Hi Pete and Colleagues, Seeing as you ask, this is what can be offered:
> This topic sure has taken up a lot of time. We can talk about multiple subjects at the same time on this forum, and you select that which interests you the most. However, there are not many who contribute enough to keep minds interested in the mundane issues like correct use of terminology. >Why not just fix it if y'all don't like it the way it is? This forum is an interest group and has no mandate from any authorizing body to set standards or definitions. We are also very International in our location, and therefore subject to working within certain set standards, set by our administrations. > Earlier I suggested that the analysis of this mystery gas might fit > into some numbering system, as is done with steel. We make gas that already has set boundaries as to it's correct identification, but to create a system based on numbers would require accurate gas analysis for everyone involved. Many factors can affect the gas volumes,etc, depending on the scales of gas production, and fuels used, plus seasonal variations that play havoc with the same process. > It seems to me that this group is the right one to do it. > One could at least deal with the top half dozen components, couldn't one? Well, we certainly have plenty of knowledge, but we see only a fraction of those belonging to this Forum contributing informed comment. > > Again, back to the steel analogy--- we don't have any problems talking > about A36, 1018, W1, etc.. Having been defined by the steel industry, makes it easy for the steel fabricators to use numbers. Shock horror if you aren't aware as an amateur fabricator, and only think of iron,steel, tool steel, stainless steel, so not everyone who talks about the subject, is on the same wave length. Like any technology, you have to make the effort to learn about the differences, then be more constructive in how you participate, > Maybe, a letter for the top component? > Maybe a 2 tier system,; one for those gases with N2 and one for those > without? Producer gas, and Syngas identify these two gases, how complicated is that to understand? > Maybe someone could at least tell me why this shouldn't be done now? Quite simply, it has been done, but clearly some would rather ignore correct definitions for reasoning of their own. The market place remains very confused by how gasification is presented, and the EU took the initiative in 2008-9, to set guidelines that can be used by all involved, and be more informed with gasification projects. It's was a huge job, involved many institutions, and is only a beginning to bring some order into the implementation of gasification. The work has to be seen as on-going, and maybe we can ask Harrie Knoef of BTG to explain their progress, as I have current no on-line reference. Doug Williams, Fluidyne.
_______________________________________________ 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/
