<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 9.00.8112.16749">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Julien,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I have added and
removed the components from the stove and watched the results on
an informal basis. What you are describing is more formal
and will take a lot more time. My thought is that one cannot do this
until the component is designed and its function is understood as much as
possible. The wick, for example, is brand new and my time was spent
discovering it and finding a design that worked. There are a
number of wicks that didn't work. No sense getting information on
those. Now that there is one that works, your plan is good. Still,
there are a number of untried wick designs I would like to try. Should I
wade through those first and perhaps find one that works even better, or
focus on the current design. Each component effects the others, like
the change needed in the stationary fan when turn-down was
increased. The whole system should probably be optimized as much
as possible before detailed measurements are taken. On the other hand,
the information you describe could lead to an improved component or system,
so the informal and the formal can work together. My conclusion is that in
time, and it is close, I will need to do as you suggest. You are
right, that information will be important and useful. Thank you for the
thoughts and the direction. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Kirk</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=winter.julien@gmail.com href="mailto:winter.julien@gmail.com">Julien
Winter</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org
href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">Discussion of biomass cooking
stoves</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, April 11, 2016 5:38
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [Stoves] Time at Aprovecho</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>Hi Kirk;<BR></DIV><BR></DIV>Thanks for your update, and documents.
You are doing some pioneering work for natural draft TLUDs. It is
important for follow creative lines of inquiry, because we shouldn't expect —
based on current practice and theory — that we can reliably predict the
results ahead of time. The more complex the system, the more important
it is to experiment. TLUD syngas is variable and
complex!!<BR><BR></DIV>One challenge that we face with natural draft burners
is making them work over a wide range of gas production rates. It is
interesting to see how you have designed various components to come into play
as flame size increases. These innovations may be applicable to
other styles of burner, especially the stator.<BR><BR></DIV>I expect that you
have done this, but have you measured burner emissions as you sequentially
added components to your burner or unblock secondary air intakes? As
each component is added, I would test its performance over a range of gas
production rates. For example, what difference does it make to have the
stator installed, or not, at different power levels? A graph of
particulate emissions vs. specific gasifcation rate (or primary air
superficial velocity), with two curves ±stator would be informative.
This kind of analysis would help others to see the relative contribution (or
interference) of the various components. <BR><BR>If you have this kind
of data, it would make an interesting paper. <BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>This, by the way, is what I call 'stove testing'; not a couple of Water
Boiling Tests V.4.2.3 which to me looks more like 'stove
certification'.<BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>You have done a number of interesting things that I have not
tried, because I have only played arround with the main site for for
introducting secondary air. Your work stimulated me to try the "annular,
cross-current burner".<BR>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Thanks again for sharing the progress of your work.<BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR clear=all>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>Cheers,<BR></DIV>
<DIV>Julien.<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV>-- <BR>
<DIV class=gmail_signature>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>Julien Winter<BR>Cobourg, ON,
CANADA<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>Stoves mailing
list<BR><BR>to Send a Message to the list, use the email
address<BR>stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org<BR><BR>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change
your List Settings use the web
page<BR>http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org<BR><BR>for
more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web
site:<BR>http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/<BR><BR>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P><A></A>
<P align=left avgcert?? color="#000000">No virus found in this
message.<BR>Checked by AVG - <A
href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</A><BR>Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus
Database: 4556/12013 - Release Date: 04/11/16</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>