/diy/ - Do It Yourself

nope, biomass is too low energy density for large scale use, only reason some energy companies do it is because its subsidised as fuck. plus something about mass planting trees to burn instead of to produce oxygen is just somewhat retarded. also there is no energy shortage, they just say that to scare people into paying more.

Wood fuel tip: Use offspring to prepare firewood. Tell them
>when you cut your own firewood it heats you twice
and other such platitudes to make them feel good about being exploited for cheap labor

Hanz..... not again

>>2504672
the fuck does playing punk to firewood help?

>>2504527
There's some fairly cool projects on YouTube with people running small petrol generators off them. I would be curious about storing it, could you pump it in to a compressor and then into gas bottles? Compressed flammable gas sounds like a bit of an adventure

>>2504632
I'd do it because
A. Cool as hell
B. I can chop wood but not pump oil (diy fuel)

>>2504527
it's the answer in the sense that only a select few autists would be smart enough to get it done, and those few are the ones who you want to survive the winter

If you want to go the extra mile then separate the CO2 from the gas and use the hydrogen and carbon monoxide in it to make liquid hydrocarbons via the Fischer-Tropsch reaction. It'll take a lot of chemical competency though, and it's also a bit of a poison and explosion hazard

>>2504632
You can burn corn stoves and wheat straws as well.

>>2505015
I had a look at this and it seems pretty technical and poorly documented. If you mastered this, you would actually be able to maintain a modern standard of living, completely self sufficiently

Stirling engine is superior. https://youtu.be/KbnGlcQiL1c
Can practically use any fuel that burns including wood.

>>2504632
if you want to maximize oxygen production you need to replace the trees after 25 ish years with young ones since it drops off eventually
needless to say that would make it less economically but still

Anyone have a link to the youtube video of the horrifying wood gassifier electricity generator that was basically automated using sparking wires on a tach gauge/dash cluster from a car? Been looking for it for a while and haven't found the right search terms yet...

>>2505071
It's been done a lot on industrial scale. That's how "synthetic" oils and fuels are made I'm pretty sure. But yeah, nobody seems to do it on a diy scale. I think the biggest issue with doing it at home is maintaining the catalyst's quality and the inability to safely pressurize the reaction. Also you'd have to balance the carbon monoxide to hydrogen ratio properly to maximize efficiency. A complex process to be sure, but not an impossible one. The nice thing about this is that it uses an iron catalyst, so that could possibly be done diy

>>2505075
Sounds good, what's the disappointing limitation?

>>2504746
If you sufficiently cool gas mix at first stage you can collect flamable oil. You're gonna hafta separate water from it depending how much oxygen found its way into chamber.

>>2504632
>mass planting trees to burn instead of to produce oxygen is just somewhat retarded
You are an immense retard. Planting trees to burn produces more oxygen and consumes more CO2 in its lifetime than burning it will produce. Do you think people just plant trees one day and scoop the meat out the next day to burn and oh well it never produced oxygen? Trees spend decades producing oxygen and consuming CO2 before they get burned.

>>2505868
We don't have a problem with running out of oxygen. Even if we did, most of the world's oxygen comes out of the ocean anyway. The focus is solely on removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

I plan on building one once I get a welder
I just think they're neat

>>2504527
>When the police pull you over in their Tesla armoured cars in a world without gas

can i make a gassifier stove with stone
how will i clear out the burnt wood
i'm assuming the point of a gassifier stove is to provide a more concentrated flame area mostly

>>2504740
Nice bait, nigga

I've seen them fuel cars.
I have an old Robinair 5kw genny that I want to convert. The carb is shit anyway. May as well make it weird.

>>2504527
Shipping containers make great gasifiers.

>>2505868
That is false
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1pIYI5JQLE

law of conservation of energy.. all the C02 is stored as the wood and leaves of the tree.

>>2506711
You do realize that trees shed leaves right? And even conifers will shed needles? That is a non inconsequential amount of carbon.
There are also a large number of self limbing trees that use their own lower performing limbs to fertilize the ground below in hope of using those resources to better uses.

>>2504746
There seems to be differing opinions on storing woodgas / CO. Some people say it'll decompose/disassociate if stored for long, others say it works fine.
The bigger problem is that CO will stay a gas when compressed, unlike for example propane which will become liquid at higher (but reasonable) pressure, so woodgas won't be as dense energywise.

>>2505384
To get high efficiency with a Stirling engine it seems necessary to use something like helium as a working medium, and to run it at high pressure. It's not a showstopper if competent engineers really want to build an efficient Stirling engine, but it's mostly hobbyists who bother.
The biggest drawback seems to be that they are bigger and heavier than Otto/Diesel engines, and that means no one bothers trying to build them for profit, so you can't buy one.

>>2505247
I know exactly which one you mean, and can't find it either. Was it in German?

>>2506692
You... running a 1920's belt-driven factory on it? You could fit a dozen gasifiers that could run a car into the smallest shipping container.

>>2506843
>The biggest drawback
is the lack of torque/horsepower produced. A stirling engine is basically a power transfer machine. The force doesn't come from the machine itself, and it doesn't burn anything to produce a blast of energy. All the power comes from a weak power supply outside of the engine.

I hope I'm wrong. I've toyed with the idea of building a stirling-driven drinking cart for the Indy 500. I don't drink, but if it works, it'd sell in a heartbeat to race fans. I can't imagine up a configuration capable of propelling two people and coolers full of beer, at a reasonable, not breakneck speed, not to mention the frame and body and whatnot. I considered using an internal combustion engine stripped down and using solar-powered glow plugs in place of the spark plugs. I can't even imagine it turning over the engine, honestly.

>>2507298
Well, they're like other heat engines in that to get more power out, you have to raise the compression. The big advantage internal combustion engines have is that they run at high compression "for free" - a comparable Stirling needs to be pumped up to pressure before running or be a sealed pressurized design. There's nothing stopping you from building one that uses higher compression other than the engineering involved.
Swedish submarines (Gotland class) use Stirling engines instead of diesels, so they're not just toys.
I could be wrong, haven't looked at the subject in a few years.

> I've toyed with the idea of building a stirling-driven drinking cart for the Indy 500.
Sounds completely impractical and I love it already. Think of all the (You)s!

How about a diy Diesel engine? Could the block and pistons be casted from aluminium in some easy way?

>>2507498
you need a steel sleeve and at this point you might as well turn the cylinder from billet.
casting is only really worth it for a two stroke or mass production

>>2507498
Model engineers have been doing that as a hobby ever since engines were a thing. Look at the model engineer, or home model engine machinist forums. You can make some simple designs without a mill, but you certainly need a lathe.

>>2507523
Every year at the Sandwich Fair, (Sandwich, Illinois) there's a booth with hand-made miniature diesel engines running. They're fascinating. I always wanted one. - well, I always wanted to make one.

>>2507298
The Stirling powered vehicles that NASA did seemed to do just fine though.

>>2507298
They put out enough power for cars.
https://www.hemmings.com/stories/2009/01/27/nasa-gets-spiritual-and-drops-stirling-engines-in-some-odd-vehicles

>>2507498
Take a machining course and use the school machine tools on the side which is easy if you volunteer to help out as I did. I got my bro into the class and he's now working there for toy money in retirement to fund his home machine shop.

Machining and weldments and machined weldments rightly displaced casting for many parts and for a one-lunger diesel it makes more sense to machine the block and head so you've total dimensional control. There is no ghetto way to do this.

>>2506850
>I know exactly which one you mean, and can't find it either. Was it in German?

I believe so. It was mesmerizing and horrifying. Loud noises from all the equipment, etc. I really wish I could find it again!

>>2507842
I'll read this. If I can find a setup that'll produce power without requiring an absurd amount of energy to provide the heat, I'm in. I'd love to find plans for a conversion or something to use. I have a 5kw genny I want to build a wood gasifier for, but I don't have access to free wood, so I'm open to options.

>>2507842
That article was useless for everything but the idea that someone did it. It's good to know someone did it, though. I'll have to look for some more materials.

>>2504527
Instead of cooling the gas using a radiator, couldn't you instead use the surplus heat to raise steam for a steam engine/turbine?

>>2505384
You want Low mass working gas and a large temperature difference.

>>2506843
>but it's mostly hobbyists who bother.
Wasn't there that super silent scandi submarine that ran off a stirling?

>>2508833
Yes, Swedish subs use Stirling engines.

>>2504632
>biomass is too low energy density
Wood is about 4 - 4.5 kWh/kg. Not too bad. Diesel is about 12 kWh/kg.

>>2504874
It was commonly used in Europe during WWII. Normal fuel was in limited supplies so buses used gasifiers.

>>2508833
Yes, by Kockums (now Thyssen Krupp). There's some information online I didn't know, like how apparently the main advantage is claimed to be that the heat source can run on liquid oxygen.
Also there seems to be a company trying to commercialize a spin-off of the same engine for turning waste heat into electricity.

>>2504527
So how would /diy/ improve on this 100 year old design? Could we perhaps reuse the waste heat to dry the wood? Or would the gasification process improve the efficiency if the air was pre-heated?

>>2504527
wood gasifiers are interesting but they still dont leave clean gasses as they are used.

>>2504672
Excellent dad post.

>>2510983
>but they still dont leave clean gasses as they are used
What did anon mean by this??

>>2509786
There were lots of small improvements made in the 1930s and 1940s when they were more widely used. Unfortunately it seems like most of the knowledge is spread out among communities that don't talk to each other.
For example, there are a few people in Sweden who drive gasifier-fueled cars, and every single one of them use a "stacked pancakes" fabric filter (a large "sock" that is tied off around wireframe discs; used to be canvas cloth in the 1940s, nowadays it's fibreglass). I've never seen for example Americans use fabric filters. Burgers all seem to use the Wayne Keith design, but the details are a trade secret and nobody outside of the US has heard of it.
The basics should be the same though, and there are some obvious things like insulating the hearth (firebox?) and using a heat exchanger for the air intake that I would do.
Another thing would be to convert a modern electric hybrid car. The pros and cons of a gasifier and a battery vehicle means they would complement each other pretty well.

>>2511996
He might be referring to the tar and resin that could clog the engine if there isn't a filter trap.

>>2510983
Bubble the gas through lime water. The water will condense and trap any tar and liquids, and the lime will bind up some of the CO2 to make the gas more energy dense.

>>2512107
>tar and resin
Wouldn't that be filtered by the wood chips shown in >>2504529 ?
If that were the case, you could rfecycle that into the fire tube.

>>2512010
>use a "stacked pancakes" fabric filter (a large "sock" that is tied off around wireframe discs; used to be canvas cloth in the 1940s, nowadays it's fibreglass)
Do any use cyclone filters? Having to replace the filters seems a bit of a hassle, and means interrupted production.

From what I understand, the cocnbustion/gasification should take place under reduced oxygen conditions, how was this handled? Exhaust recycling?

Would a DIY gasifier be sufficient to produce enough energy to power a water well pump? We are talking rudimentary usage like having enough to drink and water crops. A hand pump would accomplish this but being able to power it with freely available wood would make it a lot more efficient.

>>2506711
>all the C02 is stored as the wood and leaves of the tree.
All the CO2 is stored in your ass.

>>2514585
>Would a DIY gasifier be sufficient to produce enough energy to power a water well pump?
Easily. Gasifiers were used to power buses during WWII. If your pump needs less then 100 hp you should be fine.

>>2514585
you could look into a ram pump
it's a non-powered pump that fills a cistern of some sort

>>2504527
>Wood gasification May be the answer
oh very good. lets go back to burning trees. very smart *sarcasm*

See if this works...

>>2504527
I can just put wood in a fireplace and burn it. Fuck big business and urban wastoids I live near woods and I am glad to hunt and drag deer for people who know how to process them.
Learn how to hunt and trap, Anon, biomass ain't going to save you when the Greenies turn off the coal and gas without putting nuclear energy in their place.

>>2515774
>I can just put wood in a fireplace and burn it.
Sure. That gives you heat but no mechanical/electrical power.
>biomass ain't going to save you when the Greenies turn off the coal and gas without putting nuclear energy in their place.
A wood gas generator can give you both heat and electrical power. With a conversion efficiency of 20 percent, it means 1 kWh electricity and 4 kWh heat.

>>2515809
>a wood gas generator I won't have any way to repair or get parts for when the energy crisis hits and Biden abandons everyone that isn't from a major city (read: living in a place that is basically 51% or more Democrat by default with few exceptions) gives me heat and electric
>or a fireplace that basically just needs careful maintenance twice a year

>>2516188
Wood gas generators were used during WWII, these requrie no high tech parts. An amateur smith should be able to make spare parts.
Even if you implement a steam engine in >>2514713, we are still talking about 100+ year old tech.

>>2504527
Woodgasifiers for piston engines are costly. A wood-burning turbine engine is much simpler.
https://youtu.be/E-8BX7dUk5c
https://youtu.be/i-UnhAzTMxg

>>2505075
Stirling engines are pretty inefficient without ceramics which are not trivial to cast or machine.

>>2507844
>there is no ghetto way to do this.
Just proved you wrong m8

>>2512107
>tar and resin
Burn that shit

>>2512120
Ar there alternative ways to remove the CO2? I would expect the lime to be consumed rather quickly.

>>2512513
All of them use cyclones as the first step of filtering as far as I know.

>>2514575
I think gasifiers mainly rely on there being much more fuel than oxygen. In practice you get charcoal as a byproduct out of wood gasifiers, which indicates that there isn't enough oxygen for complete combustion.
Some people have experimented with recycling exhaust gasses since it should save fuel. (less combustion required to create CO2)

>>2516470
What comes out of a gasifier is still something like 65% nitrogen - most of air is nitrogen, and it just passes though. Worrying about CO2 isn't that relevant.
Besides, the right way to deal with CO2 is to make sure as much as possible is turned into CO.

>>2514585
Should definitely be possible. The downside of a wood or coal gasifier is that it needs some attention to start up, so using it for an engine that sits idle most of the time isn't going to be a good solution, unless you're just filling a giant tank a couple times a week.
If on the other hand we're talking about an electric well pump, then using a gasifier for running a generator and charging batteries should work just fine. With batteries you might as well put up a few solar panels and just use the generator when it's cloudy.

Maybe look at Small City Homesteaders for inspiration, scroll down 1-2 years and look for the "remote power station" that he built for a well pump in a remote location.
https://www.youtube.com/@smallcityhomesteaders1600/videos

>>2516490
>All of them use cyclones as the first step of filtering as far as I know.
Is that particle filtering or also tar filtering? The figure in >>2514713 indicates wood and shavings to catch tar before particle filtering.

>>2516500
Cyclones filter out particles; they are heavier than the gas and get flung to the outer wall and fall down. The intended use is that they catch most of what comes out so that the filters clog up less often.
Dealing with tar is mostly done, from what I've seen, by minimizing production (right fuel, right temperature) and cooling the gas before it reaches the engine.

>>2516415
>wood-burning turbine
Well that was an interesting rabbit hole to go down. Has anyone made one that spins an alternator/generator too? Or does the high RPMs make it too difficult? I know commercial ones exist obviously.

>>2516530
>Dealing with tar is mostly done, from what I've seen, by minimizing production (right fuel, right temperature)
Got some details here? My searches come up with vague statements such as separating pyrolysis and gasification without any real explanation how.
>and cooling the gas before it reaches the engine.
That is indicated in most of the diagrams above. The trick seems to be to deposit the tar at the right place rather than inside the pipes.

>>2516565
>the high RPMs
A planet gear will fix that, at the expense of a 3 percent loss.

>>2516718
Spin the gas in a tube. Or spin the whole tube with the gas in it. Scrape the tar off as it accumulates.

>>2516530
>cooling the gas before it reaches the engine
Oof, there goes any hopes of efficiency/simplicity. Wouldn't it be better to keep the tar hot enough that it doesn't condense until it is cleanly burned in the engine? Otherwise, you might as well use a turbine which combines gasification and combustion in one stage so that the tar burns and the fuel remains hot for optimal combustion. Alternatively, if an ordinary cyclone separator doesn't cut it, a supersonic separator or a separator that only cools the walls so the denser vapors condense should do the trick.

>>2516718
>A planet gear will fix that, at the expense of a 3 percent loss.
Yes, also pulleys and drive belts, as they are simpler.

>>2516940
>cleanly burned in the engine
i think you would have issues gumming up the valves

>>2516959
It would gum them very quickly but more likely foul spark plugs first. Best way to use wood as engine fuel is a steam engine.

>>2516565
>wood-burning turbine

Turbines would easily coke too, hence the use of steam to spin them. Everything that can be done re: burning wood was experimented with long ago so if want to invent something new master the old ways then find improvements. It's common for the unstudied to imagine they found a nugget when that's not the case. Wood-fueled boilers require maintenance too but smol locomotives, steam tractors and stationary engines burnt it with little fuss.

https://www.practicalmachinist.com/forum/threads/geisler-steam-engine.242517/

Look for live steam meets and farm equipment meets near you. They are very DIY and the skilled welders can fab their own water tube boilers (fire tube boilers are much more dangerous).

https://www.farmcollector.com/steam-engines/tragedy-at-medina-county-fairgrounds

>>2516959
>gumming up the valves
There are temperatures above which that wouldn't occur, and are there are valveless engines that should be able to withstand those temperatures (as I am not sure a valve could withstand it).

>>2516964
I've researched a ton on steam engines, but I've slowly realized there are too many reasons gas engines are superior. Steam engines become very complicated when trying to make them competitive. Most people aren't going to mess with steam boilers (regardless of whether the design is safe), while steam generators require precise controls. Most burner designs have the flame quenched by the boiler/generator with a lot of unburnt fuel appearing as smoke. Ideally, only the exhaust should make contact with the boiler/generator. COGAS (Combined Gas and Steam) engines actually uses the exhaust of a gas turbines to heat a boiler and are among the most efficient combustion engines out there. Going back to using turbines for wood, you'd also use a separator like you would for wood gasifiers, the only difference is all the heat is concentrated in one operation for a higher thermal efficiency.

>>2517005
>there are too many reasons gas engines are superior. Ste

Of course but this is /diy/ for fun not serious business. Nobody here is going to piss away the effort to make a wood-fueled turbine for the reasons it's been ignored by choice for over a century. Anyone who could make a serious effort is already in aerospace and would not bother posting on this joke board.

Likewise wood gas generators work but they're not particularly useful vs alternatives which is why they are so very rare. This sort of /diy/scussions are just to amuse noobs with time to waste on foo projects, not actual work to do. They recycle the usual fantasies as if noob discovered magic the rest of the world somehow ignored.

>There are temperatures above which that wouldn't occur

How are you going to cool your turbine? Aircraft use high pressure compressor discharge air to cool the combuster, fan blades and stators.

Wake me when you build something because asking here means you aren't serious and if you don't understand why you're lost or nearly so.

For play there are plenty of videos on Youtube. Copy those and learn why the world doesn't bother mass producing them.

This site is one of the best (I was once curious too and have many years as a jet engine mech):

https://www.nyethermodynamics.com/nt6/index.html

https://www.nyethermodynamics.com/products/index.html

>>2516940
>>cooling the gas before it reaches the engine
>Oof, there goes any hopes of efficiency/simplicity.
Not so sure about that. Cooling is not hard, and for efficiency, you really want the engine/turbine intake to be as cold as possible.
You can recover energy from the cooling as indicated in >>2514713.

>>2517041
>Of course but this is /diy/ for fun not serious business. Nobody here is going to piss away the effort to make a wood-fueled turbine for the reasons it's been ignored by choice for over a century. Anyone who could make a serious effort is already in aerospace and would not bother posting on this joke board.
>This sort of /diy/scussions are just to amuse noobs with time to waste on foo projects, not actual work to do. They recycle the usual fantasies as if noob discovered magic the rest of the world somehow ignored.
Sounds like you're projecting your own lack of initiative/creativity.

>Likewise wood gas generators work but they're not particularly useful
They are if all you have is wood.

>How are you going to cool your turbine?
I wouldn't use a turbine per se for that very reason, but I suppose water injection would also do the trick.

>>2517079
>you really want the engine/turbine intake to be as cold as possible
For a wood gasifier, that would produce more power, but it would actually be less efficient, because temperature controls the rate of combustion. Slower combustion is less efficient and often incomplete. For a turbine, the compressor doesn't have to pump the wood. The expansion from a solid to a gas will actually produce power and wouldn't result in pumping losses like in a gasifier system.

>>2516718
>Got some details here?
Different types of wood will create different amounts of tar. I don't really know the details, but it's something to be aware of. Coal as far as I know doesn't have the same problem since it's just carbon. (WW2 gasifiers in Sweden all used charcoal.)
Temperature will affect tar production too, and having the combustion hot enough will supposedly lead to "cracking" (long carbon chains breaking) that will reduce tar formation.

>>2517192
>For a wood gasifier, that would produce more power, but it would actually be less efficient, because temperature controls the rate of combustion.
What do you mean by efficiency here? I genuinely don't understand what you're saying.
The thermodynamic efficiency would be higher with a more dense gas mixture as far as I know; more units of fuel per unit volume, and having a cold gas at the start of the cycle increases the difference in temperature and therefore pressure. Then again I can't claim to have a great understanding of this.

>>2515809
Heat is the only thing you need to worry about, electrical is basically luxury and most people can meet their transport needs with a bicycle. What do you use electrical/mechanical power for? Travel and heating things, right? The tiny bit of power a computer/phone uses basically doesn't count.
The future is cozy cabins in the woods with a few square metres of solar panel to trickle-charge your electric truck so you can make the trip into town a few times a week. You'll charge your electronics off of the truck's battery and cook on a wood burning stove.

I'm in the EU so electricity is expensive, so I'm trying to run the heat pump as little as possible. It's going well so far. I burn a few logs of wood in the old combination oil/wood furnace once in the morning and once in the evening, which is enough to have hot water 24/7 (I've turned the radiators off since they use up all the hot water overnight and I like showering first thing in the morning). I keep a (tiny) fire going in the old wood stove over the course of the day, which heats the whole house and actually works great to cook on. If the power were to go out tomorrow all I would lose is the computer, the lights, and running water, but during winter I can melt snow and in summer the neighbours have a functioning traditional well so I could get water from them. I also have an emergency flashlight that charges with a crank, so I'll have light. Town is about half an hour away by bicycle, so as long as it doesn't snow too much I could get by without diesel. If it does snow I could make the trip with skis, but I wouldn't be happy about it. My power bills are lower than they were in the summer, even though electricity is four times as expensive now.
I use about one paper shopping bag of wood a day, which is fine because my family owns forest and I can get basically as much as I need for free, just need to put a weekend in summer aside to travel out there, chop it up, and placing it in the barn to dry.

>>2517249
>a few square metres of solar panel to trickle-charge your electric truck
I live in Norway, and even south of the polar circle we have just a few hours of sunlight, further reduced since the sun barely clears the mountains we have so many of here. Deeper in the valleys they can see blue skies but the sun does not reach them. Strangely this autumn plus this winter so far has been unusually cloudy. Solar power is just not a viable single solution.

EU member states France, Germany and Sweden decommissioned many of their nuclear power plants and then successfully exported their problems even to us. Electricity is now up to 10x the cost it used to be. Prices are supposedly the result of market forces and competition, but prices are suspiciously uniform across large regions:
https://www.svk.se/om-kraftsystemet/kontrollrummet/

>>2517289
Mountainous regions usually have great potential for hydro, so even though you can't just do rooftop solar your electricity should be reasonably cheap.
Doesn't Norway have both oil and a fuckton of hydro? Your electricity should be basically for free.

>>2517210
>Coal as far as I know doesn't have the same problem since it's just carbon
Coal is absolutely thick with sulphur and other impurities. There's a reason smiths use charcoal, it's a lot cleaner than plain coal. Heat iron in charcoal and your biggest worry is rapid oxidation in the air, heat iron in coal and you're going to turn it fragile and unworkable. I can't imagine the sulphur content wouldn't affect the gasification process. 19th century city smog was only as bad as it was because all the factories were burning coal. The same factories burning charcoal or wood would have still coated everything in soot, but it wouldn't have been half as toxic.

>>2517210
>What do you mean by efficiency here?
Power vs. fuel consumption

>having a cold gas at the start of the cycle increases the difference in temperature and therefore pressure.
Having a colder temperature would increase the efficiency of the Carnot cycle if delta T remains constant. However, delta T is purely a function of the amount of fuel burnt, heat capacity, and heat lost to the surroundings. A slower burn is going to lose more heat to the surroundings and an incomplete burn means less fuel burnt. In practice, a slower burn is also going to have less room to expand, and less work will be recovered from it, but a Carnot engine doesn't have any notion of a stroke or expansion ratio.

>>2517249
>The future is cozy cabins in the woods with a few square metres of solar panel to trickle-charge your electric truck
Where are you going to get your batteries? You'll need an engine to maintain voltage on a lead acid battery and Lithium batteries aren't sustainable. We've basically had to interfere in Afghanistan, Bolivia, and Ukraine to secure access to it.

>I'm in the EU so electricity is expensive
You're missing the bigger picture. Where are you going to get anything when diesel runs out?

>>2517428
Aren't they making carbon-iron batteries with like 75% the capabilities of lithium already? Yeah, the range won't be amazing, but if it gets you into town and back it'll be good enough.

I think you have to accept less reliance on cars in general. Most people can use bicycles and be fine. They're maintainable by anyone with basic metalworking skills and if you attach a cart to the back you can even haul a surprisingly large amount of stuff around. The bigger concern is what happens to agriculture when the diesel runs out. Industry and logistics can switch over to electricity easily enough, but agriculture is entirely gas-bound. Tractors can be fairly easily modified to use alternative fuels, but even then you're looking at enormous deforestation. They'll basically have to be electrified. Fortunately, much like forklifts, I think it actually would be practical to use lead batteries in tractors, so that should make them relatively cheap to buy and easy to maintain (not that John Deere will let you charge it yourself, you'll have to pay for the John Deere maintenance license to have a repairman come over and enter the secret password to unlock the charging port).

>>2517446
>Most people can use bicycles
You entirely missed the point. You're not going to get food in the supermarket without diesel to fuel the trucks. It's also impractical to convert an entire fleet that is running non-stop. Truckers/mechanics are also going to fatigue faster if they have to swap an empty truck for a fully-charged truck or change a heavy modular battery pack. Certain bridges will also not permit as much cargo due to weight limits. Lastly, you're also not going carry a winter's worth of supplies on a bike.

>Tractors can be fairly easily modified to use alternative fuels, but even then you're looking at enormous deforestation. They'll basically have to be electrified
Tractors already risk get stuck in wet soil. There's no point in making them heavier. With all that torque, one wrong move will have the tire buried in a foot of soil.

>>2517446
>Aren't they making carbon-iron batteries with like 75% the capabilities of lithium already
The electric motors and control units also require rare earth elements.

>>2517446
>Aren't they making carbon-iron batteries
Carbon-ion, and they still use litihium.

>>2517411
>Doesn't Norway have both oil and a fuckton of hydro?
Yes. We also have politicians who want to close down oil and gas, not realising that we are deep into Dutch Disease, and that the North Sea is what keeps us afloat.
>Your electricity should be basically for free.
Yes it should. Unfortunately we have the most stupid politicians in the world. First they imported high cost and inflation, then the prime minister made an agreement with Germany about selling electricity to them cheaply, and now we are kept in the dark about the details. All indications are it was way too cheap, and that it was an attempt to curry favours to get a cushy job after he is kicked out of office.
Then, to make things worse, they tried to play the envy card and brought in some new tax raises that had the side effect of closing down all new development for more renewable power. That includes hydro, wind and even upgrades of old systems.

On this background, a wood gas generator is not just of theoretical interest, it is increasingly relevant in a country where -30C is normal during winter.

>>2517424
Good point. I was mainly thinking about tar formation, which as far as I know is only a wood problem.

>>2517428
>Power vs. fuel consumption
Right. Well, the fuel is basically free here.

>>2517653
Hello neighbor. Sounds like you got a similar sales pitch to us. "Let's build electrical interconnects to the continent, it'll be good for the environment. No, of course it won't affect prices." Cost of electricity then immediately rises, guaranteeing profits and board memberships for politicians.

>we have the most stupid politicians in the world
They're not stupid, they just don't work for you.

Check out Omställningsresan on Youtube if you haven't already. (Gasifier, vehicle and energy related, in Swedish.)

>>2517483
You can make electric motors without the use of rare earth magnets, plain magnets or coils with iron core will work. It is not as efficient or compact, but will it work.

>>2517669
>the wood is basically free here
It won't be once everything is deforested.

>the petroleum is basically free here
Doubt, but what would happen when you can't access """your""" offshore wells.

>>2517693
>It is not as efficient or compact, but will it work.
That defeats the purpose of an electric powertrain. Do you honestly believe man-made CO2 is the problem when we aren't even an order of magnitude close to being the biggest emitters on Earth?

>>2518001
>That defeats the purpose of an electric powertrain.
It does? It may be sub optimal but that doesn't mean it is impossible.
>Do you honestly believe man-made CO2 is the problem when we aren't even an order of magnitude close to being the biggest emitters on Earth?
I am no expert, but I must admit I am getting a bad feeling when the warmeristas say aircrafts bad, then we have a pandemic where aircrafts are grounded, then today air traffic is about half of what it was, and yet, the CO2 measurement trends show absolutely zero significant impact the last 4 years.
Of course COP27 should have been a video conference, but somehow some people are more equal thyan others, so private jets it is. Right.
In any case the problem remains that cost of all forms for power went off the rails.

>>2504527
I wonder how hard it would be to make methanol from wood or coal syngas. You can convert gasoline engines to methanol rather easily.

There's a 99.8% selective methanol synthesis from carbon monoxide and hydrogen with a copper and zinc oxides catalyst at engine cylinder pressures (750~1500 PSI) and kitchen oven temperatures (250C / 500F). It can also work with carbon dioxide and hydrogen or carbon monoxide and water, since CO2 and H2O are intermediates in the process.

Apart from methanol being a gasoline substitute, there's also a simple dehydration reaction with solid acid catalysts (such as gamma alumina) at the same temperature and pressure conditions to produce dimethyl ether. DME has very similar handling characteristics to propane, and is non-toxic and non-corrosive and can be burned for heating and cooking, but also works well in diesel engines (with some conversion required, obviously).

These processes seem like they should be simple enough for small factories run by an individual or small team. Not too much harder than the combination of wood gas conversions and moonshining, and you get fuels that can be handled, stored, sold, and generally used for all the same things as today's standard fuels. You can make them from fire wood in the countryside, coal in coal country, and if solar panels keep getting cheaper, eventually from electrolysis hydrogen and CO2 from chemical capture methods or biomass (you can still get CO2 out of biomass you can't easily burn properly for energy).

>>2518097
look into butanol, it's far less toxic than methanol.
it's made by fermenting wood, the process also creates acetone and, i think isopropol alcohol

>>2518142
The toxicity of methanol isn't that much worse than gasoline. Its reputation for toxicity is mainly from people mistaking it for ethanol and drinking it with enthusiasm. DME is basically non-toxic.

Butanol is attractive in several ways (including its gasoline-like energy density), but since it's produced by fermentation, it's a much more finicky, picky process. You probably can't make it from coal or electrolysis hydrogen, except by complex synthesis no easier than gasoline. Furthermore, the fermentation process only works on cellulose, it'll do little to nothing with lignin, which is a major component of wood.

>>2518001
>Doubt, but what would happen when you can't access """your""" offshore wells.

Why would that happen and be realistic about your response.

>>2518174
Not him, but offshore drilling rigs, fracking rigs, and refineries are all complex operations dependent on sophisticated industry and the cooperation of many people. In a breakdown of social order, they could easily cease operation.

Cutting firewood and strip-mining coal are relatively unsophisticated by comparison, and as a regular average dumbass, you can probably participate in them in an energy crisis. Even mining coal with a pick and a shovel is surprisingly productive, probably better than cutting firewood with a chainsaw and a hydraulic splitter. And because we've largely moved on from firewood, there's a lot of energy saved up in the trees we haven't cared to cut down. American industry ran largely on firewood through most of the industrial revolution, because of those vast pre-industrial forests, and they have recovered quite well since we switched to oil and coal.

We're pretty careless with spending energy because it's so cheap, but if things go to shit, we've got to at least be able to keep the farms running, and the trains and riverboats, and short-haul trucking to get goods into the stores. Wood and coal can do that, with far from ideal social organization, if we're smart about it.

>>2518031
>>That defeats the purpose of an electric powertrain.
>It does?
Not necessarily, but EVs are already heavy to begin with. Would anyone buy one if they were slower and heavier?

>>2518142
I don't think Fischer-Tropsch is that trivial nor very efficient, but it could help maximize the amount of high-density fuels produced from biomass. Of course such fuels would only be beneficial for extending range (trade) or high performance (warfare). Just save yourself the trouble and burn that shit in a turbine.

>>2518142
>isopropol alcohol
Ethanol

>>2518171
> Its reputation for toxicity is mainly from people mistaking it for ethanol and drinking it with enthusiasm
Incomplete combustion of methanol tends to produce formic acid which is very corrosive and an irritant. Unfortunately, liquid-cooled piston engines tend to be the biggest offenders of incomplete combustion.

>>2518180
This.

>>2518182
>Ethanol
as i recall one reaction gets you ethanol and one gets you isopropol, but i could be mistaken, it's been years since i've looked into it
>>2518171
> it'll do little to nothing with lignin
i believe you would use a yeast like organism that breaks the lignin down to cellulose
but again, it's been years

>>2518189
>a yeast like organism that breaks the lignin down to cellulose
Cellulose and ligning monomers look nothing alike.

>>2518191
>inb4 a ligma insert

>>2518182
>Would anyone buy one if they were slower and heavier?
If the alternative is a bicycle, yes they will. European governments in particular are desperate to kill the combustion automobile without presenting a realistic alternative (ie, an alternative that isn't "just buy a tesla lol"). In 2030 when Germany bans internal combustion engines, 90% of the population will be facing the choice "shitty electric car" or "bicycle". Bicycle is well enough for young people and city dwellers, but families in cities with a population below 100k are going to need automobiles, and for most of them a shitbox that can get them from home to daycare to work to the store to the daycare and back home will be enough. People who commute longer distances are already rare in Europe, and most of them go by train or intercity bus anyway. The only Euro countries that have an American mentality of "forty minute commute by car is okay" are Sweden and Russia, both shitholes with a population density closer to antarctica than to central europe.
Today's idea of the future electric car is something like a Tesla, but the reality is that that level of comfort will be limited to the upper class. The middle class will need to buy cars worse than what the lower class is used to today, and the lower class will probably have to accept not owning a car at all in favour of some dystopian "timeshare subscription car". But when the alternative is no car at all, people will accept it. Yes you can get by with public transport in Europe, but it's slow, filthy, and uncomfortable, so most people will still want a car, even if it's a VW shitbox with one motor and a two tonne lead battery that tops out at 60km/h.

>>2518180
wood gas is great but how to store it?

>>2518515
buses in england had big rubber bladders on top and there were big cistern type things called gasometers that had bladders inside and a weight on top to pressurize it into the system

>>2514713
Updated. It made no sense to cool the exhaust ahead of the diluter.

>>2518505
I wasn't even considering the dystopian pre-collapse scenario, that's absolutlische fabricated and homosexual. However, they're banning the sale of combustion engines, not the engines themselves. I do wonder what that means for engine swaps, as one would have to either have a spare engine, make their own, or buy one (illegal?). I also wonder how emissions tests will be conducted for a swapped, modified, or homemade engines.

The problem with woodgas for automobiles is the range is as bad as an older electric car and pyrolysis creates acids that are corrosive. Fermented alcohols are probably the best option, but require a source of heat. Fortunately, the engine exhaust should be more than sufficient to heat the next charge of unrefined fuel, while a cascade of steam turbines acts as a distillation column that also also contributes to the brake HP of the vehicle.

>>2518522
Can we get a description of what's happening here?

captcha: 8ypp8k

So what about turbo charged burn barrels? Seems like using exhaust gases for forced induction with solid biomass, could double as a water heater/furnace and electric generator. Pipe a turbine to the exhaust after the turbo charger. Use a heat exchanger around the pressure vessel.

>>2518543
The turbocharger already has a turbine in it though.

>>2518526
>Can we get a description of what's happening here?
Sure. I guess I should add some reference number. Essentially there are 3 circuits:
- the air circuit (hatched) that cools the mantle before being diluted with exhaust and then is fed into the reactor (bottom right)
- the wood gas circuit from the reactor going through tar absorbers and filter before going to the gas turbine, while being cooled by water
- the water circuit that goes in opposite direction to the wood gas circuit, picking up heat throughout the path, before being superheated in the spiral at the bottom of the reactor and then powers a steam turbine.

Lots of details (condencer, recuperator, waste extraction etc) are missing but I hope those are obvious anyway.
Wood in the first tar absorber is fed to the reactor through the yellow square chute at intervals, thus recycling the tar.

>>2518543
>could double as a furnace
I'm actually working on that right now. I'm thinking of using nozzles to create jets of air to compress the intake air so that there is no backwards flow.

>>2518515
Options:
1) You simply store the wood and use a wood gasifier wherever you need to fuel an engine.
2) You pelletize the wood and store wood pellets, to simplify feeding wood gasifiers.
3) You make charcoal and store that, to improve energy density / transportability and simplify the wood gasifier with cleaner-burning fuel.
4) You synthesize fuels with good handling characteristics such as methanol and DME from the wood gas. >>2518097
5) You go full Fischer-Tropsch and make synthetic hydrocarbons from syngas like the Nazis did in WW2, then distill it to have real gasoline, diesel, and kerosene.

>>2519280
>like the Nazis did in WW2
You bring the syngas. I'll bring the crematoriums.

>>2519304
I like to point out that the Nazi war machine ran on synthetic hydrocarbons with 1930s technology because people still try and talk about fuel synthesis like it's some future technology.

>>2519324
And the Germans were able to produce so much synthetic fuel that hardly any of their vehicles were destroyed by the enemy, instead the Germans themselves scuttled them because they didn't even have the fuel to tow their rapidly diminishing fleet of Panthers and Tigers onto railroad cars ahead of the rapidly advancing Red Army.

>>2505247
>>2506850
>>2507847
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxa34gKRj5U

>>2519357
They also ran out of ball bearings, the *other* particular industrial focus of strategic bombing efforts in Germany. Does this suggest some fundamental problem with ball bearings?

Liquid fuel synthesis from coal worked very well for Nazi Germany (though of course it was more work than refining oil, and even Germany's domestic coal supplies were less than they wanted generally), until their synthesis plants were destroyed. They'd have been in similar trouble if they had enough domestic oil wells but their refineries were bombed.

>>2519574
Ball bearing shortage limited their ability to produce new vehicles, fuel shortage limited their ability to move the vehicles they already had. And as nice as it would be to be able to continue running our current cars on synthdiesel, a better solution would be to simply build nuclear power plants and standardise swappable battery packs. Most cars and lorries would use cheapo non-lithium batteries and get only a couple of hours of range, but at gas stations are machines you can park over that will swap your empty battery for a fully charged one, like already exists for forklifts.

>>2519623
We're getting off topic here, but ball bearing shortages crippled their entire industry, their ability to not only construct, but also maintain not only vehicles, but also factories. Going after the ball bearings was an attempt to stop every process that depended on anything that depended on anything that depended on ball bearings.

Anyway, the topic at hand isn't long-term future energy systems, but wood gasifiers and how to use them to help with a near-term energy crunch.

Fun bit of trivia: "natural gas" was coined in opposition to artificial gas made from coal (often called "town gas", it was the earlier form of pipe-distributed gas used for lighting, cooking, and heating), and one of its biggest selling points was that it wasn't toxic. Ever heard of people sticking their head in the oven to commit suicide? Like wood gas, town gas had a high carbon monoxide content, so it was very easy to kill yourself with, intentionally or not.

>tl;dr: don't pipe wood gas into a house, keep it outside or in drafty sheds

>>2504632
aren't most people here going to use it for low scale use, just like a house hookup and stuff?

I wonder if maybe my old furnace water heater might be producing small amounts of wood gas. It's an old combination oil-wood furnace, I'm running it on wood this winter. Basically I just pile it full of logs and ignite, it pipes the smoke through a chamber that heats water, which goes into the radiators and taps in my house. It has an old-fashioned thermostat hooked up to the air intake, so that as the water approaches a set temperature it will feed less air to the fire, and thus not boil the water and also keep the fire going. If I fill it with wood in the evening it'll still be smoldering in the morning. However, if I open it before it has had time to burn through all the wood and it's been at minimal air supply for a while, it'll immediately shoot a fireball out of the fuel hatch. A few seconds later I can tell fresh air has reached the embers because that's when the wood leaps into flame. Could the initial fireball be from wood gas produced by these logs lying on top of glowing embers but not getting enough air to actually burn for hours on end, or is it some other phenomenon?

>>2516415
My primary concern with this system is refueling. I assume the only solution at the moment is to have multiple engines, and shutting them down one at a time as you refuel them?

>>2520428
>My primary concern with this system is refueling.
In >>2518522 fuel is entered into the top container for tar filtering, and then drops down through the chute into the main chamber.
You don't want to stop the engine and you certainly don't want to vent CO during refuelling.

>>2520274
>Could the initial fireball be from wood gas?
Yes, the burning gas is what creates the visible flame.

>>2519623
>trusting zoomies with nookies
>breaking backs with battery packs

>>2520428
You could potentially use jet nozzles to compress air in an open wood feed >>2518559 does with the forge access port or some kind of air lock that drops in new wood.

>>2520644
>the burning gas is what creates the visible flame
If this highly flammable wood gas is just loitering behind my fuel hatch, doesn't that mean it's getting sucked out the chimney and not heating my home? This sounds like a huge inefficiency.
>trusting zoomies
I would insist that cars with battery swap functionality be self-driving. I've seen how zoomers and boomers alike drive, they cannot be trusted.

>>2520428
Airlocks aren't that complicated, you just need two doors.
>open outer door, combustion chamber is still sealed
>put fuel in loading chamber
>close outer door
>open inner door
>fuel falls into combustion chamber
>close inner door

You can also use a second airlock to remove ash, or you can have one engine with two combustion chambers, so you can open one right up while the system runs on the other.

>>2520769
>If this highly flammable wood gas is just loitering behind my fuel hatch, doesn't that mean it's getting sucked out the chimney and not heating my home? This sounds like a huge inefficiency.
Yes.

>I would insist that cars with battery swap functionality be self-driving.
There better be a proprietary quick disconnect system, otherwise I'll have to do a nut check.

>>2520644
>>2520788
Checked

>>2520788
>remove ash
You can make fertiliser or soap from that ash, keep it. It can also be used to make stronger mortar if you need to do some brickwork.

>>2519449
Yes! Thank you.

>>2520428
>>2520788
>Airlocks aren't that complicated
I thought of a simple airlock solution for refuelling after watching the burn barrel videos - use air pressure from the turbo to push open the inner airlock door and blow the fuel in. The door would be on a spring to close it.

>>2519304
Using something you can make locally from wood or coal will never work, you have to use a chemical that has to be produced in a factory far away and brought in via rail in the middle of a war.
Obviously.

captcha: G0Y 0XA

>>2522245
I was planning to use iron and copper produced domestically, but I guess I better prepare to be wholly reliant on the two dictatorships that produce lithium, and the precarious semi-democracy that produces literally all processors.

>>2519449
You sir are a saint!

>>2522244
That could work. The the weight of the wood could also help force the hatch open. Once the wood clears the hatch and boost pressure drops, the reversal of flow would quickly force the hatch shut like a hydraulic ram.

>>2522245
>>2522665
kek

>>2519280
>pelletize the wood
Making your own wood pellets is DUMB. I've looked into it. Even if you acquired a mountain of free and sufficiently dry sawdust to work with, bulk pellets are so cheap that it would take you years and years to come out ahead on the price of a wood pelletizer, and that's also not accounting for the time and effort it takes to operate a pelletizing setup. Economies of scale make it impractical to manufacture your own wood pellets and if your concern is off grid living you should stick with regular wood as a heat source.

I get that not everything has to be a strictly economic transaction and that the whole point of hobbies is doing inefficient unpaid labor because you like doing it, but /diy/ pellets are not it. You're not going to have fun watching a pelletizer go brrrrrrrr through tons and tons of sawdust for hours on end.

Either buy it from a company or start your own pellet company. I feel like there are at least a few boomers out there who got sold on the personal pellet mill idea and they're probably all sitting unused in a shed right now.

>>2522901
Using wood pellets is dumb. It would probably just waste fuel idling/cruising with a gasifier. Just use an engine-driven chipper with a conical pulley to change the speed and adjust the flow of fuel into the engine.

>>2523152
The amount of energy it would require to run a wood chipper off your engine would almost certainly negate any advantage you'd get out of the setup. I think the most efficient way to to this would be to somehow automate or at least greatly simplify the process of loading entire logs into the combustion chamber.

As for wood pellets, a lot of the reason for their efficiency advantages don't apply in a gasifier. They're more efficient than a regular wood stove because they burn using a forced convection system, and as a result of the forced convection and their high density they burn at a much higher temperature than regular wood. Forced convection isn't possible in a gasifier and the heat of the reaction doesn't matter much when the process you're using relies on further chemical reactions downstream of the gasifier.

I also question if charcoal in a gasifier is a good idea. The process of making charcoal is essentially the same thing as what's happening in a gasifier, except by separating those processes you'd be losing out on the stream of volatile exhaust gases that come out of the charcoal and relying solely on the carbon monoxide to fuel your car. Using charcoal you're throwing away a good portion of the energy of the wood, and once again the advantage of a higher temperature burn doesn't benefit a gasifier like it would in a furnace.

>>2518180
I think that even if things did "go to shit" we'd still have a healthy supply of oil. If social order did completely disintegrate and everyone abandoned their oil wells it would be quickly restored by local dictators. That's what happens in the middle east. Various terrorist groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda made their money by operating oil wells and similarly I think anywhere in the world a local warlord is going to keep the oil wells running. There is not a chance that we're ever going to turn into a fallout-esque wasteland where everyone simultaneously agrees to give up on industry.

>>2523217
>It requires more energy to chip wood than what is in the woodchip.
>people from idiocracy are capable of running an oil well
k

>>2523802
I agree that some retard on 4chan who cannot into reading comprehension won't be able to run an oil well, but there will be people who can.

>>2522901
During WWII the wood gas generators were normally fed wood blocks about 10 cm across. Pellets would not be needed.

>>2524004
Here in Sweden we explicitly used normal firewood. The government set standards saying that only specially treated birch was acceptable for cars (called bilved, "car firewood"), but in my parts of the country (very rural, even today if you don't work in forestry or paper manufacturing, you're a farmer) people were just using the exact same firewood they stockpiled for heat in winter, and by all accounts it worked just fine. Some of the wood gas converted cars stayed like that for decades, until the government got stricter about what you were allowed to drive on the road. Even when I was growing up in the 90s my neighbor still had an old wood-gas tractor. He never used it because he also had a modern diesel tractor, but it still ran. He drove it into town for the autumn market festival to show it off a few times. Using firewood probably produces more exhaust or ash than the bilved, because pine doesn't burn as well as birch in the first place, but I don't think that matters too much. Pine firewood is significantly cheaper than birch, let alone birch put through whatever treatment the government wanted people to do.

>>2524467
Here in Norway, Alder was the preferred kind of firewood for wood gas generators. Birch is a bit of a cliche and has less energy per kg than many other kinds of wood, but has the advantage of burning quietly without sparking. That is important when using open fire, but less so when using wood gas generators. Pine and connifer have a lot of resin that can cause tiny explosions that throw sparks everywhere, but is perfectly find in a closed oven.

Other than drying, I have no idea what kind of treatment they had for birch.

>>2517289
>>2517411
Raw energy production is decoupled from market price now since Europe is running a common energy market. We have an energy surplus here in Sweden with all the hydro and nuclear capacity that we've got but we still have to pay German prices since caps are decided by highest bidder.

>>2525040
That sounds like a completely awful deal for you guys. What sort of retard would agree that a country with lots of hydro should join a common market and pay the same electricity prices as a coal-powered nation?

>>2525220
Norwegian prime minsiters have for years tried to worm their ways to major international positions, for which they are utterly unqualified for. Part of the "sales" process is to give away goodies, such as cheap Norwegian electricity to Germany.

They are a national embarrassment both during and after their always too long tenure as a prime ministers.

>>2504527
how about just burn anything flammable, and use a sterling engine to generate the electricity.
Especially in winter, it should make the sterling engine more efficient, and be fairly simple, since the combustion is external, so you really would only need to worry about proper lubrication, and not much else

>>2506711
Kek, you stupid fucknut, "conservation of energy"...............
Do you understand............... how CELLULAR RESPIRATION............... works?
And do you........... DUMB......... STUPID CUNT.............. realize that PHOTOSYNTHESIS........... is the process of removing the "O2"................ until you just have the "C"............... CARBON........... to put into........................... building up the fucking tree's wood and leaves...?

There is no AIR............ inside of trees......... nor carbon dioxide......... fucking pylon..........

They release the O2 as oxygen................. and they eliminate a lot more CO2.......... than they produce............ when they burn............. because as >>2506773 says............ they shed a lot of biomass.....................

Your fucking FAGGOTY...... DEMONIC........... LITHIUM........ "ELECTRICAL"........ cells could power a car on WOODGAS............ for 50 years.................... before it becomes "eco-friendly."

It's UNNATURAL........ DEMONIC......... and UNHOLY.........

-JIM
U.S. Sgt. 16th Air Division
1968-1973

"Ain't Nuthin' Free"
- AMERICAN PATRIOT

>>2525831
Is this Morse code, or a Mad lib? Morse code would be a hit in the /ham/ thread, and I think /pol/ loves the mad libs.

@2525874
It's called writing like a MAN...................... most people nowadays have a hard time.......................... understanding it.............

But thanks for your reply...........

-JIM
U.S. Sgt. 16th Air Division
1968-1973

"Ain't Nuthin' Free"
- AMERICAN PATRIOT

>>2525831
>>2526068
>our fucking FAGGOTY...... DEMONIC........... LITHIUM........ "ELECTRICAL"........ cells
based

captcha: 88NRVK

>>2526415
>Your*

>>2525831

>>2525821
>sterling engine
Systematic misspellings show you haven't really read up on them. They are hard to make compact for large amounts of power, while a combustion engine and more so turbines are very compact.
Also a single Stirling engine will be hard to handle about 1000 C in temperature differences. You could use compound engines but then again complexity increases dramatically.

You may have heard of the Swedish subs using Stirling engines, just keep in mind that they have a military budget behind them. We do not.

>>2504527
This is a cool thread. Could you build one of these and connect it into a battery array to store as power? You could also use it as a way to heat a space during cold months I'd imagine? That way the heat energy isn't being wasted

>>2528519
>That way the heat energy isn't being wasted
No, because CO poisoning. Better off keeping the burn hot & clean with something like a turbine engine, then using the exhaust to heat a thermal mass.

>>2528836
You can use a heat exchanger to protect yourself from CO poisoning.
As for efficiency, shouldn't >>2518522 be more efficient than heating a boiler to run a steam turbine?

>>2507927
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19880002196

>>2528889

>>2528519
The energy is already stored as wood. There's no point in storing it after any process. The efficiency can only worsen.

>>2504632
You're stupid, biomass is the only true and realistic green energy solution, not for everything though, biomass rises by energy of sun but indirectly, without toxic solar panels

>>2529040
>biomass rises by energy of sun but indirectly, without toxic solar panels
Solar power can be exploited without photovoltaic panels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower

>>2529040
>toxic solar panels
Don't believe everything you read in the news.

>>2528875
>shouldn't >>2518522 be more efficient than heating a boiler to run a steam turbine?
Your diagram should have labels and show the direction of flow for readability. However, if you're going to build a boiler that quenches the burn, at least power a gas engine off the smoke. A lot of fuel might be left sitting in the separator if it doesn't get sucked into the engine.

>>2516964
>How are you going to cool your turbine?
Could use one of those water bath filters used on some gasifiers before the turbine. It would offer cooling, steam power, and filtration in one step.

>>2529047
Waste of materials. Wake me up when stainless is cheap. Phytomining could be a solution, but we'd be burning biomass either way.

>>2529713
>Cadmium
>Arsenic
>Hexavalent chrome
Nah, don't need that shit.

>>2530166
Most solar cells use plain silicon with miniscule doping of elements like boron or phosphorus.
More expensive panels for space applications use GaAs and CdTe. Especially the latter is hard to get hold of and is mainly limited to military use.
There is no reason to use anything more fancy than silicon for private use. Sure, labs have fancy multi junction cells with 40+ percentage efficiency but the price is far, far higher than modern 15 percent efficient silicon panels.

As usual, never believe the press unconditionally.

>>2530332
Well, let me know when I can fabricate a photovoltaic cell at home with at least 5% efficiency, would be less work than maintaining a generator + tractor, and that produces food.

>>2530385
That will take some time. Meanwhile, some working solutions are here:
https://simplifier.neocities.org/

>>2530166
>Your diagram should have labels
That is coming up later, when I return to the machine where it was drawn.
>and show the direction of flow for readability.
Direction of flow should have been evident but I can add that too when updating the diagram.
>However, if you're going to build a boiler that quenches the burn,
Not sure what this means, the lower end of the gas generator is the pyrolysis and gasification part, there is no full oxygen burn. I have no idea what quenching means here. There is a coil for superheating steam as part of the gas cooling after pyrolysis, but no quenching.
>at least power a gas engine off the smoke.
The gas turbine is already being fed the smoke, or generated gas.
>A lot of fuel might be left sitting in the separator
Just how? There is a constant flow as the gas turbine (alternatively combustion engine) sucks in gas, while exhaust mixed with air is used to apply positive pressure into the gas generator. The separator just removes paticles.
>if it doesn't get sucked into the engine.
All generated gas is already going to te turbine.

>>2526068
I'm just going say because no one else in this DEMONrat country will....THANK YOU FOR YOU'RE SERVICE...

>>2507609
Iowa state Fair has one by the big pumpkins too

>>2526068
>>2525831
Damnit Jim stop using so many fucking periods holy fuck

>>2505805
the oil itself has to be filtered and chemically altered to be used, since there often bunch of oxidized compounds in it (phenols etc.). But you'll get better fuel and a feed stock for plastic and disinfectant among other things if you do go through the process.

>>2530745
>The gas turbine is already being fed the smoke
>The separator just removes paticles.
My point is that the smoke may be filled with carbon-rich particles that will either be separated out or sucked into the engine.

>>2530812
I think I understand what you meant now.
Filtering takes place in several steps. The first one (above the gas generator) catches tar and some particles in the tar. Once the wood in the tar absorber is fully loaded, it is sent down the chute (yellow square) into the gas generator. The filter is rotated so right side wood is turned to the left side and more wood is added. This lock means you avoid CO poisoning.
The next filter is more tar filtering by wood chips, as shown in >>2504529. You could move that to the gas generator too.

The third filter is teh cyclone filter. And I guess you are concerned about carbon rich particles removed here. I would expect most of this to be ash particles rather than carbon rich particles. I don't know how you can separate these. Just feeding it all bak into the gasifier means you will have a lot of ash circulating.

>>2530831
Well your design is certainly more efficient than mine if paired with an Otto or Diesel engine. It could perhaps be simpler, lighter, and even more efficient if the engine was the detonating Quasiturbine type and the steam engine were replaced with pre-heated air. The EGR is potentially interesting if you are using the 2 CO2 + heat -> 2 CO + O2 reaction to feed + cool the gasifier, and provide some suction at the exhaust. However, the biggest downfall is what to do with the carbon particles (especially if you are feeding in pressurized exhaust).

>>2530850
If Wikipedia is to be belileved, most of the particles will be calcium carbonates, especially if the gasifier operates at high temperatures as is the intention here. And there is no energy to be obtained by burning carbonates.

>>2531534
>no energy to be obtained by burning carbonates.
CaCO3 -> CO2 + CaO (quicklime) would turn some of the heat into expansive energy (work). Quicklime is useful for many industrial applications.

>the gasifier operates at high temperatures
Two potential issues. First, there's a water coil cooling the bottom of the gasifier. Next, the CO2 + C -> 2 CO reaction is going to provide some cooling and expand the recirculated exhaust (taking back what I said earlier). A turbocharger could recover the work, but then it's basically my design with EGR and a high compression engine. The steam engine could be replaced with water injection before the turbine, and a condenser to pre-heat the intake and recover the water with extra for drinking and irrigation.

>>2506014
>The focus is solely on removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Wouldn't this kill all life on earth?

>>2532107
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event
In about half a billion years, definitely.

>>2531686
>there's a water coil cooling the bottom of the gasifier
My understanding is that the gasifier is the short, narrow stub with fuel, the rest of the volume indicated by red hatching, is where the gasified gas escapes. And the water coil picks up heat from this volume. At this stage the gasification is done.

It could be further improved by a concentric cylinder acting as a heat reflector to raise the temperature inside the gasifier further. I can add that to the next update of the figure. Perhaps the shield should have a wee bit of water cooling in order not to overheat. Temperature should be very high in order to get gas and avoid tar.

I could add a small detail to turn the carbonate to CaO at a lower temperature, I will have to think a bit about how to do that.

>>2532514
>concentric cylinder acting as a heat reflector
>water cooling
Pass the intake air through this exterior shell for the cooling. There's also a chance the CO3 & CO2 -> CO reactions provide sufficient cooling.

>carbonate to CaO at a lower temperature
There might not be enough heat at a lower temperature to perform the reaction. It's simpler to do it in the gasification step. If anything CO3 -> CO will improve the thermal efficiency so long as you don't have to add more O2 than necessary.

>>2505868
Trees respirate by consuming oxygen and releasing carbon dioxide overnight. Most of them are next oxygen neutral. Earth's atmosphere is maintained by algae.

>>2532592
The only carbon that matters is that which is burned at the stake by climate fanatics, but see >>2506773 for why you are still technically wrong.

>>2531534
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudouard_reaction
>When a gas rich in CO is cooled to the point where the activity of carbon exceeds one, the Boudouard reaction can take place. Carbon monoxide then tends to disproportionate into carbon dioxide and graphite, which forms soot.
Oof. You might want to delete the water jacket. Those belong on exhausts.

>>2532738
The gasifiers used on cars and buses during WWII are shown with coolers, also thee the firts few images in this thread. Wood cooling really be a major problem? I would expect the reaction to be limited with a reaction speed rather than instant reaction.

>>2504527
The gasifacation unit will need stripped and cleaned every couple of days due to creosote.

I've got better things to do

>>2532826
Creosote and tar formation depend on the airflow and temperature of the gasifier. A down draft at high temperature will eliminate this. Exhaust gas recycling may further improve this.

>>2532738
Replace combustor with a high compression engine, and it might be worth the otherwise pointless gasification stage.

>>2532811
>The gasifiers used on cars and buses during WWII are shown with coolers, also thee the first few images in this thread.
The designers were probably worried about the volumetric energy density of the gas, but all that goes out the window when you can put a bigger compressor to compensate.

>Would cooling really be a major problem?
The soot isn't going to damage anything as long as the engine is hot enough to avoid excessive deposition there, and it would actually lubricate if the engine was still cool enough to allow a thin layer of soot to form. (If we could do away with splash lubrication in an engine, that would probably be a significant gain.) However, the efficiency will go down if soot deposits are excessive anywhere in the system, which will require a cleanout as >>2532826 mentions.

Inappropriate cooling has plagued engine building since steam, where the flame was in thermal contact with the boiler in older designs, then again with non-regenerative cooling in IC piston engines which continues to this day.

>>2532927
>Inappropriate cooling
I am not entirely confident about this and I have never heard about this elsewhere. Got any sources on why intakes should be hot rather than cooled?

>>2505868
We can burn them much faster than they can grow. All of Europe and the Sahara used to be forest.

>>2532927
at this point just distill all the combustibles from the wood like turpentines and other oils for storage and combustion later.
Early Honda motorcycles ran off turpentine, and it was essential for heating lighting and energy 200 years ago before oil production and refining got realistic.

>>2535447
I guess I should clarify what I meant by regeneration. You can use regeneration to pre-heat liquid fuel without decreasing power output. Regardless of medium, pre-heating is more efficient, as the rate of combustion increases, resulting in higher pressures just after TDC.

>>2537740
I'll take an efficient design over a mess any day.

>>2535454
>Niggers clear cutting, burning dirty, and not storing heat in a thermal mass.
There's your problem.

>>2506711
CO2 is stored in the balls

>>2530166
>show the direction of flow for readability
Done.

>>2504527
isn't it more efficient to just burn wood AND trash to move a steam generator?

>>2542795
The scale at which steam would be applicable is also the scale where leftists will screech at politicians to dismantle it. A turbine or gasifier is more applicable at a /diy/ scale.