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

[psanders at ilstu.edu]

Dear Stovers, (responding to several messages on these related topics)

Kevin's comment about downward direction of the secondary air holes:
    A T-LUD is full of fuel, whereas a fan-blaster has a small amount 
of fuel at
the bottom.  Therefore, changing the direction of the air flow from the
secondary air holes will not be sufficient to alter the classification of the
combustion, but could disrupt the combustion, as Andrew has pointed out.

Tom Reed's comment about sizes of T-LUD fuel capacity:
    I agree with those comments.  There are several people, including myself,
who are working on having larger T-LUDs, even for cottage industry operations
(re: China ARECOP workshop that has been reported earlier).  Thank you for
bringing the T-LUD combustion to the world (1985 start) and for having the
Woodgas Campstove as a readily available example of T-LUD combustion.

Tom Miles' comment about comparing the results of different versions of the
water boiling test (WBT):
    Extremely important.  That work could be done at Aprovecho, but, in all
fairness to Apro we must recognize that not everything desired can be 
done. Aprovecho Research Center (ARC) exists in large part because of 
the grants from
the Shell Foundation and others that I do not know, plus the time and energy
expended by the Apro people in those initial years.  ARC does provide the rest
of us with some support and the hosting of Stove Camps, but they must have
priorities.  Therefore, the call to "Send us your stove and we will test it"
should only be interpreted to be minimal testing unless that stove matches
somehow into the ARC agenda.

Tom Miles' comment about alternative names for "fan-blasters":
    A few messages back, Tom wrote (and I have snipped):

"The times to boil for some of the fan stoves seem pretty short. ... Do we
conclude that in the laboratory the fan stoves boil
faster, ... ? That is, if they can be fed constantly
with small bites of dry fuel? ..."

I believe that the simple name "fan stove" is too generic for denoting the
specific combustion-type being discussed.  Indeed, the ENTIRE theme of Stove
Camp 2006 was "fan stoves", and the CSU students made two "fan stoves" that
were based on side-loading Rocket-elbow principles.

So, in Tom's message (above), he found it necessary to say:  "That is, if they
can be fed constantly with small bites of dry fuel?"  From that, it is 
possible
to propose a specific name of
    "fan-stoves-fed-constantly-with-small-bites-of-fuel".  A little too 
long for
my liking, but it is distinctive.

Well, this morning I thought up an alternative name, perhaps subconsciously
stimulated by Tom's message.  What about calling these stoves "trickle-fuel"
stoves.  I do not know of any trickle-fuel stoves that do not have a fan for
forced air.  "Trickle-fuel" versus "Fan-Blaster"?  TF vs FB?   Or combine them
to be a "trickle-fuel fan blaster" or TFFB or TF-FB?  or TF/FB

The only thing that is important to me is that the name carries the message of
the TYPE of combustion being utilized.

Pellet stoves use trickle-fuel/fan-blaster combustion.

The Woodgas Campstove and the Phillips stove can be used with either top-lit
updraft combustion or trickle fuel/fan-blaster combustion.

So, when there could be confusion about which type of combustion was being
utilized, we could refer to the:

Woodgas T-LUD Campstove or the Woodgas TF/FB Campstove
or
Phillips T-LUD stove or Phillips TF/FB stove.

To everyone:  Do you like "trickle-fuel" or "fan-blaster" or some 
combination or
some other name, even "fan-stoves-fed-constantly-with-small-bites-of-fuel"?

In the end, if we are serious about discussing and researching the type of
combustion that won a Cat Pee award for clean combustion in 2006, our messages
will eventually reach some concensus.  (I do not think we can vote on it and
make the results official!)

By the way, when T-LUD (or TLUD) was first discussed, there were 
similar issues
about names.  But, for better or for worse, at least now we do not need to
define in descriptive terms that type of combustion.

To Tom Miles:
     Is it time to separate the threads of the discussion (testing methods as
different from trickle-fuel fan-blaster topics as different from Stove Camp
2006)?  If so, you might make separate messages when you reply.  If 
not, we can
keep the same Subject line going.

Paul



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