He said.... she said.  But how do you really know who is telling the truth. 
None of us can verify anything, the evidence is off limits.  The reality is, we
will screw up the environment because there is no one righteous, no not one. Not
you, me or anyone else.  We all lie, steal, cheat ect.  Life's a b*tch then you
die.

for every article printed about global warming I can show ten saying it is bunk,
who do you believe, the guys that promote fear and get more money because they
do it, or the guys that get no money, stand their ground and say it ain't so.

Do what you got to do.

Bruce



--- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, "Dave_Cahoon" <dave_cahoon@...> wrote:
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oaf998FwQVI
> Scientific dishonesty?! The TALE of two wells *&$%$$
>
> --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, "humble1a" <humble1a@> wrote:
> >
> > The major cause of the perception of global warming is dishonesty.
> > For example;
> > In the name of fiscal restraint NOAA closes thousands of weather stations
located in rural America leaving only the ones located near cities.  This gave
rise to the huge temperature spike on the charts.  This is verifiable.
> >
> >
> > Then there is this;
> > The following commentary is from Atmospheric Scientist and Hurricane
forecasting specialist Dr. William Gray. Gray is the renowned hurricane
forecaster and Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State
University (CSU) and originally published this artiucle on ClimateDepot.com.
> >
> > Had I not devoted my entire career of more than half a century to the study
and forecasting of meteorological and climate events, I would have likely been
concerned over the possibility of humans causing serious global climate
degradation.
> >
> > There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination of
the Western world by the media and by various scientists and governments
concerning a coming carbon dioxide (CO2) induced global warming disaster. These
warming scenarios have been orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists,
vested interest scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the
media which profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental bureaucrats
who want more power over our lives, and socialists who want to level-out global
living standards. These many alarmist groups appear to have little concern over
whether their global warming prognostications are accurate, however. And they
most certainly are not. The alarmists believe they will be able to scare enough
of our citizens into believing their propaganda that the public will be willing
to follow their advice on future energy usage and agree to a lowering of their
standard of living in the name of climate salvation.
> >
> >
> > It appears even the scientists are freaking crooks stealing from us.
> >
> > Burn a tree today and drive your a** off.
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> >
> > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, BILL THOMAS <waarehouse@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you stuart.  Yes, CO2 is in the air all around us, it is a major
cause of
> > > GLOBAL WARMING and OCEAN ACIDIFICATION and I doubt the economics or
> > > "mass-balance" of adjusting pH would benefit H2 yield in woodgas burners.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Stuart Perkins <perkins.stuart@>
> > > To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Thu, September 2, 2010 6:43:26 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [WoodGas] RE:Water
> > >
> > >
> > > perhaps a better question would be how you avoid c02 in your
> > > distillation process.  You would need to distill in an artificial
> > > atmosphere which contained no gasses which were readily dissolved in
> > > water to get actual "pure" water.
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 06:23 -0400, Steve Spence wrote:
> > > >
> > > > How do you get CO2 in distilled water? That's not in my chemistry
> > > > book.
> > > >
> > > > Steve Spence
> > > > Renewable energy and self sufficiency
> > > > http://www.green-trust.org
> > > > http://arduinotronics.blogspot.com/
> > > >
> > > > On 09/02/2010 02:17 AM, BILL THOMAS wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The low pH of distilled water is because of CO2, the pH of pure
> > > > water is 7.
> > > > > That's in the chemistry books. Deionized water "plumbing" is
> > > > different than
> > > > > distillation equipment, and probably accounts for the difference in
> > > > CO2.
> > > > > Water,
> > > > > Ka=7, "dissociates" into hyrdonium and hydroxide (hydroxyl?) ions
> > > > after
> > > > > it is
> > > > > made from hydrogen and oxygen molecules, that are highly reactive so
> > > > > much so,
> > > > > the Saturn 5 mainstage rockets were fired by mixing pure oxygen and
> > > > > hydrogen,
> > > > > forming water, that dissociated into the ions mentioned here.
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Someone Somewhere <drzee2012@ <mailto:drzee2012%
> > > > 40yahoo.com>>
> > > > > To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com <mailto:WoodGas%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Wed, September 1, 2010 9:28:13 PM
> > > > > Subject: [WoodGas] RE:Water
> > > > >
> > > > > The PH of pure water is not "short lived" I stand behind my words,
> > > > Water
> > > > > is not H2O but a combination of two molecules. Hydronium and
> > > > Hydroxide.
> > > > > The fundamental differences in the two explain why distilled water
> > > > is
> > > > > always acidic. I was wrong to bring it up here. I apologize to all
> > > > who i
> > > > > scared!
> > > > >
> > > > > When I worked for a pharmaceutical company, when the solvent was
> > > > water
> > > > > it was
> > > > > deionized. I never got a good explanation of the difference, but
> > > > this would
> > > > > explain it--the pH of deionized water would truly be 7.0.
> > > > >
> > > > > David
> > > > > ---------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't bother visiting my page on "Get Outta My Face Book" the
> > > > world's
> > > > > largest
> > > > > antisocial network. I'll just ignore you. And keep your darn kids
> > > > off of my
> > > > > lawn!
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>

Max,

yes that's why at first; I was quenching the coal bed.
I cant explain why if the teeny stream touched the inside of the tube it quit
working. My only guess is the flash to steam was blocking off the nozzle action
and the heat started moving up the column.
With all the shaking required now, it would not be easy to keep the stream
pointed into the "white light".

In that older system most air went down the tube and some made its way through
the fuel. A vented hopper. It was almost a good unit except at times the flame
would yellow for a few moments.

While the flare was NOT yellow I did allow a small engine to draw fuel from
under the flare. It ran good with no change in timing.
The rainy day effect became easy to reproduce.

With steam addition ill bet it simply was way to much "water"
and it displaced the available air and quenched the system.

If its running good and then one or all nozzles change because of steam it
should quench. A separate nozzle system for the water(s) is necessary. drips may
work on a huge system, but they will swamp the smaller systems with the pulses
of water not a steady stream of humidity.

Dave

--- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, "maxgasman" <gasman@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi, David!
>
> Now I have to guess:
> IF you did not first cool the gas near
> to ambient temperature, you have no idea
> of how much condense it carried through the
> process?
> You did not feed it to a motor to check
> heating value changes as RPM changes?
>
> So, IF you burned it directly as hot,
> additional water (even small amounts)
> makes the gas-flow increase.
>
> Water expands in volume from liquid to
> steam at atmospheric pressure in the
> ratio 1:1690 !!!
>
> This will very easily make your torch-flame
> much longer and clearer.
>
> Still guessing that you have to cool the
> gas in order to measure the "waste-heat"
> condensate and let a motor show how the
> heating value changes.
>
> Max
>
> --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com,
> > "Dave_Cahoon" <dave_cahoon@> wrote:
> >
> > Max,
> >
> > My modified fema experience has shown
> > me that its not a temporary change to the
> > flame. It does not take much liquid water
> > to make the effect seen. In fact a very
> > small amount. I had an extremely small
> > pinhole (solid) stream of water like that
> > which issues from a squirt gun but, about
> > 1/32 in size and volume. I never got to
> > measure it after my coal bed ejection
> > experiments a few winters ago the pisser
> > was damaged. a gallon of water would last
> > hours+; opinion not measure.
> > I worked my way the down from way to much
> > water to finding the teeny amount that made
> > the flame a rainy day flame. it would stay
> > that way for the whole run..
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com,
> > > "maxgasman" <gasman@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > That is a sober conclusion!
> > >
> > > However interesting the molecule physics
> > > of the water is, for gasification the
> > > balancing of "old-fashioned water" to
> > > the available process heat energy
> > > (recuperated and oxidised) is the
> > > thing builders and developers have
> > > their day full of...
> > >
> > > There are three sources of water:
> > > -- Air humidity
> > > -- Physical water in wood
> > > -- Chemical water in wood
> > >
> > > As a quality measure in the gas:
> > > -- amount CO2
> > > -- amount of condensable water
> > > -- amount of nitrogen.
> > >
> > > If we can manage the produced heat
> > > energy well, then these "useless"
> > > "fill-up" gases can be minimized
> > > and the end result brightens the
> > > life of the user.
> > >
> > > Condense water AFTER gasification
> > > is the cheapest indicator if there
> > > is too big a supply of water in
> > > ANY FORM ahead of the oxidation.
> > >
> > > All "extra" water, which cannot be
> > > cracked up, is just STEALING heat
> > > energy from the process and transporting
> > > it away, just to be lost in a cooler...
> > > There will be LESS hydrogen produced
> > > and much less CO in the product gas.
> > > End result: Lower heat value.
> > >
> > > There can be no reason for adding extra
> > > water in any form (with exception for
> > > superheated steam at stationary plants
> > > or "desert conditions")
> > >
> > > A temporarily more beautiful flame is not
> > > necessarily = a more valuable gas.
> > > A short sprinkle of water lives on the
> > > "glow reserve".
> > >
> > > Max
> > >
> > > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > BILL THOMAS <waarehouse@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thank you stuart. Yes, CO2 is in the
> > > > air all around us, it is a major cause of
> > > > GLOBAL WARMING and OCEAN ACIDIFICATION
> > > > and I doubt the economics or "mass-balance"
> > > > of adjusting pH would benefit
> > > > H2 yield in woodgas burners.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Stuart Perkins <perkins.stuart@>
> > > > To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Thu, September 2, 2010 6:43:26 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [WoodGas] RE:Water
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps a better question would be how
> > > > you avoid c02 in your distillation
> > > > process. You would need to distill
> > > > in an artificial atmosphere which
> > > > contained no gasses which were readily
> > > > dissolved in water to get actual "pure"
> > > > water.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 06:23 -0400,
> > > > > Steve Spence wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > How do you get CO2 in distilled water?
> > > > > That's not in my chemistry book.
> > > > >
> > > > > Steve Spence
> > > > >
> > > > > Renewable energy and self sufficiency
> > > > > http://www.green-trust.org
> > > > > http://arduinotronics.blogspot.com/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 09/02/2010 02:17 AM, BILL THOMAS wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The low pH of distilled water is
> > > > > > because of CO2, the pH of pure
> > > > > > water is 7.
> > > > > > That's in the chemistry books.
> > > > > > Deionized water "plumbing" is
> > > > > > different than distillation equipment,
> > > > > > and probably accounts for the
> > > > > > difference in CO2.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Water, Ka=7, "dissociates" into
> > > > > > hydronium and hydroxide (hydroxyl?)
> > > > > > ions after it is made from hydrogen
> > > > > > and oxygen molecules, that are highly
> > > > > > reactive so much so, the Saturn 5
> > > > > > mainstage rockets were fired by
> > > > > > mixing pure oxygen and hydrogen,
> > > > > > forming water, that dissociated
> > > > > > into the ions mentioned here.
> > > > > >
> > >
> >
>

Or maybe we should believe the guys that make $billions and $billions and
$billions and hire scientist to put out their party line, like BP, Shell,
Haliburton etc etc etc.
I like non oil company science myself. (kinda like preferring non tobacco
industry scientists)

Hey, who melted that damn arctic ice cap anyway - musta been them sneaky
environmentalist - the same ones that blew up the oil well no doubt- just to
make a point.

Hey, mankind is way to puny to affect the environment in any way, right??  
What's a mere 7 billion metric tons of human produced CO2 possibly gonna do to
such a big world?

By the way, according to my brother in law (an actual expert), those sneaky IPCC
folks (the climate scientists) only attribute about 10% of global climate change
(warming) to human activity, the rest is "other" And by the way, I bet those
IPCC type folks aren't paid anywhere near as much as their "opponents"
-----Original Message-----

From: humble1a

Sent: Sep 2, 2010 1:33 PM

To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [WoodGas] Re: RE:Water




























       He said.... she said.  But how do you really know who is telling the
truth.  None of us can verify anything, the evidence is off limits.  The reality
is, we will screw up the environment because there is no one righteous, no not
one. Not you, me or anyone else.  We all lie, steal, cheat ect.  Life's a b*tch
then you die.



for every article printed about global warming I can show ten saying it is bunk,
who do you believe, the guys that promote fear and get more money because they
do it, or the guys that get no money, stand their ground and say it ain't so.



Do what you got to do.



Bruce



--- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, "Dave_Cahoon" <dave_cahoon@...> wrote:

>

>

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oaf998FwQVI

> Scientific dishonesty?! The TALE of two wells *&$%$$

>

> --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, "humble1a" <humble1a@> wrote:

> >

> > The major cause of the perception of global warming is dishonesty.

> > For example;

> > In the name of fiscal restraint NOAA closes thousands of weather stations
located in rural America leaving only the ones located near cities.  This gave
rise to the huge temperature spike on the charts.  This is verifiable.

> >

> >

> > Then there is this;

> > The following commentary is from Atmospheric Scientist and Hurricane
forecasting specialist Dr. William Gray. Gray is the renowned hurricane
forecaster and Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State
University (CSU) and originally published this artiucle on ClimateDepot.com.

> >

> > Had I not devoted my entire career of more than half a century to the study
and forecasting of meteorological and climate events, I would have likely been
concerned over the possibility of humans causing serious global climate
degradation.

> >

> > There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination of
the Western world by the media and by various scientists and governments
concerning a coming carbon dioxide (CO2) induced global warming disaster. These
warming scenarios have been orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists,
vested interest scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the
media which profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental bureaucrats
who want more power over our lives, and socialists who want to level-out global
living standards. These many alarmist groups appear to have little concern over
whether their global warming prognostications are accurate, however. And they
most certainly are not. The alarmists believe they will be able to scare enough
of our citizens into believing their propaganda that the public will be willing
to follow their advice on future energy usage and agree to a lowering of their
standard of living in the name of climate salvation.

> >

> >

> > It appears even the scientists are freaking crooks stealing from us.

> >

> > Burn a tree today and drive your a** off.

> >

> > Bruce

> >

> >

> > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, BILL THOMAS <waarehouse@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Thank you stuart.  Yes, CO2 is in the air all around us, it is a major
cause of

> > > GLOBAL WARMING and OCEAN ACIDIFICATION and I doubt the economics or

> > > "mass-balance" of adjusting pH would benefit H2 yield in woodgas burners.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ________________________________

> > > From: Stuart Perkins <perkins.stuart@>

> > > To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com

> > > Sent: Thu, September 2, 2010 6:43:26 AM

> > > Subject: Re: [WoodGas] RE:Water

> > >

> > >

> > > perhaps a better question would be how you avoid c02 in your

> > > distillation process.  You would need to distill in an artificial

> > > atmosphere which contained no gasses which were readily dissolved in

> > > water to get actual "pure" water.

> > >

> > > On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 06:23 -0400, Steve Spence wrote:

> > > >

> > > > How do you get CO2 in distilled water? That's not in my chemistry

> > > > book.

> > > >

> > > > Steve Spence

> > > > Renewable energy and self sufficiency

> > > > http://www.green-trust.org

> > > > http://arduinotronics.blogspot.com/

> > > >

> > > > On 09/02/2010 02:17 AM, BILL THOMAS wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > The low pH of distilled water is because of CO2, the pH of pure

> > > > water is 7.

> > > > > That's in the chemistry books. Deionized water "plumbing" is

> > > > different than

> > > > > distillation equipment, and probably accounts for the difference in

> > > > CO2.

> > > > > Water,

> > > > > Ka=7, "dissociates" into hyrdonium and hydroxide (hydroxyl?) ions

> > > > after

> > > > > it is

> > > > > made from hydrogen and oxygen molecules, that are highly reactive so

> > > > > much so,

> > > > > the Saturn 5 mainstage rockets were fired by mixing pure oxygen and

> > > > > hydrogen,

> > > > > forming water, that dissociated into the ions mentioned here.

> > > > >

> > > > > ________________________________

> > > > > From: Someone Somewhere <drzee2012@ <mailto:drzee2012%

> > > > 40yahoo.com>>

> > > > > To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com <mailto:WoodGas%40yahoogroups.com>

> > > > > Sent: Wed, September 1, 2010 9:28:13 PM

> > > > > Subject: [WoodGas] RE:Water

> > > > >

> > > > > The PH of pure water is not "short lived" I stand behind my words,

> > > > Water

> > > > > is not H2O but a combination of two molecules. Hydronium and

> > > > Hydroxide.

> > > > > The fundamental differences in the two explain why distilled water

> > > > is

> > > > > always acidic. I was wrong to bring it up here. I apologize to all

> > > > who i

> > > > > scared!

> > > > >

> > > > > When I worked for a pharmaceutical company, when the solvent was

> > > > water

> > > > > it was

> > > > > deionized. I never got a good explanation of the difference, but

> > > > this would

> > > > > explain it--the pH of deionized water would truly be 7.0.

> > > > >

> > > > > David

> > > > > ---------------

> > > > >

> > > > > Don't bother visiting my page on "Get Outta My Face Book" the

> > > > world's

> > > > > largest

> > > > > antisocial network. I'll just ignore you. And keep your darn kids

> > > > off of my

> > > > > lawn!

> > > > >

> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> > > > >

> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> > >

> >

>











Looking forward,
Al Shinn

Hi, Dave!
If one has the "desert condition" and
must administer extra water to get a
yield of hydrogen (not on the expense of
good CO yield), then it must be given as
dry, or better superheated steam trough the
regular nozzles with preheated air.
As soon as cooling the gas gives an increase
in condense "production" the optimum is
at hand.

Max

--- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com,
> "Dave_Cahoon" <dave_cahoon@...> wrote:
>
> Max,
>
> yes that's why at first; I was
> quenching the coal bed.
> I cant explain why if the teeny stream
> touched the inside of the tube it quit
> working. My only guess is the flash to
> steam was blocking off the nozzle action
> and the heat started moving up the column.
> With all the shaking required now, it
> would not be easy to keep the stream
> pointed into the "white light".
>
> In that older system most air went down
> the tube and some made its way through the
> fuel. A vented hopper. It was almost a good
> unit except at times the flame would yellow
> for a few moments.
>
> While the flare was NOT yellow I did allow
> a small engine to draw fuel from under the
> flare. It ran good with no change in timing.
> The rainy day effect became easy to
> reproduce.
>
> With steam addition ill bet it simply was
> way to much "water"
> and it displaced the available air and
> quenched the system.
>
> If its running good and then one or all
> nozzles change because of steam it should
> quench. A separate nozzle system for the
> water(s) is necessary. drips may work on
> a huge system, but they will swamp the
> smaller systems with the pulses of water
> not a steady stream of humidity.
>
> Dave
>
> --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com,
> > "maxgasman" <gasman@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, David!
> >
> > Now I have to guess:
> > IF you did not first cool the gas near
> > to ambient temperature, you have no idea
> > of how much condense it carried through the
> > process?
> > You did not feed it to a motor to check
> > heating value changes as RPM changes?
> >
> > So, IF you burned it directly as hot,
> > additional water (even small amounts)
> > makes the gas-flow increase.
> >
> > Water expands in volume from liquid to
> > steam at atmospheric pressure in the
> > ratio 1:1690 !!!
> >
> > This will very easily make your torch-flame
> > much longer and clearer.
> >
> > Still guessing that you have to cool the
> > gas in order to measure the "waste-heat"
> > condensate and let a motor show how the
> > heating value changes.
> >
> > Max
> >
> > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com,
> > > "Dave_Cahoon" <dave_cahoon@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Max,
> > >
> > > My modified fema experience has shown
> > > me that its not a temporary change to the
> > > flame. It does not take much liquid water
> > > to make the effect seen. In fact a very
> > > small amount. I had an extremely small
> > > pinhole (solid) stream of water like that
> > > which issues from a squirt gun but, about
> > > 1/32 in size and volume. I never got to
> > > measure it after my coal bed ejection
> > > experiments a few winters ago the pisser
> > > was damaged. a gallon of water would last
> > > hours+; opinion not measure.
> > > I worked my way the down from way to much
> > > water to finding the teeny amount that made
> > > the flame a rainy day flame. it would stay
> > > that way for the whole run..
> > >
> > > Dave
> > >
> > > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > "maxgasman" <gasman@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That is a sober conclusion!
> > > >
> > > > However interesting the molecule physics
> > > > of the water is, for gasification the
> > > > balancing of "old-fashioned water" to
> > > > the available process heat energy
> > > > (recuperated and oxidised) is the
> > > > thing builders and developers have
> > > > their day full of...
> > > >
> > > > There are three sources of water:
> > > > -- Air humidity
> > > > -- Physical water in wood
> > > > -- Chemical water in wood
> > > >
> > > > As a quality measure in the gas:
> > > > -- amount CO2
> > > > -- amount of condensable water
> > > > -- amount of nitrogen.
> > > >
> > > > If we can manage the produced heat
> > > > energy well, then these "useless"
> > > > "fill-up" gases can be minimized
> > > > and the end result brightens the
> > > > life of the user.
> > > >
> > > > Condense water AFTER gasification
> > > > is the cheapest indicator if there
> > > > is too big a supply of water in
> > > > ANY FORM ahead of the oxidation.
> > > >
> > > > All "extra" water, which cannot be
> > > > cracked up, is just STEALING heat
> > > > energy from the process and transporting
> > > > it away, just to be lost in a cooler...
> > > > There will be LESS hydrogen produced
> > > > and much less CO in the product gas.
> > > > End result: Lower heat value.
> > > >
> > > > There can be no reason for adding extra
> > > > water in any form (with exception for
> > > > superheated steam at stationary plants
> > > > or "desert conditions")
> > > >
> > > > A temporarily more beautiful flame is not
> > > > necessarily = a more valuable gas.
> > > > A short sprinkle of water lives on the
> > > > "glow reserve".
> > > >
> > > > Max
> > > >
> > > > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > > BILL THOMAS <waarehouse@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you stuart. Yes, CO2 is in the
> > > > > air all around us, it is a major cause of
> > > > > GLOBAL WARMING and OCEAN ACIDIFICATION
> > > > > and I doubt the economics or "mass-balance"
> > > > > of adjusting pH would benefit
> > > > > H2 yield in woodgas burners.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Stuart Perkins <perkins.stuart@>
> > > > > To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Thu, September 2, 2010 6:43:26 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [WoodGas] RE:Water
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps a better question would be how
> > > > > you avoid c02 in your distillation
> > > > > process. You would need to distill
> > > > > in an artificial atmosphere which
> > > > > contained no gasses which were readily
> > > > > dissolved in water to get actual "pure"
> > > > > water.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 06:23 -0400,
> > > > > > Steve Spence wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How do you get CO2 in distilled water?
> > > > > > That's not in my chemistry book.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Steve Spence
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Renewable energy and self sufficiency
> > > > > > http://www.green-trust.org
> > > > > > http://arduinotronics.blogspot.com/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 09/02/2010 02:17 AM, BILL THOMAS wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The low pH of distilled water is
> > > > > > > because of CO2, the pH of pure
> > > > > > > water is 7.
> > > > > > > That's in the chemistry books.
> > > > > > > Deionized water "plumbing" is
> > > > > > > different than distillation equipment,
> > > > > > > and probably accounts for the
> > > > > > > difference in CO2.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Water, Ka=7, "dissociates" into
> > > > > > > hydronium and hydroxide (hydroxyl?)
> > > > > > > ions after it is made from hydrogen
> > > > > > > and oxygen molecules, that are highly
> > > > > > > reactive so much so, the Saturn 5
> > > > > > > mainstage rockets were fired by
> > > > > > > mixing pure oxygen and hydrogen,
> > > > > > > forming water, that dissociated
> > > > > > > into the ions mentioned here.
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

if your fuel is a literal constant moleculary

--- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, "maxgasman" <gasman@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi, Dave!
> If one has the "desert condition" and
> must administer extra water to get a
> yield of hydrogen (not on the expense of
> good CO yield), then it must be given as
> dry, or better superheated steam trough the
> regular nozzles with preheated air.
> As soon as cooling the gas gives an increase
> in condense "production" the optimum is
> at hand.
>
> Max
>
> --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com,
> > "Dave_Cahoon" <dave_cahoon@> wrote:
> >
> > Max,
> >
> > yes that's why at first; I was
> > quenching the coal bed.
> > I cant explain why if the teeny stream
> > touched the inside of the tube it quit
> > working. My only guess is the flash to
> > steam was blocking off the nozzle action
> > and the heat started moving up the column.
> > With all the shaking required now, it
> > would not be easy to keep the stream
> > pointed into the "white light".
> >
> > In that older system most air went down
> > the tube and some made its way through the
> > fuel. A vented hopper. It was almost a good
> > unit except at times the flame would yellow
> > for a few moments.
> >
> > While the flare was NOT yellow I did allow
> > a small engine to draw fuel from under the
> > flare. It ran good with no change in timing.
> > The rainy day effect became easy to
> > reproduce.
> >
> > With steam addition ill bet it simply was
> > way to much "water"
> > and it displaced the available air and
> > quenched the system.
> >
> > If its running good and then one or all
> > nozzles change because of steam it should
> > quench. A separate nozzle system for the
> > water(s) is necessary. drips may work on
> > a huge system, but they will swamp the
> > smaller systems with the pulses of water
> > not a steady stream of humidity.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com,
> > > "maxgasman" <gasman@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, David!
> > >
> > > Now I have to guess:
> > > IF you did not first cool the gas near
> > > to ambient temperature, you have no idea
> > > of how much condense it carried through the
> > > process?
> > > You did not feed it to a motor to check
> > > heating value changes as RPM changes?
> > >
> > > So, IF you burned it directly as hot,
> > > additional water (even small amounts)
> > > makes the gas-flow increase.
> > >
> > > Water expands in volume from liquid to
> > > steam at atmospheric pressure in the
> > > ratio 1:1690 !!!
> > >
> > > This will very easily make your torch-flame
> > > much longer and clearer.
> > >
> > > Still guessing that you have to cool the
> > > gas in order to measure the "waste-heat"
> > > condensate and let a motor show how the
> > > heating value changes.
> > >
> > > Max
> > >
> > > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > "Dave_Cahoon" <dave_cahoon@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Max,
> > > >
> > > > My modified fema experience has shown
> > > > me that its not a temporary change to the
> > > > flame. It does not take much liquid water
> > > > to make the effect seen. In fact a very
> > > > small amount. I had an extremely small
> > > > pinhole (solid) stream of water like that
> > > > which issues from a squirt gun but, about
> > > > 1/32 in size and volume. I never got to
> > > > measure it after my coal bed ejection
> > > > experiments a few winters ago the pisser
> > > > was damaged. a gallon of water would last
> > > > hours+; opinion not measure.
> > > > I worked my way the down from way to much
> > > > water to finding the teeny amount that made
> > > > the flame a rainy day flame. it would stay
> > > > that way for the whole run..
> > > >
> > > > Dave
> > > >
> > > > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > > "maxgasman" <gasman@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That is a sober conclusion!
> > > > >
> > > > > However interesting the molecule physics
> > > > > of the water is, for gasification the
> > > > > balancing of "old-fashioned water" to
> > > > > the available process heat energy
> > > > > (recuperated and oxidised) is the
> > > > > thing builders and developers have
> > > > > their day full of...
> > > > >
> > > > > There are three sources of water:
> > > > > -- Air humidity
> > > > > -- Physical water in wood
> > > > > -- Chemical water in wood
> > > > >
> > > > > As a quality measure in the gas:
> > > > > -- amount CO2
> > > > > -- amount of condensable water
> > > > > -- amount of nitrogen.
> > > > >
> > > > > If we can manage the produced heat
> > > > > energy well, then these "useless"
> > > > > "fill-up" gases can be minimized
> > > > > and the end result brightens the
> > > > > life of the user.
> > > > >
> > > > > Condense water AFTER gasification
> > > > > is the cheapest indicator if there
> > > > > is too big a supply of water in
> > > > > ANY FORM ahead of the oxidation.
> > > > >
> > > > > All "extra" water, which cannot be
> > > > > cracked up, is just STEALING heat
> > > > > energy from the process and transporting
> > > > > it away, just to be lost in a cooler...
> > > > > There will be LESS hydrogen produced
> > > > > and much less CO in the product gas.
> > > > > End result: Lower heat value.
> > > > >
> > > > > There can be no reason for adding extra
> > > > > water in any form (with exception for
> > > > > superheated steam at stationary plants
> > > > > or "desert conditions")
> > > > >
> > > > > A temporarily more beautiful flame is not
> > > > > necessarily = a more valuable gas.
> > > > > A short sprinkle of water lives on the
> > > > > "glow reserve".
> > > > >
> > > > > Max
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > > > BILL THOMAS <waarehouse@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you stuart. Yes, CO2 is in the
> > > > > > air all around us, it is a major cause of
> > > > > > GLOBAL WARMING and OCEAN ACIDIFICATION
> > > > > > and I doubt the economics or "mass-balance"
> > > > > > of adjusting pH would benefit
> > > > > > H2 yield in woodgas burners.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: Stuart Perkins <perkins.stuart@>
> > > > > > To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Thu, September 2, 2010 6:43:26 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [WoodGas] RE:Water
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Perhaps a better question would be how
> > > > > > you avoid c02 in your distillation
> > > > > > process. You would need to distill
> > > > > > in an artificial atmosphere which
> > > > > > contained no gasses which were readily
> > > > > > dissolved in water to get actual "pure"
> > > > > > water.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 06:23 -0400,
> > > > > > > Steve Spence wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How do you get CO2 in distilled water?
> > > > > > > That's not in my chemistry book.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Steve Spence
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Renewable energy and self sufficiency
> > > > > > > http://www.green-trust.org
> > > > > > > http://arduinotronics.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 09/02/2010 02:17 AM, BILL THOMAS wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The low pH of distilled water is
> > > > > > > > because of CO2, the pH of pure
> > > > > > > > water is 7.
> > > > > > > > That's in the chemistry books.
> > > > > > > > Deionized water "plumbing" is
> > > > > > > > different than distillation equipment,
> > > > > > > > and probably accounts for the
> > > > > > > > difference in CO2.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Water, Ka=7, "dissociates" into
> > > > > > > > hydronium and hydroxide (hydroxyl?)
> > > > > > > > ions after it is made from hydrogen
> > > > > > > > and oxygen molecules, that are highly
> > > > > > > > reactive so much so, the Saturn 5
> > > > > > > > mainstage rockets were fired by
> > > > > > > > mixing pure oxygen and hydrogen,
> > > > > > > > forming water, that dissociated
> > > > > > > > into the ions mentioned here.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

oh, so you drank the coolaid as well. if there was global warming, co2
would not be the major cause. methane would be. we have enough natural
carbon sinks to take care of CO2. Methane is 20x more potent as a
greenhouse gas. as to ocean acidification, .5 ph isn't too worrisome.

Steve Spence
Renewable energy and self sufficiency
http://www.green-trust.org
http://arduinotronics.blogspot.com/



On 09/02/2010 12:08 PM, BILL THOMAS wrote:
>
>
> Thank you stuart. Yes, CO2 is in the air all around us, it is a major
> cause of
> GLOBAL WARMING and OCEAN ACIDIFICATION and I doubt the economics or
> "mass-balance" of adjusting pH would benefit H2 yield in woodgas burners.

Dave,
On my unit I have a "tar burner" which is basically a 1/2 pipe sticking right
down the middle and stops a few inches above the nozzle plane.  It has four
small jets laterally.  The suction pulls any water I inject through the tar
burner air inlet valve and probably by the time it gets down to the jets it is
steam.  I played with it for awhile to see just how much water I could inject
before it shut something down.  I was adding something like a tablespoon of
water every two or three minutes, and it never shut down, I got bored, and
haven't played with it since.  But haven't forgotten about it.  Where I'm at
with all this is that I've realized that this thing can get overcomplicated way
too easily, and something has to show me that it's really really worth all the
effort before I'll use it.  Even the tar burner itself is still in question for
me.  I've run with and without and still haven't made up my mind on it.  But
either way, it is an excellent system for injecting either water or recycled
gases or whatever floats your boat into the process and the plumbing is still
there.
I have a very unique fuel in this antique heart pine.  Extreme amounts of resin,
and I am still dealing with large soot production.  Not tar but soot.  When this
resin burns it looks like acetylene with no oxygen.  So I'm not fully convinced
that adding H2O really helps that much on my unit except maybe at the end of a
run, even though the wood tests out extremely dry.
Bigotes

--- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, "Dave_Cahoon" <dave_cahoon@...> wrote:
>
> Max,
>
> yes that's why at first; I was quenching the coal bed.
> I cant explain why if the teeny stream touched the inside of the tube it quit
working. My only guess is the flash to steam was blocking off the nozzle action
and the heat started moving up the column.
> With all the shaking required now, it would not be easy to keep the stream
pointed into the "white light".
>
> In that older system most air went down the tube and some made its way through
the fuel. A vented hopper. It was almost a good unit except at times the flame
would yellow for a few moments.
>
> While the flare was NOT yellow I did allow a small engine to draw fuel from
under the flare. It ran good with no change in timing.
> The rainy day effect became easy to reproduce.
>
> With steam addition ill bet it simply was way to much "water"
> and it displaced the available air and quenched the system.
>
> If its running good and then one or all nozzles change because of steam it
should quench. A separate nozzle system for the water(s) is necessary. drips may
work on a huge system, but they will swamp the smaller systems with the pulses
of water not a steady stream of humidity.
>
> Dave
>
> --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, "maxgasman" <gasman@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi, David!
> >
> > Now I have to guess:
> > IF you did not first cool the gas near
> > to ambient temperature, you have no idea
> > of how much condense it carried through the
> > process?
> > You did not feed it to a motor to check
> > heating value changes as RPM changes?
> >
> > So, IF you burned it directly as hot,
> > additional water (even small amounts)
> > makes the gas-flow increase.
> >
> > Water expands in volume from liquid to
> > steam at atmospheric pressure in the
> > ratio 1:1690 !!!
> >
> > This will very easily make your torch-flame
> > much longer and clearer.
> >
> > Still guessing that you have to cool the
> > gas in order to measure the "waste-heat"
> > condensate and let a motor show how the
> > heating value changes.
> >
> > Max
> >
> > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com,
> > > "Dave_Cahoon" <dave_cahoon@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Max,
> > >
> > > My modified fema experience has shown
> > > me that its not a temporary change to the
> > > flame. It does not take much liquid water
> > > to make the effect seen. In fact a very
> > > small amount. I had an extremely small
> > > pinhole (solid) stream of water like that
> > > which issues from a squirt gun but, about
> > > 1/32 in size and volume. I never got to
> > > measure it after my coal bed ejection
> > > experiments a few winters ago the pisser
> > > was damaged. a gallon of water would last
> > > hours+; opinion not measure.
> > > I worked my way the down from way to much
> > > water to finding the teeny amount that made
> > > the flame a rainy day flame. it would stay
> > > that way for the whole run..
> > >
> > > Dave
> > >
> > > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > "maxgasman" <gasman@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That is a sober conclusion!
> > > >
> > > > However interesting the molecule physics
> > > > of the water is, for gasification the
> > > > balancing of "old-fashioned water" to
> > > > the available process heat energy
> > > > (recuperated and oxidised) is the
> > > > thing builders and developers have
> > > > their day full of...
> > > >
> > > > There are three sources of water:
> > > > -- Air humidity
> > > > -- Physical water in wood
> > > > -- Chemical water in wood
> > > >
> > > > As a quality measure in the gas:
> > > > -- amount CO2
> > > > -- amount of condensable water
> > > > -- amount of nitrogen.
> > > >
> > > > If we can manage the produced heat
> > > > energy well, then these "useless"
> > > > "fill-up" gases can be minimized
> > > > and the end result brightens the
> > > > life of the user.
> > > >
> > > > Condense water AFTER gasification
> > > > is the cheapest indicator if there
> > > > is too big a supply of water in
> > > > ANY FORM ahead of the oxidation.
> > > >
> > > > All "extra" water, which cannot be
> > > > cracked up, is just STEALING heat
> > > > energy from the process and transporting
> > > > it away, just to be lost in a cooler...
> > > > There will be LESS hydrogen produced
> > > > and much less CO in the product gas.
> > > > End result: Lower heat value.
> > > >
> > > > There can be no reason for adding extra
> > > > water in any form (with exception for
> > > > superheated steam at stationary plants
> > > > or "desert conditions")
> > > >
> > > > A temporarily more beautiful flame is not
> > > > necessarily = a more valuable gas.
> > > > A short sprinkle of water lives on the
> > > > "glow reserve".
> > > >
> > > > Max
> > > >
> > > > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > > BILL THOMAS <waarehouse@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you stuart. Yes, CO2 is in the
> > > > > air all around us, it is a major cause of
> > > > > GLOBAL WARMING and OCEAN ACIDIFICATION
> > > > > and I doubt the economics or "mass-balance"
> > > > > of adjusting pH would benefit
> > > > > H2 yield in woodgas burners.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Stuart Perkins <perkins.stuart@>
> > > > > To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Thu, September 2, 2010 6:43:26 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [WoodGas] RE:Water
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps a better question would be how
> > > > > you avoid c02 in your distillation
> > > > > process. You would need to distill
> > > > > in an artificial atmosphere which
> > > > > contained no gasses which were readily
> > > > > dissolved in water to get actual "pure"
> > > > > water.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 06:23 -0400,
> > > > > > Steve Spence wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How do you get CO2 in distilled water?
> > > > > > That's not in my chemistry book.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Steve Spence
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Renewable energy and self sufficiency
> > > > > > http://www.green-trust.org
> > > > > > http://arduinotronics.blogspot.com/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 09/02/2010 02:17 AM, BILL THOMAS wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The low pH of distilled water is
> > > > > > > because of CO2, the pH of pure
> > > > > > > water is 7.
> > > > > > > That's in the chemistry books.
> > > > > > > Deionized water "plumbing" is
> > > > > > > different than distillation equipment,
> > > > > > > and probably accounts for the
> > > > > > > difference in CO2.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Water, Ka=7, "dissociates" into
> > > > > > > hydronium and hydroxide (hydroxyl?)
> > > > > > > ions after it is made from hydrogen
> > > > > > > and oxygen molecules, that are highly
> > > > > > > reactive so much so, the Saturn 5
> > > > > > > mainstage rockets were fired by
> > > > > > > mixing pure oxygen and hydrogen,
> > > > > > > forming water, that dissociated
> > > > > > > into the ions mentioned here.
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Bruce,
Whether we be the culprits or not, it's happening.  Down in Perú we get all our
waters from glacial runoff from up in the Andes.  In about 10 - 12 years the
glaciers will be gone.  No one in their right minds will deny it.  In fact it's
happening lots quicker than they originally thought.  Lots of people gotta
figure out something and quick.  There are the pacific islanders who now see
that their land is soon going to be reefs under water and they're presently
trying to figure out where in the hell to go.  Or else genetically engineer
gills.  In other words, for some people this is serious sh__.  We may not feel
so personally pressed by reading about all of it from the safety of our own
local perspective, but the changes are for real.  Laying blame?  What good does
that do?  Unless someone thinks they can really reverse the process???  All
those tree-hugging carbon neutral liberal nuts could be right, but I personally
think it's probably too late at this stage of the game.  Just too much momentum
barrel assing down the wrong highway to even think of stopping it.  But they
will try.
The truth of the matter is that there have been many ups and downs in the
earth's climate before, and usually each and every one of them has had an
extremely dramatic effect on mankind.  History changing events.  Best I can see
we can do is hang on and ride it out.
By the way, I hope to have my book "Recipes for Longpig" published by the end of
the year.  It's a tongue-in-cheek survival manual for what's coming our way.  I
hope things don't get so bad that people rely on eating longpig just to survive,
but it has definitely happened in the past and could always happen again, haha. 
And when push comes to shove some folk just do what they got to do.
I really shouldn't even be posting something this much off-topic, but it is to a
large part these very concerns that are motivating a lot of our crowd, if only
to be able to survive if and when things take a bigger turn for the worse.  It's
certainly not economics that are the motivation, other than perhaps the Jim
Masons and Ben Petersens and Bill Kleins..............
Bigotes

--- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, "humble1a" <humble1a@...> wrote:
>
> He said.... she said.  But how do you really know who is telling the truth. 
None of us can verify anything, the evidence is off limits.  The reality is, we
will screw up the environment because there is no one righteous, no not one. Not
you, me or anyone else.  We all lie, steal, cheat ect.  Life's a b*tch then you
die.
>
> for every article printed about global warming I can show ten saying it is
bunk, who do you believe, the guys that promote fear and get more money because
they do it, or the guys that get no money, stand their ground and say it ain't
so.
>
> Do what you got to do.
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
> --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, "Dave_Cahoon" <dave_cahoon@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oaf998FwQVI
> > Scientific dishonesty?! The TALE of two wells *&$%$$
> >
> > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, "humble1a" <humble1a@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The major cause of the perception of global warming is dishonesty.
> > > For example;
> > > In the name of fiscal restraint NOAA closes thousands of weather stations
located in rural America leaving only the ones located near cities.  This gave
rise to the huge temperature spike on the charts.  This is verifiable.
> > >
> > >
> > > Then there is this;
> > > The following commentary is from Atmospheric Scientist and Hurricane
forecasting specialist Dr. William Gray. Gray is the renowned hurricane
forecaster and Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State
University (CSU) and originally published this artiucle on ClimateDepot.com.
> > >
> > > Had I not devoted my entire career of more than half a century to the
study and forecasting of meteorological and climate events, I would have likely
been concerned over the possibility of humans causing serious global climate
degradation.
> > >
> > > There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination
of the Western world by the media and by various scientists and governments
concerning a coming carbon dioxide (CO2) induced global warming disaster. These
warming scenarios have been orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists,
vested interest scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the
media which profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental bureaucrats
who want more power over our lives, and socialists who want to level-out global
living standards. These many alarmist groups appear to have little concern over
whether their global warming prognostications are accurate, however. And they
most certainly are not. The alarmists believe they will be able to scare enough
of our citizens into believing their propaganda that the public will be willing
to follow their advice on future energy usage and agree to a lowering of their
standard of living in the name of climate salvation.
> > >
> > >
> > > It appears even the scientists are freaking crooks stealing from us.
> > >
> > > Burn a tree today and drive your a** off.
> > >
> > > Bruce
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, BILL THOMAS <waarehouse@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thank you stuart.  Yes, CO2 is in the air all around us, it is a major
cause of
> > > > GLOBAL WARMING and OCEAN ACIDIFICATION and I doubt the economics or
> > > > "mass-balance" of adjusting pH would benefit H2 yield in woodgas
burners.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Stuart Perkins <perkins.stuart@>
> > > > To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Thu, September 2, 2010 6:43:26 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [WoodGas] RE:Water
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > perhaps a better question would be how you avoid c02 in your
> > > > distillation process.  You would need to distill in an artificial
> > > > atmosphere which contained no gasses which were readily dissolved in
> > > > water to get actual "pure" water.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 06:23 -0400, Steve Spence wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > How do you get CO2 in distilled water? That's not in my chemistry
> > > > > book.
> > > > >
> > > > > Steve Spence
> > > > > Renewable energy and self sufficiency
> > > > > http://www.green-trust.org
> > > > > http://arduinotronics.blogspot.com/
> > > > >
> > > > > On 09/02/2010 02:17 AM, BILL THOMAS wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The low pH of distilled water is because of CO2, the pH of pure
> > > > > water is 7.
> > > > > > That's in the chemistry books. Deionized water "plumbing" is
> > > > > different than
> > > > > > distillation equipment, and probably accounts for the difference in
> > > > > CO2.
> > > > > > Water,
> > > > > > Ka=7, "dissociates" into hyrdonium and hydroxide (hydroxyl?) ions
> > > > > after
> > > > > > it is
> > > > > > made from hydrogen and oxygen molecules, that are highly reactive so
> > > > > > much so,
> > > > > > the Saturn 5 mainstage rockets were fired by mixing pure oxygen and
> > > > > > hydrogen,
> > > > > > forming water, that dissociated into the ions mentioned here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: Someone Somewhere <drzee2012@ <mailto:drzee2012%
> > > > > 40yahoo.com>>
> > > > > > To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com <mailto:WoodGas%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Wed, September 1, 2010 9:28:13 PM
> > > > > > Subject: [WoodGas] RE:Water
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The PH of pure water is not "short lived" I stand behind my words,
> > > > > Water
> > > > > > is not H2O but a combination of two molecules. Hydronium and
> > > > > Hydroxide.
> > > > > > The fundamental differences in the two explain why distilled water
> > > > > is
> > > > > > always acidic. I was wrong to bring it up here. I apologize to all
> > > > > who i
> > > > > > scared!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When I worked for a pharmaceutical company, when the solvent was
> > > > > water
> > > > > > it was
> > > > > > deionized. I never got a good explanation of the difference, but
> > > > > this would
> > > > > > explain it--the pH of deionized water would truly be 7.0.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > David
> > > > > > ---------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Don't bother visiting my page on "Get Outta My Face Book" the
> > > > > world's
> > > > > > largest
> > > > > > antisocial network. I'll just ignore you. And keep your darn kids
> > > > > off of my
> > > > > > lawn!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, "bigotes_bigotes" <johnbigotes@...> wrote:
>
> I have a very unique fuel in this antique heart pine.  Extreme amounts of
resin, and I am still dealing with large soot production.  Not tar but soot. 
When this resin burns it looks like acetylene with no oxygen.  So I'm not fully
convinced that adding H2O really helps that much on my unit except maybe at the
end of a run, even though the wood tests out extremely dry.
> Bigotes
>

john, in the papers on soot, one of the best methods suggested to counter it is
higher steam in the environments where it is being made.  i've not tested this
in any manner, but such is the claim from the papers.

so maybe the steam could be relevant for your wood beyond all the other things
we usually consider the steam for.

and with any wood, for long run, non fouling systems, the soot does ultimately
become an issue.  whether you are running air preheating or not, whereever the
system drops below the soot deposition temp, you will start to get build up. 
you can foul your gas flow pipe with soot just like you can an air preheating
tube.  the temp cross point is going to happen one place or the other.  this
soot buildup is not noticed on most of our short run demos.  but once we look to
regular long run eq, it is a real issue.

also, only us weirdos will route around in it daily.  regular mortals are averse
to playing in the soot.  figuring out how to make it go away seems important.

i think steam is going to be important for this.  also running reduction down
further towards its end and preventing very hot gas out of the hearth.

jim











> --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, "Dave_Cahoon" <dave_cahoon@> wrote:
> >
> > Max,
> >
> > yes that's why at first; I was quenching the coal bed.
> > I cant explain why if the teeny stream touched the inside of the tube it
quit working. My only guess is the flash to steam was blocking off the nozzle
action and the heat started moving up the column.
> > With all the shaking required now, it would not be easy to keep the stream
pointed into the "white light".
> >
> > In that older system most air went down the tube and some made its way
through the fuel. A vented hopper. It was almost a good unit except at times the
flame would yellow for a few moments.
> >
> > While the flare was NOT yellow I did allow a small engine to draw fuel from
under the flare. It ran good with no change in timing.
> > The rainy day effect became easy to reproduce.
> >
> > With steam addition ill bet it simply was way to much "water"
> > and it displaced the available air and quenched the system.
> >
> > If its running good and then one or all nozzles change because of steam it
should quench. A separate nozzle system for the water(s) is necessary. drips may
work on a huge system, but they will swamp the smaller systems with the pulses
of water not a steady stream of humidity.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, "maxgasman" <gasman@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi, David!
> > >
> > > Now I have to guess:
> > > IF you did not first cool the gas near
> > > to ambient temperature, you have no idea
> > > of how much condense it carried through the
> > > process?
> > > You did not feed it to a motor to check
> > > heating value changes as RPM changes?
> > >
> > > So, IF you burned it directly as hot,
> > > additional water (even small amounts)
> > > makes the gas-flow increase.
> > >
> > > Water expands in volume from liquid to
> > > steam at atmospheric pressure in the
> > > ratio 1:1690 !!!
> > >
> > > This will very easily make your torch-flame
> > > much longer and clearer.
> > >
> > > Still guessing that you have to cool the
> > > gas in order to measure the "waste-heat"
> > > condensate and let a motor show how the
> > > heating value changes.
> > >
> > > Max
> > >
> > > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > "Dave_Cahoon" <dave_cahoon@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Max,
> > > >
> > > > My modified fema experience has shown
> > > > me that its not a temporary change to the
> > > > flame. It does not take much liquid water
> > > > to make the effect seen. In fact a very
> > > > small amount. I had an extremely small
> > > > pinhole (solid) stream of water like that
> > > > which issues from a squirt gun but, about
> > > > 1/32 in size and volume. I never got to
> > > > measure it after my coal bed ejection
> > > > experiments a few winters ago the pisser
> > > > was damaged. a gallon of water would last
> > > > hours+; opinion not measure.
> > > > I worked my way the down from way to much
> > > > water to finding the teeny amount that made
> > > > the flame a rainy day flame. it would stay
> > > > that way for the whole run..
> > > >
> > > > Dave
> > > >
> > > > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > > "maxgasman" <gasman@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That is a sober conclusion!
> > > > >
> > > > > However interesting the molecule physics
> > > > > of the water is, for gasification the
> > > > > balancing of "old-fashioned water" to
> > > > > the available process heat energy
> > > > > (recuperated and oxidised) is the
> > > > > thing builders and developers have
> > > > > their day full of...
> > > > >
> > > > > There are three sources of water:
> > > > > -- Air humidity
> > > > > -- Physical water in wood
> > > > > -- Chemical water in wood
> > > > >
> > > > > As a quality measure in the gas:
> > > > > -- amount CO2
> > > > > -- amount of condensable water
> > > > > -- amount of nitrogen.
> > > > >
> > > > > If we can manage the produced heat
> > > > > energy well, then these "useless"
> > > > > "fill-up" gases can be minimized
> > > > > and the end result brightens the
> > > > > life of the user.
> > > > >
> > > > > Condense water AFTER gasification
> > > > > is the cheapest indicator if there
> > > > > is too big a supply of water in
> > > > > ANY FORM ahead of the oxidation.
> > > > >
> > > > > All "extra" water, which cannot be
> > > > > cracked up, is just STEALING heat
> > > > > energy from the process and transporting
> > > > > it away, just to be lost in a cooler...
> > > > > There will be LESS hydrogen produced
> > > > > and much less CO in the product gas.
> > > > > End result: Lower heat value.
> > > > >
> > > > > There can be no reason for adding extra
> > > > > water in any form (with exception for
> > > > > superheated steam at stationary plants
> > > > > or "desert conditions")
> > > > >
> > > > > A temporarily more beautiful flame is not
> > > > > necessarily = a more valuable gas.
> > > > > A short sprinkle of water lives on the
> > > > > "glow reserve".
> > > > >
> > > > > Max
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > > > BILL THOMAS <waarehouse@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you stuart. Yes, CO2 is in the
> > > > > > air all around us, it is a major cause of
> > > > > > GLOBAL WARMING and OCEAN ACIDIFICATION
> > > > > > and I doubt the economics or "mass-balance"
> > > > > > of adjusting pH would benefit
> > > > > > H2 yield in woodgas burners.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: Stuart Perkins <perkins.stuart@>
> > > > > > To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Thu, September 2, 2010 6:43:26 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [WoodGas] RE:Water
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Perhaps a better question would be how
> > > > > > you avoid c02 in your distillation
> > > > > > process. You would need to distill
> > > > > > in an artificial atmosphere which
> > > > > > contained no gasses which were readily
> > > > > > dissolved in water to get actual "pure"
> > > > > > water.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 06:23 -0400,
> > > > > > > Steve Spence wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How do you get CO2 in distilled water?
> > > > > > > That's not in my chemistry book.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Steve Spence
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Renewable energy and self sufficiency
> > > > > > > http://www.green-trust.org
> > > > > > > http://arduinotronics.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 09/02/2010 02:17 AM, BILL THOMAS wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The low pH of distilled water is
> > > > > > > > because of CO2, the pH of pure
> > > > > > > > water is 7.
> > > > > > > > That's in the chemistry books.
> > > > > > > > Deionized water "plumbing" is
> > > > > > > > different than distillation equipment,
> > > > > > > > and probably accounts for the
> > > > > > > > difference in CO2.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Water, Ka=7, "dissociates" into
> > > > > > > > hydronium and hydroxide (hydroxyl?)
> > > > > > > > ions after it is made from hydrogen
> > > > > > > > and oxygen molecules, that are highly
> > > > > > > > reactive so much so, the Saturn 5
> > > > > > > > mainstage rockets were fired by
> > > > > > > > mixing pure oxygen and hydrogen,
> > > > > > > > forming water, that dissociated
> > > > > > > > into the ions mentioned here.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, "bigotes_bigotes" <johnbigotes@...> wrote:
>
> Bruce,
> Whether we be the culprits or not, it's happening.

Thats the real issue; If were the reason for the change in the season.
We are not. I have been looking at mars for years with a 18inch dob. most of my
life. and its loosing its "ice?" caps too. Are we to blaim? LOL The Sun is a
variable star deal with it, not steal because of it.

Dave

Thanks Max, great stuff and I always appreciate what I can understand out of
your discourse.  Things are getting clearer.

John,

I don't know what is happening until it happens.  Certainly don't trust any
media outlet anywhere or any talking head pro or con.  Fact is, I don't care
what people think about anything.  Nothing personal, I have just found most
people are full of crap.  I've lived on the water all my life.  Been sailing
since I could walk.  No matter what happens, if I live through the igniter
event, the initial chaos, then I'll survive if the oceans don't die.  I keep
watching the tides waiting for the glaciers to put fish in my back yard.  Hasn't
come up one inch yet that I can see.  Florida is a big reef. I figure with all
the poop and all the farts, that alone will kill the earth, but it hasn't.  I
guess it's up to the ice's and the nukes.

My son went into a gas station the other day and bought a bottle of ice cold
water.  He told the guy he figured he could afford the water since he had not
bought any gas this week even though he has driven 700 miles this
week...BBB/SWEM

I like tree huggers.  They make such funny noises when I peel them off the trees
to cut them down.  Good entertainment.

Hope we meet some day John.

Bruce

--- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, "bigotes_bigotes" <johnbigotes@...> wrote:
>
> Bruce,
> Whether we be the culprits or not, it's happening.  Down in Perú we get all
our waters from glacial runoff from up in the Andes.  In about 10 - 12 years the
glaciers will be gone.  No one in their right minds will deny it.  In fact it's
happening lots quicker than they originally thought.  Lots of people gotta
figure out something and quick.  There are the pacific islanders who now see
that their land is soon going to be reefs under water and they're presently
trying to figure out where in the hell to go.  Or else genetically engineer
gills.  In other words, for some people this is serious sh__.  We may not feel
so personally pressed by reading about all of it from the safety of our own
local perspective, but the changes are for real.  Laying blame?  What good does
that do?  Unless someone thinks they can really reverse the process???  All
those tree-hugging carbon neutral liberal nuts could be right, but I personally
think it's probably too late at this stage of the game.  Just too much momentum
barrel assing down the wrong highway to even think of stopping it.  But they
will try.
> The truth of the matter is that there have been many ups and downs in the
earth's climate before, and usually each and every one of them has had an
extremely dramatic effect on mankind.  History changing events.  Best I can see
we can do is hang on and ride it out.
> By the way, I hope to have my book "Recipes for Longpig" published by the end
of the year.  It's a tongue-in-cheek survival manual for what's coming our way. 
I hope things don't get so bad that people rely on eating longpig just to
survive, but it has definitely happened in the past and could always happen
again, haha.  And when push comes to shove some folk just do what they got to
do.
> I really shouldn't even be posting something this much off-topic, but it is to
a large part these very concerns that are motivating a lot of our crowd, if only
to be able to survive if and when things take a bigger turn for the worse.  It's
certainly not economics that are the motivation, other than perhaps the Jim
Masons and Ben Petersens and Bill Kleins..............
> Bigotes
>
> --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, "humble1a" <humble1a@> wrote:
> >
> > He said.... she said.  But how do you really know who is telling the truth. 
None of us can verify anything, the evidence is off limits.  The reality is, we
will screw up the environment because there is no one righteous, no not one. Not
you, me or anyone else.  We all lie, steal, cheat ect.  Life's a b*tch then you
die.
> >
> > for every article printed about global warming I can show ten saying it is
bunk, who do you believe, the guys that promote fear and get more money because
they do it, or the guys that get no money, stand their ground and say it ain't
so.
> >
> > Do what you got to do.
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, "Dave_Cahoon" <dave_cahoon@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oaf998FwQVI
> > > Scientific dishonesty?! The TALE of two wells *&$%$$
> > >
> > > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, "humble1a" <humble1a@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The major cause of the perception of global warming is dishonesty.
> > > > For example;
> > > > In the name of fiscal restraint NOAA closes thousands of weather
stations located in rural America leaving only the ones located near cities. 
This gave rise to the huge temperature spike on the charts.  This is verifiable.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Then there is this;
> > > > The following commentary is from Atmospheric Scientist and Hurricane
forecasting specialist Dr. William Gray. Gray is the renowned hurricane
forecaster and Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State
University (CSU) and originally published this artiucle on ClimateDepot.com.
> > > >
> > > > Had I not devoted my entire career of more than half a century to the
study and forecasting of meteorological and climate events, I would have likely
been concerned over the possibility of humans causing serious global climate
degradation.
> > > >
> > > > There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided
indoctrination of the Western world by the media and by various scientists and
governments concerning a coming carbon dioxide (CO2) induced global warming
disaster. These warming scenarios have been orchestrated by a combination of
environmentalists, vested interest scientists wanting larger federal grants and
publicity, the media which profits from doomsday scenario reporting,
governmental bureaucrats who want more power over our lives, and socialists who
want to level-out global living standards. These many alarmist groups appear to
have little concern over whether their global warming prognostications are
accurate, however. And they most certainly are not. The alarmists believe they
will be able to scare enough of our citizens into believing their propaganda
that the public will be willing to follow their advice on future energy usage
and agree to a lowering of their standard of living in the name of climate
salvation.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It appears even the scientists are freaking crooks stealing from us.
> > > >
> > > > Burn a tree today and drive your a** off.
> > > >
> > > > Bruce
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, BILL THOMAS <waarehouse@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you stuart.  Yes, CO2 is in the air all around us, it is a major
cause of
> > > > > GLOBAL WARMING and OCEAN ACIDIFICATION and I doubt the economics or
> > > > > "mass-balance" of adjusting pH would benefit H2 yield in woodgas
burners.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Stuart Perkins <perkins.stuart@>
> > > > > To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Thu, September 2, 2010 6:43:26 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [WoodGas] RE:Water
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > perhaps a better question would be how you avoid c02 in your
> > > > > distillation process.  You would need to distill in an artificial
> > > > > atmosphere which contained no gasses which were readily dissolved in
> > > > > water to get actual "pure" water.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 06:23 -0400, Steve Spence wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How do you get CO2 in distilled water? That's not in my chemistry
> > > > > > book.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Steve Spence
> > > > > > Renewable energy and self sufficiency
> > > > > > http://www.green-trust.org
> > > > > > http://arduinotronics.blogspot.com/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 09/02/2010 02:17 AM, BILL THOMAS wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The low pH of distilled water is because of CO2, the pH of pure
> > > > > > water is 7.
> > > > > > > That's in the chemistry books. Deionized water "plumbing" is
> > > > > > different than
> > > > > > > distillation equipment, and probably accounts for the difference
in
> > > > > > CO2.
> > > > > > > Water,
> > > > > > > Ka=7, "dissociates" into hyrdonium and hydroxide (hydroxyl?) ions
> > > > > > after
> > > > > > > it is
> > > > > > > made from hydrogen and oxygen molecules, that are highly reactive
so
> > > > > > > much so,
> > > > > > > the Saturn 5 mainstage rockets were fired by mixing pure oxygen
and
> > > > > > > hydrogen,
> > > > > > > forming water, that dissociated into the ions mentioned here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: Someone Somewhere <drzee2012@ <mailto:drzee2012%
> > > > > > 40yahoo.com>>
> > > > > > > To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com <mailto:WoodGas%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > Sent: Wed, September 1, 2010 9:28:13 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: [WoodGas] RE:Water
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The PH of pure water is not "short lived" I stand behind my words,
> > > > > > Water
> > > > > > > is not H2O but a combination of two molecules. Hydronium and
> > > > > > Hydroxide.
> > > > > > > The fundamental differences in the two explain why distilled water
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > always acidic. I was wrong to bring it up here. I apologize to all
> > > > > > who i
> > > > > > > scared!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When I worked for a pharmaceutical company, when the solvent was
> > > > > > water
> > > > > > > it was
> > > > > > > deionized. I never got a good explanation of the difference, but
> > > > > > this would
> > > > > > > explain it--the pH of deionized water would truly be 7.0.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > David
> > > > > > > ---------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Don't bother visiting my page on "Get Outta My Face Book" the
> > > > > > world's
> > > > > > > largest
> > > > > > > antisocial network. I'll just ignore you. And keep your darn kids
> > > > > > off of my
> > > > > > > lawn!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

JB, Man you must be having a rough day. As for me, there are a heck of a lot of
cattle and other things roaming and flying around so if it gets real hot then I
guess I'll be in the jerky business. I have no interest in that longpig. When I
see the same critters living just fine in Arizona I won't worry about them here.
As for driving in the Arizona desert, my truck ran just fine despite the major
air leaks in the lower section. It did use some extra wood though. I had set my
wood out to dry after I got there and cut some local stuff as well. This was at
4300 feet elevation. At 7000 feet it barely ran but The entire ring around the
lower section had fallen out so it was really sucking wind then. I brazed it all
when I got back. Regards, Mike


--- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, "bigotes_bigotes" <johnbigotes@...> wrote:
>
> Bruce,
> Whether we be the culprits or not, it's happening.  Down in Perú we get all
our waters from glacial runoff from up in the Andes.  In about 10 - 12 years the
glaciers will be gone.  No one in their right minds will deny it.  In fact it's
happening lots quicker than they originally thought.  Lots of people gotta
figure out something and quick.  There are the pacific islanders who now see
that their land is soon going to be reefs under water and they're presently
trying to figure out where in the hell to go.  Or else genetically engineer
gills.  In other words, for some people this is serious sh__.  We may not feel
so personally pressed by reading about all of it from the safety of our own
local perspective, but the changes are for real.  Laying blame?  What good does
that do?  Unless someone thinks they can really reverse the process???  All
those tree-hugging carbon neutral liberal nuts could be right, but I personally
think it's probably too late at this stage of the game.  Just too much momentum
barrel assing down the wrong highway to even think of stopping it.  But they
will try.
> The truth of the matter is that there have been many ups and downs in the
earth's climate before, and usually each and every one of them has had an
extremely dramatic effect on mankind.  History changing events.  Best I can see
we can do is hang on and ride it out.
> By the way, I hope to have my book "Recipes for Longpig" published by the end
of the year.  It's a tongue-in-cheek survival manual for what's coming our way. 
I hope things don't get so bad that people rely on eating longpig just to
survive, but it has definitely happened in the past and could always happen
again, haha.  And when push comes to shove some folk just do what they got to
do.
> I really shouldn't even be posting something this much off-topic, but it is to
a large part these very concerns that are motivating a lot of our crowd, if only
to be able to survive if and when things take a bigger turn for the worse.  It's
certainly not economics that are the motivation, other than perhaps the Jim
Masons and Ben Petersens and Bill Kleins..............
> Bigotes
>
> --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, "humble1a" <humble1a@> wrote:
> >
> > He said.... she said.  But how do you really know who is telling the truth. 
None of us can verify anything, the evidence is off limits.  The reality is, we
will screw up the environment because there is no one righteous, no not one. Not
you, me or anyone else.  We all lie, steal, cheat ect.  Life's a b*tch then you
die.
> >
> > for every article printed about global warming I can show ten saying it is
bunk, who do you believe, the guys that promote fear and get more money because
they do it, or the guys that get no money, stand their ground and say it ain't
so.
> >
> > Do what you got to do.
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, "Dave_Cahoon" <dave_cahoon@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oaf998FwQVI
> > > Scientific dishonesty?! The TALE of two wells *&$%$$
> > >
> > > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, "humble1a" <humble1a@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The major cause of the perception of global warming is dishonesty.
> > > > For example;
> > > > In the name of fiscal restraint NOAA closes thousands of weather
stations located in rural America leaving only the ones located near cities. 
This gave rise to the huge temperature spike on the charts.  This is verifiable.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Then there is this;
> > > > The following commentary is from Atmospheric Scientist and Hurricane
forecasting specialist Dr. William Gray. Gray is the renowned hurricane
forecaster and Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State
University (CSU) and originally published this artiucle on ClimateDepot.com.
> > > >
> > > > Had I not devoted my entire career of more than half a century to the
study and forecasting of meteorological and climate events, I would have likely
been concerned over the possibility of humans causing serious global climate
degradation.
> > > >
> > > > There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided
indoctrination of the Western world by the media and by various scientists and
governments concerning a coming carbon dioxide (CO2) induced global warming
disaster. These warming scenarios have been orchestrated by a combination of
environmentalists, vested interest scientists wanting larger federal grants and
publicity, the media which profits from doomsday scenario reporting,
governmental bureaucrats who want more power over our lives, and socialists who
want to level-out global living standards. These many alarmist groups appear to
have little concern over whether their global warming prognostications are
accurate, however. And they most certainly are not. The alarmists believe they
will be able to scare enough of our citizens into believing their propaganda
that the public will be willing to follow their advice on future energy usage
and agree to a lowering of their standard of living in the name of climate
salvation.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It appears even the scientists are freaking crooks stealing from us.
> > > >
> > > > Burn a tree today and drive your a** off.
> > > >
> > > > Bruce
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, BILL THOMAS <waarehouse@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you stuart.  Yes, CO2 is in the air all around us, it is a major
cause of
> > > > > GLOBAL WARMING and OCEAN ACIDIFICATION and I doubt the economics or
> > > > > "mass-balance" of adjusting pH would benefit H2 yield in woodgas
burners.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Stuart Perkins <perkins.stuart@>
> > > > > To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Thu, September 2, 2010 6:43:26 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [WoodGas] RE:Water
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > perhaps a better question would be how you avoid c02 in your
> > > > > distillation process.  You would need to distill in an artificial
> > > > > atmosphere which contained no gasses which were readily dissolved in
> > > > > water to get actual "pure" water.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 06:23 -0400, Steve Spence wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How do you get CO2 in distilled water? That's not in my chemistry
> > > > > > book.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Steve Spence
> > > > > > Renewable energy and self sufficiency
> > > > > > http://www.green-trust.org
> > > > > > http://arduinotronics.blogspot.com/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 09/02/2010 02:17 AM, BILL THOMAS wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The low pH of distilled water is because of CO2, the pH of pure
> > > > > > water is 7.
> > > > > > > That's in the chemistry books. Deionized water "plumbing" is
> > > > > > different than
> > > > > > > distillation equipment, and probably accounts for the difference
in
> > > > > > CO2.
> > > > > > > Water,
> > > > > > > Ka=7, "dissociates" into hyrdonium and hydroxide (hydroxyl?) ions
> > > > > > after
> > > > > > > it is
> > > > > > > made from hydrogen and oxygen molecules, that are highly reactive
so
> > > > > > > much so,
> > > > > > > the Saturn 5 mainstage rockets were fired by mixing pure oxygen
and
> > > > > > > hydrogen,
> > > > > > > forming water, that dissociated into the ions mentioned here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: Someone Somewhere <drzee2012@ <mailto:drzee2012%
> > > > > > 40yahoo.com>>
> > > > > > > To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com <mailto:WoodGas%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > Sent: Wed, September 1, 2010 9:28:13 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: [WoodGas] RE:Water
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The PH of pure water is not "short lived" I stand behind my words,
> > > > > > Water
> > > > > > > is not H2O but a combination of two molecules. Hydronium and
> > > > > > Hydroxide.
> > > > > > > The fundamental differences in the two explain why distilled water
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > always acidic. I was wrong to bring it up here. I apologize to all
> > > > > > who i
> > > > > > > scared!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When I worked for a pharmaceutical company, when the solvent was
> > > > > > water
> > > > > > > it was
> > > > > > > deionized. I never got a good explanation of the difference, but
> > > > > > this would
> > > > > > > explain it--the pH of deionized water would truly be 7.0.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > David
> > > > > > > ---------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Don't bother visiting my page on "Get Outta My Face Book" the
> > > > > > world's
> > > > > > > largest
> > > > > > > antisocial network. I'll just ignore you. And keep your darn kids
> > > > > > off of my
> > > > > > > lawn!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Jim, I've been amazed as to how much soot my little cyclone has pulled out this
summer. The first leg of my cooler is still draining fine where it had plugged
up a few times last year without the cyclone. I may actually not have to pull my
cooler apart this fall and wash it out but may just do it anyway. It's kind of
like the way some people wash their cars. I have to pull off some duct tape and
knock the elbows off with a hammer and pull out the twisted steel and blast it
all with the hose. Watch all the black run down the side of the road to feed the
grass :o) .. What's the term for capturing carbon ?? It's that fancy word. I'll
remember as soon as I click send ... Mike ... Oh, sequestering .. I remembered
before. I'm still at a loss as to how to hook the 2 cyclones in series which is
what I plan to do .. I expect it to be a bit too hot without the drum for a duct
tape connection.

--- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, "jim" <jim@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, "bigotes_bigotes" <johnbigotes@> wrote:
> >
> > I have a very unique fuel in this antique heart pine.  Extreme amounts of
resin, and I am still dealing with large soot production.  Not tar but soot. 
When this resin burns it looks like acetylene with no oxygen.  So I'm not fully
convinced that adding H2O really helps that much on my unit except maybe at the
end of a run, even though the wood tests out extremely dry.
> > Bigotes
> >
>
> john, in the papers on soot, one of the best methods suggested to counter it
is higher steam in the environments where it is being made.  i've not tested
this in any manner, but such is the claim from the papers.
>
> so maybe the steam could be relevant for your wood beyond all the other things
we usually consider the steam for.
>
> and with any wood, for long run, non fouling systems, the soot does ultimately
become an issue.  whether you are running air preheating or not, whereever the
system drops below the soot deposition temp, you will start to get build up. 
you can foul your gas flow pipe with soot just like you can an air preheating
tube.  the temp cross point is going to happen one place or the other.  this
soot buildup is not noticed on most of our short run demos.  but once we look to
regular long run eq, it is a real issue.
>
> also, only us weirdos will route around in it daily.  regular mortals are
averse to playing in the soot.  figuring out how to make it go away seems
important.
>
> i think steam is going to be important for this.  also running reduction down
further towards its end and preventing very hot gas out of the hearth.
>
> jim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, "Dave_Cahoon" <dave_cahoon@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Max,
> > >
> > > yes that's why at first; I was quenching the coal bed.
> > > I cant explain why if the teeny stream touched the inside of the tube it
quit working. My only guess is the flash to steam was blocking off the nozzle
action and the heat started moving up the column.
> > > With all the shaking required now, it would not be easy to keep the stream
pointed into the "white light".
> > >
> > > In that older system most air went down the tube and some made its way
through the fuel. A vented hopper. It was almost a good unit except at times the
flame would yellow for a few moments.
> > >
> > > While the flare was NOT yellow I did allow a small engine to draw fuel
from under the flare. It ran good with no change in timing.
> > > The rainy day effect became easy to reproduce.
> > >
> > > With steam addition ill bet it simply was way to much "water"
> > > and it displaced the available air and quenched the system.
> > >
> > > If its running good and then one or all nozzles change because of steam it
should quench. A separate nozzle system for the water(s) is necessary. drips may
work on a huge system, but they will swamp the smaller systems with the pulses
of water not a steady stream of humidity.
> > >
> > > Dave
> > >
> > > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, "maxgasman" <gasman@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi, David!
> > > >
> > > > Now I have to guess:
> > > > IF you did not first cool the gas near
> > > > to ambient temperature, you have no idea
> > > > of how much condense it carried through the
> > > > process?
> > > > You did not feed it to a motor to check
> > > > heating value changes as RPM changes?
> > > >
> > > > So, IF you burned it directly as hot,
> > > > additional water (even small amounts)
> > > > makes the gas-flow increase.
> > > >
> > > > Water expands in volume from liquid to
> > > > steam at atmospheric pressure in the
> > > > ratio 1:1690 !!!
> > > >
> > > > This will very easily make your torch-flame
> > > > much longer and clearer.
> > > >
> > > > Still guessing that you have to cool the
> > > > gas in order to measure the "waste-heat"
> > > > condensate and let a motor show how the
> > > > heating value changes.
> > > >
> > > > Max
> > > >
> > > > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > > "Dave_Cahoon" <dave_cahoon@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Max,
> > > > >
> > > > > My modified fema experience has shown
> > > > > me that its not a temporary change to the
> > > > > flame. It does not take much liquid water
> > > > > to make the effect seen. In fact a very
> > > > > small amount. I had an extremely small
> > > > > pinhole (solid) stream of water like that
> > > > > which issues from a squirt gun but, about
> > > > > 1/32 in size and volume. I never got to
> > > > > measure it after my coal bed ejection
> > > > > experiments a few winters ago the pisser
> > > > > was damaged. a gallon of water would last
> > > > > hours+; opinion not measure.
> > > > > I worked my way the down from way to much
> > > > > water to finding the teeny amount that made
> > > > > the flame a rainy day flame. it would stay
> > > > > that way for the whole run..
> > > > >
> > > > > Dave
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > > > "maxgasman" <gasman@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That is a sober conclusion!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However interesting the molecule physics
> > > > > > of the water is, for gasification the
> > > > > > balancing of "old-fashioned water" to
> > > > > > the available process heat energy
> > > > > > (recuperated and oxidised) is the
> > > > > > thing builders and developers have
> > > > > > their day full of...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are three sources of water:
> > > > > > -- Air humidity
> > > > > > -- Physical water in wood
> > > > > > -- Chemical water in wood
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As a quality measure in the gas:
> > > > > > -- amount CO2
> > > > > > -- amount of condensable water
> > > > > > -- amount of nitrogen.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If we can manage the produced heat
> > > > > > energy well, then these "useless"
> > > > > > "fill-up" gases can be minimized
> > > > > > and the end result brightens the
> > > > > > life of the user.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Condense water AFTER gasification
> > > > > > is the cheapest indicator if there
> > > > > > is too big a supply of water in
> > > > > > ANY FORM ahead of the oxidation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All "extra" water, which cannot be
> > > > > > cracked up, is just STEALING heat
> > > > > > energy from the process and transporting
> > > > > > it away, just to be lost in a cooler...
> > > > > > There will be LESS hydrogen produced
> > > > > > and much less CO in the product gas.
> > > > > > End result: Lower heat value.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There can be no reason for adding extra
> > > > > > water in any form (with exception for
> > > > > > superheated steam at stationary plants
> > > > > > or "desert conditions")
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A temporarily more beautiful flame is not
> > > > > > necessarily = a more valuable gas.
> > > > > > A short sprinkle of water lives on the
> > > > > > "glow reserve".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Max
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > > > > BILL THOMAS <waarehouse@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you stuart. Yes, CO2 is in the
> > > > > > > air all around us, it is a major cause of
> > > > > > > GLOBAL WARMING and OCEAN ACIDIFICATION
> > > > > > > and I doubt the economics or "mass-balance"
> > > > > > > of adjusting pH would benefit
> > > > > > > H2 yield in woodgas burners.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: Stuart Perkins <perkins.stuart@>
> > > > > > > To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Sent: Thu, September 2, 2010 6:43:26 AM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [WoodGas] RE:Water
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Perhaps a better question would be how
> > > > > > > you avoid c02 in your distillation
> > > > > > > process. You would need to distill
> > > > > > > in an artificial atmosphere which
> > > > > > > contained no gasses which were readily
> > > > > > > dissolved in water to get actual "pure"
> > > > > > > water.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 06:23 -0400,
> > > > > > > > Steve Spence wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > How do you get CO2 in distilled water?
> > > > > > > > That's not in my chemistry book.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Steve Spence
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Renewable energy and self sufficiency
> > > > > > > > http://www.green-trust.org
> > > > > > > > http://arduinotronics.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 09/02/2010 02:17 AM, BILL THOMAS wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The low pH of distilled water is
> > > > > > > > > because of CO2, the pH of pure
> > > > > > > > > water is 7.
> > > > > > > > > That's in the chemistry books.
> > > > > > > > > Deionized water "plumbing" is
> > > > > > > > > different than distillation equipment,
> > > > > > > > > and probably accounts for the
> > > > > > > > > difference in CO2.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Water, Ka=7, "dissociates" into
> > > > > > > > > hydronium and hydroxide (hydroxyl?)
> > > > > > > > > ions after it is made from hydrogen
> > > > > > > > > and oxygen molecules, that are highly
> > > > > > > > > reactive so much so, the Saturn 5
> > > > > > > > > mainstage rockets were fired by
> > > > > > > > > mixing pure oxygen and hydrogen,
> > > > > > > > > forming water, that dissociated
> > > > > > > > > into the ions mentioned here.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Hello All
Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXALtKGKSFQ

Picture

http://picasaweb.google.com/neilball34606/2010ProtoTypeGasiferSystem?authkey=Gv1\
\
sRgCKrX_cGPkNSDpAE#Pictures



Well I finally Have a running producer. As you can imagine I have had a big
smile for the 2 hours I ran it.

It starts super easy actually it start faster than my jeep as far as cranks to
start running.

Now a question for you all. if you look at my mixer I have a gate valve to
control air but the engine runs with no added air to the mixer the gate valve is
100% closed my unit is running a closed circuit only using air suppied by the
intake air to the hopper.

I have checked for air leaks the whole time it has been being built, so I am
baffled on how there is enough air for ignition?

Hey I want to thank everyone for any and all the help that was givin.

You all are Great.

Now I can BBB

Neil

http://picasaweb.google.com/neilball34606/2010ProtoTypeGasiferSystem?authkey=Gv1\
sRgCKrX_cGPkNSDpAE

Sorry
Neil

Hi, Dave!

Your last answer is cryptic to the
point of being meaningless...

A motor running on the produced gas,
cooled and filtered, with the mixture
adjusted a bit on the lean side,
will respond to changes in gas heat
value both upward and downward.

This setting will tell if extra
water added in the form of steam will
increase or decrease the heating value.

Max

--- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com,
> "Dave_Cahoon" <dave_cahoon@...> wrote:
>
> if your fuel is a literal constant moleculary
>
>
> --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com,
> > "maxgasman" <gasman@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Dave!
> > If one has the "desert condition" and
> > must administer extra water to get a
> > yield of hydrogen (not on the expense
> > of good CO yield), then it must be given
> > as dry, or better superheated steam
> > trough the regular nozzles with preheated
> > air. As soon as cooling the gas gives an
> > increase in condense "production" the
> > optimum is at hand.
> >
> > Max
> >
> > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com,
> > > "Dave_Cahoon" <dave_cahoon@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Max,
> > >
> > > yes that's why at first; I was
> > > quenching the coal bed.
> > > I cant explain why if the teeny stream
> > > touched the inside of the tube it quit
> > > working. My only guess is the flash to
> > > steam was blocking off the nozzle
> > > action and the heat started moving up
> > > the column. With all the shaking
> > > required now, it would not be easy to
> > > keep the stream pointed into the
> > > "white light".
> > > In that older system most air went down
> > > the tube and some made its way through
> > > the fuel. A vented hopper. It was almost
> > > a good unit except at times the flame
> > > would yellow for a few moments.
> > >
> > > While the flare was NOT yellow I did
> > > allow a small engine to draw fuel from
> > > under the flare. It ran good with no
> > > change in timing. The rainy day effect
> > > became easy to reproduce.
> > >
> > > With steam addition ill bet it simply
> > > was way to much "water" and it
> > > displaced the available air and
> > > quenched the system.
> > >
> > > If its running good and then one or all
> > > nozzles change because of steam it
> > > should quench. A separate nozzle system
> > > for the water(s) is necessary. drips may
> > > work on a huge system, but they will
> > > swamp the smaller systems with the pulses
> > > of water not a steady stream of humidity.
> > >
> > > Dave
> > >
> > > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > "maxgasman" <gasman@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi, David!
> > > >
> > > > Now I have to guess:
> > > > IF you did not first cool the gas near
> > > > to ambient temperature, you have no idea
> > > > of how much condense it carried through
> > > > the process?
> > > > You did not feed it to a motor to check
> > > > heating value changes as RPM changes?
> > > >
> > > > So, IF you burned it directly as hot,
> > > > additional water (even small amounts)
> > > > makes the gas-flow increase.
> > > >
> > > > Water expands in volume from liquid to
> > > > steam at atmospheric pressure in the
> > > > ratio 1:1690 !!!
> > > >
> > > > This will very easily make your
> > > > torch-flame much longer and clearer.
> > > >
> > > > Still guessing that you have to cool the
> > > > gas in order to measure the "waste-heat"
> > > > condensate and let a motor show how the
> > > > heating value changes.
> > > >
> > > > Max
> > > >
> > > > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > > "Dave_Cahoon" <dave_cahoon@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Max,
> > > > >
> > > > > My modified fema experience has shown
> > > > > me that its not a temporary change
> > > > > to the flame. It does not take much
> > > > > liquid water to make the effect seen.
> > > > > In fact a very small amount. I had an
> > > > > extremely small pinhole (solid) stream
> > > > > of water like that which issues from a
> > > > > squirt gun but, about 1/32 in size and
> > > > > volume. I never got to measure it
> > > > > after my coal bed ejection
> > > > > experiments a few winters ago the
> > > > > pisser was damaged. a gallon of water
> > > > > would last hours+; opinion not measure.
> > > > > I worked my way the down from way to
> > > > > much  water to finding the teeny amount
> > > > > that made the flame a rainy day flame.
> > > > > It would stay that way for the whole run..
> > > > >
> > > > > Dave
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > > > "maxgasman" <gasman@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That is a sober conclusion!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However interesting the molecule
> > > > > > physics of the water is, for
> > > > > > gasification the balancing of
> > > > > > "old-fashioned water" to the
> > > > > > available process heat energy
> > > > > > (recuperated and oxidised) is
> > > > > > the thing builders and developers
> > > > > > havetheir day full of...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are three sources of water:
> > > > > > -- Air humidity
> > > > > > -- Physical water in wood
> > > > > > -- Chemical water in wood
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As a quality measure in the gas:
> > > > > > -- amount CO2
> > > > > > -- amount of condensable water
> > > > > > -- amount of nitrogen.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If we can manage the produced heat
> > > > > > energy well, then these "useless"
> > > > > > "fill-up" gases can be minimized
> > > > > > and the end result brightens the
> > > > > > life of the user.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Condense water AFTER gasification
> > > > > > is the cheapest indicator if there
> > > > > > is too big a supply of water in
> > > > > > ANY FORM ahead of the oxidation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All "extra" water, which cannot be
> > > > > > cracked up, is just STEALING heat
> > > > > > energy from the process and
> > > > > > transporting it away, just to be
> > > > > > lost in a cooler...
> > > > > > There will be LESS hydrogen produced
> > > > > > and much less CO in the product gas.
> > > > > > End result: Lower heat value.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There can be no reason for adding
> > > > > > extra water in any form (with
> > > > > > exception for superheated steam at
> > > > > > stationary plants or
> > > > > > "desert conditions")
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A temporarily more beautiful flame
> > > > > > is not necessarily = a more valuable
> > > > > > gas. A short sprinkle of water lives
> > > > > > on the "glow reserve".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Max
> > > > > >

Hi all,can someone please educate me as regards to where crude oil comes from?
Some of my friends says its not fossil fuel....but the all agreed that coal
is.They say they dont really know where crude oil comes from.
So great group members where does crude oil come from. Evidence of its source
would be most appreciated.
Clem




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Now, you have my confusion added to this as well,

  I thought that "distilled" meant bringing the fluid to a boil, and catching the
condensate, how would this interject Co2 and add it, to the condensed form of
the vapor?

  There is a "VERY MARKED" difference between water and "heavy water" used in
reactors

Greg Manning,
Canadian Gasifier Ltd.
Building Hi-Performance Gasifiers, Since 2001

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
1 (204) 726-1851



-----Original Message-----
From: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WoodGas@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf
Of Steve Spence
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 5:24 AM
To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WoodGas] RE:Water


How do you get CO2 in distilled water? That's not in my chemistry book.

Steve Spence
Renewable energy and self sufficiency
http://www.green-trust.org
http://arduinotronics.blogspot.com/



On 09/02/2010 02:17 AM, BILL THOMAS wrote:
>
>
> The low pH of distilled water is because of CO2, the pH of pure water is 7.
> That's in the chemistry books. Deionized water "plumbing" is different than
> distillation equipment, and probably accounts for the difference in CO2.
> Water,
> Ka=7, "dissociates" into hyrdonium and hydroxide (hydroxyl?) ions after
> it is
> made from hydrogen and oxygen molecules, that are highly reactive so
> much so,
> the Saturn 5 mainstage rockets were fired by mixing pure oxygen and
> hydrogen,
> forming water, that dissociated into the ions mentioned here.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Someone Somewhere <drzee2012@... <mailto:drzee2012%40yahoo.com>>
> To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com <mailto:WoodGas%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wed, September 1, 2010 9:28:13 PM
> Subject: [WoodGas] RE:Water
>
> The PH of pure water is not "short lived" I stand behind my words, Water
> is not H2O but a combination of two molecules. Hydronium and Hydroxide.
> The fundamental differences in the two explain why distilled water is
> always acidic. I was wrong to bring it up here. I apologize to all who i
> scared!
>
> When I worked for a pharmaceutical company, when the solvent was water
> it was
> deionized. I never got a good explanation of the difference, but this would
> explain it--the pH of deionized water would truly be 7.0.
>
> David
> ---------------
>
> Don't bother visiting my page on "Get Outta My Face Book" the world's
> largest
> antisocial network. I'll just ignore you. And keep your darn kids off of my
> lawn!
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links



Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3098 - Release Date: 09/01/10
13:34:00

There is a _lot_ of misinformation and  being tossed about here.

1.  It is true that water dissociates into "hydronium" and "hydroxyl" ions, but
calling the ions by those names and talking about dissociation obfuscates the
true situation.  The concentration of the "hydronium" ion (which is the H+ ion)
is 1.0E-7.0  That means that its pH is 7.0, by the definition of pH.  That also
means that the concentration of the "hydroxyl" ion (OH-) is also 1.0E-7.0 in
neutral water.  No matter how the water is produced, pure water will be composed
primarily of H2O molecules with 0.00001% H+ ions and 0.00001% OH- ions.

2.  CO2 will dissolve in water forming a weak acid (carbonic acid.) 
<http://www.chem.usu.edu/~sbialkow/Classes/3600/Overheads/Carbonate/CO2.html> 
pH of water in equilibrium with air containing 0.0355% CO2 is about 5.65 (e.g.
the concentration of the H+ ion is 1.0E-5.65 (0.00022%), which is acidic; see
<http://www.chem.usu.edu/~sbialkow/Classes/3650/Carbonate/Carbonic%20Acid.html>
for example calculations.)

3.  It is relatively easy to see that increasing CO2 concentration acidifies
water; run the numbers.  Experiment confirms that pH tracks CO2 concentration.

4.  Distillation of water in a natural atmosphere will produce water that has
(approximately) the same pH (5.65) as water in equilibrium with air.  All
chemicals pick up contaminants from their environment; water is no different. 
It will leach minerals from the soil and rock if passed through those, from
pipes (lead, copper, zinc and tin) but not much from glass (depending on the
glass composition.)

5.  De-ionised water is generally used because it is cheaper to produce than
distilled water and can be equivalent chemically.  The de-ionisation process
passes the source water through an ion exchange resin bed (see
<http://www.remco.com/ix.htm>) which looks like a lot of small plastic beads in
a reaction vessel.  The plastic beads substitute an H+ ion for any cation
(positively charged ion) in the water stream and OH- ions for any anions. 
Because there is no contact with the atmosphere during this process, there is
less need for post-process cleaning (like to remove dissolved CO2) and there is
less energy consumed.  (Though good distillation units can recover most of the
heat used to boil the water from the condensation of the water.)

Donald.
--
"Plain Text" email -- it's an accessibility issue
()  no proprietary attachments; no html mail
/\  ascii ribbon campaign - <www.asciiribbon.org>

----- Original Message -----

> From: "Greg Manning" <a31ford@...>
> To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, September 3, 2010 7:21:48 AM
> Subject: RE: [WoodGas] RE:Water
>
> Now, you have my confusion added to this as well,
>
>  I thought that "distilled" meant bringing the fluid to a boil, and
> catching the condensate, how would this interject Co2 and add it, to
> the condensed form of the vapor?
>
>  There is a "VERY MARKED" difference between water and "heavy water"
> used in reactors
>
> Greg Manning,
> Canadian Gasifier Ltd.
> Building Hi-Performance Gasifiers, Since 2001
>
> Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
> 1 (204) 726-1851
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WoodGas@yahoogroups.com]On
> Behalf
> Of Steve Spence
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 5:24 AM
> To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WoodGas] RE:Water
>
>
> How do you get CO2 in distilled water? That's not in my chemistry
> book.
>
> Steve Spence
> Renewable energy and self sufficiency
> http://www.green-trust.org
> http://arduinotronics.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
> On 09/02/2010 02:17 AM, BILL THOMAS wrote:
> >
> >
> > The low pH of distilled water is because of CO2, the pH of pure water is 7.
> > That's in the chemistry books. Deionized water "plumbing" is different than
> > distillation equipment, and probably accounts for the difference in CO2.
> > Water,
> > Ka=7, "dissociates" into hyrdonium and hydroxide (hydroxyl?) ions after
> > it is
> > made from hydrogen and oxygen molecules, that are highly reactive so
> > much so,
> > the Saturn 5 mainstage rockets were fired by mixing pure oxygen and
> > hydrogen,
> > forming water, that dissociated into the ions mentioned here.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Someone Somewhere <drzee2012@...
> <mailto:drzee2012%40yahoo.com>>
> > To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com <mailto:WoodGas%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wed, September 1, 2010 9:28:13 PM
> > Subject: [WoodGas] RE:Water
> >
> > The PH of pure water is not "short lived" I stand behind my words,
> Water
> > is not H2O but a combination of two molecules. Hydronium and
> Hydroxide.
> > The fundamental differences in the two explain why distilled water
> is
> > always acidic. I was wrong to bring it up here. I apologize to all
> who i
> > scared!
> >
> > When I worked for a pharmaceutical company, when the solvent was
> water
> > it was
> > deionized. I never got a good explanation of the difference, but
> this would
> > explain it--the pH of deionized water would truly be 7.0.
> >
> > David
> > ---------------
> >
> > Don't bother visiting my page on "Get Outta My Face Book" the
> world's
> > largest
> > antisocial network. I'll just ignore you. And keep your darn kids
> off of my
> > lawn!
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3098 - Release Date:
> 09/01/10 13:34:00
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Why are there ruins of cities just off the coast of most continents?

Sea levels change.  The right response is to move.

Globally speaking, we are almost back up to "average".  The ice age is
still ending.  A good global warming will do several things...open up
tundra for farming, increase plant life which increases food production
and CO2 processing, decrease the need for the burning of fuel for
heat...all sorts of things, most of them good.

We need to stop being stupid with our environment, but most of that is
driven by greed.  Competing elements for the spoils of greed are
capitalism and socialism.  Take money by doing business or take money by
taxation.  Either way the transfer of wealth from your pocket to someone
else's takes place.  Socialism is fueled by fear, but the driving force
behind it is still greed.  At least in capitalism, we get something
useful for our money.


On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 22:58 +0000, bigotes_bigotes wrote:
>
> Bruce,
> Whether we be the culprits or not, it's happening. Down in PerĂş we get
> all our waters from glacial runoff from up in the Andes. In about 10 -
> 12 years the glaciers will be gone. No one in their right minds will
> deny it. In fact it's happening lots quicker than they originally
> thought. Lots of people gotta figure out something and quick. There
> are the pacific islanders who now see that their land is soon going to
> be reefs under water and they're presently trying to figure out where
> in the hell to go. Or else genetically engineer gills. In other words,
> for some people this is serious sh__. We may not feel so personally
> pressed by reading about all of it from the safety of our own local
> perspective, but the changes are for real. Laying blame? What good
> does that do? Unless someone thinks they can really reverse the
> process??? All those tree-hugging carbon neutral liberal nuts could be
> right, but I personally think it's probably too late at this stage of
> the game. Just too much momentum barrel assing down the wrong highway
> to even think of stopping it. But they will try.
> The truth of the matter is that there have been many ups and downs in
> the earth's climate before, and usually each and every one of them has
> had an extremely dramatic effect on mankind. History changing events.
> Best I can see we can do is hang on and ride it out.
> By the way, I hope to have my book "Recipes for Longpig" published by
> the end of the year. It's a tongue-in-cheek survival manual for what's
> coming our way. I hope things don't get so bad that people rely on
> eating longpig just to survive, but it has definitely happened in the
> past and could always happen again, haha. And when push comes to shove
> some folk just do what they got to do.
> I really shouldn't even be posting something this much off-topic, but
> it is to a large part these very concerns that are motivating a lot of
> our crowd, if only to be able to survive if and when things take a
> bigger turn for the worse. It's certainly not economics that are the
> motivation, other than perhaps the Jim Masons and Ben Petersens and
> Bill Kleins..............
> Bigotes
>
> --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, "humble1a" <humble1a@...> wrote:
> >
> > He said.... she said. But how do you really know who is telling the
> truth. None of us can verify anything, the evidence is off limits. The
> reality is, we will screw up the environment because there is no one
> righteous, no not one. Not you, me or anyone else. We all lie, steal,
> cheat ect. Life's a b*tch then you die.
> >
> > for every article printed about global warming I can show ten saying
> it is bunk, who do you believe, the guys that promote fear and get
> more money because they do it, or the guys that get no money, stand
> their ground and say it ain't so.
> >
> > Do what you got to do.
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, "Dave_Cahoon" <dave_cahoon@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oaf998FwQVI
> > > Scientific dishonesty?! The TALE of two wells *&$%$$
> > >
> > > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, "humble1a" <humble1a@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The major cause of the perception of global warming is
> dishonesty.
> > > > For example;
> > > > In the name of fiscal restraint NOAA closes thousands of weather
> stations located in rural America leaving only the ones located near
> cities. This gave rise to the huge temperature spike on the charts.
> This is verifiable.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Then there is this;
> > > > The following commentary is from Atmospheric Scientist and
> Hurricane forecasting specialist Dr. William Gray. Gray is the
> renowned hurricane forecaster and Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric
> Science at Colorado State University (CSU) and originally published
> this artiucle on ClimateDepot.com.
> > > >
> > > > Had I not devoted my entire career of more than half a century
> to the study and forecasting of meteorological and climate events, I
> would have likely been concerned over the possibility of humans
> causing serious global climate degradation.
> > > >
> > > > There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided
> indoctrination of the Western world by the media and by various
> scientists and governments concerning a coming carbon dioxide (CO2)
> induced global warming disaster. These warming scenarios have been
> orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists, vested interest
> scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the media
> which profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental
> bureaucrats who want more power over our lives, and socialists who
> want to level-out global living standards. These many alarmist groups
> appear to have little concern over whether their global warming
> prognostications are accurate, however. And they most certainly are
> not. The alarmists believe they will be able to scare enough of our
> citizens into believing their propaganda that the public will be
> willing to follow their advice on future energy usage and agree to a
> lowering of their standard of living in the name of climate salvation.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It appears even the scientists are freaking crooks stealing from
> us.
> > > >
> > > > Burn a tree today and drive your a** off.
> > > >
> > > > Bruce
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, BILL THOMAS <waarehouse@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you stuart. Yes, CO2 is in the air all around us, it is
> a major cause of
> > > > > GLOBAL WARMING and OCEAN ACIDIFICATION and I doubt the
> economics or
> > > > > "mass-balance" of adjusting pH would benefit H2 yield in
> woodgas burners.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Stuart Perkins <perkins.stuart@>
> > > > > To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Thu, September 2, 2010 6:43:26 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [WoodGas] RE:Water
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > perhaps a better question would be how you avoid c02 in your
> > > > > distillation process. You would need to distill in an
> artificial
> > > > > atmosphere which contained no gasses which were readily
> dissolved in
> > > > > water to get actual "pure" water.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 06:23 -0400, Steve Spence wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How do you get CO2 in distilled water? That's not in my
> chemistry
> > > > > > book.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Steve Spence
> > > > > > Renewable energy and self sufficiency
> > > > > > http://www.green-trust.org
> > > > > > http://arduinotronics.blogspot.com/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 09/02/2010 02:17 AM, BILL THOMAS wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The low pH of distilled water is because of CO2, the pH of
> pure
> > > > > > water is 7.
> > > > > > > That's in the chemistry books. Deionized water "plumbing"
> is
> > > > > > different than
> > > > > > > distillation equipment, and probably accounts for the
> difference in
> > > > > > CO2.
> > > > > > > Water,
> > > > > > > Ka=7, "dissociates" into hyrdonium and hydroxide
> (hydroxyl?) ions
> > > > > > after
> > > > > > > it is
> > > > > > > made from hydrogen and oxygen molecules, that are highly
> reactive so
> > > > > > > much so,
> > > > > > > the Saturn 5 mainstage rockets were fired by mixing pure
> oxygen and
> > > > > > > hydrogen,
> > > > > > > forming water, that dissociated into the ions mentioned
> here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: Someone Somewhere <drzee2012@ <mailto:drzee2012%
> > > > > > 40yahoo.com>>
> > > > > > > To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com <mailto:WoodGas%
> 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > Sent: Wed, September 1, 2010 9:28:13 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: [WoodGas] RE:Water
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The PH of pure water is not "short lived" I stand behind
> my words,
> > > > > > Water
> > > > > > > is not H2O but a combination of two molecules. Hydronium
> and
> > > > > > Hydroxide.
> > > > > > > The fundamental differences in the two explain why
> distilled water
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > always acidic. I was wrong to bring it up here. I
> apologize to all
> > > > > > who i
> > > > > > > scared!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When I worked for a pharmaceutical company, when the
> solvent was
> > > > > > water
> > > > > > > it was
> > > > > > > deionized. I never got a good explanation of the
> difference, but
> > > > > > this would
> > > > > > > explain it--the pH of deionized water would truly be 7.0.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > David
> > > > > > > ---------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Don't bother visiting my page on "Get Outta My Face Book"
> the
> > > > > > world's
> > > > > > > largest
> > > > > > > antisocial network. I'll just ignore you. And keep your
> darn kids
> > > > > > off of my
> > > > > > > lawn!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Stuart,
Pretty right on.  During the ice age when so much water was locked in the ice
our coastlines were the continental shelf.  What's that, 300 ft. or so below
where it now is?  But also, during those ice ages tropical desert areas were
lush green.  I guess what that boils down to is that the climatic changes have
always put people through some serious changes.  But we're still here.
Myself and probably many more of you guys out there are interested in
gasification as a way to hedge our bets and maybe have a better chance of
survival if things really do get wierd.  And to answer why we are even concerned
I would say that we hear the changes rumbling in the distance.  Things just
ain't looking too good and don't seem to be getting any better.
Bigotes

--- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, Stuart Perkins <perkins.stuart@...> wrote:
>
> Why are there ruins of cities just off the coast of most continents?
>
> Sea levels change.  The right response is to move.
>
> Globally speaking, we are almost back up to "average".  The ice age is
> still ending.  A good global warming will do several things...open up
> tundra for farming, increase plant life which increases food production
> and CO2 processing, decrease the need for the burning of fuel for
> heat...all sorts of things, most of them good.
>
> We need to stop being stupid with our environment, but most of that is
> driven by greed.  Competing elements for the spoils of greed are
> capitalism and socialism.  Take money by doing business or take money by
> taxation.  Either way the transfer of wealth from your pocket to someone
> else's takes place.  Socialism is fueled by fear, but the driving force
> behind it is still greed.  At least in capitalism, we get something
> useful for our money.
>
>
> On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 22:58 +0000, bigotes_bigotes wrote:
> >
> > Bruce,
> > Whether we be the culprits or not, it's happening. Down in PerĂş we get
> > all our waters from glacial runoff from up in the Andes. In about 10 -
> > 12 years the glaciers will be gone. No one in their right minds will
> > deny it. In fact it's happening lots quicker than they originally
> > thought. Lots of people gotta figure out something and quick. There
> > are the pacific islanders who now see that their land is soon going to
> > be reefs under water and they're presently trying to figure out where
> > in the hell to go. Or else genetically engineer gills. In other words,
> > for some people this is serious sh__. We may not feel so personally
> > pressed by reading about all of it from the safety of our own local
> > perspective, but the changes are for real. Laying blame? What good
> > does that do? Unless someone thinks they can really reverse the
> > process??? All those tree-hugging carbon neutral liberal nuts could be
> > right, but I personally think it's probably too late at this stage of
> > the game. Just too much momentum barrel assing down the wrong highway
> > to even think of stopping it. But they will try.
> > The truth of the matter is that there have been many ups and downs in
> > the earth's climate before, and usually each and every one of them has
> > had an extremely dramatic effect on mankind. History changing events.
> > Best I can see we can do is hang on and ride it out.
> > By the way, I hope to have my book "Recipes for Longpig" published by
> > the end of the year. It's a tongue-in-cheek survival manual for what's
> > coming our way. I hope things don't get so bad that people rely on
> > eating longpig just to survive, but it has definitely happened in the
> > past and could always happen again, haha. And when push comes to shove
> > some folk just do what they got to do.
> > I really shouldn't even be posting something this much off-topic, but
> > it is to a large part these very concerns that are motivating a lot of
> > our crowd, if only to be able to survive if and when things take a
> > bigger turn for the worse. It's certainly not economics that are the
> > motivation, other than perhaps the Jim Masons and Ben Petersens and
> > Bill Kleins..............
> > Bigotes
> >
> > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, "humble1a" <humble1a@> wrote:
> > >
> > > He said.... she said. But how do you really know who is telling the
> > truth. None of us can verify anything, the evidence is off limits. The
> > reality is, we will screw up the environment because there is no one
> > righteous, no not one. Not you, me or anyone else. We all lie, steal,
> > cheat ect. Life's a b*tch then you die.
> > >
> > > for every article printed about global warming I can show ten saying
> > it is bunk, who do you believe, the guys that promote fear and get
> > more money because they do it, or the guys that get no money, stand
> > their ground and say it ain't so.
> > >
> > > Do what you got to do.
> > >
> > > Bruce
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, "Dave_Cahoon" <dave_cahoon@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oaf998FwQVI
> > > > Scientific dishonesty?! The TALE of two wells *&$%$$
> > > >
> > > > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, "humble1a" <humble1a@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The major cause of the perception of global warming is
> > dishonesty.
> > > > > For example;
> > > > > In the name of fiscal restraint NOAA closes thousands of weather
> > stations located in rural America leaving only the ones located near
> > cities. This gave rise to the huge temperature spike on the charts.
> > This is verifiable.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Then there is this;
> > > > > The following commentary is from Atmospheric Scientist and
> > Hurricane forecasting specialist Dr. William Gray. Gray is the
> > renowned hurricane forecaster and Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric
> > Science at Colorado State University (CSU) and originally published
> > this artiucle on ClimateDepot.com.
> > > > >
> > > > > Had I not devoted my entire career of more than half a century
> > to the study and forecasting of meteorological and climate events, I
> > would have likely been concerned over the possibility of humans
> > causing serious global climate degradation.
> > > > >
> > > > > There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided
> > indoctrination of the Western world by the media and by various
> > scientists and governments concerning a coming carbon dioxide (CO2)
> > induced global warming disaster. These warming scenarios have been
> > orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists, vested interest
> > scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the media
> > which profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental
> > bureaucrats who want more power over our lives, and socialists who
> > want to level-out global living standards. These many alarmist groups
> > appear to have little concern over whether their global warming
> > prognostications are accurate, however. And they most certainly are
> > not. The alarmists believe they will be able to scare enough of our
> > citizens into believing their propaganda that the public will be
> > willing to follow their advice on future energy usage and agree to a
> > lowering of their standard of living in the name of climate salvation.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It appears even the scientists are freaking crooks stealing from
> > us.
> > > > >
> > > > > Burn a tree today and drive your a** off.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bruce
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, BILL THOMAS <waarehouse@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you stuart. Yes, CO2 is in the air all around us, it is
> > a major cause of
> > > > > > GLOBAL WARMING and OCEAN ACIDIFICATION and I doubt the
> > economics or
> > > > > > "mass-balance" of adjusting pH would benefit H2 yield in
> > woodgas burners.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: Stuart Perkins <perkins.stuart@>
> > > > > > To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Thu, September 2, 2010 6:43:26 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [WoodGas] RE:Water
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > perhaps a better question would be how you avoid c02 in your
> > > > > > distillation process. You would need to distill in an
> > artificial
> > > > > > atmosphere which contained no gasses which were readily
> > dissolved in
> > > > > > water to get actual "pure" water.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 06:23 -0400, Steve Spence wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How do you get CO2 in distilled water? That's not in my
> > chemistry
> > > > > > > book.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Steve Spence
> > > > > > > Renewable energy and self sufficiency
> > > > > > > http://www.green-trust.org
> > > > > > > http://arduinotronics.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 09/02/2010 02:17 AM, BILL THOMAS wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The low pH of distilled water is because of CO2, the pH of
> > pure
> > > > > > > water is 7.
> > > > > > > > That's in the chemistry books. Deionized water "plumbing"
> > is
> > > > > > > different than
> > > > > > > > distillation equipment, and probably accounts for the
> > difference in
> > > > > > > CO2.
> > > > > > > > Water,
> > > > > > > > Ka=7, "dissociates" into hyrdonium and hydroxide
> > (hydroxyl?) ions
> > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > it is
> > > > > > > > made from hydrogen and oxygen molecules, that are highly
> > reactive so
> > > > > > > > much so,
> > > > > > > > the Saturn 5 mainstage rockets were fired by mixing pure
> > oxygen and
> > > > > > > > hydrogen,
> > > > > > > > forming water, that dissociated into the ions mentioned
> > here.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: Someone Somewhere <drzee2012@ <mailto:drzee2012%
> > > > > > > 40yahoo.com>>
> > > > > > > > To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com <mailto:WoodGas%
> > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Wed, September 1, 2010 9:28:13 PM
> > > > > > > > Subject: [WoodGas] RE:Water
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The PH of pure water is not "short lived" I stand behind
> > my words,
> > > > > > > Water
> > > > > > > > is not H2O but a combination of two molecules. Hydronium
> > and
> > > > > > > Hydroxide.
> > > > > > > > The fundamental differences in the two explain why
> > distilled water
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > always acidic. I was wrong to bring it up here. I
> > apologize to all
> > > > > > > who i
> > > > > > > > scared!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When I worked for a pharmaceutical company, when the
> > solvent was
> > > > > > > water
> > > > > > > > it was
> > > > > > > > deionized. I never got a good explanation of the
> > difference, but
> > > > > > > this would
> > > > > > > > explain it--the pH of deionized water would truly be 7.0.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > David
> > > > > > > > ---------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Don't bother visiting my page on "Get Outta My Face Book"
> > the
> > > > > > > world's
> > > > > > > > largest
> > > > > > > > antisocial network. I'll just ignore you. And keep your
> > darn kids
> > > > > > > off of my
> > > > > > > > lawn!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Donald you are exactly right about 2,3,4,5.  But I don't think 1 "obfuscates the
true situation".  IN theory pure water is pure water, H20, the "dissociation"
happens rapidly in a reversible reaction, and I believe the correct word is
"dissociation" for that chemical process.  10 to the negative 7 is a very small
amount as we know.  If by obfuscate you mean "nothing to worry about" then I
agree.



________________________________
From: Donald H Locker <dhlocker@...>
To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, September 3, 2010 5:32:09 AM
Subject: Re: [WoodGas] RE:Water


There is a _lot_ of misinformation and  being tossed about here.

1.  It is true that water dissociates into "hydronium" and "hydroxyl" ions, but
calling the ions by those names and talking about dissociation obfuscates the
true situation.  The concentration of the "hydronium" ion (which is the H+ ion)
is 1.0E-7.0  That means that its pH is 7.0, by the definition of pH.  That also
means that the concentration of the "hydroxyl" ion (OH-) is also 1.0E-7.0 in
neutral water.  No matter how the water is produced, pure water will be composed
primarily of H2O molecules with 0.00001% H+ ions and 0.00001% OH- ions.

2.  CO2 will dissolve in water forming a weak acid (carbonic acid.)
<http://www.chem.usu.edu/~sbialkow/Classes/3600/Overheads/Carbonate/CO2.html>
pH of water in equilibrium with air containing 0.0355% CO2 is about 5.65 (e.g.
the concentration of the H+ ion is 1.0E-5.65 (0.00022%), which is acidic; see
<http://www.chem.usu.edu/~sbialkow/Classes/3650/Carbonate/Carbonic%20Acid.html>
for example calculations.)

3.  It is relatively easy to see that increasing CO2 concentration acidifies
water; run the numbers.  Experiment confirms that pH tracks CO2 concentration.

4.  Distillation of water in a natural atmosphere will produce water that has
(approximately) the same pH (5.65) as water in equilibrium with air.  All
chemicals pick up contaminants from their environment; water is no different.
It will leach minerals from the soil and rock if passed through those, from
pipes (lead, copper, zinc and tin) but not much from glass (depending on the
glass composition.)

5.  De-ionised water is generally used because it is cheaper to produce than
distilled water and can be equivalent chemically.  The de-ionisation process
passes the source water through an ion exchange resin bed (see
<http://www.remco.com/ix.htm>) which looks like a lot of small plastic beads in
a reaction vessel.  The plastic beads substitute an H+ ion for any cation
(positively charged ion) in the water stream and OH- ions for any anions.
Because there is no contact with the atmosphere during this process, there is
less need for post-process cleaning (like to remove dissolved CO2) and there is
less energy consumed.  (Though good distillation units can recover most of the
heat used to boil the water from the condensation of the water.)

Donald.
--
"Plain Text" email -- it's an accessibility issue
()  no proprietary attachments; no html mail
/\  ascii ribbon campaign - <www.asciiribbon.org>

----- Original Message -----

> From: "Greg Manning" <a31ford@...>
> To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, September 3, 2010 7:21:48 AM
> Subject: RE: [WoodGas] RE:Water
>
> Now, you have my confusion added to this as well,
>
>  I thought that "distilled" meant bringing the fluid to a boil, and
> catching the condensate, how would this interject Co2 and add it, to
> the condensed form of the vapor?
>
>  There is a "VERY MARKED" difference between water and "heavy water"
> used in reactors
>
> Greg Manning,
> Canadian Gasifier Ltd.
> Building Hi-Performance Gasifiers, Since 2001
>
> Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
> 1 (204) 726-1851
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WoodGas@yahoogroups.com]On
> Behalf
> Of Steve Spence
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 5:24 AM
> To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WoodGas] RE:Water
>
>
> How do you get CO2 in distilled water? That's not in my chemistry
> book.
>
> Steve Spence
> Renewable energy and self sufficiency
> http://www.green-trust.org
> http://arduinotronics.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
> On 09/02/2010 02:17 AM, BILL THOMAS wrote:
> >
> >
> > The low pH of distilled water is because of CO2, the pH of pure water is 7.
> > That's in the chemistry books. Deionized water "plumbing" is different than
> > distillation equipment, and probably accounts for the difference in CO2.
> > Water,
> > Ka=7, "dissociates" into hyrdonium and hydroxide (hydroxyl?) ions after
> > it is
> > made from hydrogen and oxygen molecules, that are highly reactive so
> > much so,
> > the Saturn 5 mainstage rockets were fired by mixing pure oxygen and
> > hydrogen,
> > forming water, that dissociated into the ions mentioned here.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Someone Somewhere <drzee2012@...
> <mailto:drzee2012%40yahoo.com>>
> > To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com <mailto:WoodGas%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wed, September 1, 2010 9:28:13 PM
> > Subject: [WoodGas] RE:Water
> >
> > The PH of pure water is not "short lived" I stand behind my words,
> Water
> > is not H2O but a combination of two molecules. Hydronium and
> Hydroxide.
> > The fundamental differences in the two explain why distilled water
> is
> > always acidic. I was wrong to bring it up here. I apologize to all
> who i
> > scared!
> >
> > When I worked for a pharmaceutical company, when the solvent was
> water
> > it was
> > deionized. I never got a good explanation of the difference, but
> this would
> > explain it--the pH of deionized water would truly be 7.0.
> >
> > David
> > ---------------
> >
> > Don't bother visiting my page on "Get Outta My Face Book" the
> world's
> > largest
> > antisocial network. I'll just ignore you. And keep your darn kids
> off of my
> > lawn!
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3098 - Release Date:
> 09/01/10 13:34:00
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Clement,

If you look into the makeup of the outer planets you will find vast quantity's
of hydrocarbons in their atmospheres.

IMHO this planet is soaked in Hydrocarbons. Enough to burn the O2 in our
atmosphere a few times. How can Dino-juice be found so many miles down. Some
coal deposits do have fossils in them and some surface oil seeps may be fossil
related. But 3miles down??

I know that west Texas industrial has been traced to a still living algae
"Botrycoccus braunii" its >80% vegeoil per cell. C34 if memory serves me.

X-billion years of algae and sun (fossil), plus the original materials from
creation of the solar system.

Dave.

--- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, Clement Aigbogun <revicaig@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,can someone please educate me as regards to where crude oil comes from?
Some of my friends says its not fossil fuel....but the all agreed that coal
is.They say they dont really know where crude oil comes from.
> So great group members where does crude oil come from. Evidence of its source
would be most appreciated.
> Clem
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Yes it is. lol I got interrupted.
I agree, any additional water not processed will show up in the sump.
I suppose back then, I could have just heated a given volume of water with my
flare to measure any caloric difference. Instead i looked at the color and size.
Dave

--- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, "maxgasman" <gasman@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi, Dave!
>
> Your last answer is cryptic to the
> point of being meaningless...
>
> A motor running on the produced gas,
> cooled and filtered, with the mixture
> adjusted a bit on the lean side,
> will respond to changes in gas heat
> value both upward and downward.
>
> This setting will tell if extra
> water added in the form of steam will
> increase or decrease the heating value.
>
> Max
>
> --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com,
> > "Dave_Cahoon" <dave_cahoon@> wrote:
> >
> > if your fuel is a literal constant moleculary
> >
> >
> > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com,
> > > "maxgasman" <gasman@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, Dave!
> > > If one has the "desert condition" and
> > > must administer extra water to get a
> > > yield of hydrogen (not on the expense
> > > of good CO yield), then it must be given
> > > as dry, or better superheated steam
> > > trough the regular nozzles with preheated
> > > air. As soon as cooling the gas gives an
> > > increase in condense "production" the
> > > optimum is at hand.
> > >
> > > Max
> > >
> > > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > "Dave_Cahoon" <dave_cahoon@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Max,
> > > >
> > > > yes that's why at first; I was
> > > > quenching the coal bed.
> > > > I cant explain why if the teeny stream
> > > > touched the inside of the tube it quit
> > > > working. My only guess is the flash to
> > > > steam was blocking off the nozzle
> > > > action and the heat started moving up
> > > > the column. With all the shaking
> > > > required now, it would not be easy to
> > > > keep the stream pointed into the
> > > > "white light".
> > > > In that older system most air went down
> > > > the tube and some made its way through
> > > > the fuel. A vented hopper. It was almost
> > > > a good unit except at times the flame
> > > > would yellow for a few moments.
> > > >
> > > > While the flare was NOT yellow I did
> > > > allow a small engine to draw fuel from
> > > > under the flare. It ran good with no
> > > > change in timing. The rainy day effect
> > > > became easy to reproduce.
> > > >
> > > > With steam addition ill bet it simply
> > > > was way to much "water" and it
> > > > displaced the available air and
> > > > quenched the system.
> > > >
> > > > If its running good and then one or all
> > > > nozzles change because of steam it
> > > > should quench. A separate nozzle system
> > > > for the water(s) is necessary. drips may
> > > > work on a huge system, but they will
> > > > swamp the smaller systems with the pulses
> > > > of water not a steady stream of humidity.
> > > >
> > > > Dave
> > > >
> > > > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > > "maxgasman" <gasman@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi, David!
> > > > >
> > > > > Now I have to guess:
> > > > > IF you did not first cool the gas near
> > > > > to ambient temperature, you have no idea
> > > > > of how much condense it carried through
> > > > > the process?
> > > > > You did not feed it to a motor to check
> > > > > heating value changes as RPM changes?
> > > > >
> > > > > So, IF you burned it directly as hot,
> > > > > additional water (even small amounts)
> > > > > makes the gas-flow increase.
> > > > >
> > > > > Water expands in volume from liquid to
> > > > > steam at atmospheric pressure in the
> > > > > ratio 1:1690 !!!
> > > > >
> > > > > This will very easily make your
> > > > > torch-flame much longer and clearer.
> > > > >
> > > > > Still guessing that you have to cool the
> > > > > gas in order to measure the "waste-heat"
> > > > > condensate and let a motor show how the
> > > > > heating value changes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Max
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > > > "Dave_Cahoon" <dave_cahoon@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Max,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My modified fema experience has shown
> > > > > > me that its not a temporary change
> > > > > > to the flame. It does not take much
> > > > > > liquid water to make the effect seen.
> > > > > > In fact a very small amount. I had an
> > > > > > extremely small pinhole (solid) stream
> > > > > > of water like that which issues from a
> > > > > > squirt gun but, about 1/32 in size and
> > > > > > volume. I never got to measure it
> > > > > > after my coal bed ejection
> > > > > > experiments a few winters ago the
> > > > > > pisser was damaged. a gallon of water
> > > > > > would last hours+; opinion not measure.
> > > > > > I worked my way the down from way to
> > > > > > much  water to finding the teeny amount
> > > > > > that made the flame a rainy day flame.
> > > > > > It would stay that way for the whole run..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dave
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > > > > "maxgasman" <gasman@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That is a sober conclusion!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However interesting the molecule
> > > > > > > physics of the water is, for
> > > > > > > gasification the balancing of
> > > > > > > "old-fashioned water" to the
> > > > > > > available process heat energy
> > > > > > > (recuperated and oxidised) is
> > > > > > > the thing builders and developers
> > > > > > > havetheir day full of...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are three sources of water:
> > > > > > > -- Air humidity
> > > > > > > -- Physical water in wood
> > > > > > > -- Chemical water in wood
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As a quality measure in the gas:
> > > > > > > -- amount CO2
> > > > > > > -- amount of condensable water
> > > > > > > -- amount of nitrogen.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If we can manage the produced heat
> > > > > > > energy well, then these "useless"
> > > > > > > "fill-up" gases can be minimized
> > > > > > > and the end result brightens the
> > > > > > > life of the user.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Condense water AFTER gasification
> > > > > > > is the cheapest indicator if there
> > > > > > > is too big a supply of water in
> > > > > > > ANY FORM ahead of the oxidation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All "extra" water, which cannot be
> > > > > > > cracked up, is just STEALING heat
> > > > > > > energy from the process and
> > > > > > > transporting it away, just to be
> > > > > > > lost in a cooler...
> > > > > > > There will be LESS hydrogen produced
> > > > > > > and much less CO in the product gas.
> > > > > > > End result: Lower heat value.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There can be no reason for adding
> > > > > > > extra water in any form (with
> > > > > > > exception for superheated steam at
> > > > > > > stationary plants or
> > > > > > > "desert conditions")
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A temporarily more beautiful flame
> > > > > > > is not necessarily = a more valuable
> > > > > > > gas. A short sprinkle of water lives
> > > > > > > on the "glow reserve".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Max
> > > > > > >
>

Donald,

The machine I spoke about is able to take a pure water stream and separate it
into an alkaline and acid streams. How is the ?
It is my belief that its an electrostatic process.
Not an electrolysis process as claimed by many.

Where did you get the 10^-6 number from.

Dave


--- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, Donald H Locker <dhlocker@...> wrote:
>
> There is a _lot_ of misinformation and  being tossed about here.
>
> 1.  It is true that water dissociates into "hydronium" and "hydroxyl" ions,
but calling the ions by those names and talking about dissociation obfuscates
the true situation.  The concentration of the "hydronium" ion (which is the H+
ion) is 1.0E-7.0  That means that its pH is 7.0, by the definition of pH.  That
also means that the concentration of the "hydroxyl" ion (OH-) is also 1.0E-7.0
in neutral water.  No matter how the water is produced, pure water will be
composed primarily of H2O molecules with 0.00001% H+ ions and 0.00001% OH- ions.
>
> 2.  CO2 will dissolve in water forming a weak acid (carbonic acid.) 
<http://www.chem.usu.edu/~sbialkow/Classes/3600/Overheads/Carbonate/CO2.html> 
pH of water in equilibrium with air containing 0.0355% CO2 is about 5.65 (e.g.
the concentration of the H+ ion is 1.0E-5.65 (0.00022%), which is acidic; see
<http://www.chem.usu.edu/~sbialkow/Classes/3650/Carbonate/Carbonic%20Acid.html>
for example calculations.)
>
> 3.  It is relatively easy to see that increasing CO2 concentration acidifies
water; run the numbers.  Experiment confirms that pH tracks CO2 concentration.
>
> 4.  Distillation of water in a natural atmosphere will produce water that has
(approximately) the same pH (5.65) as water in equilibrium with air.  All
chemicals pick up contaminants from their environment; water is no different. 
It will leach minerals from the soil and rock if passed through those, from
pipes (lead, copper, zinc and tin) but not much from glass (depending on the
glass composition.)
>
> 5.  De-ionised water is generally used because it is cheaper to produce than
distilled water and can be equivalent chemically.  The de-ionisation process
passes the source water through an ion exchange resin bed (see
<http://www.remco.com/ix.htm>) which looks like a lot of small plastic beads in
a reaction vessel.  The plastic beads substitute an H+ ion for any cation
(positively charged ion) in the water stream and OH- ions for any anions. 
Because there is no contact with the atmosphere during this process, there is
less need for post-process cleaning (like to remove dissolved CO2) and there is
less energy consumed.  (Though good distillation units can recover most of the
heat used to boil the water from the condensation of the water.)
>
> Donald.
> --
> "Plain Text" email -- it's an accessibility issue
> ()  no proprietary attachments; no html mail
> /\  ascii ribbon campaign - <www.asciiribbon.org>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> > From: "Greg Manning" <a31ford@...>
> > To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, September 3, 2010 7:21:48 AM
> > Subject: RE: [WoodGas] RE:Water
> >
> > Now, you have my confusion added to this as well,
> >
> >  I thought that "distilled" meant bringing the fluid to a boil, and
> > catching the condensate, how would this interject Co2 and add it, to
> > the condensed form of the vapor?
> >
> >  There is a "VERY MARKED" difference between water and "heavy water"
> > used in reactors
> >
> > Greg Manning,
> > Canadian Gasifier Ltd.
> > Building Hi-Performance Gasifiers, Since 2001
> >
> > Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
> > 1 (204) 726-1851
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WoodGas@yahoogroups.com]On
> > Behalf
> > Of Steve Spence
> > Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 5:24 AM
> > To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [WoodGas] RE:Water
> >
> >
> > How do you get CO2 in distilled water? That's not in my chemistry
> > book.
> >
> > Steve Spence
> > Renewable energy and self sufficiency
> > http://www.green-trust.org
> > http://arduinotronics.blogspot.com/
> >
> >
> >
> > On 09/02/2010 02:17 AM, BILL THOMAS wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > The low pH of distilled water is because of CO2, the pH of pure water is
7.
> > > That's in the chemistry books. Deionized water "plumbing" is different
than
> > > distillation equipment, and probably accounts for the difference in CO2.
> > > Water,
> > > Ka=7, "dissociates" into hyrdonium and hydroxide (hydroxyl?) ions after
> > > it is
> > > made from hydrogen and oxygen molecules, that are highly reactive so
> > > much so,
> > > the Saturn 5 mainstage rockets were fired by mixing pure oxygen and
> > > hydrogen,
> > > forming water, that dissociated into the ions mentioned here.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Someone Somewhere <drzee2012@...
> > <mailto:drzee2012%40yahoo.com>>
> > > To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com <mailto:WoodGas%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Wed, September 1, 2010 9:28:13 PM
> > > Subject: [WoodGas] RE:Water
> > >
> > > The PH of pure water is not "short lived" I stand behind my words,
> > Water
> > > is not H2O but a combination of two molecules. Hydronium and
> > Hydroxide.
> > > The fundamental differences in the two explain why distilled water
> > is
> > > always acidic. I was wrong to bring it up here. I apologize to all
> > who i
> > > scared!
> > >
> > > When I worked for a pharmaceutical company, when the solvent was
> > water
> > > it was
> > > deionized. I never got a good explanation of the difference, but
> > this would
> > > explain it--the pH of deionized water would truly be 7.0.
> > >
> > > David
> > > ---------------
> > >
> > > Don't bother visiting my page on "Get Outta My Face Book" the
> > world's
> > > largest
> > > antisocial network. I'll just ignore you. And keep your darn kids
> > off of my
> > > lawn!
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3098 - Release Date:
> > 09/01/10 13:34:00
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

What I meant is that by using the terms "dissociate", "hydroxyl" and "hydronium"
the post was suggesting that there was something about distilled water that was
uniquely different from "other" forms of water.  In fact, it's just plain water
with a neutral pH.  I wanted that fact to be not obscured by the technical
terms.

Donald.
--
"Plain Text" email -- it's an accessibility issue
()  no proprietary attachments; no html mail
/\  ascii ribbon campaign - <www.asciiribbon.org>

----- Original Message -----

> From: "BILL THOMAS" <waarehouse@...>
> To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, September 3, 2010 1:18:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [WoodGas] RE:Water
>
> Donald you are exactly right about 2,3,4,5.  But I don't think 1 "obfuscates
the
> true situation".  IN theory pure water is pure water, H20, the "dissociation"
> happens rapidly in a reversible reaction, and I believe the correct word is
> "dissociation" for that chemical process.  10 to the negative 7 is a very
small
> amount as we know.  If by obfuscate you mean "nothing to worry about" then I
> agree.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Donald H Locker <dhlocker@...>
> To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, September 3, 2010 5:32:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [WoodGas] RE:Water
>
>
> There is a _lot_ of misinformation and  being tossed about here.
>
> 1.  It is true that water dissociates into "hydronium" and "hydroxyl" ions,
but
> calling the ions by those names and talking about dissociation obfuscates the
> true situation.  The concentration of the "hydronium" ion (which is the H+
ion)
> is 1.0E-7.0  That means that its pH is 7.0, by the definition of pH.  That
also
> means that the concentration of the "hydroxyl" ion (OH-) is also 1.0E-7.0 in
> neutral water.  No matter how the water is produced, pure water will be
composed
> primarily of H2O molecules with 0.00001% H+ ions and 0.00001% OH- ions.
>
> 2.  CO2 will dissolve in water forming a weak acid (carbonic acid.)
> <http://www.chem.usu.edu/~sbialkow/Classes/3600/Overheads/Carbonate/CO2.html>
>
> pH of water in equilibrium with air containing 0.0355% CO2 is about 5.65 (e.g.
> the concentration of the H+ ion is 1.0E-5.65 (0.00022%), which is acidic; see
>
<http://www.chem.usu.edu/~sbialkow/Classes/3650/Carbonate/Carbonic%20Acid.html>
> for example calculations.)
>
> 3.  It is relatively easy to see that increasing CO2 concentration acidifies
> water; run the numbers.  Experiment confirms that pH tracks CO2 concentration.
>
> 4.  Distillation of water in a natural atmosphere will produce water that has
> (approximately) the same pH (5.65) as water in equilibrium with air.  All
> chemicals pick up contaminants from their environment; water is no different.
> It will leach minerals from the soil and rock if passed through those, from
> pipes (lead, copper, zinc and tin) but not much from glass (depending on the
> glass composition.)
>
> 5.  De-ionised water is generally used because it is cheaper to produce than
> distilled water and can be equivalent chemically.  The de-ionisation process
> passes the source water through an ion exchange resin bed (see
> <http://www.remco.com/ix.htm>) which looks like a lot of small plastic beads
in
> a reaction vessel.  The plastic beads substitute an H+ ion for any cation
> (positively charged ion) in the water stream and OH- ions for any anions.
> Because there is no contact with the atmosphere during this process, there is
> less need for post-process cleaning (like to remove dissolved CO2) and there
is
> less energy consumed.  (Though good distillation units can recover most of the
> heat used to boil the water from the condensation of the water.)
>
> Donald.
> --
> "Plain Text" email -- it's an accessibility issue
> ()  no proprietary attachments; no html mail
> /\  ascii ribbon campaign - <www.asciiribbon.org>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> > From: "Greg Manning" <a31ford@...>
> > To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, September 3, 2010 7:21:48 AM
> > Subject: RE: [WoodGas] RE:Water
> >
> > Now, you have my confusion added to this as well,
> >
> >  I thought that "distilled" meant bringing the fluid to a boil, and
> > catching the condensate, how would this interject Co2 and add it, to
> > the condensed form of the vapor?
> >
> >  There is a "VERY MARKED" difference between water and "heavy water"
> > used in reactors
> >
> > Greg Manning,
> > Canadian Gasifier Ltd.
> > Building Hi-Performance Gasifiers, Since 2001
> >
> > Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
> > 1 (204) 726-1851
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WoodGas@yahoogroups.com]On
> > Behalf
> > Of Steve Spence
> > Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 5:24 AM
> > To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [WoodGas] RE:Water
> >
> >
> > How do you get CO2 in distilled water? That's not in my chemistry
> > book.
> >
> > Steve Spence
> > Renewable energy and self sufficiency
> > http://www.green-trust.org
> > http://arduinotronics.blogspot.com/
> >
> >
> >
> > On 09/02/2010 02:17 AM, BILL THOMAS wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > The low pH of distilled water is because of CO2, the pH of pure water is
7.
> > > That's in the chemistry books. Deionized water "plumbing" is different
than
> > > distillation equipment, and probably accounts for the difference in CO2.
> > > Water,
> > > Ka=7, "dissociates" into hyrdonium and hydroxide (hydroxyl?) ions after
> > > it is
> > > made from hydrogen and oxygen molecules, that are highly reactive so
> > > much so,
> > > the Saturn 5 mainstage rockets were fired by mixing pure oxygen and
> > > hydrogen,
> > > forming water, that dissociated into the ions mentioned here.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Someone Somewhere <drzee2012@...
> > <mailto:drzee2012%40yahoo.com>>
> > > To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com <mailto:WoodGas%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Wed, September 1, 2010 9:28:13 PM
> > > Subject: [WoodGas] RE:Water
> > >
> > > The PH of pure water is not "short lived" I stand behind my
> words,
> > Water
> > > is not H2O but a combination of two molecules. Hydronium and
> > Hydroxide.
> > > The fundamental differences in the two explain why distilled
> water
> > is
> > > always acidic. I was wrong to bring it up here. I apologize to
> all
> > who i
> > > scared!
> > >
> > > When I worked for a pharmaceutical company, when the solvent was
> > water
> > > it was
> > > deionized. I never got a good explanation of the difference, but
> > this would
> > > explain it--the pH of deionized water would truly be 7.0.
> > >
> > > David
> > > ---------------
> > >
> > > Don't bother visiting my page on "Get Outta My Face Book" the
> > world's
> > > largest
> > > antisocial network. I'll just ignore you. And keep your darn kids
> > off of my
> > > lawn!
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3098 - Release Date:
> > 09/01/10 13:34:00
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Look up Abiotic oil.

http://www.viewzone.com/abioticoilx.html


Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 3, 2010, at 3:08 AM, Clement Aigbogun <revicaig@...> wrote:

> Hi all,can someone please educate me as regards to where crude oil comes from?
Some of my friends says its not fossil fuel....but the all agreed that coal
is.They say they dont really know where crude oil comes from.
> So great group members where does crude oil come from. Evidence of its source
would be most appreciated.
> Clem
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Obfuscate Ob*fus"cate, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Obfuscated; p.
  pr. & vb. n. Obfuscating.]
  1. To darken; to obscure; to becloud.
  [1913 Webster]

  2. Hence: To confuse; to bewilder; to make unclear.
  [1913 Webster]

Something used to obfuscate is often a miniscule "fact" used to obscure
the real motive.



On Fri, 2010-09-03 at 10:18 -0700, BILL THOMAS wrote:
>
> Donald you are exactly right about 2,3,4,5. But I don't think 1
> "obfuscates the
> true situation". IN theory pure water is pure water, H20, the
> "dissociation"
> happens rapidly in a reversible reaction, and I believe the correct
> word is
> "dissociation" for that chemical process. 10 to the negative 7 is a
> very small
> amount as we know. If by obfuscate you mean "nothing to worry about"
> then I
> agree.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Donald H Locker <dhlocker@...>
> To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, September 3, 2010 5:32:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [WoodGas] RE:Water
>
> There is a _lot_ of misinformation and being tossed about here.
>
> 1. It is true that water dissociates into "hydronium" and "hydroxyl"
> ions, but
> calling the ions by those names and talking about dissociation
> obfuscates the
> true situation. The concentration of the "hydronium" ion (which is the
> H+ ion)
> is 1.0E-7.0 That means that its pH is 7.0, by the definition of pH.
> That also
> means that the concentration of the "hydroxyl" ion (OH-) is also
> 1.0E-7.0 in
> neutral water. No matter how the water is produced, pure water will be
> composed
> primarily of H2O molecules with 0.00001% H+ ions and 0.00001% OH-
> ions.
>
> 2. CO2 will dissolve in water forming a weak acid (carbonic acid.)
> <http://www.chem.usu.edu/~sbialkow/Classes/3600/Overheads/Carbonate/CO2.html>
> pH of water in equilibrium with air containing 0.0355% CO2 is about
> 5.65 (e.g.
> the concentration of the H+ ion is 1.0E-5.65 (0.00022%), which is
> acidic; see
> <http://www.chem.usu.edu/~sbialkow/Classes/3650/Carbonate/Carbonic%
> 20Acid.html>
> for example calculations.)
>
> 3. It is relatively easy to see that increasing CO2 concentration
> acidifies
> water; run the numbers. Experiment confirms that pH tracks CO2
> concentration.
>
> 4. Distillation of water in a natural atmosphere will produce water
> that has
> (approximately) the same pH (5.65) as water in equilibrium with air.
> All
> chemicals pick up contaminants from their environment; water is no
> different.
> It will leach minerals from the soil and rock if passed through those,
> from
> pipes (lead, copper, zinc and tin) but not much from glass (depending
> on the
> glass composition.)
>
> 5. De-ionised water is generally used because it is cheaper to produce
> than
> distilled water and can be equivalent chemically. The de-ionisation
> process
> passes the source water through an ion exchange resin bed (see
> <http://www.remco.com/ix.htm>) which looks like a lot of small plastic
> beads in
> a reaction vessel. The plastic beads substitute an H+ ion for any
> cation
> (positively charged ion) in the water stream and OH- ions for any
> anions.
> Because there is no contact with the atmosphere during this process,
> there is
> less need for post-process cleaning (like to remove dissolved CO2) and
> there is
> less energy consumed. (Though good distillation units can recover most
> of the
> heat used to boil the water from the condensation of the water.)
>
> Donald.
> --
> "Plain Text" email -- it's an accessibility issue
> () no proprietary attachments; no html mail
> /\ ascii ribbon campaign - <www.asciiribbon.org>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> > From: "Greg Manning" <a31ford@...>
> > To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, September 3, 2010 7:21:48 AM
> > Subject: RE: [WoodGas] RE:Water
> >
> > Now, you have my confusion added to this as well,
> >
> > I thought that "distilled" meant bringing the fluid to a boil, and
> > catching the condensate, how would this interject Co2 and add it, to
> > the condensed form of the vapor?
> >
> > There is a "VERY MARKED" difference between water and "heavy water"
> > used in reactors
> >
> > Greg Manning,
> > Canadian Gasifier Ltd.
> > Building Hi-Performance Gasifiers, Since 2001
> >
> > Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
> > 1 (204) 726-1851
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WoodGas@yahoogroups.com]On
> > Behalf
> > Of Steve Spence
> > Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 5:24 AM
> > To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [WoodGas] RE:Water
> >
> >
> > How do you get CO2 in distilled water? That's not in my chemistry
> > book.
> >
> > Steve Spence
> > Renewable energy and self sufficiency
> > http://www.green-trust.org
> > http://arduinotronics.blogspot.com/
> >
> >
> >
> > On 09/02/2010 02:17 AM, BILL THOMAS wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > The low pH of distilled water is because of CO2, the pH of pure
> water is 7.
> > > That's in the chemistry books. Deionized water "plumbing" is
> different than
> > > distillation equipment, and probably accounts for the difference
> in CO2.
> > > Water,
> > > Ka=7, "dissociates" into hyrdonium and hydroxide (hydroxyl?) ions
> after
> > > it is
> > > made from hydrogen and oxygen molecules, that are highly reactive
> so
> > > much so,
> > > the Saturn 5 mainstage rockets were fired by mixing pure oxygen
> and
> > > hydrogen,
> > > forming water, that dissociated into the ions mentioned here.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Someone Somewhere <drzee2012@...
> > <mailto:drzee2012%40yahoo.com>>
> > > To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com <mailto:WoodGas%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Wed, September 1, 2010 9:28:13 PM
> > > Subject: [WoodGas] RE:Water
> > >
> > > The PH of pure water is not "short lived" I stand behind my words,
> > Water
> > > is not H2O but a combination of two molecules. Hydronium and
> > Hydroxide.
> > > The fundamental differences in the two explain why distilled water
> > is
> > > always acidic. I was wrong to bring it up here. I apologize to all
> > who i
> > > scared!
> > >
> > > When I worked for a pharmaceutical company, when the solvent was
> > water
> > > it was
> > > deionized. I never got a good explanation of the difference, but
> > this would
> > > explain it--the pH of deionized water would truly be 7.0.
> > >
> > > David
> > > ---------------
> > >
> > > Don't bother visiting my page on "Get Outta My Face Book" the
> > world's
> > > largest
> > > antisocial network. I'll just ignore you. And keep your darn kids
> > off of my
> > > lawn!
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3098 - Release Date:
> > 09/01/10 13:34:00
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>

Donald,
It will dissolve the glass pretty quickly too.  I used to teach boiler-water
chemistry in the Navy and we used both a still and a reverse osmosis setup to
supply the water we used to teach people how to do tests with. I made up my own
samples for testing for the various contaminats. (salts, ph, harness etc...)
  Anyway,  I could take water directly from the still or osmosis tank and test it
for silica (hardness) and I would get an extramely  low reading. After putting
it in the dispensing bottles we used in the lab  I could take another test less
than 30 minutes later and the level would have jump quite a bit. It was very
annoying because it forced me to have to make up the samples right before the
class would use them if I wanted the students to get the correct readings when
they tried doing the tests.  It took me almost a year but I finally got my
captain to order a 50 gal plastic tank to store the test supply water in. That
solved the hardness problems and the plastic didn't show up in any of the other
tests the people ran. It made my life a lot easier.

   It's not called the universal solvent for nothing.

Lee
http://www.packratworkshop.com


   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Donald H Locker
   To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 8:32 AM
   Subject: Re: [WoodGas] RE:Water



   There is a _lot_ of misinformation and being tossed about here.

   1. It is true that water dissociates into "hydronium" and "hydroxyl" ions, but
calling the ions by those names and talking about dissociation obfuscates the
true situation. The concentration of the "hydronium" ion (which is the H+ ion)
is 1.0E-7.0 That means that its pH is 7.0, by the definition of pH. That also
means that the concentration of the "hydroxyl" ion (OH-) is also 1.0E-7.0 in
neutral water. No matter how the water is produced, pure water will be composed
primarily of H2O molecules with 0.00001% H+ ions and 0.00001% OH- ions.

   2. CO2 will dissolve in water forming a weak acid (carbonic acid.)
<http://www.chem.usu.edu/~sbialkow/Classes/3600/Overheads/Carbonate/CO2.html> pH
of water in equilibrium with air containing 0.0355% CO2 is about 5.65 (e.g. the
concentration of the H+ ion is 1.0E-5.65 (0.00022%), which is acidic; see
<http://www.chem.usu.edu/~sbialkow/Classes/3650/Carbonate/Carbonic%20Acid.html>
for example calculations.)

   3. It is relatively easy to see that increasing CO2 concentration acidifies
water; run the numbers. Experiment confirms that pH tracks CO2 concentration.

   4. Distillation of water in a natural atmosphere will produce water that has
(approximately) the same pH (5.65) as water in equilibrium with air. All
chemicals pick up contaminants from their environment; water is no different. It
will leach minerals from the soil and rock if passed through those, from pipes
(lead, copper, zinc and tin) but not much from glass (depending on the glass
composition.)

   5. De-ionised water is generally used because it is cheaper to produce than
distilled water and can be equivalent chemically. The de-ionisation process
passes the source water through an ion exchange resin bed (see
<http://www.remco.com/ix.htm>) which looks like a lot of small plastic beads in
a reaction vessel. The plastic beads substitute an H+ ion for any cation
(positively charged ion) in the water stream and OH- ions for any anions.
Because there is no contact with the atmosphere during this process, there is
less need for post-process cleaning (like to remove dissolved CO2) and there is
less energy consumed. (Though good distillation units can recover most of the
heat used to boil the water from the condensation of the water.)

   Donald.
   --
   "Plain Text" email -- it's an accessibility issue
   () no proprietary attachments; no html mail
   /\ ascii ribbon campaign - <www.asciiribbon.org>

   ----- Original Message -----

   > From: "Greg Manning" <a31ford@...>
   > To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com
   > Sent: Friday, September 3, 2010 7:21:48 AM
   > Subject: RE: [WoodGas] RE:Water
   >
   > Now, you have my confusion added to this as well,
   >
   > I thought that "distilled" meant bringing the fluid to a boil, and
   > catching the condensate, how would this interject Co2 and add it, to
   > the condensed form of the vapor?
   >
   > There is a "VERY MARKED" difference between water and "heavy water"
   > used in reactors
   >
   > Greg Manning,
   > Canadian Gasifier Ltd.
   > Building Hi-Performance Gasifiers, Since 2001
   >
   > Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
   > 1 (204) 726-1851
   >
   >
   >
   > -----Original Message-----
   > From: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WoodGas@yahoogroups.com]On
   > Behalf
   > Of Steve Spence
   > Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 5:24 AM
   > To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com
   > Subject: Re: [WoodGas] RE:Water
   >
   >
   > How do you get CO2 in distilled water? That's not in my chemistry
   > book.
   >
   > Steve Spence
   > Renewable energy and self sufficiency
   > http://www.green-trust.org
   > http://arduinotronics.blogspot.com/
   >
   >
   >
   > On 09/02/2010 02:17 AM, BILL THOMAS wrote:
   > >
   > >
   > > The low pH of distilled water is because of CO2, the pH of pure water is
7.
   > > That's in the chemistry books. Deionized water "plumbing" is different
than
   > > distillation equipment, and probably accounts for the difference in CO2.
   > > Water,
   > > Ka=7, "dissociates" into hyrdonium and hydroxide (hydroxyl?) ions after
   > > it is
   > > made from hydrogen and oxygen molecules, that are highly reactive so
   > > much so,
   > > the Saturn 5 mainstage rockets were fired by mixing pure oxygen and
   > > hydrogen,
   > > forming water, that dissociated into the ions mentioned here.
   > >
   > > ________________________________
   > > From: Someone Somewhere <drzee2012@...
   > <mailto:drzee2012%40yahoo.com>>
   > > To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com <mailto:WoodGas%40yahoogroups.com>
   > > Sent: Wed, September 1, 2010 9:28:13 PM
   > > Subject: [WoodGas] RE:Water
   > >
   > > The PH of pure water is not "short lived" I stand behind my words,
   > Water
   > > is not H2O but a combination of two molecules. Hydronium and
   > Hydroxide.
   > > The fundamental differences in the two explain why distilled water
   > is
   > > always acidic. I was wrong to bring it up here. I apologize to all
   > who i
   > > scared!
   > >
   > > When I worked for a pharmaceutical company, when the solvent was
   > water
   > > it was
   > > deionized. I never got a good explanation of the difference, but
   > this would
   > > explain it--the pH of deionized water would truly be 7.0.
   > >
   > > David
   > > ---------------
   > >
   > > Don't bother visiting my page on "Get Outta My Face Book" the
   > world's
   > > largest
   > > antisocial network. I'll just ignore you. And keep your darn kids
   > off of my
   > > lawn!
   > >
   > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   > >
   > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   > >
   > >
   >
   >
   > ------------------------------------
   >
   > Yahoo! Groups Links
   >
   >
   >
   > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
   > Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3098 - Release Date:
   > 09/01/10 13:34:00
   >
   >
   >
   >
   > ------------------------------------
   >
   > Yahoo! Groups Links
   >
   >
   >




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I am very new to this group, and I need some help. Where do I find the
information to build my own charcoal gasifier? I have been interested in all of
this for a very long time, but never quite had the place to get into building my
own system.
A gasifier for a vehicle would be great, but I would rather begin with something
that would run a small (4 cylinder auto type) engine to run a generator. Waste
heat generated would be good for home heat, of to make domestic hot water.