So I will be banned from yet another thread for calling out the king? There is ONLY ONE who should get banned from this thread, if you would take off the blinders! But yet you still call me out.
If you would take off your blinders you will see that I warned both of you! BOTH of you are bickering, and if either of you keep it up, you (collectively) will be banned.
Depends on what levels of clean for either you are using.
Depends on what levels of clean for either you are using.
If both contain only sub percentage point traces of whatever was supposed to be taken out then either one could be better or worse. But if both are cleaned completely both are going to be 99%+ CH4 and for all practical application purposes indistinguishable from each other. (which is what I have been trying to point out from the begining here.)
Correct, but had you actually got someone to read it all to you, you would discover that isnt what we are looking at, we want to know if the mechanical motion can be used to achieve something while still turning a generator. I pointed out it wouldnt be a good scale, but it would show if the set up would work after we had modified it.
Correct again, so how many scientific studies would you like posted that show Bio Methane wins on all those points? I can post them in tiny chunks if you like?
LMAOEven more so when you are at the front lines level of experimentation and development, given if you screw up your research and its related real world numbers (or just get an attitude against the wrong person on the wrong day over something small and irrelevant [Funding yanked out from under you]) it could have huge negative ramifications for you and everyone who chooses to follow your research later.
Well.... Given what I am finding online, I have doubts on many of your points.
2.
4.
Seems the experts may feel you have your numbers on what's what backwards. Maybe you should argue with them since they are who have real skin, plus time and experience, in the game, unlike me who has nothing to gain or lose.
Given your condescending and a bit hypocritical attitude plus general low hanging fruit demeanor I am seeing here, NOT ENOUGH WHERE IT COUNTS!
Very carefully picked sources. For a start lets look at them one by one, BUT as soon as I find a mike myers site i will stop. I will post ONE reply per quote so you dont struggle reading a wall of text (see i do care that you cant read large amounts in one go).Well.... Given what I am finding online, I have doubts on many of your points.
1. http://www.energy.wsu.edu/Documents/Biomethane_For_Transportation_WWCleanCities.pdf
2. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/heating-values-fuel-gases-d_823.html
3. http://www.sgc.se/ckfinder/userfiles/files/BasicDataonBiogas2012.pdf
4. http://european-biogas.eu/wp-content/uploads/files/2013/10/eba_biomethane_factsheet.pdf
1.
2.
4.
Seems the experts may feel you have your numbers on what's what backwards. Maybe you should argue with them since they are who have real skin, plus time and experience, in the game, unlike me who has nothing to gain or lose.
Given your condescending and a bit hypocritical attitude plus general low hanging fruit demeanor I am seeing here, NOT ENOUGH WHERE IT COUNTS!
You are aware that unknown to you nobody guys like me are who will likely become some of your investors someday, right? Do you think that presenting yourself as you have here, so far, would gain many well off peoples favor? Especially if they did their homework on the subject, even as poorly as I have, and found as much of what the established pros and irrefutable scientific facts say to be quite a bit different than you are claiming and not in your favor at that, and you proceed to give them a smug condescending attitude about basic questions for it?
So say you actually do have your families home and lives on the line. How would you feel if I was the guy holding all the big check that could make your life go someplace good, yet because of your condescending attitude I simply pull out my million dollar research grant check and tear it up right in front of you while saying,
'Your research is passable okay, but not great, however I don't care for your attitude so the deals off. And BTW, Since you didn't pan out, I'm off to see your competitors next. Have a nice life sleeping in your car until somebody else comes along!)
Manors and formal demor in all instances count, Especially when it's somebody else you know absolutely nothing factual abouts respect and money you're after.
But hey, it's just semantics that are not relevant to the science, right? So they won't really matter, even if your science is easily seen to be easily questioned and you attitude over it is condescending and poor, so let the smug condescending attitude fly where it may, right?
I didnt have to read all this, when looking at digester information there are a few things people need to keep in mind, so before i go into detail on yours this will help others.Well.... Given what I am finding online, I have doubts on many of your points.
1. http://www.energy.wsu.edu/Documents/Biomethane_For_Transportation_WWCleanCities.pdf
Well.... Given what I am finding online, I have doubts on many of your points.
2. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/heating-values-fuel-gases-d_823.html
, i have highlighted the relevant bits, they were slightly weasley with this, for natural gas they gave a range, so i think you have a choice here, pick the best value for natural gas or go for a middle value, if you pick the top figure given for natural gas even then look at how close methane is, if your sensible and except the chances of ALL natural or even more than a fraction of it being the super high end, then as your table shows Methane wins out.
My head is doing just fine.
Not really. Rather nearly the opposite in fact. In finally admitting that the ranges vary and overlap barely (your best 100% pure end product still doesn't break the lower 1/3 range of raw unprocessed well based Natural gas) you have proved mine (that their is a overlapping range they both share) that I have been going for since the begining. Thanks for keeping up.Thank you for this, it proves my point
Link 3Well.... Given what I am finding online, I have doubts on many of your points.
Link 4 the final one, i notice TCM has posted between the links, please dont do this i did say i would post each link separately so kindly wait until its finished. very rude to just but in. I will also show you what you said that made me do it this way.Well.... Given what I am finding online, I have doubts on many of your points.
How rude to interrupt, i did say i would post a single reply to each to help you, i did this after you complained bout not reading long posts!!My head is doing just fine.
But since you brought it up I am now having to suspect you need a beak but wont/can't admit to it?
Getting challenged on real world grounds and having to think beyond your idealisms and into the expanded realities that the world runs in is tough sometimes.
Just wait until you get your ideas worked over on the real world economic feasibility limitations aspects of it all where ever changing costs of feedstocks, labor, processing, user demographics, special interests limitations/roadblocks and wants and who knows what else all start ripping handfuls out of the profits possibility pie!
Not really. Rather nearly the opposite in fact. In finally admitting that the ranges vary and overlap barely (your best 100% pure end product still doesn't break the lower 1/3 range of raw unprocessed well based Natural gas) you have proved mine (that their is a overlapping range they both share) that I have been going for since the begining. Thanks for keeping up.
BTW in real world applications that bio derived CH4 value of 1011 Vs Natural Gasses value ~950 - 1150 variance is only ~ -6% to + 13% (a range that will not play a major make or break feasibility problem with any typical bulk heating/engine fueling applications) which means that their is a fair chance that any randomly sampled Natural Gas source has about a 2:1 odds of being equal to higher than your pure Methane source.
Plus beyond that, in real world operation conditions, where purity is not so critical and end point costs is, the efforts you will have to put forth to clean your gas up just to meet the lower end average of natural gas will set you back way more given the bulk of your impurities are low to zero value byproducts (water vapor, nitrogen compounds, CO2, H2S, oxygen, Etc) where as raw well gas "witches Brew" has a load of highly valuable secondary gases that in their removal work toward paying for their separation hence the reason that Natural Gas processing plants are highly profitable!
Unlike well gas sources of which many can and do run straight form well to end user, and those that doe get theri secondary compounds processed out (profitably), your bio process is alway going to be totally dependant on a feedstock supply that is either labor and cost intensive to gather process and dispose of or is stuck with being tied to a waste process only feed source (nitch source application).
Plus you will alway be up against the limited value of what your secondary byproducts that come from cleaning you gas has (measurable energy and financial outlay with little return for it just to get your end product up to base level competitive spec).
I think your work has merit on the academic end but I am not seeing a strong power play on the greater implementation end, so far, due to the likely large up front cost to set up plus parasitic secondary efforts and their cost that may be involved, which is what investors are looking at ( I obviously would be any way) when they give you money, that they ultimately want it back and with a preferably good profit for it.
The whole reason they are rich is because they don't buy into blind idealisms that don't pay equitable dividends.
Especially on the real world bigger picture application efficiencies and cost comparisons, like say comparing the typical real world engines (typical mom and pop daily driver vehicles) users to your high cost special purpose built rigs (Tesla roadsters very few will own simply due realistic costs and limited range of applications involved).
One may have way better working efficiency but its cost is way outside of what the average person and end user can afford to work with or cost justify.
We can continue on but at this point with your latest revelations I see no need to. You have pretty much shown what I have been getting at all along, that they in fact partially overlap on energy density, with yours running largely second to common well source Natural Gas on all levels of measure in likely 2 out of 3 instances.
Winning 1 game in three on average energy comparison alone does not make you the superior player. Even less so if you have to put forth a lot more efforts just to play at that level while your competition does not.
smiley or lol so predictable. Look mate, i am getting pms from people who i honestly consider your friends, they are pointing out that your starting to loose credibility and how painful its becoming to seen you torn to shreds.I did it because you stated this.....My head is doing just fine.
But since you brought it up I am now having to suspect you need a beak but wont/can't admit to it?
Contradicts the above statement you made. When you consider how many times i had to post the same picture before you got the point, i think its reasonable to assume your attention span is somewhere in the region of a member from Mycetophilidae.
, compare that with growth rates of oil fields or wells.
Rubbed my nose in what? Your pointing out exactly what I have been going on about right from the get go and often doing it with my own links that I used to point out what you are proudly pointing out back to me as if it new info you found that I have not seen or understand. How many times do I have to point that out?
