I had a thought while driving in to work today listening to some back internet news about the farmers rebellion taking place in Netherlands over nitrogen. We have talked in part here about nitrogen being a large part of the chemical makeup of the air in the atmosphere and in woodgas and I have seen in passing mention people thinking to find a way to “scrub” the nitrogen from the produced woodgas. It made me wonder, what of the reaction would change if less nitrogen was coming in with the incoming air? Like say compressed pure oxygen injected into the air stream pre gasifier? Or any other element for the matter (c02, argon, exhaust from the engine) what properties would these change in the chemical make up of the woodgas and would there be any pro/ con to one or another? Just a thought
Our atomphere is 72% nitrogen? It is really not a problem just more nonsese coming from people trying to control everything. Put them on just oxygen for awhile they will soon not be able to survive with out it.
Nitrogen is good God made it to be good for our health. It is needed in gasification so we don’t burn things up from to much oxygen. Balance is the key not more oxygen or less nitrogen.
Bob
Hello Marcus, I have similar thoughts, although I also agree with Robert, feeding pure oxygen to the gasifier would definitely give a strong gas, but as Robert states, oxygen is a very aggressive substance in the hot zone, but if the oxygen was pre-mixed with pyrolysis gases and water vapor, but we would get rocket fuel. A long time ago, I did service work on a refrigeration unit for cooling compressed air, where gases were liquefied at high pressure and low temperature,… liquid gases are separated here, just like water and oil,… an interesting and fairly simple process, interesting activity… the raw material is free and in unlimited quantity, you only need energy to drive the process. The next option, which would allow the most calorific gas, is heating and gasifying wood in a closed container at 700°C, and such a gas would be only CO, H2 and methane without nitrogen, … we have already said something about this process.
The chart shows the upper temperature limit of wood burning in air. You can also see there is a big jump for burning things with O2.
I didn’t quickly find the bomb calorimeter data for wood, which would be the adiabatic flame temperature for wood/O2.
So instantly, one realizes it would take 70 % less gas to make the same products. The other thing would be the spike in temps locally without the nitrogen moderator.
My suspicion is that the producer would have to be more like a charcoal producer.
All this if one wanted to make the same calorific gas as now.
To make a higher calorific gas, I believe there would be a real danger of setting the tuyeres on fire if they were iron. As I stare at Tom’s hexalloy tip, I imagine the insane amount of heat pure O2 would make, and how wet the wood could be.
I always wondered if there was a path to fix nitrogen to hydrogen, inside a gas producer. So instead of road motor fuel, one would be making ammonia.
The rod on the left was from an IH C153 engine from a 1956 444. The bearing cap on the right is from an H, a C152 engine designed in the 1930s.
They are the same displacement, but the H engine is much heavier built.
Fellows here is a whole topic where I make the claim and back it up with working expences that Nitrogen is not the enemy of using woodgas to power WORKING piston internal combustion engines.
That topic and this topic that I set up are always about using todays billions of already been made internal combustion engine as our work horses.
Keep your eyes on the prizes of the personal use energies I can make off of woodie maternal that solar energy grows on my own property will keep you out of the Geek’ing weeds, chasing energy fairies.
May seem harsh what I said here.
But reflect this.
I know you four have made the choice to live Rural; on, or adjacent; to wood growing lands.
THIS SHOULD BE THE FIRST STEP ANYONE SHOULD MAKE TO FREE THEMSELVES IN OUR MODERN make-you-dependent CULTURES.
As fun, and as intellectual interesting as it is to chase better energy fairies, it become just a distraction from those goona’ “maybe” “someday” make the move out to personal freedoms too. I say do not distract them. Do not feed them reasons to not up-ass and DO things real Life useable. Learning that all Freedom comes with sweating it out contiually, year around. Instead, “Waiting” for the perfected technology support. “Waiting” for the events driven needs. With an escape, run-a-way; Doomers rig resources hogged, and personal resources exclusively poured into, and locked away in a garage or shop.
Yes Marcus I know get to weekly high speeds state and national highways blast the 60 miles door to door rushing up to where I want to be. My commute. Similar to your commute.
This in historical perspective in terms of time and speed fantastical to all before say a hundred years ago.
The guys and gals in my family lifetime doing these forced long commutes all evolved to common virtually, wear-it-out, use-it-up, specific purpose commuter rigs. Ramblers - any model so long as it was MT, six cylinders. Ford Mavericks. Ford Pintos. MT I-6’s and I-4’s. Later Toyota compact sedans. Tercels and Corollas.
You will do just fine once you make up and convert to a kinnda’ sorta’ GM 305 V-8 mimic.
In actually using woodgas for working IC engines purposes it aways; and will always; be about your fuel woodpile.
What can you make up and sustain using it up on a daily basis for personal energy needs?
THIS is the reality check for the worthiness of your endeavors.
Start here. Base all off of that. Because to actually USE woodgas in working IC engines this is where you will always end up. Or stop using woodgas unable to keep up with the wood fuel suppying…
Regards
Steve Unruh
This makes me glad I live on a 40 acres derelict tree farm.
A lot of old growth I can chew into and begin coppicing.
Hey Bruce,
In a small town automotive shop my keep employed winter work was parade-duty old farm tractors “fixing”. The shop owners was really stretching, reaching out to keep me working. Me because I could do with no parts other than sheet gasket and tube sealants. Hand fitting the existing parts for tighter clearnces.
Some amazing engineering in those old equipment’s.
Distinct differences pre-WWW II to post WWW II.
Lots of reasons I expect. Better lube oils. Better metallurgical experiences. Positives.
Maybe then the knowledge to use-less materials, to make-more-quantity, expecting less life from the US supply to all Allies war manufacturing experiences.
Engineers age out and are replace by new young buck engineers educated on a different set of values and goals. Ha! Each generations of new young-buck engineers convinced their new ways are better! Time in use is the ultimate arbitrator of that.
Steve Unruh
Interesting train of thought!
If you look up the octane ratings for CO and H2 you will see they are lower than the ratings for common types of gasoline. Octane rating is stated to be a measurement of a fuels resistance to detonation ie. engine knock. If you really think about what causes engine knock you realize that it comes from a very high rate of pressure increase in the combustion chambers. And if you think about the numbers they use to grade gasoline you realize they are related to engine compression ratio. Example 87 octane ==> 8.7 CR.
Now think, what is going to happen if some of the nitrogen is removed from woodgas? Flame speed is going to increase, because some of the cooling effect of an inert gas is not there anymore. This will reduce the octane rating for the new mixture. And it will allow more air to be mixed with the now richer fuel gas. If ALL the nitrogen if removed flame speed will be very high and knock will occur. But if only part of the nitrogen is removed the fuel gas’s octane rating could be brought down what the engine was designed for. This would produce more power, though I still doubt equal power level to gasoline would be achieved. We must also remember that gasoline is a vaporized liquid while woodgas is a true gas and displaces more air.
Effectively, this is what we are doing when we drip water into a charcoal gasifier.
I think that if we were able to monitor the temperature in the reaction zone closely enough we could use feed back controls to selectively close and open hopper tubes, which would cause more or less steam to go through the char bed. This would produce richer gas, and have the added benefit of reducing clinker formation.
Rindert
Allow me a few more words, I’m probably repeating this theory like a parrot… Wood actually consists of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen, a carbohydrate, these elements are joined by electron bonds, which can be broken with high temperature, the hydrogen bond should be broken first and oxygen, which can combine into H2O the next moment, or be released separately, depending on the temperature, in the gasifier we can see this as water vapor and combustible gas, but in order for coal to be gasified, a temperature of at least 650°C is required. at this temperature, the oxidation of free hydrogen will definitely take place, with this a lot of energy is released, just as much is spent in the next moment for the conversion,… so at a suitable temperature, the process of converting wood from a solid to a gaseous state should take place automatically this results in 24% CH4 and 74% CO and some oxygen. This is quite a caloric mixture. I will try this test soon.
This is 98% added them together. How much Hydrogen is present? Are you saying that a lot of the H2 is used up after being made first, breaking the bond of the Carbon which comes after the H2 has been made. This is all taking place in parts of a miliseconds of time. And it is a continious chain reaction until the gases move through the charcoal cabon and the oxygen is used up stopping the reaction prosses. Having a finished produce of CH4, CO, H2 for burnable gases. Of course the is Nitrogen the balancing stabilizing gas. All of this is happening in mico miliseconds of time continiously. The speeds and frequenices must be incredible and mind boggling. I have looked deeply into fire burning on wood. Amazing to watch it dance and doing it thing to it’s own music in time.
Bob
The engine on my generator does not run the same every time I fire it up on wood gas, I’m supposing because of the difference in the way the charcoal was processed or the amount of moisture in it. Therefore there is no way to accurately assess what difference various changes in what is added to the process may make. It is obvious when the water drip is added but a drip using hydrogen peroxide for instance makes no noticeable change over just H2O even though additional O always accelerates combustion. Just curious if anyone else has tried to quantify changes caused by different chemicals.
Bob, I’m probably annoying you already, with my thinking, but I have various ideas in my head about the dance of compounds. Previously, I spoke about gasification in a closed container without adding air and thus without nitrogen and additional oxygen, only the thermal decomposition of wood and its transformation into a gaseous state, that is, if we heat the wood, the electron bonds that hold the substance in the compound are broken, an example is cooking charcoal , where we can monitor the pyrolysis process, Kristjan is this one
described the process nicely in today’s post. I can say with certainty that hydrogen and oxygen are released first, and then due to auto-ignition they combine again right on the surface of the wood, which releases
energy that also gasifies part of the coal and pyrolysis gas is produced, i.e. a chain of carbon and hydrogen elements. This process collects the released energy. If we imagine an even higher temperature, at which carbon is also gasified and carbon gas is formed, which is mixed with water vapor and pyrolysis gas in the flask, what will happen… carbon gas will combine into CO as long as it is available oxygen (74%), and then it will pick up hydrogen (24% CH4). This also happens in a classic gasifier, the carbon gas first collects oxygen atoms, but since we added additional oxygen, there is not enough carbon to form a larger amount of methane, and nitrogen atoms also prevent the close association of these elements and directly reduce the temperature, we must also not forget the formation of nitrogen oxides NOx. I can already see a noticeable difference in the gasification of wood with the conversion of tar gases and water vapor compared to the gasification of coal with the addition of water, the first example produces a much stronger gas and the gasification of coal cannot achieve it. Let’s keep in mind that all conversions take place in a gaseous state, …
Today I did an experiment to gasify wood in a closed pipe, first I filled the pipe to the top and started heating it, the pressure rose very quickly and I had to stop, then I filled the pipe only 10% and the pressure rose to 20 bar, I cooled the pipe and dropped the gas into a plastic bag, it burned with a bluish flame. Probably some gas conversion process took place. Then I heated the full tube, this time I passed the gas through the water, it burned with a yellow flame, pyrolysis gas. This method of gasification would make it possible to compress the gas in the cylinder to a rather high pressure, but the vessel should be made of good steel. Charcoal does not fully gasify even with a glowing tube.
Why didn’t the gas just come out the top of the water container?
Good stuff Tone!
So try this with the tube filled with plastic.
Ben Peterson did a video like this once.
Around 2000 was a pamphlet put out by Lindsay Publications, about powering a 5hp Briggs & Stratton with Ritchie Retort gas.
Just for those wanting to learn more on static vs dynamic compression ration, here is a recent build up by the power nation guys, with a more or less junk yard first gen 350 chevy. Lots of good information, even touches on the pcv options we discussed over on Codys thread a while ago and other options for working with crank case pressure. Good explanation on how dynamic compression can change what most don’t know being a 13/1 motor can run on pump gas, delving into degreeing a camshaft to achieve this. From back yard overhaul, to high compression build on pump gas, to big cam and race fuel with dyno runs along the way showing each improvement. The big problem I see in this is achieving that dynamic compression ration is largely based around the camshaft profile which in our needs is kind of a moot point since the larger the camshaft the lower the engine vacuum that we depend on to deliver the gas to the mill. For this reason the motor I am putting together right now i chose a mild rv cam, hoping to keep good engine vacuum at idle. I do believe the large cam in my truck right now is the reason my truck is so stall happy, not wanting to idle below 1000rpm. Not enough vacuum to deliver the fuel at those lower rpms, Mike Gibb even said “wow you do idle that thing high don’t you??” when I visited him a few months ago for chunker parts. Hoping to see a positive change in this with the next motor, capable of the nice low idle quality Wayne has shown in the past
With the push blower on I wonder if that will help at idle. I know it makes no different at high speeds going down the road, because I have tried it. But at low idle 400 rpm. Or even at a higher idle It might help. I just have not played with it much with the pusher blower in service on Idle.
Marcus did you ever try using to push blower at idle rpms. Not sure if you have one on your build? I mainly just use my reverse blower and suction blower most of the time for lighting up the gasifier and cycling it on start ups.
Bob
yes I have 2 pushers on the truck, and I haven’t per say tested it that way, but I do use the pushers to bring gas up to the engine but once it is running I shut them off. I could try that though, but I have a new to me holley 4 barrel I need to swap on this weekend before I give it a go
One thing I noticed is when I turned on my pusher blower with the hopper lid closed and locked some smoke would come out, but with the engine running I would think it would be more neutral in the hopper then positive pressure. Anyways it is worth a try if you are still having problems with lower idling when running on woodgas.
Bob