[Gasification] Syngas on Wiki_

Mark Ludlow mark at ludlow.com
Tue Dec 28 18:31:58 CST 2010 

Sin-Gas sounds like more fun! Fill up the tank before heading to 'Vegas!

-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Tom
Miles
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 3:58 PM
To: gasification at bioenergylists.org
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Syngas on Wiki_

For several years I have been in the habit of distinguishing between
"syngas" (for chemical synthesis)  and "producer gas" (for air blown wood
gas) but as Tom Reed points out the definitions have become blurred. Both
are used interchangeably and often incorrectly in common usage. We are now
pretty much stuck with them.

For most people "syngas" has more appeal regardless of its definition. 

Tom Miles    


-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Ronald
Hongsermeier
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 3:16 PM
To: a31ford at gmail.com; Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Syngas on Wiki_

Dear Greg and other listee friends,
I googled syngas and producer gas and came up with a page that suggested 
that the US-usage and British/Continental usage are at variance. One 
definition was similar to what you've stated one similar to what Jim 
wrote in his post. I didn't copy the link,  but have a vague 
recollection -- since it was during a night-shift period that I did the 
search that I considered the source to be a respected/intelligent one, 
one without any bone to pick and nothing to gain from the answer... I'd 
like to suggest that we solve this conflict by throwing out both terms 
and stick to a biomass-based terminology. Further I'd like to further 
push the evolution of the linguistic gradation by using the terms 
hot-process and cold-process biomass gas with a soft division at 
anything significantly hotter than a low-pressure fart. But I don't want 
to fight about it! :D

regards,
Ronald von Erfindingen Ob' Linguistingen


On 28.12.2010 18:37, Greg Manning 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: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
> [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]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<seilertechco at yahoo.com>
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
> gasification at bioenerglists.org - 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
> gasification at bioenerglists.org - 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: 1435/3343 - Release Date: 12/27/10
>
>
>


-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3344 - Release Date: 12/28/10


_______________________________________________
The Gasification list has moved to
gasification at bioenerglists.org - 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



_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list

to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
Gasification at bioenergylists.org

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/

More information about the Gasification mailing list