Steam engine V Steam Turbine

[cowboybob]

BTW, only dual (or greater) piston steam engines are self-starting: the reciprocating type need a spin-up to get going...

 

[large_ghostman]

Well, I do have the boiler I made for it. Might as well send it also since I'll have no use for it. I was going to use Butane as the fuel. It has a pressure gauge (no idea how accurate) but no pressure regulator. I have no idea of its bursting pressure, so use at your own risk !!

This engine also has a shaft with NO ball bearings (look at the pic above of the TRV1A, above), so it has to be oiled regularly. There is, however, a ball bearing mod available:
View attachment 112899
I will say that the darn thing was a lot of fun to build and play with !

Thank you very much indeed, i grabbed a old boiler off ebay, they are well expensive here but it does have a flywheel and piston, this bit i can modify to make some the extras i was on about. So with two boilers i got more options.

The whole thing is to do a lab scale test, we know the generator side will work but the question i want to answer is can a steam engine do that and some of the pre treatment things at the same time. If we get that working then steam become a cheap viable option for some the harder to treat and digest feed stocks. When no feed stock needs treating then the steam can be switched to a normal turbine on a generator. I will email you details when i get it sorted (drawn out).

Energy wise my bet is on steam being more efficient, add in some the other mods i got in mind then the systems becomes more closed loop and more efficient. I will post up the entire thing on the closed private blog, it should have gone live today but i didnt get back in to the office. I will add the bearing kit at some point, but keeping it oiled isnt a problem. Out of interest how big is your boiler (water capacity), i eed to alter my spread sheet.

It will be running off methane but shouldnt be hard to modify from lpg.

I couldnt find much info on those engines, i will hunt around and see what i can find out. Self starting is a real bonus.

 

[large_ghostman]

As for a regulator they can got easy enough, I will see if it holds 30 psi of water ok (should do easy), running pressure is around 20 psi at this scale, that should scale up to give some pretty good figures for mid sized trial units. the torque is what matters most at the moment, i will email you Tuesday after i have spoken with GER Ian. Its a pretty clever idea he had.

 

[cowboybob]

Sounds good.

 

[tcmtech]

no where on that list is the fuel we are discussing! where in that list is BIO methane? Compressed natural gas is not BIO methane!! its a waste product from oil production

So if you rename CH4 from 'Natural Gas' To 'Biomethane' it somehow changes its properties in some drastic way?


https://www.uniongas.com/about-us/about-natural-gas/chemical-composition-of-natural-gas
**broken link removed**

 

[large_ghostman]

So if you rename CH4 from 'Natural Gas' To 'Biomethane' it somehow changes its properties in some drastic way?


https://www.uniongas.com/about-us/about-natural-gas/chemical-composition-of-natural-gas
**broken link removed**

Oh dear you dont understand your own link! Ok want a small chemistry lesson?

First lets makes sure we have what your saying correct,

So if you rename CH4 from 'Natural Gas' To 'Biomethane' it somehow changes its properties in some drastic way?

I will give you two answers, the first helps explain the second.

So by your reasoning Bio Methane (which you have been told already in various threads is cleaned) is indeed CH4, its the product of Hydrogen metabolized with CO2, infact as i pointed out somewhere on here you can make pure methane with pressure and a nickel catalyst at between 200-400C. The stoicheometry dosnt actually work in practice, which is why larger volumes are used.

CH4 is just that, one C molecule and 4 Hydrogen molecules, show me on your list any of the gasses that are one Carbon and 4 Hydrogens. as to does it matter.........

Well lets see.
Surely CO2 by reasoning is the same near enough as say CO, after all its only a single Oxygen molecule isnt it?
Ok lets look at the next gas up from Methane, Ethane C2H6, surely thats just th same as Methane? It only has one extra Carbon and 2 extra Hydrogens. The problem with you original list is it gave only gasesses derived from Fossil fuel, so all the gasses listed are actually a mix, CNG which is the closest to Methane (Bio Methane washed is pure CH4 in case your not aware, normal wash is sodium Hydroxide which is why no CO2 in it or NOx etc) anyway Compressed Natural Gas is a real mix from Methane all the way upwards, it varies from batch to batch but mostly i wouldnt expect much past pentane (C5H12) which obviously is starting to get a far distance from a single Carbon and 4 Hydrogens isnt it? No? Ok look at them this way.

Carbon Dioxide


Now take a single molecule away

You get another well known gas Carbon.....Monoxide, would you say they were almost identical in properties? Would you consider them to behave and react almost identically? After all its just a single Oxygen isnt it?

So Methane CH4

Now the next one up is Ethane (Bio Methane cant contain Ethane unless you put it there, because bio methane is a metabolic product)

Now that to me looks a fair bit different from Methane, it has more bonds to break for a start. Plus it's non symmetrical symmetrical (Look at the far left and far right Hydrogens they are opposite directions, or in your parlance 'out of phase')

So without putting all of them in lets just put a few of the molecules contained in CNG on the page.
COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS (abridged version)

Ok we will stop at pentane, but for others benefit reading this, in CNG (the closest on his original list of fuels To Methane ) there is another 5 different molecules to add to that lot. So before i ask you a question let me pre empt your attempt at trolling, i wouldnt go down the path of they are in small amounts, because of the following.....Ethane in your link is low at 4% but i will run with it, if you think 3% is low then i suggest the following easy experiment.

Fill a SMALL party baloon with pure hydrogen, hold the string and light the balloon while holding it, do it small scale, say a balloon no more than 4 inches in diameter. You will be ok but have ear protection on and hold at arms length.

Now do the same again but make 4% of the balloon Oxygen. Light at a good distance, then come back and tell us 4% of a gas means nothing.

Back to your question.

So if you rename CH4 from 'Natural Gas' To 'Biomethane' it somehow changes its properties in some drastic way?

What your actually asking is one of two things, but you have worded it very badly. If i had Methane (CH4) and called it CNG, would i expect it to act differently to CH4? No obviously because its just Methane but i am calling it CNG.

What you really mean because you posted a link to explain what you mean, Would i expect to have different proprieties to a mix of ?

Well without adding the other five gasses, looking at the different bonds and back of envelope calcs on energy to break the bonds and energy released by breaking them....... Yes i would a difference, but then again i am the kind of guy who would look at and expect it to be different from

I dunno maybe you think is the same as CNG??? or maybe your trying troll me?

Ok for fun lets add all the molecules in CNG then you can answer if you think it would be the same thing. Only kidding, i think the point is made.


As for your second link, another of your very low level references, no references on it and had you bothered to read it properly, or if you actually knew about all this, you would have picked up the contradiction in it, so a direct quote from your highly quality source.

So on the one hand it tells you what i did, the gas has had trace elements removed, it then says its considered the same as the brew i have put above which came directly from your other source, so who considers them same? You and the webpage you linked to or everyone?

So you answer for me, do you Think is the same as CNG? On a chemical level (and therefore property level) do you seriously think they react the same and have the same properties, like say boiling points and energy content? Before answering look at the bonds and go find data on the densities for ALL the gases in CNG and add them together then do the same for CH4. Do they work out the same?

Please stop trolling these threads, people pm me asking questions and asking me to give more info, it becomes pointless when you try and prove chalk is no different to cheese.

 

[large_ghostman]

one last point, look up the Std enthalpy of combustion
Do that for each gas and then decide if they are the same.

Ok i have helped you out and done upto pentane for you, for those who are not aware, the std enthalpy of combustion is to do with the heat released upon combustion.

So ignoring the 5 other components of Compressed natural gas here is a list of most of its constituent parts SEOC and Boiling points

COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS

Methane std enthalpy of combustion -891.1 to -890.3 kJ·mol- Boiling point -164C
Ethane -1561.0–-1560.4 kJ mol-1 -88.5C
Propane -2.2197–-2.2187 MJ mol-1 -42.25C
isobutane -2.86959–-2.86841 MJ -11.7C
Butane -2.8781–-2.8769 MJ mol-1 -1 to 1C
Isopentane 3.3 MJ mol-1 27.8 to 28.2
Pentane -3.5095–-3.5085 MJ mol-1 35.9 to 36.3

BIO METHANE (as the end product we use)

Methane std enthalpy of combustion -891.1 to -890.3 kJ·mol- Boiling point -164C

Going by that list are you sure they are the same thing?

 

[tcmtech]

So basically your 'clean Biomethane' (~95 - 99% CH4) is pretty much the same as commercial grade natural gas ((~95 -99% CH4)being the majority of commercial natural gas has been struipped of all of those secondary gases and when burned their averaged BTU contents fall within the exact same ranges of each other. Which in the theme of the thread in how to turn their chemical energy potential into electricity one is pretty much interchangeable for the other regardless of what engine or conversion process you are using to do it.

Now all said and done, thanks for the lessons in nothing I didn't already know, but how to make more false assumptions of others knowledge bases you know very little about, being I worked in the oil industry and studied (and still do) what all comes out of the wells I had to work on and where it all goes and what for once it hit the surface, which interestingly enough,bleeds over into my newer interests in fractional distillation processing of used antifreeze to get clean ethylene glycol and in the future perhaps doing the same process to used oil to see what all I can possibly squeeze out of that too.

FWIW, what I have been trying to point out is that in all rational factors your bio methane is in all likelihood so close the common commercial natural gas there is no major measurable differences in the two beyond your insistence in using a more eco friendly sounding name, which seems to be all the rage these days, for making the same old same old sound like its newer and better than it is. In an engine, turbine, boiler or fuel cell they are so close to each other you couldn't tell one from the other.

All things said and done we have very similar end goals here. You're just using newspeak fancy words and smoke and mirror explanation/obfuscation justifications for playing with common bio based CH4 fuel stock production methods and I am sticking with petroleum based stocks.

 

[large_ghostman]

So basically your 'clean Biomethane' (~95 - 99% CH4) is pretty much the same as commercial grade natural gas ((~95 -99% CH4)being the majority of commercial natural gas has been struipped of all of those secondary gases and when burned their averaged BTU contents fall within the exact same ranges of each other. Which in the theme of the thread in how to turn their chemical energy potential into electricity one is pretty much interchangeable for the other regardless of what engine or conversion process you are using to do it.

Now all said and done, thanks for the lessons in nothing I didn't already know, but how to make more false assumptions of others knowledge bases you know very little about, being I worked in the oil industry and studied (and still do) what all comes out of the wells I had to work on and where it all goes and what for once it hit the surface, which interestingly enough,bleeds over into my newer interests in fractional distillation processing of used antifreeze to get clean ethylene glycol and in the future perhaps doing the same process to used oil to see what all I can possibly squeeze out of that too.

FWIW, what I have been trying to point out is that in all rational factors your bio methane is in all likelihood so close the common commercial natural gas there is no major measurable differences in the two beyond your insistence in using a more eco friendly sounding name, which seems to be all the rage these days, for making the same old same old sound like its newer and better than it is. In an engine, turbine, boiler or fuel cell they are so close to each other you couldn't tell one from the other.

All things said and done we have very similar end goals here. You're just using newspeak fancy words and smoke and mirror explanation/obfuscation justifications for playing with common bio based CH4 fuel stock production methods and I am sticking with petroleum based stocks.

No you didnt read or didnt understand any of it did you? Ok tomorrow i will explain it very carefully so you see the difference, but first forget about Methane derived from oil etc, otherwise we wont get anywhere.

Can you point to the bit i said my Methane was 95-99% please as i need to correct that. Or did you guess a figure from another dodgy site? I used your links for the information, i even pointed out the link with contradiction in it. Out of interest what do you think methogens use to make Methane?

Its late but i will come back and try to explain this in a way you ca understand the major differences between Compressed natural gas and Bio Methane, in case there is a confusion i am talking about the stuff we put in the grid, not the raw stuff, normally we call the raw gas biogas. When talking about bio Methane we are talking about the gas after its been through a simple process, please note that multi chamber systems should not contain any HS2 or silanes. Thats is a problem on occasion with single chamber batch systems.

So as you pointed out before, i am talking about BIO METHANE CH4. not CH4 + 1-5% of x, this is the difference between 'natural gas' and bio digester BIO METHANE. One is from oil and one is from a metabolic process. To be fair I did actually point that out. Skim reading these posts will leave you confused. Anyway it may help others who might have not understood it properly, so i will go through it again and explain it a little better.

I take it however you now except that CH4 is not the same as the CNG brew you posted?

 

[large_ghostman]

So basically your 'clean Biomethane' (~95 - 99% CH4) is pretty much the same as commercial grade natural gas ((~95 -99% CH4)being the majority of commercial natural gas has been struipped of all of those secondary gases

Not according to your own link! or indeed the journal literature, i will also explain why that is and where it comes from.

Even after cleaning your link points out whats in CNG and the amounts. How come you post references you dont read?

Do you see the top line of the actual chart? Your clean gas is still only 87%-97% Pure, but we will show you why tomorrow. It will also help others to understand the difference, this is why people get confused, they think Bio Methane (CH4) is the same as natural compressed gas that is sold.

I had hoped the molecule drawings of the contents would of explained it, but maybe i need to make it more simple.

make more false assumptions of others knowledge bases you know very little about

Havnt made any assumptions about your knowledge on this, i have taken what you wrote and using your links i have simply explained why your wrong, that isnt making assumptions, thats taking what you wrote and correcting it with links you posted. Saves me having to make any assumptions dosnt it.

I think you have done a good job of showing your knowledge base on this, its extremely helpful actually. As i keep repeating....The more i know about what people dont understand the better i can explain, i am sure others have benefited from it as well.

I might use alot of this thread on my blog, cleaned up a bit it would make a good blog post, as long as you have no objections to me using your quotes?? If you do i will leave your bits out and do it anon.

If anyone else is having trouble understanding please shout out, if you let me know the bits you dont get i will try and explain. Hopefully i have cleared up the acronym thing .
I know others are following these posts, so please do speak up if you havnt followed it so far.

I will explain where TCM has gone so wrong tomorrow and where i think he is not understanding it, but others might have different bits they dont get.

 

[tcmtech]

Can you point to the bit i said my Methane was 95-99% please as i need to correct that. Or did you guess a figure from another dodgy site? I used your links for the information, i even pointed out the link with contradiction in it. Out of interest what do you think methogens use to make Methane?

I never said your gas was 95 - 99% pure CH4. You have yet to give any references to the actual purity of your gas or is exact assumed makeup so I errored on the high side to give you a favorable comparative edge.

But since you seem to be against favorable equative comparison I now have to assume your methane is even less pure than the standards that commercial gas is made to plus, unlike commercial gas that has largely other combustible hydrocarbons as 'contaminants' yours does not but more than likely is loaded with incombustible CO2 (and some artificially induced/manufactured hydrogen) thusly lowering its effective start to finish BTU content more.

As for 'educating me', going off on non relevant tangents really doesn't help me or anyone else understand what you are actually working with here. Actual line item lists of known or assumed ingredients and their sources does, which is what I was alluding to in those links, you seem to have misunderstood the point, of while at the same time using the very charts that show their calculatabel subcomponent values.

You want to run it through an engine or converter system to turn it into electricity in the end so knowing what it likely energy content per unit of mass is needed to calculate the conversions actual working process efficiency, right?

After all if you have to dope your produced Biomethane with artificially manufactured hydrogen to get its effective end process BTU content substantially up over what common commercial natural gases BTU content is for an equal mass and or volume that doesn't really count does it?

So educate me and everyone else on what your 'biomethane' really is. What is its known or assumed to be chemical/molecular subcomponent make up.

X% amount of CH4 + Y% amount of 2nd most substance and Z% amounts of what 3rd most substance and so on.

 

[large_ghostman]

I never said your gas was 95 - 99% pure CH4

Really, thats a bit odd! look at my post above and your quote, this bit

Now maybe American English and English English is a bit different, but i am pretty sure that does say you said my gas was ~95-~99% CH4. Or am i reading that wrong??

But since you seem to be against favorable equative comparison I now have to assume your methane is even less pure than the standards that commercial gas is made to plus, unlike commercial gas that has largely other combustible hydrocarbons as 'contaminants' yours does not but more than likely is loaded with incombustible CO2 (and some artificially induced/manufactured hydrogen) thusly lowering its effective start to finish BTU content more.

Thats all a bit jumbled, but just so we are clear..... Are you talking about my gas or commercial fossil fuel gas? Thi is a problem when you troll these threads, you use words all jumbled and in a way that dosnt really make it clear what your on about, its almost like you dont want to commit to something you might want to rescind later. Please dont do this, it really confuses others and wastes alot of time clearing it up.

Others have stated a few times they are finding the information and posts useful and interesting, your not really adding anything of use or much relevance, that spoils it for others. If you have a different view point then fine. But at least have the grace to acknowledge your mistakes etc, again it just adds confusion when you start trying to cover up your mistakes, its ok to make errors, like the thread that you mention oil 8 miles beneath you, just go back and correct the typo or add the important bit.

yours does not but more than likely is loaded with incombustible CO2

Not at all, many times i have stated in numerous threads you have taken part in that i try and preserve the CO2, I take it out the gas and use it as a CARBON SOURCE, seriously i have stated this so many times now, i have even detalied what i use it for and how i use it. Any i cant capture is neutralized with Sodium hydroxide solution, i even gave you the molarity of the solution in one post!

But since you seem to be against favorable equative comparison I now have to assume your methane is even less pure than the standards that commercial gas is made to

Again this is wrong, i have also said in the posts i mention above the following....... We run systems that are GRID INJECTED, this means our gas HAS to reach the required standard before it can be injected into the national grid, the grid people actually put monitors on your pre injection point, they have a record of everything in your gas, and that dosnt meet standard is auto diver ted back into the system or you are simply shut out.

Your confusion I think is from comparing BIO DERIVED METHANE, from the fossil Fuel derived stuff, they are apples and oranges. By default oil derived gas has many more impurities in it and takes a great deal more cleaning up, Bio methane is a simple metabolic product, there can only be a few contaminants because the microbes cant make things like Ethane or Butane or Hexane and so on. So no need to purify the same way and no where near the same impurities. Later i will post a diagram of how microbes make Methane (metabolically) so you can see why its already pretty clean, then i will post a diagram of how natural gas from fossil fuel is derived and the processes to clean it.

This is why many are switching over to Bio methane, its a much cleaner gas from the start, the main problem at the moment is supply, but slowly we are building more AD plants to service this demand.

(and some artificially induced/manufactured hydrogen) thusly lowering its effective start to finish BTU content more.

No again, although this is a great example of one the big advantages of a multi chamber system, The main Hydrogen we inject or 'flush' in at the start to give a anaerobic atmosphere (in the anaerobic chambers anyway), The process metabolizes H+ ions and CO2 into Methane this is the entire point of these systems and yes some other systems flush with Nitrogen or CO2, we use Hydrogen and CO2
Because they are more efficient. By the 2nd/3rd stage of the system there is zero Hydrogen Gas, if something ever went badly wrong then the sensors would pick it up and inject the gas back into the bottom of one of the first stages again to be reprocessed. But we have never seen hydrogen at the output except when we deliberately flush the entire system with it, but then that gas is simply reused as there is no methane at all in the system, this is mainly dont when a system is first started or a system is restarted.

The purpose is to flush ALL air out of the system before you inoculate and fill it. As i said some use things like Nitrogen but then you have a gas that gets wasted, we use a ~23% CO2 77% Hydrogen mix, the reason for low CO2 i because we want as little Oxygen in the system as we can, but a 100% Hydrogen retards the microbes at start up.

As for 'educating me', going off on non relevant tangents really doesn't help me or anyone else understand what you are actually working with here. Actual line item lists of known or assumed ingredients and their sources does, which is what I was alluding to in those links, you seem to have misunderstood the point, of while at the same time using the very charts that show their calculatabel subcomponent values.

Again wrong, i have repeatedly asked you in various threads to use scientific journals or credible sources, I started doing that but it became clear you either were not reading the material provided or didnt understand it (fair enough seeing as scientific papers are written for scientists and not tinkerers), i used your source because i didnt want to be accused of using a source you didnt trust, i did point out while the first link you provided didnt match the data in scientific literature, it was close enough to prove the point i was making.

Mainly the bit you state

So if you rename CH4 from 'Natural Gas' To 'Biomethane' it somehow changes its properties in some drastic way?

Which as i showed from your first link, Natural gas as you were speaking of, was fossil fuel derived CNG (that was clear from the link you posted and its tables), as i showed in what i thought was a clear manner, CH4 Bio Methane is entirely different. We dont need to go back over that, i comprehensively demonstrated Bio Methane (CH4) is a very different beast from CNG. Your question as you can see is wrong, because natural gas is not actually chemically the same by a long way to CH4, later i will explain how Microbes make CH4 and how Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) is derived from fossil fuel and therefore much less pure than Bio Methane.

The second link you gave discredited itself on the first page by contradicting itself, its about the same quality of site as a mike myers site! So once again, could you please rad your sources first and make sure they are of adequate quality, preferably at least referenced, i will drop the scientific peered reviewed paper request as i think you would struggle understanding most of the literature, but you are capable of checking the sources you use, considering how much you try and pick me up on, i am surprised you used a source and yet missed the contradiction on the first page, especially given the fact the contradiction was the following line in it!! Honestly i think you can do better than that with the sources you use.

Unless you really are trying to troll? That would be a shame seeing as so many are enjoying most of it, however a few have privately expressed there frustration at you constantly bringing up nonsensical or points that have already been clearly explained to you in this or other posts.

You want to run it through an engine or converter system to turn it into electricity in the end so knowing what it likely energy content per unit of mass is needed to calculate the conversions actual working process efficiency, right?

What??
Ok lets try and break that down a bit, i am not too sure many are going to understand any of that as its written.

You want to run it through an engine or converter system to turn it into electricity in the end

Yes to engine, but not sure what your referring to as a "converter system", so i dot give misleading info can you explain exactly what you mean by converter system please.

in the end so knowing what it likely energy content per unit of mass is needed to calculate the conversions actual working process efficiency, right?

No idea about others, but that reads like you randomly chose words from a dictionary, i have no idea what your trying to say, its pretty nonsensical as it stands. Can you try and explain what your getting at please, then i can give you an answer.

After all if you have to dope your produced Biomethane with artificially manufactured hydrogen to get its effective end process BTU content substantially up over what common commercial natural gases BTU content is for an equal mass and or volume that doesn't really count does it?

Again that needs partly re writing and partly breaking up, its a bit gibberish as it stands but I will have a stab at trying to work out what your getting at.

After all if you have to dope your produced Biomethane with artificially manufactured hydrogen to get its effective end process BTU content substantially up over what common commercial natural gases BTU content is

Who is doping Biomethane with artificially produced Hydrogen? and secondly NO ONE especially grid tied systems (as explained above) has free Hydrogen gas in there BioMethane!! Think big bang.

But your biggest error and the bit that makes me think your trolling me, OR you dont have a clue about this stuff is this particular bit ....

if you have to dope your produced Biomethane with artificially manufactured hydrogen to get its effective end process BTU content substantially up over what common commercial natural gases BTU content is

As that is written you saying the following.... By adding Hydrogen to Bio Methane so it increases its energy output, to a output substantially more than Natural gas wouldnt count, count at what you dont explain. BUT

The thing is go check the std enthalpys for Hydrogen and methane, Hydrogen is −286 kJ/mol and methane is -890.3 kJ·mol, or put another way, there is 3.1 times more energy in Methane than Hydrogen, so doping Methane with Hydrogen would lower its BTU not increase it!! Remember Hydrogen has a high energy content by weight, but not by volume, and gases are measured in??????? Cubic meters or put another way VOLUME.

So educate me and everyone else on what your 'biomethane' really is. What is its known or assumed to be chemical/molecular subcomponent make up.

X% amount of CH4 + Y% amount of 2nd most substance and Z% amounts of what 3rd most substance and so on.

I think its pretty clear i have well and truly educated you!! Way beyond what your knowledge was at the start of this thread, I think even you would have to agree with that.

The last bit is dead easy.

what your 'biomethane' really is. What is its known or assumed to be chemical/molecular subcomponent make up.

X% amount of CH4 + Y% amount of 2nd most substance and Z% amounts of what 3rd most substance and so on.

I think your trying to sound highly intelligent or knowledgeable so instead of asking me to list the contents of the products of my BIO METHANE, you worded it all funny, before I answer however, can you please explain what this is?

chemical/molecular subcomponent make up

What is a chemical/molecular subcomponent? For example lets take water, what would you call the subcomponent of H2O? Its nonsensical again.

Anyway my Bio Methane in the Grid tied systems is....... CH4 99.99% with trace amounts of water, well below allowed levels. We could dry it completely, but we already exceed the standard by a long way, generally before BIOGAS is cleaned and turned into Biomethane, you might be surprised to learn, unlike your fossil fuel witches brew of chemicals, Biogas only contains 3-4 things, the main one other than methane is CO2, as stated adnasium, we USE the CO2 so we take that out so we can use it.

Then you get water, hydrogen sulphide (trace amounts and only in one chamber batch systems), Oxygen(very rare and then only trace) and finally trace amounts of Nitrogen (only systems that nitrogen flush ).

Dont take my word for it, taken from here

is this bit about BIOGAS, that is the gas produced by anaerobic digestion and before you turn it into BIOMETHANE.

Page 26 if you get the report.

Compared with natural gas (fossil fuel methane) taken from your own link

I dont want this thread closed, i think its pretty clear your simply trolling. I could move this over to my own site and forum, but will leave it here for now. Seriously though,one more troll and i put you on ignore. If TCM does manage to ask a half decent question, someone else can quote it so i see it to answer. But please dont pick those i have answered so many times before or are simply trolling.

Try and be fair TCM, i didnt troll your post where you claimed oil 8 miles under you, i refrained from pointing out the obvious in that statement. You would make it better for people, and learn more yourself if you refrained from posting constant nonsense in my threads.

 

[Western]

Others have stated a few times they are finding the information and posts useful and interesting,

Yep, I am learning a lot and finding it very interesting. Thank you.

your not really adding anything of use or much relevance, that spoils it for others.

Ain't that the truth.

For some reason I keep thinking of a little plaque we had at home growing up ...

He who knows not and knows not he knows not, he is a fool—shun him;
He who knows not and knows he knows not, he is simple—teach him;
He who knows and knows not he knows, he is asleep—wake him;
He who knows and knows he knows, he is wise—follow him!
Lady Burton​

 

[JimB]

my own site and forum

Where is that?
Do tell.

JimB

 

[large_ghostman]

Where is that?
Do tell.

JimB

Its not open publicly as such, its a spin off from our main company website (energy company), its mainly where those working on the actual projects swap information and the design stuff etc is done. I have mentioned it before, new customers also have access as each AD site has its own section and we can log into the SCADA systems from there. What we were thinking of doing is putting a blog type front end on that was more general and adding some extra sections.

The site isnt reachable without a server log in, you get a pass word box up to log into the server, then once in you have to them log into the site. It was never intended to be public, but as soon as the extra bits are added your welcome to a semi public server log in to look around.
Currently i am having to move the accounting folders etc before we can have 'semi public' members.
To see what i mean the address is **broken link removed**
you should get a password request and nothing else at the moment. Still not sure how good idea to have this particular site open to non customers or those working on the systems, if someone got into the SCADA system it gives the control on active AD systems, or the accounting stuff

 

[large_ghostman]

sorry wrong link i think its explicit **broken link removed**
lets me in but no idea how it reacts without being a added user

 

[large_ghostman]

Yep, I am learning a lot and finding it very interesting. Thank you.




Ain't that the truth.

For some reason I keep thinking of a little plaque we had at home growing up ...

He who knows not and knows not he knows not, he is a fool—shun him;
He who knows not and knows he knows not, he is simple—teach him;
He who knows and knows not he knows, he is asleep—wake him;
He who knows and knows he knows, he is wise—follow him!
Lady Burton​

Try saying that fast! would make a great sobriety test

 

[large_ghostman]

Well lets gets back on track, but this bit is nearly done, it wasnt supposed to be about the actual reactors. Its supposed to be about an idea that someone i work with had, when looking at some of the pretreatment processes for feedstocks, he noticed that some of them use a process you could accomplish with a modified steam engine. Whats interesting is you would need to stop generating electric, you would simply switch the steam from the turbine to the engine.

When you didnt need to use pre treat, or after it had completed you could then switch back to the more efficient turbine. The main reason for looking at this, some of the pretreatments use alot of energy. You could cut this down by a fair margin if you used back strokes on a steam engine and various other things they can do. That would also save the cost of the equipment used to pre treat etc.

We will know soon enough, once i get hold of the engine, i will try the ideas out and post if it works or not here.

 

[unclejed613]

Another side note, I get to visit a liquid salt boiler at a uni in a few weeks time. Brave people working with a molten salt at that temp!!

is that a molten salt reactor? cool technology that was never developed beyond the experimental stage. actually a lot safer than pressurized water cooling, because the salt remains at 1ATM instead of very high pressures. now that materials technology has advanced, it should be a workable solution.

 

[shortbus=]

being the majority of commercial natural gas has been struipped of all of those secondary gases and when burned their averaged BTU contents fall within the exact same ranges of each other.

Where exactly is this "stripping" being done? I have two natural gas wells on my property the gas comes from the wells to a water separator through a measuring devise, then directly into the city gas line then into houses around me. So where is the "striping of other gases done"? All of the gas wells in the area do it the same way as the ones on my property.