# Good for incineration or pyrolysis?



## MarcoP (Dec 17, 2014)

Although I believe this would be good for pyrolysis, would this be good for IC incineration too?
I haven't bought it yet, but almost there.

Please advice.


----------



## 4metals (Dec 17, 2014)

The air and gas mixture is fed in the bottom and it exhausts out the top? Under the paper on top there must be a vent opening. I think wit will smoke like mad unless you can put the material you want to pyrolize in a vessel that limits the oxygen contacting the material. If the heat, which is an air supplied flame, contacts the material directly it will burn, smoke and need an afterburner. 

Is this a unit made for sale by a manufacturer for use as an incinerator?


----------



## MarcoP (Dec 17, 2014)

This picture will show all details you have asked:





Gas and air from the bottom, exhaust in the back-top. It is about 30years old but as you can see from the stainless steel chest it was never used. It is sold as incinerator and used in a lab to apply government regulations, at least back then when it was built. I could have this for €110 including delivery, if I was in their area only €50... but I think it's well worth the money.


----------



## 4metals (Dec 18, 2014)

It sure is a fine looking unit but as an incinerator it will produce a lot of smoke. Usually these things have a second chamber with its own burner to burn the smoke, as the smoke is just incompletely combusted combustion products from what you were burning. If the burn were able to provide enough oxygen to the burn, the smoke would be less as the combustion would more complete. Unfortunately in this design can never provide the necessary oxygen to give complete combustion. 

If you were able to some how support a sealed chamber inside this unit which were to allow gas to escape from the bottom into the flame then you could achieve the controlled pyrolysis you are looking for. Something like this;




The removable insert needs an airtight container with a removable lid which vents the combustible gasses downwards into the flame where they are combusted. By playing with the size of the vent opening which lets out the uncombusted gases, you will hit on the right size opening to get complete combustion and have a smoke free pyrolyzing experience. 

A unit like you are showing would handle this setup well but a large gas melter would do the same thing and serve double duty as a melter too.


----------



## 4metals (Dec 18, 2014)

Then again if you have a gas melt furnace already, the double crucible trick is an easy low tech way to achieve decent results with pyrolysis.

View attachment dual crucible in gas melter.pdf


----------



## MarcoP (Dec 18, 2014)

Thank you 4metals for taking the time to create a draft.

Would be this cheap and fast modification be good enough? Add a valve at the top as a regulator and recycle fumes using an outside tubing instead of an inside one?
And ... would'nt I have any oil condensing issue with both setups?


----------



## 4metals (Dec 18, 2014)

The trouble with what you drew is the fume has to get out somewhere, you have a continuous loop with no vent. You drew the "Hotel California" version, your fumes check in but they can never check out!

The chance of oils condensation are greater in systems where the vent is outside of the heat zone. You are trying to avoid a closed container inside the unit as in the drawing, that requires a vented container for the scrap which restricts airflow. 

The double crucible works pretty well and it is KISS principle! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle


----------



## MarcoP (Dec 18, 2014)

I'm aware of the KISS principle from few years now  applying it it's sometimes harder than what it seems. Thinking outside the box and experience helps a lot in this cases. I'll have to fire it up with a small lot and modify accordingly.

I'll let you know, thank you so much for your insights!


----------



## MarcoP (Jan 8, 2016)

I've changed the burner with a bigger one and I could see a big difference in a small lot sample (~1Kg through hole DIPs). The flame was able to also wrap around the container.

Later, so not yet tested, I made a lid for the container; I've used a modified round charcoal burner (made with 2mm SS, flea market) as fumes scrubber and as you can see it can also be used as incinerator (if extended even as (s)melter).

The pyrolyser unit is powered with a GPL bottle, the scrubber with metallurgical charcoal.

Basically a three-in-one unit, pyrolyser, fumes scrubber, incinerator.
If I'll decide to extend the scrubber vertically to (s)melt, or in any case even on a standalone incineration, the good thing is that burning gas from the unit will create a hot air current through the charcoal acting as blower (but I believe with benefit from hot air).

The only thing I believe left to be done? The fry pan will need to have a 15cm longer harm, otherwise it will burn.

Note, the unit will be moved to an open area about 20m away from the current location.

What do you guys think, will it work, any improvement to be made?

Edit: Behind the unit, in the top picture, there is a 30mm thick square block where the unit will stand. It is made out of a volcanic stone. This should isolate the ground from extended heat. I also have some fire bricks that I can use to modify the air input when placing them on the stone, around the unit.

Marco


----------



## autumnwillow (Jul 16, 2017)

Any update on this MarcoP?

Hmm.
Burner on the bottom, I'm assuming there's another container inside to pyrolize the materials with its exhaust pointing downwards towards the burner?
Then all the excess flames produced by the burner/pyro gas goes out to the side of the container then into another container full of charcoal that acts as a secondary afterburner?
Then there's a frying pan for you to cook something else while waiting for the pyro to finish?


----------

