Oregon State gets $2.5M stove research grant (Blaze King a collaborator)

[mar13]

Oregon State receives $2.5 million grant to create wood stoves that burn more cleanly

A team of Oregon State University researchers has received a $2.5 million federal grant to work on reducing harmful emissions from wood-burning stoves, a primary source of heat in Native

www.triplicate.com

It starts: "A team of Oregon State University researchers has received a $2.5 million federal grant to work on reducing harmful emissions from wood-burning stoves,..."

It ends with: " The team also includes researchers from the Aprovecho Research Center, the Nez Perce tribe, Combustion Consulting Services and Blaze King Industries; it will work with an advisory panel made up of representatives of industry groups, regulatory agencies and regional air quality programs."

 

[Rickb]

Sounds like they are funding some undergrads/PHD kids doing research at the theoretical level with the support some groups that have more knowledge in the practical use of said devices?

 

[BKVP]

Our industry is VERY short on engineers...

 

[wjohn]

This is great. There should be some good research projects out of this. If I got to work with wood stoves I might've stuck around for my master's, ha.

 

[BKVP]

These days, an engineer with combustion experience can virtually name their salary.

 

[ABMax24]

Our industry is VERY short on engineers...

These days, an engineer with combustion experience can virtually name their salary.

I can see where it's hard to find engineers that want to put a different set of guts into the same old box that is a wood stove. Pretty hard to compete with companies like SpaceX or Tesla for the glamour that a talented engineer might want to receive.

Until consumers and manufacturers alike realize that closed loop feedback control on a woodstove is not only a feature of convenience, but a necessity for emissions reduction, the woodstove will not really change, and it will remain difficult to find an engineer willing to design the proverbial better mouse trap. I just hope this realization comes before tightening emissions regulations phase out wood heat altogether.

 

[mar13]

I can imagine many improvements stove have been made by some "engineer" who has designed a better way for things to work. At what point, however, is it where the costs/materials/methods are beyond reach of an impassioned individual and a lot of money and people are needed to make the advancements? The Wright brothers were able to make an airplane that could fly a short distance, but two brothers alone could not have sent someone to the moon.

 

[stoveliker]

Well, this is not rocket science. Although... Engineering how to completely combust a fuel, in a controlled way, and then exhaust the gases in a useful way (here, as cold as feasible) seems an awful lot like rocket science

 

[kennyp2339]

Speaking of engineering, I'm sorta of surprised that by now no one has tinkered with a wood stove body and apply rocket stove tech to it, think like ultra insulated firebox, fire that comes out an exhaust pipe that has a free flow inner pipe that allows for natural convection, so cold air enters the bottom and comes out the top, the flue gases go around the that pipe before dumping back into the chimney. Since the firebox is insulated, its made to have very hot fires so you dont need to worry about creosote forming because all the particles and gases have been burnt through like a masonry mass heater stove.

 

[stoveliker]

Speaking of engineering, I'm sorta of surprised that by now no one has tinkered with a wood stove body and apply rocket stove tech to it, think like ultra insulated firebox, fire that comes out an exhaust pipe that has a free flow inner pipe that allows for natural convection, so cold air enters the bottom and comes out the top, the flue gases go around the that pipe before dumping back into the chimney. Since the firebox is insulated, its made to have very hot fires so you dont need to worry about creosote forming because all the particles and gases have been burnt through like a masonry mass heater stove.

The impedance of said pipe may be too large for the flue gases to transfer enough of their heat AND still have enough draft in the system to make the stove work... (And I believe that is the limitation of the cats we have too; we could make them larger, or have more in series, it would combust all there is, 100 pct, but the draft would suffer too much).

 

[BKVP]

Well, this is not rocket science. Although... Engineering how to completely combust a fuel, in a controlled way, and then exhaust the gases in a useful way (here, as cold as feasible) seems an awful lot like rocket science

Well, no. First you read, study and run the test methods prescribed by regulators. Then, you build a stove that can pass that test/method. You don't design a clean burning stove, first. It should be that way, but it's not. I guess you could request an ATM and if everybody signs off, it might work.

 

[stoveliker]

We were talking about home tinkerers, not a reputable company with an approach that makes economic sense... ;-)

 

[BKVP]

The impedance of said pipe may be too large for the flue gases to transfer enough of their heat AND still have enough draft in the system to make the stove work... (And I believe that is the limitation of the cats we have too; we could make them larger, or have more in series, it would combust all there is, 100 pct, but the draft would suffer too much).

Or use powered cats....I have personally seen a stove with 3 cats, primary, secondary and tertiary cats, with 3 O2 sensor driven fresh air fan introduction systems. The stove was designed by one of the brightest minds in our industry. While reviewing the emissions of les than .00016 gr/h, a friend from EPA stopped in for an RCA. My buddy from EPA asks my other buddy (stove designer) "When will this be tested, certified and on the market?" The answer was brutal....when people are willing to pay $25k for a stove.

 

[stoveliker]

Lol. Again sounds like rocket science - perfect performance at a very steep cost...

Would have liked to see thst contraption (surprised the third cat could keep up to temperature, with so little fuel left...?)

 

[kennyp2339]

 

[BKVP]

Lol. Again sounds like rocket science - perfect performance at a very steep cost...

Would have liked to see thst contraption (surprised the third cat could keep up to temperature, with so little fuel left...?)

Powered cats!

 

[ABMax24]

That's scary. Parafin wax boils at 698F, stove tops usually run at 700+F. Looks to me like a giant fireball should that pail ever get spilt.

 

[ABMax24]

Or use powered cats....I have personally seen a stove with 3 cats, primary, secondary and tertiary cats, with 3 O2 sensor driven fresh air fan introduction systems. The stove was designed by one of the brightest minds in our industry. While reviewing the emissions of les than .00016 gr/h, a friend from EPA stopped in for an RCA. My buddy from EPA asks my other buddy (stove designer) "When will this be tested, certified and on the market?" The answer was brutal....when people are willing to pay $25k for a stove.

That's actually really impressive.

 

[Nealm66]

I’d sure like to see some sort of clean, safe,efficient power generation while my stove is heating my house. I sure would think a young engineer with dreams of living off grid could see the potential worth investment

 

[BKVP]

He started off with a very inefficient stove (by his own admission). His stack temps are very low relative to combustion design.
Hopefully he never has an insurance claim as those mods invalidate the units safety tests.

I do like his points about wax....although the guys at one or two companies might challenge the claim of "more efficient" over brick..or did he say stone.

Thermal storage devices would have to be part of original emissions tests as they could alter the burn rate. Of course he's done much more here to also influence FBV, minimum tested burn rate etc.

Good video for learning both what to do and not what to do.....

 

[clancey]

Hope you enjoy and I can send this-lol clancey

https://webmail.centurylink.net/service/home/~/?auth=co&loc=en_US&id=48220&part=3

 

[ABMax24]

An engineer with slightly broad vision would realize the fact that home scale wood burning is material and energy inefficient. It's a dead end career unless the expertise could be used in any other applications.

There are reasons why wood heating is only widely adopted in the third world.

Even Russia don't use wood in homes. They burn wood in biomass power plants and pipe waste heat into residences as hot water.

Even converting wood into charcoal and stoking crushed charcoal in stoves, is more efficient and less polluting than using wood itself. Charcoal don't have the creosote problem, thus charcoal stoves could use lower flue temperature.

With a better biomass collection and grading system, we can convert these wood into non-fuel products such as gadgets, homes, buildings (see mass timber), boats etc, that serves people for many years.

Wood heating is a very effective and efficient means of heating in many circumstances. My wood stove is infinitely more efficient than what would happen to the wood I burn if I didn't use it, it would rot in the bush or be burnt in a brush pile. My comment was in reference to a consumer base driven by simplicity and low cost, which very much stymies the development and production of new wood stove technologies, not in relation to the sustainability of wood heating as a whole. I do believe the green movement is beginning to usher in a new market for wood stoves, young semi-wealthy tech dependent people that would want a load it and forget it heater that can be adjusted on their phone, that is carbon neutral by consuming local wood for fuel, I'd argue this market is largely untapped as current stoves only fill parts of these requirements.

Wood heating has been phased out for a variety of reasons; cost, convenience, increased disposable income, and access to wood supplies among the top reasons. I really suggest you do more research on Russia, if you think remote communities in central Russia or Siberia have access to district heating you better think again. Cheap natural gas is also a reason for wood phaseout in Russia, which was much the same scenario in this part of Canada 50-60 years ago.

A 70% efficient wood stove makes significantly better use of the energy in raw wood than even a 100% efficient (if that was even possible) charcoal heater, due to the immense energy loss in the production of charcoal from wood.

 

[Dave_in_ABQ]

Speaking of engineering, I'm sorta of surprised that by now no one has tinkered with a wood stove body and apply rocket stove tech to it, think like ultra insulated firebox, fire that comes out an exhaust pipe that has a free flow inner pipe that allows for natural convection, so cold air enters the bottom and comes out the top, the flue gases go around the that pipe before dumping back into the chimney. Since the firebox is insulated, its made to have very hot fires so you dont need to worry about creosote forming because all the particles and gases have been burnt through like a masonry mass heater stove.

When i was reading about rocket stoves and masonry heaters, i discovered that rocket stoves, as cool as they are, do not pass the wife test. "That thing is NOT coming in the house" is more formidable than an EPA 80% efficiency requirement. I think most manufacturers are savy enough to realize there is a very small market.

 

[Dave_in_ABQ]

I do like his points about wax....although the guys at one or two companies might challenge the claim of "more efficient" over brick..or did he say stone.

He said firebrick, which is pretty insulative compared to other possibles. Water is also good, particularly if you live in a dry climate.

I'd been pondering what the practical limits for wood stoves is. For efficiency, at some point you have not got enough draft left. I've read 90% for the big masonry heaters. 70-80% for a wood stove seems quite good and you still have some flexibility to work with less optimal chimneys without getting too sophisticated.
Same question for emissions.

 

[Nealm66]

It's like saying a modern gasoline engine is efficient. "many circumstances" should mean "ideal circumstances" -- maybe 1/3-1/2 of the heating season?

"the immense energy loss in the production of charcoal from wood" means pyrolysis gas, which , in a bigger plant, can be condensed to recover wood tar and have the rest CO and H2 fed to generators.

"if I didn't use it, it would rot in the bush or be burnt in a brush pile" -- yes, because Americas have too much natural resources and not enough many educated people to fully utilize them. California has a housing crisis while trees burn away in wildfires.

The right way of using them is have skilled people immigrate here to turn them into higher value products, but we have two stupid political parties, one party want to open door to undocumented immigrants and another that want to limit America to what they dog whistle as "Americans".

Contrary to US and Canada, "remote communities in central Russia or Siberia" typically have some form of district heating. These communities were built by USSR in highly planned designs, usually for the exploration of resources, steam pipes and radiators are pre built into buildings, and if they don't have industrial waste heat, they would have a boiler (don't know what the fuel is, if wood, a large boiler still has much higher efficiency than little stoves) for the whole apartment building.

Russians don't have district heating in "weekend houses", but it's not their main dwelling place.

If you’re saying we should be like Russia, you can stick it