Joni,
Most people here advance the engine’s spark ignition timing for extra power. Sometimes 45 degrees before top dead center.
Rindert
1 Like
We were always told that the flame speed of woodgas was slower than petrol and so advancing the timing would give more power on the downstroke of the piston.
1 Like
Joni, my apology I thought yours was a 2.0L.
No matter. You know the answers. So a test? I excel at tests.
The partial answers are on the wikipidia data sheets.
First factor:
1.8L listed as world wide produces in 62kW(84PS) at 5400 rpm; to 112kW(150hp) at a non-specified rpm.
Only one engine compression ratios listed of 9.2 to 1.
The same era of 2.0L market released vary compression ratios from 8.0 to 1; to 10.0 to 1.
I am sure the 1.8L also had 8.0 to 1 and 10 to 1 versions too. The lowest compression version with distinctive dished piston crowns.
Second factor:
Four different types and suppliers used fuel injection systems used on the 1.8L
From single point throttle body to individual port fuel injected. Some being 1-4 and 2-3 bank injected (less efficient and higher exhaust HC emissions]. To maybe even sequential in timing order injected. The best.
2.0L specifies American use of SEFI.
Third factor. Not exactly listed but can be inferred by the listed engine torque numbers.
For automatic transmissions with air conditioning and power steering. American. Or with manual transmissions, no AC, no PS.
One needs much better off idle torque.
This is “tuned” primarily by the camshaft lobes shaping and intake to exhaust timings. Ignition advance timing curve mapping. Can be even down to the throttle body cable guide curve.
Later for EU released, and US versions tailpipe emission requirements drove sacrificing much, to serve that now new demanding god.
Combustion chamber re-shaping. Piston crown reshaping. Just for this. Not for power performances. Delayed exhuasr cam timing to produce a suck back exhaust EGR effect. Kills power.
The expected market gasoline fuels also drove the engine delivered specifications.
Actually Joni your vehicle with it’s engine is a high-point design for simplicity and durability. US production this was just before OBDII, with the early 1990’s designs.
Earlier with mechanical carburetors ones, would have had restrictive intakes.
Later engine designs like the evolve from yours like the DOHC Ecotechs having then to serve too many conflicting gods of emissions, and lowest fuel usages, and then lowest carbons overall emissions (CO2 then added to HC, and CO then) became typical post-2000’s “modern” combustion coke’er engines.
Means on gasoline they build up hard carbons on the piston crown and combustion chamber requiring outside, routine, repetitive chemical decarbonization treatments. Required very special formulated gasolines to keep the systems clean as possible, alive and working.
Truely modern post-2000 vehicle engines are no longer soup and breads makers.
Fancy soufflé, sauces, and crepes makers.
S.U.
2 Likes
Now just to prove my respect for you, and your systems Jodi.
I think your systems and blue-gas, least soots’ operations are the best solution for all of the newer plastics intake manifold engine systems.
Absolute engines power? I’ve blue-flare gas fed small electrical generators. Ok but only 40-50% produced watts equivalencies.
Orange/pink/translucent flares gases were able to do 60-70% output wattage equivalencies.
Free carbons are fuels. Seen as fuel by the engine.
Just not ash-bin soot’s with abrasive crystalline cores. Those are engine quick wear killers.
Single and V-twin electrical generator engines are easy, intake-heads off and on, to de-soot and de-carbonize.
“Back-to-the-Future” of 1950’s engines where cylinder heads off decarbonization (actually a lot brain killing gasoline grey lead deposits removing!) was an expected maintenance.
Best Regards
Steve Unruh
2 Likes
Stеve,
I have already worked on my engine and now I have a compression ratio of 12: 1, I also dare to note that with an increase in the compression ratio, an increase in the lead angle gives completely unexpected results …
yes, you are good at motors! 
3 Likes
Don,
I agree, the burning rate is lower than that of the fuel-air mixture, but this is only with a compression ratio of up to 10: 1, after that everything is very different …
5 Likes
Bob; I’m not contradicting you but I don’t see a dimension for the fire tube. If the hopper is about 14 in. dia and the nozzle tips are 8.3 in.; that makes the nozzles stick out about 2 3/4 in from the hopper wall. To me that is a big space for tar to pass behind. The five tuyeres with .41 openings and tips about 8 1/4 diameter set about 4 1/4 in. above the restriction— close to Imbert sizing. The 3 in. restriction is very small even for an Imbert. Then the reduction zone is very small being only about 1 1/4 in. below the restriction. Imbert would be 4-5 inches below.
As for the comparison of Joni’s engine and yours, I think you have to compare the restrictions on the two. The part that keeps me awake is the very small reduction zone. Off hand I can visualize your reduction zone, but I don’t remember the dimensions.
I have to go back, but right now, I don’t under stand what he is using for a grate to filter the gas going out of the gasifier. TomC
Sorry Bob. I type this yesterday and forgot to send it.
1 Like
Friends,
I think we have already come close to opening a new topic “gas generator GJ-9.0” 
6 Likes
Joni; Before we move on could you fill in some blanks for me?
TomC
How did you modify that engine to get it to 12 to 1? Did you have to find a higher duration cam? One thing always leads to another.
This is important real information. Thank you.
Said in the India Institute of Science papers, but that was still laboratory work.
Could be roughly inferred with the large Industrial producer gas engines manufacturers using 11:1.
Replacement parts picture for their engines always have flat faced cylinder heads with the opening valves protruding downward into a deep dished piston cavity combustion chamber.
This was probably NOT done just for woodgas optimizing but an adaptation of their pre-existing gaseous engines. Make the piston top cavity specific to the intended industial waste fuel gas.
The same with our original gasoline engines with specific intended combustion chamber “shear-edges” and “squish area” to turbulence tear apart the long C and H gasoline chains.
I think your why answer to your results will be in the more made compression heating energizing.
Hass not been done here north America as to expensive to do on V engines.
One man we thought would, as a longtime street hotrod builder, but he quit woodgas. Went on to V-8’s in motorcycles.
Single cylinder head, inline engines are just so much easier to play around with. Why I quit the V-engine games a long time ago. Everything to try was $'s X 2 
Regards
Steve Unruh
3 Likes
People tend to forget these simple rules yes…
I will try to give / ad some constructive observations i made during the time i spend on reading and building:
There are 3 keypoints i observe:
1: what is my available fuel
2: what is my available engine
3: based on 1 and 2, what gasifier do i need…
Each point has its own characteristics/needs/natural behavior
Each part can be adjusted/modified to behave in a desired fashion
Depending which part you start with, a certain path will lead to a certain outcome…
1: learn your fuel, how it will behave when it passes all stages of thermodynamic decomposition.
how does the physical proporties changes when passing thru a gasifier / reactor
The vertical downwards gasifier cone to design is depending on the physical behavior of YOUR fuel
How big of a volume change from raw wood chunks to glowing carbon clumps ?
Reverse engineer from a nice steady bed of glowing charcoal clumps, how high how wide you need that for YOUR purpose , YOUR engine
Understand the speed of the gasses passing thru that layer of hot glowing carbon, the time it needs to convert, based on YOUR fuel
A low steady speed gas stream, passing thru a thick maze off glowing chunks…
Design YOUR gasifier based on the need of that layer of glowing char…
How to maintain that layer of glowing char is key ( more then 1 solution possible )
Observe and adjust… A perfect gasifier with perfect fuel will give perfect gas, but perfection does not exist, ( near perfect does )
And there is not “1 gasifier fits all fuel”
2: Engines…
A blunt statement:
Any engine will do, but not any engine will do everything…
In general: High CR go with short stroke large bore, high H2 contents suitable ( can run higher rpm )
Average: Medium CR (10:1) Long stroke small bore, low rpm, high torque
To watch/learn with engines: how much gas mixture you can get in your cylinder at any given time ?
How much power is that and how much do you need ? ( to accelerate or to cruise ? )
Regarding engines i like the advice of SU, go with the bigger engine if you can, less of a hassle…
Engine management: Timing and mixture go hand in hand, IMO and IME, we are the lucky ones with the existing availability of modern days ECU and reprogramming them.
For those with manual adjustments: Rich gas likes more advanced timing but also likes adjustments.
I could go on endless, as there are endless possibility’s/configurations
It always boils down to the main part of the configuration: the operator…
And here on DOW, there are a lot of excellent thinkerers / DOers
Wish you all a healthy 2021 and many years after, stay safe
6 Likes
Tcholton,
to increase the compression ratio, I simply cut down the cylinder head, as much as the valve opening height allowed.
3 Likes
TomC,
Small air leaks do not bother me, they are not perceptible to the engine, but they make it possible to monitor the gas quality well and help the filter work. The holes are very small.
My fan pulls no more than 10 cm of water column, connected to the system has a pressure difference of about 4-5 cm, if the readings are higher, you need to clean the ash pan.
5 Likes
Yes! Please. I would try to build this here in Venezuela
1 Like
приятелями
Don’t forget to show the plans
1 Like
I tried positive air pressure rather then vacuum and system overflowed with tar . Tar pouring out from lid and streaming down side of unit .
1 Like
Hello Joni,
Now I think you have already put up your GJ-9.0 hearth section diagram, yes?
Construction steps photos are what would be most helpful.
(Ha! Ha! And then many pestering questions about operational details and techniques)
Thank you.
Steve unruh
2 Likes
Hi Joni, I have been watching your videos. In the video that is 2 months old you posted. I noticed leaving your shop , garage the road is bumpy and I can hear your gasifer bouncing on the three point mounting hitch. You drove down the road a little farther and stop. Got out and checked out your exhaust system to see if the vaccum was pull the vapor out of your hopper. When opening the lid there really was not that much smoke coming out of the hopper. The video shows it is working and the 3 point hatch system is working keeping all possible bridging of wood in the hopper to not happen.
Bob
1 Like
Hello Joni,
STILL I am not quite finished watch back on all 54 of your videos.
Sigh. Often I must give up my home Internet bandwidth for the children’s schooling now.
And, ever-so, too-much helpful YouTube system diverts me off onto some others’ Ukrainian woodgas video. This is by viewer counting I am sure.
For good woodgas viewers do not know shit!
Anyhow, I have now seen the same woodgasing mistakes as here.
Too large of fuel hopper/bins overwhelming the systems thermal capacity. Many, many gas forced turning pathways; through too small of piping. Systems put together with step by step components “for Better”, but little, or no thought to integrated flows of heats and energies.
So why only a very few here; and there in yours, and only 1-2 others stand out so well.
As rational. Integrated simple.
Regards
Steve unruh
2 Likes