[Stoves] A debate about "efficiencies"..... was Re: ABCEG deceit and conceit

[Frank Shields]

Nikhil,

A lab test I do is pack a pipe with oven dried biomass. Screw on both end caps and loosen one about 1/2 turn. Place in a temperature controlled furnace and take to 450 deg. C. for an hour. The gases leave leaving the char. The size of the pipe can be any size but large enough to get a representative sample of biomass. The char produced is the maximum of highest quality char the biomass can produce. [this when not concerned with activity]. This weight can be used as the total weight of char that can be produced.  Ron then determines the weight of char he produced and calculates the percentage of the total. 

The other side of the coin is the energy released. Total energy of the biomass (calorimeter) - the energy of the char (DAF) in the pipe experiment = energy released. This volatile energy is the primary source of heat for boiling water. I suggest this value used as the Total Energy released from the biomass. You then determine the energy into the water and calculate the percent used. 

Both Ron and Water boiling people can use this formula on the same test as they do not overlap. It the water boiling people has a stove that steals energy from the weight of char Ron wants then they may have a stove reporting 110% efficient. Thats ok because its just a value comparing stoves. And that stove is an excellent stove for boiling water but poor at making char. 

> Why are we so stuck on physics alone? Where is the chemistry and the economics? 


I think its because highly educated people have their formulas they must use so they design the experiments around their formula. People like me revert back to grade school lessons and develop methods taught in fifth grade. For many years i thought I was just smarter than everyone else. But now I am sure that can’t be. So now I think the engineers NEED to use their formulas. They should let us grade schoolers design and set up the experiments and then come in with their formulas to try to make sense of what we did. 

regards

Frank




> On Jan 13, 2017, at 10:44 AM, Traveller <miata98 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Frank: 
> 
> Do you mean by "volatiles go off" that they are burnt inside the pipe and generate energy? 
> 
> I thought that was an important idea behind "Advanced Biomass Stoves" fantasy in India some five years ago. 
> 
> Ended "Up in Smoke". PAFs and PM2.5 together. 
> 
> Why are we so stuck on physics alone? Where is the chemistry and the economics? 
> 
> Nikhil
> 
> --------- 
> (US +1) 202-568-5831
>  
> 
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Frank Shields <franke at cruzio.com <mailto:franke at cruzio.com>> wrote:
> Dear Ron, Crispin and Paul,
> 
> I am thinking the biomass should be first heated in a pipe and the volatiles go off. 
> The energy of the char (DAF) is estimated. That subtracted from the total to get the energy volatilized.  
> 
> Run the WBT
> Now you have the (char made)/(Max char that could be made) X 100 = percentage of total char
> Now you have the (energy into the pot) / (Total volatile energy released) X 100 = percent of energy recovered. 
> 
> If you get more than 100% of the char you have torrefied wood. 
> If you get less than 100% some char has been oxidized. 
> 
> If you get more than 100 % heat efficiency you have used some of the char heat.
> Many reasons if you get less than 100%. 
> 
> 
> 
> This way both interests (char making and water boiling) can be looked at at the same time. 
> 
> Frank
> 
> 
> 
>  

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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170113/725e959f/attachment.html>