Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Plasma?

W

William Wixon

Jan 1, 1970
0
Winston said:


cool. never heard of it before, i don't know anything about it, other than
that i own a small plasma cutter. i kinda reeled back when i read in this
article than they're planning on "mining" an existing landfill and burning
up all the garbage in it. wow. i never woulda thought they'd be able to
generate energy from burning garbage with a plasma torch, i woulda thought
it would've just USED energy. wow.

http://www.americanrecycler.com/dec06/b/progressive.shtml

(<joking> i guess that would be a solution for me when new york state DEC
bans all outdoor burning, if i can get a home version of those babies!)
 
W

Winston

Jan 1, 1970
0
William said:
cool. never heard of it before, i don't know anything about it, other than
that i own a small plasma cutter. i kinda reeled back when i read in this
article than they're planning on "mining" an existing landfill and burning
up all the garbage in it. wow.

That's the beauty part. The garbage gets converted into a few inert granules,
steam process heat and two kinds of flammable gas *without* burning.
i never woulda thought they'd be able to
generate energy from burning garbage with a plasma torch, i woulda thought
it would've just USED energy. wow.

Getting 21.4 x the input energy out of the process in the form of
steam and syngas is a fine bonus!
http://www.americanrecycler.com/dec06/b/progressive.shtml

(<joking> i guess that would be a solution for me when new york state DEC
bans all outdoor burning, if i can get a home version of those babies!)

Using his numbers, seven cents worth of electricity and a cubic foot of
garbage turns into $1.50 worth of energy output and a third of a cubic
inch of inert gravel.

This means I could put a 200 years worth of garbage in one 32 gallon can
while collecting over $28K in process heat and syngas from it.

Not too darned shabby.

How much did that plasma cutter cost, if you don't mind my asking?

--Winston
 
W

Winston

Jan 1, 1970
0
Tim said:
The principle probably makes sense, but I think it is a bit
oversimplifying and optimistic to describe the output as "inert". For
example the granules will contain whatever heavy metals were in the
original waste, eg cadmium, which will eventually leach into water
courses if they are used for landfill or construction. As they are
produced in a reducing atmosphere, the metal residues will likely be
rather more reactive than in oxidised basic slag.

While high temperature processing simplifies most organics etc to
manageable gases, some hazardous gaseous residues such as dioxins will
remain in the syngas and so in its eventual combustion products released
to the atmosphere. Not all the gaseous product will have passed through
the plasma, some will distil earlier and bypass it, so an amount of more
complex and even biological compounds will remain in the gases too.


Tim Jackson

Thanks, Tim.

--Winston
 
W

Winston

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim said:
Here's a cheap one if you want to play;

$2000 and UP is more typical for industrial quality. Mine converts
240V, 30A and ~1HP of compressed air into a needle-thin plasma jet
that will cut 1/8" steel like scissors.

Like these scissors;

In effect all that electrical power equals 1 me-power with the hand
tool.

Jim Wilkins

Thanks, Jim.

--Winston
 
W

William Wixon

Jan 1, 1970
0
Winston said:
Thanks, Bill.

I take it that their 5/8" claim is specious as well then... :)

--Winston

hey,
i don't want to appear to be saying thermal dynamics machines aren't as
good as the manufacturer claims them to be, there is the possibility that i
never really learned how to use the machine properly. what do they say?
that the "cutmaster 39" can "sever" 5/8" material? i never tried, maybe it
can. it just seemed to me my plasma cutter doesn't cut as well as i had
hoped it would, i was pretty disappointed, maybe it's just teh way i use it
though. (i just reviewed their info) yeah, if it was me i'd get the next
size larger machine, at least, if not two sizes larger, for me at the time i
bought my machine that was WAY more than i wanted to spend.

b.w.
 
W

Winston

Jan 1, 1970
0
William said:
hey,
i don't want to appear to be saying thermal dynamics machines aren't as
good as the manufacturer claims them to be, there is the possibility that i
never really learned how to use the machine properly. what do they say?
that the "cutmaster 39" can "sever" 5/8" material? i never tried, maybe it
can. it just seemed to me my plasma cutter doesn't cut as well as i had
hoped it would, i was pretty disappointed, maybe it's just teh way i use it
though. (i just reviewed their info) yeah, if it was me i'd get the next
size larger machine, at least, if not two sizes larger, for me at the time i
bought my machine that was WAY more than i wanted to spend.

Well they sound like the cat's pajamas for 'gauge'
to small sheet stock anyway.

Thanks!

--Winston
 
i don't want to appear to be saying thermal dynamics machines aren't as
good as the manufacturer claims them to be, there is the possibility that i
never really learned how to use the machine properly. what do they say?
that the "cutmaster 39" can "sever" 5/8" material? i never tried, maybe it
can. it just seemed to me my plasma cutter doesn't cut as well as i had
hoped it would, i was pretty disappointed, maybe it's just teh way i use it
though. (i just reviewed their info) yeah, if it was me i'd get the next
size larger machine, at least, if not two sizes larger, for me at the time i
bought my machine that was WAY more than i wanted to spend.

b.w.


Cutting speed ratings paint the clearest picture, although they can be
hard to find sometimes. Mine is rated to sever 3/4, but at an
impractically slow rate. Still useful occasionally on such thickness
for short cuts of material that won't fit in the chop saw. Anyway, the
ratings assume that the consumables are in good shape, which tends to
make the ratings overly optimistic. With even somewhat worn
consumables, mine will breeze through 1/8" and cut 1/4" acceptably,
but gets sluggish at 3/8", particularly when starting at awkward
angles. On thick stuff I usually start with new consumables and try to
get through any difficult areas early. I keep the worn consumables for
lighter material, or for when clean cuts aren't important. One other
note about my machine - I find that unshielded consumables yield a
narrower kerf and therefore are more effective on thick material. I
only use the shielded parts when I'm using a template, since the
square edge of the shielded cap makes that easier.

Wayne
 
D

daestrom

Jan 1, 1970
0
harry said:
More bollocks. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. First law of
thermodynamics. The total energy out equals what goes in. IE energy
to power the plasma plus the energy in the rubbish to start with. You
don't get anything for nothing. You could get the same effect by just
burning the rubbish.

Apparently you didn't read the presentation. It does *not* make any claims
about violating the first law. For a modest electrical energy input and a
ton of municipal waste, you get fuel gas out. Where's the violation there?

According to the presentation, there are some distinct advantages to using
plasma torch technology over simply 'burning the rubbish'. One is more
complete combustion generating more usable fuel gas. Another is the much
higher temperatures of plasma torches breaks down many harmful contaminants
that ordinary incineration does not.
Just put it in the same file as "gasoline for water" technology.
There's so many uneducated shitheads on this thread it's
unbelievable! :)

And then there are those like you who don't even read the presentation
before they make rash statements. :-/

daestrom
 
D

daestrom

Jan 1, 1970
0
harry said:
The technology is pointless. There already exist several
technologies that achieve the same result. Low technologies. That
work. Incineration, biological "digesters" & distillation springs to
mind. Why bring in plasma?
The first law of practicality is "Keep It Stupid Simple". The
complications come along on their own. You don't need to build them in
to start with.
The practical difficulties of building such a device would be near
insuperable.
The nearest I've seen to it would be an electric arc furnace as used
for meltng steel. And they are batch processors,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_arc_furnace

A local garbage incinerator down the road from me 'burns' rubbish using
natural gas. Yes, it reduces the volume of the waste and gets energy from
the trash.

But it has come under a lot of criticism because the temperature of the
flame is not high enough to really break down many of the components in the
rubbish. They've had to install several new monitors on the stack and have
a couple of lawsuits pending from people downwind that have to breath the
results. Fortunately for me, I'm ten miles up-wind.

Now, this is not some old, decrepit unit, it is only about 20 years old and
has had several upgrades. Yet its flue gasses are full of carcinogens and
nasties.

They also have trouble having to re-tube the boiler every year or two.
Seems the flue gasses have so many nasty things that condense in the fire
tubes, it corrodes them away and causes lots of leaks.

Yeah, 'existing technology' is just fine for burning rubbish (NOT).

daestrom
 
Top