[Stoves] Secondary air in Rocket Works stove www.rocketworks.org

Marquitusus marquitusus at hotmail.com
Mon May 25 04:15:19 CDT 2015


Thanks Adrian and Crispin.
Congrats for Zama Zama, it really seems to be an step forward in rocket stoves, linking them to the lessons learned with TLUD's
Adrian,  in the Zama Zama videos on youtube, you refer to the "tertiary air slots" to these holes in the upper part of the combustion chamber. Wouldn't they be "secondary air" instead? If not, where are the secondary air gaps?
On the other hand, after the secondary flames are formed, I see they immediately touch the cooking pot. Wouldn't be better to leave some space for this secondary flames to expand and finishing to burn all the gases before touching the bottom of the pot? Do you get completely clean pot bottoms after cooking with the Zama Zama?
ThanksMarc

> From: adrian at rocketworks.org
> Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 06:31:31 +0200
> To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Secondary air in Rocket Works stove www.rocketworks.org
> 
> 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
> **************************************
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150525/b8a587aa/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list