[Stoves] Safety of stoves and conflicts of interests

[rnv impex]

Paul,
I'm not familiar with yr design Yet this may help, but a steel ball (
Bicycle Type ) that can be resting in a perforated cradle below each hole
can block the hole when turned over - Gravity.We have a similar arrangements
in cars to block fuel that have turned turtle.

Nickey.

On 9/6/07, Paul S. Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>
> Dear Philip and all,
>
> While your comment is correct in the general case about liquid fuels being
> spilled, it is not the case with the Lily stove for THREE reasons:
>
> 1.  The Lily stove (burner) in a 7.5 cm (3 inch) diameter canister cannot
> hold
> more than 100 grams of fluid (unless intentionally overfilled).  Maybe
> I should
> only fill it with 80 grams (to be determined).
>
> 2.  The Lily burner has holes (8 to 16 holes, depending on the unit) that
> are
> 1/32nd inch diameter (metric is 0.8 mm).   Even if violently overturned,
> the
> canister will not leak the fuel at a rapid rate such as if someone spills
> an
> open container of liquid fuel.
>
> 3.  The Lily burner is filled with a non-flamable fiberous filler to hold
> the
> liquid in place by surface tension.  The liqiud does not "slosh around"
> inside
> the burner (unless intentionally overfilled).  It takes a while (a few
> seconds,
> generally) for the fuel to move as a liquid to the lowest part of the
> canister
> when the canister is turned on its side or upside down.
>
> On point #3, I should clarify an important difference with the
> CleanCook stove. The CC has much more fiber filler, that is, more
> compacted fiber inside the
> canister.  It also uses highest quality "ceramic fiber" that totally
> withstands
> the high temperatures of direct flames.  That is why the CC actually DOES
> NOT
> LEAK any fuel if turned completely upside down (unless intentionally
> overfilled).  The presence of lots of fiber assures the holding capacity.
>
> In contrast, in the Lily burners thus far, I have used mainly insulation
> fiberglass that is much less dense and can be melted (gets a thin crusty
> top)
> by direct fire, but does not ignite.  (Note:  Inside the canister, there
> is no
> combustible mixture of gases because there is no air/oxygen present.  The
> initial vapors expell any air and the tiny holes do not let air back
> inside
> while in operation.)
>
> In my experiments, I have minimized costs by using a relatively loose pack
> of
> fiberglass.  With a very minimal increase in the materials cost, a dense
> pack
> of fiberglass (or of the ceramic fiber) would still receive the 100 grams
> of
> alcohol and would hold that liquid in place better.  Quantitative
> experimentation of this has not been done yet.
>
> This does not alter the fact that if an ignited Lily burner is turned on
> its
> side, the vapors will continue to come from the small holes and, because
> of
> continued heating of the metal can, the vapor will continue to be expelled
> until the canister is empty.  But it will NOT be explosive nor create a
> "flash
> fire" associated with spilled liquid.  And it will not be shooting giant
> flames, but only flames that could be well contained within the safe metal
> walls of the simple stove structure.
>
> SEMI-SERIOUSLY:  Of course, a simple safety device could be added:  A
> water-balloon above the stove could break in the case of a tall
> flame.  This
> would extinquish an alcohol fire.  [But note that the water would have
> disasterous results on a fire of kerosene/paraffin or petrol-based fuels.]
>
> I want to express my appreciation to everyone who has made comments that
> have
> stimulated thinking and understanding and development options for the Lily
> burner and Lily stove structure.
>
> I believe that the Lily ethanol stove will ultimately be shown as one of
> the
> very best ethanol stoves when ALL the factors of emissions,
> user-friendliness/control, safety, appearance, fuel efficiency,
> heat-transfer
> efficiency, versitility, costs (construction, transportation, etc), and
> any
> other variables are taken into consideration.
>
> And please remember that the Lily burner is only 18 months old, with some
> enhancements (such as packing in additional fiberous filler) being only
> appreciated as of 5 September 2007 (today).  The one person who is doing
> the
> development thus far is still waiting for another active developer.
>
> 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 Philip Lloyd <plloyd at mweb.co.za>:
>
> > Dear Paul /all
> >
> > I think a measure of relative safety is needed, and based on my
> experience,
> > I think it should be the rate at which fuel is burned after an incident.
> > Candles don't easily give rise to large quantities of fuel being burned
> > immediately; LP gas leaks are not very impressive; but when liquid fuels
> hit
> > the open air in pint-sized quantities, then you can have a real problem
> on
> > your hands, because the rate of energy release can reach nasty
> levels.  That
> > is true for all the liquid fuels (and I include LPG) and for atomized
> solids
> > (ever seen what a bag of flour can do?).
> >
> > So the hazard of the Lily, on this measure, is the risk of spilling a
> few
> > hundred ml of hot alcohol.  The energy release will be fast, the power
> > significant, and the risk of significant  fire starting rapidly will be
> > high.  If one can design it so the alcohol can't spill, then the risk
> drops
> > significantly.
> >
> > Hope that helps.
> >
> > Philip
> >
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using Illinois State University Webmail.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>