|
|
Post by chazvan on Feb 5, 2015 11:18:21 GMT -8
I got a couple successful tests of an oval cross section heat riser rocket stove yesterday. (more on that in a future thread/post) My nose is not very good at detecting completeness of combustion so I am thinking about getting a combustion analyzer that shows level of CO and O2. I would like to know more objectively how different configurations I am trying perform--beyond just no visible smoke. Looking online there are quite a few that are not that expensive. Anyone have suggestions of what to make sure to have and what to avoid? Peter, do you get your graphs by data logging to a computer?
|
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Feb 5, 2015 11:52:25 GMT -8
Yes, my Testo is coupled to a computer. The software generates the diagrams and the spreadsheet. I seem to rember a Canadian firm who's able to sell adequate analizers, don't buy one which lacks the computer connection.
About this oval riser: of course it will work, even rectangle ones do. But the differences with an optimized shape are enormous in my opinion. But what is gained with building it oval? Looks like a solution searching for a problem don't you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by chazvan on Feb 5, 2015 13:21:13 GMT -8
Peter, Thanks for your input! The reason for the oval is that I just happened to have a couple pallets of half oval cinder blocks that were quick and easy to stack and wire together to form a heat riser. I have numerous potential applications for Rocket Stoves and Rocket Mass Heaters. I also have considerable curiosity for trying to understand how much difference different configurations make (this applies to other subjects/technologies as well). My first couple of attempts with oval the heat riser did not get rocket action. I made some minor modifications that made it work although I still don't know what specifically was wrong at first. My next effort will be to turn the oval 90 degrees to see how that works. This first approach had the oval (~11 by 4) long wise to the throat. The colored flame did not reach all the way to the back once it was going. At the exit, the body of the exhaust seemed to be toward the back of the oval. The back side of the top of the outlet was considerably blacker than the front even though most of the burn time was without visible smoke. I plan to start another thread with results and images of my messing around included--as time and energy permits.
|
|
|
|
Post by chazvan on Feb 5, 2015 14:57:26 GMT -8
Yes, my Testo is coupled to a computer. The software generates the diagrams and the spreadsheet. I seem to rember a Canadian firm who's able to sell adequate analizers, don't buy one which lacks the computer connection. About this oval riser: of course it will work, even rectangle ones do. But the differences with an optimized shape are enormous in my opinion. But what is gained with building it oval? Looks like a solution searching for a problem don't you think? I now see there is a big price difference between the ubiquitous Testo 310 and models that collect/download data. Do you have any recollection of what the Canadian units name might be? |
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Feb 6, 2015 1:25:33 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by chazvan on Feb 6, 2015 7:45:05 GMT -8
Peter, thanks for the info!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by DCish on Jan 10, 2019 14:03:32 GMT -8
Saw this today TPI DC710 and got excited. Turns out it has no logging function, though. The rep referred me to the E Instruments BTU1500-NP, which he said does do graphing. I called E Instruments, and they confirmed this, and said that they sell it direct in the US for $1300. Cheaper than the prices I've seen for the Testo 330-2, but still out of my range for the moment. Figured I'd share, though, in case anyone else wandered down this path. |
|
|
|
Post by wiscojames on Jan 11, 2019 14:19:02 GMT -8
If you're willing to do all the testing and share the documentation here, I'll chip in to buy you one. Crowdfund it. Might take a while, but we might surprise you.
Win-win.
|
|
|
|
Post by DCish on Jan 11, 2019 19:37:26 GMT -8
If you're willing to do all the testing and share the documentation here, I'll chip in to buy you one. Crowdfund it. Might take a while, but we might surprise you. Win-win. That's an interesting thought. I'm not sure I would necessarily need to own one outright, though. I'd mainly want to test my current box stove as a baseline, then use it to tune the batch box layout that I like as best I can before making a final build to bring indoors. Maybe there could be some sort of group chip-in, and it could be passed around to folks interested in testing their stoves. There might be some limitations, though - if I recall correctly, there was some mention at one point about the same devices being calibrated differently in different countries. Still, could be a viable option. Any idea how to try to set something like that up? |
|
|
|
Post by wiscojames on Jan 11, 2019 20:05:53 GMT -8
I've never done a kickstarter type fundraiser, but I gather it's pretty easy. I'm -ahem- a little busy now, otherwise I'd head this up.
|
|
JonS
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by JonS on Oct 22, 2020 17:12:52 GMT -8
The company a work for purchased a testo 300LL. We accidentally bought the version without dilution so it's pre set CO limit is 4000 ppm (it pauses if it hits the limit from experience...). I noticed that it has an option to change that value up to 8000 ppm. The unit is very slick. It is also cheeper than previous versions ($1657) and the sensors have a 4 year warranty. Does anyone have thoughts on if this would work for wood stove testing?
|
|
