Gaary, To someone who has worked with metrics and used them regularly, it should be just a minor problem to go through all the math to convert my 4.3 l engine at 2000 rpm’s to meters of nozzle diameter. I don’t know if you have built a gasifier, particularly a Imbert style. I have always considered you a very knowledgeable person on many fields. You have all the perameters I had to work with and I invite YOU to do the calculation and post it for other’s to use. I apologize if I sound offensive, but I do feel my intelligence is being attacked for something that I was never taught or never learned. If I had two video screens where I could keep the “conversion program” on and one for the “writing from the library”, I would have had a better chance. On one computer, I was bouncing around and getting lost and confused. Sorry for my attitude, but I know what I know and at 82 it is hard to learn new. TomC
I’m sorry if I have said things in a way that has offended you Tom, or called your intelligence into question. Quite the opposite, you seem to have a huge background experience in mechanics generally, and stand out as one of the few who have ever built a working vehicle wood gasifier system pretty much in isolation. That’s a huge accomplishment that few would manage to get results from.
As for me, I have run the numbers following Dutch John’s specs for his style of Imbert, which made perfect sense, but have only built a table top charcoal gasifier and modest experimentation with alternate wood combustion and charcoal making. Been a lot of life issues in the way, but hopefully soon that will change.
As for the math issue, I do feel there has been confusion over basic concepts. And though I can work comfortably in both systems, for some things I prefer to use imperial units. But metric has a lot of advantages, especially when working with weight, temperature and volumes. And really it is that simple. If you don’t like the units, or it makes it confusing to verify your work, you certainly can just switch out the formulas at the starting gate, change meters to feet, and mm to decimals of an inch, cubic centimeters to cubic inches.
Edit. And, at 82, to still be actively designing and building is better than I can expect, I figure I’ll be doing well just to make it to be above ground.
No disrespect intended. It’s just disconcerting to see the trouble you are having making the basic math work to your satisfaction.
Gary I’m the one who owes you an apology. You caught me at a bad moment. I have too many projects that MUST get done and they aren’t the ones I WANT to do.
I have learned that metrics are much easier if you know them and use them. I don’t know the value for the cm in a l but I do know it is a nice round number like 100 or 1000. I have no idea how many cu.in. in a quart. I would have to go around saying there is 62.4 lb per cu. foot and a pint is a pound so a quart is 2 pints there for the qt would be 2 lb so maybe a cu. ft would be 31.2 qt. Then there are 12x12x12 cu. in. in a cubic foot 1728 cu. in/ cu ft. Then 1728cu in / 31.2 qt =55 2/3??? maybe. Now you maybe see how my mind works and can understand how I get so confused. If I worked in metrics and stayed with meters and used decimals of a meter I would not get so lost but when you have a bunch of meters and you next talk about that bunch as centimeter and move the decimal I lose my visualization of the original meters. Hard to understand, but having a given number and changing it drastically by just changing to cm, or mm or dm my mind goes up in smoke. TomC
Don’t feel bad Tom, I have the same problem in math, switch back and forth. I have made mistakes doing conversionson on projects too. I am sure we all have.
Bob
I second what bob said on all that math converting, im lucky if i get it right useing math " by the inch"
Thank you Max for the posting, but THAT is way above my realm of understanding. I see he is saying that he is going to Slovania for a two day lecture. This would be more of something that Kristijan could understand.
I have been thinking of you. I looked at a picture of an Imbert actual design. It shows the gas coming out of the gasifier and directly into a cyclone. What I found interesting was the cyclone was nothing that I had ever seen before.
Is this a legitimate and viable design. Does it have a name so that I could look up information on it? TomC
Hi Tom, I will build it out of plastic pipe and test it with my vaccum cleaner using charcoal soot and particles.
It looks good to me and should work.
Bob
Max, this Power BI program stuff is new to me. Need to do some studying up! Thanks for something new!!
Just a quess but I think the bottom thing is just a flange/bulge if you look at the other side it looks the same and the piece at the right is just a screw lid to empty the ash/soot?
I don’t think there are anything that prevents particles from entering the slits, but it is
probably better then nothing.
The plastic pipe mockup idea of Bobmac sound great and will give answers in black and white!
Don, I also was thinking the oval-shaped slits are lower than most cyclones. Perhaps that is the point where the dust particles are at the highest acceleration due to centrifugal force, and the “cleanest” point in this design. It all might just be a compromise to get a lower gas exit and save a length of pipe,and a couple elbows?? 
I agree with Jim’s observations.
I don’ t know who added the notes to the picture, but they really do explain a lot for me. The gas/soot come in from running in a straight pipe. As it enters the cyclone it’s direction quickly changes to a circular motion. Everything doesn’t sort itself out imidiately. I takes a few revolutions around the outside wall to get the soot particles separated from the gas. At that point are the oval slots that “tap” off the clean gas. When the gas is “tapped” off and goes down the inner pipe, the vacuum stops and that allows the soot particles to fall in the larger tube. I think there is an ash door at the very bottom. What I don’t understand is the “cone” around the center pipe. It may stop soot from being pulled back up into the gas flow, but how does the soot go past it TomC
I added the notes but they were more questions than notes. I think the cone is fastened to the inside pipe but does not touch the outside pipe so the soot can slide down the cone and drop down. What I still don’t understand is what appears to be a “hole” back into the gasifier where the “what is this” is located. Maybe I am not seeing this right.
Don; If you go back to the original drawing, there is a ring around the entire gasifier and the cyclone contacts the ring where the one “what is this” is. I think there is a “hinge” there. The hinge allows you to drop the “door” which is where the other “what is this” is. That is how the cyclone is emptied.TomC
Hi! Folks
28.2.2019
"What is this? upper one = standard screw-lid for ash removal! Observe the square nobs for screwing tool!
“what is this?” between the inner and outer mantel = It is a fragment of the outer mantel rim, connecting to the heart part of outer mantel. Look at the whole width or the drawing, that reveals the “connection rim”… as I see it.
At the left side one can clearly see the rim “bulbing” out a bit.
The same is intended on the right side, but gone through many copying rounds, the details get obscure…
Max
This picture (if you can call it that) makes no sense at all! Is the top
of the cyclone open/closed or what?? I presume it’s closed, otherwise it
won’t be drawing out of the burner shell. Where is the "storage area?
Poor presentation leaving the reader to guess at design.
I’m replying to Kristijan’s post in his thread about a person he met from Slovenia that is interested and knowledgeable about WG but does not speak English. I haven’t been doing anything to post so am opening my thread for a possible discussion on ‘‘language barriers’’. First I ask, how has he understood the post on this sight? Years ago on another sight English speaking Europeans translated documents for us. I would ask that people who speak English plus another, would volunteer to mentor people. Let them send their post to you in their language and you interpret and translate. Then send that translation onto DOW. Lately we have had a few post in their language, and it is a shame but few understood the post. I’m suggesting a lot for some of out Europeans but that is sort of how many of us got into WG. TomC
Tom, check the new topic l created.
I do hope he decides to chime in, l would gladly be his translator.
I have used the google “translate:” operator to translate comments that I get on my youtube channel that are in other languages.
There are some limitations on how many words it will translate at a time, but you can almost always get the idea.
Also, it does take some patience when reading a translation to make sure you really understand what the writer ACTUALLY meant. I often restate the question in my language, answer THAT question and then suggest that the person ask another question if I got it wrong.