<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23536"></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" id=role_body
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 rightMargin=7 topMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV>Kevin .</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>What sort of reaction could be expected if we applied the high temperature
exhaust from an IC engine into a "reactor" containing biomass and at the same
time reheated the "reactor" using some of the volatile vapors so produced?
perhaps we could also ionize the vapors produced within the reactor to
above 5000 deg. which should yield a relatively low tar stream of gas
.some of which could fuel the IC engine.</DIV>
<DIV>This does not compromise the laws of Thermodynamics.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>GF</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 11/28/2013 9:55:19 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
kchisholm@ca.inter.net writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>Dear
Dan<BR><BR>Quoting Carefreeland@aol.com:<BR><BR>> Doug and
all,<BR>> Would some sort of a high temp molecular
cracker be a good companion<BR>> to create a quality gas from a
fluidised bed? Possibly some steam and / or<BR>> preheated air
.involved? Seems if you wrapped the exhaust back through the<BR>>
hottest part of the flame in a reactor tube this can be
accomplished.<BR>> Sorry but I have been kinda outta the
loop for a while.<BR><BR># Start by appreciating the two Fundamental
Rules of Thermodynamics <BR>and Thermo Chemistry:<BR>Fundamental Rule
#1: You can't get something for nothing<BR>Fundamental Rule #2: As a matter of
fact, you can't even break even.<BR><BR>For example, the reaction<BR>C + O2
--> CO2 (`1)<BR>is strongly
exothermic, and gives off about 14,000 BTU per pound of <BR>carbon that
is oxidized.<BR><BR>If there was insufficient O2, and the C was only burned to
CO, as follows:<BR>C + 1/2O2 --> CO
(2)<BR>then only abut 4,000 BTU would be released per pound of
carbon.<BR><BR>If we wanted to reverse reaction #1, we would have to put back
14,000 BTU/Lb C<BR>OR, in the case of a gasifier, where the reaction<BR>CO2 +
C --> 2 CO (3)<BR>is desired, we
would have to "put back" energy as follows:<BR>14,000 + 0 --> 2x4,000
+ "X"<BR>14,000 --> 8,000 + "X"<BR>and it is obvious that "X" is 6,000 BTU,
in order to respect <BR>Fundamental Rule #1<BR><BR>"Molecular Crackers"
and "Catalysts" do indeed work, but only when the <BR>fundamental need
to add or remove energy from a reaction is respected. <BR>As long as the
"fundamental need for an energy balance" is respected, <BR>then many
things are possible.<BR><BR>Best
wishes,<BR><BR>Kevin<BR><BR>><BR>> Dan
Dimiduk<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Gasification
mailing list<BR><BR>to Send a Message to the list, use the email
address<BR>Gasification@bioenergylists.org<BR><BR>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change
your List Settings use the web
page<BR>http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org<BR><BR>for
more Gasifiers, News and Information see our web
site:<BR>http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org/<BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>