[Stoves] Hi TLUDers -- and EPA testing questions
Alex English
english at kingston.net
Tue Oct 25 05:54:41 CDT 2011
Ron, Crispin,
Many moons ago, when I had access to an IR CO,CO2 monitor, I filtered
the gasses before the flame on a TLUD. If memory serves me I got 9% CO
and 15% CO2. But memory sometimes seems to be serving others. If only we
had access to the old archives, I reported it to this list at the time,
but alas the 'server' changed. It amazes me that nobody has done this since.
Alex
On 24/10/2011 10:41 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>
> Dear Ron
>
> >>"For those not having experience with TLUDs, Dean's reference to "no
> primary air can make it up", means that the oxygen is "entirely" used
> to produce carbon monoxide."
>
> ...
>
> >>It is really rare to find a normalised CO emissions factor (not
> concentration in the emerging gases) above 100,000 ppm. I have only
> see it once and I work with some of the wildest devices the
> imagination has produced.
>
> >*[RWL: This part I don't understand. Neither Dean or I were talking
> about anything other than primary air. ***
>
> **
>
> *I see that you did not follow. I am sure is it my method of
> describing it. Here is a short version: You can't get pure CO from
> biomass pyrolysis for inherent chemical reasons. *
>
> **
>
> *Proof that I offer: I have measured CO production across a wide
> range of conditions and it is almost impossible to get more than 10%
> CO even when it is theoretically possible (from the elemental
> composition) to get 40%.*
>
> **
>
> >>CO(ppm) * (EA+100%) = CO(EF) at O2=0% (the O2 is factored out).
>
> >*[RWL3: The subject of excess air for testing the completeness of
> combustion (after adding secondary air and releasing the majority of
> the energy) is extraneous to the sentence under discussion.]*
>
> That is how to work out what the CO level is, in ppm. 100,000 ppm is 10%.
>
> >>I mention this to support my conclusion that the O2 tends to create
> 'fuel moisture' very easily.
>
> **
>
> *>**I have personally measured the gases coming up through the fuel
> bed in a TLUD (a borrowed high quality tool) and the dominant gas was
> CO (many millions of ppm). ***
>
> **
>
> That is impossible. 1 million parts per million is 100% CO.
>
> **
>
> *>>** RWL4: My main concern is with Crispin's above next-to-last
> sentence: "*/I am expressing doubts that level could be created in a
> TLUD that was not first run as a regular fire./
>
> * The word "TLUD" should say to all that the test operation was NOT
> run as a regular fire. They are as near to polar opposites as the
> stove world can get. So this is to ask Crispin what he is saying
> here and what part of my response he is objecting to?*
>
> I am offering a method of how to get a CO content as high as 10%.
> Start a regular fire, get it going well, then enclose it in a vessel
> while hot and running. This can produce 10% CO, but a TLUD cannot.
> That is my contention.
>
> Biomass needs just a little more air (Oxygen) to completely use up the
> H2 and then breathe in whatever additional air would burn all the
> Carbon. In any real file, some of the C becomes CO and CO2 (surface
> reactions mentioned by Dr Tom Reed in a previous discussion).
>
> >>*[RWL: I hope we can get a specific citation for/from Tom here. ***
>
> **
>
> *He addressed it directly previously on two occasions. *
>
> **
>
> *>At the hot surface from which (very complicated and numerous [1000's
> of species??]) pyrolysis gases are emerging, my understanding of the
> pyrolysis surface effect literature is that "all" (given control of
> the incoming oxygen flow) are turned into CO and water. *
>
> **
>
> *My point is that if there is NO air entering, virtually all the O2 in
> the fuel is turned into water. The great proportion. Some of the H2 is
> left in the gas but is it hard to find an H2(EF) of 15,000 (1.5%). I
> have no problem with others contradicting this with real measurements.*
>
> **
>
> *>>The relatively small amount of CO2 that is produced near the
> surface (not ON) is converted back to CO as it interacts with the hot
> char above it*
>
> **
>
> *This only happens under certain conditions and not when it is cool.
> Dr Tom was mentioning C=> CO2 reactions taking place above 400 C on
> the surface. CO can also be formed, and volatiles (which contain
> carbon) can break down into CO as well. The CO in the gas is not
> necessarily produced from CO2 and is unlikely if the temperature is
> low because it has to absorb a lot of heat to do so (24 MJ/kg).*
>
> **
>
> *>So I repeat - I am mystified by this message and about what is at
> dispute. *
>
> I am not sure there is a dispute. Perhaps the clarification will suffice.
>
> Regards
>
> Crispin
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20111025/2c72876c/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list