[Terrapreta] Terrapreta Digest, Vol 4, Issue 66
Randy Black
rblack at hillcity.k12.sd.us
Fri Apr 20 15:34:22 CDT 2007
To all,
I have a question about the amount or need for P and Ca in making Terra
Preta. From my readings I always get the fact that from fish, fish
parts, or bones that the Amazonian Indians always ended up with lots of
P and Ca in their soil. Is this a crucial ingredient in making Terra
Preta? Is it needed for the microbial mix? Since I believe that to make
Terra Preta we must emulate the Amazonians I have added a fair amount of
bonemeal into my garden experiement. Any ideas?
Randy Black
-----Original Message-----
From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
[mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 2:03 PM
To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Subject: Terrapreta Digest, Vol 4, Issue 66
Send Terrapreta mailing list submissions to
terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
terrapreta-owner at bioenergylists.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Terrapreta digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: [Fwd: Re: Part II comments on John Cowan's "thoughts"]
(Juergen Botz)
2. Re: [Fwd: Re: Part II comments on John Cowan's "thoughts"]
(Kevin Chisholm)
3. Re: Part II comments on John Cowan's "thoughts"
(Michael J. Antal, Jr.)
4. Re: some thoughts about Terra Preta (Christoph Steiner)
5. Re: John Cowan's comments] (Tom Miles)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:28:07 -0300
From: Juergen Botz <jurgen at botz.org>
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] [Fwd: Re: Part II comments on John Cowan's
"thoughts"]
To: John Cowan <johncowan at earthlink.net>,
terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Message-ID: <46290637.8040903 at botz.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
John Cowan wrote:
> I've calculated this to be 130 PSI. I have yet to find such equipment.
> Back to make something from scratch?
Sean Barry has suggested 22.3 PSI. That seems low to me, 130 seems
high. "Seems" is simply based on the knowledge that ordinary
pressure cookers work at about 15 PSI.
I found the following on a web page about pressure cookers...
"At sea level the temperature of steam is 212?F. for each
pound of pressure increased, the temperature increases by 3?F."
That would give about 48 PSI for 180 degrees Celcius.
Sterilization autoclaves are definitely not designed for this
kind of pressure. So yes, it looks like making something from
scratch. I'm up for working on a design!
:j
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:44:33 -0300
From: Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] [Fwd: Re: Part II comments on John Cowan's
"thoughts"]
To: Juergen Botz <jurgen at botz.org>
Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Message-ID: <46290A11.3010804 at ca.inter.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Dear Juergen
Please see:
http://www.efunda.com/materials/water/steamtable_sat.cfm
This site enables easy determination of the pressure associated with any
saturated steam temperature, OR the temperature associated with any
saturated steam pressure.
Best wishes,
Kevin
Juergen Botz wrote:
> John Cowan wrote:
>> I've calculated this to be 130 PSI. I have yet to find such
equipment.
>> Back to make something from scratch?
>
> Sean Barry has suggested 22.3 PSI. That seems low to me, 130 seems
> high. "Seems" is simply based on the knowledge that ordinary
> pressure cookers work at about 15 PSI.
>
> I found the following on a web page about pressure cookers...
>
> "At sea level the temperature of steam is 212?F. for each
> pound of pressure increased, the temperature increases by 3?F."
>
> That would give about 48 PSI for 180 degrees Celcius.
>
> Sterilization autoclaves are definitely not designed for this
> kind of pressure. So yes, it looks like making something from
> scratch. I'm up for working on a design!
>
> :j
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:49:43 -1000
From: "Michael J. Antal, Jr." <mantal at hawaii.edu>
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Part II comments on John Cowan's "thoughts"
To: Ron Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net>, John Cowan
<johncowan at earthlink.net>, terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Message-ID: <DKEKJFDEBAHEFLPFIOFOKENPDHAA.mantal at hawaii.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi Ron: over 25 years ago at Princeton my student William Mok showed
that
the pyrolytic reactions which offer high yields of charcoal release
energy
(are exothermic). His work was published in JAAP. Nothing new about
the
exothermicity in "magic coal".
You are right: our Flash Carbonization process takes minutes (not hours)
and
realizes the theoretical yield of carbon from many feedstocks with no
catalysts. Also, as a result of the findings of one of my recent
graduate
students (Sam Wade), we can engineer a Flash Carbonization reactor so
that
there is absolutely no danger of explosions. This is why our State
Boiler
Inspector has given us a permit to operate our Demonstration Reactor on
campus.
Finally I remark that the thermodynamics of chemical equilibrium demand
the
formation of CO2 in addition to H2O during the pyrolytic formation of
carbon
from biomass. The claim being made by the "magic coal" workers that
only
H2O is released is magic indeed!
Regards, Michael.
-----Original Message-----
From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
[mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org]On Behalf Of Ron Larson
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:13 PM
To: John Cowan; terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Subject: [Terrapreta] Part II comments on John Cowan's "thoughts"
Hi all:
1. Yesterday, John said:
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Cowan" <johncowan at earthlink.net>
To: <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 5:40 PM
Subject: [Terrapreta] some thoughts about Terra Preta
<snip>
>
> Here is another idea worth pondering - "magic coal" made by pressure
> cooking biomass. It avoids certain problems with making charcoal but
has
> some new issues to overcome.
> http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2071791,00.html
>
2.
John Cowan said:
Here is another idea worth pondering - "magic coal" made by pressure
cooking biomass. It avoids certain problems with making charcoal but
has
some new issues to overcome.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2071791,00.html
a. Like John, I found this new and very interesting. By scouting
around
for more on the subject, I also found
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Translate:MPG:Coal_from_Biomass
b. Some more observations:
1.. I see the use of the word "coal" here ? as we did with
"charcoal" >>
"coal" in Russian
b. This "coal" is described as being brown.
c. After 15 hours at 180 C, one ends up only with water and tiny
"coal" spheres ? with the system being exothermal! (in the presence of a
[secret?] undisclosed catalyst)
d. They talked about doing the research outside because of the
dangers of an explosion. This reminds me of the similar (?) high
pressure
work of Mike Antal. But there is a big difference, with Mike getting his
(similarly, batch) charcoal in minutes (?), I believe (and without the
added
water and catalyst).
e. They talk about using the "coal" in a fuel cell ? no discussion
of
use as a soil augmentation, so maybe this product is not as permanent as
we
might desire. It also may have little surface area.
f. I wonder how much energy is released? Is it worth using a heat
exchanger to drive a turbine? Could it be part of a concentrating solar
power system? (With concern about explosions ? perhaps there is
considerable
energy here.)
3. I hope that we can hear more! John, thanks for calling our
attention
to this very interesting new technology. I would be skeptical of all
this,
if Dr. Markus Antonietti?s credentials were not impeccable.
4. Anyone (hoping especially to hear from Mike Antal) able to shed
more
light on more details? (There are some references that look worth
tracking
down, but no time yet to do that.)
Ron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
/pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070420/d68fcdb8/a
ttachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:52:53 +0200 (CEST)
From: "Christoph Steiner" <Christoph.Steiner at uni-bayreuth.de>
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] some thoughts about Terra Preta
To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Message-ID:
<65243.83.215.117.89.1177095173.squirrel at mail.uni-bayreuth.de>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
I am not convinced if not everything was burned. I frequently had
barbecue
with friends when I was living in Manaus and I burned all residues. My
compost was only for plant material with low protein, fat or sugar
content. These materials attract all kind of animals in the tropics. The
animals can be harmful to your crops or to your health. I assume this
was
the same for the creators of Terra Preta. After a burn bones easily
break
into powder (ash) and pieces. Together with the compost I applied this
Ca
and P rich ash together with charcoal in my garden. I assume that this
was
creating Terra Preta.
It is right that wood charcoal contains only little amounts of nutrients
(maybe some potassium). But not every charcoal is the same. Peanut husk
or
rice husk charcoal is rich in nutrients. The charcoal produced in Japan
from urban wastes is rich in nutrients. This type of charcoal is a real
fertilizer, whereas wood charcoal can be considered rather as soil
conditioner and extra nutrients need to be added.
Best,
Christoph
> Hi Randy,
>
>
> I do not think the carbon in charcoal that is put into soil provides
any
> kind of nutrient for plants above the ground or soil microorganisms.
> Charcoal is a lattice for soil microorganisms. There may be some
> decomposable hydrocarbon strings (volatile matter) left in fresh
charcoal
> which microbes can get energy from by decomposing (into CO2 and H2O),
but
> char is not a nutrient to plants. Plants get the carbon they use,
> strictly from the inspiration of CO2 from the atmosphere. Carbon does
not
> form soluble ions in water. Plants cannot take carbon in through
their
> roots.
>
> Also, Terra Preta soils do contain other organic nutrient bearing
stuff,
> like fish bones (which contain phosphorus and calcium) and plant
wastes
> (the inedible parts of food crops), but it was not charred (not burned
> either). It was just added into the soil along with charcoal. Cation
> Exchange Capacity is enhanced in Terra Preta soils. Some think it has
> more to do with more neutral soil pH and pH buffer capability in TP
soils.
> I don't know enough to say why or how it is increased. Maybe
> Christoph Steiner, Johannes Lehman, or Janice Thies (<- soil
scientists)
> could shed more light on that issue.
>
> SKB
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Randy Black<mailto:rblack at hillcity.k12.sd.us>
> To:
> terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 10:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Charcoal mix continued
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:02:50 -0700
From: "Tom Miles" <tmiles at trmiles.com>
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] John Cowan's comments]
To: "'John Cowan'" <johncowan at earthlink.net>, "'terra preta list'"
<terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
Message-ID: <000001c78386$e06b6760$a1423620$@com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
John,
If all we do on this list and website is to learn how and where to apply
charcoal as a soil ingredient to improve plant health then we will get
CO2
sequestration and other benefits because the technique will be used. The
practical and technical discussion and exchange of experience will yield
more than the policy discussion.
Tom Miles
>I have re-read the mission statement of the list and I see that
atmospheric
CO2 sequestration is part of the >scope of discussion. To combine all
this
is pretty broad.
>John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
/pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070420/d7bb3724/a
ttachment.html
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Terrapreta mailing list
Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
End of Terrapreta Digest, Vol 4, Issue 66
*****************************************
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list