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

November 2004 Gasification Archive

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

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Mon Nov 1 14:28:57 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 15:28:57 EST
Subject: [Gasification] Gasification chamber of Lo Volt DC Plasma gasifier
in JPEG now avail
Message-ID: <15b.42df1d60.2eb7f689@aol.com>

Question What is this system defined as?

A picture is worth a thousand words. My scanner has at last reduced the V 2
roller Gasification chamber to a JPEG file. which I will e mail to any that
want to see it.

There is no high voltage plasma arc system in existence that I am aware of
that can reduce plastic to kerosene. This one has. Please correct me if you are
aware of one.

In the traditional gasifier definition of controlled oxidation with output of
gas and ash this one does not fully operate. In the traditional sense of HV
High Amp Plasma Arc destruction when what you get out is syn gas and glass this
one does not fit either.

It is the commercial cross over of both with the efficiency equal to or
greater than a traditional gassifier and the feature of a varied waste stream of
wet dry organic or ??? of a plasma unit immediately adjustable. It cost about
the same as full dress gassifier system in about $500,000 thousands not multi
millions. Cheaper in bulk quantities. Easily set up for assy line production.

Question 2. What are the energy balances? Have you any?

Yes, Couple of boxes worth of independent testing by various labs over
several years on Medical waste streams which consist of human body parts, bandages,
blood soaked things, feces, urine, tumors, rubber gloves, various types of
plastics, glass and the always present surgical steel sharps.

Question 3 Torch cost. Each torch unit cost about 180.00. The expendable
tungsten tip is 12.00 the ceramic insulator if needing replacement is 30.00 and
the torch can be isolated while the system is running and manually adjusted by a
screw for optimum length when the computer indicates voltages at the limits
of efficient operational perimeters.

Trust I have answered all your inquiries. I also trust everyone that
everyone that wanted and requested a PP or picture received one. The Power point
needs a bite diet to make it out of my ISP service provider. Still working on it.
Hope to get a photo of the torches today along with the test on the kerosene
from plastic and chlorine outputs.

Albest,
Vote Early and Vote Often!!!! It is a Fla saying.

Leonard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041101/b22b3d51/attachment.html

From rajsoni_in at yahoo.com Mon Nov 1 16:23:18 2004
From: rajsoni_in at yahoo.com (Rajesh)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 14:23:18 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Gasification] Steam temperature in steam gasification of biomass
Message-ID: <20041101222318.18843.qmail@web20627.mail.yahoo.com>

Dear All,

I am interested in knowing the temperature at which the steam is introduced while carrying out gasification of biomass with steam. I am referring to various studies where the heat for the endothermic reactions for water shift reaction have been provided by external electric heating system.

Thanks

Rajesh
Docotral Student


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com/a
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041101/1b2b08b8/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Mon Nov 1 23:53:14 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 00:53:14 EST
Subject: [Gasification] " the new gassifier " Not like anything Plasma
Message-ID: <1e6.2db4ab3a.2eb87aca@aol.com>

 

Dear Group,

Thanks for your encouragement off net.

Today I photographed the prior missing components of the torches assy and
tip.
Also the first unit that produced syngas and was later converted to total
destruction of all gasses.

1. Have the gas analysis EPA vs output and
2.Have the VOC reports as well as the schematic diagram for the thruput.

If there is a medical waste USA EPA certified commercial plasma or gassifier
system that any of you are aware anywhere that cost under $750,000 dollars
turn key and uses 440 volts and 600 amps MAX and has been validated by EPA or any
state for medical waste disposal at a rate of 400 to 1000 lbs per hour please
let me know.

And if there is a system anywhere that produces a product like gasoline in
BTU value from plastic and it is called a plasma arc system please let me know
where it is.

AS professionals we are trained and if registered we are required by law and
the customs of our profession to assess all things technical not by
assumptions or unfounded and unqualified OPINIONS but rather by examination of all
documented and measured evidence made in accord with accepted engineering practices
and exacting scientific measurements. Hopefully some of this by some
independent labs.

I have reviewed those documents and I have also signed a Non Disclosure
Agreement and reviewed others. Personally, I have also taken some photographs and
made measurements and reviewed several SEALED lab reports on the process since
1992 to 1997 which I previously brought to the attention of this group of
interested parties.

As soon as I can get these files compressed into PDF I will send to all that
have requested it a copy of my PROFESSIONAL Inquiry into this quite
revolutionary validated Commercial easily mass produced American Made Low Voltage
Gassifier system. Then you and I have can form your own informed opinion as to what
this system is or is not and whether I have accurately and professionally
represented this process to you all.

Only one submission was ever made to me when I was seeking Gasification
projects for Fla debris that even comes remotely close to this presentation in
quality or detail to the one I am submitting for your review. I also wish to add I
have never yet received the CD's of gassifier products promised to me by
Company Officers in Oct but I was able to send to all that wanted it an AVI video
clip on this system of the torches in action as well as cite validated lab
reports and technical specifications.

Regrettably I am not able to use the current technical info or pat pending
materials so you can really get excited with me.

Warmest Regards from the Hanging Chad State

Leonard Wheeler, Jr
Eustis, Fla 32726
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041102/4b68e327/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Tue Nov 2 00:05:17 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 01:05:17 EST
Subject: [Gasification] Re: definition of gasifier Sorry you are misinformed
and technically dated.
Message-ID: <9b.516a3234.2eb87d9d@aol.com>

L INVENT Asked L Wheeler ans:

> ANS : A FEW YEARS AGO in 1995 there was a mass/energy balance on medical
> waste which is kinda tough as it is so varied each day. But the results were
> that this Low Voltage, DC Arc system consumes much less process power than it
> can produce in BTU energy unlike Plasma Torches.

ANS Two The reason that one does not use a traditional regular gasifier is
that this new gasifier system is cheaper, works with wet materials and effluents
and is substantially more energy efficient due to the unique roller heat
sinks and TOTAL capture of all energy given off in the process. The hot spot on
the gassifier case was measured at F 450 Max inside was over 20,000. That Leland
is insulated.

Little or Nothing escapes No hot gases no hot fluids and Near ZERO radiated
heat from the chamber

Glad to enlighten you. Did you want a PDF file and pictures?

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041102/0b365b76/attachment.html

From tombreed at comcast.net Tue Nov 2 06:32:25 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (TBReed)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 05:32:25 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] Worldwide Gasification Database
References: <8b.1723976a.2e9ef18e@aol.com>
Message-ID: <004c01c4c0d8$023604a0$3201a8c0@OFFICE>

Dear Lewis:

Interesting that there is only ONE biomass gasifier for waste. Yet tipping fees and proximity should argue that every city have one....

Tom Reed BEF
----- Original Message -----
From: MMBTUPR at aol.com
To: Gasification at listserv.repp.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 2:01 PM
Subject: [Gasification] Worldwide Gasification Database

to Gasification list from Lewis L. Smith

This summer I was traveling around and about, back and forth, for four months ! So I didn't have time to keep good records or read things very carefully, and just downloaded stuff that might turn out to be interesting and/or useful.

Now I am back in Puerto Rico and have printed or discard over two hundred documents already, out of more than three hundred ! Among them is a highly detailed, five-paged table entitled "Worldwide Gasification Database", covering plants with a wide variety of feeds. You can download it from ?

< netl.doe.gov/coal/gasification/models/dtbs(excell).PDF > .

Cordially.

End.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041102/b687194a/attachment.html

From MMBTUPR at aol.com Tue Nov 2 07:05:49 2004
From: MMBTUPR at aol.com (MMBTUPR at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 08:05:49 EST
Subject: [Gasification] Worldwide Gasification Database
Message-ID: <1ac.2ae4a4be.2eb8e02d@aol.com>

to Thomas B Reed from Lewis L Smith

Interesting observation.

Bears looking into.

Obviously we have one or more marketing problems which we are not aware
of, with the caveat that I know nothing about the sources or the criteria used
to develop the list.

Cordially.

End.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041102/48b69ebc/attachment.html

From TORFuelCells at cs.com Tue Nov 2 18:06:47 2004
From: TORFuelCells at cs.com (TORFuelCells at cs.com)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 19:06:47 EST
Subject: [Gasification] Re: Gasification Digest, Vol 3, Issue 70
Message-ID: <1ed.2eb189aa.2eb97b17@cs.com>

Leonard,

FYI, the Startech demo facility is not a Westinghouse style system (unless I
am grossly mistaken).

Interestingly, I have copies of some detailed proposals for hospital waste
disposal using plasma arc technology. Given the containment vessels typically
associated with this type of waste disposal, you may wish to consider alternate
feed schemes.

Good Luck,

Rich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041102/80d6f267/attachment.html

From psanders at ilstu.edu Tue Nov 2 18:25:50 2004
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 18:25:50 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] =?iso-8859-1?q?Article_and_terminology_=2E=2E=2E?=
=?iso-8859-1?q?=93carbolysis=94_?= or
=?iso-8859-1?q?_=93carbolytic=94_action_?=
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20041102180143.026945a0@mail.ilstu.edu>

Gasification List Serve Recipients:

The below named article has been posted to the Internet at:

http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/

We hope you enjoy it.

Paul and Tom

>Biomass Gasification:
>Clean Residential Stoves, Commercial Power
>Generation, and Global Impacts
>
>Prepared for the LAMNET Project International Workshop on
>?Bioenergy for a Sustainable Development,? 8-10 Nov 2004, Vi?a del Mar, Chile
>
>It is in .pdf (Acrobat) format

As part of that article, I have tried to clarify some definitions to people
at the conference (and readers of the publications) who are not specialists
in gasification. My approach has been as a "layperson" who thinks that
"gasification" is turning a solid into a gas.

Some of you will appreciate what I wrote, and others might not. I take
responsibility for the suggestions of some terminology, and Tom Reed did
NOT have a veto over this section. If you do not like the terms ...
?carbolysis? or ?carbolytic? action ... then you are free to suggest
other terms.

But I do not accept the term "gasification" to SPECIFICALLY refer to the
changing of carbon solids into gases. What happens to the solid carbon has
no single-word name, and it is just one of at least two processes that take
solid biomass into gases, and the totality of those processes is
"gasification".

I leave on Thursday PM on a 7 week trip to South America and I will not be
participating much (if at all) in any discussion of this terminology. I
hope to get a nice summary in January.

With best intentions. And with sincere THANKS to all of you who have
taught me so much about gasification. (and please see the entire
article because there are more items that might be of interest to you.)

Paul

Quote from the article:
In virtually all combustion of dry biomass, solid materials are converted
by endothermic pyrolytic actions into gases (plus some particulates and
condensates ranging from ash to soot and tars). These gases, when combined
with oxygen of the air, can combust [exothermic action] to release heat
energy. Normal fires involve the virtually simultaneous and poorly
controlled creation of the gases and their subsequent combustion. But when
we speak of ?gasification? processes and devices, the key and defining
issue of gasification is the ability to separate the creation of the gases
from the event of the combustion of those gases.
[Note 1: A smoldering smoky pile of biomass can be ?autothermic? in which
the necessary heat for pyrolysis is generated by small (oxygen starved)
combustion, referred to as ?flaming pyrolysis,? but the conditions for the
combustion of the smoke/gases are usually absent.]
[Note 2: Pyrolysis leaves behind solid carbon (char or charcoal) which,
with appropriate conditions of heat, oxygen and water, can also be
converted into highly combustible gases CO and H2. This ?gasifying of the
carbon? is here referred to as ?carbolysis? or ?carbolytic? action until a
more appropriate name is accepted. ?Gasification? is the generic term used
by laypersons to include both pyrolysis and carbolysis processes that
convert solids into gases through the addition of heat.]
Please note that ?gasifiers? are defined here as devices in which the
dry biomasses are transformed into combustible gases in processes
distinctly and controllably separate in time and location from the eventual
combustion of the gases. Also, because the term ?biogas? has an
established definition referring to gases made from anaerobic digestion of
wet biomass, we need an acceptable and understandable term for gases made
from dry biomass. We will use the term ?woodgas? even though we know that
such gases are also produced from non-woody dry biomass and
waste. [Technically, ?biogas? should refer to all the gases from both the
wet and the dry biomass, but we are unlikely to convince others to change
to terms like ?rotgas? or ?swamp-gas? when referring to the gases from the
wet biomass. Similarly, we want to encourage the exclusive use of the
terms ?gasification? and ?gasifier? to refer to dry biomass, and never to
refer to the biogas generation from wet biomass.]
Because gasification separates gas creation from gas combustion, gasifiers
can utilize an extremely wide variety of raw materials to provide
significant energy while alleviating several pressing environmental and
societal concerns.
(end of quote from the article.)

Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D.
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders at ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
NOTE: Retired from teaching. Active in Stoves development.
For fastest contact, please call home phone: 309-452-7072
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041102/7b8c86ce/attachment.html

From mmbtupr at aol.com Tue Nov 2 20:09:48 2004
From: mmbtupr at aol.com (mmbtupr at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 21:09:48 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [Gasification] PR Newswire news release: Nathaniel Energy Announces
Successful Proof o
Message-ID: <200411030209.VAA29020@cyber1.prnewswire.com>

Hello,

The following news release from PR Newswire was sent to you by: Lewis L Smith (mmbtupr at aol.com).

A message from Lewis L Smith:

Headline:
Nathaniel Energy Announces Successful Proof of Process of Thermal Combustor(TM) Technology in Italy and Provides Update on Project

Full story:
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/11-02-2004/0002351465&EDATE=

----------

View more news or learn about PR Newswire news distribution services at http://www.prnewswire.com.

PR Newswire is not responsible for the content of this message.

Issuers of news releases and not PR Newswire are solely responsible for the accuracy of the content. Terms and conditions, including restrictions on redistribution, apply.

See (http://www.prnewswire.com/terms.html) for details.

Copyright 1996-2004 PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights Reserved.
A United Business Media company (http://www.unitedbusinessmedia.com).

From kchisholm at ca.inter.net Wed Nov 3 00:21:15 2004
From: kchisholm at ca.inter.net (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 02:21:15 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] Re: definition of gasifier Sorry you are
misinformedand technically dated.
References: <9b.516a3234.2eb87d9d@aol.com>
Message-ID: <008e01c4c16d$5510b1d0$249a0a40@kevin>

Dear Leonard
----- Original Message -----
From: <LWheeler45 at aol.com>
...del...
The hot spot on
> the gassifier case was measured at F 450 Max inside was over 20,000. That
Leland
> is insulated.
>
Wow!! That is some wonderful awesome furnacing temperature!!

What kind of insulation would withstand that temperature?

How thick would that insulation be, to have 20,000 F on the hot side and
only 450 F on the cold side?

> Little or Nothing escapes No hot gases no hot fluids and Near ZERO
radiated
> heat from the chamber.

Med waste usually has some water in it. When the solids are destroyed, gases
would be generated. If the steam and gases generated at 20,000 F were not
vented, wouldn't the facility have a tendancy to explode?
>
Regards,

Kevin

 

From LINVENT at aol.com Wed Nov 3 10:28:40 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 11:28:40 EST
Subject: [Gasification] PR Newswire news release: Nathaniel Energy
Announces Successful Proof o
Message-ID: <bf.4982cbba.2eba6138@aol.com>

In a message dated 11/2/04 10:29:18 PM, mmbtupr at aol.com writes:

<< Hello,

The following news release from PR Newswire was sent to you by: Lewis L Smith
(mmbtupr at aol.com).

A message from Lewis L Smith:

Headline:
Nathaniel Energy Announces Successful Proof of Process of Thermal
Combustor(TM) Technology in Italy and Provides Update on Project >>

Coincidentally, yesterday I had a long conversation with a vendor who spent
many weeks on the site and gave a different story. The contractor has not been
paid by the Italian interests, nor has Nathaniel energy been fully paid. The
system was started up and is a steam boiler/turbine system which is probably a
dual stage combustor. The gasifier has ash disposal problems created by ash
fusion on the grate. This is a problem which may not be fixable easily. The
steam turbine was a used Russian system which was rebuilt on site and apparently
stopped working or did not work right. The system is two 3tph systems for total
generating capacity of 6mwe. If it is a dual stage combustor and the front
end is not perfect ( which none are), it will have emission problems for meeting
EU standards, which by the way, 90% of the incinerators in EU have, but still
are allowed to operate.
With the experience I have had with the Italians, getting paid is a real
issue. If this prevents further operation of the system, it may not see continuous
operation for some time. The website does not give up particulars on the
operation.

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 LWheeler45 at aol.com Wed Nov 3 10:28:54 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 11:28:54 EST
Subject: [Gasification] Ans to Questions Re :Cold Plasma,
Size of Unit and Energy Balances
Message-ID: <1de.2d9040da.2eba6146@aol.com>

1. Several have sent materials on what they have called cold plasma and
others referenced systems that appear to be like the one I have described. I don't
know the answers yet but I will check your systems out and let you know.

2. The size of the "Low Voltage DC Plasma Arc system where the Gasification
takes place in the commercial and operational unit that I inspected and
photographed in Lake County Florida is 51 inches long 71 inches tall and 30 inches
wide it has a Max capacity thruput of slightly less than 900 lbs per hour. The
Jackson Memorial Hospital Unit in 1994 had a capacity of 1000 lbs per hr but
was not nearly as efficient it was Ver 1 this one is Ver 3 production units
are Ver 4 and are 12 inches taller.

3. Energy Balances. Never was a design consideration as the bio med unit was
designed for only the purpose of destruction of bio hazardous waste. These
studies were done on earlier units however using medical waste which varied in
potential mass energy plastic Vs steel and when calculated based on BTU
electrical used in process use to BTU steam out the range was 1 in for 1.5 to *1.8
(one run) BTU out. The additional energy derived from the conversion of the waste
stream mass in the process. It was highly inefficient compared to this
system. A single known waste stream and the new torch design and power supplies and
more pat pending efficient rollers and the addition of some heat capture
systems on the hot gasses and steam pipes should really prove interesting.

4. What happens when the power goes out in process? The Bio Medical Waste
machine COMPLETES the total destruction of the load in process at the time of
power interruption and accepts no further feeds. You can turn off the torches
while processing a load and everything in that load is carbon glass heat or
steam, gas is recalculated.

Those were really good questions and even better documents. Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041103/394f79cc/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Wed Nov 3 11:23:39 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 12:23:39 EST
Subject: [Gasification] Thanks for the info. send me the references direct.
Ans to your questions
Message-ID: <f.3712f624.2eba6e1b@aol.com>

 

The designer of the system has suggested for agricultural projects is manure,
sugar cane bagasse, and sawdust it likely should be Auger feed. This
operational and commercial Bio Med system has ZERO resemblance to anything
Westinghouse or Startech or the other two plasma co have shown me in photos, proposals
or schematics. It looks much like a very stubby Powerhearth Gassifier system
with a dogleg in it, substantial wall construction with 8 x 700 lbs solid
steel heat sinks rolling inside
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041103/2e182e2f/attachment.html

From MMBTUPR at aol.com Wed Nov 3 11:26:09 2004
From: MMBTUPR at aol.com (MMBTUPR at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 12:26:09 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] PR Newswire news release: Nathaniel Energy
Announces Successful Proof o
Message-ID: <666E1C1C.1930FD0D.0016DBFB@aol.com>

to Gasification list from Lewis L Smith

Thanks to Leland T Taylor for the interesting update on Nathaniel Energy.

My previous impression [from following this project for quite some time] was that it was going to be a grass-roots, first-time, commercial-scale test of NE's technology. So I wonder why NE would risk this technology with a rebuilt Russian steam turbine ? Now it looks like someone was really trying to do some cheap R&D and it backfired.

As for slow accounts receivable, that will get you every time, especially if you some of your working capital is borrowed money. When I was a teenager, I worked a lot with older men at assorted blue-collar jobs. They always told me to watch out for fast women and slow horses. But to tell the truth, over the years the slow receivables have given me much more grief.

Cordially.

End,

 


 

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Wed Nov 3 11:48:19 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 12:48:19 EST
Subject: [Gasification] More good questions...Kevin. Here are some ans
Leonard
Message-ID: <bf.4984552b.2eba73e3@aol.com>

 

Wow!! That is some wonderful awesome furnacing temperature!!

Could be However Depends on what you need that temp for and how you intend to
contain it in a vessel that melts before it gets to F 2100.
>
> What kind of insulation would withstand that temperature?

Ans : 8 solid steel heat sink 700 LB rollers keep it under F. 2000 approx.
melt point of rollers The insulation thickness is > visible in the roller
> photo. I have been told it is alum oxide. Would you like a photo?
>
> How thick would that insulation be, to have F 20,000 on the hot side and
> only F 450 on (one small spot between three rollers) the cold side? ANS above
>
> > Little or Nothing escapes No hot gases no hot fluids and Near ZERO
> radiated heat from the chamber. IR video and radiation test were conducted on Ver 1
> at Jackson Memorial Hospital Miami
>
> Med waste usually has some water in it. ( this system can process only
> fluids too) When the solids are destroyed, gases
> would be generated. ( Lots of energy rich Gas) If the steam and gases
> generated at F 20,000 were not vented, wouldn't the facility have a tendency to
> explode? ( You bet but like a poor man's nuke bio hazards metal chards and what
> ever) It is definitely vented! The hot gas flow out creates a really strong
> neg pressure and must be controlled.
> >
>
>
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041103/acd83ef6/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Wed Nov 3 12:17:36 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 13:17:36 EST
Subject: [Gasification] RE IS L Vlt DC Arc similiar to Nathaniel Energy -
Powering a Cleaner World
Message-ID: <1a9.2a984440.2eba7ac0@aol.com>

Off net question which I ans for the group as more than one have asked the
same type of question.

Question. The system you have described appears similar to
Nathaniel Energy - Powering a Cleaner World

I can see there is a basis for that belief with the belt system and the high
temp features. This belt system is significantly more complex and uses a
boiler and combustion for the process. The Low Voltage, DC Arc system I saw and
documented does not. It is also very much smaller and much less complex and
significantly more energy efficient.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041103/ac98201a/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Wed Nov 3 15:05:18 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 16:05:18 EST
Subject: [Gasification] Still working at that Presentation Compression
Message-ID: <141.37fb1a43.2ebaa20e@aol.com>

Still working at that PP Presentation Compression. In BW low res it is still
too big to send. I have not given up on this yet fellow listers.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041103/edf4e7cd/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Wed Nov 3 21:51:03 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 22:51:03 EST
Subject: [Gasification] 3 PAGE PDF sent to all that requested it I hope.
Message-ID: <1c9.2053d15a.2ebb0127@aol.com>

Those who requested a PDF file with the JPEG photos of the system elements
and flow chart of the thru put on the DC Plasma Gassifier I have written about
have been sent those files today.

If I have missed anyone let me know.

Page one is the flow chart for Medical Waste System Page two is the V 3
Gassifier chamber w/ roller heat sinks and Page three are the torch and assy items
w/ gas and electrical connections/. I am making scanned copies of the
independent lab test at 1995 1997 Tulane and JMH Hospitals version 2 units should
further documents on historical output be desired.

I am putting together a 40 page presentation with charts spreadsheets and
lots of photos for submission to my fellow business associates. Less the
confidential stuff I can send anyone who wants it a PDF file copy.

Have a great day,

Leonard Wheeler, Jr, MPA
Engineer/ Investor
521 West Seminole Ave
Eustis, Florida 32726
352 483 9555

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041103/3551d6fc/attachment.html

From Doug.Williams at orcon.net.nz Wed Nov 3 22:26:38 2004
From: Doug.Williams at orcon.net.nz (Doug Williams)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:26:38 +1300
Subject: [Gasification] More good questions...Kevin. Here are some
ansLeonard
References: <bf.4984552b.2eba73e3@aol.com>
Message-ID: <003b01c4c226$7fcb6b40$0301010a@newpc>

Leonard,
In your answer to the following question , you say energy rich gases flow out.
<SNIP>
Med waste usually has some water in it. ( this system can process only fluids too) When the solids are destroyed, gases
would be generated. ( Lots of energy rich Gas) If the steam and gases generated at F 20,000 were not vented, wouldn't the facility have a tendency to explode? ( You bet but like a poor man's nuke bio hazards metal chards and what ever) It is definitely vented! The hot gas flow out creates a really strong neg pressure and must be controlled.
<SNIP>

In a previous "statement" you said that the torches of this process run on Argon and Nitrogen produced by the system. This would require separation of the gases, and my scanty knowledge of that means cryogenics for the Argon as it is an atmospheric gas, and the same goes for Nitrogen. How do you explain that in a system that doesn't use atmospheric air?

If as you claim many are writing to you off list, why are you posting answers on list when we don't know the reasoning behind the question in context to your answers? I doubt if any thing you say about plasma or it's potential can be relevant until you go down the road of all interesting ideas, and build a plant with your own money to prove it can be a gasifier (spelt with one s). No previous testing can verify a performance for a change of process function, and it would be skating on thin ice to assume that the never ending new "possible " uses for plasma processing are correct.

I would appreciate however if you can explain in words how the gases are separated and pressurised for the Torches.
Regards,
Doug Williams,
Fluidyne Gasification.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041103/afe00169/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Wed Nov 3 23:56:35 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 00:56:35 EST
Subject: [Gasification] Good question Doug on Argon and Nitrogen in this
system.
Message-ID: <65.376cb3b1.2ebb1e93@aol.com>

There is a membrane unit attached to a commercial Nitrogen machine that
provides the required amounts of argon for the nitrogen argon mix. In the photo of
the torches the brass end has a connector for the lead to the power supply and
a small tube connector is also present that provides the gas for the torches
arc.

This is a Medical Waste Disposal Low Voltage, DC Plasma EPA and FDEP
LICENSED/ Approved Commercial Unit not some one off system or prototype. In 2005 there
is an expectation of 50 Bio Medical units being in commercial operation.
Initially in Version 1. Argon in bottles was used but this V 3 has a membrane
system that came along recently and was found to be more suitable to system needs.
I understand from the system developer and the lab reports I have read that
the syngas which is currently recycled into the gassifier is rich in argon and
when the system is reconfigured to way I want to use it that Argon will likely
be able to be recaptured. Union Carbide was working on this type of Argon
Membrane system about ten years ago there is likely some peer review materials
on it. Linde chemical bought that process I believe. This co system has some
tinkering done to it to achieve the required mix. Sorry Non Disclosure.

Good Question Doug. I can send you a few photos of the nitrogen/argon system
pieces if you would like?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041104/1270bd8a/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Thu Nov 4 01:04:43 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 02:04:43 EST
Subject: [Gasification] ? I doubt if any thing you say about plasma Ans/ and
Question
Message-ID: <67.36fdfd52.2ebb2e8b@aol.com>

Question:

> I doubt if any thing you say about plasma or it's potential can be
> relevant until you go down the road of all interesting ideas, and build a plant with
> your own money to prove it can be a gasifier (spelt with one s).

My spell checker does with two dumb spel checker.

The first commercial bio medical unit was EPA permitted in 1994. TEN Plus
Years Ago! Westinghouse Plasma sent me materials that indicated they had a plasma
system at GM in 1989?

I have seen the photos and documents on several of these older plants that
were
> operational and certified in EPA compliance as well as by State and County.
> I also have read the independent lab reports ON EACH. I am only repeating
> part of what I have seen and documented as a professional. I don't need to
> prove this system works as designed The State, County and Federal Gov already
> did it for me. That was in more than one location and under more than one
> state's laws over TEN years.
Question/Statement
No previous testing can verify a performance for a change of process
function, and > it would be skating on thin ice to assume that the never ending new
> "possible " uses for plasma processing are correct.

ANS: Westinghouse, spent over $100,000,000 on it and there are
> several other majors with heavy investment into "plasma gasifiers" for the
> purpose of making and collecting the syngas. Lots of DOE material is already
> out there waiting to be read. Nothing new on this one. Mature technology.
>
> Whilst I am certainly familiar with "that "Mr Murphy as I am sure most all
> on this list are.... Removing the feeder system designed for bio medical
> reasons only from existing unit and not burning the syngas gas that was already
> done about 9 years ago. It produces the virtually the same (syngas great) stuff
> Westinghouse built their syngas gen sets to use.
>
This is not a Plasma company waiting for R and D or capital investors for
medical units development They already have their capacity on DC plasma medical
units sold. Including one to the hospital in my county. This is a new
applications ONLY spin off I am dealing with.

My Request Doug:
Would you be so kind as to send me some photos of some of your comparable 400
to 1000 lb per hr commercial units w/ output and specifications such as I
have provided to this list. Can I publish them with my report? Bill Klein 3i
Alternative Power sent me some great stuff of his commercial systems I am going
to use.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041104/f22d6b78/attachment.html

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Nov 4 04:33:54 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 11:33:54 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] 3 PAGE PDF sent to all that requested it I hope.
In-Reply-To: <1c9.2053d15a.2ebb0127@aol.com>
References: <1c9.2053d15a.2ebb0127@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20041104113354.38ff4e6a.arnt@c2i.net>

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 22:51:03 EST, LWheeler45 at aol.com wrote in message
<1c9.2053d15a.2ebb0127 at aol.com>:

> Those who requested a PDF file with the JPEG photos of the system
> elements and flow chart of the thru put on the DC Plasma Gassifier I
> have written about have been sent those files today.
>
> If I have missed anyone let me know.

..you sent me that pdf, and I do _not_ remember having asked to have
it mailed privately, and now I _do_ wanna know what kinda Karl Rove
style legal ramifications that stunt of yours will have on me, and on
the Gas-List people here.

> Page one is the flow chart for Medical Waste System Page two is the V
> 3 Gassifier chamber w/ roller heat sinks and Page three are the torch
> and assy items w/ gas and electrical connections/. I am making scanned
> copies of the independent lab test at 1995 1997 Tulane and JMH
> Hospitals version 2 units should further documents on historical
> output be desired.
>
> I am putting together a 40 page presentation with charts spreadsheets
> and lots of photos for submission to my fellow business associates.
> Less the confidential stuff I can send anyone who wants it a PDF file
> copy.
>
> Have a great day,
>
> Leonard Wheeler, Jr, MPA
> Engineer/ Investor
> 521 West Seminole Ave
> Eustis, Florida 32726
> 352 483 9555

--
..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 Bill_Klein at 3iAlternativePower.com Thu Nov 4 09:30:43 2004
From: Bill_Klein at 3iAlternativePower.com (Bill Klein)
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:30:43 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] ? I doubt if any thing you say about plasma Ans/
andQuestion
References: <67.36fdfd52.2ebb2e8b@aol.com>
Message-ID: <418A4B23.356C3005@3iAlternativePower.com>

 

Dear Mr. Wheeler, Mr. Williams et al:

With reference to the extract of a previous message, posted, this date,
on this, Gasification List:

>>> LWeeler wrote: >>>

> My Request Doug:
> Would you be so kind as to send me some photos of some of your
> comparable 400 to 1000 lb per hr commercial units w/ output and
> specifications such as I have provided to this list. Can I publish
> them with my report? Bill Klein 3i Alternative Power sent me some
> great stuff of his commercial systems I am going to use.

===> As a result of a telephone conversation with Mr. Leonard Wheeler
and a written request from an official within the government of the
State of Florida, in September, 2004, this office sent Mr. Wheeler
technical information about several commercial products, developed by
members of The 3i Group.

It was understood that this information was being used to facilitate
Powerhearth presentations and proposed sales within the State of
Florida.

This will serve to notify Mr. Wheeler that all of the information sent
to him MAY NOT be used for any purpose not directly associated with a
sale or sales of Powerhearth in the State of Florida.

The above referenced materials are protected my various copyright laws,
including those, extant, in the State of Florida. Permission has not
been granted for use beyond the aforementioned sales support within the
government of the State of Florida.

Furthermore, no permission is or has been granted to reproduce the, 3i
supplied, information nor has permission been granted to use the
aforementioned materials in any presentation, comparison, proposal,
study or report of any kind.

Leonard, I sincerely hope you are not intending to use technical data,
that i supplied you in good faith, to help you make some sort of a case
for your newest technology. The fact that you would be comparing apples
and celery should be obvious. What should be most obvious, however, is
the fact that I do not wish to have my name, my company's name, our
products or anything else affiliated with this DC Teslaesque "lightning
machine" of yours.

Kindly go the extra mile to ensure our protected material is not
illegally used, by you, for any purpose other than that which has been
explicitly granted over my name.

My best to you both.

Bill Klein
3i

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Nov 4 10:13:27 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:13:27 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] Re: Please...
In-Reply-To: <KHECJBHCPCBNILMABBPBIEGMCPAA.sr.masters@virgin.net>
References: <20041104113354.38ff4e6a.arnt@c2i.net>
<KHECJBHCPCBNILMABBPBIEGMCPAA.sr.masters@virgin.net>
Message-ID: <20041104171327.18cf8742.arnt@c2i.net>

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 11:27:01 -0000, Simon wrote in message
<KHECJBHCPCBNILMABBPBIEGMCPAA.sr.masters at virgin.net>:

> Google on Karl Rove gives
> Best known for: George W. Bush's chief strategist. Consultant to U.S.
> Senators Phil Gramm, Kay Bailey Hutchison and many other right-wing
> politicians.
> Born: December 25, 1950 in Denver, and grew up in Colorado, Utah and
> Nevada. Family: His father was a geologist. At age nine, Rove became a
> faithful Republican when he backed Richard Nixon against John Kennedy.
> Education: Attended nearly half a dozen colleges without getting a
> degree. So I presume the comment to be derogatory

..I could tell you a few fun stories on how I deal with
"potential threats." ;-) And, Nixon too "won." ;-)

..nobody in their right mind disputes Karl Rove is a _clever_ schemer.
I mean, now he has scared Chirac into finishing off Arafat. Rove and
his "boss" has taken me from a deep gratitude for having saved
_my_ butt out of nuclear combat against the Soviet Union, into a firm
belief Adolf's 6 million Jews is gonna wind up as a silly little prank.

..your polls tells me American Jews are wise and decent people.

> Please can we
>
> (1) avoid reading mischief into everyone's activity

..sorry, you ask too much here. In the IT field, chk out Groklaw.net
on Microsoft's wars-by-proxy on GNU/Linux, Netscape etc.

..similarly, we now know GWB, Karl Rove, Halliburton, "Big Oil"
and Osama bin Ladin "won" this election with Microsoft doing the
machine ballot counting, so we gasifier people might wanna
_get_ real, as you say below. None of these combattants actually
respects civilians, the closest one is Osama when he promises
"to spare those who step aside." (That discussion does not belong
here, but possibly in the bioenergy politics list?)

..I hope gasification still _can_ qualify as a _civilian_ activity. But
gasifiers _can_ be used for _both_ legal warfare and war crimes.
(That discusion belongs either here in the Gas List, or in the politics
list.)

> (2) express our thinking clearly

..I'm not clear? ;-) Amen!

> (3) strive to make gassification list an international open-minded
> discussion forum

..amen!, if you mean free from fear of patent litigation, too.
(That discussion clearly belongs here, I believe.)

> (4) stay real: Anyone on the list surely needs to be aware of
> competitive technologies: I frequently stand up and say "Natural Gas
> is a very convenient fuel" and "biomass has to compete financially
> with this finite, polluting but CHEAP mainstream technology"

..amen!

> From what I have seen the postings ARC technology is interesting
> - how it is defined is immaterial unless you are a PhD student

..or, a potential competitor. Is just one reason I care about who owns
what technology. The idea is prevent legal (or worse) conflicts, but I
realise I here may be "old fashion" or "a terrorist" or something.

> (6) focus on what counts COST: OPERATIONAL AND CAPITAL, PAYBACK,
> RELIABILITY, MARKET AVAILABILITY

..precisely, if there _are_ people alive, these forms and makes a
market available. In Asia, Africa and Latin America, we now have
around 5 billion people? Or, are we just non-christians, brewing oil
hunger or scheming gasifier industries to steal "Big Oil"'s market? Etc?

..in the somewhat civilized world we used to know, market availability
was controlled by patent holders (and not) thru litigation, not nukes.

..I dunno about you guys, but given the choise between trying to avoid
having to try survive Microsoft style patent litigation or try survive
"an asteroid" nuke coming my way, or "step aside" and watch
Osama bin Ladin deliver spank over the next 10 years or so,
I will go for the latter. Unfortunately, he too is a war criminal.

> (7) Give the man a break!

..easy. Nixon too "won." Leonard is not just an human, he is
an American and made IMHO an honest but "big mistake", as
Schwartzenegger put's it in a few of his movies.

..as far as I understand American law and patent laws, Leonard
put at least me, in a potential patent litigation trap. By mistake.

..and, he can fix it, preferably before he tries to take on Bush ;-) ,
Rove is far more dangerous than Nixon's entire staff pooled together
and I like Leonard to stay alive.

..I don't need any apology, but considering how the American courts
work (or not), I _do_ feel I need a legal statement that keeps me as a
Gas List member, clear of any lawsuits from Leonard and his business
partners.

..absent that, I cannot really discuss anything openly with anyone here
for fear of litigation. And that again would defeat the purpose of the
Gas List. Precisely that is why I posted on this Gas List, instead of
e-mailing privately to Leonard.

> Simon Masters

..below is Simon's quote of my message left in for reference purposes,
as I understand no legal etc ramifications are yet clear to me.

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
> [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of Arnt
> Karlsen Sent: 04 November 2004 10:34
> To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] 3 PAGE PDF sent to all that requested it I
> hope.
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 22:51:03 EST, LWheeler45 at aol.com wrote in message
> <1c9.2053d15a.2ebb0127 at aol.com>:
>
> > Those who requested a PDF file with the JPEG photos of the system
> > elements and flow chart of the thru put on the DC Plasma Gassifier I
> > have written about have been sent those files today.
> >
> > If I have missed anyone let me know.
>
> ..you sent me that pdf, and I do _not_ remember having asked to have
> it mailed privately, and now I _do_ wanna know what kinda Karl Rove
> style legal ramifications that stunt of yours will have on me, and on
> the Gas-List people here.
>
> > Page one is the flow chart for Medical Waste System Page two is the
> > V 3 Gassifier chamber w/ roller heat sinks and Page three are the
> > torch and assy items w/ gas and electrical connections/. I am making
> > scanned copies of the independent lab test at 1995 1997 Tulane and
> > JMH Hospitals version 2 units should further documents on historical
> > output be desired.
> >
> > I am putting together a 40 page presentation with charts
> > spreadsheets and lots of photos for submission to my fellow business
> > associates. Less the confidential stuff I can send anyone who wants
> > it a PDF file copy.
> >
> > Have a great day,
> >
> > Leonard Wheeler, Jr, MPA
> > Engineer/ Investor
> > 521 West Seminole Ave
> > Eustis, Florida 32726
> > 352 483 9555
>
>
> --
> ..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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 27/10/2004
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 27/10/2004
>

--
..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 LWheeler45 at aol.com Thu Nov 4 14:25:24 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 15:25:24 EST
Subject: [Gasification] ALL material sent or disclosed are OLD PUBLIC
RECORDS Arnt
Message-ID: <d1.1b07c056.2ebbea34@aol.com>

All: This system has been featured in Fla TV in PR publications of FPL and
TECO Energy, displayed in patents that are public in every single detail that
has been sent to members. The chemical reports are available as public records
required by state law for the operation of a Medical Disposal Units. Some are
available from the Tulane Medical Center Unit in state of La some are
available from Miami Dade County and Some are available from EPA and the state of Fla.
The newest I submitted was 1997. In the world of technology that is
"historic."

Trust me I have had my share of depositions and federal lawsuits mostly as a
plaintiff. Run my name in Lexis Nexis if you want more proof. There is
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in anything I have said or photographed with my camera and in the
presence of the company president that is NOT A PUBLIC RECORD. I posted this
material to the web with my IMPLIED and EXPLICIT warranty of that fact. That
being I have the ORIGINAL RECORDS in my custody. If anyone is sued please have
me named as a co defendant I can use the money.

Hope that you now feel better. Leonard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041104/ff922dbf/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Thu Nov 4 14:56:20 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 15:56:20 EST
Subject: [Gasification] Thank you kindly for your focused presentation of
objectives sr.masters
Message-ID: <15a.42ca79ee.2ebbf174@aol.com>

Kind Sir:
There are three kinds of people in the world. Those that make things happen,
those that watch it happen and those that wonder what happened and talk a lot
about it.

I am by US recorded history of my published / public successes in Law and
Personnel business solidly in that first group. My presentation to this group is
not as a sales person. I have no signed sales agreement with anyone.

I was a potential buyer not a seller when I first joined this list. I am
still not selling!

I am exploring in a public forum for those OTHER uses of this commercial
Gasification technology that someone may have that a current gassifer (sic) will
not ever accommodate. That includes feedlot owners with tons of wet manure to
Citrus, Sugar and Ethanol producers with needs great needs for process energy
from their waste streams.

May I emphasize my intended reach includes COUNTRIES that have needs for mass
produced and cheap sources of non greenhouse gas producing bio feedstock
energy machines such as this Low Voltage, DC system clearly has demonstrated for
over ten years.

If I were in Russia, China, Korea, India, Pakistan, or a really cold country
reliant on heat from Natural Gas or Coal and I had a waste stream such as
agricultural waste to get rid of I would be looking into all Gassifiers (sic) as
the answer to those rapidly climbing cost.

Hope this sufficiently puts my ongoing objectives and motives in writing for
all the world to read.

Albest, Leonard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041104/226827ed/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Thu Nov 4 15:09:33 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:09:33 EST
Subject: [Gasification] From: Bill_Klein@3iAlternativePower.com To:
LWheeler45@aol.com
Message-ID: <5b.5d2086e8.2ebbf48d@aol.com>

Ok Bill. I asked you explicitly for PR materials on your system for
publication and press packages when you sent me this...Leonard. Trust me and you have
my written word on it all your files are deleted today.

Subj: School presentation 101904
Date: 10/20/04 10:29:28 AM Eastern Standard Time

File: WELCOME.

 

L, attached are files, printer ready and sent in presentation order.

I made this presentation last night. It will easily result in a sale,
around the first of the year.

If you can use it, feel free to do so.

bk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041104/6e24c4b9/attachment.html

From Carefreeland at aol.com Thu Nov 4 15:42:42 2004
From: Carefreeland at aol.com (Carefreeland at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:42:42 EST
Subject: [Gasification] Fwd: [wastewatts] Recovering heat from a diesel
engine exhaust
Message-ID: <9d.51f534ac.2ebbfc52@aol.com>

Folks,
This was sent out on the wastewatts list. I thought it would be mind
candy for those interested in CHP(combined heat and power) set ups. This is
all basic stuff, but the presentation has something for many of us to consider.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041104/5a93b857/attachment.html
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Kevin Elks" <kevin at doobarn.f9.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [wastewatts] Recovering heat from a diesel engine exhaust
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 19:50:49 -0000
Size: 6864
Url: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041104/5a93b857/attachment.mht

From ned at towle-whitney.com Thu Nov 4 16:00:04 2004
From: ned at towle-whitney.com (Ned Towle)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:00:04 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] GAS-L: our new wood gasification boilers available
now
Message-ID: <003001c4c2b9$aa111100$b07ba8c0@nedpc>

I saw your web page where you stated you are looking for dealers for gasifier type boilers mfg'd in the UK. I am in New hampshire have a business suitable for distribution. I have some knowledge of gasification and heat my home with a system forced hot water- down draft type gasifier.

I'd be interested in your proposal.

Ned Towle Manchester NH 800-807-9827
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041104/2d8f5466/attachment.html

From Doug.Williams at orcon.net.nz Thu Nov 4 21:03:11 2004
From: Doug.Williams at orcon.net.nz (Doug Williams)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 16:03:11 +1300
Subject: [Gasification] Re: ? I doubt if any thing you say about plasma Ans/
and Question
References: <67.36fdfd52.2ebb2e8b@aol.com>
Message-ID: <002901c4c2e4$099e0720$0301010a@newpc>

Leonard,
Thank you for the gas separation explanation, and no I don't require any Photo's or other material on plasma.
In response to your request:
<snip>
My Request Doug:
Would you be so kind as to send me some photos of some of your comparable 400 to 1000 lb per hr commercial units w/ output and specifications such as I have provided to this list. Can I publish them with my report? Bill Klein 3i Alternative Power sent me some great stuff of his commercial systems I am going to use.

<snip>

Having anounced Internationally in the GasNet Magazine No.5, February 2004 that the larger gasifiers we are developing in Canada were to be used by our own waste disposal company, and not offered for sale, there is no way that you can present our work, which is not due for completion until next year to any one. There is a huge need for both waste disposal and power generation, but only the shortage of money controls rapid progress in any endevour. Your need or others for that matter change nothing, as the dirty work has to be done first!

With so many claims being made about this or that technology, I persueded my associates in Canada to be less paranoid about showing the development work in progress. After all, cannot all technology presented as commercially available actually show a photographed structured development programme? If you have not read the Fluidyne Updates posted on the Mega Class progect, you can see some photographs on the Fluidyne Archive www.fluidynenz.250x.com and you have reminded me to post a new report on my last trip

Finally, I have only a passing interest in plasma, so there is no need to convince me it's going to work for you. I cannot judge your presentation of "facts', but others on this forum are clearly able.

Regards,
Doug Williams,
Fluidyne Gasification.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041104/37b203a6/attachment.html

From arnt at c2i.net Fri Nov 5 11:21:07 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 18:21:07 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] Re: ALL material sent or disclosed are OLD PUBLIC
RECORDS Arnt
In-Reply-To: <d1.1b07c056.2ebbea34@aol.com>
References: <d1.1b07c056.2ebbea34@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20041105182107.231c3ae0.arnt@c2i.net>

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 15:25:24 EST, LWheeler45 at aol.com wrote in message
<d1.1b07c056.2ebbea34 at aol.com>:

> All: This system has been featured in Fla TV in PR publications of
> FPL and TECO Energy, displayed in patents that are public in every
> single detail that has been sent to members. The chemical reports are
> available as public records required by state law for the operation of
> a Medical Disposal Units. Some are available from the Tulane Medical
> Center Unit in state of La some are available from Miami Dade County
> and Some are available from EPA and the state of Fla. The newest I
> submitted was 1997. In the world of technology that is "historic."

..urls to these public records?

> Trust me I have had my share of depositions and federal lawsuits
> mostly as a plaintiff. Run my name in Lexis Nexis if you want more
> proof. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in anything I have said or
> photographed with my camera and in the presence of the company
> president that is NOT A PUBLIC RECORD. I posted this material to the
> web with my IMPLIED and EXPLICIT warranty of that fact. That being I
> have the ORIGINAL RECORDS in my custody. If anyone is sued please have
> me named as a co defendant I can use the money.

..will do, if you share the costs and risks too. ;-)

> Hope that you now feel better. Leonard

.. :-)

--
..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 Fri Nov 5 14:55:46 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 12:55:46 -0800
Subject: [Gasification] Leonard, it's time for you to quit
References: <5b.5d2086e8.2ebbf48d@aol.com>
Message-ID: <00f501c4c379$e1585c20$6501a8c0@OFFICE3>

Leonard,

For three months you have promoted your plasma systems on this list. Now it's time to quit.

Thank you for the insights from your experience cleaning up after Hurricane Andrew (1992), your various positions in city and county government and your recent experience as a volunteer member of the Lake County (FL) solid waste advisory committee.

I'm sure that your background as a teacher, researcher and your training in criminal justice and business administration combined with your experience in engineering management in public organizations (which is all a matter of public record) puts you in a good position to sell waste disposal systems. But don't do it on this list.

The gasification and biomass lists at REPP are intended for the technical discussion of gasification and renewable energy. They are not maintained by volunteers for the purpose of serving the personal and commercial interests of a particular individual or company. They are intended for the open exchange of technical information and experience, not for advertising. You have worn out your welcome with your abuse of the list. I would have to agree with your wife whom you quoted as saying that you can be "insufferable" with your incessant postings.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation

Tom Miles
Bioenergy Lists Administrator


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041105/0476f5a1/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Fri Nov 5 19:28:55 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 20:28:55 EST
Subject: [Gasification] Thank you tom But I was presenting technical
renewable energy alternatives
Message-ID: <d1.1b25911d.2ebd82d7@aol.com>

Members:

For the record I am also not selling anything. I am not an agent for anyone
selling anything nor have I any formal business dealings with Startech
Westinghouse Plasma or anyone on this list. No one has sent me a check and I have
signed no contracts or business agreements though I have been sent some to
execute. I am an engineer and investor and prospective technology OWNER with interest
in all commercial alternatives to provide Florida with other sources of
energy and revenue and process heat and steam.

One of the most promising viable commercial sources of that system is this 10
year old commercial Low Voltage Plasma Arc system which has operated under
Fla Federal City and County Bio Med permits since 1994 in the state of Fla. As
well as at Tulane in LA. This an old process and old company has been the
subject of TV stories, as well as demonstration projects with TECO Energy and FPL
in 1995. Apparently none of you folks were aware of it till I brought it up to
the list be a source of technical information.

Every single document presented and every single answer to all questions was
answered ref to engineering grade Independent Lab Reports of which I have an
original copy. The photos sent to those who requested were made by me on a
personal inspection of an operational EPA FDEP CERTIFIED Bio Medical unit in the
presence of the Co president. This is old commercial technology that lends
itself to renewable energy and gassifers ( sic). I have presented it accurately,
professionally and with peer reviewed documents in the public domain of state
and local gov. For the purpose of discussion of applications and points of
interest and maybe a joint venture discussion.

What I have done is substantially provide this group and those who requested
it more professional grade documentation, more visual presentations than any
member of this list has ever provided to me on or off net. And I was in the
market to BUY . Only two could convince me they were commercial sellers from
their submissions.

Once Again I totally agree with you Tom. This list clearly has some vocal and
active members that should not include me.

In first or second quater of 2005 the international trade journals in
Hazardous waste should provide sufficient documented proof that this gassifier system
is indeed a serious proven commercial machine for renewable energy and
commercial Gasification from many waste streams that traditional Gasification
systems cannot process or use. Thermally it is superior to any system I have seen or
read about in terms of capturing process heat and encapsulating it in a
chamber with so thin an insulation barrier.

And by the way ZERO Dioxins come out of my system/s waste stream. How many
can say that?

Apparently not many since you never addressed that lister's question.

Good by Tom. Good by members. Thank you for your wonderful off net support
and a lively on list Discussion.

Leonard Wheeler
Eustis, Fla
352 483 9555

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041105/52edf4fa/attachment.html

From a31ford at inetlink.ca Fri Nov 5 23:50:23 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 23:50:23 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Feedstock, Drying, revisited
Message-ID: <002a01c4c3c4$8278d5e0$1900a8c0@a31server>

Hello all!

Most on the list will remember a while back, I was attempting drying
methods for very wet wood chips (uncovered piles).

To date, I have found the following:

1) "Forced Aeration"

Using forced air, in perforated pipes, submerged in a smaller pile of
chips, ambient air temperature.

Approx. 200kg. of wood chips was placed on the pipes, in a long strip,
heaped, forced air supplied by a 1/3hp "furnace fan" with a plenum to
connect the perforated pipe to.

Result:

NO reduction in moisture content with in 30 hours of continuous air, ambient
temp -1 to 2c.

 

2) "Sun Drying"

Using inclined mesh screens (1cm x 1cm grid), situated south facing, 30
degree inclination, and location is north of the 49th parallel, local winds
favor from the north-west, 2-10km/hr average.

Approx. 100kg. of wood chips where placed on the above noted screens with a
surface area of 6 m2 the ambient air temp hovered around 2c mark during the
test, the sun was visible with intermittent cloudy periods.

Result:

Average moisture content went from 30% down to 15% within 4 hours of being
placed on the screens, this process was repeated 3 times during the same
day, with the first batch start at 10:00am, and the last batch left on the
screens overnight, and removed the next morning.

The small amount of heat generated by radiant, coupled with the light breeze
that day did an excellent job of removing the excess moisture in a timely
manner!

 

3) "Covered Pile"

Simply placing heavy tarpaulins over a pile of woodchips, that at the time
had a moisture content in excess of 30%.

Heavy opaque tarpaulins where placed directly on one pile of wood chips, and
left for 3 weeks, no air movement, no extra rain water.

Result:

Simply not allowing any more rain to collect in the wood chips has allowed
the pile to assume "earth conditions" (tendency for a pile of mass to leach
it's water content to the soil). I would assume that the pile would stay at
it's existing moisture content, however, this is NOT the case, the piles
moisture content has gone down to approx. 18% (roughly the same as the soil
we are on (tested at locations near & far from the pile)) the lowest portion
of the pile is converting to black mass, but this might also be simply the
amount of time the pile has been undisturbed (10 months).

Side note: the soil we are on is a very sandy base with only a rough 4"
(10cm) cover of black dirt, and most of the dirt was removed before the
chips where brought to the site.

still looking for other methods,

Greg Manning,
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

Comments or suggestions welcome.

 

 

From tmiles at trmiles.com Sat Nov 6 00:12:48 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 22:12:48 -0800
Subject: [Gasification] Feedstock, Drying, revisited
References: <002a01c4c3c4$8278d5e0$1900a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <019501c4c3c8$c2e7c060$6701a8c0@Yellow>

Greg,

Have you tried aeration with heated air? Pressure drop through the chips
will be about 1 inch of water per foot of depth so you have to have enough
fan or reduce the depth of the pile so that the drying front can migrate to
the surface.

Tom

----- Original Message -----
From: "a31ford" <a31ford at inetlink.ca>
To: "A Gasification List (E-mail)" <GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 9:50 PM
Subject: [Gasification] Feedstock, Drying, revisited

>
> Hello all!
>
> Most on the list will remember a while back, I was attempting drying
> methods for very wet wood chips (uncovered piles).
>
> To date, I have found the following:
>
> 1) "Forced Aeration"
>
> Using forced air, in perforated pipes, submerged in a smaller pile of
> chips, ambient air temperature.
>
> Approx. 200kg. of wood chips was placed on the pipes, in a long strip,
> heaped, forced air supplied by a 1/3hp "furnace fan" with a plenum to
> connect the perforated pipe to.
>
> Result:
>
> NO reduction in moisture content with in 30 hours of continuous air,
> ambient
> temp -1 to 2c.
>
>
>
> 2) "Sun Drying"
>
> Using inclined mesh screens (1cm x 1cm grid), situated south facing, 30
> degree inclination, and location is north of the 49th parallel, local
> winds
> favor from the north-west, 2-10km/hr average.
>
> Approx. 100kg. of wood chips where placed on the above noted screens with
> a
> surface area of 6 m2 the ambient air temp hovered around 2c mark during
> the
> test, the sun was visible with intermittent cloudy periods.
>
> Result:
>
> Average moisture content went from 30% down to 15% within 4 hours of being
> placed on the screens, this process was repeated 3 times during the same
> day, with the first batch start at 10:00am, and the last batch left on the
> screens overnight, and removed the next morning.
>
> The small amount of heat generated by radiant, coupled with the light
> breeze
> that day did an excellent job of removing the excess moisture in a timely
> manner!
>
>
>
> 3) "Covered Pile"
>
> Simply placing heavy tarpaulins over a pile of woodchips, that at the time
> had a moisture content in excess of 30%.
>
> Heavy opaque tarpaulins where placed directly on one pile of wood chips,
> and
> left for 3 weeks, no air movement, no extra rain water.
>
> Result:
>
> Simply not allowing any more rain to collect in the wood chips has allowed
> the pile to assume "earth conditions" (tendency for a pile of mass to
> leach
> it's water content to the soil). I would assume that the pile would stay
> at
> it's existing moisture content, however, this is NOT the case, the piles
> moisture content has gone down to approx. 18% (roughly the same as the
> soil
> we are on (tested at locations near & far from the pile)) the lowest
> portion
> of the pile is converting to black mass, but this might also be simply the
> amount of time the pile has been undisturbed (10 months).
>
> Side note: the soil we are on is a very sandy base with only a rough 4"
> (10cm) cover of black dirt, and most of the dirt was removed before the
> chips where brought to the site.
>
>
> still looking for other methods,
>
> Greg Manning,
> Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
>
> Comments or suggestions welcome.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
>

 

From a31ford at inetlink.ca Sat Nov 6 09:00:43 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 09:00:43 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] RE: Feedstock, Drying, revisited
In-Reply-To: <KHECJBHCPCBNILMABBPBOEHJCPAA.sr.masters@virgin.net>
Message-ID: <002e01c4c411$644cf630$1900a8c0@a31server>

Tom, Simon, and all,

The level of drying (size wise) is 450 pounds ( 190kg) a day, I need to do
this for 5-6 months.

The entire problem is my own fault, I left the piles uncovered this summer
(last fall was first time using chips), it simply didn't occur to me until
too late in the year to do something about the water content.

I would (almost did) invest in a grain dryer, but this is a "this winter
only" problem.

The heated air thing was the next step, as the slight warmth on the screens
really did the trick.

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Masters [mailto:sr.masters at virgin.net]
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 8:27 AM
To: a31ford at inetlink.ca
Subject: Feedstock, Drying, revisited

In UK some foresters are proposing Kill the trees with chemical and leave
standing before chipping
or extract whole tree and stack with branches and leaves (sour felling)
before chipping

Driest logs I ever made were stored in a polytunnel with forced drying

I agree with Tom that heated forced air is better than cold air (basic
physics) but it actually depends on relative humidity so cold dry air should
have an effect

Leave it longer: 30 hours at ambient isn't enough

What scale are you proposing here?
At small scale hessian sacks in the dry are an option
At larger scale find a grain drier or a grainstore with a perforated floor

Simon Masters

 

-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of Tom Miles
Sent: 06 November 2004 06:13
To: a31ford; A Gasification List (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Feedstock, Drying, revisited

Greg,

Have you tried aeration with heated air? Pressure drop through the chips
will be about 1 inch of water per foot of depth so you have to have enough
fan or reduce the depth of the pile so that the drying front can migrate to
the surface.

Tom

----- Original Message -----
From: "a31ford" <a31ford at inetlink.ca>
To: "A Gasification List (E-mail)" <GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 9:50 PM
Subject: [Gasification] Feedstock, Drying, revisited

>
> Hello all!
>
> Most on the list will remember a while back, I was attempting drying
> methods for very wet wood chips (uncovered piles).
>
> To date, I have found the following:
>
> 1) "Forced Aeration"
>
> Using forced air, in perforated pipes, submerged in a smaller pile of
> chips, ambient air temperature.
>
> Approx. 200kg. of wood chips was placed on the pipes, in a long strip,
> heaped, forced air supplied by a 1/3hp "furnace fan" with a plenum to
> connect the perforated pipe to.
>
> Result:
>
> NO reduction in moisture content with in 30 hours of continuous air,
> ambient
> temp -1 to 2c.
>
>
>
> 2) "Sun Drying"
>
> Using inclined mesh screens (1cm x 1cm grid), situated south facing, 30
> degree inclination, and location is north of the 49th parallel, local
> winds
> favor from the north-west, 2-10km/hr average.
>
> Approx. 100kg. of wood chips where placed on the above noted screens with
> a
> surface area of 6 m2 the ambient air temp hovered around 2c mark during
> the
> test, the sun was visible with intermittent cloudy periods.
>
> Result:
>
> Average moisture content went from 30% down to 15% within 4 hours of being
> placed on the screens, this process was repeated 3 times during the same
> day, with the first batch start at 10:00am, and the last batch left on the
> screens overnight, and removed the next morning.
>
> The small amount of heat generated by radiant, coupled with the light
> breeze
> that day did an excellent job of removing the excess moisture in a timely
> manner!
>
>
>
> 3) "Covered Pile"
>
> Simply placing heavy tarpaulins over a pile of woodchips, that at the time
> had a moisture content in excess of 30%.
>
> Heavy opaque tarpaulins where placed directly on one pile of wood chips,
> and
> left for 3 weeks, no air movement, no extra rain water.
>
> Result:
>
> Simply not allowing any more rain to collect in the wood chips has allowed
> the pile to assume "earth conditions" (tendency for a pile of mass to
> leach
> it's water content to the soil). I would assume that the pile would stay
> at
> it's existing moisture content, however, this is NOT the case, the piles
> moisture content has gone down to approx. 18% (roughly the same as the
> soil
> we are on (tested at locations near & far from the pile)) the lowest
> portion
> of the pile is converting to black mass, but this might also be simply the
> amount of time the pile has been undisturbed (10 months).
>
> Side note: the soil we are on is a very sandy base with only a rough 4"
> (10cm) cover of black dirt, and most of the dirt was removed before the
> chips where brought to the site.
>
>
> still looking for other methods,
>
> Greg Manning,
> Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
>
> Comments or suggestions welcome.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
>

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 27/10/2004

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 27/10/2004

 

From tmiles at trmiles.com Sat Nov 6 11:25:44 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 09:25:44 -0800
Subject: [Gasification] RE: Feedstock, Drying, revisited
References: <002e01c4c411$644cf630$1900a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <007301c4c426$11d91fe0$6701a8c0@Yellow>

Greg,

We used to dry small batches like this overnight.

450 lbs at 15 lb/ft3 (dry) is about 30 ft3. If you put that in a 4 x 4 tote
box with a screen bottom it's only 2 feet of fuel. Blow hot air through the
bottom of the bin. For this kind of low efficiency drying figure 2000 Btu/lb
of water evaporated. You'll evaporate about 10 lb of water per ft3 of fuel.
If you do it in 10 hours that's 2000 Btu x 10 lb H20= 20,000 Btu/10 hours =
2,000 Btu/ft3 x 30 ft3 = 60,000 Btuh. If you have a heat generator of about
100,000 Btuh you should do the job.

Tom

----- Original Message -----
From: "a31ford" <a31ford at inetlink.ca>
To: "A Gasification List (E-mail)" <GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 7:00 AM
Subject: [Gasification] RE: Feedstock, Drying, revisited

>
> Tom, Simon, and all,
>
> The level of drying (size wise) is 450 pounds ( 190kg) a day, I need to do
> this for 5-6 months.
>
> The entire problem is my own fault, I left the piles uncovered this summer
> (last fall was first time using chips), it simply didn't occur to me until
> too late in the year to do something about the water content.
>
> I would (almost did) invest in a grain dryer, but this is a "this winter
> only" problem.
>
> The heated air thing was the next step, as the slight warmth on the
> screens
> really did the trick.
>
> Greg
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Masters [mailto:sr.masters at virgin.net]
> Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 8:27 AM
> To: a31ford at inetlink.ca
> Subject: Feedstock, Drying, revisited
>
>
> In UK some foresters are proposing Kill the trees with chemical and leave
> standing before chipping
> or extract whole tree and stack with branches and leaves (sour felling)
> before chipping
>
> Driest logs I ever made were stored in a polytunnel with forced drying
>
> I agree with Tom that heated forced air is better than cold air (basic
> physics) but it actually depends on relative humidity so cold dry air
> should
> have an effect
>
> Leave it longer: 30 hours at ambient isn't enough
>
> What scale are you proposing here?
> At small scale hessian sacks in the dry are an option
> At larger scale find a grain drier or a grainstore with a perforated floor
>
> Simon Masters
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
> [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of Tom Miles
> Sent: 06 November 2004 06:13
> To: a31ford; A Gasification List (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Feedstock, Drying, revisited
>
>
> Greg,
>
> Have you tried aeration with heated air? Pressure drop through the chips
> will be about 1 inch of water per foot of depth so you have to have enough
> fan or reduce the depth of the pile so that the drying front can migrate
> to
> the surface.
>
> Tom
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "a31ford" <a31ford at inetlink.ca>
> To: "A Gasification List (E-mail)" <GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 9:50 PM
> Subject: [Gasification] Feedstock, Drying, revisited
>
>
>>
>> Hello all!
>>
>> Most on the list will remember a while back, I was attempting drying
>> methods for very wet wood chips (uncovered piles).
>>
>> To date, I have found the following:
>>
>> 1) "Forced Aeration"
>>
>> Using forced air, in perforated pipes, submerged in a smaller pile of
>> chips, ambient air temperature.
>>
>> Approx. 200kg. of wood chips was placed on the pipes, in a long strip,
>> heaped, forced air supplied by a 1/3hp "furnace fan" with a plenum to
>> connect the perforated pipe to.
>>
>> Result:
>>
>> NO reduction in moisture content with in 30 hours of continuous air,
>> ambient
>> temp -1 to 2c.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2) "Sun Drying"
>>
>> Using inclined mesh screens (1cm x 1cm grid), situated south facing, 30
>> degree inclination, and location is north of the 49th parallel, local
>> winds
>> favor from the north-west, 2-10km/hr average.
>>
>> Approx. 100kg. of wood chips where placed on the above noted screens
>> with
>> a
>> surface area of 6 m2 the ambient air temp hovered around 2c mark during
>> the
>> test, the sun was visible with intermittent cloudy periods.
>>
>> Result:
>>
>> Average moisture content went from 30% down to 15% within 4 hours of
>> being
>> placed on the screens, this process was repeated 3 times during the same
>> day, with the first batch start at 10:00am, and the last batch left on
>> the
>> screens overnight, and removed the next morning.
>>
>> The small amount of heat generated by radiant, coupled with the light
>> breeze
>> that day did an excellent job of removing the excess moisture in a timely
>> manner!
>>
>>
>>
>> 3) "Covered Pile"
>>
>> Simply placing heavy tarpaulins over a pile of woodchips, that at the
>> time
>> had a moisture content in excess of 30%.
>>
>> Heavy opaque tarpaulins where placed directly on one pile of wood chips,
>> and
>> left for 3 weeks, no air movement, no extra rain water.
>>
>> Result:
>>
>> Simply not allowing any more rain to collect in the wood chips has
>> allowed
>> the pile to assume "earth conditions" (tendency for a pile of mass to
>> leach
>> it's water content to the soil). I would assume that the pile would stay
>> at
>> it's existing moisture content, however, this is NOT the case, the piles
>> moisture content has gone down to approx. 18% (roughly the same as the
>> soil
>> we are on (tested at locations near & far from the pile)) the lowest
>> portion
>> of the pile is converting to black mass, but this might also be simply
>> the
>> amount of time the pile has been undisturbed (10 months).
>>
>> Side note: the soil we are on is a very sandy base with only a rough 4"
>> (10cm) cover of black dirt, and most of the dirt was removed before the
>> chips where brought to the site.
>>
>>
>> still looking for other methods,
>>
>> Greg Manning,
>> Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
>>
>> Comments or suggestions welcome.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gasification mailing list
>> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 27/10/2004
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 27/10/2004
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>

 

From phoenix98604 at earthlink.net Sat Nov 6 11:32:35 2004
From: phoenix98604 at earthlink.net (Art Krenzel)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 09:32:35 -0800
Subject: [Gasification] RE: Feedstock, Drying, revisited
References: <002e01c4c411$644cf630$1900a8c0@a31server>
<007301c4c426$11d91fe0$6701a8c0@Yellow>
Message-ID: <007901c4c426$9b3f1320$dcbdf204@7k6rv21>

Tom,

>If you have a heat generator of about 100,000 Btuh you should do the job.

How about 12 lbs of dried wood to dry 450 lbs of wet wood?

Art

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Miles" <tmiles at trmiles.com>
To: "a31ford" <a31ford at inetlink.ca>; "A Gasification List (E-mail)"
<GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] RE: Feedstock, Drying, revisited

> Greg,
>
> We used to dry small batches like this overnight.
>
> 450 lbs at 15 lb/ft3 (dry) is about 30 ft3. If you put that in a 4 x 4
> tote box with a screen bottom it's only 2 feet of fuel. Blow hot air
> through the bottom of the bin. For this kind of low efficiency drying
> figure 2000 Btu/lb of water evaporated. You'll evaporate about 10 lb of
> water per ft3 of fuel. If you do it in 10 hours that's 2000 Btu x 10 lb
> H20= 20,000 Btu/10 hours = 2,000 Btu/ft3 x 30 ft3 = 60,000 Btuh. If you
> have a heat generator of about 100,000 Btuh you should do the job.
>
> Tom
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "a31ford" <a31ford at inetlink.ca>
> To: "A Gasification List (E-mail)" <GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 7:00 AM
> Subject: [Gasification] RE: Feedstock, Drying, revisited
>
>
>>
>> Tom, Simon, and all,
>>
>> The level of drying (size wise) is 450 pounds ( 190kg) a day, I need to
>> do
>> this for 5-6 months.
>>
>> The entire problem is my own fault, I left the piles uncovered this
>> summer
>> (last fall was first time using chips), it simply didn't occur to me
>> until
>> too late in the year to do something about the water content.
>>
>> I would (almost did) invest in a grain dryer, but this is a "this winter
>> only" problem.
>>
>> The heated air thing was the next step, as the slight warmth on the
>> screens
>> really did the trick.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Simon Masters [mailto:sr.masters at virgin.net]
>> Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 8:27 AM
>> To: a31ford at inetlink.ca
>> Subject: Feedstock, Drying, revisited
>>
>>
>> In UK some foresters are proposing Kill the trees with chemical and leave
>> standing before chipping
>> or extract whole tree and stack with branches and leaves (sour felling)
>> before chipping
>>
>> Driest logs I ever made were stored in a polytunnel with forced drying
>>
>> I agree with Tom that heated forced air is better than cold air (basic
>> physics) but it actually depends on relative humidity so cold dry air
>> should
>> have an effect
>>
>> Leave it longer: 30 hours at ambient isn't enough
>>
>> What scale are you proposing here?
>> At small scale hessian sacks in the dry are an option
>> At larger scale find a grain drier or a grainstore with a perforated
>> floor
>>
>> Simon Masters
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
>> [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of Tom Miles
>> Sent: 06 November 2004 06:13
>> To: a31ford; A Gasification List (E-mail)
>> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Feedstock, Drying, revisited
>>
>>
>> Greg,
>>
>> Have you tried aeration with heated air? Pressure drop through the chips
>> will be about 1 inch of water per foot of depth so you have to have
>> enough
>> fan or reduce the depth of the pile so that the drying front can migrate
>> to
>> the surface.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "a31ford" <a31ford at inetlink.ca>
>> To: "A Gasification List (E-mail)" <GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 9:50 PM
>> Subject: [Gasification] Feedstock, Drying, revisited
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Hello all!
>>>
>>> Most on the list will remember a while back, I was attempting drying
>>> methods for very wet wood chips (uncovered piles).
>>>
>>> To date, I have found the following:
>>>
>>> 1) "Forced Aeration"
>>>
>>> Using forced air, in perforated pipes, submerged in a smaller pile of
>>> chips, ambient air temperature.
>>>
>>> Approx. 200kg. of wood chips was placed on the pipes, in a long strip,
>>> heaped, forced air supplied by a 1/3hp "furnace fan" with a plenum to
>>> connect the perforated pipe to.
>>>
>>> Result:
>>>
>>> NO reduction in moisture content with in 30 hours of continuous air,
>>> ambient
>>> temp -1 to 2c.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2) "Sun Drying"
>>>
>>> Using inclined mesh screens (1cm x 1cm grid), situated south facing, 30
>>> degree inclination, and location is north of the 49th parallel, local
>>> winds
>>> favor from the north-west, 2-10km/hr average.
>>>
>>> Approx. 100kg. of wood chips where placed on the above noted screens
>>> with
>>> a
>>> surface area of 6 m2 the ambient air temp hovered around 2c mark during
>>> the
>>> test, the sun was visible with intermittent cloudy periods.
>>>
>>> Result:
>>>
>>> Average moisture content went from 30% down to 15% within 4 hours of
>>> being
>>> placed on the screens, this process was repeated 3 times during the same
>>> day, with the first batch start at 10:00am, and the last batch left on
>>> the
>>> screens overnight, and removed the next morning.
>>>
>>> The small amount of heat generated by radiant, coupled with the light
>>> breeze
>>> that day did an excellent job of removing the excess moisture in a
>>> timely
>>> manner!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 3) "Covered Pile"
>>>
>>> Simply placing heavy tarpaulins over a pile of woodchips, that at the
>>> time
>>> had a moisture content in excess of 30%.
>>>
>>> Heavy opaque tarpaulins where placed directly on one pile of wood chips,
>>> and
>>> left for 3 weeks, no air movement, no extra rain water.
>>>
>>> Result:
>>>
>>> Simply not allowing any more rain to collect in the wood chips has
>>> allowed
>>> the pile to assume "earth conditions" (tendency for a pile of mass to
>>> leach
>>> it's water content to the soil). I would assume that the pile would stay
>>> at
>>> it's existing moisture content, however, this is NOT the case, the piles
>>> moisture content has gone down to approx. 18% (roughly the same as the
>>> soil
>>> we are on (tested at locations near & far from the pile)) the lowest
>>> portion
>>> of the pile is converting to black mass, but this might also be simply
>>> the
>>> amount of time the pile has been undisturbed (10 months).
>>>
>>> Side note: the soil we are on is a very sandy base with only a rough 4"
>>> (10cm) cover of black dirt, and most of the dirt was removed before the
>>> chips where brought to the site.
>>>
>>>
>>> still looking for other methods,
>>>
>>> Greg Manning,
>>> Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
>>>
>>> Comments or suggestions welcome.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gasification mailing list
>>> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gasification mailing list
>> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>> ---
>> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>> Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 27/10/2004
>>
>> ---
>> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>> Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 27/10/2004
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gasification mailing list
>> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>

 

From phoenix98604 at earthlink.net Sat Nov 6 11:50:07 2004
From: phoenix98604 at earthlink.net (Art Krenzel)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 09:50:07 -0800
Subject: [Gasification] RE: Feedstock, Drying, revisited
References: <002e01c4c411$644cf630$1900a8c0@a31server><007301c4c426$11d91fe0$6701a8c0@Yellow>
<007901c4c426$9b3f1320$dcbdf204@7k6rv21>
Message-ID: <007e01c4c429$0ea8e730$dcbdf204@7k6rv21>

Tom,

Let's make that clearer.

>If you have a heat generator of about 100,000 Btuh you should do the job.

How about burning 12 lbs of dried wood to dry 450 lbs of wet wood?

Art

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Miles" <tmiles at trmiles.com>
> To: "a31ford" <a31ford at inetlink.ca>; "A Gasification List (E-mail)"
> <GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 9:25 AM
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] RE: Feedstock, Drying, revisited
>
>
>> Greg,
>>
>> We used to dry small batches like this overnight.
>>
>> 450 lbs at 15 lb/ft3 (dry) is about 30 ft3. If you put that in a 4 x 4
>> tote box with a screen bottom it's only 2 feet of fuel. Blow hot air
>> through the bottom of the bin. For this kind of low efficiency drying
>> figure 2000 Btu/lb of water evaporated. You'll evaporate about 10 lb of
>> water per ft3 of fuel. If you do it in 10 hours that's 2000 Btu x 10 lb
>> H20= 20,000 Btu/10 hours = 2,000 Btu/ft3 x 30 ft3 = 60,000 Btuh. If you
>> have a heat generator of about 100,000 Btuh you should do the job.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "a31ford" <a31ford at inetlink.ca>
>> To: "A Gasification List (E-mail)" <GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>> Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 7:00 AM
>> Subject: [Gasification] RE: Feedstock, Drying, revisited
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Tom, Simon, and all,
>>>
>>> The level of drying (size wise) is 450 pounds ( 190kg) a day, I need to
>>> do
>>> this for 5-6 months.
>>>
>>> The entire problem is my own fault, I left the piles uncovered this
>>> summer
>>> (last fall was first time using chips), it simply didn't occur to me
>>> until
>>> too late in the year to do something about the water content.
>>>
>>> I would (almost did) invest in a grain dryer, but this is a "this winter
>>> only" problem.
>>>
>>> The heated air thing was the next step, as the slight warmth on the
>>> screens
>>> really did the trick.
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Simon Masters [mailto:sr.masters at virgin.net]
>>> Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 8:27 AM
>>> To: a31ford at inetlink.ca
>>> Subject: Feedstock, Drying, revisited
>>>
>>>
>>> In UK some foresters are proposing Kill the trees with chemical and
>>> leave
>>> standing before chipping
>>> or extract whole tree and stack with branches and leaves (sour felling)
>>> before chipping
>>>
>>> Driest logs I ever made were stored in a polytunnel with forced drying
>>>
>>> I agree with Tom that heated forced air is better than cold air (basic
>>> physics) but it actually depends on relative humidity so cold dry air
>>> should
>>> have an effect
>>>
>>> Leave it longer: 30 hours at ambient isn't enough
>>>
>>> What scale are you proposing here?
>>> At small scale hessian sacks in the dry are an option
>>> At larger scale find a grain drier or a grainstore with a perforated
>>> floor
>>>
>>> Simon Masters
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
>>> [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of Tom Miles
>>> Sent: 06 November 2004 06:13
>>> To: a31ford; A Gasification List (E-mail)
>>> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Feedstock, Drying, revisited
>>>
>>>
>>> Greg,
>>>
>>> Have you tried aeration with heated air? Pressure drop through the chips
>>> will be about 1 inch of water per foot of depth so you have to have
>>> enough
>>> fan or reduce the depth of the pile so that the drying front can migrate
>>> to
>>> the surface.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "a31ford" <a31ford at inetlink.ca>
>>> To: "A Gasification List (E-mail)" <GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>>> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 9:50 PM
>>> Subject: [Gasification] Feedstock, Drying, revisited
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello all!
>>>>
>>>> Most on the list will remember a while back, I was attempting drying
>>>> methods for very wet wood chips (uncovered piles).
>>>>
>>>> To date, I have found the following:
>>>>
>>>> 1) "Forced Aeration"
>>>>
>>>> Using forced air, in perforated pipes, submerged in a smaller pile of
>>>> chips, ambient air temperature.
>>>>
>>>> Approx. 200kg. of wood chips was placed on the pipes, in a long strip,
>>>> heaped, forced air supplied by a 1/3hp "furnace fan" with a plenum to
>>>> connect the perforated pipe to.
>>>>
>>>> Result:
>>>>
>>>> NO reduction in moisture content with in 30 hours of continuous air,
>>>> ambient
>>>> temp -1 to 2c.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2) "Sun Drying"
>>>>
>>>> Using inclined mesh screens (1cm x 1cm grid), situated south facing, 30
>>>> degree inclination, and location is north of the 49th parallel, local
>>>> winds
>>>> favor from the north-west, 2-10km/hr average.
>>>>
>>>> Approx. 100kg. of wood chips where placed on the above noted screens
>>>> with
>>>> a
>>>> surface area of 6 m2 the ambient air temp hovered around 2c mark during
>>>> the
>>>> test, the sun was visible with intermittent cloudy periods.
>>>>
>>>> Result:
>>>>
>>>> Average moisture content went from 30% down to 15% within 4 hours of
>>>> being
>>>> placed on the screens, this process was repeated 3 times during the
>>>> same
>>>> day, with the first batch start at 10:00am, and the last batch left on
>>>> the
>>>> screens overnight, and removed the next morning.
>>>>
>>>> The small amount of heat generated by radiant, coupled with the light
>>>> breeze
>>>> that day did an excellent job of removing the excess moisture in a
>>>> timely
>>>> manner!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3) "Covered Pile"
>>>>
>>>> Simply placing heavy tarpaulins over a pile of woodchips, that at the
>>>> time
>>>> had a moisture content in excess of 30%.
>>>>
>>>> Heavy opaque tarpaulins where placed directly on one pile of wood
>>>> chips,
>>>> and
>>>> left for 3 weeks, no air movement, no extra rain water.
>>>>
>>>> Result:
>>>>
>>>> Simply not allowing any more rain to collect in the wood chips has
>>>> allowed
>>>> the pile to assume "earth conditions" (tendency for a pile of mass to
>>>> leach
>>>> it's water content to the soil). I would assume that the pile would
>>>> stay
>>>> at
>>>> it's existing moisture content, however, this is NOT the case, the
>>>> piles
>>>> moisture content has gone down to approx. 18% (roughly the same as the
>>>> soil
>>>> we are on (tested at locations near & far from the pile)) the lowest
>>>> portion
>>>> of the pile is converting to black mass, but this might also be simply
>>>> the
>>>> amount of time the pile has been undisturbed (10 months).
>>>>
>>>> Side note: the soil we are on is a very sandy base with only a rough 4"
>>>> (10cm) cover of black dirt, and most of the dirt was removed before the
>>>> chips where brought to the site.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> still looking for other methods,
>>>>
>>>> Greg Manning,
>>>> Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
>>>>
>>>> Comments or suggestions welcome.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gasification mailing list
>>>> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>>>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gasification mailing list
>>> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>>> ---
>>> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>>> Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 27/10/2004
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>>> Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 27/10/2004
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gasification mailing list
>>> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gasification mailing list
>> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>

 

From snkm at btl.net Sat Nov 6 13:49:06 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 13:49:06 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] RE: Feedstock, Drying, revisited
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041106125505.009b3100@pop.btl.net>

At 09:50 AM 11/6/2004 -0800, Art Krenzel wrote:
>Tom,
>
>Let's make that clearer.
>
>>If you have a heat generator of about 100,000 Btuh you should do the job.
>
>How about burning 12 lbs of dried wood to dry 450 lbs of wet wood?
>
>Art

>>>If you do it in 10 hours that's 2000 Btu x 10 lb
>>> H20= 20,000 Btu/10 hours = 2,000 Btu/ft3 x 30 ft3 = 60,000 Btuh. If you
>>> have a heat generator of about 100,000 Btuh you should do the job.

10 hrs??? 120lbs to dry 450 lbs??

Your off by a factor of ten Art???

Greg -- your about to learn what is the problem of running a gasifier --
it's called "Fuel-conditioning"

Let me check my archives for an Url pointing to the next kind of device to
utilize those chips -- as they be -- no fuel conditioning required.

http://www.burnchips.com/dragon.html

There are some more designs doing this same out there --

Peter - Belize

At 09:50 AM 11/6/2004 -0800, Art Krenzel wrote:
>Tom,
>
>Let's make that clearer.
>
>>If you have a heat generator of about 100,000 Btuh you should do the job.
>
>How about burning 12 lbs of dried wood to dry 450 lbs of wet wood?
>
>Art
>
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Tom Miles" <tmiles at trmiles.com>
>> To: "a31ford" <a31ford at inetlink.ca>; "A Gasification List (E-mail)"
>> <GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>> Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 9:25 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Gasification] RE: Feedstock, Drying, revisited
>>
>>
>>> Greg,
>>>
>>> We used to dry small batches like this overnight.
>>>
>>> 450 lbs at 15 lb/ft3 (dry) is about 30 ft3. If you put that in a 4 x 4
>>> tote box with a screen bottom it's only 2 feet of fuel. Blow hot air
>>> through the bottom of the bin. For this kind of low efficiency drying
>>> figure 2000 Btu/lb of water evaporated. You'll evaporate about 10 lb of
>>> water per ft3 of fuel. If you do it in 10 hours that's 2000 Btu x 10 lb
>>> H20= 20,000 Btu/10 hours = 2,000 Btu/ft3 x 30 ft3 = 60,000 Btuh. If you
>>> have a heat generator of about 100,000 Btuh you should do the job.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "a31ford" <a31ford at inetlink.ca>
>>> To: "A Gasification List (E-mail)" <GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>>> Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 7:00 AM
>>> Subject: [Gasification] RE: Feedstock, Drying, revisited
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tom, Simon, and all,
>>>>
>>>> The level of drying (size wise) is 450 pounds ( 190kg) a day, I need to
>>>> do
>>>> this for 5-6 months.
>>>>
>>>> The entire problem is my own fault, I left the piles uncovered this
>>>> summer
>>>> (last fall was first time using chips), it simply didn't occur to me
>>>> until
>>>> too late in the year to do something about the water content.
>>>>
>>>> I would (almost did) invest in a grain dryer, but this is a "this winter
>>>> only" problem.
>>>>
>>>> The heated air thing was the next step, as the slight warmth on the
>>>> screens
>>>> really did the trick.
>>>>
>>>> Greg
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Simon Masters [mailto:sr.masters at virgin.net]
>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 8:27 AM
>>>> To: a31ford at inetlink.ca
>>>> Subject: Feedstock, Drying, revisited
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In UK some foresters are proposing Kill the trees with chemical and
>>>> leave
>>>> standing before chipping
>>>> or extract whole tree and stack with branches and leaves (sour felling)
>>>> before chipping
>>>>
>>>> Driest logs I ever made were stored in a polytunnel with forced drying
>>>>
>>>> I agree with Tom that heated forced air is better than cold air (basic
>>>> physics) but it actually depends on relative humidity so cold dry air
>>>> should
>>>> have an effect
>>>>
>>>> Leave it longer: 30 hours at ambient isn't enough
>>>>
>>>> What scale are you proposing here?
>>>> At small scale hessian sacks in the dry are an option
>>>> At larger scale find a grain drier or a grainstore with a perforated
>>>> floor
>>>>
>>>> Simon Masters
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
>>>> [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of Tom Miles
>>>> Sent: 06 November 2004 06:13
>>>> To: a31ford; A Gasification List (E-mail)
>>>> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Feedstock, Drying, revisited
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Greg,
>>>>
>>>> Have you tried aeration with heated air? Pressure drop through the chips
>>>> will be about 1 inch of water per foot of depth so you have to have
>>>> enough
>>>> fan or reduce the depth of the pile so that the drying front can migrate
>>>> to
>>>> the surface.
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "a31ford" <a31ford at inetlink.ca>
>>>> To: "A Gasification List (E-mail)" <GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>>>> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 9:50 PM
>>>> Subject: [Gasification] Feedstock, Drying, revisited
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello all!
>>>>>
>>>>> Most on the list will remember a while back, I was attempting drying
>>>>> methods for very wet wood chips (uncovered piles).
>>>>>
>>>>> To date, I have found the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) "Forced Aeration"
>>>>>
>>>>> Using forced air, in perforated pipes, submerged in a smaller pile of
>>>>> chips, ambient air temperature.
>>>>>
>>>>> Approx. 200kg. of wood chips was placed on the pipes, in a long strip,
>>>>> heaped, forced air supplied by a 1/3hp "furnace fan" with a plenum to
>>>>> connect the perforated pipe to.
>>>>>
>>>>> Result:
>>>>>
>>>>> NO reduction in moisture content with in 30 hours of continuous air,
>>>>> ambient
>>>>> temp -1 to 2c.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) "Sun Drying"
>>>>>
>>>>> Using inclined mesh screens (1cm x 1cm grid), situated south facing, 30
>>>>> degree inclination, and location is north of the 49th parallel, local
>>>>> winds
>>>>> favor from the north-west, 2-10km/hr average.
>>>>>
>>>>> Approx. 100kg. of wood chips where placed on the above noted screens
>>>>> with
>>>>> a
>>>>> surface area of 6 m2 the ambient air temp hovered around 2c mark during
>>>>> the
>>>>> test, the sun was visible with intermittent cloudy periods.
>>>>>
>>>>> Result:
>>>>>
>>>>> Average moisture content went from 30% down to 15% within 4 hours of
>>>>> being
>>>>> placed on the screens, this process was repeated 3 times during the
>>>>> same
>>>>> day, with the first batch start at 10:00am, and the last batch left on
>>>>> the
>>>>> screens overnight, and removed the next morning.
>>>>>
>>>>> The small amount of heat generated by radiant, coupled with the light
>>>>> breeze
>>>>> that day did an excellent job of removing the excess moisture in a
>>>>> timely
>>>>> manner!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) "Covered Pile"
>>>>>
>>>>> Simply placing heavy tarpaulins over a pile of woodchips, that at the
>>>>> time
>>>>> had a moisture content in excess of 30%.
>>>>>
>>>>> Heavy opaque tarpaulins where placed directly on one pile of wood
>>>>> chips,
>>>>> and
>>>>> left for 3 weeks, no air movement, no extra rain water.
>>>>>
>>>>> Result:
>>>>>
>>>>> Simply not allowing any more rain to collect in the wood chips has
>>>>> allowed
>>>>> the pile to assume "earth conditions" (tendency for a pile of mass to
>>>>> leach
>>>>> it's water content to the soil). I would assume that the pile would
>>>>> stay
>>>>> at
>>>>> it's existing moisture content, however, this is NOT the case, the
>>>>> piles
>>>>> moisture content has gone down to approx. 18% (roughly the same as the
>>>>> soil
>>>>> we are on (tested at locations near & far from the pile)) the lowest
>>>>> portion
>>>>> of the pile is converting to black mass, but this might also be simply
>>>>> the
>>>>> amount of time the pile has been undisturbed (10 months).
>>>>>
>>>>> Side note: the soil we are on is a very sandy base with only a rough 4"
>>>>> (10cm) cover of black dirt, and most of the dirt was removed before the
>>>>> chips where brought to the site.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> still looking for other methods,
>>>>>
>>>>> Greg Manning,
>>>>> Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
>>>>>
>>>>> Comments or suggestions welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Gasification mailing list
>>>>> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>>>>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gasification mailing list
>>>> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>>>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>>>> ---
>>>> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>>>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>>>> Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 27/10/2004
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>>>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>>>> Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 27/10/2004
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gasification mailing list
>>>> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>>>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gasification mailing list
>>> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gasification mailing list
>> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>

From tmiles at trmiles.com Sat Nov 6 14:47:43 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 12:47:43 -0800
Subject: [Gasification] RE: Feedstock, Drying, revisited
References: <002e01c4c411$644cf630$1900a8c0@a31server><007301c4c426$11d91fe0$6701a8c0@Yellow>
<007901c4c426$9b3f1320$dcbdf204@7k6rv21>
<007e01c4c429$0ea8e730$dcbdf204@7k6rv21>
Message-ID: <00c001c4c441$e57a91b0$6501a8c0@OFFICE3>

Art,

That's a good way of looking at it.

Why not use a gasifier to generate the heat, or use the waste heat from your
gasifier/engine to dry fuel?

Amazing but it works.

Tom

 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Art Krenzel" <phoenix98604 at earthlink.net>
To: "Tom Miles" <tmiles at trmiles.com>; "a31ford" <a31ford at inetlink.ca>; "A
Gasification List (E-mail)" <GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] RE: Feedstock, Drying, revisited

> Tom,
>
> Let's make that clearer.
>
>>If you have a heat generator of about 100,000 Btuh you should do the job.
>
> How about burning 12 lbs of dried wood to dry 450 lbs of wet wood?
>
> Art
>
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Tom Miles" <tmiles at trmiles.com>
>> To: "a31ford" <a31ford at inetlink.ca>; "A Gasification List (E-mail)"
>> <GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>> Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 9:25 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Gasification] RE: Feedstock, Drying, revisited
>>
>>
>>> Greg,
>>>
>>> We used to dry small batches like this overnight.
>>>
>>> 450 lbs at 15 lb/ft3 (dry) is about 30 ft3. If you put that in a 4 x 4
>>> tote box with a screen bottom it's only 2 feet of fuel. Blow hot air
>>> through the bottom of the bin. For this kind of low efficiency drying
>>> figure 2000 Btu/lb of water evaporated. You'll evaporate about 10 lb of
>>> water per ft3 of fuel. If you do it in 10 hours that's 2000 Btu x 10 lb
>>> H20= 20,000 Btu/10 hours = 2,000 Btu/ft3 x 30 ft3 = 60,000 Btuh. If you
>>> have a heat generator of about 100,000 Btuh you should do the job.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "a31ford" <a31ford at inetlink.ca>
>>> To: "A Gasification List (E-mail)" <GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>>> Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 7:00 AM
>>> Subject: [Gasification] RE: Feedstock, Drying, revisited
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tom, Simon, and all,
>>>>
>>>> The level of drying (size wise) is 450 pounds ( 190kg) a day, I need to
>>>> do
>>>> this for 5-6 months.
>>>>
>>>> The entire problem is my own fault, I left the piles uncovered this
>>>> summer
>>>> (last fall was first time using chips), it simply didn't occur to me
>>>> until
>>>> too late in the year to do something about the water content.
>>>>
>>>> I would (almost did) invest in a grain dryer, but this is a "this
>>>> winter
>>>> only" problem.
>>>>
>>>> The heated air thing was the next step, as the slight warmth on the
>>>> screens
>>>> really did the trick.
>>>>
>>>> Greg
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Simon Masters [mailto:sr.masters at virgin.net]
>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 8:27 AM
>>>> To: a31ford at inetlink.ca
>>>> Subject: Feedstock, Drying, revisited
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In UK some foresters are proposing Kill the trees with chemical and
>>>> leave
>>>> standing before chipping
>>>> or extract whole tree and stack with branches and leaves (sour felling)
>>>> before chipping
>>>>
>>>> Driest logs I ever made were stored in a polytunnel with forced drying
>>>>
>>>> I agree with Tom that heated forced air is better than cold air (basic
>>>> physics) but it actually depends on relative humidity so cold dry air
>>>> should
>>>> have an effect
>>>>
>>>> Leave it longer: 30 hours at ambient isn't enough
>>>>
>>>> What scale are you proposing here?
>>>> At small scale hessian sacks in the dry are an option
>>>> At larger scale find a grain drier or a grainstore with a perforated
>>>> floor
>>>>
>>>> Simon Masters
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
>>>> [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of Tom Miles
>>>> Sent: 06 November 2004 06:13
>>>> To: a31ford; A Gasification List (E-mail)
>>>> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Feedstock, Drying, revisited
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Greg,
>>>>
>>>> Have you tried aeration with heated air? Pressure drop through the
>>>> chips
>>>> will be about 1 inch of water per foot of depth so you have to have
>>>> enough
>>>> fan or reduce the depth of the pile so that the drying front can
>>>> migrate to
>>>> the surface.
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "a31ford" <a31ford at inetlink.ca>
>>>> To: "A Gasification List (E-mail)" <GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>>>> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 9:50 PM
>>>> Subject: [Gasification] Feedstock, Drying, revisited
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello all!
>>>>>
>>>>> Most on the list will remember a while back, I was attempting drying
>>>>> methods for very wet wood chips (uncovered piles).
>>>>>
>>>>> To date, I have found the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) "Forced Aeration"
>>>>>
>>>>> Using forced air, in perforated pipes, submerged in a smaller pile of
>>>>> chips, ambient air temperature.
>>>>>
>>>>> Approx. 200kg. of wood chips was placed on the pipes, in a long strip,
>>>>> heaped, forced air supplied by a 1/3hp "furnace fan" with a plenum to
>>>>> connect the perforated pipe to.
>>>>>
>>>>> Result:
>>>>>
>>>>> NO reduction in moisture content with in 30 hours of continuous air,
>>>>> ambient
>>>>> temp -1 to 2c.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) "Sun Drying"
>>>>>
>>>>> Using inclined mesh screens (1cm x 1cm grid), situated south facing,
>>>>> 30
>>>>> degree inclination, and location is north of the 49th parallel, local
>>>>> winds
>>>>> favor from the north-west, 2-10km/hr average.
>>>>>
>>>>> Approx. 100kg. of wood chips where placed on the above noted screens
>>>>> with
>>>>> a
>>>>> surface area of 6 m2 the ambient air temp hovered around 2c mark
>>>>> during
>>>>> the
>>>>> test, the sun was visible with intermittent cloudy periods.
>>>>>
>>>>> Result:
>>>>>
>>>>> Average moisture content went from 30% down to 15% within 4 hours of
>>>>> being
>>>>> placed on the screens, this process was repeated 3 times during the
>>>>> same
>>>>> day, with the first batch start at 10:00am, and the last batch left on
>>>>> the
>>>>> screens overnight, and removed the next morning.
>>>>>
>>>>> The small amount of heat generated by radiant, coupled with the light
>>>>> breeze
>>>>> that day did an excellent job of removing the excess moisture in a
>>>>> timely
>>>>> manner!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) "Covered Pile"
>>>>>
>>>>> Simply placing heavy tarpaulins over a pile of woodchips, that at the
>>>>> time
>>>>> had a moisture content in excess of 30%.
>>>>>
>>>>> Heavy opaque tarpaulins where placed directly on one pile of wood
>>>>> chips,
>>>>> and
>>>>> left for 3 weeks, no air movement, no extra rain water.
>>>>>
>>>>> Result:
>>>>>
>>>>> Simply not allowing any more rain to collect in the wood chips has
>>>>> allowed
>>>>> the pile to assume "earth conditions" (tendency for a pile of mass to
>>>>> leach
>>>>> it's water content to the soil). I would assume that the pile would
>>>>> stay
>>>>> at
>>>>> it's existing moisture content, however, this is NOT the case, the
>>>>> piles
>>>>> moisture content has gone down to approx. 18% (roughly the same as the
>>>>> soil
>>>>> we are on (tested at locations near & far from the pile)) the lowest
>>>>> portion
>>>>> of the pile is converting to black mass, but this might also be simply
>>>>> the
>>>>> amount of time the pile has been undisturbed (10 months).
>>>>>
>>>>> Side note: the soil we are on is a very sandy base with only a rough
>>>>> 4"
>>>>> (10cm) cover of black dirt, and most of the dirt was removed before
>>>>> the
>>>>> chips where brought to the site.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> still looking for other methods,
>>>>>
>>>>> Greg Manning,
>>>>> Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
>>>>>
>>>>> Comments or suggestions welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Gasification mailing list
>>>>> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>>>>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gasification mailing list
>>>> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>>>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>>>> ---
>>>> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>>>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>>>> Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 27/10/2004
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>>>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>>>> Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 27/10/2004
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gasification mailing list
>>>> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>>>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gasification mailing list
>>> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gasification mailing list
>> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>>
>
>
>
>

 

From phoenix98604 at earthlink.net Sat Nov 6 16:12:38 2004
From: phoenix98604 at earthlink.net (Art Krenzel)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 14:12:38 -0800
Subject: [Gasification] RE: Feedstock, Drying, revisited
References: <3.0.32.20041106125505.009b3100@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <00d301c4c44d$bad1e420$dcbdf204@7k6rv21>

Peter,

The factor of ten error was yours. I said burn about 12 lbs of wood over 10
hours (providing a total of about 100,000 BTU's) to slowly dry out the wet
wood. If you dry over 10 hrs using the available heat energy in the low
humidity 15 deg C air as well as the 10,000 BTUs of wood heat energy per
hour, you would not need 2000 BTU's per lb of water liberated.

Also, I do not think it is necessary to remove all 10 lbs of water from 25
lbs of 50% moisture wood. The wood will gasify at up to 25% moisture as
well.

If I remember right, Greg was mainly interested in getting the wood to
automatically feed well rather than being a frozen block in his feed bin.
That does not take 10% moisture wood. Don't confuse the goal with technical
capability.

If you want to get something done with the least energy, give the task to a
lazy guy. You shouldn't do more than necessary to get the job done.

Happy Drying Greg!

Art

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm at btl.net>
To: <GASIFICATION at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] RE: Feedstock, Drying, revisited

>
> At 09:50 AM 11/6/2004 -0800, Art Krenzel wrote:
>>Tom,
>>
>>Let's make that clearer.
>>
>>>If you have a heat generator of about 100,000 Btuh you should do the job.
>>
>>How about burning 12 lbs of dried wood to dry 450 lbs of wet wood?
>>
>>Art
>
>
>>>>If you do it in 10 hours that's 2000 Btu x 10 lb
>>>> H20= 20,000 Btu/10 hours = 2,000 Btu/ft3 x 30 ft3 = 60,000 Btuh. If you
>>>> have a heat generator of about 100,000 Btuh you should do the job.
>
>
> 10 hrs??? 120lbs to dry 450 lbs??
>
> Your off by a factor of ten Art???
>
> Greg -- your about to learn what is the problem of running a gasifier --
> it's called "Fuel-conditioning"
>
> Let me check my archives for an Url pointing to the next kind of device to
> utilize those chips -- as they be -- no fuel conditioning required.
>
> http://www.burnchips.com/dragon.html
>
> There are some more designs doing this same out there --
>
> Peter - Belize
>
> At 09:50 AM 11/6/2004 -0800, Art Krenzel wrote:
>>Tom,
>>
>>Let's make that clearer.
>>
>>>If you have a heat generator of about 100,000 Btuh you should do the job.
>>
>>How about burning 12 lbs of dried wood to dry 450 lbs of wet wood?
>>
>>Art
>>
>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Tom Miles" <tmiles at trmiles.com>
>>> To: "a31ford" <a31ford at inetlink.ca>; "A Gasification List (E-mail)"
>>> <GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>>> Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 9:25 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [Gasification] RE: Feedstock, Drying, revisited
>>>
>>>
>>>> Greg,
>>>>
>>>> We used to dry small batches like this overnight.
>>>>
>>>> 450 lbs at 15 lb/ft3 (dry) is about 30 ft3. If you put that in a 4 x 4
>>>> tote box with a screen bottom it's only 2 feet of fuel. Blow hot air
>>>> through the bottom of the bin. For this kind of low efficiency drying
>>>> figure 2000 Btu/lb of water evaporated. You'll evaporate about 10 lb
>>>> of
>>>> water per ft3 of fuel. If you do it in 10 hours that's 2000 Btu x 10 lb
>>>> H20= 20,000 Btu/10 hours = 2,000 Btu/ft3 x 30 ft3 = 60,000 Btuh. If you
>>>> have a heat generator of about 100,000 Btuh you should do the job.
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "a31ford" <a31ford at inetlink.ca>
>>>> To: "A Gasification List (E-mail)" <GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 7:00 AM
>>>> Subject: [Gasification] RE: Feedstock, Drying, revisited
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom, Simon, and all,
>>>>>
>>>>> The level of drying (size wise) is 450 pounds ( 190kg) a day, I need
>>>>> to
>>>>> do
>>>>> this for 5-6 months.
>>>>>
>>>>> The entire problem is my own fault, I left the piles uncovered this
>>>>> summer
>>>>> (last fall was first time using chips), it simply didn't occur to me
>>>>> until
>>>>> too late in the year to do something about the water content.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would (almost did) invest in a grain dryer, but this is a "this
>>>>> winter
>>>>> only" problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> The heated air thing was the next step, as the slight warmth on the
>>>>> screens
>>>>> really did the trick.
>>>>>
>>>>> Greg
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Simon Masters [mailto:sr.masters at virgin.net]
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 8:27 AM
>>>>> To: a31ford at inetlink.ca
>>>>> Subject: Feedstock, Drying, revisited
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In UK some foresters are proposing Kill the trees with chemical and
>>>>> leave
>>>>> standing before chipping
>>>>> or extract whole tree and stack with branches and leaves (sour
>>>>> felling)
>>>>> before chipping
>>>>>
>>>>> Driest logs I ever made were stored in a polytunnel with forced drying
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with Tom that heated forced air is better than cold air (basic
>>>>> physics) but it actually depends on relative humidity so cold dry air
>>>>> should
>>>>> have an effect
>>>>>
>>>>> Leave it longer: 30 hours at ambient isn't enough
>>>>>
>>>>> What scale are you proposing here?
>>>>> At small scale hessian sacks in the dry are an option
>>>>> At larger scale find a grain drier or a grainstore with a perforated
>>>>> floor
>>>>>
>>>>> Simon Masters
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
>>>>> [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of Tom Miles
>>>>> Sent: 06 November 2004 06:13
>>>>> To: a31ford; A Gasification List (E-mail)
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Feedstock, Drying, revisited
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Greg,
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you tried aeration with heated air? Pressure drop through the
>>>>> chips
>>>>> will be about 1 inch of water per foot of depth so you have to have
>>>>> enough
>>>>> fan or reduce the depth of the pile so that the drying front can
>>>>> migrate
>>>>> to
>>>>> the surface.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "a31ford" <a31ford at inetlink.ca>
>>>>> To: "A Gasification List (E-mail)" <GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 9:50 PM
>>>>> Subject: [Gasification] Feedstock, Drying, revisited
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello all!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most on the list will remember a while back, I was attempting drying
>>>>>> methods for very wet wood chips (uncovered piles).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To date, I have found the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) "Forced Aeration"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Using forced air, in perforated pipes, submerged in a smaller pile
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> chips, ambient air temperature.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Approx. 200kg. of wood chips was placed on the pipes, in a long
>>>>>> strip,
>>>>>> heaped, forced air supplied by a 1/3hp "furnace fan" with a plenum to
>>>>>> connect the perforated pipe to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Result:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NO reduction in moisture content with in 30 hours of continuous air,
>>>>>> ambient
>>>>>> temp -1 to 2c.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) "Sun Drying"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Using inclined mesh screens (1cm x 1cm grid), situated south facing,
>>>>>> 30
>>>>>> degree inclination, and location is north of the 49th parallel, local
>>>>>> winds
>>>>>> favor from the north-west, 2-10km/hr average.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Approx. 100kg. of wood chips where placed on the above noted screens
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> surface area of 6 m2 the ambient air temp hovered around 2c mark
>>>>>> during
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> test, the sun was visible with intermittent cloudy periods.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Result:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Average moisture content went from 30% down to 15% within 4 hours of
>>>>>> being
>>>>>> placed on the screens, this process was repeated 3 times during the
>>>>>> same
>>>>>> day, with the first batch start at 10:00am, and the last batch left
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> screens overnight, and removed the next morning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The small amount of heat generated by radiant, coupled with the light
>>>>>> breeze
>>>>>> that day did an excellent job of removing the excess moisture in a
>>>>>> timely
>>>>>> manner!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) "Covered Pile"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Simply placing heavy tarpaulins over a pile of woodchips, that at the
>>>>>> time
>>>>>> had a moisture content in excess of 30%.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Heavy opaque tarpaulins where placed directly on one pile of wood
>>>>>> chips,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> left for 3 weeks, no air movement, no extra rain water.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Result:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Simply not allowing any more rain to collect in the wood chips has
>>>>>> allowed
>>>>>> the pile to assume "earth conditions" (tendency for a pile of mass to
>>>>>> leach
>>>>>> it's water content to the soil). I would assume that the pile would
>>>>>> stay
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> it's existing moisture content, however, this is NOT the case, the
>>>>>> piles
>>>>>> moisture content has gone down to approx. 18% (roughly the same as
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> soil
>>>>>> we are on (tested at locations near & far from the pile)) the lowest
>>>>>> portion
>>>>>> of the pile is converting to black mass, but this might also be
>>>>>> simply
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> amount of time the pile has been undisturbed (10 months).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Side note: the soil we are on is a very sandy base with only a rough
>>>>>> 4"
>>>>>> (10cm) cover of black dirt, and most of the dirt was removed before
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> chips where brought to the site.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> still looking for other methods,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Greg Manning,
>>>>>> Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Comments or suggestions welcome.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Gasification mailing list
>>>>>> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>>>>>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Gasification mailing list
>>>>> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>>>>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>>>>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>>>>> Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 27/10/2004
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>>>>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>>>>> Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 27/10/2004
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Gasification mailing list
>>>>> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>>>>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gasification mailing list
>>>> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>>>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gasification mailing list
>>> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Gasification mailing list
>>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>

 

From tombreed at comcast.net Sat Nov 6 17:03:46 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (Tom Reed)
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:03:46 -0000
Subject: [Gasification] Reviewing A.D. Karve's methane digestion device
References: <3.0.32.20041017121733.00998d10@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <000401c4c453$fdcbfb70$3201a8c0@TOMBREED>

Dear all:

Good, but not quite LPG (Liquefied petroleum gases, primarily propane and
butane). Methane has roughly 50% more energy than digestor gas, but
vaporized propane has 400% more and 4000% more when liquefied (boiling point
~-25C). Normally methane can't be liquefied at room temperature (a
permanent gas), but maybe the liquefiable CO2 component might change the
properties, maybe forming hydrates. It would be useful to have a PVT
diagram for digestor gases.

Volunteers?

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm at btl.net>
To: <STOVES at listserv.repp.org>; <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 12:18 PM
Subject: [Stoves] Reviewing A.D. Karve's methane digestion device

>
> (Flipping this to Gas list as well -- being as this is about gas making)
>
> Posting this with all respect to A. D. Karve -- who in my opinion is the
> brightest beacon of pratical solutions on this mail list for all we here
> living in 3rd world.
>
> Now -- this posting should get a few gears engaged!
>
> Quoting A.D. Karve:
>
> "The gas produced by this
> system has thus almost the same calorific value as LPG. It burns without
> smoke or soot, producing an almost invisible bluish flame similar to
> that of LPG."
>
>
> As by now a few stover list members might be scratching their collective
> minds -- along these lines:
>
> Gee -- gas production for cook stoves is a fine methology to avoid death
> due to smoke inhalation. Instead of harvesting/finding biomass for fuel --
> than intensive fuel conditioning -- designing tricky stoves that need
> constant attention to burn smoke free -- still requiring chimney and vents
> -- just grow some sugar cane!
>
> so -- for now -- "Focussing" on cane juice as portable fuel for A.D.s
> digester.
>
>
> OK -- how do really poor people make cane juice??
>
> Traditionally -- here in Central America:
>
> Hand extraction of cane juice involves boring two holes in a tree -- the
> upper one has a moveable stick inserted -- the lower a fatter -- jammed in
> hard -- not moveable -- the "anvil" inserted.
>
> A stalk of cane is placed between these two -- the top stick being raised
> -- then pressed down -- squeezing out juice -- this is repeated down the
> length of cane. The juices collected below.
>
> If we can get A. D. to enter into discussion -- some questions need be
asked.
>
> 1: Will fresh cane juice be a good "food" for your digester?
>
> re:
>
> Because the
> material to be fed into the biogas plant consists mainly of starch and
> sugary material like sugarcane juice or fruit pulp,
>
> 2: How much cane juice would be required per day to supply for normal
> cooking needs?
>
> (I self answer that based on information A.D has sent -- below)
>
> 3: Is it possible that the residual stalk -- which when extracted in this
> inefficient manner - -and still contains much sugar juice -- can also be
> added to digester?? (Could digestion of begasse further enhance gas
product
> out?)
>
> Re:
>
> "Our studies also indicated that
> the gas yield could be increased by using combinations of feedstock
> materials. We are now looking at additives such as micronutrients,
> nitrogen, phosphorous compounds etc."
>
> Bagasse is very mineral rich.
>
> 4: The residue after digestion -- you note is a valid fertilizer agent --
> is it a possible animal feed as well??
>
> Re:
>
> "The effluent slurry generated daily by the plant
> is just a couple of litres. It can be used as manure for plants growing
> around the house."
>
> 5: Source for bacteria required??
>
> Self answer from notes below:
>
> We do not use any special bacteria. To begin with we mix
> about 10 kg cattle dung and water and pour the slurry into the
> fermenter.
>
> and:
>
> However, to make the system more readily acceptable to the
> users, we shall have to produce the culture ourselves and give it to the
> users along with the biogas plant.
>
> 6: Is this device difficult to build??
>
> Self answer:
>
> A schoolgirl submitted a working model of it in a statewide
> science project competition and won the first prize in the state.
>
> ***************************
>
> Ok -- found this to self-answer #2:
>
> "1kg of sugar or starch yields about 400 litres of methane,
> within a period of 6 to 8 hours. This quantity is enough for cooking one
> meal for 5 to 6 persons."
>
> So that would mean around 12 kilograms of cane using the crude extraction
> methology above -- quite labor instensive -- but then -- a small hand
> operated rool type crusher could be used by numerous families to save much
> labor.
>
> You can see example of such at:
>
> http://www.rajeximp.com/products/sc.html
>
> I have acquired and operated model "A" -- powered by a two HP electric
> engine -- for well over on year now. When in use we process 1400 kilo of
> cane stalk per day -- 3 workers.
>
> This at better efficiency of juice extraction than the above -- but
keeping
> a safety in guestimation factor there -- say the same --
>
> 1400/12 -- sufficient per day to supply fuel for 117 meals to be cooked.
>
> At village level this would mean each household would collect by container
> the required amount of cane juice -- daily -- for their needs in their own
> individual digesters.
>
> So yes -- "portable-fuel"
>
>
> *********************************************
>
> To bring others on this list up to speed:
>
>
> Posted to this list originally:
>
> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:48:03 +0530
> Reply-To: "A.D. Karve" <adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
>
> Extracted of importance:
>
> I have developed a highly compact biogas plant, having a volume of just
> 400 litres. It operates on waste starch (spoilt grain, nonedible seed of
> various species, oilcake of non-edible oilseeds, rhizomes of banana,
canna,
> nutgrass, arums, flour swept from the floor of a flour mill etc.) and
> produces about 800 litres of gas from just 1 kg starch. It produces daily
> just 5 litres of effluent, which can just be thrown at the base of any
tree,
> or applied to the vegetable bed in the backyard. The retention time of
dung
> in the dung-based biogas fermenter is 6 weeks, while that of starch is
only
> 6 hours, which is why the volume of the fermenter could be reduced. The
> biogas produced from starch has about 60% methane by weight, while that
> produced from cattle dung has only 25% methane by weight. As a result,
even
> the 800 litres produced by my biogas plant is enough for cooking the meal
of
> a family.
> We are trying to commercialise this new biogas fermenter. It costs
only
> US$30 as against US$250 for the conventional biogas fermenter.
> Yours A.D.Karve
>
> ***********************************
>
> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 05:50:59 +0530
> Reply-To: "A.D. Karve" <adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
>
> "Extracted":
>
> As far as the biogas fermenter is concerned, it is a small version of the
> standard moving dome biogas plant, a very simple contraption
> consisting of two drums, telescoping into one another. the outer drum is
> open at the top and the inner one is open at its bottom. The outer drum is
> filled with the material to be fermented and the inner drum is lowered
into
> it. A tap at the top of the inner drum is kept open while lowering the
drum
> into the outer one, and when it has been completely inserted into the
outer
> drum, the tap is closed. The gas accumulates in the inner drum which gets
> lifted up due to increased buoyancy. (If a girl falls accidentally into
> water, she should not remove her dress because the air caught in the dress
> acts like a buoy :-))The inner drum is provided with a tap at the top,
> through which the biogas can be led to the burner. Both the drums have a
> capacity of approximately 200 litres.
> A.D.Karve
>
> ******************************
>
> Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 05:58:20 +0530
> Reply-To: "A.D. Karve" <adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
>
> Several members asked me to provide more details about the compact
> biogas plant being developed by us. I give below the latest status of
> this technology.
>
> The biogas plant consists of two cylindrical vessels telescoping into
> one another. The larger vessel, called the fermenter, has a total
> internal volume of about 500 lit. A drum having diameter of 85 cm and
> height of 85 cm would have the desired volume. The smaller vessel, which
> telescopes into the larger one, serves as the gas-holder. The diameter
> of the gas holder is about 2 cm smaller than that of the fermenter. The
> fermenter vessel is provided with appropriate inlet and outlet pipes for
> introducing the feedstock into it and for removal of spent slurry from
> it. The gas holder is provided with a gas tap, through which the gas is
> led to the burner. This system uses starchy or sugary material as
> feedstock. 1kg of sugar or starch yields about 400 litres of methane,
> within a period of 6 to 8 hours. This quantity is enough for cooking one
> meal for 5 to 6 persons. The biogas produced by this system contains
> theoretically about equal volumes of carbondioxide and methane, but in
> reality, it turned out to have less than 5% carbondioxide. This
> phenomenon is explained by the fact that carbon dioxide dissolves in the
> water in the fermenter vessel and diffuses out of it through the 1 cm
> gap between the fermenter and the gas holder. The gas produced by this
> system has thus almost the same calorific value as LPG. It burns without
> smoke or soot, producing an almost invisible bluish flame similar to
> that of LPG.
>
> Several prototypes, in operation for more than a year, have been
> successfully tested using various feedstocks. The potential candidate
> feedstocks, namely rain damaged or insect damaged grain, flour spilled
> on the floor of a flour mill, oilcake from non-edible oilseeds, seed of
> various tree species, non-edible rhizomes (banana, arums, dioscoreas),
> leftover food, spoiled and misshapen fruits, non-edible and wild fruits,
> spoilt fruit juice, etc. are readily available in rural areas. This
> system is much easier to operate than the dung based biogas plant,
> because of the relatively small quantities of feedstock and effluent
> slurry to be handled. The effluent slurry generated daily by the plant
> is just a couple of litres. It can be used as manure for plants growing
> around the house. The 500 litre biogas plant, mass produced from moulded
> plastic drums, would cost about Rs. 3,500 (US$ 78). The smallest
> cattle-dung based domestic biogas plant costs about Rs. 12,000 (US$267).
> It requires daily 40kg dung, and owing to the retention period of almost
> 40 days, such plants have a minimum capacity of 2000 litres. They
> generate daily 80 to 100 litres of effluent slurry. Daily handling of
> such large quantities of feedstock and effluent is considered to be
> arduous and bothersome by users.
> Preliminary studies indicated that the amount of biogas produced and the
> retention period varied from feedstock to feedstock and from season to
> season. Also, when the feedstock was changed from one form to another,
> the system took a few days to stabilise. Our studies also indicated that
> the gas yield could be increased by using combinations of feedstock
> materials. We are now looking at additives such as micronutrients,
> nitrogen, phosphorous compounds etc., which might bacterial action and
> yield more gas at a faster rate. Since the users would depend mainly
> upon locally available feedstock, field trials are essential to
> determine the retention periods and gas yield for different raw materials.
> Many people in India, who read my article in a local neuspaper, copied
> our design and have started to use this biogas plant in their
> households. A schoolgirl submitted a working model of it in a statewide
> science project competition and won the first prize in the state. A
> company supplying science equipment to educational institute wants to
> manufacture models (50 litre capacity) for supply to schools and colleges.
> We have supplied 200 litre models to 10 voluntary agencies in different
> regions for demonstrating this technology to villagers in their
> respective areas. This model is meant for areas where the main diet is
> rice. This model yields enough gas to operate a pressure cooker to cook
> rice, beans, vegetables or meat for a family of five. In areas, where
> the main diet of the people consists of unleavened flat bread, somewhat
> like the tortilla, each piece of bread is made individually, and
> therefore the stove has to be in operation for a longer time. In such
> cases, we recommend the five hundred litre model.
>
> A.D.Karve
>
> ***************************
>
> Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 08:06:52 +0530
> Reply-To: "A.D. Karve" <adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
> Sender: The Stoves Discussion List <STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>
> Dear Mr. Henson,
> The fermenter vessel contains almost 200 litres of liquid. When you
> pour a few litres of feedstock slurry into the biogas plant, a
> corresponding quantity comes out of the outlet pipe. Because the
> material to be fed into the biogas plant consists mainly of starch and
> sugary material like sugarcane juice or fruit pulp, the slurry consists
> almost exclusively of water with a little suspended matter in it. In the
> case of cattle dung or municipal soild waste, the slurry is thicker,
> because the feedstock material contains a lot of cellulose and lignin,
> which are not as easily digestible as starch or sugar. Because the
> effluent also consists of bacteria, and because the quantum of the
> effluent is very small (just a few litres), we mix the starch powder or
> fruit pulp into the effluent slurry and recycle it. We are currently
> advocating that the feedstock be fed into the biogas plant once in the
> morning and once again in the evening. Because the reaction time is
> short, one can theoretically have a continuous drip feed, but the
> relatively high viscosity of the feedstock may cause mechanical problems
> like clogging of the dripper. It may also be theoretically possible to
> produce alcohol and methane simultaneously, but we haven't looked for
> alcohol. The system however runs on vinegar, which is the oxidised
> product of alcohol. The system is sensitive to temperature. Here in Pune
> it is not as cold as in the US, but at present the night temperatures
> touch 10 degrees C. This lowering of the night temperature has reduced
> the gas outflow considerably. However, it would not be difficult to
> cover the drums with an insulating material and conserve the heat
> produced by the bacterial process. I t would however add to the cost of
> the system. We do not use any special bacteria. To begin with we mix
> about 10 kg cattle dung and water and pour the slurry into the
> fermenter. However, to make the system more readily acceptable to the
> users, we shall have to produce the culture ourselves and give it to the
> users along with the biogas plant. Dung is a dirty and smelly material.
> In the initial phase, we add daily just 200 grams of flour. When gas
> starts emanating, we test it for its combustibility. We get combustible
> gas in 7 to 15 days.After the methane production has started, we
> increase the daily dose of 1 kg starch at each feeding. The inlet and
> outlet pipes have a diameter of about 5 cm.
> A.D.Karve
>
>
>
>
> ***************************
>
> Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 19:38:38 +0530
> Reply-To: adkarve <adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
>
>
>
> Dear Mr. Manar,
> please tell me what is meant by AD, VS and TS.
>
> I wish to correct the figures of oilcake used and biogas generated. It
> takes daily about 30 kg oilcake to produce 15 cubic meters of gas.But this
> gas consists of almost pure methane. It is not a case of co-generation,
but
> direct fermentation. Cattle dung was used only initially as a source of
> bacteria, but for more than a month, they are using only oilcake.
>
> Let me also correct a fallacy that is current among scientists and laymen
> alike. The fact, that methanogenic bacteria are found in the excreta of
> animals, led people to think that dung was their food. It is not. One
> should take the advice of Mark Twain, namely not to allow school to
> interfer with one's education, seriously. These bacteria live in our
> intestines and eat whatever we eat. They are swept out of the intestine
> along with undigested food and therefore they are found in the faeces.
> Because dung is not the food of these bacteria, they have to take the help
> of several other species of faecal bacteria, which break down the dung
into
> sugars and organic acids, before the methanogenic bacteria can convert
> them into methane. As a result, the quantity of methane produced from
dung
> (and distillery effluent, paper factory waste, municipal solid waste
etc.)
> is very low in proportion to the feedstock used, and secondly, it also
> takes a lot of time.
> Mr. Malar wanted to know the production potential of oilcake to methane.
It
> is stated in the standard textbooks on biogas technology, that 1 kg of
> starch or sugar produces about 800 litres of biogas, out of which about
400
> litres are methane. In our biogas plants, the reaction time of the
> starch-to-methane process is 8 hours. Theoretically, the product should
> also contain equal volume of carbon dioxide, but in the system that we are
> using, the carbon dioxide dissolves in the water in the fermenter and
> diffuses out of the fermenter through the gap between the fermenter vessel
> and the moving dome. After seeing the nalysis of our biogas, somebody
> suggested that we could use our gas for a driving a car. We do not have
the
> compressor to put the gas into a cylinder, but we operated a petrol driven
> portable electricity generator for about two hours, using just the biogas
> produced from oilcake.
> Yours
> Dr.A.D.Karve, President,
> Appropriate Rural Technology Institute,
> Pune, India.
>
>
> **************************************
>
> rom: Carefreeland at aol.com
> Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 03:46:00 EDT
> Subject: Re: [STOVES] Does the methane flame travel back?
> To: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN, stoves at listserv.repp.org
>
> "extracted"
>
> Methane may also
> explode, as in the cylinder of an internal combustion engine, if it is
mixed
> with the appropriate quantity of oxygen. But under the anaerobic
conditions
> under which methane is produced and stored, it would not explode or burn
as
> long as it is inside the gas holder or inside the fermenter.
> You also asked me if agricultural crop residues could be used for
producing
> methane instead of making charcoal. Unfortunately, the anaerobic bacteria
> cannot digest lignin. Woody and lignified crop residues like cotton
stalks,
> sugarcane leaves or wheat straw have to be first decomposed by aerobic
> organisms. The digested mass is then fed into a biogas digester. This is
> called two stage fermentation. It is used for agricultural residues and
also
> for municipal solid waste, but not in a domestic methane fermenter,
because
> the added cost of the extra fermenter and the extra space required by the
> system.
>
> The residual slurry of a biogas fermenter is a good organic source of
plant
> nutrients, because the process of methane formation removes CO2 and CH4
from
> the biomass. Because of the selectinve removal of these elements form the
> biomass, the other constituents such a N,P,K,Ca, Fe, etc. get
concentrated
> in residual slurry.
>
> Now -- for those on the Gas list that have made it down this far -- what
do
> you believe is the practical economic viability of converting abandoned
> sugar factory plants into centralized gas production facilities for
further
> distribution??
>
>
> Peter Singfield -- in Belize
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

 

From tombreed at comcast.net Sat Nov 6 17:03:47 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (Tom Reed)
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:03:47 -0000
Subject: [Gasification] The PRIME gasifier
References: <009a01c4b298$0dcc1c30$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
Message-ID: <000501c4c453$fe81ddf0$3201a8c0@TOMBREED>

Dear TT and All:

I would agree that the most rigid definition of "gasifier" would be one in
which the gas can be transported a long distance. However, it is often not
necessary and in our gasifier campstove it is burned immediately after
gasification, thus using the sensible as well as chemical heat in the gas.

I have seen the PRIME gasifier in operation, and the gas is transported a
distance of 30 feet to the burner for the boiler, so I guess it passes your
test.

TOM REED BEF
----- Original Message -----
From: "TBReed" <tombreed at comcast.net>
To: "Thomas B. Reed" <tombreed at comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 3:19 AM
Subject: Fw: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "TBReed" <tombreed at comcast.net>
> To: "Thomas B. Reed" <tombreed at comcast.net>
> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 3:11 AM
> Subject: Fw: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
>
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <LINVENT at aol.com>
> > To: <tombreed at comcast.net>; <cicbcal at cal2.vsnl.net.in>;
> > <tmiles at trmiles.com>; <GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> > Cc: <sam.baldwin at ee.doe.gov>; <rwalt at gocpc.com>
> > Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 9:25 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
> >
> >
> > > Dear Tom,
> > > I would like to raise the issue of the nomenclature that the Prime
> > Energy
> > > gasifiers are actually gasifiers, but two stage combustors. My
preferred
> > > nomenclature for a gasifier is one where the gas can be transported a
> > distance
> > > from the gasifier and used which is not the case in Prime Energy's
> > configuration.
> > >
> > > 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 Doug.Williams at orcon.net.nz Sat Nov 6 22:36:51 2004
From: Doug.Williams at orcon.net.nz (Doug Williams)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 17:36:51 +1300
Subject: [Gasification] RE: Feedstock, Drying, revisited
Message-ID: <003001c4c483$6ee0c280$0301010a@newpc>

Peter,
I'm sure it will burn chips as designed, but Greg is primarily endeavouring
to gasify and not combust these chips to run an engine for electricity, as
well as heat.
Regards,
Doug Williams.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm at btl.net>
To: <GASIFICATION at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2004 8:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] RE: Feedstock, Drying, revisited

>

> Let me check my archives for an Url pointing to the next kind of device to
> utilize those chips -- as they be -- no fuel conditioning required.
>
> http://www.burnchips.com/dragon.html
>
> There are some more designs doing this same out there --
>
> Peter - Belize
>

 

From rstanley at legacyfound.org Sun Nov 7 01:25:02 2004
From: rstanley at legacyfound.org (Richard Stanley)
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 09:25:02 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Reviewing A.D. Karve's methane digestion device
In-Reply-To: <000401c4c453$fdcbfb70$3201a8c0@TOMBREED>
References: <3.0.32.20041017121733.00998d10@pop.btl.net>
<000401c4c453$fdcbfb70$3201a8c0@TOMBREED>
Message-ID: <418DCDCE.1020709@legacyfound.org>

Tom et al,

What does efficiency matter, if the source is free to the average
citisen of the planet ?

We very much enjoyed this relatively inefficient biogas for four years
at our comfortable urban houusehold in Arusha Tanzania, refilling the
2,5 mtr dia. digester once a week with the wastes of five cows--six or
seven if it was the holidays or friends were visiting. The issue of
thermal efficiency pales when considering that the resource was free.
(And one would have to addin of course the ongoing harvest of
incredible vegetables and fruits that came off the garden, which was fed
by the effluent.)
What AD is into, promises far wider application of this basic comcept to
a far wider audience-- and again as long as the resource is free or
nearly so, off the table scraps as it were, it remains far more
efficient than any other fuel we may opt for.

This polemic applies of course only to the household or village at the
point of supply, and not a more institutionalised or commerical setting
but it is worth keeping in mind if you are targetting the real
population of the globe outside the (increasingly) western island of the
US of the Americas.

Richard Stanley
Mzungu nusu

>
>

 

From kchisholm at ca.inter.net Sun Nov 7 07:11:02 2004
From: kchisholm at ca.inter.net (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 09:11:02 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] Reviewing A.D. Karve's methane digestion device
References: <3.0.32.20041017121733.00998d10@pop.btl.net><000401c4c453$fdcbfb70$3201a8c0@TOMBREED>
<418DCDCE.1020709@legacyfound.org>
Message-ID: <001a01c4c4cb$bae68050$259a0a40@kevin>

Dear Richard
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Stanley" <rstanley at legacyfound.org>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Reviewing A.D. Karve's methane digestion device

> Tom et al,
>
> What does efficiency matter, if the source is free to the average
> citisen of the planet ?
>
For a given weekly output of biogass, the efficiency of conversion of the
biomass resource to methane, and the efficiency or biogas utilization are
very important for these reasons:

1: The capital cost of the facility can be reduced.
2: The space required can be reduced
3: Less biomass is required
4: Less effort is required to find biomass, or, where it is animal sourced,
fewer animals are required.
5: Less time and effort is required to load biomass and remove waste from
reactor.
6: An efficient system may be practical where an inefficient system
wouldn't. (For example, it it was fueled with dung, and vegetative waste,
there may be enough feedstock available if the system is efficient, but not
enough for an inefficient system.
7: With a system of a given size and where biomass resource is not limiting,
then an efficient system will provide sufficient biogas for more people.

Best wishes,

Kevin

 

> We very much enjoyed this relatively inefficient biogas for four years
> at our comfortable urban houusehold in Arusha Tanzania, refilling the
> 2,5 mtr dia. digester once a week with the wastes of five cows--six or
> seven if it was the holidays or friends were visiting. The issue of
> thermal efficiency pales when considering that the resource was free.
> (And one would have to addin of course the ongoing harvest of
> incredible vegetables and fruits that came off the garden, which was fed
> by the effluent.)
> What AD is into, promises far wider application of this basic comcept to
> a far wider audience-- and again as long as the resource is free or
> nearly so, off the table scraps as it were, it remains far more
> efficient than any other fuel we may opt for.
>
> This polemic applies of course only to the household or village at the
> point of supply, and not a more institutionalised or commerical setting
> but it is worth keeping in mind if you are targetting the real
> population of the globe outside the (increasingly) western island of the
> US of the Americas.
>
> Richard Stanley
> Mzungu nusu
>
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

 

From rstanley at legacyfound.org Sun Nov 7 11:15:23 2004
From: rstanley at legacyfound.org (Richard Stanley)
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 19:15:23 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Reviewing A.D. Karve's methane digestion device
In-Reply-To: <001a01c4c4cb$bae68050$259a0a40@kevin>
References: <3.0.32.20041017121733.00998d10@pop.btl.net><000401c4c453$fdcbfb70$3201a8c0@TOMBREED>
<418DCDCE.1020709@legacyfound.org>
<001a01c4c4cb$bae68050$259a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <418E582B.6030202@legacyfound.org>

Kevin,
Thanks for your elucidation: Its obvious enough to you and I perhaps for
an industrialised environment but to Apu Banda, in Ambepussa it remains
another story.
Apu has more than one cow per person already and with five kids
assigned, gathering the dung from one more animal unit means little in
terms of labor efficiency.
His "Facility" is a few oil drums banded together with scrap wire, or a
beatup, tar-lined and inverted water tank in a hand dug pit. His space
is open and a few more or less square feet do not really matter (didd
you ever squeeze into a matatu always one more person is the rule not
the exception. What Apu needs is nto greater efficiency bu greater
access to something basic and functional first, He has nearly zero for
"capital outlays" and no accessto low cost loan schemes. And he is 90%
of the people you are dealing with ---if and again if---you are
concerned about a mass market in the real world.
If the development problem were boundup in calcualtions of efficiencies
and rudimentary economics the problems would have been solved long ago.
Its not that I am ignoring the need for efficiency but that I amd
trrying tto convey to you the need tto a closer look at the real
problems of access, affordability, appropriateness and above all design
which encourages local control and responsibility.
This is the sticky stuff of development. That one develops a better
gasifier or biogas digester is all well and good but it has to be
better as well, in terms of the above criteria. Measure the efficiency
of your stove on-site with the users, over some yama choma. Thats where
it is measured. Thats why, in a parallel manner, AD's work has so much
value : It is developed and vetted by and within the culture.
Richard


Kevin Chisholm wrote:

>Dear Richard
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Richard Stanley" <rstanley at legacyfound.org>
>Subject: Re: [Gasification] Reviewing A.D. Karve's methane digestion device
>
>
>
>
>>Tom et al,
>>
>>What does efficiency matter, if the source is free to the average
>>citisen of the planet ?
>>
>>
>>
>For a given weekly output of biogass, the efficiency of conversion of the
>biomass resource to methane, and the efficiency or biogas utilization are
>very important for these reasons:
>
>1: The capital cost of the facility can be reduced.
>2: The space required can be reduced
>3: Less biomass is required
>4: Less effort is required to find biomass, or, where it is animal sourced,
>fewer animals are required.
>5: Less time and effort is required to load biomass and remove waste from
>reactor.
>6: An efficient system may be practical where an inefficient system
>wouldn't. (For example, it it was fueled with dung, and vegetative waste,
>there may be enough feedstock available if the system is efficient, but not
>enough for an inefficient system.
>7: With a system of a given size and where biomass resource is not limiting,
>then an efficient system will provide sufficient biogas for more people.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Kevin
>
>
>
>
>
>>We very much enjoyed this relatively inefficient biogas for four years
>>at our comfortable urban houusehold in Arusha Tanzania, refilling the
>>2,5 mtr dia. digester once a week with the wastes of five cows--six or
>>seven if it was the holidays or friends were visiting. The issue of
>>thermal efficiency pales when considering that the resource was free.
>>(And one would have to addin of course the ongoing harvest of
>>incredible vegetables and fruits that came off the garden, which was fed
>>by the effluent.)
>>What AD is into, promises far wider application of this basic comcept to
>>a far wider audience-- and again as long as the resource is free or
>>nearly so, off the table scraps as it were, it remains far more
>>efficient than any other fuel we may opt for.
>>
>>This polemic applies of course only to the household or village at the
>>point of supply, and not a more institutionalised or commerical setting
>>but it is worth keeping in mind if you are targetting the real
>>population of the globe outside the (increasingly) western island of the
>>US of the Americas.
>>
>>Richard Stanley
>>Mzungu nusu
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Gasification mailing list
>>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041107/ae16be86/attachment.html

From kchisholm at ca.inter.net Mon Nov 8 06:55:36 2004
From: kchisholm at ca.inter.net (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 08:55:36 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] Reviewing A.D. Karve's methane digestion device
References: <3.0.32.20041017121733.00998d10@pop.btl.net><000401c4c453$fdcbfb70$3201a8c0@TOMBREED>
<418DCDCE.1020709@legacyfound.org>
<001a01c4c4cb$bae68050$259a0a40@kevin>
<418E582B.6030202@legacyfound.org>
Message-ID: <001201c4c592$74532680$4d9a0a40@kevin>

Dear Richard
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Stanley" <rstanley at legacyfound.org>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Reviewing A.D. Karve's methane digestion device

> Kevin,
> Thanks for your elucidation: Its obvious enough to you and I perhaps for
> an industrialised environment but to Apu Banda, in Ambepussa it remains
> another story.
> Apu has more than one cow per person already and with five kids
> assigned, gathering the dung from one more animal unit means little in
> terms of labor efficiency.

I would suggest that you are correct as far as you go in your analysis, but
that you don't go far enough with it. :-) As nearly as I can express it, I
would suggest that because of present levels of efficiency in conversion and
utilization, current biogas utilization is confined to existing
"opportunitiy areas". AD Karve's improvement in biogas generation by a
factor of 20 to 40 now means that Urban Families, or at least families on
the fringes of an Urban Site, can now generate and use biogas, when it would
otherwise have been impossible for them to have biogas.

> His "Facility" is a few oil drums banded together with scrap wire, or a
> beatup, tar-lined and inverted water tank in a hand dug pit. His space
> is open and a few more or less square feet do not really matter (didd
> you ever squeeze into a matatu always one more person is the rule not
> the exception. What Apu needs is nto greater efficiency bu greater
> access to something basic and functional first, He has nearly zero for
> "capital outlays" and no accessto low cost loan schemes. And he is 90%
> of the people you are dealing with ---if and again if---you are
> concerned about a mass market in the real world.

With the resources that were available to him, Apu has a limited daily
biogas production capability. If he had greater efficiency in biogas
production and utilization, the same "capital and resource base" is
magnified in value, and he can then do things which were previously not
possible. For example, he may be able to cook or bake food for his
neighbours, when this would not be possible at the present.

> If the development problem were boundup in calcualtions of efficiencies
> and rudimentary economics the problems would have been solved long ago.
> Its not that I am ignoring the need for efficiency but that I amd
> trying tto convey to you the need tto a closer look at the real
> problems of access, affordability, appropriateness and above all design
> which encourages local control and responsibility.

If the efficiencies of production and utilization were greater, then biogas
can become available to more people. For example, before Apu had 5 cows and
5 children, his family could have had access to biogas. Other families that
were larger but with a smaller land base, and fewer cows could have access
to biogas. Families could have access to biogas with fewer 45 gallon drums,
and smaller storage facilities.

> This is the sticky stuff of development. That one develops a better
> gasifier or biogas digester is all well and good but it has to be
> better as well, in terms of the above criteria. Measure the efficiency
> of your stove on-site with the users, over some yama choma. Thats where
> it is measured. Thats why, in a parallel manner, AD's work has so much
> value : It is developed and vetted by and within the culture.

There are two "issues" here:
1: Improvements in efficiency, reduction in the requirement for existing
resources, and the ability to use other resources; size of facilitry; cost
per unit of output.
2: The "invented here" syndrome.

He seems to have combined both "issues", to get a successful program
underway.

Best wishes,

Kevin
> Richard
>
>
>
>
> Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>
> >Dear Richard
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Richard Stanley" <rstanley at legacyfound.org>
> >Subject: Re: [Gasification] Reviewing A.D. Karve's methane digestion
device
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Tom et al,
> >>
> >>What does efficiency matter, if the source is free to the average
> >>citisen of the planet ?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >For a given weekly output of biogass, the efficiency of conversion of the
> >biomass resource to methane, and the efficiency or biogas utilization are
> >very important for these reasons:
> >
> >1: The capital cost of the facility can be reduced.
> >2: The space required can be reduced
> >3: Less biomass is required
> >4: Less effort is required to find biomass, or, where it is animal
sourced,
> >fewer animals are required.
> >5: Less time and effort is required to load biomass and remove waste from
> >reactor.
> >6: An efficient system may be practical where an inefficient system
> >wouldn't. (For example, it it was fueled with dung, and vegetative waste,
> >there may be enough feedstock available if the system is efficient, but
not
> >enough for an inefficient system.
> >7: With a system of a given size and where biomass resource is not
limiting,
> >then an efficient system will provide sufficient biogas for more people.
> >
> >Best wishes,
> >
> >Kevin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>We very much enjoyed this relatively inefficient biogas for four years
> >>at our comfortable urban houusehold in Arusha Tanzania, refilling the
> >>2,5 mtr dia. digester once a week with the wastes of five cows--six or
> >>seven if it was the holidays or friends were visiting. The issue of
> >>thermal efficiency pales when considering that the resource was free.
> >>(And one would have to addin of course the ongoing harvest of
> >>incredible vegetables and fruits that came off the garden, which was fed
> >>by the effluent.)
> >>What AD is into, promises far wider application of this basic comcept to
> >>a far wider audience-- and again as long as the resource is free or
> >>nearly so, off the table scraps as it were, it remains far more
> >>efficient than any other fuel we may opt for.
> >>
> >>This polemic applies of course only to the household or village at the
> >>point of supply, and not a more institutionalised or commerical setting
> >>but it is worth keeping in mind if you are targetting the real
> >>population of the globe outside the (increasingly) western island of the
> >>US of the Americas.
> >>
> >>Richard Stanley
> >>Mzungu nusu
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Gasification mailing list
> >>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> >>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

 

From tombreed at comcast.net Mon Nov 8 08:06:09 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (TBReed)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 07:06:09 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] Missed Fuel Opportunity - 1974
Message-ID: <015401c4c59c$1a918150$3401a8c0@OFFICE>

Dear Renewable Energy enthusiasts and Concerned Citizens:

In 1973 at MIT I began using 10% methanol gasoline blends (M10) in my car and discovered that I achieved considerably better mileage and lower emissions than with gasoline. Same for 9 other cars selected at random. Methanol and mixed alcohols are the most likely renewable liquid fuels for spark ignited cars - all very high octane and clean burning. They can be made from natural gas, coal, wood or municipal waste.

A retired oil man sent me and MIT a check for $100,000 to pursue this. It was administered through the new "MIT ENERGY LAB". We set up tests for MIT students and faculty to begin using this blend and report performance and any problems.

Three months later oil and motor interests donated $1,000,000 to the MIT Energy Lab. I was told that the tests had to be cancelled because "the oil and motor companies" are experts in the field and would know if was practical. Money was taken from my account and the project closed down.

Read all about it at http://www.woodgas.com/methanol.htm.
~~~~~~~~~
If we had begun using coal/gas/biomass to make synthetic fuels at that time we would have had a lever to control the cost of oil. We would not have sent the petrodollars to the Near East to fund the Iran-Iraq War, Dessert Storm, 9-11 and the current Iraq war.

In 1974 we imported 14% of our oil. In 2001 we imported 57% of our oil. Big bucks for petro dollars.

"Of all sad words of tongue or pen
The Saddest are these - "It might have been". (James Whitcomb Riley)

However, it isn't too late to develop a serious alternate to our dependence on oil and to funding terrorism in the U.S.

Suggestions?

TOM REED The Biomass Energy Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041108/84a92904/attachment.html

From tombreed at comcast.net Mon Nov 8 08:30:29 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (Tom Reed)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 07:30:29 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] Triglyceride fuel
Message-ID: <023201c4c59f$802e33c0$3201a8c0@TOMBREED>

Bill and All:

The viscosity of vegetable oils is 40 (mp?) while diesel is 2.5, so you can
coke up your engine by burning them. You can burn triglycerides (vegetable
oils, animal fats, yellow grease) safely in diesel engines if you start and
stop the engine on conventional diesel and have the oil warm to reduce
viscosity, but this takes two tanks.

What is the viscosity of palm oil (C16 rather than C18 fatty acids)

We need a biodiesel site here at REPP.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm at btl.net>
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Eating fossil fuels

>
>
> Hi Dan --
>
> Check out this site --
>
> http://www.asd-cr.com/
>
> high yield palm oil plants -- clones --
>
> Palm oil -- straight and pure -- is being bought in supermarkets in
Germany
> and being used in that manner -- no conversions -- as diesel in Jettas.
The
> German Government is pissed -- losing the tax dollars.
>
> You might also want to check on food and medicinal values --
>
> http://www.tropicaltraditions.com/red_palm_oil.htm
>
> That just one quicky example.
>
> Your talking a yield of 1500 gals per acre per year -- and lazy man's
> farming!! And easy to extract -- minimum investment in equipments!
>
> Remember -- I am all ready expressing coconut oil. And cohune nut oil!!
>
> I am not concerned about these problems for us here -- but if -- should --
> the US go down -- it is a great misery for people here -- people
everywhere.
>
> Hey -- all that has to be done to stop this horrid developing scenario is
> just turn down the gas. Economize. No more SUVs -- a little more us of
> public transit -- start by doubling or tripling the price of fuels -- and
> apply that tax windfall to clearing off some deficits.
>
> Simple -- easy stuff -- common sense stuff --
>
> The US used to be so good at handling problems -- now we -- the rest of
the
> world -- wonders.
>
> Anything beats going to war to continue squandering global resources.
>
> Peter
>
> At 10:18 PM 10/26/2004 EDT, Carefreeland at aol.com wrote:
> >>>>
> Peter,
> How about soy beans? My little Daughter calls them "soil beans".
> They could be fertilized with ash and need no nitrogen. If they would
just
> allow a small amount of the crop to re- seed itself, all you would have to
> do was harvest. Then make oil and burn in a diesel engine. 45 gallons per
> acre yield in Ohio.
> Dan Dimiduk
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

 

From oscar at geprop.cu Mon Nov 8 07:22:13 2004
From: oscar at geprop.cu (Oscar Jimenez)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 08:22:13 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] Reviewing A.D. Karve's methane digestion device
Message-ID: <A6C7CDF4EB4F92459A97B5514EC9F1D909205F@geprop-server.172.16.1.254>

High there to ALL...!!!, hello Stanley..!!

>>>Its not that I am ignoring the need for efficiency but that I amd trrying tto convey to you the need tto a closer look at the real problems of access, affordability, appropriateness and above all design which encourages local control and responsibility.<<<

....now your question is clear, at least to me, once we know the context your are dealing with... But to my personal opinion the correct answer to your concern is not only technically based, but needs some other stuffs not necessarily linked with technology...people's education seems to play an important role for achieving the goal you are after...!!

Regards.

Oscar.


-----Mensaje original-----
De: Richard Stanley [mailto:rstanley at legacyfound.org]
Enviado el: domingo, 07 de noviembre de 2004 12:15
Para: Kevin Chisholm
CC: gasification at listserv.repp.org; STOVES
Asunto: Re: [Gasification] Reviewing A.D. Karve's methane digestion device

Kevin,
Thanks for your elucidation: Its obvious enough to you and I perhaps for an industrialised environment but to Apu Banda, in Ambepussa it remains another story.
Apu has more than one cow per person already and with five kids assigned, gathering the dung from one more animal unit means little in terms of labor efficiency.
His "Facility" is a few oil drums banded together with scrap wire, or a beatup, tar-lined and inverted water tank in a hand dug pit. His space is open and a few more or less square feet do not really matter (didd you ever squeeze into a matatu always one more person is the rule not the exception. What Apu needs is nto greater efficiency bu greater access to something basic and functional first, He has nearly zero for "capital outlays" and no accessto low cost loan schemes. And he is 90% of the people you are dealing with ---if and again if---you are concerned about a mass market in the real world.
If the development problem were boundup in calcualtions of efficiencies and rudimentary economics the problems would have been solved long ago.
Its not that I am ignoring the need for efficiency but that I amd trrying tto convey to you the need tto a closer look at the real problems of access, affordability, appropriateness and above all design which encourages local control and responsibility.
This is the sticky stuff of development. That one develops a better gasifier or biogas digester is all well and good but it has to be better as well, in terms of the above criteria. Measure the efficiency of your stove on-site with the users, over some yama choma. Thats where it is measured. Thats why, in a parallel manner, AD's work has so much value : It is developed and vetted by and within the culture.
Richard


Kevin Chisholm wrote:

Dear Richard

----- Original Message -----

From: "Richard Stanley" <mailto:rstanley at legacyfound.org> <rstanley at legacyfound.org>

Subject: Re: [Gasification] Reviewing A.D. Karve's methane digestion device

 

 

Tom et al,

 

What does efficiency matter, if the source is free to the average

citisen of the planet ?

 

For a given weekly output of biogass, the efficiency of conversion of the

biomass resource to methane, and the efficiency or biogas utilization are

very important for these reasons:

 

1: The capital cost of the facility can be reduced.

2: The space required can be reduced

3: Less biomass is required

4: Less effort is required to find biomass, or, where it is animal sourced,

fewer animals are required.

5: Less time and effort is required to load biomass and remove waste from

reactor.

6: An efficient system may be practical where an inefficient system

wouldn't. (For example, it it was fueled with dung, and vegetative waste,

there may be enough feedstock available if the system is efficient, but not

enough for an inefficient system.

7: With a system of a given size and where biomass resource is not limiting,

then an efficient system will provide sufficient biogas for more people.

 

Best wishes,

 

Kevin

 

 

 

We very much enjoyed this relatively inefficient biogas for four years

at our comfortable urban houusehold in Arusha Tanzania, refilling the

2,5 mtr dia. digester once a week with the wastes of five cows--six or

seven if it was the holidays or friends were visiting. The issue of

thermal efficiency pales when considering that the resource was free.

(And one would have to addin of course the ongoing harvest of

incredible vegetables and fruits that came off the garden, which was fed

by the effluent.)

What AD is into, promises far wider application of this basic comcept to

a far wider audience-- and again as long as the resource is free or

nearly so, off the table scraps as it were, it remains far more

efficient than any other fuel we may opt for.

 

This polemic applies of course only to the household or village at the

point of supply, and not a more institutionalised or commerical setting

but it is worth keeping in mind if you are targetting the real

population of the globe outside the (increasingly) western island of the

US of the Americas.

 

Richard Stanley

Mzungu nusu

 

_______________________________________________

Gasification mailing list

Gasification at listserv.repp.org

http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041108/221b6df6/attachment.html

From snkm at btl.net Mon Nov 8 09:24:14 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 09:24:14 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Stoves] Missed Fuel Opportunity - 1974
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041108092111.009ecaf0@pop.btl.net>

At 07:06 AM 11/8/2004 -0700, TBReed wrote:
>Dear Renewable Energy enthusiasts and Concerned Citizens:
>However, it isn't too late to develop a serious alternate to our
dependence on oil and to funding terrorism in the U.S.
>
>Suggestions?
>
>TOM REED The Biomass Energy Foundation

OK -- how about starting by just nuking america into oblivion??

That would just about solve all problems ---

Tom -- you need to look and see what your country is up to on a global
scale -- come down out of your ivory tower -- cause it is burning.

Certainly -- as long as good Americans such as yourself "insist" in not
acknowledging the realities of your country -- we look at a scenario no
different at all than the Rise -- and the Fall -- of hitler -- with but one
difference -- the die-off this time around will be of a much greater scale.

Suggest you dust off the old charcoal burners.

Talking as if nothing has changed -- that happy days are here and will
always be here -- lowers your respect rating incredible Tom for us on this
list with a greater international perspective.

I suppose if WWW had existed just prior to WWII you would be the fine
German scientist -- just as lost then -- as apparently you are now.

I know -- nothing any of us can do about this situation -- except wring our
hands.

But Tom -- very seriously -- in regards to this statement of yours:

>However, it isn't too late to develop a serious alternate to
>our dependence on oil and to funding terrorism in the U.S.

I am afraid you are very wrong on both these accounts -- you have no time
to develop anything -- and it has already reached beyond "terrorism"
activities as a future problem -- it is no more like Sunburns raining down
on Israel -- SST 19's raining on the US -- etc -- etc -- etc.

At the very least -- back of on American patriotic talk -- at least until
your country has -- for a change -- demonstrated an ability to do some good
on global scale rather than more destruction.

and said destruction continually escalating until we -- the rest of the
human race -- become convinced the only solution is total annihilation of
this rabid beast that has so suddenly -- so surprisingly -- showed up in
our midst!!

Yes Tom -- look out and see what your country is up to -- it is really that
terrible!

 

Peter

From jim at organix.org Mon Nov 8 10:06:46 2004
From: jim at organix.org (Jim Wimberly)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 10:06:46 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Triglyceride fuel
References: <023201c4c59f$802e33c0$3201a8c0@TOMBREED>
Message-ID: <012a01c4c5ad$1842c6a0$3201a8c0@jim>

I concur, Tom, that a venue for specific discussions re biodiesel is needed.

A related question for the gasification folks: Can the diesel-like liquid
fuel product created through biomass gasification followed by Fisher-Tropsch
conversion be referred to as "biodiesel"?

Also, do list members have any specific examples to point to of R&D
experience / commercial efforts of biomass gasification + FT "biodiesel"?

Jim Wimberly

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Reed" <tombreed at comcast.net>
To: "Bill Ayres" <waayres at kc.rr.com>; <gasification at listserv.repp.org>;
"STOVES" <STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>; "Tom Miles" <tmiles at trmiles.com>
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 8:30 AM
Subject: [Gasification] Triglyceride fuel

Bill and All:

The viscosity of vegetable oils is 40 (mp?) while diesel is 2.5, so you can
coke up your engine by burning them. You can burn triglycerides (vegetable
oils, animal fats, yellow grease) safely in diesel engines if you start and
stop the engine on conventional diesel and have the oil warm to reduce
viscosity, but this takes two tanks.

What is the viscosity of palm oil (C16 rather than C18 fatty acids)

We need a biodiesel site here at REPP.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm at btl.net>
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Eating fossil fuels

>
>
> Hi Dan --
>
> Check out this site --
>
> http://www.asd-cr.com/
>
> high yield palm oil plants -- clones --
>
> Palm oil -- straight and pure -- is being bought in supermarkets in
Germany
> and being used in that manner -- no conversions -- as diesel in Jettas.
The
> German Government is pissed -- losing the tax dollars.
>
> You might also want to check on food and medicinal values --
>
> http://www.tropicaltraditions.com/red_palm_oil.htm
>
> That just one quicky example.
>
> Your talking a yield of 1500 gals per acre per year -- and lazy man's
> farming!! And easy to extract -- minimum investment in equipments!
>
> Remember -- I am all ready expressing coconut oil. And cohune nut oil!!
>
> I am not concerned about these problems for us here -- but if -- should --
> the US go down -- it is a great misery for people here -- people
everywhere.
>
> Hey -- all that has to be done to stop this horrid developing scenario is
> just turn down the gas. Economize. No more SUVs -- a little more us of
> public transit -- start by doubling or tripling the price of fuels -- and
> apply that tax windfall to clearing off some deficits.
>
> Simple -- easy stuff -- common sense stuff --
>
> The US used to be so good at handling problems -- now we -- the rest of
the
> world -- wonders.
>
> Anything beats going to war to continue squandering global resources.
>
> Peter
>
> At 10:18 PM 10/26/2004 EDT, Carefreeland at aol.com wrote:
> >>>>
> Peter,
> How about soy beans? My little Daughter calls them "soil beans".
> They could be fertilized with ash and need no nitrogen. If they would
just
> allow a small amount of the crop to re- seed itself, all you would have to
> do was harvest. Then make oil and burn in a diesel engine. 45 gallons per
> acre yield in Ohio.
> Dan Dimiduk
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

 

 

From snkm at btl.net Mon Nov 8 10:47:53 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 10:47:53 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Stoves] Triglyceride fuel
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041108104708.009f14f0@pop.btl.net>

At 07:30 AM 11/8/2004 -0700, Tom Reed wrote:
>Bill and All:
>
>The viscosity of vegetable oils is 40 (mp?) while diesel is 2.5, so you can
>coke up your engine by burning them. You can burn triglycerides (vegetable
>oils, animal fats, yellow grease) safely in diesel engines if you start and
>stop the engine on conventional diesel and have the oil warm to reduce
>viscosity, but this takes two tanks.
>
>What is the viscosity of palm oil (C16 rather than C18 fatty acids)
>
>We need a biodiesel site here at REPP.
>

Hi Ton and all --

first -- please accept my apologies for the previous posting -- but we are
getting so stressed out off-shore America. And especially in small 3rd
world nations --

Reg burning straight veggie oil:

Lot's of links and info here:

http://www.talknet.de/~sthl/vegoil.htm

I extract this small part:

Who can use straight vegoil?

Pure vegetable oil can be used in any diesel engine, basically. However,
only Mercedes precombustion chamber engines can be run on vegoil without
any conversion. See more at Steffen's homepage.

http://www.rerorust.de/

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

All the diesels I am accumulating are of the older precombustion design.
Both China and India make these -- and are excellent motors of 3rd world
stationary power plants.

Though i have just ordered 10 small -- very low speed -- all "push" -- 4 HP
very long tail out board diesels from China -- four HP -- rated to ten tons
displacement -- 4.4 mph -- as they use on their Junks -- which are also
precombustion chamber.

And yes -- they do market special fuel tanks and lines for running pure
veggie oil in the US.

http://www.greasel.com/Products.htm

Here is an example "conversion"

http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/yohn/default.htm

So OK -- this has nothing to do with Gas list -- but it can be wonderful as
a means of supplying power to one's laboratory to continue work on
gasification until it becomes "practical" -- or at least here in 3rd world
countries in the tropics where a huge resource crunch is not years in the
future -- but more like months down this road.

I am presently arranging to get 200 special African Palm Clones from Costa
Rica -- to plant on one acre of land -- thus yielding 1500 gallons of oil
per year -- starting in 3 years -- full production in 5 years.

The old Bedford 4 ton trucks still found here are powered by diesels with
precombustion chambers as well.

So we get to keep some lights -- some transportation -- for the "duration" --

Another man in the next village is investing in five acres --

We'll probably use a Babington style burner to make stoves fueled by this
same means as well.

For us -- it is the most economic "practical" solution.

 

Peter -- Belize

 

 

From arnt at c2i.net Mon Nov 8 12:39:42 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 19:39:42 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] Triglyceride fuel
In-Reply-To: <023201c4c59f$802e33c0$3201a8c0@TOMBREED>
References: <023201c4c59f$802e33c0$3201a8c0@TOMBREED>
Message-ID: <20041108193942.43d25e5d.arnt@c2i.net>

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 07:30:29 -0700, Tom wrote in message
<023201c4c59f$802e33c0$3201a8c0 at TOMBREED>:

> Bill and All:
>
> The viscosity of vegetable oils is 40 (mp?) while diesel is 2.5, so
> you can coke up your engine by burning them. You can burn
> triglycerides (vegetable oils, animal fats, yellow grease) safely in
> diesel engines if you start and stop the engine on conventional diesel
> and have the oil warm to reduce viscosity, but this takes two tanks.

..I beg to differ; 20 years ago, I flew model airplanes, with one tank,
on what I suspect was a mix of triglycerides, naphta or some nitrous
alcohol, kerosine and a syntetic lube oil compatible with this mixture,
not castor oil, this brew was ignited with standard glow plugs, and I
believe it was brewed by the Swedish Nyn?s petrochemical firm.

..power was typically 90% of that of methanol while endurance
was about 125% of that of methanol. Politics was part of this,
AFAIK, some idiot Swedes drank methanol and somehow
managed to get it banned, except for "vital" industrial uses
such as (eventually) model aviation.

..I vividly remember bootlegging methanol for my planes, minutes before
I got to the customs, I heard on the radio "it was banned this morning"
and I had a coupla canned gallons, however the customs guy was ok
with my "Oh, that's model airplane gasoline." ;-)

--
..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 gregoire.jovicic at jovicic.com Mon Nov 8 13:01:14 2004
From: gregoire.jovicic at jovicic.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Gr=E9goire_JOVICIC?=)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 20:01:14 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] stearic acid
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAjWHuzVeiQECyc+xYtT7dy8KAAAAQAAAAMzC2ba9Am0ueBoIN/PRPLwEAAAAA@jovicic.com>

Does somebody have datas about behaviour of stearic acid in rubber compounds
with heat ?

Gr?goire Jovicic

Ing?nieur Conseil

e-mail : gregoire.jovicic at jovicic.com

20 rue de Berne

75008 Paris

France

Tel : + 33 1 45 22 59 70

Fax : + 33 1 44 69 03 46

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041108/bb528bb5/attachment.html

From tmiles at trmiles.com Mon Nov 8 13:34:53 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 11:34:53 -0800
Subject: [Gasification] Biodiesel site at REPP
References: <023201c4c59f$802e33c0$3201a8c0@TOMBREED>
Message-ID: <011101c4c5ca$177696d0$6501a8c0@OFFICE3>

TR.> We need a biodiesel site here at REPP.

Tom Reed,

A Biodiesel discussion has been waiting for a champion. We do have a
bioconversion at listserv.repp.org list that was intended for ethanol and
biodiesel but has been moridbund. We can activate a
biodiesel at listserv.repp.org list or use the bioconversion list for the
purpose. And we can create an alternate fuels website to reflect the
discussion on the list. In any case we need a moderator(s) for the
discussion. Any volunteers?

Tom Miles

 

 

From tombreed at comcast.net Tue Nov 9 08:16:26 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 07:16:26 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] Gas compressability
References: <3.0.32.20041019213213.009c8dd0@pop.btl.net>
<000101c4b70a$072a86c0$4a5641db@adkarve>
Message-ID: <049901c4c666$b3e464b0$3201a8c0@TOMBREED>

Dear ADK and All:

At high pressures like 200 atm gases behave very non ideally. You can get
~15% more methane into a cylinder than ideal gas law would predict.

Mixing 20% hydrogen with methane to improve its combustion characteristics
reduces its compressability by ~25%.

Biogas is 2/3 methane, 1/3 CO2 and I suspect the CO2 will increase the
compressability many fold. Someone needs to make tests... or apply theory.

At sufficient pressure and low temperature methane becomes a hydrate with
water and there is more methane energy on the bottom of the deep oceans than
all other fossil fuel combined.

Anyone interested or volunteering?

TOM REED THE COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES
----- Original Message -----
From: "adkarve" <adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in>
To: "Peter Singfield" <snkm at btl.net>
Cc: <STOVES at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 11:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] sugar to alcohol or sugar to biogas

> Dear Peter,
> when cars use CNG they do not produce it in the car, but carry a cylinder
> that is filled with compressed CNG. You can use methane in exactly the
same
> manner.
> A.D.Karve
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Peter Singfield <snkm at btl.net>
> To: adkarve <adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in>; <STOVES at listserv.repp.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 9:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] sugar to alcohol or sugar to biogas
>
>
> >
> > Dear A.D.
> >
> > At 09:54 PM 10/19/2004 +0530, adkarve wrote:
> > >This refers to the discussion between Len Walde and Peter Springfield
on
> > >this subject.
> >
> > *******snipped*******
> >
> > >Alcohol, on
> > >the hand, must be totally freed from water, before it can be be mixed
> with
> > >petrol to be used as gasohol in an internal combustion engine.
> >
> > Not true -- aguahol -- or 80% alcohol "rum" is a wonderful fuel as is --
> > and much easier to manufacture than pure ethanol -- but yes -- it can't
be
> > blended with gasoline -- engines need changed air/fuel ratios -- to
start
> > with. And cold starting in the more northern countries will be a
> problem --
> >
> > Brazil operated a large percentage of it;s vehicle on strong rum only
for
> > many years -- I believe the first Ford car was strong rum fuels -- and
> when
> > I was young -- all racing motorcycles used "aguahol".
> >
> > The first diesel used peanut oil for fuel.
> >
> > >>Separation of
> > >alcohol from water requires further input of energy.
> >
> > Yes -- and further processing and not of a passive nature.
> >
> > >>Another advantage of
> > >methane is that there are no legal restrictions on its production or
use,
> > >whereas in the case of alcohol, its production, sale, storage and use
all
> > >require permission from the Government.
> >
> > And that is probably the most excellent point of all!
> >
> > I have not yet been able to find any data on the very neat turn you have
> > taken in regards to bio digestion. All present state of the art biomass
> > digesters -- and all the science to go with that field -- appears to be
> > fixated on using sewage.
> >
> > (As indeed every aspect of ethanol production is fixated on "pure" -- is
> > terrifically difficult to make -- a very energy piggish (compared to
> making
> > strong rum) process -- and totally out of the domain of rolling your own
> in
> > a 3rd world country.
> >
> > Regarding high energy feed stocks for bio digesters --
> >
> > I believe your in the position to write the book on this.
> >
> > But unless a super fast digester can be designed small enough to fit on
a
> > vehicle and productive enough to power said vehicle on a continuous
basis
> > -- I do not see applications to replace portable fuels.
> >
> > On the other hand -- for operating stationary power plants -- it might
be
> > an exciting new development.
> >
> > Now -- if you could produce butane -- then you would have a true
portable
> > fuel.
> >
> > Peter -- Belize
> >
> > >Yours
> > >A.D.Karve
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >Stoves mailing list
> > >Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> > >http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
> > >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

 

From tmiles at trmiles.com Tue Nov 9 08:45:16 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 06:45:16 -0800
Subject: [Gasification] Fw: [Stoves] RE: Triglyceride fuel
Message-ID: <004d01c4c66a$bef3fab0$6701a8c0@Yellow>

----- Original Message -----
From: "AJH" <ajh at sylva.icuklive.co.uk>
To: <tmiles at trmiles.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 12:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] RE: Triglyceride fuel

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 19:45:29 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:

>Dear Friends
>
>I have heard it told that 15% of an American farm needs to be planted in
>sunflower to give it enough fuel to run on.

Tom Miles has suggested the bioconversion site was provided to discuss
making biofuels and both the straight oils (triglycerides) and the
biodiesel made by esterising them are most appropriate there.

http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/bioconversion

I am subscribed and look further to discussion on this interesting
subject there. To initiate it I have cross posted (something I
normally deprecate) and would throw in the factet that UK farmers used
to need one fifth of the arable area to support the draught animals
needed for transport and cultivations.

Andrew Heggie

 

 

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Nov 9 09:36:45 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:36:45 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] Gas compressability
In-Reply-To: <049901c4c666$b3e464b0$3201a8c0@TOMBREED>
References: <3.0.32.20041019213213.009c8dd0@pop.btl.net>
<000101c4b70a$072a86c0$4a5641db@adkarve>
<049901c4c666$b3e464b0$3201a8c0@TOMBREED>
Message-ID: <20041109163645.675e2cf2.arnt@c2i.net>

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 07:16:26 -0700, Tom wrote in message
<049901c4c666$b3e464b0$3201a8c0 at TOMBREED>:

> Dear ADK and All:
>
> At high pressures like 200 atm gases behave very non ideally. You can
> get~15% more methane into a cylinder than ideal gas law would predict.
>
> Mixing 20% hydrogen with methane to improve its combustion
> characteristics reduces its compressability by ~25%.
>
> Biogas is 2/3 methane, 1/3 CO2 and I suspect the CO2 will increase the
> compressability many fold. Someone needs to make tests... or apply
> theory.
>
> At sufficient pressure and low temperature methane becomes a hydrate
> with water and there is more methane energy on the bottom of the deep
> oceans than all other fossil fuel combined.
>
> Anyone interested or volunteering?

..funding, any volonteers? ;-)

--
..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 Tue Nov 9 10:15:43 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 08:15:43 -0800
Subject: Fw: [Gasification] Reviewing A.D. Karve's methane digestion device
Message-ID: <011c01c4c678$6e1bb020$6501a8c0@OFFICE3>

FWD to the list.

Note: Please put gasification at listserv.repp.org or stoves at listserv.repp.org in the "To:" field and not in the "Cc:" field.

Thanks

Tom Miles

----- Original Message -----
From: Oscar Jimenez
To: Richard Stanley ; Kevin Chisholm
Cc: gasification at listserv.repp.org ; STOVES
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 5:22 AM
Subject: RE: [Gasification] Reviewing A.D. Karve's methane digestion device

High there to ALL...!!!, hello Stanley..!!

>>>Its not that I am ignoring the need for efficiency but that I amd trrying tto convey to you the need tto a closer look at the real problems of access, affordability, appropriateness and above all design which encourages local control and responsibility.<<<

....now your question is clear, at least to me, once we know the context your are dealing with... But to my personal opinion the correct answer to your concern is not only technically based, but needs some other stuffs not necessarily linked with technology...people's education seems to play an important role for achieving the goal you are after...!!

Regards.

Oscar.

 


-----Mensaje original-----
De: Richard Stanley [mailto:rstanley at legacyfound.org]
Enviado el: domingo, 07 de noviembre de 2004 12:15
Para: Kevin Chisholm
CC: gasification at listserv.repp.org; STOVES
Asunto: Re: [Gasification] Reviewing A.D. Karve's methane digestion device

Kevin,
Thanks for your elucidation: Its obvious enough to you and I perhaps for an industrialised environment but to Apu Banda, in Ambepussa it remains another story.
Apu has more than one cow per person already and with five kids assigned, gathering the dung from one more animal unit means little in terms of labor efficiency.
His "Facility" is a few oil drums banded together with scrap wire, or a beatup, tar-lined and inverted water tank in a hand dug pit. His space is open and a few more or less square feet do not really matter (didd you ever squeeze into a matatu always one more person is the rule not the exception. What Apu needs is nto greater efficiency bu greater access to something basic and functional first, He has nearly zero for "capital outlays" and no accessto low cost loan schemes. And he is 90% of the people you are dealing with ---if and again if---you are concerned about a mass market in the real world.
If the development problem were boundup in calcualtions of efficiencies and rudimentary economics the problems would have been solved long ago.
Its not that I am ignoring the need for efficiency but that I amd trrying tto convey to you the need tto a closer look at the real problems of access, affordability, appropriateness and above all design which encourages local control and responsibility.
This is the sticky stuff of development. That one develops a better gasifier or biogas digester is all well and good but it has to be better as well, in terms of the above criteria. Measure the efficiency of your stove on-site with the users, over some yama choma. Thats where it is measured. Thats why, in a parallel manner, AD's work has so much value : It is developed and vetted by and within the culture.
Richard


Kevin Chisholm wrote:

Dear Richard
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Stanley" <rstanley at legacyfound.org>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Reviewing A.D. Karve's methane digestion device

Tom et al,

What does efficiency matter, if the source is free to the average
citisen of the planet ?

For a given weekly output of biogass, the efficiency of conversion of the
biomass resource to methane, and the efficiency or biogas utilization are
very important for these reasons:

1: The capital cost of the facility can be reduced.
2: The space required can be reduced
3: Less biomass is required
4: Less effort is required to find biomass, or, where it is animal sourced,
fewer animals are required.
5: Less time and effort is required to load biomass and remove waste from
reactor.
6: An efficient system may be practical where an inefficient system
wouldn't. (For example, it it was fueled with dung, and vegetative waste,
there may be enough feedstock available if the system is efficient, but not
enough for an inefficient system.
7: With a system of a given size and where biomass resource is not limiting,
then an efficient system will provide sufficient biogas for more people.

Best wishes,

Kevin

 

We very much enjoyed this relatively inefficient biogas for four years
at our comfortable urban houusehold in Arusha Tanzania, refilling the
2,5 mtr dia. digester once a week with the wastes of five cows--six or
seven if it was the holidays or friends were visiting. The issue of
thermal efficiency pales when considering that the resource was free.
(And one would have to addin of course the ongoing harvest of
incredible vegetables and fruits that came off the garden, which was fed
by the effluent.)
What AD is into, promises far wider application of this basic comcept to
a far wider audience-- and again as long as the resource is free or
nearly so, off the table scraps as it were, it remains far more
efficient than any other fuel we may opt for.

This polemic applies of course only to the household or village at the
point of supply, and not a more institutionalised or commerical setting
but it is worth keeping in mind if you are targetting the real
population of the globe outside the (increasingly) western island of the
US of the Americas.

Richard Stanley
Mzungu nusu

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041109/9aa0a1db/attachment.html

From tmiles at trmiles.com Tue Nov 9 10:19:01 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 08:19:01 -0800
Subject: Fw: [Gasification] Triglyceride fuel
Message-ID: <011d01c4c678$6e2c7900$6501a8c0@OFFICE3>

All,

Please put gasification at listserv.repp.org or stoves at listserv.repp.org in the
"To:" field not the "Cc:" field. Otherwise the listserv discards your mail
as spam.

Thanks

Tom Miles

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arnt Karlsen" <arnt at c2i.net>
To: "Tom Reed" <tombreed at comcast.net>
Cc: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>; <STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Triglyceride fuel

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 07:30:29 -0700, Tom wrote in message
<023201c4c59f$802e33c0$3201a8c0 at TOMBREED>:

> Bill and All:
>
> The viscosity of vegetable oils is 40 (mp?) while diesel is 2.5, so
> you can coke up your engine by burning them. You can burn
> triglycerides (vegetable oils, animal fats, yellow grease) safely in
> diesel engines if you start and stop the engine on conventional diesel
> and have the oil warm to reduce viscosity, but this takes two tanks.

..I beg to differ; 20 years ago, I flew model airplanes, with one tank,
on what I suspect was a mix of triglycerides, naphta or some nitrous
alcohol, kerosine and a syntetic lube oil compatible with this mixture,
not castor oil, this brew was ignited with standard glow plugs, and I
believe it was brewed by the Swedish Nyn?s petrochemical firm.

..power was typically 90% of that of methanol while endurance
was about 125% of that of methanol. Politics was part of this,
AFAIK, some idiot Swedes drank methanol and somehow
managed to get it banned, except for "vital" industrial uses
such as (eventually) model aviation.

..I vividly remember bootlegging methanol for my planes, minutes before
I got to the customs, I heard on the radio "it was banned this morning"
and I had a coupla canned gallons, however the customs guy was ok
with my "Oh, that's model airplane gasoline." ;-)

--
..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 Tue Nov 9 10:23:02 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 08:23:02 -0800
Subject: Fw: [Gasification] Gas compressability
Message-ID: <011f01c4c678$6e4b72b0$6501a8c0@OFFICE3>

Please address your messages to gasification at listserv.reopp.org or
stoves at listserv.repp.org in the "To;" field not the "Cc:" Otherwise they
will be trashed.

Thanks

Tom Miles

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arnt Karlsen" <arnt at c2i.net>
To: "Tom Reed" <tombreed at comcast.net>
Cc: <adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in>; <snkm at btl.net>;
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>; <STOVES at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 7:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Gas compressability

> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 07:16:26 -0700, Tom wrote in message
> <049901c4c666$b3e464b0$3201a8c0 at TOMBREED>:
>
>> Dear ADK and All:
>>
>> At high pressures like 200 atm gases behave very non ideally. You can
>> get~15% more methane into a cylinder than ideal gas law would predict.
>>
>> Mixing 20% hydrogen with methane to improve its combustion
>> characteristics reduces its compressability by ~25%.
>>
>> Biogas is 2/3 methane, 1/3 CO2 and I suspect the CO2 will increase the
>> compressability many fold. Someone needs to make tests... or apply
>> theory.
>>
>> At sufficient pressure and low temperature methane becomes a hydrate
>> with water and there is more methane energy on the bottom of the deep
>> oceans than all other fossil fuel combined.
>>
>> Anyone interested or volunteering?
>
> ..funding, any volonteers? ;-)
>
> --
> ..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 Carefreeland at aol.com Tue Nov 9 18:29:47 2004
From: Carefreeland at aol.com (Carefreeland at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 19:29:47 EST
Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Stoves] Gas compressability
Message-ID: <127.4ec2f5f1.2ec2bafb@aol.com>

In a message dated 11/9/04 9:17:45 AM Eastern Standard Time,
tombreed at comcast.net writes:

>
> At sufficient pressure and low temperature methane becomes a hydrate with
> water and there is more methane energy on the bottom of the deep oceans than
> all other fossil fuel combined.
>
> Anyone interested or volunteering?
>
> TOM REED

DD Tom, what about the possibility of storing and transporting methane as a
hydrate, is that practical? Maybe they are missing something here, they have
before. LOL

Daniel Dimiduk.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041109/8236a4c3/attachment.html

From MMBTUPR at aol.com Tue Nov 9 21:33:46 2004
From: MMBTUPR at aol.com (MMBTUPR at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 22:33:46 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] Methane hydrate
Message-ID: <4745B2F7.12F28715.0016DBFB@aol.com>

to Gasification list from Lewis L Smith

I concur as to the abundance of methane hydrate.

However, I understand that there is as yet, no known technically feasible method of getting at it.

The tricky part is that when the pressure on the hydrate is lowered enough, the atoms dissociate and the methane bubbles upwards from the bottom of the sea. So you have to capture that methane before it disperses.

Indeed dissociation caused by submarine landslides may explain some of the mysterious disappearances of air craft and water craft in the Bermuda triangle. I have seen videos of drilling rigs sinking caused by the lower density of the surrounding water which has been "invaded" by released gas, either from a blowout or from dissociation.

Note that I have not copied this posting to "stoves" because I am not a member of the list.

Cordially.

End.

From richrd at nas.com Wed Nov 10 01:07:15 2004
From: richrd at nas.com (Richard Haard)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 23:07:15 -0800
Subject: [Gasification] re: methane hydrates
Message-ID: <2691BB00-32E7-11D9-9A0A-00306580AF2C@nas.com>

Keep in mind that also the methane hydrates resources under permafrost
are extensive and a Canadian pilot plant funded by US, Japan and Canada
has been successful. Most people do not realize how extensive this
resource is. In a decade or so this will be an important non
conventional source of methane.

Right now methane release from permafrost melting is a major
contributor to global warming. In a study of oil development related
methane release at Prudhoe Bay the quantity of methane released to the
atmosphere from permafrost destruction was many times greater that all
of the oil extracted from this field.

Rich Haard
On Nov 9, 2004, at 7:33 PM, MMBTUPR at aol.com wrote:

> to Gasification list from Lewis L Smith
>
> I concur as to the abundance of methane hydrate.
>
> However, I understand that there is as yet, no known technically
> feasible method of getting at it.
>
> The tricky part is that when the pressure on the hydrate is
> lowered enough, the atoms dissociate and the methane bubbles upwards
> from the bottom of the sea. So you have to capture that methane before
> it disperses.
>
> Indeed dissociation caused by submarine landslides may explain
> some of the mysterious disappearances of air craft and water craft in
> the Bermuda triangle. I have seen videos of drilling rigs sinking
> caused by the lower density of the surrounding water which has been
> "invaded" by released gas, either from a blowout or from
> dissociation.
>
> Note that I have not copied this posting to "stoves" because I am
> not a member of the list.
>
> Cordially.
>
> End.

 

From a31ford at inetlink.ca Thu Nov 11 12:53:11 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:53:11 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Back to "Basics", Biogas Burners (Flare type)
Message-ID: <002301c4c81f$b1f2fe90$1900a8c0@a31server>

 

Good day all!

Anyone got a good "ratio" for building a flare using 2 chunks of pipe?

Eg: if the fuel pipe is NOT nozzled, and is 1 1/2" ID "black pipe" (3.8cm)
and the biogas is 50cfm (1.5 m3/m) what would the surrounding "ejector
effect" pipe be in diameter ?? 4" ID ?? As well, what would the "insert"
distance into the larger pipe, for the fuel pipe.

Eg: the air dragging effect of the end of the center pipe's fuel stream is
optimal at what distance into the outer pipe. (Coanda ?? Ejector???)

I would assume "an adjustable ratio" of center pipe into the outer pipe,
would be best, as then one could get the air/fuel ratio just right....

I know there are burners called a "Tiger Torch" (on the end of a 3' pipe)
that are used to heat cold surfaces via propane or natural gas. I'm trying
to build something close to that, BUT, the biogas volume is WAY more than
what one of those torches can handle...(I tried it) :)

At a loss, having a brain dead day.

Greg Manning,

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

 

From MMBTUPR at aol.com Thu Nov 11 14:35:56 2004
From: MMBTUPR at aol.com (MMBTUPR at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 15:35:56 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] Methane hydrates
Message-ID: <1747A34C.260E3946.0016DBFB@aol.com>

to Gasification list from Lewis L Smith

For a rich feast of information, go to Google Advanced Search and enter < Canada
"methane hydrates" > then search within for < 2004 > . I got 889 English pages one time and 1,640 another !

Particularly recommend, "'Tutorial on methane hydrate" [Ad hoc Group 24/03/04] and "Overview of the Malliiki gas-hydrate production research well" [JPT Online 04/04] .

Cordially.

End.

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Nov 11 17:03:03 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 00:03:03 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] Back to "Basics", Biogas Burners (Flare type)
In-Reply-To: <002301c4c81f$b1f2fe90$1900a8c0@a31server>
References: <002301c4c81f$b1f2fe90$1900a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <20041112000303.05133d54.arnt@c2i.net>

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:53:11 -0600, a31ford wrote in message
<002301c4c81f$b1f2fe90$1900a8c0 at a31server>:
>
> Good day all!
>
> Anyone got a good "ratio" for building a flare using 2 chunks of pipe?

..I use a 4" flare head on a 2" pipe, the flare head is made from a
5-6?" length pipe stub, open bottom, the 2" pipe ends somewhere in the
middle of the head, the flare head top is a perforated plate which glows
and holds the flame in place. Nice turbulent 3' by 5' flame. ;-)

> Eg: if the fuel pipe is NOT nozzled, and is 1 1/2" ID "black pipe"
> (3.8cm) and the biogas is 50cfm (1.5 m3/m) what would the surrounding
> "ejector effect" pipe be in diameter ?? 4" ID ?? As well, what would
> the "insert" distance into the larger pipe, for the fuel pipe.
>
> Eg: the air dragging effect of the end of the center pipe's fuel
> stream is optimal at what distance into the outer pipe. (Coanda ??
> Ejector???)

..is not all that critical unless you want a natural draft flare, in any
case, you want about twice as much hole space in the top plate to
match the gas pipe hole area., I like a 3" glow ring, the outer "area"
is air, the inner is gas, and the flame is between those and sits
firmly on that 3" glow ring in the top plate.

> I would assume "an adjustable ratio" of center pipe into the outer
> pipe, would be best, as then one could get the air/fuel ratio just
> right....

..here I just adjust the fan. ;-)

..if you wanna fool around with natural draft here, try screw fittings
and cones, or look for adjustable nozzles. If you make your own
fans, old vacuum cleaners usually have adjustable motors.

> I know there are burners called a "Tiger Torch" (on the end of a 3'
> pipe) that are used to heat cold surfaces via propane or natural gas.
> I'm trying to build something close to that, BUT, the biogas volume is
> WAY more than what one of those torches can handle...(I tried it) :)
>
> At a loss, having a brain dead day.

..I had mine yesterday; amaaazing how far back fingers can be bent
without breaking. ;-)

--
..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 robdeutsch at online.com.kh Thu Nov 11 18:51:08 2004
From: robdeutsch at online.com.kh (Robert Deutsch)
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 07:51:08 +0700
Subject: [Gasification] Back to "Basics", Biogas Burners (Flare type)
References: <002301c4c81f$b1f2fe90$1900a8c0@a31server>
<20041112000303.05133d54.arnt@c2i.net>
Message-ID: <009901c4c851$d6310720$1581bdcb@SFKC.GOV.KH>

Dear Arnt,

I was interested in that last reply about flare heads. Got any drawings or
photos? I was trying to visualize the exact position of the glow ring and
the size of the wholes in the perforated plate....

Thanks,

R-

==============================
> ..I use a 4" flare head on a 2" pipe, the flare head is made from a
> 5-6?" length pipe stub, open bottom, the 2" pipe ends somewhere in the
> middle of the head, the flare head top is a perforated plate which glows
> and holds the flame in place. Nice turbulent 3' by 5' flame. ;-)
>
>
> ..is not all that critical unless you want a natural draft flare, in any
> case, you want about twice as much hole space in the top plate to
> match the gas pipe hole area., I like a 3" glow ring, the outer "area"
> is air, the inner is gas, and the flame is between those and sits
> firmly on that 3" glow ring in the top plate.
>
> > I would assume "an adjustable ratio" of center pipe into the outer
> > pipe, would be best, as then one could get the air/fuel ratio just
> > right....
>
> ..here I just adjust the fan. ;-)
>
> ..if you wanna fool around with natural draft here, try screw fittings
> and cones, or look for adjustable nozzles. If you make your own
> fans, old vacuum cleaners usually have adjustable motors.
>
> > I know there are burners called a "Tiger Torch" (on the end of a 3'
> > pipe) that are used to heat cold surfaces via propane or natural gas.
> > I'm trying to build something close to that, BUT, the biogas volume is
> > WAY more than what one of those torches can handle...(I tried it) :)
> >
> > At a loss, having a brain dead day.
>
> ..I had mine yesterday; amaaazing how far back fingers can be bent
> without breaking. ;-)
>
> --
> ..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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>

 

From arnt at c2i.net Fri Nov 12 14:50:57 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 21:50:57 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] Back to "Basics", Biogas Burners (Flare type)
In-Reply-To: <009901c4c851$d6310720$1581bdcb@SFKC.GOV.KH>
References: <002301c4c81f$b1f2fe90$1900a8c0@a31server>
<20041112000303.05133d54.arnt@c2i.net>
<009901c4c851$d6310720$1581bdcb@SFKC.GOV.KH>
Message-ID: <20041112215057.66752a51.arnt@c2i.net>

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 07:51:08 +0700, Robert wrote in message
<009901c4c851$d6310720$1581bdcb at SFKC.GOV.KH>:

> Dear Arnt,
>
> I was interested in that last reply about flare heads. Got any
> drawings or photos?

..sorry, no, I get a few pix shot on my next firing, before that I need
my right hand in working order, it's getting useful now. ;-)

> I was trying to visualize the exact position of the glow ring and
> the size of the wholes in the perforated plate....

..as I said, "not critical", I use 4 or 5mm holes 4 or 5mm apart.

..if you have gas pushing air out of the flare head, widen the center
hole above the gas pipe, you want the gas drawing air up thru the
perforated plate.

..as you power up the fan, you will see the glow ring thin, shrink and
fade, as the gas and air flow cools the plate. Throttling the fan down,
will have you see the glow ring grow to about 2/3 the space between
the gas pipe and flare can wall. I've always keep the flame above
the top plate, where it's stable.

> Thanks,
>
> R-
>
> ==============================
> > ..I use a 4" flare head on a 2" pipe, the flare head is made from a
> > 5-6?" length pipe stub, open bottom, the 2" pipe ends somewhere in
> > the middle of the head, the flare head top is a perforated plate
> > which glows and holds the flame in place. Nice turbulent 3' by 5'
> > flame. ;-)
> >
> >
> > ..is not all that critical unless you want a natural draft flare, in
> > any case, you want about twice as much hole space in the top plate
> > to match the gas pipe hole area., I like a 3" glow ring, the outer
> > "area" is air, the inner is gas, and the flame is between those and
> > sits firmly on that 3" glow ring in the top plate.
> >
> > > I would assume "an adjustable ratio" of center pipe into the outer
> > > pipe, would be best, as then one could get the air/fuel ratio just
> > > right....
> >
> > ..here I just adjust the fan. ;-)
> >
> > ..if you wanna fool around with natural draft here, try screw
> > fittings and cones, or look for adjustable nozzles. If you make
> > your own fans, old vacuum cleaners usually have adjustable motors.
> >
> > > I know there are burners called a "Tiger Torch" (on the end of a
> > > 3' pipe) that are used to heat cold surfaces via propane or
> > > natural gas. I'm trying to build something close to that, BUT, the
> > > biogas volume is WAY more than what one of those torches can
> > > handle...(I tried it) :)
> > >
> > > At a loss, having a brain dead day.
> >
> > ..I had mine yesterday; amaaazing how far back fingers can be bent
> > without breaking. ;-)

--
..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 JWCARTER33 at aol.com Mon Nov 15 11:52:38 2004
From: JWCARTER33 at aol.com (JWCARTER33 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:52:38 EST
Subject: [Gasification] magnesium oxide add mixture
Message-ID: <b8.6692c243.2eca46e6@aol.com>

To all:
Does anyone have any experience with adding magnesium oxide to lime/sand in a
fluid bed gasifier to reduce slaging?
I am interested in percentages and pureness of MgO that needs to be used.
thank you in advance

Jeff

Jeffrey W. Carter
BFC Gas & Electric Companies
110 Southeast Grant St.
Suite 205
Ankeny, IA 50021

j.carter at biofuels.com
Tel: 515-964-6787
Fax: 515-964-6704
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041115/6f899525/attachment.html

From a31ford at inetlink.ca Mon Nov 15 20:05:19 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:05:19 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] magnesium oxide add mixture
In-Reply-To: <b8.6692c243.2eca46e6@aol.com>
Message-ID: <000501c4cb80$b97ac620$1900a8c0@a31server>

Dear Jeff and all

I understand that Manitoba Hydro is "in the know about the proportions of
limestone (dolomite) and such.

I don't know where to start but their website is

http://www.hydro.mb.ca/

Regards,

Greg Manning,
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of
JWCARTER33 at aol.com
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 11:53 AM
To: GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [Gasification] magnesium oxide add mixture

To all:
Does anyone have any experience with adding magnesium oxide to lime/sand
in a fluid bed gasifier to reduce slaging?
I am interested in percentages and pureness of MgO that needs to be used.
thank you in advance

Jeff

Jeffrey W. Carter
BFC Gas & Electric Companies
110 Southeast Grant St.
Suite 205
Ankeny, IA 50021

j.carter at biofuels.com
Tel: 515-964-6787
Fax: 515-964-6704
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041115/932e5cd1/attachment.html

From mirano at stonline.sk Tue Nov 16 01:51:15 2004
From: mirano at stonline.sk (mirano)
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 08:51:15 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] hallo
Message-ID: <004801c4cbb3$706d1cc0$aec551d5@w9o1u1>

Hallo all.

I'm new subscriber to gasification mailing list.
I'm very interesting know more about this! I would like to build small gasificator on my site. I'm firewood producer and I have wooden off cuts as waste. Also could you tell me if charcoal is good for gasification? What is different in efficiently? How I can rebuilt tractor or forklift for running on wooden gas?
I hope all answers for my questions I will find out here.
Thanks.

Miroslav Porochnavy

CHARCOAL SLOVAKIA spol. s r.o.
Kochanovce 217
066 01 Humenne
Slovakia
tel: 00421 57 7750807 , 00421 907 910 327
fax: 00421 57 7750807
e-mail: mirano23 at stonline.sk

-=x=-
Skontrolovan? antiv?rov?m programom NOD32

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041116/1d88fc5f/attachment.html

From santo at poczta.fm Tue Nov 16 12:23:27 2004
From: santo at poczta.fm (Krzysztof Lis)
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:23:27 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] hallo
In-Reply-To: <004801c4cbb3$706d1cc0$aec551d5@w9o1u1>
References: <004801c4cbb3$706d1cc0$aec551d5@w9o1u1>
Message-ID: <1624249823.20041116192327@poczta.fm>

Good day Miroslav!

m> Also could you tell me if charcoal is good for gasification? What
m> is different in efficiently?

It is good, but plain wood is better. 1 litre of gasoline is equiva-
lent to about 3 kg of wood or 3 kg of charcoal, but to obtain 1 kg of
charcoal you have to use 4-5 kg of wood. This way it is much to expen-
sive... And efficiency should be about 4-5 times smaller.

There are some other weaknesses of using charcoal... It is very dry,
so in the wood gas you won't get much hydrogen which is very good
fuel. It is also difficult to manipulate, since it is brittle and
produces large amounts of dust during transport (comparing to wood).

m> How I can rebuilt tractor or forklift for running on wooden gas?

It depends on whether you have gasoline engine (internal combustion
(IC) engine) or diesel engine. If you have IC engine, you simply build
a gas mixer (needed to prepare wood gas-air mixture), attach it to the
engine and that's it. If you have diesel engine, you have two choices,
one easy and one difficult. Because in diesel engine you don't have
spark plugs and wood gas will not ignite just because of the higher
pressure, you need to attach to the engine the whole ignition system
(plugs and stuff) or you leave a small amount of diesel fuel being
introduced to the engine (about 20%) just to ignite the wood gas. You
may save more diesel fuel (reduce the amount to 5%) if you change the
injection nozzles (injectors? I don't know what is the proper word) to
the smaller ones.

m> I hope all answers for my questions I will find out here.

From my own experience I'd suggest reading the 'FEMA wood gas' book,
you'll find there description on how to build your own gasifier.

--
Best regards,
Krzysztof Lis / Poland

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ponad 400 tysiecy facetow szuka przyjaciolki, a moze czegos wiecej...
>>> http://link.interia.pl/f183b

 

From d.j.fulford at reading.ac.uk Wed Nov 17 07:59:46 2004
From: d.j.fulford at reading.ac.uk (David Fulford)
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 13:59:46 +0000
Subject: [Gasification] Wales UK gasification system
In-Reply-To: <12e.4e0e53a0.2e9c37f1@aol.com>
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20041117135237.02f6ce58@pophost.rdg.ac.uk>

Leland

There was a sewage sludge gasifier at the Nash Sewage works, South of
Newport, using a rotating retort system built by Waste Gas Technology. This
was an indirectly heated system. WGT only built a few other commercial
gasifiers (two in France), but the company vanished about a year ago. I
assume they went bankrupt. The Nash gasifier was supposed to run a 1 MW
engine, but I am not sure whether the generator was ever commissioned. I do
have some pictures and a short video, that I can put on a web site, if you
wish to see them.

David Fulford

At 15:24 11/10/2004 -0400, LINVENT at aol.com wrote:
>I have been told that there is a gasification system in or South of Wales,
>UK. Is there any awareness of this project?
>
>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
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

*** Dr David Fulford, Energy Group, Engineering Building ***
*** School of Construction Management and Engineering ***
*** The University of Reading, Whiteknights, ***
*** Reading RG6 6AY, UK Tel: +44-(0)118-378 8563, ***
*** Fax: +44-(0)118-931 3327 E-mail: D.J.Fulford at Reading.ac.uk ***

 

From amount at central.ntua.gr Wed Nov 17 08:10:53 2004
From: amount at central.ntua.gr (Antonis Mountouris)
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 16:10:53 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Wales UK gasification system
References: <5.2.1.1.2.20041117135237.02f6ce58@pophost.rdg.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <000001c4cd44$42d063c0$f2ddfea9@CHEMENG.NTUA.GR>

Dear Mr. Fulford,

I would like any further information about the gasification system for
sewage sludge in Newport or the other two that you have reported in France.

Thank you in advance.

Antonios Mountouris

Mr. Antonios J. Mountouris
Thermodynamics and Transport Phenomena Laboratory
Director: Prof. Dimitrios Tassios
School of Chemical Engineering
National Technical University of Athens
9 Heroon Polytechniou Str., Zographos GR-15780, Athens, Greece
Tel: +30210 7723230, Fax: +30210 7723155
Email: amount at central.ntua.gr

 

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Fulford" <d.j.fulford at reading.ac.uk>
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Wales UK gasification system

> Leland
>
> There was a sewage sludge gasifier at the Nash Sewage works, South of
> Newport, using a rotating retort system built by Waste Gas Technology.
> This was an indirectly heated system. WGT only built a few other
> commercial gasifiers (two in France), but the company vanished about a
> year ago. I assume they went bankrupt. The Nash gasifier was supposed to
> run a 1 MW engine, but I am not sure whether the generator was ever
> commissioned. I do have some pictures and a short video, that I can put on
> a web site, if you wish to see them.
>
> David Fulford
>
> At 15:24 11/10/2004 -0400, LINVENT at aol.com wrote:
>>I have been told that there is a gasification system in or South of Wales,
>>UK. Is there any awareness of this project?
>>
>>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
>>_______________________________________________
>>Gasification mailing list
>>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
> *** Dr David Fulford, Energy Group, Engineering Building ***
> *** School of Construction Management and Engineering ***
> *** The University of Reading, Whiteknights, ***
> *** Reading RG6 6AY, UK Tel: +44-(0)118-378 8563, ***
> *** Fax: +44-(0)118-931 3327 E-mail: D.J.Fulford at Reading.ac.uk ***
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>

 

From pgopinat at purdue.edu Sat Nov 20 17:21:20 2004
From: pgopinat at purdue.edu (pgopinat at purdue.edu)
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 18:21:20 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] submission : Economic viability of gasifiers for
heating applications
Message-ID: <1100992880.419fd170bafd7@webmail.purdue.edu>

Hi,
I am looking for information about the economic viability for small scale
gasifiers for industrial heating applications. At what scale would gasifiers
start being advantageous to electric heating or furnace oil combustion for high
temperature applications (800 to 1300 deg C). The inlet fuel will be biomass
and/or high sulfur content coal.

If there has been a study conducted, comparing size of the unit, cost of inlet
fuel to the economic viability (i.e. cost for medium calorific value product
gas) for various gasifier types, I would appreciate it if someone can send me a
reference.

I have found a number of such studies comparing the cost of natural gas to the
cost of product gas for power plant applications, but none for heating
applications.

Thanks
Prarthana

From a31ford at inetlink.ca Sun Nov 21 10:04:40 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:04:40 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Gas-L Archives, Wealth of Information
Message-ID: <002e01c4cfe3$cf8ebae0$1900a8c0@a31server>

Hello All !!

After test firing the "Latest" creation (The Northerner), I think I'm at
number 12 or something like that, lost count), I actually had a block of
time where nothing was scheduled (OMG !).

Anyhow, I spent this "excess" time in the "coveted" archives of the GAS-L
list, and boy, I got a great surprise, in browsing August 2002, I found a
posting about "Doom and Gloom", being the "new kid on the block" (OK
somewhat new...) I read with much interest what was going on in this thread,
well low and behold, ALMOST verbatim this guy is speaking about
"Intellectual property rights"... (Verbatim to something else that happened
to me just recently), well, well, does history really repeat itself ??

To all that are "newer" to the gasification list.... take lots of time, and
read the archives.... they can answer 1000's of questions. (Yes Mary, there
really is a Santa Claus).

I do say that the new format of the archives is much better than the old
one...

Greg Manning,

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

P.S. NO, it's not about patent infringement, or anything like that...:)

 

From luizmagri at yahoo.com Sun Nov 21 13:56:35 2004
From: luizmagri at yahoo.com (Luiz Alberto Magri)
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 11:56:35 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Gasification] submission : Economic viability of gasifiers for
heating applications
In-Reply-To: <1100992880.419fd170bafd7@webmail.purdue.edu>
Message-ID: <20041121195635.19249.qmail@web11704.mail.yahoo.com>

Dear Prathana,

Is there something I am missing here? For that it
looks like to me that the comparison will have no
application for most of the situations, since you're
talking about heating only (ie, I can?t see why do you
need to gasify your fuel in the first place).

I know the manufacturing of high quality tiles will
require very clean hot gas in the range of 800 - 1000
oC (in order to avoid dark spots on the surface),
hence for this application the gasification is likely
to be benefitial.

Electrical heating is the best option for small
installations due to the very low requirements in
operation and maintenance, and the increased
operational safety as well. Now please note the
inclusion of a gasifier is going exactly in the
opposite direction (increased requirements in O&M
staff, less relyability, additional safety concerns).
Besides, when you look at the energy input cost only,
it is very unlikely the electrical heating will be
competitive when compared to straight fuel burning,
whichever is the fuel. For that reason, unless there
is some strong non-energetic parameter involved (say,
for example, state regulations), the big installations
will rely on fuel burning instead of electricity for
heating purposes.

Are you including steam generation whithin your
possible scenarios? Because one of the most promising
comparisons you can work out will be related to
conventional Rankine cycles (conventional boiler +
steam turbine) x combined cycles (gas turbine +
recovery boiler + steam turbine) x integratated
gasifying combined cycles (gasifier + the previous).

Regards,

Luiz Magri
Rio de Janeiro

--- pgopinat at purdue.edu wrote:

> Hi,
> I am looking for information about the economic
> viability for small scale
> gasifiers for industrial heating applications. At
> what scale would gasifiers
> start being advantageous to electric heating or
> furnace oil combustion for high
> temperature applications (800 to 1300 deg C). The
> inlet fuel will be biomass
> and/or high sulfur content coal.
>
> If there has been a study conducted, comparing size
> of the unit, cost of inlet
> fuel to the economic viability (i.e. cost for medium
> calorific value product
> gas) for various gasifier types, I would appreciate
> it if someone can send me a
> reference.
>
> I have found a number of such studies comparing the
> cost of natural gas to the
> cost of product gas for power plant applications,
> but none for heating
> applications.
>
> Thanks
> Prarthana
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>

 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com

 

From tombreed at comcast.net Mon Nov 22 11:48:09 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (TBReed)
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:48:09 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] Retting biomass for pellets
References: <2BCECFA1.69CC7777.0016DBFB@aol.com>
Message-ID: <09bf01c4d0bb$740df4f0$3401a8c0@OFFICE>

Dear Lewis and all:

I'm suggesting that many biomass forms can be retted the same way that flax
straw is to separate the valuable cellulose fibers from the less valuable
lignin and hemicellulose for making pellets/briquettes.

This from the web:

Fibre Retting

Retting Practices

In general, the practice of retting jute plants in the jute
growing regions is to immerse the jute bundles in clear slow flowing water,
in canals, rivulets, tanks, ponds or ditches. The minimum ratio of plant
material to water in stagnant water should be 1:20. The important conditions
for good retting are:

 

The water should be non-saline and clear.

The volume of water should be enough to allow jute bundles
to float.

Bundles, when immersed, should not touch the bottom.

The same retting tank or ditch should not be used when
water becomes dirtier.

 

Retting has been used for a long time in case of extraction of
fibers from jute and allied vegetable fiber plants. Since the fibers are
contained in the bark or the outer skins of stems, either stems or the outer
skins called ribbons are retted for extracting the fibers. If the stems are
retted, it is called stem retting. If ribbons are retted it is called ribbon
retting. Retting is an important step in the production of good quality
fiber. The existing practices of retting in the major producing countries
are described below.

 

Since most plants are high in cellulose (typically 50%, 25% hemicellulose,
25% lignin) I wonder how many other biomass materials could be upgraded by
retting and then used in the Richard Stanley briquettes.

TOM

----- Original Message -----
From: <MMBTUPR at aol.com>
To: ""TBReed"" <tombreed at comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 8:43 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Energy cane

> from Lewis L Smith
>
> The retting process is new to me. Please describe.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Cordially.
>
> End.
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4564 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041122/465ff9e4/attachment.jpe

From Gavin at aa3genergi.force9.co.uk Mon Nov 22 14:36:05 2004
From: Gavin at aa3genergi.force9.co.uk (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 20:36:05 -0000
Subject: [Gasification] Retting biomass for pellets
In-Reply-To: <09bf01c4d0bb$740df4f0$3401a8c0@OFFICE>
Message-ID: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGEEPOEBAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>

What is the environmental impact of partly degraded jute in the water
source?
This sounds like it would be a controlled activity if it was operated in the
UK on an industrial or commercial scale.

Gavin Gulliver-Goodall

 

 

From w.burroughs at verizon.net Mon Nov 22 15:11:02 2004
From: w.burroughs at verizon.net (Hank)
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 13:11:02 -0800
Subject: [Gasification] Retting biomass for pellets
References: <2BCECFA1.69CC7777.0016DBFB@aol.com>
<09bf01c4d0bb$740df4f0$3401a8c0@OFFICE>
Message-ID: <003701c4d0d7$e4ed00a0$54abf204@oemcomputer>

I would think that you would be losing considerable material that would have
a fuel value if you retted the biomass. Retting is good if all you want is
the fiber as in jute or linen (flax) retting to help prepare the fiber for
spinning. All the rest of the plant stalk is "wasted" as it rots away.

Hank in the high desert

 

From rstanley at legacyfound.org Tue Nov 23 00:28:10 2004
From: rstanley at legacyfound.org (Richard Stanley)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 08:28:10 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Retting biomass for pellets
In-Reply-To: <003701c4d0d7$e4ed00a0$54abf204@oemcomputer>
References: <2BCECFA1.69CC7777.0016DBFB@aol.com> <09bf01c4d0bb$740df4f0$3401a8c0@OFFICE>
<003701c4d0d7$e4ed00a0$54abf204@oemcomputer>
Message-ID: <41A2D87A.7060000@legacyfound.org>

Hank Tom et al,

Think I agree with you Hank, It is not just the fibers but the
"infilling..pithy material which acts as a crude insulation and heat
sink to my experience-- as gleaned from the hundreds of actual
expert/practitioners on site.

To that end the retting process differs slightly from our "partial
decomposition process" (for lack of a more sophisticated term). In
partial decomposition one wants to defibrate the material and retain the
gooey, less fibrous material which retting seeks to discard. One would
not want to fully saturate it in water because one needs to build
temperature within the mass to accelerate decomposition--up to a very
critical stage before interrupting it. Take it too far (as in a few days
beyond a three to six week long process, and you have compost.

As well, one needs to chop and partially mash the material (to cornflake
size) or in log fiber sizes say down to ?40 mm , well before the
decomposition begins. This is done to increase surface area and because
it is farmore difficult to do after the material is in a partially
decomposed and wet.

The technology for this is as either old "as the hills" or brand new.
The timeless mortar and pestle is used typically in a village setting A
3 - 5 kw Hammermill is used in same where it is available and inbetween
are an assortment of threshers and choppers . W ehave developed a
specific device for the briquettes which has both threshing chopping and
mashing capabilities if anyone is interested. It was made in Uganda at
the Uganda Industrail Research Institute (in Kampala) and again in Gulu
at the Unity Vocational school (take your flak jacket along), drawing
upon experience with workshop folks and entrepreneurs in Kangemi Kenya
and Bamaco Mali. I never made technical drawings (then anticipating that
the said institutes would carry on with that) but have scads of photos
and an operator's maintenance manual for it but could reconstruct it in
my sleep (probably not unlike most of us out there with our own
innovations eh ?

Finally and this is as much for FOST and the impending Nepal project
folks, while we are busy measuring fuel values per material used there
is alot to be said for fuel shape in terms of reflected radience,
inherent insulation and stack effect of the hole. As far as the holey
briquette goes its still seems to be as much about what we do not use
(the hole shape) as the material content. Its why we tend to resist
defining production values based on weight of mass processed, preferring
instead to address markets reached. This latter point will probably
apply to the use of the proposed improved stoves but if you intend to
use anything like our larger hollow briquette, you might want to
consider it in your planning.
pressing onward,
Richard

 

Hank wrote:

>I would think that you would be losing considerable material that would have
>a fuel value if you retted the biomass. Retting is good if all you want is
>the fiber as in jute or linen (flax) retting to help prepare the fiber for
>spinning. All the rest of the plant stalk is "wasted" as it rots away.
>
>Hank in the high desert
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
>
>
>
>

From rstanley at legacyfound.org Tue Nov 23 02:36:17 2004
From: rstanley at legacyfound.org (Richard Stanley)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:36:17 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Retting biomass for pellets
In-Reply-To: <003701c4d0d7$e4ed00a0$54abf204@oemcomputer>
References: <2BCECFA1.69CC7777.0016DBFB@aol.com> <09bf01c4d0bb$740df4f0$3401a8c0@OFFICE>
<003701c4d0d7$e4ed00a0$54abf204@oemcomputer>
Message-ID: <41A2F681.9050107@legacyfound.org>

Oops: edited version bellow...

Dear Hank. Tom et al,

I think I agree with you Hank, It is not just the fibers but the
"infilling..pithy material which acts as a crude insulation and heat
sink to my experience-- as gleaned from the hundreds of actual
expert/practitioners on site.

To that end the retting process differs slightly from our "partial
decomposition process" (for lack of a more sophisticated term). In
partial decomposition one wants to defibrate the material and retain the
gooey, less fibrous material which retting seeks to discard. One would
not want to fully saturate it in water because one needs to build
temperature within the mass to accelerate decomposition--up to a very
critical stage before interrupting it. Take it too far (as in a few days
beyond a three to six week long process, and you have compost.

As well, one needs to chop and partially mash the material (to cornflake
size) or in log fiber sizes say down to ?40 mm , well before the
decomposition begins. This is done to increase surface area and because
it is far more difficult to do after the material is in a partially
decomposed and wet.

The technology for this is as either old "as the hills" or brand new.
The timeless mortar and pestle is used typically in a village setting A
3 - 5 kw hammer mill is used in same where it is available and in-between
are an assortment of threshers and choppers. We have developed a
specific device for the briquettes which has both threshing chopping and
mashing capabilities if anyone is interested. It was made in Uganda at
the Uganda Industrial Research Institute (in Kampala) and again in Gulu
at the Unity Vocational school (take your flak jacket along), drawing
upon experience with workshop folks and entrepreneurs in Kangemi Kenya
and Bamaco Mali. I never made technical drawings (then anticipating that
the said institutes would carry on with its production) but have scads
of photos and an operator's maintenance manual for it but could
reconstruct it in my sleep (probably not unlike most of us out there
with our own innovations eh?)

Finally-and this is suggested as much for FOST and the impending Nepal
project folks, as the list at large- while many of the list are busy
measuring fuel values per mass and type of material used, there
is a lot to be said for fuel shape in terms of reflected radiance,
inherent insulation and stack effect of the hole.

Its why we tend to resist
defining production values based on weight of mass processed, preferring
instead to address markets reached. This latter point will probably NOT
apply to the use of the proposed improved stoves but if you intend to
use anything like our larger hollow briquette, you might want to
consider its shape, in your planning.

pressing onward,
Richard

 

Hank wrote:

>I would think that you would be losing considerable material that would have
>a fuel value if you retted the biomass. Retting is good if all you want is
>the fiber as in jute or linen (flax) retting to help prepare the fiber for
>spinning. All the rest of the plant stalk is "wasted" as it rots away.
>
>Hank in the high desert
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
>
>
>
>

 

From MMBTUPR at aol.com Thu Nov 25 10:41:43 2004
From: MMBTUPR at aol.com (MMBTUPR at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:41:43 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] Retting biomass for pellets
Message-ID: <2281FD0B.28127CD0.0016DBFB@aol.com>

to Gasification List from Lewis L Smith

Ref Thomas B Reed's posting and W "Hank" Burroughs', both of 22 Nov.

I expect that many places which can raise lots of grass might not have the water volume and/or the water surface area to process large tonnages of biomass, particularly where in normal years, the rainfall is "just enough" or must be supplemented by irrigation.In such places, the idea is to get as much of rainfall as possible into the root zone and not to accumulate it on the surface, especially where surface evaporation from irrigation canals in subtropical climes can reach 50% !

Tom speaks of "dirty water". Right away my ears perk up, because I can imagine that the environmental specialists on my imaginary project team would have a few well chosen words about that ! These problematic residues undoubtedy overlap with the catagory of combustible residuals mentioned by Hank but may also include some non-combustibles which have to be disposed of, carefully.

There are also some unmentioned operations implied, like bundling the fibers, recovering them from the water, putting them to dry on some kind of rack and then collecting them for further processing. Hmmm
This is getting as complicated as my wife's late water-bottling business !

From my work with the economics of turnig water hyacinths into energy, my impression is that putting biomass into the water and taking it out again is likely to be either low-wage labor intensive and difficult to mechanize and, if mechanizable, too expensive to transport very far, which means a lot of small processing units scattered thither and yon accross the countryside, which loses one whatever scale economies in processing which may be available.

The composition of Super Merker, a variety of Napier grass, at four months is 33.0% cellulose, 28.4% hemicellulose, 10.0% ash, 4.8% lignin and 23.8% other, so I suspect that the end product of the retting process would not be pure enough for many commercial processes based on a single one of the principle components. [Napier grass, like miscanthus, is widely referred to as "elephant grass".]

Sorry to be negative, but it is easier to discard an option on paper than it is when the darn thing is up and not running very well, if at all !

Cordially.

End.

From santo at poczta.fm Thu Nov 25 11:49:46 2004
From: santo at poczta.fm (Krzysztof Lis)
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 18:49:46 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] carbon monoxide vs hydrogen in wood gas
Message-ID: <1736853163.20041125184946@poczta.fm>

Dear gasification colleagues,

I found in many sources recommendations to build up the content of
hydrogen in wood gas, because it increases the heating values of the
gas. But it only increases HHV and LHV per unit mass. If we compare
the HHVs of H2 and CO per 1 kg of gas, of course H2 is about four
times or so better. But HHV of those two gasses per one normal cubic
meter is almost equal -- the LHV of CO (per 1 m^3) is even greater
than of H2... Remembering that we suck into the engine some volume of
wood gas, not some mass of it, I think, that CO is even better fuel
than the H2.

I found in the book "Wood gas as engine fuel" on FAO web site a formu-
la for calculating the heating value (HHV or LHV -- was not stated) of
the wood gas, per unit volume. You will see it in the chapter
http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/T0512E/T0512e08.htm#2.1.2%20engine%20power%20output%20using%20producer%20gas

So now my question is -- if CO is better fuel (if we mean only the
heating values) than H2, why we are trying to increase the content of
hydrogen in the gas by (for example) adding superheated steam to the
gasifying air? Is it because H2 can be easier combusted than CO?

--
Best regards,
Krzysztof Lis , Warszawa / Poland
www.drewnozamiastbenzyny.pl

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nudzisz sie? Zagraj sobie! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f183d

 

From windward at gorge.net Thu Nov 25 15:05:44 2004
From: windward at gorge.net (Walt Patrick)
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:05:44 -0800
Subject: [Gasification] carbon monoxide vs hydrogen in wood gas
In-Reply-To: <1736853163.20041125184946@poczta.fm>
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20041125130231.00c98de0@mail.gorge.net>

At 06:49 PM 11/25/04 +0100, Krzysztof wrote:
>So now my question is -- if CO is better fuel (if we mean only the
>heating values) than H2, why we are trying to increase the content of
>hydrogen in the gas by (for example) adding superheated steam to the
>gasifying air? Is it because H2 can be easier combusted than CO?

In our case, we're wanting to shift the gas more towards the two moles of
H2 per mole of CO that's needed to convert syngas to methanol.

One reason superheated steam is added to a gasification reactor is to
moderate the temperature in the hearth zone thereby minimizing slag
formation and making sure that you don't melt the insides of your reactor.

Walt
http://www.windward.org/

 

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Nov 25 17:10:31 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 00:10:31 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] carbon monoxide vs hydrogen in wood gas
In-Reply-To: <1736853163.20041125184946@poczta.fm>
References: <1736853163.20041125184946@poczta.fm>
Message-ID: <20041126001031.78bcc252.arnt@c2i.net>

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 18:49:46 +0100, Krzysztof wrote in message
<1736853163.20041125184946 at poczta.fm>:

> Dear gasification colleagues,
>
> I found in many sources recommendations to build up the content of
> hydrogen in wood gas, because it increases the heating values of the
> gas. But it only increases HHV and LHV per unit mass. If we compare
> the HHVs of H2 and CO per 1 kg of gas, of course H2 is about four
> times or so better. But HHV of those two gasses per one normal cubic
> meter is almost equal -- the LHV of CO (per 1 m^3) is even greater
> than of H2... Remembering that we suck into the engine some volume of
> wood gas, not some mass of it, I think, that CO is even better fuel
> than the H2.
>
> I found in the book "Wood gas as engine fuel" on FAO web site a formu-
> la for calculating the heating value (HHV or LHV -- was not stated) of
> the wood gas, per unit volume. You will see it in the chapter
> http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/T0512E/T0512e08.htm#2.1.2%20engine%20power%20output%20using%20producer%20gas
>
> So now my question is -- if CO is better fuel (if we mean only the
> heating values) than H2, why we are trying to increase the content of
> hydrogen in the gas by (for example) adding superheated steam to the
> gasifying air? Is it because H2 can be easier combusted than CO?

..compare the combustion speeds for CO, H2, your gas, and your
engine's piston speed. ;-)

--
..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 a31ford at inetlink.ca Thu Nov 25 18:29:28 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 18:29:28 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Condensate AND Tar Issues
Message-ID: <000201c4d34e$fe2390b0$1900a8c0@a31server>

Hello All !

Most of you know, I'm working toward a "CHP" system, rather than the
Co-Combustor of last fall, anyhow, I have 2 dilemmas.

1) Condensate, LOTS of it, Ok, hold on, some background before the issue.
The unit is trailer mounted at the moment, as to roll it outside for
testing, and then back into the shop for reworking-revamping ( welding,
etc.) remember it is now 0c at best during the days here, and down to -10c
in the evenings. because most of the revamping is done during the day, the
tests are done late in the day (it's fantastic to see a test flare at
night!) The entire trailer mounted unit is left out at night (covered top &
flare valve closed) this is done simply for fire reasons (a well as the
smell that fills the shop even after an evening outside).

OK, NOW the problem,,, with everything sealed, one would think, that the
condensate would NOT be that big an Issue... BUT, WOW !!! somehow I'm
getting fantastic amounts for a 2 hour test (coffee can full!) the wood
chips are 15-20% MC so where is the rest coming from ??? Yes the humidity is
up some, 30% or so, but we are NOT using that much air!! (Total wood chip
use for test is about 5kg)

2) Tars, If one can envision the following downdraft gasifier, 4" gas outlet
comes out the side just under the nozzle area, goes straight up for 4 ft,
does a double 90 (Right & Right again) and then angles down at about a -20
deg. towards the cyclone inlet 6ft away, then goes through the cyclone, out
the top, through 180 and back down the outside of the cyclone, does another
90 so it's now parallel to the ground, at this point, it reduces to 2 1/2"
goes through another 90 (now pointing down) and into a vacuum pump, goes
around the pump and comes straight up out the other side of the pump (rotary
vane pump) as it comes up it hits the shut off valve (1 1/2") and continues
up to the test flare (1 1/4" outlet)

I'm getting lots of ash in both the lower tank of the downdraft unit, and
the cyclone's dust bin (as well as condensate, & massive amounts of tars)
the tars even drag to the outlet of the test flare.

I would have to assume my residence time in the reduction zone is to short,
as to all the tars I'm getting, OR.... the simple act of only SHORT BURN
PERIODS, is the culprit (OR BOTH)...

What's everyone else's opinions??

Greg Manning,

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

 

From a31ford at inetlink.ca Thu Nov 25 22:34:40 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:34:40 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Condensate AND Tar Issues
Message-ID: <000301c4d371$3f1ae970$1900a8c0@a31server>

Hello All !

Most of you know, I'm working toward a "CHP" system, rather than the
Co-Combustor of last fall, anyhow, I have 2 dilemmas.

1) Condensate, LOTS of it, Ok, hold on, some background before the issue.
The unit is trailer mounted at the moment, as to roll it outside for
testing, and then back into the shop for reworking-revamping ( welding,
etc.) remember it is now 0c at best during the days here, and down to -10c
in the evenings. because most of the revamping is done during the day, the
tests are done late in the day (it's fantastic to see a test flare at
night!) The entire trailer mounted unit is left out at night (covered top &
flare valve closed) this is done simply for fire reasons (a well as the
smell that fills the shop even after an evening outside).

OK, NOW the problem,,, with everything sealed, one would think, that the
condensate would NOT be that big an Issue... BUT, WOW !!! somehow I'm
getting fantastic amounts for a 2 hour test (coffee can full!) the wood
chips are 15-20% MC so where is the rest coming from ??? Yes the humidity is
up some, 30% or so, but we are NOT using that much air!! (Total wood chip
use for test is about 5kg)

2) Tars, If one can envision the following downdraft gasifier, 4" gas outlet
comes out the side just under the nozzle area, goes straight up for 4 ft,
does a double 90 (Right & Right again) and then angles down at about a -20
deg. towards the cyclone inlet 6ft away, then goes through the cyclone, out
the top, through 180 and back down the outside of the cyclone, does another
90 so it's now parallel to the ground, at this point, it reduces to 2 1/2"
goes through another 90 (now pointing down) and into a vacuum pump, goes
around the pump and comes straight up out the other side of the pump (rotary
vane pump) as it comes up it hits the shut off valve (1 1/2") and continues
up to the test flare (1 1/4" outlet)

I'm getting lots of ash in both the lower tank of the downdraft unit, and
the cyclone's dust bin (as well as condensate, & massive amounts of tars)
the tars even drag to the outlet of the test flare.

I would have to assume my residence time in the reduction zone is to short,
as to all the tars I'm getting, OR.... the simple act of only SHORT BURN
PERIODS, is the culprit (OR BOTH)...

What's everyone else's opinions??

Greg Manning,

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

 

From arnt at c2i.net Fri Nov 26 12:34:37 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 19:34:37 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] Condensate AND Tar Issues
In-Reply-To: <000201c4d34e$fe2390b0$1900a8c0@a31server>
References: <000201c4d34e$fe2390b0$1900a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <20041126193437.02ae888c.arnt@c2i.net>

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 18:29:28 -0600, a31ford wrote in message
<000201c4d34e$fe2390b0$1900a8c0 at a31server>:

>
> Hello All !
>
> Most of you know, I'm working toward a "CHP" system, rather than the
> Co-Combustor of last fall, anyhow, I have 2 dilemmas.
>
> 1) Condensate, LOTS of it, Ok, hold on, some background before the
> issue. The unit is trailer mounted at the moment, as to roll it
> outside for testing, and then back into the shop for
> reworking-revamping ( welding, etc.) remember it is now 0c at best
> during the days here, and down to -10c in the evenings. because most
> of the revamping is done during the day, the tests are done late in
> the day (it's fantastic to see a test flare at night!) The entire

.. ;-)

> trailer mounted unit is left out at night (covered top & flare valve
> closed) this is done simply for fire reasons (a well as the smell that
> fills the shop even after an evening outside).

..leave it running for a full day. Also try find out how far down you
can throttle it down, any good gasifier should do anywhere between
15% to 100% of the full power rating. Also check your "acceleration",
you should see a 1-2 second lag, like an automobile with a bad carb.

..light-up time from cold to full power around 1.5 to 2 minutes, you
match me, below 30 seconds, you're beating the K?lle charcoal gasifier.

> OK, NOW the problem,,, with everything sealed, one would think, that
> the condensate would NOT be that big an Issue... BUT, WOW !!! somehow
> I'm getting fantastic amounts for a 2 hour test (coffee can full!) the
> wood chips are 15-20% MC so where is the rest coming from ??? Yes the

..your bone dry wood? ;-)

> humidity is up some, 30% or so, but we are NOT using that much air!!
> (Total wood chip use for test is about 5kg)

..try calculate your remaining wood MC against what you find in
your coffee can. ;-)

..or, try an internal tar flare. I see _no_ moisture in my gasifier,
only sooty deposits in the tar flare, and tar deposits on the fuel
hopper walls and a wee bit in the tar flare piping.

> 2) Tars, If one can envision the following downdraft gasifier, 4" gas
> outlet comes out the side just under the nozzle area, goes straight up

..too deep. Draw the tar vapors off at the top, say into a straight 2"
pipe, this can be hung and welded or bolted onto the air pipe, right
above the combustion zone. My air pipe ends about 4" inside the
tar flare pipe, the tar deposits inside the tar pipe should end at the
air pipe muzzle and below you wanna see soot.
Keep it simple, stupid. ;-)

| | air pipe
-------------------------------| |---------------top cover
| | | |
| | | | tar pipe
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |
| |

..if you drop the tar pipe to far down into the combustion zone, the
excess will burn off, and you just cut off another inch and make sure
you still have 4" for the tar flame. My tar flare ends I estimate 4 to
6" above the combustion zone, I use 8 nozzles to span the 10" or
so diameter combustion zone.

> for 4 ft, does a double 90 (Right & Right again) and then angles down
> at about a -20 deg. towards the cyclone inlet 6ft away, then goes
> through the cyclone, out the top, through 180 and back down the
> outside of the cyclone, does another 90 so it's now parallel to the
> ground, at this point, it reduces to 2 1/2" goes through another 90
> (now pointing down) and into a vacuum pump, goes around the pump and
> comes straight up out the other side of the pump (rotary vane pump) as
> it comes up it hits the shut off valve (1 1/2") and continues up to
> the test flare (1 1/4" outlet)

..I don't use any pumps in my tar flare system, only gas suction, and my
gasifier runs below ambient pressure. Air is piped in a 1/2" line into
the 2" pipe, and I use a full bore (1/2") ball valve to control the air.

> I'm getting lots of ash in both the lower tank of the downdraft unit,
> and the cyclone's dust bin (as well as condensate, & massive amounts
> of tars) the tars even drag to the outlet of the test flare.

..the boo goo. Burn the tar vapors and make more gas off it. ;-)

> I would have to assume my residence time in the reduction zone is to
> short, as to all the tars I'm getting, OR.... the simple act of only
> SHORT BURN PERIODS, is the culprit (OR BOTH)...

..no internal tar flaring.

> What's everyone else's opinions??

..see inline.

.. and, those of you who wanted to see my old gas flare head, will
first have to help me find it, meanwhile, I'll make a new one. ;-)

--
..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 MMBTUPR at aol.com Fri Nov 26 14:48:03 2004
From: MMBTUPR at aol.com (MMBTUPR at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 15:48:03 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] Retting biomass for pellets
Message-ID: <060A1551.635BB69E.0016DBFB@aol.com>

to Gasification List from Lewis L Smith

Tried to access < legacyfound.org > . Could only get to home page. Other pages hung up in downloading.

Looks like they are working on small-scale bricketting for village use. Good but too small for me.
I am looking for gasification processes that will supply units of five to 10 MWe clustered in decentralized mini-generating stations of 30 to 50 MWe.

However, pellets might be economical for cofiring with coal at AES' Salinas generating station.

Thanks anyway.

End.

From a31ford at inetlink.ca Fri Nov 26 21:14:10 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 21:14:10 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] WOW, did I do a Dumb Thing !
Message-ID: <000601c4d42f$2a750500$1900a8c0@a31server>

Hello All !!!

Well, I've done it! I have this on-going trait of sticking not one, but BOTH
of my feet in my mouth at the same time !

How, do you ask?

Some where, some how, in my infinite wisdom of doing calculations late at
night (ya, that's it, I'll blame it on being tired :) I slipped a 100 fold
or something...

Arnt spoke of a naturally aspirated gasifier, well well, I said. How can he
do that when I need at least 350 CFM ! from the gasifier!

OK, let me check this again, in front of all of you....

350 Cubic Inch Displacement engine (5.7L)

I'll do the work in Imperial Units, as that is what I grew up with (I guess
I could have made the mistake transferring from Metric)

350 CID @ 1800 rpm is 350 divided by 4 (4 cycle), times 1800 is 157,500 Cu
Inches per minute. There are 1728 Cu. inches in a Cu. Foot (12*12*12)
therefore 157,500 divided by 1728 is 91.145 Cu Feet per minute, divide this
by 2 (gas/air 1 to 1 ratio) and you get 45.57 Cubic Feet per minute! (NOT
THE 350 I got, the first time around!)

OK, so 45.57 CuFt/min. is 2734 CuFt/Hour (or 101.25 CuYd/h OR 77.37 Cu
Meters an HOUR!)

WHERE did I get the idea that I needed 350 CuFt/m (CFM) from just the
gasifier??

NOW we know why so much tar, and condensate......

SHEESH !

"anyone want a used vacuum pump, cheap?"

Greg Manning,

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

 

From GCRISLER at mn.rr.com Fri Nov 26 21:42:56 2004
From: GCRISLER at mn.rr.com (Garret Crisler)
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 21:42:56 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] WOW, did I do a Dumb Thing !
References: <000601c4d42f$2a750500$1900a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <07c601c4d433$3051e2f0$26e21e41@D476PM31>

A four stroke engine has an intake stroke every 2 revolutions not every
four. Your results, I believe are off by a factor of 2.

Garret Crisler
Minneapolis, MN

----- Original Message -----
From: "a31ford" <a31ford at inetlink.ca>
To: "A Gasification List (E-mail)" <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Friday, November 26, 2004 9:14 PM
Subject: [Gasification] WOW, did I do a Dumb Thing !

>
> Hello All !!!
>
>
> Well, I've done it! I have this on-going trait of sticking not one, but
> BOTH
> of my feet in my mouth at the same time !
>
> How, do you ask?
>
> Some where, some how, in my infinite wisdom of doing calculations late at
> night (ya, that's it, I'll blame it on being tired :) I slipped a 100 fold
> or something...
>
> Arnt spoke of a naturally aspirated gasifier, well well, I said. How can
> he
> do that when I need at least 350 CFM ! from the gasifier!
>
> OK, let me check this again, in front of all of you....
>
> 350 Cubic Inch Displacement engine (5.7L)
>
> I'll do the work in Imperial Units, as that is what I grew up with (I
> guess
> I could have made the mistake transferring from Metric)
>
> 350 CID @ 1800 rpm is 350 divided by 4 (4 cycle), times 1800 is 157,500
> Cu
> Inches per minute. There are 1728 Cu. inches in a Cu. Foot (12*12*12)
> therefore 157,500 divided by 1728 is 91.145 Cu Feet per minute, divide
> this
> by 2 (gas/air 1 to 1 ratio) and you get 45.57 Cubic Feet per minute! (NOT
> THE 350 I got, the first time around!)
>
> OK, so 45.57 CuFt/min. is 2734 CuFt/Hour (or 101.25 CuYd/h OR 77.37 Cu
> Meters an HOUR!)
>
> WHERE did I get the idea that I needed 350 CuFt/m (CFM) from just the
> gasifier??
>
> NOW we know why so much tar, and condensate......
>
> SHEESH !
>
> "anyone want a used vacuum pump, cheap?"
>
> Greg Manning,
>
> Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

 

From a31ford at inetlink.ca Fri Nov 26 22:01:26 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 22:01:26 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] NOT one but TWO, in one night !
Message-ID: <000801c4d435$c4a57730$1900a8c0@a31server>

OK,

Kevin, Chisholm clarified one thing...

A 4 cycle engine, actually uses 2 revolutions to produce 4 cycles therefore
yet again my calcs are off by half...

so 91 Cu Ft/minute NOT 45.5

Anyone have a good math tutor?

Greg Manning

 

From Doug.Williams at orcon.net.nz Fri Nov 26 23:00:21 2004
From: Doug.Williams at orcon.net.nz (Doug Williams)
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:00:21 +1300
Subject: [Gasification] carbon monoxide vs hydrogen in wood gas
References: <1736853163.20041125184946@poczta.fm>
Message-ID: <006001c4d43e$031b5400$0301010a@newpc>

Hello Krzysztof,
In response to your question.

> So now my question is -- if CO is better fuel (if we mean only the
> heating values) than H2, why we are trying to increase the content of
> hydrogen in the gas by (for example) adding superheated steam to the
> gasifying air? Is it because H2 can be easier combusted than CO?

Arnt has already referred you to the flame speed and it's relationship to
piston speed, and I will expand this by saying that the higher the H2, the
quicker the response is to load change, meaning there should be no
hesitation if more power is required. The engine is also easier to start. If
on the other hand you can only make CO with little hydrogen, this gas is
more suited to a slower speed engine, with a non changing load.

If you are making producer gas from biomass and not coal, then you should
not be adding steam. There is plenty of moisture in the biomass to make H2
with a surplus, and if you add steam you will create a tar problem.

Regards,
Doug Williams,
Fluidyne Gasification.

 

From opc_29718 at yahoo.co.in Sat Nov 27 01:48:23 2004
From: opc_29718 at yahoo.co.in (OM CHATURVEDI)
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 07:48:23 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [Gasification] Re: Gasification Digest, Vol 4, Issue 25
In-Reply-To: <20041126170015.73C7D297F3@ns2.misteam.net>
Message-ID: <20041127074823.58612.qmail@web8506.mail.in.yahoo.com>

Respected Sir,

I want to know about that the waste water obtained from the gasifier which will produced after the cleaing and cooling gas before sending it to the enigne. This water has the much amount of the tar and other pollutent and hence before safe disposal it to drain some treatment is essential. Thus, i want know about that process. Please send me detail of this process, if possible, as early as possible.

I am a PhD student from the India.

Thanking You

With regards,

Om Prakash Chaturvedi


Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your life partneronline.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041127/7a4223ef/attachment.html

From tombreed at comcast.net Sun Nov 28 07:05:08 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (TBReed)
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 06:05:08 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] Re: Gasification Digest, Vol 4, Issue 25
References: <20041127074823.58612.qmail@web8506.mail.in.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <043001c4d54a$e3666010$3201a8c0@OFFICE>

Dear OMC:

Some of us have used diesel fuel for the cooling. It cools and collects tar vapors, but they are insoluble in the liquid, so you can recycle the liquid many times and easily mix the tar residue with the feed during gasification.

Keep your dirty water out of our rivers and lakes...

Good luck,

TOM REED BEF WOODGAS.COM
----- Original Message -----
From: OM CHATURVEDI
To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 12:48 AM
Subject: [Gasification] Re: Gasification Digest, Vol 4, Issue 25

Respected Sir,

I want to know about that the waste water obtained from the gasifier which will produced after the cleaing and cooling gas before sending it to the enigne. This water has the much amount of the tar and other pollutent and hence before safe disposal it to drain some treatment is essential. Thus, i want know about that process. Please send me detail of this process, if possible, as early as possible.

I am a PhD student from the India.

Thanking You

With regards,

Om Prakash Chaturvedi

 

Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your life partner online.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041128/3d15940b/attachment.html

From kchisholm at ca.inter.net Sun Nov 28 07:47:24 2004
From: kchisholm at ca.inter.net (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 09:47:24 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] Re: Gasification Digest, Vol 4, Issue 25
References: <20041127074823.58612.qmail@web8506.mail.in.yahoo.com>
<043001c4d54a$e3666010$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
Message-ID: <004c01c4d550$cc9d5720$6e9a0a40@kevin>

Dear Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: TBReed
To: OM CHATURVEDI ; GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Re: Gasification Digest, Vol 4, Issue 25

Dear OMC:

Some of us have used diesel fuel for the cooling. It cools and collects tar vapors, but they are insoluble in the liquid, so you can recycle the liquid many times and easily mix the tar residue with the feed during gasification.

That is an interesting approach indeed!! If the tars are insoluble in diesel oil, why is diesel oil effective in capturing the tars?

Thanks!!

Kevin Chisholm

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041128/16aa600e/attachment.html

From guagmeister at yahoo.com Mon Nov 29 04:26:43 2004
From: guagmeister at yahoo.com (Guag Meister)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 02:26:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Gasification] Sawdust Fines Gasifier.
Message-ID: <20041129102643.14347.qmail@web51102.mail.yahoo.com>

Hi Greg, Tom, and All ;

My first post to the list, although I have been
lurking on and off (mostly off) since 1997. Tom good
to see you still active.

Checked the archives to avoid a scolding. I have a
source of sawdust fines down the street. It is the
result of small bandsaw cutting, so it is REALLY fine,
like sugar or dust, easily entrained in the lowest of
gas flows. Considering peak oil, I would like to be
able to run my old diesel truck on wood gas plus 10%
diesel. I want to build a small gasifier for my truck
(60 hp). I have downloaded the thesis pdf and
studying it now.

Any other good links would be appreciated.

Best Regards,

Peter G.
Thailand

 

Cyclone Gasifier
a31ford a31ford at INETLINK.CA
Tue Jun 1 23:13:35 EDT 2004

Previous message: The cost of a small power plant
Next message: Microbial remediation of tars
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [
author ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matt, I find this last post, to the point of almost
"Taunting" I'm not a
mean person, don't get me wrong, BUT I will be the
first person to state the
following.....

" Do NOT think that the people on this list are dumb,
and that for some
reason you know more than others... there are
professors, engineers, people
that have 20+ years of ONLY working with gasifiers..."

If anything, you might simply find the following....
"I will most likely be
the only person, that will take the time to reply to
this message, simply
because it sounds so offensive, the rest of the list
will simply hit the
"Ignore" button......"

FOR YOUR INFORMATION:

Cyclonic Gasification, BEEN there, Done that, DTU is
the model:
http://bgg.mek.dtu.dk/publications/pdf/amst02_v2_82.pdf

Small particle, well, I'll let the rest of the list
run with that one :)

Any Takers ? or did he get the full Ignore treatment
for this one ?

Oh, BTW as far as building cyclones... here
http://cnets.net/~eclectic/woodworking/cyclone/index.cfm

Quite a detailed site on the how's & why's.

Greg

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of
Matthew Pottinger
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 7:25 PM
To: GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Cyclone Gasifier

Hey all, I know I am not the most experienced person
on the list here
(understatement), however, from discussing things with
you, I realize that
you all overlook what I am saying in regards to the
uniqueness of my
proposal on how to gasify materials such as biosolids.

You say that fuel conditioning is a big problem,
moisture is a big
problem, gas quality is a big problem.

I have been suggesting the cyclone gasifier for
biosolids application, yet
so far nobody has said ANYTHING about it. I am in
contact with a company
which offers a simple system for dehydrating
biosolids. Their system will
dehydrate to 10% moisture content. The biosolids (or
manure), become
pulverized to *UNIFORM* predictable sized particles.

These are SMALL particles, a powder, a dust.

The gasifiers everyone is discussing here can NOT
handle these.

The gasifier I am suggesting REQUIRES these "dust
like" inputs.
it is ESPECIALLY important that the fuel is small
particle for a cyclone
gasifier, and it is important that it is dry.

The vortex dehydrator fulfills these exact
requirements for fuel
conditioning. Do you see what I mean?

THIS is what I was enthusiastic about all this time.
I want to build THIS system and no other.

Do you see the system I am proposing?
What do you think?

1. Uniform fuel size
2. Very small particle size
2. Dry fuel
3. A gasifier that is WELL KNOWN to be good at
gasifying such conditioned
fuel.

A cyclone gasifier also reduces the amount of tars and
ash entrained in
the gas, it acts as both a gasifier and a gas cleaner.

The gas from this gasifier is apparently cleaner to
begin with.

Continuous operating is simplied.
Fuel conditioning is simplified

This can handle things other than biosolids.

Any fuel can be pulverized by the fuel conditioning
system and fed.

I EMPHASIZE that you have not been discussing this
particular system with
me at all.

 

 

--

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race,
but it just wouldn't be economically feasible."

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Previous message: The cost of a small power plant
Next message: Microbial remediation of tars
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [
author ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the Gasification mailing list

 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

From tmiles at trmiles.com Mon Nov 29 12:07:52 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:07:52 -0800
Subject: [Gasification] Fw: charcoal making equipment and briquetting
equipment
Message-ID: <00c401c4d65d$81e55710$6501a8c0@OFFICE3>

We get this kind of request once in awhile. What charcoal making eqipment is
available?

Tom Miles

----- Original Message -----
From: <rbarjon at tampabay.rr.com>
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 8:31 AM
Subject: charcoal making equipment and briquetting equipment

>
> I would like to request the cost and volume capacity of charcoal making
> and briquetting machines.
> Thank you,
>
> Regine Barjon
> HDA
> EM: rbarjon at tampabay.rr.com
> Tel: 813-831-5956
> Fax: 813-831-8477
>
>
>
>

 

From Carefreeland at aol.com Mon Nov 29 22:19:37 2004
From: Carefreeland at aol.com (Carefreeland at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 23:19:37 EST
Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Stoves] Fw: charcoal making equipment and
briquetting equipment
Message-ID: <1a3.2c2ac182.2edd4ed9@aol.com>

In a message dated 11/29/04 4:51:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
tmiles at trmiles.com writes:

DD : Dan Dimiduk comments
>
>
> We get this kind of request once in awhile. What charcoal making eqipment is
>
> available?
>
> Tom Miles
>
>
DD I do not have any equipment available at this time. I am however very
interested in the market potential for manufacturing parts for such equipment and
much more. At some point in the future, I plan on the construction of a farm
scale, charcoal fueled foundry. This later could be extended to include
forging, metal fabrication, and machine shops, extensively utilizing renewable
energy sources. My greenhouses could benefit from all waste heat.
DD I am always adding to the long list of products which have limited markets
and therefore are of little interest to the large scale foundries and
fabrication shops. It would serve my intentions well, to first provide cast iron and
specialty steel products to the emerging renewable energy markets.
DD My intention is to provide inventors in the renewables industries, an
INEXPENSIVE way to produce experimental prototype and limited production run
equipment. Every inventor deserves to see his / her work cast in metal.
DD My long list of products of interest includes: wood, charcoal and other
biomass fueled stoves and burners, gasifer castings and related hardware such as
gas cleaning equipment, charcoal production and processing equipment, biomass
raw resource harvesting/handling/processing equipment, biomass digestion
equipment, biomass refining/ distillation and equipment for final marketing prep.
Pollution control equipment for all of the above.
DD Under the general heading of renewable energy and sustainable development:
solar thermal/photovoltaic collector and concentrator parts, small scale wind
energy harvesting parts.( note, water has been pumped for centuries with
direct drive). Small scale hydro equipment and related hardware, small scale water
collection, storage and purification equipment. Also, the landscaping,
greenhouse and some farming industries are all familiar to me.
DD I probably missed quite a few categories. I am sick and tired of hearing
from skeptics that there is no market for domestic specialty cast iron and
steel products because of China import syndrome. In the next breath those same
skeptics complain about availability of products and inventions they would make
if they could.

DD Many on this list have expressed an interest in development of pet
projects. Is this the type of business we need as a catalyst for development of
Bioenergy industry? I feel if we all wait for government or institutional action we
will all be long dead before anything happens. I would be happy to read
E-mail from potential future customers. I want to know what markets are most in
immediate need of these types of products/service.
DD By expressing your interest, you will motivate me towards farther
construction of this facility. I have a long term lease on land which is actually
zoned for my experimental greenhouse. This summer I masonry lined, my hand dug
well. Much hard work needs done before foundry construction can begin. If enough
potential orders were outstanding, the profit motive would propel me forward.
I do have a family to feed and I try to make all of my projects profitable
ASAP.
DD My fuel supply is assured. I am moving towards a full time, automated,
construction woodlot clearing business. The land has historically been a small
landfill operation and much low grade biomass can be obtained along with a
tipping fee. An opportunity to develop this property will pass at some time in the
uncertain distant future, due to future land ownership changes.
DD My object is a to prove the viability of interrelated, interlocked
sustainable industries on a micro-cottage scale. I am always thinking what we would
be doing if we were living on Mars. My Shangri-La is the trial and error
manifestation and hands on demonstration of these thoughts. You could say it is an
experiment in vertical integration for a sustainable future.
DD One can rest assured that I have more than enough projects of my own to
develop, that I have no need to steal intellectual property. On the contrary, If
you trust me, I may help you find markets and consultants for your projects.
A patent is worthless with no market. I will make my money selling you metal
or on side deals, I do trade ;-)
Thank you,

Daniel J. Dimiduk, Founder :
Carefree Landscape Maintenance Co. ( since 1980)
Shangri-La Research and Development Co. ( since 1990)
Ohio Charcoal and Iron Company ( under development)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041129/bf0e86a0/attachment.html

From praufast at free.fr Tue Nov 30 19:02:32 2004
From: praufast at free.fr (Philippe Raufast)
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 2:2:32 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] Fw: charcoal making equipment and
briquettingequipment
Message-ID: <20041201010052.6CE03173489@postfix3-1.free.fr>

>We get this kind of request once in awhile. What charcoal making eqipment is
>available?

Beside their gasifiers, here in France, Martezzo build charcoal kilns, i think they are around 12 m3.
There are also some suppliers in India.
Philippe Raufast
>
>Tom Miles
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <rbarjon at tampabay.rr.com>
>Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 8:31 AM
>Subject: charcoal making equipment and briquetting equipment
>
>
>>
>> I would like to request the cost and volume capacity of charcoal making
>> and briquetting machines.
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Regine Barjon
>> HDA
>> EM: rbarjon at tampabay.rr.com
>> Tel: 813-831-5956
>> Fax: 813-831-8477
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
>
>
>--
>Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.0.0 - Release Date: 08/11/04

 

--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.0.0 - Release Date: 08/11/04

 

From sudarshan at matmod.com Tue Nov 23 16:48:42 2004
From: sudarshan at matmod.com (sudarshan)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 22:48:42 -0000
Subject: [Gasification] facilities for testing coal gasifier liners
Message-ID: <200411231741118.SM01764@Sudarshan>

I am looking for some test facilities that can take liner tubes coated
with a ceramic for testing under coal gasifier conditions- any suggestions
of government facilities or private companies that participate in this kind
of activity

sudarshan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041123/5d0a7ea0/attachment.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 862 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041123/5d0a7ea0/attachment.gif