tampy
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by tampy on Aug 10, 2017 13:12:20 GMT -8
I am wondering if very high altitude, over 4k meters (13,000 ft) would necessitate modifications in system csa, e.g. choking the feed tube etc. Has anyone had experience with builds at high altitude? I built one at over 9k ft and it seems to run fine but 13k is substantially higher.
|
|
|
Post by ringoism on Aug 11, 2017 3:39:00 GMT -8
Check out himalayanrocketstove.comAn Australian named Russel has been working on these in Ladakh / Spiti regions of the Indian Himalayas (Leh/Kaza and surrounding villages @11,000-13,000ft), and purportedly they're working well. -Eric
|
|
|
Post by russellcollins on Nov 15, 2018 20:06:35 GMT -8
As the Australian mentioned above, first let me apologise for being late to the party. The question about altitude may have already been answered elsewhere. If not, I can confidently report on a test I ran earlier this year in Ladakh at 5600m (yes, metres!) I was curious as to whether the secondary air vents into the riser would work better at altitude if they were larger. I modified one of my production units (an Eco1 Rocket Stove, made in India) to have larger vents, and took that as well as a standard Eco1 up to the "world's highest road pass" (according to the sign board at Khardongla about 50kms from Leh, Ladakh. It was January and the temps were ranging from -10 to -20 Celsius with reasonably windy conditions. We used a shed that was offered to us by the Border Roads Organisation to set up and run the burn tests side by side. I did not have any test equipment with me, so I was looking for clean emissions from the flue, good size and colour of the combustion flame in the riser tubes and jetting from the secondary air vents. To my surprise, I didn't find much difference between the 2 units and found they both performed exceptionally well. Don't ask me the details of the exact vent modifications, I don't recall in this moment. There is a video I made about that test here: youtu.be/43MnGvazQ2Y
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Nov 16, 2018 6:40:19 GMT -8
Everywhere on this planet the oxygen part of air is 21%, doesn't matter whether it is at sea level or 5.6 km above. The crux is that at higher altitudes there is less air, i.e. it's thinner. In theory, the higher you get the larger the air inlets you need in order to get the same amount of oxygen into the system. There's also the factor of moist, irrespective whether it's in the fuel itself or produced by combustion. In lower pressure environments the boiling point of water is also lower although I'd think this is a minor part of the process.
In your case Russel, I'd suggest the original air inlets, combined with the exhaust temperature and therefore the draft, were allowing enough air in already so the wider inlets didn't appear to make any difference. There might be some room to tune the standard one using a gas analizer, there's a high probability excess air in that one is already unnecessary high. Or you could leave it like that with the reassuring knowledge it would work at any altitude.
In general, the lower excess air and exhaust temperature, one of those or both, the higher efficiency will be.
|
|
|
Post by russellcollins on Nov 18, 2018 18:47:30 GMT -8
In your case Russel, I'd suggest the original air inlets, combined with the exhaust temperature and therefore the draft, were allowing enough air in already so the wider inlets didn't appear to make any difference. There might be some room to tune the standard one using a gas analizer, there's a high probability excess air in that one is already unnecessary high. Or you could leave it like that with the reassuring knowledge it would work at any altitude. In general, the lower excess air and exhaust temperature, one of those or both, the higher efficiency will be. Hi Peter... yes the main point at this stage is knowing that the air flow is enough to work at any altitude. Optimising for various altitudes is something I would like to look into in the future. Will it be enough to measure the ratio of CO / CO2 in emissions to tune the system? Russell
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Nov 19, 2018 8:36:52 GMT -8
Hi Peter... yes the main point at this stage is knowing that the air flow is enough to work at any altitude. Optimising for various altitudes is something I would like to look into in the future. Will it be enough to measure the ratio of CO / CO2 in emissions to tune the system? Russell No, you definitely need also the O² level and the exhaust temperature, since all these values are tied together and influencing each other.
|
|
|
Post by russellcollins on Nov 25, 2018 23:27:01 GMT -8
Hi Peter... yes the main point at this stage is knowing that the air flow is enough to work at any altitude. Optimising for various altitudes is something I would like to look into in the future. Will it be enough to measure the ratio of CO / CO2 in emissions to tune the system? Russell No, you definitely need also the O² level and the exhaust temperature, since all these values are tied together and influencing each other. Thanks Peter, what would you recommend as the best emissions testing device on the market at the moment? I know you have previously referenced the Testo (320 or 330 I think?).... would you still recommend either of these, or the 340... or any other product that may have come on the market lately?
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Nov 26, 2018 3:51:49 GMT -8
Thanks Peter, what would you recommend as the best emissions testing device on the market at the moment? I know you have previously referenced the Testo (320 or 330 I think?).... would you still recommend either of these, or the 340... or any other product that may have come on the market lately? The defacto standard is Testo 330-2LL for solid fuel emission analising. What you need here is an analiser that is capable of automatic dilution of the sampling when CO is getting too high, the 330-2 is doing just that. But there's another one on the market quite recently, the Testo 330-i. Part of the computer component is left out here and it uses a smartphone or tablet by means of a BlueTooth connection. The 330-i also sports that automatic dilution, every other analiser without this feature is virtually worthless for our purposes since they just terminate analising when CO is too high. I would go for the 330-i if I had the choice.
|
|
|
Post by russellcollins on Nov 28, 2018 23:09:27 GMT -8
I would go for the 330-i if I had the choice. Thanks Peter, great advice on the 330-i. I will check the availability in India. Cheers, Russell
|
|
|
Post by satamax on Dec 11, 2018 0:34:06 GMT -8
Russel, with Graham Chiu, we've been talking about your plastic burning rocket.
Would you mind showing us the thing?
Thanks.
Max.
|
|
|
Post by russellcollins on Feb 22, 2019 19:47:05 GMT -8
Russel, with Graham Chiu, we've been talking about your plastic burning rocket. Would you mind showing us the thing? Thanks. Max. Hi, again sorry I didn't see this earlier. Need to work out how to get notifications for messages here. The plastic burning is still conceptual and early prototype at this stage, but I can share some pics of the prototype with a 10ft ceramic wool riser with attached waste bin and under-flow primary combustion feed. The issue I have come to realise is with the plastics being exposed to the flame path regardless of optimal temperatures being achieved or not. My next prototype will have some system of gate valve so as to only release the plastics into the flame path when temperatures are optimal (greater than 800C, ideally 900+). Actually... just tried to add an attachment and apparently the forum has exceeded its attachment limit. I will try post a link to a blog about it further down. Link to Album with Images and Video of prototype testing waste incinerator in Ladakh at 3500m photos.app.goo.gl/yophcgfCBCvVRWzr8
|
|
Piet
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by Piet on Jul 5, 2019 6:12:12 GMT -8
Thanks Peter, what would you recommend as the best emissions testing device on the market at the moment? I know you have previously referenced the Testo (320 or 330 I think?).... would you still recommend either of these, or the 340... or any other product that may have come on the market lately? The defacto standard is Testo 330-2LL for solid fuel emission analising. What you need here is an analiser that is capable of automatic dilution of the sampling when CO is getting too high, the 330-2 is doing just that. But there's another one on the market quite recently, the Testo 330-i. Part of the computer component is left out here and it uses a smartphone or tablet by means of a BlueTooth connection. The 330-i also sports that automatic dilution, every other analiser without this feature is virtually worthless for our purposes since they just terminate analising when CO is too high. I would go for the 330-i if I had the choice. I bought the Testo 330-i and visited Peter the other day so he could teach me how to use the thing right. Turns out the 330i only does real time measurements and CAN NOT record measurements during a longer period of time. This was confirmed by Testo. So it is impossible to get a graphic overview of a burn cycle the way Peter and Matt get. I am gonna try to sell it and get me a 330.
|
|