[Gasification] Syn Gas

Mark Ludlow mark at ludlow.com
Thu Dec 30 22:36:31 CST 2010


Hi Pete,

I like your general idea. But the example you give is really horrible! Steel
is a good example of where terminology is not universally standardized at
all. Who would guess that AISI304 is identical, metallurgically, to CF-8?
But for gasifier gas, maybe if the major constituents were listed in
descending order (approximations, probably) such as: 5105-271403, with N2
and CO2 out front; followed by the combustibles CO, H2 and CH4--then the
name truly becomes a useful descriptor like 79% cocoa (why was I thinking of
that?).

Yes, it may be cumbersome. And some leeway would be assumed (plus-or-minus).
But it would emphasize to producers and consumers alike that the gas is not
a homogeneous substance but a mixture with corresponding ranges of
functionality.

Best, Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
Pete&Sheri
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 7:08 PM
To: a31ford at gmail.com; Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Syn Gas

Okay, guys,  I am no expert at all about this gas thing, but I think you 
are all missing the opportunity to fix this thing.
  I will give you a parallel that may explain what I mean:
There are many folks like me around the world who work with a material 
that we call "steel"  About the only thing common to the many, many 
types of "steel" out there is that they all contain some amount of iron 
some amount of carbon.   We are pretty comfortable with the term, even 
though we all know that there are many kinds of "steel".    What we 
(collectively and before my time) did to avoid all these confrontations 
was to give names to the differing contents of the different materials.  
So, when we get into serious discussions where precision in decribing 
the metalurgy is important, we use an appropriate, agreed-upon name to 
communicate the analysis of the subject material.   Sure, there are 
different systems for describing the content, but we have learned to 
live with the systems and they work.  You don't see very many 
fabricators arguing about the analysis of 1018, because that number 
describes that particular steel; one that is a plain carbon steel with 
approx. 0.18% Carbon, the balance being mostly iron..  One can go to any 
one of a number of sources and find what 's in AISI 1018 steel.  Or, in 
another system, tool steels are often graded by a letter system, such as 
W1, O1, A2,  This system focuses on the method of quenching that 
material; W=Water, O=Oil, A= Air.  The SAE has a numbering system that 
is focused on materials used in automobiles, and this system parallels 
AISI in many cases.
  And don't flame me for missing ASTM, etc. ---- I am simply tring to 
get a point across.

  Why not simply develop such a system (or two) for this range of 
combustible gases that you are talking about?  And then ":call a spade a 
spade" and be done with it.

Pete Stanaitis
------------------------


>  
>



_______________________________________________
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