I wouldn't take that to the bank. Far too many variables in play to count on an exact number.
Karl brings up a very salient point with the mass in the secondary chamber. It can make a huge difference in the amount of time needed to get the secondary chamber up to temp.
It coincides with what Tom is saying about the flue gas having to reach a certain temp or a set amount of time being reached before the control even starts to regulate what is going on.
In other words, even if you have a lambda controlled boiler, you may seldom reap any benefit from it if the boiler is experiences a lot of short cycling.
Even the EPA is wising up to this (and that is saying something!) from what I can see of their new proposal. Basically, you will have to have storage to reach emissions levels with any gasifier, lambda or not.
Seriously, storage is the answer to a greater degree than lambda, at least in my humble opinion.
This becomes evident when you are able to monitor o2, temp on a trend chart, combined with the relatively low btu outputs these boilers are capable of, becomes a question of splitting hairs. This is a good thread!Based on Tcaldwells input above - I would not count on that. I think he observed maximum Lambda benefit on the latter stage of the burn, and with a cycling boiler I don't think you would get to that stage as often. And, the lambda circuit is bypassed in the very early burn stage - which would be happening a lot more with cycling.
But I have no lambda experience, so I could be wrong.![]()