[Stoves] Fuel qualities as the limiting factor, and getting rid of WBT (Was: Frank on helium surrogate)

Sun Jan 29 05:30:27 CST 2017

Dear Crispin,

If airflow, temperature and pressure, dilution etc. is needed then you can forget it. But you have the entire stove on a balance? and monitoring the total weight loss?  - Ive never done that but first thoughts are it seems iffy. 

The lower heat value? Meaning the moisture and hydrogen in the wood are somehow separated in the weight loss? Perhaps I do not understand how that works. 

The chemical composition will change as the volatiles finish and the chars start to combust. This change in primary combustion gasses monitored very accurately with Helium (If it even works!). 

If getting stoves cleaner is the goal (along with people wanting to cook in the clean way) we need to prepare the fuel for the stove as that is the limiting factor. Nothing will get cleaner until that is done. And a pile of nice dry and sized biomass ready for the stove should be welcome to the cook. Before this we need to know the optimum fuel conditions for a stove and that is determined in the lab and sent with the stove. 

Regards

Have fun at ETHOS - wish I could be there. 

Frank

> On Jan 29, 2017, at 3:02 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Frank
> 
> All that can be done without helium. A chemical mass balance method can not only do that, it can give you the LHV in real time which means a real-time efficiency, not a 'guessed one'‎ dependent on a guess that whatever mass of missing fuel is 'raw fuel'.
> 
> Regards
> Crispin
> 
> 
> Stovers
> 
> If we all believe biomass stoves are going to be around for a long time and, perhaps their use increase with population and Global Warming I think it important for us to make plans to take this up a notch.
> 
> My long range thinking is that if the Helium Surrogate works to establish the optimum gas makeup for the secondary we use that for making adjustments and rating stoves. For example testing dry wood and doing more tests using wetter and wetter wood we map the changes in the gas composition and correlate it to the flame temperature(?). Once we record the gas mix that starts to cool the flame to a point there are problems that is set as our limit. Picking out wild fuels for testing we can then easily (in the lab using expensive equipment) determine the upper limit for moisture that fuel can have. Other properties for testing is primary air, fuel placement, fan speed, and a bunch of things that optimize the burn. All based on what is needed to adjust the gas going into the secondary for what we now know is an optimum mix. We (labs) can then give a report to that stove developer what conditions need be meet for best performance. And if performed at ‘Best’ just how good is that.
> 
> Once we determine what gas mixes are best suitable for combustion we can just take a stove and the fuel and see how close we can get to that mix making adjustments. Thats it. Helium is there to accurately determine rate the gases are coming off the solid fuel without needing considerations for dilution from primary, air speed, temperature, gas leaks, pressure etc. Reported as mg CO-C per ml He. If we bleed in He at a rate of 1000 mls per minute and get a reading of 25 mg CO-C / ml He then we have 25000 mg carbon coming off of the biomass as CO-C per minute.
> That reading along with other compositions of carbon should give a good mass balance of fuel to gas.
> 
> Beyond this thinking I need a lot of help.
> 
> Frank
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jan 28, 2017, at 1:04 PM, neiltm at uwclub.net wrote:
>> 
>> On 28 Jan 2017 at 9:06, Frank Shields
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> As an example; it is pointless to test for low power and high power using
>>> processed biomass then expect the stove to do the same using unknown wild
>>> biomass. That biomass may not even light in the stove. So we need to first
>>> quantify the fuels. That is much more than just ~oakTM and ~pineTM,
>>> ~dungTM and 'pellets'. How to do that? I have ideas and I am sure you
>>> do also. We need money for the research. I have worked with biomass for
>>> many years and most of my ideas i have tested many times. But I don't know
>>> how well the test will pertain to actual stove combustion. I have yet to
>>> make that connection.
>> 
>> Given that so much money seems to be
>> spent on stove lab testing anyway, why
>> not simply give away a quantity of
>> stoves on a sort of crowd sourcing basis,
>> to as many cooks willing and motivated
>> to test them in as many different
>> countries, climates and settings as
>> possible and then collate their reports
>> on the strengths and weaknesses, the
>> versatility or lack thereof, how and how
>> frequently they use them etc etc.
>> 
>> The example of the paraffin primus
>> stove was cited the other day as an
>> example of a single stove suitable for a
>> great variety of environments all around
>> the world, as of course the LPG stove
>> doubtless is.  Easy because the fuel is
>> always the same. The extent to which a
>> biomass stove might approach such
>> universal adaptability with unprocessed
>> biomas is surely interesting, and might
>> be crowdsourced as it were to
>> determine the answer perhaps?
>> 
>> Some idea might thereby be guaged as
>> to the optimum environments for the
>> stove in Q, such that it could then be
>> 'sold' with confidence to those
>> environments and user profiles.  The
>> parameters of variability of biomass
>> used might be further assessed by
>> targetted visits to particularly
>> interesting and/or typical sounding
>> users, to firm up on more precise
>> measurements and understandings of
>> their successful uses and useful limits.
>> The cooks are then then the testers
>> informing the stove designers.
>> 
>> 'My' Chinese ebay stove for eg. would
>> probably emerge as particularly well
>> suited to its actually intended market,
>> but with an emphasis on temperate
>> rather than say dry hot or tropical
>> regions where *lack* of sufficient
>> moisture in available biomass seems
>> likely to be more of a problem and
>> where a stove with sufficient primary
>> air control, or fixed at a lower
>> proportion to secondary might be more
>> appropriate.  Preliminary lab testing
>> could obviously filter prospective users
>> to target, but only such actual real use
>> is surely ever going to reveal the real
>> strengths and weaknesses of any stove?
>> 
>> The Reed woodgas campstoves I would
>> say, while successful, were not
>> optimally so in the temperate zones they
>> were mostly bought in I'm guessing, but
>> great in dry conditions. Just a limited
>> example to illustrate my point.
>> 
>> It interests me that the Chinese stove is
>> so much better than any of the
>> tincanium stoves I have made.  Also the
>> Reed XL stove performed better on its
>> original burn chamber than the one I
>> fabricated rather crudely out of sheet
>> steel to replace it when it burned out,
>> despite reproducing accurately the
>> number, size and position of the
>> primary and secondary air holes.  It still
>> works satisfactorily, but not as well, and
>> so it seems that design and quality
>> manufacturing makes a significant
>> difference.  It would be great if an even
>> better wood gas camp stove were to be
>> manufactured, yet I suspect probably
>> won't be, maybe can't be?, but only
>> perhaps with other preferred (or not)
>> strengths and weaknesses, such as
>> trading fuel versatility with soot on
>> pans.  I'd love to be proved wrong of
>> course!
>> 
>> 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/
> 
> 

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