[Stoves] Torrified Pellets

[Dean Still]

Dear Crispin,

I think that we agree that a stove and a fuel are matched together for
lowest emissions and the combination is evaluated. I agree that there is no
clean fuel or clean stove. Kerosene can be burned very cleanly or if put in
a bad stove or lamp makes lots of emissions, etc.

Best,

Dean


On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:

> Dear Dean
>
>
>
> I can’t see why you would try to attribute to a fuel, the ability of a
> stove to burn it. Changing the fuel enough until it matches some stove’s
> capacity to burn it is not telling us anything except about that particular
> combination. When we include the burn cycle and the container that seals
> the top of the stove, all 4 contributing variables are present.
>
>
>
> It does not surprise me in the least that the interns could not find a
> statistically significant relationship between the performance of a system
> with 4 input variables and only one of the inputs.  Changing a fuel until
> it performs well in one stove, and then putting that ‘cleaner’ fuel into a
> different stove will give a different emissions level because it is now a
> different set of contributing factors.
>
>
>
> The conceptual error is to attribute to a fuel the performance of a stove
> burning it. Keeping the question simple: when you have a clean-burning
> stove+fuel combination, what is it that is clean, the stove or the fuel?
> The stove developer claims he has a ‘clean stove’. The fuel developer says
> he has a ‘clean fuel’.
>
>
>
> The obvious answer is that only the combination can be evaluated.
>
>
>
> Burning torrefied pellets in some crappy stoves that can’t burn wood tells
> us nothing about the fuel combustion potential of wood *or* torrefied
> pellets.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Crispin
>
> ++++++
>
>
>
> Dear Dean,
>
> Here you say that the ladies observed no statistically relevant results
> (in spite of trying, which seems to me a contradiction of scientific
> method: you try hard only to observe parametric, repeatable data and report
> how it either confirms or contradicts predicted results, not strive for
> results themselves. A designer who has an objective for a stove is hoping
> that a feature included in the design will achieve a controlled effect that
> will tweak some parameter of performance, but testing is just trying to
> report.) But then further down you repeatedly state that fuel preparation
> is so important: "With biomass the preparation including recipe, drying,
> pellet size, etc. makes a big difference in emissions when trying to get
> down to the very low levels needed to protect health." This is much too
> simple.
> A stove will have design features that determine whether, with a
> particular fuel (with variables: contained moisture, contained minerals,
> contained biological composition, granularity, etc.) all of that evil smoke
> can be combusted or not -- once the primary air is done doing two things:
> providing it with O2 and moving by it and thereby cooling the fuel and the
> resultant smoke to a degree. It's very important to understand that enough
> _excess_ primary air will cool both the fuel and the smoke which migrates
> with it further through the stove to such a lower temperature, that the
> introduction of secondary air will no longer sustain complete combustion.
> When there is no complete combustion everything left over is bad one way or
> another, but naturally there are degrees of incomplete combustion.
>
> I see that you have responded to Alex on a question of his while I was
> writing this, but I'll try to maintain thread coherency by asking a
> follow-up question there.
> regards,
> Ron
>
>
>
>
> On 25.05.2015 16:49, Dean Still wrote:
>
> Dear Frank,
>
>
>
> They tried but the results did not achieve statistical significance.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Dean
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Frank Shields <franke at cruzio.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Dean,
>
>
>
>
>
> Did the three women interns doing the study of types of fuels and their
> corresponding combustion qualities come up with a final report? or planning
> to do so?
>
>
>
> I would be very interested in seeing this if it becomes available. I think
> this very important information as a precursor to developing a series of
> tests designed to determine if a fuel is suitable for a specific stove or
> predicting problems when using. All needed for BOX 1 of the six box system.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Frank
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/e5322a85/attachment.html>