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

[ABMax24]

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.

Most woodstoves are 65% to 80% efficient at converting wood into heating the room, which is at least twice as efficient as the gasoline engine you are comparing it to.

Most of us don't have access to a commercial pyrolysis plant. Wood heat is successful, especially in rural areas, because it requires a minimal capital investment to get going, in most cases a saw, axe, vehicle to transport the wood, and a stove are all that's required. You need to see significant efficiency gains to financially justify the expense of pyrolysis, those gains simply don't exist.

I'm not getting into a political argument, but your idea that we should have human beings scouring the woods for wood to build housing is definitely not the definition of efficiency.

Just over 70% of homes are heated by district heating in Russia, so that leaves around 40 million people that heat with other means, not an insignificant number. Wood heat is very viable for most of these people, since they live in a massive boreal forest and fuel is cheap and abundant.

 

[MTASH]

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

Have you thought of moving your operation to Montana?

I don't have combustion experience unless you count running a wood stove, but I'm a quick learner.

 

[ChillyB]

Are there really enough wood burners in operation to matter? Maybe govt could just chill out rather than mandating computer-driven wood stoves. Seems like they might spend a moment considering how $30T in debt might end.

 

[ABMax24]

Is "minimal capital investment" really something US government should pursue? Is US government short of capital? Minimal capital investment = least number of jobs created and the cost of long term inefficiency. Minimal capital investment is the pursue of rugged individualists and venture capitalists.

Government should pursue overall efficiency and long term public capital gains. A progressive government is the best government for rugged individualists, because the former provides infrastructures, education and safety nets for the latter.

I really don't care what the US government pursues.

If you can't look around you and the world right now and tell me why locally made products and simplified supply chains are important then I really don't think there is any point in continuing this conversation.

I don't for a second buy your theory that it is useful to create some giant scheme to produce district heating or a pyrolysis plant to produce charcoal to burn in a home stove that is no more efficient than a traditional wood stove anyway, to replace that woodstove with.

The makers of these stoves that are exceeding 80% efficiency are pretty impressive. The question, as is the topic of this thread, is emissions, that is the holdback that is going to be the ongoing issue into the future sustainably of woodheat. In terms of efficiency woodstoves have pretty much hit the law of diminishing returns and significant investment into marginal returns on efficiency will never be repaid by savings in fuel.

 

[bholler]

Is "minimal capital investment" really something US government should pursue? Is US government short of capital? Minimal capital investment = least number of jobs created and the cost of long term inefficiency. Minimal capital investment is the pursue of rugged individualists and venture capitalists.

Government should pursue overall efficiency and long term public capital gains. A progressive government is the best government for rugged individualists, because the former provides infrastructures, education and safety nets for the latter.

Why did government enter the discussion. We are talking about individuals heating their homes. And wood heat can be done with minimal investment while being relatively self sufficient.

Do you heat with wood?

 

[bholler]

Are there really enough wood burners in operation to matter? Maybe govt could just chill out rather than mandating computer-driven wood stoves. Seems like they might spend a moment considering how $30T in debt might end.

They are not mandating computer driven woodstoves

 

[bholler]

Locally made products and simplified supply chains free people from tyranny of giant corporate. We need local supply chain for freedom, and also the mega corps and a global network of production, for efficiency. The local supply chain is an alternative if the efficient choice is doing bad things.

Without efficiency (of utilizing resources and labor), too many people will be competing for limited resources, which also diminish everyone's actual freedom.

District heating is related to urban infrastructure, which US has advantage in some point (highways) but very deficient in other aspects (housing in affordable density, walkable public streets, gigabit internet). District heating unfortunately falls into the latter category.

This is true. So why are you proposing ideas to complicate a simple thing like heating with wood? And simplified supply chains can absolutely be efficent. What makes you think you need a massive complicated system to make things efficent?

 

[BKVP]

View attachment 284703
This is what your website's careers section look like. If you need engineers, at least list the job on your website, otherwise no one could even know.
Most thermal/chemical/automation engineers don't browse hearth.com, but they will look for jobs with search engines that can index jobs on company websites.

I didn't state we needed one, but the industry does. Few, very few understand catalytic combustion.

 

[BKVP]

Of course, this entire thread has to do with clean burning, like minded individuals trying to improve combustion cleanliness and gains in efficiency. That is why we are excited to support and be involved.

 

[Dave_in_ABQ]

didn't state we needed one, but the industry does. Few, very few understand catalytic combustion.

It is entirely possible to copy what other mfgs. are doing. Many companies do this in many industries and it is their business model. No need to invest in developing the state of the art. Just maintain some basic capabilities and keep an eye on your competition's products & innovations. To the expert, the resulting difference is obvious; to avg Joe not so much. If it were me, I would find this approach to making stoves boring and unfulfilling.

 

[Dave_in_ABQ]

guess the shortest path to improvement is cheap/approximate implementation of control methods from larger combustion equipment that is already R&Ded, e.g. copycatting from industrial wood boilers or automotive with cheap but reliable components.

To a degree, yes. If there is a good solution there it would make sense to make use of it. There is still a difference between utilizing a good idea and doing the work to put together a primo solution, or just sticking the new tech in your stove and adjusting the design a bit so it meets standards.

The other leg of improvement can come from research. Hopefully this grant will help spark progress. Turbulence does help mix gas streams together. It strikes me that this has been done in automobile cylinders successfully. Perhaps in the larger combustion equipment you reference as well.
The issue to me on this research is that it requires an outside power source to get a turbulent injection of air. The simple, unpowered operation of a wood stove is, I think, necessary. Wood stoves need to work off grid and when the power goes out. I would be looking to other means of maximizing mixing in the 2ndary combustion.

 

[Dave_in_ABQ]

Wouldnt you need a second unpowered air injection system then?

 

[Dave_in_ABQ]

An air switching valve that switch to the natural draft when power off and the powered air injection system when power on.

Sounds complicated. And expen$ive.

There is an energy saving device in my car. It turns the engine off when i stop at lights and starts it up again when i press on the gas. I asked and it is supposed to increase fuel economy by 0.2 mpg. It requires that my car have a larger battery and shortens the battery life. It also puts more wear on the starter and other related parts. I did the math, and the additional cost of just replacing batteries is 2x the savings in fuel. There is also an environmental impact from burning through batteries faster. I keep the device turned off. Sometimes govt. driven solutions (probably EPA) can be impractical.

 

[BKVP]

To a degree, yes. If there is a good solution there it would make sense to make use of it. There is still a difference between utilizing a good idea and doing the work to put together a primo solution, or just sticking the new tech in your stove and adjusting the design a bit so it meets standards.

The other leg of improvement can come from research. Hopefully this grant will help spark progress. Turbulence does help mix gas streams together. It strikes me that this has been done in automobile cylinders successfully. Perhaps in the larger combustion equipment you reference as well.
The issue to me on this research is that it requires an outside power source to get a turbulent injection of air. The simple, unpowered operation of a wood stove is, I think, necessary. Wood stoves need to work off grid and when the power goes out. I would be looking to other means of maximizing mixing in the 2ndary

It is possible that what needs consideration isn't the stove, but the chimney. If the chimney is the engine that makes the car (stove) perform or under perform, we could consider it essential.

 

[bholler]

It is possible that what needs consideration isn't the stove, but the chimney. If the chimney is the engine that makes the car (stove) perform or under perform, we could consider it essential.

That as well as the operator

 

[ABMax24]

The other leg of improvement can come from research. Hopefully this grant will help spark progress. Turbulence does help mix gas streams together. It strikes me that this has been done in automobile cylinders successfully. Perhaps in the larger combustion equipment you reference as well.
The issue to me on this research is that it requires an outside power source to get a turbulent injection of air. The simple, unpowered operation of a wood stove is, I think, necessary. Wood stoves need to work off grid and when the power goes out. I would be looking to other means of maximizing mixing in the 2ndary combustion.

Personally I think there is a lot of merit to that thought, especially in non-cat stoves. I've watched many times in my own stove where one portion of the secondary tubes are inactive due to the positioning of the fuel or the way the fuel off gasses, so those parts get cold and can allow smoke to pass up the chimney unburnt. While another section of tubes are fully ablaze yet the flames are still large after passing over the last tube and soot is formed due to not enough air being provided in those areas. If this entire gas stream was combined it is quite likely that emissions could be reduced if mixed homogenously. The question is, is there enough draft from the chimney to do this without power, and is there enough heat left in the gas stream at this point to complete the reaction?

Maybe this is the thought behind some of the current hybrid wood stoves like the Regency F2500 where a catalyst is put in the flue collar to allow the gases to be combined and reacted one final time. Although this method really does nothing for efficiency as this heat is sent up the flue.

Further to this, the lack of mixing/turbulence in the gas flow of a non-cat stove could also make it difficult to automate (assuming that's where the industry is headed), because without this where to you put the temperature sensors to monitor combustion when very different conditions can exist across very short distances in the firebox? How would you get an accurate reading from a wideband O2 sensor when it is completely possible to have significant amounts of excess air from lean combustion as well as soot from fuel rich combustion passing up the chimney at the same time?

 

[Todd]

Personally I think there is a lot of merit to that thought, especially in non-cat stoves. I've watched many times in my own stove where one portion of the secondary tubes are inactive due to the positioning of the fuel or the way the fuel off gasses, so those parts get cold and can allow smoke to pass up the chimney unburnt. While another section of tubes are fully ablaze yet the flames are still large after passing over the last tube and soot is formed due to not enough air being provided in those areas. If this entire gas stream was combined it is quite likely that emissions could be reduced if mixed homogenously. The question is, is there enough draft from the chimney to do this without power, and is there enough heat left in the gas stream at this point to complete the reaction?

Maybe this is the thought behind some of the current hybrid wood stoves like the Regency F2500 where a catalyst is put in the flue collar to allow the gases to be combined and reacted one final time. Although this method really does nothing for efficiency as this heat is sent up the flue.

Further to this, the lack of mixing/turbulence in the gas flow of a non-cat stove could also make it difficult to automate (assuming that's where the industry is headed), because without this where to you put the temperature sensors to monitor combustion when very different conditions can exist across very short distances in the firebox? How would you get an accurate reading from a wideband O2 sensor when it is completely possible to have significant amounts of excess air from lean combustion as well as soot from fuel rich combustion passing up the chimney at the same time?

My Jotul has turbulator fins on the front top of the baffle along with a row of secondary air holes. I’ve noticed it only fires off near the turbulators on Med and high air settings, once I set the air to low the secondary burn is mostly in the back of the firebox.

 

[Dave_in_ABQ]

It is possible that what needs consideration isn't the stove, but the chimney. If the chimney is the engine that makes the car (stove) perform or under perform, we could consider it essential.

The chimney is certainly an integral part of the whole system. I look at all the posts here where somebody is having draft issues for 1 reason or another. It definately affects the stove output. Not a lot a stove designer can do except specify the appropriate chimney setup. Regulations? How far can you push what simebody has to do with their existing masonry chimney?

 

[Dave_in_ABQ]

I've watched many times in my own stove where one portion of the secondary tubes are inactive due to the positioning of the fuel or the way the fuel off gasses, so those parts get cold and can allow smoke to pass up the chimney unburnt. While another section of tubes are fully ablaze yet the flames are still large after passing over the last tube and soot is formed due to not enough air being provided in those areas. If this entire gas stream was combined it is quite likely that emissions could be reduced if mixed homogenously. The question is, is there enough draft from the chimney to do this without power, and is there enough heat left in the gas stream at this point to complete the reaction?

My Jotul has turbulator fins on the front top of the baffle along with a row of secondary air holes. I’ve noticed it only fires off near the turbulators on Med and high air settings, once I set the air to low the secondary burn is mostly in the back of the firebox.

Seems there is lots of room for improvement and a significant challenge to do so. Turbulence at super low burns? Perhaps minimizing air to the logs but having more air to 2ndary with 2ndary burn providing enough heat to keep the draft.

Another thought is that standard wood stoves try to do all their burn in a very short space. From the firebox up and to the front of the stove up and to the back, and up the chimney - 2ndary air feeds and cat burners included. Perhaps making the stove another 6" taller and adding another layer of path (or a bell) with additional air feed and more options for cat placement. Tis what masonry heaters do, reaching 90% efficiency with no cat.

 

[bholler]

The chimney is certainly an integral part of the whole system. I look at all the posts here where somebody is having draft issues for 1 reason or another. It definately affects the stove output. Not a lot a stove designer can do except specify the appropriate chimney setup. Regulations? How far can you push what simebody has to do with their existing masonry chimney?

A masonry chimney can do perfectly fine if it is sized and built properly. Especially if it has an insulated liner

 

[bholler]

Seems there is lots of room for improvement and a significant challenge to do so. Turbulence at super low burns? Perhaps minimizing air to the logs but having more air to 2ndary with 2ndary burn providing enough heat to keep the draft.

Another thought is that standard wood stoves try to do all their burn in a very short space. From the firebox up and to the front of the stove up and to the back, and up the chimney - 2ndary air feeds and cat burners included. Perhaps making the stove another 6" taller and adding another layer of path (or a bell) with additional air feed and more options for cat placement. Tis what masonry heaters do, reaching 90% efficiency with no cat.

The 90% efficiency claims from masonry heaters is pretty questionable. But I don't disagree with your ideas at all. The real problem is in order to increase thermal transfer efficency further at this point combustion efficency would need to improve quite a bit as well to avoid creosote issues.

 

[BKVP]

The chimney is certainly an integral part of the whole system. I look at all the posts here where somebody is having draft issues for 1 reason or another. It definately affects the stove output. Not a lot a stove designer can do except specify the appropriate chimney setup. Regulations? How far can you push what simebody has to do with their existing masonry chimney?

With factory built fireplaces, the chimney system is usually part & parcel. As bholler points out, the user as well. What good is it to build a wood heater that performs as intended when installed optimally if the next DYI'er feels he knows better how to install and operate. This site and others abound with those stories and those that modify a wood heater to suit what their expectations are from the appliance.

 

[Dave_in_ABQ]

Yes i know chimneys can be done well, and maybe that would be a good place to put emphasis. It just struck me how many dwellings already have poor ones that people are trying to make use of. What would you improve in chimney design? Or is it more a matter of utilizing existing good practices? Do you think woodstoves should be sold with specific pipe/chimney parts?

i also hear you both about the guy making use of the system. Laws and designs can only go so far at preventing people from doing stupid things. In my more cynical mindset (usually while on the freeway), i've thought we should install an "on" button on the side of people's heads. More realistically, I realize people need space to learn and grow. Much learning is associated with the words "well, that didn't work." My children taught me that it often worked better to let life communicate things to them.

 

[Poindexter]

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

Don't tempt me, please. My wife supports my pyromania hobby. Just in the last week I have combusted spruce, smokeless gunpowder, black powder, some bugs, some tread life off my tires with both the throttle and ABS system, hardwood lump charcoal and a bit of beef, with some more charcoal and some halibut on deck for tomorrow. Last week I burnt a creme brulee, two bridges, and 28 birthday candles for my youngest child.

I failed calc I twice, calc II once, organic chemistry once and intro to Fortran twice. I can do algebra, figure stuff out and build stuff that works. I am good at talking to scared people, cell biology and applied psych. I am not good at math and I SUCK at going to meetings, but I would like to name my own salary. Is there a position for which I might apply?

Besides $300k per year I want no overtime, good benefits, Rx drugs at cost and at least 6 weeks of annual vacation. And a company Ferrari. And a big office with a big window and no phone in it. And a unicorn that likes to eat my barbecue. And I want Jennifer Anniston to be my personal assistant. And a BK King in my office with unlimited fuel at 15% MC, and a big leather couch in dark brown that would cause Charles Prince of Wales to salivate with envy. A polar bear rug on the office floor between the wood stove and the couch. A valet that can make a killer daquiri, and the Coors light girl's volley ball team can rotate through my outer office as receptionists. I'll need a personal barrista with a bunch of piercings, and I want a tutor to teach me the Argentine dialect of the spanish language.

I believe you can easily ascertain my experience demonstrates I am a desirable candidate for your position and my salary + benefits needs are very reasonable given the value I can bring to your company.

I am all about carbon neutral. I have cut the carbon foot print of my home by something like 70-75% by burning wood instead of oil, but I still burn some oil. Between us the wife and I are still burning roughly 30 gallons of gasoline each week. The electricty we use is mostly fossil carbon generated.

I do conceed in some geographic areas it makes sense to import wood pellets and/or charcoal and let the pollution produced by production be released outside crowded metropolitan areas; but the gasses produced by making charcoal or wood pellets are still in the planet's atmosphere even if they aren't in downtown Salt Lake City.

If you live north of 45 degree north latitude, or south of 45 degrees south latitude, (broad brush) want to be warm, and want to be carbon neutral the options are wind, wood, solar, nuclear fission and maybe someday nuclear fusion. Maybe wave generated if you live near a beach. Or you can be cold, or you can move closer to the equator.

If my professional life continues to be chained to the faucet of the unlimited overtime I may buy some more sensors to see what is coming out of my chimney and see what I can do to move that needle. In the meantime I will focus on the problems I can fix. God bless those that can do calculus.

I will also need a boat, about 60 feet, no helipad required, with permanent moorings in Puerto Vallarta and Dominica, and tickets to the Monaco Gran Prix every year...

 

[Poindexter]

Geothermal.

And a buffalo motoring robe with 24 carat gold buttons shaped like bald eagles, a 1908 Rolls Royce Silver Phantom with maintenance crew of three British guys, Guiness by the keg after 1700, and a helicopter.