YouTube Small systems Builds

Another guy using a Flashifier, I actually enjoy these long form woodgas videos, harder to hide any trickery. In his video description he says he managed to get out 3000 of the 5000 rated watts. He has a solar powered grid tie/battery backup electrical situation and uses a 48v PMA to charge on bad solar days. He also runs that on woodgas.

I like his chunker, too. Disc type.

Edit: It seems in his final mods, he had some help from none other than our Matt Ryder!

7 Likes

O.K. Cody. This guy was new to me. Watched all his videos now. Here is the best one I think: “48 volts DC . . . on wood gas”

One of his long, long ones because he does not edit.
I say his best because in his statement explanation and the then few comments Q&A’s below you learn he is doing this to supplement his existing PV solar; 48 volt battery bank in case of Grid down hurricanes in his Florida.
Already with PV solar; a controller; and 48 volt lead-acid battery bank why not just direct as possible DC charge. Then the engine could woodgas quantity/quality vary if he was conventionally DC alternator generating.
His belt driven PM, DC charging units? The few that I’ve seen need fairly close RPM to have a predictable output voltage. Permanent magnet fields and then no real easy way to boost or reduce the field strength for finite charging voltage control.

I know this will sound critical but a fellow just must absolutely keep in mind what he is trying to accomplish.
Way too easy on the parts of a home system to get led astray by others with different goals.

Wood to electrical watts it must always begin with the wood. No wood of your own then just stop.
Next jump to the electrical watts-maker. What is needed to supply your electrical consumptions demand? Do this next. Allowing for what you will need once you do have woodhgas. Will that watts-maker be O.K. with the SWMBO? The neighbors? (Damn his are noisy!). The derating and engines sizes, types are now well known. Select something common, repairable and replaceable.

Only then build-developed a woodgasifier to fuel that engine watts-maker.
And the better you do on the hearth-hopper core; the less downstream you will need to futz with. The better electrical generator woodgas systems only needs to use three downstream steps. Not 4-5-6-7. Those are for chemists.

Actually painful for me to watch a long one like this showing so much operator dependency on the woodgas systems. Then on the engine charging systems.

He says on this one he could only run a short time as lacking enough pre-dried fuel wood.
Stationary with all together right there close, his systems heats and engine air flows could be taking fresh cut 40% moisture wood down to 10-15%. Dry, dry fuel wood allows you to build simpler. Greatly eases the operators’ attentions times. Greatly eases the downstream maintenances. Gives a stronger stable gas production. Gives a better engine power equivalency.
I’ve only ever seen 2-3 fellows even attempting to use the operating systems shed heats do this.
Or even recognized the need, to be able to do this.

I am a monkey with a little drum who’s arms are tiring.
Steve unruh

5 Likes

I agree with engine exhaust wood drying. When I get a generator setup going I’m definitely going to make a drying cage.

I’m thinking a 55 gallon drum and make rabbit wire baskets for the wood to be stored in. Exhaust entering tangentially from the bottom up. Not sure if lid vs no lid would be any help, you’d at least want a stack for the moisture heat to escape.

Also I think Flash’s filtration system is more or less a hangalong from his FEMA experimentations. Giant cyclone “swirl cooler”, multiple coalescers in PVC standpipe bodies. Many many collection jars, another old hangover from YouTuber FEMA videos.

Yesterday I spent a lot of time browsing old Arvid’s posts. He always had a neat setup and everything was supposed to be there. But he had motivation, professional sale of gasifiers can’t have wasteful appendages or they’ll be wrecked from end user.

5 Likes

Found another one for you Steve , this one is from India and amazingly he has managed to do away with Tar as well , cast your knowing eyes on his drawings .

2 Likes

Looks like a double row nozzle gasifier to me. Perhaps like how JO or Tone has done, but he said he’s using 219mm pipe for the burn tube so it probably concentrates more heat for pyrolysis, less likely to let bad gas creep by.

Also preheating the air for obvious efficiency reasons.

Edit: as Stephen Abaddessa has said, no gasifier is 100% tar free.

6 Likes

He is not real clear on what he is using for fuel but it looks like big black chunks. Torrified wood that is almost charcoal? That would explain the low tar content of gas.

9 Likes

I think the gasifier featured in the Mercedes is stock footage that Lagunov filmed.

The gasifier in the drawing is made by a guy from India.

3 Likes

Yes I have seen this video.
Produced by a DOW member Sergei “Serg” Legunov. He in Ukrainian with his own youtube channel GenGaz.
He started this topic and others here on the DOW:

He asked us for reference help. Then later did produce and release that video.
Read that short topic thru to post #8 where he from his 600+ articles and books read has developed very interesting ideas on diesel engines woodgas converting. Well worth considiering.

Yes in this video the Mecedes is for sure his converted car. Like DonM saw the black wood chunks look to be heavily torrifed wood chunks. Note no dust pouring them in. Not charcoal.
The system (one of 2-5 he says low tar ones, he now knows of) I do not know the origins of this drawing. But do note that the 1st heat exchanger/dropping chamber would have probably forced air in and that then very highly heat boosted air goes into the gasifiers double row of air nozzles. Like a W.K does. That hearth tube very heavily insulated looking with internal refractory bricks? The second illustrated heat exchanger would have to have a forced air flow. And that indicated 70C outlet air from it then used for wood conditioning.

And he talks about nearly clear condensates. That talk plus the black block chunks sizing says this is not an actual charcoal gasifier.
But the blacked wooden fuel blocks, not raw brown wood and lack of hopper monorator features says not a raw wood gasifier either.

Him and other Ukrainians, and Russians I’ve talked to . . . along with some in South America, Africa, S.E. Asia are developing under different restrictions from us in the U.S./Cananda, even Western Europe.
So in my opinion he is not actually cheating using a pre-modified improved input fuel-wood. After all that is what charcoal is.
Regards
Steve unruh

3 Likes

He guys, just when it is big and black, it doesnt mean it is a Mercedes. I would go for Volga :grinning:

7 Likes

I want to say Lagunov uses a Cross Draft in his car. He keeps making videos about “transverse” gasifiers. Heavily torrified wood wouldn’t be a big surprise to me if that’s the case.

I wish there wasn’t a language barrier, he had incorrectly assumed how Matt’s gasifiers add moisture at the nozzle in another video, but I chalk that up to mistranslation or a lack of research and not malice.

3 Likes

Thats what it looked like when he dumped his bio mass in the hopper, that extra dryed wood could help most gasifiers make tar free gas. at leiste extra dry torrified wood would be less waist energy, and mass makeing charco, Other than the heat sourse torrifing the wood chunks, and that could be parcial from waist heat souse, or solor heater of sorts. Its time we start making more solar pannels here in the USA.

2 Likes

I converted his energy density figure of 1175Kcal/m^3 to 4.92 MJ/m^3. This is very believable.
Other energy density figures, mostly from @ChuckW.
Chargas 4 MJ/m^3
Woodgas 6 MJ/m^3
Retort made towngas 20 MJ/m^3
Natural gas 36 MJ/m^3
Pure propane 91 MJ/m^3 *note: this is not LPG, which contains some butane.

3 Likes

Rindert, interesting numbers, but we are most interested in the value of 6 MJ/m3, which would mean 1.66 kWh/m3, let me add another interesting fact that 1 kg of wood produces 2.5 m3 of gas and this corresponds to the calorific value of wood 1kg - 4.2 kWh. Well, we are very interested in what kind of power the engine develops on such fuel? If we take an engine with a working volume of 2 liters (a four-stroke engine captures the mixture every other revolution), which rotates at 2000 rpm and a mixing ratio of 1:1 (gas:air), it consumes exactly 1m3 of gas per minute (1.66 kWh of energy), this means exactly 100 kWh of energy per hour. If we take a motor efficiency of 30%, it should work with a power of 30 kW. This is very good power, my Fergie on diesel fuel does not achieve this, although the 2.3 liter engine develops a power of 25kW, let me state that modern petrol engines reach 40 kW on petrol. I’m going through the data and wondering where I went wrong,… :thinking:

3 Likes

Tone, how about filling ratio pulling on a gasifier?

3 Likes

How do you mean that? Those numbers are the best you can get for turning heat into mechanical power. And if you think how, with the pistons moving up and down, the numbers are really impressive. No turbine or whatever can reach those numbers. IC is the best you can get, still, after 100 years. And then your experiments with the diesel is impressive too, almost no powerloss, no char left, burn it all?

5 Likes

Maybe you would need an engine development lab?
I used to work that way at Honeywell. I helped to develop an air bearing turbocharger. We measured pressure, temperature, speed, flow rates… Many little wires and computers measuring everything. Also expensive.
Rindert

3 Likes

JO, the gasifier and the filter really cause damping and reduce the filling of the engine, but according to vacuum measurements, this is possible at max 0.05-0.1 bar, which would mean 5-10% less combustible mixture and if we also take into account the opening and closing angle of the intake valve, which would additionally reduced the charging efficiency by 10%, i.e. by 20% in total, which means that the power drops from 30 to 24 kW, which is still a great number. However, the biggest question is, if we consider that a gasoline or propane engine captures almost half as much oxygen for combustion and from this point of view should have twice as much power (when running on propane we also have to take into account some loss due to damping on the intake manifold and filter and valve opening angle and greater heat loss due to hotter combustion), but there is a lack of data for an exact calculation, so I can only estimate that the same gasoline engine develops 30-40% more power than wood gas, is that true?

3 Likes

Sounds about right to me - POWER wise.

I’m not not sure about the reason for this discussion - but since we’re playing with numbers- this is the way I like to look at WG power.

If we assume the amount of oxygen dictates the power outcome and that we can only fill the cylinders with half the amount of air compared to running gasoline - you claimed another 20% off for vacuum losses - then we’re down to 40% power. Wayne’s truck proved woodgas 37% more efficient turning energy into shaft power vs gasoline. Then we end up at 55% max power vs running gasoline.

Most of our gasifiers aren’t built to handle max power. Also, most engine’s rated max power are at rpms not relevant to woodgas - your tractor being an exception. Personally I’m happy as long as my vehicles takes me where I’m going, in an acceptable speed and cheap :smile:

10 Likes

And your statement sums up the practicality of using woodgas today.
Your “cheap”, “my vehicles”, “acceptable speed” explains it all J.O.

Cheap meaning already available in-mass-production and used IC engine power converters. Not woo-woo some-day soon engine converters. Green-Steam and other $'s trolling proposals. Or old 100 years past now far surpassed engine converters. As evolved at best maximized out 16% efficient three stage piston steam engines. And I’ll say 650 to 950 pounds of iron and steel early 20th Century IC piston engines for only 6 to 18 horsepower. 20% efficient they were better than steam. But for 40+ years 30+% is the accepted normal now.

Stationary for electric power made from wood “acceptable speed” would mean 400 watts an hour to able to surge to 4500 watts an hour on the power producer.
And there I compare it to my actual 250 days of needing home space heating/dehumidifying/ventilation at a real average of 50 pounds of fuel wood needed a day. And in a modern wood stove at minimum of 75% conversion efficiency I can wood harvest-prepping do this in ~60 hours wood-sweating annually.

Now can I make my wood derived 18 hours a day of 400 electrical watts with peaking capability of 4500 electrical watts on 50 pounds of fuel wood a day?
Yes.
But only if I use the 72% efficiency woodgasifier systems fueling the actual true minimum 30-35% modern IC engine generator systems.
And sorry guys . . . IC engines with side-valves/flat-heads spinning constantly 3600 RPM synchronous generator heads are not 30% fuel converting systems. 20-25 % systems. Fine, fine, back when petroleum was cheap, cheap and readily available.

Tone, the reasons most of us do not like to play the chase the numbers games is that approach deceives. That approach fails to give practice, useable results. One single factor un-accounted for, minimized, exaggerated leads to false hopes. Or leads to not-trying at all for wood based DIY powers.
Efficnecy-Maniac’ing results in marvelous very limited purpose systems.
Such as these super gasoline fuel efficiency 1600-1800 watt suitcase IC engine electrical generators. You must be diligent double fine screening your gasoline in for the fine orifices fuel passageways when these are set up to mix at a 1/10 a gallon per hour rate.
Our now consider older 2007 Hyundi Tucson is so precisely dedicated to modern E-10 87 octane gasoline that times I’ve put in non-ethanol gasoline or even 89-92 octane gasoline it will misfire enough to set codes. Ran long enough go into forced power cut back.
Our earlier modern 90’s EFI systems did not care from non-ethanol 87, thru 92 octane E15.

My wife from us nightly reading to the foster girls (and watching too much Public Radio driving is using a lot of “Goldilocks” evaluations into our conversations.
You know. Too Hot/Big/Hard versus too Cold/Small/Soft with in-between these extremes of Just-Right.
Ha! Ha! And I throw back to her our evolved here in the U.S. in the late 1960’s to mid 1970’s suppliers who always offering up a Good, versus Better, versus The Best in their offerings. (Just as long as you were buying from them!).
Observant, wise folks learned to always get the Better.
Better than the good-enough to get you dependent using; then break-wear requiring you to replace, to re-buy.
Better than TheBest so features laden and over-built expensive you could not afford to acquire and accommodate for other of Life’s real needs.

Woodgas . . . Better than any other DIY power alternative. Because you can home-grow-it.
Use it to fuel effectively, usably, current power converter engines.
Steve Unruh

7 Likes

Here’s one that’s eluded me for a few years, it’s one I saw when it just came out. The algorithm finally showed it to me again.

This guy’s got a few other woodgas videos but I think he eventually gave up, not sure.

Here’s an interesting analysis he found.

He had made a FEMA at first, and recycled the plumbing for his other build including his flaring blower.

When he started to get clean but moist gas from his other gasifier it was loosening the tar in the piping and blower, leading to the tar getting to his engine.

5 Likes