[Stoves] Testing TLUD

[Kirk H.]

Andrew,

Thank you for your response.

I have not tried experiments with various moisture content fuel.  I have tried found sticks and it worked like other TLUD-NDs, better with more solid wood and less bark or rot.  After Berkley I left the stove at Aprovecho where Dean and Sam did some experimenting with it.  I know they tried various fuels with good results, but I don’t know if they tried varying the moisture content.  I suspect the stove would lose some performance, much like other TLUDs and wood stoves in general do with water taking up the heat.  Moisture experiments would be very useful.  Thank you for the suggestion.

I may have left a false impression with my former email, that Aprovechos equipment is not that sensitive and Lawrence Berkleys equipment should only be used for a final test.  Both are useful for both purposes.  Berkleys laser based equipment responds faster to changes in the stove than Aprovechos chemical based equipment, and that speed gives better real time feed back on the computer screen.  The filters and weight scales I believe are equivalent.  

My understanding is that Aprovecho is not a company, but rather is a nonprofit.  

I wish you could play with some emission testing too.  It was very helpful.

Kirk H.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Andrew Heggie
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2017 1:48 PM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Subject: [Stoves] Testing TLUD

Trying to return to particulate emissions in  use with non uniform
quality fuels.

On 19 October 2017 at 05:11, Kirk H. <gkharris316 at comcast.net> wrote:
>  Dean Still has
> offered the use of Aprovecho’s lab to others as well as myself.  He tells me
> that I am the only one who ever took him up on it.

It's a shame they are too far from me, I'd like to play with some
emissions testing.


>I spent two weeks at
> Aprovecho in March of 2016, using their equipment to improve the turn-down
> and emissions of my TLUD-ND.  I repeatedly tested iterations under the hood.
> The resultant stove finally worked as desired, being able to burn clean at
> various power levels.  Dean then gave me a test at Lawrence Berkley National
> Labs burn lab which Aprovecho had received in an EPA grant.  The stove
> tested at tier 4 in most catigories.  This would not have been possible
> without Aprovecho.
>

Did you ever do any tests with fuel at varying moisture contents?

I'd like to see such tests with TLUD  and looking at the yield and
quality of char remaining.
>
>
> I noted that Aprovecho’s equipment was not as sensitive as Berkley’s, but it
> was also a fraction of the cost to build.  If used properly there is a place
> for both types of equipment.  Apro’s equipment is excellent for pounding
> away at a problem and cleaning up the stove.  Berkeley’s equipment is great
> for getting final detailed lab test results.  I don’t see one as being good
> and the other bad, but that each has it’s strengths and its place.

Yes perfection being the enemy of good enough.

Andrew

_______________________________________________
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/20171023/4a0cca15/attachment.html>