The subject invention relates to a down draft gasifier.
In a typical downdraft gasifier, a vertically oriented gasification chamber receives feed stock (a fuel) which is combusted by pyrolysis in the gasification chamber. U.S. Pat. No. 6,647,903, incorporated herein by this reference, discloses a hollow cylinder with a lower cone-shaped section terminating in a restricted opening in order to retain the fuel in the gasifier and yet also allow spent fuel (char and ash) to exit the gasifier. In this way, fuel continually enters the gasifier and spent fuel continually exits the gasifier.
Steady fuel flow through a gasifier results in improved gasification, better gas quality, lower tar content, and higher yield. If the fuel flows too quickly through the gasifier, pyrolysis of the fuel is diminished and/or tar production increases. If the fuel flows too slowly through the gasifier, the fuel and/or char can build up in the gasifier and on the walls of the gasifier reducing gas quality. Gasifiers frequently suffer from bridging or channeling of the fuel. See Handbook of Biomass Downdraft Gasifier Engine Systems, Reed and Das, 1998 (Biomass Energy Foundation Press).
A gasifier with fairly steep long sloping walls defines a mass flow of fuel through the gasifier which provides an adequate flow of fuel through the gasifier but results in a gasifier with a restricted volume. The conical shaped gasifier thus must be rather tall and is not well adapted for use in portable, transportable, or on-site applications such as disclosed in co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/070,032 incorporated herein by this reference.
A gasifier with short, less steep sloping walls at the outlet of the gasifier results in a funnel flow of the fuel. Fuel proximate the walls of the gasifier moves downward too slowly and interior fuel moves downward too quickly. Gasifier designs exhibiting a funnel-flow pattern results in material flowing preferentially through a funnel-shape channel located directly above the gasifier outlet while material outside this flow channel is stagnant. In some prior art designs, vibrators are provided for agitating the contents of the gasification chamber. See U.S. Pat. No. 7,736,402 incorporated herein by this reference.
There is a trade off, then, between the size of the gasifier and gasification parameters such as gas quality. For hoppers, mass flow and funnel flow are discussed in the paper “Solve Solids Flow Problems in Bins, Hoppers, and Feeders” by J. Marinelli and Dr. John W. Carson (June 2001), incorporated herein by this reference.
In one aspect, a new gasifier is provided which is configured to encourage a mass flow of fuel through the gasifier and yet, at the same time, results in less of a volume reduction than a gasifier configured with a curved chamber wall which slops inwardly.
The invention features a gasifier comprising a gasification chamber including an annular chamber wall with a top opening for introducing fuel into the gasification chamber, a plurality of air inlets opening into the gasification chamber, and a restricted bottom outlet section of the gasification chamber. Inwardly angled wedge walls encouraging a mass flow rather than a funnel-flow of fuel through the gasifier. Portions of the annular chamber wall between the inwardly angled wedge walls are not angled inwardly to increase the volume of the gasification chamber. In another aspect, a restricted bottom outlet section of the gasification chamber includes inwardly angled wedge walls with flat faces defining a discharge outlet having straight opposing edges co-joining curved sections of the annular chamber wall.
The air inlets may be flush with the annular chamber wall and typically there are air inlets through the inwardly angled wedge walls.
The inwardly angled wedge walls preferably slope inwardly at an angle of between 6° and 18° (e.g., 12°), the width of the wedge walls is between 90 and 95% of the diameter of the chamber wall, and the height of the wedge walls is between 50 and 60% of the height of the chamber. Typically, the top of each wedge wall is curved and smoothly co-joins the chamber wall. In one design, the wedge walls oppose each other in the chamber.
The subject invention, however, in other embodiments, need not achieve all these objectives and the claims hereof should not be limited to structures or methods capable of achieving these objectives.
Other objects, features and advantages will occur to those skilled in the art from the following description of a preferred embodiment and the accompanying drawings, in which:
Aside from the preferred embodiment or embodiments disclosed below, this invention is capable of other embodiments and of being practiced or being carried out in various ways. Thus, it is to be understood that the invention is not limited in its application to the details of construction and the arrangements of components set forth in the following description or illustrated in the drawings. If only one embodiment is described herein, the claims hereof are not to be limited to that embodiment. Moreover, the claims hereof are not to be read restrictively unless there is clear and convincing evidence manifesting a certain exclusion, restriction, or disclaimer.
In embodiments of the subject invention, an engineering compromise is made between the gasifier designs of
Gasifier 30 includes restricted bottom outlet section 44 for maintaining fuel in the gasification chamber to maintain pyrolysis of the fuel. Restricted bottom outlet section 44 also allows spent fuel, char, and the like to exit the gasification chamber. A grate subsystem may be disposed below restricted outlet 44 as disclosed in co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/586,830 incorporated herein by this reference.
Restricted bottom outlet section 44 is defined by inwardly angled wedge walls 48a and 48b designed to encourage a mass flow rather than a funnel-flow of fuel through gasification chamber 32. To avoid a sharp decrease in the volume of chamber 32, portions of the curve chamber wall 38 between inwardly angled wedge walls 48a and 48b are not angled inwardly as shown at 50 and instead continues straight down from the top of the gasifier to the bottom thereof.
In this preferred design, opposing inwardly angled wedge walls 48a and 48b have flat faces as shown at 60 in
Air inlets 36 may be flush with chamber wall 38 or short nozzles may be used. Inwardly angled wedge walls 48a and 48b may also include air inlets as shown.
Inwardly angled wedge walls 48a and 48b may slope inwardly at an angle of between 6° and 18°. In one prototype unit, angle θ,
For the design shown in
The gasifier of the invention can be machined or formed to include integral sloping wedge walls or a hollow straight cylinder can be fabricated separately from wedge walls 48a and 48b and the wedge walls inserted into the hollow straight cylindrically shaped chamber and secured to the non-inwardly sloping curved chamber wall.
In one preferred design, all the interior surfaces of gasification chamber 32 are lined with refractory material and polished. Stainless steel is the typical material used in the construction of the gasifier components.
The result is a gasifier with a steady flow of fuel therethrough providing better gasification, a higher gas quality, lower tar content and a higher yield. Gasifier 30,
Although specific features of the invention are shown in some drawings and not in others, however, this is for convenience only as each feature may be combined with any or all of the other features in accordance with the invention. The words “including”, “comprising”, “having”, and “with” as used herein are to be interpreted broadly and comprehensively and are not limited to any physical interconnection. Moreover, any embodiments disclosed in the subject application are not to be taken as the only possible embodiments.
In addition, any amendment presented during the prosecution of the patent application for this patent is not a disclaimer of any claim element presented in the application as filed: those skilled in the art cannot reasonably be expected to draft a claim that would literally encompass all possible equivalents, many equivalents will be unforeseeable at the time of the amendment and are beyond a fair interpretation of what is to be surrendered (if anything), the rationale underlying the amendment may bear no more than a tangential relation to many equivalents, and/or there are many other reasons the applicant can not be expected to describe certain insubstantial substitutes for any claim element amended.
Other embodiments will occur to those skilled in the art and are within the following claims.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3968626 | Hobbs | Jul 1976 | A |
5226927 | Rundstrom | Jul 1993 | A |
5787822 | Hilliard | Aug 1998 | A |
6199405 | Buettiker | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6647903 | Ellis | Nov 2003 | B2 |
7736402 | Crorey, Jr. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
20050109603 | Graham | May 2005 | A1 |
20060107595 | Davison et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060196810 | Calderon et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060243583 | Sprouse et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070006528 | Diebold et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070289216 | Tsangaris et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20090090282 | Gold et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20100313796 | Graham et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110030590 | Davison et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110072722 | Young et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110139257 | Bielenberg et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110139583 | Bielenberg et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
Entry |
---|
Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority for International Application No. PCT/US2011/001972, five (5) pages, unnumbered. |
J. Marinelli and Dr. John W. Carson, “Solve Solids Flow Problems in Bins, Hoppers, and Feeders”, Chemical Engineering Progress, Jun. 2001. (ten (10) pages). |
Thomas B. Reed and Agua Das, “Handbook of Biomass Downdraft Gasifier Engine Systems”, Biomass Energy Foundation Press. (four (4) pages). |
Jenike & Johanson, “Bulk Solids: Science/ Engineering/ Design”, http://www.jenike.com/projects/cement—titan.html printed Aug. 10, 2010 (three (3) pages). |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20120151839 A1 | Jun 2012 | US |