I am sure that I have documentation on the Silisoe machine and would agree with Andrew.
We're really discussing the cost and benefit of different classes of equipment. Farm equipment is rarely used more than 400 hours per year. Balers and other compression equipment used in high volume straw harvesting usually require substantial maintenance each year even after 10,000 tons. In four years you buy a new baler. My observation and experience with Chinese supplied briquetters, sawmill and boiler equipment has been that it is usually low cost but for that you get light weight, low production, low efficiency, and short life. The "fuzzy" origins of Chinese have been noted. There is no support and there are no guarantees. If that is what your application calls for then buy the $2,000 pto driven chipper, or whatever. Last week a local supplier (www.value-leader.com) of Chinese implements - chippers, mulchers, backhoes - told me that he tests and modifies imported equipment for to years before he will put it on the market. He provides direct support. But all the equipment is intended for light duty and low annual use. He has been in business since 1995. North American and European equipment is built to two standards. There are implements as described about that are not expected to operate more than about 400 hours per year. When we run them 6000-8000 hours per year they break down. Equipment designed for high production (4-6 tph or more) and continuous operation (85% capacity factor or 6800 hours per year) is more expensive. We use a German (Ruf) fuel brick machine that is very expensive but has run for moore than 3 years with very little maintenance. You have to work these machines to realize the economy. I have experience with low cost firelog machines that require substantial maintenance, and therefore have limited production. The Osborn cuber was a farm implement. When we used it in a production facility we had already used it for three years and we knew what to provide to compensate for its limitations. The total cost at that time was probably similar to what we would have spent for a machine from Warren & Bearg or others if they had been available. Tom -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 6:21 AM To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification Subject: Re: [Gasification] Sawdust in Fan TLUD On Sunday 05 June 2011 09:06:34 Thomas Koch wrote: > The other was from Silsoe in UK - i only saw pictures - it produced > balls like for barbecue - there was some discussion about this machine > for some years in 1990-1995 but it was never possible for me to see it. > Was this the straw puck machine? I see there are documents in .gov.uk archives from 1988. If this is the same machine I believe if failed in field trials because the forces were too great. My mate Dannny did some interesting work on forcing whole wood through dies to densify it and basically the wood had to be less than 10% mc wwb to avoid hydraulic locking. AJH _______________________________________________ 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/
