[Stoves] central secondary air
Ronal W. Larson
rongretlarson at comcast.net
Tue Dec 16 22:53:35 CST 2014
Crispin, cc list
1. Yesterday you said this:
Personally I don’t think a ratio is a good design approach. You need a certain vertical space to burn the gases before you attempt heat transfer. A total of 125-150mm is normally OK assuming you have the fuel deck covered with secondary air and it is burning hot near the fuel bed. If you bleed in secondary air through a lot of small holes, there will be no secondary air in the middle. Some try to compensate for this by putting in a vertical tube. That tube is a sign that he secondary air entrance has not been handled correctly. It is a common ‘solution’ to a problem that should not be there in the first place. Try to avoid it.
2. Re the “vertical tube”: I have been involved in several off-list discussions where central secondary air seemed to be providing turbulence benefits (benefits that including reducing the height and therefore lowering costs. A central pipe can also prevent gases from rising in the center, which can be a benefit if one has swirl. Can you give a cite on where a central secondary pipe was shown to not be of value?
Ron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20141216/3f84766c/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list