Dear Andrew, with copies to Tom and Morgan
I am sending a copy of this reply to Tom Reed <[email protected]>
. This is the only email address he now uses, in case anyone else wants
to note it down.
Tom did those experiments with known moisture a few years ago. Perhaps
he still has the notes. I think it was not prepared as a formal
report. I believe he said it was nearly linear, with about 0% char when
MC reached 30%.
150mm diameter is beyond anything I have ever tried. I marvel when the
70 mm branches pyrolyzed all the way through in the experiments done by
my Ugandan associates. There is a photo of the loaded fuel in the Quad
TLUD in the report of test results by CREEC on the Quad stove (see the
report at www.drtlud.com ). Thickness (diameter) increases the
length of time of the operation of the stove (quite logically).
Jackson, the CREEC technician, did a great job with having 3 different
sizes of the same wood in the three different runs. But we do not
have funding for running repeated tests to get sufficient replications.
The issues include being too thick so that the pyrolysis gases are too
slow / too little to sustain a good flame at the upper combustion part
of the TLUD.
I hope that CSU can put that into their computer model. And I hope
that CSU will write something to the Stove Listserv or tell us where
they are writing something. So far they hold the biggest pot of
funding for research about micro-gasifiers, except for the big companies
like Philips (and what BP did in the past).
Paul
Paul S. Anderson, PhD aka "Dr TLUD"
Email: [email protected] Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: www.drtlud.com
On 11/12/2012 5:53 AM, [email protected] wrote:
[Default] On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 20:01:02 -0600,Paul Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
Crispin and all,
I think that the char being created in a TLUD is not hot enough to
cause the water gas reaction.
I take this view too, and even if it were hot enough the endothermy of
the reaction would limit it.
If this phenomena is important to us, e.g we want to maximise char
retention, then it's worth knowing the optimum fuel moisture content.
Also I had found there was a limit to the size of particle that could
be thoroughly charred. I found I could not successfully scale up a
tlud device to chare 150mm cross section longs which I hade carefully
dried. What I never got round to trying, as I lost the farm workshop
due to redevelopment, was seeing if such logs would char if embedded
in smaller material.
I no longer have a useful tlud device that will consistently produce
measurable results but it may be worth doing some runs with oven dried
wood chips which have been then re wetted with the correct amount of
water to give samples of 0-25%mc wwb and weigh the char produced when
lit with the same amount of liquid fuel. I would especially like to
see the results when fed with primary air maintained at a constant
flow.
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/
