[Stoves] Secondary air in Rocket Works stove www.rocketworks.org
Adrian Padt
adrian at rocketworks.org
Sun May 24 23:31:31 CDT 2015
Hi Marc,
We concentrate the top of our 'Zama Zama' Stove and also use gill shaped
slots rather than holes.
These vents self-regulate the secondary air up to a point, when the stove
is lit at night, you can clearly see the ignition on all the vents
surrounding the top of the stove. So the stove can accommodate several
types of fuel too without having to change the design. With varying
calorific values on the fuel the vents self-regulate the air required.
Have a look at the website photos www.rocketworks.org
We've also just completed a new natural draft TLUD pellet stove and our
Pocket Rocket will be released soon.
Thanks for the comments Crispin.
-----Original Message-----
From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
stoves-request at lists.bioenergylists.org
Sent: 23 May 2015 08:00 PM
To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
Subject: Stoves Digest, Vol 57, Issue 22
Send Stoves mailing list submissions to
stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylis
ts.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
stoves-request at lists.bioenergylists.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
stoves-owner at lists.bioenergylists.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Stoves digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Secondary air in Rocket Stoves? (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
2. Re: gasifying sawdust (Robert Lerner)
3. Re: gasifying sawdust (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
4. Re: Ontario Stove Testing Camp 1, 9-10 July 2015 (Lloyd Helferty)
5. Re: gasifying sawdust (Ronal W. Larson)
6. Re: Sawdust Gasification / retort (scda2 at t-online.de)
7. Re: Mongolian stove for heating (Engelke, Courtenay D (DCO/IEPS))
8. Re: Mongolian stove for heating (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 14:31:03 -0400
From: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com>
To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"
<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Secondary air in Rocket Stoves?
Message-ID: <COL401-EAS217DE44CE4CB3AA1F8E6A5AB1C00 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dear Marc
The primary problem is that side-fed stick burning stoves typically have
no
primary air control. Unless the air is brought under control, there is no
easy way to address the issue of excessive excess air (if that is a
permissible phrase).
The approach taken with the traditional Keren stove which is being
improved
by GERES and YDD in Indonesia (very popular clay product) is to limit the
airflow using the pot-stove clearance. This sets a limit on the total air
flow without making any improvement to the way secondary air is added -
and
it literally costs nothing to implement. The pot becomes part of the
combustion chamber, basically.
Adding jetted (fan as per U Colorado experiments or natural draft) to a
fire
that already has too much air is going to increase PM and CO under some
power conditions. The solution is to limit the ingress of air.
Making a stove taller to create the draft needed for useful secondary
injection only adds to this requirement, though it can create the
necessary
mixing. Secondary air should only be added to a stove that is running
short
of air, and the designer should deliberately create the conditions in the
chamber where there is such a shortage. That is why the TLUD gasifiers are
so clean - there is almost no way to get excess air into the primary gas
output. In a way it is accidental. When secondary air is added, presto:
good
burning conditions with low EA.
A fire running with an open door is begging for there to be too much
excess
air. The Rocketworx stove (which is a bit of a misnomer because it is not
a
true 'rocket stove' as usually defined) addresses this quite well. It has
no
air control door, but achieves the purpose anyway by departing
significantly
from the recommended Rocket Stove dimension set. It also has preheated
secondary air and a small amount of tertiary or finishing air. And the
result is still a low enough excess air level at high power.
As a result, the combustion seems pretty good and the fire-to-pot heat
transfer efficiency can exceed 40%. For an 'uncontrolled' stove (nothing
to
adjust) this is quite high. The key is control over the excess air level.
That said, I have seen test results for a liquid fuel stove with a 72%
heat
transfer efficiency at both high and low power. That is unusually good.
It
too is 'uncontrolled' save for the evaporator handle that sets the power
level. As a result, the CO level is very low at all powers. A really good
gasifier should be in that range, in my view.
Regards
Crispin
From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
Marquitusus
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 08:54
To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
Subject: [Stoves] Secondary air in Rocket Stoves?
Hi to all,
In the ETHOS 2015 Dean Still's presentation he states that:
"In a Rocket stove only forced air mixing results in almost complete
combustion. Strong jets of air are needed to fully mix the air, flame,
smoke, and gas. Adding a chimney to a Rocket stove doesn't result in the
forceful jets that create adequate mixing. Adding height to the Rocket
combustion chamber, while giving more time for combustion to occur, also
draws in more cold air that results in more wood being burnt."
I was wondering if this "forced air mixing" should came from natural
draft.
For example, at some distance above the combustion zone, we can make some
holes in the chimney allowing secondary air to enter and mix with the hot
gases, creating a secondary combustion zone. Maybe we can put a
"concentrator ring" above the holes like in a TLUD to create some
turbulence.
This done, we can also increase the chimney height without the problem of
"drawing more cold air that results in more wood being burnt", as part of
the increased draft suction will be used to pull the secondary air inside
the chimney.
With this tall chimney, hot gases can have more "mixing, time and
temperature" to achieve the desired complete combustion.
Anyone tried something like this?
Some questions arising:
- What distance above the primary burning zone should we put the secondary
air?
- What number and size should be secondary air holes? (we can take
experience from TLUDs)
- What size should be the concentrator ring? (we can take experience from
TLUDs)
- What height should be the chimney after the concentrator ring?
Marc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
/attachments/20150522/0e8afe1e/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 18:06:11 -0600
From: Robert Lerner <bajarob at gmail.com>
To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
Subject: Re: [Stoves] gasifying sawdust
Message-ID: <B610A912-98C3-453B-80D7-D4E68D098F0D at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
We built a big (1M dia.) fan-forced sawdust TLUD gasifier in Costa Rica,
designed by Nikolaus Foidl.
Used one blower with two butterfly valves?one to balance primary:secondary
air ratio, and the other to adjust total airflow.
Worked great, though we combusted the char too, because were using the
TLUD to dry & prime a 4M? retort kiln filled with high MC wood. I have
pictures.
Rob Lerner
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Robert A. Lerner
Mexico cell: 415-101-4591
U.S. direct: 619-618-1248
Skype ID: bajarob
Rob's Biochar TED talk <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgwwV6YrWb0>
Board member CATIS-Mexico <http://www.catis-mexico.org/>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> On May 22, 2015, at 12:00 PM, stoves-request at lists.bioenergylists.org
wrote:
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 11:11:33 -0700
> From: Tom Reed <tombreed2010 at gmail.com <mailto:tombreed2010 at gmail.com>>
> To: "stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
<mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>"
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
<mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>>
> Subject: [Stoves] Sawdust Gasification
> Message-ID: <3B3D1B5B-91C0-408B-8FBE-38ADAE3896A2 at gmail.com
<mailto:3B3D1B5B-91C0-408B-8FBE-38ADAE3896A2 at gmail.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Dear List
>
> One of the benefits of the TLUD stove working on wood chips is that it
produces 20% charcoal, which can be sequestered, removing 38 tons of CO2
from circulation for each ton of wood gasified (20% due to
formation of charcoal from the lignin and using the gas from the cellulose
(renewable) in place of propane, natural gas of coal gas.
>
> If we could gasify sawdust, it would bring another, typically dry,
source of fuel into the picture. However, the particle size of sawdust
does not permit TLUD operation. Does anyone have a suggestion of how to
gasify sawdust?
>
> TOM REED
>
> Thomas B Reed
> 280 Hardwick Rd
> Barre, MA 01005
> 508 353 7841
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
/attachments/20150522/04aca099/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 22:32:46 -0400
From: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com>
To: Robert Lerner <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] gasifying sawdust
Message-ID: <COL401-EAS42851050F9D14E4AC2302A3B1CF0 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
/attachments/20150522/ceefc6d0/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 22:47:25 -0400
From: Lloyd Helferty <lhelferty at sympatico.ca>
To: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com>, Stoves
<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Cc: Julien Winter <winter.julien at gmail.com>, Biochar-Ontario
<biochar-ontario at googlegroups.com>, Ontario-SEA
<Ontario-SEA at yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Ontario Stove Testing Camp 1, 9-10 July 2015
Message-ID: <BLU437-SMTP99151C39A0F33E1EF35521C0CF0 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed"
Thanks, Crispin!
Regards,
Lloyd Helferty, Engineering Technologist
Principal, Biochar Consulting (Canada)
www.biochar-consulting.ca
Earth Stewardship consultant, Passive Remediation Systems Ltd. (PRSI)
http://www.prsi.ca/
Promotions Manager, Climate Smart Agriculture Youth Network (CSAYN)
http://csayouthnetwork.wordpress.com/
http://www.fao.org/climate-smart-agriculture/
48 Suncrest Blvd, Thornhill, ON, Canada
905-707-8754
CELL: 647-886-8754
Skype: lloyd.helferty
Co-manager, Sustainable Agriculture Group
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Sustainable-Agriculture-3866458
Steering Committee coordinator
Canadian Biochar Initiative (CBI)
CURRENTS, A working group of Science for Peace
http://www.scienceforpeace.ca/currents/
President, Co-founder & CBI Liaison, Biochar-Ontario
National Office, Canadian Carbon Farming Initiative (CCFI)
Organizing team member, 2013 N/A Biochar Symposium:
www.carbon-negative.us/symposium
Member of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council (DWRC)
Manager, Biochar Offsets Group:
http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=2446475
Advisory Committee Member, IBI
http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1404717
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=42237506675
http://groups.google.com/group/biochar-ontario
http://www.meetup.com/biocharontario/
http://www.biocharontario.ca
www.biochar.ca
The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves
to its children.
- Dietrich Bonhoeffer, theologian (1906-1945)
On 2015-05-21 4:07 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>
> Attention All Stove Testers!
>
> The Ontario Stove Testing Camp organising committee announces the
> first ever
>
> Ontario Stove Testing Camp (what else) to be held in 9-10^th July 2015.
>
> Come one, come all, and bring your stoves, a sharp pencil and a good
> sense of humour to:
>
> Burt?s Greenhouses
>
> 539 Maple Road,
>
> It is just north of Odessa, Ontario,
>
> Canada Postal Code K0H 2H0.
>
> If you are flying in, it looks like this
>
<http://www.bing.com/local?lid=YN1226x778245058&id=YN1226x778245058&q=Burt
%27s+Greenhouses+Odessa+ON&cp=44.30715%7E-76.73248>.
> If you are driving, look for this
>
<https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.307214,-76.732077,3a,90y,204.94h,89.47t/da
ta=%213m4%211e1%213m2%211sjIH2IrlPex6JZzckDHqYzg%212e0%216m1%211e1?hl=en>.
>
> Please see the attached announcement which has as many details as we
> were able to assemble onto two pages without hiring someone clever.
>
> The announcement is inserted below, which you can forward or share the
> .pdf. Please post far and wide. We know the most available will be in
> Eastern Canada and NE USA.
>
> Looking forward to seeing you?
>
> Crispin
>
> PS Don?t take any wooden
>
<http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=canadian+wooden+nickels&view=detailv2
&&&id=F318E446C0EE3D190FE97BDFF2FD3A0825554676&selectedIndex=19&ccid=GSMnF
OTi&simid=608017934887225475&thid=JN.fdE9ePF7PVaDpChkMWNalQ&ajaxhist=0>
> nickels
>
<http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=canadian+wooden+nickels&view=detailv2
&&&id=3713A5AEEAFC5C63591F0937EF3907299113B833&selectedIndex=0&ccid=%2fZpL
Nv2a&simid=608003538163140682&thid=JN.%2ff%2b0tTgz6ZW8DVlODABQSw&ajaxhist=
0>.
>
> +++++++++++
>
> *Ontario Stove Testing Camp 1* **
>
> ? Measurements and Metrics for Product Development
>
> Are you developing a *solid or liquid fuel stove*?
>
> Are you looking for detailed information on *what to measure* to know
> if your stove is *better* or *worse*?
>
> Are you looking for information on *how to turn your measurements*
> into valuable *metrics*?
>
> If your answers are ?*Yes, yes, yes*!? then join us for two days of
> *testing, trials and tech talk* at the first ever Ontario Stove
> testing Camp.
>
> *Date*: 9 and 10 July 2015
>
> *Time*: As soon as you can get there, but try for 9AM on the 9^th of
July.
>
> *Contact*: Information on accommodation and reservations:
> stove.camp.ontario at gmail.com <mailto:stove.camp.ontario at gmail.com>
>
> Julien?s Cell Phone for July 4-10: 905-396-0549
> <tel:905-396-0549>
>
> *Cost*: $125
>
<http://www.newdawnengineering.com/website/library/Ontario_Stove_Testing_C
amp/OSTC_2015/125Bucks.GIF>
> Canadian Bucks (US $100
>
<http://www.newdawnengineering.com/website/library/Ontario_Stove_Testing_C
amp/OSTC_2015/100Bucks.GIF>)
> which covers all presentations, 2 lunches
>
<http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=gophers&view=detailv2&id=21A8EE0E5A29
AEAC9402F4ED57DAD961DD7576F6&selectedindex=84&ccid=W1sL7aPA&simid=60803917
3503844930&thid=JN.iQYfJiMujyHgOPBzazHsSA&mode=overlay&first=1>,
> 1 supper
>
<http://www.newdawnengineering.com/website/library/Ontario_Stove_Testing_C
amp/OSTC_2015/Supper.GIF>,
> AV equipment
> <http://vitruvio.imss.fi.it/foto/isd/cens/censsm_23_300.jpg> and your
> chair
>
<http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=muskoka+chair&view=detailv2&&&id=CE2B
C3B4A390E7ED39FEF16F7DB8F49D66CCF8B1&selectedIndex=13&ccid=MYtq4N%2fG&simi
d=607989824330402015&thid=JN.Yjhg8LSVGkNXlk05tL%2f2AA&ajaxhist=0>,
> stove
> <http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Wood+Stove+Doors&FORM=IDINIP&=0>
> fuel
>
<http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Wood+Chip+Pile&view=detailv2&&&id=7AE
1D03E5B97EEC2593F75730742AFC93D02A3AD&selectedIndex=0&ccid=wim9rJra&simid=
608045628844738705&thid=JN.cWQrwsFoSFxZ5O7TKL8Vng&ajaxhist=0>,
> facilities
>
<http://www.newdawnengineering.com/website/library/Ontario_Stove_Testing_C
amp/OSTC_2015/Facilities1.GIF>
> and a thank you
>
<http://www.newdawnengineering.com/website/library/Ontario_Stove_Testing_C
amp/OSTC_2015/Facilities.GIF>
> for Burt
>
<http://www.newdawnengineering.com/website/library/Ontario_Stove_Testing_C
amp/OSTC_2015/Burt,_I_think.GIF>.
>
> *Place*: Burt?s Greenhouses
>
<https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.307214,-76.732077,3a,90y,204.94h,89.47t/da
ta=%213m4%211e1%213m2%211sjIH2IrlPex6JZzckDHqYzg%212e0%216m1%211e1?hl=en>,
> 539 Maple Road, just North of *Odessa, Ontario*, Canada Postal Code
> K0H 2H0. Exit 599 off the 401, go north. Take the tee junction ?Maple
> Road? left. It is the second road north of Highway 401. There is a
> sign on that corner saying ?Burt?s Greenhouses? (that?s because Burt
> has more than one).
>
> Burt's Greenhouses is near the city of Kingston which has excellent
> train connections with Toronto. If you need a lift from Kingston, let
> us know.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Using simple equipment an enthusiast might own, you will learn what to
> measure, when, when, what it mean and what to do with the numbers.
>
> Structured into a series of 45 minute sessions you will learn:
>
> Where to take measurements and when, Sources of some common errors,
> Targets for high performance stoves, Why the customer is more
> important than the inventor, but not the designer.
>
>
> Learn how to calculate:
>
> Fuel Burn rate, Fire power, Fuel consumption, CO/CO2 ratio, Excess air
> ratio, Emission factors for CO, NO, CO2 and H2, System efficiency,
> Heat transfer efficiency, Heat loss rate from a pot, The effect of a
> lid on test results, And a little basic mechanical engineering on mass
> transfer.
>
> The equipment used will include a basic combustion analyser, a
> temperature logger, a computer-logged digital scale and an Infrared
> Thermometer.
>
> The goal is to know what to look for and to be able to rapidly improve
> and eventually optimise the functions of your stove.
>
> Some of the time is unstructured so you can bring a project you are
> working on and we will discuss it together.
>
> Your guides through this event include:
>
> Alex English, who started the original ?Stoves? discussion list, a man
> who has developed small, large and very large and astonishing biomass
> burning devices (some of which we will see). He has been very active
> in this sector for ?a couple of decades? and lives by what he knows ?
> he has a biomass stove-heated house that employs advanced combustion
> ideas you have probably not seen before. The greenhouse boiler can
> produce biochar at will at the touch of a button. Be amazed.
>
> Crispin Pemberton-Pigott, international technical advisor for several
> stove projects at the World Bank and GIZ. He is a test methods and
> stove technology innovator with multiple patents, creator of the SeTAR
> chemical mass balance test method used in multiple countries, active
> in creating national stove standards in South Africa and a
> representative of the South African Bureau of Standards at the ISO
> creating new standards on TC-285. He is a co-founder of the
> South-South Sustainable Stoves Group, a collaborative effort among
> experts from developing countries formed to create scientifically
> sound and robust test methods for own use in developing countries.
>
> Julien Winter, a soil biologist, biochar technology and stove
> developer and a serial experimenter presently investigating high
> performance TLUD stoves of various power levels. He will bring a
> series of models to be used during demonstrations and will present
> some work on temperature evolution in TLUD?s which will be combined
> for the first time with real time mass-balance measurements to provide
> fresh insights into what is happening inside the stove.
>
> Participants with testing experience will be invited to share their
> insights to provide as much collaborative advancement as we can cram
> into two days. Wood chips and stick fuel are available. Bring your
> own pellets.
>
> A joint assessment of performance metrics will be a major outcome of
> the work: Are we measuring and reporting what we need, and what our
> customers need? Which metrics are valid and what are their
> limitations? How can we use innovating testing approaches to optimise
> stove performance in less time, at lower cost and reach higher
standards?
>
> And the catch-all class: what to do when you only have simple
> equipment in hand ? how much can you accomplish and when do you need
> to seek help?
>
> Numbers: We feel we can accommodate up to 20 participants and expect
> less. There are chairs, a projector, water, and if you want, you can
> sleep in your camper. It will be July! Enjoy the summer!
>
> Nearby places to stay include Odessa, Trenton, Kingston and Napanee
> (Avril Lavigne
>
<http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=avril+lavigne&view=detailv2&&&id=9B7B
F77E3A690787A6C7DAEC1FAB256E3129F56A&selectedIndex=1&ccid=k32ZIv2G&simid=6
08033942237020993&thid=JN.bLr63AZi1lH5IuRmzqqKpg&ajaxhist=0>
> comes from Napanee, don?t you know? Keep your eyes peeled.)
>
> Please tell us if you are coming. We?ll wait up for you.
>
> A message from /The Committee/, OSTC-1
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
/attachments/20150522/d74006af/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 22:16:08 -0600
From: "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
To: Discussion of biomass <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>,
"<bajarob at gmail.com>" <bajarob at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] gasifying sawdust
Message-ID: <26D903E3-52DA-4936-BF16-34433803E7A2 at comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Rob and list:
Sounds like an important advance. Congratulations
I?ll bet most on the list would like to see your pictures.
What weight of sawdust? The fuel bed height? Times for the
pyrolysis front to reach the bottom and for total combustion? Have to
change to lots more ?primary? after you had made the char? Can you
guesstimate the several butterfly ratio settings? Power for the
fan/blower? Might you have been able to save the sawdust char if the 4
m3 wood was dry? Any way to describe cleanness of the burns?
Ron
On May 22, 2015, at 6:06 PM, Robert Lerner <bajarob at gmail.com> wrote:
> We built a big (1M dia.) fan-forced sawdust TLUD gasifier in Costa Rica,
designed by Nikolaus Foidl.
>
> Used one blower with two butterfly valves?one to balance
primary:secondary air ratio, and the other to adjust total airflow.
>
> Worked great, though we combusted the char too, because were using the
TLUD to dry & prime a 4M? retort kiln filled with high MC wood. I have
pictures.
>
> Rob Lerner
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Robert A. Lerner
> Mexico cell: 415-101-4591
> U.S. direct: 619-618-1248
> Skype ID: bajarob
> Rob's Biochar TED talk
> Board member CATIS-Mexico
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>> On May 22, 2015, at 12:00 PM, stoves-request at lists.bioenergylists.org
wrote:
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 11:11:33 -0700
>> From: Tom Reed <tombreed2010 at gmail.com>
>> To: "stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org"
>> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>> Subject: [Stoves] Sawdust Gasification
>> Message-ID: <3B3D1B5B-91C0-408B-8FBE-38ADAE3896A2 at gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>
>> Dear List
>>
>> One of the benefits of the TLUD stove working on wood chips is that it
produces 20% charcoal, which can be sequestered, removing 38 tons of CO2
from circulation for each ton of wood gasified (20% due to
formation of charcoal from the lignin and using the gas from the cellulose
(renewable) in place of propane, natural gas of coal gas.
>>
>> If we could gasify sawdust, it would bring another, typically dry,
source of fuel into the picture. However, the particle size of sawdust
does not permit TLUD operation. Does anyone have a suggestion of how to
gasify sawdust?
>>
>> TOM REED
>>
>> Thomas B Reed
>> 280 Hardwick Rd
>> Barre, MA 01005
>> 508 353 7841
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.bioenergylis
ts.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/20150522/8c8267a3/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 10:12:14 +0200
From: "scda2 at t-online.de" <scda2 at t-online.de>
To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves"
<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Sawdust Gasification / retort
Message-ID: <6481900395560365e860dd3.09201273 at email.t-online.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Dear Tom,
when i fill the 2 oil drums mentioned in my post fom 20th "mobile
adam-retort" with saw dust or wood chips (preferable) it might work.
its just a matter of time and waste fuel to burn get the biomass
carbonized.
With wood loaded it takes about 3 hours to get the wood to above 300?C
You want me to do it next week? We had a week of rain and cold (3?C) in
Germany so it was no fun to work outside.
Best
Chris
-----Original-Nachricht-----
Betreff: [Stoves] Sawdust Gasification
Datum: Thu, 21 May 2015 20:12:54 +0200
Von: Tom Reed <tombreed2010 at gmail.com>
An: "stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org" <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Dear List
One of the benefits of the TLUD stove working on wood chips is that it
produces 20% charcoal, which can be sequestered, removing 38 tons of CO2
from circulation for each ton of wood gasified (20% due to
formation of charcoal from the lignin and using the gas from the cellulose
(renewable) in place of propane, natural gas of coal gas.
If we could gasify sawdust, it would bring another, typically dry, source
of fuel into the picture. However, the particle size of sawdust does not
permit TLUD operation. Does anyone have a suggestion of how to gasify
sawdust?
TOM REED
Thomas B Reed
280 Hardwick Rd
Barre, MA 01005
508 353 7841
> On May 20, 2015, at 2:13 PM, stoves-request at lists.bioenergylists.org
wrote:
>
> Send Stoves mailing list submissions to
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylis
ts.org
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> stoves-request at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> stoves-owner at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Stoves digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: big TLUD (Energies Naturals C.B.)
> 2. Re: big TLUD (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
> 3. Giving up? ?mobile adam-retort? 4 photos (scda2 at t-online.de)
> 4. Re: big TLUD (Frank Shields)
> 5. Re: Giving up? ?mobile adam-retort? 4 photos (Frank Shields)
> 6. Re: big TLUD (Paul Anderson)
> 7. Giving up? ?mobile adam-retort? 3 additional drawings
> (scda2 at t-online.de)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 20:57:04 +0200
> From: "Energies Naturals C.B." <energiesnaturals at gmx.de>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] big TLUD
> Message-ID: <20150520205704.1291c4c6c4b03cf4fa290f12 at gmx.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Hallo "big TLUDers",
>
> as I see from the various experiences and comments, the cross section of
a big TLUD is to some extent limited.
> That means that in order to build a bigger unit, it has to grow by
lenght, which in turn must enhance the resistance to the primary air flow.
>From Imberts we know that the relation between fuel size and hearth or
throat is crucial.
> There must be enough space left between the particles to allow for a
adequate air/gas flow.
>
> My question: Does anyone have a clue on the matter of fuel size in TLUDs
?
>
> Is it possible that larger diameters ask for larger chunks which in turn
provide more space between them and ideally spread the upflowing air more
uniformly?
>
> Rolf
>
>
>
> On Sat, 16 May 2015 22:40:14 -0500
> Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>
>> Char-makers,
>>
>> This good discussion on the Stoves Listserv is being shared with the
>> Biochar Listserv. Let discussions proceed on each and both and see
>> what happens.
>>
>> It is great to see so much discussion. And Bill's video of his 350
>> gallon unit is very informative. We await info and photos of the 500
>> gallon unit he is making now.
>>
>> Bill wrote:
>>> the larger the diameter of the TLUD, the greater the chance that the
>>> pyrolysis front will not reach the hearth in all areas at the same
>>> time. If this happens you risk overheating tha hearth if you wait for
>>> all the fuel to pyrolyse and burn some of the biochar.
>> I completely agree. And when we report on our actual experience,
please
>> specify the diameter (which is probably more important that the
volume).
>>
>> Diameters:
>> 1. A 200 Liter (55 gal) drum or barrel is about 23 inches (58 cm) in
>> diameter. And that works rather well in the Jolly Roger Ovens (J-ROs)
>> and similar units.
>>
>> 2. From Bill's video, his unit 350 gallon (over 1000 liter) unit is
>> quite tall and has a diameter about the same as at 55 gal drum. It is
>> good to see that it works well.
>>
>> 3. If I remember correctly, Alex's largest unit was 42 inch diameter
>> (107 cm) and had problems with uneven descent of the Migratory
Pyrolytic
>> Front (MPF). That matches well with Bill comment that is quoted
above.
>>
>> So, is Bill's 500 gal unit even taller but still "slender"? And how
>> well does it work?
>>
>> An interesting question is about the possible favorable impact of
having
>> some of the following changes in the big TLUDs:
>>
>> A. Impact of a tapering the inside diameter in the lower section. But
>> as I think more about that, I have my doubts if it will resolve the
>> irregular MPF issue.
>>
>> B. impact of having sensors around the circumference of the TLUD at
>> perhaps 1 meter vertical distances. And if the temperature
(indicating
>> the MPF) is greater on one side too soon, EITHER
>> inject addition primary air via tuyers (nozzels) on the colder sides to
>> hasten the MPF in those areas, OR
>> inject a bit of water into the area of the hot side to slow its
movement
>> a bit.
>>
>> With serious char-making devices such as what Bill has, a relatively
>> small cost would be the welding of some pipe nipples (each with a screw
>> on cap) at the appropriate places for the air or water entries (B
above)
>> and where thermocouples could be inserted to check temperatures
>> including in the center of the cylindrical column of fuel.
>>
>> If anyone tries these ideas, please let us all know you progress and
>> results.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
>> Email: psanders at ilstu.edu
>> Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
>> Website: www.drtlud.com
>>
>>> On 5/14/2015 8:20 PM, biocharFIRST . wrote:
>>> I don't know how big you can build a TLUD. However about three years
>>> ago I built a 350 gallon TLUD that is working out very well, except
>>> for the fact that we do not have a use for the sen gas where the TLUD
>>> is now located at my home. You can see a video at,
>>> vhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Kfr4NRhJ0s.
>>>
>>> Currently we have almost completed a 500 gallon TLUD that is designed
>>> to exhaust all of the sen gas down a tube in the center of the tank
>>> so the heat from the gas can easily be captured for various uses.
>>> r be uniformly dry, and the larger the diameter of the TLUD, the
>>> greater the chance that the pyrolysis front will not reach the hearth
>>> in all areas at the same time. If this happens you risk overheating
>>> tha hearth if you wait for all the fuel to pyrolyse and burn some of
>>> the biochar. If you shut off the primary before pyrolysis is complete
>>> you will get some smoke and some biomass that is not completely
>>> pyrolysed.
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
>>> <crispinpigott at outlook.com <mailto:crispinpigott at outlook.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> AJH >Yes and/or premixing but why does burning rice hulls tend
>>> more to the
>>> blue flame?
>>>
>>> Lower volatiles? The carbon/hydrogen ratio is not the same as
>>> wood. Maybe
>>> that helps.
>>>
>>> Apparently the reactions can be shifted from CO to H2 by using
>>> different
>>> catalysts:
>>> Crispin
>>>
>>> From
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0141460786900727
>>>
>>> Catalytic gasification of rice hull and other biomass. The general
>>> effect of
>>> catalyst.
>>>
>>> Abstract:
>>> Thermochemical decomposition and catalytic conversion of rice hull
>>> and some
>>> other cellulosic materials in a fluidized bed reactor containing
>>> different
>>> catalysts as the bed material were studied. The use of catalyst
>>> invariably
>>> gave gas yields above that of the non-catalyzed gasification
>>> process and
>>> also changed the product distribution according to the nature of
the
>>> catalyst. Generally, an acidic catalyst favored the formation of
>>> carbon
>>> monoxide and olefins while a supported-metal catalyst increased
>>> the amounts
>>> of hydrogen and carbon dioxide. Nickel catalyst yielded as much as
60%
>>> hydrogen at a reaction temperature of 650?C. The gas yield and
product
>>> distribution are mainly decided by the properties of the catalyst
>>> and less
>>> by the properties of the biomass.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Stoves mailing list
>>>
>>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>>> <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>>>
>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>>>
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylis
ts.org
>>>
>>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web
>>> site:
>>> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://www.ithakajournal.com
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.bioenergylis
ts.org
>>>
>>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web
site:
>>> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Energies Naturals C.B. <energiesnaturals at gmx.de>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 15:30:37 -0400
> From: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com>
> To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] big TLUD
> Message-ID: <COL401-EAS266FA6659A75E99A55105E3B1C20 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Dear Rolf
>
> I have a general rule (which results from empirical testing) which is
that
> the fuel particle has to be smaller than 1/6th of the diameter of the
> chamber. At 6 it is iffy - problems abound with the fire going out and
> difficulty igniting, high excess air, poor potential for secondary air
> management etc.
>
> There is an upper limit too but I am not sure where it is. It is less
than
> 25 and I suspect above 20 is a cause for concern.
>
> Packing density is an issue but it is an indicator, but 'the issue'.
"The
> issue" is the superficial and actual velocity of air moving through the
> system.
>
> The numbers are influenced by the temperature of the surrounds so it is
not
> as simple as saying 'here are the hard numbers'. When you get to mixing
> different sizes together you will have to work with the actual air flow
> rate.
>
> Regards
> Crispin
> .
>
> Hallo "big TLUDers",
>
> as I see from the various experiences and comments, the cross section of
a
> big TLUD is to some extent limited.
> That means that in order to build a bigger unit, it has to grow by
lenght,
> which in turn must enhance the resistance to the primary air flow. From
> Imberts we know that the relation between fuel size and hearth or throat
is
> crucial.
> There must be enough space left between the particles to allow for a
> adequate air/gas flow.
>
> My question: Does anyone have a clue on the matter of fuel size in TLUDs
?
>
> Is it possible that larger diameters ask for larger chunks which in turn
> provide more space between them and ideally spread the upflowing air
more
> uniformly?
>
> Rolf
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 22:35:24 +0200
> From: "scda2 at t-online.de" <scda2 at t-online.de>
> To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> Subject: [Stoves] Giving up? ?mobile adam-retort? 4 photos
> Message-ID: <570151302555cf00cccae11.53491204 at email.t-online.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Giving up? ?mobile adam-retort?
>
> Dear All,
> just sharing a few experience with my ?mobile adam-retort?
> I did test run#5 and I might give up, as it?s too difficult to operate
the retort in a smokeless way (burning smoke). And without reduced smoke
there is little sense to operate such a unit near saw mills, carpenter
shops in suburbs, etc.
> What?s stunning me: during syngas operation if volatiles are passing
through the unit, heavy volatiles are leaving chimney. Once I close
chimney, syngas is overflowing from fire box, and burned syn gas escapes
into air in kind clear volatiles. OK, you will say: larger ducts, larger
diameters of channels?
> But how to get this done with a ?light weight ? unit (~130kg).
>
> Photos 1: Overflowing of syn gas from fire box when chimney (~500?C)
closed. 4th hr of operation.
>
> Another phenomena, volatiles are leaving chimney kind of clear
volatiles, once they get in contact with ambient air- heavy smoke
develops.
>
> Photo2 : 3rd hour of operation. Shortly before large syn gas production
starts (chimney ~300?C), fire wood was removed shortly after. AGiP drums
just serves as a table to hold thermometer. .
>
> Photo3: big stress on materials (!), of retort is left open until
gasification dies, chimney temp rises to ~650?C, Temperature in oil drums
with wood comes to 600?C also. ( = high quality , high temperature
charcoal).
>
> Efficiency about 30% (dry weight) or ~25% of waste wood in fire box
counted. Operation about 5 hours (3hrs drying + 2hrs syn gas). ~110kg of
wood dry weight loaded into 2 oil drums, ~35kg of charcoal received. ~15kg
of waste wood (dry weight) burnt. Cost of retort ~500US$ (?) mass
production.
>
> Fig. 1 Drawing to explain function. (Unit Is tilted 90? for
loading/unloading).
> 22 (chimney), 23 (opening) not needed
> Fire under 1st oil drum (filled with wood) is producing syngas which is
burned and is heating 2nd oil drum in caskade effect...
>
> Cheers Chris ADAM
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: IMG_5050 overflow.JPG
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 32690 bytes
> Desc:
> URL:
<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
/attachments/20150520/f2e9e211/attachment-0004.jpe>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: IMG_5023 smoke1.JPG
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 57931 bytes
> Desc:
> URL:
<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
/attachments/20150520/f2e9e211/attachment-0005.jpe>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: IMG_5039 glow.JPG
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 49039 bytes
> Desc:
> URL:
<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
/attachments/20150520/f2e9e211/attachment-0006.jpe>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: detail drawing1 mobile.JPG
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 40248 bytes
> Desc:
> URL:
<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
/attachments/20150520/f2e9e211/attachment-0007.jpe>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 13:35:37 -0700
> From: Frank Shields <franke at cruzio.com>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] big TLUD
> Message-ID: <EE6C234A-607E-4C77-BEE8-2119737A8D53 at cruzio.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Dear Crispin, and Stovers,
>
> Interesting topic. And there must be an optimum and way to measure and
determine what this is.
>
> I?m thinking its air channeling (sections of high air movement) that
gives the problem resulting in un-even air front.
>
> In addition to size of particles. Particles must be of a size able to
ignite from radiant heat from neighboring particles. At stove camp they
stated a value - something like no more than three times the size of the
match(?). And that should apply here I would think. We can start with
small particles on top to light and gradually go to larger particles as
the flame front moves down? OR does that mean larger particles can be no
more than three times the smaller particles so all neighbor particles will
light. A test of particle distribution and uniformity coefficient might be
a good test.
>
> How can we test for channeling?
> Perhaps: Have air flowing through the system then add pure CO2 and
measure the CO2 increase at the other end. With even flow there should be
a sharp increase but with channeling it would be a gradual increase?
>
> Regards
>
>
> Frank
>
>
>
> Frank Shields
> franke at cruzio.com
>
>
>> On May 20, 2015, at 12:30 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
<crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Rolf
>>
>> I have a general rule (which results from empirical testing) which is
that
>> the fuel particle has to be smaller than 1/6th of the diameter of the
>> chamber. At 6 it is iffy - problems abound with the fire going out and
>> difficulty igniting, high excess air, poor potential for secondary air
>> management etc.
>>
>> There is an upper limit too but I am not sure where it is. It is less
than
>> 25 and I suspect above 20 is a cause for concern.
>>
>> Packing density is an issue but it is an indicator, but 'the issue'.
"The
>> issue" is the superficial and actual velocity of air moving through the
>> system.
>>
>> The numbers are influenced by the temperature of the surrounds so it is
not
>> as simple as saying 'here are the hard numbers'. When you get to
mixing
>> different sizes together you will have to work with the actual air flow
>> rate.
>>
>> Regards
>> Crispin
>> .
>>
>> Hallo "big TLUDers",
>>
>> as I see from the various experiences and comments, the cross section
of a
>> big TLUD is to some extent limited.
>> That means that in order to build a bigger unit, it has to grow by
lenght,
>> which in turn must enhance the resistance to the primary air flow. From
>> Imberts we know that the relation between fuel size and hearth or
throat is
>> crucial.
>> There must be enough space left between the particles to allow for a
>> adequate air/gas flow.
>>
>> My question: Does anyone have a clue on the matter of fuel size in
TLUDs ?
>>
>> Is it possible that larger diameters ask for larger chunks which in
turn
>> provide more space between them and ideally spread the upflowing air
more
>> uniformly?
>>
>> Rolf
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.bioenergylis
ts.org
>>
>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web
site:
>> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 13:43:05 -0700
> From: Frank Shields <franke at cruzio.com>
> To: "scda2 at t-online.de" <scda2 at t-online.de>, Discussion of biomass
> cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Giving up? ?mobile adam-retort? 4 photos
> Message-ID: <156C8F05-1CBC-4F8A-8DA0-BCD36F89478D at cruzio.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> I?m wondering if picture #2 is more water vapor than smoke? An in lab
experiment i did produced the same looking ?smoke? and clouded the room
but I later thought it water vapor.
>
> Frank
>
>
>
> Frank Shields
> franke at cruzio.com
>
>
>> On May 20, 2015, at 1:35 PM, scda2 at t-online.de wrote:
>>
>> Giving up? ?mobile adam-retort?
>>
>> Dear All,
>> just sharing a few experience with my ?mobile adam-retort?
>> I did test run#5 and I might give up, as it?s too difficult to operate
the retort in a smokeless way (burning smoke). And without reduced smoke
there is little sense to operate such a unit near saw mills, carpenter
shops in suburbs, etc.
>> What?s stunning me: during syngas operation if volatiles are passing
through the unit, heavy volatiles are leaving chimney. Once I close
chimney, syngas is overflowing from fire box, and burned syn gas escapes
into air in kind clear volatiles. OK, you will say: larger ducts, larger
diameters of channels?
>> But how to get this done with a ?light weight ? unit (~130kg).
>>
>> Photos 1: Overflowing of syn gas from fire box when chimney (~500?C)
closed. 4th hr of operation.
>>
>> Another phenomena, volatiles are leaving chimney kind of clear
volatiles, once they get in contact with ambient air- heavy smoke
develops.
>>
>> Photo2 : 3rd hour of operation. Shortly before large syn gas production
starts (chimney ~300?C), fire wood was removed shortly after. AGiP drums
just serves as a table to hold thermometer. .
>>
>> Photo3: big stress on materials (!), of retort is left open until
gasification dies, chimney temp rises to ~650?C, Temperature in oil drums
with wood comes to 600?C also. ( = high quality , high temperature
charcoal).
>>
>> Efficiency about 30% (dry weight) or ~25% of waste wood in fire box
counted. Operation about 5 hours (3hrs drying + 2hrs syn gas). ~110kg of
wood dry weight loaded into 2 oil drums, ~35kg of charcoal received. ~15kg
of waste wood (dry weight) burnt. Cost of retort ~500US$ (?) mass
production.
>>
>> Fig. 1 Drawing to explain function. (Unit Is tilted 90? for
loading/unloading).
>> 22 (chimney), 23 (opening) not needed
>> Fire under 1st oil drum (filled with wood) is producing syngas which is
burned and is heating 2nd oil drum in caskade effect...
>>
>> Cheers Chris ADAM<IMG_5050 overflow.JPG><IMG_5023 smoke1.JPG><IMG_5039
glow.JPG><detail drawing1
mobile.JPG>_______________________________________________
>> 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.bioenergylis
ts.org
>>
>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web
site:
>> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 16:03:41 -0500
> From: Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] big TLUD
> Message-ID: <555CF6AD.5070501 at ilstu.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
> Rolf,
>
> Fuel size is related to the dwell-time (time the fuel is exposed to the
> heat). Tom Reed says it takes about one hour of exposure to pyrolyze
> through about one inch (2.5 cm) of wood FROM ONE SIDE. So think of
> radius of the fuel or its smallest dimension.
>
> And the TLUD height (which relates to the duration of the operation)
> will give some indication of the available time.
>
> 1. So, you could have a 2 inch smallest-dimension piece of fuel near
> the top of the fuel pile in a one hour of operation TLUD. But the same
> piece of wood if inserted vertically would have an hour of heat at the
> top but less than 30 minutes or even only 15 minutes for the end that is
> near the bottom. The bottom part will be off-gasing (giving smoke) if
> it is removed when the majority of the pyrolysis has completed.
> Waiting for that piece to pyrolyze in a functioning unit will result in
> the loss of char that is burning to give the heat for pyrolysis.
>
> Vertical pieces of wood work very well, but it is good to have a bottom
> layer of smaller pieces.
>
> 2. The other big variable is the control of the two air supplies. The
> ability to SHUT DOWN the primary air is extremely important, and widely
> overlooked. Ideally, the MPF (Migratory Pyrolytic Front) will descend
> rather uniformly. But if it does not (and this problem increases in
> likelihood in larger TLUDs), pyrolysis and char making can be kept
> somewhat under control if the primary air is severely restricted. Keep
> the HEAT (not the fire itself) inside the fuel chamber and the off-gases
> will be created, the fire at the top (burning the gases) can be
> sustained and also controlled for minimal smoke even though the fire
> inside the TLUD has dropped to the bottom of the fuel chamber. Not a
> perfect run cycle, but probably some reasonable char production
> (compared with letting the fire race away inside the fuel chamber).
>
> 3. The ability to supplement (increase) the air flows (both of them,
> but separately) is a major factor for control and for reducing the
> dependence on uniformity of fuel sizes. Yesterday, in a TLUD of two
> small barrels, the final stages of a 45 minute operation had too much
> pyrolysis occurring, giving lots of flames (shooting 4 inches above the
> 3 foot chimney) and some visible black smoke. Instead of cutting back
> the primary air, I used a portable blower (with a 12 V DC motorcycle
> battery) to increase only the secondary air, and the smokiness
> disappeared and the flames were only half way up the chimney.
>
> NOTE: This gave great heat supply, but for a shorter time period than
> if I had cut back on the primary air (giving more time for pyrolysis).
>
> Paul
>
> Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
> Email: psanders at ilstu.edu
> Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
> Website: www.drtlud.com
>
>> On 5/20/2015 2:30 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>> Dear Rolf
>>
>> I have a general rule (which results from empirical testing) which is
that
>> the fuel particle has to be smaller than 1/6th of the diameter of the
>> chamber. At 6 it is iffy - problems abound with the fire going out and
>> difficulty igniting, high excess air, poor potential for secondary air
>> management etc.
>>
>> There is an upper limit too but I am not sure where it is. It is less
than
>> 25 and I suspect above 20 is a cause for concern.
>>
>> Packing density is an issue but it is an indicator, but 'the issue'.
"The
>> issue" is the superficial and actual velocity of air moving through the
>> system.
>>
>> The numbers are influenced by the temperature of the surrounds so it is
not
>> as simple as saying 'here are the hard numbers'. When you get to
mixing
>> different sizes together you will have to work with the actual air flow
>> rate.
>>
>> Regards
>> Crispin
>> .
>>
>> Hallo "big TLUDers",
>>
>> as I see from the various experiences and comments, the cross section
of a
>> big TLUD is to some extent limited.
>> That means that in order to build a bigger unit, it has to grow by
lenght,
>> which in turn must enhance the resistance to the primary air flow. From
>> Imberts we know that the relation between fuel size and hearth or
throat is
>> crucial.
>> There must be enough space left between the particles to allow for a
>> adequate air/gas flow.
>>
>> My question: Does anyone have a clue on the matter of fuel size in
TLUDs ?
>>
>> Is it possible that larger diameters ask for larger chunks which in
turn
>> provide more space between them and ideally spread the upflowing air
more
>> uniformly?
>>
>> Rolf
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.bioenergylis
ts.org
>>
>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web
site:
>> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 23:13:07 +0200
> From: "scda2 at t-online.de" <scda2 at t-online.de>
> To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> Subject: [Stoves] Giving up? ?mobile adam-retort? 3 additional
> drawings
> Message-ID: <491227133555cf8e32dbc15.21279557 at email.t-online.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>
> If someone wants to go into it (additional drawings)
>
> Fig.2 front view
> Fig.3 side view
> Fig.4 top view
>
> Part list:
>
> List of Reference:
>
> 1, 2, one, two or more containers
> 3, base plate
> 4, closure
> 5, Low chamber-frame
> 6, fireplace
> 7, passage opening
> 8 sheet metal strip
> 9, channel
> 10, chimney pipe
> 11, upper Case
> 12, frame for unrolling
> 13, quarter-circular rounding
> 14, pivot point
> 15, tilt direction
> 16, opening underside container
> 17, smoke-burning zone by secondary air
> 18, pipe to connect the flue gases between modules SKiP
> 19, passage to connect the secondary air between modules SKiP
> 20, passage to connect the chimney gases in the upper case between
modules SKiP
> 21, passage opening for modular design SKiP
> 22, chimney pipe with Bye-pass function and closing SKiP
> 23, passage opening with bye-pass function and closure SKiP
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: Front viewNoName Fig2.jpg
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 182758 bytes
> Desc:
> URL:
<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
/attachments/20150520/5c9379ac/attachment.jpg>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: mobil Seite NoName Fig3.jpg
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 269927 bytes
> Desc:
> URL:
<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
/attachments/20150520/5c9379ac/attachment-0001.jpg>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: topNoName Fig4.jpg
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 186235 bytes
> Desc:
> URL:
<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
/attachments/20150520/5c9379ac/attachment-0002.jpg>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.bioenergylis
ts.org
>
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
> http://www.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Stoves Digest, Vol 57, Issue 19
> **************************************
_______________________________________________
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.bioenergylis
ts.org
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 16:15:11 +0000
From: "Engelke, Courtenay D (DCO/IEPS)" <engelkecd at mcc.gov>
To: "stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org"
<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Mongolian stove for heating
Message-ID:
<BL2PR09MB0013DE44F336FE45375538CABC30 at BL2PR09MB001.namprd09.prod.outlook.
com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1255"
Please find links below to 1) a Partnership for Clean Indoor Air-sponsored
webinar and 2) independent impact evaluation associated with the
Millennium Challenge Corporation-funded stoves activity in Mongolia which
was successful in replacing over 100,000 stoves in Ulaanbaatar in less
than 3 years.
http://www.pciaonline.org/webinars/Improved_Heating_Stoves_for_Air_Polluti
on_Reduction_in_Mongolia
http://data.mcc.gov/evaluations/index.php/catalog/133
I would be happy to answer any questions and/or to provide additional
information.
Regards,
Courtenay Engelke
Millennium Challenge Corporation
Washington, DC
From: Leslie Cordes
<lcordes at cleancookstoves.org<mailto:lcordes at cleancookstoves.org>>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 11:30 AM
To:
stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org<mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>;
Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Mongolian stove for heating
Paul - it is incorrect that the Alliance does not cover coal fueled
cookstoves. In fact, we have a comprehensive clean cookstoves program in
China, and Mongolia has been a long-standing national partner of the
Alliance. Additionally, a representative of the WB funded program spoke
about their program at the last Forum in Cambodia? and we have featured
articles about the MCC-UNEP-LBL program in Mongolia in the Alliance's
newsletters. I would be happy to pass along your note to the Bank and MCC
program managers
Best regards, Leslie
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
From: Paul Anderson
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 11:17 AM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Reply To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Mongolian stove for heating
Crispin and all,
Your message is very useful about several important points:
1. Important heating-stove and air quality work is being done in
Mongolia. Congratulations to all who are involved. Seems the World
Bank is the big backer.
2. Information flow about these efforts is horrible. Our ONLY source of
info has been Crispin. THANKS!!!! Otherwise, this is almost off of
the radar for Stoves discussions openly on the Internet. I searched for
Ulaanbaatar Clean Air Project (UB-CAP)
and saw some reports that were more about goals, etc. I did not do a
thorough search. Please somebody check fully and confirm or correct me
and guide us to the data. But if I am correct, this lack of knowledge is
a MAJOR deficiency in our networking.
Very interesting that even Crispin (an adviser to the project, but about
emissions and evidently not about stove design / manufacturing) does not
have clear photos / tech drawings / and other info about the stoves
themselves.
3. The fuel is wet lignite with over 50% volatiles. FANTASTIC!!! TLUD
stoves thrive on getting volatiles released from solid fuel, and THEN do
the clean burning a few centimeters away!!!!
4. The stoves are heavy (high mass which is good for heating-stoves) with
cast iron and ceramic (which is great for withstanding the higher
temperatures of burning some (maybe much or all) of the final carbon
(similar to coking coal once the volatiles are gone) at relatively high
temperatures for the "typical sheet-metal TLUD stoves" for tropical
climates.
5. The GACC and the EPA programs about cookstoves do not (I believe)
include COAL-burning stoves. This needs to be corrected. I certainly
hope it is resolved well before the November GACC Forum in Ghana. The
success in Mongolia should be well documented and well disseminated.
Note: Fossil fuels increase the final CO2 in the atmosphere, but that
CO2 is "acceptable" in some circles, such as by those who promote LPG,
which is extremely clean burning (but is carbon positive). Allowing for
that, the issue of CLEAN fuel is about other emissions (black carbon,
methane, Particulate Matter PM, CO etc.). Therefore, there are NO DIRTY
FUELS, but only DIRTY STOVES that cannot burn the fuels well. Kerosene
(parafin) dripped into a TLUD or Rocket or other stove will give a dirty
fire. That is a user error, not a stove error. Countless examples could
be given of inappropriate burning of fuels. But what is important is
that any one type of fuel can be cleanly burned in at least ONE design of
stove.
Related: Even if we could have one of the Mongolian TLUD stoves
available for viewing and testing, most certainly the same fuel (high
volatile wet lignite) would be needed for any appropriate testing of the
stove. Different types of coal would probably not burn as cleanly in
that stove.
6. We (the collective "we the Stovers") could certainly benefit from
further information from Mongolia. I suspect that a Chinese-speaking
American engineer-type person could greatly assist with this. I am
wondering how much the Mongolian advancement is already being introduced
into northern China. Or is there a "not invented here" barrier to the
spread of the progress?
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psanders at ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>
Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: www.drtlud.com<http://www.drtlud.com>
On 5/19/2015 12:22 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
Dear Paul
Actually I am not aware of the links to the stoves ? I just don?t deal
with that side the equation. Um?how about looking on line for Ulaanbaatar
Clean Air Project (UB-CAP) and see if they have something on their
website. It is likely to be in Mongolian which is written with a Russian
script so it will be hard to follow.
Most of the stove that pass are some form of TLUD gasifier. At the moment
only two people are making pretty good cross draft stoves. One is a direct
reproduction of the GTZ7 which can be extremely clean. I recall it has
negative PM emissions as early as 12 minutes after ignition.
The fuel is wet lignite. I would not describe it as ?low quality? which I
found out only means it has volatiles above 20% of dry mass. I would not
describe it as ?low? quality but it has >50% volatiles! I think it is the
best coal I have ever seen in the world. It is easy to light and can burn
extremely cleanly shortly after ignition if the combustion environment is
right. Obviously several companies have it right. If the coal was made
into pellets it would be even cleaner burning. They are still burning lump
coal ?as it arrives?. Big pieces are broken up of course.
The promoted stoves run from I think $80 to $270. Most are cast iron with
ceramic interiors. They have to have a two year guarantee.
Regards
Crispin
Crispin,
Please direct us to info including photos about the Mongolian stove for
heating. I think you have previously stated that it is burning low-grade
coal, right? And it is some variation of a gasifier, correct? And at
what cost per stove?
Paul
_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org<mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylis
ts.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/20150519/233edd8b/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 12:44:35 -0400
From: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com>
To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"
<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Mongolian stove for heating
Message-ID: <COL401-EAS6968B9865BD1A672B1390DB1CF0 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1255"
Dear Courtenay
Thanks for the support and links. I presume you saw the chart of ambient
PM2.5 released last week. If you have means to do so, can you confirm that
this is the first time a major city has cleaned up its air without
changing
fuels? I would like to be able to say that with more confidence. I have
only
read that ?it has never been done before? and set that as a personal
target
7 years ago.
The reduction asked for (the project target) in 2007 from the WB was 30%
from the stove itself, with the expectation that this would be achieved by
reducing fuel consumption, an expectation rooted ultimately in the belief
that the smoke was an inherent property of the coal, not the coal+stove
combination. On that score the project has made an excellent demonstration
of what is possible. It is not unusual to see tests with a 98% reduction
against the baseline.
>From the initial 30% reduction target, now no stove is accepted into the
programme unless it has reduced PM by more than 90%. As MCC provided about
60% of the funding to date I think it would be good to have on record that
this is the first time the air quality has been improved so much ? better
than Berkeley?s best case Scenario 2 ? with only a change in the stoves.
If
it is true, it should be on MCC?s list of signal achievements.
It is clear from design experiment results that we are not reaching the
limits yet on CO and PM reduction, or thermal efficiency. The stove
development centre will open soon and have the capacity to develop and
test
water heating stoves, small boilers both high and low pressure, and
regular
home and Ger stoves. It is expected that as a result of their work,
further
improvement in stove performance will be seen in the coming years.
Regards
Crispin
From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
Engelke, Courtenay D (DCO/IEPS)
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 12:15
To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Mongolian stove for heating
Please find links below to 1) a Partnership for Clean Indoor Air-sponsored
webinar and 2) independent impact evaluation associated with the
Millennium
Challenge Corporation-funded stoves activity in Mongolia which was
successful in replacing over 100,000 stoves in Ulaanbaatar in less than 3
years.
http://www.pciaonline.org/webinars/Improved_Heating_Stoves_for_Air_Polluti
on
_Reduction_in_Mongolia
http://data.mcc.gov/evaluations/index.php/catalog/133
I would be happy to answer any questions and/or to provide additional
information.
Regards,
Courtenay Engelke
Millennium Challenge Corporation
Washington, DC
From: Leslie Cordes <lcordes at cleancookstoves.org
<mailto:lcordes at cleancookstoves.org> >
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 11:30 AM
To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
<mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Mongolian stove for heating
Paul - it is incorrect that the Alliance does not cover coal fueled
cookstoves. In fact, we have a comprehensive clean cookstoves program in
China, and Mongolia has been a long-standing national partner of the
Alliance. Additionally, a representative of the WB funded program spoke
about their program at the last Forum in Cambodia? and we have featured
articles about the MCC-UNEP-LBL program in Mongolia in the Alliance's
newsletters. I would be happy to pass along your note to the Bank and MCC
program managers
Best regards, Leslie
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
From: Paul Anderson
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 11:17 AM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Reply To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Mongolian stove for heating
Crispin and all,
Your message is very useful about several important points:
1. Important heating-stove and air quality work is being done in
Mongolia.
Congratulations to all who are involved. Seems the World Bank is the big
backer.
2. Information flow about these efforts is horrible. Our ONLY source of
info has been Crispin. THANKS!!!! Otherwise, this is almost off of
the
radar for Stoves discussions openly on the Internet. I searched for
Ulaanbaatar Clean Air Project (UB-CAP)
and saw some reports that were more about goals, etc. I did not do a
thorough search. Please somebody check fully and confirm or correct me
and guide us to the data. But if I am correct, this lack of knowledge is
a
MAJOR deficiency in our networking.
Very interesting that even Crispin (an adviser to the project, but about
emissions and evidently not about stove design / manufacturing) does not
have clear photos / tech drawings / and other info about the stoves
themselves.
3. The fuel is wet lignite with over 50% volatiles. FANTASTIC!!! TLUD
stoves thrive on getting volatiles released from solid fuel, and THEN do
the
clean burning a few centimeters away!!!!
4. The stoves are heavy (high mass which is good for heating-stoves) with
cast iron and ceramic (which is great for withstanding the higher
temperatures of burning some (maybe much or all) of the final carbon
(similar to coking coal once the volatiles are gone) at relatively high
temperatures for the "typical sheet-metal TLUD stoves" for tropical
climates.
5. The GACC and the EPA programs about cookstoves do not (I believe)
include COAL-burning stoves. This needs to be corrected. I certainly
hope it is resolved well before the November GACC Forum in Ghana. The
success in Mongolia should be well documented and well disseminated.
Note: Fossil fuels increase the final CO2 in the atmosphere, but that
CO2
is "acceptable" in some circles, such as by those who promote LPG, which
is
extremely clean burning (but is carbon positive). Allowing for that, the
issue of CLEAN fuel is about other emissions (black carbon, methane,
Particulate Matter PM, CO etc.). Therefore, there are NO DIRTY FUELS,
but
only DIRTY STOVES that cannot burn the fuels well. Kerosene (parafin)
dripped into a TLUD or Rocket or other stove will give a dirty fire. That
is a user error, not a stove error. Countless examples could be given of
inappropriate burning of fuels. But what is important is that any one
type
of fuel can be cleanly burned in at least ONE design of stove.
Related: Even if we could have one of the Mongolian TLUD stoves
available
for viewing and testing, most certainly the same fuel (high volatile wet
lignite) would be needed for any appropriate testing of the stove.
Different types of coal would probably not burn as cleanly in that stove.
6. We (the collective "we the Stovers") could certainly benefit from
further information from Mongolia. I suspect that a Chinese-speaking
American engineer-type person could greatly assist with this. I am
wondering how much the Mongolian advancement is already being introduced
into northern China. Or is there a "not invented here" barrier to the
spread of the progress?
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psanders at ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>
Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: www.drtlud.com <http://www.drtlud.com>
On 5/19/2015 12:22 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
Dear Paul
Actually I am not aware of the links to the stoves ? I just don?t deal
with
that side the equation. Um?how about looking on line for Ulaanbaatar Clean
Air Project (UB-CAP) and see if they have something on their website. It
is
likely to be in Mongolian which is written with a Russian script so it
will
be hard to follow.
Most of the stove that pass are some form of TLUD gasifier. At the moment
only two people are making pretty good cross draft stoves. One is a direct
reproduction of the GTZ7 which can be extremely clean. I recall it has
negative PM emissions as early as 12 minutes after ignition.
The fuel is wet lignite. I would not describe it as ?low quality? which I
found out only means it has volatiles above 20% of dry mass. I would not
describe it as ?low? quality but it has >50% volatiles! I think it is the
best coal I have ever seen in the world. It is easy to light and can burn
extremely cleanly shortly after ignition if the combustion environment is
right. Obviously several companies have it right. If the coal was made
into
pellets it would be even cleaner burning. They are still burning lump coal
?as it arrives?. Big pieces are broken up of course.
The promoted stoves run from I think $80 to $270. Most are cast iron with
ceramic interiors. They have to have a two year guarantee.
Regards
Crispin
Crispin,
Please direct us to info including photos about the Mongolian stove for
heating. I think you have previously stated that it is burning low-grade
coal, right? And it is some variation of a gasifier, correct? And at
what cost per stove?
Paul
_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylis
ts
.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/20150523/1630cf94/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
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.bioenergylis
ts.org
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
http://www.bioenergylists.org/
------------------------------
End of Stoves Digest, Vol 57, Issue 22
**************************************
More information about the Stoves
mailing list