[Stoves] Fan-blaster Combustors, Stove Camp 2006, and theDell-Point Pellet Stove

[Tom Miles]

Paul,


The times to boil for some of the fan stoves seem pretty short. But the
overall fuel (700-1000 g/5L) use seems to be close to the 850 g/5L benchmark
proposed in January.  Phillips, Reed and Dean's Fan were all less than the
benchmark. CO and PM emissions were all very impressive compared with the
benchmarks. Do we conclude that in the laboratory the fan stoves boil
faster, reduce emissions significantly but reduce overall fuel slightly
compared with a natural draft stove? That is, if they can be fed constantly
with small bites of dry fuel? :-)Or, am I missing something?

Stove Camp Results: http://bioenergylists.org/en/aprocamp2006
ETHOS benchmark:
http://bioenergylists.org/stovesdoc/ETHOS2006/Still/StillETHOS2006.pdf
Images of fuel preparation and feeding:
http://picasaweb.google.com/trmilesjr/OneDayAtAprovechoStovesCamp2006 

Tom 

-----Original Message-----
From: psanders at ilstu.edu [mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 3:22 PM

And it was Dean who clearly stated to me that the Woodgas Campstove has been
repeatedly operated in this same way (what I am calling "fan-blaster") in
previous emissions testing because the duration of the burning by a single
load of fuel in the small fuel chamber of the Woodgas Campstove was not
sufficient for completion of the WBT Water Boiling Test.  I am sure that is
true because the Campstove's capacity for the "official wood" used in all
emissions testing at Aprovecho is significantly less that what is needed to
accomplish even the boiling of 5 liters of water, and then still to have the
pot simmer for 45 minutes.  I understand and accept that way of operation
during those tests because the Woodgas Campstove is not able to be reloaded
for further T-LUD operation without removing the pot, emptying out the
char/ash, partially cooling the inside of the stove to prevent ignition at
the bottom, and then reloading and relighting for T-LUD operation, and
replacement of the pot onto the stove.  Such a procedure is not convenient,
so the procedural solution was use what I am now calling "fan-blaster"
combustion.  What is interesting is that the "fan-blaster" mode of operation
was not recognized or noted or reported, and we thought it was a T-LUD
operation.