|
|
Post by Donkey on Mar 13, 2012 10:06:11 GMT -8
Well.. I've never been quite satisfied with my stove at home.. Looks to me like this might be just the ticket to change that. I'm re-thinking this statement.. My stove is pretty good at turning wood into fire, which is what this nozzle helps to solve. It might help a little though, and I'm considering it. Actually, what my stove lacks is enough thermal mass in the right places and a quick radiator (barrel or some such). |
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Mar 18, 2012 6:06:31 GMT -8
OK, we've done a testrun on rinchen's 8" equivalent rocket mass heater. At first, the stove ran happily, but after about 10 minutes the smallish fire suddenly stopped burning and the room was filled with smoke. In the kitchen, where the chimney is located we've opened the sweep hatch and warmed up the chimney with some crumpled newspaper. After that, the stove could be lit again and ran without trouble from then on. The graphic reflect the start of the run at that moment.  Best performance was at 20 minutes, every time the fuel shifted down or some was added, the CO level went up briefly. Up to 65 minutes there's a certain upwards trend visible, in the sense that the CO level went up together with the oxygen. The higher peak at 70 minutes was caused by closing the feed opening by 80% in order to let the glowing embers die down. Opening it up cleared it up again. In the mean time, we'd produce a make-shift Peter Channel which was inserted in the feed tube at 75 minutes. The feed tube was loaded full with fresh fuel, surprisingly without causing an overload. From then on, the CO and O2 trend stayed more or less level. The smallish peak at 115 minutes was caused by letting the remaining fuel lean to the plate of the P-channel. By doing this, a lot of air was sucked through the fuel. Nothing happened at first, but after some minutes one of the pieces fell down which caused the tiny overload. Shifting the fuel away from the plate cleared the exhaust gases up again. The last mole hill at 128 minutes happened when there wasn't hardly any flame, after that the fire died out. Averages of this run are: O2 16.7 %, eff. 85.8 %, CO 1153 ppm, Tr 80.6 C. (177 F.) The fuel consisted mainly of oak, moisture 13%. The P-Channel worked as expected, the upwards trend to more CO flattened out, no overload signs from loading the fresh fuel. Another remarkable effect was detected: the primary filter of the Testo has been changed at around the time of inserting the channel, see picture.  The one of the left has been used from the beginning, including the false start, the one on the right from about 80 minutes until the end of the run. The colour of the left one is quite normal for nearly every stove I've laid my hands on, the colour of the other one I've seen once before, after the 3-hour test with the small experimental stove. Equipped with P-channel, tripwire and some other minor bells and whistles, by the way. I would call this a very good testrun, good results and we've learned some more about rocket mass heaters. |
|
|
|
Post by Rinchen on Mar 18, 2012 12:52:00 GMT -8
Thank you Peter for the clear report.
Worth to note as well that the lowest CO was 166 ppm and the lowest oxygen 10.4 %
I think this test shows that the claims made about Rocket Mass Heaters are indeed valid.
|
|
morticcio
Full Member
"The problem with internet quotes is that you can't always depend on their accuracy" - Aristotle
Posts: 371
|
Post by morticcio on Mar 19, 2012 1:39:17 GMT -8
@ Peter & Rinchen - thanks for running the tests & posting the results. Clear and consise as per usual :-)
Could you confirm if this was with the rocket nozzle or a conventional setup?
Do you have any photos of the stove - in particular the rocket nozzle (if fitted) and the Peter Channel?
Thanks
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by Rinchen on Mar 19, 2012 1:57:54 GMT -8
The stove was started and ran for 75 minutes in a standard setup "by the book", no plates, nozzles or any other gadgets. We did put a firebrick on top of the feedtube at some point to restrict the air intake and it started to pulse, making a sound like a locomotive. I can't remember at which point in the graph this was. Peter do you remember at what time this was?
The "Peter Channel" was inserted at 75 minutes and at 80 minutes the feedtube was filled as far as possible with fresh wood.
|
|
|
|
Post by Donkey on Mar 19, 2012 9:19:25 GMT -8
Nice test.. Supports the P-Channel very nicely. Your filters and my nose agree..  |
|
|
|
Post by ekwisner on Mar 24, 2012 23:20:54 GMT -8
OK, we've done a testrun on rinchen's 8" equivalent rocket mass heater. At first, the stove ran happily, but after about 10 minutes the smallish fire suddenly stopped burning and the room was filled with smoke. In the kitchen, where the chimney is located we've opened the sweep hatch and warmed up the chimney with some crumpled newspaper. After that, the stove could be lit again and ran without trouble from then on. The graphic reflect the start of the run at that moment. Best performance was at 20 minutes, every time the fuel shifted down or some was added, the CO level went up briefly. Up to 65 minutes there's a certain upwards trend visible, in the sense that the CO level went up together with the oxygen. The higher peak at 70 minutes was caused by closing the feed opening by 80% in order to let the glowing embers die down. Opening it up cleared it up again. In the mean time, we'd produce a make-shift Peter Channel which was inserted in the feed tube at 75 minutes. The feed tube was loaded full with fresh fuel, surprisingly without causing an overload. From then on, the CO and O2 trend stayed more or less level. The smallish peak at 115 minutes was caused by letting the remaining fuel lean to the plate of the P-channel. By doing this, a lot of air was sucked through the fuel. Nothing happened at first, but after some minutes one of the pieces fell down which caused the tiny overload. Shifting the fuel away from the plate cleared the exhaust gases up again. The last mole hill at 128 minutes happened when there wasn't hardly any flame, after that the fire died out. Averages of this run are: O2 16.7 %, eff. 85.8 %, CO 1153 ppm, Tr 80.6 C. (177 F.) The fuel consisted mainly of oak, moisture 13%. The P-Channel worked as expected, the upwards trend to more CO flattened out, no overload signs from loading the fresh fuel. Another remarkable effect was detected: the primary filter of the Testo has been changed at around the time of inserting the channel, see picture. I would call this a very good testrun, good results and we've learned some more about rocket mass heaters. Indeed, a great test run. Thanks for sharing all your interesting experiments. I am especially curious about this 'testo' equipment, and whether you have done other emissions tests on the more basic RMH designs. We have a bunch of folks in the US asking us about what kind of emissions data we can give for rocket mass heaters. We would dearly love to get some data on a basic 8" system such as is described in the book. Would you be willing to test the basic design and share the results publicly? May we share your current reports on our website (www.ErnieAndErica.info) and/or in other online forums and presentations? Do you feel the current line of improvements are necessary in order for the rocket mass heater to qualify as a low-emissions solid-fuel device? Or are they attempts to reach an ultimate goal of 100% complete combustion throughout the burn cycle? Are you able to run the heater without indoor smoke when desired? I'm supposing that 'the room filled with smoke' is merely an artifact of a certain stage of the experimental process with a new feature, not an acceptable situation for everyday use of a clean-burning design. Are you working toward a patented, improved design? Can you help us understand what kind of equipment you are using to do the tests, and what kind of reliability it might have in the eyes of building safety officials or curious engineers? We would love to see some preliminary numbers we could use to work toward national emissions standards testing. We are very excited that you are getting emissions data, and would love to be able to understand and use this data in context, especially to compare with woodstoves and other solid-fuel devices. Thank you, Erica Wisner |
|
|
|
Post by canyon on Mar 25, 2012 0:10:52 GMT -8
Hey Erica, I am bringing my Testo (Peterberg's old one he sold me when he upgraded) next month when I visit so if you would like we can run a few tests and get some data for comparisons. The unit I have is not a datalogger so we have to manually record the #'s.  |
|
|
|
Post by ekwisner on Mar 25, 2012 1:39:33 GMT -8
canyon- AWESOME! I will be happy to do data entry if your device can get some data. Is this something that is regarded as reliable in HVAC or EPA circles, or is it strictly preliminary data? I am now highly motivated to get Ernie some more test-bed materials so we can compare several versions while you are here. What are the dates of your visit, especially as pertains to Tonasket? I'd love to set aside a couple of days for this, outside of our April 28th workshop. If you want to look at Portland-area stoves, or down around Coquille, we can probably get you in to a couple of sites there as well. Might even time an upcoming visit to see you around to different sites. excited.... -Erica
|
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Mar 25, 2012 6:07:49 GMT -8
I am especially curious about this 'testo' equipment, and whether you have done other emissions tests on the more basic RMH designs. I do own a Testo 330-2 gas analyzer made by the German firm of the same name. It's measuring the temperature, CO and O2 and is able to do that on a continue basis. The other data it generates are calculated from those three by means of several formula and the fuel specific parameters. Testo is a highly regarded producer of these analyzers, besides other equipment like thermographic cameras. To get an idea what can be done with it, please read this article. We have a bunch of folks in the US asking us about what kind of emissions data we can give for rocket mass heaters. We would dearly love to get some data on a basic 8" system such as is described in the book. To my regret, this is about the only graph I'm able to show of the performance by an 8" system, because rocket mass heaters in the Netherlands are few and far between. Would you be willing to test the basic design and share the results publicly? Yes, no problem. I've been doing exactly that for the past 4 years. May we share your current reports on our website (www.ErnieAndErica.info) and/or in other online forums and presentations? Yes, please do. Here's a link to a larger version of the graph, suitable for presentations. Do you feel the current line of improvements are necessary in order for the rocket mass heater to qualify as a low-emissions solid-fuel device? Or are they attempts to reach an ultimate goal of 100% complete combustion throughout the burn cycle? The rocket mass heater as it is, performs pretty well, compared to other wood-burning appliances. The only nasty habit that proved to be difficult to eliminate is the tendency to burn a charge with spikes of hydrocarbons, every time the fuel shifts down. Please read the thread about "small scale development", which is covering most of the aspects of this phenomenon. Are you able to run the heater without indoor smoke when desired? I'm supposing that 'the room filled with smoke' is merely an artifact of a certain stage of the experimental process with a new feature, not an acceptable situation for everyday use of a clean-burning design. This indoor smoke only occurred once when started, mainly due to a higher temperature outdoors, and for 3 minutes only. After that we've warmed up the chimney and the stove ran happily without trouble from then on. I've stated that in my article, maybe it's not as clear as I've meant it to be. Are you working toward a patented, improved design? I'm working toward an improved design, yes. Mainly out of curiosity how far I could get with a stove "by the book" with only minor changes and relatively easy to implement. My goal is definitely not a patented design, I'm a firm believer of the "sharing is multiplying" philosophy. Can you help us understand what kind of equipment you are using to do the tests, and what kind of reliability it might have in the eyes of building safety officials or curious engineers? In the U.S., wood burning appliances regulation is firmly tied to PM, particulate matter exhausted by the stove. In Europe, regulation is tied to the exhausting of carbon monoxide. This last hydrocarbon is used as a tell-tale-sign for all the other hydrocarbons, mainly in the flame phase of the fire. As such, in the U.S. the Testo data is helpful to know whether the stove would stand a chance to pass the PM test. The Masonry Heater Association is using the same analyzer, in an attempt to establish the correlation between the Testo data and the regulation in the U.S. We would love to see some preliminary numbers we could use to work toward national emissions standards testing. It can be used in this way, but you have to collect a lot of data. Not only of the best moments during a burn, but the whole testrun with always the same parameters for start and finish. The T-330-2 is also a data-logger (to a computer) with an automatic dilution facility in order to be able to let it run continually. Because the CO cell is vulnerable to an overload of CO. For example the T-330-1 will automatically grind to a halt during an overload. A lot of data means a better understanding of how the different stoves compare to each other. The data-logger facility of my analyzer is quite unforgiving, changed spreadsheets are refused by the software. |
|
|
|
Post by canyon on Mar 25, 2012 8:29:45 GMT -8
canyon- AWESOME! I will be happy to do data entry if your device can get some data. Is this something that is regarded as reliable in HVAC or EPA circles, or is it strictly preliminary data? I am now highly motivated to get Ernie some more test-bed materials so we can compare several versions while you are here. What are the dates of your visit, especially as pertains to Tonasket? I'd love to set aside a couple of days for this, outside of our April 28th workshop. If you want to look at Portland-area stoves, or down around Coquille, we can probably get you in to a couple of sites there as well. Might even time an upcoming visit to see you around to different sites. excited.... -Erica The data can be held as reliable depending upon the parameters and the reliability of the people doing the analyzing. The Testo is the unit prefered by international stovers from what I have gathered. We need lots of testing on lots of units to get a sense of the variables,differences and consistencies etc. We are arriving in Portland the 17th and will be hanging with Ianto the 18th through the 22nd and then head down to Donkey's. We fly out of Portland the evening of the 28th so we'd love to check out rockets/connect with other rocketeers on the way up to ya'lls place. I appreciate any assistance in that regard! |
|
|
|
Post by matthewwalker on Mar 25, 2012 9:25:31 GMT -8
Dang, I'm on the other side of the mountains from Ernie and Erica, and kinda hard to get to. That said, I'll extend an invitation to you Canyon to check out my system(s) if you should find the time to get out here to the Olympic Peninsula. I have an 8" in my home(door/window/oven), and a 6" portable in my shop, and my neighbor has a 6" in his cabin.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rinchen on Mar 27, 2012 6:45:09 GMT -8
We have a bunch of folks in the US asking us about what kind of emissions data we can give for rocket mass heaters. We would dearly love to get some data on a basic 8" system such as is described in the book. Would you be willing to test the basic design and share the results publicly? Do you feel the current line of improvements are necessary in order for the rocket mass heater to qualify as a low-emissions solid-fuel device? Or are they attempts to reach an ultimate goal of 100% complete combustion throughout the burn cycle? To clarify: The test was done on a basic 8" design according to the book up until 75 minutes of the test run. At that point Peter added a makeshift channel out of tin, which shows a more stable CO level. |
|
|
|
Post by Rinchen on Mar 27, 2012 6:47:38 GMT -8
I guess placing the test results in this topic is a bit confusing.
|
|
