[Stoves] Central channel combustion stoves. Was RE: Henson CenterFiure Burner System

[Kevin Chisholm]

Dear Paul
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul S. Anderson" <psanders at ilstu.edu>
To: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispin at newdawn.sz>
Cc: "alexis belonio - Philippines" <atbelonio at yahoo.com>; "Stoves" 
<stoves at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 7:08 PM
Subject: [Stoves] Central channel combustion stoves. Was RE: Henson 
CenterFiure Burner System


> Stovers,
>
> I agree that Lanny has put something fresh into the options about stoves. 
> I say
> "fresh" (as in a new perspective on something that exits) instead of 
> "totally
> new" because central channels (centralized vertically in the fuel) is 
> found in
> the packed-sawdust burners and in the holey briquettes of Richard Stanley, 
> and
> probably elsewhere.

So, what does he have to do, to get credited with a new system? Please tell 
me what is "totally new" about the principles behind the Rocket Stove, or 
the T-LUD. I would suggest that there is nothing "new" about them. What they 
are is a very clever and practical application of existing, fundamental, and 
well known principles.
>
> The defining characteristic is the central channel, and that is a generic
> descriptor of a fuel configuration for combustion.  (Feel free to propose 
> other
> names for the GENERIC descriptor of all such combustion devices with a 
> central
> channel.)  The specifics of the "Henson Center Fire Burner System" deserve
> recognition of the inventor, and I applaude Lanny for having led us all to
> examine central channel combustion.  I hope that he will lead us all and 
> will
> eventually produce a named stove that reaches the markets and the people.

Lanny is a proven innovator. Lanny works for a living. Lanny is obviously a 
generous person, giving to the list the results of his discoveries and 
observations as he makes them. Lanny has presented some very interesting 
concepts which I feel will advance the science of Stoves. The Stoves List 
would be a better place if there were more like Lanny participating in it as 
"givers". Why would you seek to deny him a bit of well earned recognition by 
labelling his contribution as GENERIC?
>
> What is fresh (innovative, new perspective) in what Lanny has accomplished 
> is
> that the fuel is NOT packed tightly as in the two previous examples. 
> Instead,
> a central channel is created by a structure (wire basket or 
> highly-perforated
> cylinder) that prevents the fuel from collapsing into the central channel. 
> This has several highly significant impacts on stove technology.

So, what is wrong with calling such an innovative system that provides such 
a new and fresh perspective on Stoving "The Henson Center Fire Burner 
System?"
>
> 1.  The fuel is relatively loose (not packed like the sawdust or briquette
> fuel).
>
> 2.  Therefore, the liberated gases can move more easily through it, with
> preference (least resistance) toward the central channel where the heat of
> combustion can ignite these arriving gases, continuing to drive the upward
> movement of the air/gases, creating a lower pressure in the center, that 
> favors
> drawing in more of the gases.
>
> 3.  The fuel can be of many, many types of dry biomass provided that the
> openings in the basket/cylinder are sufficiently small to prevent much 
> (some
> could be allowed?) falling through of the raw fuel.  And still large 
> enough for
> ash (not char) to fall through, perhaps if occassionally shaken or probed. 
> Many
> types?  How about everything from rice husks and loose sawdust to lumps of
> charcoal and perhaps even vertically placed long wood sticks.  Corn cobs 
> would
> be very good, as would wood chips and pellets and small-diameter 
> briquettes
> (not the briquettes that are large and with a hole).
>
> 4.  This device could be made to be continuous feed for continuous 
> operation. (My example here is with the pot removed for refueling, but 
> other ways could
> possibly let the pot remain in place.)  The new fuel should probably be
> inserted downward and to the outside of the fuel container, thereby 
> forcing the
> earlier fuel toward the bottom and toward the center.  This could also 
> assist in
> ash removal either through the central channel (be careful of up-draft 
> carrying
> the ash up to the pot, so refuel when the primary air has been cut off for 
> a
> couple of minutes), or downward through openings in the bottom of the 
> "donut"
> of the fuel holder.
>
> 5.  Even without refueling, the central channel keeps pulling the gases 
> into it,
> leaving the outside walls of the fuel container relatively cool (adding 
> much
> life to the metal of those walls).  When the fuel does burn outwards, it 
> is
> highly likely that the loose fuels will fall downward (especially if 
> stimulated
> by shaking or probing), filling in the voids, and returning more to the 
> burning
> (use of the oxygen in the available air) that is closest to the air flow 
> in the
> central channel.
>
> 6.  A major research question is the optimal diameter (or shape if conical 
> or
> otherwise) of the central channel, with variables of fuel types and 
> desired
> heat output.
>
> 7.  Another question is the impact of placing "things" down into the 
> central
> channel.  Things could be flame spreaders or turbulance stimulators or 
> flame
> retainers (wrong name, but you know what I mean), or even entrances for
> secondary air.
>
> 8.  The central channel combustion is combustion where the making of the 
> gases
> from the solid fuel is mixed in with the combustion of those gases. 
> Therefore,
> it is NOT a gasifier in which the creation of the gases is able to be 
> identified
> as separate in time and space from the combustion of the gases.

Not to be argumentative, but what Lanny has configured in a raw form is 
really a Side-Lit Updraft Gasifier, a S-LUD Gasifier Stove.
>
> 9.  Could someone please explain and provide a contact for the statement 
> made
> days earlier that
>>> Yes a number of examples have been posted now to which I will add the
>>> combustible tube tlud stove that someone here built. [snip]
>
> Although I am highly involved with the T-LUD technology, I have no 
> knowledge of
> that is mentioned above.
>
> *************
>
> Personally, I will certainly be eventually making and examining the 
> central
> channel combustion with loose placement of fuels, and I will always credit
> Lanny Henson with initial experiments and reporting that has brought this
> technology to our attention.

Well, why not start the acknowledgement process by agreeing to refer to it 
as "The Henson Center Fire Burner System?" I would suggest that any 
innovator who presents a "Burner System" that has 8 defining characteristics 
such as you outline is entitled to recognition for his contribution.

Best Wishes,

Kevin


>
> Paul
>
>
> -- 
> Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Geography professor - Emeritus
> Telephone:  USA-309-452-7072 (residence and office)
> Internet site:  www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
> For my gasifier stoves info, go to (below) and click on my name:
> http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/contributions.html
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using Illinois State University Webmail.
>