1961 Land-Rover Series II

Small Engines Charcoal Gasification
#18

Dear Steve,
please just call me Til, this is my given name.

A six-cylinder engine would be nice. I have read about many possibilities like the six cylinder engines that you listed, the rover V8 and others.

My problem is similar to Kristijan’s: We have regular vehicle inspections here (every two years) and Germany is quite strict in what is allowed. Especially when you want to make such a vehicle stronger and thus faster with a bigger engine.
Well, for older vehicles some rules are also less strict here, but I am still not as free as you in the US.
Additionally, it is registered as historical vehicle. That means I have to keep it in an original and good condition.
It can be changed to a normal registration which less restrictive in this respect.
But a historical registration has many benefits here:

  • Less tax (fixed amount, normal it is coupled to the engine displacement and emissions, so old cars are otherwise quite high in tax)
  • Less insurance, as the insurance companies know you take care of it as a historical item
  • No problems with emissions: I can drive in “environmental zones” in cities which are normally just allowed for modern cars with newest emission control.

Just let me say that fitting a gasifier is in a legal grey zone in this case. So I don’t want to make it too obvious and go a bit stealth as Kristijan.
It is not forbidden but also not really allowed. Let me explain:
In Germany, vehicles with petrol engines that are first time registered prior to 1968 are not under emission-control. As woodgas is no official fuel, the emissions are not known and there are no limit values defined. This is a problem with younger vehicles, as they have to fulfill certain limits. With woodgas, this can’t be fulfilled or you have to spend heaps of money for official measurements. But with vehicles prior to 1968, this is not a problem and allows a more or less legal use of woodgas. At least, there is a legal loophole.

A problem is that I can’t change too much on the appearance and drive-train, as otherwise I won’t pass the vehicle inspection. The Land-Rover is too young to be a real WW2 woodgas vehicle.

A vehicle inspector who by himself restored a woodgas-powered tractor from the 1940s once gave me the advice to not install the gasifier permanently but as a piece of cargo. So there is no change to the vehicle. If there is a hose from the cargo to the engine, this is not important.
So this is what I want to do. Through this forum I got a lot of ideas and suggestions. Combined with the old books this is like a goldmine of knowledge.

And please keep in mind that this is a more a hobby and experiment for me, similar to Bruce’s MG. Do it because I’m fascinated about woodgas. Build it, drive it, see what works and what not, improve it and have a lot of fun along the way.
My hat is of to those who use woodgas everyday for there needs, but this is not my intention.

Sorry, this became a very long post.
Regards,
Til

9 Likes
#19

I was told cargo is not allowed to be bolted to the vehicle, only strapped. This is why I went with kind of slide in/hook on/easy off-on for inspections, rather than stealth with the Rabbit. Looked kind of funny, so only smiles from police.
Just saying. Easy on-off might limit you less than stealth.

5 Likes
#20

Thank you Til for the current in-Germany explanation.
Vehicles in the USofA are individual state-by-state licensed, safety and emissions inspected(or not), insurances state-by-state allowed or restricted.
Ha! Only some areas here are a woodgas free-for-all.
Some states here have a Historic licensing/registration with similar modification/use restrictions.
Most here ARE grey-area woodgas roads driving, too.
Old U.K. English, “Mum’s the word”. Current USA, “Don’t ask. Don’t tell”. Older Americanism, “Open mouth; and insert foot”
S.U.

8 Likes
#21

Hi Til

you want to adjust the water flow of your gasifier with a gasoline engine carburetor?
it seems like a great idea. Is this your idea or this design has already been tested?
Do you think that the internal temperature of the gasifier could be automatically controlled in this way?
a central nozzle vs several concentric air jet which advantages? :thinking:

Thierry

3 Likes
#22

I have been thinking about that idea for a while now. Very interesting to me. I would aim the sensor from one of those new pistol type color temperature thermometers directly into a nozzle, and use the signal to add more or less EGR or water.
Rindert

2 Likes
#23

Hi Thierry,
no, it was not my idea. Max Gasman suggested this in the Seat thread of Kristijan more than three years ago:

(See this post and the ones following)
Anyway, I think no one really tested it this way.
I just try to absorb all good ideas “as a sponge” and then try to combine it. I hope that I can control the internal temp with this, as the water-air-mixture should be more or less constant at the generator inlet for different loads instead of a water drip.
Advatages of a central nozzle:
Easier to built and if the Lighting port is directly above (as in my scetch) easy to look directly into the burning hearth of the gasifier. → Easier to check reaction temp (white glowing char or orange glowing)
Easier to replace or try a different design/material of the nozzle.
Disadvantage:
For the reaction there should be no big difference. With a central nozzle, the danger of a channel is burned down through the char to the grate (bridging) could be higher. Also the reaction zone could be more centralised and longer (more space between nozzle and grate needed). A design like Krisitjans last one can be more compact.

Hi Rindert,
I thought about this, too. Gary Gilmore is doing this according to the colour of the reaction zone in his simple-fire-gasifiers: White glowing char = too hot, red glowing char = too cool, organge glow is about right.
In numbers: About 900 °C (centigrade) is the optimum point for EGR or added steam: With this temp, the best equilibrium of the reaction is reached: Most of the added EGR or steam is cracked and there is not much CO2 in the gas. With lower temps in the reaction, the amount of CO2 in the gas raises, with hihger temps you waste the surplus heat of the reaction.
Note: the hotter the primary air plus steam, the more steam can be added and the richer the gas.

Regards,
Til

5 Likes
#24

thanks Til

summary very interesting. I suppose you build a down current generator (coal) for the same reason as Kristijan? (ie to avoid the problems of imperfectly carbonized and wet coal). Do you think that under our temperate climate, the coal exposed for some time to the atmospheric air is very wet for a Gilmore style?

Thierry

2 Likes
#25

Hi Thierry,
Thanks!
Yes, that’s the reason. Kristijan reported problems with his updraft system with not totally charred coal.
For the same reason, updraft gasifiers were not very popular during WW2, especially at the early years before strict quality standards of car-charcoal were established.

Charcoal can absorb quite a lot of moisture, but it depends on how you store it (warm dry place against a cool moist one) and if it is in a breathable bag or a sealed barrel.
If the char is too wet, you will get a lot af condensation in your cooler and filter. But maybe someone with more practical experneice can give some advice here?
I think I have seen a graph of how much moisture the char can absorb at different air humidities. I will try to find it.

Regards,
Til

7 Likes
#26

Hi Thierry,
here is the promised information: This graph is from an old book written in German. Its the equilibrium of the moisture of the charcoal with the relative humidity of the surrounding air.
“% relative Feuchtigkeit” means relative humidity of the air
“Wassergehalt in %” means % moisture of the charcoal
The graph is an average, you can see that different samples can differ quite a bit.

Feuchte
Feuchte684×534 45.8 KB

Hope that is helpful for you!
Til

8 Likes
#27

thanks Til

you are really a reliable guy :+1:

it validates the importance, under my climate, of handling coal on hot, dry days
Thierry

4 Likes
#28

Very cool truck Til. Thanks for posting.

2 Likes
#29

Hi Til
I was rereading your page because I plan to build, too, a generator inspired by “Svedlund”
I was wondering why you are introducing air into the generator from the side of the hopper rather than through the lighting port (in a straight line with the nozzle)? introducing the air from the top would be simpler and eliminate an opening? :thinking:
Thierry

1 Like
#30

Hi Thierry,
you are right, one opening would be easier.
This is just a plan. Unfortunately I haven’t had time to build it yet. We (wife an I) bought an old house which stood empty for some years and which we are rebuilding at the moment. And since the Land-Rover is more a hobby than an vehicle that I need, it has to wait. And as I’m not Krisitjan, don’t manage to build a house and all the other stuff he is doing at the same time :wink:.

Back to the plan: I thought of building a heat exchanger to use the heat of the outcoming gas to heat up the air and evaporate some water for steam injection. This is at the side of the gasifier. Lighting port at the top over the nozzle to be able to look into the nozzle and poke with a rod in case of slag.

Now I would possibly build it less complicated, just use wet charcoal for hydrogen and air from the top. Especially for the first generation of the gasifier. Improvements like a heat exchanger could come later.

Hope this is helpful for you!
Til

3 Likes
#31

I come to the same conclusions as many of us, a downdraft running on wet coal seems a winning solution
the main difficulty I encounter at the moment is the construction of the central nozzle. The extreme heat complicates things, I was thinking of an aluminum bath nozzle to remove the heat flow from the tip to the top of the nozzle. I hope the thermal conductivity of aluminum will remove excess heat at the same rate as it enters through the tip of the nozzle.

1 Like
#32

Bruce Southerland uses a copper pipe for his updraft and hasn’t noticed any serious wear. Copper pipe that big could be precious in price but if it holds up for the life of the reactor then it could be worth it.

1 Like
#33

Yes, the heat is the big problem for a central nozzle. I want to try the umbrella that was suggested by Max Gasman.
Remove the heat by thick walls (conductivity), or convection (metal bath or water cooled) might also work.
In a report from WW2 I read that the size of the coal matters: In the old Swedish systems they used fairly large pieces (30 to 70 mm). This means a less concentrated reaction zone and less concentrated heat around the nozzle. But also long time for startup.
They tried 10 to 35 mm size charcoal. Result was short startup, but the nozzles burnt away fast.
The middle brought success: The size 20 to 50 mm (about one to two inch) resulted in shorter startup, but also the life of the nozzles was not too short.

5 Likes
#34

Is it possible that an updraft exposes the nozzle to a less extreme temperature than a downdraft generator?

1 Like
#35

There’s a possibility considering flow. His was a flute design. Side entering sing nozzle Updrafts tend to burn their nozzles away while vertical single nozzles and flutes last longer.

3 Likes
#36

Thanks for the videos Til. . I Enjoyed .!

3 Likes
#37

Hello community,
i am Michael from germany. I bought a Landrover Series 2A 4 years ago and i am still working on it to get it run on charcoal gas from the homemade charcoal. Now all work on the chassis and engine is done, so that i am installing the gas mixer and the swedish volvo downdraft charcoal gasifier which i bought last year. I am not sure wether i should leave the gasoline carburettor on the intakt manifold, because of the pressure loses. Does anyone of you have ever tried this constellation before ? (see first photo)

kind regards,
Michael

20240315_1532221
20240315_15322214000×2250 1.95 MB

13 Likes