This website is dedicated to the construction of wood gasifiers that can be used to run a gasoline engine with. Woodgas has been around for a long time and it. If you google “fema gasifier” there will be several documents that should pop up. Below is an example. and FEMA EMWE We’rk Unit D . gasifier unit (i.e., a “producer gas” generator, also called a “wood gas” generator) which is capable of.
|Published (Last):||21 August 2013|
|PDF File Size:||18.51 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||9.13 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
I would stop short in calling this particular design as “proven” Thanks for the added link. I have to disagree with you on one point and that is this model is a proven design. Personally, I find the videos rather interesting and chose not to marginalize the author’s efforts. More to the point and my intention, I think it is polite to give credit to the person in the video who constructed a polished prototype and in my opinion presented the design very clearly.
The FEMA design is generally suited to introduce wood gasification and many variations of this design do power vehicles without destroying them.
It is an emergency unit, and should be used as nothing more.
Personally, I believe that a FEMA system could be optimized for a very particular fuel and, if run at a frma or less constant output, then I believe it could make a reliable and useful unit. However, it’s probably best to take the next step and go with what is known as the “Imbert” design.
I wouldn’t run a car on a FEMA unless it was a one-way gasifoer Pick your direction based on the zombie apocalypse de jour but for a cheap briggs engine, sure.
You can have multiple engines and rebuild kits for less than the cost difference to get to gwsifier Imbert. I consider the primary purpose of this forum as a resource for education, and Dema trying to encourage the reader to take the claim seriously.
If you google “fema gasifier” there will be several documents that should pop up. Below is an example: You can use this to generate biochar as an added benefit. There is a surprising duration of energy generation and the model can be scaled to meet higher energy requirements. In short, this design i.
The problem with this is that an engine powered by such a unit will require a lot of regular maintenance. It’s not a bad idea for use as an emergency unit when nothing else is available – more important, this is precisely what the system is designed to accomplish emergency, and nothing more.
I have to disagree with you on one point and that is whether this model is a proven design.
The purpose of this design is to get engines running quickly for essential functions when only biomass is available as fuel. While it can do reasonably well with very dry fuel of a very regular size, it will make a lot more tar than the Imbert under all conditions. Therefore, if one desires to fuel an engine over an extended period with biomass, then moving beyond the FEMA design is the wise decision.
I think it’s important to provide this kind of disclaimer whenever the FEMA is introduced, especially for those new to the technology. I am confident you have some insightful knowledge but this sounds a tad bit melodramatic to prove a point. Wayne Keith worked pretty well with a modified FEMA design not that I can attest to any working experience as my knowledge is through literature. So, yeah, I’m being a tad melodramatic.
The FEMA is a good unit for learning, so in that sense it can be useful beyond an emergency unit. However, all enthusiasts I know of who use gasification on a regular basis and who started with a FEMA unit have moved on. This includes Wayne Keith whose work I consider to be extraordinary.
He got good results using charred wood chunks in a FEMA gasifier to fuel his trucks. This is an important distinction. If one removes most of the volatiles from wood essentially making charcoal in the processthen gasifier design is not so critical.
With good charcoal one can generate a clean fuel gas with a gaaifier can and a couple of tubing connections see Gary Gilmore’s work.
If you research other forums frequented by those with experience such as driveonwood. My experience is very limited, but I remain convinced that a FEMA using a very dry and regularly sized wood fuel can serve in a stationary application reliably for an extended period where the output of the system remains relatively high to keep temperature up. One example welded a restriction plate on the end of the fire tube and supplied air to the fire tube via nozzles, and closed off the hopper so all air entered the system through the nozzles.
One design also took care to insulate the fire tube. Adding the restriction plate to the base of the fire tube serves a couple functions: Adding additional insulation can further raise temperatures there which is important for tar reduction.
Restricting air supply to a region just above the hearth as opposed to drawing air through the firetube is important as is helps reduce thermal losses that would otherwise be encouraged with combustion taking place over the larger firetube area, and the combustion reaction is isolated at or just below the nozzles which is important for supporting a wide turndown ratio and a variable fuel quality.
So, there is some evidence that a few relatively simple modifications to the FEMA can dramatically improve its performance.
Awesome point glad someone made itthere are going to be a lot of peoples uses and fuel sources that will differ from use to useand there several types of gasifiers as well Once I get a chance i will try to make a table, showing the energy potential compared to bio fuels per acre I don’t want the thread to turn “heated” to discourage people in anyway Also, I express some skepticism that any filtration system will catch all the tar.
FEMA wood gasifier demonstration and DIY specifications (biogas forum at permies)
Therefore, in any case I expect a FEMA design to introduce tar into an engine at a rate many times higher than an Imbert all else equal. My line of reasoning is well supported by those with experience, and I encourage all readers to investigate other forums on this topic including driveonwood.
I am not aware of an account where a genuine FEMA design has been used to operate an engine over an extended period without problems when I write “extended”, I mean at least hours of engine operation and preferably Let me emphasize again that I believe the base FEMA design can be improved considerably to allow acceptable results in stationary applications.
I mentioned in a previous post some modifications that might be done. The goal of any such mod should be to increase temperatures in the hearth reduction zone in order to improve tar cracking. This means that combustion should be isolated to smaller region for higher peak temperatures i.
Imbert gasifier vs FEMA gasifier
Also, the driest possible fuel should be used, and the fuel should be sized properly to minimize bridging or channeling. Bats – your most effective insect control. New Aquaponics Series from Jack Spirko. Solar Dehydrator Plans – Combo Package download.