[Gasification] GEK gas...

[Bill Klein]

Dear Professor Pannirselvam:

Thank you for your words. I understand your position and appreciate your 
sentiments. In fact, I agree with much of what you said.

Please note, however, my comments to Jim and his friends, properly 
interpreted, were more "tongue in cheek" than an attack. I admire all that 
he has accomplished and believe his ultimate contributions to our industry 
will serve as a benchmark in his niche.

I see nothing amiss in taking someone to task if they are trying to sell a 
Buick that is really a Ford, unless, that is, they are simply willing to 
call it a car.

Please accept my sincere wishes for a healthy and happy New Year.


Respectfully,

Bill Klein,
3i





----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pannirselvam P.V" <pannirbr at gmail.com>
To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification" 
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 8:42 AM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] GEK gas...


Happy  new year and happy holidays for all our list remembers

  Dear Bill  when you say:

* Granted, GEK gas may be different. There are many differences that occur
in
your part of the world. So, don't  ripoff our terminology. Call it GEK gas!
or lead! Help educate the uninitiated! Teach and preach the differences.
Just don't play word games with the rest of us*.

       Do you really think its is more scientific  to call GEK gas , or US
American gas , then we will call South American  Amazonian wood gas .Do you
think this is more scientific one  or   GEK gas is more relevant?

   Who is playing the game here ? You make me , Bill, I am not sure about
the rest  of others, confusing because of the  use of the the word game
without context  not relevant to the topics  .Do you mean Jim come here
,giving answer with data means  he  is doing advertisements ,tricks
 and playing  useless game .If the game  you say playing is , not he game
you play too ?

    Bill ,are you sure that the input of all syngas produced , in all
published work  dand book  can not use   air  and steam and  the syngas
 need to be zero nitrogen content.? .Please kindly do  google search  words
, prove this  in published work , before bother about rest of all the list
members so that  we can know  about who is wrong and who is correct.

   From my Academic  experience,  I am  convinced that  the modern syngas
plan  mostly use  air , (eventhough pure  O2  is recommended ) and steam
for gasification even for  fuel cell application , where  the ouput gas can
have Nitrogen   content  as much as hydrogen and carbon mono oxide .In this
acse yet the international  paper published, are accepting this  gas as syn
gas , the published paper do not use the word producer gas .Do  you Bill
mean that the intentional energy journal , the researcher , the reviewer all
are wrong  and you and other are correct.Jim correctly point out that it can
not be called as  wood gas , producer gas , not pyrogas , not watergas.Then
call it which name ? this not the game , or trick  played by  GEK, as this
system is  open source any body can make it perfect  without game, trick
and advertisements, as all are made open , not closed un like the system
many male and sell.

    As i am one of the lsit member who carelfuley do analise  of all his
open sourec publications , but    Jim is shown to be totally wrong as if he
is misusing intencionally the word syngas to sell his system by the some
energy  experts here that that they are  more scientific  than JIm , but the
truth is they are more conservatives. less open minded
Even the science we make need to be practical one .If one do not  use , then
 it become out dated and useless.So many  use less the term producer gas.
 This is well proved by the  data of  Jim and GEk , the more used is syngas
,There need to be one or two depend upon the need.Useless terms need to be
vanished as the new one come as the technology change become reality. Can
The IPHONE can make vanish , TV , Cd , DVD  player ,radio, netbook and
PC?.Some are not prepared for the change , they can use old ones too .

    I totally agree with  all  the facts  that  Jim has clearly shown
 towards  the topics  with data , few   that claim here  Jim play games, rip
off and  advertisements  are  not making  their points with  good intention
, i mean not convincing me.
Bill your words make me me more confusing as if  Jim is doing useless work
here in this list , you do play better game  and advise, first praising him
later accusing him very openly.

The need for low investment small scale  energy production , well  made  by
Jim and GEK open source  contribution  has as much much technological
innovation with scientific basis , more than other current
 commercial systems .Unlike more closed system design , i do not find any
ticks ,rip

    Some of the point raised here  including  by me are out of topics or
not, I wish the list coordinator  make sure , the quality of the debate move
towards correct direction , not towards the place  for the dabate about the
games , tricks, advertisements  etc.The topic for the debate can be if GEK
 gas is not syngas , Bill can you point out with your long experience  what
this gas is based on scientific principle?
    Can any one in this list,Dough, show syngas need to have no nitrogen gas
, need to be pure nitrogen fee gas ?This mean gasification  done by air and
steam  should  not be called  as syngas. The GEK system use not only use air
like conventinal producer gas system , but also involve significant steam
input as modern gasifier. Then surely the system is not the old one , as the
energy out put is also different.Thus no point calling modern new , as old
known outdated producer gas system .

Some of the point raised here  are out of   , I wish the contexts  and
 topics  regarding  GEK  is Commercial .I request  list coordinator  make
sure , the quality of the debate move towards correct direction , not
towards the place  for the dabate about the games , tricks, advertisements
 etc.,For me this words do not keep up the quality of the content  of this
list , which was i always used to be free from useless words related with
off topics.
   If Bill and other wish they can make other other topics such as GEK
system syngas  or not .GEK system  open or commercial.?Why an small energy
system such as GEK  can be  commercial? Why so many place need to be in dark
without light in an globalised modern one united world ?.If Coco Cola can be
there in many of the world , why the modern GEK  the syngas can also work
 in the all the place  like nano car of India. Will not this GEK , AND
INDIAN MADE NANO CAR WILL NOT WORK AS THEY ARE SO CHEAP ?

 I wish that  the list coordinator make his comment also here

Yours truly

Pannirselvam  .

Dr. P.V.PANNIRSELVAM
ASSOCIATE . PROF.
Research Group ,GPEC, Coordinator
Computer aided  Cost engineering,UFRN
North East,Brazil
*******************************************
http://sites.google.com/a/biomassa.eq.ufrn.br/sites/
 and
http://ecosyseng.wetpaint.com/


Fone ;Office
84 3215-3769 ,  Ramal 210
Home : 84 3217-1557

Mobile :558488145083

Email:
pvpa at msn.com
panruti2002 at yahoo.com
pannirbr at gmail.com
pvpa at msn.com

On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Bill Klein <
Bill_Klein at 3ialternativepower.com> wrote:

> Please accept my best wishes for a very happy and healthy New Year.
>
> Jim, I remember when you came to gasification. Your expressive  enthusiasm
> was infectious and quite welcome. As a result of your increased interest,
> innovation and participation, others were infected as well and moved
> forward, building their own gasifiers and contributing their personal
> experiences. This is all just great! Our industry needs more people like
> you
> and your band of innovators, out yonder, on the West Coast. Additionally,
> your GEK and what you do with it is your business as I'm sure you will
> agree.
>
> This brings me to your misappropriation of terminology in the interest of
> "preventing confusion" amongst your disciples, potential customers,
> followers and sycophants. Producer gas is producer gas and syngas is
> syngas!
> I have made both gases and, if you could say the same, you, too, would 
> know
> the differences.
>
>





> Granted, GEK gas may be different. There are many differences that occur 
> in
> your part of the world. So, don't  ripoff our terminology. Call it GEK 
> gas!
> or lead! Help educate the uninitiated! Teach and preach the differences.
> Just don't play word games with the rest of us.
>
> If you are an adherent to our calendar, Happy New Year!
>
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Bill Klein,
> 3i
>
> (Powerhearth makes great producer gas!)
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jim mason" <jim at allpowerlabs.org>
> To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification"
> <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 4:38 AM
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
************************************************
P.V.PANNIRSELVAM
ASSOCIATE . PROF.
Research Group ,GPEC, Coordinator
Computer aided  Cost engineering

DEQ – Departamento de Engenharia Química
CT – Centro de Tecnologia / UFRN, Lagoa Nova – Natal/RN
Campus Universitário. CEP: 59.072-970
North East,Brazil
*******************************************
https://sites.google.com/a/biomassa.eq.ufrn.br/sites/
 and
http://ecosyseng.wetpaint.com/


Fone ;Office
84 3215-3769 ,  Ramal 210
Home : 84 3217-1557

Mobile :558488145083

Email:
pvpa at msn.com
panruti2002 at yahoo.com
pannirbr at gmail.com
pvpa at msn.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