Dear AJ I had a look at this thing to see if there is a way to validate the claims.
This cannot be factually correct: "Any smoke or particulate matter not burned in the firebox is compressed and re-combusted within the cyclone chamber. This is optimised by both the cold air intakes above and below the cowl. Once the cyclone establishes, the fire is largely soot and smoke free." In order for any stove to benefit from increased draft (which is the basic function they are claiming) it would have to be applied to a stove that lacked draft. It there was any fire actually taking place in the top of the chimney (which seems really unlikely) it would probably be illegal. If it is only acting like a choke at the top of the chimney (which looks likely) is it reducing fuel consumption or delivering more heat from the existing fuel? If it is slowing the burn it is doing so by reducing the amount of draft, not increasing it. As both claims are made - that it is increasing draft and that it is reducing the amount of fuel used - then one of them excludes the other for probably 99% of stoves. Burns faster + reduces fuel consumption and reduces the burn rate and increases efficiency and burns the particle at the top of the chimney pushing that heat into the outdoors? Reducing smoke emissions might be no more than diluting it with more air so it can't be seen. That seems unlikely though, as the burn time is claimed to be 1.5 times longer. There is no additional heat from the two logs they burned, they just burned it slower with the device attached, and the test result says they were allowed to control the dampers differently for the two tests, which means the device may have had no impact at all. There is nothing in the device that created additional draft, is there? A tiny bit more vertical height? There is certainly no combustion of particulates going on at the top, as claimed. The absence of numbers indicating a reduction in smoke is a bit odd. If it reduced smoke there would be a happy announcement of a measurement before and afterwards. It seems they think an increase in burn time is an increase in efficiency, without stating what the efficiency is for the stove with or without the cowl. The patent number claimed 09798186.4 is invalid according to http://www.iponz.govt.nz/cms/banner_template/IPPATENT As the physics, function, efficiency and intellectual property are all questionable, so is its value. Regards Crispin waking up to summer in Waterloo +++++++++ Hi All It seems a bit quiet here. Now this may be a little off topic for cook stoves but I was passed this for comment. http://www.fluecube.co.uk/testimonials.asp It all seems a bit improbable unless there is some sort of catalyst in the device but even then it must represent a waste of fuel. The video of it working is shown atop a clay chimney pot that already has some air entry holes, presumably to prevent back draught in windy conditions. Also note the colour of the smoke, it's black initially, suggesting just adding a bit of secondary air at the fire would have done the job. AJH _______________________________________________ Stoves mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address [email protected] 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://www.bioenergylists.org/ _______________________________________________ Stoves mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address [email protected] 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://www.bioenergylists.org/
