[Stoves] Two Stove System - typos corrected v1.1

[Frank Shields]

Is the CSA method what was used for producing the values for that worksheet you had attached to a recent reply to the List Serve? And has anyone tried the helium surrogate test procedure? Just wondering. It may be way beyond what people can afford to do especially if it doesn’t work. Do you have a TGA at the CAU lab? Furnace? and perhaps a Leco CHN analyzer? Calorimeter? 

A few toys it would be nice to have in a stove testing lab in addition to good air monitoring devises. 

Nothing is as easy as it seems. Your 4 page calculation sheets I am sure makes everyone reading think it is all so easy.

Frank






> On Nov 29, 2015, at 3:25 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:
> 
> Odd question: yes I am working on test procedures with the CAU students. Today we are looking at the HTP chemical mass balance method which is intended to solve all the problems cause by trying to apply a carbon mass balance method from the liquid and gas fuel industries to a solid fuel burning device. 
> 
> Because stoves now do not often burn the carbon in proportion to the mass change, which is assumed to be 'burned whole fuel' there is a large error in the calculated volume of combustion gases. The error is the difference between the carbon portion of the fuel and the carbon portion of what actually burns. 
> 
> If the carbon content of the fuel is adjusted after the test (which people usually do not do) the result is better, but not correct. Even the new CSA Standard B415.1-2010 does not solve this. That is the new EPA wood heater test method.
> 
> There is an additional large error created by TLUDs drying fuel more rapidly than it is burned which creates a lot of evaporated water, which dilutes the stack gas, which lowers the density, which changes the constants for turning the dilution tunnel readings into a velocity, which also dilutes the PM readings, which ultimately affects the PM calculated mass AND the calculated filter-based mass. For wet fuels like lignite the error is large. B415.1 also has this problem, same as the other EPA methods. It is rooted in the assumption that the fuel burns homogeneously, like gas or diesel or gasoline. 
> 
> It is not a problem that can be corrected by a 'factor' as the error various continuously and differs between stoves and fuels. The solution is to make real time gas measurements and work out 'what just burned' and 'what just evaporated'.
> 
> It is often forgotten that a 'filter mass' method involves the mass of a tiny sample of the total and the extrapolation of that mass over a very much larger volume. The large volume is a calculated number based on several assumptions, some of which are almost always incorrect. We are seeking to use measurements instead of assumptions because solid fuels don't burn homogeneously.
> 
> This theoretical work started some time ago. The SEET Lab in Ulaanbaatar was fitted with the necessary equipment in January 2015. The CAU lab will be ready to roll in a couple of weeks. The YDD lab has been collecting filter masses that already reduce the total PM mass uncertainty several-fold compared with a dilution tunnel method but they have not yet implemented the correction for inhomogeneous drying of the fuel due to equipment still missing. 
> 
> For cast iron, ceramic lined TLUD coal stoves burning wet lignite the PM error, with filters or with a calibrated optical instrument, is large‎. This is particularly true for chimney stoves and hood testing in a humid environment like Jakarta or Kinshasa. 
> 
> There is still lots of work left for the next generation of testers. 
> 
> Regards 
> Crispin
> ‎
> Dear Crispin,
> ‎The
> 
> Thanks for the four page work sheet as it makes it very clear as to what values need to be obtained and how they are formulated - and the definition of the names they are called. Very helpful to me. 
> 
> Now the devil is in the details of getting these values without resorting to using too many ‘known’ book values that replace good testing. 
> 
> Are you working on test procedures?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Frank
> 
> Frank Shields
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Nov 29, 2015, at 2:31 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com <mailto:crispinpigott at outlook.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> In a word, yes. This is part of the testing context. To provide a confident prediction of future performance, the testing context should match the context of use.
>>  
>> >…what is being talked about for the other considerations about fuel that make a big difference regarding combustion? Like size distribution, shape, rate of adding fuel to the stove, bark covered, rounds or split, old dense wood or young saplings etc. etc. Is there a plan to use ‘like fuel’ to represent a specific area? Seems important to me. 
>>  
>> Thanks 
>>  
>> Frank
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.bioenergylists.org <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/ <http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151129/4d83b2e7/attachment.html>