[Stoves] The production of sawdust Briquette

Tue Nov 7 01:11:40 CST 2006

Dear Osain & List,

Someday I plan on making sawdust fireballs (agglomeration made in a rotating 
drum or pan). I would like to use algae as the binder and filler. No idea 
when I'll find the time but I will keep your e-mail address.

Best regards

Jeff

On Monday 06 November 2006 01:47 pm, osain odeiri wrote:
> 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/GasifierLAMN
>ET.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

-- 
Jeff Davis
Somewhere 20 miles south of Lake Erie, USA
http://www.velocity.net/~jeff0124