W.W. ODELL – "GASIFICATION OF FUELS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF SYNTHESIS GAS AND HYDROGEN."

W.W. Odell. Gentlemen, I want to give you as briefly as I can and as completely as I can, some information that I obtained and the benefit of my observations in Germany relating particularly to three gas-making processes observations in Germany relating particularly to three gas-making processes which differ materially from those that are in operation in the United States today. In particular, I am referring to the Lurgi pressure gas process, which is a procedure for making water gas under super-atmospheric pressure of the order of 10-20 atmospheres; and to the Winkler process, which gasifies a finely divided fuel similarly as used in the Lurgi process. The fuel is used in the latter process is in a fluidized state; the particles are in ebullient motion. The third process is the slagging-type gas producer. These processes are not used in the United States, and it is of particular interest to us at this time to attempt to evaluate them and determine in what way they may be suitable for use with some of our fuels.

The Lurgi process will be discussed first, that is the making of water gas under super-atmospheric pressure. In this case, the fuel used differs in size from that employed in this country, being a finely divided fuel ranging in size from a minimum of 3 mm. To a maximum of 10 mm., preferably 3 to 5 mm. in size. They use as gas-making fluids a mixture of oxygen and steam; in fact all three processes differ from those we are using at the present time, in that they use oxygen and steam as the gas-making fluids.

The operating temperature is something that we are immediately concerned with in gasifying divided fuels, such as they are using over there, brown coal in this particular instance or brown coal char called "grudekoks." They operate at a temperature about 50 degrees below the ash softening point, that is the maximum temperature in the hot zone of the fuel bed. They maintain this temperature condition in order to avoid difficulties with clinkers.

The generator itself, the Lurgi generator, is water-jacketed and has a rotating grate, but inasmuch as it operates under super-atmospheric pressure, means are provided for charging the finely divided fuel at the top through a hopper that is adapted by means of valves to let the charge in without reducing the pressure on the generator. Similarly designed is the discharge hopper below, from which the ash is removed under pressure while the operation is under way. The fuel being charged in through the top and the ash being removed from the bottom by operating at a temperature below the ash-softening temperature, makes it possible to take that ash out in a fine granular state, something on the order of the size of salt grains.

The generators as used in the plants that I saw in Germany, were entirely water-jacketed; in other words, the two shells formed a boiler in which some steam was generated, a small amount of steam to be sure. This use of a completely double-walled generator was a safety measure to prevent oxidation of the inside of the generator. The operating pressure employed in both cases (in the two plants, one at Seitz and the other at Böhlen), was 20 atmospheres. It is noted that as we increase the pressure from atmospheric pressure, the composition of the gas gradually changes; the methane increases with the pressure, the ratio of hydrogen to CO changes, and the CO₂ increases. In other words, methane is formed from the reaction of CO with H2, by exothermic reactions in amounts, which increase with a rise in pressure.

The oxygen required per 1000 feet of gas made decreases with increase in pressure so that at 20 atmospheric pressure it is possible to make a gas which when the carbon dioxide is washed out, is a suitable gas for city distribution. We are not interested in making gas for city distribution in one sense of the word, but it does relieve the necessity of supplying enricher and to that extent it does bear on our program. Their thought was that not only could they make city gas in this manner, but they would also be able to make synthesis gas. The gas as made, the raw gas, contained 32 percent carbon dioxide, 12 percent carbon monoxide, 37 percent hydrogen, and 14.5 percent of methane. Now, in order to make a gas having a higher calofific value than the 311 B.t.u. raw gas, the carbon dioxide is largely washing out by absorption, in water, and the resulting gas comprises approximately 52 or a little higher percent of hydrogen, 20 percent methane, and 16.7 percent carbon dioxide (in this case they did not wash out all the carbon dioxide), and 9 percent of carbon dioxide.

The hydrogen-carbon monoxide ratio is high and, therefore, the gas could be used in the Fischer-Tropsch process. In this instance the gas is under pressure, hence the presence of methane might be ignored in one sense of the word because its effect is chiefly dilution of the synthesis gas; it does not react in the production of synthetic hydrocarbons. Another feature of this particular gas-making processes is this: that we can not only use a finely divided fuel, but we can use a low grade of solid procedure makes possible the use of fuels such as are not suitable for making gas in a standard water gas generator or other generator commonly used in this Country today.

The advantages and uses of this process are as follows: It is a one-stage continuous process; the gas made is under superatmospheric pressure; the hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide present in the gas can be removed largely by water washing at the usually prevailing pressure; the use of small-size fuel is desirable; low rank fuels can be used; and liquid by-products are recoverable. It has been shown that in gasifying low rank coal one can recover as much as 70 to 80 percent of the tar yield obtained in the laboratory Fischer carbonization test.

On the other side of the ledger, we know that the gas-making equipment is expensive, an oxygen plant is required, and it is necessary to carefully size the fuel. The costs of the coal preparation plant and oxygen plant must be considered in evaluating the usefulness of this process. Now I think I have covered the major points relating to this particular process. One thing stands out, however, which has not been mentioned, namely, the fuel used should be highly reactive.

Although the operating temperature in the fuel bed gasifying brown coal at 20 atmospheres pressure was reported to be 1000^o to 1050o Centigrade, the washed gas contained about 20 percent of methane. Equilibrium conditions for the reaction whereby methane is formed show that at these temperatures even at 20 atmospheres pressure, the methane would not, in fact could not be that high. What is actually taking place then is this: raw gas containing CO and H2 is made in the hot zone and sufficient time is allowed for the other reaction to take place in the upper and cooler portions of the generator; that, I think, is important, because in attempting to use certain other fuels we may find we can’t get any such results as is reported using the readily reactive brown coal. I think fuel reactivity is an important factor in this whole process.

The Winkler process is another one in which we use a combination of oxygen and steam. Here again, we blend the two in a mixture adapted to give us the temperature we desire to maintain. We must maintain a temperature that is lower than the ash-softening temperature, otherwise clinkers may form under which condition all of the ash could not be removed in a finely divided state. Apparently it was formerly supposed that the ash would be discharged largely from the bottom of the generator; actually it is not, it comes over entrained in the gas stream.

The generator in this case also is cylindrical with the gas off take at the top, and a grate at the bottom. The grate comprises closely spaced fire bricks set on edge about ¼-3/8-inch apart. There is a bustle pipe around the generator which supplies the mixture of oxygen and steam. It initially was found, when using air in such a generator and maintaining a fuel depth of a meter or about 3 to 4 feet, that the gas stream discharged from the top was largely the products of combustion and contained too little combustible gas. Further development improved the process radically. Oxygen and steam were employed as gas-making fluids and a supply of oxygen and steam was introduced not only beneath the grate but also at a height approximately 6 feet above the fuel bed. In that manner the temperature was so regulated that the entrained carbon reacted further above the fuel bed whereby the combustible content of the gas made was increased. The particles of dust that come over entrained in the gas were more than 50 percent carbon, hence the introduction of the oxygen and team at the high level (above the fuel bed) made it possible to react more carbon than otherwise possible, and at the same time reduce the carbon dioxide content of the gas. In fact, that was one of the major steps in improving the process.

A large amount of dust is carried over in the process, but the generator, under these conditions, has an extremely high capacity. It is essential that the temperature in the fuel bed itself be kept somewhat below the ash softening point; in this process on is not otherwise limited to a low temperature because methane production is not a factor. You will not that in the Lurgi process the temperature in the upper fuel bed was an important factor because considerable interest centered in the production of gas rich in methane. Thus when one is not interested in making gas having a high calorific value the temperature would be limited chiefly by the cause of the low ask-softening temperature of the fuel with fuel-bed temperatures of 1,050 to 1,100 degrees Centigrade, depending on the kind of fuel used. The depth of the fuel bed in this case was between 3.5 and 4.5 feet and the materials consumed per 1,000 cubic feet of raw gas made (and I am sure dry gas) was: coke or carbonized brown coal which has a calorific value of 10,200 B.t.u. per pound, 47 pounds; steam used, 35 pound, with the gas leaving the generator at a high temperature and the steam generated in the waste heat boiler was 42.5 pounds. More steam was generated in the waste heat boiler than was required in the process.

The amount of oxygen used in this case was high; it was 243 cu. Ft. per 1,000 ft. of raw gas made and the composition of that gas was approximately: 24.5% C02, 29.1% CO, 44.1% H2, 0.8% CH4, and 1.5% N2. The H2 to CO ratio was a little less than 2 to 1. The low methane content of the gas would be anticipated in view of the high temperatures finally reached above the fuel bed and because operations were conducted substantially at atmospheric pressure. The particles of dust that came over varied in size from 1/10 to ½ mm., and the dust blown over amounted to 21 lbs. Per 1,000 ft. of gas. The calculated carbon in the gas as CO and CO2 and methane is 16-8/10 lbs. Per 1,000 cu. Ft. The carbon in the blown-over dust was 11-7/10 lb., whereas the ash contained 38.0% of carbon monoxide, 58.0% hydrogen, and only 0.9% of methane. Such a process can have a definite application in the production of synthesis gas, particularly when a fuel is used which does not lend itself to use in other processes and which will not form coke and be suitable through that process. On the basis of the carbon monoxide plus hydrogen made (the gas in which we are interested), and after removing all the carbon dioxide the process fuel consumed per 1,000 cu. ft. of gas and appearing in the gas is approximately 23 pounds, whereas the total generator fuel required is 64 pounds. Results of tests extending over a period of time, reported as materials used per 1,000 cu. ft. of C0 plus H2 are: Steam 39.6 lbs., generator fuel approximately 64 lbs., and oxygen 331 cu. ft. Now in this particular case 90% of the steam and oxygen were introduced under the grate and 10% of the total was introduced at a point about 10 ft. above the grate. Those were the conditions which after considerable experimental work and trial methods were found to give the most satisfactory results. The gas-making capacity of the generator is extremely high; it was given as 6,000 to 14,000 cu. ft. of dry raw gas per hour per square foot sectional area of the generator. Now, that is appreciably more than one can make in a water gas generator. Actually the gas production was somewhat less than the reported capacity. Although the actual production rate was said to be lower than true capacity it seems that it was close to the limit of capacity because the amount of the blown-over material was so great that had they attempted to get very much of an increased capacity they would have blown over so much more dust that it would not have been economical. Now, this dust which is little over 54% carbon and 45% ash, is not a waste in this particular case when using "grudekoks" as generator fuel because the latter fuel is so reactive that the dust can be, and was used as powdered fuel, mixed with other fuel, under boilers. This is important because with other fuels which are not so reactive the blown-over combustible matter may not be so readily utilized. The reactive product, it is reported, was used satisfactorily.

Summarily, it may be said that the advantages of the process are: high gas-making capacity, flexibility of operation (you can operate over an appreciable range of capacity, i.e., from about 6,000 ft. up to 10,000 cu. ft. per hour of raw gas per square foot of generator sectional area) and adaptability to the use of fine-size low rank fuels. At very low gas-making rates the fuel particles will not remain in a fluidized state. If one uses too high a velocity for the fuel bed, an excessive amount of fines is blown over. A reactive fuel is desirable.

The disadvantages of the process are: necessity of handling the dust, the requirement for an oxygen plant, and the large amount of oxygen required. In other words, in order to make the process feasible, we must have a coal that is sufficiently reactive to perform satisfactorily in the generator and it must be priced so low that one can afford to pay for the oxygen used, and that, in the final analysis, gives us a basis for comparison.

The slagging-type producer is something that has been of interest in this Country for some time; I know many gas engineers have talked of using a slagging-type producer for making gas. Usually we think of it in terms of blowing the fuel bed with air and very little steam. They attempted that in the early developments in Germany and got into the same trouble that many have gotten into here; freezing of the mass in the generator. Whey they used a minimum amount of steam they did get away with it for awhile, but subsequently got into the freezing troubles. When they substituted oxygen for air, and used mixed steam and oxygen as a gas-making fluid they had very satisfactory results, so the operators state. Under these conditions one would expect to get satisfactory results. The generator used at Leuna, had an internal diameter at the tuyeres of 9.68 feet, equivalent to 76 sq. ft. sectional area. In operation the slag was tapped about every twenty minutes in order to prevent it from accumulating to too great a depth of 11-1/2 ft., and the off take gas was at 400 degrees Centigrade, a fairly low temperature. One point which the operators emphasized was the necessity of using fuel free of fines, the preferred fuel was furnace coke sized 1-1/2 inches and larger. This process differs from the Lurgi and Winkler processes in that it is not adapted to the use of finely divided furl. It was necessary to use with the coke about 20 percent of slag (20% of the weight of the coke), that is, the slag that came from the furnace was re-circulated in this amount. Three percent of lime was also added. Now, the capacity of this generator also was very high and ranged from 6,000 to 6,5000 cu. ft. per hour per sq. ft. of equivalent grate area and this gas contained only 3-1/2% percent of carbon dioxide, 28 percent hydrogen, and 68 percent of carbon monoxide and 0.5 percent nitrogen. The H2 to C0 ratio of this gas is of course not ideal for most processes of making synthetic liquid fuel but, nevertheless, it is a good reducing gas and has a calorific value of 311 B.t.u’s. per cu. ft., hence the process is one for consideration when the right fuel is available. A temperature of 1,700 degrees Centigrade is maintained in the hearth of the generator. The oxygen and steam used in the steam-oxygen mixture was 35-40 percent oxygen and 60-65 percent steam (volume percent), and on the basis of 1,000 ft. of gas made, 250 cu. ft. of oxygen and 26-7/10 lbs of furnace coke were used. That, I believe, presents briefly the picture.

Now, after all, we haven’t said a word about the oxygen. We endeavored to get the cost on the production of oxygen and it appears that the cost in Germany up to the present time has been pretty high, roughly 18 to 26 cents per 1,000 cu. ft., whereas, some of the recent figures that have been presented to me as possible cost in this Country are startlingly low. Just what figure we will arrive at remains to be seen. Using 40 cents as the equivalent of a mark, and that appears to be a fair figure, the cost of oxygen in Germany, per 1,000 cu. ft., varied from about 24 cents down to 19 cents. In one plant it was estimated that 60 percent of their cost was electric power, 30 percent amortization, and 10 percent other cost. In another instance I was told that the power cost was 50 percent of the total cost of oxygen, and the amount of power used was 18 kw. Hrs. per 1,000 cu. ft. of oxygen made. Obviously as the cost of power goes down, the cost of oxygen also will decrease. I think there are others here who studied the oxygen plants in Germany a little more carefully and can give a more accurate figure.

All of the abovementioned gas-making processes differ from the those we are using in this Country and they all use oxygen and steam as gas-making fluids, and all but the slagging-type producer use small size fuel and oxygen. They are adapted for making gas that is suitable for a number of different uses. I believe that I have described the 3 gas-making processes in a general way, and in case you are interested in the particulars of operation, I am endeavoring to give in a separate paper, which I have just completed, more details on these processes; and which I think will be published by the Bureau in the course of the next few months.

W. C. Schroeder. Thank you very much. I think that was an excellent summary of the important features of the gasification processes. I would like to emphasize a little more the fact that your paper on gasification processes is progressing, at least the first draft. Considerable time will be required to prepare drawings and make the conversions from the metric to the American units of measurement. In the meantime this statement will be included in the minutes which will be issued covering some interest since we have returned from Europe; one, that there had been a number of vague and one or two specific references to a gasification scheme using powdered coal under pressure, which was presumed to be developed by the Koppers Company. So far as I have been able to sound out the members of this Mission, there seems to be little detailed information that was secured by the people around this table. However, I would like to ask if anybody has any information about the powdered coal gasification scheme.

E. B. Peck. Yes. We obtained some copies of information on that. It is published in the C.I.O.S. reports. Unfortunately, I didn’t see that. Could you give us just a brief summary, Dr. Powell?

Alfred R. Powell. I can’t give you the details, I didn’t come prepared, but I would like to raise a couple of points on this. We did secure copies of reports on that. They don’t operate with a fluidized bed, instead they use very fine coal completely in suspension burning at high velocity in a mixture of steam and oxygen. I wonder if Mr. Odell has seen the documents of the Valdarno negotiations on North African and Italian synthetic oil projects in which the object was to produce synthesis gas at 20 atmospheres with, as I remember it, a ratio of hydrogen-carbon monoxide 1.2 to 1? I think it was based on the Lurgi pressure gasification process. We have some results of pressures higher than 20 atmospheres, particularly curves which show results of 26 and 30 atmospheres – the methane curve flattens out as you get up toward 20. From the 20 to 30 you don’t have the same gain that you should have under the prevailing conditions of temperature that you have going up to that. An after burner for burning up that methane was provided to produce a straight synthesis gas.

W.F. Faragher. Mr. Odell, have you an analysis of the cost of making oxygen?

W.W. Odell. No, I have given some figures, but I don’t consider them final figures on the production of oxygen at all; I have given figures as they were given to us to show what they paid for oxygen, as nearly as I could, and transposed it to American units. An analysis of that is given but I don’t believe the result shows what the final cost of oxygen will be in this Country. I have recently been told by some engineers who have been making a special study of this phase of the problem that they can produce oxygen at a so much lower cost that it’s a little amazing to me, but they are in the business of installing equipment, compressors, etc., and are now putting in a small oxygen plant. In one case they put in a small plant and are getting ready to put in a larger one (a large unit), and they claim a very low cost. To me it’s ridiculously low cost. I hope that they are right and can produce it at a low cost because it will mean quite a lot. It will mean a lot to us interested in making synthesis gas, but as I say, to date my records show that in Germany the lowest cost was about 18 cents. They purchased electric power in every instance at 0.5 to 0.8 cents a kw. hr.; these are higher costs than we would have so our cost will be lower. How much lower remains to be seen, but I will not make any special analyses of the present cost of oxygen in this paper because the paper is portraying the results of our investigations in Germany and what I learned there relating to the manufacture of synthesis gas.

W.F. Faragher. I am actually very much surprised that the Germans with their thoroughness, who are actually using oxygen commercially, would be so far off as you have indicated our domestic engineers have said is the case, and I think first of all we should – and very early – have a complete analysis of the true costs of making oxygen in Germany. I think part of the difference in cost is due to the fact that their electric power costs more and they have the moderate size units which they call large units, but, in the really large units it is supposed that we can make it at a lower cost. I have bee rather reluctant myself to believe some of these things, but there is such evidence coming in now that it’s quite possible we can make it at an appreciably lower price.

H. M. Weir. Mr. Newman and I talked to the Linde people in Munich, and I think we got the cost of making oxygen by the Linde process about as well as it’s possible to get in any kind of an interview. That has been reported in terms of the energy-consumption and in terms of percentage of the energy cost of the other costs. Once you have your energy cost, if you assume the statements made to us are correct – and they were borne out by the same type of figures from users in other localities – you can then figure what the cost of oxygen is. I think the difference in price between the figures which Mr. Odell has given us and these American processes which he is speaking about, come from the fact that I imagine he is talking about a process that does not involve separation by compression. There is, as you probably know, a very new process still under wraps, which does not involve that, and it is alleged to be very much cheaper, but when it comes to separation by distillation and the old type of operation, I think you’re right in saying the Germans have gotten about the maximum that can be obtained, with the costs running over 15 cents per 1,000 cu. ft., even with the cost of energy below one cent.

W. C. Schroeder. Are those figures, Dr. Weir, in any of your reports?

H. M. Weir. Yes, they are.

W. C. Schroeder. Fine.

H. M. Weir. I did refuse to make any translations between marks and dollars. I preferred to leave it on the basis of percentage and energy cost, because frankly, I don’t think there is any translation you can make between dollars and marks.

W. C. Schroeder. It is certainly difficult. Dr. Powell, can you give us in just a few words some of the essential features of this powdered coal gasification scheme, its capacities, advantages, and disadvantages?

A. R. Powell. You mean the Heinrich-Koppers scheme? Oh, I’m not prepared, Dr. Schroeder, to do that. As Dr. Peck pointed out, that was given in a C.I.O.S. report.

W. C. Schroeder. I’ll ask Mr. Newman in writing up this gasification work to insert a reference to this report as part of the minutes of this meeting. Is that satisfactory to everybody? Most of you have probably seen it, but apparently I missed it and some of the rest of us missed it.

(REFERENCES: PECK, E. B., PARKER, A. Report on H. Koppers G.m.b.h., Essen. 1945. 4 p. 2 fold. diagrs. C.I.O.S. Report XXVIII-36, Item 30; OB 417; Reproduced on TOM Reel 198.)

A. R. Powell. I would like to ask Mr. Odell a question. In this report that comes out, will there be a complete working drawings of the Lurgi pressure generator?

W.W. Odell. I had not figured on putting in complete working drawings; a sketch of the generators, yes.

A. R. Powell. Are those working drawings available? I think they are.

W.W. Odell. If those working drawings are available, we did not get all of the records. Many records were taken out ahead of us, and we were told those records were all available in the drawings. I got some sketches of drawings which I still have, and a complete detailed drawing of the slagging-type producer, pictures of some of the rest, but, as far as the details of the drawings are concerned, I do not have the details of the Lurgi generator other than those shown on the films. I do have sizes and a sketch of it which is not a detailed drawing. I thought the sketch would be sufficient.

L. L. Newman. A day or two after you left, Mr. Odell, we discovered a hidden drafting room of the Metallgesellschaft, and I spent the day picking gout drawings. These took a couple of months to get back to London, and, of course, too late for you to see. We have made copies of the drawings on the microfilm, and I have ordered copies of the prints from them. They would not be suitable for inclusion in a report of this kind because a good many of them just show designs of special bolts, flanges, and things like that, but we have a great many details of the equipment, particularly the lock chambers for introducing the coal during operation under pressure, and for removing the ash under similar conditions. These have been reproduced on TOM Reels 12 and 62, which I believe the Technical Advisory Committee has already circulated. There are also similar drawings, a good many of them duplicated, in the Navy reel which I acquired just about a week ago, and which is now designated as TOM Reel No. 137.

I want to add a word on the methane formation to which Mr. Odell referred. There seems to be quite a lot of controversy over the actual physical chemistry there. The Germans, in their reports, state that the methane is formed from the carbon monoxide and hydrogen. However, the English (in the Gas Research Board) have made some studies on that and they claim that the methane formation takes place directly by a combination of carbon and hydrogen, rather than a synthesis of carbon monoxide hydrogen. A discussion of the method of formation, from the engineering point of view, is academic, regardless of the mechanism, the less oxygen is required, because the exothermic reaction supplies some of the heat required for the process.

W.W. Odell. Well, I think the carbon dioxide content is the clue to what is taking place. Going through the generator, if we plot the curves with the formation of the methane it is probably formed by all three reactions, but as the steam is in excess at the outset, we would expect more carbon dioxide to form by the reactions of hydrogen and monoxide and actually that is what happens. We plotted a curve showing the change in composition of the gas with pressure, and you can make a pretty fair analysis from that as to what is taking place.

L. L. Newman. I would like to supplement a sentence or two on the slagging producer which Mr. Odell discussed. I may have missed in your discussion a statement that the operators of the slagging units also were in position to make use of what they called the rohschlacke from the Brassert intermittent water gas generator. These were operating at Leuna at such a speed that the refuse coming out of the generators was very high in ash and carbon content. The refuse was fed to the slagging gas generators as the fuel, instead of high grade coal which they otherwise might have required.

W.W. Odell. This worked very well, but the capacity was appreciably reduced.

W. C. Schroeder. Dr. Powell, Loppers, I suppose, is getting all of the copies of the microfilms, aren’t they?

A. R. Powell. Just certain ones.

W. C. Schroeder. I think most of these drawings are arranged on microfilms. I think those that this Mission got, and those that the Navy got, will be available within a relatively short time. And you’ll have the use of microfilms to examine the details. Will that be a satisfactory way to satisfy your need for drawings? I don’t want to take the job of distributing a lot of drawings, because it could get to be quite a headache.

J. P. Jones. I was going to suggest that such reports include a very brief reference to the microfilm sections where detailed drawings are available, so that anyone reading the reports will know exactly to just what microfilms to go for further detailed information.

W. C. Schroeder. I think it is a desirable suggestion, but I think it is one that will have to apply with considerable flexibility. In the case of Mr. Odell’s report, we know that he has written it from notes taken immediately in the field, and he’s placed very little reliance on the microfilms. To go back through the microfilms and pick out that material would delay the issuance of the report considerably. I don’t think that is desirable. Now, where we can write reports and refer to the microfilm, it is alright, but I think it is going to introduce a good deal of cumbersome details in the report itself and make a bigger job for the writers. I believe that it probably would be most desirable to leave it to the writers to use their own judgment, and such time as they have to follow that suggestion, if it can be followed.

J.P. Jones. I should think it would take only a brief paragraph, no more than a day’s additional time.

W. C. Schroeder. Well, where the writer knows the information is in a few microfilms, I think he should put that paragraph in, but when it is scattered through many microfilms and would involve extensive search on his part to locate all that information, I don’t think we would be justified in asking the writers to do that job. I think it is going to be up to the individuals to work out his own classification scheme from the indexes that are being provided.

Harold V. Atwell. Is this material presented to us by Mr. Odell already available in some C.I.O.S. report?

W.W. Odell. Not in detail, and not complete, no. In the C.I.O.S. reports we necessarily have to be rather brief, and we run into the trouble of making a complete analysis of the situation because you have to sit down and study notes a little and convert to American units, and make comparisons before you get the picture. But this will be available very soon, my guess is within two months.

W. C. Schroeder. I think that’s correct.

H. V. Atwell, One other question, were any of these put to actual use in making Europe’s synthesis gas?

W.W. Odell. The Winkler process produced gas for hydrogenating tar.

Lester L. Hirst. Pardon me, you probably recall that the Lurgi process was used in a Fischer-Tropsch detoxification plant, but that was the only place they had actually used the iron catalyst on a rather large scale, a reasonably large scale, so you can say the process was actually used for Fischer-Tropsch. That was a special iron catalyst, also at Böhlen there was an experimental ring roll briquetting machine. Is that of any particular interest, or does any one have some special information on that?

L. L. Newman. I cannot answer for the Böhlen plant, but I’ve seen a Krupp ring roll briquetting machine at the Regis plant of the Deutsche Erdöl A. G., which is the subject of a report edited by Dr. H. Bardgett of the Fuels research Board, and written on the basis of data which Dr. Bardgett, Hurley, Spivey and I obtained in that plant.

W. C. Schroeder. Is that a C.I.O.S. report?

L. L. Newman. Yes. C.I.O.S. XXXII-14, Item 30, entitled "Report of Deutsch Erdöl A.G., Regis, near Leipzig, Böhlen (1945) 10 p. 4 diagrs. (Also PB No. 2230, and reproduced on TOM Reel No. 196).

W. C. Schroeder. The next paper is on the "Development of Iron Catalyst Processes," by Harold V. Atwell.