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

[psanders at ilstu.edu]

Dear Kevin,

1.  I certainly DO give Lanny much and major credit.  He is innovative, but he
did not invent the central channel in combustion.  He is much like me, and my
T-LUD work is creative discovery by trial and error following some principles
and experiences that come from others.

And I do NOT take credit for the truly new aspects of Tom Reed's IDD/T-LUD
invention, nor does Dean Still take credit for Larry Winearski's Rocket elbow
invention.  The T-LUD and Rocket technologies ARE inventions of unique
combustion methods.

The prototypes and manufactured configurations that implement those combustion
principles can be innovative devices that move the technology forward, such as
the WoodGas CampStove and the Champion Stove (T-LUDs) and the Onil Stove and
many other variations of the Rocket technology.  Even if the devices can be
patented, they are dependent upon the original inventiveness of Reed and
Winearski.

2.  The rest you answered yourself when you wrote:
> 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.

The issue IS that it has so many (8?) defining characteristics.  We can
recognize this one specific configuration of a stove/combustion technology and
call it "The Henson Center Fire Burner System".  But if you take away 1 
or 3 or
more of those 8 characteristics (and even if saving the main ones that 
are more
important), you would no longer have "The Henson Center Fire Burner 
System".  But what it would have is a "central channel", and that 
places that "System" in
the category with the "packed-sawdust central channel" stove and with the
"biomass briquette with central channel" combustion.

*****

I can appreciate your defending of Lanny's creativity, but you are 
unfair if you
think that I was putting him down or detracting from the quality of his 
work. Anyway, thanks for stimulating the discussion and giving me 
another opportunity
to clarily what I wrote previously.

Paul

Quoting Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>:

> 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.
>>
>
>



----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Illinois State University Webmail.