts and bolts, approach is available.

Malcolm D. Lefcort

Heuristic Engineering Inc

Vancouver, BC

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List [mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG] On Behalf Of Lewis L. Smith
Sent: March 18, 2004 2:17 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [GASL] Gasification of Napier grass

to Gasifiers from Lewis L. Smith

I am working on a proposal for gasifying Napier grass to feed modular

turbo-generator sets which would be scattered about the Puerto Rican country

side in clusters of 30-50 MW, for "wheeling green energy" to selected

manufacturing operations.

But first a clarification of a matter which continues to cause

confusion throughout the world.

Napier grass [Pennisetum purpureum] is also know as "elephant grass" or

"Uganda grass". It was brought to California, Puerto Rico and the southeastern

USA from Africa and during the 1980's was popular in Puerto Rico as a cattle

forage. When used as forage, it is harvested every two months; for energy, every

six months. In either case, all operations can be carried with conventional

equipment such as a standard conditioner and a New Holland baler.

However, another grass, miscanthus [Miscanthus x giganteus] is also

sometimes called "elephant grass". It was introduced into Denmark from Japan and is

being pushed hard as an energy crop in by the European Union and a few

institutions in the northern USA.

The two grasses are quite similar. In fact, some varieties of each can be

crossed with some of sugar cane !

The characteristics of Napier grass can vary considerably with agronomic

conditions, climate, time of year and above all, the age of the plant. However,

in my experience, the following data for the variety "Super Merker" at four

months are fairly typical of what one might expect for an energy crop.

The standing plant is about 75% moisture and 25% solids but can be field

dried in bales to 30% moisture. At the latter moisture content, the grass will

have a high heating value of about 11.7 million BTU's per short ton. In a

traditional sugar-mill boiler, Napier grass pile burns pretty much like bagasse,

and one has no problem making steam at the required pressure.

The composition of Super Merker at four months is 33.0% cellulose, 28.4%

hemicellulose, 10.0% ash, 4.8% lignin and 23.8% other.

I do not have a breakdown for the ash, but European data a few years old

for mercanthus indicates the following - SiO2 30%, K2O 20-25%, P2O5 5%, MgO

5% and sulfur 0.1% .

The reason for gasifying for turbines rather than for boilers, is that the

grass would be grown in areas where the annual rainfall is mostly within the

range 20" to 60" and ground water is quite variable as to supply and quality,

and we want to avoid requirements for boiler makeup water due to blowdown and

leakage.

Over the last year and a half, I have been doing quite a bit of research

on the Internet and have come up with some candidate processes, both for

gasification and for gas cleanup, which is an important issued when the gas is to

be fed to a turbine. Nevertheless, I am sure that there are a lot of

experienced persons in our Discussion Group who could make suggestions.

Two points in particular trouble me.

[1] Quite a few sites on the web [NREL, a biomass

conference in Slovakia, some European research institutes] say that no commercially

proven techniques exist for biomass gasification ! Yet in a year and a half of

searching, this "boiler man" has found quite a few, including PRME with 20

years experience with a rice hulls, a really nasty feedstock ! What gives ?

There seems to be a real disconnect here, between the operators and the

researchers.

[2] A very experienced gasifier strongly recommends

boilers and steam turbines, rather than gas turbines, because no good cleanup system

is commercially available. Yet there are a number of turbine manufaturers who

claim that their commercial models can handle a wide variety of gases,

ranging from digester gas [very low BTU and lots of sulfur] to pipeline quality

natural gas. Again there seems to be some lind of disconnect, this time within

related industries.

Hope this gives everybody a rest from politics ! [Important, however,

if one wants to replace petroleum everywhere, as I do !]

Comments would be appreciated.

Cordially.

End

From Steven.Gust at FORTUM.COM Tue Mar 23 02:25:50 2004
From: Steven.Gust at FORTUM.COM (Gust Steven)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: US Energy, Economic Policy
Message-ID: <TUE.23.MAR.2004.092550.0200.STEVEN.GUST@FORTUM.COM>

Harmon

I really can't understand your point:
-->I have no sympathy for you, and I sincerely
-->doubt your abilities to even drive a car.

Why would you doubt someone's ability to drive a car if they want to
keep a list concentrated on technical issues. Does the impersonal nature
of email lists make it too easy for people to attack each other?

Steven Gust
Fortum

-->-----Original Message-----
-->From: Harmon Seaver [mailto:hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM]
-->Sent: 23. maaliskuuta 2004 5:27
-->To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
-->Subject: Re: [GASL] US Energy, Economic Policy

-->
--> No, no, no, no -- most of us belong to far too many lists
-->already. There really isn't all that much discussion of any
-->kind here that is that far off topic in the first place.
-->Energy and politics go hand in hand, and, in reality, the
-->"political" messages so far in the few years I've been on
-->this list (6? 7?) amount to nothing. I don't recall anything
-->like a real flame war. And, as others have noted, most of
-->the time there is almost no traffic at all.
--> The bottom line, for those who really can't tolerate
-->anything but pure "tech" talk -- learn to use your delete
-->key. If you're all that "techy" you ought to be able to
-->figure at least that out. And if you're really techy, you
-->should have, by now, learned to use a mail filter, so you
-->just don't have any reason to complain whatsoever. If you
-->find some people posting too many topic on subjects you
-->aren't interested in - or you just despise them for some
-->reason -- you just put their name/address in your mail
-->filter and Wahzooo -- you never, ever see their posts again.
-->Or you can just send those post to another folder on your
-->machine to look at if you have some spare time.
--> So what's the problem? If you claim to be techy enough
-->to build a gasifier or tear apart an engine, and you can't
-->figure out how to work the built in mail filter on every
-->mailreader -- I have no sympathy for you, and I sincerely
-->doubt your abilities to even drive a car.
-->
-->
-->On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 09:42:12PM -0500, VHarris001@AOL.COM wrote:
-->> Unfortunately I remain unclear regarding whether it is
-->permissible to
-->> discuss energy policy / energy politics on the
-->gasification list. So
-->> I too am petitioning REPP to create another discussion topic
-->> specifically targeted to discussion of the non-technical
-->aspects of
-->> renewable energy.
-->>
-->> Sincerely imploring,
-->>
-->> Vernon Harris
-->
-->--
-->Harmon Seaver
-->CyberShamanix
-->http://www.cybershamanix.com
-->

From JMonteroA at ICE.GO.CR Tue Mar 23 08:41:27 2004
From: JMonteroA at ICE.GO.CR (Montero Arguedas Jorge Mario)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: RV: [GASL] US Energy, Economic Policy
Message-ID: <TUE.23.MAR.2004.074127.0600.JMONTEROA@ICE.GO.CR>

I would agree with Harmon here. You can't decouple technicalities from
policy, and viceversa. If you want to do something significant, you have to
address both levels. Policy, economics, environmental impact (which I see
quite disregarded in this list) all go hand in hand to produce solutions
that are better than our status quo.

Jorge.

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Harmon Seaver [mailto:hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM]
> Enviado el: Monday, March 22, 2004 9:27 PM
> Para: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Asunto: Re: [GASL] US Energy, Economic Policy
>
>
> No, no, no, no -- most of us belong to far too many lists
> already. There
> really isn't all that much discussion of any kind here that
> is that far off
> topic in the first place. Energy and politics go hand in
> hand, and, in reality,
> the "political" messages so far in the few years I've been on
> this list
> (6? 7?) amount to nothing. I don't recall anything like a
> real flame war. And,
> as others have noted, most of the time there is almost no
> traffic at all.
> The bottom line, for those who really can't tolerate
> anything but pure
> "tech" talk -- learn to use your delete key. If you're all
> that "techy" you
> ought to be able to figure at least that out. And if you're
> really techy, you
> should have, by now, learned to use a mail filter, so you
> just don't have any
> reason to complain whatsoever. If you find some people
> posting too many topic on
> subjects you aren't interested in - or you just despise them
> for some reason --
> you just put their name/address in your mail filter and
> Wahzooo -- you never,
> ever see their posts again. Or you can just send those post
> to another folder on
> your machine to look at if you have some spare time.
> So what's the problem? If you claim to be techy enough to
> build a gasifier
> or tear apart an engine, and you can't figure out how to work
> the built in mail
> filter on every mailreader -- I have no sympathy for you, and
> I sincerely doubt
> your abilities to even drive a car.
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 09:42:12PM -0500, VHarris001@AOL.COM wrote:
> > Unfortunately I remain unclear regarding whether it is
> permissible to discuss
> > energy policy / energy politics on the gasification list.
> So I too am
> > petitioning REPP to create another discussion topic
> specifically targeted to
> > discussion of the non-technical aspects of renewable energy.
> >
> > Sincerely imploring,
> >
> > Vernon Harris
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com
>

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Tue Mar 23 10:45:39 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: US Energy, Economic Policy
In-Reply-To: <3930BE7C23933042A55E61A53F31DC2A5B589C@FIESPC0021.adinfra.net>
Message-ID: <TUE.23.MAR.2004.094539.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 09:25:50AM +0200, Gust Steven wrote:
> Harmon
>
> I really can't understand your point:
> -->I have no sympathy for you, and I sincerely
> -->doubt your abilities to even drive a car.
>
> Why would you doubt someone's ability to drive a car if they want to
> keep a list concentrated on technical issues. Does the impersonal nature
> of email lists make it too easy for people to attack each other?
>

My point is that it is so absurdly simple to delete posts you don't want to
read, or even to use a mail filter to remove subjects or posters you don't want
to see that anyone who claims to be interested in only "technical" issues should
certainly be capable of doing so. The total number of posts on *any* topic on
this list is so small that to spend time arguing about "off topic" or "on
topic" is a bit absurd. Often it goes for a week or more with no posts at
all. And there have now been more posts *about* off-topic posts than there were
about politics.
I mean -- if anyone is really all that bothered by a few posts that don't
interest them, what in the world do they do with the tons of spam they
get? Personally I probably get 200 or so spam messages a day, the vast majority
of which is dealt with by my mail filters. Often on whatever list I'm on, I find
myself simply deleting whole threads of discussion unread because I read the
first one or two and decided I wasn't interested in that topic. It's so simple,
just hit the delete key.

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

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Tue Mar 23 11:50:16 2004
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: US Energy, Economic Policy
Message-ID: <TUE.23.MAR.2004.085016.0800.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

Vernon,

The list for discussion of energy policy / energy politics is the general bioenergy list bioenergy@listserv.repp.org
View the archives, join or leave the list at: http://listserv.repp.org/archives/bioenergy.html

We have maintained the bioenergy list since 1994.

Policy discussions on the gasification list should pertain specifically to gasification.

Thanks for your request for clarification

Kind regards,

Tom Miles

 

----- Original Message -----
From: VHarris001@aol.com
To: tmiles@TRMILES.COM ; GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] US Energy, Economic Policy

Unfortunately I remain unclear regarding whether it is permissible to discuss energy policy / energy politics on the gasification list. So I too am petitioning REPP to create another discussion topic specifically targeted to discussion of the non-technical aspects of renewable energy.

Sincerely imploring,

Vernon Harris

From sheltonvictor at YAHOO.CO.IN Tue Mar 23 12:02:23 2004
From: sheltonvictor at YAHOO.CO.IN (=?iso-8859-1?q?shelton=20victor?=)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: Promotion of gasification technologies
In-Reply-To: <004101c40f4c$39936a70$6401a8c0@TOM>
Message-ID: <TUE.23.MAR.2004.170223.0000.SHELTONVICTOR@YAHOO.CO.IN>

hello all of you

iam currently working on fluidized bed gasification of ground nut shell and production of activated carbons.

i have tested the residue i have obtained by means of air gasification,the conditions i have maintained was:

bed temp..700 deg cel

fuel feed rate ...20 kg / hr

equivalence ratio...0.3

for the residue i obtained an iodine value of...266

and the fixed carbon content of 75 %

intially the F.C was 18 %

and i obtained a flame height of nearly 1 metre.

my quest is are the above value sounds OK...

Win an evening with the Indian cricket captain: Yahoo! India Promos.

From ken at BASTERFIELD.COM Tue Mar 23 16:07:05 2004
From: ken at BASTERFIELD.COM (Ken Basterfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: Octane and Compression ratio relationship...
In-Reply-To: <20040319162756.GB24878@cybershamanix.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.23.MAR.2004.210705.0000.KEN@BASTERFIELD.COM>

Harmon,

I understand that in adding a turbocharger or a supercharger you will
increase the peak pressure at combustion, but it won't increase the
compression or compression ratio.

Incidently, the trade off is, can the cylinder head bolts still hold
the head on when it hasn't been designed for the higher pressure?

Mercedes had significant failures when they tried to simply tubocharge
their 3litre Diesel in the G-Wagen without beefing up the head. In the
end the did as many other manufacturers do when turbocharging, they
reduce the compression ratio to start with and so retrain the peak
pressure whilst getting better aspiration.

Sincerely
Ken
-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG] On Behalf Of Harmon Seaver
Sent: 19 March 2004 16:28
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] Octane and Compression ratio relationship...

On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 07:22:32AM -0800, Luiz Alberto Magri wrote:
> Dear Tom,
>
> The information from Prof. Parriksh must be OK since
> based on actual observation, but did they assess the
> origin of the reduction in power and efficiency? It
> can be a result of valves leakage eg. I understand the
> increasing in CR in an existing engine is oabtained by
> means of cilinder head machining only, what means the
> other mechanical parts will be the same as designed
> for the previous - not so hard - conditions.

It depends on the engine -- for some gasoline engines, especially
those
popular with hotrodders, higher compression pistons are available, and
that's a
better way to go, since milling the head can cause problems in some
modern
engines which have very little clearance between valves and piston. If
you look
at most newer engines, you'll see the valve relief cutouts in the piston
top.
But another simple way to effectively increase compression is to add
a
turbocharger. And especially if you intercool the turbo, you can
increase the
compression ratio and pack a lot more producer gas into the cylinder all
at the
same time. And, of course, there are quite a variety of sizes of turbos
available in the junkyards at this point. 8-)

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

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Wed Mar 24 02:36:11 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: Octane and Compression ratio relationship...
In-Reply-To: <000001c4111a$cdb99510$6502a8c0@KenThinkPad>
Message-ID: <WED.24.MAR.2004.013611.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 09:07:05PM -0000, Ken Basterfield wrote:
> Harmon,
>
> I understand that in adding a turbocharger or a supercharger you will
> increase the peak pressure at combustion, but it won't increase the
> compression or compression ratio.
>
Well, technically, no, it won't increase the "compression ratio", but it
does most definitely increase the pressure, which is the same thing. And it's
what you want.

> Incidently, the trade off is, can the cylinder head bolts still hold
> the head on when it hasn't been designed for the higher pressure?
>

That's not usually the point of failure. And it's all very much relative --
how big a turbo are you going to use and what do you set the wastegate pressure
at?

> Mercedes had significant failures when they tried to simply tubocharge
> their 3litre Diesel in the G-Wagen without beefing up the head. In the
> end the did as many other manufacturers do when turbocharging, they
> reduce the compression ratio to start with and so retrain the peak
> pressure whilst getting better aspiration.
>

I doubt the beefed up the head, it's usually thicker pistons and also maybe
better rod and crank bearings. The piston tops are almost always the point of
failure in overzealous compression raising or turbocharging or detonation.

At any rate, that's all to do with normal gasoline or diesel fuels -- we are
talking about producer gas, which is much, much less explosive, and which needs
a lot higher compression (pressure) to burn efficiently. And, again, it's all
pretty relative and needs careful experimentation on the individual engines, but
I'm quite sure you can add substantial turbo or supercharger boost to a normally
aspirated engine if you are only going to run it on producer gas (or alcohol,
for that matter) -- don't forget that you normally are going to get a great deal
less power from the producer gas, and that means that stresses to all engine
parts are going to be much less to begin with.
What people normally do when hotrodding either gas or diesel engines with
turbochargers (even those designed to be run with turbos) is, before adding a
bigger turbo, or before even adjusting the wastegate for more boost or adjusting
the fuel delivery setting on the injection pump -- is first install an Exhaust
Gas Temp gauge so they don't melt a piston top in the process. Cheap insurance,
and also don't forget that there is a plentiful supply of junkyard engines to
experiment on. So you blow a one or two before you get it right.

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

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Wed Mar 24 15:49:57 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: Gasify cardboard,
and smallest gasifier was Re: [GASL] Spark advance vs engine
efficiency vs fuel vs octane
In-Reply-To: <00f101c4101c$5b659850$6401a8c0@TOM>
Message-ID: <WED.24.MAR.2004.144957.0600.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Gasifier folks:

My work is with the tiny gasifiers (ala Tom Reed's campstove technology),
so to many people those little things are not what they consider to be
gasifiers. and the question about "smallness" ASSUMES that the device is
"useful" (and not just some curiosity). But as a curiosity, I have made a
"pyrolysizer-gasifier" as small as a typical soup can underneath a 6-inch
vertical combustion chamber.

About cardboard: Works very well in my cookstove gasifiers. cut it ACROSS
the corrugations at the height of the fuel chamber, and then tightly roll
it so that the corrugations all stand on end. This lets the air and gases
flow nicely up the interior of the cardboard.

I have also make small chunks (roughly torn or cut into about 1 square inch
sizes) and placed them into the cookstove (that are top-lit). work well,
except if laying too flat they can impede the flow of the primary air.

Richard Stanley (who is the expert on biomass briquettes) has pointed out
to me that something in the glue of the corrugated cardboard seems to be a
fire-retardant. But I cannot say either way based on my limited experience.

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

From bpjackso at YAHOO.COM Wed Mar 24 16:28:16 2004
From: bpjackso at YAHOO.COM (Bruce Jackson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: Paul Re: cardboard.
Message-ID: <WED.24.MAR.2004.132816.0800.BPJACKSO@YAHOO.COM>

Hey,
Thanks for your comments on cardboard. Cardboard was
the resource that got me interested in gasifacation. I
observed that cardboard burns with great (although
brief) heat. Also when air to the grates is cut off
cardboard smokes profusely. If one were to open the
fire box door with it loaded with this smoke, a small
explosion results. Its amazing that this is with fire
retardant. I cannot imagine the volatility without the
fire retardent.
I haul waste vegatable oil from restuarants and am
always asked if I would take the cardboard as well. A
certain amount is useful as kindling and ground
sheeting for repairs in the snow, but the resturants
simply provide too much.
Ideally, should the boxes be broken down and rolled
into one big bundle with the corrigations oriented in
the direction of the air flow? Sounds reasonable
enough.

Thanks,
Bruce Jackson

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Wed Mar 24 17:34:50 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: Paul Re: cardboard.
In-Reply-To: <20040324212816.97556.qmail@web40602.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <WED.24.MAR.2004.163450.0600.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Bruce,

So much depends on the size of your gasifier. If you have enough NEED for
the cardboard, then it would be worth having a device that does VERY wide
shreds and/or creases the cardboard to ensure air flow.

Somewhere in the past few months I heard about some combustion device
(might not have been a gasifier) that could take in WHOLE round bales of
hay and straw (they were using the surplus ones that got old in the fields
and were not good feed for animals any longer). Now THAT is BIG for most
of us. But then, the large power generation plants and steel mills take in
multiple whole railway cars of coal.

Paul

At 01:28 PM 3/24/04 -0800, Bruce Jackson wrote:
> Hey,
> Thanks for your comments on cardboard. Cardboard was
>the resource that got me interested in gasifacation. I
>observed that cardboard burns with great (although
>brief) heat. Also when air to the grates is cut off
>cardboard smokes profusely. If one were to open the
>fire box door with it loaded with this smoke, a small
>explosion results. Its amazing that this is with fire
>retardant. I cannot imagine the volatility without the
>fire retardent.
> I haul waste vegatable oil from restuarants and am
>always asked if I would take the cardboard as well. A
>certain amount is useful as kindling and ground
>sheeting for repairs in the snow, but the resturants
>simply provide too much.
> Ideally, should the boxes be broken down and rolled
>into one big bundle with the corrigations oriented in
>the direction of the air flow? Sounds reasonable
>enough.
>
> Thanks,
> Bruce Jackson
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
>http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

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

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Wed Mar 24 18:23:36 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: Paul Re: cardboard.
In-Reply-To: <20040324212816.97556.qmail@web40602.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <WED.24.MAR.2004.172336.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

Hmm, like how much do they want to give you? And is it wrapped or tied in some
way or just loose?

On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 01:28:16PM -0800, Bruce Jackson wrote:
> Hey,
> Thanks for your comments on cardboard. Cardboard was
> the resource that got me interested in gasifacation. I
> observed that cardboard burns with great (although
> brief) heat. Also when air to the grates is cut off
> cardboard smokes profusely. If one were to open the
> fire box door with it loaded with this smoke, a small
> explosion results. Its amazing that this is with fire
> retardant. I cannot imagine the volatility without the
> fire retardent.
> I haul waste vegatable oil from restuarants and am
> always asked if I would take the cardboard as well. A
> certain amount is useful as kindling and ground
> sheeting for repairs in the snow, but the resturants
> simply provide too much.
> Ideally, should the boxes be broken down and rolled
> into one big bundle with the corrigations oriented in
> the direction of the air flow? Sounds reasonable
> enough.
>
> Thanks,
> Bruce Jackson
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

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

From snkm at BTL.NET Wed Mar 24 20:09:18 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: How politics can effect the interests of this list --
Message-ID: <WED.24.MAR.2004.190918.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

This message just come in from a Lawyer friend in Chicago. A totally
non-technically oriented fellow -- but concerned about certain "issues" --
all the same.

Now -- let me highlight why I believe such and article should be of
interest to this list:

As long as the US and global economy are increasingly dependent on an
ever-dwindling supply of oil from the Middle East, the conditions for a
perfect economic storm will continue to haunt us. The solution, in the long
run, is to wean the world off its dependency on oil. That would require
much tougher fuel efficiency standards, greater energy conservation
measures, support of hybrid vehicles and a switch to renewable sources of
energy. Short of that, expect the storm clouds to gather in intensity.

OK -- he is asking my opinion on what the chances are that the US will wake
up and smell the smoke.

I already answered him!

From Carefreeland at AOL.COM Thu Mar 25 00:24:17 2004
From: Carefreeland at AOL.COM (Carefreeland@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: Gas and heat from the same stove.
Message-ID: <THU.25.MAR.2004.002417.EST.>

Dear Gasifiers,
I am working toward a project to heat and provide electric power for
my greenhouse. I am convinced that a burner can be constructed in such a way
as to separate and extract a small percentage of best quality of gas from
between the pyroliser and gas burner stages. I figure let the tar particles burn
clean in the burner while they are still hot, and separate some hydrogen rich
producer gas at the source.
I primarily have need for the heat as we have somewhat cold winters
here in Southwest Ohio. I am working on thermal convective cooling systems as
well, so a small amount of heat can amplify a suction ventilation system in the
summer. Basically, the thermal lift stack will draw air through the misted
greenhouse cooling the air and surfaces of the plants. Think of using excess
air input to a fireplace to draw hot air out of a house. Log Cabins did it for
hundreds of years.
The burner will handle a wide variety of large biomass and chips when
properly mixed. There is a financial incentive for me to dispose of a large
amount of biomass cleanly on site, as the large city has grown around the
farm/landfill location. They will pay me to burn their waste. Efficiency is not as
important to me as clean emissions.
I have several old gas engines available to use to turn the woodgas
into electricity. I don't mind burning some gasoline as long as the electric
output (at US $.085kwh, exceeds the cost of the gasoline. I have a complete Ford
Escort car (cost- US$ 50) with a 4 cyl gasoline engine, and a Ford 300
straight six cylinder gasoline engine. Anybody with experience here?
I can start out just running the engines during a small part of the
day to provide power for water pumping and ventilation. This will allow for a
lot of experimentation. I plant to develop a battery storage and 12 volt back up
power system. Studies show the primary reason for new greenhouse business
failure is catastrophic loss of power and heat during storms and black outs.
Photovoltaic and small windmills will later be added. The grid will be there when
it is to my advantage only. ;-)
To demonstrate the abundance of woodwaste, I have heated my greenhouse
with high Btu locust hardwood for the last month and a half. This 4 cord load
of wood had been stored outside and was illegally dumped at night because it
contained a small amount of rot and a few bugs. I haven't even had to cut most
of it as it was cut long for a fireplace. Landfills around here won't even
take this kind of wood waste at any price.
With the impending invasion of the many imported bark Beatles, there
is going to be a huge surplus of buggy firewood people don't want to burn in
their homes. I can charge > $10/ton to dispose of dirty hardwood. As you can
imagine I have expansion plans for the greenhouse operation.
I am open to comments or questions.
Daniel Dimiduk

From Carefreeland at AOL.COM Thu Mar 25 01:12:50 2004
From: Carefreeland at AOL.COM (Carefreeland@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: Gasified road asphalt.
Message-ID: <THU.25.MAR.2004.011250.EST.>

Has anyone out there done any work gasifing road asphalt? There is a lot of
road asphalt out there that has crum rubber from rubber tires in it, and so
cannot be recycled.
Daniel Dimiduk

From ken at BASTERFIELD.COM Thu Mar 25 08:32:05 2004
From: ken at BASTERFIELD.COM (Ken Basterfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: Paul Re: cardboard.
In-Reply-To: <20040324212816.97556.qmail@web40602.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <THU.25.MAR.2004.133205.0000.KEN@BASTERFIELD.COM>

Dear All,
Many beekeepers use rolled corrugated cardboard in the smokers. I can
vouch for the amount of smoke it produces with or without retardant.
Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG] On Behalf Of Bruce Jackson
Sent: 24 March 2004 21:28
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [GASL] Paul Re: cardboard.

Hey,
Thanks for your comments on cardboard. Cardboard was
the resource that got me interested in gasifacation. I
observed that cardboard burns with great (although
brief) heat. Also when air to the grates is cut off
cardboard smokes profusely. If one were to open the
fire box door with it loaded with this smoke, a small
explosion results. Its amazing that this is with fire
retardant. I cannot imagine the volatility without the
fire retardent.
I haul waste vegatable oil from restuarants and am
always asked if I would take the cardboard as well. A
certain amount is useful as kindling and ground
sheeting for repairs in the snow, but the resturants
simply provide too much.
Ideally, should the boxes be broken down and rolled
into one big bundle with the corrigations oriented in
the direction of the air flow? Sounds reasonable
enough.

Thanks,
Bruce Jackson

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Thu Mar 25 15:50:46 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: Gasified road asphalt.
In-Reply-To: <12f.3da5fd84.2d93d262@aol.com>
Message-ID: <THU.25.MAR.2004.145046.0600.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Dan,

Can you get me a small bag of this stuff? Mail it or bring it to
Tami?? When you say "a lot", what does that mean, and where is the stuff?

Paul

At 01:12 AM 3/25/04 -0500, Carefreeland@AOL.COM wrote:
>Has anyone out there done any work gasifing road asphalt? There is a lot of
>road asphalt out there that has crum rubber from rubber tires in it, and so
>cannot be recycled.
> Daniel Dimiduk

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

From bpjackso at YAHOO.COM Thu Mar 25 15:47:20 2004
From: bpjackso at YAHOO.COM (Bruce Jackson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: Whats the best engine?
Message-ID: <THU.25.MAR.2004.124720.0800.BPJACKSO@YAHOO.COM>

Been reading a lot of posts here. Been reading a lot
of old books on producer gas. Dominant theme here on
the list is dual fueling diesels with producer gas.
Well, lets suppose we built an engine specifically to
run on producer gas.
What would that engine be like?
How long a stroke?
What type of ignition?
CR?
What type of carburetion?
Top RPM?
Water cooled?
Etc, Etc?

Please throw what you know at this. The only
parameters that I would not like to compromise on are
that it be a slower RPM and single cylinder.
Do you guys think that the engines built in the early
1900s were the best design for producer gas?
Thanks, Bruce Jackson

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

From joacim at YMEX.NET Thu Mar 25 16:53:50 2004
From: joacim at YMEX.NET (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: Whats the best engine?
In-Reply-To: <20040325204720.76392.qmail@web40611.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <THU.25.MAR.2004.225350.0100.JOACIM@YMEX.NET>

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Bruce Jackson wrote:

> Well, lets suppose we built an engine specifically to
> run on producer gas.
> What would that engine be like?
[...]

> CR?

variable

Producer gas will never be a standardised fuel with distinct and constant
properties. The best engine for producer gas is a flexible one.

And perhaps the best engine is the engine which can run on a large variety
of fuels, not only producer gas, not only rapseed oil etc, without major
reconstruction, preferrably without any reconstruction at all.

Petroleum fuel (petrol and diesel) is the dominating fuel today. At least
we here on this list are aware that this condition won't last forever. But
there is no single fuel which can alone replace oil. (I doubt the sum of
all of them can replace oil altogether either) I for one think the old IC
engine will be around for a long time yet, but there will be a larger
variety of fuels than today. Producer gas from wood in woodlands, diesel
cycle on vegetable oil in grassland, other sources of energy in other
zones. Whatever is at hands nearby.

I assume that the vehicle industry prefer to minimise the number of
motor designs, to save design and production costs. They want to export the
same vehicle to all over the world. Ideally, the one and same motor should
be fitted to all sorts of vehicles, only adjusted for the needs in every
actual case. They do that already, to some extent, by reprogramming
ignition and injection computers etc controlling the motor. Needless to
say, it is rather difficult to vary combustion volume, stroke length and
cylinder diameter. There have been exeriments in that direction though --
wasn't there an engine for Ford Lincoln which could run on only two
cylinders of eight? An IC engine could perhaps also be designed in a
radically different way which makes it possible to vary combustion volume
and similar parameters. It doesn't have to work with conventional pistons.

Either there will be a larger variety of engine manufacturers than today,
producing engines which are specialised for the type of fuel available in
each area, or there will be few manufacturers producing a small number of
flexible designs. The former increases production costs, the latter
increases transportation costs. An advantage with a flexible design is
that the same vehicle can operate in areas where different types of fuels
are the dominating. A truck engine which can run on both vegetable oil and
producer gas, depending on what is available, can transport goods between
grassland and woodland. If a grassland truck cannot go to the woodlands and
vice versa, the goods must be reloaded by the edge of the forest or fuel
must be transported back and forth. Both involve extra costs.

The optimal is probably a compromise, as usual. Engines wich last long
makes it worth transporting by cheap but slow means, as by sea. Such
products can be still be delivered world-wide in a scenario with shortage
on oil, by putting back the sails on the ships again. The winds will blow
long after oil has run out.

Joacim

From snkm at BTL.NET Thu Mar 25 17:52:32 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: Whats the best engine?
Message-ID: <THU.25.MAR.2004.165232.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 10:53 PM 3/25/2004 +0100, Joacim Persson wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Bruce Jackson wrote:
>
>> Well, lets suppose we built an engine specifically to
>> run on producer gas.
>> What would that engine be like?

>And perhaps the best engine is the engine which can run on a large variety
>of fuels, not only producer gas, not only rapseed oil etc, without major
>reconstruction, preferrably without any reconstruction at all.

I've just nailed down a small Chinese diesel engine --

MODEL R175A

TYPE Horizontal 4-stroke
TYPE OF COMBUSTION CHMBER Prechamber
NO. OF CYLINDERS BORE X STROKE (mm) 1-75x80
Displacement L 0.353
Compression ratio 22
Declared power (KW) 4.41
Declared speed (r/min) 2600
Specific fuel consumption g/KW.h) 280.2
Cooling method Water-cooled Condenser
Lubrication method Combined pressure and splashing
Starting method Hand starting
Net weight (KG) 62

This engine is the same as the 195 described in the paper for dual fueling at:

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T4470E/t4470e08.htm

But slightly smaller.

Prices will be extremely economical -- waiting for quote.

Course -- this is of more 3rd world interest -- but that is where I am living!

"TYPE OF COMBUSTION CHMBER Prechamber"

Is IDI -- or indirect ignition.

This engine should run well on pure veggie oil -- veggie oil and alcohol --
or Veggie oil and producer gas.

Easy to take down -- spare parts economical -- comes with extra rings --
bearings and head gasket -- and tool kit!

As the old style Listers are getting very expensive -- and hard to source
-- time to move on.

all of this in regards to a reliable and economical alternative fuel -- 3kw
-- power plant project.

I guess low RPM is no longer a viable option do to supply side problems.
But a plus is the engine gets a lot lighter!

ST 3 generator heads have greatly increased in pricing -- now $145 each!

anything with copper in it has gone way up!

Oh -- this series engine can be had to 14 HP capacities. And down to 3 HP.

At 14 HP could be used for a slow speed truck/tractor.

I am also acquiring some very crude out board diesel units for boat
propelling using this same model engine -- but 3 HP!!

Top rated speed of large prop is 6 mph -- but with a good "push"

Goes well with sail boats -- we call that "steaming" here so one can go
more to the wind.

I'll no much more a year from now when it all gets here.

One last item -- with price of copper going up -- distributing power on
small systems by two wires at 240 volts then transforming to each house
entrance to 120 volts -- grounding there -- become viable. That is 300 to
500 watt transformers - -enough for village house power needs.

Might investigate 440 volts to 120 later.

Times -- they be a changing!

So -- where are the small gasifiers that can run a 3kw power plant??

What power gasifier -- gross -- 20 kw "feels" about right???

The problem is load will vary so much between minimum and maximum and always.

Gas storage?? Big balloons/bladders?? How much will that cost -- how long
with that last??

Alcohol looking better all the time -- sufficient veggie oil for ignition
is always there. Even left over from normal village cooking!

Use the coconut oil to fry food first -- then use to make electrical power
-- double the whammy.

Onwards -- upwards -- and hopefully -- not burning and crashing!!

Peter / Belize

From kenboak at STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK Thu Mar 25 18:31:56 2004
From: kenboak at STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK (Ken Boak)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: Whats the best engine?
Message-ID: <THU.25.MAR.2004.233156.0000.KENBOAK@STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK>

It would be an external combustion engine, either Rankine or Stirling Cycle.

No other forms of heat engine can handle the wide range of fuels - external
combustion engines deal in heat alone - regardless of the fuel source.

Ken

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Thu Mar 25 18:44:00 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: Plant Sizing
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040322150927.009227f0@btlmail.btl.net>
Message-ID: <THU.25.MAR.2004.174400.0600.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

At 03:09 PM 3/22/04 -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:

>Steel is far stronger than stainless steel -- with much better heat
>transmission properties -- less thermal expansion than stainless as well.
Peter, Why have I heard the opposite so many times. In the small stoves
such as mine and Crispin's, we talk about using 3Cr12 or stainless because
the regular (mild) steel cannot take the heat as well. Please assist this
"non-specialist" to understand.

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

From kenboak at STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK Thu Mar 25 18:48:12 2004
From: kenboak at STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK (Ken Boak)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: Whats the best engine?
Message-ID: <THU.25.MAR.2004.234812.0000.KENBOAK@STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK>

Peter,

Thankyou for finding these small Chinese diesel engines.

I wonder what their longevity would be compared to a "heavy iron" Indian
built "Lister"?

You can find the whole range at the manufacturers website - including
pricing information:

www.cn-food/english/chanpian/1100.htm

These engines are very economically priced between 700 and 960 Yuan
(US$84.50 to $116) for the 3kW to 15kW range.

I think the Western world might as well give up manufacturing anything - how
can we compete?

regards,

Ken

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Thu Mar 25 19:34:33 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: Peter and the : Gasifier Engine Specifications
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040322102440.009ddc10@btlmail.btl.net>
Message-ID: <THU.25.MAR.2004.183433.0600.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Peter,

I have just gotten to some messages from a few days ago.

At 10:26 AM 3/22/04 -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:

>Your probably right. And let me correct myself. When looking for Mr. Right
>Gasifier motor -- and settling on what could be found out there for
>reasonable cost.

>suggest you
>acquire one old style 6 HP Lister -- reduce piston diameter as described
>above -- and it should then be a perfect match for this stove gasifier output.

You said "stove gasifier". At first I thought you were referring to using
the HEAT and NOT trying to put the gases into an internal combustion
engine. But it seems that you want "scrubbed" gases.
You said the system needs:

>One Old style lister engine
>One ST generator head
>One Chinese gasifier cooking stove.
>Development of a good gas scrubber.
>And there you are --

I see the problem as being with the gas scrubber. The small cookstove
gasifiers (ala Tom Reed and Paul Anderson and others, but not the Chinese
unit that sells for hundreds of dollars) burn the "smoke" without
attempting to clean it. The Chinese unit that I know about is at
www.wattpower.com/wpindex6.html with a price tag around US$800 to $950
delivered in North America. (Kevin Chisholm's address is on the page.)

Are you proposing that the Lister (or some other such engine) can function
reasonably well without the "clean-ness" (low or no tars) associated with
the larger gasifier systems? If so, please describe the amount of cleaning
(by "a good gas scrubber") that is required. It is fine if you specify
what the usable gases must be like, and the stove makers could shoot for
that level of clean-ness (regardless of how good or bad the un-scrubbed
gases are at the beginning.)

>If any "real" person on this list is willing to contribute a good design
>for a gasifier to run in my existing 6 HP Lister -- derated to say 3 HP
>(probably by further lowering RPM and optimizing compression -- etc -- for
>efficient running) to produce 2 kw net of power -- well -- I'll build it!

For any of us to attempt to give you the good design you request, the
requirement about the quality of the gases needs to be known. I am sure
there are several of us who would like to get involved in this issue.

Paul (the LEAST technical person on the GASification List Serve).

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

From arnt at C2I.NET Thu Mar 25 19:57:51 2004
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: Plant Sizing
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20040325174114.024297b0@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.26.MAR.2004.015751.0100.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:44:00 -0600, Paul wrote in message
<4.3.1.2.20040325174114.024297b0@mail.ilstu.edu>:

> At 03:09 PM 3/22/04 -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> > Steel is far stronger than stainless steel -- with much better heat
> > transmission properties -- less thermal expansion than stainless as
> > well.
>
> Peter, Why have I heard the opposite so many times. In the small
> stoves such as mine and Crispin's, we talk about using 3Cr12 or
> stainless because the regular (mild) steel cannot take the heat as
> well. Please assist this"non-specialist" to understand.

..stainless steels, titanium etc., rely on their oxide surface layer for
corrosion and erosion protection. This protective layer is removed
in the reduction zone, by the reduction process, downstream of it,
in piping etc., any particles hitting the oxide layer, erodes it.

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

From arnt at C2I.NET Thu Mar 25 20:03:14 2004
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: Whats the best engine?
In-Reply-To: <05c501c412c3$a2c3a530$0100a8c0@dell3>
Message-ID: <FRI.26.MAR.2004.020314.0100.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:48:12 -0000, Ken wrote in message
<05c501c412c3$a2c3a530$0100a8c0@dell3>:

> You can find the whole range at the manufacturers website - including
> pricing information:
>
> www.cn-food/english/chanpian/1100.htm

..try again. ;-)

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

From bpjackso at YAHOO.COM Thu Mar 25 20:09:44 2004
From: bpjackso at YAHOO.COM (Bruce Jackson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: OOPS! Let me try again....
Message-ID: <THU.25.MAR.2004.170944.0800.BPJACKSO@YAHOO.COM>

Hi,
I gotta head you guys off at the pass. Let me try
this again...lets say I am ready to start building
patterns and I want to cast my own parts for a
producer gas fueled engine. What do I want to do?
Sorry Ken lets rule out Stirling for now.
Sorry Peter, I'm building not buying.
Its going to be either a spark ignition engine or hot
tube ignition.
Variable compression ratio is pretty ridiculus from
my view. I don't think I could deal with the design
issues.

I want simple. I want durable.
What I am afraid of here is that there isn't anyone
who designs engines just producers.
What I am reading here is long stroke slow speed. Big
flywheel. Piston speed less then 50mph tops. Roller
bearings on the crank. Sloppy piston okay if running
dirty fuel.
It was this sort of thing that I am interested in
knowing.
Anyhow, thanks for what you could do.
Bruce

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

From snkm at BTL.NET Thu Mar 25 20:51:36 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: Plant Sizing
Message-ID: <THU.25.MAR.2004.195136.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

>Peter, Why have I heard the opposite so many times. In the small stoves
>such as mine and Crispin's, we talk about using 3Cr12 or stainless because
>the regular (mild) steel cannot take the heat as well. Please assist this
>"non-specialist" to understand.
>
>Paul

Been years -- but carbon steel boiler tubing. Used it all the time -- A-60
I believe??

Much more economic than stainless steel. Machines great to! Takes higher
temperatures as well.

Just search out carbon steel -- there are so many varieties.

Stainless has the advantage of less -- much less -- corrosion. But that
depends to.

Stainless boiler tubing for large coal fired untility boilers is the best
grade of stainless for heat. The extra cost supposed to be recovered by
longer terms of use before replacing.

Actually -- just check what those boiler makers are using these days.

They might even be using carbon steels again -- don't know???

Peter / Belize

At 05:44 PM 3/25/2004 -0600, Paul S. Anderson wrote:
>At 03:09 PM 3/22/04 -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:
>
>>Steel is far stronger than stainless steel -- with much better heat
>>transmission properties -- less thermal expansion than stainless as well.
>Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
>Rotary University Teacher Grantee to Mozambique >10 mo of 2001-2003
>Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
>Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
>E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
>
>

From snkm at BTL.NET Thu Mar 25 20:51:40 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: Whats the best engine?
Message-ID: <THU.25.MAR.2004.195140.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

A few are here in Belize -- saw one -- the bigger model -- 14 HP -- running
an 8 kw 440 3 phase generator to power a local village water supply --
which depended on a 5 kw 440 submersible pump to a water tower -- then
gravity feed to houses.

Every time the water goes low -- or at set times -- once or more per day --
a man goes over -- and cranks it -- and away it goes.

Was passing through -- checked it out -- the man came to start it -- said
do I want to try??

Sure!!

Very easy starting -- easier than the Lister.

What impressed me the most is the lack of vibration -- very smooth.

Don't know about long term reliability -- but very sturdy looking engines.

Very simple genset to -- open frame -- V-belt drive. ST generator head.

I like to use what is out there -- these days -- and especially at these
kind of prices!!

>I think the Western world might as well give up manufacturing anything - how
>can we compete?

I know -- feel this same way -- mind boggling.

Peter / Belize

At 11:48 PM 3/25/2004 -0000, Ken Boak wrote:
>Peter,
>
>Thankyou for finding these small Chinese diesel engines.
>
>I wonder what their longevity would be compared to a "heavy iron" Indian
>built "Lister"?
>
>You can find the whole range at the manufacturers website - including
>pricing information:
>
>www.cn-food/english/chanpian/1100.htm
>
>These engines are very economically priced between 700 and 960 Yuan
>(US$84.50 to $116) for the 3kW to 15kW range.
>
>I think the Western world might as well give up manufacturing anything - how
>can we compete?
>
>
>regards,
>
>
>Ken
>

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Thu Mar 25 21:01:39 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: OOPS! Let me try again....
Message-ID: <THU.25.MAR.2004.220139.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Bruce

If you want to design and build a suitable engine, here's some stuff that is
important to you, assuming a naturally aspirated engine, to produce a
desired HP:

1: Inlet and exhaust valve area.
2: Inlet and exhaust Cam profile and characteristics
3: Volumetric efficiency
4: Compression ratio
5: Bore to stroke ratio
6: Bore
7: Displacement
8: Mean piston speed
9: Ignition timing
10: Mean effective pressure
11: Ignition system: regular or high intensity spark, pilot fuel
etc.

Fuel gas characteristics are critically important, in terms of nature and
extent of contaminants, calorific value, and combustion characteristics.

The fact that it is a "new engine" or an "old heavy iron engine" is not so
important as meeting the required engine design parameters. It may be that a
modern "high speed engine" would work perfectly well if it was simply slowed
down to a speed where the acceptable mean piston speed was attained. Indeed,
there may be "good to be said" for a new design high speed engine that was
suitably slowed down and derated for use on gasifier fuel gas. For example,
a modified automotive engine of relatively large displacement may very well
be operable at a much slower speed to deliver the desired HP output.

There is a fair amount of science to engine design. It is not guesswork.
Note also that the engine design should be integrated with the end use. For
example, if it was intended to operate a generator, one should select a
generator that had an operating speed that matched the speed that the engine
wanted to run best at.

You might wish to consider an "iterative approach" to finalizing on engine
and generator parameters. For example, propose a 4 pole generator requiring
1800 RPM for 60 Hz output, and assume 1.7 HP per kw of generator output
being required of the engine. Thus a 3 kW generator would require 5.1 HP at
1800 RPM. If you did an initial design for an engine developing 5.1 HP, on a
given gasifier fuel, you might find that it would prefer to run at 1,200
RPM. So, you could either figure on selecting a 6 pole generator, or decide
on providing a speed increasing transmission (gears or belts). Or, you may
wish to select a different bore/stroke ratio to permit operation at a higher
RPM, while still attaining an acceptable mean piston speed.

You have a "real fun project" at hand!!

Best wishes,

Kevin Chisholm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Jackson" <bpjackso@YAHOO.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 9:09 PM
Subject: [GASL] OOPS! Let me try again....

> Hi,
> I gotta head you guys off at the pass. Let me try
> this again...lets say I am ready to start building
> patterns and I want to cast my own parts for a
> producer gas fueled engine. What do I want to do?
> Sorry Ken lets rule out Stirling for now.
> Sorry Peter, I'm building not buying.
> Its going to be either a spark ignition engine or hot
> tube ignition.
> Variable compression ratio is pretty ridiculus from
> my view. I don't think I could deal with the design
> issues.
>
> I want simple. I want durable.
> What I am afraid of here is that there isn't anyone
> who designs engines just producers.
> What I am reading here is long stroke slow speed. Big
> flywheel. Piston speed less then 50mph tops. Roller
> bearings on the crank. Sloppy piston okay if running
> dirty fuel.
> It was this sort of thing that I am interested in
> knowing.
> Anyhow, thanks for what you could do.
> Bruce
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

From snkm at BTL.NET Thu Mar 25 21:04:04 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: OOPS! Let me try again....
Message-ID: <THU.25.MAR.2004.200404.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Actually -- their should be plans available for all those old style early
engines.

And the effort to reconstruct one is valid.

If this Url is still valid -- a good place to start.

http://www.oldengine.org/members/diesel/patents.htm

Peter / Belize

At 05:09 PM 3/25/2004 -0800, Bruce Jackson wrote:
> Hi,
> I gotta head you guys off at the pass. Let me try
>this again...lets say I am ready to start building
>patterns and I want to cast my own parts for a
>producer gas fueled engine. What do I want to do?
> Sorry Ken lets rule out Stirling for now.
> Sorry Peter, I'm building not buying.
> Its going to be either a spark ignition engine or hot
>tube ignition.
> Variable compression ratio is pretty ridiculus from
>my view. I don't think I could deal with the design
>issues.
>
> I want simple. I want durable.
> What I am afraid of here is that there isn't anyone
>who designs engines just producers.
> What I am reading here is long stroke slow speed. Big
>flywheel. Piston speed less then 50mph tops. Roller
>bearings on the crank. Sloppy piston okay if running
>dirty fuel.
> It was this sort of thing that I am interested in
>knowing.
> Anyhow, thanks for what you could do.
>Bruce
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
>http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
>

From snkm at BTL.NET Thu Mar 25 21:11:53 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: Whats the best engine?
Message-ID: <THU.25.MAR.2004.201153.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 02:03 AM 3/26/2004 +0100, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:48:12 -0000, Ken wrote in message

>> www.cn-food/english/chanpian/1100.htm
>
>..try again. ;-)

Found it using google --

http://www.cn-food.com/english/chanpian/185n.htm

and from there you get them all --

Peter

From gjahnke at BIRCH.NET Thu Mar 25 22:41:49 2004
From: gjahnke at BIRCH.NET (Greg Jahnke)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: Fw: [GASL] Paul Re: cardboard.
Message-ID: <THU.25.MAR.2004.214149.0600.GJAHNKE@BIRCH.NET>

oops

> Greg.
>
> Seems you replied only to me. Please consider sending it to the entire
> list serve.
>
> Paul
>
> At 08:38 PM 3/24/04 -0600, you wrote:
> >There is a guy not too far from me that has a heater fpr his shop that
burns
> >round bales. It is not a gasifier, but a round bale lasts close to a
month
> >and he gets them for 3 or 4 dollars each.
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Paul S. Anderson" <psanders@ILSTU.EDU>
> >To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> >Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 4:34 PM
> >Subject: Re: [GASL] Paul Re: cardboard.
> >
> >
> > > Bruce,
> > >
> > > So much depends on the size of your gasifier. If you have enough NEED
for
> > > the cardboard, then it would be worth having a device that does VERY
wide
> > > shreds and/or creases the cardboard to ensure air flow.
> > >
> > > Somewhere in the past few months I heard about some combustion device
> > > (might not have been a gasifier) that could take in WHOLE round bales
of
> > > hay and straw (they were using the surplus ones that got old in the
fields
> > > and were not good feed for animals any longer). Now THAT is BIG for
most
> > > of us. But then, the large power generation plants and steel mills
take
> >in
> > > multiple whole railway cars of coal.
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > At 01:28 PM 3/24/04 -0800, Bruce Jackson wrote:
> > > > Hey,
> > > > Thanks for your comments on cardboard. Cardboard was
> > > >the resource that got me interested in gasifacation. I
> > > >observed that cardboard burns with great (although
> > > >brief) heat. Also when air to the grates is cut off
> > > >cardboard smokes profusely. If one were to open the
> > > >fire box door with it loaded with this smoke, a small
> > > >explosion results. Its amazing that this is with fire
> > > >retardant. I cannot imagine the volatility without the
> > > >fire retardent.
> > > > I haul waste vegatable oil from restuarants and am
> > > >always asked if I would take the cardboard as well. A
> > > >certain amount is useful as kindling and ground
> > > >sheeting for repairs in the snow, but the resturants
> > > >simply provide too much.
> > > > Ideally, should the boxes be broken down and rolled
> > > >into one big bundle with the corrigations oriented in
> > > >the direction of the air flow? Sounds reasonable
> > > >enough.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Bruce Jackson
> > > >
> > > >__________________________________
> > > >Do you Yahoo!?
> > > >Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
> > > >http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
> > >
> > > Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
> > > Rotary University Teacher Grantee to Mozambique >10 mo of 2001-2003
> > > Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
> > > Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
> > > E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
> > >
>
> Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
> Rotary University Teacher Grantee to Mozambique >10 mo of 2001-2003
> Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
> Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
> E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
>
>

From gjahnke at BIRCH.NET Thu Mar 25 22:52:36 2004
From: gjahnke at BIRCH.NET (Greg Jahnke)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: OOPS! Let me try again....
Message-ID: <THU.25.MAR.2004.215236.0600.GJAHNKE@BIRCH.NET>

What about a hit or miss engine? THey are pretty easy to build and I think
would work just great with a gasifier
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Jackson" <bpjackso@YAHOO.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 7:09 PM
Subject: [GASL] OOPS! Let me try again....

> Hi,
> I gotta head you guys off at the pass. Let me try
> this again...lets say I am ready to start building
> patterns and I want to cast my own parts for a
> producer gas fueled engine. What do I want to do?
> Sorry Ken lets rule out Stirling for now.
> Sorry Peter, I'm building not buying.
> Its going to be either a spark ignition engine or hot
> tube ignition.
> Variable compression ratio is pretty ridiculus from
> my view. I don't think I could deal with the design
> issues.
>
> I want simple. I want durable.
> What I am afraid of here is that there isn't anyone
> who designs engines just producers.
> What I am reading here is long stroke slow speed. Big
> flywheel. Piston speed less then 50mph tops. Roller
> bearings on the crank. Sloppy piston okay if running
> dirty fuel.
> It was this sort of thing that I am interested in
> knowing.
> Anyhow, thanks for what you could do.
> Bruce
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
>

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Thu Mar 25 23:22:08 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: OOPS! Let me try again....
Message-ID: <FRI.26.MAR.2004.002208.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Greg
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Jahnke" <gjahnke@BIRCH.NET>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 11:52 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] OOPS! Let me try again....

> What about a hit or miss engine? THey are pretty easy to build and I
think
> would work just great with a gasifier

The "hit or miss, or "make and break" feature generally referrs to an
ignition system that is interrupted to control the speed. If the engine is
running "too fast", then the ignition circuit is broken, and the engine
slows back down.

Such an engine might work perfectly on gasifier fuel, but for a different
reason... the basic slow speed of such engines may be such that the right
"mean piston speed" is attained in normal operation. On the other hand, they
may be very inappropriate, simply because they are generally low compression
engines, designed to run on kerosene or low grade gasoline with bad knocking
qualities. If low compression ratio was the only problem, then that could
perhaps be cured by modification of the cylinder head.

Because of the lower calorific value of the fuel, the mean effective
pressure would be similar to, or lower than, the MEP attained with gasoline
or kerosene. Accordingly, bearing stresses would be similar, or lower, than
for the same engine on such liquid fuels.

Best wishes,

Kevin Chisholm
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bruce Jackson" <bpjackso@YAHOO.COM>
> To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 7:09 PM
> Subject: [GASL] OOPS! Let me try again....
>
>
> > Hi,
> > I gotta head you guys off at the pass. Let me try
> > this again...lets say I am ready to start building
> > patterns and I want to cast my own parts for a
> > producer gas fueled engine. What do I want to do?
> > Sorry Ken lets rule out Stirling for now.
> > Sorry Peter, I'm building not buying.
> > Its going to be either a spark ignition engine or hot
> > tube ignition.
> > Variable compression ratio is pretty ridiculus from
> > my view. I don't think I could deal with the design
> > issues.
> >
> > I want simple. I want durable.
> > What I am afraid of here is that there isn't anyone
> > who designs engines just producers.
> > What I am reading here is long stroke slow speed. Big
> > flywheel. Piston speed less then 50mph tops. Roller
> > bearings on the crank. Sloppy piston okay if running
> > dirty fuel.
> > It was this sort of thing that I am interested in
> > knowing.
> > Anyhow, thanks for what you could do.
> > Bruce
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
> > http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
> >

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Thu Mar 25 23:34:21 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: OOPS! Let me try again....
In-Reply-To: <20040326010944.84375.qmail@web40606.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <THU.25.MAR.2004.223421.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

In the first place, trying to build a "one of" engine is extremely expensive
and time consuming. Why bother? There's certainly no market, people only do this
for something like Indy racers, and they are funded by millionaires who haven't
anything better to do with their money.
Now, if your question is purely rhetorical, and you're only trying to
establish a baseline of "ideal" engine parameters, that's a bit different, but
still -- it's not even just "the ideal producer gas engine" because it would
very much depend on not just the fuel quality of the gas itself, but also how
much power you need. That is, if you only want a home generator, perhaps a
single cylinder would suffice, but singles certainly vibrate a lot, and are
inefficient in larger sizes compared to horizontally opposed or V configured
engines which smooth out power impulses, etc., so for larger units, multi
cylinders prevail.
Variable compression isn't all that ridiculous if you're really looking for
the optimum engine design, and isn't really all that hard to build, or add to an
existing design. It could even be computer controlled to change during operation
-- after all, compression releases have been built into engines practically
forever, by many different manufacturers. I used to own a couple of very large
diesel crawler tractors (bulldozers) that started up as low compression gasoline
engines and then, once warmed up, switched at the flip of a lever to high
compression diesels.
Frankly, if I were going to seriously start out to build an "engine" to run
on producer gas, I'd build a Tesla turbine.

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

From gjahnke at BIRCH.NET Thu Mar 25 23:51:46 2004
From: gjahnke at BIRCH.NET (Greg Jahnke)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:45 2004
Subject: OOPS! Let me try again....
Message-ID: <THU.25.MAR.2004.225146.0600.GJAHNKE@BIRCH.NET>

Off the shelf, a hit or miss does have some pretty serious drawbacks. I
think he was talking about building his own, in which case it would seem
that the problems could be taken care of in the design phase.

The only stationary hit or miss engine I have ever worked on ran on natural
gas (or propane, witht he proper adaptations) and had a flywheel that
weighed nearly 700 lbs. Around here, where both limestone quarrys and
natural gas wells are found, there are quite a few quarries that still have
hit or miss engines running, and even more quarries where you can pick up an
old one if you can figure out how to load it. They pipe directly to a gas
well, fire up the engine, and just let it run basically forever.

I should have been a little more specific than just saying "hit or miss
engine". Sorry for the confusion.

> Dear Greg
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Greg Jahnke" <gjahnke@BIRCH.NET>
> To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 11:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [GASL] OOPS! Let me try again....
>
>
> > What about a hit or miss engine? THey are pretty easy to build and I
> think
> > would work just great with a gasifier
>
> The "hit or miss, or "make and break" feature generally referrs to an
> ignition system that is interrupted to control the speed. If the engine is
> running "too fast", then the ignition circuit is broken, and the engine
> slows back down.
>
> Such an engine might work perfectly on gasifier fuel, but for a different
> reason... the basic slow speed of such engines may be such that the right
> "mean piston speed" is attained in normal operation. On the other hand,
they
> may be very inappropriate, simply because they are generally low
compression
> engines, designed to run on kerosene or low grade gasoline with bad
knocking
> qualities. If low compression ratio was the only problem, then that could
> perhaps be cured by modification of the cylinder head.
>
> Because of the lower calorific value of the fuel, the mean effective
> pressure would be similar to, or lower than, the MEP attained with
gasoline
> or kerosene. Accordingly, bearing stresses would be similar, or lower,
than
> for the same engine on such liquid fuels.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin Chisholm
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bruce Jackson" <bpjackso@YAHOO.COM>
> > To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 7:09 PM
> > Subject: [GASL] OOPS! Let me try again....
> >
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > I gotta head you guys off at the pass. Let me try
> > > this again...lets say I am ready to start building
> > > patterns and I want to cast my own parts for a
> > > producer gas fueled engine. What do I want to do?
> > > Sorry Ken lets rule out Stirling for now.
> > > Sorry Peter, I'm building not buying.
> > > Its going to be either a spark ignition engine or hot
> > > tube ignition.
> > > Variable compression ratio is pretty ridiculus from
> > > my view. I don't think I could deal with the design
> > > issues.
> > >
> > > I want simple. I want durable.
> > > What I am afraid of here is that there isn't anyone
> > > who designs engines just producers.
> > > What I am reading here is long stroke slow speed. Big
> > > flywheel. Piston speed less then 50mph tops. Roller
> > > bearings on the crank. Sloppy piston okay if running
> > > dirty fuel.
> > > It was this sort of thing that I am interested in
> > > knowing.
> > > Anyhow, thanks for what you could do.
> > > Bruce
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
> > > http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
> > >
>

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Fri Mar 26 00:03:49 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:46 2004
Subject: OOPS! Let me try again....
Message-ID: <FRI.26.MAR.2004.010349.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Harmon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>
...del...
> Frankly, if I were going to seriously start out to build an "engine" to
run
> on producer gas, I'd build a Tesla turbine.
>
Would you know if anyone has built a Tesla turbine? Would you have any
information on pressure ratios, expansion efficiencies, temperature limits,
etc?

Thanks!!
Kevin Chisholm

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Fri Mar 26 00:37:40 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:46 2004
Subject: OOPS! Let me try again....
In-Reply-To: <01a701c412f0$42db5d20$379a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <THU.25.MAR.2004.233740.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 01:03:49AM -0400, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
> Dear Harmon
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>
> ...del...
> > Frankly, if I were going to seriously start out to build an "engine" to
> run
> > on producer gas, I'd build a Tesla turbine.
> >
> Would you know if anyone has built a Tesla turbine? Would you have any
> information on pressure ratios, expansion efficiencies, temperature limits,
> etc?

Sure, Tesla did. And I know for awhile they were building them at the
Allis-Chalmers plant in Wisconsin. But more recently, there's a growing number
of experimenters:

http://phoenixnavigation.com/ptbc/home.htm
http://my.execpc.com/~teba/main.html

and here's one says they've been running it since 10/2000

http://www.frank.germano.com/theturbine.htm

>
> Thanks!!
> Kevin Chisholm

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

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Fri Mar 26 01:01:32 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:46 2004
Subject: Peter and the : Gasifier Engine Specifications
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20040325175527.02434b50@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.26.MAR.2004.000132.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 06:34:33PM -0600, Paul S. Anderson wrote:
>
> I see the problem as being with the gas scrubber. The small cookstove

Paul, I think you need to review some of the literature on building gasifiers
-- not the stove type -- meant to run engines on. Gas scrubbing is critical (or
your engine will die a very early death), and so is cooling.
Check out http://www.gengas.nu/byggbes/index.shtml

(snip)

> Are you proposing that the Lister (or some other such engine) can function
> reasonably well without the "clean-ness" (low or no tars) associated with
> the larger gasifier systems?

No, I don't think he was.

> If so, please describe the amount of cleaning
> (by "a good gas scrubber") that is required. It is fine if you specify
> what the usable gases must be like, and the stove makers could shoot for
> that level of clean-ness (regardless of how good or bad the un-scrubbed
> gases are at the beginning.)
>
I don't think that "stove makers" are building anything that could run
engines. Even that Chinese gasifier stove would need extensive additions or
modifications to run an engine (and it would have to be a very small one) and
hardly seems worth the cost.

> >If any "real" person on this list is willing to contribute a good design
> >for a gasifier to run in my existing 6 HP Lister -- derated to say 3 HP
> >(probably by further lowering RPM and optimizing compression -- etc -- for
> >efficient running) to produce 2 kw net of power -- well -- I'll build it!

What's wrong with the gengas design? It certainly seems adaptable enough.

 

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

From Carefreeland at AOL.COM Fri Mar 26 05:53:55 2004
From: Carefreeland at AOL.COM (Carefreeland@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:46 2004
Subject: [Paul] Das,
did you see this from Dan? Re: [GASL] Gas and heat from th...
Message-ID: <FRI.26.MAR.2004.055355.EST.>

In a message dated 3/25/04 3:57:37 PM Eastern Standard Time,
psanders@ilstu.edu writes:

DD Dan Dimiduk comments
>
> Dear Dan, with copy to Agua Das,
>
> There are some prospects here both for electricity generation (Das's
> specialty) and for simple heat with simple gasifiers (something both Das
> and I know about).
>
> Dan, how many Kw of electricity capacity (or kwh of actual electricity) are
> you allowed to install/produce in Ohio and still get the 8.5 cents per kwh
> paid to you? 10 kw capacity is as low as would be considered, but can you
> do 20 or 30 or even 40 kw? Every state is different.

DD I am paying 8.5 cents a kwh - not getting paid that. I am just wanting to
replace the power for my greenhouse operation, not pumping the grid - at least
not yet. ;-) Yes, Ohio does issue some permits to pump power to the grid-
paying wholesale- less than half the retail rate charged. They will issue permits
up to a small percentage of the total power generated by the grid suppliers.
First come first serve with the permits.

>
> Dan, also tell us how much electricity you (your business) currently
> consumes, and at what price? 8.5 cents? And you have 3-phase
> electricity, right, on the property?

DD No just single phase. I am on a 50 amp 220v line ( so far)and try to use
much less than that. Mostly light, ventalation and pumps for the 15' x72'
greenhouse. I would use more power if I could tap the unlimited biomass resource
I have. I would like build a small fish farm If I had lots of cheap power to
pump water.

>
> Das, I have met Dan and I think his place could be a viable proposition if
> 20 or more kw capacity/sales to grid.

DD I would rather just consume the power there on the spot. I can develop a
agriculture/ micro- enterprize industrial park with my landlord, and sell the
power in -house. Possibly, include some power with the rent. I want to someday
build a sawmill for a wood salvage operation, and a charcoal fueled foundry,
machine shop is a possibility too.

>
> Das, I also hope you will soon have a response to me about my previous
> message(s).
>
> Paul
>

DD Yes, I got to run - I have two acres of woods to thin today with my Bobcat
and tree shear.
Dan Dimiduk

From renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ Fri Mar 26 06:34:53 2004
From: renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ (Ken Calvert)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:46 2004
Subject: The ideal gas engine!
In-Reply-To: <20040326043421.GG24530@cybershamanix.com>
Message-ID: <FRI.26.MAR.2004.233453.1200.RENERTECH@XTRA.CO.NZ>

Gidday All!
Most interested in the debate on engines. For my two cents worth
of hard won experience, the only gasifiers that produced a reasonably steady
gas flow of even quality
Were the ones mounted on motor cars that ran on rough gravel roads and got
regularly shaken down with every bump in the road. Gentlemen, if you want
to theorise about
Engines and gasifiers, then be prepared to stand by with a poker and a good
heavy set of steel capped boots, so that you can kick the thing in the guts
at semi regular intervals and keep the fuel shaken down and avoid bridging
and a dollop too much of steam that can take those extra few degrees of
temperature away that makes all the difference between good gas and a
mediocre brew that will drop revs off the engine. The reason why side flow
or up flow charcoal gasifiers used to be preferred over the much more
efficient wood fueled down draft ones were because of their reliability. Dry
charcoal equals no tar, no excess stean, and not much bridging! Gasifying
wood produces lots of sticky tars circulating round and round in upper
layers of the fuel hopper, particularly if it was not heavily insulated, and
nothing bridges light wood fuel more than congealing stockholm tar!
So, if you want a reliable stationary engine, that will run without regular
attention, then get a dual fueled diesel with the biggest flywheels you can
find. Those fly wheels will keep you going through any momentary blips of
gas quality, but it really takes about 20% of theoretical full load diesel,
as a pilot fuel ignition system, to allow for a few seconds of poor gas
quality until a bridge of gummed up fuel pellets can burn itself out and a
slug of only partially charred fuel hits the combustion zone and instantly
changes gas quality and quantity for another few seconds until things get
sorted out again. Sombody pointed out that with a dual fuel diesel ignition,
that every variation on power would be covered by the diesel not the gas
side of the fuel consumption equation. Believe you me, that comes out as a
big plus, not a minus!
At one stage we had a single cylinder petter diesel with an open
combustion chamber, and a spark plug on one side and a injector in the
other. The compression ratio was a bit high for spark ignition but it did
work for a while and we shouted loud about our 'burn anything' engine.
Problem was that without about 10% of full load of diesel fuel passing
through the injector, as both cooling and lubrication, it soon over heated
and destroyed itself.
I was most intrigued with the idea from a previous correspondant of
fitting an undersize injector which could only sustain a fraction of the
rated horsepower at full injection but which gave good ignition at only 5%
of the normal full load rating, and could still carry the engine through a
flat spot in gas quality! That sounds like a very good solution to all
problems mentioned. Keep thinking, the perfect woodgas plant has not yet
been built! Ken C.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List [mailto:] On Behalf Of Harmon Seaver
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 4:34 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] OOPS! Let me try again....

In the first place, trying to build a "one of" engine is extremely
expensive and time consuming. Why bother? There's certainly no market,
people only do this for something like Indy racers, and they are funded by
millionaires who haven't anything better to do with their money.
Now, if your question is purely rhetorical, and you're only trying to
establish a baseline of "ideal" engine parameters, that's a bit different,
but still -- it's not even just "the ideal producer gas engine" because it
would very much depend on not just the fuel quality of the gas itself, but
also how much power you need. That is, if you only want a home generator,
perhaps a single cylinder would suffice, but singles certainly vibrate a
lot, and are inefficient in larger sizes compared to horizontally opposed or
V configured engines which smooth out power impulses, etc., so for larger
units, multi cylinders prevail.

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Fri Mar 26 08:01:11 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:46 2004
Subject: Tesla Turbine: Re: [GASL] OOPS! Let me try again....
Message-ID: <FRI.26.MAR.2004.090111.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Harmon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 1:37 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] OOPS! Let me try again....

> On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 01:03:49AM -0400, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
> > Dear Harmon
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>
> > ...del...
> > > Frankly, if I were going to seriously start out to build an
"engine" to
> > run
> > > on producer gas, I'd build a Tesla turbine.
> > >
> > Would you know if anyone has built a Tesla turbine? Would you have any
> > information on pressure ratios, expansion efficiencies, temperature
limits,
> > etc?
>
> Sure, Tesla did. And I know for awhile they were building them at the
> Allis-Chalmers plant in Wisconsin. But more recently, there's a growing
number
> of experimenters:
>
> http://phoenixnavigation.com/ptbc/home.htm

I went to this site, and then this page of it:
http://phoenixnavigation.com/ptbc/articles/ptbc15.htm

It seems that a Tesla Turbine with winglets is 30% more efficient than the
standard Tesla.

> http://my.execpc.com/~teba/main.html

Unless I've missed something, this one seems to be general and narrative in
nature.
>
> and here's one says they've been running it since 10/2000
>
> http://www.frank.germano.com/theturbine.htm

Keeping them running is not so much a concern as would be the operating
efficiency. This site contains a very interesting report at
http://www.frank.germano.com/images/itpeff1.jpg
which seems to suggest that the Tesla Turbine has about 40% energy
extraction efficiency. A normal bladed turbine is in the 70% to 80%
comparable efficiency range.

I must be missing something, but it seems intuitive to me that buckets and
vanes will assist in capture of more kinetic energy than would friction and
viscosity.
>
Best wishes,

Kevin Chisholm

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Fri Mar 26 08:14:45 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:46 2004
Subject: Peter and the : Gasifier Engine Specifications
Message-ID: <FRI.26.MAR.2004.091445.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Harmon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 2:01 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Peter and the : Gasifier Engine Specifications

> On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 06:34:33PM -0600, Paul S. Anderson wrote:
> >
> > I see the problem as being with the gas scrubber. The small cookstove
>
> Paul, I think you need to review some of the literature on building
gasifiers
> -- not the stove type -- meant to run engines on.

I have not yet run the stove on the output from this gasifier. However, the
jets of the stove burner are relatively small, and if there is excessive tar
present, they will find it quickly. :-)

Gas scrubbing is critical (or
> your engine will die a very early death), and so is cooling.
> Check out http://www.gengas.nu/byggbes/index.shtml
>
The best kind of gas scrubber is a gasifier that that doesn't need one in
the first place. :-)

> (snip)
>
> > Are you proposing that the Lister (or some other such engine) can
function
> > reasonably well without the "clean-ness" (low or no tars) associated
with
> > the larger gasifier systems?
>
> No, I don't think he was.
>
I think there is a body of experience that demonstrates that gasifier
engines can basically run continuously without a scrubber system. Doug of
Fluidyne is expert in this area.

> > If so, please describe the amount of cleaning
> > (by "a good gas scrubber") that is required. It is fine if you specify
> > what the usable gases must be like, and the stove makers could shoot for
> > that level of clean-ness (regardless of how good or bad the un-scrubbed
> > gases are at the beginning.)
> >
> I don't think that "stove makers" are building anything that could run
> engines. Even that Chinese gasifier stove would need extensive additions
or
> modifications to run an engine (and it would have to be a very small one)
and
> hardly seems worth the cost.
>
When the snow goes, I'd like to plug the gasifier into a S195 engine, and
see what happens. I have the engine now. This gasifier is a great "starter
kit." I hope to learn about gasifiers from it.

> > >If any "real" person on this list is willing to contribute a good
design
> > >for a gasifier to run in my existing 6 HP Lister -- derated to say 3 HP
> > >(probably by further lowering RPM and optimizing compression -- etc --
for
> > >efficient running) to produce 2 kw net of power -- well -- I'll build
it!
>
> What's wrong with the gengas design? It certainly seems adaptable
enough.
>
I think they must have missed something when they have such a need for a gas
cleaning system. Apparently, Doug has the "art" of gasifier design down to a
repeatable science, and doesn't need gas cleaners.

Best wishes,

Kevin

From bpjackso at YAHOO.COM Fri Mar 26 08:49:00 2004
From: bpjackso at YAHOO.COM (Bruce Jackson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:46 2004
Subject: Very exciting, very exciting.
Message-ID: <FRI.26.MAR.2004.054900.0800.BPJACKSO@YAHOO.COM>

Hi,
Okay, that batch of postings was interesting. I came
away with a salient question...namely what is the
ideal piston speed?
Don't give me that engineer gibberish about how it
depends on the fuel. Thats the line I use. Just look
at it generally.
In other words, am I looking for the formula that
relates piston speed to the flame speed of the gas?
Or am I looking for a way to calculate how fast the
pressure builds up in a closed cylinder with producer
gas burning in it? (thats probably not written too
clearly.)
Anyhow, (And Harmon, this is the point) I am
interested in your ideas about this...

Ken Calvert made a good case for diesel ignition. I
am not interested. Like he writes, practically
speaking, I'll be out there kicking, poking, and
loading. So, I could probably be fiddling with the
engine too.
I have my own ideas about this, many gleaned from
this list. I also have my reasons for doing this. Many
of those are also expressed by others on this list.

So lets keep it simple. NO injectors, Absolutely no
computers, no delicate parts to break. I don't even
want an electric ignition.

Besides a Detroit Diesel, has anyone ever used
producer gas in a two stroke engine?

Is this fun or am I boring you?
BPJ

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Fri Mar 26 08:48:33 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:46 2004
Subject: The ideal gas engine!
Message-ID: <FRI.26.MAR.2004.064833.0700.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Ken C and all:

Enjoyed your response. (It was I who mentioned smaller injectors to reduce
ignition fuel in diesel engines.) I too have come to the conclusion that
ALL fixed bed gasifiers need continual mild shaking to promote the exit of
the char dust from the gasifier section.

~~~~~~~~~
We are currently testing liquid fuels for the EPA in a single cylinder, air
cooled, direct drive 5-10 kW Honda set.

We are currently looking for a gasoline motor generator set with

5 to 10 kW direct drive power generation
water cooled

and would prefer
2 cylinder
fuel injected.

Does anyone know of such a motor generator set.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Calvert" <renertech@XTRA.CO.NZ>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 4:34 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] The ideal gas engine!

> Gidday All!
> Most interested in the debate on engines. For my two cents
worth
> of hard won experience, the only gasifiers that produced a reasonably
steady
> gas flow of even quality
> Were the ones mounted on motor cars that ran on rough gravel roads and got
> regularly shaken down with every bump in the road. Gentlemen, if you want
> to theorise about
> Engines and gasifiers, then be prepared to stand by with a poker and a
good
> heavy set of steel capped boots, so that you can kick the thing in the
guts
> at semi regular intervals and keep the fuel shaken down and avoid bridging
> and a dollop too much of steam that can take those extra few degrees of
> temperature away that makes all the difference between good gas and a
> mediocre brew that will drop revs off the engine. The reason why side
flow
> or up flow charcoal gasifiers used to be preferred over the much more
> efficient wood fueled down draft ones were because of their reliability.
Dry
> charcoal equals no tar, no excess stean, and not much bridging! Gasifying
> wood produces lots of sticky tars circulating round and round in upper
> layers of the fuel hopper, particularly if it was not heavily insulated,
and
> nothing bridges light wood fuel more than congealing stockholm tar!
> So, if you want a reliable stationary engine, that will run without
regular
> attention, then get a dual fueled diesel with the biggest flywheels you
can
> find. Those fly wheels will keep you going through any momentary blips of
> gas quality, but it really takes about 20% of theoretical full load
diesel,
> as a pilot fuel ignition system, to allow for a few seconds of poor gas
> quality until a bridge of gummed up fuel pellets can burn itself out and a
> slug of only partially charred fuel hits the combustion zone and instantly
> changes gas quality and quantity for another few seconds until things get
> sorted out again. Sombody pointed out that with a dual fuel diesel
ignition,
> that every variation on power would be covered by the diesel not the gas
> side of the fuel consumption equation. Believe you me, that comes out as
a
> big plus, not a minus!
> At one stage we had a single cylinder petter diesel with an open
> combustion chamber, and a spark plug on one side and a injector in the
> other. The compression ratio was a bit high for spark ignition but it did
> work for a while and we shouted loud about our 'burn anything' engine.
> Problem was that without about 10% of full load of diesel fuel passing
> through the injector, as both cooling and lubrication, it soon over heated
> and destroyed itself.
> I was most intrigued with the idea from a previous correspondant of
> fitting an undersize injector which could only sustain a fraction of the
> rated horsepower at full injection but which gave good ignition at only 5%
> of the normal full load rating, and could still carry the engine through a
> flat spot in gas quality! That sounds like a very good solution to all
> problems mentioned. Keep thinking, the perfect woodgas plant has not yet
> been built! Ken C.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Gasification Discussion List [mailto:] On Behalf Of Harmon
Seaver
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 4:34 PM
> To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: Re: [GASL] OOPS! Let me try again....
>
> In the first place, trying to build a "one of" engine is extremely
> expensive and time consuming. Why bother? There's certainly no market,
> people only do this for something like Indy racers, and they are funded by
> millionaires who haven't anything better to do with their money.
> Now, if your question is purely rhetorical, and you're only trying to
> establish a baseline of "ideal" engine parameters, that's a bit different,
> but still -- it's not even just "the ideal producer gas engine" because it
> would very much depend on not just the fuel quality of the gas itself, but
> also how much power you need. That is, if you only want a home generator,
> perhaps a single cylinder would suffice, but singles certainly vibrate a
> lot, and are inefficient in larger sizes compared to horizontally opposed
or
> V configured engines which smooth out power impulses, etc., so for larger
> units, multi cylinders prevail.

From snkm at BTL.NET Fri Mar 26 08:54:41 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:46 2004
Subject: Peter and the : Gasifier Engine Specifications
Message-ID: <FRI.26.MAR.2004.075441.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Dear Kevin and all:

At 09:14 AM 3/26/2004 -0400, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>Dear Harmon
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>
>To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 2:01 AM
>Subject: Re: [GASL] Peter and the : Gasifier Engine Specifications
>
>The best kind of gas scrubber is a gasifier that that doesn't need one in
>the first place. :-)

and probably -- the best way to achieve such is by fuel conditioning to
"exactly" the right humidity and sizing -- conforming closely -- always --
to the ideal.

And that has been the problem with most set-ups since day one!

>>
>I think there is a body of experience that demonstrates that gasifier
>engines can basically run continuously without a scrubber system. Doug of
>Fluidyne is expert in this area.

It would be nice to eliminate gas scrubbing devices!

>>
>When the snow goes, I'd like to plug the gasifier into a S195 engine, and
>see what happens. I have the engine now. This gasifier is a great "starter
>kit." I hope to learn about gasifiers from it.

I agree!! And bet most of your experimentation will evolve around fuel
conditioning!

You could start with briquette charcoal?? Just to establish a "norm"??

>
>>
>I think they must have missed something when they have such a need for a gas
>cleaning system. Apparently, Doug has the "art" of gasifier design down to a
>repeatable science, and doesn't need gas cleaners.
>

I second that opinion!!

At less than $100 per pop -- you should order a couple of extra 195's to
play around with.

It might be quite cost effective to run a gas not 100% up to specs and
simply tear down the motor every 100 hours or so.

Less labor intensive than going for the perfect gas stream -- and less
capital investment as well.

Like -- when you change oil -- take down the head and piston -- clean tar
-- clean coke. Reassemble.

Time: -- Few hours -- maybe 2 or less -- of "time"

Cost: -- Maybe 50 cents for a head gasket??

I plan to be using recycled old engine oil for lubrication -- recycled as
let sit for a few years.

One 45 gallon drum could then last for a lifetime of oil changes!! Properly
cycled.

System maintenance then comes down to 50 cents or less for a head gasket
every 100 hours.

Oil filters can be eliminated in fast changes as such. Or simplified for
stopping bigger chunks of whatever -- and thus cleanable.

And if it all goes wrong -- put in another motor -- $100 is still less than
full true costs of maintaining a gas cleaner! In time and cash!

Last -- what that gas cleaner collects is true toxic wastes of the worst
kind!! What to do with that stuff accumulating -- eh??

I suggest investing in fuel condition and more engine tear-downs.

Remember the Crosley!!

Peter

>Best wishes,
>
>Kevin
>

From kenboak at STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK Fri Mar 26 08:59:23 2004
From: kenboak at STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK (Ken Boak)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:46 2004
Subject: Chinese Engines - correct URL
Message-ID: <FRI.26.MAR.2004.135923.0000.KENBOAK@STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK>

Oops, Finger trouble again

The URL for the Chinese diesels should have read:

www.cn-food.com/english/chanpian/1100.htm

But it can be found by googling R175A Chinese Diesel

 

Ken

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Fri Mar 26 08:58:14 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:46 2004
Subject: Peter and the : Gasifier Engine Specifications
Message-ID: <FRI.26.MAR.2004.065814.0700.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear All:

The world of biomass gasification divides into three parts:

Clean Heat: Easy to generate gas with air in down or updraft gasifiers, but
must keep products hot until combustion or tars will deposit on pipes.
Close coupled best.

Engine power: Gas must have < 20 ppm of condensable tars at 60 C to avoid
sicking of valve guides etc. Updraft gasifiers generate 10,000 -100,000 ppm
tars, so be prepared for tar removal and disposal. Downdraft can generate
from 50 to 5000 ppm depending on air flow details, superficial velocity
(m3/m2-sec) etc.

Chemical/fuel Synthesis: Can't use air, must use O2 or reforming. Gas must
have < 1% hydrocarbons and nitrogen.

So all gasifiers are not equal.

Yours truly, TOM REED
CHemical synthesis:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Peter and the : Gasifier Engine Specifications

> On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 06:34:33PM -0600, Paul S. Anderson wrote:
> >
> > I see the problem as being with the gas scrubber. The small cookstove
>
> Paul, I think you need to review some of the literature on building
gasifiers
> -- not the stove type -- meant to run engines on. Gas scrubbing is
critical (or
> your engine will die a very early death), and so is cooling.
> Check out http://www.gengas.nu/byggbes/index.shtml
>
> (snip)
>
> > Are you proposing that the Lister (or some other such engine) can
function
> > reasonably well without the "clean-ness" (low or no tars) associated
with
> > the larger gasifier systems?
>
> No, I don't think he was.
>
> > If so, please describe the amount of cleaning
> > (by "a good gas scrubber") that is required. It is fine if you specify
> > what the usable gases must be like, and the stove makers could shoot for
> > that level of clean-ness (regardless of how good or bad the un-scrubbed
> > gases are at the beginning.)
> >
> I don't think that "stove makers" are building anything that could run
> engines. Even that Chinese gasifier stove would need extensive additions
or
> modifications to run an engine (and it would have to be a very small one)
and
> hardly seems worth the cost.
>
> > >If any "real" person on this list is willing to contribute a good
design
> > >for a gasifier to run in my existing 6 HP Lister -- derated to say 3 HP
> > >(probably by further lowering RPM and optimizing compression -- etc --
for
> > >efficient running) to produce 2 kw net of power -- well -- I'll build
it!
>
> What's wrong with the gengas design? It certainly seems adaptable
enough.
>
>
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com

From snkm at BTL.NET Fri Mar 26 09:13:56 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:46 2004
Subject: Tesla Turbine: Re: [GASL] OOPS! Let me try again....
Message-ID: <FRI.26.MAR.2004.081356.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 09:01 AM 3/26/2004 -0400, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>Dear Harmon

>Keeping them running is not so much a concern as would be the operating
>efficiency. This site contains a very interesting report at
>http://www.frank.germano.com/images/itpeff1.jpg
>which seems to suggest that the Tesla Turbine has about 40% energy
>extraction efficiency. A normal bladed turbine is in the 70% to 80%
>comparable efficiency range.

We covered this in depth -- Tesla efficiencies -- on this very list a few
years back -- to bad the archives are gone.

But I believe that 40% is on the high side!!

Piston vapor expansion engines can get 90% and better!! Plus can keep their
high efficiencies over a much broader load range than any turbine can --
something that is always forgotten -- conveniently.

I just got in the performance chart for those Chinese diesels.

the 175 model --

At it's rated maximum power -- 4.4 kw -- 260 grams per kwh

At 1 kw -- 420 gm per kwh!!

The curve really shoots up vertically starting under 3 kw!!

Less we all forget -- eh?? And turbines are even worse!

Even the old steam engine starts looking good -- eh??

We must figure plant over all efficiencies by the week -- or month --
operation!

Then -- the low side top efficiencies of a steam engine operation running
in feasible middle steam quality range (easy to achieve in practice)
becomes "champ".

Carefully we must tread!

Peter / Belize

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Fri Mar 26 09:13:23 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:46 2004
Subject: The ideal gas engine!
Message-ID: <FRI.26.MAR.2004.101323.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Tom
Subject: Re: [GASL] The ideal gas engine!

> ~~~~~~~~~
> We are currently testing liquid fuels for the EPA in a single cylinder,
air
> cooled, direct drive 5-10 kW Honda set.
>
> We are currently looking for a gasoline motor generator set with
>
> 5 to 10 kW direct drive power generation
> water cooled
>
> and would prefer
> 2 cylinder
> fuel injected.
>
> Does anyone know of such a motor generator set.

Could you please elaborate a bit further on your requirements and
preferences?

1: Why do you want gasoline, and not diesel or wood gas?
2: Do you want an engine that produces 5 to 10 kW, OR do you want an engine
that drives a generator having a 5-10 kW output?
3: What is the reason for your preference for 2 cylinders?
4: If it is gasoline, why do you want injectors rather than carburetion?
5: If you want injectors, do you want them injecting directly into the
combustion chamber, or do you want them injecting into the intake manifold?

We might be able to help you.

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm,
www.Wattpower.com

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Fri Mar 26 09:48:34 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:46 2004
Subject: Very exciting, very exciting.
Message-ID: <FRI.26.MAR.2004.104834.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Bruce
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Jackson" <bpjackso@YAHOO.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 9:49 AM
Subject: [GASL] Very exciting, very exciting.

> Hi,
> Okay, that batch of postings was interesting. I came
> away with a salient question...namely what is the
> ideal piston speed?
> Don't give me that engineer gibberish about how it
> depends on the fuel. Thats the line I use. Just look
> at it generally.

Sounds like you are looking for the Universal Constant.

> In other words, am I looking for the formula that
> relates piston speed to the flame speed of the gas?
> Or am I looking for a way to calculate how fast the
> pressure builds up in a closed cylinder with producer
> gas burning in it? (thats probably not written too
> clearly.)

Yes.
> Anyhow, (And Harmon, this is the point) I am
> interested in your ideas about this...
>
..del..
> I have my own ideas about this, many gleaned from
> this list. I also have my reasons for doing this.

Would you care to elaborate?
Many
> of those are also expressed by others on this list.
>
> So lets keep it simple. NO injectors, Absolutely no
> computers, no delicate parts to break. I don't even
> want an electric ignition.

What are your thoughts on the principles that will be involved in causing
the fuel to ignite?
>
> Besides a Detroit Diesel, has anyone ever used
> producer gas in a two stroke engine?
>
Has producer gas ever been used in a 2 cycle Detroit?

> Is this fun or am I boring you?

If you are onto an engine concept that can burn any fuel at a constant
piston speed, without injectors or electric ignition, I am anything but
bored.

Kevin Chisholm

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Fri Mar 26 09:59:12 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:46 2004
Subject: Very exciting, very exciting.
In-Reply-To: <20040326134900.89695.qmail@web40613.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <FRI.26.MAR.2004.085912.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Hello Bruce and all,

You have hit a set of questions, That I am working on
as we speak. Having received my huge 20Kva 220Vac 3?
Generator (Alternator), I am in the process of configuring
a "prime mover" to the generator, I have chosen a Chevy 350
for the following reasons.

1) Huge production IC engine, many many units available at
local scarp yards.

2) The Classic V-8 technology, the Chevy used the wider "V"
shape, of companies that produced this style of engines.

3) Internal Oiling system, well tried & tested with years of
service in all Small Block Chevy engines from the
1954 "262" and through the , 265, 283, 305, 327, 350, and 401.

4) This engine, alas is a very "close cousin" to the designs
of the older Wisconsin, Kohler, Lister, Price, Etc. engines
in the simple fact that the piston size to connecting rod
length was based on those older stationary engines
due to known reliability, because of these sizes & ratios.

HOLD ON !

I'm NOT trying to say a V-8 is the best choice, rather I'm
saying that due to it's mass availability, it is a cheap
unit to experiment with. Since the Chevy version is closer
to the sizing ratios of the "Lister" and such, this is my
basis of going this route.

Regards,
Greg Manning,

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Bruce Jackson
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 7:49 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Very exciting, very exciting.

Hi,
Okay, that batch of postings was interesting. I came
away with a salient question...namely what is the
ideal piston speed?
Don't give me that engineer gibberish about how it
depends on the fuel. Thats the line I use. Just look
at it generally.
In other words, am I looking for the formula that
relates piston speed to the flame speed of the gas?
Or am I looking for a way to calculate how fast the
pressure builds up in a closed cylinder with producer
gas burning in it? (thats probably not written too
clearly.)
Anyhow, (And Harmon, this is the point) I am
interested in your ideas about this...

Ken Calvert made a good case for diesel ignition. I
am not interested. Like he writes, practically
speaking, I'll be out there kicking, poking, and
loading. So, I could probably be fiddling with the
engine too.
I have my own ideas about this, many gleaned from
this list. I also have my reasons for doing this. Many
of those are also expressed by others on this list.

So lets keep it simple. NO injectors, Absolutely no
computers, no delicate parts to break. I don't even
want an electric ignition.

Besides a Detroit Diesel, has anyone ever used
producer gas in a two stroke engine?

Is this fun or am I boring you?
BPJ

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

From jerry5335 at YAHOO.COM Fri Mar 26 10:09:51 2004
From: jerry5335 at YAHOO.COM (jerry dycus)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:46 2004
Subject: Eff low cost engine, burning tar, : Gasifier Engine Specifications
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040326075332.00975100@btlmail.btl.net>
Message-ID: <FRI.26.MAR.2004.070951.0800.JERRY5335@YAHOO.COM>

Hi Peter and All,
--- Peter Singfield <snkm@BTL.NET> wrote:
> Dear Kevin and all:

> Last -- what that gas cleaner collects is true toxic
> wastes of the worst
> kind!! What to do with that stuff accumulating --
> eh??

Heat it or any biomass up to about 1500F then run
through a long heated SS pipe with SS Choir Boy/ SS
screen wires pulled through it as a catalyst should
turn most of it into H2, CO and methane? It should
convert some moisture into fuel also.
A large part of the energy of biomass is in these
"Tars" as well as chemicals like acetone, methanol,
ect. In a steam engine these along with the heat of
gasifacation are a plus, unlike an ICE that these will
make a short life for and lower eff.
As for the perfect engine for producer gas is
steam as it's the only one that uses the heat in the
gas that lowers the eff if used in an ICE.
As for cleaning the best is a cyclone type
seperator does a good job with the least maintance,
work with finer traps after it to get what little gets
by.
So what we really need for long life, low costs is
a eff 5 to 10kw eff rankine, steam engine to make
producer gas work well.
jerry dycus
>
> I suggest investing in fuel condition and more
> engine tear-downs.
>
> Remember the Crosley!!
>
> Peter
>
> >Best wishes,
> >
> >Kevin
> >

 

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

From snkm at BTL.NET Fri Mar 26 10:30:04 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:46 2004
Subject: Very exciting, very exciting.
Message-ID: <FRI.26.MAR.2004.093004.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 10:48 AM 3/26/2004 -0400, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>Dear Bruce
>
>If you are onto an engine concept that can burn any fuel at a constant
>piston speed, without injectors or electric ignition, I am anything but
>bored.
>
>Kevin Chisholm

Glow plug?? (AKA model airplane engines)

Glow little glow plug -- Glimmer -- Glimmer ---

Peter / Belize

From snkm at BTL.NET Fri Mar 26 10:30:08 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:46 2004
Subject: 35% diesel 65% Producer gas 16% system efficiencies
Message-ID: <FRI.26.MAR.2004.093008.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

OK -- turning the clock back to India's adventures with dual fueling using
gasifiers.

In practice they claimed 35% diesel -- 65% producer gas -- 16% over all
system thermal efficiencies -- and 33% system power derating.

So -- now the 6 HP Lister (as example) gets four HP --

65% of the btu's invested are from Producer gas

35% from diesel fuel (can be veggie oil)

And 16% of total btu's invested -- after all losses of efficiencies (engine
-- belt drive -- generator) comes out as kwh

Think on this -- and one soon can theorize how wonderful it all is!!

The producer gas is probably taking up most of the short end of the load
curve -- the diesel the high end of the load curve.

Course -- you could run the engine at full rating -- but then your diesel
consumption goes way up!!

So -- your probably looking at 16% total efficiency -- by the month -- and
not spot efficiency at maximized operation.

At full loads the diesel use is probably higher -- say 50 or 60% -- but at
minimal loads it probably is 5%. so the average -- for a very variable load
-- is 35/65

Very good indeed!!

Are we re-inventing wheel here or what??

Further -- any possibility that when loading this set up to maximum and
greater amounts of diesel fuel being applied -- this can kind of sweep out
tar deposits -- etc?

so at minimum load -- some tar build up -- but as load varies and it goes
higher diesel -- some flushing out of tars occur.

Mind you -- they fiddled a lot with compression ratios as well.

The old archives would have had all the details -- as there were extensive
postings on this very subject at that time.

Tom -- where are those archives -- eh??

They were so "searchable"

Now -- just to give all an idea and a further direction to pursue -- I have
appended a few older postings to this list that I have in my small archives.

Remember Prof: MRS PARIKH ???

And remember this Url??

http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

Contained all the prior "art" of this list!!

Here is one such "GEM" current to our present discussions:

Hello
This is in response to the message below. The spark advance depends upon the
compression ratio of the machine. For a machine having 8.3 compression
ratio, as it is presumably for the said engine the advance may be beyond 4-
degrees of Crank Angle. It must however be mentioned that 8.3 is not a good
compression ratio for Producer-gas. A good compression ratio range for
Producer-gas burning is 11 to 12. even in this case an optimum spark advance
is found to be 35 to 40 CA.
Mrs Parikh

My God -- what have we done!! We have broken the first rule of scientific
research and burned our notes????

Peter / Belize

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

Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 12:42:26 +0530 (IST)
From: Prof P P Parikh <parikh@me.iitb.ernet.in>
To: gasification@crest.org
cc: STOVES@CEST.org, BIOENERGY@crest.org, BIOCONVERSION@crest.org
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Biomass Christmas Books...
Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
Reply-To: gasification@crest.org

Dear ALL

We at IIT Bombay India have compiled a database on Gasification of
Biomass. This activity started in 1984. The database is know by the name
'SARGOB' [State of the Art Report on Gasification of Biomass]. The word
Gasification refers to Thermochemical Gasification and not Methanation
/Fermentation. In it's present form this database as on date contains 3620
records published in the period ranging from 1906 to 2000. The compilation
is quite exhaustive upto the year 1993 and not so exhaustive there-
after. In addition to the bibliographical information, the database also
contains the abstract of each paper. It is an interactive database in
which the records can be accessed / retreived on the basis of
keyword/sub-keyword OR country OR year of publication OR Author of the
record. Total number of keywords are 27 and sub-keywords are 437 and total
number of Authors/co-authors whose publications are part of this database
are 3767. The database is in the process of continuous up-dation where not
only new record are being added but also new keywords and sub-keywords
are being added. We now plan to put this database on our website of this
center [GARP_IITB] which is currently under construction. As per the plan
it will be an interactive database which will also be able to link to the
web-sites of the authors for complete papers.

Obviously we would like to make SARGOB as complete and up to date as
possible. It is in this context I request all the members of CREST mailing
list to kindly furnish information about their post-1994 publications in
the area of THERMOCHEMICAL GASIFICATION OF BIOMASS, PROCESSES, TECHNOLOGY
UTILISATION, PROGRAM IMPLEMTATION, MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND FIELD
EXPERIENCES.

Furnishing any further details on the EXISTING SARGOB will be our great
pleasure.

MRS PARIKH

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~
Prof. (Mrs.) P.P.Parikh Phone Office : 5723496, 5767548
Dept. of Mechanical Engg. 5722545 Ext. 7548 / 8385
I.I.T. Bombay Home : 5704646
Mumbai 400 076 INDIA Fax Office : 5723496, 5723480

email : parikh@me.iitb.ernet.in
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

From snkm at BTL.NET Fri Mar 26 10:37:02 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:46 2004
Subject: 35% diesel 65% Producer gas 16% system efficiencies
Message-ID: <FRI.26.MAR.2004.093702.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Guess what folks --

this Url is still there!!

http://www.me.iitb.ac.in/garp/

From snkm at BTL.NET Fri Mar 26 10:39:06 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:46 2004
Subject: 35% diesel 65% Producer gas 16% system efficiencies
Message-ID: <FRI.26.MAR.2004.093906.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

In relation to our present discussion -- try this Url for extre
"enlightenment"

http://www.iitb.ac.in:8080/examples/mech/ksubkey.jsp?mkey=19&mainkey=I.C.+EN
GINES

Peter / Belize

(Putting the brakes on re-inventiing the wheel)

From snkm at BTL.NET Fri Mar 26 11:13:22 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:46 2004
Subject: Eff low cost engine, burning tar,
: Gasifier Engine Specifications
Message-ID: <FRI.26.MAR.2004.101322.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 07:09 AM 3/26/2004 -0800, jerry dycus wrote:
> Hi Peter and All,
>--- Peter Singfield <snkm@BTL.NET> wrote:
>> Dear Kevin and all:
> So what we really need for long life, low costs is
>a eff 5 to 10kw eff rankine, steam engine to make
>producer gas work well.
> jerry dycus

Hi Jerry;

That is my "imaginary" horn your blowing there -- but please -- go right
ahead -- you play it well.

Maybe one day we'll have a real one to play with.

Meanwhile Ormat is producing exactly that -- right in that size category --
only they are using just plain combustion "STOVE" technology!

Prices are the problem --

Again folks -- we need that reciprocating ORC device for small power plants.

And all these diesels I look over -- this is always in the back of my mind.

Converting to ORC operation.

Then prices will come down -- dramatically!

no corporation has interest in this field of endeavor -- not even Ormat.

We have to wait until I work up a proto-type and then convince China to
mass produce it.

All feasible -- but all will take time -- lot's of it -- at the budget I
work on.

Makes a shoe-string look fat --

So -- the wheel just turned full cycle again -- RPM -- one stroke per month??

If anyone out there has an adventurous sole -- is about to be retired but
does not want to vegetate -- has a minimum of resources -- and is
fascinated with this same subject --

Have you considered moving to Belize??

I'm pricing small lathe -- milling machine -- tooling -- from China -- it
should not be that expensive to set up a proto-type shop here.

 

Peter

>>
>> I suggest investing in fuel condition and more
>> engine tear-downs.
>>
>> Remember the Crosley!!
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> >Best wishes,
>> >
>> >Kevin
>> >
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
>http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
>

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Fri Mar 26 11:17:26 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:46 2004
Subject: 35% diesel 65% Producer gas 16% system efficiencies
Message-ID: <FRI.26.MAR.2004.121726.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Peter

I wish to thank you for this, and the many other enormously helpful
references that you are kind enough to provide to the List.

Kevin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm@BTL.NET>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 11:39 AM
Subject: [GASL] 35% diesel 65% Producer gas 16% system efficiencies

> In relation to our present discussion -- try this Url for extre
> "enlightenment"
>
>
http://www.iitb.ac.in:8080/examples/mech/ksubkey.jsp?mkey=19&mainkey=I.C.+EN
> GINES
>
> Peter / Belize
>
> (Putting the brakes on re-inventiing the wheel)

From FBerton at CIWMB.CA.GOV Fri Mar 26 11:32:23 2004
From: FBerton at CIWMB.CA.GOV (Berton, Fernando)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:46 2004
Subject: UNSUBSCRIBE
Message-ID: <FRI.26.MAR.2004.083223.0800.FBERTON@CIWMB.CA.GOV>

UNSUBCRIBE

From rstanley at LEGACYFOUND.ORG Fri Mar 26 12:16:10 2004
From: rstanley at LEGACYFOUND.ORG (richard stanley)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:46 2004
Subject: Paul Re: cardboard.
In-Reply-To: <20040324212816.97556.qmail@web40602.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <FRI.26.MAR.2004.191610.0200.RSTANLEY@LEGACYFOUND.ORG>

Bruce,

Paul, May I offer you a small correction on cardboard. The glues used
in corrugated cardboard seems to stink and indeed do tend to retard
combustion --when the cardboard has been pulped and used as a principle
ingredient in the wet process fuel briquette (It does a great job of
gelantising and binding up stubborn biomass however).

Burned as you Bruce and Paul are doing it in situ, is another story and
in interesting one indeed.

Richard Stanley

Bruce Jackson wrote:

> Hey,
> Thanks for your comments on cardboard. Cardboard was
>the resource that got me interested in gasifacation. I
>observed that cardboard burns with great (although
>brief) heat. Also when air to the grates is cut off
>cardboard smokes profusely. If one were to open the
>fire box door with it loaded with this smoke, a small
>explosion results. Its amazing that this is with fire
>retardant. I cannot imagine the volatility without the
>fire retardent.
> I haul waste vegatable oil from restuarants and am
>always asked if I would take the cardboard as well. A
>certain amount is useful as kindling and ground
>sheeting for repairs in the snow, but the resturants
>simply provide too much.
> Ideally, should the boxes be broken down and rolled
>into one big bundle with the corrigations oriented in
>the direction of the air flow? Sounds reasonable
>enough.
>
> Thanks,
> Bruce Jackson
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
>http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
>
>
>
>
>

From mmahishi at REDIFFMAIL.COM Fri Mar 26 19:47:32 2004
From: mmahishi at REDIFFMAIL.COM (Madhukar Mahishi)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:46 2004
Subject: Eff low cost engine, burning tar,
: Gasifier Engine Specifications
Message-ID: <FRI.26.MAR.2004.194732.0500.MMAHISHI@REDIFFMAIL.COM>

Hello,

Can anyone tell me about the proportion (mass/vol and energy % )of "tars",
gases and solids to be expected in actual gasifiers? My objective is to
produce as much gas (hydrogen)as possible as I intend to use it to drive a
fuel cell. Based on the experience of some of the members who have been
working for a long time in the field, I would like to know if it would be
worth the time and effort to research specifically on tar cracking
catalysts and/or water-gas shift catalysts for biomass gasification?

I appreciate your co-operation in the matter and look forward to your
useful suggestions.

Thanking you,

Best Regards,

Madhukar Mahishi

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Fri Mar 26 20:06:58 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:46 2004
Subject: Eff low cost engine, burning tar,
: Gasifier Engine Specifications
In-Reply-To: <LISTSERV%2004032619473263@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Message-ID: <FRI.26.MAR.2004.190658.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Hello All,

I'll take a stab at this one,

Proportions, the basis of getting proportion would depend on quite a few
factors, however, the basics are "in a decent burning gasifier" 94% to 98%
Gas, 0.01% to 2% airborne solids, and 0.05% to 3% ash. Ideally the airborne
solids and ash go down in percentage, as the quality of gas increases. In a
perfect Gasifier 98% gas, and 0% airborne solids, and 2% ash would be ideal,
however most, if not all units suffer from some deficiency or problem that
we as builders simply haven't worked out yet.

Another aspect of the above "averages" is the feedstock type and moisture
content, as well as the facts of "if there is any unburnable product" in the
feedstock, as well as if there is any "pre-drying" of the feedstock before
the actual gasification area.

On the "other end" of things (downstream) there are the factors of catalyst
method, and type (if any), and steam entrainment (before and/or after
gasification). Limestone or dolomite or pearlite are common catalyst's in
North America, I don't know about any others, but I'm quite sure they exist.

Tom Reed, Tom Miles and many others on this list are able to much expand (or
correct) my comments, so I'll leave off here.

Regards,

Greg Manning

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Madhukar Mahishi
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 6:48 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: Eff low cost engine, burning tar, : Gasifier Engine
Specifications

Hello,

Can anyone tell me about the proportion (mass/vol and energy % )of "tars",
gases and solids to be expected in actual gasifiers? My objective is to
produce as much gas (hydrogen)as possible as I intend to use it to drive a
fuel cell. Based on the experience of some of the members who have been
working for a long time in the field, I would like to know if it would be
worth the time and effort to research specifically on tar cracking
catalysts and/or water-gas shift catalysts for biomass gasification?

I appreciate your co-operation in the matter and look forward to your
useful suggestions.

Thanking you,

Best Regards,

Madhukar Mahishi

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Fri Mar 26 20:26:25 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:46 2004
Subject: Glow plugs?? was Re: [GASL] Very exciting, very exciting.
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040326090822.009773c0@btlmail.btl.net>
Message-ID: <FRI.26.MAR.2004.192625.0600.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

All,

Although I am less technical than the rest of you, I am NOT bored with
these messages about the ideal engine.

And I am seeking also some way to maintain the "spark" without having a
spark maker. Said differently, I am producing volumes of tar-y gases in my
small "pyrolysizer" (not the purist definition of gasification) and in a
close-coupled way I can burn them in the combustor area. Great heat, but
sometimes the ignition can be lost. It will re-light immediately with a
single match, but I do not want to have that bother. What are the
alternatives for keeping something hot enough to keep re-igniting the dense
hot gases?

Is the term "glow-plug" the generic name for these things? Lead me to the
details, please.

Paul

At 09:30 AM 3/26/04 -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:
>At 10:48 AM 3/26/2004 -0400, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
> >Dear Bruce
> >
> >If you are onto an engine concept that can burn any fuel at a constant
> >piston speed, without injectors or electric ignition, I am anything but
> >bored.
> >
> >Kevin Chisholm
>
>Glow plug?? (AKA model airplane engines)
>
>Glow little glow plug -- Glimmer -- Glimmer ---
>
>Peter / Belize

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

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Fri Mar 26 21:11:18 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:46 2004
Subject: Eff low cost engine, burning tar,
: Gasifier Engine Specifications
In-Reply-To: <000c01c41397$ce272d80$0200a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <FRI.26.MAR.2004.201118.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

I certainly appreciate the reminder that Tom R. has given us (not just
lately) about the differences in proper gasifier design re: clean gas and lack
of tars, however, as a31ford mentions below, there is always a problem with ash,
which is quite abrasive. So some sort of cleansing and filtering action is
always advisable. Especially in the case of an otherwise long-living diesel
engine (and the small VW's are quite likely to run for 350K-450K in cars) which
are not that much fun to take apart just for a simple cleaning and valve
resurfacing. And, IIRC, people have needed to do a head removal and repair after
only 200 hours or so with dirty gas.
Tom said that it's best to not cool the gas in order to keep the tars and
particulates from dropping out, but that doesn't work well with a IC engine. A
turbine or some sort of steam engine (or ORC-type device) would be better in
that case, but for an IC engine you want to cool the gas as much as possible for
best power.

On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 07:06:58PM -0600, a31ford wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I'll take a stab at this one,
>
>
> Proportions, the basis of getting proportion would depend on quite a few
> factors, however, the basics are "in a decent burning gasifier" 94% to 98%
> Gas, 0.01% to 2% airborne solids, and 0.05% to 3% ash. Ideally the airborne
> solids and ash go down in percentage, as the quality of gas increases. In a
> perfect Gasifier 98% gas, and 0% airborne solids, and 2% ash would be ideal,
> however most, if not all units suffer from some deficiency or problem that
> we as builders simply haven't worked out yet.
>
> Another aspect of the above "averages" is the feedstock type and moisture
> content, as well as the facts of "if there is any unburnable product" in the
> feedstock, as well as if there is any "pre-drying" of the feedstock before
> the actual gasification area.
>
> On the "other end" of things (downstream) there are the factors of catalyst
> method, and type (if any), and steam entrainment (before and/or after
> gasification). Limestone or dolomite or pearlite are common catalyst's in
> North America, I don't know about any others, but I'm quite sure they exist.
>
> Tom Reed, Tom Miles and many others on this list are able to much expand (or
> correct) my comments, so I'll leave off here.
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg Manning
>
> Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Gasification Discussion List
> [mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Madhukar Mahishi
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 6:48 PM
> To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: Re: Eff low cost engine, burning tar, : Gasifier Engine
> Specifications
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Can anyone tell me about the proportion (mass/vol and energy % )of "tars",
> gases and solids to be expected in actual gasifiers? My objective is to
> produce as much gas (hydrogen)as possible as I intend to use it to drive a
> fuel cell. Based on the experience of some of the members who have been
> working for a long time in the field, I would like to know if it would be
> worth the time and effort to research specifically on tar cracking
> catalysts and/or water-gas shift catalysts for biomass gasification?
>
> I appreciate your co-operation in the matter and look forward to your
> useful suggestions.
>
> Thanking you,
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Madhukar Mahishi

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

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Fri Mar 26 21:13:30 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:46 2004
Subject: Glow plugs?? was Re: [GASL] Very exciting, very exciting.
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20040326191539.00d3d6e0@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.26.MAR.2004.201330.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

Take a look at the design of model airplane "glow plug" engines, the most
common design, although their are also a goodly number of model diesel and even
spark ignition model airplane engines.

On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 07:26:25PM -0600, Paul S. Anderson wrote:
> All,
>
> Although I am less technical than the rest of you, I am NOT bored with
> these messages about the ideal engine.
>
> And I am seeking also some way to maintain the "spark" without having a
> spark maker. Said differently, I am producing volumes of tar-y gases in my
> small "pyrolysizer" (not the purist definition of gasification) and in a
> close-coupled way I can burn them in the combustor area. Great heat, but
> sometimes the ignition can be lost. It will re-light immediately with a
> single match, but I do not want to have that bother. What are the
> alternatives for keeping something hot enough to keep re-igniting the dense
> hot gases?
>
> Is the term "glow-plug" the generic name for these things? Lead me to the
> details, please.
>
> Paul
>
> At 09:30 AM 3/26/04 -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:
> >At 10:48 AM 3/26/2004 -0400, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
> >>Dear Bruce
> >>
> >>If you are onto an engine concept that can burn any fuel at a constant
> >>piston speed, without injectors or electric ignition, I am anything but
> >>bored.
> >>
> >>Kevin Chisholm
> >
> >Glow plug?? (AKA model airplane engines)
> >
> >Glow little glow plug -- Glimmer -- Glimmer ---
> >
> >Peter / Belize
>
> Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
> Rotary University Teacher Grantee to Mozambique >10 mo of 2001-2003
> Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
> Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
> E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

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

From renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ Sat Mar 27 01:51:58 2004
From: renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ (Ken Calvert)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:46 2004
Subject: Eff low cost engine, burning tar, :
In-Reply-To: <20040326150951.10261.qmail@web41002.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <SAT.27.MAR.2004.185158.1200.RENERTECH@XTRA.CO.NZ>

Yes, what your gas cleaner collects is toxic wastes, but not of the worst
burning kind.
They are still 'natural', there are no PCBs or Dioxins or synthetic
chemicals that the natural biological world has not learned to handle.
Having opened up on the question of tars congealing in the top of the fuel
hopper and sticking the fuel together, let me go on to tell of another one
of our experimental pathways to minimise the problem. I did mention
insulating the fuel hopper to keep everything hot, but we also went to the
other extreme.
Why, we reasoned, do we go to all the trouble of drying out our fuel to get
good combustion when we could kill 'three birds' with a lot less effort! If
we kept the side walls of the fuel hopper cold, and installed an internal
drip tray on the bottom of the inside of the fuel hopper, all the excess
moisture and tars could condense and run down the walls and be collected
through an external drain tap. And then we could burn green wood!
A major part of the rationale behind this was, because back then, in
many third world conditions, the only kind of termite proof coating people
could put on the dug in corner posts of their huts and houses was Delran,
Aldine and PCPs that had been banned in most of the world and thoughtfully
gathered up and shipped overseas and sold to those people who didn't know
any better. What we wanted was 'Stockholm tar'. The traditional stuff that
Farmers used to treat fly blown livestock and preserve timber with, and hich
you could no longer buy! What we could draw off our gasifier was just the
proverbial for all those things. And yes it worked!
We could either feed in green wood, cut less than a week, and get a well
diluted tar, or we could feed in dry wood blocks and get a really thick tar
that would kill a horse
At 50 yards. And we still got good quality gas. Sorry, no figures on kgs of
wood to kwhrs, but we were very happy with those results. The down side was
fierce corrosion problems, over supply of product to a limited market and
keeping that drain tap flowing over a range of running conditions. ATB. Ken
C.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List [mailto:] On Behalf Of jerry dycus
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 3:10 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [GASL] Eff low cost engine, burning tar, : Gasifier Engine
Specifications

Hi Peter and All,
--- Peter Singfield <snkm@BTL.NET> wrote:
> Dear Kevin and all:

> Last -- what that gas cleaner collects is true toxic wastes of the
> worst kind!! What to do with that stuff accumulating -- eh??

Heat it or any biomass up to about 1500F then run through a long heated
SS pipe with SS Choir Boy/ SS screen wires pulled through it as a catalyst
should turn most of it into H2, CO and methane? It should convert some
moisture into fuel also.
A large part of the energy of biomass is in these "Tars" as well as
chemicals like acetone, methanol, ect. In a steam engine these along with
the heat of gasifacation are a plus, unlike an ICE that these will make a
short life for and lower eff.
As for the perfect engine for producer gas is steam as it's the only
one that uses the heat in the gas that lowers the eff if used in an ICE.
As for cleaning the best is a cyclone type seperator does a good job
with the least maintance, work with finer traps after it to get what little
gets by.
So what we really need for long life, low costs is a eff 5 to 10kw eff
rankine, steam engine to make producer gas work well.
jerry dycus
>
> I suggest investing in fuel condition and more engine tear-downs.
>
> Remember the Crosley!!
>
> Peter
>
> >Best wishes,
> >
> >Kevin
> >

 

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

From arnt at C2I.NET Sat Mar 27 19:13:04 2004
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:47 2004
Subject: Glow plugs?? was Re: [GASL] Very exciting, very exciting.
In-Reply-To: <20040327021330.GB27797@cybershamanix.com>
Message-ID: <SUN.28.MAR.2004.011304.0100.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 20:13:30 -0600, Harmon wrote in message
<20040327021330.GB27797@cybershamanix.com>:

> Take a look at the design of model airplane "glow plug" engines, the
> most common design, although their are also a goodly number of model
> diesel and even spark ignition model airplane engines.

..these "glow plugs" are really platinum alloy _catalytic_ plugs,
usually platinum 90-99% coated, the balance is rhodium and various
other alloy metals for strenght and longevity. These engines are fed
an air and fuel and lube mix thru a carburettor, this mix is ignited by
the combination of the compression heat and pressure, the catalyzer
plug and either the combustion chamber heat or electric heat in the
"glow" plug. ;-)

..fuel and lube mix is traditionally 80% methanol to 20% castor oil.

.."model diesel" engines differs in burning 15-25% ether, 20% lube
and balance kerosine, and the ether and controllable compression
ratio to ignite the fuel, rather than the catalyzer plug. These engines
are commonly started by cranking while screwing down the contrapiston
until it fires, then on warming up, the compression is backed off for
"smoothness" while the carburettor (yes!) is "adjusted for power".

..for gasification, by all means leave the 20% lube pool to wash away
tar etc until you feel safe, nice fuel, but go with spark ignition. ;-)

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

From LINVENT at AOL.COM Sat Mar 27 21:12:09 2004
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:47 2004
Subject: Castor oil lubrication?
Message-ID: <SAT.27.MAR.2004.211209.EST.>

I am not sure the tars are soluble in castor oil. The trials I have made
don't show any solubility or inclination to move in the presence of castor oil
which would be necessary to get the surfaces cleaned and prevent total clogging.

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

From snkm at BTL.NET Sat Mar 27 21:52:27 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:47 2004
Subject: Castor oil lubrication?
Message-ID: <SAT.27.MAR.2004.205227.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 09:12 PM 3/27/2004 EST, LINVENT@AOL.COM wrote:
>I am not sure the tars are soluble in castor oil. The trials I have made
>don't show any solubility or inclination to move in the presence of castor
oil
>which would be necessary to get the surfaces cleaned and prevent total
clogging.
>
>Leland T. Taylor
>President
>Thermogenics Inc.
>7100-F 2nd St. NW Albuquerque, New Mexico USA 87107 Phone: 505-761-5633, fax:
>341-0424, website: thermogenics.com.
>In order to read the compressed files forwarded under AOL, it is necessary to
>download Aladdin's freeware Unstuffit at
>http://www.stuffit.com/expander/index.html
>

Tell us Tom -- would maybe an injection of a "spurt" of steam clears out tars?

Say a little pop-valve action? Once the engine is warmed up that is.

Not a lot of steam -- just a very little -- easily generated by a small
waste heat boiler on the exhaust.

This could be injected either in the stream before intake valve -- or
directly into engine during exhaust. Compression stroke "popping" would not
work due to pressure being to high -- but a simple check valve would top a
reverse flow. So the pop valve would only work end of exhaust stroke --
just before intake. Kind of blowing out -- purging - -the cylinder -- with
maybe a little left in for the next power stroke. Just a tiny poof -- maybe
10 or 15 degrees of crank turning. Not enough to effect intake -- hopefully?

Or use a cam action to inject at bottom of power stroke??

Did you ever try the old water injection trick to increase HP like they did
on the WWII fighter engines. Intake manifold draws water mist into the
intake flow.

Does that help for gas operation??

I know you have experimented a lot!

Folks -- as a rule -- steam of 1200 F or more will reform tars to H2. Can
the exhaust boiler get it hot enough??

Certainly during combustion in the cylinder it will!!

Is there any possibilities -- is it worth the try??

Peter / Belize

From arnt at C2I.NET Sat Mar 27 22:39:14 2004
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:47 2004
Subject: Castor oil lubrication?
In-Reply-To: <102.4146ac06.2d978e79@aol.com>
Message-ID: <SUN.28.MAR.2004.053914.0200.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 21:12:09 EST, LINVENT@aol.com wrote in message
<102.4146ac06.2d978e79@aol.com>:

> I am not sure the tars are soluble in castor oil. The trials I have
> made don't show any solubility or inclination to move in the presence
> of castor oil which would be necessary to get the surfaces cleaned and
> prevent total clogging.

..good question. These small model engines are built for very high lube
flows, and full loss flow too, so another question is, do they need tars
to be soluble in the castor oil? Both are excellent fuels when fired
into the gasifier, too. The use of these small engines is a rather
academic exercise too, as they don't produce much bang for the bucks.

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

From snkm at BTL.NET Sun Mar 28 10:30:16 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:47 2004
Subject: Castor oil lubrication?
Message-ID: <SUN.28.MAR.2004.093016.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 05:39 AM 3/28/2004 +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>The use of these small engines is a rather
>academic exercise too, as they don't produce much bang for the bucks.

Very possibly relevant -- however -- they do allow some of us to stay lit
up when all the other lights go out!

Then we can still see to keep on working for the more ideal solution --
larger gasifier units.

I still stand by my prediction of years back -- when the ideal is put in
operation -- it will not be based on partial combustion gasifiers -- if
gasifiers (beyond simple combustion -- thermal) at all -- but on steam
reforming -- or ORC based thermal conversion devices such as the ORCs.

It has also been mentioned on this list -- straight thermal combustion of
any biomass material to power a conventional thermal plant -- really folks
-- nothing has been found to beat that yet for high efficiencies and long
term low maintenance operation.

This for the large system you are interested in Arnt.

It is only in the small systems where you profess no interest at all that
there still stands a chance for applying the technology you live for --
partial gasification.

The ORC based system are viable due to less high temperatures involved.
Very hard to achieve 1200 F steam qualities -- and the turbines to run on
this -- for small to middle to large systems at any price that makes sense.

and the super large plants where it does make sense -- lose all purpose due
to the great distances biomass products must then be transported to a
single location!

sounds like you have had a good long sleep Arnt -- and just woke up??

Anyone on this list interested in the logistics of biomass supply to large
single point users need only study the pulp and paper industry.

They have there complete breakdowns as to transportation costs. And many
other points of interest -- such as chipping.

Some of us believe that the biomass energy situation can only be solved by
multitudes of small plants all hooked to one huge grid.

Else you better start looking at solar energy -- or wind energy -- as
viable single point power plants of the huge category -- eh??

No costs of transport!

In your world Arnt -- biomass just miraculously falls down from the sky
around you??

Well it does for wind and solar!! Also tidal energy -- hydro energy --
geothermal energy.

Know you world Arnt! Start using reality as the base line -- eh??

OK -- large gasifiers have potential where huge amounts of biomass wastes
already exist -- such as a sugar factory -- with it's bagasse!

But add all of such together -- and it does not even make a single drop for
this bucket!

Further -- bagasse is a difficult fuel for gasifiers -- difficult fuel for
high pressure boilers -- but can and does work well for ORC systems.

So your gasifier is still left out in the cold!

Concentrate on the tiny gasifier Arnt -- that is my advice to you.

Peter / Belize

From joacim at YMEX.NET Sun Mar 28 15:28:01 2004
From: joacim at YMEX.NET (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:47 2004
Subject: OOPS! Let me try again....
In-Reply-To: <20040326010944.84375.qmail@web40606.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <SUN.28.MAR.2004.222801.0200.JOACIM@YMEX.NET>

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Bruce Jackson wrote:
> patterns and I want to cast my own parts for a
> producer gas fueled engine.

In that case I suggest you avoid casting the cylinder head, or anything, in
aluminium. I've had problems with corrosion on alum. details, but not for
cast iron. I suspect it has something to do with high pH.

Joacim

From joacim at YMEX.NET Sun Mar 28 15:17:17 2004
From: joacim at YMEX.NET (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:47 2004
Subject: Very exciting, very exciting.
In-Reply-To: <20040326134900.89695.qmail@web40613.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <SUN.28.MAR.2004.221717.0200.JOACIM@YMEX.NET>

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Bruce Jackson wrote:

> Besides a Detroit Diesel, has anyone ever used
> producer gas in a two stroke engine?

Two-stroke single-cylinder boat motors were fitted with gasifiers during
ww2. The motor was somewhat modified. Se the book "Gengas" for a
description of the "pulsator" systems. They actually got more horsepowers
out from it on producer gas than from oil.

Joacim

From joacim at YMEX.NET Sun Mar 28 17:49:50 2004
From: joacim at YMEX.NET (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:47 2004
Subject: stuff on fao.org on producer gas engines
Message-ID: <MON.29.MAR.2004.004950.0200.JOACIM@YMEX.NET>

http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/T0512E/T0512e08.htm

I haven't read it through yet. Not sure what they mean by producer gas
consisting of "some 40 per cent combustible gases" in the very first
paragraph. Never seen gas like that. (gasifying with oxygen-boosted air?)
But there is some stuff on engine parameters further down which may be of
some interest regarding engine design.

Joacim

From graeme at POWERLINK.CO.NZ Sun Mar 28 19:50:27 2004
From: graeme at POWERLINK.CO.NZ (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:47 2004
Subject: stuff on fao.org on producer gas engines
Message-ID: <MON.29.MAR.2004.125027.1200.GRAEME@POWERLINK.CO.NZ>

Joacim,

It means what it says, only 40% of the gas volume is combustible, and as you
say is the result of using atmospheric air for the gasification. For this
reason, it represents one of the lower calorific value gases and if used
in engines, creates a derating of the power output.You can find practical
and commercially proven tables for standard engines, both S.I. and dual fuel
diesels on the Fluidyne Archive. www.fluidynenz.250x.com

I will rejoin these discussions on engines shortly, if only to bring a
degree of reality into what some of you are trying to do or believe you can
do.
Doug Williams,
Fluidyne Gasification.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joacim Persson" <joacim@YMEX.NET>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 10:49 AM
Subject: [GASL] stuff on fao.org on producer gas engines

> http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/T0512E/T0512e08.htm
>
>
> I haven't read it through yet. Not sure what they mean by producer gas
> consisting of "some 40 per cent combustible gases" in the very first
> paragraph. Never seen gas like that. (gasifying with oxygen-boosted air?)
> But there is some stuff on engine parameters further down which may be of
> some interest regarding engine design.
>
> Joacim
>

From arnt at C2I.NET Sun Mar 28 20:47:53 2004
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:47 2004
Subject: Castor oil lubrication?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040328092901.009dac50@btlmail.btl.net>
Message-ID: <MON.29.MAR.2004.034753.0200.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 09:30:16 -0600, Peter wrote in message
<3.0.32.20040328092901.009dac50@btlmail.btl.net>:

> At 05:39 AM 3/28/2004 +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> >The use of these small engines is a rather
> >academic exercise too, as they don't produce much bang for the bucks.
>
> Very possibly relevant -- however -- they do allow some of us to stay
> lit up when all the other lights go out!

..these small model airplane engines I have, range, in size and rpms,
between 0.020 and 20000 to 2 c.i and 8000 rpms. ;-)

..that said, I have run a B&S mower engine on gas, it powered
the flare fan. ;-)

> Concentrate on the tiny gasifier Arnt -- that is my advice to you.

..I agree, I like to think of my 200-300 kWth gasifier rig as tiny. ;-)

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

From snkm at BTL.NET Sun Mar 28 21:28:47 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:47 2004
Subject: Castor oil lubrication?
Message-ID: <SUN.28.MAR.2004.202847.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 03:47 AM 3/29/2004 +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 09:30:16 -0600, Peter wrote in message
><3.0.32.20040328092901.009dac50@btlmail.btl.net>:
>
>..I agree, I like to think of my 200-300 kWth gasifier rig as tiny. ;-)
>

your right -- but that is a large "tiny" -- how about a 20-30 kwth??

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

From arnt at C2I.NET Sun Mar 28 22:19:01 2004
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:47 2004
Subject: Castor oil lubrication?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040328201256.009e4750@btlmail.btl.net>
Message-ID: <MON.29.MAR.2004.051901.0200.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 20:28:47 -0600, Peter wrote in message
<3.0.32.20040328201256.009e4750@btlmail.btl.net>:

> At 03:47 AM 3/29/2004 +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> >On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 09:30:16 -0600, Peter wrote in message
> ><3.0.32.20040328092901.009dac50@btlmail.btl.net>:
> >
> >..I agree, I like to think of my 200-300 kWth gasifier rig as tiny.
> >;-)
> >
>
> your right -- but that is a large "tiny" -- how about a 20-30 kwth??

..oh, we all have to start _somewhere_. ;-)

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

From Steve_Jenkins at URSCORP.COM Mon Mar 29 07:46:22 2004
From: Steve_Jenkins at URSCORP.COM (Steve Jenkins)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:47 2004
Subject: UNSUBSCRIBE
Message-ID: <MON.29.MAR.2004.074622.0500.>

Steve Jenkins
Power Industry Sector Leader
URS Corporation
7650 W. Courtney Campbell Causeway
Tampa, FL 33607-1462
Phone: 813-636-2406
Cell: 813-503-8721
Fax: 813-636-2499

From dschmidt at UNDEERC.ORG Mon Mar 29 12:10:27 2004
From: dschmidt at UNDEERC.ORG (Schmidt, Darren)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:47 2004
Subject: tesla turbines
Message-ID: <MON.29.MAR.2004.111027.0600.DSCHMIDT@UNDEERC.ORG>

For those interested in tesla turbines I invite you to look at
<http://eisg.sdsu.edu/Far/00-06%20FAR%20Appendix%20A.pdf>.

We did some testing firing biomass through a turbine. The unit was
connected to a dyno and instrumented. Data is available from the report.

Darren D. Schmidt, P.E., Research Manager
Energy & Environmental Research Center
University of North Dakota
15 N. 23rd St.
Grand Forks, ND 58202
ph (701) 777-5120 f (701) 777-5181
dschmidt@undeerc.org
www.undeerc.org

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Mon Mar 29 13:55:54 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:47 2004
Subject: tesla turbines
In-Reply-To: <3F678EC15E6D8F4EA7CDC3F389D9CC7E0117D802@undeerc.eerc.und.NoDak.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.29.MAR.2004.125554.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

Excellent report. I would assume that efficiency would have been much higher
had the turbine been optimized for combustion, rather than being a dual
steam/combustion unit with only about a 1/3 of the rotor disks actually being
energized during the tests, the rest just creating a lot of extra weight and
drag.
I've always found it amusing when people rant about how boundary layer
turbines can't possibly work when they've been sold very successfully for years
as pumps.

On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 11:10:27AM -0600, Schmidt, Darren wrote:
> For those interested in tesla turbines I invite you to look at
> <http://eisg.sdsu.edu/Far/00-06%20FAR%20Appendix%20A.pdf>.
>
> We did some testing firing biomass through a turbine. The unit was
> connected to a dyno and instrumented. Data is available from the report.
>
> Darren D. Schmidt, P.E., Research Manager
> Energy & Environmental Research Center
> University of North Dakota
> 15 N. 23rd St.
> Grand Forks, ND 58202
> ph (701) 777-5120 f (701) 777-5181
> dschmidt@undeerc.org
> www.undeerc.org

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

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Mon Mar 29 14:57:37 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:47 2004
Subject: tesla turbines
Message-ID: <MON.29.MAR.2004.155737.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Harmon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] tesla turbines

> Excellent report. I would assume that efficiency would have been much
higher
> had the turbine been optimized for combustion, rather than being a dual
> steam/combustion unit with only about a 1/3 of the rotor disks actually
being
> energized during the tests, the rest just creating a lot of extra weight
and
> drag.

What would you assume the Tesla Turbine efficency to be under optimal
conditions?

> I've always found it amusing when people rant about how boundary layer
> turbines can't possibly work when they've been sold very successfully for
years
> as pumps.

They are used as pumps where considerations other than efficiency are
important. If they have a cost advantage in manufacture, why are they not in
more widespread use? Do you know of any place where they are used
commercially as a turbine?

Kevin Chisholm
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 11:10:27AM -0600, Schmidt, Darren wrote:
> > For those interested in tesla turbines I invite you to look at
> > <http://eisg.sdsu.edu/Far/00-06%20FAR%20Appendix%20A.pdf>.
> >
> > We did some testing firing biomass through a turbine. The unit was
> > connected to a dyno and instrumented. Data is available from the
report.
> >
> > Darren D. Schmidt, P.E., Research Manager
> > Energy & Environmental Research Center
> > University of North Dakota
> > 15 N. 23rd St.
> > Grand Forks, ND 58202
> > ph (701) 777-5120 f (701) 777-5181
> > dschmidt@undeerc.org
> > www.undeerc.org
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Mon Mar 29 15:56:03 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:47 2004
Subject: tesla turbines
In-Reply-To: <00ff01c415c8$7dd4d840$469a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <MON.29.MAR.2004.145603.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 03:57:37PM -0400, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
> What would you assume the Tesla Turbine efficency to be under optimal
> conditions?

Tesla was claiming 85-90%, IIRC. The report here says "40%-60% are possible,
with a potential limit of 65%", that certainly seems much better than
reciprocating engines. Bladed turbines haven't done very well, at least not the
smaller ones -- the US military just retrofited all their tanks with IC diesel
engines because the efficiency of the bladed turbines they came with was so
poor, and, of course, no automaker sells any, although I think one or two tried
them briefly.
Durability of bladed turbines is also an important factor in their lack of
success, as well as noise. While they have few moving parts, blade and housing
erosion is quite rapid, from what I've read.

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

From snkm at BTL.NET Mon Mar 29 16:18:21 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:47 2004
Subject: tesla turbines
Message-ID: <MON.29.MAR.2004.151821.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

The problem is you can't expand gasses in the Tesla design -- it is just
straight through.

When pumping liquids -- that is not a problem.

Thus -- a single Tesla can only achieve very low efficiency -- maybe if one
dod like they do with turbines-- multiple units.

By the way -- multiple blades in the Tesla does not translate to multiple
units.

Your only "topping" -- not getting any where near the expansion you would
with a piston engine.

Peter / Belize

At 03:57 PM 3/29/2004 -0400, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>Dear Harmon
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>
>To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 2:55 PM
>Subject: Re: [GASL] tesla turbines
>
>
>> Excellent report. I would assume that efficiency would have been much
>higher
>> had the turbine been optimized for combustion, rather than being a dual
>> steam/combustion unit with only about a 1/3 of the rotor disks actually
>being
>> energized during the tests, the rest just creating a lot of extra weight
>and
>> drag.
>
>What would you assume the Tesla Turbine efficency to be under optimal
>conditions?
>
>> I've always found it amusing when people rant about how boundary layer
>> turbines can't possibly work when they've been sold very successfully for
>years
>> as pumps.
>
>They are used as pumps where considerations other than efficiency are
>important. If they have a cost advantage in manufacture, why are they not in
>more widespread use? Do you know of any place where they are used
>commercially as a turbine?
>
>Kevin Chisholm
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 11:10:27AM -0600, Schmidt, Darren wrote:
>> > For those interested in tesla turbines I invite you to look at
>> > <http://eisg.sdsu.edu/Far/00-06%20FAR%20Appendix%20A.pdf>.
>> >
>> > We did some testing firing biomass through a turbine. The unit was
>> > connected to a dyno and instrumented. Data is available from the
>report.
>> >
>> > Darren D. Schmidt, P.E., Research Manager
>> > Energy & Environmental Research Center
>> > University of North Dakota
>> > 15 N. 23rd St.
>> > Grand Forks, ND 58202
>> > ph (701) 777-5120 f (701) 777-5181
>> > dschmidt@undeerc.org
>> > www.undeerc.org
>>
>> --
>> Harmon Seaver
>> CyberShamanix
>> http://www.cybershamanix.com
>

From w.dejong at WBMT.TUDELFT.NL Tue Mar 30 01:42:41 2004
From: w.dejong at WBMT.TUDELFT.NL (jongw)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:47 2004
Subject: tesla turbines
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040329144014.009ee560@btlmail.btl.net>
Message-ID: <TUE.30.MAR.2004.084241.0200.W.DEJONG@WBMT.TUDELFT.NL>

Dear Peter,

What about the big avantage of Tesla turbines when
you can avoid excessive (solids) gas cleaning, which is necessary
with the bladetypes for a range of thermal conversion processes of
biomass?

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

 

Peter Singfield wrote:

> The problem is you can't expand gasses in the Tesla design -- it is just
> straight through.
>
> When pumping liquids -- that is not a problem.
>
> Thus -- a single Tesla can only achieve very low efficiency -- maybe if one
> dod like they do with turbines-- multiple units.
>
> By the way -- multiple blades in the Tesla does not translate to multiple
> units.
>
> Your only "topping" -- not getting any where near the expansion you would
> with a piston engine.
>
> Peter / Belize
>
> At 03:57 PM 3/29/2004 -0400, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>
>>Dear Harmon
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>
>>To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>>Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 2:55 PM
>>Subject: Re: [GASL] tesla turbines
>>
>>
>>
>>> Excellent report. I would assume that efficiency would have been much
>>
>>higher
>>
>>>had the turbine been optimized for combustion, rather than being a dual
>>>steam/combustion unit with only about a 1/3 of the rotor disks actually
>>
>>being
>>
>>>energized during the tests, the rest just creating a lot of extra weight
>>
>>and
>>
>>>drag.
>>
>>What would you assume the Tesla Turbine efficency to be under optimal
>>conditions?
>>
>>
>>> I've always found it amusing when people rant about how boundary layer
>>>turbines can't possibly work when they've been sold very successfully for
>>
>>years
>>
>>>as pumps.
>>
>>They are used as pumps where considerations other than efficiency are
>>important. If they have a cost advantage in manufacture, why are they not in
>>more widespread use? Do you know of any place where they are used
>>commercially as a turbine?
>>
>>Kevin Chisholm
>>
>>>
>>>On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 11:10:27AM -0600, Schmidt, Darren wrote:
>>>
>>>>For those interested in tesla turbines I invite you to look at
>>>><http://eisg.sdsu.edu/Far/00-06%20FAR%20Appendix%20A.pdf>.
>>>>
>>>>We did some testing firing biomass through a turbine. The unit was
>>>>connected to a dyno and instrumented. Data is available from the
>>
>>report.
>>
>>>>Darren D. Schmidt, P.E., Research Manager
>>>>Energy & Environmental Research Center
>>>>University of North Dakota
>>>>15 N. 23rd St.
>>>>Grand Forks, ND 58202
>>>>ph (701) 777-5120 f (701) 777-5181
>>>>dschmidt@undeerc.org
>>>>www.undeerc.org
>>>
>>>--
>>>Harmon Seaver
>>>CyberShamanix
>>>http://www.cybershamanix.com
>>
>
>

From Gasdev at AOL.COM Tue Mar 30 06:13:06 2004
From: Gasdev at AOL.COM (Gasdev@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:47 2004
Subject: * UNSUBSCRIBE
Message-ID: <TUE.30.MAR.2004.061306.EST.>

P LACOSTE

Gasdev@aol.com

From bpjackso at YAHOO.COM Wed Mar 24 16:28:16 2004
From: bpjackso at YAHOO.COM (Bruce Jackson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:47 2004
Subject: Paul Re: cardboard.
Message-ID: <WED.24.MAR.2004.132816.0800.BPJACKSO@YAHOO.COM>

Hey,
Thanks for your comments on cardboard. Cardboard was
the resource that got me interested in gasifacation. I
observed that cardboard burns with great (although
brief) heat. Also when air to the grates is cut off
cardboard smokes profusely. If one were to open the
fire box door with it loaded with this smoke, a small
explosion results. Its amazing that this is with fire
retardant. I cannot imagine the volatility without the
fire retardent.
I haul waste vegatable oil from restuarants and am
always asked if I would take the cardboard as well. A
certain amount is useful as kindling and ground
sheeting for repairs in the snow, but the resturants
simply provide too much.
Ideally, should the boxes be broken down and rolled
into one big bundle with the corrigations oriented in
the direction of the air flow? Sounds reasonable
enough.

Thanks,
Bruce Jackson

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Wed Mar 24 18:23:36 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:47 2004
Subject: Paul Re: cardboard.
In-Reply-To: <20040324212816.97556.qmail@web40602.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <WED.24.MAR.2004.172336.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

Hmm, like how much do they want to give you? And is it wrapped or tied in some
way or just loose?

On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 01:28:16PM -0800, Bruce Jackson wrote:
> Hey,
> Thanks for your comments on cardboard. Cardboard was
> the resource that got me interested in gasifacation. I
> observed that cardboard burns with great (although
> brief) heat. Also when air to the grates is cut off
> cardboard smokes profusely. If one were to open the
> fire box door with it loaded with this smoke, a small
> explosion results. Its amazing that this is with fire
> retardant. I cannot imagine the volatility without the
> fire retardent.
> I haul waste vegatable oil from restuarants and am
> always asked if I would take the cardboard as well. A
> certain amount is useful as kindling and ground
> sheeting for repairs in the snow, but the resturants
> simply provide too much.
> Ideally, should the boxes be broken down and rolled
> into one big bundle with the corrigations oriented in
> the direction of the air flow? Sounds reasonable
> enough.
>
> Thanks,
> Bruce Jackson
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

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

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Fri Mar 26 09:48:34 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:47 2004
Subject: Very exciting, very exciting.
Message-ID: <FRI.26.MAR.2004.104834.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Bruce
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Jackson" <bpjackso@YAHOO.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 9:49 AM
Subject: [GASL] Very exciting, very exciting.

> Hi,
> Okay, that batch of postings was interesting. I came
> away with a salient question...namely what is the
> ideal piston speed?
> Don't give me that engineer gibberish about how it
> depends on the fuel. Thats the line I use. Just look
> at it generally.

Sounds like you are looking for the Universal Constant.

> In other words, am I looking for the formula that
> relates piston speed to the flame speed of the gas?
> Or am I looking for a way to calculate how fast the
> pressure builds up in a closed cylinder with producer
> gas burning in it? (thats probably not written too
> clearly.)

Yes.
> Anyhow, (And Harmon, this is the point) I am
> interested in your ideas about this...
>
.del..
> I have my own ideas about this, many gleaned from
> this list. I also have my reasons for doing this.

Would you care to elaborate?
Many
> of those are also expressed by others on this list.
>
> So lets keep it simple. NO injectors, Absolutely no
> computers, no delicate parts to break. I don't even
> want an electric ignition.

What are your thoughts on the principles that will be involved in causing
the fuel to ignite?
>
> Besides a Detroit Diesel, has anyone ever used
> producer gas in a two stroke engine?
>
Has producer gas ever been used in a 2 cycle Detroit?

> Is this fun or am I boring you?

If you are onto an engine concept that can burn any fuel at a constant
piston speed, without injectors or electric ignition, I am anything but
bored.

Kevin Chisholm

From snkm at BTL.NET Thu Mar 25 21:11:53 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:47 2004
Subject: Whats the best engine?
Message-ID: <THU.25.MAR.2004.201153.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 02:03 AM 3/26/2004 +0100, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:48:12 -0000, Ken wrote in message

>> www.cn-food/english/chanpian/1100.htm
>
>..try again. ;-)

Found it using google --

http://www.cn-food.com/english/chanpian/185n.htm

and from there you get them all --

Peter

From snkm at BTL.NET Thu Mar 25 20:51:36 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:47 2004
Subject: Plant Sizing
Message-ID: <THU.25.MAR.2004.195136.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

>Peter, Why have I heard the opposite so many times. In the small stoves
>such as mine and Crispin's, we talk about using 3Cr12 or stainless because
>the regular (mild) steel cannot take the heat as well. Please assist this
>"non-specialist" to understand.
>
>Paul

Been years -- but carbon steel boiler tubing. Used it all the time -- A-60
I believe??

Much more economic than stainless steel. Machines great to! Takes higher
temperatures as well.

Just search out carbon steel -- there are so many varieties.

Stainless has the advantage of less -- much less -- corrosion. But that
depends to.

Stainless boiler tubing for large coal fired untility boilers is the best
grade of stainless for heat. The extra cost supposed to be recovered by
longer terms of use before replacing.

Actually -- just check what those boiler makers are using these days.

They might even be using carbon steels again -- don't know???

Peter / Belize

At 05:44 PM 3/25/2004 -0600, Paul S. Anderson wrote:
>At 03:09 PM 3/22/04 -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:
>
>>Steel is far stronger than stainless steel -- with much better heat
>>transmission properties -- less thermal expansion than stainless as well.
>Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
>Rotary University Teacher Grantee to Mozambique >10 mo of 2001-2003
>Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
>Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
>E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
>
>

From snkm at BTL.NET Thu Mar 25 21:04:04 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:47 2004
Subject: OOPS! Let me try again....
Message-ID: <THU.25.MAR.2004.200404.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Actually -- their should be plans available for all those old style early
engines.

And the effort to reconstruct one is valid.

If this Url is still valid -- a good place to start.

http://www.oldengine.org/members/diesel/patents.htm

Peter / Belize

At 05:09 PM 3/25/2004 -0800, Bruce Jackson wrote:
> Hi,
> I gotta head you guys off at the pass. Let me try
>this again...lets say I am ready to start building
>patterns and I want to cast my own parts for a
>producer gas fueled engine. What do I want to do?
> Sorry Ken lets rule out Stirling for now.
> Sorry Peter, I'm building not buying.
> Its going to be either a spark ignition engine or hot
>tube ignition.
> Variable compression ratio is pretty ridiculus from
>my view. I don't think I could deal with the design
>issues.
>
> I want simple. I want durable.
> What I am afraid of here is that there isn't anyone
>who designs engines just producers.
> What I am reading here is long stroke slow speed. Big
>flywheel. Piston speed less then 50mph tops. Roller
>bearings on the crank. Sloppy piston okay if running
>dirty fuel.
> It was this sort of thing that I am interested in
>knowing.
> Anyhow, thanks for what you could do.
>Bruce
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
>http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
>

From snkm at BTL.NET Thu Mar 25 20:51:40 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:47 2004
Subject: Whats the best engine?
Message-ID: <THU.25.MAR.2004.195140.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

A few are here in Belize -- saw one -- the bigger model -- 14 HP -- running
an 8 kw 440 3 phase generator to power a local village water supply --
which depended on a 5 kw 440 submersible pump to a water tower -- then
gravity feed to houses.

Every time the water goes low -- or at set times -- once or more per day --
a man goes over -- and cranks it -- and away it goes.

Was passing through -- checked it out -- the man came to start it -- said
do I want to try??

Sure!!

Very easy starting -- easier than the Lister.

What impressed me the most is the lack of vibration -- very smooth.

Don't know about long term reliability -- but very sturdy looking engines.

Very simple genset to -- open frame -- V-belt drive. ST generator head.

I like to use what is out there -- these days -- and especially at these
kind of prices!!

>I think the Western world might as well give up manufacturing anything - how
>can we compete?

I know -- feel this same way -- mind boggling.

Peter / Belize

At 11:48 PM 3/25/2004 -0000, Ken Boak wrote:
>Peter,
>
>Thankyou for finding these small Chinese diesel engines.
>
>I wonder what their longevity would be compared to a "heavy iron" Indian
>built "Lister"?
>
>You can find the whole range at the manufacturers website - including
>pricing information:
>
>www.cn-food/english/chanpian/1100.htm
>
>These engines are very economically priced between 700 and 960 Yuan
>(US$84.50 to $116) for the 3kW to 15kW range.
>
>I think the Western world might as well give up manufacturing anything - how
>can we compete?
>
>
>regards,
>
>
>Ken
>

From bpjackso at YAHOO.COM Thu Mar 25 20:09:44 2004
From: bpjackso at YAHOO.COM (Bruce Jackson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:47 2004
Subject: OOPS! Let me try again....
Message-ID: <THU.25.MAR.2004.170944.0800.BPJACKSO@YAHOO.COM>

Hi,
I gotta head you guys off at the pass. Let me try
this again...lets say I am ready to start building
patterns and I want to cast my own parts for a
producer gas fueled engine. What do I want to do?
Sorry Ken lets rule out Stirling for now.
Sorry Peter, I'm building not buying.
Its going to be either a spark ignition engine or hot
tube ignition.
Variable compression ratio is pretty ridiculus from
my view. I don't think I could deal with the design
issues.

I want simple. I want durable.
What I am afraid of here is that there isn't anyone
who designs engines just producers.
What I am reading here is long stroke slow speed. Big
flywheel. Piston speed less then 50mph tops. Roller
bearings on the crank. Sloppy piston okay if running
dirty fuel.
It was this sort of thing that I am interested in
knowing.
Anyhow, thanks for what you could do.
Bruce

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Thu Mar 25 21:01:39 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:47 2004
Subject: OOPS! Let me try again....
Message-ID: <THU.25.MAR.2004.220139.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Bruce

If you want to design and build a suitable engine, here's some stuff that is
important to you, assuming a naturally aspirated engine, to produce a
desired HP:

1: Inlet and exhaust valve area.
2: Inlet and exhaust Cam profile and characteristics
3: Volumetric efficiency
4: Compression ratio
5: Bore to stroke ratio
6: Bore
7: Displacement
8: Mean piston speed
9: Ignition timing
10: Mean effective pressure
11: Ignition system: regular or high intensity spark, pilot fuel
etc.

Fuel gas characteristics are critically important, in terms of nature and
extent of contaminants, calorific value, and combustion characteristics.

The fact that it is a "new engine" or an "old heavy iron engine" is not so
important as meeting the required engine design parameters. It may be that a
modern "high speed engine" would work perfectly well if it was simply slowed
down to a speed where the acceptable mean piston speed was attained. Indeed,
there may be "good to be said" for a new design high speed engine that was
suitably slowed down and derated for use on gasifier fuel gas. For example,
a modified automotive engine of relatively large displacement may very well
be operable at a much slower speed to deliver the desired HP output.

There is a fair amount of science to engine design. It is not guesswork.
Note also that the engine design should be integrated with the end use. For
example, if it was intended to operate a generator, one should select a
generator that had an operating speed that matched the speed that the engine
wanted to run best at.

You might wish to consider an "iterative approach" to finalizing on engine
and generator parameters. For example, propose a 4 pole generator requiring
1800 RPM for 60 Hz output, and assume 1.7 HP per kw of generator output
being required of the engine. Thus a 3 kW generator would require 5.1 HP at
1800 RPM. If you did an initial design for an engine developing 5.1 HP, on a
given gasifier fuel, you might find that it would prefer to run at 1,200
RPM. So, you could either figure on selecting a 6 pole generator, or decide
on providing a speed increasing transmission (gears or belts). Or, you may
wish to select a different bore/stroke ratio to permit operation at a higher
RPM, while still attaining an acceptable mean piston speed.

You have a "real fun project" at hand!!

Best wishes,

Kevin Chisholm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Jackson" <bpjackso@YAHOO.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 9:09 PM
Subject: [GASL] OOPS! Let me try again....

> Hi,
> I gotta head you guys off at the pass. Let me try
> this again...lets say I am ready to start building
> patterns and I want to cast my own parts for a
> producer gas fueled engine. What do I want to do?
> Sorry Ken lets rule out Stirling for now.
> Sorry Peter, I'm building not buying.
> Its going to be either a spark ignition engine or hot
> tube ignition.
> Variable compression ratio is pretty ridiculus from
> my view. I don't think I could deal with the design
> issues.
>
> I want simple. I want durable.
> What I am afraid of here is that there isn't anyone
> who designs engines just producers.
> What I am reading here is long stroke slow speed. Big
> flywheel. Piston speed less then 50mph tops. Roller
> bearings on the crank. Sloppy piston okay if running
> dirty fuel.
> It was this sort of thing that I am interested in
> knowing.
> Anyhow, thanks for what you could do.
> Bruce
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Thu Mar 25 18:44:00 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:47 2004
Subject: Plant Sizing
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040322150927.009227f0@btlmail.btl.net>
Message-ID: <THU.25.MAR.2004.174400.0600.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

At 03:09 PM 3/22/04 -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:

>Steel is far stronger than stainless steel -- with much better heat
>transmission properties -- less thermal expansion than stainless as well.
Peter, Why have I heard the opposite so many times. In the small stoves
such as mine and Crispin's, we talk about using 3Cr12 or stainless because
the regular (mild) steel cannot take the heat as well. Please assist this
"non-specialist" to understand.

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

From snkm at BTL.NET Wed Mar 24 20:09:18 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:47 2004
Subject: How politics can effect the interests of this list --
Message-ID: <WED.24.MAR.2004.190918.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

This message just come in from a Lawyer friend in Chicago. A totally
non-technically oriented fellow -- but concerned about certain "issues" --
all the same.

Now -- let me highlight why I believe such and article should be of
interest to this list:

As long as the US and global economy are increasingly dependent on an
ever-dwindling supply of oil from the Middle East, the conditions for a
perfect economic storm will continue to haunt us. The solution, in the long
run, is to wean the world off its dependency on oil. That would require
much tougher fuel efficiency standards, greater energy conservation
measures, support of hybrid vehicles and a switch to renewable sources of
energy. Short of that, expect the storm clouds to gather in intensity.

OK -- he is asking my opinion on what the chances are that the US will wake
up and smell the smoke.

I already answered him!

From arnt at C2I.NET Thu Mar 25 20:03:14 2004
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:47 2004
Subject: Whats the best engine?
In-Reply-To: <05c501c412c3$a2c3a530$0100a8c0@dell3>
Message-ID: <FRI.26.MAR.2004.020314.0100.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:48:12 -0000, Ken wrote in message
<05c501c412c3$a2c3a530$0100a8c0@dell3>:

> You can find the whole range at the manufacturers website - including
> pricing information:
>
> www.cn-food/english/chanpian/1100.htm

.try again. ;-)

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

From joacim at YMEX.NET Thu Mar 25 16:53:50 2004
From: joacim at YMEX.NET (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:47 2004
Subject: Whats the best engine?
In-Reply-To: <20040325204720.76392.qmail@web40611.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <THU.25.MAR.2004.225350.0100.JOACIM@YMEX.NET>

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Bruce Jackson wrote:

> Well, lets suppose we built an engine specifically to
> run on producer gas.
> What would that engine be like?
[...]

> CR?

variable

Producer gas will never be a standardised fuel with distinct and constant
properties. The best engine for producer gas is a flexible one.

And perhaps the best engine is the engine which can run on a large variety
of fuels, not only producer gas, not only rapseed oil etc, without major
reconstruction, preferrably without any reconstruction at all.

Petroleum fuel (petrol and diesel) is the dominating fuel today. At least
we here on this list are aware that this condition won't last forever. But
there is no single fuel which can alone replace oil. (I doubt the sum of
all of them can replace oil altogether either) I for one think the old IC
engine will be around for a long time yet, but there will be a larger
variety of fuels than today. Producer gas from wood in woodlands, diesel
cycle on vegetable oil in grassland, other sources of energy in other
zones. Whatever is at hands nearby.

I assume that the vehicle industry prefer to minimise the number of
motor designs, to save design and production costs. They want to export the
same vehicle to all over the world. Ideally, the one and same motor should
be fitted to all sorts of vehicles, only adjusted for the needs in every
actual case. They do that already, to some extent, by reprogramming
ignition and injection computers etc controlling the motor. Needless to
say, it is rather difficult to vary combustion volume, stroke length and
cylinder diameter. There have been exeriments in that direction though --
wasn't there an engine for Ford Lincoln which could run on only two
cylinders of eight? An IC engine could perhaps also be designed in a
radically different way which makes it possible to vary combustion volume
and similar parameters. It doesn't have to work with conventional pistons.

Either there will be a larger variety of engine manufacturers than today,
producing engines which are specialised for the type of fuel available in
each area, or there will be few manufacturers producing a small number of
flexible designs. The former increases production costs, the latter
increases transportation costs. An advantage with a flexible design is
that the same vehicle can operate in areas where different types of fuels
are the dominating. A truck engine which can run on both vegetable oil and
producer gas, depending on what is available, can transport goods between
grassland and woodland. If a grassland truck cannot go to the woodlands and
vice versa, the goods must be reloaded by the edge of the forest or fuel
must be transported back and forth. Both involve extra costs.

The optimal is probably a compromise, as usual. Engines wich last long
makes it worth transporting by cheap but slow means, as by sea. Such
products can be still be delivered world-wide in a scenario with shortage
on oil, by putting back the sails on the ships again. The winds will blow
long after oil has run out.

Joacim

From kenboak at STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK Thu Mar 25 18:48:12 2004
From: kenboak at STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK (Ken Boak)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:47 2004
Subject: Whats the best engine?
Message-ID: <THU.25.MAR.2004.234812.0000.KENBOAK@STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK>

Peter,

Thankyou for finding these small Chinese diesel engines.

I wonder what their longevity would be compared to a "heavy iron" Indian
built "Lister"?

You can find the whole range at the manufacturers website - including
pricing information:

www.cn-food/english/chanpian/1100.htm

These engines are very economically priced between 700 and 960 Yuan
(US$84.50 to $116) for the 3kW to 15kW range.

I think the Western world might as well give up manufacturing anything - how
can we compete?

regards,

Ken

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Fri Mar 26 08:14:45 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:47 2004
Subject: Peter and the : Gasifier Engine Specifications
Message-ID: <FRI.26.MAR.2004.091445.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Harmon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 2:01 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Peter and the : Gasifier Engine Specifications

> On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 06:34:33PM -0600, Paul S. Anderson wrote:
> >
> > I see the problem as being with the gas scrubber. The small cookstove
>
> Paul, I think you need to review some of the literature on building
gasifiers
> -- not the stove type -- meant to run engines on.

I have not yet run the stove on the output from this gasifier. However, the
jets of the stove burner are relatively small, and if there is excessive tar
present, they will find it quickly. :-)

Gas scrubbing is critical (or
> your engine will die a very early death), and so is cooling.
> Check out http://www.gengas.nu/byggbes/index.shtml
>
The best kind of gas scrubber is a gasifier that that doesn't need one in
the first place. :-)

> (snip)
>
> > Are you proposing that the Lister (or some other such engine) can
function
> > reasonably well without the "clean-ness" (low or no tars) associated
with
> > the larger gasifier systems?
>
> No, I don't think he was.
>
I think there is a body of experience that demonstrates that gasifier
engines can basically run continuously without a scrubber system. Doug of
Fluidyne is expert in this area.

> > If so, please describe the amount of cleaning
> > (by "a good gas scrubber") that is required. It is fine if you specify
> > what the usable gases must be like, and the stove makers could shoot for
> > that level of clean-ness (regardless of how good or bad the un-scrubbed
> > gases are at the beginning.)
> >
> I don't think that "stove makers" are building anything that could run
> engines. Even that Chinese gasifier stove would need extensive additions
or
> modifications to run an engine (and it would have to be a very small one)
and
> hardly seems worth the cost.
>
When the snow goes, I'd like to plug the gasifier into a S195 engine, and
see what happens. I have the engine now. This gasifier is a great "starter
kit." I hope to learn about gasifiers from it.

> > >If any "real" person on this list is willing to contribute a good
design
> > >for a gasifier to run in my existing 6 HP Lister -- derated to say 3 HP
> > >(probably by further lowering RPM and optimizing compression -- etc --
for
> > >efficient running) to produce 2 kw net of power -- well -- I'll build
it!
>
> What's wrong with the gengas design? It certainly seems adaptable
enough.
>
I think they must have missed something when they have such a need for a gas
cleaning system. Apparently, Doug has the "art" of gasifier design down to a
repeatable science, and doesn't need gas cleaners.

Best wishes,

Kevin

From andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM Tue Mar 30 16:00:23 2004
From: andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:48 2004
Subject: Whats the best engine?
In-Reply-To: <058b01c412c1$5cf5feb0$0100a8c0@dell3>
Message-ID: <TUE.30.MAR.2004.220023.0100.>

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:31:56 -0000, Ken Boak wrote:

>It would be an external combustion engine, either Rankine or Stirling Cycle.

Now let's not get carried away, I might agree with you that a stirling
cycle is the best for a certain duty in the small kW class and that a
V large steam turbine is the best to utilise a large amount of heat at
a modest temperature but best needs a lot more defining. Are we
talking most efficient, most cost effective, least environmentally
damaging?
>
>No other forms of heat engine can handle the wide range of fuels - external
>combustion engines deal in heat alone - regardless of the fuel source.

And therein lies their efficiency limitations, all the heat must be
delivered and taken through heat exchange surfaces. The ic engines
benefit from directly putting their energy into the working gas. The
reciprocating (especially SI)internal combustion engines have the
further advantage of passing the working gas at temperatures available
from stoichiometric combustion. Until some new materials become
available external combustion engines will not be able to reach these
temperatures. This temperature limits the conversion efficiency.

Having said that we have moved on from the high conversion ratios of
the big diesel engines, except for some shipping uses, toward the
lighter and more powerful high speed diesels, because fuel efficiency
is not the only consideration, and probably passenger jets are a good
example of this.

I take your point about the wide range of fuels but only one I can
think of has not been used in an internal combustion engine, we have
seen most liquid fuels powering reciprocating and gt internal
combustion engines, I believe coal dust has been used in diesels. Coal
dust, sawdust and woodgas have powered gas turbines in simple and
combined cycle, although I know little of the long term effects. I am
told there was a large charcoal facility in Mid Europe that made
charcoal and acetic acid from beech logs, the more flammable parts of
the pyrolysis gases being burnt in a large single cylinder end=gine
that was frequently "decoked" by men entering the cylinder via the
inlet valve, with pick axes!

AJH

From andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM Tue Mar 30 16:00:26 2004
From: andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:48 2004
Subject: Gas and heat from the same stove.
In-Reply-To: <128.3d993562.2d93c701@aol.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.30.MAR.2004.220026.0100.>

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 00:24:17 EST, Carefreeland@AOL.COM wrote:

>Dear Gasifiers,
> I am working toward a project to heat and provide electric power for
>my greenhouse. I am convinced that a burner can be constructed in such a way
>as to separate and extract a small percentage of best quality of gas from
>between the pyroliser and gas burner stages. I figure let the tar particles burn
>clean in the burner while they are still hot, and separate some hydrogen rich
>producer gas at the source.

HeHe, that is quite a task yo set yourself, with hydrogen being more
than a tad combustible itself.

> I primarily have need for the heat as we have somewhat cold winters
>here in Southwest Ohio. I am working on thermal convective cooling systems as
>well, so a small amount of heat can amplify a suction ventilation system in the
>summer. Basically, the thermal lift stack will draw air through the misted
>greenhouse cooling the air and surfaces of the plants. Think of using excess
>air input to a fireplace to draw hot air out of a house. Log Cabins did it for
>hundreds of years.

Chimneys are not very good heat engines, better than nothing, which is
why this was used as the method of circulating air in mines. Once you
have a small amount of motive power fans are better.

> The burner will handle a wide variety of large biomass and chips when
>properly mixed. There is a financial incentive for me to dispose of a large
>amount of biomass cleanly on site, as the large city has grown around the
>farm/landfill location. They will pay me to burn their waste. Efficiency is not as
>important to me as clean emissions.
> I have several old gas engines available to use to turn the woodgas
>into electricity. I don't mind burning some gasoline as long as the electric
>output (at US $.085kwh, exceeds the cost of the gasoline. I have a complete Ford
>Escort car (cost- US$ 50) with a 4 cyl gasoline engine, and a Ford 300
>straight six cylinder gasoline engine. Anybody with experience here?

No experience but little doubt in my mind that making a gasifier with
clean enough gas to run these will cost far more than the engines.
With your need for heat output over motive power I would look at a
different route, though I doubt it will be cheap.

> I can start out just running the engines during a small part of the
>day to provide power for water pumping and ventilation. This will allow for a
>lot of experimentation. I plant to develop a battery storage and 12 volt back up
>power system. Studies show the primary reason for new greenhouse business
>failure is catastrophic loss of power and heat during storms and black outs.
>Photovoltaic and small windmills will later be added. The grid will be there when
>it is to my advantage only. ;-)
> To demonstrate the abundance of woodwaste, I have heated my greenhouse
>with high Btu locust hardwood for the last month and a half. This 4 cord load
>of wood had been stored outside and was illegally dumped at night because it
>contained a small amount of rot and a few bugs. I haven't even had to cut most
>of it as it was cut long for a fireplace. Landfills around here won't even
>take this kind of wood waste at any price.
> With the impending invasion of the many imported bark Beatles, there
>is going to be a huge surplus of buggy firewood people don't want to burn in
>their homes. I can charge > $10/ton to dispose of dirty hardwood. As you can
>imagine I have expansion plans for the greenhouse operation.
> I am open to comments or questions.

Looks like a reciprocating steam engine would suit you better.

Here in UK we have rules that make a wood heating system of 300kW(t)
look attractive as a means of disposing waste, this is about 60kg/hr
of fresh wood.

AJH

From kenboak at STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK Fri Mar 26 08:59:23 2004
From: kenboak at STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK (Ken Boak)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:48 2004
Subject: Chinese Engines - correct URL
Message-ID: <FRI.26.MAR.2004.135923.0000.KENBOAK@STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK>

Oops, Finger trouble again

The URL for the Chinese diesels should have read:

www.cn-food.com/english/chanpian/1100.htm

But it can be found by googling R175A Chinese Diesel

 

Ken

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Tue Mar 30 16:36:48 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:48 2004
Subject: Duplicates
In-Reply-To: <004a01c41341$87ed14c0$ab9a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <TUE.30.MAR.2004.153648.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

Here we go again -- I took my dogs for a walk in the woods looking for
mushrooms, and when I returned, there were 16 old messages just sent again from
the list. All of which I've seen before. Is anyone else getting this?

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

From gjahnke at BIRCH.NET Tue Mar 30 17:31:23 2004
From: gjahnke at BIRCH.NET (Greg Jahnke)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:48 2004
Subject: Duplicates
Message-ID: <TUE.30.MAR.2004.163123.0600.GJAHNKE@BIRCH.NET>

Same here, but I only got 12

----- Original Message -----
From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 3:36 PM
Subject: [GASL] Duplicates

> Here we go again -- I took my dogs for a walk in the woods looking for
> mushrooms, and when I returned, there were 16 old messages just sent again
from
> the list. All of which I've seen before. Is anyone else getting this?
>
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com
>

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Tue Mar 30 20:19:00 2004
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:48 2004
Subject: Fw: Want fuzz?
Message-ID: <TUE.30.MAR.2004.171900.0800.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

FWD to the list
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Deutsch
To: GASIFICATION-request@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 4:17 PM
Subject: Want fuzz?
Anyone interested in free wood fuzz? See posting to Compost listserv below.

Robert
Phnom Penh

----- Original Message -----
From: Shaney McChesney
To: compost@compostingcouncil.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 4:24 AM
Subject: [USCC] Residual Wood Products AKA: Fuzz

I work for a Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) manufacturer that makes panel products from softwood sawdust, planer shavings and wood chips. The mill creates a bi-product when the mill shuts down that empties the refiners of excess super refined wood residuals, affectionately called "fuzz" due to its fluffy small particle.

Based on conversations I've noted on this web site regarding the use of sawdust as a soil amendment, I'm curious if this material may be useful to the farmers and/or agricultural markets in this area. We have nearly 1000 truck loads of this fuzz and are willing to pay freight to those interested in using the material, however, there is a general sense of uncertainty given the unique texture of the material.

Do you have recommendations for the type of soil and or markets to target?
Thank you.
Shaney McChesney

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Compost maillist - Compost@compostingcouncil.org

This list is a service provided by the US Composting Council.

This month's sponsor of the list is:
Cover-All Building Systems -
Cover-All? buildings are the leading steel-framed, tension-membrane buildings that are quick to install and offer multiple foundation options to meet all composting building needs. Each building is constructed with quality corrosion-resistant steel components and Cover-All's DuraWeave? fabric membrane cover will never rust, even under the harshest conditions. Contact 1-800-268-3768 or www.coverall.net

Food Industry Environmental Network (FIEN), a regulatory and policy e-mail alert service for environmental, food and agricultural industry professionals.
Contact Jack Cooper 301/384-8287 JLC@fien.com --- www.fien.com

Renewable Carbon Management, LLC with the containerized, in-vessel NaturTech Composting System www.composter.com rcm@composter.com

(c) Copyright 2003 United States Composting Council - All rights reserved
Opinions expressed do not necessarily represent the USCC, the Foundation or Board of Directors.

Non-members of USCC are encouraged to join the Council through our website at: http://www.compostingcouncil.org/membership.cfm For discussion list policies and information regarding subscribing, unsubscribing, digest or other options, go to:http://mailman.cloudnet.com/mailman/listinfo/compost

For additional help in unsubscribing or to report bugs and problems, send a message to the List Manager, Jim McNelly, at jim@composter.com

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Tue Mar 30 20:33:23 2004
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:48 2004
Subject: rs@aelea.com?????
Message-ID: <TUE.30.MAR.2004.173323.0800.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

Does anyone on the list have the email address rs@aelea.com ? I get several error messages a day from this address but it is not subscribed to the list, so it is probably an old address that someone had email forwarded to.

Please let me know and remove the forward instruction.

Thanks

Tom Miles

From bpjackso at YAHOO.COM Wed Mar 31 05:00:43 2004
From: bpjackso at YAHOO.COM (Bruce Jackson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:48 2004
Subject: Ken Calvert....
Message-ID: <WED.31.MAR.2004.020043.0800.BPJACKSO@YAHOO.COM>

Hi,
Because of all the crazy duplicates, I reread all the
postings from the last few weeks. Then I deleted the
less than helpful comments.
One thing I do wish to read more about are Ken
Calvert's experiences. I expect a DC-3 with half a
wing to lift through the canopy amidst a fulisade of
gun fire. While the Crosleys pound away.
Anyhow thanks
Bruce Jackson

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

From oscar at GEPROP.CU Wed Mar 31 08:09:50 2004
From: oscar at GEPROP.CU (=?utf-8?Q?Oscar_Jim=C3=A9nez?=)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:48 2004
Subject: Duplicates
Message-ID: <WED.31.MAR.2004.080950.0500.OSCAR@GEPROP.CU>

yes... it is happening to me too..... firstly I thought it was my server provider.. but it wasn't...

Oscar.

 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Harmon Seaver [mailto:hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM]
Enviado el: mar 30/03/2004 16:36
Para: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
CC:
Asunto: [GASL] Duplicates

 

Here we go again -- I took my dogs for a walk in the woods looking for
mushrooms, and when I returned, there were 16 old messages just sent again from
the list. All of which I've seen before. Is anyone else getting this?

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