<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Ronal W. Larson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net" target="_blank">rongretlarson@comcast.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;"><div>Norbert cc Biochar list, Andrew, MHA (Masonry Heating Association) list, and Terrence and Steven</div><div><br></div><div><span class="gmail-m_5073098724179335148Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>1. Hello to MHA and Terrence and Steven - who I see are in Ontario Government departments. Feel free to jump in.</div><div><br></div><div><span class="gmail-m_5073098724179335148Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>2, I am particularly thinking of folks in Ontario modifying MHA systems so they produce char (mostly to go in the soil). I believe MH users could find that fuel costs could become negative. (This idea thanks to Andrew) The fuel piles will have to be larger or re-fired more often - but these char-makers seem to be cleaner.</div><div><span class="gmail-m_5073098724179335148Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>I think it pretty unlikely to get through US departments as rapidly as OMAFRA and OMOECC, where Government official seem to believe there is global warming.</div><div><br></div><div>See few comments below - and thanks for yours.</div><div><br></div>(snip)</div></blockquote><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;"><span class="gmail-"><span class="gmail-m_5073098724179335148Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"></span></span><b>[RWLC: I think we are a long way from having acceptance of a “ software simulator”.</b><div><b><span class="gmail-m_5073098724179335148Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>I would have guess that most of your MH units are “one-off”. They can’t be tested in the field at low enough cost?</b></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>In the masonry heater industry we have a precedent from Austria. They have a proprietary calculator, that is accepted for certifying one-off heaters. The main nuts and bolts behind the math is the European EN-13384 chimney calculation standard. You basically calculate the friction (pressure) losses for "worst case scenario" which is with a half load, in the summer, and verify that the appliance will draft properly. Damien Lehmann in France has developed an open source version and we are trying to extend it to include additional heater types than only the Austrian style. Austrian heaters are "channeled", where the pressure loss calculation is based on the channel cross sections and length. In North America we have started building for example, a Russian system that is based on buoyancy and has significantly less friction and that the Austrian calculator can't handle.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;"><div><b><span class="gmail-m_5073098724179335148Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span> How much change in “fuel analysis” during a batch burn</b><b>? Hadn’t heard of this. but found several papers related toMHA, such as</b></div><div><a href="http://mha-net.org/docs/temp/2017-10-16%20Pemberton-Pigott%20-%20Decombustion%20Theory.pdf" target="_blank">http://mha-net.org/docs/temp/<wbr>2017-10-16%20Pemberton-Pigott%<wbr>20-%20Decombustion%20Theory.<wbr>pdf</a>.</div><div><b><span class="gmail-m_5073098724179335148Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Mt tentative conclusion is that this is un-needed for TLUDs, but i am surprised at the assumptions needed. I look forward to understanding this and why measurements aren’t enough.</b></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>After seeing Crispin's presentation on this at the Stove Design Challenge event in 2014 at Brookhaven Lab in NY, a team from the University of Buffalo did some work with it on a cordwood boiler. They found that with a batch burn of standardized briquettes and a constant fuel composition assumption "...H2O is underpredicted at early times and overpredicted during the charcoal oxidation stage, resulting in a mean error of approximately 64%". The good news is that the two sort of cancel each other out. I think the error in calculating overall efficiency was somewhere in the 3% range.<span class="gmail-"><br><br></span></div><div><span class="gmail-">For our calculator effort, we need an accurate flue mass flow rate and therefore need to measure H2O. Therefore, Crispin's approach should tie in well with this.<br></span></div><div><span class="gmail-"><br><span class="gmail-m_5073098724179335148Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"></span></span><b>[RWLE: I googled for Testo 330-2 and “inexpensive NDIR benches” (on behalf of Andrew’s emphasis on this) and tentatively concluded we can’t yet get equipment CO and particulates in the range of $100. (NDIR = Non-dispersive infra-red)</b><span class="gmail-"><br><br></span></div><div><span class="gmail-">Yes, that would be a stretch. A Testo is in the $2500 range. There is an interesting NDIR bench on ebay for $26.00:<br><a href="https://www.ebay.com/itm/NDIR-Infrared-Carbon-Dioxide-CO2-Sensor-Module-MH-Z14A-Serial-Port-0-5000ppm/282697897512?epid=14007377319&hash=item41d21b9628:g:cZ4AAOSwjodZ5eRL">https://www.ebay.com/itm/NDIR-Infrared-Carbon-Dioxide-CO2-Sensor-Module-MH-Z14A-Serial-Port-0-5000ppm/282697897512?epid=14007377319&hash=item41d21b9628:g:cZ4AAOSwjodZ5eRL</a><br><br></span></div><div><span class="gmail-">but it only goes to 5000 ppm, likely for HVAC room occupancy measurements. In principle, you would only need to shorten the chamber in order to get a higher range. At least that is what I have seen on some older Horiba benches.<br></span></div><div><span class="gmail-"><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div>CO is interesting to watch, but we don't care that much about it. It is not regulated in North America, and is not a health issue except in dense urban areas. When we tested the Austrian eco-labelled air system, PM dropped about 50% and CO dropped about 80%. We were a lot more excited about the PM drop, because this is the number that matters here to regulators. Europeans have told us that the United States is about 10 years ahead of Europe in air quality regulation. Largely due to California, in particular Los Angeles. The Europeans are only just now recognizing the PM problem in urban areas from diesel and wood burning, and addressing this in their regulations.<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote></span><div><span class="gmail-m_5073098724179335148Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><b>[RWLF: Good. Maybe that helps the garage testing of TLUDs a bit. If you ever hear of something in the $100 range, I believe a lot of people on this list would be willing to add PM to what they are already able to do quite cheaply to get weight, temperatures, and times for energy efficiency computations.<br><br></b></div><div>Before my Testo arrived, I was able to do some useful stuff by measuring opacity. $1.00 CdS sensor, light source, ohm-meter:<br></div><div><a href="http://www.mha-net.org/graphics2/17121701.JPG">www.mha-net.org/graphics2/17121701.JPG</a><br><br></div><div>It shows you where in your cycle the PM is, but is hard to correlate with the "EPA number"</div><span class="gmail-"></span><br></div></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">Norbert Senf<br>Masonry Stove Builders<br>25 Brouse Road, RR 5<br>Shawville Québec J0X 2Y0<br>819.647.5092<br><a href="http://www.heatkit.com" target="_blank">www.heatkit.com</a></div>
</div></div>