[Stoves] Pressed biofuel - and Fire balls. Testing

[frank]

Richard,
What is needed IMO is comparing the observation to what works  to the 
analysis I did. Then try to determine what is needed for the brick to 
work as we want it. Then we can make sure every brick we make will work 
as intended and we can start making adjustments to the formula  to 
improve  the product. At least that is the direction I think we should 
be going.


Regards
Frank


Richard Stanley wrote:

> Frank,
>
> Recent studies and recent less formal tests tell us that the  
> configuration of the fuel is as important as the content burned in  
> bulk even densified in bulk .
>
> A one Joel Chaney at Nottingham University in the UK did an  
> interesting assessment of combusiton of the hollow core briquette  
> studfyingg particularly the effect of the hole on combustion. As  
> well, and long prior to this, Kobus Venter in South Africa has been  
> assessing various ways of creating low cost insulation for biomass  
> combustion. A one Rok Oblak is working on optimising practicality for  
> the user with his research on stove design up in Vancouver with a  
> special side-feed configuration in coordination with the side feed  
> experts at Approvecho. He will be (or already has?)    presenting/ed/  
> his work at the Ethos Conference. We have also seen tests that were  
> both optimistic with the right configuration and pessimistic out of  
> Southern Oregon University and now Boise State through  Owen McDougal  
> (Chem Prof) and his understudy, Seth Edimiller. We have observed  
> participated in countless other, on-site tests within the user  
> communities where we got it right or failed miserably--until we  
> begain to learn what wa really happening with (at least) the  hollow  
> core form of biomass bq.
>
> What we have learned form much of this is that– for the third world  
> cookstove user at least– one wants to expend only the minimum energy  
> necessary to heat the surface area to assure a clean and relatively  
> smoke free start of combustion.  Where we simply dump in a whole  
> hollow core briquette or for that matter a solid one, and try to  
> ignite it we, are seeing, effectively most of the initial energy  
> being used just to heat up the mass ..
>
>
> While this minimum-combustion exposure-relative-to-total-fuel-load   
> approach may not make much of a difference, once you have a mass of  
> burning fuel which can quickly absorb the addition of fresh  
> combustibles,   it is critical to the local cook stove operator who  
> usually only requires the heat for  for short durations (say ~one  
> hour +/- 15 min) with need for a relativley quick and smoke-free  
> startup. Thus, beyond absolute chemical properties we are facing the  
> challenge of "use properties" eh ?
>
> Ok, with that bit I receed to lurker status ..Its just to "kindle"  
> your awareness and possible exchange with these other colleagues as  
> you pursue your research and testing too.
>
> Regards Richard Stanley
>
> www.legacyfound.org
>
> .
> On Jan 5, 2009, at 10:25, frank wrote:
>
>> Hi Jeff,
>> You are talking about samples 12 (small) and 13 (large) paper balls.
>> The method I am using for calculating out the results is prone to  
>> error because it makes assumption as to some of the values and uses  
>> oxygen to make up the difference.
>> Also I ran low on samples # 5, 12 and 13 so could not run the  carbon 
>> data in duplicate as I did with the others and used less  than the 
>> amount of sample I like to use.
>>
>> This is the process.
>> 1) Sample dried to get water.
>> Dry sample
>> 2) Dried sample heated to 550 to get total Ash
>> 3) Ash treated with acid and washed filtered to get (A) carbonate  
>> and soluble ash (B) non-sol ash.
>> 4) Total Carbon determined on the dried sample.
>> 5) Dried Sample  heated to 400 deg C without air to get Char + Ash.
>> 6) Assume 6% hydrogen in the ash free organic matter fraction
>> Char + Ash
>> 7) Determine fixed carbon in char + ash
>> 8) Determine fixed carbon in char (subtract ash)
>>
>>
>> From all these numbers we can get:
>> water
>> volatile matter at 400 deg C. (CHNO)
>> hydrogen is 6% of vol matter
>> volatile carbon at 400 deg c  (total - fixed carbon)
>> volatile matter (HNO) (volatile C - volatile matter)
>> Total ash - soluble ash = non-sol ash
>> Oxygen is what is needed to make it 100%
>>
>> So I work from both ends; dry sample and char fraction, to  determine 
>> all the values. That means all the carbon data and ash  data must be 
>> accurate.   It also means the hydrogen must be close  to 6% of  
>> volatile organic fraction. Notice #9 has some negative  results 
>> perhaps because the ash had some carbon still left. Sample  like # 15 
>> took a -long- time and lots of work to get all the  organic carbon 
>> removed from the ash at 500 deg + O2. Testing  materials made from 
>> mixes of different things like wood, char,  carbonates etc is tricky 
>> so I found out I must have larger samples  to work with, do the work 
>> in (at least) triplicate and treat each  one as individual to make 
>> sure the values I get to work with are  accurate. I think looking at 
>> the oxygen value calculated to make  everything add to 100% will be 
>> the clue as to how well the test  worked. Your sample #12 has Oxygen 
>> at 65.5% much higher than the  others so I suspect the volatile 
>> organic carbon should have been  higher. Also volatile carbon should 
>> be about 50% of total volatile  matter for biomass  (not sure about 
>> paper) so that is another  indication this number may be low.
>> So I think #9 and # 12 may not be good numbers. Also sample size  
>> used  was smaller than I would have liked for # 5 and 13.
>> The particle density was done by the sand method.  I will need to  
>> have a larger sample size to get bulk density - from four to twenty  
>> liters of material.
>>
>> So I learned a lot from these samples.
>>
>>
>> How I suggest we can use this data:
>> 1) Will this fuel work in a char producing gasifier?  High volatile  
>> carbon - low fixed carbon indicates it is.
>> 2) How much fuel is needed (volume and weight) to boil a needed  
>> quantity of water - based on HHV bulk density value.
>> etc.
>>
>> Thanks for any suggestions
>> Frank
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jeff Davis wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Frank,
>>>
>>> I didn't think that the size of the fuel would change the LHV. For
>>> example the small paper fireballs are 7.3 MJ/kg and the large paper
>>> fireballs are 14.6 MJ/kg (LHV). Maybe I had something mixed in  with 
>>> the
>>> paper.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 17:17 -0800, frank wrote:
>>>
>>>> Greetings,
>>>>
>>>> Its late and I am going home but wanted to get these lab reports   
>>>> to you in case you can get some time to go over them and advise  
>>>> me.  They are re-tests of pressed biomass from  Richard Stanley  
>>>> and Fire Balls from Jeff Davis sent me to experiment with.   I  
>>>> would need to get additional sample to complete the size  
>>>> distribution and Packing density values  on the right side of the  
>>>> report.
>>>>
>>>> Have a great new years everyone.
>>>>
>>>> Frank
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>

-- 
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