<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Richard,<br>
I agree that fire moving up into the fuel supply bin is a primary
concern. Not just because of the risk of a fire in a place not
designed for fire, but because it implies that the combustion
process down below is not in a steady state. I disagree that a
seal on the bin is necessary to minimize the risk of back burn.
The beauty of a 'powerless', gadgetless, gravity based process is
that a good deal of risk is eliminated. After that it is a
question of materials, construction and air flow.<br>
<br>
So at the time of writing this my stove has been running for four
hours and the temperature of the flowing pellets three inches
above the stove is 65C. These pellets are feeding at a rate of
about 0.7 liters per hour. <br>
<br>
Alex<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 23/10/2012 3:55 PM, Richard Stanley wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:98590BB4-31D7-4DB6-B359-D41FD0F13820@legacyfound.org"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>From Lenny Hansen, several years ago, the point was made
that one would have to seal that feed tube from any incoming
air, to minimise the risk of back burn up the feed tube. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Richard Stanley</div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.legacyfound.org">www.legacyfound.org</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>