Hi Pete, I like your general idea. But the example you give is really horrible! Steel is a good example of where terminology is not universally standardized at all. Who would guess that AISI304 is identical, metallurgically, to CF-8? But for gasifier gas, maybe if the major constituents were listed in descending order (approximations, probably) such as: 5105-271403, with N2 and CO2 out front; followed by the combustibles CO, H2 and CH4--then the name truly becomes a useful descriptor like 79% cocoa (why was I thinking of that?).
Yes, it may be cumbersome. And some leeway would be assumed (plus-or-minus). But it would emphasize to producers and consumers alike that the gas is not a homogeneous substance but a mixture with corresponding ranges of functionality. Best, Mark -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Pete&Sheri Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 7:08 PM To: [email protected]; Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification Subject: Re: [Gasification] Syn Gas Okay, guys, I am no expert at all about this gas thing, but I think you are all missing the opportunity to fix this thing. I will give you a parallel that may explain what I mean: There are many folks like me around the world who work with a material that we call "steel" About the only thing common to the many, many types of "steel" out there is that they all contain some amount of iron some amount of carbon. We are pretty comfortable with the term, even though we all know that there are many kinds of "steel". What we (collectively and before my time) did to avoid all these confrontations was to give names to the differing contents of the different materials. So, when we get into serious discussions where precision in decribing the metalurgy is important, we use an appropriate, agreed-upon name to communicate the analysis of the subject material. Sure, there are different systems for describing the content, but we have learned to live with the systems and they work. You don't see very many fabricators arguing about the analysis of 1018, because that number describes that particular steel; one that is a plain carbon steel with approx. 0.18% Carbon, the balance being mostly iron.. One can go to any one of a number of sources and find what 's in AISI 1018 steel. Or, in another system, tool steels are often graded by a letter system, such as W1, O1, A2, This system focuses on the method of quenching that material; W=Water, O=Oil, A= Air. The SAE has a numbering system that is focused on materials used in automobiles, and this system parallels AISI in many cases. And don't flame me for missing ASTM, etc. ---- I am simply tring to get a point across. Why not simply develop such a system (or two) for this range of combustible gases that you are talking about? And then ":call a spade a spade" and be done with it. Pete Stanaitis ------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ Gasification mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_lists.bioenerg ylists.org for more Gasifiers, News and Information see our web site: http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org/ _______________________________________________ Gasification mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org for more Gasifiers, News and Information see our web site: http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org/
