[Stoves] Frank's wood gas experiments

[frank]

Hi Crispin and all,

I just did another test using a 3cm strip of rolled cardboard to get the 
fire going then packed in 300 cc of dry wood chips. Everything worked 
great. I think using a standard 3 cm strip of cardboard rolled up to 
start the fire will work because this is easily obtained by everyone. 
But i did not get the secondary fire to burn.

The only reason i want to get the secondary fire to burn is because I 
want to say i built a wood burner stove and i want the burn rate to be 
what is 'typical' of a wood gas stove. Burning would be proof for me.
Once i get a typical flow rate i plan to make that my standard air flow 
when testing the small fuels.

My goal is to come up with a method that uses equipment anyone can get 
and can do lots of simple tests on small fuels then classify them.  This 
glass tube seems perfect. It can be weighed at first, weighed at the end 
to get fixed carbon and tar. One can add and boil acid in the tube to 
get metals or use a solvent to remove tars, can clean the tube in a 
furnace for reuse. The out gas can bubble through a train of different 
things to capture gas components. (i need help here). So for this test 
procedure i am not that concerned to get the secondary burn but would 
like to know the flow rate of air for the typical stove  with this size 
chamber and 300 cc fuel. Also with the cooler top of the glass tube (the 
pri fire seems to stay at the bottom third) most of the tar seem to be 
captured on the tube wall making it easy to measure.

So for testing fuel i don't think it needed to test the air after the 
secondary burn (that will differ on the stove design), just test what is 
in the fuel before and after primary burn and what will come out to the 
secondary burn in typical primary burn conditions. Does this make sence?


Thanks
Frank








 

 



Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:

> Dear Frank
>
> All that looks good.  I think the reason it did not burn was because 
> you could not get it started, not that it wouldn't burn, if you get my 
> drift.  If you fed it into a fire I think it would burn very well.
>
> That being the case, the problem is you don't have a gas burner, I 
> guess. 
>
> I am not generally in favour of separating the hot smoke-genereating 
> zone from the cooking zone because heat is lost getting to a distant 
> location, cooling the smoke, and the flame is easier to initiate and 
> sustain with 'preheated' or 'hot' smoke.
>
> It looks like really good quality smoke!
>
> Regards
> Crispin


-- 
Frank Shields
Soil Control Lab
42 Hangar way
Watsonville, CA  95076
(831) 724-5422 tel
(831) 724-3188 fax
frank at compostlab.com
www.compostlab.com