Dean etal Do you (anyone) know whether that stove saved or consumed the produced char?
Ron On Aug 30, 2013, at 8:18 AM, Dean Still <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Paul, > > You may have noticed that the TLUD featured in Jim's talk yesterday did not > do so well. I hope that the TLUD community can help to tune up TLUDs so > quality stays high. > > There are bad Rockets and good ones. The devil is in the details, as they > say. More bad ones than good ones, unfortunately. > > As Crispin points out, there are also good and bad stoves that use forced > air. > > I think we need design principles for TLUDs so folks can know how to make > high performance TLUDs but we're not there yet as far as I know. > > All Best, > > Dean > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Paul Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > Stovers, (and sent to my www.drtlud.com Webmaster who can place this > on my website, but comments will be answered via the Stoves Listserv.) > > On 8/28/2013 10:56 PM, Dean Still wrote: >> ...... >> >> Jim Jetter reports that a TLUD can have fewer fine particles compared to fan >> stoves. We're finding the same thing. >> > It is time to get serious about how TLUD stoves have superior performance. > Finally we are getting lab testing data. Well, not really. We are getting > "statements" but the data sets are not being presented to us. That is okay. > We can wait for Dean and Jim and ALL OTHER STOVE TESTING CENTERS to provide > some data. Let's just use the above statement as the basis for my comments > here. > > 1. "Fan stoves" is a BAD name. Any stove with a fan can be a "fan stove". > What Jim and Dean are discussing are stoves that include Oorja, Biolite (two > models?), Philips, Reed Woodgas Campstove, maybe some units from China. At > least THREE different combustion regimes are included in the above named > stoves. But Who knows which ones they are talking about? THEY know, but > protocols etc are preventing the data results from being given, even with or > without the names of which stoves. But we do know that they have fans. > But so do some other stoves. > > 2. "Stoves with fans" is also not sufficiently specific, but at least they > could be recognized for what they are, which is, stoves of different types > that have fans. > > A. They could be "Rocket stoves with fans" as in the Biolite Home stove and > maybe something (prototypes perhaps?) from Envirofit or Stove Tec. > > B. They could be "Fan-jet stoves with fans" (or some other name, but this is > what I have called them for several years). These are stoves with intense, > forceful mixing of air deep into the fuel chamber. These include the > Biolite Campstove, Philips stove, the WorldStove Lucia-FA (forced air), and > the Turbococina of El Salvador. These are (perhaps) related to > pellet-stoves as sold in North America in which the intensity of the jets of > air consume small quantities of pellet fuels in a small cup-type combustion > chamber. For sure these are NOT TLUD stoves. They can well be > micro-gasifier stoves. They can certainly be highly regarded. But they > are not the only stoves with fans. And to call them "fan stoves" is unclear > and unfair to the other types of stoves that can have fans. > > C. They could be "Simple Improved Cookstoves - ICS - with fans". > Something like a bucket-stove with a fan blowing onto the flaming fuel. No > examples come to mind, but add a fan and have a "fan stove." > > D. They could be "TLUD stoves with fans". Yes, TLUD stoves can be operated > with fans. The opening statement is referring to natural draft TLUD-ND > having less PM than TLUD-FA. TLUD-FA stoves include the Reed Woodgas > Campstove, the Oorja stove, the Belonio/Olivier rice husk gasifiers, > McLaughlin's Joy-to-the-World, and my 2004 prototype "Juntos B" (which is > described in the 2004 paper "Biomass Gasification: Clean Residential > Stoves, Commercial Power Generation, and Global Impacts (available at > http://www.drtlud.com/resources/publications-and-multimedia/psa-catalogue/ > ). And there are probably other TLUD-FA units. > > 3. So, one study that needs to be done is to compare the PM from TLUD-ND and > TLUD-FA. Do such results already exist? Do we need to wait very long for > these results? I ask these questions to those who have the capabilities and > the financial resources to conduct those tests. You know who you are. > Ongoing budgets and some major grants have been given for capabilities to > conduct these types of tests. And it is not just EPA and Aprovecho who get > such funding. But some grants prevent the dissemination of results until > much later. > > 4. BUT. Yes, there is a BIG BUT to be considered. This is because > TLUD-FA (those with fans) have been blatantly mis-used and the test results > could be erroneous because the test was not stopped when the TLUD pyrolysis > process stopped, which is when the bottom burning of char started and > continued as long as operators were feeding in raw fuel at the top. > > I repeat: the TLUD testing needs to be stopped when the TLUD pyrolysis > process stopped, which is when the bottom burning of char started and > continued as long as operators were feeding in raw fuel at the top. > > [[ I have already prepared a short document about this and will post it > soon. ]] > > In conclusion, let's get our understanding clear that the addition of a fan > to a stove does NOT automatically put that stove into the Tier 3 and Tier 4 > categories of low PM emissions. FIRST think of what kind of combustion the > stove utilizes: simple ICS, Rocket, TLUD, other micro-gasification, other > .... THEN consider if it has a fan in it. > > In biology, first the animal type, and then if it flies or not: Birds fly > (but not all of them); Many insects fly; some pre-historic reptiles could > fly; and some mammals (bats) can fly. Flying is important, but Phyla is > more important. Fans are important, but not more important than the > combustion regime. > > STATEMENT: I believe that the TLUD stoves (whether ND or FA) are cleaner > about PM than the other combustion regimes because the process of pyrolysis > leaves the inert materials (non-combustibles known as ash) held tightly to > the charcoal that is created. So, do NOT burn the charcoal. Especially do > not burn it with vigorous streams of air at the level of the charcoal. [And > there are probably additional variables to be studied.] > > This hypothesis remains to be proven. But while we wait for the test > results, money will be channeled to other stove technologies, field tests of > health will be conducted withOUT having a TLUD stove included in the study, > and people will continue to suffer (and some will die) because of the high PM > levels in household cookstoves. It is late 2013 and studies of TLUD stoves > are only scratching the surface of what things need to be studied. > > Oh well, better this progress than less progress. And all of the TLUD > enthusiasts are certainly willing and eager to join into any and all efforts. > > Paul > Paul S. Anderson, PhD aka "Dr TLUD" > Email: [email protected] Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072 > Website: www.drtlud.com > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ >
_______________________________________________ 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/
