[Stoves] FW: Tlud stove testing

Tue Dec 16 03:13:47 CST 2014

Hi Saloop, can you tell us which is the particle size and shape of your coconut shells fuel?It would be very useful for me, in oder to compare your design with mine, which uses almond husks,
Thanks,Marc
From: crispinpigott at outlook.com
To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 13:30:00 -0500
Subject: Re: [Stoves] FW: Tlud stove testing

Dear Saloop I had a look at the stove and the calculations. Please note that the formula for efficiency (which is widely used in that same format) does not give the correct answer for the numerator ¨C the heat gained by the pot. The water cooled during the last 10 minutes and the lost energy was converted into evaporated water. The correct number of Joules gained by the pot is:(I am using grams of water, ¡ãC and Joules) Final mass of water x ¦¤T1 x 4.186PlusMissing mass of water x ¦¤T2 x 4.186PlusMissing mass of water x 2257 Where ¦¤T1 = initial and final temperature (not boiling!)AndWhere ¦¤T2 = initial and boiling temperature This is a common mistake so don¡¯t be unduly alarmed. The formula you are using only works if the final water temperature is still at the boiling point. The formula in the paper double-counts the number of Joules lost cooling from boiling to final temp. This error is covered in the paper KEY DIFFERENCES OF PERFORMANCE TEST PROTOCOLS FOR HOUSEHOLD BIOMASS COOKSTOVES, Zhang, Y. et al 2014 at DOI:10.1109/DUE.2014.6827753  The error is included in several national test methods. Whenever you see that a test method has as an ¡®ending point¡¯ the water at a temperature below the boiling point, you should be suspicious that there is a calculation error in the heat gained by the pot caused by double counting. Your real efficiency number is lower than you suspect. Regarding the design:  I see your note about the secondary air holes being 40mm below the concentrator ring. This is a good idea. If you bring them down to the top of the fuel it will burn better for two reasons: there is more heat available at the fuel surface which promotes faster lighting and a higher flame temperature throughout the burn. Further, there is more vertical height for the flame to finish burning before the gases hit the pot. At the moment it looks about right (40mm + 85mm riser). The secondary air holes are probably too many and too small. The flames that shoot in around the secondary air have to reach the centre in order to get a clean burn before the flames hit the pot. I suggest enlarging every other one of the lower holes to 10mm and leave the ones in between at 8mm. Then close all the top holes with a strip of metal round the chamber. This will leave all the lower holes open (nearest the fuel) and a reduced total secondary air supply. It may still be too much. It will be difficult to tune it exactly without an oxygen measurement. You would want to have an O2 concentration in the exhaust of about 9-11%. If you can get a combustion analyser and measure the gases as they emerge from between the pot and the stove, making sure not to allow any dilution by the air near the sample point, you can reduce the number of holes until your get the correct O2 level at high power. When it is correct, the heat transfer efficiency will rise considerably. My guess is that at the moment your O2 level in the exhaust gases is at least 15-17%. Once you have that corrected, you want to get the CO as low as possible by ensuring the air shooting through the secondary holes reaches the centre. With 10mm you should be OK. 8mm is too small for the air to reach the centre of a 165mm diameter fuel chamber unless the material around the hole is shaped like a nozzle.  It is easy to close holes while running by popping an 8mm bolt into a few holes. Spread them around. This is normally done with an O2 meter running so you can watch the excess air (EA) level. What you want is to have enough inertia imparted into the secondary air so it is carries into the centre of the combustion zone. That is accomplished by converting the force of the draft (calculated from the riser height and average temperature) into velocity. There is work being done so the energy to do that is limited by the draft. The energy comes from the available ¡®chimney draft¡¯ which is a form of fan, really. When everything is correct, the flame will completely cover the fuel bed and the exhaust O2 will be 9-11%. It is that combination which leads to a high efficiency, clean burn. O2 can drop to 7% but you are running up against limits there to do with mixing. I would accept 8% at highest power and 10% at other settings. You probably have far more primary air than is needed. You could just make fewer holes. If you make too few, the power will be reduced (lower burn rate). When you are making a star pattern of holes like that, rotate each set of holes 30 degrees to sit midway between the previous set. The reason is to spread the heat of combustion out more. As you have it now, the ¡®lands¡¯ (the metal between the holes) will deteriorate rapidly from overheating. The surface temperatures are probably not a major loss from the stove ¨C it is the excess air that is killing your efficiency. Getting it correct should give you a ¡Ö1.5x  increase in heat transferred, i.e. into the high 20¡¯s even if you are making charcoal. Re the big hole in the square shell (at the top). Cut it 16mm smaller than the shell that goes into it, and hammer it outwards  to create a vertical lip. With a bit of care you can get a really good fit between the riser and the body. That limits air flow through the gap and increases the preheating of the secondary air. If you can, locate a steep pipe that has the right inside diameter to suit the hole size you need. Then you can hammer the material over 90 degrees using the steel pipe as a collar, banging on the inside. In the end you will have a rigid, round hole in the top of the body. The lip can go upwards or downwards as you prefer. Later you can spot-weld the riser onto the lip. RegardsCrispin  From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] 
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 12:08 PM
To: 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'
Subject: [Stoves] FW: Tlud stove testing The file with the tests results for this stoves was too large to send through the list, so I posted it here:http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/content/metal-chulah-stove Kind regards,Erin RasmussenStoves List Administratorerin at trmiles.com  From: Saloop T S [mailto:t.s.saloop at gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 3:34 AM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Subject: Tlud stove testing Respected Sir's,
              I am a student from Kerala, India doing project on a tlud gasifier stove. I have made two 2 models of stove based on Dr. Paul Anderson and others work. In my second model I have tried to add a riser and concentrator disc arrangement so that I thought it may increase the efficiency of the stove. I have done two tests on it 1) with out the riser+ concentrator disc- test I and 2) with riser and concentrator disc to find WBT efficiency of test one to be 21.7 and test two to be 21%. 
I would like to know whether the addition of riser+ concentrator disc will increase the efficiency of a stove. Is that anything that wrong with my experiment?. I would like you to comment on it and help me.
I have attached a detailed report on my experiments and my model herewith.
Thanking you,

_______________________________________________
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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/ 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20141216/ad19a098/attachment.html>