[Gasification] Re: Definition of a "Gasifier"

[Jigme Rangdrol]

Horse apples.
I have no desire or time to prove you or anyone else wrong.

I say the presence of tar or dust or whatever in the products from any 
gasifier in any amount does not change the fact that it produced gas and 
is therefore a gasifier.

99.99999% of the planet agrees with me and considers the products you 
divide into gas+tar+dust+whatever,
as plain old gas.
We already have a "basic gasifier definition that is correct and helpful".


I do not agree that gas quality is important in the definition of a 
gasifier.
I do not define a gasifier by the devices that use its products.
Both positions create needless confusion and are inacurate.
You yourself stated that the position was too petty.


J.R.







Kevin Chisholm wrote:

> Dear Mr. Rangdol
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jigme Rangdrol" 
> <rangdrol at turboisp.com>
> To: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 9:04 AM
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Re: Definition of a "Gasifier"
>
>
>> So just what are we mere mortals of the General public missing in 
>> your position Kevin Chisholm?
>> Your positions are self negating.
>>
> OK... you have your views.
>
>> Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> gases that are identifiably separate in time and space from where 
>>>> the gases are
>>>> utilized, even close-coupled (millimeters and seconds), remote 
>>>> (meters and
>>>> minutes, or even stored for later use.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That is quite a good definition of "Gasifier" so long as the 
>>> "gasifier" makes "gases", and not merely a mixture of gases, tars, 
>>> and dusts
>>
>>  Neither of these represent "truth or clarity".
>> If it makes gas it makes gas.
>
>
> Would you not agree that gas quality is important in the definition of 
> a gasifier?
>
>>
>> The insistence that the presence of tar or dust or little green men 
>> in some way makes a gas not a gas is nonsensicle.
>
>
> If it has gas and dust and tar, it is a dirty gas with limited use.
>
>> If it makes gas and jelly beans it makes gas.
>
>
> No... it makes gas AND jelly beans. It is useless for applications 
> that cannot handle jelly beans.
>
>> Tar and dust do not converted the gas to a so solid or liquid or plasma.
>> If it is still C, H, O etc in a gas state, saying it is not gas is 
>> "misleading and confusing".
>
>
> Try and run an engine on "dirty gas." The problem is not with teh 
> "gas", but the non-gases. The presence or absence of such Non-gases 
> are a great way to define a gasifier by what it does, and what it 
> doesn't do.
>
>>
>> "Why not simply call it" Gas or Gas mixture?
>> "Both those terms would be meaningful, descriptive, accurate and true."
>> Why do you insist it can only be the gas you like?
>> Why cant it be the gas that some other person likes?
>> Why is the C, H, O etc in "Wood Gas" or the gas from your preferred 
>> device any different from that found in any other gas produced by any 
>> other device?
>> This insistence causes the term to be "misleading and confusing".
>
>
> I am sure that you can see there is confusion in the term "gasifier." 
> My view is that it doesn't really matter what the definition is, so 
> long as it is true, helpful, and meaningful.
>
>>
>> Are you claiming that Wood Gas or the gas from your preferred device 
>> is some how so pure that only it can be rightly called a gas?
>
>
> I have no "preferred device." I peddle a "gasifier" which is better 
> than some and worse than others. Perhaps it would not be definable as 
> a "gasifier" when the definition is finally agreed upon. However, for 
> now, it is a "gasifier" because anybody can call anything a gasifier.
>
>> Where is the definition of this purity?
>> When taken with the other positions of a "Special" language for the 
>> chosen few this does indeed qualify as a theological position.
>>
>>
>> Why not call things what they are?
>> A gas is a gas.
>
>
> Very true!! Now you are catching on!!  If what issues from the device 
> is half gas, half tar, half dust, how can you call that a "gas?" What 
> can it be used for? If it was going to a "close coupled combustor, 
> wouldn't it be better to call it a "precombustor?"
>
>> If "Gas" is too inspecific for your particular thematic position you 
>> can refine and clarify it with qualifiers that produce the 
>> descriptions you choose to prefer.
>> This maintains clarity and truthfullnes as well as allowing everyone 
>> to understand your particular choice of position.
>> Unless your goal is to disenfranchise, mislead or obfuscate it is a 
>> tried and tested true method.
>> In point of fact it is co opted by the snake oil men because it is so 
>> very effective.
>>
> You seem to be more interested in proving me wrong that constructively 
> helping with a definition.
>
>> If your position is that some particular mix of elements you prefer 
>> in certain specific amounts you prefer and only that mix is a True 
>> Gas you could come up with a moniker like T-LUD and try to defend it.
>>
> A correct definition is above such pettyness.
>
>> If you wish to separate out some particular gas mix you can name it 
>> clearly and truthfully by simply listing its constituents.
>
>
> Lets get a basic gasifier definition that is correct and helpful first.
>
>>
>> J.R.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>