/eng/ - Engineering

>>95

I think it's worth remembering that everything environmentalists say should be taken with with a pinch of salt, just as a rule of thumb.

I don't know about the overall thermodynamics of the processes but I'd think they would need reviewed and checked for accuracy and rigour. Lots of the builds are backyard amateurs so there must be a lot more uncontrollable stuff happening that you would normally expect accounted for in a fully designed industrial plant.

What fuel is used? Propane, woodchips, biofuel (char, oil, gas) you've made. How much of it? How consistent is it? Pollution? etc etc

Is your product really worth more than the energy you put in?

>Suddenly the soil improves, there's huge yield bonuses for crops, it acts as a massive carbon/mercury scrubber, mitigation of changes in the nitrogen cycle, and it's all sustainable.

I don't think it's something that can just automatically be used everywhere for everything but it sounds promising. Quality control is probably important.

Biochar Quality Mandate
http://www.britishbiocharfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/BQM-V1.0.pdf


They make mention of being responsible with your use of Biochar.

>2.1.7 Any material not complying with the quality criteria set out in this mandate will fail to be defined as BQM-biochar. Such material will not be appropriate for application to soils which are used for agricultural, horticultural or other food-related purposes (unless evidence can be provided to the contrary), but might be suitable to be used for other purposes (e.g. as fuel through the end-of-waste route for fuels)


It's also worth noting that if you're producing biocrude/oil for use in vehicles then you're likely liable for paying a buttload of tax.

>>95
>On paper, sounds fucking great.

Pyrolysis/gasification seems really simple and fun.

>Bake anything that contains (hydro)carbons
>Process gas
>Collect fuels, carbons and a little bit of waste
>????
>Save the world

Video related. It's just a heated rotating drum with a vent.

>>104
>It's just a heated rotating drum with a vent.

Processing a fuckload of old tyres.

My next pyrolysis experiment will contain a lot of random, possibly toxic, garbage to see what happens.

Veneered MDF type wood, plastic wrap, beer tins (paint/coating), sawdust (contaminated with foam dust)

My theory is "hurr pyrolysis everything with hydrogen or carbon = oil"

>>130

Sim 2 First isomview.webm & Sim 3 - Original Brick layout.webm

The flow trajectories shown are both from the exhaust lid at the top of the cone. This shows the related flow from all other inlets etc.

The only difference in the calculations were the brick positions and the length of physical time calculated.

The change in brick position changes the height of the combustion area but only by a little bit. What is more significant is the volume unblocked around the base.

I'm not sure how to account for the more widespread and/or chaotic flow in Sim 3.

I will run two more simultaneous simulations, of the brick positions, with a different exhaust location on the cone.

The primary goal is to optimise the exhaust location. I have ran two simulations (not shown) with the wooden board covers seen in Experiment #2 & #3 and their respective exhaust locations but I have yet to analyse the data. Similar simulations to these will be ran with the cone.
>>117
>I'll put it into a report over the next few days.

I guess not yet seen. I didn't completely finish the report or upload it.

The secondary goal is to knock off the rear corners on the base block. In all the simulations so far a pressure build up has been detected there. This build up will impede the air inlet flow and mess things up. It also appears to be the cause of an updraft effect which I suspect will cause an uneven heat distribution around the gas cylinder.

And thirdly to intuitively judge the brick layout. Not ready to judge it quantitatively yet.