[Gasification] Syngas on Wiki_

Thomas Reed tombreed2010 at gmail.com
Wed Dec 29 17:17:10 CST 2010 

Dear Benjamin

Liquid Ammonia has been used for refrigeration for over 100 years.  

But oxygen does not work for refrigeration.

Tom Reed

Sent from Tom Reed's Ipad

On Dec 29, 2010, at 4:14 PM, Benjamin Domingo Bof <benjaminbof at yahoo.com.ar> wrote:

> Doctor Thomas B. Reed ; happy new year.
> When you say ammonia I remember "Mosquito coast" an story with Harrison Ford in Caribbean coast.using ammonia for absortion refrigerator and fuel gas to cook meals.
> What do you suggests about use of ammonia replacing oxygen?
> Regards, Ben
> 
> --- El mar 28-dic-10, thomas reed <tombreed2009 at gmail.com> escribió:
> 
> 
> De: thomas reed <tombreed2009 at gmail.com>
> Asunto: Re: [Gasification] Syngas on Wiki_
> Para: a31ford at gmail.com, "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification" <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Fecha: martes, 28 de diciembre de 2010, 20:11
> 
> 
> Dear All:
> 
> Greg is certainly correct semantically that producer gas is made using air
> gasification (and contains ~50% N2) and syngas is made using oxygen and
> contains very little oxygen.
> 
> However, many people are demonstrating that you can use producer gas for
> synthesis of methanol, FT diesel, and I presume particularly ammonia (though
> I haven't heard of anyone doing it yet).  So, the distinction is
> disappearing and is no longer based on the application.
> 
> Tom Reed
> BEF
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Greg Manning <a31ford at gmail.com> 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
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> NOTE:  PLEASE CHANGE MY ADDRESS TO TOMBREED2010 at GMAIL.COM
> 
> Dr. Thomas B. Reed
> The Biomass Energy Foundation
> BEF, BEC, BER
> _______________________________________________
> 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

More information about the Gasification mailing list