Dear All: Greg is certainly correct semantically that producer gas is made using air gasification (and contains ~50% N2) and syngas is made using oxygen and contains very little oxygen.
However, many people are demonstrating that you can use producer gas for synthesis of methanol, FT diesel, and I presume particularly ammonia (though I haven't heard of anyone doing it yet). So, the distinction is disappearing and is no longer based on the application. Tom Reed BEF On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Greg Manning <[email protected]> wrote: > > Syngas is made using ONLY O2, NOT ambient air, therefore Jim is making > producer gas, NOT Syngas as he states. > > More disinformation, at it's finest, I might add.. > > Greg > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]]on Behalf Of jim mason > Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 3:38 AM > To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification > Subject: Re: [Gasification] Syngas on Wiki_ > > > On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Toby Seiler <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Jim insists that his GEK is making "syngas" in all of his web > communications that I see, taking advantage of and fostering a > misconception > and misrepresentation that a producer gas making machine (GEK) he is > selling, will make "syngas". I've asked that he market with the correct > term, but he refuses. I feel that this marketing use of "syngas" term is > misleading in his machines capability as a gasifier. Synthesis gas making > should be so easy. > > > > The Wiki process to make a change is not one that I have navigated. The > issue with the "syngas" term is, to date, the biggest disappointment I have > had using Wiki. > > > > > > > while the pleasures of lexical fundamentalism are undeniable, i'm not > sure they usually lead to more useful and accurate descriptions of the > world. i was trying to stay out of this latest round, but as toby has > called me out for willful misleading, i guess i now need to respond. > > > the problem here is that none of our terms are good for the modern > hearers of them. only a small cult of people know the possible terms, > and newbies to the terms seem to get quickly confused by the > conflicting/unknown associations in old terms. in this ambiguity, > i've found and argued the best option among many admitedly NOT good > options seems to be "syngas" as an overarching term for gas made via > thermal conversion of carbonaeous feed stock. > > the "syngas" term works for me as a contrast to "natural gas". it has > all the "its flammable" and "it can do work" associations that we > associate with "natural gas" (and we don't associate with methane). > the "syn" part suggests something that is intentionally made, not > naturally occuring. a gas we make that relates to natural gas. the > percentage of nitrogen dilution in it to me seems one of many > potential clarifiers. for a modern hearing first learning of this > gas, its immediate relationship to "natural gas" in naming gets the > process of understanding going. all sorts fo clarifiers will build as > the process of learning continues. > > i've also argued that what to name this "thing" is already in play. > this is clearly evidenced by the ambiguous usage in the wiki article, > and elsewhere on the web. this is not simply a conspiracy by me, but > rather the response of many contemporary users trying to find a name > that works and has the right connotations for current times. it is > happening already and will continue irrespective of our agreement. > > more fundamentally, we need to temper our lexical certainties with the > knowledge that woods mean different things in different eras. meaning > drifts and is reassigned as needs require and times change. language > is not providing names for discrete and natural entities in the world. > rather, names bracket off and claim boundaries to an ambiguous > continuum of stuff and processes. these boundaries change over time > as their users decide to do different work with them. this process is > called semantic shift. here's the wiki article: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change . > > if you do not believe wikipedia, google to the 1000s of other pages > that point out examples of why calling someone "gay" in 1910 is > different than calling someone "gay" in 2010. > > i suggest we are seeing this type of semantic ambiguity and > contestation of meanings happening around the term "syngas". and as > i'm interested in getting this tech understandable to other than the > current small cult, i'm promoting the term i think hears best to > modern ears. the term that repeatedly works best for me while > teaching this tech to newbies is "syngas". that nitrogen is or is not > involved in the matter, or that if over x % we are going to change the > term, but not if related to y process, is the last issue on their > minds. > > > let's review the other potential terms. > > "synthesis gas". > this term has mostly functional evocations as the feedstock to a GTL > process. this historically was always without nitrogen. but many GTL > processes these days work with nitrogen diluted gas in a single pass. > some in fact argue the nitrogen helps their process. should we have a > similar linguistic protest against these uses of "synthesis gas" by > these researchers? seems the "synthesis" gas term should be more > about the feedstock aspect of the gas than its particular composition. > > "wood gas"- > tom reed's choice and a biggie currently in the english world (but > pretty much only the english speaking world). i find this one trouble > for modern ears that think burning wood is bad. you immediately need > to have the "why its ok to use wood" discussion. also, wood is only > one of many sources to make the unnamed gas. it is unnecessarily > limiting. the gas should cover gas made via coal, peat, ag waste, > msw, etc. > > "producer gas"- > the producer part of this does not do much work in helping people > understand the gas. that this machine has in the past called a > producer isn't widely known. it sounds victorian to me. i've never > had this term work well while teaching this tech. > > "generator gas"- > most who hear this think petrol for a genset. that gas making > machines were called gas generators, and this was shortened to > generator, so "generator gas" makes sense, is lost on contemporary > ears. > > "suction gas"- > well, that's one way to make it. not one of the more relevant > clarifiers i find. should i call gek gas "heat exhanged gas" ? > > "water gas"- > again, a method of making it. a name for a gas from a specific > process. not really a general term. > > "bio gas"- > this has come to mean anaerobic digestor gas. could also be gasifier > gas when using contemporary organic sources. but convention now > points elsewhere and there seems to be agreement on this one. > > > ffinally any participant here knows i've used all and every term for > this (which for now will go unnamed) gas. on our site all terms are > used in various places, and i find it difficult to believe that anyone > is confused about what type of gas i'm making (particularly the hot > air type). > > probably only 5% of the people who visit the site even know all these > various terms, and could even hold forth about the implied amount of > nitrogen suggested by the term chosen. thus i find this a very > academic debate, mostly following from toby's specific interest in > this topic, as he plans to make a product with a less nitrogen diluted > gas. others find other features of this gas more or less interesting, > and choose their terms accordingly. maybe we should throw out the > "syngas" term altogether for pure co and h2. if we want to be > literal, "synthetic natural gas" or its abbreviation "syngas" should > mean a majority ch4 gas made by artificial means. co and h2 should > have little part in it. > > like all terms, there are many competing evocations at work. both > content and function of the named. meaning in the end is a > "conspiracy of convention". there is no wrong answer, only picking > the ambiguity that one thinks does the most work. > > nonetheless and in actuality, i try to not use any of these terms so > as to avoid the whole issue. i try to organize sentences so i can say > "gasifier" or "gasification", and not name the gas or the machine > otherwise. these are much more translatable and accurate and without > debate i find. if one wants to go do a lexical calculation on our > site, i think you'll find minimal use of any of them. > > jim > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > Jim Mason > Website: http://www.whatiamupto.com > Current Projects: > - Gasifier Experimenters Kit (the GEK): http://www.gekgasifier.com > - Escape from Berkeley alt fuels vehicle race: > www.escapefromberkeley.com > - ALL Power Labs on Twitter: http://twitter.com/allpowerlabs > - Shipyard Announce list: > http://lists.spaceship.com/listinfo.cgi/icp-spaceship.com > > _______________________________________________ > The Gasification list has moved to > [email protected] - please update your email contacts to > reflect the change. > Please visit http://info.bioenergylists.org for more news on the list > move. > Thank you, > Gasification Administrator > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3342 - Release Date: 12/27/10 > > > _______________________________________________ > The Gasification list has moved to > [email protected] - please update your email contacts to > reflect the change. > Please visit http://info.bioenergylists.org for more news on the list > move. > Thank you, > Gasification Administrator > -- NOTE: PLEASE CHANGE MY ADDRESS TO [email protected] Dr. Thomas B. Reed The Biomass Energy Foundation BEF, BEC, BER _______________________________________________ The Gasification list has moved to [email protected] - please update your email contacts to reflect the change. Please visit http://info.bioenergylists.org for more news on the list move. Thank you, Gasification Administrator
