Densified or supercharged fuels

General Discussion
#41

Good morning brother Al.

First I should give my definition of over pull . " pulling air through the char bed faster than the char can react and missing the target for the reaction that should be prior to the grate area , thus going into heater mode and overheating "

Let me give my Red Neck analogy and reasons that in some cases it might be beneficial to bring a little of the oxygen in the gasifier a little up stream of the nozzles . That said i don’t think we have any game wardens on the DOW.

If we were dynamite fishing, dropping the charge in up stream , it floating down to our known honey hole and doing a good job on the fish.

Now think about the stream swollen and water moving much faster than before . We drop our dynamite in the same location that it has worked well previously , but the velocity of the steam took our dynamite through the honey hole and explode down stream missing the fish . ( over pull )

OK We can widen our channel / stream to slow the velocity of the steam down , drop our dynamite in the known and perversely good location ( nozzles ) and it should go ka bang at the honey hole . ( increasing the choke and nozzle ring diameter ) Too much work and the stream should be back to it norm in just a little while !!!

Why not just drop the dynamite in a little up stream of the previous location so that it will go ka boom  at the honey hole .

Keep in mind when the stream slows back down to it’s norm we will be wasting out dynamite if we drop it in too far up stream , the reaction will occur prior to the honey hole and create tar .

BBB

#42

Ha! Ha!
There you go WayneK . . . an action visual to bring it alive relevent! That’s what I was trying to get JohnB to warp this topic into.
We’s had plenty of the cold hard numbers in O’s, H’s and C’s.
Lets put some heat and energy and motion in here to warm things up and get others with different ways of seeing things motivated to DO.
You just made it percussive noisy, made my guts all Boom-shake, and got me wet sprayed to boot.
JohnB had me seeing Ms Grundy all riled-up, tar splattered, hot’n mad as a wet hen.
Then DonM has her oldster mad tring to thumb out calls on a tiny, tiny cell phone dropping numbers, mis-keying letters; losing her favotite hat, making her even madder yet.
All of 'ye ist bad, bad (assed) Woodhgassers!

BrianHam . . . you recovered now man?? That was some of the best point to point explaining that I’ve ever read.

Regards to All
Steve Unruh

#43

Good Morning Mr .Steve .

Thanks for your comment !

I think a more politically correct analogy of the above would be floating fish food to fed the fish in a honey hole and if the fish had to swim up steam or down stream out of there protected environment the snakes , turtles , hawks and coons would eat them , none of which is good.

#44

Wayne, Steve,
This is how we must think of this. Just because it’s high science chemistry does not mean we cannot put it into pictures that make sense to us. I like to think of it like keeping my itty-bitty asbestos fire suit hanging just inside my left ear so I can put it on and jump right in there with the atoms and go dancing downstream with them in my mind. They got some moves, they do.
Bringing this back to something I can grasp, is it correct to think that an injection of concentrated hydrocarbons would be needing a little more air to combust them all and not run a richer gas, and that if this is done it would be a good idea to have this happen a little further up from the grate (or throat in Imberts) to give them all the necessary residence time to do their thing? That’s what I’m thinking and am already integrating that principle in my next design. You don’t want unburned fuel getting out, nor do you want to pull oxygen down into the char zone.
If there are any prune faced aunt Helen’s out there reading this, no disrespect meant.

#45

Wayne, Can you still buy dynamite ??? Tough to even get black powder here … When I was a kid we could get stuff powerful enough to stun fish but these days it is banned. Have to make your own. Tough to get the materials and can’t trust the water proof fusing … Back to woodgas, I can’t just go out and buy a gasifier either … I suppose a few folks can :o) … “I ain’t got no bread for buckskin” … I like your analogies on the zones … Weez going to the river next … Just waiting for Sue to pick me up in the gasoline car … Our entire area is now under quarantine for the emerald ash borer even though I have no ash wood … ML

#46

ist nice to see the brain power on this site but that sed its also nice for some (me) to get the simplified version thanks to all that dumb it down once in a while. who knew fire was so complicated burn on

#47

Hey fellas,
It seems to me that if we introduce more volitales into our mix there would be less grate shaking.
Of course it’s the extra char that leads to plugging. If we send more gases down the hole to react with the carbon, there will be more carbon eaten away.
As John mentioned about wasting fuel, let’s not waste that carbon either.
T

#48

Unruh calls that the char/volatile ratio.

#49

Wayne I can’t understand political correct I CAN understand redneck. Keep it up. If there is a game warden here just toss him a lit stick of dynamite and ask if he wants to argue or fish.
Also thanks John Steve Terry and all who contributed to this discussion. Learned a lot from it
TomW

#50

Hey did I hear my name being bantered about?
Terry Gryzb I with you on the waste no carbons. I think this is a small system ethic. Dare not say more to offend some of the segmeters here and side track this topic with arguing over the “proper use of carbons”.

PaulMcC and MikeL . . . hippy/skippy right on down to the bottom - look for your names. Don’t dizzy trying to read me.

Here’s what is important That I DO want to be able to point out now having Mr Wayne gives a peek into the way that he thinks.
Us Premium sides get very familiarized with this from him, and his system.

Most of the documented system types irreguardless of the “name” really depend on the zones and zone transitions being kept in very fixed, narrow, almost rigid defined areas. Thats why the “importance of superficial velocity”. The importance of narrow spec internal dimensioning. The importance of just in time fuel quanity and quality of delivery. Importance of a narrow range control of CO2 internal production to CO2 to CO conversion. Which in itself then means tight control for HEATS, volitals, chars making/consuming and never ever running short of ANY one of these and unbalancing.

Now go back, read, study Mr Wayne’s wording to his approach to all of this.
In his big tub of ongoing self-made char he just lets things float in and out. Up and down just as long as they stay inside the functional edge boudaries.
Lines? What lines? Just keep the color crayons on the page is ok/fine.
Now those avid readers/studiers here you can go back to the Prof. Kahlle’s documents, illustrations and see these same expanding contracting globular boundary squishiness. See this in all of the charcoal gasifer work. The illistrated historic functioning diagrams. GaryG. is quite descriptive on this.
Now take the stratified open topped consepts as published out by Harry LaFontiane and further refined/defines by Dr Tom Reed. This same floating boundaries squishiness with now very clearly recognized acknowlgement of “flaming pyroliris” to make the raw fuel upper system conversions for some heat, but especially internally needed CO2 carbon monoxide and hot vaporized water H2O.
Now carry this drawn out use of squishy floating in and out size changing zones to the 3rd Generations evoled IISc/DASAG/Mukunda systems. These the ones after ~1995 with then squatter appearances; the two rows of side down angles air nozzles; grateless; with a deep lower char ash bed with a 9% to 13% specified of lower augured out to each fuel load bucketed, bagged or chute fed in batch upper dump loading.
Same draw out gas loads expanding and contacting squishy globular zones consept.

I lined it out this way so you can see W.K. did not invent this way of looking at gasification. Just evoled into it as matching his way of thinking about most everything.
Pretty open minded, expansive, fexible way to go about things only being results/costs orientated concerened.

The other way we all like to say as “Imbert” (which most certainly ARE NOT!) are either very shallow, very thin, very narrow, very small surface areas zones system and are really ALL just SMALL VOLUMN RIGID DEFINED ZONES SYSTEMS.

These other fellows: Kieth, Kahlle, Mukunda, LaFontaine/Reed’s/Dobson’s are all LARGE VOLUME FLEXIBLE EXPANDING/CONTRACING ZONES SYSTEMS.

Of course minimum effective process tempetures in all types have to be ASAP gotten, and continuously maintained.
LARGE VOLUME SYSTEMS all of the other factors can float around as long as thier cumulative factor sums do balance to achieve the favorable results.
The results being defined here on the DOW as best IC piston engine power. Period.

I long worded out these in a broadtoke way I define out raw fuel gasifer types to avoid them being geek letter anointed.

((Hey PaulMcM and MikeL I think of the one school as Nazi zoned gasifiers as so, “Must be this way”. The others squishy zones types as FREE zoned systems!!))

I throw no stones here. Assign no one’s system into either of these clear to me categories above.
My actual care-about system’s categorization is:
Can I run effectivley chunked fuel wood in it??
Could I effectively run stick wood in it??
Would I be forced to only be able to run with coarse chipped wood in it?
There are systems in both SMALL and LARGE VOLUMN systmes that I can answer Yes at least one of MY three fuel core NEEDS.
And that is all that I personally care about.
Steve Unruh

#51

Seems pretty normal to me… An Amabaman farmer splainin’ to an Ankansawyer fisherman 'bout fishing with dynamite…
The local answer here is just to use bigger dynamite to get ALL the fish at one time and git-er-did. Big explosions don’t miss.

Now if we can figure a way to gasify a bass boat and catch some high speed fish. :slight_smile:

Appreciate the guidance though - Mr’s. Wayne, Steve and John.

Don’t worry about makin’ politically correct versions - I probably wouldn’t understand at all.

Al

#52

I remember reading Tom Reed’s piece a few years ago on how important superficial velocity was, but didn’t really get it. Seemed like a happy particle was the right size, the right temperature, and travelled at the right speed.
I really like this fishing hole stuff. Maybe someone could take a stab at describing it in those terms. When I was a kid my grandfather used to tell me about all the woodgassers in Sweden in the thirties. He also taught me how to fish.

#53

Morning AL and DickT
Terry Grzyb is part of the experienced input here too.
He the wheelie popper, woodgas racer-around guy. Videod.
None the rest of us can claim this.
Ha! We all do have our share of tars, condensates and Woosh/Poofs made though. And soots.

Sigh. I have to leave my very best connect-it-all-together stuff on the edit-room floor. Modern smokeless reloading canister gunpowders. Heat pressure self-oxidizing duration fury energy. Don’t want to call in those web crawlies talking about those here.

DickT your best explains to all woodgasification is shown out in your avatar picture out under those rain covers.
Your firewood stacks. Means you must have a way to turn that into Heat Energy.
You will never learn anything burning that up in a open fronted fireplace or open fronted stove. Opps. Wrong! Bad Steve! You’ll learn you need to have the fuelwood very, very dry to NOT be in place wet steaming, thermal quenching, dragged down to pitiful. Use/burn cords of it will show you well your base wood ash percent if you paying attention.
Now . . . put that cord wood fuel in a true “airtight” woodstove and then you can self-learn a lot about wood gasifing. Refer over to Mr Waynes, "Long road to gasification, expreimenting . . " topic about the differences controlling gasification by FUEL add amounts, sizing and even dryness. Then going the easier route by primary controlling by air.
Figure it. He learned these things perviously in his whole house heating bulk wood stoves.

With a true airtight woodstove, WITH a front glass viewing window you can now visual feedback train yourself for gasification achieved results. Make the pink flames. Blue flames. See my photo album here. Use/experience feel you way with heats, limited/controlled fuel adds, and adjusted air velocities on how to do this.
Ha! Ha! One of JohnB’s personal builds he had little pyrex glass windows back side of each gasifier nozzle to really look all around into “the heart of the beast”. He said standing back this system would look like an angry red/yellow multi-eyed dragon glaring at you in the dark.

I first learned visual “gasification” way back-when with a set of four ColorTune quartz centered diagnostic sparkplugs letting you see into the engine combution chamber “burn” to carburetor adjust. Later had to learn to do this in eight different commercial shops with first 2, then 3, then 4 gas exhaust analyzers. Only got sterile numbers then. A very cold, dead and “dim” way to it. THEN had to know the theories, whys and way-fors very well. Every single one of the 3000+ vehicles I emmisions worked was a sent “Failed”. I repaired, and then gases out rechecked. Every single one was going to a Test Station to be independenly tested.
Not “hit the numbers” there. No pay for Stevie-boy.

I did the reverse of WayneK.
Then took these two areas of learning/experiencing of achieved gasfication back to woodstoving. Took my head out of my ass. Reduced my woodstoveS fuelwood useage by 40% for the same heat. NO more creasotes! NO More smoky/sooting up chimneys. NO more whining about the ‘bad" woods, the “bad” stoves, the "poor"chimneys anymore was possible then. Nope. It Always was the “dumb” operator NOT willing to actively work the systems. Now a smartened operator, I play a lot with normal burn-pile/trash-woods in the wood stoves for the last 3-4 years. Now save the best, easy wood portions for gasifiers. And that save a lot of puttsin’/fussing, overall.

Ha! And AL D. that’s the why-learn: to do more, with the least. Woodcutting is awful hard, sweating hard work. Whether you stoving or motor fueling. And IF you didn’t lazy operator, muck-it- up. Then you don’t have to elbow-sore clean-it-up. For my nest door father-in-laws I had to for years chimney clean THREE times a winter the old way. No matter how dry the wood. Now even wetish “sooty” “creosote-prone” softwood Doug Fir; two years no needing chimney cleaning doing the new pre-dominate gasifing way.
edit s.u.

Lesson here is to relate to something that you already know well, and are experienced with, is what will make gasifing easier.
Again those Not with these experienced connector links get-up, off-ass, and go out and DO things in the real world to make these links. Only those under 18 having this lack, have any excuse at all. And young girls and boyo’s you only get months whining, not out doing Real Life Learning. Get out and learn to put some Real in that classrooming.
Keying ain’t real. Has no bite, no burn, no kick, no real, dripping eye stinging, pouring sweating to it.
S.U.

Oh. J.B.'s case is now different. He’s working now also in the “Have to hit the numbers” game industry. No hits. No pay. Consistently too few of hits; too expensive of hits, and no job. And that makes it very,very real.

#54

Yepper, no hit, no pay. I spend my days with engineers…who might throw me a quick “what’s the gas flow rate through that valve there?” or “what’s the Btu value of the gas with that feedstock there, and why is it less than with bla bla”. Just dropped ten grand today on flow meters to keep ER in bounds, so I had better know my stuff. Strange world, but interesting and pays OK.
But…I am still a DOWNDRAFT guy, although playing at the upper limits of downdraft capabilities. My gas lines are 6". But it’s the same damn beast. Me be a kind of crazy Buddhist monk with all this. I become the beast. I seek the mystical oneness of it all. And even though I play with the formulas and theories and all the number crunching I still feel that the hands on real world understanding that Wayne has, and many of us too, each in our own way, is the only way. You have to have a personal hands on understanding of what is going on and be able to picture it in your mind in whatever way makes sense. And to communicate it in the same way. Dynamite floating downstream and going off at just the right time and place? Doesn’t get any clearer than that.
And you never get that type of understanding unless you are DOING it. You do it, you see what happens, and then you find the best words you can to explain it.
I’ve sat in meetings with these engineers and listened to them flip something out on the table that might be scientifically correct…but real world impossible… and just have to grin. A recent one… I knew their analytics were not going to work right where they wanted them, was over-ridden in the decision process, and just had to wait til they realized in the real world it lasted about 30 seconds, then watched them spend another humpteen thousand redoing the downstream to save their first humpteen thousand investment just so it would work. Such is life here in my world. They should have listened to me is all I can say.
But again, it’s the same beast. If you try to make the thing run with temps dropping you will be cleaning out your downstream. Can be a very nasty job that gets you sleeping in the doghouse when your wife sees your clothes. If you overpull it with low fuel you are going to get combustion down in the char zone and possibly melt something out. If you are overpulling it and have an air leak in the char zone (Imbert speaking) you could get into serious trouble. All this applies whether it be running a lawn mower or that monster I have out there. It’s all the same beast we be taming. Fun comes when you have it tamed and can start teaching it some tricks like Wayne and a few others have done.

#55

Hey Tom, Thanks … Here comes the stick … Steve, I read 2 paragraphs and fall asleep … Nothing personal … It’s just me so I don’t read much and I certainly don’t watch youtube videos or I saw logs on the floor … We just got a great rain !!! It’s been a month… M … PS, been shooting off fireworks the last 2 hours in the rain … Bring it on !!! I have to get to that new shroud … Wife keeps creating diversions … It’s friday, isn’t it ??? Been a long day in the working world …

#56

Hey Steve U, back in the 1980’s I played with Fish carburetors on my '68 Ford F250 with a 360 cu. inch. I used a Colortune sparkplug to tune that carb infinitely by watching the combustion color. Orange = rich mixture. Blue = ideal. White = too lean. It was a blast to skip fancy testing equipment. That Fish made my truck sound like a giant vacuum cleaner. One allen screw on the moveable throttle blade changed the air/fuel ratio whenever I wanted to.

#57

Thanks Steve,We’ve been wood heat and passive solar exclusively since the early 70s. I cut my wood out back in the swamp. I’m presently using a Jotul F400 Castine(looks kinda like yours) I’ve had for about 6 years after someone at the state told me the stove I’d welded up and used for 15 years, (after old cast iron Glenwoods), wouldn’t meet particulate standards. Turned out to be good advice because it works great and I like the window to observe the stuff you’re talking about. Doesn’t use less wood than my old stove with the aftermarket condar thermostat though.

Anyway I’m curious about particles. I’ve never run an IC engine on woodgas butI hope to get a WK system on my dakota and running off hemlock in my woodlot as time allows. I’m too old to say ASAP anymore. Diesel particulates are supposed to be a bigtime health hazard. Are the wood particulates travelling at the theoretical superficial velocity Tom reed described consumed in the lobe? What’s left out the tailpipe?

IMG_2041.jpg768×1024 83.1 KB

#58

Darn you guys are fast on the bite.
MikeL I changed how I write a long time ago just for you. Read the first paragraph. Then skip to the last. Don’t waste on the 2nd. Mostly all of the stuff in between you already know, are doing, and I probably learned from you anyhow.

See Doug and Dick you guys DO have connector expereince links you can use already!
Doug “the blue” is correct for finished completed hydrocarbon fuel combustion. Gasifier flares of ENGINE GRADE woodgas this should show how wrong “blue” gasifier flare will be. The IC piston engine is the last combustion step in a woodfuel to shaft power. YES inside the engine is where you want the blue complete FINAL combustion. Those “dirty” translucent gasifier flares have a lot of IC engine capable fuels in them. Yes even engine power in some types of soots. You are trying to fuel for maxiumum engine power. NOT glowing carbons candle yellow flare illuminate. NOT cooking stove blue flare show off.
Dick I get my best in stove blue flares when in very hot char bed stage. Couple of pieces of surface burnt externally charred wood sticks on top. And the flow velocity turned way down. The sticks are bleeding out volitals from the insides converted flowing out through the stick surface “char bed”. The actual red hot glowing lower char bed supplying the needed gross heat energy. Realize wood stove the flow IS predominantly updraft. So the volitals are not being down through the actual char bed passed. This contition lasts for a very short time running out of either stick internal voletails all burnt out. Or running out of the driving lower char heat all used up/cooling.
A downdraft sucked gasifer you ARE pulling air burnt volatiles down trough the glowing hot char bed. Get everything balanced flowing right and the consumed char and heat energy is being continually replenished.
Go back up and detail read JohnB’s reference to the gasifer system bad things happening, "If you try and make the thing (gasifier system) run with dropping temperatures . . . "

Well operated and fueled gasfier fueling IC engine exhaust has been analyzed and published up in three places I could dig up. LESS than diesel and gasoline exhuest. Comparable to propane and spec grade methane engine exhausts. That’s also what my experienced/educated nose/sinuses and tongue says too.
Except . . . on particulates. The very small non-visible ones now being vilified in my regional urban front page news papers now PNW every single winter.

Let me count/calm for what I say next. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten.
I was with the push back in the 1960’s and 70’s for cleaning up stinking eye watering coughing hacking “smell of power” engine auto exhausts. With 'em on the carbon monoxide. With them on the Un and only partialy burned gasoline hydrocarbons. Even stepped up and became oxides of nitrogen aware and saw the need for reeling-in those “yellow smog” makers.
They completely lost me with the 1990’s carbon dioxide then growing fussing. The higher your hydrocarbon fuel finished combustion CO2 the MORE completly efficient that combustion was. Autos: I had to repair/adjust for a minimum of 11.5% CO2 exhaust reading or be a FAIL. Combustion furnaces they shoot for 16% exhaust CO2 as an effiency maximizer.
So it became obvious to me that by then it wasn’t about actual direct human, animal, plants emissions damage at all anymore.
They had by then morphed over to a triple set of very stange bed partners consisting of EcoGreenFreaks shouting to be heard (but actually wanting social control over us all); by a by then third 10 year cycle of university educated who “know no concept of diminishing returns”, vested then, hanging on until a very comfortable yuppie retirement; and by then the oil/coal mega-giants finished morphing themselves into Energy Companies then subtly directing and financing these other two to spin and spin and spin for their benfits.
Woodstove particulates hazards just another iceberg tip of this tri-umph-aint. “The Skeptical Environmentalist” and other original green founders left too. Disgusted by the spin/lies.

Me TOO having to stove replace to dance the “you just aint good enough” dance.
Late 70’s thick heavy plate brick lined woodstove forced changed out with a 1994/5 house remodel. To a Jotul 902 -> then a Jotul Firelight -> than the current Quadrafire Isle Royale.
Tom they will not be happy until we no longer woodstove heat at all.
THEY openly say that here in Washinton and Oregon states in the core urban counties. They’ve achieved this now in the majority of California. These the areas that have piped in “clean, blue flame” natural gas that aint. Aint Clean and Safe where it comes very dirty and wet out of the ground. Whole agricultural valleys being killed off. Hard to eat methane.
edit s.u.
BIG ENERGY setting up now for these being driven directions. Methane is just the transitional make lots of bucks gateway continuing enrgydrug dependnecy. Methane is oil recovery methadone. Grid electricity now methane fueled energy/methadone too.

So there you go. JB the monk thinking in quantum.
SU the Charleton Heston “Soylent Green is People” being carried off now into brain melting silence.
ML you have to hang your own neck tag, man.

REgards
Steve Unruh

#59

Hi Steve, I’m off to bed … I just grabbed the first and last … ML … PS, I’ll call sometime soon and catch you live and we can enjoy an hour … Been a long hard day here …

#60

Thanks for the acknowledgement Steve.

I’m right with you there with particulates. As you already know I am a fan of rocket stoves. A member of our community went to DC last year to enter the Wood Stove Decathlon. It got pretty good numbers except for the particulates. Two of the major criteria of these stoves is a good draft with good turbulence. Well this tends to suck up a small amount of ash.
This is a big no no. I didn’t understand it, I thought the small amount of ash would just deposit around the house. I guess these microscopic particles act like a gas and stay in suspension.
The next rain should bring it down to benefit vegetation.