[Gasification] Gasification Digest, Vol 21, Issue 2

[Nitin Ahire]

Thanks Mr. Jeff
Yeah! availability is issue. Some of the Gasifier Designer do not recommend 
rice husk only because of silica..Just I heard this.
But I need to know how loose biomass can be gasified without briquetting. 
What are the technologies? Also How gasification with rice husk is different 
from wood fuel?
Nitin
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <gasification-request at listserv.repp.org>
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 11:30 PM
Subject: Gasification Digest, Vol 21, Issue 2


> Send Gasification mailing list submissions to
> gasification at listserv.repp.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> gasification-request at listserv.repp.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> gasification-owner at listserv.repp.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Gasification digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: Rice Husk as Gasifier Fuel (Jeff Davis)
>   2. Re: Gasification Operational Principles (r.p.kurz at att.net)
>   3. Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world order, no future.
>      (Kenn Johnsen)
>   4. Re: Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world order, no
>      future. (Greg Manning)
>   5. Re: Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world order, no
>      future. (Kevin Chisholm)
>   6. lindsey williams - Google Video (Kenn Johnsen)
>   7. Re: Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world order, no
>      future. (MMBTUPR at aol.com)
>   8. Hello. Been lurking & now a new member. (Otto Krueger)
>   9. Fixed the wrong name. (MDK)
>  10. Re: Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world order, no
>      future. (Katahdin Energy Works)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 16:10:49 -0500 (EST)
> From: "Jeff Davis" <jeff0124 at velocity.net>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Rice Husk as Gasifier Fuel
> To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification"
> <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Message-ID: <52345.152.50.3.3.1204405849.squirrel at www.velocity.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Dear Nitin,
>
> The cleanest gas that I produced was from rice husks, by far. The problem
> with this fuel is that it is not locally available.
>
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>> Hello,
>> Some of the Indian Gasifier Designers are predicting good efficiency & 
>> low
>> tars even when fuelled with "Loose Biomass " specifically rice husk, 
>> where
>> briquette is not required. But when  I visited Fludyne's site they have
>> mentioned that rice husk is difficult to gasify & can result in lots of
>> tars, also only surface carbon will burn.
>>
>> If anyone is familiar with Indian Systems please clarify above points.
>
> -- 
> Jeff Davis
>
> Some where 20 miles south of Lake Erie, USA
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 00:52:58 +0000
> From: r.p.kurz at att.net
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Gasification Operational Principles
> To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
> <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Message-ID:
> <030220080052.12552.47C9FA6A000658FC0000310822218675169B0A02D29B9B0EBF969D9A05D29FD29D at att.net>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> jim, great work! please contact me when drawings or kits are available.
> regards,roger
>
> -------------- Original message from "jim mason" 
> <jimmason at whatiamupto.com>: -------------- 
>
>
>> here's a link to some initial pictures of the "gasifier experimenter's
>> kit" (aka: The GEK Gasifier) i mentioned in the post below.
>> http://theshipyard.org/gek/index.html
>>
>> later will come run pictures, as well as a more detailed description
>> of the architectural types and specific parameters that can be varied.
>> i have yet to write up the details other than the quick summary in
>> the old note below.
>>
>> as you will see in the pictures, the fabrication has been reduced to
>> tubes, plates and standard plumbing parts. the tubes all correspond
>> to common north american tank types (of 14" 12" and10"). the plates
>> are circular cut with a plasma cutter by hand with a protractor. the
>> plumbing is npt black pipe and cast iron sewer connectors for the
>> reduction zone bells. the insulation is ash in a "tube in tube" in
>> fill arrangement. the dimensional range is derived from a full review
>> the historic imbert and sweedish literature, as well as relevant
>> contemporary downdraft literature. combustion and reduction
>> architectures cover historic designs currently, but most contemporary
>> variants can be easily fabricated and "inserted" at different bolt
>> points in the unit. the unit in the picture shows a basic MEN type
>> air preheating arrangement. Bungs, TC inserts and other access is
>> provided for measurement of temp and vacuum at all relevant points
>> across the system.
>>
>> the goal with this unit is a fully flexible and architecturally
>> diverse gasifier that can be built from easy commodity parts, but with
>> a full and motivated range of configuration and data measurement
>> potentials. diy folks can build on their own from local obtainium, or
>> "full parts assemble yourself" kits are easily manufacturable from
>> rolled tubes and cnc plasma cut plates. we will soon be offering kits
>> and complete units for sale, largely aimed at educators, researchers,
>> and diy enthusiasts.
>>
>> more next week when i get the drawings and writing together.
>>
>> j
>>
>>
>> >
>> > to help with this problem, one of the things we've been working on of
>> > late is an "experimenters gasifier kit" that allows for the easy and
>> > modular change out between these different modes in the same unit, so
>> > that direct comparison and rich learning is possible. the goal has
>> > been to make a full gasifier lego system- a unit where all the major
>> > and many of the minor downdraft architectural types are available in a
>> > single unit, and easily changed between for good comparison and formal
>> > research.
>> >
>> > we now have a unit that can easily rebolt the main insert so as to
>> > move between core and imbert types. different open core tube sizes
>> > are installable via a simple bolt down bottom ring. in the imbert
>> > type, restriction sizes and different varieties of reduction cone
>> > designs similarly bolt in. related air delivery points are movable up
>> > and down, as well as in and out. nozzles sizes in cast iron or
>> > stainless change out as desired.
>> >
>> > hybrids are also possible between the two main types, with air
>> > dedicated air delivery to pyrolysis and combustion zone, but still
>> > with open top, (a la mukunda, et al). similarly, the top hopper can
>> > change out from "none" for small batch lab work, to traditional
>> > insulated bin, and non-insulated monorator design.
>> >
>> > i will post some pictures and more detailed explanations of the "lego
>> > gasifier" soon. today i am shipping it off to the canadian professor
>> > who ordered it for a biomass energy program.
>> >
>> > i will be open sourcing this design with full doc soon, in the hopes
>> > that it will prove useful for others. hopefully others will develop
>> > new "bolt in" components that expand the available library of
>> > comparative options for the unit.
>> >
>> >
>> > jim
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> jim mason
>> website: www.whatiamupto.com
>> current project: mechabolic (http://www.mechabolic.org)
>> announce list: http://lists.spaceship.com/listinfo.cgi/icp-spaceship.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gasification mailing list
>> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
>> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
>> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 02:35:41 +0100
> From: Kenn Johnsen <kennj at webspeed.dk>
> Subject: [Gasification] Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world
> order, no future.
> To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
> <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Message-ID: <638B31FF-3F54-426F-806E-8DACD6B918E6 at webspeed.dk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> To those there promoting the peak oil rubbish.
>
>
> http://www.pushhamburger.com/hidden.htm
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 23:20:41 -0600
> From: "Greg Manning" <a31ford at inetlink.ca>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world
> order, no future.
> To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification"
> <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Message-ID: <GGEBLFNJNOGGJGNEDBJJAEPEMCAA.a31ford at inetlink.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250"
>
>
> Greetings Ken....
>
> there are things that simply do not "fit" in that website.
>
> I've recently worked in the pumping "lift stations" for the pipeline, and 
> I
> can tell you,,,, the work we where doing was to upgrade the systems 
> because
> they where running flat out, NOT at the clamed 50%, so that I know is a 
> lie.
>
> The pipeline is buried 36-45" below the ground surface, (in some places
> over 5 feet down) but they would absolutely NEVER lay one pile on top of
> another, you would not be able to service the one below, so that again is 
> a
> lie.
>
> They are in the process of turning one line around (northern lights 
> project
> http://www.enbridge.com ) as to send "delutant" the other direction, if
> there was so much oil available,  I'm sure they would NOT be taking one 
> pipe
> "offline" (mind you, they are building another to take it's place) so I
> guess this is a "null"
>
> Last but not least....
>
> If this was so "true" what would they spend so much money in other
> countries to get there oil... (unless they had an intent right from the
> beginning to "suck off" the rest of the worlds oil reserves as to be "King
> of the Hill" in the oil game... ( I can see that).....
>
> Greg Manning
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
> [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of Kenn Johnsen
> Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 7:36 PM
> To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
> Subject: [Gasification] Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world order,no
> future.
>
>
> To those there promoting the peak oil rubbish.
>
>
> http://www.pushhamburger.com/hidden.htm
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.2/1305 - Release Date: 2/29/2008
> 6:32 PM
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.2/1305 - Release Date: 2/29/2008
> 6:32 PM
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.2/1305 - Release Date: 2/29/2008
> 6:32 PM
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 09:13:35 -0400
> From: Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world
> order, no future.
> To: a31ford at inetlink.ca, Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and
> gasification <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Message-ID: <47CAA7FF.8020607 at ca.inter.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Dear Greg
>
> Q: Who wins if there is a greater supply of gas and oil?
>
> A: The prices fall, and the Consumer wins.
>
> Q: Who loses if there is a greater supply of oil and gas to depress the
> price?
>
> A: The oil companies and Governments lose.
>
> Q: Who finds "new oil and gas" and permits it to be brought to Market?
>
> A: Oil companies and Governments.
>
> Isn't there something wrong with this picture?
>
> Kevin
>
> Greg Manning wrote:
>>  Greetings Ken....
>>
>>  there are things that simply do not "fit" in that website.
>>
>>  I've recently worked in the pumping "lift stations" for the pipeline, 
>> and I
>> can tell you,,,, the work we where doing was to upgrade the systems 
>> because
>> they where running flat out, NOT at the clamed 50%, so that I know is a 
>> lie.
>>
>>  The pipeline is buried 36-45" below the ground surface, (in some places
>> over 5 feet down) but they would absolutely NEVER lay one pile on top of
>> another, you would not be able to service the one below, so that again is 
>> a
>> lie.
>>
>>  They are in the process of turning one line around (northern lights 
>> project
>> http://www.enbridge.com ) as to send "delutant" the other direction, if
>> there was so much oil available,  I'm sure they would NOT be taking one 
>> pipe
>> "offline" (mind you, they are building another to take it's place) so I
>> guess this is a "null"
>>
>> Last but not least....
>>
>>  If this was so "true" what would they spend so much money in other
>> countries to get there oil... (unless they had an intent right from the
>> beginning to "suck off" the rest of the worlds oil reserves as to be 
>> "King
>> of the Hill" in the oil game... ( I can see that).....
>>
>> Greg Manning
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
>> [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of Kenn Johnsen
>> Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 7:36 PM
>> To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
>> Subject: [Gasification] Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world 
>> order,no
>> future.
>>
>>
>> To those there promoting the peak oil rubbish.
>>
>>
>> http://www.pushhamburger.com/hidden.htm
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gasification mailing list
>> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
>> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
>> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.2/1305 - Release Date: 
>> 2/29/2008
>> 6:32 PM
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.2/1305 - Release Date: 
>> 2/29/2008
>> 6:32 PM
>>
>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.2/1305 - Release Date: 
>> 2/29/2008
>> 6:32 PM
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gasification mailing list
>> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
>> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
>> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 14:29:09 +0100
> From: Kenn Johnsen <kennj at webspeed.dk>
> Subject: [Gasification] lindsey williams - Google Video
> To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
> <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Message-ID: <E7B2051B-B2A3-4DDA-B150-7FD39C9804E2 at webspeed.dk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> Greg.
>
> Is he a complete liar, he could be...........
>
>
>
> http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=lindsey+williams&sitesearch=
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 09:26:59 EST
> From: MMBTUPR at aol.com
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world
> order, no future.
> To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
> Message-ID: <be9.2a4bc491.34fc1333 at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
>               from          Lewis L Smith
>
> It will be interesting to see how Sen. Murkowski weighs in on the "hidden"
> oil reserves in Alaska.
>
> In the meantime, I must protest "kennj's" mode of discourse. It is
> unprofessional and not acceptable in a professional discussion group.
>
> Let us define a geological formation as a continuous region of subsurface
> rock which was produced by the same historic geological event, regardless 
> of the
> time span involved. Let us define an oil reservoir as a subregion within 
> that
> formation containing crude oil distributed in one or more fields subject 
> to a
> common pressure gradient.
>
> It is a well known fact that production from any reservoir will rise from 
> an
> initial value to a peak or plateau and then descend to a point where it is 
> no
> longer economically attractive, leaving MOST of the oil in the ground ! 
> In
> the mode of descent, it is often necessary to inject some other material 
> into
> the reservoir [ very carefully ] in order to maintain a pressure adequate 
> to
> lift the oil to the surface. These materials include CO2, fresh water, 
> natural
> gas, nitrogen and salt water. And if some of the water comes back up with 
> the
> crude, it must be separated from the latter. All of this of course takes
> energy.
>
> For example, the Ghawar collection of reservoirs in Saudi Arabia requires 
> the
> injection of 32 barrels of sea water to bring up 100 barrels of crude. 
> This
> collection produces about six percent of World crude-oil production.
>
> In the 20th Century, there were several arguments at different times over
> when World production would peak. Their principal focus was on techniques 
> of
> projecting future production from active reservoirs, based on past history 
> and
> estimates of reserves in the ground. In that sense at least, one could say 
> that
> the arguments were about some "theory of peak oil"   [ in the street or
> judicial sense of "theory", not the scientific
> sense. ] .
>
> This time things are different. In the 1990's, Matthew Simmons, an 
> engineer
> formerly employed by Saudi Aramco, began to have doubts about some of the
> statements Saudi engineers were making about the condition of Saudi 
> reservoirs. He
> read some 200 papers presented by Saudi engineers at international 
> confabs,
> confirmed his suspicions and then wrote a book, Twilight in the Desert, or
> something to that effect.
>
> That stirred people up, and the more knowledgeable among them began to 
> make
> their own calculations, in many cases without using data for reserves, 
> which
> more than any other industry data, are full of errors, omissions and 
> bald-faced
> lies. Ironically this omission probably makes their calculations more 
> reliable
> !
>
> Because of the deficiencies in production data, much of which is often a
> "state secret" at the reservoir level, they came up with different dates, 
> like
> "already yet" [ 2004 ] and "far away" [ 2032 per Exxon/Mobil ]. Having 
> waded
> through quite a few of these estimates, it is my professional opinion as 
> an energy
> economist that it is impossible to pinpoint the peak year with an 
> acceptable
> degree of accuracy. However, we can say that there is a 90% chance that an
> unsurpassable peak in World production of crude oil will occur by 2020, if 
> not
> earlier.
>
> Since this is only 12 years away and so well within the horizon of many
> strategic planners, it behooves them to make contingency plans, at the 
> very least.
>>From their size, the "hidden" Alaska reserves [ if they are of the 
>>magnitude
> alleged ] may push that fatal year a few more years into the future, but 
> it is
> my guess is that it will not get it outside the planning horizons of most
> strategic planners. So again, at the very least, some serious contingency 
> planning
> is called for, even if you side with Cambridge Energy Research Associates,
> Exxon/Mobil, the Energy Information and other perpetual optimists.
>
> In addition, I would like to point out two factors which are usually 
> omitted
> in discussions of peak oil but which would tend to make the peak year come
> sooner rather than later.
>
> [1]     The energy used to put a marketable liquid in a tank on the 
> surface.
> We have already mentioned the injection of material into aging reservoirs,
> examples of which are Ghawar in Saudi Arabia and Cantrell in Mexico, 
> already in
> decline despite injection. In addition, there is the energy required to 
> obtain
> oil from unconventional sources, such as tar sands, which can run to the
> equivalent of 35-45% of the potential energy in the marketable oil 
> produced.
>
> Once this energy consumption could be safely ignored. Now it cannot. Yet 
> none
> of it is deducted from published figures, either for reserves or for
> production. So even if statistics for production and reserves of crude oil 
> were all
> accurate and honest [ which they are definitely not ]   they would be 
> seriously
> overestimated, in terms of what is available for conversion into salable
> products.
>
> [2]     The rising consumption of energy is oil-producing countries. Iran,
> for example is already an importer of gasoline, because refinery expansion
> cannot keep up with the increase in domestic demand !   And in Qatar, 
> whose gas is
> often seen as the "white knight" which will save oil consumers from their
> folly, much of the projected increase in production is already committed 
> to 15,000
> luxury condominiums, an ammonia plant, a fertilizer plant, a steel plant 
> and
> so on.
>
> So the matter of peak oil is a difficult one, but it is definitely not
> "rubbish". An unsurpassable peak in World crude-oil production is coming. 
> The only
> question is when. Since the odds are that "when" is within the planning
> horizons of most of the people who make investment and/or political 
> decisions, it
> makes sense for concerned parties to stop insulting other participants in 
> the
> discussion and do some serious contingency planning.
>
>
> Sincerely.   ###
>
>
> **************
> Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on
> AOL Living.
>
> (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 08:57:10 -0600 (GMT-06:00)
> From: Otto Krueger <bearcreek at joimail.com>
> Subject: [Gasification] Hello. Been lurking & now a new member.
> To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
> Message-ID:
> <13960548.1204469830640.JavaMail.root at mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Hello everyone. My name is Martin Krenz. I've have been read the list for 
> some time. My interest in wood gas goes back to when I was 8 years old, 
> the mid 1960's, when I watching a movie about WW2.
>
> In the late 1970s I started building one. But my uncle, who was around 
> wood gasifiers during WW2 I N. Italy, told my not to continue. And buy 
> diesel or gasoline if at all possible.
>
> But it looks like time & work has helped solve some of the issues of wood 
> gas for ICEs.
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 09:06:56 -0600 (GMT-06:00)
> From: MDK <bearcreek at joimail.com>
> Subject: [Gasification] Fixed the wrong name.
> To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
> Message-ID:
> <29245375.1204470416978.JavaMail.root at mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Sorry about having had a wrong name in my email.
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 11:34:47 -0200
> From: "Katahdin Energy Works" <KatahdinEnergyWorks at verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world
> order, no future.
> To: <a31ford at inetlink.ca>, "'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and
> gasification'" <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Message-ID: <001201c87c6a$2fa0bce0$8ee236a0$@net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> I have an oil & gas pipeline portfolio, and it is doing rather well.
>
> Enbridge has gone from revenues of $3,172.3m in 2003 to $7282.6 in 2007; 
> and
> the dividends show it. They bought another pipeline co. and are building a
> gas processing plant in TX..huge investments if they are going to run out 
> of
> product for them by 2020.
>
> As a shareholder, I get to see that their plans are and it appears to be
> both an expansion and consolidation of Canadian pipelines running to
> different parts of the US since Canadian companies are rapidly expanding 
> out
> of the Alberta oil sands patch, and moving into other regions. Then there 
> is
> the arctic and subarctic exploration that is so controversial in the U.S.,
> i.e. drilling in the wilderness reserve, and the Russians are rapidly
> exploring their vast arctic reserves, which indeed, are a state secret.
>
> The significance of "PEAK OIL" is one thing, but the ever moving tipping
> point is quite another!
>
> Frank J. Heller, MPA
> KATAHDIN ENERGY WORKS
> 12 Belmont St.
> Brunswick, ME 04011-3004
> 207.729.6090
> http://mysite.verizon.net/fjheller/
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
>
> End of Gasification Digest, Vol 21, Issue 2
> *******************************************