[Terrapreta] charcoal degradation - uncertainties about itshalflife

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Henry,

I have heard of a "Tokamak" reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokomak<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokomak>).  That is a Russian name, I believe, for a toroidal (donut shaped) magnetic "bottle", which can contain plasma and is used to create a fusion reaction.  The energy input required to heat the plasma and contain it in a magnetic field is currently more than the amount of energy which can be output from sustained fusion reaction.
This is where the development of "controlled nuclear fusion" has reached.  "Nuclear fusion" is the energy of stars.  Humans have already synthesized "uncontrolled nuclear fusion" with the development of nuclear fusion weapons (H-bombs).

Plasma is a fourth state of matter.  It is a highly ionized gas, consisting of only positively charged monatomic ions, where all molecules of the gaseous phase of the elemental matter in the gas are broken apart and all of the electrons have been stripped from the atoms.  The highly positively charged individual atomic nucleii interact only with one another (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29>).  They repel (like charges repel) one another with extreme prejudice!   This is why it takes a powerful magnetic field to contain the plasma ions.  Plasma usually is very hot too, emitting intense amounts of electromagentic radiation (large #'s of photons) as it cools.  Magnetic fusion plasma is nearly one million degrees C!  Without continuous input of photonic energy it cools out of the plasma phase almost instantly.  Tokamak's take tremendous amounts of energy to operate (like a small city)!

Photons are absorbed by atoms when electrons in an atom are excited and go to higher energy orbital levels.  Photons are released from plasma when electrons fall in towards the nucleii, down from an excited, higher energy state, and back into an orbital of an atom in the gas.  This is a lower energy state.  This is when the plasma atoms glow with light radiation The releases of energy from electrons falling to lower energy states comes in "quantized packets" (quantum), which are photons at specific different frequencies.
 
The different frequencies of the radiation reflect the quantum changes in the electron states of atoms as they cool down (the electrons lose energy and drop to a lower energy orbital level) after they have been heated up (energized with ionizing radiation) by impinging photons.  When electrons fall, they emit specific photon frequencies, directly related to the energy states of all the electron orbital positions in the atoms.  Photons are without charge, without mass, only energy particles, but they carry momentum?!  Electrons are a very small amount of matter with a charge or -1.  When photons "hit" electrons, they transfer their momentum (and their energy) directly into the motion (kinetic energy) of the electrons.

The energy transfer moves the electron to a higher energy state in an electron orbital and further away from the nucleus of an atom, thus changing the energy state of the atom.  It can also possibly change the electrical state of the atom, ionizing it, when an electron is lost from the atom, flown away from the outermost orbital of the atom.  The energy becomes electrical energy, a field built up between the atoms with fewer negatively charged electrons (a net increase in positive charge) and the fleeing electrons.  A higher total positive charge in the plasma requires a higher amount of electrical energy to maintain the plasma.

The energy of any photon, E, emitted or absorbed from or into an atom, is equal to the Planck's constant (h = 6.026 E-34 Joules*secs) times the frequency of the photon f (1/sec).  More electromagnetic energy in the photon (E = hf) moves an electron higher out from the nucleus.  More photons with higher intensity at a specific frequencies means more electrons move to higher energy states.  Or, the more intense the electromagnetic radiation being emitted from atoms, then more #'s of photons are being emitted, because more electrons have fallen into lower energy orbital states.  The plasma is cooling and losing energy (it is radiated as photons).

I don't know if the fully charged atomic ions in pure plasma even have quantum electron states?  Pure plasma is strictly positively charged nucleii, without any electrons.  It does not emit photon radiation unless it cools, gathering electrons to it, and having nucleii change back into semi-charged ions with changed energy states.  But, pure plasma is still very "hot", with the kinetic energy of the atomic ions.  I think pure plasma encased inside a blob of "hot" plasma (like a star) is cooling only at the margins and emits light photons only at the outside.

So there are no photons "inside" a star.  Photons are being emitted only at or very near the surface of a star.  Where strong magnetic fields lines arise from a star, the surface goes dark at one end of the field lines, creating "sun spots".  There are no quantum changes in electron states at the "sun spots" to emit visible spectrum photons.  Electrons are blown into extreme arcs above and from the "sun spots".  At the other end of the magnetic field lines, positively charged plasma ions are blown into the arcs and away from the star's surface, too.  Where the negatively charged electrons plunge into the arched positively charged plasma, intense photon radiation is emitted from these "solar flares".  The radiation is emitted at both visible and invisible frequencies.

As the electrons and atomic nucleii merge again at the surface of a star, hot ionic gases are blown into the space surrounding the star.  When these ions escape the gravitational pull of the stars mass, then they become a "solar wind".

Regards,

SKB
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: henry buehler<mailto:henry.buchler at gmail.com> 
  To: Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> 
  Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 8:20 PM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] charcoal degradation - uncertainties about itshalflife




  They are currently working on a toroidal plasma generator with magnetic field containment, it creates electrical energy much similar to how conventional generators work ( fixed magnets and rotating magnetic fields). However, right now it takes more energy to maintain the magnetic field that the generator produces. I think it is called the ToroMat reactor 

  rpardell, your solar energy idea seems quite good. A donut with appropriate windows, even if surrounded by coils, should offer ways to let the light in. Also, plasmas are pretty good at interacting with light -- plasmas are 100% made of electrically charged particles, and there is a pretty strong interaction rate between charged particles and photons. (It takes quite a few years for photons generated in the Solar core to travel some 400,000 miles to reach the surface of the sun, due to interactions with plasma ions. After escaping from the surface, photons only take 8 minutes to travel 93,000,000 miles to reach Earth.) 

  Ronald Wilson of university of chicago invented a method of concentration of sunlight to 5000 degrees, he applied some added concentrating power to solargenix hot water heaters.

  I am still on try to find way to get process heat from sunlight... Plasma powered industrial microwave ?  Microwave is used to recycle plastic into dirty oil. can be used to pyrolisise wood turn wood to char with capture of all gasses, no use of water. turn gas into liquid fuel for atomotive use. 

  The 55 gallon drum was used to produce charcoal for a blacksmith not to reduce greenhouse gas. it used the gas produced by wood to continue compleat process of turning wood into charcoal.
  wood powered car ran on gas from wood, engine also sucked up ash.


  On 11/19/07, Sean K. Barry <sean.barry at juno.com<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>> wrote: 
    Hi Henry,

    Concentrated sunlight can reach thousands of degrees in TEMPERATURE.  But the heat produced is confined only to the point of concentration (if you move the magnifying glass away the source of heat leaves and the temperature drops).   Heat is a quantity of energy, like work is a quantity of energy.  Temperature is a measure of the intensity or density of the energy flow.  It is akin to asking like how bright is a light.  What is its luminosity? 

    Burning some of the biomass in a feedstock to produce enough heat to pyrolyze (turn into charcoal) other parts of the feedstock is fairly efficient.  It provides direct heat, as opposed to, for instance heating the outside of a retort with externally supplied energy.  Even simple retorts like a 55 gallon drum can be fairly efficient, in terms of how much charcoal is produced versus the amount of feedstock.  The troublesome issues with open-air retorts are the emission of potent GHG, primarily Methane-CH4.  With proper air input control, and proper burning of the off-gases (with energy capture and conversion to usable heat or electricity, or not; simple "flaring"), any retort can be made useful for producing charcoal.  If the emissions are only 2-3% Methane-CH4, then the effect of that GHG on the atmosphere is more than any benefit that could be obtained by keeping all of the charcoal carbon from going into the atmosphere as CO2.  So, it is very important if one is making charcoal for carbon sequestration to correctly handle the emitted "producer gas" (Burn it!). 

    Regards,

    SKB
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: henry buehler<mailto:henry.buchler at gmail.com> 
      To: Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> 
      Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 8:42 PM
      Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] charcoal degradation - uncertainties about itshalflife

       
      I wish there was another source for process heat rather then burning something, concentrated sunlight can reach thousands of degrees heat just not where and when you need it... tube wells in Bangladesh have arsenic and people know it and still drink it. a filter was recently developed specificly for these people. not the big problem for Bangladesh today, I think Bangladesh would be a good spot to grow plant for fuel in the sea. which is all ready one of the earths big carbon sinks...I only used the arsenic treated wood for kindling. I had some conversation about growing plants for consumpion in toxic sludge. it was alarming but then studies showed that not that much toxic metal was in the produce. for people who want to be sure they are not buying certified organic produce.  


      On 11/18/07, Sean K. Barry < sean.barry at juno.com<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>> wrote: 
        Hi Henry,

        Using a 55 gallon drum as a retort to make charcoal will likely release much green house gases; CO2 and Methane-CH4.  You wouldn't burn treated wood because there are many toxic chemicals used to make treated wood, including arsenic. 

        Regards,

        SKB
          ----- Original Message ----- 
          From: henry buehler<mailto:henry.buchler at gmail.com> 
          To: Jim Joyner<mailto:jimstoytn at yahoo.com> 
          Cc: Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org <mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
          Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 6:52 PM
          Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] charcoal degradation - uncertainties about itshalflife

           
          charcoal and rusty nails ?
          people with shoping carts full of scrapmetal are always on my street they stole my gate twice, now I have a wood gate. robbins a community away is going to power a generator with wood, robbins community power. a charcoal retort can be made from a 55 gallon drum, I don't want to sell them. I don't want to tell anyone you will buy charcoal from them. I was told not to burn treated wood. tossing a sawdust covered box of junk on the fire, that was a mistake. 

           
          On 11/17/07, Jim Joyner < jimstoytn at yahoo.com<mailto:jimstoytn at yahoo.com>> wrote: 
            Shawn, for good or bad, there are at least two companies that are converting as much of that wood as possible to pellets to be burned for fuel. Be nice if there were enough known about the use of biochar to convince the companies to make biochar instead. 

            I'm finding it very difficult to find even a few hundred pounds of charcoal to experiment with.

            Jim

            ----- Original Message ----
            From: Sean K. Barry < sean.barry at juno.com<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>>


            Hi Henry,

            That is an amazing story!  We need to turn 1.1 billion tons of carbon into ~260 million tons of charcoal before it decomposes, put the charcoal back onto that soil which the trees came from, and then plant new trees into that ground.  That is an achievable goal.  We can harvest energy from part of that biomass too as we do it. 

            Regards,

            Sean K. Barry
             




--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51731/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ%0A>

            _______________________________________________
            Terrapreta mailing list
            Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org <mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
            http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/ <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/>
            http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org<http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/>
            http://info.bioenergylists.org <http://info.bioenergylists.org/>


          _______________________________________________
          Terrapreta mailing list
          Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
          http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/ <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/>
          http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org<http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/>
          http://info.bioenergylists.org <http://info.bioenergylists.org/>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20071121/7e8bee67/attachment.html