gaz1
Member
- Messages
- 20,059
- Location
- westyorkshire
well heres some reading for you if you want to be bothered
https://chimneysweeponline.com/hobtucmp.htm
once you start looking at real world applications to wood burners it gets interesting
https://chimneysweeponline.com/wscomp8.htm
this one is a european survey on biomass room heating
http://www.sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.io/science/article/pii/S0306261916301076
the wood stove decathlon has done some tests and the rocket stove is there
but enjoy your read on the pellet stoves on real world applications
http://forgreenheat.blogspot.co.uk/...d-max=2017-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=2
as goes for rocket burners
Jan 8, 2014 at 8:27pm
Quote
Post by matthewwalker on Jan 8, 2014 at 8:27pm
I've got some numbers from the testing done at the Decathlon, but I'm not sure how to interpret them. They are in g/m3 and I have no idea how to translate that to gph. Not only that, but the larger problem, which is really the big stumbling block to bringing any rocket heater to market in the US, is that there is no accepted test method which will work with a rocket heater. There are two accepted methods, the masonry heater one, which starts the test 15 minutes after lighting a cold stove, and the EPA method 28 for wood stoves, which starts the test 30 minutes after loading on coals. Neither captures the peak burn of a rocket, and both run for too long which captures the coaling stage rather than the burn.
All that aside, a snapshot from the peak of a burn in my Walker Stove, using Peter's batch box, shows a number of around .02 g/m3. Maybe someone can convert that to gph for us.
The consensus was that any heater with such high gas velocity through the ash bed was going to do poorly on 2.5m particulate. So, I'm under the impression that rockets won't do very well in this category. This same characteristic was noticeable in the measurements on the Wittus entry. It did very well on efficiency, but not particularly good on emissions, due to high gas velocity downwards through the ash bed. The new box stoves do very well on this measurement since when shut down and burning on secondaries and a cat the ash bed is very, very still.
I had a chance to speak to very knowledgeable folks on this matter, and contrary to what I thought going in, the 2.5m particles are inorganic and cannot be consumed in the fire.
https://chimneysweeponline.com/hobtucmp.htm
once you start looking at real world applications to wood burners it gets interesting
https://chimneysweeponline.com/wscomp8.htm
this one is a european survey on biomass room heating
http://www.sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.io/science/article/pii/S0306261916301076
the wood stove decathlon has done some tests and the rocket stove is there
but enjoy your read on the pellet stoves on real world applications
http://forgreenheat.blogspot.co.uk/...d-max=2017-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=2
as goes for rocket burners
Jan 8, 2014 at 8:27pm
Quote
Post by matthewwalker on Jan 8, 2014 at 8:27pm
I've got some numbers from the testing done at the Decathlon, but I'm not sure how to interpret them. They are in g/m3 and I have no idea how to translate that to gph. Not only that, but the larger problem, which is really the big stumbling block to bringing any rocket heater to market in the US, is that there is no accepted test method which will work with a rocket heater. There are two accepted methods, the masonry heater one, which starts the test 15 minutes after lighting a cold stove, and the EPA method 28 for wood stoves, which starts the test 30 minutes after loading on coals. Neither captures the peak burn of a rocket, and both run for too long which captures the coaling stage rather than the burn.
All that aside, a snapshot from the peak of a burn in my Walker Stove, using Peter's batch box, shows a number of around .02 g/m3. Maybe someone can convert that to gph for us.
The consensus was that any heater with such high gas velocity through the ash bed was going to do poorly on 2.5m particulate. So, I'm under the impression that rockets won't do very well in this category. This same characteristic was noticeable in the measurements on the Wittus entry. It did very well on efficiency, but not particularly good on emissions, due to high gas velocity downwards through the ash bed. The new box stoves do very well on this measurement since when shut down and burning on secondaries and a cat the ash bed is very, very still.
I had a chance to speak to very knowledgeable folks on this matter, and contrary to what I thought going in, the 2.5m particles are inorganic and cannot be consumed in the fire.
