Coal powder transportation procedure in aerospace gasification processes
Thread Content
As the title suggests, it is said that in the currently operating devices, the program cannot operate automatically? What are all the reasons?
There is nothing wrong with the program itself. The problem is that in such processing environments, many domestic instruments (level detectors, differential pressure gauges), as well as electromagnetic and control valves, often experience distortion and malfunction, leading to automatic shutdowns; most manufacturers rely on manual or semi-automatic methods. With the same dry powder not being delivered, Shell’s program performed well
It is unknown whether the pressurized coal powder and the coal fed into the gasifier are supplied through the same gas source; if so, various factors such as the timing of automatic control valve operations will have a direct impact on the stability of coal feeding. Moreover, the equipment in some of these processes is unreliable, having a significant impact on the overall performance. However, I hope that design and practice can be integrated as soon as possible to enable automatic operations within the system, which is very necessary given the current situation regarding chemical safety
Shell has one buffer tank, but the gas supply doesn’t go through it the entire way. GSP are different buffer tanks; they vary from one company to another. Aerospace and Shell use the same type
The SHELL model in our factory is semi-automatic; the reason for this is that coal powder often forms bridges, and in such cases manual intervention is required to break those bridges
I heard that there is a manufacturer in Tianjin capable of achieving automation. I wonder where the pressure is released when Shell removes the bridge at your facility?
The procedures at Shell Aerospace are more or less the same; generally, there are significant issues with feeding materials through lock hoppers. I’m not sure if things are going smoothly on your end
Our factory currently has a set that is semi-automatic. We modified the program ourselves. Modified based on regular manual operations. Overall, it’s pretty good! If following the procedural requirements is necessary (taking a space furnace as an example), I personally recommend using two high-pressure carbon dioxide tanks: one for pressurizing and discharging material, and the other for transporting pulverized coal as well as for filling the feeding tank’s pressure cone. This approach helps to prevent fluctuations in the flow rate of pulverized coal and avoids situations where the pressure in the high-pressure carbon dioxide tank drops too low due to excessive gas usage It’s purely my personal opinion!
What does “building a bridge” and “breaking a bridge” mean?