Cody, my apologies, I should have pointed out my fuel spec for this project, early in this posting. You and I are building different gasifiers for different fuel specs. Mine is for engine grade charcoal ONLY (fully pyrolyzed, ground and sieved - by Ray Menke or myself), and you are seeking a gasifier more tolerant of a mix of partially pyrolyzed charcoal, and/or some wood chips, etc. Ray and I pull out any partially pyrolyzed “brands” (as Ray calls them) during grinding, or before. (during grinding they become obvious as … they are difficult to grind)
Yes, a lot of fuel prep work, and some wood BTU used in making the charcoal. I kindof look at it as, “you can pay now, or pay later”. Later being with a more complex gasifier and possible engine-damaging upsets that must be avoided. This does not mean I am anti-wood gasifiers, only that I prefer to simplify the process by doing the fuel work upfront for my vehicle gasifier, instead of using a wood gasifier. Having said that, I have LaRosafier, MPM Imbert and incrementally-fueled, stratified downdraft (sometimes called a drizzler) wood gasifiers about 50 percent completed. I may or may not ever put them in a vehicle, but will see. I do intend to complete them.
Engine exhaust (aka EGR) does contain water vapor and CO2 that are raw materials for making more fuel - in a charcoal gasifier. Neither water nor EGR is typically used in a wood gasfier because they are not needed - due to pyrolysis gases and water found chemically and as moisture content, in the wood.
I’m a Simple Fire user, for about 10 years now. I have one on a Honda XR-100R (you can find it by searching my name, here on DOW), and another powers a Kawasaki Mule. Both are updraft, of course, and moisture (likely from the charcoal bed) has caused problems, as I didn’t do a good job of dropping it out, and I didn’t run engine out on gasoline after a charcoal run, in one (expensive) case.
So, the updraft moisture content aspect tended to make me poo-poo a future updraft build. The ash cleaning with gravity and gas flow aspects of a downdraft seems better. However, upon a lot of study, I do like the cooling and partial filtering aspects of the updraft, charcoal gasifier. So, I am going that direction.
One or many “nozzles”, for an engine grade charcoal gasifier? The Whitlock forge and flute builders are onto something, no doubt, based on success. I haven’t gotten much in the way of design suggestions for flutes for my 4.9L, but I did not reach out to each of them, directly. One thing about having only one nozzle in a charcoal gasifier is that you can pretty much control the reaction in that one location, whereas if multiple nozzles/holes had partial flow, you might wind up with something funky. Anyway, the single nozzle Simple Fire has worked pretty well.
So, back to the Pederick. I have been fascinated by its simplicity, novelty and supposed reliability. Not much different than a Simple Fire, except it has a great way of vaporizing added water - which I prefer to “moist charcoal” in a downdraft, because it is more controllable. And it has no “nozzle protrusion”, which as Max points out, is “what gets you”. Why Gary G. went to the “forge tuyere” design. Your idea of adding a couple more nozzle holes to a Pederick plate is probably a good one, but I think I’m going to start off with just one, and go from there, keep it simple. Now if I can just find a way to figure out what nozzle diameter might be appropriate for the 4.9 L …