GAS-L: tests download patience, was: GAS-L: Gasification tests

[Arnt Karlsen <arnt@c2i.net>]

..on Monday 7 January 2002 17:38, Gavin Gulliver-Goodall wrote:
> Peter,
>
> Do you mean  Ormat ORC devices rated at 250kW electrical output? For
> about 1.2Mw heat input?
> What temperature the waste heat streams?
> Regards
> Gavin

...and left in _all_ of: 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Singfield [mailto:snkm@btl.net]
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 14:50
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: Gasification tests
>
> At 09:01 PM 1/6/2002 EST, CAVM@aol.com wrote:
> >http://www.nf-2000.org/secure/Fair/F826.htm
> >
> >"Demonstration of small bio-power plant for rural application"
> >
> >This site gives some very interesting data on gasification.
>
> Have appended this article.
>
> Interesting -- when all the "smoke" settles -- 20% over all
> efficiency at some astronomical costs!
>
> And still a problem with "dirty" fuel leading to unreliable operation
> - -and a humongous servicing head-ache.
>
> All could be so easily avoided by going with a small refrigeration
> working fluid Rankine Cycle device. And getting better over all
> efficiencies -- and at much better prices.
>
> But beating dead horse to get more performance is the rule of the day
> when it comes to gasification of biomass for power!
>
> At present -- Ormat produces 250 KWH "ORC" devices that are easily
> coupled to a simple fire tube boiler -- thermal oil heat transfer
> (Atmospheric boiler pressure) -- that results in around 18%
> efficiencies with room for improvement -- and runs for ever and one
> day with very minimum of maintenance -- and for a fraction of the
> costs presented below. And requires no gas cleaning! (Or -- as far as
> that goes -- a gasifier!!)
>
> But no -- dead horse mentality prevails ---
>
> Peter Singfield / Belize
>
> *********appended article ******************

<...>

...which, minus the header and a table, is the full text of: 
http://www.nf-2000.org/secure/Fair/F826.htm 
...so, I snipped it off at "<...>".

...I downloaded it for the 2'nd _&_ 3'rd time, when I checked my mail 
just now.  Like Peter, I am on an expensive 3'rd world style metered 
line, only isdn.  Crap.  Monopolized.  Telenor.

..I am not aware of any preferred gas list message format,
my own preference is _plain_text only_, with quotes _before_ 
my own text, and providing _links_ to any and all html-formatted stuff, 
so I can click and read the web page anytime I please.
And, with _semi-automatic_ quoting, so I need to click, to quote.

..enforcing this, helps minimize any metered 3'rd world style metered 
download expenses.  Further, this helps preserve the context, which 
again facilitates the discussion, as I and you all can insert our 
comment whereever we please and leave everything else to the mail 
software.  Any modern mail software can be set up to do this.

..what we have now, is a mix of the good, the bad and the evil, 
some people take the time to set up their mail reader in the good old 
fashion usenet style, which is the way I like it.  Some even go to the 
length of stripping off unneccesary quote noise, which makes it easy to 
understand and take part in the discussion, as we can simply drop our 
own comment exactly where we feel it belongs, in the context.

..some posts plain text _+_ html messages, some with full length 
quotes appended that they make no use of, and with no "> "-hint 
of who wrote what.  I stay away from these, my interest is in 
gasification, not in html format style message quote formatting.

..as you can see from the quote, snipping out parts of this 
could cause doubt on what Gavin wrote, on what Peter wrote,
and, on what Katy wrote, as the "> "-count is the same.  
IMHO, bad.  Bad form.

..and, we the gas listers, has lost a few members on the noise to 
usefulness ratio, according to the few people I asked about this.

..any modern email software can do this.  
On the server side, messages can be "massaged" to come out any way we 
please.  Which means we can have the gas list available in any format, 
plain text, html, pdf or even M$ Word, each of us prefers.   
Compressed digests too.

..on the client side, each of us can set up our own email reader, to 
send our messages any format each of us please, on modern software, 
even on a per mailing list basis.  Can chop up digests too.

..meanwhile, on the gas list, I feel all of us, should post our 
messages in the _agreed_ preferred message format.  
Or, have the gas list server do it for us, when it's ready.

..am I just flogging another dead horse here?

-- 
..med vennlig hilsen = with kind regards from Arnt...

  Scenarios always come in sets of three:
  best case, worst case, and just in case.


-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation,  Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF
List-Post: <mailto:gasification@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gasification-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Gasification Events and Information:
http://www.bioenergy2002.org
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/