[Stoves] ***SPAM*** Re: ***SPAM*** RE: ***SPAM*** Re: Crude brick TLUD for developing countries

[Ronal Larson]

List, cc Crispin

	See two inserts below:

> On Nov 2, 2023, at 4:58 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Kevin
>  
> Very nice.  In terms of function, lighting, and body shape, it is identical to the Basenjengo Magogo which is a method of burning coal, popularized several times in South Africa, notably in the 70’s and in the 90’s.  Basenjengo Magogo means, “make it like grandmother does”.   It is also known as “the Scotch method” from at least 125 years ago.

	[RWL0:   I found quite a few cites to this - but none that included the word “stove”..  Since this list is restricted to wood fuel, I don’t think it appropriate to comment on this stove - which anyway seems quite different.  No mention anywhere of using the pyrolysis gases.  But coke is a fascinating subject.
>  

	More notes below.


> I have some suggestions:
>  
> Make the pot rests shorter, meaning the clearance between the pot bottom and the stove top.  You suggest plastering it with mud which would reduce off from the recommended 30mm, so measure.  A stove if that size and power requires between 8 and 10mm of pot-stove clearance.  It acts as a choke on the total gas flow which in many cases is far too high.  High air flow means cooler exhaust which is a heat loss. 
`		[RWL1:  This sounds like. Instructions for a Rocket - or a TLUD with a blower.  Neither is pertinent here.  Kevin’s cooks (5 so far) will have good guidance soon on details like this.  Probably will do exactly as they have been (and probably therefore quite good.  Bill Knauss has started some tests - tests that are not likely to be of much interest to users - who so far seem quite happy.
> At the bottom, make two holes half the size, opposite each other.  I realise this makes it more difficult to construct because removing one brick is very simple.  However once the fuel is falling and the space in the chamber is more open, having all the air enter from one side is a clear disadvantage for two reasons: the flames run to one side, and it tends to cook “off-centre”. 
		[RWL2:  Certainly valid in Rockets.  But the downward - moving pyrolysis front has always been remarkably uniform.  The fuel loading could be made bad intentionally, but I haven’t heard of this as a problem in TLUDs.
> In the same regard, you could make the two half-brick sized hole on opposite corners, not in the centre of the side.  This will at some point tend to rotate the flames which lengthens the flame path (free) which improves the chances that the smoke will burn.  This can be checked very easily. See if there is a visible improvement, side by side.  If there is, the improvement is a lot more than 15% because visual change has to be about that big to appear definite.
		[RWL3:  Same comment.  Appropriate for Rockets but not TLUDs.   There is zero oxygen exiting the top-most embers.
> If you can, place two ¼ holes in the centre of two opposite sides in layer 4, out of 6, or 3 out of 5.  This will introduce a portion of secondary air.  This will not be needed it you have too much air already, however there is a principle at stake.  With that fuel loading method and top lighting, towards the end there will be a large increase in the heat output as the last ¼ or 1/5th of the fuel burns.   

> [RWL4:  No fuel burning here - only pyrolysis.   Plots of power out are remarkably uniform all the way to the bottom - as long as no change is made with primary air.    Really quite remarkable - apparently the air flow resistance in the char bed changes almost perfectly to allow an unchanging power (with unchanging Primary air).  Unlike Rockets,  one can have nice TDR (turn down ratio)

> If there is no break in the draft it will tend to smoke much more because all the air is going to gas creation and none (save by chance) to gas burning. 
	[RWL5:   TLUDs are not known to smoke until the very end.   That is when you want to cut off all Primary.  But Kirk Harris reports a Nice clean end in his designs,

> When turning down the fire using a brick or partial brick in the hole(s) the secondary air will continue to flow and the smoke produced will the reduced (quite a bit probably).
		[RWL6:  There is zero relationship between the bottom primary holes and secondary air.   Secondary air is all related to pressure differences - which relate to “chimney”  height  and the fact that as CO2 and H2O are produced, 3 particles turn into two
> If you were to place one of your rock beds at the bottom and have a removable brick at later 2 through one of the sides, you could push in some stick fuel later and continue cooking indefinitely.  Because it would be loose some air would leak in but this is trivial.
		[RWL7:  Yes - added stick fuel is possible, although likely increases emissions.  But easy to just add fuel at the top.  I am unaware of any TLUd operating with added fuel at the bottom.  Works well for Rockets (except for smoke production) and TLUDs have to live with batch-mode limitations.

	I look forward to your comments on the values of making char for CDR purposes.   That is the principal reason Kevin has been developing this stove.  TLUDs can make money while cooking;  Rockets cannot.    But Kevin’s stove is giving other benefits too, seems likely.  Anyone able to do some emissions testing?
>  
> Thanks for your continuing innovation. 
>  
> For those wanting to build a more permanent version of this please check out the Esperandza Stove from Malawi which is public domain and similarly inexpensive.  Tens of thousands have been built.
	
	[RWL8:   This seems to be a brick “cube” version of a Rocket.   I found plenty of cites for this stove, like this one:
	https://energsustainsoc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13705-017-0124-1#:~:text=To%20combat%20deforestation%20and%20pollution,the%20traditional%203%2Dstone%20stove.

	But I could find no reference to it making char or money.    This (from above cite)  didn’t sound particularly helpful anyway:

	"Although Esperanza stove had earlier been reported to be more fuel efficient than the 3-stone stove, results revealed that due to improper use, the Esperanza stove consumed 86% more wood fuel compared to 3-stone stove.

End - . Ron
>  
> Best regards
> Crispin
>  
>  
> From: Stoves <stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>> On Behalf Of K McLean
> Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2023 7:58 AM
> To: Stoves and Biofuels Network <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>>
> Subject: [Stoves] ***SPAM*** Re: Crude brick TLUD for developing countries
>  
> Here is a link to the video.  I gave a bad link above.
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LzxhdfqVVmxUILnlajR3znF8CaauhbOu/view?usp=sharing
>  
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 8:53 AM K McLean <kmclean56 at gmail.com <mailto:kmclean56 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Here is a video <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org> demonstrating how to make and use a brick TLUD.  It works great, women love it.
> 1. It uses almost any fuel:  maize stalks and cobs, rice straw, dung, elephant grass stalks, sticks and twigs, etc..  So it allows women and girls to stop collecting firewood from forests and use renewable fuel that is nearby.
> 2. It is cheap to make and easy to use.  36 bricks usually cost under USD 1.
> 3. It is batch fed so cooks can light the top and leave the kitchen to do other things.  It will burn untended for 15-40 minutes, depending on the fuel.
> 4. There is much less visible smoke than from wood in three stone cookstoves.
> 5. It makes char that can be used as biochar or to make briquettes.
>  
> Has this been done before?  I'm presenting on it next week at the IBI biochar conference.  I don't want to present it as novel if it is not.
>  
> Thanks,
> Kevin McLean
> Sun24
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> 
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto: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/20231102/f1df66c3/attachment.html>