[Stoves] Understanding "charcoal making" stoves. Was:energy lost in charcoal making and briquetting

[Paul S. Anderson]

Greetings Kevin, Jeff, and All,

I have read all the messages on the above Subject through to AJH's 
definition of
a stove.  I will reply mainly relating to one of Kevin's messages, but first
point out the the World War II gasifiers were not top-lit updraft units, as
implied in one other message.

Quoting Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>:
> If [we] consider the T-LUD or the IDD "devices" as a total package, we see
> the following:
> 1: A gasifier section
> 2: Purposeful features for the provision of secondary air with the intent of
> permitting complete combustion.
>
> it is clear that the intention of the device as a total package is for it to
> be a combustion device, or a stove.

In many messages, people use short names.  If I say "a T-LUD device", 
do I need
to say every time "a T-LUD gasifier stove"?  And would simply saying "a T-LUD
gasifier" imply that I only mean the creation of the gases and NOT the
combustion of those gases?  Let's not split hairs about these names 
having been
written in short or long form.  The expressions "T-LUD stove" or "T-LUD
technology" do have (for the most part) an understood meaning as in the Reed,
Anderson, Philips devices cited in a previous message.  If you want to 
refer to
the "top-lit updraft" as an air and fuel arrangement, then please do 
NOT use the
acronym of T-LUD or TLUD or tlud.  Write it out the long way every time if you
wish.  Or make up your own special designator.  But please stop trying to
destroy a meaningful designation.  (Please read on.)

> If the "combustion zone", was removable, then it would be a "gasifier with
> an optional  top burner." However, the top burner or combustion zone is not
> removable; it is purposefully built into the system, so that it can function
> as a device permitting complete combustion of pyrolysis gases.

But the top burner IS separate from the gas creation part in some of 
the T-LUDs.
Just look at the Juntos B (See the middle pages of my 2004 publication on the
Stoves Internet site.)  In the Juntos B (and in almost all of my prototypes
that are not shown), the fuel container is removeable.  Is that the "gasifier"
part?  If so, than simply a tin can with holes in the bottom is what really
constitutes the T-LUD technology?  To me, a MEANINGFUL "gasifier" should be
more than a container with smouldering biomass, even if the gases are able to
sustain a weak flame.

With due respect, Dr. Karve and Dr. Larson have upward-moving air through
biomass in a container that they ignite generally at the top, but they are not
very worried about the flame dropping down to the bottom because there is not
much draft and they are mainly motivated to produce charcoal.  Their physical
devices are so different from the Reed, Anderson, Philips (and other) devices
that merit the specific distinction of T-LUD.

What is important is that TAKEN TOGETHER, the pieces of the T-LUD devices
constitute meaningful stoves that can serve needy people.

Gasification refers to a process.

Gasifier refers to a device.

Just because gases are created (as in a flaming or smoldering match 
stick) does
not qualify every such gas-making arrangement to be called a "gasifier."   At
least not if you want to give any respect for the useful and functional
gasifier devices that range from Doug's large units down to Reed's Woodgas
Campstove.

Let's go one step further:  Under a cylinder, place some wood on a grate and
allow air to come in from the bottom.  Light the wood (Bottom-lit, not
top-lit).  Let the flames go up the cylinder.  Would you call that a 
bottom-lit
up-draft gasifier, (meaning simply a traditional up-draft gasifier)?   I think
Kevin would.  And to be a stove, a pot could be supported above the flame.

Well, what is described above is the essence of a Rocket stove and 
several other
types of stoves.  And take away the cylinder, and it is a 
grated-3-stone fire. I would not call such an arrangement "an up-draft 
gasifier."  And I am sure
that Larry Winearski would agree with me, (and Larry created the Rocket stove
after many years of work on traditional gasifier systems, so he knows the
difference).

People can debate until the cows come home as to whether any or all of these
arrangements are gasifiers or have gasification processes or are even 
"stoves".
I'll read the messages, but I have stoves to build and test.  Some good things
are coming soon, and they are clearly "Reed and Anderson style T-LUD pyrolytic
gasifier stoves."  Or should I call them "R&AST-LUDPGS" devices?  At least
there is no confusion about what that means!!!!!

(end with a smile)   :-))

Paul




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