when we were designing the cnc machines we ha about 100 people around the word an the forum and we made it free ware ti was the best systems ever made but the chinese had them up and running before we could have them finished so i under stand being nerves about letting secrets out the same with 3d printers it was built the 6 month later i had a chinese company wanted me to try there unit sa they were marketing it so with this project i have been more careful but sometimes i need other advice so thanks . that is what i wanted to talk to luke or pasel . but i got more info from you . the last post you sent i was writing this one . you are right i have studied woodgas boilers and that is what i am making . you just hit the nail on the head. as i said in the begining i dont need tar free gas but i dont want much tar either
The other option is look at the rocket stoves, if you are looking to run alternatives to split fire wood, I suspect this is what you are already thinking and then ran into the moisture migration to hopper. That would be where the auger feed would help or feed in from the side like the Wiseway. Intake feeds past this fuel feed opening.
that is the problem i do not want a updraft even though i have looked at that as well i want something that will stop when i dont need heat when i need heat turn on draft have heat. it didnt take you long to get what i was looking for. you are one smart cookie ha ha ha. I hate rocket stoves it is taking 400 steps back ward back to the middle ages. i have built a few furnaces in my life . I am using a home made furnace now. have been doing so as long as i remember. but i see the writing on the wall the canadian gov will outlaw wood burning soon our prime minister is a idiot. no guts so we have to make something that will not pollute. and what i am working on will meet every thing they want. wood ,peat , grass ,etc is carbon neutral will provide energy like steam heat for stirling motors steam motors fuel for turbines etc. Gas engines will be phased out in canada if the envirlmentist have there way. that is what they are telling the kids in school.( our next generation.) they are trying to go electric even though it will produce 3 times the carbon they are trying to stop . if they have there way manufacturing would stop with the next generation. i dont need split wood. Chips cubes sawdust rotten wood etc or even the very dirt it self called peat. I have seen a lot of furnaces that are gasifiers but they plug up with tar and i mean TAR ( wet TAR) pipes plug heat exchangers plugged it is like looking at a bunch of cave men trying to invent fire.scary… as i said at the beginning europe and asia is ahead but unless it is china the regulations in canada refuse to allow these more advanced machines. i guess i am no threat to the engine gas people i am on another area but i can use advice from other sources. As you were saying wise way feeds fuel past the openig yes but we need a positive fuel lock.
sorry matt i didnt know you liked the rocket stoves you made a good one i saw but i have seen most that wasnt so compact and effiant you are into a lot of things i findly got close to the end of your history. you are looking at what i have been looking at i also was thinking about producing ac at veryable cycles then rectifying the power to charge batteries for inverters for producing power
Interesting discussion. I have a lot of respect for the quest for more efficient combustion and or gasification, and have put a fair bit of thought into this topic myself. There are many ways, and size scales.
I would like to throw this into the discussion.
http://task32.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/04-Weiss-Gasification.pdf
If you look at the table of gas composition, the concept of using process heat to efficiently torrify the incoming feedstock is proved. Granted, it’s an industrial process, but it seems pretty scalable, at least over a certain range. But the result is very low nitrogen, and very good hydrogen, etc, high calorific value gas.
They have developed the concept in a certain way, but I think any system that respects the conservation and transfer of heat should work the same.
As for simple process heat systems, I agree that a system simpler than a fuel grade gasifier can do the job more efficiently in terms of work and materials invested, like the Tarm wood boiler stove system. Unless a person is working up to a syngas producer, but wants to get a toe in the door with government regulators etc.
garry that is the machine i thought matt was talking about in the beginning . i thought it was to complicated . it would be good in the developed word but for some one in the jungles or without knowledge of gasification it would have a high learning curve. very good system . Look on matts blog he has some very good ideas but when i checked it out i didnt get to the end before i replyed and didnt understand what he was trying to say and i regret i may have hurt his feeling if so i am sorry . he has some of the most advance designs i have seen check him out as well his site is (thrive off grid) you will have to go to his 2018 area then check it out. I also have checked out the tarm system liked the idea I have been looking for something small and compact and simple . I know i am looking for a lot .but like the rest i am thinking out side of the box . have you built any thing yet or still trying out ideas . I found out years ago that if we have enough people with different ideas coming together nothing is impossible that is how the idea of printing in 3 d came about come back with your ideas would like to hear them.
No feelings hurt bud. lol Your good, most us folks are the easiest going you will encounter 
thanks matt i didnt get far enough down on your site now i see the valve you were talking about . WHERE did you get that idea. it was very interesting to say the least. You have something there. Now i see why you said that was your ace in the hole sort of speaking. the pail on the top (hopper) pail on the bottom (ash) that is about what i was looking at? only i was looking air tight built as a unit. You make a opening big enough for the pellets but what will happen if you go to small chunks. I thought abought pellets but didnt have the money to buy a pellet machine chipper and all the rest so i have to work with what i have . Your rocket stove design is good I have checked the tent stove site out a few times but like i said it requires pellets at 8 dollars a bay plus taxes i just stepped back looked at other ways. I now have a chipper but still cant afford a pellet machine . Thought of building one but havent tried yet. I am glad you dont take things to heart. I wasnt trying to be smart or any thing like that just a comment like the old saying better todo the ask forgivness as i say things befor i think (foot in the mouth)…
as some of you may already figured out i dont have a big expense account probly like every one else. so i have to move ahead one step at a time. There was one guy in the steam car forum that built a downdraft wood burner . he is dead now but he didnt have money and his designs were crude to say the least but he could produce steam in the hundreds of pounds at 3 or 4 hundred degrees the most efecient burner have seen . I think even today. it was simple effective worked and worked well he collected the heat with a mono tube design.
I wonder how it compares with the dual fluidized bed gasifier which also produces a rich, low nitrogen gas. Here is a dual fluidized bed prototype…
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/909848
(you have to click on view technical report to see the diagrams and such.)
I am guessing the results are similar, as the fundamental processes are essentially the same, a 2 stage system efficiently utilizing process heat.
hi i looked up the site very interesting. I worked on fluid bed combustion 20 years ago. enviro canada said at that time no way you will operate this in canada … But fluid bed was the best at the time. I was able to make a unit 6 inch in diameter produce 200,000 btus .the heat transfer rate was out of this world . The only problem with the unit i made is at that small size you would blow out the flame the fluid air would cool the bed to the tempture that it could not burn with the 6 inch burner 45 to 6 seconds was all it would burn. That is until i learned the seacred of pre heating the air with the bed. it then ran well but the other problem was the sand would wear away in a few hours then the dust would flow out the exhaust. the duel bed might have helped but then you have to keep the bed refilled with what ever you use. it took of the heat with a mono tube as well and it was so effective that you could cool the flame front and put out the flame . it would burn as low as 800 degrees F. the more water you used the cooler the tempture. I would burn anything even wet coffee grounds. for powdered coal you had to add limestone powder to absorb the sulphure . i never had the operunity to test a two stage system you got me wondering??? oh their system would not keep burning that small without pre heating the inlet air to combustion tempture . i know i whent through that same stage 20 years ago physics hasnt change i dont think it has but i could be wrong
I thought the sand was considered a consumable, and trapped on the way out then fed back in with fuel along with replacement sand? The fines caught in an additional stage of filtration?
Sounds like you had a great little unit going. Any pics?
no there were no pictures that was when you used film not dedital there was a maan from the states that figured out the air preheat he built it for making steam for motors the steam association of america has an artical on him . I cant remember his name but we talked quite a while on the phone. he droped it because he was beat up and black listed by some goverment people and he worned me about it. so there wasnt much information about it when i got a hold of our government they said there was no way in hell it would be allowed. I said the heck with it and trough it in my scrap pile. I was young and didnt care . I still remember it and how well it worked . then about 4 years ago when i started to work on combustion again i started there and whent on from that point. i have found gasification a better way and it is low tempture then all we have to do is make a burner with preheat and make flamless combustion it will get red of the polutiants. leave little or no ash in the exhaust. should be able to keep nitric oxide levels extremely low got all the benifits of natural gas even with low oxygen . .3% I am a way past fluid bed. the only problem with gasification is it requires a lot mor gas for the same BTUs the reason i left the old unit is i didnt want to have to keep putting in new bed material all the time gasification does away with that and it is carbon nuteral id done right.
the mans name that figured out the preheat of the 6 inch fluid bed was rocky golden there was a artical in mother earth about him and then one in the steam automoile vol22 No. 3 1980 that was when we worked on that design he built it . i built one as well but there was better ways … it was a primitive way to do what we can do today easier
This is the article from Mother Earth News. It is a heat application with no producer gas removed. However, minus the hot sand particles getting blown out of the reactor, and could fall back into a crucible it looks hot enough for a kiln.
ya thats the man and his machine the orignal artical was different . i built a similar machine and it worked well. There is more to that machine than meets the eye as you noticed the particales were 1/8 inch that is the size of the air support holes in the bottom as well. it worked well but took a constant eye a long way from complete. i dont know what happened to his machine havent heard anything since the late 80s from him mine worked for a couple of years canada didnt want the machine so i put it in the scrap pile and over time it was recicled into other projects 2 years ago the outer shell became a casing for a furnace gasifier unit. thanks for getting that articale i havent seen it for a while.
also you are right it didnt make producer gas as the fuel was burned competly but it contained a lot of excess air and produced co2 not much co
What did you use for the particle support? I suspect 1/8" is too big to get enough airflow for the bubbling action without making it an incinerator.
I suspect it is more closely related to a bubbling fluidized bed incinerator. And incineration was more or less banned in the US and Canada in a large part because burning chlorinated plastics caused dioxin emission issues.
https://www.mhi.com/products/environment/mitsubishi_bubbling_fluidized_bed_incineration.html
the particle support was a plate with 1/8 holes drilled in it across it looked like the pictures of the sun bubbling like boiling water. and the bottom . it is called fluid bed for a reason. when it burned the bed was red with burning particles the and yes it was a incinerator of sorts the bed was course beach sand. the blower was not a small blower it had quite a bit of power 3/4 hp .And yes it is banned in canada back as far as the 80s. as i said earlier. but who would burn plastic any way…aaaaah an idea??? maybe better fuel. It was ok but took to much work watching it didnt figure it was easy to automate the unit wasnt wanted so as everything else tried didnt work scrap it. oh you say incinerator everything is a incinerator it is how you use it that makes the difference a burner is a burner by any other name