[Stoves] SA Paraffin Geyser and water heaters in general
Paul S. Anderson
psanders at ilstu.edu
Sun Apr 10 16:45:14 CDT 2011
Dear Andrew, Philip, Crispin and all,
A useful topic for our Stoves Listserv. My comments:
1. The SA device (and others like Kelly Kettles) are single function
devices. Very appropriate in many situations. Although other
functions (include cooking of food) could occur before the hot gases
go to the water heater in a chinmey, let's keep the focus on the
single function so we do not get side tracked.
2. The use of a parafin (kerosene) burner is almost a mote point.
There must be a heat source, and the basic concept is that the heat
can be turned off when the water heating is finished. Easily done
with fuels like parafin, alcohol, LPG, electricity. Not so easy when
burning dry biomass, but some devices are more suitable than others.
The batch aspect of TLUDs can be an advantage here. Building a
3-stone fire under the water heater would not be so good. But the
SOURCE of the heat is not our main topic.
3. I request from Philip Lloyd (because he has tested the SA unit and
might still have one handy) (or anyone else?) to tell us the diameters
of the central chimney flue and of the outer shell, giving us the size
of the annulus in which the water passes. Also heights. We need to
know (calculate) the surface area of the hot chimney and the volume of
water that is in the device at any one time. There would be major
differences if those dimensions were changed. We already have the
volume of water (200 liters) put through the geyser in (how much?)
time. Is there any insulation on this device?
4. There are two important alternative water heating technologies to
consider and compare. One has a pipe (probably a copper coil) inside
the chimney flue. Here the surface area for heat exchange becomes
highly important.
The other has a pipe coiled around the chimney flue, which would be
drastically less efficient.
5. So, I appeal now to the engineer-types who are reading this: How
do we maximize and improve upon this? And at what costs (increases in
price)?
6. If anyone has contact with the SA geyser company, feel free to
copy them into this discussion. The objective is to expand the
acceptance of the water heating technology, increasing their business
as well as creating business for people in other countries. Less
fuel, more service/value for the customer, and greater flexibility of
heat sources. (for example, that company could consider having a
small TLUD as an alternative source of heat. I and others will gladly
assist them to add that option.)
NOTE: There are other special purpose heat-using devices that we
should consider (such as 2 - 4 cups of hot water for tea in the
morning), but please use other Subject titles if you want to discuss
them.
Paul
--
Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Known to some as: Dr. TLUD Doc Professor
Phone (USA): 309-452-7072 SKYPE: paultlud Email: psanders at ilstu.edu
www.gtz.de/de/dokumente/giz2011-en-micro-gasification.pdf (Best ref.)
Quoting Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at gmail.com>:
> Dear Andrew P
>
>> I remember posting something about another (or the same?) SA paraffin
> geyser some time ago. Crispin, have you seen this one?
>
> There are several of these devices available, three I can think of. One is
> called the "Geyser 2000". It might be the original 'modern' one.
>
> The ones with cloth wicks which can be seen at holiday camps.
>
> I would class it as a type of Kelly Kettle. I don't have any idea how old
> the principle involved is (single heating tube immersed in water).
>
>> It ought to be a fairly easy to adapt a number of different wood/biomass
> burner designs
>> to this type of boiler.
> http://www.cbuying.co.za/index.php/paraffin-geyser
> http://www.slideshare.net/GreatNews/paraffin-water-geyser
>
> I agree. It has a heck of a lot of draft so there is a need to seriously
> look at the excess air in the pipe. From the look of it, there is a lot of
> room to improve it. I didn't get enough from numbers from the two sites that
> would allow one to calculate the thermal efficiency. Like most small
> paraffin burners, virtually no one tests the combustion efficiency and
> thermal efficiency of their devices, and even in good intentions they do,
> they will often get answers that are not all that helpful.
>
> The best I can calculate is that the thermal efficiency is 69% based on the
> fuel at 44 MJ/kg and a density of 0.83 and the 200 litres was heated from 20
> to 50 deg. That is not particularly impressive given that we can find pots
> on stoves working in a similar range.
>
> I have written to Prof Philip Lloyd and SABS (South African Bureau of
> Standards) and asked if it falls under their regulation as a 'cooking
> device' in which case is would have to comply with SANS 1906 (non-pressure
> heating and cooking appliances under 3.5 kW).
>
> Regards
> Crispin in Cape Town
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
> http://www.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Illinois State University RedbirdMail
More information about the Stoves
mailing list