Joshua, Sarbagya, etal
I like very much your Roket (not Rocket) design, but it falls outside
Sarbagya's scope. You are producing char; he is not after char.
One difference to note from TLUDs, is that you have a significant amount of
secondary air enter in with the primary air at the fuel port. In TLUDs, the
flames or flamelets are usually "anchored" at the secondary air holes. Do you
see that in your design (see note below)? If not, you might consider moving
the secondary air holes closer to the inside end of the fuels, where the
(sideways, outward-moving) pyrolysis front got started. My recollection from
looking at Rob Oblak videos, was that he had a flame attached to the different
parts of the holey briquette, indicating enough secondary air there already.
See insert below also
On Aug 22, 2013, at 2:33 PM, Joshua Guinto <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Dear Sarbagya, Crispin and Ron
>
> Jed here from the Philippines.
>
> Could you please take a look at my attempt..... the holey roket as a char
> making stove. I thought i designed the holes to make a flow of secondary air
> in the roket stove. There are eight holes by the elbow, a little above the
> height of the fuel feeder. One hole is directly poking opposite the fuel
> feeder to reduce the stress of the high intensity flame on the stove wall (as
> Crispin advised me before)I made the holes to follow a co centric circle to
> make the secondary air twist. The stove wall is 3 cm thick and so the
> incoming air would go about 6 cm through. I thought this would add to the
> pre heating of the incoming air, to compensate for the absence of a double
> wall. And then to make the flame twist in the same manner as the fins of
> those from the designs of the recho roket would.
[RWL: Both seem good.]
>
> And so i observed that the flame twists and very clean, yellow with blue
> streaks shooting off from the holes. Please see the attached pdf file.
[RWL: Blue streaks (streaking) maybe not desired?? Sounds like
particulates. What was the fuel? Pili shells?]
>
> Is this already the pre heated secondary air at work?
[RWL: I'm not sure one can see the impacts of preheating - but certainly
you have some.
>
> My limitation is that i do not have instruments to verify all these
> observations. Perhaps your opinion could help for the meantime.
> [RWL: It's going to be tough. Comparing time to boil and comparing with
> true TLUDs via water boiled away will tell something on the efficiency side,
> but nothing on CO and particulates
>
> Ron
>
>
> 2013/8/22 Sarbagya R. Tuladhar <[email protected]>
> Hi Ron,
>
> I am basically looking at natural draft front loading continuous feeding wood
> stoves and natural draft charcoal stoves. The reason I am investigating these
> is that for a wood stove, having secondary air component "really" did impact
> on the CO and PM production. The two stoves similar in design had the same
> thermal efficiency but then differed a lot with the emissions. The secondary
> air supposedly used was via the exterior gap ( I am guessing similar to the
> Philips TLUD). However, I am not talking about the TLUDs here but just normal
> front feeding wood cookstoves.
>
> Heard from Crispin regarding the role of secondary air in charcoal
> cookstoves. So it is used to burn the evaporated volatiles and the CO to CO2.
> Designs of the Benin charcoal stove have a simple concept of having holes on
> the bottom of the outer body which allows air to flow through it and then
> this pre-heated air is exited out to the combustion chamber to aid in the
> combustion of the volatile unburnt gases. Does this feature work?
>
> Looking to hearing from you.
>
> Cheers
>
> Sarbagya
>
> On 21/08/2013, at 1:25 AM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
>
>> Sarbagya:
>>
>> Can you narrow down the type of stoves you are looking at? And why?
>>
>> You seem to be talking of TLUDs, and when mentioning consuming char is
>> that in a TLUD?
>>
>> We have seen some nice designs with secondary being preheated with a
>> central pipe, not the exterior gap you describe.
>>
>> At least one stove developer (Kirk Harris) has argued for using that
>> exterior space for added insulation. A topic fairly easy to compare in the
>> lab you appear to have available.
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> On Aug 20, 2013, at 6:44 AM, Sarbagya R. Tuladhar <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi stovers,
>>>
>>> The debate on the role of secondary air both for natural draft and forced
>>> draft has been raging for quite some time now. Obtaining secondary air in
>>> pre-heated form has been the research area for me in the laboratory for the
>>> past few weeks. However, one conclusion I obtained was that secondary air
>>> if not pre-heated would have the tendency to put off the fire by blowing in
>>> cold air.
>>>
>>> Hence my question is:
>>>
>>> What is the role of secondary air for wood burning stoves ? Is there an
>>> optimum gap for the secondary air to travel between the jackets of the
>>> combustion chamber before ejecting out into the combustion chamber ? How
>>> does this effect the performance of the cookstove ? I know a few cookstoves
>>> which have secondary air concept included and which seemed to decrease the
>>> CO and PM up to some extent.
>>>
>>> What is the role of secondary air for charcoal burning stoves ? Quoting
>>> Crispin "Secondary air is necessary to burn charcoal in a low O2
>>> environment at a high temperature." How does this effect the performance of
>>> the charcoal cookstove?
>>>
>>> Waiting for the responses.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Sarbagya Tuladhar
>>> Pondicherry, INDIA
_______________________________________________
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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
