<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Dear Julien<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">On the last point, <o:p>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">>…</span> there is no (perceivable) pulsing with concentrator rings greater than 50% TLUD diameter.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is because the poorly mixing air entering as a ‘sheet” gets to move vertically “soon enough”. If you were to make the top a saw tooth shape instead of an annular gap that alone would improve the mixing of air with burning gas.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But it is still too high (above the fuel). The top of the fuel effectively acts as a muffler, a stall point, for the flame. I find that putting a couple of holes just below the top of the fuel keeps an ignition flame(s) going under all
conditions. It will burn a small part of the char and it is really worth it. <o:p>
</o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regarding the video:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What you are achieving is a limitation on the secondary air flow rate, which could be done by making the channel smaller. Bringing the secondary air (better preheated of course) down to the fuel bed is doing what I am suggesting which
is to limit the distance between the top of the fuel and the air entry point. <o:p>
</o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Having a “sheet” of air is still causing problems unnecessarily. The reason for adding secondary air in the first place is because there isn’t enough coming through the fuel. So, it also has to be distributed throughout the gas, not just
on the edge leaving the centre to fend for itself. That always results in a tall diffusion flame desperately seeking oxygen.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">So again, if you were to let that air into the gas steam through slots, holes, saw-tooth-shape it would improve mixing. The visible result would be a shortening of the flame, overall. The temperature
would rise in the central column, and the O2 level (potentially) could be reduced. Increasing the temperature alone reduces CO and PM.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">You mention that the cylinder height “creates turbulence” but letting the air in as a circular sheet already causes the problem of not having enough turbulence. In other words raising the tube creates
turbulence that should already be there by getting the air better mixed at the place of first contact, but isn’t.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">The gasification rate is not governed by the secondary air flow rate, it is only the primary air flow which does that. Increasing the “chimney effect” pulls more primary air through the fuel, so
naturally the gasification rate increases. The “turbulence” noted at 2 minutes is there, but could easily be a set of air jets instead to guarantee good missing without all the “shaking around”.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Have a look at the flames created using fuel-level secondary air divided into holes that are the correct diameter to get the air to the centre of the gas stream. Notice the greatly reduced turbulence
speed (if there is such a term) achieving very good mixing without expending much draft power at all.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">The intention at this point in the combustion is to get the air distributed, so how can you achieve that in the least vertical space, with the least excess air, and with the shortest vertical height
(least material).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">On top of that, the result is a better cooking experience.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Crispin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Stoves <stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Julien Winter<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, June 18, 2020 21:50<br>
<b>To:</b> Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Stoves] Studies of pressure variations in a TLUD - Pulsing Flame with Concentrator Rings<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Chrispin;<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks for your posts. Your theory will be put to the test shortly, because it is in my schedule of experiments to test a combination of holes in the sidewall of the TLUD reactor with concentrators and counter-current burners. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The counter-current burner (seen here: <a href="https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2FKzYUzJPM3eQ&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9df5778159a3490ddc8408d813f3597a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637281283182799876&sdata=O66P4G70PimO5W1ZZTIRYp5EeqZIAaf5cHpkNnoRuqo%3D&reserved=0">
https://youtu.be/KzYUzJPM3eQ</a>) works well at high gasification rates, but not at low gasification rates. Thus holes in the sidewall of the TLUD reactor will be used to try and improve the turndown. At the same time, if your theory is correct, it should
solve the pulsing problem with the concentrator rings.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Note that there is no (perceivable) pulsing with concentrator rings greater than 50% TLUD diameter.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Cheers,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Julien<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
-- <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Julien Winter<br>
Cobourg, ON, CANADA<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>