[Stoves] Comments about T-LUDs

[psanders at ilstu.edu]

Kevin and all,

All that you wrote has been said many times, and nobody denies that the 
chemical
processes of "gasification" occur whenever a solid biomass is 
combusted.  But a
"gasifier" is a physical device.

That is why I clearly stated what is MY definition of a gasifier (separation
sufficient for control over the gases separately from the combustion.)

I refer all readers to the hundreds of messages in the archives of the
Gasification list serve in the past 6 months for a discussion of what is a
gasifier.  There was never much final agreement.

So I restate MY question:  Does the J-stove meet the definition of what __I__
defined there as being a gasifier?  I think it does NOT, unless operated with
the air flows and fuels as I mentioned in my message.

Paul

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

> Dear Paul
>
> Thanks for the interesting comments on TLUD's...
>
> To inquire further on one thought... "Is the J Stove a gasifier?"
>
> In the past, effort was expended to define gasification and 
> gasifiers, to little avail. Biomass combustion is not possible 
> without gasification. To employ the terms "gasify", "gasifier". 
> "gasification"  in connection with "biomass combustion" is redundant, 
> and therefore unnecessary.
>
> The reality is that any stove is a gasifier stove, because they all 
> employ a process for conversion of a solid (or liquid) into a gas, so 
> that combustion is possible. A "wheeled automobile", a "winged 
> aircraft", and a "gasifier stove", would all seem to be in the same 
> league. Are there any automobiles that don't have wheels, aircraft 
> that don't have wings, or stoves that are not gasifiers?
>
> In general, it appears that "gasifiers are devices that convert 
> solids or liquids into gases for consumption elsewhere." Clearly, 
> Doug Williams gasifiers are "gasifiers". One can ask the following 
> questions about such a gasifier:
> " How is the gas going to be used? Is it going to be used for an 
> engine, for direct combustion, or as a feed to a chemical process?"
> "How far will the gas be piped or ducted to the point of use?"
>
> Similarly, an updraft gasifier producing a cold tarry gas suitable 
> for combustion in one or more burners is also a "gasifier". Since the 
> gas is very dirty, requiring extensive cleaning for engine use, and 
> since it could not be transported very far without plugging and 
> maintenance problems, it is clearly a different kind of gasifier. 
> However, there is the clear and distinct similarity that there is 
> definitely a purposeful separation zone where no combustion is taking 
> place, and where combustion would be detrimental to the intent of the 
> device or system
>
> On the other hand, it appears that stoves are devices that want to 
> convert the fuel into a gas, and complete the combustion process as 
> quickly and completely as possible.
>
> Consider an open bonfire... it converts the fuel to a gas, and burns 
> the gases above the fuel bed. It could perhaps be defined as a "close 
> coupled gasifier combustion system." If a box was put around the 
> bonfire, then it could perhaps be called a "close coupled gasifier 
> stove". However, the prime purpose of both of these systems is 
> immediate combustion, while true gasifiers have remote gas 
> utilization of the gas as their design intent.
>
> The key differentiating issue between a "stove" and a "gasifier" 
> would seem to be: "Is the intent of the design to permit utilization 
> of the gas at a significant distance from the point of generation?"
>
> If this is the key issue, then a "close coupled gasifier stove" is a 
> stove system, and not a gasifier system.
>
> Does this hang together for you?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul S. Anderson" <psanders at ilstu.edu>
>

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