[Stoves] "Young-adult" TLUD research Re: List of woods for TLUDs?
Paul Anderson
psanders at ilstu.edu
Sun Apr 30 11:18:07 CDT 2017
Nikhil, see below.
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 4/30/2017 9:57 AM, Nikhil Desai wrote:
> Paul and Ron:
>
> Leaving efficiency aside, which kind of controls would help regulate
> power and duration of cooking from the cook's perspective, optimizing
> the use of her/his time and preferences for timing and composition of
> meals?
I understand about controls, but my time now is focused on expanding the
number of TLUD stoves in use, and current designs are appropriate for
now. I am very short on available time.
>
> Are there some 200 "focus groups" for opinions input and testing of
> new biomass cookstoves for different client groupings?
Again, although what you mention is extremely important, right now we
have highly successful acceptance of the Champion woodgas TLUD stove in
West Bengal, that being ONE or a few "focus groups" that need to be
served well. The other 197 will be best served by seeing the current
great success story become even larger. (Major need right now is some
grants, loans and/or carbon credit purchases so that we can get enough
stoves into the field locations where there are plenty of purchasers.
Whatever amount comes in gets put to prompt use.)
>
> If not, what we have been doing might only win approvals from pals and
> peers.
I have worked on TLUD stoves for over 16 years. The approvals are from
far more that pals and peers. And I do thank the pals and peers for
their support. Please continue.
(end of my new content)
Paul
>
> At the GWU session in mid-January, GACC CEO had a poignant, and
> entirely valid, comment about the evidence base for benefits of clean
> cookstoves.
>
> In the present instance, I tend to side with Paul. I had a very
> primitive introduction to air flow, combustion power and duration, and
> different meals with different kinds of charcoal stoves (with a
> kerosene stove for heating water and deep frying). I imagine the
> ratio of primary to secondary air can only be contextual.
>
> I am not sure usable stoves must remain "inexpensive". There's
> probably a serviceable market for stove-fuel combinations of any kind,
> even those currently in Science Fiction world. Just takes identifying
> the market.
>
> Another thought toward Robert van der Plas' suggestion for
> re-learning: find the cooks and foods, and characterize the fuels and
> timing options. (In some parts of India, heating milk seems to have
> declined in household stove use. Not an insignificant change. Does
> SA/PA matter?)1
>
> Nikhil
>
>
> On Apr 30, 2017, at 9:03 AM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu
> <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>> wrote:
>
>> Ron,
>>
>> I disagree. You wrote:
>>> preferring to use one controller for both is that the ratio of
>>> primary to secondary should always be the same
>> The point is that the ratio is NOT to always be the same. Even the
>> different packing of the fuel in to the TLUD can make primary air
>> (PA) flow more easily, creating more gases and needing a change in
>> secondary air (SA) to get optimal performance.
>>
>> Automobiles have sensors for all kinds of issues, with automated
>> adjustments. Just not practical yet for cookstoves that need to be
>> inexpensive. Bu who knows, someday solid biomass as initial fuel
>> could be pyrolyzed and have the gases combusted in very controlled
>> ways that would seem like Science Fiction if said today. I believe
>> that it will be justified for the woodgas/TLUD stoves, but not for
>> the old-hat ICS stoves, including rockets.
>>
>> Nathan Puffer''s work was not quantitatively evaluated. It was a
>> demonstration that made its point but was not in a way that could be
>> into large numbers of stoves at that time and still today.
>>
>> 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 4/29/2017 9:46 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
>>> Paul, cc Nathan and list
>>>
>>> Thanks for bringing up the two subjects of a) separately
>>> controlling secondary air, and b) oily (mostly seed?) fuels.
>>>
>>> I agree that we should be controlling secondary air, but I am pretty
>>> sure that we should and can do this with the same controller as for
>>> the primary air. Most TLUDs already can and should control primary
>>> air, but make no effort to control the secondary air. My reason
>>> for preferring to use one controller for both is that the ratio of
>>> primary to secondary should always be the same if we want (or can
>>> live with) a fixed ratio for excess air. One controller is cheaper
>>> and is easier for the cook. Anyone disagree?
>>>
>>> On the subject of using Jaropha seeds, I am pretty sure that we
>>> would need a larger amount of “secondary” air than for non-oily
>>> fuels, but that there still could be a single air controller (just
>>> with a larger SA/PA ratio [ maybe goes from about 6:1 up to 7:1
>>> ??]. Note that these oils cannot combust as they pass through the
>>> hot charcoal above the downward moving pyrolysis front (no oxygen in
>>> that stream). But I presume the temperature is enough for them to
>>> arrive above the char as quite a different set of gases. So, I’d
>>> like to hear more about what Nathan found. Any cite we can look up?
>>>
>>> I agree with the rest of Paul’s comments. TLUDs are not yet a
>>> mature technology - but it is growing up; it is not standing still.
>>>
>>> Ron
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Apr 29, 2017, at 8:14 AM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu
>>>> <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> To all, 29 April 2017 [This note contains
>>>> some new content and explanations for the advancement of TLUD stoves.]
>>>>
>>>> 1. Ron: I and probably some others have successfully used dung
>>>> as the input fuel into TLUDs. I am not recommending dung, but if
>>>> it is being burned, then a TLUD is preferred for cleaner burning.
>>>>
>>>> 2. AD: I agree with Ron that the TLUD stoves are better with
>>>> both light and hard (heavy) wood than direct burning of them in any
>>>> direct-burning (ICS) stove.
>>>>
>>>> 3. Main point, to Neil and all: TLUDs are not burning wood
>>>> directly. TLUDs turn wood into gases. THEN the gases are
>>>> burned. So poplar, maple, maize cobs, dung, etc. are ALL becoming
>>>> gases first. THEN the burning of those gases might be somewhat
>>>> different (but not as much as the direct burning of those diverse
>>>> fuels).
>>>>
>>>> TLUD stoves are just arriving into their "young-adult stage." In
>>>> contrast: not infancy, not childhood, maybe still "youth", but
>>>> certainly not full maturity, and a long way from the "old age" of
>>>> the ICS "Inproved or Inadequate" direct-burning cookstoves. This
>>>> is because we are still learning about better and better ways of
>>>> mixing the combustible gases with the incoming secondary air (SA)
>>>> (This is where the BURNING takes place to make the heat that goes
>>>> to the pot. TLUDs are DIRECTLY burning GASES, not solid fuels. )
>>>> (Please see my "Classification of Stove Technology and Fuels"
>>>> documents (1-page and 4-page versions) at
>>>> http://www.drtlud.com/2017/04/11/classification-stove-technologies-fuels/
>>>> )
>>>>
>>>> The _solid _wood and dung etc are an intermediate stage of the
>>>> fuel. Sort of a "storage" stage. Then pyrolysis "transforms
>>>> solids into gases plus charcoal". The created gases are then
>>>> burned SEPARATELY (by centimeters and seconds, but certainly
>>>> separately) from where the gases were created. We do not have
>>>> clear terminology for this, in layman's terms. The closest might
>>>> be "gas burning stoves that make their own gases."
>>>>
>>>> So, what development is happening in the early "young-adult"
>>>> stage? Control of primary air, learning about solid "intermediate"
>>>> fuels, and improving combustion of the gases, as well as "new
>>>> clothes" with sizes and mateials.
>>>>
>>>> Consider this: We have known of FA (forced air or fan assisted)
>>>> TLUD stoves from the 1990s. And there has been much progress. But
>>>> NO TLUD on the market has SEPARATE controls for "variable flows" of
>>>> primary air (PA) and secondary air (SA). THAT control is what
>>>> will make the difference regarding Neil's initial question that
>>>> pointed to differences in the initial fuels (and therefore
>>>> differences in the resultant gases and quantities of gases that are
>>>> being burned.)
>>>>
>>>> Note that TLUDs can be made with different flows of PA ans SA by
>>>> changing the sizes and number of holes. That is a form of "tuning"
>>>> the TLUD for a specific fuel. This works great for one initial
>>>> fuel, but only good but acceptable with other fringe fuels. I am
>>>> NOT referring to that work as being "variable flows". I am
>>>> referring to when the user can change the flows, even during one
>>>> batch of fuel.
>>>>
>>>> There has been some researach (mostly unreported and set aside) on
>>>> variable control of primary and secondary air, using fans. I have
>>>> experimented several times. The "million-dollar-grants" have had
>>>> laboratory equipment with controlled and measured separate air
>>>> flows. Nathan Puffer did it when we were looking at Jatropha SEEDS
>>>> as a fuel. Seeds give off additional gases from the vaporization
>>>> (not pyrolysis) of combustible vegetable oils (carbohydrates),
>>>> which are much more plentiful in seeds than in stems and branches
>>>> and leaves, thereby overwhelming the insufficient supply of SA in a
>>>> "regular" TLUD-FA.
>>>>
>>>> There is a good reason to not have separate control of PA and SA.
>>>> That reason is the user, the cook. To need to "dial-in" the right
>>>> flow of SA (assuming PA flow stays the same) is, for the most part
>>>> and for most non-scientist cooks, an extra task that could easily
>>>> be done incorrectly. And there are the financial reasons of
>>>> increased cost and maintenance.
>>>>
>>>> But with "separate air-flow control" (not an established term and
>>>> NOT justifying an acronym like SAC, as in TLUD-SAC), Neil or anyone
>>>> could put many very different initial fuels into a TLUD and have
>>>> greater control of the burning of the gases.
>>>>
>>>> More work is needed before TLUD stoves can reach their full
>>>> potential, while growing in "young-adulthood". Today (2017), maybe
>>>> 40% of what can be known about TLUD stoves is now known (but not
>>>> necessarily put into practice by stove manufacturers).
>>>>
>>>> (This note is being placed at the EPosts section of my website
>>>> www.drtlud.com so that it can be accessed continually instead of
>>>> only one time on the Stove Listserv.)
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web
>>>> site:
>>>> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> 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/20170430/98d59a8f/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list