Pollution of rocket mass heater of batch rockets.

Hi there all.



I have a conventional woodstove, metal with afterburn chamber, do well, however in the Netherlands there is a big discussion going on about woodstoves, more and more people who do not like them
like mine nabure, while here there are a lot of woodstoves, I am supporting clean energy, I feel better when this is the case.

I ask myself, what is the cleanest way to burn wood, the rocket, the batch rocket? or maybe a version you people now and I don't.

I am busy with some things like a electrical draft ventilator and a electrostatic filter for the fine particles, I think with a rocket mass heater I can take away almost al fine particles with this high voltage
filter, The netherlands is quite tense populated and for example Amsterdam there is burning wood a problem with polution, I have to say almost nobody do now what a rocket mass heater is, and use
a open fire or a very old woodstove without any afterburn, and this is asking for disaster what concerns polution, who we do not want, technology can give a solution, the less wood we need for a
Kw the better the fire burns, and cleaner, and this is what a rocket mass heater can do.

I have not outcomes from measurements about rocket heaters, and also not how much fine particles she have in the excaust. Maybe here somewhere is a reading from such a stove.

Here is the burning metal stove I have, and a test setup of a rocket. you see no smoke, it is quite clean.






Thanks.

kees

I think that a properly functioning rocket mass heater design of any kind takes care of most of it's own pollution.

Also, it is speculated that the lack of particulates from wildfires and wood burning is responsible for a negative effect on the production of rain clouds in the atmosphere. So while it is necessary to minimise the amount of localised wood smoke particulates in populated environments, putting tiny carbon particulates into the atmosphere could improve precipitation patterns downwind of you, should they be suffering drought.

Additionally, increasing cloud cover increases the cloud albeido (the amount of solar energy reflected off of the cloud tops). Tiny carbon particulates from wood fires could, in fact, reduce global warming.

As to a design of rocket mass heater that would minimise carbon pollution, I was thinking about those top-burning charcoal retorts some people use for the making of biochar. If the batch box was designed in such a way that the fuel pile burned from the top, then dropped through a grate into an oxygen-free drawer below as it broke down, most of the carbon would be captured as charcoal. This could be sequestered in the soil as biochar (whether or not it was inoculated, it would eventually come to host soil bacteria), or packed up and put to another use that didn't involve combusting it the rest of the way (it could be sold and used as charcoal, but that would defeat the purpose of sequestering the carbon in the first place), or could even be dropped into the ocean, for lack of more imaginative uses.

I would love to hear other opinions on this issue. Good question.

Not to thread-jack, but I would also love to hear any ideas on rocket mass heater designs that could produce biochar as a by-product. It seems a natural extension of the subject material, and one that might result in cleaner RMH systems by removing some of the carbon from the combustion cycle. Yes, if the point of the system is to use the least wood to produce the most heating, this is a non-starter. But I think the interest in RMHs is widespread enough that interests and usage will differ.

-CK

A Top Lit Up Draft (TLUD)charcoal making stove is easy to make.
I built mine from a cheap stock pot and a tin can.
I wonder if building with refractory materials would make sense.

With a laid of pellets  my 4 gallon tlud burned for about an hour  I think.
I find the processing of the fuel to be the daunting bit.
A uniform fuel bed helps it work, easy with pellets, harder with sticks.
I haven't tried wood chips,but I've seen them used to good effect ,even when moist.
Most people use an accelerent  to get the entire top of the fuel to light at the same time.
I would want to get away from that.


One post on this forum suggested exhausting a tlud into a bell or mass.
They went on to suggest that the tlud could be one of 4 or 6, or however many,each plugged into the system like a cartridge,and removed when spent.


I like the idea.
Char is tangible carbon sequestration,and useful even if you can't sell it trade it.


Filtering exhaust presents a problem,how to dispose of the captured waste.
No matter what it is, if it's not good in the air  it needs to be sequestered.

Kees, i think, the best rocket regarding emissions, is the batch rocket, coupled with a bell. A smidge dirtier at startup, than the J tube iirc. But, cleaner overall, than the J tube. Because there is less excess air. That is if i have understood Peter well.

A double bell grabs most of the fine particules. Obviously not all.  But it would be interesting to see a real life test on one of those.

I have been burning mine three winters. And the chimney top has barely changed color.

If you want to learn about building a clean wood burner, read up on thermal oxidizers. Also, the 3 T's of combustion efficiency - Time, Temperature and Turbulence. Metal wood stoves are at the lower end of the spectrum on temperature and time so they are not the best option.

The US EPA regulated wood stove emissions. They do not regulated masonry heaters because they burn so clean.

Just to throw a wrench in the works....

If you only burn dead wood (fallen branches, trees that died from natural causes, etc.) then all you are doing is releasing the carbon embodied in that wood, carbon that would likely have re-entered the atmosphere anyway.

However, if you cut down a live tree for firewood, not only are you releasing the CO2 sooner than it would have been released, but you have stopped that tree from sequestering all of the CO2 it would have captured from that day on.  Even if you plant a replacement tree, it might be a hundred years before we get back to were we were before the original tree was cut down.

I'm not against burning wood, just pointing out that everything humans do has consequences and often we don't even think about those consequences.  On the other hand, trying to consider all the consequences can drive you nuts and possibly lead to worse consequences as we try to avoid acting due to indecision.   After all, failure to decide/act is itself a decision and an action.

Yes Peter. But, forests tend to grow in europe. And they're worse for biodiversity than grassland. Or at least scientists say that. You're also forgetting a fact, that is, if you scatter cut threes ib a forest, it gives chance to the other ones to grow bigger. That means that a well managed forest has better yield than a primary forest. Cut the brush, for firewood, then the bad trees, then the carpentry trees, and re plant as the cycle repeats. Which is better, primary forest, or well managed forest, i don't know. But i think they're not that far off, from each other.

Then, of course, there's the fact of artificial senescence. In forested areas where the natural succession has been stopped by humans wanting to keep forests "natural" by halting natural processes like forest fires, trees get old enough that they effectively stop sequestering carbon.

Removing trees that are older than their prime results in a renewal of succession patterns, even if in a form the forest didn't do itself.

Let's be clear: stopping forest fires is good for people, not forest systems. Humans stopping forest fires is interference in natural processes.

I think it's also important to keep in mind the limited good focusing on the harms done by rocket mass heater pollution can actually yield. There aren't many heating systems as efficient as an RMH. There are many more common highly-polluting ways of heating ourselves. Electric heat of any kind, if generated with natural gas or coal, for instance, will pollute much more than a well-designed RMH, whatever the efficiency and cleanliness of the electric appliance.

There really are bigger issues to tackle.

-CK

Very interesting responses, I do agree with a lot of them because the RMH is quite a sofisticaded way of heating, however I still in a jury process I
can not use a stove now I need to go to higher judge to get started, I think I win this time.

Mine way is to capture as much as fine particles as possible with a electrostatic filter, and a bell, puttingn it on a place where speed of gasses en temp
erature are low.

I use concrete blocks for the bell system, maybe some people has tips how big and how it can be best done.

thanks.

Setting aside the capture of particulate matter, the purpose of a bell is to absorb and gradually release as much heat energy as possible to the space and the people that need to be warmed.  While a simple concrete block structure might be a good first layer, a properly constructed bell will include a second layer that helps seal the chamber and stores/transmits heat more effectively.  Whether you are building a masonry stove or a rocket mass heater, certain products have been proven to store and radiate heat better than others.  For masonry heaters, soapstone has always been the material of choice, while rocket mass heaters frequently employ the much more cost effective cob.  The soapstone is much more beautiful and expensive, while cob is relatively ugly and labor-intensive to make/apply.  It depends on your budget and your preferred aesthetic.

How many thousands of Volts does your electrostatic precipitator need?  And how do you generate that?

Graham Chiu wrote:How many thousands of Volts does your electrostatic precipitator need?  And how do you generate that?

That can be in the thousants of volts to even 25.000, this ionizes the air around the wires and charge the particles who do then stick on the vertical plates with spacing of 3 - 18 cm,
the rocket mass has a low speed of air in the bench or the bell where it is fitted.

making the high voltage is simple, I am electronicus so a tripler and and swichting supply will do, like in the old television screens where voltage is 25.000 volts for a colour screen.


regards

I'm in the process of designing an open source device that can measure carbon monoxide, oxygen and PM 2.5, particulates.  I didn't know this conversation was happening here until last night, it is exciting that people are concerned about pollution from wood burning appliances.

What prompted this project was as far as I could see home stove builders were flying blind in terms of tuning their stoves.  Sure, visual inspection of minimal smoke is helpful, but we can do better.

My project so far is using an Arduino microcontroller. Some libraries lends these out to patrons, and if you are patient you can order them from Asia for really cheap, as in about $3.  The CO sensor is an MQ7 (lots of info if you do a google search) and depending on where you get it is runs $2-10.  I'm testing the Nova SDS  and the Plantower 5003 particulate counters. There are some high quality studies published on these sensors, but no one has looked at using them for flue gas analysis as far as I can tell.  I've spoken with a PM 2.5 researcher and have written to a few combustion scientists to see if anyone is working with them on flue gas. If purchased from Asia they run about $10-20. The oxygen sensor is a real challenge. I'm using a PR 44 zinc air hearing aid battery.  I've made progress with it, but it isn't ready for prime time, that is for sure! The batteries only cost about 22 cents to $1, depending on how many you buy.  They are environmentally not horrible in that they do not have lead.  I think most of the commercial oxygen sensors have lead and cost about $75.  

I'm wondering if modifications of a bell would make a difference for PM 2.5 output, like putting perlite on the floor or if having a bench is better than a tall bell.  Maybe how the stove is loaded would make a difference, such as packing in big hardwood chunks or smaller softwood.  I'm sure having low carbon monoxide output correlates with low PM 2.5 output, but what does oxygen do? If someone learns that their stove is causing excessive pollution, maybe they will be motivated to improve or build a new one!

My project is not ready for prime time, but I'm talking about it the hopes that some other folks will take a look at it and see what they can do.  I've been emailing electrical engineering professors to see if I can find some students to really take a dig at it.  Right now the protocol is pretty labor intensive in that you have to take samples from the chimney pipe using a needle and syringe.  The gas then has to be injected into plastic bags, and for the particulates count, the gas has to be diluted with clean room air. I'm not an engineer or computer science person, so this project has had a really steep learning curve for me. The final project will be published as an Instructable and on github.  I want this to be something anyone can put together so we can all have cleaner air and chop less wood.

I read a bit about electrostatic precipitators.  I'd be curious to see if any brave souls are making functional versions.  Commercial versions  run about $2000.  

D Hallinen wrote:I'm in the process of designing an open source device that can measure carbon monoxide, oxygen and PM 2.5, particulates.  I didn't know this conversation was happening here until last night, it is exciting that people are concerned about pollution from wood burning appliances.

What prompted this project was as far as I could see home stove builders were flying blind in terms of tuning their stoves.  Sure, visual inspection of minimal smoke is helpful, but we can do better.

My project so far is using an Arduino microcontroller. Some libraries lends these out to patrons, and if you are patient you can order them from Asia for really cheap, as in about $3.  The CO sensor is an MQ7 (lots of info if you do a google search) and depending on where you get it is runs $2-10.  I'm testing the Nova SDS  and the Plantower 5003 particulate counters. There are some high quality studies published on these sensors, but no one has looked at using them for flue gas analysis as far as I can tell.  I've spoken with a PM 2.5 researcher and have written to a few combustion scientists to see if anyone is working with them on flue gas. If purchased from Asia they run about $10-20. The oxygen sensor is a real challenge. I'm using a PR 44 zinc air hearing aid battery.  I've made progress with it, but it isn't ready for prime time, that is for sure! The batteries only cost about 22 cents to $1, depending on how many you buy.  They are environmentally not horrible in that they do not have lead.  I think most of the commercial oxygen sensors have lead and cost about $75.  

I'm wondering if modifications of a bell would make a difference for PM 2.5 output, like putting perlite on the floor or if having a bench is better than a tall bell.  Maybe how the stove is loaded would make a difference, such as packing in big hardwood chunks or smaller softwood.  I'm sure having low carbon monoxide output correlates with low PM 2.5 output, but what does oxygen do? If someone learns that their stove is causing excessive pollution, maybe they will be motivated to improve or build a new one!

My project is not ready for prime time, but I'm talking about it the hopes that some other folks will take a look at it and see what they can do.  I've been emailing electrical engineering professors to see if I can find some students to really take a dig at it.  Right now the protocol is pretty labor intensive in that you have to take samples from the chimney pipe using a needle and syringe.  The gas then has to be injected into plastic bags, and for the particulates count, the gas has to be diluted with clean room air. I'm not an engineer or computer science person, so this project has had a really steep learning curve for me. The final project will be published as an Instructable and on github.  I want this to be something anyone can put together so we can all have cleaner air and chop less wood.

I read a bit about electrostatic precipitators.  I'd be curious to see if any brave souls are making functional versions.  Commercial versions  run about $2000.  

Thanks for your respond, I have here programmers also for the arduino, and for pic, so yes I can build then such a mearure device, however as I think the particles measurement and how big is maybe a software challence, need a laser with a very short wavelength a laser from a HD player is maybe not enough, I did see on ebay different chinese stuff but as I have bad experience with them like fake transistors and ic, I do better on a trustable store here.

regards

Maybe I go work together with a woodstove builder making electrostatic tryout system en measurement.


I think such a system in a rocket will do werk very good.


regards

kees ijpelaar wrote:

D Hallinen wrote:I'm in the process of designing an open source device that can measure carbon monoxide, oxygen and PM 2.5, particulates.  I didn't know this conversation was happening here until last night, it is exciting that people are concerned about pollution from wood burning appliances.

What prompted this project was as far as I could see home stove builders were flying blind in terms of tuning their stoves.  Sure, visual inspection of minimal smoke is helpful, but we can do better.

My project so far is using an Arduino microcontroller. Some libraries lends these out to patrons, and if you are patient you can order them from Asia for really cheap, as in about $3.  The CO sensor is an MQ7 (lots of info if you do a google search) and depending on where you get it is runs $2-10.  I'm testing the Nova SDS  and the Plantower 5003 particulate counters. There are some high quality studies published on these sensors, but no one has looked at using them for flue gas analysis as far as I can tell.  I've spoken with a PM 2.5 researcher and have written to a few combustion scientists to see if anyone is working with them on flue gas. If purchased from Asia they run about $10-20. The oxygen sensor is a real challenge. I'm using a PR 44 zinc air hearing aid battery.  I've made progress with it, but it isn't ready for prime time, that is for sure! The batteries only cost about 22 cents to $1, depending on how many you buy.  They are environmentally not horrible in that they do not have lead.  I think most of the commercial oxygen sensors have lead and cost about $75.  

I'm wondering if modifications of a bell would make a difference for PM 2.5 output, like putting perlite on the floor or if having a bench is better than a tall bell.  Maybe how the stove is loaded would make a difference, such as packing in big hardwood chunks or smaller softwood.  I'm sure having low carbon monoxide output correlates with low PM 2.5 output, but what does oxygen do? If someone learns that their stove is causing excessive pollution, maybe they will be motivated to improve or build a new one!

My project is not ready for prime time, but I'm talking about it the hopes that some other folks will take a look at it and see what they can do.  I've been emailing electrical engineering professors to see if I can find some students to really take a dig at it.  Right now the protocol is pretty labor intensive in that you have to take samples from the chimney pipe using a needle and syringe.  The gas then has to be injected into plastic bags, and for the particulates count, the gas has to be diluted with clean room air. I'm not an engineer or computer science person, so this project has had a really steep learning curve for me. The final project will be published as an Instructable and on github.  I want this to be something anyone can put together so we can all have cleaner air and chop less wood.

I read a bit about electrostatic precipitators.  I'd be curious to see if any brave souls are making functional versions.  Commercial versions  run about $2000.  

Thanks for your respond, I have here programmers also for the arduino, and for pic, so yes I can build then such a mearure device, however as I think the particles measurement and how big is maybe a software challence, need a laser with a very short wavelength a laser from a HD player is maybe not enough, I did see on ebay different chinese stuff but as I have bad experience with them like fake transistors and ic, I do better on a trustable store here.

regards

For woodstoves also PM 1 is of concern, and even smaller, for measuring this you need a high bandwidth laser unit, maybe the blue laser from a HD disk player van do, be carefull also because it is dangerous for the eyes.

regards