Overengineered? Or, specific Engineered

Specific engineered in wood-for-power can often appear as overengineered to someone not living in the designers area. Using the predominate wood fuel input that systems designer is forced to play with.

Cases in point.
VesaM’s very, very stout built rotating wing crusher/sweeper grate. He evolved to this system for his regionally available commercial peat sod fuels.
As he states the prepared fuel bits can have small stone in them. And this peat sod has a much higher silica ash % versus his primary birch wood fuels.
The peat sod ash melts forming clinkers.
His grating crushing system is to crush the small stones and clinkers up to pass through the grate and not flows clog.
He states clearly that when using actual wood chunks he often does not have to grate activate.

Another example.
The learned published European WWII experiences all say, “Do not use oak wood!” Why? Accelerated upper systems corrosions.
Now some such as WayneK, CarlZ and others live where oak is often 50% or more of the woods that they do have. No choice. They must use oak.
Their solution? Make the system sectional so the corrosions most effected areas can be easy changed out.
Much more complex than an all weld up quick-build system. ( That then becomes a constant corrosion leak slaving monster!)
And the modern, not-at-war, Europeans solution is to just now use all stainless steel in their build ups.
Danny Cox did that here USofA. Build all SS. And I stand accused of forcing this change onto my friend BenP. Insisting on this to the Gekkers, too. (Ha! Getting myself behind back called SS nazi SteveU.)

And then there is the wet-wood designers.
WayneK, BenP and a few others. Multiple upper system condensate gutters. Outside diverting, cooling and collecting.
internal heat cooking down tars/volatiles refining areas. Close coupling recirculating of the of the hot vaporized off HC&O’s back into the oxidization zones. Force more steam H2O’s and CO2’s to be formed to fuel the next step, reduction zone.
Intentional heated flow dripping down of the secondary and tertiary tars right onto the nozzle faces. More HC&O’s.
And these systems CAN use 20% plus moisture wood fuels.
My temperate rain forest situation.
I have now evolved developed to be able to effectively woodstove with 40% moisture wood fuels.

My engine gasifer interest is in system able to do the same.
Gonna’ be “overengineered”. Gonna’ need that IC engines wastes heats (wood fuels derived!) routed back into the gasifers system to jump this thermal hurdle.
More, “overengineering”.

Careful throwing stones, eh.
Not every one can live in a solar rich area.
With charcoaling hardwoods.

Follow and learn from those doing the difficult.
Because the circumstances of severe weather; forced lifestyle changes; can put anyone of you there.
With NO peeerfect dry chunked wood.
With NO pre-prepared wood charcoal.

Steve unruh


Moderately wet wood don’t scare me none. I stand it up against the walls just inside my door of my stove. It dries out as the stove runs and then I just push it forward into the coals and replace it. Of course I prefer to burn fully seasoned wood but sometimes shit happens.


As you say with hands on management 40% wet heavy wood can give you a net energy output.
40% wet wood is what my winter fresh live cut woods will be.
Spring sap-up wood (our D.F. conifer does this too) will be 50% moisture by weight live cut spring, early summer.
I can; and other wood species can get an energy net. But only by forced burning of the rich sap pitches.
Smoky. Sooty.
Here. Been down all wet winter wood rain soaks to 60% by weight. Will not float. Sinker woods.
60% wet heavy; just using the woods energy impossible to get a net useable energy.

Only by outside energy drying down to 40% can you get a net useable.
Winter solar, if you got it. Especially deep cold low humidity solar.
A gasoline/diesel working engine exhaust and water cooling can do it too.
Light covered bed of that pickup truck can go’ing-to-town do some wood drying if re-jiggered.


1 Like

Originally there was an garbage incinerator and a used tire incinerator and they were built with understanding they would receive renewable energy tax credits . After they were built the law was changed , Not only would they not receive tax credits necessary for profitable operation They were prohibited from continuing to operate . The garbage incinerator tried to shift to wood to produce 50 megawatts and the law was re written again .
a unique opportunity for industrial development
. The vacant Robbins Community Power site


Yep. Yep.
Always the same humans games.
Candle stick makers fought the new whale-oil illuminators.
Whale-oil illuminators fought the new petroleum kerosene illuminators.
Well storied the entrenched kerosene makers fighting foul the new electric light providers.
Ha! Ha! And then Edison first with his DC; fouling later AC Westinghouse.

In the end the best-use will eventually prevail.
You can only cost subsidize the less effective for so long.

Do all you want on wood-for-power personally.
Do not go out and try and change the world. It will break your heart.
The best way to play rigged games is to just not play.
Forced to play, like in taxes. Change your perception of winning.
They want THIS much from me. Ha! Ha! I only gave THAT much less. I win!


Japanese farmers who left Japan and started farming in Brazil . Many tales of woe and one tale of remarkable discovery . If it was engineered it was intended .

On the Formation Factor of the Black Soils above the
Tertiary Period Layer in the Amazon {Amazon Dai
Sankisdjo-no Dojo Terra Preta no Seisei Yoin ni
tsuite) . 1985 (original written in 1984). p. 31-67 in
Documentation No. 736. Kokusai Kyoryoku Jigyodan,
Tokyo, Japan.

Masao Nagaoka had heard that there was rich
soil in Manicore, and set out to see this area for himself.
For two years he wandered in the interior forests along the
tributaries of the Madeira River, planting corn and some
food crops in the process. Finally, Nagaoka found a rich
black soil (terra preta) on a site having a moderate dryseason
and little risk of fire. He surveyed 1,600 ha and
purchased it. Initially, cassava was planted on swidden
fields to produce flour {falinha) for shipment to Manaus
He then planted 6 ha of coffee and 20 ha of cacao. Nagaoka
farmed during the day, read at night, and kept records of
his activities and findings every day for ten years. He
found mixed-planting to be the most suitable form of ’
agriculture for the Amazon. His first essay, ‘Agricultural
Development and Forest Conservation in The Amazon -
Regarding These Contradictory Issues {Amazon no Nogyo
Kaihatsu to Shinrin Hogo - Sono Aihansuru Mondai ni tsuite)

was published, and a Portuguese translation was submitted to
the Amazonas government in June of 1980 (a revised text was
published from JICA in 1985; see Appendix B) . Nagaoka was
then appointed manager of a state forest reserve (5,900 ha)
in Manicore. He stated in his essay: , ;
“No more than ten years have passed since people first
settled along BR 319, the Manaus-Porto Velho road.
Impoverished farmers cannot help but slash and burn
secondary vegetation repeatedly, for they understand
the debilitating labor of weeding if they do not. They
eventually give up and move on, abandoning their plots.
Only people endowed with capital resources are able to
establish themselves as ranchers. Thus, our generation
has in the course of a decade converted the primeval
forest into pastures and retrograde brush of low
productivity. While we may still find primary forest
in accessible locations that can be slashed and burned
for several cycles of food production, this will not be
the case for our children. The Amazon is vast, but not
limitless. The government has promoted production
increases of only short-term crops, which is not a farsighted
policy. We should not, therefore, blame rural
residents who do the actual felling of the forest.
They do not have sufficient primary education and
knowledge of the outside world, beyond the river basins
of their birth. The legacy of colonial mercantilism
still constrains these people, for they have no dreams
beyond that of a wise man saving money to open a small
rural business. They have little creativity or
knowledge concerning new crops. Therefore, it is the
duty of statesmen to introduce the general public to ’
agricultural systems offering them hope for a better
future. Government policies should enhance the
people’s will to work, enabling them to participate in
the rational development of the Amazon.”
Nagaoka then proposed a rational system of agriculture
based on three-storied tree plantations that mimic the
structure of natural forests. Starting with cassava .
culture, a swidden sustains several stages of succession.
This eventually leads to a complex architecture of tall .
trees, middle-sized trees, and understory shrubs, each
producing marketable products. He maintained the first
criterion of crop selection to be that crops fit easily into
existing systems of local agricultural production. If not,
severe negative impacts on the natural ecosystem could be
The former governor of Amazonas, Gilberto Mestrinho de
Medeiros Raposo (term: 1983-87) heard of this eccentric
Japanese, and asked to meet him during a campaign trip to
Manicore in July of 1982. The candidate invited Nagaoka to
come to Manaus if he won the election. Nagaoka met him
again in the governer’ s office, and was asked to assist the
state’s immigration projects. Nagaoka replied that it would
be better to do nothing rather than distribute lots to
farmers without follow-up agricultural extension. This
would only place the impoverished in a situation to destroy
forests and the soil for the sake of temporary survival.
The governer said he wanted Nagaoka to give proper guidance
to such farmers. Nagaoka was immediately posted with the
state land bureau {ITERAM [Institute de Terras do Estado do
. His official appointment was issued on October
1, 1983, that of a special assistant to the chief. Because
of his foreign nationality, the monthly salary was minimal,
about US$ 100. V
His first task was agricultural extension and seedling
production in the new state settlement of Colonia Esperanga
at Municipality of Novo Aripuana (project administration was
later transferred to the municipality) . Nagaoka encouraged
300 colonist families to plant local fruit species in their
60 ha lots. He moved into a local hut to manage a 100 ha
demonstration farm of mixed-planting, making short trips to
Manaus only once every four months. Seedlings of various
species including cupuagu, peach palm, and oranges were
produced for farmers. However, bad timing and insufficient
state money delayed the work. Nagaoka ended up carrying
400,000 coffee seedlings from his farm in Manicore for free
distribution. He collapsed twice in the field due to
subarachnoid hemorrhaging, but recovered well after taking
six months to recover. In 1987, a new Amazonas governer
suspended the project,


a much shorter better story . A Japanese farmer bought an area of black earth in Brazil and planted mango and never needed do more then pick and sell mango


Yup, the common dominator, build what you can use…
Its a bit different with what you “want” to use…

A gasifier is not as comfy as gasoline or diesel…
A gasifier needs “skills”, either to build or to operate…

Be McGyverish in your builds, with an old farmers mentality
(hint: Mcgyver did study and the old farmer did learn, both had good teachers)

A gasifier, imho, is nothing more then a good old woodburner to heat your house, slightly modified to produce fuel for the engine instead of heat for the house.

Keep it clean, neat and take care of your fuel…
Build/engineer the gasifier/fuel combo that fits your: a: fuel, b: your needs

There is no one fit all solution, not even close…
If clinker is formed, ashes molten, metal deteriorated, bended, broken…
Your gasifier is trying to tell you, teach you…

Yeah, i build things, huge industrial and small farmer style but at the end it boils down to the question: “how smart is the operator?” How smart should i design it ?

Over-engineered: i want to prove something :wink:
specific engineered: i know the operators :grin:


In 2017, Tesla gave the owners of its Model S and Model X cars 400 kWh of Supercharger credit.[10] Afterwards, drivers using Tesla Superchargers have to pay per kWh. The price ranges from $0.06 to $0.26 per kWh in the United States.[11] Tesla superchargers are only usable by Tesla vehicles.

Other charging networks are available for non-Tesla vehicles. The Blink network of chargers has both Level 2 and DC Fast Chargers and charges separate rates for members and non members. Their prices range from $0.39 to $0.69 per kWh for members and $0.49 to $0.79 per kWh for non-members, depending on location.[12] The ChargePoint network has free chargers and paid chargers that drivers activate with a free membership card.[13] The paid charging stations’ prices are based on local rates (similarly to Blink). Other networks use similar payment methods as typical gas stations, in which one pays with cash or a credit card per kWh of electricity.
Direct Current (DC) Fast Charging:
Commonly incorrectly called Level 3 Charging, DC Fast Charging is categorized separately. In DC fast charging, grid power is passed through an AC/DC Inverter before being passed directly to the vehicle’s battery, bypassing the onboard charging circuitry.

DC Level 1: Supplies a maximum of 80 kW at 50-1000 V.
DC Level 2: Supplies a maximum of 400 kW at 50-1000 V.
Tesla’s V3 Superchargers top out around 250 kw, and in sifting through specs GCR couldn’t find a model that tops out near 200 kw but takes 90 minutes for a full charge.
Audi says that starting at 5%, one might recover 110 kilometers (68 miles) of range after 10 minutes—a rate it can keep from 10 to 20 minutes, and on from 20 to 30 minutes, when it will reach about 80%. A full charge will take just 45 minutes.
nearly 55 miles of range recovered for the U.S. E-Tron Sportback every 10 minutes.
150-kw charging will not be the end of development,”

If I translate what you say into my personal language I would say: A beautifully thought out device will be useless if a common sort of operator can’t pick it up and at least begin to use it without a manual or verbal instruction. Why so many small engine tools have pictures of turtles and rabbits on them.

1 Like

Hello Henry.
I was trying to figure out the cost of a “tank” of electric fuel from the info in your recent post, and— how far that would take you.
Hard for me to do.
I picked the Tesla 200kw point for a full “tank”, and chose a $.50 per kw cost from your ranges. That’s USD$100.00. If that takes you 200 miles, 50 cents a mile still sounds pretty pricey to me.
Am I even close?

And, do these charging stations charge taxes equivalent to gas and diesel motor fuel stations?

Pete Stanaitis

1 Like

Tesla announced today that it’s bringing back a useful perk new customers who buy a new Model S or Model X vehicle: unlimited charging at its supercharger stations
The average supercharger cost of $0.25 per KW also applies for Model 3. A full recharge to about 250 miles of range costs approximately $22.00. More typically, a half charge (150 miles of range) would cost about $11.00. Cost varies based on the region of the country and local electricity rates

“Obviously, electric vehicles have no consumption that is taxable that makes its way to the Transportation Department,” he told Consumer Reports. “These fees would be a way for electric car owners to pay their fair share for maintaining the roads and bridges in the state. We’re not trying to penalize the electric car owner.”

Illinois proposed a $1,000 fee on EV owners earlier this year. After an outcry, it was reduced to $250. (Still, that’s $100 more than an owner of a gas-powered car would pay, on average.)

In Missouri, there’s a proposal to increase the existing EV fee to three times what the owner of a gas-powered car would pay next year in the state, and the fee would increase to four times the amount by 2025, according to CR’s analysis.

Congress recently passed a retroactive federal tax credit for those who purchased environmentally responsible transportation, including costs for EV charging infrastructure. The tax credit now expires December 31, 2020.

Receive a federal tax credit of 30% of the cost of purchasing and installing an EV charging station (up to $1,000 for residential installations and up to $30,000 for commercial installations).

Previously, this federal tax credit expired on December 31, 2017, but is now retroactively extended through December 31, 2020. The charging station must be purchased and installed by this date to be eligible.

1 Like

No that’s not right

100 kW will get a Model S 422 miles. So 50 bucks divided by 422 comes to around 11 cents pr mile.


1 Like

Hello Matt.
Is that Telsa mdel S typical for “Kw per mile”?

At #2.19 gallon for gas, my Toyota Corola’ fuel cost is about 6 cents.
Again, I ask if those costs per KW have road tax on them.

OT; sorta: We have a lot of Amish around here. They use the roads a lot, too. And pay NO road tax, besides, they leave horse puckey all over the place. I guess I’d still like to see folks pay for what they use.

Pete Stanaitis


LOL yeah its coming, they will pay tax and with the controls capability it wont be hard for the government to track your mileage I bet they will need to report annual mileage at some point.

Well here is an over engineered because I can controller system haha. Its about as straight forward as it can get. You just press modes and it tells you what to do. Air fuel ratio manual adjust, engine starter and auto mode all right there at your finger tips. It lights itself, controls gas flows the engine generator and then self monitors the gasifier and self sustains on its own once its up and running.


Amish in Adams County, Indiana pay a wheel tax, and get a buggy plate. There was much argument, discussion, and negotiation to reach this compromise. Horse poo is unsightly, and slippery, but organic and washes away, helps the grass grow. Heavy loaded buggy (and wagon) wheels tear up chip and seal roads pretty fast. that is the problem. Plus, there are some buggy lanes maintained on select busy roads. (US 27 between Berne and Decatur.) To tie this in to Steve U’s subject, that is a specific engineered solution to a local issue, and it works. :cowboy_hat_face:


Hello Mike.
Still OT------
I am not anti-Amish, but, years ago, before they came, if i allowed one “glop” of beef poo to fall out of the spreader on the way to the field, someone would turn me in and I’d get a visit from the town chairman or the sheriff.
We have been watching the “tarred” roads, too, but haven’t seem much damage.
That wheel tax idea sounds interesting. I hadn’t heard that term since we left Illinois in about 1967.

Pete Stanaitis