[Stoves] Energy Calculator and data for TLUDs

[Paul S. Anderson]

Crispin, Tom Reed, Nordica, and all,

Your good message is appreciated.  However, I must refer it to Tom Reed.  I do
not have WBT results except what has been done at Stove Camps.  (Here, maybe
Nordica can assist because she has the raw data.  Please reply, Nordica and
Tom).

In my development work, I have not measured the moisture content of the fuels
used (except maybe 3 times.).  I know that I have some sundried woody fuels
that work, and then I keep comparing the different stoves while using the same
basic fuels.

I am in India until 18 Nov with a TLUD gasifier stove project.  So my focus is
on the specific situation here.  I will report the results later, and 
at ETHOS.
All looks very very good so far.

Paul

-- 
Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Geography professor - Emeritus
Telephone:  USA-309-452-7072 (residence and office)
Internet site:  www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
For my gasifier stoves info, go to:
http://bioenergylists.org/contributors#Paul_Anderson


Quoting Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at gmail.com>:

> Dear Paul
>
> I think it is important that you try the results of a few old stove tests in
> the dry fuel equivalent calculator.  Nigel and I tried to accommodate a wide
> variety of fuels in the sheet so that you get information that is close to
> the truth about the thermal performance of your designs and design changes.
>
> Where there is a significant difference in the moisture content or charcoal
> yield, you will see some interesting results.
>
> I am very interested to hear from you what the results are for actual test
> data plugged in from gasifiers, and from gasifiers where the charcoal yield
> is pretty low.
>
> If you have been using any of the standard tests or have been using the WBT
> in its present form, you might try putting in the data to see what the
> differences are.
>
> We noticed in particular that the low quality fuels like grass, waste
> agricultural materials and rice husks are performing far better than was
> thought in terms of thermal efficiency.  Roger Samson and I have been
> talking about this and how it affects the CO2 offset value of improved
> stoves.  The difference in CO2 emissions are significant if the thermal
> performance is not accurately reflected.  He is doing a lot with grass which
> has a low heat content.
>
> Version 1.0 of the calculator is for getting the basics right.  We are going
> to put in a second method of determining the heat yielded by the volatiles
> which will give accurate results for gasifiers for fuels where the carbon
> content of both the raw material and char is known. We tried it and it is OK
> but decided to go with the simpler version first for comments.
>
> There is a question you will have to address which is what happens to the
> char removed from the gasifier.  If it is 'useful' then it can be counted as
> 'not burned' but if the resulting char has to be thrown away without
> benefit, it can be viewed as having been consumed. We talked about this once
> a couple of years ago.
>
> If you are doing a test of a stove development you will be interested in the
> total thermal efficiency at certain times and won't worry about the char.
> In that case you will find the assessment of total energy offered to the pot
> useful because it will tell what the thermal efficiency is when boiling, for
> example, and the specific consumption of energy used to simmer, whether
> expressed in watts per litre simmered or the dry wood equivalent.
>
> If you are using regular woody biomass you can go with the charcoal heat
> value of 29.477 LHV if you are not sure what it is.  When we know more about
> the carbon content of char produced at different TLUD temperatures you will
> enter the appropriate values.
>
> Good luck!
> Crispin
>

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