[Stoves] The other side of airpollution

[Roger Samson]

Kevin 

In our stove design we create the draft under the pot not above it. We can
increase this draft by increasing the length of our inner cone or "volcano".

Well designed stoves with chimneys can be as efficient as non-chimneys
stoves.  I have never seen any stove data where pulling the air out through
a chimney reduces specific fuel consumption compared to a stove with a
chimney, generally it results in excess air and lower efficiency if the
stove is not well designed. 
 
Roger Samson
www.reap-canada.com



-----Original Message-----
From: stoves-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:stoves-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Chisholm
Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 7:21 PM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Subject: Re: [Stoves] The other side of airpollution

Dear Andrew
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "AJH" <list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk>
To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <stoves at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] The other side of airpollution


> On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 15:04:05 -0400, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>
>>1: It is a fact that a stove with a chimney can be made to work more
>>efficicently than a stove that does not have a chimney.
>
> For what definitions of efficiency? From an energy conversion
> standpoint I actually think you are wrong, simply because the chimney
> is not a good "heat engine" for creating the draught necessary to
> work. It may be the most cost effective though.

The chimney per se is probably quite inefficient as a heat engine. However, 
I would suggest that the improved combustion resulting from the induced 
draft would result in significant fuel savings, and reduced wastage of fuel 
through either uncombusted fuel gases, or excess air losses. Obviously, a 
poorly designed or operated stove system can negate these potential 
advantages.
>>
>>2: It is a fact that exhaust hoods and chimneys can reduce the hazards of
>>IAP by 1 or more orders of magnitude, or perhaps even eliminate it 
>>entirely.
>
> This looks more reasonable but could well be challenged by a clean
> open flued device, such as we have seen good developments of, over the
> last year.

While there could very well be significant improvements in "open flued, 
solid fueled, stove systems", do you think they can be improved to the 
degree that they would be approved for inside venting in Canada, the US, or 
England?

Best wishes,

Kevin
>
> Andrew Heggie
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org
> http://www.bioenergylists.org
> 



_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
Stoves at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org
http://www.bioenergylists.org