BioEnergy Lists: Improved Biomass Cooking Stoves

From larcon at sni.net Thu Jan 1 13:41:14 1998
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:46 2004
Subject: Tom Reed on Extrusion
Message-ID: <v01540b01b0d152daccec@[204.133.251.20]>

Stovers: This is a very useful response from Tom on extrusion manufacturers.

Gary - If you learn more, I hope you will share it with this list. I also
received your message today and think there was no address mixup.

Happy New Year to all Ron

Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 07:28:48 -0500
From: Thomas Reed <REEDTB@compuserve.com>
Subject: Forwarded message on extrusion
Sender: Thomas Reed <REEDTB@compuserve.com>
To: "Ronal W. Larson" <larcon@sni.net>

> Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 16:28:51 -0600
> To: stoves@crest.org
> From: larcon@sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
> Subject: Forwarded message on extrusion
> Cc: Garry Kindley <gwkindl@connexus.apana.org.au>
> Sender: owner-stoves@crest.org
> Precedence: bulk
>
> Stovers - Anyone able to help? Ron
>
> Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 21:47:36 +1100
> From: Garry Kindley <gwkindl@connexus.apana.org.au>
> To: stoves@crest.org
> Subject: Briquette manufacturing Equipment
>
> I am searching for equipment capable of extruding a 65mm log from
> shavings and sawdust.
>
> Do you have any contacts
>
> gwkindl@connexus.apana.com.au
>
> Regards
>
> Garry Kindley

 

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Garry (sic):

Machines capable of extruding logs used to be Potlatch-Prestolog
(1930-1935, many still in existence); Taiga (c 1980, mfgd in Belgium); a
Japanese machine now being used by Hub Stassen in Holland (his E-mail
recently "went dead" at btg@ct.utwente.ni - maybe OK now) and several
others (See "Densified Biomass: A New Form of Solid Fuel, SERI 35, T. Reed
and B. Bryant, July 1978).

Extrusion of sawdust requires pressures of 10,000 psi and machines costing
$100,000. Are you in that league?

There is a PELLET FUEL INSTITUTE in Edina MN, 612 831 3203 (3283 Fax).
They may be able to give you more info.

Yours truly, TOM REED

 

 

 

From larcon at sni.net Thu Jan 1 13:42:11 1998
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:46 2004
Subject: a Forwarded "thanks"
Message-ID: <v01540b00b0d1923685a9@[204.133.251.20]>

Stovers - It is a pleasure to send this message on. I have been killing
all messages asking for advice on selling old gas stoves (almost all for
Ch*mb*rs***** - name changed to protect me from Web searchers), but intend
to keep sending messages on like this one. If anyone has suggestions on
how to help this presently-blanked list readership, I'd love to have it.
(I am receiving about 4-5 a week of such messages; once that many in a
day). I intend to keep giving the list questions like Les'.

Les - glad this group was able to help. I agree with your assessment on
our list. Ron

>From here on all by Les:

Last year I contacted this excellent discussion group about a problem of
a smoking wood stove in our new solar house. The Jotul stove was meant
to provide auxilliary heat during the two coldest winter months but
smoked badly.

I was sent some excellent replies regarding the design of chimneys and
these were implemented. The result is that the stove is a little gem,
kicks out more than enough heat for our house, stays in at night and
moreover it no longer smokes.

Our family will have a very warm New Year, and for your kind advice I
thank you all and wish you a very warm and peaceful new year in front of
your stoves.

Best Regards

Les. Gornall.

 

 

From larcon at sni.net Thu Jan 1 21:20:15 1998
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:46 2004
Subject: A forwarded reply on charcoal-making
Message-ID: <v01540b01b0d19e201090@[204.133.251.8]>

Stovers & Tom: For some reason this was bounced to me. For this list, I
have added the original message, which was sent originally to "bioenergy".

Tom - perhaps your reply message should also go to "bioenergy" (although
maybe it has also - but I didn't receive it with that sent to "stoves").

Peter: Welcome also to the "stoves" list (Peter joined two days ago).
Please let me know if you would a list of those stoves list members who
have indicated a willingness to have their names released .

I have considerable concern on your idea. I believe that all
(certainly most) of the approaches in the UN book only vent the
considerable energy in the exhaust pyrolysis gases into the atmosphere.
There has been some past discussion on this list on how to convert the
standard metal "hoop" kilns into ones that can at least flare the gases.
The exhaust gases are about 25 times worse than CO2 in terms of global
warming. At least three persons on the list have worked on this flaring
issue and possibly still are. We have not had any recent report on the
topic, but your question may generate a response.

I would hope you would preferably look for a way to move the full
wood chips (or other) to some relatively nearby spot where the
transportation costs are still tolerable and the venting problem disappears
and the pyrolysis gases can still be productively utilized - perhaps in
small-scale electricity generation. The bioenergy list also is having a
dialog on the appropriateness of large vs small scale right now - hampered
by the fact that there are no real cost-effective generators quite yet.

You should also check out the "gasification" list, which is also
heavily onto the charcoaling subject right now - althouth the experts there
almost universally consume all the wood, rather than co-produce charcoal.

We have been discussing a "co-generation" scheme quite often on
this list in the context of rural charcoal-making cook stoves. I would
guess that your harvester-chipper has little application there, but the
ideas here on the charcoal-making cook-stoves may still be useful to you.
Let me know if you have any trouble following that thread. Especially look
at the web site of Alex English, and the recent excellent work of Elsen
Karstad.

In general, stove experts tend to disfavor the use of charcoal,
since it its usual manufacture is so wasteful (typically losing 2/3 of the
original energy content, as well as venting the more-harmful gases). The
UN book helps a little, but unless you find some way to at least flare, and
much more preferably use the gases, I think that most members on this list
will not generally want to encourage charcoal production in the normal
ways.

Can you describe a little more on how your harvesting system works
and at how small scale it can profitably be used? What sort of annual
production would one expect? What is the expected cost of the equipment?
What are the smallest and largest size trees/bushes (diameters and heights)
that can be handled? Could you produce "stems" of 10 cm or longer length?
(What length limits? - When you see these charcoal-making stove
descriptions, you will see why length is important to some of us.)

Regards Ron

>Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 12:37:13 -0500
>From: Thomas Reed <REEDTB@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Help with small scale charcoal kilns
>Sender: Thomas Reed <REEDTB@compuserve.com>
>To: Felker Peter J <kfpf000@tamuk.edu>, STOVES <stoves@crest.org>
>
>Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
>Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Dear Peter:
>
>To read about industrial charcoal kilns, try the 130 page booklet,
>published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
>INDUSTRIAL CHARCOAL MAKING, #63, (Rome, 1985).
>
>Let us all know if it is still in print and how hard to get.
>
>Yours truly, TOM REED

 

(RWL): The original message from Peter:

>From: kfpf000@tamuk.edu (Felker Peter J)
>Subject: Help with small scale charcoal kilns
>To: bioenergy@crest.org
>Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 14:39:16 -0600 (CST)
>Sender: owner-bioenergy@crest.org
>Precedence: bulk
>
>Dear Readers,
>
>A project at Texas A&M University in Kingsville Texas has been developing
>a harvester for small diameter trees and shrubs. We are quite close to
>commercialization after more than 10 years R&D as we have achieved
>$8.5/green ton costs in the field(harvested and chipped).
>
>Due to the low value of the chips and the great distances in the
>southwest for transportation, we are seeking ways to make value added
>directly in the field. If we could make industrial charcoal in portable
>kilns or in rotary kilns, this would increase the value from $18/dry ton
>to close to $100 per ton or even more.
>
>If you have information on portable kilns(moved with permit load oil
>field trucks) or rotary kilns we wouldbe most appreciative.
>
>Peter Felker

Ronal W. Larson, PhD
21547 Mountsfield Dr.
Golden, CO 80401, USA
303/526-9629; FAX same with warning
larcon@sni.net

 

 

From larcon at sni.net Thu Jan 1 22:10:29 1998
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:46 2004
Subject: FW: The Secret Kyoto Protocol
Message-ID: <v01540b01b0d209a8ece2@[204.133.251.26]>

Stovers: The following was forwarded by one-time list member Nikhil Desai
(panalytics@juno.com). Ron

 

Testing, testing. I wonder if the JI Online list has been laid to
rest in peace or is merely resting. Here below is a cynical humorous
piece -- authorship unknown; might have originated up north -- for your
enjoyment.

CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES
third session
Kyoto , 1-10 December 1997
Agenda item 5

The Parties to this Protocol,

Being Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change=
,
hereafter referred to as "the Convention",

In pursuit of the economic interests of their wealthiest citizens,

Recalling the influence these said people have over the media and public
opinion,

Pretending to care about the long-term health and safety of the people of
this planet,

Ignoring the Berlin Mandate adopted by decision I/CP.1 of the Conference
of the Parties to the Convention at its first session,

Have agreed as follows:

Article 1

for the purposes of this Protocol, the definitions contained in Article 1
of the Convention shall apply. In addition:

1."Conference of the Parties" means the Conference of the Parties to the
Convention.

2. "Convention" means the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, adopted in New York on 9 May 1992.

3. "Reduction" means increase.

4. "Binding commitment" means agreement to continue current practices,
with targets that would probably have been achieved anyway due to changes
in economic structures, but with no consequences should this fail to be
the case.

5. "Parties to this Convention", means those countries represented at
this and future conferences, for as long as they have land mass above
sea-level.

This list is to be revised annually.

6. "Common and differentiated responsibility" means lesser commitments
for developed countries who complain the loudest and ally themselves with
the US, while new commitments are sought from those whose populations
face abject poverty.

Article 2

1. Each Party included in Annex 1 in achieving its qualified emission
limitation and reduction commitments 1 under Article 3, in order to
promote unsustainable development, shall:

(a) Implement and/or future elaborate policies and measures in
accordance with its national circumstances , such as:

- Switching off the bathroom light when finished;

- writing to the PR departments of large corporations asking them
to switch off their bathroom lights when finished ( where this does not
conflict with economic concerns);

- Buying any products advertised as "Green" or "environmentally
friendly" even when such products are merely repackaged versions of
standardly produced commodities;

- Breathing more slowly to curb the emission of CO2

- Not watching Neighbours

Article 3

1. The Parties included in Annex I shall reduce their collective
aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of either
carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide or kryptonite difluroide/2
(whichever they prefer), as listed in Annex A, by five per cent in the
commitment period 3006 to 3010, when measured according to any series of
criteria real or imagined.

2. Each Party included in Annex 1 shall, individually or jointly, ensure
that the aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of
methane from their delegates, as listed in Annex A, does not exceed their
assigned amounts pursuant to annex B and as calculated from the weight of
their industry lobbyists.

3. The conference of the Parties shall, at its fourth session, adopt an
annex to this Protocol establishing emission limitation and reduction
commitments for Parties held in celebration of the conclusion of this
conference.

4. the net changes in greenhouse gas emission from sources and removal by
magic pixies resulting from mind-altering drugs and/or industry PR
campaigns, limited to afforestation, reforestation, metaforestation and
antidisestablishmentforestation since 1990, shall be used to meet the
commitments in this article of each Party included in Annex 1. The
greenhouse gas emissions from sources and removals by pixies associated
wit these substances shall be reported in an interesting and entertaining
manner and reviewed in accordance with Articles 8 and 9.

5. Prior to the first session of the conference of the Parties serving as
the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol, each Party included in Annex
I shall provide for consideration by the Subsidiary Body for Scientific
and Technological Advice data to establish its level of intoxication in
1990 and to enable an estimate to be made of its changes in drugs intake
in subsequent years.

Article 4

1. Any Parties included in Annex 1 that have agreed to jointly fulfil
their commitments under Article 3 shall be deemed to have met those
commitments, because the atmosphere is really affected by human political
and economic boundaries and not by the actual amount of greenhouse gas
emitted.

Articles 5-29

Parties are invited to fill in the rest of this Protocol in accordance
with their perceived national self-interest, ratify it only if they see
fit, and continue business-as-usual practices producing glossy colour
documents to
prove their compliance, in spirit if not in word, with this Protocol.

Footnotes:

1. See definition 3, Article 1
2. Yet to be discovered

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, being duly authorised to that effect,
have signed this Protocol.

done at Kyoto this tenth day of December one thousand nine hundred and
ninety-seven.

--------- End forwarded message ----------

PS: Seems to me the author is saying that the developed countries
have not had a "meaningful participation" among themselves yet. Perhaps a
repeat of the history of Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty is in the
making -- India, China, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, and such other
countries would justifiably claim "disarming the unarmed", while the OECD
countries would recognize it is in their self-interest to go on doing
something, have some semblance of "legally binding" and "enforcement"
(some of you might remember what that meant in nuclear business).

As I wrote a few months ago, the road beyond Kyoto to
destinations as yet unknown will be a long and arduous one. (Now we know
it's on to Buenos Aires. If nothing else, termperatures of 80 F rather
than Kyoto's 50 F might prompt the delegates to warm up to global
warming. COP5 should be in Houston in August, 2000, just after the US
party conventions. What you can get passed in the oil-capital of the
world right in the midst of a US presidential campaign will have a longer
shelf-life and show better "commitment" than this "see you again, (mild
smooch)" kind of dating in Kyoto. )

from: panalytics@juno.com (Nikhil Desai)

Ronal W. Larson, PhD
21547 Mountsfield Dr.
Golden, CO 80401, USA
303/526-9629; FAX same with warning
larcon@sni.net

 

 

From elk at arcc.or.ke Fri Jan 2 06:46:26 1998
From: elk at arcc.or.ke (E. L. Karstad)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:47 2004
Subject: Carbonisation Basics 101
Message-ID: <v01510102b0d2ab79bfbd@[199.2.222.131]>

I've been conducting a few trials with my 12 foot screw auger over a fire,
trying to carbonise sawdust.

I've a few resultant questions:

1) This 'steaming' phase we hear about from our charcoal-oriented members-
I'm beginning to see that this preparatory drying (?) is necessary if
carbonisation is to be conducted in a more-or-less closed vessel. True?
What moisture content must be attained for optimal carbonisation, and what
are the effects of over and under drying?

2) Can pyrolysis be conducted effectively in a completely enclosed
container (except for an exit vent, of course)?

3) Is a space around the material to be carbonised necessary, or can it be
pyrolysed packed tightly into a container?

4) So's to get the terms straight; what's the difference between pyrolysis
and carbonisation, if any?

5) Consider fresh sawdust entering a screw auger and filling the entire
diameter of the entrance, then being moved (as slowly as necessary) through
the auger and over a hot fire at least partially fired by the flared
volatile products of the carbonisation process..... what problems do you
see?

I'm getting mixed results in trial after trial; sometimes good quantities
of lovely carbonised grains of sawdust are produced, other times the whole
unit just seems to sit there & consume firewood with no resultant product
other than hot sawdust. Sometimes all goes well and then just stops going
well.

As usual.... starting from the beginning....

Happy New Year- here we go again!

Elsen

_____________________________
Elsen Karstad
P.O Box 24371 Nairobi, Kenya
Tel:254 2 884437
E-mail: elk@arcc.or.ke
______________________________

 

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sat Jan 3 09:20:44 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:47 2004
Subject: Carbonisation Basics 101
Message-ID: <199801030925_MC2-2DDF-3E61@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Elston:

>I've been conducting a few trials with my 12 foot screw auger over a fire,
trying to carbonise sawdust.

Great!

>I've a few resultant questions:

>1) This 'steaming' phase we hear about from our charcoal-oriented members-
I'm beginning to see that this preparatory drying (?) is necessary if
carbonisation is to be conducted in a more-or-less closed vessel. True?
What moisture content must be attained for optimal carbonisation, and what
are the effects of over and under drying?

The water is all removed below 110C; carbonization only begins slightly
above 200C and is very active from 300-400C, tapering off at 450C. (See
any book on Thermogravimetric analysis.

>2) Can pyrolysis be conducted effectively in a completely enclosed
container (except for an exit vent, of course)?

Once you reach 300 C the exiting gases are quite combustible - and full of
tar, so best to burn them at the vent. If one part of the retort is still
below 100 C and another part at 300 C, the steam may prevent the gas/tar
from burning.

>3) Is a space around the material to be carbonised necessary, or can it be
pyrolysed packed tightly into a container?

The tighter the packing, the more easily the heat can travel - until it is
so tight (1000 psi ram pressure) that gas can't escape.

>4) So's to get the terms straight; what's the difference between pyrolysis
and carbonisation, if any?

It only depends on whether you are focusing on the carbon product
(carbonization) or all the products (pyrolysis).

>5) Consider fresh sawdust entering a screw auger and filling the entire
diameter of the entrance, then being moved (as slowly as necessary) through
the auger and over a hot fire at least partially fired by the flared
volatile products of the carbonisation process..... what problems do you
see?

Sounds good, provided drying is done elsewhere.

>I'm getting mixed results in trial after trial; sometimes good quantities
of lovely carbonised grains of sawdust are produced, other times the whole
unit just seems to sit there & consume firewood with no resultant product
other than hot sawdust. Sometimes all goes well and then just stops going
well.

Probably caused by variations in moisture. Good to measure MContent by
heating to 105C on a stove for an hour or two, then reweighing.

>Happy New Year- here we go again!

And the Very same to you, Elston. Keep in touch .... Regards, TOM
REED

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sat Jan 3 09:20:47 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:47 2004
Subject: STOVE EMISSIONS
Message-ID: <199801030925_MC2-2DDF-3E5F@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stovers:

Guess I goofed, here is a reposting on STOVE EMISSIONS

Thomas,

I'm afraid you made the mistake of posting to the sender, which is no
longer the list name (in order to avoid mail loops). Try re-posting your
message directly to the stoves@crest.org address & it'll go directly
through...

Regards,

Zachariah Nobel
(CREST majordomo listserv guy)

 

On Tue, 16 Dec 1997, Thomas Reed wrote:

> Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
> Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Dear Grant et al:
>
> I took a look at Grant's web page and was VERY impressed. I hope all
> theses will be required to have a web page in future. I am also
> re-inspired to get my page UP AND RUNNING! I ordered Front Page '98 last
> night ($50 for upgrade to FP '97 which is only half satisfactory - hope
> they'e made improvements.
>
> I believe Grant's thesis is a significant addition to our knowledge of
> emissions from biomass burning and cooking. I will add him to Kirk Smith
> as someone to consult in this department.
>
> I have in my possesion a NIGHTHAWK domestic CO meter and alarm (cost
about
> $50). It is capable of READING a few ppm of CO, sensing a cigarette at 10
> feet and probably will serve my needs for a CO meter and alarm in my lab.

> ANY COMMENTS?
>
> Thanks, TOM REED
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Greetings Stovers,
>
> I'm finally able to announce that the full text of my thesis on the
> 'Emissions of Wood-burning Cooking Devices' is available on my homepage.
> If anyone would like to access it, the address is
> http://www.ilink.co.za/~grantt. Please email me with comments, questions,

> or any points you would like to discuss and I'll do my best to respond. I

> hope to add other articles and relevant material regularly.
>
> With best wishes
> Grant
>
>
> Detailed Table of Contents of material available at
> http://www.ilink.co.za/~grantt
>
> 1 Overview
> 1.1 The extent of the problem
> 1.1.1 The health impact of combustion emissions
> 1.1.2 World-wide exposure to biofuel combustion products
> 1.1.3 Lack of alternatives
> 1.2 The gap in stove testing methods
> 1.2.1 The need for stove emission measurement
> 1.2.2 The difficulty of measuring emissions from stoves used by the rural

> poor
> 1.2.3 Historic focus on efficiency not emissions
> 1.2.4 The existing methods of emission measurement
> 1.2.5 Issues considered in this study
> 1.3 Summary
> 1.4 Thesis organisation
>
> 2 Apparatus
> 2.1 Extraction booth
> 2.2 Extraction control
> 2.3 Orifice flow meter
> 2.4 Obscuration meters
> 2.5 Gas analysis
> 2.6 Weighing platform
> 2.6.1 Separation of wood and char
> 2.6.2 Measurement of fuel burn rate and water evaporated
> 2.7 Water temperature
> 2.8 Fire temperature
> 2.9 Data acquisition
> 2.10 Summary
>
> 3 The effect of an extraction hood
> 3.1 Background and aims
> 3.2 Experimental design
> 3.2.1 Variables and hypotheses
> 3.2.2 Levels
> 3.2.3 Significance
> 3.2.4 Treatment combinations, repetition and randomisation
> 3.2.5 Other variables
> 3.3 Results and discussion
> 3.3.1 Fire temperature, power and efficiency
> 3.3.2 Emissions
> 3.4 Summary and conclusions
>
> 4 The screening of experimental variables
> 4.1 Background and aims
> 4.1.1 Stove type
> 4.1.2 Amount of water
> 4.1.3 Pot lids
> 4.1.4 Wood type
> 4.1.5 Wood size
> 4.2 Experimental design
> 4.2.1 Variables and hypotheses
> 4.2.2 Levels
> 4.2.3 Significance
> 4.2.4 Treatment combinations, repetition and randomisation
> 4.2.5 Other variables
> 4.3 Results and discussion
> 4.3.1 Stove type
> 4.3.2 Amount of water
> 4.3.3 Pot lids
> 4.3.4 Wood type
> 4.3.5 Wood size
> 4.3.6 First order interactions
> 4.4 Summary and conclusions
>
> 5 Real-time emission patterns
> 5.1 Background and aims
> 5.1.1 The definition of the problem and the method of solution
> 5.1.2 Previous studies
> 5.2 Experimental design
> 5.3 Results and discussion
> 5.3.1 The open fires
> 5.3.2 The enclosed stoves
> 5.3.3 Extraction analysis of variance
> 5.3.4 Variable screening analysis of variance
> 5.4 Summary and conclusions
>
> 6 The simulation of a dilution chamber
> 6.1 Background and aims
> 6.2 Experimental design
> 6.3 Results and discussion
> 6.3.1 The effect of cooking task on chamber method accuracy
> 6.3.2 The effect of air exchange rate on chamber method accuracy
> 6.3.3 The effect of cooking device type on chamber method accuracy
> 6.4 Summary and conclusions
>
> 7 Summary and conclusions
> 7.1 The need for this work
> 7.2 The aim of this work
> 7.3 The approach
> 7.4 The effect of the extraction hood on emission measurements
> 7.5 The study of the effect of five experimental variables
> 7.6 The relationship between CO, SO2 and TSP
> 7.7 The validity of assuming constant emission rate in chamber tests
> 7.8 The significance of this work
> 7.9 Areas for further work
>
> Appendix A Experimental results
> A.1 Included on the diskette
> A.2 Installing and removing the program
> A.3 What the analysis program does
> A.3.1 Emissions
> A.3.2 Efficiency
> A.3.3 Smoke and specific optical density and TSP
>
> Appendix B Requirements of a testing method
> B.1 International standards versus testing guidelines
> B.2 Absolute versus comparative measurements
> B.3 Integral versus real time measurements
> B.4 Indirect versus direct measurements
> B.5 Water boiling test versus other methodologies
> B.6 Recommendations
>
> Appendix C Factorial analysis
> C.1 Identifying variables and defining hypotheses
> C.2 Selection of levels
> C.3 Level of significance
> C.4 Treatment combinations, repetition and randomisation
> C.5 Calculation methods
>
> Appendix D Wood combustion
> D.1 Oxidant
> D.2 Fuel
> D.2.1 Moisture
> D.2.2 Inorganic Materials (Ash)
> D.2.3 Organic Materials
> D.2.4 Direct combustion
> D.3 Pyrolysis
> D.3.1 Ratio of volatiles to char
> D.3.2 Initiation reactions
> D.3.3 Pyrolysis reactions
> D.3.4 Volatiles
> D.3.5 Char
> D.4 Combustion
> D.4.1 Reaction Rate
> D.4.2 Combustion of Activated Carbon
> D.4.3 Combustion of Volatiles
> D.4.4 Sulphur Dioxide
>
> Appendix E Case study: cooking devices compared
>
> References
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 07:58:02 -0500
> From: Thomas Reed <REEDTB@compuserve.com>
> Subject: Re: converting sawdust to charcoal briquettes
>
> Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
> Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Dear Andrew Heggie (and stovers):
>
> I have been sitting on your "summary" letter (below) for a few weeks
> because it deserves a good answer.
>
> Your summary (to Ferguson) pretty well "sums" up the present state of the
> art - much progress being made using inverted downdraft stoves for
cooking.
> Progress also in charcoal making. Many new ideas being tested "out
back".
>
>
> Unfortunately, my outback has turned quite cold, so I sit here at the
> computer listening to those in warmer climates or with heated labs.
> However, I am planning a MAJOR campaign for Spring - after publishing
> Volume I - to move my understanding of these issues forward and, I hope
> give needed understanding and data in this critical field.
>
> Here is a challenge: The inverted downdraft stoves currently produce
good
> cooking AND charcoal. If you need both how lucky! If you just want
> cooking, the air velocity needs to be increased about 20fold to
accomplish
> gasification of the charcoal as well. In that case, the cross section
area
> will DECREASE 20fold and you will have a one inch diameter gasifier for a
> 2.5 kW equivalent stove. That is where I started my thinking in 1985.
>
> How else can you consume the charcoal at the same rate as the wood?
>
> Onward, TOM REED
>
> ~~~~
>
> Summary Eric queried why we talk of charcoal making stoves
> At 17:01 11/11/97,dr. E.T. Ferguson wrote:
> >Dear Stovers,
> >
> >On this list there is a lot of discussion on the of ways producing
> charcoal
> >as a by- or co-product of a wood- or sawdust stove.
> >
> >I missed the beginning of this discussion. Can those who propose this
> >please explain why this is a good topic to research? In my view a stove
-
>
> >to be economical - should adapt its heat output to the food being
cooked.
> >When producing charcoal, stove will need to adapt to the efficiency of
> >charcoal production. It seems unlikely the two purposes will match.
>
> Andrew Heggie:I will have a try at this, I wondered what it was about
when
> I
> searched the list for information on charcoal making, hence I came in
from
> the opposite angle.
> As I understand the history of this: in researching the possibility of
> producing a smokeless biomas cookstove for under developed areas Ronal
> Larson and Tom Reed decided to light a fire on top of the fuel, whilst
> still
> drawing primary air up through the charge, to burn the pyrolisis gases
> secondary air entered above the fuel and was burned in a combustion area
> above the charge, This design lent itself to construction from two cans
> with
> the secondary air gap between. It also led to complete combustion of the
> pyrolisis gases which had not been possible in a fire lit at the botom
(an
> updraft fire) Reed/Larson named this inverted downdraft burning. This
> twocan
> principle of IDD burning is being developed by ELK and Alex English
amongst
> others.
>
> A side effect of this method is that after all volatiles have been burnt
> off
> hot charcoal remains in the bottom can. I suspect because of its shorter
> flame this charcoal if left to burn does not have as much effect on the
> cooking pan of water at the top. Also it is necessary to increase primary
> air to burn this charcoal, hence it is easier to extinguish it and keep
it
> as a by product, as you say it can be then used other cooking processes.
> >
> >The only purpose I would see is if the household has use for small
> >quantities of charcoal for special cooking, ironing, etc. Then it could
> be
> >a useful "side product" of a woodstove. But this would hardly be
relevant
>
> >from the energy angle.
>
> >
> >There has also been some mention of sawdust stoves: a tin packed with
> >sawdust around one or more sticks to make holes down the middle. Burns
> when
> >you light it. The design has been known for decades. The problem is
that
>
> >the stove cannot be regulated. Does anyone know any place where these
> have
> >proven their worth and are in regular use?
>
> I merely tried out the age old principle which had been mentioned on the
> list by Tom Reed, I simply reasoned that it was not a lot different in
> principle to top light this and treat it as we had our wood chunks.The
old
> method was presumably to light and run in an updraft mode. To better
> emulate
> the situation with vertically arranged sticks I just increased the number
> of
> gas holes. I did have problems with regulation and had to increase
primary
> air, which probably equates to high excess air usage. As has been
mentioned
> in this thread, by Ronal and Tom Reed, much charcoal making is done
> without
> flaring the pyrolisis gases, this is held to be a polluting method in the
> perceived wisdom of this list. Hence if a modified toplit idd twocan
method
> of carbonisation of sawdust could be used a pollution problem would be
> eased.
>
> Even if the heat could not be used for cooking, because of the lack of
> control you mention and my experience of needing extra draft from an
> insulated flue, there is scope for a flue of refractory material
> maintaining
> sufficient draw but also absorbing heat into its mass and then slowly
> giving
> up this heat after a short burn, much as a storage heater, for domestic
> use.
>
> As a further thought for Elsen, some previous discussion on the list
> mentioned charcoal making in the exhaust of an ic engine. If the sawdust
is
> metered into the exhaust at a rate proportional to the engine load the
char
> dust could be collected in a cyclone and the exhaust gases be flared.
There
> may have to be some exhaust recirculation to keep the temperature below
the
> 500C Tom Reed says is necessary for spontaneous combustion ( there being
> sufficient excess oxygen present in a diesel exhaust at part load to
cause
> a
> problem, I recall stories of buildings being demolished by dust
> explosions).
>
> On a charcoal usage front, is the world aware of the problem a water
> company
> in the UK has had on using activated bone charcoal to filter the drinking
> supply, there is an outcry from both vegetarian and ethnic groups. How is
> charcoal derived from bone which I thought was basically CaCO3?
>
> I have been referred to a publication of the Indian Academy of Science
1983
> edited by Prasad and Verhaart on Wood Heat for Cooking, not having
library
> facilities to hand immediately, is this still available?
> AJH
>
> <
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 17:30:12 -0800
> From: Luis Miguel Abad <cetep@reacciun.ve>
> Subject: Re: converting sawdust to charcoal briquettes
>
> Thomas Reed wrote:
> >
> > Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
> > Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Dear Andrew Heggie (and stovers):
> >
> > I have been sitting on your "summary" letter (below) for a few weeks
> > because it deserves a good answer.
> >
> > Your summary (to Ferguson) pretty well "sums" up the present state of
the
> > art - much progress being made using inverted downdraft stoves for
> cooking.
> > Progress also in charcoal making. Many new ideas being tested "out
> back".
> >
> >
> > Unfortunately, my outback has turned quite cold, so I sit here at the
> > computer listening to those in warmer climates or with heated labs.
> > However, I am planning a MAJOR campaign for Spring - after publishing
> > Volume I - to move my understanding of these issues forward and, I hope
> > give needed understanding and data in this critical field.
> >
> > Here is a challenge: The inverted downdraft stoves currently produce
> good
> > cooking AND charcoal. If you need both how lucky! If you just want
> > cooking, the air velocity needs to be increased about 20fold to
> accomplish
> > gasification of the charcoal as well. In that case, the cross section
> area
> > will DECREASE 20fold and you will have a one inch diameter gasifier for
a
> > 2.5 kW equivalent stove. That is where I started my thinking in 1985.
> >
> > How else can you consume the charcoal at the same rate as the wood?
> >
> > Onward, TOM
REED
> >
> > ~~~~
> >
> > Summary Eric queried why we talk of charcoal making stoves
> > At 17:01 11/11/97,dr. E.T. Ferguson wrote:
> > >Dear Stovers,
> > >
> > >On this list there is a lot of discussion on the of ways producing
> > charcoal
> > >as a by- or co-product of a wood- or sawdust stove.
> > >
> > >I missed the beginning of this discussion. Can those who propose this
> > >please explain why this is a good topic to research? In my view a
stove
> -
> >
> > >to be economical - should adapt its heat output to the food being
> cooked.
> > >When producing charcoal, stove will need to adapt to the efficiency of
> > >charcoal production. It seems unlikely the two purposes will match.
> >
> > Andrew Heggie:I will have a try at this, I wondered what it was about
> when
> > I
> > searched the list for information on charcoal making, hence I came in
> from
> > the opposite angle.
> > As I understand the history of this: in researching the possibility of
> > producing a smokeless biomas cookstove for under developed areas Ronal
> > Larson and Tom Reed decided to light a fire on top of the fuel, whilst
> > still
> > drawing primary air up through the charge, to burn the pyrolisis gases
> > secondary air entered above the fuel and was burned in a combustion
area
> > above the charge, This design lent itself to construction from two cans
> > with
> > the secondary air gap between. It also led to complete combustion of
the
> > pyrolisis gases which had not been possible in a fire lit at the botom
> (an
> > updraft fire) Reed/Larson named this inverted downdraft burning. This
> > twocan
> > principle of IDD burning is being developed by ELK and Alex English
> amongst
> > others.
> >
> > A side effect of this method is that after all volatiles have been
burnt
> > off
> > hot charcoal remains in the bottom can. I suspect because of its
shorter
> > flame this charcoal if left to burn does not have as much effect on the
> > cooking pan of water at the top. Also it is necessary to increase
primary
> > air to burn this charcoal, hence it is easier to extinguish it and keep
> it
> > as a by product, as you say it can be then used other cooking
processes.
> > >
> > >The only purpose I would see is if the household has use for small
> > >quantities of charcoal for special cooking, ironing, etc. Then it
could
> > be
> > >a useful "side product" of a woodstove. But this would hardly be
> relevant
> >
> > >from the energy angle.
> >
> > >
> > >There has also been some mention of sawdust stoves: a tin packed with
> > >sawdust around one or more sticks to make holes down the middle. Burns
> > when
> > >you light it. The design has been known for decades. The problem is
> that
> >
> > >the stove cannot be regulated. Does anyone know any place where these
> > have
> > >proven their worth and are in regular use?
> >
> > I merely tried out the age old principle which had been mentioned on
the
> > list by Tom Reed, I simply reasoned that it was not a lot different in
> > principle to top light this and treat it as we had our wood chunks.The
> old
> > method was presumably to light and run in an updraft mode. To better
> > emulate
> > the situation with vertically arranged sticks I just increased the
number
> > of
> > gas holes. I did have problems with regulation and had to increase
> primary
> > air, which probably equates to high excess air usage. As has been
> mentioned
> > in this thread, by Ronal and Tom Reed, much charcoal making is done
> > without
> > flaring the pyrolisis gases, this is held to be a polluting method in
the
> > perceived wisdom of this list. Hence if a modified toplit idd twocan
> method
> > of carbonisation of sawdust could be used a pollution problem would be
> > eased.
> >
> > Even if the heat could not be used for cooking, because of the lack of
> > control you mention and my experience of needing extra draft from an
> > insulated flue, there is scope for a flue of refractory material
> > maintaining
> > sufficient draw but also absorbing heat into its mass and then slowly
> > giving
> > up this heat after a short burn, much as a storage heater, for domestic
> > use.
> >
> > As a further thought for Elsen, some previous discussion on the list
> > mentioned charcoal making in the exhaust of an ic engine. If the
sawdust
> is
> > metered into the exhaust at a rate proportional to the engine load the
> char
> > dust could be collected in a cyclone and the exhaust gases be flared.
> There
> > may have to be some exhaust recirculation to keep the temperature below
> the
> > 500C Tom Reed says is necessary for spontaneous combustion ( there
being
> > sufficient excess oxygen present in a diesel exhaust at part load to
> cause
> > a
> > problem, I recall stories of buildings being demolished by dust
> > explosions).
> >
> > On a charcoal usage front, is the world aware of the problem a water
> > company
> > in the UK has had on using activated bone charcoal to filter the
drinking
> > supply, there is an outcry from both vegetarian and ethnic groups. How
is
> > charcoal derived from bone which I thought was basically CaCO3?
> >
> > I have been referred to a publication of the Indian Academy of Science
> 1983
> > edited by Prasad and Verhaart on Wood Heat for Cooking, not having
> library
> > facilities to hand immediately, is this still available?
> > AJH
> >
> > <
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of stoves-digest V1 #345
> ****************************
>
> <
>

_________
Zachariah Nobel, Assistant Manager for Internet Services
Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainable Technology (CREST)
1 (415) 284-6400
zach@crest.org

<

 

 

From larcon at sni.net Mon Jan 5 21:48:44 1998
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:47 2004
Subject: Forwarded: Heating water with the modern woodburner
Message-ID: <v01540b00b0d6f8930805@[204.133.251.25]>

(RWL): This looks like a good topic for some of our members.

>Date: Sun, 4 Jan 1998 23:40:24 -0500 (EST)
>From: Aredar <mail@intelliworks.net>
>Reply-To: trebor@intelliworks.net
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: bioenergy@crest.org
>Subject: Heating water with the modern woodburner
>Sender: owner-bioenergy@crest.org
>Precedence: bulk
>
>I heat my house in notheren Ohio with a USSC 150,000 BTU Add-On
>woodburner. I was wondering if anyone has a feasible way to heat my
>domestic hot water with my current unit.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Richard L. Darr
>
>trebor@intelliworks.net
>

Ronal W. Larson, PhD
21547 Mountsfield Dr.
Golden, CO 80401, USA
303/526-9629; FAX same with warning
larcon@sni.net

 

 

From larcon at sni.net Mon Jan 5 23:04:03 1998
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:47 2004
Subject: some additional forwarded mail from Peter Felker
Message-ID: <v01540b02b0d75758a3d7@[204.133.251.32]>

Stovers. The following is personal dialog that Peter has indicated is OK
for me to pass on - because I think there is considerable data here of
interest to others. See Peter's inquiry from a few days ago to which Tom
Reed made one response. The following is in three seprate parts.

1. Message #1 - Of Jan. 1
Dear Ron,
It was good to get your email message about charcoal. Actually the plants
I work with are used a great deal for charcoal, maybe more than any other
plants. They are the mesquites i.e. Prosopis. I have helped with genetic
improvement and management of Prosopis just this past 12 months in India,
South Africa, Mexico and Argentina. In Haiti, where we have also done
genetic improvment work, Prosopis is the number 1 energy species in the
countory because it is made into charcoal and transpported to the cities
where it does not smoke as much as wood. In the Gujarat state of India,
Prosopis is used to produce about 300,000 bags of charcoal per year. In
Mexico Prospois is used ot produce charcoal and is purchased by Robert
Colbert President of lazzari fuels. WE have just edited a book on
a workshop on Prosopis held at the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in
Washington with 22 papers that describes some of these uses. It is
available from me for $21.50 (includes postage).

What we are trying to do with the charcoal from the biomass harvester(a
color final report to DOE is available from Phil Badger at TVA) is not to
make energy but MONEY. Gasifiers may be great but they don't make money.
If we can make activated carbon for $400/ton from $10 biomass, we can
make money. As an outsider it seems the gasifiers cannot compete with
direct combustion for energy, but if if they could produce a very
valuable product, that could be another story altogether.

the harvester pieces are typically 1 inch by 0.5 inches by 3/8 of an
inch, but there are some longer stringy pieces( 12 inches) occasionally.
The machine is ideally designed to harvest stems 2 inches in diameter
that are spaced as close as you like(1 ft or less). They can be
multistemmed coppice so long as the stumps are less than the cutterhead
widith of 8 ft 6 inches.

Thanks for your help.

Peter

Message #2 - Of Jan. 2

It was good to get your note. It is my understanding from talking with
Tom Reed that activated carbon is more valuable that the charcoal used
for BBQ briquettes. If this is the case then it would not be mixed with
all hte stuff to make briquettes but sold for industrial charcoal uses.

The Hershaw furnace which is a rotary, continuous process evidently can
do this with small pieces.

The commercial version of our harvester is estimated to cost $280,000 and
will need a market of about 12,000 tons of chips per year at $8-9/ton to
justify its purchase. In light stands of mesquite (2-3 inches in basal
diameter) it has harvested 8 green tons/hour.

Peter

3. Message # 3 - This was sent as a copy of material sent to another list
member, and I presume will be of interest to a few others as well.

> It was good to hear about your interest in our biomass harvester. I think
> you have some quite good harvesters in Europe based on sugar cane
> harvesters. If you are harvesting material that has been planted in rows
> on agricultural fields, I suspect that some of the European harvesters
> i.e. the Jaguar and the Austoff will be more effective.
>
> If however, you are operating off agricultural fields in forestry terrain
> wioth rocks ditches and irregular sized bushes and trees, I believe our
> harvester is the only machine that can do the job.
>
> At this time we have a university Prototype built on a 290 hp John Deere
> forage harvester. We are working with a private company Brown Bear of
> Iowa who builds heavy duty forestry shredders to combine their machine
> with ours. The result would cost about $280,000 and would harvest 8-9
> tons/hr of green biomass at about $9/green ton. the cutterhead is an 8 ft
> wide flail chopper with overlapping knives, that can individually be
> replaced in several minutes. The cutterhead will cut anything in an 8 ft
> wide path in front of it that is less than 5 inches in basal diameter. It
> will then suck the severed material into the cutterhead and chop it into
> irregular shaped chips about 1 inch by 1 inch by 0.5 inches but some
> twigs about 12 inches long do manage to pass through unchipped. Presently
> we are capturing the chips on a box directly on the harvester, but at
> this very moment we are applying for a grant to install a baler/wrapper
> direclty on the harvester to produce 1300 lb bales.

4. from RWL: Peter has demonstrated a low cost approach to harvesting.
This message is going to follow another message I forwarded also today from
Andrew Heggie. I hope that the subject can turn more to clean,
decentralized (flared) charcoal making or better yet to productive use of
the flared gas energy - of the type that Andrew has been working on. Any
other thoughts?

Ronal W. Larson, PhD
21547 Mountsfield Dr.
Golden, CO 80401, USA
303/526-9629; FAX same with warning
larcon@sni.net

 

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Tue Jan 6 07:11:12 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:47 2004
Subject: Better E-Mail Browsers
Message-ID: <199801060715_MC2-2E36-825A@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Tom, Alex et al:

Tom says there are good (new) browsers and primitive browsers and to some
extent we are limited by the primitive ones in sending simple pictures and
files.

Those who have simple browsers should try to update them. I am using
Compuserve 3.01 and I think I'll download 3.04 even though the changes are
minimal.

Is there anyone out there who can tell me whether the MS Explorer E-mail
program is better than Compuserve?

Some of you have trouble with long lines that I can't read directly. I
copy them to a "reply" and then my reader word wraps them so I can read
them easily. I also do this to print copies without the routing garbage.
Then I discard.

All our systems are individually different, so we need to share comments.

Regards, TOM REED

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Tue Jan 6 10:55:49 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:47 2004
Subject: "Flaming Pyrolysis" Defined
Message-ID: <199801061059_MC2-2E3D-D9B5@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Doug et al:

Doug Williams asked........

>When flaming pyrolysis creeps into your answers, I feel a degree of
confusion unless you are talking about the stratified downdraught system or
combustion. Generally speaking, engine gasifiers must have a carbon bed in
front of the air nozzles, not raw wood and flaming pyrolysis.
Possibly I am not familiar with the way you apply the term, so would
appreciate being "straightened out".
~~~~
Since I invented the term "flaming pyrolysis" during my downdraft modelling
days at NREL (1983-86), I guess I am bound to define it as well as
possible.

In combustion the term "flaming combustion" is used to define combustion
with visible flames, either premixed (Bunsen burner type) or diffusion
(match or candle type). It is usually juxtaposed with "glowing combustion"
where the combustion appears to occur at a solid surface (as in charcoal or
coke combustion). Both FC and GC, properly executed, result in complete
combustion. Take a look at the steady progress of the flame of a match:
first the wood is pyrolysed and the gas/vapors burn in FC; then the flame
disappears and the remaining charcoal burns in GC in third world countries.
(In the US and maybe Europe, the match is treated so the charcoal won't
burn in GC and start forest fires.) Note that the processes are serial in
the match; no air can reach the charcoal until ALL the evolving pyrolysis
gases have left.

In the "stratified downdraft gasifier" (now replacing Imbert gasifiers
around the world) air and fuel enter at the top of a cylindrical container
and proceed downward. When the fuel reaches the combustion zone it is
ignited and begins to burn like the match. Initially there is a surplus of
air, but by the time the volatiles (80-90% of wood) have been released the
oxygen is gone and only CO, H2, CO2, H2O and a few 100 or 1000 ppm cracked
tars remain. These gases (at about 1200C) then pass over the resulting
charcoal. And more CO/H2 is made from the CO2/H2O.

While at NREL/SERI we actually constructed a 7.5 cm diam Quartz gasifier
with transparent gold tube insulation (10 cm) and could see these stages
very clearly. That is why the name "stratified downdraft gasifier" was
chosen.

One problem with the SDDG is that with very dry fuel, the flaming pyrolysis
proceeds into the dry fuel faster than the fuel can be fed and eventually
will appear at the top of the cylinder, leaving a full bed of charcoal
underneath. On the other hand if the fuel is too wet (>30% MC) the FP zone
can't propogate upward, and so begins to burn charcoal on the grate.
Charcoal fires can generate temperatures of 1500 C (see any blacksmith) and
so the grate melts. It seems paradoxical, but a wet fuel can melt the
grate in a SDDG.
~~~~
Things are more complex in the Imbert (WWII) style gasifier, which I
presume is the type you manufacture. The fuel enters from above, but the
air is injected 20-30cm above the grate. If the fuel is wet, the FP zone
can't move up easily and so air strikes the fuel producing most of the gas
by FP. If the fuel is quite dry the FP zone moves up, but, finding no air
there stops moving. The air finds charcoal at the nozzles and burns it.
Thus there is automatic stabilization of the zone at the nozzles by
adjusting the degree to which incoming air causes flaming pyrolysis or
glowing combustion.

Could you make a "viewport" nozzle on your gasifier so you could observe
the degree to which you see either diffusion flames (away from surfaces) or
glowing combustion flames?

If you send me a video of that, I will send you a video of our transparent
gasifier.

Pardon the length of this definition, but reality can be sometimes quite
complicated. If you like, I will extend this discussion to what happens in
fluidized beds and updraft gasifiers.

Regards, ........... TOM REED

 

 

Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification Ltd.

<

 

>> On Tue, 28 Oct 1997, Joacim Persson said:
>
> There was a brief discussion about `Superficial Gas Velocity' about a
month
> ago on the list. From the literature (books and articles) from
WW2-period
> I get the impression that the cross section area is crucial for the
> performance of a gasifier when used by a car engine. (Narrower cross
> section -> better idling performance and dynamic response to varying
> load, larger area -> higher maximum load.)
> <snip>

> Tom Reed responded:
>
> My original discussion of the importance of superficial velocity focussed
> mainly on its effect on the flaming pyrolysis zone and I hadn't thought
> much about the char reduction zone. I hope in the near future to run a
> series of test varying ONLY the SV and testing char yield, gas quality,
gas
> composition, bed temperature etc.
>

 

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Thu Jan 8 18:57:45 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:47 2004
Subject: Stove metal working
Message-ID: <199801081902_MC2-2E9B-63C2@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Stovers:

I am fabricating a new wood gas stove and have a question on metal forming.
Many of us use tin cans (steel) to make prototype stoves and punch holes
to allow primary and secondary air entry.

I find that if I punch a hole with a nail I get a very ragged hole and the
air flow through is probably correspondingly ragged. I found today that if
I us a metal punch with a ~30degree included angle I get a nice nozzle
shape with exponential taper - a good nozzle shape.

I then tried heating the punch and the can (propane torch) to about 700 C,
hoping to get an even better "draw" for the nozzle. I was surprised that
it was not as good as the cold punching. Would higher temperatures help?
Would a copper punch help? Lower punch angle? Not so important for
straight entry nozzles, but if I wanted to generate a tangential entry
nozzle it could be important to "draw at least a nozzle diameter without
tearing.

Help! Any metal workers out there?

Thanks, TOM REED

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Fri Jan 9 08:29:00 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:47 2004
Subject: Stove metal working
Message-ID: <199801090833_MC2-2EB2-31@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Stovers:

I am fabricating a new wood gas stove and have a question on metal forming.
Many of us use tin cans (steel) to make prototype stoves and punch holes
to allow primary and secondary air entry.

I find that if I punch a hole with a nail I get a very ragged hole and the
air flow through is probably correspondingly ragged. I found today that if
I us a metal punch with a ~30degree included angle I get a nice nozzle
shape with exponential taper - a good nozzle shape.

I then tried heating the punch and the can (propane torch) to about 700 C,
hoping to get an even better "draw" for the nozzle. I was surprised that
it was not as good as the cold punching. Would higher temperatures help?
Would a copper punch help? Lower punch angle? Not so important for
straight entry nozzles, but if I wanted to generate a tangential entry
nozzle it could be important to "draw at least a nozzle diameter without
tearing.

Help! Any metal workers out there?

Thanks, TOM REED

 

From larcon at sni.net Fri Jan 9 13:03:14 1998
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:47 2004
Subject: A forwarded reply on charcoal-making from Andrew Heggie
Message-ID: <v01540b02b0dc08fa5227@[204.133.251.30]>

Stovers: Because of some local problems logging onto the stoves list,
Andrew Heggie has asked that I forward this reply to the inquiry on
mesquite harvesting and subsequesnt large scale charcoal-making, which came
from Peter Felker in Texas. In a separate forwarding, I will forward some
other mail also received from Peter. Ron

To Andrew (who sent this in about a week ago) - I apologize. This got sent
off on time but incorrectly - and I only now realized my error. Ron

>From here on all by Andrew:

Summary Some comments on The James Arcate proposal as it may affect Texas
Woodchipping

At 20:33 01/01/98 -0600, Ronal wrote:

>The exhaust gases are about 25 times worse than CO2 in terms of global
>warming. At least three persons on the list have worked on this flaring
>issue and possibly still are. We have not had any recent report on the
>topic, but your question may generate a response.

Andrew: This is where I came in to this forum, through it I have learned
interesting techniques and formed a collaboration to develop an integrated
approach to the problem.
Greg Brown is working on a simple flaring process to make the use of ring
kilns acceptable, we are looking at a similar but more engineered approach
using combustion technology developed by Nick Sayed, again for use with
existing ring kilns, a route I do not think has much future but the market
for such an improvement is extant as pollution controls bite in the western
urban world. We are also building a hybrid kiln/retort and have experimented
with top lighting of a ring kiln. Finally we are proposing an integrated
scheme for use on a proposed developement in South London and hence making
use of waste heat.

There has been a discussion on the gasification list with regard to
patenting, tvoivozd has said :

"A patent is undeniably of value to a patent research
organization and a patent attorney---to any one else it has less or none.

Most people do not understand that most patents are incremental in
improvement, not basic, that there are numerous alternative means of
accomplishing the same mechanical, electrical, electronic, or chemical
objective---normally with little to choose between them in terms of cost or
performance.

A patent is of principal utility to a person or company intending to
incorporate it into production and sale of their own product---again for
the slight improvement, if any in performance, and primarily so that
someone cannot prevent them from producing and selling the product in which
they have invested considerable marketing resources.

A patent is basically the right to sue. This is a two-edged sword, in most
instances doing as much damage to the plaintiff as defendant. Forty
percent of the patents will be invalidated or no infringement found. Of
those that proceed to judgment (many do not), the percentage that collect
is vanishingly small, as are the net proceeds."
***************************************************
Unfortunately whilst in agreement with tvoivozd and earlier comments by ELK
and wishing to place knowledge in the public domain the fact remains I am in
the same position as the originator of the Gas-l thread, "Deano", that we
have developed and tested the idea of a less polluting and efficient
charcoal making process, using well known methods applied slightly
innovatively, but scaling and developing it is beyond our means and to
attract investment I cannot disclose detail.

Now back to the topic. Comments relate to UK circumstances and limitations
on transport.

Ronal: I would hope you would preferably look for a way to move the full
>wood chips (or other) to some relatively nearby spot where the

Green chip density is approximately 2.8M3/tonne, Standard bulk transport can
only carry 11tonnes without compaction, super cube lorries will carry a
capacity load (23tonnes in UK) but are less available. Much work here is
being concentrated on baling smallwood and tops and comminuting at point of
use. This enables 40 1/2 tonne bales (cost to bale GBP4) to be loaded on
flatbed transport.

Ronal:transportation costs are still tolerable and the venting problem
disappears
>and the pyrolysis gases can still be productively utilized - perhaps in
>small-scale electricity generation. The bioenergy list also is having a
>dialog on the appropriateness of large vs small scale right now - hampered
>by the fact that there are no real cost-effective generators quite yet.

Andrew:I guess all on the list believe in the need to encourage non-food
biomass use. I would still say structural use first followed by fibre
(paper,cloth etc) and then fuel and soil amelioration. We could enter a
complex thread on the fossil fuel depletion and rio/kyoto, interesting but
information overload for this list followup by email :)
The fact remains we westerners are wealthy enough for fossil fuel usage to
remain very competitive despite our reservations about sustainability, in
this scenario we cannot attract investment as there is no return, special
circumstances, e.g. barbeque charcoal, apart.

Ronal:>Let me know if you have any trouble following that thread.
Especially look
>at the web site of Alex English, and the recent excellent work of Elsen
>Karstad.
Andrew:Yes some of the toplit stove work is fundamental to flaring imo. I
take my hat off to ELK and to Alex, steaming away at high pressure now!

Felker Peter J:>>A project at Texas A&M University in Kingsville Texas has
been developing
>>a harvester for small diameter trees and shrubs. We are quite close to
>>commercialization after more than 10 years R&D as we have achieved
>>$8.5/green ton costs in the field(harvested and chipped).
Andrew: A lot of work in UK and Eire has been done on Arable Short Rotation
Coppice. Using surplus arable land (subsidized) and arable herbicide,
planting and harvesting techniques dry matter growth rates of 35
tonne/hectare are achieved with projected harvesting costs using modified
whole crop maize foragers of GBP8/dry tonne forwarded to store. This is half
current mechanised Forestry harvesting rates. Motor manual methods ( how I
earn a living) are completely uncompetitive unless on high value stems.
>>
Felker Peter J>>Due to the low value of the chips and the great distances in the
>>southwest for transportation, we are seeking ways to make value added
>>directly in the field. If we could make industrial charcoal in portable
>>kilns or in rotary kilns, this would increase the value from $18/dry ton
>>to close to $100 per ton or even more.
Andrew:This is James Arcate's point: It appears a maximum size power plant
is in the order of 20MW using biomass, small for conventional plants, beyond
which the harvesting radius is uneconomic. With half the energy value but a
fifth of the weight charcoal, if produced economically may compete.

With the given harvesting costs and industrial grade coke shipping at
GBP50/tonne cif and an optimistic yield of 40% of dry matter ( i.e a fifth
of the harvested weight where we typically achieve an eigth), with deference
to Mike Antal's high volatiles high yield process, the only economies
available are likely to be proximity to markets. Once you build in local
benefits related to a bioregional approch then in my opinion the time is
already ripe for such a venture.

The situation may be even better in terms of energy density if a very high
volatile (torrefied) grade of charcoal is used, a principal benefit would be
a non-hygroscopic product, significant in transport weight, and less energy
loss in production. I have no experience of this part-pyrolised product.
AJH

Ronal W. Larson, PhD
21547 Mountsfield Dr.
Golden, CO 80401, USA
303/526-9629; FAX same with warning
larcon@sni.net

 

 

From english at adan.kingston.net Sat Jan 10 08:13:22 1998
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:47 2004
Subject: Stove metal working
Message-ID: <199601110219.VAA11794@adan.kingston.net>

 

> Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
> Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Tom, stovers,
I can't help much on the materials side, but I to am currently
struggling with nozzle shape and gas velocities.

> Dear Stovers:
>
> I am fabricating a new wood gas stove and have a question on metal forming.
> Many of us use tin cans (steel) to make prototype stoves and punch holes
> to allow primary and secondary air entry.

Great, more trials ahead.
>
> I find that if I punch a hole with a nail I get a very ragged hole and the
> air flow through is probably correspondingly ragged. I found today that if
> I us a metal punch with a ~30degree included angle I get a nice nozzle
> shape with exponential taper - a good nozzle shape.

Please elaborate. What is the goal in terms of nozzle shapes? Are
you referring to the angle of convergence as with the first half of
a venturi, ideally 21degrees.

Looking in the Machinery's Handbook I found a table
titled Velocity of Air Under Low Pressures.(at 62F) The table gives
the theoretical velocity for the discharge of air into the
atmosphere. These are then multiplied by coefficients depending on
the form of the orifice. For an orifice with sharp edges in a thin
plate (multiply by 0.63), for a well shaped nozzle (multiply by 0.93)

The table lists that for a gage pressure of 0.006 (about 0.01 inches
of water column,wroughly the draft from a foot of chimney) the
Theoretical velocity is 6.61 feet/sec. For two feet of chimney, 9.35
feet/sec.
The venturi burner, as shown at
http://www1.kingston.net/~english/Queens.htm
, has the producer gas flowing at
about 1 foot/sec up into the bottom of the "venturi", and the
secondary air flowing through the six tangential fins (nozzles) into
the side of the "venturi" flows at about 4 feet/sec.
A far cry from the 6-8 feet/sec that should (???) be possible.

So I find myself running all sorts of tests with that tiny radioshack
fan combined with various configurations of tubes, filling garbage
bags, very slowly, with air, in an effort to understand micro flow.
Not to mention other experiments.
Did you know that air flowing at about 5 feet per second can
sufficiently cool a burning candle so as to slowly and steadily shrink
the flame ( probably due to lack of melting wax) until it finally
goes out.

How to entertain one's self during an ice storm, with tenuous power
supply, while contemplating cooking the next meal on the One Can.

Alex

>
> I then tried heating the punch and the can (propane torch) to about 700 C,
> hoping to get an even better "draw" for the nozzle. I was surprised that
> it was not as good as the cold punching. Would higher temperatures help?
> Would a copper punch help? Lower punch angle? Not so important for
> straight entry nozzles, but if I wanted to generate a tangential entry
> nozzle it could be important to "draw at least a nozzle diameter without
> tearing.
>
> Help! Any metal workers out there?
>
> Thanks, TOM REED
>
>

______________
Alex English
RR 2 Odessa Ontario
Canada K0H 2H0
Tel 1-613-386-1927
Fax 1-613-386-1211
Stoves Web Site http://www1.kingston.net/~english/Stoves.html

 

From shell at wolfenet.com Wed Jan 14 17:59:25 1998
From: shell at wolfenet.com (Ronald Kent)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:47 2004
Subject: No mail in 6 days
Message-ID: <199801142304.PAA24898@wolfenet.com>

Dear Ronal,
Wondering if there was a glitch. Or was I dropped? Or is everyone
asleep?

Ron Kent
shell@wolfenet.com

 

From larcon at sni.net Fri Jan 16 11:26:50 1998
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:47 2004
Subject: forwarded message on co-firing wood and oil
Message-ID: <v01540b05b0e43a8c6821@[204.133.251.15]>

Stovers: I am currently stopping about 2-3 messages a day - mostly on
sales of gas stoves. However,this one from a non-list member sounds like
one that might intrigue someone on the list. Any ideas? Ron

(Stovers) : This is a second attempt to get this out, as it bounced back.
Ron

Hi!!
I have a question for you. My son-inlaw is a farmer in Illlinois. He
uses a home made wood stove to heat his workshop and would like to
attach an oil burning feature to his existing wood stove.. He would be
burning used motor oil from their tractors and machinery. Can you help
with ideas or suggestions on how he might design such an attachment.

Thank You
Mike Myers
mmyers@csj.net

Ronal W. Larson, PhD
21547 Mountsfield Dr.
Golden, CO 80401, USA
303/526-9629; FAX same with warning
larcon@sni.net

 

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Jan 18 19:27:21 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:47 2004
Subject: forwarded message on co-firing wood and oil
Message-ID: <199801181931_MC2-2FCC-F79A@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Mike Meyers;

You asked:

Hi!!
I have a question for you. My son-inlaw is a farmer in Illlinois. He
uses a home made wood stove to heat his workshop and would like to
attach an oil burning feature to his existing wood stove.. He would be
burning used motor oil from their tractors and machinery. Can you help
with ideas or suggestions on how he might design such an attachment.

Thank You
Mike Myers
mmyers@csj.net

I suppose this is a widespread problem, and maybe we can gin up a
widespread solution. Most homes (including my former one) in New England
use an "oil gun" furnace. The parts are probably available under $200. It
fires into a plenum furnace (made with insulation like riser sleeves) and
then to the heat exchangers. I am sure that this could be attached in
series or parallel to the wood stove to provide dual fuel capability. It
might be necessary to cut the thick motor oil with some diesel (or heat it)
so it would flow to the burner.

Please try this out and report back.

Yours truly, TOM REED

 

 

From Fred.Dumbleton at aeat.co.uk Mon Jan 19 03:41:47 1998
From: Fred.Dumbleton at aeat.co.uk (Fred Dumbleton)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:47 2004
Subject: forwarded message on co-firing wood and oil
Message-ID: <0001AF7D.001268@ccgate.aeat.co.uk>

Dear Mike Meyers and other interested stovers

In the past I have seen advertisements for a burner called the
"FreeHeat" burner which was specifically designed for used engine oil.
I last saw the advertisement in a magazine called "Light Steam
Power", but presumably the manufacturer advertises elsewhere. Hope
you can locate it.

Regards

Fred Dumbleton

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: forwarded message on co-firing wood and oil
Author: Thomas Reed <REEDTB@compuserve.com> at Internet-mail
Date: 18/01/98 19:31

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Mike Meyers;

You asked:

Hi!!
I have a question for you. My son-inlaw is a farmer in Illlinois. He
uses a home made wood stove to heat his workshop and would like to
attach an oil burning feature to his existing wood stove.. He would be
burning used motor oil from their tractors and machinery. Can you help
with ideas or suggestions on how he might design such an attachment.

Thank You
Mike Myers
mmyers@csj.net

I suppose this is a widespread problem, and maybe we can gin up a
widespread solution. Most homes (including my former one) in New England
use an "oil gun" furnace. The parts are probably available under $200. It
fires into a plenum furnace (made with insulation like riser sleeves) and
then to the heat exchangers. I am sure that this could be attached in
series or parallel to the wood stove to provide dual fuel capability. It
might be necessary to cut the thick motor oil with some diesel (or heat it)
so it would flow to the burner.

Please try this out and report back.

Yours truly, TOM REED

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Jan 21 08:38:32 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:47 2004
Subject: forwarded message on co-firing wood and oil
Message-ID: <199801210843_MC2-3017-5AC0@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am forwarding a valid concern from Kirk Smith on the burning of used
motor oil. Among other questions it raises is "how used"? Another is
what the alternatives are.

Comments?
-------------Forwarded Message-----------------

From: "Kirk R. Smith", INTERNET:krksmith@uclink4.berkeley.edu
To: Thomas Reed, REEDTB

Date: 1/19/98 9:36 PM

RE: Re: forwarded message on co-firing wood and oil
Subject: Re: forwarded message on co-firing wood and oil

Tom, I worry a bit about this, since used motor oil can have various toxic
metals in it that can create nasty exposures when burned if not vented far
from people. Do you know anything about this problem? Best/K

At 07:31 PM 1/18/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
>Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Dear Mike Meyers;
>
>You asked:
>
>Hi!!
>I have a question for you. My son-inlaw is a farmer in Illlinois. He
>uses a home made wood stove to heat his workshop and would like to
>attach an oil burning feature to his existing wood stove.. He would be
>burning used motor oil from their tractors and machinery. Can you help
>with ideas or suggestions on how he might design such an attachment.
>
>Thank You
>Mike Myers
>mmyers@csj.net
>
>I suppose this is a widespread problem, and maybe we can gin up a
>widespread solution. Most homes (including my former one) in New England
>use an "oil gun" furnace. The parts are probably available under $200. It
>fires into a plenum furnace (made with insulation like riser sleeves) and
>then to the heat exchangers. I am sure that this could be attached in
>series or parallel to the wood stove to provide dual fuel capability. It
>might be necessary to cut the thick motor oil with some diesel (or heat it)
>so it would flow to the burner.
>
>Please try this out and report back.
>
>Yours truly, TOM REED
>
>
>

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Jan 21 08:39:05 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:47 2004
Subject: Too Long Files
Message-ID: <199801210843_MC2-3017-5AC3@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hey Guys and Gals:

More and more I have been delighted to be receiving long files with
documents and pictures. So much so, that I bought a 58 kB modem (life is
short - buy baud).

HOWEVER: A really long file (>1 Meg) takes 4-5 minutes to download and
keeps me from reading my other mail. I don't think we should send them to
the whole list.

I SUGGEST that as a matter of courtesy we warn the list when sending files
longer than 200 kB, and only send them to those that reply, requesting
them.

COMMENTS?

Frankly yours, TOM REED

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Fri Jan 23 07:55:21 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:47 2004
Subject: FW: forwarded message on co-firing wood and oil
Message-ID: <199801230758_MC2-3063-B439@compuserve.com>

Dear Skip Hayden and Kirk Smith:

Thanks for your warning comments on used oil co-firing for stoves. Sorry I
gave a lesser half baked (or half digested?) opinion.

Remember,though farmers are excellent mechanics and can usually get around
problems when they understand them. Maybe they change their tractor oil
every 3,000 miles in brand new tractors and have zero metallic particles.
Now they know the caveats.

Your message came through loud and clear and to make sure mine is corrected
I am posting this to STOVES and GASIFICATION. Keep lurking!

TOM REED

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Mon Jan 26 09:22:39 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:47 2004
Subject: bioenergy-digest V1 #922
Message-ID: <199801260927_MC2-30A8-13DA@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear A Novelli et al:

When I first looked into biomass for renewable energy, I would have agreed
with AN that only a few % of our US needs could be answered by biomass in a
renewable fashion and then we might start the biggest non-renewable logging
operation in the history of Mankind.

As I looked further I realized

a) There is a tremendous waste of wood during normal (renewable) forestry

b) Thinning forests (and using the thinnings for energy greatly increases
the value of the remaining large trees when their turn for cutting for
lumber comes

c) We currently burn about 500 M tons of coal a year. We have about 500 M
acres of commercial forest land. Well managed forest land produces 1-3
tons of biomass/acre, so our wood supply could easily equal our coal supply
with lots left over. (On the other hand a true energy crisis could result
in massive land and forest destruction, so BIOMASS ENERGY is a two edged
sword)

d) There are another 500 million acres of private forest ownership,
producing very little useful wood. With proper incentives they would
produce both lumber and energy

e) There are equal quantities of ag residues that are surplus in the U.S.
if we learn how to gasify/burn them properly

f) Several responsible estimates predict biomass can supply 20-25% of
current U.S. energy consumption ON A SUSTAINABLE BASIS

g) No one thinks we need to replace all our current wastful energy needs
with biomass

So I hope this makes you feel better ... It does me anyhow.

Yours, TOM REED

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Mon Jan 26 09:29:33 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:47 2004
Subject: Release of biomass energy during carbonisation
Message-ID: <199801260927_MC2-30A8-13D5@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Tom Stubbing:

ENERGY YIELD OF CHARCOAL MANUFACTURE

The heat of combustion of most wood is 20 kJ/g, 20 MJ/kg. The heat of
combustion of charcoals ranges from 23 to 30 kJ/g, depending on temperature
to which it is heated! "Cooking charcoal" (ie heated to <450C and still
containing about 20% volatiles) is 23 kJ/g. To calculate the energy in the
charcoal multiply the yield (20-30%) by the energy content (23 kJ/g). The
rest of the energy is in the gas and volatiles released.

Yours truly, TOM REED

(Where are you? What do you do? Just finished answering your first
"invention" note - separate from this.)

 

From larcon at sni.net Tue Jan 27 19:01:30 1998
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:47 2004
Subject: Forwarding: Can Stoves at Pottershop
Message-ID: <v01540b02b0efd853c11e@[204.133.251.26]>

(RWL): The following forwarding comes from Richard Boyt, who I have just
signed up for "stoves". I have separately asked Richard to supply more
detail on his design. Ron

Dear Stovers:

Recently, D. M. Kammen encouraged me to contact you. Yesterday, my son
Dave accessed your forum and printed out the last two months of your
entries. I am stunned by what I am reading. While I realize that you
are miles ahead of me, it is my hope that some of my experiments &
observations may be of interest to the group. For a number of years, I
have explored various designs for simple home-made wood fuel stoves- for
cooking, air & water heating, steam production, incinerating, charcoal
and pyrolitic gas production, and even firing ceramics.
Most recently, I have been working with small tin can cooking stoves. I
used a 3 ounce charge of pencil-sized dry twigs jammed into a Campbell
soup can that serves as a combustion chamber for a 9-can up-down-up
draft stove. It is insulated only by air which is preheated for primary
and secondary combustion. I found that I could bring a quart of 60 F
degree water to a boiling temperature for 9.5 minutes, evaporating 2
ounces. No smoke was observed, and no adjustments of any kind were made
to the stove after ignition. Temperature of the one gallon paint can
that served as the stoveís outer container became quite warm to the
touch only toward the end of the burn. The fuel was completely
converted to ash.
So far, the stove has cooked potatoes, chicken, hamburger, various
breads, cakes, and biscuits. After about thirty firings, the wire grate
and the combustion chamber are still quite usable.
Ignition is initiated by dropping a succession of small wads of
newsprint down the chimney (two V-8 cans). Cooking takes place at the
top of the chimney. The fire flame stage burns from top down, the char
stage from the bottom up. Not all burns have been smokeless,
particularly at the very end of the flame stage.
First attempts to scale up the stove have presented new problems, but I
believe that shaping the fuel charge and re-dimensioning the air path
may help. I would be most pleased to provide further information,
drawings, and models, if anyone would be interested. In the mean time,
I thank all of you for making it possible for me to learn from your
splendid experiments.

Respectfully,

Richard Boyt
20479 Panda Rd.
Neosho, MO 64850
(417) 451-1728
dboyt@clandjop.com

 

 

From larcon at sni.net Tue Jan 27 19:01:39 1998
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:47 2004
Subject: Forwarding: Propane/wood Cook Stoves
Message-ID: <v01540b05b0f009ef68ea@[204.133.251.26]>

Stovers - Anyone able to comment on this one? Ron

Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 19:19:59 -0600
To: stoves@crest.org
From: Gary North <gnorth@iamerica.net>
Subject: Propane/wook Cook Stoves
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Dear Sir:

Does anyone manufacture a combination wood/propane cooking stove? I've
got an electric/wood stove, but I'd like propane.

 

 

From english at adan.kingston.net Tue Jan 27 21:45:23 1998
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:47 2004
Subject: Forwarding: Can Stoves at Pottershop
In-Reply-To: <v01540b02b0efd853c11e@[204.133.251.26]>
Message-ID: <199801280250.VAA26365@adan.kingston.net>

Dear Richard and Son
Sounds like your on to something hot.

If you can, send your pictures and drawings along and I will post
them for all to see.

Alex

______________
Alex English
RR 2 Odessa Ontario
Canada K0H 2H0
Tel 1-613-386-1927
Fax 1-613-386-1211
Stoves Web Site http://www1.kingston.net/~english/Stoves.html

 

From larcon at sni.net Tue Jan 27 23:05:05 1998
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:47 2004
Subject: Forwarded: measuring moisture content
Message-ID: <v01540b05b0f4359728fd@[204.133.251.30]>

Stovers - Although not strictly a stove issue, this did come in to us and
some members have given prior guidance on moisture content meters for wood.
Anyone able to help? Ron

Subject:Query about the Technical Index of Grain Moisture Meter

Dear Sir. Or Madam and My Teachers:

We've been searching the title product over Internet. Some search engine
gave me more than
one million IPs, but non of an IP provided the parameter I needed.Perhaps
I'm too ignorant
to search over Internet. Help me please.

Our client have developed a grain moisture meter that adapted the technique
of capacitance,
conductance,dielectric constant, resistance and so on. We are eager to know
if there are
such grain moisture meters in your Company: Its technical indexes are as
follows:

stability <0.01% (water content value),
reproducibility precision < 0.03 (water content value),
response time<10 sec.

If you can give me some information about the meter belonging to same
sort,I would be very
gratefull.

A thousand thanks. God bless you!

Fidelis Zhao
Jan 25,1998
E-mail:search@flower.gsinfo.sti.ac.cn
Org.:The Science and Technology
Information Institute
of Gansu Province,Chima
Address: 519pinglianglu, Lanzhou,
Gansu, China

Email: search@flower.gsinfo.sti.an.cn
The science and Technology Information Institute
of Gansu Province. China.
Tel. & Fax: 0086-0931-9417346
Post zip: 730000

 

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Jan 28 10:03:42 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:47 2004
Subject: No charcoal node - for now
Message-ID: <199801281008_MC2-30F8-5518@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A month or so ago I suggested that maybe we needed a CHARCOAL node at
CREST. I talked to Tom Miles yesterday and Crest is concerned about
opening too many nodes, some of which could fade in a few months.

I keep most of my received notes in my electronic filing cabinet where I
have an amazing number of biomass categories. So, I have been filing all
communications dealing with charcoal, whether from STOVES, GASIFICATION or
wherever, there. If anyone needs serious info that passed through CREST
recently I can find it there. I just checked there and there are 105 items
over the last two years.

So, for now, CHARCOAL is a file item for me and CREST...

Onward, TOM REED (list
administator)

 

From elk at arcc.or.ke Wed Jan 28 13:52:36 1998
From: elk at arcc.or.ke (Elsen L. Karstad)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:47 2004
Subject: Can Stoves at Pottershop
Message-ID: <199801281857.VAA14052@arcc.or.ke>

Dear Richard and Son;

Great to have you on board! I look forward to reading a detailed
description of this 2XV8 stove and maybe a drawing or photo or two on Alex's
site.

I'll see if we've similarly dimensioned cans around here & replicate ASAP.

Meanwhile; back to the sawdust pile....... Ive been trying to figure out
how to dry the sawdust and then carbonise in one step while capturing the
gasses to fuel the whole process. On the third configuration of the 12 foot
grain auger now, & beginning to despair (just a little) ..... Tom?? Anything
in your newly sorted archive that you can e-mail my way?

elk

 

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Elsen L. Karstad
P.O. Box 24371
Nairobi, Kenya

Fax (+ 254 2) 884437
Tel (+ 254 2) 891531