Koen Van Looken's CO2 Converter

We proudly announce the existence of an Carbon Dioxide to renewable energy converter…


Also… the announcement of granting the rights of the invention for North and South America towards Troy Martz.

Special thanks to those who did teach us not to give up and to the supporters on DOW, with the special mentioning of Gary Gilmore and Wayne Keith.
The full disclosure of details will be simultaneous with the publication from the patent ( now pending).

Koen, maybe I am the one that
Koen, maybe I am the one that is not understanding. You are stating standard gasifier operation.

Wood gasifiers are charcoal gasifiers with the wood conversion apparatus attached directly above. Making large % of CO2 and converting it to CO and H2 as you requested.

Plants absorb c02. We release it in our gasifiers(both wood and charcoal) to put it to work.
With charcoal gasifiers one can recycle a % of engine exhaust back into the gasifier to repeat the cycle. The net result is still C neutral.
Wood gasifiers produce more BTU’s with the same amount of wood and also produce char which Is sequestered from the atmosphere.

42% of fresh cut wood consists of volatile matters. That is a lot of energy that wood gasifiers are using over charcoal gasifiers.

I feel we are not understanding each other.

There is nothing standard in gasifying :wink:
We do not release Co2 in a gasifier.
Plants do not absorb Co2, they take Co2, release the oxygen in the air and store the Carbon in their cell structure ( to put it simple )
The moment you combust wood or any other carbon fuel, you bind the 1 c + 1O2 = 1 Co2
gasifying = combusting c with reduced O2 = 1 C + 1/2O2 = Co

Fresh wood does not consist of 42% volatiles, about 70% is water
Dry wood consist of 40% carbon and about same % oxygen.

Wood gasifiers do not produce more BTU’s with the same amount of wood.
any % of moister “eats” your BTU’s
any % of Co2 in your gas are wasted BTU’s ( a lot )
Char, if not entirely combusted , is wasted energy.
Char is carbon, you need carbon to make your gasifier reduce volatiles and others into useful gas.
Volatiles do not always contribute to the power of gas, but they do need energy to be converted.
A well designed charcoal gasifier does not make large amounts of Co2 to convert that again in Co, its a well balanced process that uses the heat as efficient as possible. ( my set does not loose heat in a gas cooler )

Sorry for 1 blunt moment now…
Gasifying is applying many different thermochemical processes.
If you do not understand each and any single of these scientific processes, thats ok, but then don’t involve me, into a dialog about that, without having the profound knowledge.
After 30 years Theoretical and practical “aplied science” research , i can state that i know what i am talking about.
If you want to discuss-debate with me about laws of physics or chemistry, the least i expect is having the knowledge to do so or having the will to learn about them.

Without being blunt now:
The secret of a good gasifier lies in the thickness from the glowing charcoal and the dwell time from your gasses to pass that layer.
I assume that Wayne Keith is able to do so in a very good way, and with him many others.
Each and every single person , who can build an operate their gasifier, has my respect.
Any person who finds a taylor made solution for his or her’s problem, is imo a master… and deserves respect for his “thinking for solutions” instead bowing the head for problems.

Building a gasifier is finding a balance between what you have, what you want and what’s possible.

In my case, i am just applying science, but with a little more knowledge then Joe average.
So are a few others.
Also in my case i can recycle 20 % extra , pure Co2, with the standard configuration and up to 50% pure Co2, with the carbon dioxide converter.
So thats far better then Co2 neutral or even positive. A wood gasifier can not. ( up till now )

I read many articles and postings here on DOW and many other fora, they all consist about “solving problems” and suggested solutions.

My suggestion: read old books and try out every thing yourself… you will value each and every solution for every problem ever written on DOW because every solution had its reason (problem) and no 2 problems are alike…
So i bow my head for those who know…

and i withstand every comment that is suggesting 1+1 is no longer 2 :wink:

Koen, on your gasifier on the sidecar vehicle, how do you take the water line to the nozzle? I could never see that very well from the photos, does it go down and up through the air inlet, or through the side? Your whole nozzle assembly is removable, which is good, I’m just wondering how you incorporate the steam line into that assembly.

The coil on the outside is connected to the bottom-air inlet with a T junction. water whats not steam, will drop downwards, steam will be sucked in.

oh, so the stainless tube doesn’t actually go “inside” the gasifier, then? Just to the T, right?


I’ve moved this to it’s own topic, because I want to call you out. I’m sorry to say this, but you are either confused or outright deceiving with this claim. “Our team does not longer treat CO2 as a problem, but as a valuable source of renewable energy.” You’ve talked many times about burning CO2, reducing it, using it as fuel, etc. I don’t want to leave this uncorrected any longer. There are a lot of smart people on here who will back me up on this.

CO2 is not “energy” in any sense. It represents “spent” energy, consumed hydrocarbons. You cannot get more energy from CO2, it is IMPOSSIBLE. Physics is on my side here. You may convert it, but only by adding energy. Then when you burn that, energy added is now released - it’s right back to CO2 again. Any hydrocarbon fuel, including wood and charcoal, must eventually produce CO2 and water vapor.

You are not reducing the amount of CO2 even by recycling the exhaust, you are only slowing down it’s production. The same amount of CO will enter the engine, will burn, and the same amount of CO2 will be produced, and must be evacuated to the atmosphere. Recirculating it doesn’t make it vanish. You’re also ignoring C02 production at the charcoal retort. A pound of wood makes a certain amount of CO2 no matter what you do with it - even letting it rot away. This is positive news for all gasifiers - they use wood that would otherwise rot, and the same CO2 is released regardless.

In order to reclaim a flammable gas from C02 inside a gasifier, you need to input a large amount of energy, as well as hot carbon. This is a large thermal load and will cool things down (that’s good in a charcoal unit, and the only reason to do so). Energy is used to convert CO2 to CO. This energy is provided by - you got it - burning more charcoal, which means more CO2. It’s a zero-sum game.

Nobody has ever claimed that a gasifier will reduce CO2 levels. It’s foolish to claim so, because it won’t. There’s only one process that reduces CO2, and it’s not gasification…

Plants and trees love CO2, and consume it right back from us. A world filled with trees and gasifiers could go on forever - we call this being “carbon neutral”. Not adding, not taking away. A very different claim than “consuming CO2”. But this one is quite accurate, and well accepted science.

Sometimes gasifier folks will say it’s “carbon negative”. This doesn’t mean we’re consuming CO2. It refers to the biochar which is sequestered into the soil, where it is effectively un-burnable, won’t rot, and the C02 inside will never be released. Seen this way, eventually a world of gasifiers and trees would have carbon enriched soils, and less overall CO2 levels.

Let’s focus on the true positives of gasification (renewable energy, carbon neutral/negative) and not make misleading claims that violate physics.

1 Like

Thats correct, the water is dripped in on the top and at the bottom the coil is connected to the t junction.

Wow, where do I start?
I was just going to leave this topic alone since Koen and I don’t agree on most gasifier and plant chemical conversions.

Thank you for stepping in Chris. I wouldn’t have went through that trouble of explaining it out again.
One issue though. I have claimed that a gasifier will reduce CO2 levels. The carbon that we are slipping, if it wasn’t for our gasifiers, would end up going back into the atmosphere as CO2 from rotting process. If you pour slipped char back in the gasifier to burn it becomes carbon neutral.
Every pound of char made sequesters 3.7 pounds of CO2!

Sorry Chris but you are making a small mistake there.
Read your books again, specially about what carbon does. from cradle to grave, read all the relevant chemical reactions and then we talk again.
I know what carbon does, i like any dialog - discussion - debate or what so ever, but to not spoil the fun, i don’t do discuss that knowledge in public.
If you promise me to keep things confidential in pm, then i clarify my findings, but i don’t want a bloodshed based on a few small things which you are missing.
I have not misleaded any one and i am backed up with 4 university’s , where as MIT D-Lab is one of them.

I would never make a claim this magnitude unless i could prove it.
So either you pm me with a promise and we look where that brings us or you can ban me from the forum if you prefer.
There is nothing that i would like to do more then tell you how it works, for all our benefit.

Correct Terry, you’re echoing my last paragraph, on reducing CO2 nature’s way - sequestered carbon/biochar is out of the cycle permanently, and plants will do their duty in reducing the remaining CO2 levels.

All that petroleum we’re burning up started out as sequestered carbon, a long time ago. We’re “unsequestering” it a little too fast for our own good, methinks.

Relax on the strong words Koen, No one’s talking about banning anyone.
We definitely have different opinions.


Wait, now you don’t want to talk about it? You have made plenty of technical posts before this.

No bloodshed, no banning… and, no private discussion. Whatever you have to say, post it here. I am not interested in your particular device, your patents or trade secrets. Only in a basic chemical explanation. You appear to be violating a law of physics, and unless you can explain it, you won’t be taken seriously, by me or anyone else here.

“I would never make a claim this magnitude unless i could prove it.”

Then do so, please.

I agree that we can disagree… i don’t want to point out others mistakes ( i hope i use the correct words )
I must admit that i am overwhelmed with al the reactions and i am very surprised about the missing knowledge…

ad Co2 up to the same amount as the oxygen content in the air.

C + O2 = Co2
C + 1/2 O2 = C0
1 C + 1 Co2 + 1O2 = 2 Co

play with the temperature between 1200 and 1450° C
temper with adjusting Co2 and or water, but never below 1200°C

“1 C + 1 Co2 + 1O2 = 2 Co”

This should be 1 C + 1 Co2 + 1O2 = 2 CO2, right? Or maybe 1 C + 1 Co2 + 1O2 = 2 Co + 1O2

Count up your O on both sides of your equation, they don’t balance.

No, mine is correct

so where does the extra 2 O go?

“1 C + 1 Co2 + 1O2” that is 4 Os
2 Co is only 2 Os.

Where did the other 2 Os go?

they go with the O same as the O from the water ?

I guess I don’t understand, then. I don’t see it in your reaction:
1 C + 1 Co2 + 1O2 = 2 Co

There is are 2 extra Os on the left, equation is not balanced.