Puppeteer

Author Topic: EPA  (Read 21962 times)

clytle374

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 368
    • View Profile
Re: EPA
« Reply #45 on: January 08, 2007, 04:26:12 AM »
Could someone point me to the actual rules?  Or are they copyrighted like the NEC? 
I want to take a look at them and try to figure out where bio-diesel, WVO, and SVO will all fit in.

I don't think there are any rules on gas turbines.  A home built turbine generator/outdoor-boiler, that burns soggy wood, grease, old tires, cow patties (i.e. ANYTHING) that could ruin the O3 layer in a single week. Just to protest ;D
Cory

rmchambers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 505
    • View Profile
Re: EPA
« Reply #46 on: January 08, 2007, 04:39:09 AM »


Robert,

That set of pipes in the top of your stove sounds like the same setup as mine has. The manufacturer refers to mine as a catalytic converter or something.  I never thought of it as any more than a heat exchanger.  My upper control bypasses this `converter` to improve the draft, necessary when starting a fire.  My stove has a full door ceramic clear viewing window (nice!) and is made by Heritage.

If yours has pipes along the top then it probably isn't catalytic.  When I went to buy my stove I had the option of catalytic or re-burning.  Knowing what a cat for a car costs to replace I wanted nothing to do with it so I went with the reburner.  If your stove is like mine you will be surprised at how hot the thing will burn even if you choke the air down.  My stove runs about 600F based on a magnet thermometer attached to the front of it (NOT the flue pipe!).  When it's burning good and hot the stainless steel pipes that supply the reburner air glow red so you know they are pretty damn hot.  You can't control the air coming in at the top (which is just as well, since the air won't go down wards in a hot stove anyway) and the output from the stove as judged by smoke from the chimney is pretty clean except when it first starts up.

Although $200/cord for wood is a painful thing.. most of the time I scrounge up downed limbs with the truck but this year there were slim pickins so I had to pay for it.  I don't like that much.

Robert

rcavictim

  • Certified Generator Head and Grand Master Sparky
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1827
    • View Profile
Re: EPA
« Reply #47 on: January 08, 2007, 04:56:15 AM »


Robert,

That set of pipes in the top of your stove sounds like the same setup as mine has. The manufacturer refers to mine as a catalytic converter or something.  I never thought of it as any more than a heat exchanger.  My upper control bypasses this `converter` to improve the draft, necessary when starting a fire.  My stove has a full door ceramic clear viewing window (nice!) and is made by Heritage.

If yours has pipes along the top then it probably isn't catalytic.  When I went to buy my stove I had the option of catalytic or re-burning.  Knowing what a cat for a car costs to replace I wanted nothing to do with it so I went with the reburner.  If your stove is like mine you will be surprised at how hot the thing will burn even if you choke the air down.  My stove runs about 600F based on a magnet thermometer attached to the front of it (NOT the flue pipe!).  When it's burning good and hot the stainless steel pipes that supply the reburner air glow red so you know they are pretty damn hot.  You can't control the air coming in at the top (which is just as well, since the air won't go down wards in a hot stove anyway) and the output from the stove as judged by smoke from the chimney is pretty clean except when it first starts up.

Although $200/cord for wood is a painful thing.. most of the time I scrounge up downed limbs with the truck but this year there were slim pickins so I had to pay for it.  I don't like that much.

Robert

Robert,

I probably have a reburner as you say.  I haven`t used it more than a few times this year since I was not able to obtain my usual garage load full of kiln dried hardwood cutoffs from a local mill.  Luckily it has not been a cold winter so far.  Love it!
-DIY 1.5L NA VW diesel genset - 9 kW 3-phase. Co-gen, dual  fuel
- 1966, Petter PJ-1, 5 kW air cooled diesel standby lighting plant
-DIY JD175A, minimum fuel research genset.
-Changfa 1115
-6 HP Launtop air cooled diesel
-Want Lister 6/1
-Large DIY VAWT nearing completion

rmchambers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 505
    • View Profile
Re: EPA
« Reply #48 on: January 08, 2007, 05:02:21 AM »
Now you're just making me jealous.

A buddy of mine up in Maine used to get loads of blocks that were the cutoffs from a table leg turning outfit.  A sack of blocks were $3 or something and we'd get a truck full and burn those in his woodstove at the cabin.

As long as the wood you're burning is good/dry/seasoned and not pine - wood heat is a very good way to heat your living space.

The old adage about wood heating you up 3 times - once when you cut and split it, once when you carry a load in from the stack outside to your woodbox and once when you burn it.

Plus the ash from the fire is a good additive to acidic soil (that I have around here).

I also have a nice big glass window in the door so I can see the fire without smoke or sparks and the fan to force the air around the firebox and back into the room which makes them mucho efficient.  My fan doesn't kick on until the stove is around 300F but once it kicks on it will sweat you out of the room.

Robert

Rod

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
    • View Profile
Re: EPA
« Reply #49 on: January 08, 2007, 03:26:21 PM »
I just found and read all 4 pages of this thread, I found it both interesting & funny. However it worries me when people joke about things of a serious nature. If you don't think they will bother the little guy just look at who carries the tax load, who goes to war, and who has to jump through the hoops to meet so many foolish regulations no matter what you want to do. With our engines, most of us, I think, are the type who care about the air we breath, also, for those who burn veg. oil, we're already cleaner than pump fuel. So why the new law, if there were a real interest in the environment it seems the EPA could get a better return in out tax investment in them, by working on the biggest poluters rather than the smallest. I think the school or church is a good idea, but only temporary, you have to remember this is a "Republic" and to make a law like this in the first place, is againse the law, and this is where the people need to take a stand. As long as we'er on education, don't think it's a safe place to be, read "The Deliberate Dumbing Down" also check up on who the author is (Iserbyt). Then you'll understand what happened to education in this country, and why the word republic is no longer in the history books. I don't want to get into politics, nor do I want you to think of me as a grouch, just keep your eyes open, it's raining laws around here, and the type who author them arn't your friends any more than they care about your well bieng.
                                                                                         Pastor Flash
                                                                                             (Rod)

 


danalinscott

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 82
    • View Profile
Re: EPA
« Reply #50 on: January 08, 2007, 04:08:12 PM »
Quote
So why the new law, if there were a real interest in the environment it seems the EPA could get a better return in out tax investment in them, by working on the biggest poluters rather than the smallest.

HI Rod,

This is not a new law. It is the Clean Air Act. Like many sweeping reforms it is implemented in stages and so may appear new from time to time as the date for implementation of each new stage arrives.

As far as stationary diesel engines...the EPA is geared for enforcement of legislation on large polluters...not individual tax payers...the little guys.  The few exceptiosn have bewn when individuals essentially very publicly taunted the EPA. Unwise to do that.

And really the EPA appeared to have very little interest in enforcing the CAA on individual stationary diesels since most are run at optimum efficiency for economic reasons...and pollution is at its lowest at optimum efiiciency levels.  So they were sued by an environmental organization and rather than waste energy or money they allowed the organization to appear to "win" by agreeing to stipulations. This allows the organizations lawyers and leaders to appear to do thier jobs for the donors (members) and the EPA to essentially go on as they were before the suit.  There is very little incentive for the organizations leaders  to try to enforce that agreement siince it woudldbe very costly and probably not very sucessful. But it iIS a possiblity especially if you have a large generator that is used to produce electricity commercially. They would probably not pick on an individual since it makes them look bad to do so..and this is all about generating good publicity rather than bad. "Forcing" the EPA to "do its job" looks really good on a brocure to a prospective member (donor)...but if members looked cloaser they would see that mostly these types of claims are essentially "theatric" rather than substantial.

And of course they would have to PROVE that the specfic installation in question is not in complience unlike the EPA who can simply claim it is not in complince and fine you if you do not shut down and prove otherwise. Oc ethey proved it the EPA might be forced to enfoce the CAA on whoever the environmental organzation had targeted.  If one is at all carful the possibility of running afoul of the EPA as an individual is nearly ZERO.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2007, 04:13:55 PM by danalinscott »
Dana
danalinscott@yahoo.com

CD in BC

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 124
    • View Profile
Re: EPA
« Reply #51 on: January 08, 2007, 06:34:46 PM »
I can understand the concern of importers over these new EPA regulations, but for the average person who wants a Lister type engine, there seem to be quite a few genuine Listers around.  Not all the classic CS type, but most can be throttled down to 800rpm or so and are definitely of better build quality than the Listeroids.

If you have to strip down your Listeroid and clean out sand & repaint etc., it's not much more work to strip down and rebuild a genuine Lister.  Most parts are still available, or equivalents are.

Some even come with clutches and steel bases... ;)

danalinscott

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 82
    • View Profile
Re: EPA
« Reply #52 on: January 08, 2007, 07:05:23 PM »
There seem to be several options still availabl efor those who want a new liseroid.
The best IMO is to assemble one from a shot block and head kit and add flywheels designed for the specific RPM one plans to run the engine at.  This seems simpler than dissaembling a pre run listeorid and cleaning it out..and avoids the initial test run damage that may be unavoidable in most pre assembled listeroids.

As for throttling down a lister from its original RPM...I think that one might need to significanlty rebalance the flywheels for that RPM as part of the process. OR replace them with flywheels balanced for that RPM.

Anyone think  I way off on that observation?
Dana
danalinscott@yahoo.com

CD in BC

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 124
    • View Profile
Re: EPA
« Reply #53 on: January 08, 2007, 07:15:29 PM »
As for throttling down a Lister from its original RPM...I think that one might need to significantly rebalance the flywheels for that RPM as part of the process. OR replace them with flywheels balanced for that RPM.

Anyone think  I way off on that observation?

Don't know, but as ListerDiesel kindly informed me here recently, the FRs can be throttled down to 800 rpm acc. to Lister & Co., and personally I don't see why one couldn't go lower than that if the HP is still enough for the purpose.

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2940
    • View Profile
Re: EPA
« Reply #54 on: January 09, 2007, 02:43:27 AM »
Dana:

"If one is at all carful the possibility of running afoul of the EPA as an individual is nearly ZERO."

i hope you are right, but i would not bet my grocery money on this being fact over the long run

when i got into this discussion re exploiting loopholes in the epa reg's it was not meant as a means to rub their nose in it, but
rather as a means of being compliant and then stay under the radar.

that way one could have some means of defense if the time should come(or rather when the time comes) that the epa decides to
investigate based on some report of you running a diesel genset.

the fact remains the law is the law, and running under the radar is tantamount to exactly what pot growers do(even for personal consumption)
they are flying under the radar, and not in compliance.
now if they go through the hoops of setting it up for medical reasons they have some form of defense, especially if they can prove that they indeed
need it for medical reasons and are not selling it to others.

so basically i am not advocating skirting the law, but rather complying with it in whatever manner we can that would allow the continued use of the
engines.

so far we have the following

1. sport use,,, this is going to be somewhat problematic, no one races these things, there is no preexisting sport that uses them.

2. church of lister,, that is a fun one, but not practical, and hard to support for all sorts of reasons

3. education... possible and far easier to support, and is far easier to argue as being legit.

now incorporating the name "lister institute of technology" is probably flaunting and taunting,, so that name is probably a bad idea.
so perhaps some other less obvious name is more appropriate.

whatever happens i think it is productive to at least bounce some idea's around, rather than stick our heads in the sand and assume that
we will never be caught.

being proactive never hurt anyone.

bob g
otherpower.com, microcogen.info, practicalmachinist.com
(useful forums), utterpower.com for all sorts of diy info

danalinscott

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 82
    • View Profile
Re: EPA
« Reply #55 on: January 09, 2007, 04:53:07 AM »
Hey, I am happy to bounce ideas around. Beign somewhat familiar with the CAA and EPA attitude toward enforcement in non commercial situations....I thought I would share it. Iam not advocating simply sticking heads in sand. But it is nice to know the situation.

If anyone has info on the "education loophole" or any other semi viable option I would be interested in hearing more.


Anyone?
Dana
danalinscott@yahoo.com

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2940
    • View Profile
Re: EPA
« Reply #56 on: January 09, 2007, 04:58:03 AM »
Dana:

i remember that the language last year provided an exemption for education, but i havent had time to look it back up.
i figure the current wording might very well make this a mute point as well.

i have to see if i can find some reference to it in the current reg's
bob g
otherpower.com, microcogen.info, practicalmachinist.com
(useful forums), utterpower.com for all sorts of diy info

snail

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 243
    • View Profile
Re: EPA
« Reply #57 on: January 09, 2007, 05:02:53 AM »
Quote
As for throttling down a lister from its original RPM...I think that one might need to significanlty rebalance the flywheels for that RPM as part of the process. OR replace them with flywheels balanced for that RPM.

Anyone think  I way off on that observation?

As far as the spoked flywheels are concerned, I don't think you need to worry. The 10/2 (600 rpm) was also listed to run as 8HP@ 500 RPM and 12HP @650RPM. I don't think that changing balance factors will achieve much with regard to crank speed. The torque pulses will of course change in frequency but thre ain't much you can do about that with regard to flywheel balance. The Dursley products weren't balanced individually(still talking spoked wheels here) and I've got a pair of 1940 vintage items which are 2kg different.
I've got a 450rpm "L"(petrol) Lister which i'm going to use to pump water. I'm fairly sure that there was a version rated at 400 rpm. I'd love to try 300 rpm just for the sound!

Cheers,

Brian
 

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2940
    • View Profile
Re: EPA
« Reply #58 on: January 09, 2007, 06:01:49 AM »
Dana:

been reading here

http://epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/fr_notices/ci_nsps_fnl.pdf

pg 38

"the final rule provides an exemption for engines used "at" test cells/stands"

i need to find this subpart of the final rule to see how much more the rule says in this regard, but it would seem engines used in this manner are exempt from the
current rule.

test cells/stands without a qualifier leaves the door wide open to educational purposes, development purposes, research purposes and still be in compliance with the rule

the fact that these engine by their very nature are not such that they are used in an unsupervised manner, but rather watched closely, records are kept, ongoing improvments are sought and made, frequent adjustments and testing is the norm. 

sounds alot like any other research and development facility to me, most especially if good documentation, record keeping and testing is done on an ongoing basis.

basically if you bring in your log books, all documentation of testing, pictures etc, you look more closely to be a research facility rather than a end user, wherein the end user usually just sets the thing up and only does rudimentary service and maintenance.

pg 41

emergency use:
"has been extended to 100 hrs per year",
this would cover most users for purposes of backup power
and maybe sufficient to keep most folks in compliance with the current rule

still digging
i am trying to find my link to the original document as it pertains to educational purposes

bob g
otherpower.com, microcogen.info, practicalmachinist.com
(useful forums), utterpower.com for all sorts of diy info