[Stoves] stoves and credits again

Paul Anderson psanders at ilstu.edu
Fri Sep 29 20:33:40 CDT 2017


Crispin,

I am sure that Bill and Gordon in New Mexico (and others including 
mysel\f) will appreciate more info (details, photos, sizes, etc) about 
the continuous TLUDs with bottom feeding.   Please try to provide.

When mixing in the previously made char into the future batches of fuel, 
there are two concerns:

1.  Cannot mix in hot, glowing char (which would ignite low into the 
columnof fuel),  Therefore must be extinquished, which is an extra step.

2.  Char from a TLUD at whatever temperature of pyrolysis will 
essentially be "inert" material into a next batch to be pyrolyzed at the 
same temperature.   No gain.   Just filling space.    [[ But one 
exception:  created char can pick up some of the volatiles that are 
rising through it.   Those volatiles would be elegible to be released 
for making energy in the second round.   As far as I know, those 
volatiles would be a very very small percentage of the energy in the 
processes. }}    So why bother to do it, UNLESS the intention is to burn 
the created char (which should not be done in a TLUD).

I agree that anyone is allowed to test and experiment with any methods 
and materials.   What we are awaiting are reports of adoption of methods 
etc by significant numbers of appropriate users.

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 9/28/2017 10:29 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>
> Dear Paul
>
> Thanks for the ideas about char. I want to correct a couple of 
> impressions.
>
> *>*And users can continually drop in  more fuel, which is "trickle 
> feeding"and requires user attention.   TLUDs are batch units.
>
> This is only true some of the time. TLUD burners are frequently 
> (often, not rarely) built at small industrial scale using batch-push 
> feeding from below. I was surprised to find that the Stove Development 
> Centre in Ulaanbaatar has been making a number of these units – the 
> surprise coming from the fact that none of the domestic candidate 
> stoves had used this system. I saw one being repaired in August.  
> Being a TLUD does not mean it has to be a single batch unit.
>
> The char or charred fuel is not placed on top of the fresh fuel – it 
> is mixed in and forms part of the fuel. I don’t know what the upper 
> limits of content are, I believe for different stoves there are 
> different limits. The HTP spreadsheet was modified in 2013 or so to 
> accommodate this sort of ‘limited ability to recycle processed fuel’ 
> and still produce the correct ‘as burned’ (AB) fuel analysis that 
> forms the basis of the chemical mass balance calculation.
>
> Next, with reference to the recycling of fuel from one burn to the next:
>
> >Also, apart from the lab testing, is there evidence that the 
> Indonesian cooks are actually using the stove as it was being used in 
> the lab?
>
> That is not up to the lab performing the test. If a manufacturer comes 
> out with a novel method of construction and operation, it is up to the 
> lab to test it as designed, not to speculate about home someone in 
> future might use it.
>
> For a /project/ it makes a difference and a project might not adopt a 
> stove for promotion if the cultural conflicts with how it works. In 
> short, the testing does not stand in the way of innovation. There is a 
> clear separation between the invention and testing of products from 
> the projects that may or may not use them. I realise that there has 
> been a confabulation of projects and test protocols in the past. That 
> should end. A test method should be technology neutral.
>
> That said, a test protocol specific to a project is also valid. On 
> project I was associated with required that the stoves be mis-operated 
> and the performance reported because ‘obvious misuse’ is an accepted 
> risk and we wanted to know the implications.
>
>
> >These stoves can be operated in  different ways.
>
> Yes, but it would be good if you did not limit the operation of a TLUD 
> to a batch or trickle-feed mode. There are other products around. TLUD 
> coal and pellet and briquette burners are quite common. I expect one 
> day the TLUD promoters will accept this as a standard operating 
> technique because it overcomes several of the attested shortcomings of 
> batch-loaded stoves.
>
> >How many of each of those units (Todd's or the Indonesian ones) are in 
> daily use in  households?   I hope that the numbers of users are VERY 
> high.   Please send details.
>
> I am not sure stoves are listed by operating mode. Those that are 
> claimed to be operating as TLUDs with recycled fuel could be 
> identified by brand and the numbers (probably) extracted from the CSI 
> Indonesia aggregated sales numbers. It is in the thousands I suppose. 
> I am not the one to ask.
>
> Regards
>
> Crispin
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170929/240dcb03/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list