[Stoves] Comments about T-LUDs

[Alex and Christine English]

Dear Kevin and all,
Re: What is or isn't a Gasifiers?
These issues have actually been argued in US courts. The government had a subsidy 
available to biomass projects utilized gasification. Although I don't know the finer 
points of this case, I understand that one company was able to convince the courts 
that a separation of the fuel zone and the secondary air zone of a few  feet within an 
open fire box qualified as gasification. This has infuriated some other makers of 
"combustion gasifiers".

I am in the middle of modifying a similar chip fired boiler to the same end. Under 
standard configuration the under fire air exceeds over fire air and a wall of long flames 
and fly ash is what you see. When underfire air is restricted to between a quarter to 
one half of over fire air, the bulk of the  fuel pile is dark with a visible cloud of  pyrolysis 
products forming right above, which then vapourizes as it rises before being consumed 
in flame at the introduction of secondary over fire air two feet above.

So what?  Well the latter senario appears to yeild significant reductions in emissions, 
comparable to systems with greater and more destinct separation between the zones 
of fuel and burnout. 

Ironicly, the makers of combustion "gasifiers" have suffered some loss of business by 
being confused or associated with the poor record of many gasifiers built for engine 
and turbine use. 

Focus on results. The definitions lack definition.

Sincerely        Alex English
> 
> 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
> 
>