<html><head></head><body class="" lang="en-GB" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: initial;"> <div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Dear Frank and Julien</div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="font-size: initial; line-height: initial; text-align: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif;"><br></span></div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="font-size: initial; line-height: initial; text-align: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif;">If you know the pyrolysis temperature is above, say, 550 C, is it true that the remaining char is 'representative' of the fixed carbon content of the fuel? How close is it? What temperature would you say is close enough to give a meaningful fixed carbon number? </span></div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="font-size: initial; line-height: initial; text-align: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif;"><br></span></div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="font-size: initial; line-height: initial; text-align: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif;">Hirendra Chakbarti is punting a calculation method for ultimate analysis that requires the fixed carbon number. From what I see it requires drying it first because the moisture affects the final dry carbon mass. Still, a mathematical fix might deal with that. </span></div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="font-size: initial; line-height: initial; text-align: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif;"><br></span></div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="font-size: initial; line-height: initial; text-align: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif;">My specific goal is the fixed carbon content of the original fuel which has a known moisture content, but nothing else save the total mass. </span></div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="font-size: initial; line-height: initial; text-align: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif;"><br></span></div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="font-size: initial; line-height: initial; text-align: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif;">Thanks</span></div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="font-size: initial; line-height: initial; text-align: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif;">Crispin </span></div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="font-size: initial; line-height: initial; text-align: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif;"><br></span></div><br><div id="_originalContent" style=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252">Dear Ron and Stovers,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">My interest is controlling the fuel. This done by 1) collecting fuel like that being used in real World and 2) normalizing the energy value going to the secondary by using pyrolyze gases + (CO -> CO2) values. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I cannot determine any energy efficiency values because this is just one side of the equation. And you do not supply me with the values of this one side as I need them. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The value I am proposing is only useful for energy traveling to another location - secondary. Making char does not require energy, in fact it waste energy. And (bio-)char does not have useful energy, in fact the energy is locked up and cannot be used by soil microbes for 1000 years. So what I propose is not applicatable to what you are talking about and not intended to be so. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Your (bio-)char (not charcoal used for cooking) is not ‘energy’ locked up but should be referred to as carbon. Following the total carbon in the feedstock; separating it into available carbon and non-available carbon (TGA) for optimum then determining the amount actually made from your char-maker is more to what you want. And that being your efficiency values. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">But in a World that is connecting fuel energy producing non-available carbon (biochar) and that biochar is made >90% carbon (DAF) I guess it would be ok to assign non-available carbon with an energy value and use in calculations. Lets see if we can do that:</div><div class="">1) we need total energy of the biomass fuel (dry weight)</div><div class="">2) using TGA we need energy of the total char (DAF) </div><div class="">We assume the char (DAF) is 90+% carbon and assign that an energy value.</div><div class="">3) We determine energy of the pyrolysis gases (total - char)</div><div class=""> 4) So thats the total maximum amount of energy assigned to biochar that should be produced in your devise. </div><div class="">5) You run YOUR device and produce biochar. Ash a subsample to determine the weight of biochar (DAF). Assign an energy value to it based on biochar (DAF) being >90% carbon. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Now you can calculate the efficiency of your device at producing biochar.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Note: If you have wood (dry) and you use the pyrolysis gases for something, you use the CO->CO2 gases for something and use the (Bio-)char left over for something then 100% of the energy in the wood is always used. You are left with efficiency determinations found (compared to that determined by TGA) for making biochar. But if making biochar is found less than expected so to be not very efficient then the non-biochar gases (CO -> CO2) went to join the pyrolysis gases and it still always = all adds up to 100%. You can’t go wrong!</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Where you can go wrong is if after making the biochar you test it to see if it still has hydrogen and lots of oxygen left indicating not a good biochar and it is then wasted. This is bad.</div><div class="">But if still good for char cooking (due to some volatiles) you are now back to 100% efficiency. You can’t go wrong!</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">100% efficiency every time!</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Love it!</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div>Frank </div><!--end of _originalContent --></div></body></html>