Wood gasifier. 2nd edition

[Anonymous No.2551863]

A folowup of the previous thread in which several anons were collaborating in doing a combined wood gas generator
last thread
>>2504527

[Anonymous No.2551865]

honestly while i like the direction and the technical detail going on here, i think this is developing in a village size generator instead of a barn generator. how small could this be done? I would like to have some sort of power and size numbers

[Anonymous No.2551866]

Where does /diy/ have archives other than archived.moe?

[Anonymous No.2551867]

What is a batch box?

[Anonymous No.2552277]

>>2551865
Less complex gasifier has been done many time by many individual on their trucks on highways. I don't see this can't be reduced to 2x the size of gas water boiler for house use.

[Anonymous No.2552282]

>>2551863
Just wanted to stop by and remind all of you that you're all larping faggots who will never build or do any of this bullshit. Have fun jerking each other off.

[Anonymous No.2552664]

>>2551863
Good work, anon!

>>2551865
It doesn't have to be much bigger than WWII equipment. Heat recovery and used in a steam turbine should not add too much. Turbines are very compact for the power they deliver.

[Turbro !g.qjHXwBp. No.2552983]

>use EGR to cool gasifier
>feed gas into high compression engine
>cool high compression engine with steam
ftfy

[Anonymous No.2552997]

>>2551863
Update.
Next will be to put details for each part.

>>2552983
Cooling with steam is novel.

[Anonymous No.2553039]

>>2552997
Is this something like you guys wanted?

[Anonymous No.2553166]

>>2551866
>Where does /diy/ have archives other than archived.moe?
that's the one i use
>>2552664
>Good work, anon!
I am just a lurked interested in the thread.
>>2552277
yes, i know there are supersimple ones, i was just pointing that which this complexity, which i like at least from a theorical perspective, which would be the minimum viable size or output

[Anonymous No.2553758]

>>2552277
Much of the largse size is due to the gasifier is loaded with a huge amounts of fuel. Reloading is inconvenient and releases dangerous gases, so big it is. With the design shown by OP, the gasifier can easily be reloaded with a chute with interlocks so little or no gas escapes. Most likely it is more efficient and require fewer reloading anyway.
Wood gas generators are full of components that get very hot. The extensive cooling and use of cooling jackets keeps it a lot safer and more convenient.

Here is a small one: https://youtu.be/a6e3CprVTi8

I did a quick check and it seems EGR and wood gas geenrators is a new idea here.

[Anonymous No.2556142]

>>2553758
>The extensive cooling and use of cooling jackets keeps it a lot safer and more convenient.
but wouldn't cooling lower the efficiency?
I am trying to learn how the current design works

[Anonymous No.2556169]

>>2553758
>I did a quick check and it seems EGR and wood gas geenrators is a new idea here.
I did further searching and it seems I was wrong here.

>>2556142
Contrary to what many think, in a combustion engine or turbine, the air and fuel should be as cold as possible, the flame as hot as possible and the exhaust as cold as possible. Carnot cycle PV diagrams will explain this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure%E2%80%93volume_diagram
So you want to cool the gas as much as possible. You also want to cool the walls of the gas generators if only to prevent it from overheating. gasification takes place around 650 - 800 C which is enough to make metal glow deep red. And that is not user friendly.
The high temperaure heat can power a steam engine/turbine and much of the remaining excess heat can be used to preheat the fuel.

A well tuned gas generator will emit 2 kWh heat for every 1 kWh generated machanical power. Conversion to electricity is close to 100 percent.
Out of that 2 kWh heat you can realistically recover 0.5 - 0.7 kWh as mechanical energy, or 1.1 kWh for a large super high efficiency plant.

[Anonymous No.2556179]

I've been following the previous thread since the beginning. I have NO IDEA how to read your schematics. Can someone give a detailed guide to how it works ?

[Anonymous No.2556198]

>>2556169
Excuse me sir, I believe the cylinder walls of the combustion chamber should be as hot as possible to facilitate a hi temp flame.

[Anonymous No.2557074]

>>2556198
During combustion, things should be as hot as possible, but during the working stroke, you want to turn all that heat into work, which would lower the temperature. In practice, things depend a lot on the geometry.
So for a 4 stroke engine, you want to let the walls cool down from the work being down. Yet for a gas turbine, it is the gas that moved down through the tube, and hot walls are less of a problem, and the working stroke takes place furtehr down the tube.
Years ago, people experiments with ceramic 4 stroke engines that needed no cooling. The idea had potentials but the practical details were too much of a hurdle. Things are different in jet engines, where ceramic hot isostatic pressed (HIP) blades can be used for very high temperatures indeed. Strangely the US has regressed here, and F-35 engines struggle with these issues, while the 60 year old SR-71 hammered across enemy territory at 3+ Mach.

[Anonymous No.2557098]

>>2557074
>Strangely the US has regressed here, and F-35 engines struggle with these issues, while the 60 year old SR-71 hammered across enemy territory at 3+ Mach.
Not really for two reasons. At M 3.2, the SR-71 was operating practically as a ramjet. The turbine air was the bare minimum to keep the hydraulic pressure and electrical supply functioning. Most of the thrust was generated by the bypass air. Second, the F-35 is vastly more fuel efficient at it's intended speeds than the SR-71. The overall pressure ratio is much higher.

[Anonymous No.2558611]

>>2551863
What's the best use for woodgas? Running generators? Moving a vehicle with wood gas seems like a pain in the ass. Also can you compress this and store it in cylinders

[Anonymous No.2559297]

>>2558611
>Moving a vehicle with wood gas seems like a pain in the ass.
Yet that was quite normal during WWII.

[Anonymous No.2559419]

>>2551863
wiki.gekgasifier.com
i'll just leave this here

[Anonymous No.2559440]

>>2558611
You can burn it like any other gas, however it might contain a significant amount of impurities like nitrogen and carbon dioxide that will impede combustion. Also if you are autistic enough you can use wood gas to make hydrocarbons via fischer-tropsch process

[Anonymous No.2559995]

>>2556142
>but wouldn't cooling lower the efficiency?
It'd boost the power to a point, but the efficiency would suffer.

>>2556169
>the air and fuel should be as cold as possible
So cold you get misfires?

>Carnot cycle PV diagrams will explain this.
Except real engines do not operate on a cycle, they are always sucking in new air. The key take away should be a cooler exhaust is better, not a cooler intake, which reduces the rate of combustion and thus efficiency.

>>2556179
He's got a water cooled gasifier that feeds into three woodchip filters at the top, which then feed to an engine, which recirculates some of the exhaust back into the gasifier. The water jackets act as a boiler to power the steam engine. There's also some pre-heating of the intake air with exhaust gases.

>>2558611
>can you compress this and store it in cylinders
Yes, you'd have to filter it or risk plugging the valve on your cylinder. Also, the loss of heat through the cylinder walls would reduce the overall efficiency.

[Anonymous No.2560222]

>>2552997
Water tube boilers / superheaters are safer and also cheaper ($ per W/m2K).
>>2556169
If you were to pressurize the part containing solid fuel it becomes "combustor" in pic related. Compressing cold input air and solid fuel might be worth the trouble: vessels will be smaller, catalysts more active and more importantly: cooling the syngas won't increase efficiency by reducing compressor work. If you're going to take input heat away from the gas turbine, why not take it from higher temperature gas? If you stick with low pressure syngas, the steam turbine might be too small and complicated to bother with: that is you get <1 kW from the steam turbine and 10kW from the gas turbine and you can't run the gas turbine if the steam turbine needs repair.

[Anonymous No.2560441]

>>2559440
>fischer-tropsch process
This seems like the ultimate post apocalypse solution. There's something about putting the fuel refinery on your car that seems inelegant to me

[Anonymous No.2560455]

>>2556169
>the air and fuel should be as cold as possible
>the remaining excess heat can be used to preheat the fuel.

these two seem to contradict each other, could you clarify
I understand that cold air means higher density air meaning more oxygen

[Anonymous No.2560527]

>>2560222
>water tube boiler
The problem with that is now you have external walls that are either corroding/melting or losing heat to the environment. Water injection or bath would combine safety, reliability, and efficiency. The water bath also doubles as a filter for particulates and condensates.

>vessels will be smaller
You get the equivalent amount of power in a smaller vessel. Unfortunately, you can't compress wood, so you'd have to refuel much more often.

>>2560441
FT has efficiency losses and you'd have to be handy with pressure vessels. Wood is so ubiquitous that density doesn't really matter unless you're traveling at altitude or across a desert.

>>2560455
Gasifier needs warm air for fast pyrolysis.

[Anonymous No.2560548]

>>2560527
A lock hopper compresses wood.

[Anonymous No.2560682]

>>2560527
Don't you need to dry the wood out first for it to work properly?

[Anonymous No.2560830]

>>2560455
>these two seem to contradict each other, could you clarify
Sure.
The Carnot cycle shows that as your efficiency increases, the exhaust temperature decreases. Simply put you turn more thermal energy into useful mechanical energy.
However, the laws of thermodynamics dictate that we can never reach 100% efficiency, and from that it follows the exhaust will be warmer than the environment around the engine. That remaining heat (which we cannot avoid) we can get a little extra use from by using it to preheat the fuel. Was this clearer?

[Anonymous No.2560859]

>>2560830
Loud and clear, routing my cars exhaust through the gas tank as we speak.

[Anonymous No.2560942]

>>2560682
In my design, you'd kiln dry the wood to produce steam power. You could do this with the engine exhaust on a gasifier.

>>2560859
You wouldn't need a fuel pump.

[Anonymous No.2560945]

>>2560942
Why is there unprocessed iron in the combustion chamber

[Anonymous No.2560947]

>>2560945
Why do you think?

[Anonymous No.2560951]

>>2560947
...oh oooOOOOOOOH YOOOO! IM RETARDED!
I thought bro was just warming up by the heater with his trusty pick and ingot.

Also idk if this has been mentioned yet, but this reminds me of those turbocharger oil burners. The ones that people make and dont install a restrictor on and then stand around it laughing as if theyre not exposing their whole chest to an out of control jet engine.

[Anonymous No.2560953]

>>2560830
but I meant the fuel, you said the fuel should be as cool as possible then yuo say you need to preheat it, although if we take the fuel temp as another way to dump excess heat and cool exit temps then I guess it fits

[Anonymous No.2561104]

>>2560953
>but I meant the fuel, you said the fuel should be as cool as possible
Correct. And fuel here is the gas that enter 600 in >>2552997 after the wood gas has been cooled by 200, 300, 400 and 500.

>then yuo say you need to preheat it,
"it" here is the wood in 300 which is dropped through the chute into the pyrolysis section 120 of the gas generator 100 shown in >>2553039. Don't confuse the wood in 100 with the fuel in 600.

>although if we take the fuel temp as another way to dump excess heat and cool exit temps then I guess it fits
The idea is to reuse as much heat as possible while also using external cooling jackets to keep the machinery safe in use. The agsifier 140 will easily reach 800 C, enough to raise super heated steam for the turbine in 800.

[Anonymous No.2561286]

>>2560951
Using a turbocharger is probably the easiest way to build a turbine. It's just most of those people never apply their party trick to anything practical.

[Anonymous No.2561833]

>>2559995
>>the air and fuel should be as cold as possible
>So cold you get misfires?
Commercial car engines work at -50C, jet engines work at even lower temperatures. I am not sure how far down you have to go to get misfires, but it would be well outside the normal ranges we experience. Perhaps by the time you get oxygen liquefaction there will be problems. That is -183C.

[Anonymous No.2561970]

>>2561833
Jet engines can operate at lower intake temperatures because they run hotter and maintain a continuous flame. It's possible an engine can still run with a misfire, as some of the residual fuel will result be pre-heated and more likely to ignite the next cycle. In fact, misfires can cause pre-ignition in an engine. Try WOT at -50C in a car and see if you are still making the power you'd expect from all that air.

[Anonymous No.2562481]

>>2561970
>Try WOT at -50C in a car
I wouldn't try that. I tried my car once in about -40 and while the motor ran fine, the cooling circuit takes time to warm up. Extreme temperatures call for careful handling, and while the combustion will be fine, there are many other components that make noise never heard before. And I really, really did not want to take any chances under such circumstances.

[Turbro !g.qjHXwBp. No.2564142]

>>2562481
>there are many other components that make noise never heard before
How do you know it's not knocking due to a misfire?

[Anonymous No.2565174]

>>2564142
>How do you know it's not knocking due to a misfire?
Strictly speaking I don't know. It had a fixed pattern to it and then it faded away after 5 minutes idling at minimum load. The RPM didn't change noticeably.

[Anonymous No.2567336]

>>2553039
Any feedback before I put too much work into this?

[Anonymous No.2567468]

>>2567336
Rule out the other options at the pfd level: a direct contact heat exchanger, wasting the hot cooling water, cooling the gas later or no cooling at all. I think your tube will need frequent cleaning so elbows should probably be tees with caps or blind flanges. An off-the-shelf heat exchanger might be cheaper, especially if you pick a big area to compensate for fouling. Chimney fires are a problem but maybe it is possible to both keep the metal from overheating while allowing the fouling to burn off. Oil or air cooling might be better either permanently or for the cleaning cycle.

[Anonymous No.2568107]

>>2567468
>Rule out the other options at the pfd level:
I am not familiar with that term.
>a direct contact heat exchanger,
Isn't that already shown?
>wasting the hot cooling water,
Why waste it?
>cooling the gas later or no cooling at all.
All sources I have found suggest it has to be cooled, also to remove steam.
>I think your tube will need frequent cleaning
Various sources suggested that if the gasifier operates at a very high temperature, there should be no tar buildup. The heat shield 152 should do that.
>so elbows should probably be tees with caps or blind flanges.
That is probably a good idea in any case.
>An off-the-shelf heat exchanger might be cheaper,
Do they exist for this application? It would have to handle about 500 C at the hot end, and be easily cleaned if we got a tar problem,
>especially if you pick a big area to compensate for fouling.
The underlying idea was a low tech approach that is easy to build and maintain.
>Chimney fires are a problem
tar builødup does that but that still needs oxygen, something there is next to none of in the gas.
>but maybe it is possible to both keep the metal from overheating while allowing the fouling to burn off.
The heat shield should survive 850 C, and the heating coil 144 should remove a lot of heat from the gas while raising superheated steam.
>Oil
Could this be a fire hazard in itself?
>or air cooling might be better
Water cooling is simple and reduces the areas where you could cause accidental burns.
>either permanently or for the cleaning cycle.
Not sure what you mean.

And thanks for your input, I think this could be a fun project to build.

[Anonymous No.2568264]

>>2568107
By "pfd level" I mean design that's just concerned with temperatures, pressure, composition... things that go on the process flow diagram. How big the pipe has to be and the physical arrangements are decided later. Pic related has tables of heat transfer coefficients and costs of heat exchangers for different materials and m2. The more cooling water (colder steam output) you use the less the m2 but then you can't get as much work out of the steam turbine. There could be an optimum size at which you could spend $1 to get say 10cm2 more area but this extra area only translates into 99¢ extra electricity sold over the life of the machine. Highman's Gasification might be better since it's your topic and not some other chemical plant.
A direct contact heat exchanger has no metal walls separating the cooling water from the gas being cooled. It's either an empty vessel/pipe where your cooling water is sprayed into the hot gas, or some trays/structured packing if you want a longer contact time for some reason. The cooling water gets dirty and the gas gets diluted with steam. I don't think you can expect it to be countercurrent flow.
It seems like Alibaba has 316L shell&tube exchangers or titanium coils off the shelf. I'm not sure about the fittings for the latter. It's hard to know for sure because they offer custom built too.
For the "cleaning cycle chimney fire" maybe you can run the heater and fan(?) without fuel and this can burn tar.
Oil could burn. Steam and hot water are also dangerous as they are worse for corrosion and pressure.

[Anonymous No.2568610]

Does anyone have some good plans for a steam boiler?(or good info to learn about them)
I'm planning to convert a small ICE to steam power but don't know what size I need to use because I have no idea how much steam I need and what's possible with a boiler.

I've tried calculating it but can't find all the formules needed in metric, and fuck made up freedom units.

[Anonymous No.2568634]

>>2568610
Dont forget to superheat your steam.

[Anonymous No.2569051]

>>2568264
The more steam mental gymnists post. The more I'm convinced a high compression Brayton cycle is the right way to go. That or just wrap the wood gas in insulation and use only EGR for cooling. The removal of tar and other particulates are going to reduce the efficiency, and so is the water-gas shift reaction. Don't cool with anything but EGR until every last speck of wood has been burned.

>>2568610
>lawnmower_steam.jpg
>"Hey neighbor, whats up?"
>lawnmower so big he can barely push it
>"Yeah, I'm just cutting some grass with this silly thing, haha."
I hope you're joking. Even a woodgas lawnmower would be stretching it. You'd have to burn wood directly in an intake manifold for it to be of a reasonable size.

>>2568634
All your metal water tubes are going to explode from induced current when the sun goes micronova and brings the next Younger Dryas on our asses. Non-metallic lines will also be difficult to come by after the next Carrington event (separate event) knocks out the grid. A gas turbine might survive though.

[Anonymous No.2569053]

>>2569051
A purely ceramic steam super boiler and turbine.

[Anonymous No.2569055]

>>2569053
The only thing more dangerous than a boiler made out of a strong, ductile material is one made of a weak, brittle one.

[Anonymous No.2569056]

>>2569055
>ceramics
>weak and brittle
1934 called, you were supposed to return some time ago.

[Anonymous No.2569063]

>>2569056
Is there a material that could even possibly EVEN TOUCH steel? Let alone defeat it. And I'm not talking about ordinary steel. I'm not talking about stainless steel either. Hell, I'm not even talking about high-strength steel alloys like maraging steel or tool steel.

I'm also NOT talking about a steel that has been forged in the heart of a dying star, imbued with the power of cosmic radiation and molecularly bonded with vibranium. A steel so strong that it could withstand the heat of a supernova and the impact of a planet. A steel that is impervious to all forms of radiation and energy-based attacks.

I'm definitely NOT even talking about the strongest steel in existence. A steel that is so strong that even the gods themselves would be envious of its power. A steel that could make Thor's hammer Mjolnir look like a toothpick. A steel that is the stuff of legends and the dreams of metallurgists everywhere. A steel that could easily cut through the strongest materials in the universe, like adamantium and mithril.

[Anonymous No.2569077]

>>2569063
Im missing the reference here, im sorry :(

[Anonymous No.2569223]

>>2569077
https://youtu.be/XWAsytHWW7Q

[Anonymous No.2569824]

>>2568264 (1/2)
>By "pfd level" I mean design that's just concerned with temperatures, pressure, composition... things that go on the process flow diagram.
OK; got it. That is a field I am not familiar with, I am just flyiing by the seat of my pants plus reading up on gasifiers.
>How big the pipe has to be and the physical arrangements are decided later.
From videos, it appears that the pipes do not have to be much wider than a normal exhaust pipe, probably less when the gas is fully cooled.
>The more cooling water (colder steam output) you use the less the m2 but then you can't get as much work out of the steam turbine.
Wouldn't a long heat exhanger also work at lower flow rates, so that we can get superheated steam out? I agree that luke warm water is useless.
>There could be an optimum size at which you could spend $1 to get say 10cm2 more area but this extra area only translates into 99¢ extra electricity sold over the life of the machine.
That too is outside my skill set. Since this would be a hobby project, I would not worry too much about sub optimal designs.
>Highman's Gasification might be better since it's your topic and not some other chemical plant.
Source? Google didn't show anything useful

[Anonymous No.2569830]

>>2568107>>2569824 (2/2)

>A direct contact heat exchanger has no metal walls separating the cooling water from the gas being cooled. It's either an empty vessel/pipe where your cooling water is sprayed into the hot gas, or some trays/structured packing if you want a longer contact time for some reason. The cooling water gets dirty and the gas gets diluted with steam. I don't think you can expect it to be countercurrent flow.
I have never seen this design mentioned in the sources I have found, I would guess it would be rather useless.
>It seems like Alibaba has 316L shell&tube exchangers or titanium coils off the shelf. I'm not sure about the fittings for the latter. It's hard to know for sure because they offer custom built too.
Titanium has many advantages, but is not suitable for low tech work or accessibilit, from what I hear.
>For the "cleaning cycle chimney fire" maybe you can run the heater and fan(?) without fuel and this can burn tar.
How would this work? Also, which heater?
>Oil could burn. Steam and hot water are also dangerous as they are worse for corrosion and pressure.
I agree. The cooling jacket would probably be under more pressure than is trivial. On the other hand, the hottest parts would be rather inaccessible.

[Anonymous No.2569883]

>>2569051
well that would be extremely hilarious but I'm just using a lawn mower engine for prototyping before building the big final setup.

My plan is, wood gasifier>steam boiler(the part where I'm stuck)>ICE to steam converted motor>forklift motor generator.

This is to combat the crazy electricity prices (€0,80 per KWH) and the fact that gas is going to be illegal in 2 years, but I only have 1 day a week free time so this is going to take years.
And the problem that I have 0 experience working with steam (only industrial and household electrical work & ICE).

If anyone has good book recommendations I would love to hear it.

[Anonymous No.2569907]

>>2569824
Sorry I misspelled the name it's Higman not Highman.
>I have never seen this design mentioned in the sources I have found, I would guess it would be rather useless.
Yes it's likely that you don't want to dilute the syngas with too much steam which everything downstream bigger and more expensive than the savings in the gas cooler.
>How would this work? Also, which heater?
I guess it would be like the self-cleaning home oven. Item 144 heating coil in >>2553039 which is probably for start-up: otherwise you have to make a regular fire with kindling and excess air somewhere near 144. Probably the gas turbine does not make a good chimney for that start-up fire. So anyways that coil is on which heats air and/or some rocks not wood. Then you have an extra fan or drive the gas turbine slowly to get the hot air out of the gasifier. Then the inside of the heat exchanger can heat up and hopefully the metal does not overheat. Probably the cooling water must be drained. But don't take my advice I haven't followed through with any designs.

[Anonymous No.2570623]

>>2569907
>I guess it would be like the self-cleaning home oven. Item 144 heating coil in >>2553039 which is probably for start-up:
Ah. Now I understand the source of the confusion here.

144 is the heating coil, yes, but ity heats the water, not the gas. To tyhe contrary, it cools the gas. I made these drawings but I now see they are not clear.
142 is the hot water (perhaps close to boiling) from the counter flow heat exchanger 200, see >>2567336. the hot water 142 continues to the coil 144 shown as 4 light green squares of the coil in cross section, then continues super heated into steam outlet 146.
152 is the heat shield that keeps the gasification temperature high, before the cooling starts. The heat shield will be glowing red hot.

>otherwise you have to make a regular fire with kindling and excess air somewhere near 144.
Startup is complex, also back in the day when this was in common use. Essentially you have to start with wood chips in the gasification unit 154 and add a little diesel or similar flammable fuel, and then put on fire. Next you close the lids and run fresh air from the top, and when things get going, you can add more wood chips.

[Anonymous No.2570768]

Take the gassified plastic pill

[Anonymous No.2570942]

>>2569907
>Probably the gas turbine does not make a good chimney
A vertical one would

>>2570768
Deez niggas still figuring out how to burn wood in a Rube Goldberg machine.
https://youtu.be/k0qmkQGqpM8

[Anonymous No.2571180]

Very interesting. I wanted to get a FEMA unit built but realised that the main issues with wood gasifiers is the transport of the wood chip.
For emergency use you're far better in the short term with a petrol engine because petrol is very light relative to its energy output and you can use the fuel in any normal engine. If the world ended tomorrow you'd be better with 40 galons of petrol in a drum with fuel stabalizer, and building a wood gassifier a year later to power a diesel vehicle.

As I understand it wood gassifiers only work well with wood pellets or at worst hardwood chip, if you tried to use regular wood i think you'd jam it up with ash and be unable to feed it while actually using any tool powered by it, it would become a two person operation to operate a single electric tool off a generator, maybe if you were charging batteries it would be worth it.
Forgive me if these are elementary or even misguided observations, that's about all I know

[Anonymous No.2571183]

>>2569907
I don't see why you would make a startup element integral, like a pulse jet you would be better off starting it up with a little fan, a little lng torch, or just kero brick... or a combination of.

It's not like you can turn these on and off like a car engine, they're for sustained use and lighting it with a crank fan and a Bunsen burner would leave you more phisical space to make a mobile and compact unit.

[Anonymous No.2571187]

>>2569051
Most gasifiers I've seen are trailer units that provide gas to a diesel engine.
This is a recognition primarily of the large size of agasifier relative to its power, on av truck this isn't an issue but then who wants to shovel wood all day?

The other thing I've seen is that the gas line between the unit and the engine can be quiet long, and im prepared to bet you could compress the gas you produced to power things like small welding torches as well.
A trailer lends itself well to agricultural use because you could plough a field towing it, unhook it to power somthing like an electric chain saw, then to a bench saw to cut planks and beams

[Anonymous No.2571196]

>>2569063
>>2569056
>>2569055
I don't get why you're fighting, look on a turbine aren't composite ceramics used because the ductility of steel leaves it really venurable to friction welding? Spinning parts can produce insane surface temperatures and a ductile material carries that heat and will fuse rather then abraid. Ceramics also don't tent to expand when hot and that's really important for a gas seal at high temperatures, many jet engine parts actually leak in a thousand places until their reach idle temperature and the expansion of heat seals them

[Anonymous No.2571205]

And while I'm spamming this thread to death, while most gasifiers I've seen run a diesel generator directly, someone itt was talking about running a steam boiler off both the gas and the original fire. I think this would work exactly like a gas generator and I'd question the relative importance of the initial fire considering the potencial efficiency of a gas turbine.
Why not just use a portable gassifier to power a gas turbine and make it all easy and modular.

Also wild card, you're in the territory where a testla turbine might have merit, given the small scale, the potencial necessity of using unclean water in the boiler, and the potencial to reverse the unit to pump water for your boiler.

You could actually use the gasifier to testla pump water uphill into a tank or pond, then run the gasifier through a boiler and use the same testla pump in the forward direction to generate power. Very handy given that you wouldn't need a dedicated pump unit, could use dirty water, wouldn't need a standard generator, and could run a second testra disk bank off the gassifier on the same gearset to reclaim power rather than trying to integrate the two

[Anonymous No.2571692]

>>2552282
..but why?

[Anonymous No.2571697]

>>2552282
I have a ranch, three conventional generators, solar thermal/solar electric, LPG gas and more wood than I have time to cut, sell, dump or even burn.
We get wildfires cutting the power and the price of diesel is up 25% this year.

A gassifier would save by a huge cost in diesel, probably to run a wood chipper/pellet mill and I could pay someone to produce 20 cubic meters of pellets a year for sale instead of dumping them, the market for which would be other people who coppied the gasifier design.

No u.

[Anonymous No.2571844]

>>2571180
>For emergency use you're far better in the short term with a petrol engine because petrol is very light relative to its energy output and you can use the fuel in any normal engine.
Sure, and that is why gasifiers went out of fashion in 1945. What is changing now, is that the fuel price is soaring and we don't know where it will end.

>If the world ended tomorrow you'd be better with 40 galons of petrol in a drum with fuel stabalizer,
Sure. And how many have that and are willing to handle the logistics of cycling through the fuel? People rarely have enough emergency water as it is, and that is far simpler.
>and building a wood gassifier a year later to power a diesel vehicle.
At a world ending scenario, that is too late.
>As I understand it wood gassifiers only work well with wood pellets or at worst hardwood chip,
That is preferred.
>if you tried to use regular wood i think you'd jam it up with ash and be unable to feed it while actually using any tool powered by it,
It would still work, you just have to remove more waste.
>it would become a two person operation to operate a single electric tool off a generator, maybe if you were charging batteries it would be worth it.
The design this general is working on, is meant to be simple, safe and efficient.

[Anonymous No.2572032]

>>2571205
>And while I'm spamming this thread to death, while most gasifiers I've seen run a diesel generator directly,
Sure? I thought most used petrol engines.
>someone itt was talking about running a steam boiler off both the gas and the original fire.
Another place other than here?
>I think this would work exactly like a gas generator and I'd question the relative importance of the initial fire considering the potencial efficiency of a gas turbine.
What do you mean by initial fire?
>Why not just use a portable gassifier to power a gas turbine and make it all easy and modular.
Part of the idea is to have a low tech setup. A gas turbine can be very efficient and compact for a specific setting and load, but are not trivial or cheap to get.
>Also wild card, you're in the territory where a testla turbine might have merit, given the small scale,
Tesla turbines are not very efficient but they win on being simple to make. I guess old disk brakes could be repurposed.
>the potencial necessity of using unclean water in the boiler, and the potencial to reverse the unit to pump water for your boiler.
It is meant to run in a cycle so the water should be fairly clean.

[Anonymous No.2572317]

>>2571196
Ceramics are used, but superalloys are preferred because they don't shatter when a grain of sand hits a blade spinning at 100,000 RPM.

>>2571205
Gas turbines aren't that efficient, they burn cleaner, but they don't have a high enough pressure ratio to efficiently convert heat into mechanical energy. It is possible to use piston or rotary compressors & expanders to raise the pressure ratio, these Brayton engines are not technically turbines. Otherwise, the only advantage to using a turbine is if you burn the wood directly inside the combustion chamber. That, or you use EGR to convert waste heat into fuel. Otherwise, half the heat is wasted in gasification.

>>2572032
Gas turbines can be very simple, and have fewer moving parts than a piston engine. It could be as simple as welding a turbocharger to a burn barrel. Tesla turbines are also very efficient, they just don't make any torque and require more precision than a regular turbine blades.

[Anonymous No.2572330]

>>2572317
>Gas turbines aren't that efficient, they burn cleaner
That being said, I now understand why OP wants to burn his steam-cooled gas in a turbine, but I'm afraid that is going to doubly hurt his efficiency.

[Anonymous No.2572517]

>>2572317
>Gas turbines aren't that efficient
OK. And yet:
>Tesla turbines are also very efficient

Seems contradictory.

[Anonymous No.2573450]

>>2572517
Gas turbines have a low thermal efficiency. Tesla turbines have a high isentropic efficiency. One is a complete engine, the other is just a means of converting the movement of gases into rotatational energy. Make sense?

[Anonymous No.2573486]

>>2573450
>One is a complete engine, the other is just a means of converting the movement of gases into rotatational energy.

You don't realize that all turbines work by converting the movement of gasses into rotational force?

In a turbojet engine, the force is generated by burning the gas and the path of the thrust is flow-thru, meaning all air entering the inlet is compressed and passes through the combustion chamber, where it then is exhausted as either thrust or connected to a shaft for torque. In the latter case, efficiency is boosted by recirculating the exhaust gasses.

In a turbofan engine, it uses a bypass design which means that a percentage of the inlet air is used purely for thrust, and the main fan on the front is connected by gears to spin at an optimal speed relative to the turbine shaft. This allows for high thrust with very high efficiency.

In both instances, the combusting fuel is only required to control the speed of the turbine. It is actually the induction and compression of air that does almost all of the work.

[Turbro !g.qjHXwBp. No.2573500]

>>2573486
>explains to me how a turbine engine works
Bruh. My point was you can't compare a component's efficiency to the overall engine efficiency.

[Anonymous No.2573899]

>>2572330
>but I'm afraid that is going to doubly hurt his efficiency
Why is that so?

[Anonymous No.2575621]

bump

[Anonymous No.2576129]

>>2571205
>, while most gasifiers I've seen run a diesel generator directly,
Is the resultant gas optimal for a modern diesel engine? in the old times compression was not that big anyway, and they used other ways.
I am looking forward to some emergency generator that can also be used to power my house.

[Anonymous No.2576496]

>>2551863
Explain this, are they having the entire contraption jacketed in some kind of counterflowing steam sheath

[Anonymous No.2576698]

>>2576496
Yes, that is correct, though the steam is not generated until the main heat exchanger.

[Turbro !g.qjHXwBp. No.2577195]

>>2573899
Because cooling the air-fuel and gas turbines are both inefficiencies, the only advantage to a gas turbine is if you're going to burn the wood directly, or you are going to use it dual purpose as a furnace.

>>2576129
No, pretty much any fuel can run in a diesel engine except solid fuels. You'd probably need to change the compression ratio, as different fuels have different autoignition temperatures.

>>2576496
Yes, unfortunately.

[Anonymous No.2577245]

>>2576698
How does this perform compared to standard down or cross drafts?

[Anonymous No.2577551]

>>2577245
This is a fairly normal downdraft with added cooling and EGR. The cooling shoul not impact the gasification. The exhaust gas recycling and the preheating of fresh air should improve pyrolysis.

[Anonymous No.2577655]

>>2577551
EGR is going to make sooting problem worse.

[Anonymous No.2577656]

>>2576129
>>2577195
>No, pretty much any fuel can run in a diesel engine except solid fuels.
I should add that solid fuels should technically be possible with Otto or Diesel engines, but you'd need either a large bore or stroke to compensate for the large "cylinder clearance" volume.

[Anonymous No.2577658]

>>2577656
You could also have an engine where the piston shaves off a piece of wood smaller than will fit in the cylinder clearance volume or can be compressed to that volume without causing engine damage.

[Anonymous No.2577730]

>>2577551
What's egr?
Why did they go with downdraft and not cross draft

[Anonymous No.2577744]

>>2577655
Why? The soot should be gasified.

>>2577730
EGR = Exhaust Gas Recycling, essentially mixing some exhaust into the air that goes into the top of the pyrolysis unit. Too much oxygen and you get too much CO2 rather than CO.

[Anonymous No.2577813]

>>2577195
>No, pretty much any fuel can run in a diesel engine except solid fuels.
It seems like you need lots of changes to run straight natural gas. Adding the syngas in the intake manifold and using a small amount if diesel to start combustion looks easier than a complete conversion.

[Anonymous No.2577872]

>>2577813
Modern diesels are not true diesels.
The compression alone should cause combustion.
Diesels we're supposed to also run on coal dust
Getting rid of the fuel supply isn't a shortcoming of the engine but the fuel delivery system.
You're gonna want to cool this shit way the fuck down if you're going to use it in an engine.

[Anonymous No.2578607]

>>2577744
>Why? The soot should be gasified.
How? The additional carbon monoxide is going to precipitate soot from cooling.

[Anonymous No.2578610]

>>2577813
You could also use a turbocharger to change the compression ratio without modifying anything within the engine block.

[Anonymous No.2578708]

>>2578607
Soot was never described as a problem in the past and EGR is not new in this context, it turns out. And if there is any soot formation, it would be filtered out in the filters 300, 400, and 500.

[Anonymous No.2578931]

>>2578708
>Soot was never described as a problem in the past and EGR is not new in this context
How many gasifiers with EGR have a water jacket on the gas line? Look up Boudouard reaction.

>And if there is any soot formation, it would be filtered out in the filters 300, 400, and 500.
Yes, and your efficiency will go down.

[Anonymous No.2580617]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R89d239-zhg
Just leaving this here for future reference, old refrigerator compressor seems to work well for wood gas into propane tank.

[Anonymous No.2580620]

Also just out of curiosity, I've been considering to build a small algae reactor. Technically, shouldn't it be possible to use a wood gasifier to turn algae into gas as well?

[Anonymous No.2580702]

>>2580620
Sure, anything with carbon is grist for the mill. Spirulina is fast growing.

[Anonymous No.2581493]

>>2580617
A pump for pumping gases is good for pumping gases. Who would have thunk it?

>>2580620
You'd need to dehydrate it first. Probably the only permissible use of a steam engine.

[Anonymous No.2582776]

>>2578931
>How many gasifiers with EGR have a water jacket on the gas line?
I have not found any.
>Look up Boudouard reaction.
I did. It is slow. And had it been fast, the WWII gasifiers would not have worked. After all, they all used cooling of the gas before feeding it tto the engine.

>Yes, and your efficiency will go down.
You keep claiming that, but you have failed in countering this one:>>2560222

[Anonymous No.2584732]

>>2582776
>the WWII gasifiers would not have worked
anyone have a good reference on those? or historical designs?
In old desings there are always some nice ideas that are diy friendly that modern designs may forget.

[Anonymous No.2584888]

Of all of the different ways you could make power and heat, you guys decide to pick the complicated, dangerous and outdated one.

>Muh efficiency
If you were honestly worried about efficiency you'd pick solar + batteries + electric car, tools, appliances etc. You're all picking systems that are the most efficient on paper without any consideration about how you would actually buy or build the parts you need and without any idea how you could support the thing in a proper larping SHTF scenario.
>Oh no, my custom made gas turbine has broken. I hope the abandon home depot has parts for it.

And even if you could get this whole rube-Goldberg device working, it still relies on a steady supply of wood to make the woodgas which means you're relying on gas/petrol-powered chainsaws to cut down trees at a reliable rate (and there's no way you can power a chainsaw on woodgas without turning into a unwieldy and bulky boondoggle) or you're going to be chopping trees with an axe and splitting wood with a maul all day, everyday.

If you want an actual non-solar/electric alternative, a bio-gas generator is a way, way better idea than wood gas since you can feed it with waste products (one of the best fuel for biogas production is pig shit), it makes a far, far better fuel as it's 70-80% methane compared to 20% hydrogen in woodgas and it doesn't require you to fuck around with pyrolysis or steam boilers or any other shit requires you to not be a fuckwit so you don't die.

>Muh co-generation, muh gas-turbine
You can do co-generation with a normal otto or diesel engine. Just hook the cooling loop up to a water heater, congratulations you now have power and hot water.

[Anonymous No.2585001]

>>2584888
>bio-gas
Like, say... wood gas?

[Anonymous No.2585070]

>>2584888
This

[Anonymous No.2585286]

>>2584888 (1/2)
>Of all of the different ways you could make power and heat, you guys decide to pick the complicated, dangerous and outdated one.
Complicated or outdated, chose just one. Wood gas generators are about 100 years old.
>>Muh efficiency
>If you were honestly worried about efficiency you'd pick solar + batteries + electric car, tools, appliances etc.
Solar + batteries means you depend too much on weather and season. Where I live, we have 2 hours sunlight in the winter. With sufficient battery capacity to last throug the winter, the system would be huge, expensive and complex.

>You're all picking systems that are the most efficient on paper without any consideration about how you would actually buy or build the parts you need
Drawings are available on the net. What is proposed in this thread, is a minor modification. Oil drums can be used for much of this.

>and without any idea how you could support the thing in a proper larping SHTF scenario.
That scenario is something you brought up. What I want is something that provides heat and electricity when it is -25C outside.

>>Oh no, my custom made gas turbine has broken. I hope the abandon home depot has parts for it.
Really? Why custom made gas turbine? A turbo from a car can be used, alternatively you can use a plain petrol engine. In any case, this is not meant for the end of the world.

>And even if you could get this whole rube-Goldberg device working, it still relies on a steady supply of wood to make the woodgas
That is not a problem where I live. There is plenty of wood around and a brisk trade in fire wood, pellets and the like. There is also a lot of wood scraps that is normally disposed of. There is some talk about recycling, but as with politics, this is just talk. Meanwhile there is plenty of free wood.
You are also mistaken in thinking it relies on wood. Gasifiers can also use other carbon containing fuels can be used, including plastic.

[Anonymous No.2585292]

>>2584888 (2/2)
>If you want an actual non-solar/electric alternative, a bio-gas generator is a way, way better idea than wood gas since you can feed it with waste products (one of the best fuel for biogas production is pig shit),
This device uses pyrolisis and a gasifier. What makes you think it cannot be fed waste?

>it makes a far, far better fuel as it's 70-80% methane compared to 20% hydrogen in woodgas and it doesn't require you to fuck around with pyrolysis or steam boilers or any other shit requires you to not be a fuckwit so you don't die.
Your comment about methane indicates you use a fermentation tank rather than burning the waste itself. It is not as if methane is entirely safe, and often there can be hydrogen sulphide, which also is dangerous.

>>Muh co-generation, muh gas-turbine
>You can do co-generation with a normal otto or diesel engine.
I know. Feel free to do so. I just don't know why you are hung up about a turbine.
>Just hook the cooling loop up to a water heater, congratulations you now have power and hot water.
The idea in this thread is to raise steam, not just provide hot water.

I don't know where you live, but around heer, the price of electricity and all kinds of hydrocarbon fuels have increased massively. A wood gas generator is an alternative, especially for epople who can get hold of a lot of cheap wood and useable fuel.

[Anonymous No.2585324]

Wow that guy got btfo

[Anonymous No.2585500]

>>2582776
>>Yes, and your efficiency will go down.
>You keep claiming that, but you have failed in countering this one:>>2560222
Thermodynamic cycles ignore the chemistry and assume the intake and exhaust are the same temperature, which is never the case. Sure, you could make the argument that cooler air will extract more heat from combustion, but that's negated by the fact that combustion is also slower. Other factors not taken into account when computing the efficiency of an ideal cycle are completeness of combustion and sooting (see below).

>>Look up Boudouard reaction.
>I did. It is slow. And had it been fast, the WWII gasifiers would not have worked. After all, they all used cooling of the gas before feeding it tto the engine.
They weren't necessarily concerned about the efficiency, or they didn't care to address it. Pretty sure some guy in the previous thread mentioned that gasifiers tend to soot up pretty badly. If it is as they say, then a water-jacketed gas line will soot even worse. Sure, a woodgas engine would probably make no power if it wasn't cooled, but that seems to be an issue with gasification itself.

>>2584888
>If you were honestly worried about efficiency
Efficiency is not the only factor, self-sufficiency being another. It'd be very hard to maintain solar-electric on your own.

>biogas
Slow conversion rate, large, and heavy

>>Oh no, my custom made gas turbine has broken. I hope the abandon home depot has parts for it.
A turbocharger could probably be pulled off a car. I've also a compressor/expander design that's easier to lubricate, and is relatively efficient for something that can be welded from off-the-shelf components or forged from scratch.

>>2585286
>this is not meant for the end of the world.
You're wasting your time then, the end is nigh.

>>2585292
>around heer
DE?

[Anonymous No.2586803]

>>2585500
>It'd be very hard to maintain solar-electric on your own.
What? solar panels itself are the simplest shit ever. Its the most simple diode
And if you want to makeshift an "inverter" you just need a dc motor and an alternator, you could regulate it mechanically, and you can even use a bigass flywheel to store some power or at least make it more constant and immune to the variability of solar.

[Anonymous No.2587062]

>>2585500
>Thermodynamic cycles ignore the chemistry
Do you really believe we would have had the present fuel efficiencies if they ignored chemistry??
>and assume the intake and exhaust are the same temperature,
What?
>which is never the case.
Phew
>Sure, you could make the argument that cooler air will extract more heat from combustion,
P-V or S-T diagrams are good enough, you could also do it from first principles. To argue against something this established, you need to provide a lot more than words.
>but that's negated by the fact that combustion is also slower.
You don't want too fast combustion, or you get engine knocking, which is unhealthy.
>Other factors not taken into account when computing the efficiency of an ideal cycle are completeness of combustion and sooting (see below).
Sure.

>>2585500
>They weren't necessarily concerned about the efficiency, or they didn't care to address it.
TRhey were concerned with this. Buses during WWII needed a lot of wood to get around, and refilling the wood gas generator was a hassle involving climbing up to reach the inlet. It was also dangerous since carbon monoxide could escape durign refill. Better efficiencies would give longer ranges and better service.
>Pretty sure some guy in the previous thread mentioned that gasifiers tend to soot up pretty badly.
Updraft wood gas generators are smokers, downdraft type as shown in these images, run teh gasifier at very high temperature and gives off much less smoke.
>If it is as they say, then a water-jacketed gas line will soot even worse.
That does not follow.
>Sure, a woodgas engine would probably make no power if it wasn't cooled, but that seems to be an issue with gasification itself.
I am not sure what this means.
Essentially you want the gasifier to work at very high temperature and then rapidly cool the gas before feeding it to the engine. The cooling will also condensate water, which is also an advantage.

[Anonymous No.2587276]

>>2586803
The fabrication of an efficient photovoltaic cell isn't trivial. If your talking about solar concentrators, that's a waste of material and land. It would be much more cost effective to use an internal combustion engine and cultivate the land in an agroforestry system.

>>2587062
>Do you really believe we would have had the present fuel efficiencies if they ignored chemistry??
The cycles haven't fundamentally changed (with the exception of the Atkinson cycle) in over a century. The only difference was taking into account the A/F (and ignition timing) that would allow for higher (effective) compression ratios. By the way, Otto, Diesel, and Brayton cycles don't care about the temperature extrema, but the compression ratios. Only outdated or theoretical cycles use the concept of heat reservoirs, which is not a realistic model of an internal combustion engine.
>>and assume the intake and exhaust are the same temperature,
>What?
Intake and exhaust are assumed to be part of the cold reservoir.
>P-V or S-T diagrams are good enough, you could also do it from first principles. To argue against something this established, you need to provide a lot more than words.
Established principles on ideal approximations which are too simple for the kind of engineering we are trying to do. Compression is never adiabatic and combustion is never iso-anything. If you every look at a PV or ST diagram of a real engine, it's more ellpitical than any idealized cycle. How do you make combustion more isochoric (Otto cycle)? You increase the speed of combustion. How do you make compression more adiabatic? You don't cool it, that's for sure.
>>but that's negated by the fact that combustion is also slower.
>You don't want too fast combustion, or you get engine knocking, which is unhealthy.
You might want to look into detonation engines, which operate closer to the ideal Otto cycle and designed to withstand/utilize detonation.

[Anonymous No.2587278]

>>2587062
>>They weren't necessarily concerned about the efficiency, or they didn't care to address it.
>They were concerned with this.
Okay, but they didn't know how to fix it necessarily.
>>If it is as they say, then a water-jacketed gas line will soot even worse.
>That does not follow.
If cooling precipitates carbon from carbon monoxide, then it does follow.
>>Sure, a woodgas engine would probably make no power if it wasn't cooled, but that seems to be an issue with gasification itself.
>I am not sure what this means.
It means that an engine that does not cool it's gas would not be able to fit enough fuel for a reasonable engine size to make reasonable power. However, if there was a compressor before the gasifier, and a high compression engine finalized the combustion under isochoric conditions, then cooling would not be necessary before the exhaust and the engine would also operate with power and efficiency.

[Anonymous No.2587465]

>>2585500
>>this is not meant for the end of the world.
>You're wasting your time then, the end is nigh.
Probably but I guess it will last another 50 years.

>>around heer
>DE?
Scandinavia.

>>2586803
>What? solar panels itself are the simplest shit ever. Its the most simple diode
Low efficiency photovoltaincs is simple, bu to get much beyond 15 percent efficiency, you need high tech.
https://simplifier.neocities.org/
>And if you want to makeshift an "inverter" you just need a dc motor and an alternator,
That is complex and involves losses
>you could regulate it mechanically,
More losses
>and you can even use a bigass flywheel to store some power or at least make it more constant and immune to the variability of solar.
A flywheel that will store enough power for the night will be impressive.

[Anonymous No.2587550]

>>2568610
anon..
your filter will get constantly clogged with tar from the gassifier, hell one guy made it for the lols (colin furze) and it was highly unreliable and impractical. Wood gas is only good for heating or generating electricity.

That and getting your gassifier running properly is difficult, so you have to spend 1-2hr at worst trying to fan the fire and get it going.

[Anonymous No.2587555]

>>2571844
I'm curious..
could you just use sawdust and woodchips but have them dry out/season in a shed for use?
Wouldn't dry woodchips/sawdust be way better for pyrolysis and making into wood gas?

You could get by with a wood stove just for heating your surroundings and boiling water and cooking food. Important consideration on buying a wood stove is finding one W/O fucking insulation on the inside, since i had to deal with a shitty cabin on a trail that had a insulated wood stove that barely heated shit up.

[Anonymous No.2587558]

Also i know people rarely mention this but waste oil is a great source of fuel for homemade foundries and boiling water. Its plentiful and cheap/easy to store, at most you might need a little bit of gas/starter fluid to make it more flammable but it burns very well when hot.

A guy on youtube had a waste oil foundry which was nothing more then some piping and a mattress bed pump which atomized the waste oil into a propane tank with the top cut off and insulated with rockwool. Easily made enough heat to form obsidian and was gravity fed.

What's your guys thoughts on waste oil? Maybe it could be used to help with heating up the gassifier to get peak efficiency?

[Anonymous No.2587768]

>>2558611
I think the point is to have an organization-independent way to power motors and stuff like that, in case of SHTF.

[Anonymous No.2587896]

>>2587465
>Scandinavia.
>Low efficiency photovoltaics are simple, but to get much beyond 15 percent efficiency, you need high tech.
>https://simplifier.neocities.org/
Hallo fra(n) den other thread. I tried making one of those low efficiency photovoltaic cells in burger chemistry class, it didn't work. Can't tell if bad school system or bad design. Either way, it is not idiot proof and hard to troubleshoot.
>>And if you want to makeshift an "inverter" you just need a dc motor and an alternator,
>That is complex and involves losses
Personally, if I were to regulate the voltage of a DC generator, I'd use a variable resistor to control the voltage, and reheat intake air for a wood-burning thermoelectric generator (either from thermionic emissions or some weird steam-powered hybrid of van de Graaff generator and a Kelvin water dropper). But why bother with all that when you can just use a heat engine to run an electric generator and a transformer?
As for storage, just incorporate water retention systems in an agroforestry system, and you can use the excess energy to pump water uphill and store it in a gravitational battery.

>>2587555
You could use the wet wood for steam power, then once it is dry, burn it as the primary fuel. See >>2560942

>>2587558
Most people do not produce enough waste oil to meet their heating demand. Not enough unless you're a fry cook or the guy doing the oil changes.

[Anonymous No.2587902]

>>2587465
>Probably but I guess it will last another 50 years.
Maybe 20 years
https://youtu.be/ouGhtFOpaHM

[Anonymous No.2589325]

>>2587558
Waste oil pollutes like hell though

[Anonymous No.2591699]

>>2567336
Continuing, off page 10.