Please take me to school on data acquisition.

[poindexter]

New user here, I am up to page eight reading the archives; I expect to be "caught up" on the data already here early next week give or take.

Besides a pocket rocket and a 6" SWSP j stove already described in another thread I am working up to building Zero's rocket stove - 10MB .pdf available from Zero's stove page here: alt-nrg.org/rocket.html 



My assumption is Zero's rocket works really well with the wood he has available to him.  My friend with the welder and I are going to build a prototyping table this weekend, and I brought home 30 firebricks tonight.  I am going to start with Zero's J stove as published on the prototyping table and then see if it runs a little better on my wood available to me if I juggle the dimensions a little bit before I deal with hacking holes in my drum and so forth.

To really quantify how well it runs, I need a combustion analyzer.  

Besides a temp probe that will reach 2500ish dF, an O2 sensor and a CO sensor, what other probes do I really _need_ to buy?

I am kinda tempted by a four channel data logger like this $300 Omega, temp probes are easy; but I haven't found a CO or O2 sensor to hang from it.
www.omega.com/googlebase/product.html?pn=HH147U&gclid=CPPJldjUrrsCFYlhfgodMkkAMg 

This Testo, the 310 looks like it can give me everything I need as a combustion analyzer, but it wouldn't later accept other standard data logging probes I think.  $600 is doable, but stretching my budget: www.trutechtools.com/testo310?gdftrk=gdfV26224_a_7c2772_a_7c10009_a_7c2191&gclid=CJeKqInYrrsCFQuUfgodpwQAJQ 

The Testo 320 looks like the winner, except for the price... www.valuetesters.com/testo-320-combustion-analyzer-high-definition-0563-3220-70.html?gclid=CIWv89rYrrsCFRGBfgodlAoAhQ 

So I am kinda stuck.  To compare apples to apples, what parameters do I really need to measure, and how much am I gonna have to spend to get at least middle of the road quality?

Thanks,
back to page eight.

[satamax]

Michael.

Zero's rocket is a little crude thing.

No insulation of the burn tunel or feed. And fiberglass insulation is no good for high temps. Better use rockwool. The tank is too small. Better use a water heater. And there's no mass in his design, well, where it should be, not in the heat riser. The only good thing i see is the way he added fresh air intake.

There's a thread about testers somewhere.

[poindexter]

Perhaps I should be more specific.

1. I am a married man. Among ignored, approved, and endorsed, me building Zero's rocket - and then tweaking the design to work better with our local wood is for me a spouse endorsed project. There is no higher level of support available from her. I can now shop for test instruments.

2. On page nine in the archives here is this thread: donkey32.proboards.com/thread/156/meter , with a link to a .pdf that talks about using both a CO2 sensor and a CO sensor to calculate CO sub r, suggesting 2% as a tartget CO sub r for a highly efficient stove.

Is efficiency assumed or proved by low CO readings; or rather is CO sub r necessary to prove clean combustion?

[morticcio]

Take a look at the TPI 716. It has live data capture and a 10,000ppm CO sensor suitable for wood burners.
Okay, it isn't a Testo 330LL-2 but could be a cheaper alternative?