In agreement with the CH4, adding that if inserting a catalyst and more moist at the hot gas outlet , instead getting cold gas from passing thru the fresh charcoal, then i can make CH4, % based on catalyst, pressure and temperature…
anyways, posting these next picture gives an indication why i don’t go that route yet.
Notice the power from the same previous engine, the energy content per volume of mixed gas ( with air )
Co2 is twice the size of H2 and steam is massively larger pre shift. Its not just the added the hydrogen here. Any decrease of Co2 is a massive thing here it litterally makes the added H2 plus other volitals much more potent.
Thank you for your reply… I’m interested in minerals. I appreciated that. I look at that because I have the option of making Calcium Oxide from Limestone and I can recycle Potassium Hydroxide from ashes.
Excellent data sets Koen.
Now lets translate it back into real world usages.
In the real world as I know you are very aware from your lifestyle living . . . secondary factors get to vote too.
Secondary factors that raise thier heads:
As pure fuel gases as in your data set: CH4 is not human toxic; as CO certainly is. H2 and CH4 are much easier cleared aphixiants.
H2, CO, CH4 are all potential explosive leaked mixes with air then add any ignition source. H2 without the C carbon energy will burn less hot without the duration of intense heat damaging.
Transfer and storage.
CO was widespread done for decades as city-gas. How to do; having to always be safety focused is all well documented. Bulky materials needing to transport and store. Then use distribute.
H2 even less dense ramps up much greater the transfer; storage and use distribution materials costs by factors of X multiples. And compressed and cyrognetially cooled to liquidification adds multiple X steps and secondary costs.
CH4 is in comparison the Queen of them all. Gracious.
Relatively easy to liquify. Easy to store. Easy to distribute then re-expand and use.
But for us who want to as directly as possible DYI make; and personal use for fuels the realistic way is not to work towards purified fuel gases but as close to the initial thermal-chemical reactor use raw, as produced in batch varying blends.
And the key to that is in the engine shaft power making converter.
The only real reason why 3600 RPM is for an “easy” electrical generated 60 hertz.
I got nose smacked that others generating for 50 hertz , therefore 3000 RPM were having it much easier, with better results.
And direct power shaft users loaded running their engines at 1200-2700 RPM, were having it much easier with direct use of wood gases. To get their needed power then in comparison to gasoline fuels engines, just displacements sizing up.
Just like the Nazi era Germans did with their aircraft engines having to use lower octane liquid fuels.
Engine displacements are really pretty artificially determined set. Convention comparison to other competitors - sales marketing. Taxed categories. Set Emissions regulations brackets.
A large displacement; low stressed engine can be lighter made than a much higher compression forced induction, physically smaller engine.
In woodgas it only takes a few percentage points of made CH4 to zoom-zoom up the results in a direct use, blended engine fuel mix. No need to actually liquify it.
Just like all things we daily use in the real world . . . go for conservative middle of the road results. Then move on to other needdful things.
Let others chase the ideal fairies. Let others sacrifice their human relationships chasing their egos and busy mind perceived rainbows. Slaves to their own busy-busy scratch-itch personalities.
Steve Unruh
