On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Luke Gardner <[email protected]> wrote: > gents,
> I have been guilty for some time now my self as calling this stuff syngas-- > no more, when all else fails speak the truth,, from now on I will market it > as producing low grade hydrogen gas. > luke, thanks for bringing this one up too. i forgot this one. "low grade hydrogen gas" seems to have some issues too. it is a work around used to avoid noting the presence of carbon monoxide in the gas, which tends to freak out non-initiates. of course there is more co than h2 in nearly all of our made real time fuel gasses, so the literally more accurate phrase would be "carbon monoxide rich gas". but i guess saying something is "rich" in one component isn't implying an exact comparison with other components that might also be present in amounts we could also call "rich". still, its motivation is primarily marketing to associate with hydrogen (good) and disassociate with carbon monoxide (bad). others choose the phrase "hydrogen rich synthetic gas" to work around the co issue. i don't think we can issue any boy scout honesty badges over these hydrogen based terms. if i could make one thing vanish from this gas at my whim, it would be co. i would wish it away first before i'd spend a wish on n2. i don't find the n2 any big deal, thus was surprised the syn association with the lack it being so vigorously protected. either way, i find the "hydrogen rich" type of terminology more ambitious than the syn based option. or at least when we thought syngas as co and h2 without n2 was a tolerable term use for a fuel gas. there's now reasonable arguments for why that should be thrown out too, and syngas only used in synthesis process feed contexts. this would be trouble for toby's proposed "prosyngas" term. i agree there is ambiguity as to whether the "syn" is an abbreviation or a prefix in a unique word. this is a primary problem in the debate we have not yet solved (and can't most likely). even if an abbreviation, it can be for "synthesis gas" or "synthetic gas", which have very different suggested referents. there seem to be arguments for claiming the abbreviation can refer to either. the dictionary definitions offered didn't cast much light on this for me. i didn't see the home run conclusion. maybe i missed something. dictionaries are also just the record of actual use of terms. they change regularly, as use changes. this is usually noted in the entries as things progress between editions. they are often at least a decade behind meaning in actual use, especially for technical terms. also, they are made by those pesky academics, and supported by those pesky govt people, so how can we believe em' anyway ? . . . ;-) aren't we here the experts the dictionary writers would consult? maybe "syngas" really gained legs in the popular sphere under the suggestion of "synthetic natural gas", thus only gas made primarily of ch4 qualifies. then even majority co and h2 with nil n2 is out, no matter what we want to use it for. if we can agree on that def, then none of us can use the term, and we can stop discussing this. i agree this discussion has become a bit much. i'm personally stopping now. the issues are well framed, the answers less so-- and are likely to continue as such. i hope after the digital dust settles we can all feel something was learned. jim _______________________________________________ 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/
