Peter Clouston wrote:The advantage I would have thought would be to slow the riser gas velocity about 6 times at the top. This would give a far longer dwell time in the combustion zone before the gas was cooled.
Peter Clouston wrote:Why would tapering the riser affect the flow in the first part of the stove?
allen lumley wrote:Peter#1, Peter#2 : Great now I've got two Peters that I only 1/2 understand ! 1/2 + 1/2 = Total F****** Idiot, ''It's time to be carried off to Bedlam''
allen lumley wrote: You are the One that always turns my thinking upside down and makes me feel like an imbecile struggling hard to make dolt , and failing.
THe other Peter,comes along and poses a question that I can only answer by saying "but we've always done it that way''
Peter Clouston wrote:I have been reading your threads but coming to them late can make it hard to follow some things. What lambda are you operating at? What sort of peak flue gas temperatures are you getting? The reason that I am interested in this is that I have read that you need at least 1000degrees C to fully combust wood. But many of these stoves are built with vermiculite or perlite, which melt or soften at 850-900. even pumice doesn't make 1000. What am I missing?
Peter Clouston wrote:If the losses are constant at 10%, or even less, as I'd expect since the gases are cooler, the only explanation is that you are normally running at lambdas of around 2.2 to get 800C and 3.5 to get down to 500. Does this make sense?
Peter Clouston wrote:Do you have a link where it discusses the stove designers aiming at lambdas of 2-3? It's not covered in this particular pdf.
Peter Clouston wrote:That means that to get the maximum temperature that you measured, you must have had very dry wood and also I think a lambda even lower than 1.5?