[Stoves] The production of sawdust Briquette
osain odeiri
realworth01 at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 6 12:47:56 CST 2006
Please could u furnish me on the production of sawdust briquette.i am a Nigerian living in port-harcourt.and has the raw materials in abundance here,would want to partner with the government in realising this dream.
Kind regards.
OSAIN ODIERI
> Skickat: den 6 november 2006 08:01
> Till: stoves at listserv.repp.org
> ?mne: [Stoves] intern needed for africa
>
> Dear All
>
> ProBEC /GTZ and myself are looking for an intern to work on our improved
> Rocket tobacco curing system in Malawi
>
> Would really appreciate it folks could share this posting with any likely
> candidates
>
> Best
> Peter Scott
> Biomass Energy Consultant
> 265 856 9155 (in Malawi)
>
> PS THere are also some internship positions (non GTZ) that are opening in
> EAst africa and India: please see attachment for more details
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
> https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 11:25:48 +0100
From: "Frans Peeters"
Subject: [Stoves] VALVE for gasifier
To: "Stoves"
Message-ID: <000401c7018d$eeab51d0$1401a8c0 at franspcsnel>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250"
Dear Tom ,Steve and all,
You ask for a motor controlled valve .
The mechanical part can be : A box 50x120x3 mm with a sliding plate
48x50 x1 mm inside .
The box has two holes opposite each to other 45x45 mm ,with inlet
outlet tubes 50 mm long .
The sliding plate has a 3mm 80 mm actuator arm to the DC motor 5 watt .
Fixation : Motor as is 70 mm long screw . Valve is arm has a nut .
Motor positioning : like a servo controlled chart recorder , The valve
position path has a mechanical connected potentiometer connected in
bridge with a potentiometer of the sensing set value and input from a
sensor ..
The Oxygen sensors output goes to the servo amplifier . This + or
? DC output power 5V 1A drives the motor till feed back is zero .
You find nice material in old PC ?s HDD drives CD rom drives . Chart
recorders . Window screen positioners .Ventilation servo control ed
ducts motors . Model toys .
Other principle :Fast actuators , magnetic actuator . Flat coil
electromagnet in a strong samarium magnet is moved by DC power 5V 1 A ..
Like a strong moving coil meter ,with force arm .. See old HDD drives
.and balances ,also pressure regulators .
. Mind new linear motor cost 200 $ Scrap cost 1 $ .
Good luck !
Frans
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.28/518 - Release Date:
04/11/2006
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 11:44:50 +0000
From: Grant Ballard-Tremeer
Subject: Re: [Stoves] intern needed for africa
To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves"
Message-ID: <135277672.20061106114450 at ecoharmony.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Dear Jeff and all
I'm sure it will soon be on the excellent stoves website, but for
now you can find it here:
www.hedon.info/goto.php/790/news.htm
Regards
Grant
Monday, November 6, 2006, 8:54:36 AM, you wrote:
JF> I didn't see any attachment.
JF> ------------------------------------------------------------
JF> Jeff Forssell
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 10:18:52 -0400
From: "Kevin Chisholm"
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Understanding "charcoal making" stoves.
Was:energylost in charcoal making and briquetting
To: "Paul S. Anderson"
, "Discussion of biomass
cooking stoves"
Message-ID: <005b01c701af$97610150$db16ba89 at home4c2adafe8f>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=response
Dear Paul
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Understanding "charcoal making" stoves. Was:energylost
in charcoal making and briquetting
> 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 :
>> 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",
I used the the description "T-LUD "device" as a neutral way of referring to
the "device", without labeling it as a "gasifier", a "gasifier stove", a
"stove", or something else.
> do I need
> to say every time "a T-LUD gasifier stove"?
In my opinion, "gasifier" is redundant. All wood stoves are gasifiers.
> 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?
In my opinion, yes. With my previously proposed definition of a "stove",
combustion is intended, and there is the purposeful provision of secondary
air to make it a stove. If you don't have full combustion, you don't have
secondary air, and thus the device would indeed be a gasifier.
Let's not split hairs about these names
> having been
> written in short or long form.
With all due respect, one has to be true, correct, accurate, simple, and
clear with ones definitions for the definitions to convey the same meaning
to all readers. In my opinion, the definitions of "stoves", "gasifiers" as
used on these Lists are at the loosey goosey level. In my opinion, the
definitions are at the level where they mean what the presenter wants them
to mean, rather than having an absolute meaning.
The expressions "T-LUD stove"
In my opinion, a "T-LUD Stove" is a device whose purpose is combustion of a
fuel to produce heat, as for space heating or cooking. A "T-LUD Gasifier" is
a device whose purpose is to produce a fuel gas, for use in some other
device, such as a stove, an engine, a mantle lantern, etc.
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.)
In my opinion, "top lit up draft" is a description of the operation of a
device that could be a stove or a gasifier, in the same way that "bottom lit
down draft", "bottom lit up draft", "top lit down draft", "side lit cross
draft" also all produce wood gas for subsequent use. Thus, the acronyms
"T-LUD", "B-LDD", "B-LUD", "T-LDD", "S-LCD" are excellent generic terms for
describing basic gasifier technology. All solid fuel utilization processes
start with gasification, and such designators do not limit or confine the
use of the gas produced to any particular end use.
>
>> 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.
In my opinion, if the top burner is an integral part of the device, with the
intent to burn the gas, then it is operating in "stove mode". Secondary air
is essential for combustion, and in my opinion, a "litmus test" to
distinguish between a stove or a gasifier is whether or not secondary air is
purposefully provided, or allowed to contact, the wood gases. If the same
gasifier section is built with no provisions for secondary air, then it is a
gasifier.
> Just look at the Juntos B (See the middle pages of my 2004 publication on
> the
> Stoves Internet site.)
I found a paper at
http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/Anderson/GasifierLAMNET.pdf
Is this the paper to which you refer?
In the Juntos B (and in almost all of my prototypes
> that are not shown), the fuel container is removeable.
Obviously, I cannot coment on prototypes that are not shown. The
removability of the fuel container is not a determining factor in the
definition of whether a device is a gasifier or a stove.
Is that the "gasifier"
> part?
The "gasifier part" is where the primary air is reacted with the fuel to
produce a gas.
If so, than simply a tin can with holes in the bottom is what really
> constitutes the T-LUD technology?
Agreed.
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.
In my opinion, "smouldering biomass" would suggest a "charcoal producing
gasifier." There can be all degrees of success in a gasifier, from partial
to complete, yet they are all gasifiers. A gasifier that produces a gas that
is only able to sustain a weak flame suggests that there was too much pre
combustion of the gas, as a result of excessive superficial velocity. Such a
device would be a "poor gasifier", and also a "poor stove", in that it does
both jobs poorly.
>
> With due respect, Dr. Karve and Dr. Larson have upward-moving air through
> biomass
This would therefore be an "Updraft" device."
> in a container that they ignite generally at the top,
This would therefore be a "Top-Lit" device.
> 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.
The only fundamental difference I see between the Dr. Karve and Dr. Larson
(K&L) device and the Reed, Anderson, Philips (and others) (RAPO) devices is
that the K&L device is natural draft, with low superficial velocity, while
the RAPO device is forced draft, with high superfical velocity. Both are top
lit up draft devices
>
> 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."
In my opinion, if wood is gasified with secondary provided, or allowed, to
access the wood gas, then teh device is a "combustion system". If secondary
air is not provided, or purposefully excluded, then the device is 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.
Using the "litmus test", the absence of secondary air clearly definines
Doug's devices as gasifiers, and Reed's Woodgas Camp Stove as a stove.
>
> 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.
Again, using the litmus test, if secondary air is provided, it is not a
gasifier.
>
> 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."
Using the litmus test, we are able to come to agreement. :-) I wouldn't call
a "grated three stone fire" an "up draft gasifier" because there is
provision of secondary air.
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).
You can see clearly that he, and Tom Reed, call their systems "stoves", and
they both have the addition of secondary air.
>
> 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".
If you apply the "Stove or Gasifier Litmus Test", (SOGALIT :-) then this
ends opinionated debate that is not supported by science or fact. :-)
> 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!!!!!
No problem with that at all, whatsoever! That is a descriptive way to tell
people that the device is made by Reed and Anderson, it is top lit and burns
the gas in a stove. This is important to distinguish your product from the
products of others, who also use top lit up draft technology for their
purposes and markets.
>
> (end with a smile) :-))
>
Best wishes, indeed, in our search for truth, clarity, fact, and science, so
that we can minimize opinion and eliminate debate. :-)
Kevin
>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 10:10:57 -0600
From: "Paul S. Anderson"
Subject: [Stoves] Flue Gas Analysers
To: STOVES - Listserve
Message-ID: <20061106101057.27i0bapg0s8kkoos at webmail2.ilstu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Stovers,
Could we have some comments about how and if flue gas analysers could be used
for stove testing equipment
At the website for Madur electronics in Vienna, Austria www.madur.com
you can see several devices.
The GA-12plus costs in USA are US$1735 for the the basic unit, up to $2685 for
the fully loaded unit.
The GA-21plus goes from US$4000 to $6000.
These do not have any hood.
Paul
--
Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Geography professor - Emeritus
Telephone: USA-309-452-7072 (residence and office)
Internet site: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
For my gasifier stoves info, go to:
http://bioenergylists.org/contributors#Paul_Anderson
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Illinois State University Webmail.
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 19:41:26 +0200
From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott"
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Understanding "charcoal making" stoves. Was:
energy lost in charcoal making and briquetting
To: "Stoves"
Message-ID: <020901c701ca$cac072e0$6a413f45 at Averatec>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Dear Friends
I have real all these taxonomic messages and it does seem a bit of a stretch
to try to make up names for everything.
Steve says "...if the primary output of a stove is burnable gas, then it
should be a gasifier stove."
I was thinking more like 'the primary output of the primary combustor', not
the stove.
Reading the messages from Paul'n'All it seems there is no room for a Vesto
in these definition because it handily switches back and forth betweeen
charcoal making and charcoal burning, it can be operated in a true
close-coupled (by a few inches) gasifier mode where the flames burning the
gas are clearly separate from the pyrolizer, but not by much, and it can be
top lit or bottom lit depending on your preference, and it can be refuelled
without shutting down first.
I can't see this discussion going anywhere unless teh pyrolizing section is
described separately from the 'burner' above which sites the pot.
Regards
Crispin
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
Stoves at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org
End of Stoves Digest, Vol 5, Issue 12
*************************************
---------------------------------
Sponsored Link
Try Netflix today! With plans starting at only $5.99 a month what are you waiting for?
More information about the Stoves
mailing list