Basic Combustion Research and Data Collection

  • Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.

    We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.

    We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
Status
Not open for further replies.

jatoxico

Minister of Fire
Aug 8, 2011
4,369
Long Island NY
Had a chance to visit the combustion research lab at Brookhaven Laboratory. Learned quite a bit about the test equipment, target analytes, protocols and current research. We also had a chance to discuss the adverse effects associated with the use of poor equipment and/or bad practices and how to mitigate these effects by using good practices.

One current project is to cycle a pellet furnace using demand needs collected from a real world scenario including DHW production. As the unit cycles particulates, CO and other analytical data is collected. The entire system is on a scale to precisely determine fuel use and other parameters.



Another project involved attempts to reduce the emissions of older stoves and the effects of using biodiesel on currently available oil fired furnaces.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0288[1].JPG
    IMG_0288[1].JPG
    57.7 KB · Views: 157
  • IMG_0290[1].JPG
    IMG_0290[1].JPG
    37.9 KB · Views: 141
  • IMG_0286[1].JPG
    IMG_0286[1].JPG
    44.9 KB · Views: 145
  • Like
Reactions: iamlucky13
Looking forward to seeing your findings ... how long before you get good operating data?
 
Looking forward to seeing your findings ... how long before you get good operating data?

Actually not my lab LG, just visiting but the data collection for the pellet furnace should be complete pretty soon. How long it takes for them to publish and where I'm not sure. The system was setup w/ two 375 g storage tanks and diagnostics can be done remotely through internet connection. They were not real happy w/ the pellets because they were breaking down but when I asked how the system coped with all the fines they said they had not had any problems. Estimated that ash removal would probably be needed about 1X/week.

BTW, they are the group that did the testing for the DC stove challenge. Very interesting stuff they have going there with solid fuels and liquids. Their work is used to help manufacturers improve their products and to provide regulatory bodies data so they can make appropriate decisions.


Other projects included developing a process to capture water from the exhaust stream to be used for cooling purposes which is apparently a issue for areas where abundant sources of coolant are unavailable so they are into lots of stuff.
 
Their test method sounds pretty much right out of the EPA certification test method, including operating the stove on a scale and drawing the exhaust through a filter to measure particulates. However, the EPA test runs a very specific burn cycle to make it easy to compare one stove to another. Running real-world burn cycles can give a very different collection of insights.

It doesn't seem like a great idea to leave bag of pellets leaning right up against the furnace, though.
 
It doesn't seem like a great idea to leave bag of pellets leaning right up against the furnace, though.
I'm sure the EPA took at least some guidance from this group when creating their standards. As far as test models we did spend some time talking about the difference between some of the test models vs. real world applications. This was a fairly novel approach and only possible given the electronics the unit uses to enable it to hit specific BTU outputs.

I thought the same thing when I first saw the pellets but they needed the weight and the exterior of the furnace box was cold so I don't think there was any danger at all.
 
The testing in DC was more robust than EPA testing. It monitored all stages of the burn and was with cordwood.
 
The testing in DC was more robust than EPA testing. It monitored all stages of the burn and was with cordwood.
This was another aspect of testing models we talked about. The unit used at the Decathlon was made by Wohler (sic?) I believe. That unit is capable of detecting particulates in real time as opposed to collecting PM on a filter for a specified time period and taking the total as the EPA method calls for IIRC. This allows the user to determine how much PM is being emitted at any given time, either during the burn cycle, at a specified BTU output or what have you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iamlucky13
Sounds like a great field trip. I've only been to Brookhaven once, as a student back in the atomic age. It was impressive then, but everything was about using atomic power safely. One thing I remember is an outside garden where plants were exposed to varying doses of radiation at varying lengths of time. It felt a bit eerie to walk around there.
 
BTW if I understood correctly that analyzer is used in Germany to test solid fuel appliances much like having your car inspected. If you fail you need to replace or come into compliance through repair I suppose. In any case the bar is apparently not set very high but it is something. Can you imagine the EPA making that proposal? ;lol
 
I've only been to Brookhaven once, as a student back in the atomic age. It was impressive then,
The new billion dollar Synchrotron is quite a sight from the outside and there is a Nanotech lab that also looks like it cost a pretty penny. Many gov't/commercial collaborations these days. Good and bad in that I guess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.