Tom, you have a wonderful way of expressing your self. It´s a blast reading your posts.
When I read my own posts the day after I often misunderstand my own writing and I say to myself: - What was I thinking?
You must remember I´m a gasification rookie. I´m not to be trusted. This is not just about gasification. At one point I´m convinced about something, based from what I know at that time. Next day I´ve learned something new and I´m convinced of the opposite. I´m often visited by Wayne´s famous teacher, Mr Pain.
I think this forum is great - to be able to ventilate thoughts concerning subjects where you otherwise would feel pretty lonely - and I enjoy it a lot. I feel pretty safe to, with the Atlantic in between
I feel a bit bad knowing I´ve promised a chunker video, but we´ve had the worst May weather in ages. I read we haven´t had fewer hours of sunshine since 1962 and lower daytime temperature in 200 years. (blaming weather for beeing lazy)
Hey TomC what helps me is to always in my head chant that, “Heat is a Quantity.” “Temperature is a Level”.
Of course to myself I always add a loud, Stoopid! Without an Atlantic between us, not even saying that about myself so’s my mud doesn’t splatter onto you.
Effectively you can only get to; and maintain; a temperature level with enough bulk of heat. Rob the heat - crash the temperature. Works just like compressed air generation and usage.
You are correct that a bit of wet steam injection into the lower hearth could save the metals and with the glowing woodchar be put to gas making. A very limited condition. That is how the over-boosted military piston aircraft and 1970’s/early 80’s non-electronic “stupid” emissions controls engine overheated and did benefit from CONTROLLED water/methanol injection. Not in these specific overheated conditions then water/methanol would kill power and water dilute the crankcase lubes.
Most bulk wood gasifier operators run too heat making unloaded on the edge of tar making without any useable heat surplus.
Again charcoal gasifiers with vertually all the cooling volitiles already driven burnt off do run heat surplus. And that surplus heat energy can be used to make engine loving bio-made hydrogen, and better yet, some bio-made methane.
J.O the northern hemisphere Artic jet stream oscillation is hammering us here too. Here we are having the dryest recorded spring in our temperate rain forest. Only 10mm of rain in all of May. Should have been 100mm.
I am watching 3000 baby Doulas Fir/Western Red Cedar tree seedling planted in early April slowly dry out and die. 2% dead and gone red now.
Finally 8mm of rain in the last two days. Sigh. Jet stream shift and 23C predicted in three days. And that will wipe out at least another 30-50 seedlings.
SeanO both woodgasifiers and charcoal gasifiers make carbon monoxide engine fuel gases. A wood fueled gasifier makes hydrogen and methane engene fuel gases in addition too. So woodgas is a batch cycle variable changing blend of these three.
Since the engine we use are piston internal combustion: for the best piston duration pressure pushing power the methane will have the highest engine energy contribution. Has the best smooth under pressure flame front speed. Hydrogen is too fast to be the best. Carbon monixide too slow to be the best. Blended together is what allows for gasoline and propane designed engines to use woodgas without base engine modifications.
These are not my opinions. These observed facts have been documented in engine fuels engineering books for 90 years.
Atmospheric pressure heat value of a piston motor fuel just does not work to compare the piston engine shaft power possible.
If this was true then high carbon/low hydrogen coal dust would beat out all others. Not used except under very controlled conditions.
I will stand corrected. It is the breakdown of the CO2 to the CO, which you want to favor. I actually looked at the chart wrong too. I think I need to find my glasses.
When in english I understand about 75% of what I read and 50% of what I write. No mud splattering intended.
Tom, you said you´ve started a design. I´m still curious. Even if, as Steve says, there is very little extra gas to gain, one might benefit from being able to keep the pedal down without risking a meltdown.
Off to another night shift at the mill. Dark rainy sky with low fast moving clouds, 6C (43F). Still no summer.
Hey TomC for your downsized chunked wood fueled Imbert type system best to pay close attention to MaxGasmans Nissan Micra? car system he is building.
So far the seems most usable small car system I’ve seen is Swiss Danial Hagen’s rear bumper mounted on his yellow Opel car.
Google search up the german word “holzvergaser” and open the link to google found pictures.
Max’s larger Audi system is there. DanielH’s yellow Opel is there. His picture links to an AutoBuild article.
Regards
Steve Unruh
Thanks Steve. I know MaxGasman has a car on wood, but have never seen the details of it. Danial Hagen"s really gets me excited. A small car on woodgas— he did a nice job of installing that WWII gasifier. I am impressed with Joe Monty’s gasifier on a small Ford. There is where the problem lies. He ran his on “pellets”. That is why I am interested in a way of producing “pellets” out of solid wood : like maybe 1 inch cubes or even smaller. I am absolutely in love with Don Manne’s little Geo. I just think that it should be fueled by something smaller/ lighter than a WK. ( I missed getting to ride in it. When I saw him driving he already had a shot-gun)
I swore that I was done tinkering with my truck and was going to work on that 75% learning curve. Well the trip to Argos did help on the 75%, but I also found somethings that I just have to tinker with. Thus I tore it down today. Got to get it back together before I can experiment with making "cubes"TomC
Hello back to you J.O.
Your English is so good that I forget and fall back into American colloquialism. Your Atlantic safe separation joke was so good that I reflected off if it.
When you are involved I will try to be better at standard english.
TomC, Daniels yellow Opel system is quite compact and admirable. Details show this is quite advanced for ease of use and maintenance past most WW II Imberts. Looks more like the best of the later French systems.
The one yellow Opel picture with the top rack woodbaged full shows much about any alternative vehicle power system versus 100 year evolved easy now to use gasoline/diesel fueled.
A usable vehicle system past just staying up with the traffic needs to be evaluated by its total space/weight/range of fuel on-board; the “fuel” dictated engine/motor and transmission system: along WITH convenience and safety features energy needs.
One example is electric cars. Back in the 70’s/80’s stuck with lead-acid batteries took min 1000 pound; better, 2000 pound of battery to have any decent power and range. Realistically only feasible to convert pick up truck with a whole below bed battery bank. Next Niegbor over has a new Nissan Leaf. Fine. He can pass me on the freeway at 70 mph killing his travel range down to ~50 miles. Light foot it for a 100 mile range. Until . . . it rains and is cold. Then wipers, lights, ELECTRIC heater coils put it back down to a 50 mile range even at lightest foot 45 mph.
Now another niegbor with a Toyoto Prius having an undersized “wasteful” IC engine has all of the cabin heat and acessory electrical power that she needs and wants. Price? Only high 30’s mpg versus 40-ish MPG ( just what the best currnet non-hybrid gasoline/deisel rigs get!). But green conscious she’s at least not driving up U.S. west coast demand for more nuclear plants and natural gas turbine electrical generators. And MORE super high frequency electrical transmission grid lines! This is green? This is conserving? Not.
Silliest damn thing is on-board hydrogen storage space/weight to have any kind of usability. Look that up.
Much less total package energy dense than a propane or natural gas fueled vehicle. And those only used on-road versus gasoline/diesel in subsidized/low taxed situations. The bulk home propane delivery trucks here used to fuel on the same propane. Now they fuel on diesel. Why? Costs. Even paying road tax per gallon on the diesel it was cheaper for the delivery companies to not have to spec request and buy specially set up trucks from only one manufacturer and maintain their own propane engine systems repair and maintenance shops.
Now it may seem I have jabbered off away from woodgas for vehicles. Not really.
Waynes greatest achievement was his stated goal. Keep up with hi-way speed traffic conditions with no compromises. So why the vehicle set-up with a large engine power to weight ratio. To travel to feed the beast takes a lot of wood fuel storage, take-a-long. Adds a light trailer. To town and back just a hopper full with a back up bag or so of fuel thrown in the back.
VesaM specs his system to have a min of 250-300 kilometer range of in-hopper woodfuel. Makes for larger, heavier, wind pushing stick up metals systems. He want’s his to be woman friendly to operate and not have to stop re-fuel. He achieves his goals too. And even keeps his vehicle interios space fro children. Adds a very woman unfriendly always there trailer.
Dutch John did achieve his goal of having his whole Volvo system on-board (no trailer) split-up, back, underneath and front underhood. Wood fuel storage had to be in the back seat in bags.
So woodgas for usability, often necessary to turn any small sedan/station wagon it into a Don Mannes two seater to accommodate usable travel around wood fuel on board.
How is this different than a pick up truck conversion then? Or the original Honda 60 mpg! Insite - a two seater?
Why I appreciate Daniels Opel conversion - he kept his interior four person intact. But highway speed capable? Probably not. Travel range then only with roof-racked bags of fuel.
MaxGasman on his Micra intendeds to change out and oversize his engine.
Woodgas will never be an everybody solution. Chipped, pelleted or charcoal fuels still do not have a gasoline/diesel on-board energy space/weight density.
In my very narrow focused goal-set wodgas can be the power solution for those who can grow and harvest their own fuel woods. That means those dedicated to rural living and growing/harvesting trees sustainable.
If you already set up to bulk wood heat then woodgas shaft power just comes as a natural extention.
Yes Steve; It is different strokes for different folks. Everyone has to decide what their motivation for driving on wood is and what they are willing to give up to do it. Many years ago I just wanted to see if we could re-invent what had gone on 60 years ago in Europe and been “forgotten”. My trip to Argos was the epidemy of the proof for me. ( on the trip it dawned on me, that the truck I was driving had been purchased from someone who thought it wasn’t road worthy anymore, and I was driving through 6;00 traffic in Milwaukee and coming out of Chicago at 11;00 at night with all the loaded trucks, and I was running on wood. ) Now my goal centers more around a small vehicle just for trips to town. Thus the interest in Don’s Geo and Daniel’s Opel. Kind of like “rich” people have their sports car and a Limousin ( my truck will still be my Limousin ) TomC
It is the breakdown of the CO2 to the CO, which you want to favor. I actually looked at the chart wrong too. I think I need to find my glasses.