[Stoves] List of woods for TLUDs?

Sun Apr 30 16:19:41 CDT 2017

Dear Dr Karve:

Could you please give your views on why briquetting urban tree waste does not seem to be widely used in India? I don't know if the municipal corporations can use    the fuel themselves, but selling it along with TLUD stoves to the commercial market - even school lunch programs - should not be that difficult. 

Or do we need the Berkeley brethren to compute aDALYs from avoiding open burning of leaves and twigs?

Briquetting and charcoaling machines take energy. Is that a problem?

Nikhil 

> On May 1, 2017, at 1:41 AM, "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> AD:   (adding list - as AD’s point is one that should be seen by all)
> 
> 	Thanks.
> 
> 	I agree with your correction of my correction;  leaves by themselves aren’t going to work in a TLUD (or in a rocket).  I was thinking wood and wrote biomass.
> 
> 	But there are ways of turning leaves into a usable fuel - both through pelletizing and making briquettes.  Especially for TLUDs.
> 
> Ron
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> 
>> On Apr 29, 2017, at 5:04 AM, Anand Karve <adkarve at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Ron,
>> I too differ with your second sentence. Dry leaves of trees often pose a problem in a TLUD stove. Most leaves remain more or less flat when dry. When loaded into a TLUD fuel chamber, they do not allow air from the bottom holes to reach the burning biomass at the top. We tried unsuccessfully a lot of ways of stacking them. So now we tell our clients not to use dry leaves in a TLUD stove.
>> Yours
>> A.D.Karve
>> 
>> ***
>> Dr. A.D. Karve
>> 
>> Chairman, Samuchit Enviro Tech Pvt Ltd (www.samuchit.com)
>> 
>> Trustee & Founder President, Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI)
>> 
>>> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net> wrote:
>>> AD and list:
>>> 
>>> 	1.  I agree with your first sentence below. Additionally, we should mention non-woody biomass - especially rice husks, which have extremely low density.   The only low density fuel I never was able to use in a TLUD was dung.  I consider this another major plus for TLUDs.
>>> 
>>> 	2.  I differ on your second sentence.  I think a TLUD is to be preferred for all forms of biomass.
>>> 
>>> Ron
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Apr 28, 2017, at 7:36 PM, Anand Karve <adkarve at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> It is also my experience that the wood considered to be undesirable for a normal wood burning stove turned out to be highly suitable for a TLUD stove. One should use the dense woods in a normal wood burning stove and less dense woods in a TLUD stove.
>>>> Yours
>>>> A.D.Karve
>>>> 
>>>> ***
>>>> Dr. A.D. Karve
>>>> 
>>>> Chairman, Samuchit Enviro Tech Pvt Ltd (www.samuchit.com)
>>>> 
>>>> Trustee & Founder President, Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI)
>>>> 
>>>>> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Frank Shields <franke at cruzio.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Neil,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I believe the test package I put together would answer your questions. That because when working on the procedures and selecting the different tests I had what you are referring to in mind. They include test like:
>>>>> Moisture, size distribution, particle shape, particle density, bulk density, void space (for air flow), volatiles and fixed carbon using the pipe method, Ash and ash properties, - I think that is about it as I remember. I had some other ideas using air flowing artificial ’smoke’ but to lack of interest never followed through.
>>>>> Then we need to correlate the results from the above tests to determine how they relate to a stove performance. That I never attempted but I do think I have all the methods and tests that is appropriate to do the job.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> 
>>>>> Frank
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> > On Apr 28, 2017, at 10:01 AM, neiltm at uwclub.net wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I live in the UK, so my references below to species of wood are biased
>>>>> > for this part of the world.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I have been looking for information about the burn quality of different
>>>>> > woods, but mostly can only find information relating to open fires.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Poplar in its various sub species is generally rated low as a desirable
>>>>> > burning wood, and described as 'smoky'.  I just burned some dried Italian
>>>>> > poplar in the Reed sl woodgas campstove, and although it made a smoky
>>>>> > start, which was probably down to my lighting technique or lack thereof,
>>>>> > once underway it burned completely smokelessly and with no stinging of
>>>>> > the eyes until just before the end when it again produced some smoke
>>>>> > briefly.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I would like to understand more about the qualities of different woods in
>>>>> > relation to TLUD stoves and wondered if anyone has ever attempted to
>>>>> > classify or rate woods for these stoves?  I understand that some woods
>>>>> > like hornbeam, plum, hawthorn are the most dense (highest mass), and
>>>>> > therefore likely to liberate more heat or a longer burn per batch, and
>>>>> > that woods like willow or poplar are at the lighter end of the spectrum.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > With poplar in particular I would like to understand why it is a smoky
>>>>> > wood, which it is if you burn it on an open fire?  Should that not mean
>>>>> > it produces more wood gas, thereby making it ideal for TLUDs?  I have yet
>>>>> > to find a problematic wood for these stoves unless it is our cultivated
>>>>> > apricot in the garden which has always been truly terrible, even when
>>>>> > dry.  Yet fruit woods are supposed to be prized!
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Neil Taylor
>>>>> >
>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > 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/
>>>>> >
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> 
>>>>> Frank
>>>>> Frank Shields
>>>>> Gabilan Laboratory
>>>>> Keith Day Company, Inc.
>>>>> 1091 Madison Lane
>>>>> Salinas, CA  93907
>>>>> (831) 246-0417 cell
>>>>> (831) 771-0126 office
>>>>> fShields at keithdaycompany.com
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> franke at cruzio.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.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
>>>> 
>>>> 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
> 
> 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/20170501/ac231026/attachment.html>