Search

In order to know the Gross calorific value (GCV) of Biomass is necessary to analyse samples of weight lower than a gram, Because of the small density of this material which make that they are very voluminous samples, so that we can introduce them into combustion camera of the calorímeter in order to realise the tests. Because of that is necessary to study how this factor impacts in the evaluation of GCV of the studied sample. Moreover, it is necessary to know the contents of nitrogen (N) and sulphur (S) of the studied materials because during the tests the nitrogen reacts giving rise to HNO3 and the SO2 is oxidised and if rise to H2SO4. These quimic reactions absorb of detach heat which can mask the obtained values as GCV of the studied sample. As at the beginning of the test we don’t know the contents in N and S of the samples, we are going to study are so that we don’t have realise these determinations in each test, we realise work to see how they can impact this omission in the obtained facts. The study lie in realise tests in which it is supposed that the contents in N or in S are the maximum that these materials can contain and then the same test is repeated with the minimum contain of N or S. After that the differences between the obtained values are studied to the GCV of the original sample in both proves. So we can see how these factors impact in the obtained results. The test were realised in the laboratory using a calorimeter PARR 1261 with isoperibolie determination and evaluating the GCV of hops which had been mashed in order to make an homogeneous sample. In the test we evaluated the effects of the principal factors P, S and N, so that their interactions PxS, PxN, SxN and PxSxN. In order to confirm the obtained results in the tests we realised a statistic calculus of mena middle and the typical deviation and their variations through an analysis of variance so that a proof of the function F of Fisher in order to see the deviations produced in the variance of each one of the studied factors., Para la evaluación del poder calorífico superior de la biomasa vegetal, mediante una bomba calorimétrica, se presentan los siguientes problemas: a) Las pastillas de la muestra han de tener un peso inferior a un gramo, b) Se debe conocer la corrección de azufre y c) Se debe conocer la corrección de ácido nítrico. En este trabajo se estudian, mediante un diseño factorial utilizando los tres factores a dos niveles distintos cada uno de ellos, los efectos principales y las interacciones, así como su grado de significación, que provocan la variación de los factores indicados anteriormente en la determinación del valor exacto del Poder Calorífico Superior (PCS) en muestras de biomasa vegetal. Los resultados obtenidos, en los ensayos realizados, indican que ninguno de los tres factores estudiados ni sus interacciones provocan cambios significativos en los valores obtenidos para la evaluación del PCS de la biomasa

To describe the teaching sessions of a primary care team in the three-year period 1996-1998. To identify the professionals who ran them and study the areas of knowledge tackled.A retrospective, cross-over, descriptive study.Teaching health centre belonging to a rural health district.All the teaching sessions that took place during the three-year period (n = 249).The following variables were extracted from the monthly register sheet of the ongoing training programme of our management: date of activity, duration, number attending, type of session, teaching professional and contents of activity (classified by pathology according to organs and systems for bibliographic, clinical and expert sessions; portfolio of 1996 Primary Care-INSALUD services for session on programme; computer studies).Mean sessions per month: 6.9 (SD: 4.8). Mean attendance: 9.3 persons (SD: 3.01). Mean length: 36.5 minutes (SD: 11.0). Type of session: bibliographic 65.2%, on programme 18%, session with expert 7.2%, computer studies 5.6%, clinical 4%. Responsible for teaching: intern 39.4%; family doctor tutor 34.9%; family doctor not a tutor 7.2%; nurse 6.4%; hospital doctor 4%; locum family doctor 3.6%; pharmacist 2.8%; paediatrician 1.2%; physiotherapist 0.4%. Most common contents: non-specific general pathology (16.1%), skin diseases (8.8%), diseases of the endocrine system (7.6%).Low frequency of clinical sessions. The teachers in charge were mainly family doctor tutors and interns, with the rest of the staff participating little.