Talk:Coal gas/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Coal gas. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Talk:Town Gas

Units questions

Some questions on units:

Are these CV values correct?

"Coal or Coke oven gas typically had a caloric value (CV) between 1 and 2 MJ/m3 (250-550 Btu/ft3 (std)); with values around 2 MJ/m3 (550 Btu/ft3 (std)); being typical.

The advent of electric lighting forced utilities to search for other markets for manufactured gas. MGPs that once produced gas almost exclusively for lighting shifted their efforts towards supplying gas primarliy for heating and cooking, and even refrigeration and cooling.

Fuel gas for industrial use was made using producer gas technology. Producer gas is made by blowing air through an incandescent fuel bed (commonly coke or coal) in a gas producer. The reaction of fuel with insufficient air for total combustion produces CO: this reaction is exothermic and self sustaining. It was discovered that adding steam to the input air of a producer would increase the CV of the fuel gas by enriching it with CO and H2 produced by water gas reactions. Producer gas has a 'very' 'low CV' of 3.7 to 5.6 MJ/m3 (100-150 Btu/ft3 (std)); "

from the article.

(10:11, 4 March 2006 (GMT))

Caloric content is given simply as btu/scf for gas? Are these higher(gross) heating values, or lower(net) heating values?
What's the modern preferred SI unit for volumetric heat content? kJ/standard L? kJ/kg?

-- Kaszeta 14:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In classical american/british use, gas heat is measured in btu/scf, measured using a bomb calorimeter. The modern SI Unit, would be MJ/m3. However gas is sold in units of 1000scf, or therms (Amount of gas to produce 100,000Btu) so conventional units are standard in the gas industry.

Here are some links you may find interesting

Klonimus 05:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course, kilojoules per kilogram are not "volumetric", but that's not really relevant. If gas is sold by weight anywhere, they would be relevant (of course, that's actually what using a "standard cubic foot" boils down to is a measurement of mass, but expressed in volume units).

Conversions to SI, the world standard, are almost always appropriate.

Industry use is not totally determinative. This isn't an industry article, but is aimed at the general public. The interdisciplinary nature of SI is just as important as its international nature; people should not have to learn an entirely new set of units just to understand the measurements made in a particular field of activity.

What industry use in various parts of the world does give you is a good reason to include that use as well as any SI use. List original measurements first, too—they often give a better idea of the precision of the original measurement than the converted numbers, and if the originals are routinely listed, when conversion errors are made it is easier to guess which one is more likely correct. Gene Nygaard 13:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm still working on this article, but roughly

75Btu = Blast Furnace Gas
150Btu = Producer gas made from Coke (I.e without entrained hydrocarbons)
300Btu = Blue Water Gas.
550Btu = Coke oven gas. (Gas made by baking coal)
550Btu = Carburetted water gas (water gas + fixed hydrocarbons to make a gas equivalent to COG)
1000Btu = Natural Gas (Methane)
1300Btu = LPG (Ethane/Propane)

Anyways the correct units for gasses are.

Btu/scf == Btu/standard cubic foot (This is important because the gases are produced using hot processes and so shrink during processing)
MJ/m^3 == Metric
tcf == thousand scf (This is how natural gas is sold on the commidities market)
Therm == Gas, to produce 100,000 Btu (This had to do when gas companies would blend gasses resulting in gas with a varriying caloric value from month to month)

Klonimus 10:33, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Klonimus has complained. I am a little confused by the complaint. If the problem is that:

Metric units are not used for gas. = Not true.
Metric units are not appropriate in a gas article for Wikipedia readers. = Not true.
Metric units are not appropriate for physics and science matters like calorific value. = Not true.

These are easy to test. Just search for non-US resources on the web and you will see the use of metric units for gas. If there are other reasons to avoid metric units in a gas article, then I have missed the point.

This complaint about using metric units for gas has been mentioned on the 'Requests for admin' page. So it clearly is a big deal but I don't get it. The charge against me is that I have failed to understand that metric units are not appropriate here. I am guilty as charged. I have failed to understand. Please tell me more so that I can try to understand. Bobblewik (talk) 00:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Not appropriate is correct. Non-SI units are standard in the gas industry.

When gas is traded it is sold by the MMBtu [1]
When is gas is stored it is measured by the tcf/Bcf, or Tcf. [2]
When you pay your gas bill, you pay for therms.

Again the complaint isn't that you do these metric conversions, it's that you clobber the exisiting information, and replace that information with SI units of dubious relevence. SI units are not standard for every encyclopedia topic. Klonimus 03:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Gas may be traded, stored and paid for in non-metric units in the US. If US sources say that, I won't disagree. You are suggesting that metric units are not used elsewhere. That is not true. You can see that it is not true if you look at non-US sources.

If you are now saying that your complaint is that non-metric measures should be provided for the benefit of those that don't use metric. That seems reasonable. But it is a different point to the assertion that metric measures are not used.

I am not saying this to annoy you. I respect your contributions and I don't mind being challenged. Please look at some non-US sources. Bobblewik (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Bobblewik: I noticed you've changed 1000 scf to 1000 ft^3. This is probably worthy of some discussion. Scf is "standard cubic feet", which is more specific than actual ft^3, in that it specifies that the volumes need to be corrected for density if not at STP. In fact, it's really more of a mass measurement than a volume measurement, since the scf flow rate is invariant with temperature and pressure. So, when making this conversion, it's important that the "standard" part of the unit is preserved. Blind conversion of scf->ft^3 (or an SI equivalent without the use of "standard" or explanatory text added) is poor practice, IMHO. -- Kaszeta 17:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What you say is interesting. I did not know it was effectively a mass measure. However now that you mention it, I understand that the use of volume measures in petroleum products is often standardised. So perhaps this is not unique to non-metric units. I would like to know what others think. If a term like ft³ (standard), ft³ (std) or something else were used, that might be the solution. Bobblewik (talk) 13:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This sounds good to me. I understand the confusion, I see the "standard" modifier dropped off of a lot of equipment and manuals, which is bad, since 15 cfm at 30 psig is three times as much gas as 15 scfm. Hmmm, I wonder where I'd put a wikipedia page on this? Standard Temperature and Pressure? -- Kaszeta 23:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That has to do with the fact that gas equipment is designed to burn so much mass/hr expressed as volume/time/pressure. Since those are are the practical units involved. Volume-pressure-temperature gives you mass from the Ideal gas law. Often a burner is rated for Btu/hr which is again a proxy for mass/hr. Same thing with oil burners which are rated for Btu/hr and gallons/hr. Since gas burners are limited by volumetric flow contraints, you see volumetric measurements used.

For the purpose of calculating CV, the standard cubic foot is used as a proxy for mass. To calculate the actual caloric input, you would determine the gas input in scf/hr using a conversion table. So in those places where "scf" is used it should remain. If bobblewik wants to offer an SI conversion, methinks MJ/m3 is the correct one. Klonimus 03:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I put back the English units. I checked and found that metric units are used for natural gas in Europe and probably most of the world (I only checked Europe), but I think that English units should be included because they are still used in the U.S. I also changed the superscript code to the "< sup 3 /sup >" type. "& sup 3;" doesn't work well in the Mac versions of Firefox, Explorer or Safari. Is there any policy on this? Sorry if I chose the wrong type. Kjkolb 11:30, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

I implemented the unit format as discussed above. 'scf' -> 'ft³ (std)'.

I am interested in your comment on '<&sup3>' versus '&sup3'. I have often wondered about this. Please raise this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). I would like to read what people say. Bobblewik (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The pressure and temperature at which a Volume of gas is measured should always be identified otherwise confusion and errors could be created - e.g. MJ/m3 measured at ??? Also, there are a number of "standard" conditions (see the section on 'Standard Conditions of Temperature and Pressure') so quoting the relevent conditions whould also be useful. Wikipedia is a generally available reference so it is better to be overly explicit than potentially confusing. --Jcaiken 01:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that the definitions of the units used for metering gas and energy flows and the associated standard conditions has historically been the subject of a lot of work by various bodies such as the Institution of Gas Engineers, the International Gas Union and Gas Technology Institute. Could I suggest that their conclusions be referenced here to clarify the issues and provide a measure of consistency. Jcaiken 02:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

TSC Lowe.

While his title of Prof was self assigned, it his how he is referenced in materials of the time.

Did you know that Mt Lowe in southern California is named after him?

Klonimus 05:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why Is Town Gas A Piece Of Science History?

The article doesn't really touch on the fact that Town Gas was a deadly poison. This is an important factor in its evolution and de-evolution as a technology. The faux garlic scent in today's natural gas supply isn't really there to guard against toxicity, I don't think, but just for its volatility. I don't remember where I read about the toxic nature of Town Gas so I can't foot note this comment properly. Town Gas as a future energy source would hinge on nature as a potential heath hazard. McDogm--64.12.116.204 14:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Manufactured Gas predates the discovery and wide distribution of natural gas. Nat gas is better than town gas because of it's higher Caloric Value and it is nontoxic. Town gas didn't have to be odorized because traces of sulfur compounds and hydrocarbons gave it a unique smell. Natrual gas is oderized because of it's explosion hazard. Klonimus 17:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

The main 'toxic' component in Towns gas is the carbon monoxide. __Jcaiken 01:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Town Gas as social history

The advent of gas lighting in factories, homes and in the streets turned night into day for many - making night shift work possible in industries where light is all important - in spinning, weaving and making up garments etc. The incandescent gas light, the gas cooker and in later years gas central heating, all had significant contributions to make, some later overtaken by electrical applicances; often energised by power from gas driven generators. Fenton Robb 20:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Syngas merge

Someone put a merge tag on the syngas article, but it suggested that it be merged with gasified coal, which has now been merged into this article. I changed the merge tag and added a tag to this article. It could also be merged with the wood gas article. I don't know if they should be merged, so I'll leave it up to more knowledgeable people. -- Kjkolb 04:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, merging all of these into a single article under manufactured gas makes the most sense. -- Kaszeta 13:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Are they all really equivalent? The town gas article says there is methane in the gas, but the wood gas article doesn't. Do different carbon-containing materials produce different types of gas and do they use different processes? Also, syngas, according to the article, includes things like turning methane into carbon dioxide and hydrogen. -- Kjkolb 00:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Es ist besser alles zu mergen. Man will nie von einem lesen, man will immer relatieren und vergleichen, nicht wahr? Sie soll, jederfall, eigene Titelzeile haben, und nicht ein grosser Arikel sein. Zusammen aber nicht gemischt; stirred, not shaken.

I do believe Syngas could fill a whole article as the data given about it so far is very limited, I don't have time to contribute at the moment, but I believe I should be able to in the near future. my opinion is mostly based on the fact that town gas is described as being made to be sold to "towns" as the name suggest, and although it sometimes can be syngas, the term syngas refers to the H2 CO mix in particular in various ratios, mostly for industrial applications. I am but a student, and not a professional in the area, so if I am wrong, please correct me. -- Donat_donuts 16:36, 19 March 2006 (GMT)

Town gas and Syngas/Wood gas are very different mixtures. Syngas contains a high level of carbon monoxide, a lethally poisonous gas. If this was distributed in a town gas network, it would result to deaths by the thousands from asphyxiation.

Syngas is primally used for synthesis of hydrocarbon polymers for use as synthetic lubrication oil or synthetic fuel using the Fischer-Tropsch process.

I am removing the merge tag. Syngas could be merged with Wood gas but this may not be a good idea either. The Wood gas article should focus on war time use of wood gasifiers in automobiles. Petri Krohn 15:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that it may be more appropriate to structure Towns Gas as part of a section on Gas Supply Utilities (possibly different to gas distribution utilities). This could then cover SNG manufacture as well as other gas supplies manufactured for sale to mainly domestic customers for heating, cooking (and lighting). The production of Town Gas from the steam reforming of light oil (naphtha) was initially the precursor to SNG production and continues to this day in Hong Kong (Towngas - HKCG) and Shanghai. --Jcaiken 02:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Producer gas and Prussian blue

Interesting how producer gas produces prussian blue - similar to Zyclon B(sp) - Producer gas was used, and well known, in Germany and Europe, and Australia during WW2 - and far more deadly than Zyclon B to boot. Interesting study would be if producer gas would stain both sides of a brick wall - or if it was far more deadly and didn't last long enough ( did its job so quick and well ) to stain walls - Don't mess with this stuff ( particularly how it was done in WW2 ) it is only for pros - and few of them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) .

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus.--Jorfer 16:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the suggested merging of all or part this Town gas article into the Syngas article

On March 27, 2006, User:Petri Krohn tagged this article with a suggestion of merging all or part of this article into the Syngas article and the tag asks for discussion. I do wish that when someone tags an article like that, he/she would state the reasons for doing so here on the Discussion page to start the ball rolling. It would only be courteous to do so.

I oppose the suggestion most strongly. In my opinion, anyone reading this Town gas article in detail will see that:

It is badly in need of some good organization.
A lot of it is very poorly written. Some of it reads like some notes written on a piece of scrap paper. Other parts read as if they are just lists of what else is needed.
It needs some thorough Wikifying.

In my opinion, before the Town gas article is merged with any other article, it needs a complete rework and rewrite by an expert in the field. - mbeychok 08:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I support the merger. It could be reworked later.--Jorfer 16:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was merge.--Jorfer 15:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge to/from Coal gas

I added a tag suggesting that this article be merged into Coal gas, as it appears the two articles are discussing the same subject. The difference seems to be merely in usage, IOW, what's town gas in the US would be called coal gas in the UK. 67.176.196.10 19:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The term Town Gas has limited use in Australia and New Zealand too. The term Coal Gas is/was used instead.

I agree that this should be merged into Coal gas. Coal gas is a more popular term apparantely when I look up the urls up here [http://www.hscripts.com/tools/HLPC/index.php here]--Jorfer 15:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

ignorami and illustrations

what twit took away the hard earned purple and pop pictures from the article. whoever did it is woefully ignorant of the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.77.4 (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible source of images

Commons:Category:Gas Works Park contains (along with a lot of pictures of celebrations, etc.) quite a few pictures of the equipment for making coal gas. Someone who knows what they are looking for might be able to find quite a few relevant photos.

Also, Richard Haag, the landscape architect who designed Gas Works Park is still very much alive, and it might be worth contacting him and asking him to take a look at this article and make comments (or recommend who should). In the course of designing the park, he learned a great deal about the coal gasification process. - Jmabel | Talk 09:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Good ideas. We also have a preserved (non-working) small-town gas works in Scotland, which is documented; and there are histories of some of the UK gas companies. The problem at the moment is that UK and USA material has been roughly interleaved in the article; there is duplication and inconsistencies. There may even be differences in terminology. I am intending to do some improvements, but I will not be starting it before Jan 2008, at the earliest.Pyrotec (talk) 10:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I Nigel Coates recently visited Culzean Castle in Ayrshire. Here you will find an exhibit in the 'gas house' that was used to produce gas for the castle. There is a good, simple, drawing that would be good to reproduce in some shape or form. I took a picture if anybody is interested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigelcoates (talk • contribs) 20:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Seattle gasworks caption

Someone wrote this annotation in the caption of the first picture. I've removed it and placed it below if someone else wants to verify it and make changesNiro5 (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(this is not entirely true, there are three such plants in the United States. Plants in Terre Haute, Indiana and Tampa, Florida provide baseload electric power, and the third, in Delaware City, Delaware provides electricity to a Valero refinery.) There are also industrial coal-gassification processes, including Eastman Chemical Company.

History

I'm going to create a new article on the history of manufactured gas and clean up the sections in this article and in gas lighting--Bwwm (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a straight copy and paste from the section #Early history of gas production by carbonization. What purpose does it serve?

I'll work on it over the next days. I just created as a starting point. --Bwwm (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I see now what you are up to: your comment on this talk page is not the same as your comment on the gas lighting talk page. I was proposing to do more cleaning up of this article, so I'm willing to assist. PS we had coal gas in the UK until the early 1960s, somewhat longer than your comment on the UK having it up to WW II.Pyrotec (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Great! I'll start posting on talk page of the history article I created, and once that article is finished, we can update this article and the gas lighting one. --Bwwm (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The early history section has a kind of timeline, but the dates aren't in sequence, does anyone know if the decades are correct, or can anyone suggest a better order? Cameron McCormack (talk) 10:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)