BioEnergy Lists: Improved Biomass Cooking Stoves

From Kutesa at cardiff.ac.uk Sat Nov 1 10:06:34 1997
From: Kutesa at cardiff.ac.uk (NAYEBARE KUTESA)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:41 2004
Subject: Women in Uganda
Message-ID: <3C60F6F4CBC@PARKCF2S.CF.AC.UK>

Hallo Ron,
What currently is happening in Uganda, and specifically Sembabule
District among many homes is this. All cooking is done using fire
wood and done on three stones. Most of the homes do not use charcoal.
It would be great to know how these stoves have worked in Sudan and
Zimbabwe. Also, whether once they are available, would they be on
sale?
I also do thank you for adding me on to your stoves mailing list,
there is no problem.
Shartsi

 

From DMcilveenw at aol.com Sat Nov 1 16:31:40 1997
From: DMcilveenw at aol.com (DMcilveenw@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:41 2004
Subject: Global warming turning cool
Message-ID: <971101163432_1736138977@mrin45.mail.aol.com>

In a message dated 10/31/97 7:08:28AM, you write:

<<

In a message dated 10/30/97 1:50:37 PM, REEDTB@compuserve.com wrote:

>Having listened to the GW debate for a decade, and formed my own opinions,
>I PARTICULARLY RESENT that the GW zealots lump all those who disagree with
>their extreme, unconsidered, agenda as tools of the oil companies and big
>business. I have been working diligently for alternate energy for 20
>years.
>Don't panic, TOM REED
>

All -- here is another vote for Tom Reed's thoughtful approach --CA Kezar


>>

Is "wait and see" an option for non-linear systems? (They aint reversible).

David McIlveen-Wright
NICERT/ Energy Research Centre,
University of Ulster,
Coleraine BT52 1SA
Northern Ireland

 

From english at adan.kingston.net Sun Nov 2 08:23:44 1997
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:41 2004
Subject: More Numbers
Message-ID: <199711021427.JAA04370@adan.kingston.net>

Dear Tom +

During one of the test burns we quenched the flame and took a smoke
sample to see what is burning in the venturi. Sorry, no H2 analyser
at this lab.
Vol. Dry.
O2 - 12.85%
CO2 -3.11%
CO - 6.41%
CH4 - 1.32%
NOx - 10.9ppm
UHC- 2.4%

This sample should be what is coming up from the pyrolysis chamber.
The secondary air was intentionally plugged.

Looks like to much air is going through unreacted. Do you have any
numbers of this sort from your experiments with IDD Gasifiers?

Kicking the tires, Alex
Alex English
RR 2 Odessa Ontario
Canada K0H 2H0
Tel 1-613-386-1927
Fax 1-613-386-1211
Stoves Web Site http://www1.kingston.net/~english/Stoves.html

 

From john at gulland.ca Sun Nov 2 10:48:29 1997
From: john at gulland.ca (John Gulland)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:41 2004
Subject: GW Zealots
Message-ID: <345CA1B5.339874D@gulland.ca>

As a GW zealot, I laughed out loud when I read Tom Reed's post
containing this gem:

"Having listened to the GW debate for a decade, and formed my own
opinions, I PARTICULARLY RESENT that the GW zealots lump all those who
disagree with their extreme, unconsidered, agenda as tools of the oil
companies and big business. I have been working diligently for
alternate energy for 20 years."

If Tom does not wish to be lumped in with the oil companies and big
business, he might adopt a communications strategy different from
theirs. That is, his nasty dismissal of zealots is backed up with just
the fuzziest reference to some media commentator who apparently cast
doubt on the absolute certainty of global warming. This is as credible
as the oil companies' claim that the economy will collapse and all hell
will break loose if a carbon tax caused fuel prices to rise a dime.

Those who propose to wait for absolute certainty before they speak
against our uncontrolled binge of fossil fuel consumption, would have us
wait forever.

Maybe Tom would like to outline his position in more detail so we can
all learn from it.

In the mean time, Tom, I won't lump you if you don't lump me.

Regards,
John

--
This is for business: http://www.gulland.ca
This is for pleasure: http://www.wood-heat.com

 

From sylva at iname.com Sun Nov 2 17:06:37 1997
From: sylva at iname.com (AJH)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:41 2004
Subject: interior chimneys, continued
Message-ID: <9711022209.AA29341@mars.cableol.net>

Ronal following from an old thread
At 16:18 11/09/97 -0600, you wrote:
>>Summary, an existing water boiler integral and surrounding chimney
Andrew Heggie: I purchased a Kelly Storm kettle recently, it is of spun
aluminium and is configured to boil 2 pints (it holds 1.4 litres but
spillage occurs when boiling this amount). The joints are rolled top and
bottom. It is comparitively expensive here at gbp 37.5 (56US$?).
I have spent 3 weekends playing with it. In its normal updraft/crossdraft
configuration it boils in 5 mins on a constant feed of small twigs, I have
done little measurement on this, it does smoke blueish white but is quite
cleanburning.

I have mimicked ELK's twocan stove by placing the storm kettle on top of the
charcoal lighter sent me by Greg Brown. To form a 4mm secondary air gap the
kettle sits on two 1.6mm rods. The charcoal starter is 170mm diameter by
270mm thin guage flue pipe modified by air holes at the bottom and a grate
welded in 90mm from the bottom. The storm kettle is approx 160mm at the
bottom tapering to 140mm and internally it tapers from the rolled joint to
50mm, the difference forming the water jacket. It is 280mm tall.

In toplit mode it works virtually smokelessly to the eye, there are phases
when the flue is clean smelling and others when the flame holding is poor
and the flue gas is eyewatering.

My first burn in this simple configuration gave:
Wood input Air dry 265gm 6mins to boil 2pints, .284 evaporated, 50gm of char.
I calculated FOM 1.0728 efficiency 54% Char production 19%
I ran a series of tests with bone dry wood and insulated fuel cassettes but
none were as good as this first.
Interestingly I did one run using 200 grams of cardboard in its designed
configuration, this boiled in 6 mins and continued for 14 and evaporated
.284ltre.
I then burned the same amount toplit and it boiled in 5 mins continued for
14 mins and evaporated .187 ltres.

Flame holding at the secondary air gap is poor unless the pyrolisis gases
are burning strongly, then the flame extends beyond the chimney. I think
something to create more turbulence is necessary. There is a faint tendency
to form an anti-clockwise vortex ( is this like water down a plug, reputedly
it changes dirextion south of the equatot).So Alex's venturi burner made of
some refractory material may help between the pyrolisis cell and the water
cooled flue. In fact when an insulated flue pipe is used as the combustion
chamber it draws very well, but there is no way to boil water on it.

In discussion with David Beedie on Prof. Nich Syred's low cv burner he
explains there is a need to make the flame fold back on itself to keep the
interacting gases (flame) hot. I could envisage a venturi burner of
refractory material with the secondary air and the pyrolysis gases entering
via adjacent tangential vanes high in the chamber. The chamber as described
by David should be in the form of a cylinder with the flue pipe being axial
and its opening at the bottom of the chamber. Too complicated for stove
purposes but a possible useful device for research.

One of my tests was with oven-hot bone dry wood, this burned with no
perceptible primary air and an orange sooty flame, even opening the
secondary gap did not entrain sufficient air to burn the soot totally
cleanly. The effect was like a car running with the choke stuck on.

I shall play on, any comments welcome
AJH

 

 

From english at adan.kingston.net Sun Nov 2 18:49:02 1997
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:41 2004
Subject: Pictures from Elsen
Message-ID: <199711030052.TAA00339@adan.kingston.net>

Stovers,

Point your browsers to
http://www1.kingston.net/~english/PicKar.htm
Alex English
RR 2 Odessa Ontario
Canada K0H 2H0
Tel 1-613-386-1927
Fax 1-613-386-1211
Stoves Web Site http://www1.kingston.net/~english/Stoves.html

 

From barbandy at mindspring.com Sun Nov 2 21:23:21 1997
From: barbandy at mindspring.com (Barbara C. Olsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:41 2004
Subject: Types of Charcoal
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19971103022138.00672948@mindspring.com>

Hi! Perhaps you can help settle a family argument.

Is there a difference in the flavoring attributes if different kinds of
charcoal (mesquite, oak, apple) are used to smoke ham, turkey, etc? In
other words, are all charcoals created equal?

Thank you,

Barbara C. Olsen
barbandy@pop.mindspring.com

 

 

 

From english at adan.kingston.net Sun Nov 2 21:49:08 1997
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:41 2004
Subject: interior chimneys, continued
In-Reply-To: <9711022209.AA29341@mars.cableol.net>
Message-ID: <199711030351.WAA10716@adan.kingston.net>

Dear Andrew
snip
> There is a faint tendency
> to form an anti-clockwise vortex ( is this like water down a plug, reputedly
> it changes direction south of the equator)
snip

When I first made the tangential venturi burner I was careful to
consider the natural rotation due to hemisphere. But I was not as
careful when I actually assembled it. So sure enough the flame from
below corkscrewed up from below with an anti-clockwise rotation and
then had to reverse it self due to the secondary air flow. Elsen
will have to describe for us the confused flame that occurs at the
equator. Or perhaps this explains his peculiar devotion to
laminarity.
snip
>
> In discussion with David Beedie on Prof. Nich Syred's low cv burner he
> explains there is a need to make the flame fold back on itself to keep the
> interacting gases (flame) hot.
snip

This is one of the features of the bluff body. I only see it with
more than 50cm of chimney.

> I shall play on, any comments welcome
> AJH

Alex English
RR 2 Odessa Ontario
Canada K0H 2H0
Tel 1-613-386-1927
Fax 1-613-386-1211
Stoves Web Site http://www1.kingston.net/~english/Stoves.html

 

From remco at ds5500.cemr.wvu.edu Sun Nov 2 22:44:17 1997
From: remco at ds5500.cemr.wvu.edu (Remco deJong)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:41 2004
Subject: wood decompostion/emissions in water
In-Reply-To: <9709288780.AA878048798@cc2smtp.nrcan.gc.ca>
Message-ID: <345D49A1.1C278FCC@ds5500.cemr.wvu.edu>

 

Skip Hayden wrote:

the someone wrote that wood submerged in water does not decay to give
off CO2 or CH4 emissions.

 

Reminds me of a newly discovered source of lumber. Old logging rivers
mined for the logs that sank when they first threw the logs into the river
years ago. Apparently the quality of the logs is high and it is already
antique.

Remco

 

 

From icantoo at connriver.net Sun Nov 2 23:24:56 1997
From: icantoo at connriver.net (Regan Pride)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:41 2004
Subject: Thermodynamic combustion properties of wood
In-Reply-To: <345A45B1.3A63@engr.orst.edu>
Message-ID: <345D532A.1A51@connriver.net>

Psychadel wrote:
>
> As part of a thermal/fluids system design project, I am in the process
> of designing a woodburning stove for use in an isolated location. I
> have as yet been unable to find specific information concerning the
> thermodynamic values associated with the combustion of wood in general.
> If you have any resources that have been of use to you in these respects
> please reply. Especially any internet available references, if any.

If you're looking for heating values of wood and such, try Marks'
Handbook for Mechanical Engineers by Lionel S. Marks. I'm sure I've seen
numbers like BTU's per pound in there. I'd give you the numbers in this
email, but I've just moved my office, and I can't lay my hands on my
copy at the moment.

Regan Pride
Icantoo Enterprises
451 Gilman Hill Rd.
Lisbon, NH 03585
icantoo@connriver.net

 

From elk at arcc.or.ke Mon Nov 3 02:50:17 1997
From: elk at arcc.or.ke (E. L. Karstad)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:41 2004
Subject: Does Charcoal Smell?
Message-ID: <v01510102b0834c0a4bb4@[199.2.222.136]>

Barbara Olsen asks;

>Is there a difference in the flavoring attributes if different kinds of
>charcoal (mesquite, oak, apple) are used to smoke ham, turkey, etc? In
>other words, are all charcoals created equal?

Good question. I've noticed a strong difference in smell between normal
artisanally produced charcoal and the locally produced coffee husk charcoal
briquettes here in Kenya. This smell has evidently been a marketing problem
for the producer. I understand that corn starch is used as a binder- a
combustible item which may burn with an odour.

Conversly, there is no perceptible difference between the briquettes I
produce using clay as binder and the normal (Kenyan) chunks of wood
charcoal.

I've just put your question to a few of my staff, and they say that with
properly prepared charcoal there is no difference in smell, or any
resultant taste imparted to food between charcoals derived from different
tree species. The local criteria that determines 'good' from 'bad' charcoal
is colour, as evidence of complete carbonisation (partially carbonised
charcoal is slightly brown and smokes, as you can imagine), and density,
which appears to be simply a function of the original wood hardness. So
fully carbonised charcoal derived from a hardwood tree species is best.
Pity.

I have heard in a previous discussion in this group, that some East African
hardwood species are being selectively harvested for export as charcoal to
developed nations to the point of regional extiction. Somalia is a case in
point.

Two of my staff members have said that there are at least two tree species
here in Kenya that do not carbonise very well and tend to leave a core of
uncarbonised or partially carbonised wood at the centre. The smoke from the
'half baked' charcoal is particularly unpleasant. These trees are noted for
their extremely hard wood. I know of a couple trees- ironwood for one- that
have wood so dense that it sinks in water even when bone dry. Maybe we are
seeing a new form of anti-predation defense evolving?

There obviously is a discerning market out there, but is it justified by
taste/odour for completely carbonised wood?

A professional Hunter operating in Tanzania told me that the commercial
production of charcoal from wild wood is totally illegal there now with
penalties to the order of a couple of years in jail. He has personally
arrested several groups of people making charcoal within his hunting
concession over the past couple of months and turned them over to the
authorities. Hmmm...could two bads end up with a net good?

elk

_____________________________
Elsen Karstad
P.O Box 24371 Nairobi, Kenya
Tel:254 2 884437
E-mail: elk@arcc.or.ke
______________________________

 

 

From Morten.Fossum at energy.sintef.no Mon Nov 3 04:12:59 1997
From: Morten.Fossum at energy.sintef.no (Morten Fossum)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:41 2004
Subject: Smell from charcoal
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19971103101231.00b3fd30@mail.trd.sintef.no>

Stovers

Barbara rises an interesting question. What should be the quality criteria
for charcoal for domestic use? Smell or color as Elsen mentioned. I know
there are some work going on to establish an "European" standard for
charcoal and briquetts for domestic use (barbeques). Perharps someone on
the list can give an update on what parameters are set as spesifications
for quality. As far as I know ash (inerts), moisture, volatiles and
particle size where used in a German Standard I saw some years agoe.

Ironwood is not suitable for chatcoal productio. I've seen good examples of
that in charcoal we have tested for the metallurgical industry.

Morten Fossum
SINTEF Energy, Dep. of Thermal Energy and Hydropower
N-7034 Trondheim
Tel.: +47 73 59 25 14
Fax.: +47 73 59 28 89

 

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Mon Nov 3 08:37:26 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:41 2004
Subject: Re - Re: Global warming turning cool
Message-ID: <199711030840_MC2-268B-4D9@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Steve et al:

As you point out, we can't seem to do the prudent thing either for the
right or the wrong reason. All the things suggested should be done in the
name of PRUDENCE, not global warming.

Some of the global warming people have said (sotta voce) that they need to
overstate their case to get public attention. This may produce results,
but if they are caught making claims that turn out to be false or
overstated, science gets a bad name, and then it will be even harder to
move people in the right direction for the right reasons.
It is dangerous to cry "WOLF" if there are no wolves nearby.

Two other solutions:

1) We will run out of cheap oil soon enough - 2010-2050. Then we really
will have to apply personal economics to all our choices.

2) As the next generation replaces the last, they will have a more socially
conscious attitude - unless we are caught crying WOLF.

So, sometimes we just have to be patient although it is out of character.
~~~~
As I recall, the last GW debate was in the bioenergy node. Let's keep it
there, and save STOVES for those who like action more than words. We are
doing the right things for the right reasons.

All the best, TOM REED

 

From dglickd at pipeline.com Mon Nov 3 15:40:23 1997
From: dglickd at pipeline.com (Dick Glick)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:41 2004
Subject: Carbon Dioxide and GW
Message-ID: <345E3745.F113DDA0@pipeline.com>

Hello GW's --

The October 31, 1992 issue of Science, at:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/278/5339/870#F1
contains the full text of the article abstracted below.
Perhaps this is a myopic view as a Florida resident, but
focusing on carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and "computing"
that by the year 20xx water levels will wash out much of
Florida -- is, if you please, so much "hog wash."

Best, Dick

"The Response of Global Terrestrial Ecosystems to
Interannual
Temperature Variability

B. H. Braswell, * D. S. Schimel, E. Linder, B. Moore III

Measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide and
satellite-derived measurements of temperature and the
vegetation index
were used to investigate relationships among climate, carbon
dioxide, and ecosystems. At the global scale, lagged
correlations
between temperature and carbon dioxide growth rate were
found, indicating modulation by biogeochemical feedbacks.
Spatial
analysis of the temperature and vegetation index data
suggests that the global correlations are a composite of
individualistic
responses of different ecosystems. The existence of
biome-specific time scales of response implies that changes
in global
ecosystem distributions could indirectly alter the
relationships between climate and carbon storage."

 

From BeedieD at cardiff.ac.uk Tue Nov 4 05:59:34 1997
From: BeedieD at cardiff.ac.uk (David Beedie)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:41 2004
Subject: Thermodynamic combustion properties of wood
In-Reply-To: <345A45B1.3A63@engr.orst.edu>
Message-ID: <197D68176D@NPRDCF1S.CF.AC.UK>

You could ask your library to get hold of The Woodburners
Encyclopaedia by Jay Shelton, published around 1980.

> As part of a thermal/fluids system design project, I am in
the
> process of designing a woodburning stove for use in an isolated
> location. I have as yet been unable to find specific information
> concerning the thermodynamic values associated with the combustion
> of wood in general. If you have any resources that have been of use
> to you in these respects please reply. Especially any internet
> available references, if any.
*******************************************************
Dr D.Beedie
School of Engineering, University of Wales, Cardiff, UK
email: BeedieD@cf.ac.uk
Office Tel. 01222 874683; or 874000 ext.5927(lab.)
Home tel: 762197

 

From teri at giasdl01.vsnl.net.in Tue Nov 4 07:30:16 1997
From: teri at giasdl01.vsnl.net.in (teri)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:41 2004
Subject: domestic energy in Indian Cities
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971104175856.00797650@giasdl01.vsnl.net.in>

Hello from Delhi,

I am doing a study of household energy in Indian cities with a particular
examination of the implications of poverty and gender bias for
sustainability.

I have just finished reading a paper titled "Urban Energy Transitions,
Poverty, and the Environment: Understanding the Role of the Urban Household
Energy in Developing countries" by Douglas F. Barnes, Jeffrey Dowd, Liu
Qian, Kerry Krutilla, and William Hyde, dated September 1994. That's the
only info I have about the document as it was passed on to me by my
superior. I don't know where it is published.

It examines domestic energy use in 45 developing countries.

Maybe you could help me with information sources for urban areas in India?

Thanks,

Brenda Morehouse
email brendam@teri.ernet.in

 

 

 

From dglickd at pipeline.com Tue Nov 4 10:08:18 1997
From: dglickd at pipeline.com (Dick Glick)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:41 2004
Subject: Computers and GW
Message-ID: <345F3AED.2120E2A7@pipeline.com>

Hello Friends --

This morning's search found: Computers Model World's
Climate, but How Well? By WILLIAM K. STEVENS, New York
Times, Nov 4, 1997 at:
http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/110497weather.html

With some experience, at examining circumstances related to
multi-variable analytical chemical problems, first reaction
to such studies always leads to the questions: 1. "How many
adjustable variables are needed to reach the indicted
stopping or predicative points? 2. "How close are the
variables chosen to chaotic results?" and 3. "Have
climatologists examined such questions?"

Anyway, we may still not be able to do more than "talk about
the weather." Can we do more relevant, immediate things?

Let's focus on examining things that involve more immediate
realities affecting today's world populations. I view these
realities, your list may be longer, or different, but this
is a start and in no particular order, as: 1. Water purity
and contamination included sewerage treatment at all
levels; 2. Global biomass and animal, quantitative and
species, losses, at both terrestrial and oceanic levels; 3.
Localized, city, atmosphere contamination or "smog;" and 4.
Ozone depletion (perhaps this is being solved, but I'm not
sure).

My guess is that attention to the fact that the atmospheric
CO2 concentration is measurable and increasing has lead to
attempts at a global solution, whereas the realities listed
above require local political and dollar actions. The answer
to what may become the maximum anthropogenic loading of CO2
may be mitigated, in general, by ocean and biomass sinks.

If our only world is out of kilter, how do we reverse such
events consistent with the further realities of increasing
population and continued economically based improvement in
the average person's standard of living?

Best, Dick

 

From elk at arcc.or.ke Tue Nov 4 10:56:23 1997
From: elk at arcc.or.ke (Elsen L. Karstad)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:41 2004
Subject: Computers and GW
Message-ID: <199711041559.SAA15317@arcc.or.ke>

Dear Dick;

How about trying something practical?

My approach focusses on my back yard to start with and hopefully spirals out
under the momentum of practical and applied positive input.

I'm under the impression that this appraoch could help restrict GW and
environmental damage a lot- especially if a whole lot more people started
'doing'.

And hey, it Feels Good too!

This is a stover's website.

Can we get back to business?

elk

At 10:10 04-11-97 -0500, you wrote:
>Hello Friends --
>
>This morning's search found: Computers Model World's
>Climate, but How Well? By WILLIAM K. STEVENS, New York
>Times, Nov 4, 1997 at:
>http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/110497weather.html
>
>With some experience, at examining circumstances related to
>multi-variable analytical chemical problems, first reaction
>to such studies always leads to the questions: 1. "How many
>adjustable variables are needed to reach the indicted
>stopping or predicative points? 2. "How close are the
>variables chosen to chaotic results?" and 3. "Have
>climatologists examined such questions?"
>
>Anyway, we may still not be able to do more than "talk about
>the weather." Can we do more relevant, immediate things?
>
>Let's focus on examining things that involve more immediate
>realities affecting today's world populations. I view these
>realities, your list may be longer, or different, but this
>is a start and in no particular order, as: 1. Water purity
>and contamination included sewerage treatment at all
>levels; 2. Global biomass and animal, quantitative and
>species, losses, at both terrestrial and oceanic levels; 3.
>Localized, city, atmosphere contamination or "smog;" and 4.
>Ozone depletion (perhaps this is being solved, but I'm not
>sure).
>
>My guess is that attention to the fact that the atmospheric
>CO2 concentration is measurable and increasing has lead to
>attempts at a global solution, whereas the realities listed
>above require local political and dollar actions. The answer
>to what may become the maximum anthropogenic loading of CO2
>may be mitigated, in general, by ocean and biomass sinks.
>
>If our only world is out of kilter, how do we reverse such
>events consistent with the further realities of increasing
>population and continued economically based improvement in
>the average person's standard of living?
>
>Best, Dick
>
>

 

 

From CKEZAR34 at aol.com Tue Nov 4 12:20:06 1997
From: CKEZAR34 at aol.com (CKEZAR34@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:41 2004
Subject: Computers and GW
Message-ID: <971104114453_-55718521@mrin44.mail.aol.com>

 

In a message dated 11/04/97 3:14:07 PM, you wrote:

>Best, Dick
_________
Good thought . Thanks Dick

 

From tkumar at wipsys.soft.net Wed Nov 5 02:11:26 1997
From: tkumar at wipsys.soft.net (Kumar)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:41 2004
Subject: Information on Briquette fuelling machines
Message-ID: <34601D6E.9D9@wipsys.soft.net>

Please send me some information on Briquette Fuels and avaliability of
Briquette fuelling machines in India along with Addresses.

Thanks
Krishna

My email id is kris123@rocketmail.com.

 

From Morten.Fossum at energy.sintef.no Wed Nov 5 02:23:19 1997
From: Morten.Fossum at energy.sintef.no (Morten Fossum)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:41 2004
Subject: Ironwood
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19971105082324.00b48630@mail.trd.sintef.no>

Michael and stovers

Mike, I must modify my statement. The charcoal we have been working on came
from Indonesia and I'm told that the production process is very simple.
What we observed was that we did find pieces that where just carbonized at
the surface and almost all of these pieces were ironwood type of material
(hard and heavy). So with the right technology I guess you can make pretty
good charcoal, and with your process also with high yield. However what is
good charcoal?. In metallurgical industry reactivity and fixed carbon are
parameters of interest and also components in the ash.

I know more fun ways of loosing my money than risk them on a bet with you
Mike.

Morten Fossum

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Nov 5 07:11:47 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:41 2004
Subject: Charcoal Standards
Message-ID: <199711050714_MC2-26CB-314A@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Mort and others:

It is going to be very difficult to establish "standards" for charcoal when
every country uses whatever trash trees and scrap is available.

However, one "bright" light in the tunnel. It is my belief that the
production of cooking charcoal is "buffered" to the right end point. Once
the slow pyrolysis temperature reaches about 300C, the endothermic
reactions carry it to about 450C automatically in any large vessel. At
this point you still have about 10% volatiles, which are useful for
starting without producing too much smell.

Comments?

TOM REED

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Nov 5 07:11:53 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:41 2004
Subject: stoves-digest V1 #307
Message-ID: <199711050714_MC2-26CB-314D@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Alex:

When we see analyses of producer gas with oxygen in them, we always check
for leaks. There is no way that air can pass through a normal gasifier
without reacting.

1) Maybe there is a passage in your gasifier for unreacted air to reach
sensor.

2) Maybe inverted downdraft is different from conventional gasifiers in
this respect.

Unless instructed otherwise I will assume you had an air leak in your
sampler, though I know you are careful. Try again with a completely
reacting bed.

Cheers, TOM REED

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Nov 5 07:12:03 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:41 2004
Subject: GW Zealots
Message-ID: <199711050714_MC2-26CB-3150@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear John Gulland:

I agree not to lump you as a zealot, and I hope you can allow me to at
least be a only moderate. And I believe we can agree on the common ground
for action, even if we have different reasons for the action. (See my
other posting).

And let's move this debate to BIOENERGY.

Yours, TOM REED

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Nov 5 07:11:58 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:41 2004
Subject: interior chimneys, continued
Message-ID: <199711050714_MC2-26CB-314E@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Alex (et al):

Your comment on gasifying "bone dry, oven hot" wood is interesting.

I was surprised to learn (from Jay Shelton, Tom Miles' friend, cousin, ?)
20 years ago that in his stove tests 10% MC wood burned more efficiently
than bone dry. I attributed it to general pyrolysis over the whole dry log,
rather than localized pyrolysis in the moist log.

Could be same deal here: The thermal conductivity causes a more rapid
release of volatiles over a larger volume. Was this test with sticks or
chips? This would affect the propogation and heat conduction in the
vertical direction.

Good luck with more tests, TOM REED

 

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Nov 5 07:12:07 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:41 2004
Subject: Charcoal Production
Message-ID: <199711050714_MC2-26CB-3153@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Stovers:

We have become, by default, a repository of information on charcoal as well
as stoves. Hope you don't mind, RON LARSON, administrator.
~~~~
I received a nice letter yesterday from a company, Easy-Lite, that makes
carbonization systems and equipment. They make rotary steel kilns for
charcoal production from wood and biomass waste. It is self powered. It
was originally designed for use in develoing countries.

The kilns have a range of 50-250 cubic feet and feature yields up to 35%
dry weight basis. They are hand operated. They are assembled on site and
can be towed to the source of supply. They have successfully tested a wide
range of feeds. They recover all liquid tars, so are much superior to most
charcoal processes (except top lighting inverted downdraft).

Anyone interested contact Ferid Mouldi, Marketing Manager at 514 525 4349,
Tel or 514 525 1456 Fax; 3185 Sherbrooke E., Montreal, Quebec, Canada H1W
1B8. No E-mail listed.

 

From ferguson at antenna.nl Wed Nov 5 08:52:06 1997
From: ferguson at antenna.nl (Eric T. Ferguson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:41 2004
Subject: FOM
Message-ID: <199711051346.AA07569@antenna.nl>

Dear Stovers,

Tom Reed's request for a good definition of "Figure of Merit" (FOM) for
stoves brings up an issue that I have long wanted to put up for
discussion.

To define a practical FOM for a given combination of stove and pan
(let's leave out frying and baking on this occasion), we should first
note that a cook needs to carry out three separate types of operation:
1 Bringing the contents of the pan to the boil.
2 Boiling away water (to concentrate the contents, eg. to thicken a
broth).
3 Keeping the contents of the pan simmering till the food is cooked. In
some cases (for just boiling some water for instance) simmering is not
needed, sometimes it is short, but for cooking some forms of rice and
beans these "simmering times" may be many hours.

During operations 1 and 2 one can talk of an "efficiency", being the
ratio of the heat absorbed by the pan and its contents to the heat of
combustion of the fuel consumed. In operation 3, that "efficiency" is
zero: the pan absorbs no more heat (the cooking process itself absorbs/
releases a negligible amount of energy). The fire just serves to
compensate for the pan's heat losses, and perhaps, if it can't be turned
down enough, it wastes some more fuel.

For each of these three operations the performance can be measured using
simple techniques:

A At full power (or perhaps some "optimum power" could also be chosen),
measure what fraction of the heat produced ends up in the pan. This
can be done by filling the pan with water (to some arbitrary level),
and following both the temperature of the water and the weight loss of
the whole stove+fuel+pan+water combination (all stand together on a
balance). As the flames and flue gases cannot "see" how much water
there is in the pan, this fraction ("efficiency") will not depend
strongly on the amount of water in the pan.

This result A could expressed as a "Heating up Efficiency of xx %". The
higher this number the better the stove.

B The stove is operated at full power, and both the fuel used (per unit
of time) and amount of water boiled off during that time are measured.
As the water boils away, new boiling water will have to be added.
(One can also add non-boiling water, but preferably not so fast that
the pan gets off the boil; and evidently both the heat used to bring
this water to the boil and its latent heat of evaporation must be
included calculating in the "useful heat" absorbed).

This result B can be expressed as "High Power Efficiency of yy %". The
higher this number the better the stove.

This "High Power Efficiency" will have a lower value than result A
(operation 1 cooking), as the heat transfer will be better when the pan
is cold (bigger temperature difference with the flue gases), and the
heat losses lower.

C Simmering. Turn the flame down as far as it will go, as long as the
pan does not go off boiling. The lowest attainable fuel consumption
is measured.

This result C is expressed as "Minimum Fuel consumption for simmering = kk
kg/h", or in its energy equivalent as "Minimum Simmering Power = zz kW".
The lower this fuel consumption the better the stove.

PROPOSAL
My proposal is to express the quality of the stove by just the TWO
measurements B and C, and to omit measurement A. The reasons are the
following:
* Both measurements B and C are "steady state" measurements: they can be
continued as long as one likes, and that allows good checks on
reproducibility and accuracy. Measurement A requires a fresh start
each time, and there is always an uncertainty about the precise
moments at which to start and finish counting the heating-up time, and
also the difficulty of measuring the weight of fuel at those precise
moments.
* As explained, result A will be quite close to result B, as the power
level and the geometry are the same is in operation 2. We can expect
that stoves with good B values will also have good A values.

>From B and C, one should be able to calculate a good approximation of the
fuel consumption for any given cooking process, by combining the
appropriate heating, high power and simmering phases in the right
proportions.

In my opinion these two measures:
* "High Power Efficiency" (in %) and
* "Minimum Fuel Consumption for Simmering" (in kg/h), or its energy
equivalent as "Minimum Simmering Power" (in Kw)
will be better measures for stove performance and easier to measure than
the "Kitchen Test", "Standard Meal Test", "Water Boiling Test" and "PHU
(Percentage of Heat Utilised)" measurements that are often used.

I warmly invite stovers to give constructive criticism and comments on this
note.

Eric

|dr. E.T. Ferguson, Consultant for Energy and Development (MacFergus BV)|
|van Dormaalstraat 15, 5624 KH EINDHOVEN, Netherlands. |
|e-mail: e.ferguson@antenna.nl. phone:+31-40-2432878; fax:+31-40-2467036|

 

 

From remco at ds5500.cemr.wvu.edu Wed Nov 5 09:48:05 1997
From: remco at ds5500.cemr.wvu.edu (Remco deJong)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:42 2004
Subject: Raison d'etre of "stoves"?
In-Reply-To: <199711050714_MC2-26CB-314E@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <34608834.1416ADE8@ds5500.cemr.wvu.edu>

Dear Stovers,

following a bit of the global warming debate and the response from some
of 'stoves' most frequent contributors it occurred to me that ethanol is
one of the fuels that quasi fits under the biomass fuels issue that 'we'
purport to discuss here. Ethanol is an excellent example of a political
boondoggle that should NOT be discussed here, even under the topic of
BIOENERGY.

Over the hundreds of messages that I have faithfully read, the thread
therein as nearly as I can discern is that stovers is a list of hard
core humanists dedicated to ameliorating conditions of the third world
with cheap and effective cook stoves.

A friend is interested in building a masonry stove with an insulated
firebox and unbridled combustion. Before I invite him to participate in
this list, is this a topic that 'fits' here? And what I am really
asking is, can we have a definition of what stoves@crest.org is really
all about, as a reasonably solid definition may avoid some of the
sidepaths taken.

Thanks for the good letters

Pyroremcodejong

 

 

 

From elk at arcc.or.ke Wed Nov 5 11:09:42 1997
From: elk at arcc.or.ke (Elsen L. Karstad)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:42 2004
Subject: Easy-Lite rotary carbonisation kilns
Message-ID: <199711051612.TAA28838@arcc.or.ke>

Tom mentioned:

>I received a nice letter yesterday from a company, Easy-Lite, that makes
>carbonization systems and equipment. They make rotary steel kilns for
>charcoal production from wood and biomass waste. It is self powered. It
>was originally designed for use in developing countries.

Tom, this may be pay dirt for me! Why re-invent?

I'll contact them & let the group know what I find. Your assessments will be
valuable prior to any purchase.

I need to efficiently carbonise sawdust in order to realise my goal of
manually producing charcoal briquettes from sawdust. The briquetting side
has been organised (typically, I run backwards....
stove-briquette-carbonise) and now we need to turn the huge quantities of
sawmill by-product sawdust that litter E. Africa into somenthing useful.

The other day, passing a sawmill, I saw a woman cutting down the only tree
(a yellow acacia) within 200 meters of a hectare-sized pile of sawdust.
Poignant. Should've photographed that and had Alex post it on the web.

I'm arranging to send a 1can stove to Alex, upon his request. We can finally
get some emission data this way. An unbiased assessment and hopefully some
modifications too. Your stove is half finished, Alex. I'll probably send
DHL, as they have a 'special' on to N.Am right now. Can't wait to see what
it looks like with venture attached!

Rgds

elk

 

 

From elk at arcc.or.ke Wed Nov 5 11:09:53 1997
From: elk at arcc.or.ke (Elsen L. Karstad)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:42 2004
Subject: FOM
Message-ID: <199711051612.TAA28847@arcc.or.ke>

Stovers;

I support Eric's outline in standardising FOM, and hope that a resolution
can be passed to adopt a set technique within the group.

I have never seen the logical repeatability in basing FOM on actual food
cooking, though it may be of value in the field where stoves are monitored
during actual use.

My query concerns charcoal producing stoves: 'high power' necessarily uses
primary air 'wide open' and reduces charcoal yield. Simmer, or low power
relies on secondary air with little primary input. This prolongs cooking
time and results in the highest charcoal yield.

A charcoal yield value must be included in a calculated FOM for these
stoves. I recall Ronal or Tom assigning a calorific value to charcoal- could
this be a valid add-back constant based simply on the weight of still-warm
charcoal?

Regards;

elk

 

 

From john at gulland.ca Wed Nov 5 12:38:28 1997
From: john at gulland.ca (John Gulland)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:42 2004
Subject: Raison d'etre of "stoves"?
In-Reply-To: <199711050714_MC2-26CB-314E@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <3460AFFC.3AEB824@gulland.ca>

Remco deJong wrote:
>
> Over the hundreds of messages that I have faithfully read, the thread
> therein as nearly as I can discern is that stovers is a list of hard
> core humanists dedicated to ameliorating conditions of the third world
> with cheap and effective cook stoves.
>
> A friend is interested in building a masonry stove with an insulated
> firebox and unbridled combustion. Before I invite him to participate
> in
> this list, is this a topic that 'fits' here? And what I am really
> asking is, can we have a definition of what stoves@crest.org is really
> all about, as a reasonably solid definition may avoid some of the
> sidepaths taken.
>

Remco raises a very good question. Although I have tinkered a bit with
Brace Research's improved stove for 3rd world/developing country users,
my main interest in life is residential wood burning in a "Western"
context. But what has sustained my subscription to this list is it's
non-commercial tone and the personal commitment its members bring to the
subject. I guess I have a sort of voyeuristic facination with their
work.

Despite the fact that most of the subjects covered are outside my
particular interest, I would not like to see the current threads swamped
by talk of EPA emissions limits, building code requirements, glass doors
and brass trim. There are other internet resources for wood heat in a
western context; for example:

masonry heaters http://mha-net.clever.net/
hearth products in general http://hearth.com/

That said, I think it might be useful to better define the general
sphere of the stoves list, if only to inform those who are considering
subscribing or posting a question or comment.

Regards,
John
--
This is for business: http://www.gulland.ca
This is for pleasure: http://www.wood-heat.com

 

From btremeer at dds.nl Wed Nov 5 12:43:41 1997
From: btremeer at dds.nl (Grant Ballard-Tremeer)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:42 2004
Subject: FOM
Message-ID: <199711051749.SAA12100@k9.dds.nl>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>From Grant Ballard-Tremeer PhD, MEM; IIEC - Europe www.iiec.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Stovers

I would advise that you check out the work already done in developing figures of
merit (FOM) before re-inventing the wheel all over again. The first 'international
standards' for efficiency FOM were published in 1982 and revised in 1985 after
some years of trials (both published by VITA - Volunteers in Technical
Assistance). These standards were the fruit of labours by a number of NGOs
active in the field - I think Prasad was active in the deliberations. The basic idea
is similar to what Eric has suggested although a 'simmering efficiency' is
'measured' according to amount of water evaporated (the standards describe three
types of test - lab ones as Eric describes, and two types of field test). Another
difference is in the use of a Specific Fuel Consumed (SFC, kg water/kg fuel for
instance), rather than % efficiency - I don't advise thing SFC though.

Defining a useful FOM which yields fairly
repeatable results which relate in some measure to real life is a little complex -
problems such as lids on pots, size of fuel, moisture content, quantity of water,
what heating-up power is, how does one define simmering, what to do with fuel
that is partially burned at the end of phases etc. are tricky. A good reference on
this is Stewart B "Improved Wood Waste and Charcoal Burning Stoves - a
practitioners' manual" published in 1987 by Intermediate Technology, London and
Baldwin S "Biomass stoves: Engineering Design, Development and Dissemination"
VITA 1987.

I've done fairly extensive research on FOM. In my MSc I compared numberous
variations in FOM for the simultaneous measurement of efficiency and emissions.
In my PhD I focused on the measurement of emissions. Its my intention to publish
the whole of my PhD on the www shortly and parts of the MSc as well as other
papers I have prepared on it. I'll let you know when it will be ready (I'm aiming for
the end of Nov).

I'll try to give some useful input in the debate here on stoves - but I'm really pushed
for time... Perhaps later in the week I will be able to write a description of a FOM
for efficiency I would recommend... I could not resist the temptation of a caution to
go back to the work that has already been done - Prasad I'm sure will advise the
same.

Best wishes
Grant

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Elsen L. Karstad <elk@arcc.or.ke>
To: stoves@crest.org <stoves@crest.org>
Date: 05 November 1997 16:20
Subject: FOM

 

>Stovers;
>
>I support Eric's outline in standardising FOM, and hope that a resolution
>can be passed to adopt a set technique within the group.
>
>I have never seen the logical repeatability in basing FOM on actual food
>cooking, though it may be of value in the field where stoves are monitored
>during actual use.
>
>My query concerns charcoal producing stoves: 'high power' necessarily uses
>primary air 'wide open' and reduces charcoal yield. Simmer, or low power
>relies on secondary air with little primary input. This prolongs cooking
>time and results in the highest charcoal yield.
>
>A charcoal yield value must be included in a calculated FOM for these
>stoves. I recall Ronal or Tom assigning a calorific value to charcoal- could
>this be a valid add-back constant based simply on the weight of still-warm
>charcoal?
>
>Regards;
>
>
>elk

 

 

From larcon at sni.net Wed Nov 5 14:36:38 1997
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:42 2004
Subject: No Attached Files Please
Message-ID: <v01540b02b085a780377f@[204.133.251.23]>

Stovers:

The following message sent to the bioenergy list by its
coordinator, Tom Miles, seems like a good policy for our list as well.
Regards Ron

p.s. We are now at about 100 members.

>List Members,
>
>Please avoid attaching files to messages. Remember that your messages go to
>about 400 people, many of whom do not want unsolicited files. Also they
>clutter the server when they bounce off bad addresses.
>
>Thanks for your patience.
>
>Tom Miles
>List Administrator
>
>
>At 10:20 AM 11/4/97 +0000, you wrote:
>>I received the following mailing which I would like to offer to the kind
>>attention of all list members.
>>
>>Johannes Moerschner
>>Attachment Converted: "C:\Program Files\EUDORA\[Fwd Re energy balance in ani"
>>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-------
>Thomas R. Miles, TCI tmiles@teleport.com
>
>1470 SW Woodward Way http://www.teleport.com/~tmiles/
>Portland, Oregon, USA 97225 Tel (503) 292-0107 Fax (503) 605-0208
>

Ronal W. Larson, PhD
21547 Mountsfield Dr.
Golden, CO 80401, USA
303/526-9629; FAX same with warning
larcon@sni.net

 

 

From ferguson at antenna.nl Wed Nov 5 20:30:39 1997
From: ferguson at antenna.nl (Eric T. Ferguson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:42 2004
Subject: FOM
Message-ID: <199711060135.AA28203@antenna.nl>

Stovers, dear Elsen,

In reply to "Elsen L. Karstad" <elk@arcc.or.ke>:
> Date sent: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 19:12:58 +0300
> ....
> I support Eric's outline in standardising FOM, and hope that a resolution
> can be passed to adopt a set technique within the group.
> .....
> My query concerns charcoal producing stoves: ..... A charcoal yield
> value must be included in a calculated FOM for these stoves. I recall
> Ronal or Tom assigning a calorific value to charcoal- could this be a
> valid add-back constant based simply on the weight of still-warm
> charcoal?

The idea of producing charcoal as a side product of a wood-burning stove is
a recent one. Obviously, the unburnt charcoal should be counted as a
credit. If it is fully carbonised, charcoal has roughly 30 MJ/kg. Oven-
dry wood has about 18 MJ/kg. Partially carbonised wood lies between these
values. The trouble is of course that one must extinguish the fire to
measure the wood and charcoal remaing, so that makes the measurement of FOM
to any standard method more cumbersome than if there is no charcoal
produced.

Can you suggest some good ways of defining FOM numbers and doing FOM
measurements on stoves also producing charcoal? You could look at the
existing VITA and FWD approaches, and at my two "steady state" techniques
B and C.

In my view any "FOM" values for a stove should satisfy two criteria:
* It should correlate well with the fuel consumption of alternative
stove models in family use.
* It should be easy to measure in a developing country setting.
You should be well-placed to select FOM definitions that satisfy these
criteria.

Hoping we will soon hear from you,

Eric

|dr. E.T. Ferguson, Consultant for Energy and Development (MacFergus BV)|
|van Dormaalstraat 15, 5624 KH EINDHOVEN, Netherlands. |
|e-mail: e.ferguson@antenna.nl. phone:+31-40-2432878; fax:+31-40-2467036|

 

 

From larcon at sni.net Wed Nov 5 23:05:51 1997
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:42 2004
Subject: Raison d'etre of "stoves"?
Message-ID: <v01540b08b086df3ef0ca@[204.133.251.10]>

Summary - to add to John Gulland's thoughts on the stove list mission in
response to the question from Remco deJong, both on Nov. 5.

Ron: 1a. Remco's analysis of the "stoves" list seems correct, and his
question is a good one. There are several very talented builders of such
stoves on the list (including "voyeur" John) and some of the questioners
would be better off using their services rather than trying to do it
themselves. Maybe we should develop a standard sort of helpful response
from those list members.

1b. On the issue of a standard stoves list definition - one was
developed by Etienne Moerman almost 2 years ago. Now I don't know how to
find it. Can anyone re-print it now for us to reconsider? When I look
into the web archives for this list, I don't see finding a definition as an
option - but I also haven't really looked.

2. I liked John's response on what we should not become. But
every once in a while there is a tremendous insight from the commercial
stove experts in our midst. I'm thinking of the importance of the geometry
of fuel loading and some of the comments on how to reduce pollution. I
hope all such experts stay with us.

3. Although we are clearly mis-identified by some looking for
help, maybe (I hope) their needs are being met privately.

4. Any other thoughts?

Regards Ron

>Remco deJong wrote:
>>
>> Over the hundreds of messages that I have faithfully read, the thread
>> therein as nearly as I can discern is that stovers is a list of hard
>> core humanists dedicated to ameliorating conditions of the third world
>> with cheap and effective cook stoves.
>>
>> A friend is interested in building a masonry stove with an insulated
>> firebox and unbridled combustion. Before I invite him to participate
>> in
>> this list, is this a topic that 'fits' here? And what I am really
>> asking is, can we have a definition of what stoves@crest.org is really
>> all about, as a reasonably solid definition may avoid some of the
>> sidepaths taken.
>>
>
>Remco raises a very good question. Although I have tinkered a bit with
>Brace Research's improved stove for 3rd world/developing country users,
>my main interest in life is residential wood burning in a "Western"
>context. But what has sustained my subscription to this list is it's
>non-commercial tone and the personal commitment its members bring to the
>subject. I guess I have a sort of voyeuristic facination with their
>work.
>
>Despite the fact that most of the subjects covered are outside my
>particular interest, I would not like to see the current threads swamped
>by talk of EPA emissions limits, building code requirements, glass doors
>and brass trim. There are other internet resources for wood heat in a
>western context; for example:
>
>masonry heaters http://mha-net.clever.net/
>hearth products in general http://hearth.com/
>
>That said, I think it might be useful to better define the general
>sphere of the stoves list, if only to inform those who are considering
>subscribing or posting a question or comment.
>
>Regards,
>John
>--
>This is for business: http://www.gulland.ca
>This is for pleasure: http://www.wood-heat.com

Ronal W. Larson, PhD
21547 Mountsfield Dr.
Golden, CO 80401, USA
303/526-9629; FAX same with warning
larcon@sni.net

 

 

From larcon at sni.net Wed Nov 5 23:05:58 1997
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:42 2004
Subject: GW Zealots
Message-ID: <v01540b09b086e71dca2c@[204.133.251.10]>

Tom Reed said (re a return on this list from John Gulland):

>And let's move this debate to BIOENERGY.

Ron: I apologize for getting our list into the GH topic - I didn't
see it as leading to a long thread.

I have just sent a GH reply (only) to the "bioenergy" list, and
would be glad to send it also to any "stovers" who may find it difficult to
get to that list.

regards Ron

Ronal W. Larson, PhD
21547 Mountsfield Dr.
Golden, CO 80401, USA
303/526-9629; FAX same with warning
larcon@sni.net

 

 

From larcon at sni.net Wed Nov 5 23:06:02 1997
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:42 2004
Subject: FOM
Message-ID: <v01540b0ab086eeeda045@[204.133.251.10]>

 

Summary - a brief addition to Grant's response to Elsen and Eric on FOM,
all dated Nov. 5.

Eric said:

(snip)
>I've done fairly extensive research on FOM. In my MSc I compared numberous
>variations in FOM for the simultaneous measurement of efficiency and
>emissions.
>In my PhD I focused on the measurement of emissions. Its my intention to
>publish
>the whole of my PhD on the www shortly and parts of the MSc as well as other
>papers I have prepared on it. I'll let you know when it will be ready (I'm
>aiming for
>the end of Nov).
(snip)

Ron: Grant - I hope you will especially respond to Elsen's request on the
FOM of charcoal-making stoves. I have looked at a lot of the FOM
literature and don't believe there is good philosophical reasoning behind
the "standard" subtraction of a residual charcoal energy value from the
input fuel energy value in the denominator of the efficiency computation.
The error is not bad for a small amount of charcoal (the usual case), but
makes a significant difference when you are striving to maximum charcoal
output.

I'd also like to see the FOM include something on pollutant
production - which sounds like might be in your thesis. I look forward to
reading it. This will be an interesting thread when you can finish up the
thesis and report back to the full list. Congratulations on getting to this
very-close stage.

Ronal W. Larson, PhD
21547 Mountsfield Dr.
Golden, CO 80401, USA
303/526-9629; FAX same with warning
larcon@sni.net

 

 

From sylva at iname.com Thu Nov 6 02:12:28 1997
From: sylva at iname.com (AJH)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:42 2004
Subject: FOM
Message-ID: <9711060715.AA29041@mars.cableol.net>

At 19:12 05/11/97 +0300, Elsen wrote:
>Stovers;
<snipped>
>A charcoal yield value must be included in a calculated FOM for these
>stoves. I recall Ronal or Tom assigning a calorific value to charcoal- could
>this be a valid add-back constant based simply on the weight of still-warm
>charcoal?
Andrew Heggie:In my posting I calculated the heat value of the remaining
charcoal on the basis of low volatile content and used the 30Mj/kg figure. I
ignored the sensible heat of the coals as, although they were at red heat,
once in the cooling container they seemed to cool down fast, so I assumed
charcoal must have a low enough specific heat to ignore this contribution
AJH

 

 

From CAMPBELLDB at cdm.com Thu Nov 6 10:06:02 1997
From: CAMPBELLDB at cdm.com (Dan Campbell)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:42 2004
Subject: Fwd: ARI Network Update - November 7, 1997
Message-ID: <9711061505.AA26005@cdm.com>

Dear Stovers:

Enclosed is the latest ARI network update. The network is concerned with the
health impacts of indoor air pollution. Please let me know if you would like
to be added to the distribtion list or have any information to share with the
network.

Regards,
Dan Campbell

 

To: dan
Subject: ARI Network Update - November 7, 1997
From: "Dan Campbell" <CAMPBELLDB>
Date: 06 Nov 97 10:05:37
Cc: arinet

ARI Network Update - November 7, 1997

Dear Colleagues:

Enclosed is some brief information on 4 recent additions to the Acute
Respiratory Infections Network. Please contact the organizations directly if
you would like additional information on their activities. The network now has
98 members. Also included are abstracts of some recent papers presesnted at an
FAO workshop on stoves.

A directory of ARI network members will soon be available on the EHP web site
at: http://www.access.digex.net/~ehp/arinet.html

I am trying to send out a weekly network update, so please send any
information you would like to share on your organization's activities,
publications, etc.

Regards,
Dan Campbell, EHP
***************************************************

BANGLADESH

National ARI Programme of Bangladesh
Directorate Generale of Health Services
Contacts: Dr. Mohd. Mahbubur Rahman, Project Director
and Dr. T.O. Kyaw-Myint, UNICEF/Dhaka
email: tkyaw-myint@hqfaus01.unicef.org

This national program is currently working in collaboration with the Ministry
of Environment to create awareness for the reduction of indoor air pollution.
**************************************************************************

INDIA

Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI)
Habitat Place
Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110-003
India
Contact: Sumeet Saksena
email: sumeet@teri.ernet.in
http://www.teriin.org

TERI's areas of interest are:
1. Studying thermal performance of cookstoves
2. Measuring emission factors
3. Human exposure characterization
4. Air pollution epidemiology
5. Improved cookstoves & biogas dissemination programs.

TERI has undertaken projects sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation, USEPA,
the European Commission, UNEP, and the Government of India.
***********************************************************************

SOUTH AFRICA

Energy for Development
Dept Mineral and Energy Affairs
Private Bag X59, Pretoria 0001
South Africa
Contact: Tony Golding
email: tony@mepta.pwv.gov.za

The Department is investigating cases of hazardous kerosene use in basic
"wick" stoves which are responsible for high readings of CO and plans to start
a campaign to warn users of using kerosene in unventilated dwellings. An
existing communication campaign writes press releases and articles in local
newspapers on the dangers of coal, wood, and kerosene use in unventialted
dwellings.

We also have a solar cooker project which has tested the social acceptability
of 5 stoves. These will go into commercial production next year. The
Department is currently working on gender issue, energy efficient housing,
plus a communication and capacity building project for the underdeveloped
sector (including a communication stratefy as well as a programme for Energy
and Environment Advisors). We feel that giving information to all sectors of
the population will help them make better choices about fuel options, safety,
and efficiency.
*****************************************************************

TANZANIA

World Health Organzation
PO Box 9292
Dar Es Salaam
Tanzania
Contact: Suzanne Verver
email: who-tz@twiga.com

I am currently working as a WHO Associate Professional Officer in Integrated
Managment of Childhood Illness. Before coming to Tanzania, I worked on ARI
programs in Pakistan.
*******************************************************************

Regional Workshop on Stoves used for Space Heating and Cooking at Different
Altitudes and/by Ethnic Groups

Selected Abstracts of Papers Presented at the Workshop

FAO Regional Wood Energy Development Programme in Asia (RWEDP)
International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD)
Pokhara, Nepal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For copies of the full workshop report write to: Regional Wood Energy
Development Programme in Asia, c/o FAO Regional Office for Asia and the
Pacific, Maliwan Mansion, Phra Atit Road, Bangkok, Thailand. Tel: 66-2-280
2760; Fax: 66-2-280 0760; E-mail: RWEDP@field.fao.org.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health Effects of Domestic Smoke Pollution

Dr. M R Pandey

Indoor air pollution from biomass-burning stoves in rural areas of
developing countries has been recognized as a serious problem. The suspended
particles, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, formaldehyde and other organic
compounds found in biomass smoke, often combined with poor ventilation, have
been linked with low birthweight, eye problems, respiratory disease and
cancer. Respiratory disease is the biggest cause of morbidity and mortality
in the developing world, according to WHO statistics. More detailed
descriptions of its forms and incidence is given. Women users of biomass
stoves seem to be badly affected.
***********************************************************
Asia Regional Cookstoves Programme (ARECOP): Background and Possibilities

Mrs. Christina Aristanti

The paper discusses the need for a network for the development of improved
cookstove programmes in different Asian countries, followed by ARECOP's
experience in networking. Ms Aristanti chiefly highlights the present
activities and vision of ARECOP. The major components of ARECOP's vision are
promotion of activities that integrate multiple needs in an holistic
approach, utilization of indigenous knowledge systems, carrying out gender
impact analyses, examining the issue of financial sustainability,
emphasizing monitoring and evaluation, and the intention to popularize
programmes to improve the working conditions within the kitchen, adopting a
flexible approach to promote improved cookstoves. The paper also highlights
the goals, objectives and activities of ARECOP, along with its national and
regional-level initiatives. The paper also examines the possibility of
ARECOP collaborating with institutions interested in biomass-based space
heating technologies.
*************************************************
Studies on Stoves Serving Cooking and Space Heating Functions in the
Highlands of Vietnam

Ms. Vu Thuy Hang

This paper examines the need for space heating in the highland and
mountainous areas of Vietnam and also describes different types of
traditional and improved biomass stoves. It chiefly discusses laboratory
findings on two types of stove: i) fixed stoves mainly used for cooking and
heating; and ii) portable stoves mainly used for heating only. The paper
also argues strongly for integrating the construction of improved stoves
with the structure of the house in order to maximize the potential benefits.
********************************************************
Communities' and People's Perceptions of Improved Cookstoves in Surkhet,
Nepal

Mr. G B Adhikari

This paper examines the merits and demerits of the stove programme launched
by the Community Development Resource Centre (CDRC) in one of the rural
areas of Nepal with the objective of reducing the health hazards and saving
fuelwood. Based on their experience in improved cookstoves, the paper
concludes that the present improved cookstove design cannot be installed
easily in houses, most of which are small, of low height and have thatched
roofs. People also complain of this design's not having the advantage of
space heating, which the traditional stoves had. The paper concludes with a
quote from a poor woman: 'A simple technology also does not favour the
poorer people in the world.'
***********************************************************
Possible Application of Down-draft Stoves in Space Heating

Dr. A M Hasan Rashid Khan

This paper examines the operation of traditional stoves in Bangladesh,
discusses its disadvantages and suggests modifications, mainly for cooking.
It provides measured values of CO concentration in down-draft stoves and
suggests the utilization of flue gas in bakery ovens and for space heating
purposes, since the outlet temperature of the chimney is around 400-500oC.
The paper concludes that stove designs are very sensitive to operation and
design variables, and thus wood block sizes and fuel feeding rates play an
important role in achieving clean combustion of wood.
**************************************************
Studies on Cooking and Space Heating Stoves in the Himalayan Range of Bhutan

Mr. Jampel Nidup

This paper argues that space heating is of prime importance in the
mountainous region of Bhutan, even for mere survival. It explains the
traditional cooking and space heating biomass stoves and the introduction of
efficient cookstoves initiated by the Government of Bhutan. The author,
being himself a manufacturer of improved stoves, explains the different
models and construction techniques of space heating devices currently
marketed in Bhutan. Two main designs are popular, and the price varies from
US$ 75 to US$ 300 depending on the quality of construction material used and
durability.
********************************************************
Space Heating through Integration of Wood/Charcoal Stoves in Building Design

Prof. N K Bansal and Mr. M S Bhandari

This paper investigates the concept of integrating the kitchen cookstove in
the design of the building, for the purpose of space heating, in cold
conditions. The exhaust gases from the cookstove flow through a cavity wall,
which acts like a chimney. The wall stores the heat and keeps the inside
space at a comfortable temperature, provided that heat loss from the
building is maintained at 0.5 W/m2 K, which corresponds to five cm-thick
insulation or 80 cm-thick mud wall, for a space volume of 27 m3 and ambient
temperature of between 3.6o C and 15.5o C.
***********************************************************
Study and Documentation of Stoves for Dissemination and Utilization of
Energy-saving Heating Stoves in China

Mr. Z Ming

This paper examines the history and the present status of the improved stove
programme in China, besides providing a brief account of rural energy policy
enacted by the Chinese government and the organizations involved in
disseminating the fuel-saving stoves. At present, 166 million farm
households in China either cook their food or warm their houses. With the
success of stove dissemination in rural areas, this programme is being
extended to the kitchens of government organizations, schools, hospitals,
restaurant and hotels. The plan for the future is that these improved stove
technologies will be manufactured and marketed by the producers and that the
government will gradually withdraw from the programme.
**************************************************
Stove for Space Heating and Cooking in Mountainous Areas of the Northern
Philippines

Mr. John F Malamug

The paper opens with an introduction to the government-established
Affiliated Non-conventional Energy Centres (ANEC), under the Department of
Energy's Non-conventional Energy Division NCED), which oversee
implementation of the government's Rural Energy Policy and link the NCED
with grassroots and extension agencies to promote and commercialize
non-conventional energy systems. The paper then describes the mountainous
Cordillera Administrative Region, the region's population and the typical
domestic arrangements of the Cordillerans. Kitchens are always indoors, and
serve as social centres for the house. Stoves are generally wood-burning
open fires or three-stone fires, and in both the morning and evening they
are kept burning for extended periods in order to provide heat for the
gathered family members and for cooking. Two to three kilogrammes of wood is
normally consumed during each of these periods. Although numerous cases of
respiratory disease have been found among users of the stoves, no serious
study has been made to establish a direct link between the stoves and the
medical problems. The paper concludes that until more efficient stoves and
more effective dissemination strategies are developed, the Cordillerans are
likely to continue using the traditional stoves.
*****************************************************

 

 

From ferguson at antenna.nl Thu Nov 6 11:00:32 1997
From: ferguson at antenna.nl (Eric T. Ferguson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:42 2004
Subject: FOM: wrong attribution of quoted text
Message-ID: <199711061603.AA26767@antenna.nl>

Dear Stovers:

Warning: Misquote!. By oversight Ron wrote:
> Eric said: (snip)
> > I've done fairly extensive research on FOM. In my MSc I compared
> > numberous variations in FOM for the simultaneous measurement of
> > efficiency and emissions. In my PhD I focused on the measurement
> > of emissions. Its my intention to publish the whole of my PhD on
> > the www shortly and parts of the MSc as well as other papers I have
> > prepared on it. I'll let you know when it will be ready (I'm aiming
> > for the end of Nov). (snip)
but this text was by Grant Ballard-Tremeer (5 nov), not by me. My Ph.D was
long ago (1962) on a quite different subject. I have worked on fuelwood
and stoves issues, especially in West Africa, since 1978.

Eric

|dr. E.T. Ferguson, Consultant for Energy and Development (MacFergus BV)|
|van Dormaalstraat 15, 5624 KH EINDHOVEN, Netherlands. |
|e-mail: e.ferguson@antenna.nl. phone:+31-40-2432878; fax:+31-40-2467036|

 

 

From ferguson at antenna.nl Thu Nov 6 11:03:39 1997
From: ferguson at antenna.nl (Eric T. Ferguson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:42 2004
Subject: Briquetting of sawdust and wastes
Message-ID: <199711061604.AA26774@antenna.nl>

Stovers,

Elsen wrote:
> Date sent: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 19:12:53 +0300
> Subject: Easy-Lite rotary carbonisation kilns

> I need to efficiently carbonise sawdust in order to realise my goal of
> manually producing charcoal briquettes from sawdust. The briquetting
> side has been organised (typically, I run backwards....
> stove-briquette-carbonise) and now we need to turn the huge quantities
> of sawmill by-product sawdust that litter E. Africa into something
> useful. The other day, passing a sawmill, I saw a woman cutting down the
> only tree (a yellow acacia) within 200 meters of a hectare-sized pile of
> sawdust. Poignant. Should've photographed that and had Alex post it on
> the web.

We should be clear about the purpose of briquettting sawdust.
1. It clears waste dumps that otherwise are a nuisance or a danger (eg.
accidental fire)
2. It makes a valuable product (briquettes) out of a valueless waste.
This makes economic sense.
However:
3. It is NOT a significant contribution to solving any fuelwood shortage
or to reducing deforestation in developing countries relying largely on
fuelwood and charcoal. The reason is simple. The fuelwood required
for cooking is normally between 300 and 700 kg/person/year. The
amounts of sawdust (and other biomass wastes, such as agricultural
wastes) available are insufficient to make a significant impact on
that total consumption. Locally, of course it can contribute.

I am fully supportive of briquetting sawdust (to briquettes or to charcoal
briquettes), but the basic requirement is that is should be an economically
feasible activity, that will be able to become self-sustaining.

Let us try to be clear about the arguments for wanting to make charcoal
briquettes. Unless the charcoal is made in retorts (and the flue gases
used for energy purposes) about 3/4 of the energy is lost when converting
woody biomass into charcoal. From an energy point of view it would be
better to make wood-briquettes. From the manufacturing and marketing
points of view (cost of briquetting, cooking habits, transport costs to
users, etc) charcoal briquettes may be better.

In all briquetting of wastes there are three major cost items:
1 collecting the wastes (so waste dumps are the ideal site to begin)
2 making the briquettes (and any prior transformations)
3 taking them to market.

Item 2 is quite large. We must always also look at another possibility:
can the waste be used on the spot without briquetting, for instance by
burning is as such (or by gasifying it first) to produce hot water, steam
or electricity for some professional activity. This is the normal way of
using bagasse (in sugar factories). Wherever there is a biomass waste
dump, there is usually a factory. It's always worth looking at using the
waste to supply energy to that factory.

Comments please.

Eric

|dr. E.T. Ferguson, Consultant for Energy and Development (MacFergus BV)|
|van Dormaalstraat 15, 5624 KH EINDHOVEN, Netherlands. |
|e-mail: e.ferguson@antenna.nl. phone:+31-40-2432878; fax:+31-40-2467036|

 

 

From verhaarp at janus.cqu.edu.au Thu Nov 6 16:29:16 1997
From: verhaarp at janus.cqu.edu.au (Peter Verhaart)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:42 2004
Subject: Figure Of Merit
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19971106203211.006c7c28@janus.cqu.edu.au>

Piet, on FOM (not Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie)

The Eindhoven Group has made statements on this subject before, as it has on
many subjects rediscovered on this list in the course of time.

Others have worked on the same problem, notably ITDG and VITA. They tried to
find some definition applicable in the field, so they came up with Specific
Fuel Consuption, which was only valid for one kind of food cooked under
strictly defined conditions.

The WSG, being engineers, embraced efficiency as the cure - all and
subsequently found that it is not. For bringing a pan and its contents to
boiling point it is very good, nobody will deny a higher heat transfer
efficiency will heat the pan for a lesser expenditure in fuel.

As regards simmering, however, this is intended to keep the pan and its
contents at boiling point and nothing more. Any steam liberated during the
simmering stage is an indication of insufficient turndownability of the stove.

So far I see nothing wrong in having both the heat transfer efficiency AND
the turndownability to define the FOM of a stove.

There are many extremely wasteful ways people cook food. We collected some
samples in rice cooking where a large amount of water was used to boil a
little bit of rice. Later most of the water is decanted. One of the ways
fuel consumption can be reduced is to teach people efficient ways of
cooking. It is hoped that poor people are better at adopting more efficient
methods than those that still use Imperial units and measures in the face of
all the advantages of the SI system of units.

Good cooking,

Piet
Peter Verhaart 6 McDonald St Gracemere Q 4702 Australia
Phone: +61 79 331761 Fax: +61 79 331761 or 332112
E-mail:p.verhaart@cqu.edu.au

 

 

From elk at arcc.or.ke Fri Nov 7 04:21:40 1997
From: elk at arcc.or.ke (E. L. Karstad)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:42 2004
Subject: converting sawdust to charcoal briquettes
Message-ID: <v01510101b088a88c10e5@[199.2.222.132]>

Eric Ferguson indicates that the conversion of sawdust to charcoal for use
as fuel would not constitute a significant impact on solving the fuelwood
shortage, though it may contribute on a local basis. His points are valid
and his economic assessments are applicable.

I, for one, do not have enough faith in the eventual resolution of the
fuelwood crisis through the application of a single solution. A solution
will arise only through the commercialisation of a range technologies that
are compatible with this goal.

I am concerned with the probable waste of flue gases in the carbonisation
of sawdust via whatever is the simplest and most direct means (manually
operated rotary kiln?) prior to the manufacture of charcoal briquettes. I
do not feel, however, that this ineficiency and pollution should delay or
stop the project. The net result will still be a gain won't it?

With the wide distribution of small sawmills here in E. Africa, a large,
permanent and efficient plant utilising all the energy released from
sawdust during carbonisation would be impractical.

What I envision is a cheap very portable unit operated on site at the
sawdust pile by a team of no more than four people and capable of producing
a minimum of 400 kg of charcoal briquettes per day. The requisite equipment
should cost no more than USD $1000.00 at this output level and could be
financed through a 'micro' loan scheme.

E. Africa has a huge resource of cheap and available labour. Unemployment
is high. Daily wages run as low as $1.00

Sawdust (currently) constitutes negligable raw material costs. As does the
clay binder.

No inward transport costs other than possibly occasional equipment relocation.

Outward finished product transport costs are covered by the usual staged
markups amply allowed for by low costs of production. 50 kg of briquettes
could sell for a minimum of $2.75 from a distant rural location.

My observations indicate that a clay bound charcoal briquette would be
preferred over the normal chunk charcoal. Fewer fines. Longer burning.
Novel shape. Uncarbonised briquettes have not been marketable to date and
need high cost production equipment.

So... IF a suitable method of sawdust carbonisation can be found, and even
if the flue gases aren't utilised, can the logistics or philosophy be
faulted? I'd appreciate further comment.

By the way, what is the average percent of sawdust produced in the
production of timber from logs?

I've just doubled my briquette output to 300 kg/8 hrs by placing one
briquetter/extruder on either side of the hand operated shaft. This was
made possible due to the reduced friction in the barrel arising from the
use of 10% clay as a binder.

El Nino is certainly interfering with sun drying the briquettes though-
we've had rain & floods for alomost three weeks straight!

elk

_____________________________
Elsen Karstad
P.O Box 24371 Nairobi, Kenya
Tel:254 2 884437
E-mail: elk@arcc.or.ke
______________________________

 

 

From kammen at phoenix.Princeton.EDU Fri Nov 7 08:42:01 1997
From: kammen at phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel M. Kammen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:42 2004
Subject: converting sawdust to charcoal briquettes
Message-ID: <v01530501b088cad9acac@[128.112.69.60]>

I agree with Elsen that a diversity of stoves, fuels, and management methods
are the key to meeting energy needs in E. Africa and elsewhere.

One avenue to explore along with using clay to seal briquettes is, by regional
resource, the potential of honey, sugar residues, and potentially a variety
of other waste products. One issue, of course, is the emissions.

There is a fair body of work tha thas been done in Asia and elsewhere on the
uses of such briquette sealants viz. fuel quality, and there is some work on
the resulting spectrum of emissions.

- Dan

>Eric Ferguson indicates that the conversion of sawdust to charcoal for use
>as fuel would not constitute a significant impact on solving the fuelwood
>shortage, though it may contribute on a local basis. His points are valid
>and his economic assessments are applicable.
>
>I, for one, do not have enough faith in the eventual resolution of the
>fuelwood crisis through the application of a single solution. A solution
>will arise only through the commercialisation of a range technologies that
>are compatible with this goal.
>
>I am concerned with the probable waste of flue gases in the carbonisation
>of sawdust via whatever is the simplest and most direct means (manually
>operated rotary kiln?) prior to the manufacture of charcoal briquettes. I
>do not feel, however, that this ineficiency and pollution should delay or
>stop the project. The net result will still be a gain won't it?
>
>With the wide distribution of small sawmills here in E. Africa, a large,
>permanent and efficient plant utilising all the energy released from
>sawdust during carbonisation would be impractical.
>
>What I envision is a cheap very portable unit operated on site at the
>sawdust pile by a team of no more than four people and capable of producing
>a minimum of 400 kg of charcoal briquettes per day. The requisite equipment
>should cost no more than USD $1000.00 at this output level and could be
>financed through a 'micro' loan scheme.
>
>E. Africa has a huge resource of cheap and available labour. Unemployment
>is high. Daily wages run as low as $1.00
>
>Sawdust (currently) constitutes negligable raw material costs. As does the
>clay binder.
>
>No inward transport costs other than possibly occasional equipment relocation.
>
>Outward finished product transport costs are covered by the usual staged
>markups amply allowed for by low costs of production. 50 kg of briquettes
>could sell for a minimum of $2.75 from a distant rural location.
>
>My observations indicate that a clay bound charcoal briquette would be
>preferred over the normal chunk charcoal. Fewer fines. Longer burning.
>Novel shape. Uncarbonised briquettes have not been marketable to date and
>need high cost production equipment.
>
>So... IF a suitable method of sawdust carbonisation can be found, and even
>if the flue gases aren't utilised, can the logistics or philosophy be
>faulted? I'd appreciate further comment.
>
>By the way, what is the average percent of sawdust produced in the
>production of timber from logs?
>
>I've just doubled my briquette output to 300 kg/8 hrs by placing one
>briquetter/extruder on either side of the hand operated shaft. This was
>made possible due to the reduced friction in the barrel arising from the
>use of 10% clay as a binder.
>
>El Nino is certainly interfering with sun drying the briquettes though-
>we've had rain & floods for alomost three weeks straight!
>
>
>elk
>
>
>_____________________________
>Elsen Karstad
>P.O Box 24371 Nairobi, Kenya
>Tel:254 2 884437
>E-mail: elk@arcc.or.ke
>______________________________

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel M. Kammen
Assistant Professor of Public and International Affairs
Chair, Science, Technology and Environmental Policy (STEP) Program
201 5 Ivy Lane
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ 08544-1013

Tel: 609-258-2758 Fax: 609-258-6082 Email: kammen@princeton.edu
WWW: http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~kammen/
Secretary Jackie Schatz: Tel: 609-258-4821; Email: jackie@wws.princeton.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

From brown2 at indiana.edu Fri Nov 7 10:15:12 1997
From: brown2 at indiana.edu (mary ellen brown)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:42 2004
Subject: Chambers Range
Message-ID: <Pine.HPP.3.96.971107101643.23562E-100000@hamlet.ucs.indiana.edu>

I'm looking for a burner unit for the "Heat Miser" of a Chambers Range, c.
l965, model # DG l00A. Appreciate any leads. Please respond directly.
Grateful thanks. MEBrown

 

 

From larcon at sni.net Fri Nov 7 10:26:53 1997
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:42 2004
Subject: Message from Prasad on "FOM"
Message-ID: <v01540b01b088e1ea878f@[204.133.251.23]>

Stovers: Again, the list sent the following to me as it had a problem
accepting a message from Prasad. I forward with apologies for its delay.
Regards Ron

 

To:Stovers

From:Prasad

Sub:FOM

Date: 7 November 1997

Piet Verhaart mentioned the Eindhoven group in connection with the
discussion on FOM. Incidentally if you work in a Physics Department
in the Netherlands, FOM stands for the Foundation for Fundamental
Research on Matter! Since there are a few of us on this list from the
Netherlands. maybe it's useful to avoid the acronym FOM!! Grant
mentioned my name specifically. I thought it was high time that I
threw my hat in the ring!!!

At the outset there is the question of reinventing the wheel. This is
something that comes to the mind of the people who have been involved
in this work for a long time. Unfortunately there are always
newcomers and they tend to start from ab-initio. Of course people
like me who have spent all their time in a University Environment
will ask: why don't you read what has been written? There are two
difficulties in answering this question. Firstly the literature on
stoves is for most parts not in the "open" literature. People cannot
access it from their library, even if they happen to work in a
University. Secondly from whatever little I know about this list
members, not all of them work in a University. Thus they not only do
not share in the "culture" of the University, but also work under
limited resource conditions. I personally welcome this state of
affairs since there are a very few, if any, technologies were
developed in a University environment. Thus I would council some
patience with the reinventing of the wheel!

Now coming to the nitty-gritty of the discussion, the desire for a
single number to capture the performance of a stove is quite strong.
Unfortunately, even from the rather narrow vision of the "ivory
tower", this has eluded our grasp. If you people are a bit patient,
you can go through the various reports of Woodburning Stove Group at
Eindhoven and Apeldoorn, you can see why this is so. If you are a
little more adventurous you can plough through the reports of ITDG.
These provide another view point - some might even say more
user-friendly. And superimpose over these the myriad variety of
practical situations that one encounters. Then you really are up
against the proverbial wall. Maybe one can argue that we should give
up the nitpicking that is indulged in by the University types, but we
should be satisfied with something that is approximate, but can work
in a variety of conditions.

Frankly I do not know what this can be. But from the above one can
state a minimum requirement that such an entity should satisfy. If
there exists a stove that can be used in several places where it can
be operated under similar conditions, it should produce the same
result for the figure of merit. Thus the discussion can proceed to
develop such an entity based on hard data.

Coming to the view-point put forward by the Eindhoven-Apeldoorn
Group," we were of the firm opinion" that three parameters are required
to adequately describe the stove performance. These are maximum
power, minimum power (if you wish the turn-down ratio) and the
efficiency. If these are measured with reasonable reliability, then
we can calculate the fuel consumption of a stove for a variety of
cooking situations with no more than high school physics. I put a bit
in quotes and used the past tense. It was simply meant to emphasize
the fact that it is quite possible for somebody to come up with
something better than what we did. But alas, reading the discussion
so far, we don't appear to be right there yet!

Two more comments before I stop. Eric's statement that one should
measure the efficiency while the water is boiling is absolutely
correct from a theoretical point of view. Practically speaking it
doesn't make that much difference. We have experimental evidence to
support this claim. At any rate there is an animal called the user
who has considerable interest in getting the job of bringing the food
mixture to boil rather quickly and with as little fuel as possible.
Thus I believe that the gains one derives from Eric's procedure is
rather marginal. It aint worth to go through that bother.

The second comment concerns the stove emissions. The above has
ignored that aspect and that should await another opportunity, maybe,
next week.

Prasad

Ronal W. Larson, PhD
21547 Mountsfield Dr.
Golden, CO 80401, USA
303/526-9629; FAX same with warning
larcon@sni.net

 

 

From ferguson at antenna.nl Fri Nov 7 20:59:01 1997
From: ferguson at antenna.nl (Eric T. Ferguson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:42 2004
Subject: Message from Prasad on "FOM"
Message-ID: <199711080205.AA01769@antenna.nl>

Dear Stovers,

I agree with practically everything Prasad says. Not so astonishing, as we
have known each other for some 18 years and often worked together. It is
amusing for us to exchange views like this, for he lives only about 6 min
by bike from here! Below, I only cite those parts of his text to which I
respond.

> Incidentally if you work in a Physics Department in the Netherlands, FOM
> stands for the Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter! Since there
> are a few of us on this list from the Netherlands, maybe it's useful to
> avoid the acronym FOM!!
If we use FoM it is already better, but we can't avoid all acronym
collisions in this world (remember BBC was once both UK broadcasting and
Brown Boveri Corporation (;-) .

> At the outset there is the question of reinventing the wheel.

I hope that our Stoves List will help those who are new to the field to
find their way quickly to existing knowledge. To all those working in the
field I would propose: before you start some laborious new activity, just
post your problem statement and your planned appraoch on this list, and we
will all do our best to bring you the information which is available from
earlier work.

> Now coming to the nitty-gritty of the discussion, the desire for a
> single number to capture the performance of a stove is quite strong.
> Unfortunately, even from the rather narrow vision of the "ivory
> tower", this has eluded our grasp.

Absolutely right. No single number can be enough to capture stove
performance. So perhaps that is the good reason to drop the notion "FOM".
What about using the expression "Key Parameters"? On the number of
parameters needed, Prasad continues:

> Coming to the view-point put forward by the Eindhoven-Apeldoorn Group,"
> we were of the firm opinion" that three parameters are required to
> adequately describe the stove performance. These are maximum power,
> minimum power (if you wish the turn-down ratio) and the efficiency. If
> these are measured with reasonable reliability, then we can calculate the
> fuel consumption of a stove for a variety of cooking situations with no
> more than high school physics. ....
I fully agree. I mentioned two numbers (efficiency at full power, and
minimum power) as measures of quality: of course I should have explicitly
included the value of "Full Power" as a measure of the size of the stove.
So Prasad's three (or any equivalent set) would be our "Key Parameters".

> Two more comments before I stop. Eric's statement that one should
> measure the efficiency while the water is boiling is absolutely
> correct from a theoretical point of view. Practically speaking it
> doesn't make that much difference. We have experimental evidence to
> support this claim. .....
True, it will not matter much to practical stove users; I only mentioned
it because but some researchers may want to work as accurately as possible.

> ..... Thus I believe that the gains one derives from Eric's procedure is
> rather marginal. It aint worth to go through that bother.
It's not extra bother, but less bother. If you do "water boiling tests",
starting with cold water, and bringing it to the boil, you are observing a
dynamic process, and in that process you want to know the amount of fuel
used at the very moment at which the water starts to boil. That is quite
difficult: you can't just tell the fuel to stop burning because you want to
weigh what is left. Now any physicist will find ways to make such
measurements all the same, but it is not really easy. What I propose is
simpler:

1. Run the stove at full power, and measure how much water it manages to
boil away per unit of time: that will give you the effective power put into
the pan. The fuel consumed in that time gives the input power, their ratio
is the efficiency. You can run this steady-state test for as long as you
like, making the measurements easier and less critical. The longer the
test, the less important errors in starting-up and in the final
measurements become.

2. Run it at minimum power (but with the added condition that the water
does not stop boiling): that gives the turn-down ratio. If the stove
produces more heat than what is needed to compensate for losses, that will
show up as evaporation. Again, a steady-state measurement.

That advantage, of only needing steady-state measurements to obtain the
"Key Paramters", is the main reason for my proposal.

> The second comment concerns the stove emissions. The above has
> ignored that aspect and that should await another opportunity, maybe,
> next week.

And of course, if you also try to produce charcoal, the whole notion of
"Key Paramters" will need to be expanded.

Happy cooking

Eric

|dr. E.T. Ferguson, Consultant for Energy and Development (MacFergus BV)|
|van Dormaalstraat 15, 5624 KH EINDHOVEN, Netherlands. |
|e-mail: e.ferguson@antenna.nl. phone:+31-40-2432878; fax:+31-40-2467036|

 

 

From asoka at i-2000.com Sat Nov 8 10:07:31 1997
From: asoka at i-2000.com (larry)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:42 2004
Subject: Chambers Stove
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971108101338.0068c6b8@popmail.i-2000.com>

To Whom it may concern,

I am interested in purchasing your stove, if of course it is still available.

My name is Larry Lopata and you can call me at (212) 496-1862. I look
forward to speaking with you.

Sincerely,

Larry.

 

 

From asoka at i-2000.com Sat Nov 8 10:12:05 1997
From: asoka at i-2000.com (larry)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:42 2004
Subject: Purchasing
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971108101811.0068c7c8@popmail.i-2000.com>

Dear Stoves,

It is Larry again I have a friend who collects Chambers stoves as a hobby.
If you come across any that are for sale please contact me at (212)496-1862
or just e-mail me.

I am also interested in any further information you may have concerning
Chamber Stives.

Thank you I look forward to hearing from you.

 

 

From sylva at iname.com Sat Nov 8 11:38:51 1997
From: sylva at iname.com (AJH)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:42 2004
Subject: converting sawdust to charcoal briquettes
Message-ID: <9711081642.AA07013@mars.cableol.net>

At 12:24 07/11/97 +0300, ELK wrote:

>I am concerned with the probable waste of flue gases in the carbonisation
>of sawdust via whatever is the simplest and most direct means (manually
>operated rotary kiln?) prior to the manufacture of charcoal briquettes. I
>do not feel, however, that this ineficiency and pollution should delay or
>stop the project. The net result will still be a gain won't it?
Andrew Heggie: It can make good local economic sense and will solve a
disposal problem.

I am unsure of the scalability but I ran a test on softwood shavings/sawdust
with a particle size and shape about half of my small finger nail. I tested
Mrs. Tom Reed's camp candle idea. Inside my pyrolisis unit (Greg Brown's
charcoal lighter) I wrapped a smaller tin with approx 15mm glassfibre
loft/roof insulation. I then lightly tamped the shavings around 3 verically
standing pencils. I forgot to weigh the shavings but estimate less than
100grm. I withdrew the pencils to form the primary air feed, lit the top and
placed my insulated flue on top. I had to maintain high primary air and it
burned volatiles for 8mins. I then extinguished with water (as I could not
remove the fuel cassette) and the whole remaining charge appeared
carbonised. Obviously weighing again was impractical. Quite a lot of the
shavings appeared to have burned. Apart from accidental extinguishing when
primary air was turned down, the burn was smokeless accompanies by burning
ash being driven off the top surface, because of excess air increasing flue
velocity.
I will try again when I have some sawdust available next week. I shall try
to tamp the charge for increased density.

> Uncarbonised briquettes have not been marketable to date and
>need high cost production equipment.

And they need high energy consumption as they work by plasticising the wood
and collapsing the cell walls with the heat and pressure generated in the
die, they solidify on cooling.

>By the way, what is the average percent of sawdust produced in the
>production of timber from logs?
This would depend on the saw used, which will also dictate the particle
size, my guess is 8-15%. We have plate saws here still in use with insert
teeth which cut a 10mm kerf!
>
>I've just doubled my briquette output to 300 kg/8 hrs by placing one
>briquetter/extruder on either side of the hand operated shaft. This was
>made possible due to the reduced friction in the barrel arising from the
>use of 10% clay as a binder.
How do you achieve good mixing with such a low clay content, do you water it
to a slurry and then add the fines?
AJH

 

 

From larcon at sni.net Sat Nov 8 16:34:12 1997
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:42 2004
Subject: converting sawdust to charcoal briquettes
Message-ID: <v01540b02b08a5da4265d@[204.133.251.43]>

Summary - a few comments to Elsen on using sawdust, following his message
of Nov. 7.

Elsen said:
<snip>
>I am concerned with the probable waste of flue gases in the carbonisation
>of sawdust via whatever is the simplest and most direct means (manually
>operated rotary kiln?) prior to the manufacture of charcoal briquettes. I
>do not feel, however, that this ineficiency and pollution should delay or
>stop the project. The net result will still be a gain won't it?
<snip>

1. First, I have to agree with your basic point, even though we can
probably all agree it is better to try to use those valuable pyrolysis
gases, if you can find a way. Virtually all charcoal production in the
world is made with no gas capture - but worse it is not even flared, only
vented. Your use of a waste product to start certainly makes it highly
acceptable. I hope you can find a way to flare.

2. Use of the gases. Could the flared gases be using for lumber drying
here? (Some will be needed and useful for driving the pyrolysis).

3. Using the sawdust in small sawdust burner cookers - tightly packed with
two broomstick size holes - as has been described recently on the list -
cheap for those with access to the sawdust. I wonder if anyone on this
list can suggest whether this stove needs more work. I presume that Elsen
supports this use even though it gives him a little less resouce to make
charcoal.

4. A (mostly-negative) sawdust pyrolysis experiment. Yesterday, I tried
putting some synthetic sawdust (pine needles) in an inverted small can open
only at the bottom. This was placed at the bottom of a shorter larger
diameter "chimney" with a single row of (nail-sized) air holes near the
bottom. With loose fuel (also pine needles) ignited around the
"sawdust-can", some pyrolysis gas was coming from the bottom and was being
lit at the air holes. It was not as self-sustaining as I would have liked.

This is an inversion of a "Grover-type of pyrolysis unit - in
which the fuel container is outside the combustion region. The only one I
have seen didn't seem to have any air control (and mine didn't either).
That one was able apparently to be used multiple times before replacing the
carbonized fuel.
My first little test produced about half (outer half) charcoal -
mainly because the heat transfer is bad inwards without some fins (which
are in the Grover designs).
Possibly a better approach would be with the pyrolysis gases
exiting about halfway up with a set of secondary air holes opposite.
In sum, this is to say that maybe the Grover approach is the best
way to be able to produce charcoal from sawdust with waste heat
utilization. The problem is making a good seal. The version I saw did
this with sand, but this was a very big, expensive unit with application
for institutions.

5. Elsen - I don't think I've been of much help. I will continue
trying to find a simpler part-sawdust approach (and I will start by getting
some real sawdust, pine needles are tough to work with).

Best of luck. You are clearly on a good track. Ron

Ronal W. Larson, PhD
21547 Mountsfield Dr.
Golden, CO 80401, USA
303/526-9629; FAX same with warning
larcon@sni.net

 

 

From b.mcmullan at juno.com Sat Nov 8 16:34:31 1997
From: b.mcmullan at juno.com (b.mcmullan@juno.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:42 2004
Subject: Gas stove parts
Message-ID: <19971108.163659.4958.0.b.mcmullan@juno.com>

I would appreciate any information you may have on a replacement door for
an
RCA Estate gas stove.

Thanks for any help.
Brian

b.mcmullan@juno.com

 

From elk at arcc.or.ke Sun Nov 9 10:16:05 1997
From: elk at arcc.or.ke (Elsen L. Karstad)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:42 2004
Subject: Clay as charcoal briquette binder.
Message-ID: <199711091519.SAA14767@arcc.or.ke>

Andrew Heggie asks how the clay binder is mixed into the charcoal particles.

A 50 kg batch is hand blended- 45 kg charcoal dust plus 5 kg clay. The clay
is mixed into a suspension with about 10kg water and seived through a 2mm
seive to remove coarse material. This water mud is then mixed into the
charcoal by hand to produce a 'dough' which can then be easily extruded by
the briquetter. Some excess liquid (and air) is expelled via 8 hacksaw blade
slices in the barrel of the extruder, though not much.

I've some experience with the 'candle' apparoach to burning sawdust. I made
a water heater some years ago that warked, but required too much attention
to operate. I'm intrigued by the multi-chimneyed approach you use- this
sounds fast & could be more controllable. I'll start some investigations too.

elk

 

 

From elk at arcc.or.ke Mon Nov 10 00:21:43 1997
From: elk at arcc.or.ke (Elsen L. Karstad)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:42 2004
Subject: FoM
Message-ID: <199711100525.IAA01306@arcc.or.ke>

On the topic of Fom assesment for stove efficiency, Eric writes:

>2. Run it at minimum power (but with the added condition that the water
>does not stop boiling): that gives the turn-down ratio. If the stove
>produces more heat than what is needed to compensate for losses, that will
>show up as evaporation. Again, a steady-state measurement.

I think I'm confused, but I'm not sure........ doesn't water evaporate when
boiling at any level of heat input? Wouldn't more water be evaporated by
running the stove as long as possible at near minimum level- just enough
power to keep the water at a low boil?

That's what I've been doing in all my trials.

elk

 

 

From sylva at iname.com Mon Nov 10 01:57:26 1997
From: sylva at iname.com (AJH)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:42 2004
Subject: Clay as charcoal briquette binder.
Message-ID: <9711100700.AA31375@mars.cableol.net>

At 18:19 09/11/97 +0300, ELK wrote:

>
>I've some experience with the 'candle' apparoach to burning sawdust. I made
>a water heater some years ago that warked, but required too much attention
>to operate. I'm intrigued by the multi-chimneyed approach you use- this
>sounds fast & could be more controllable. I'll start some investigations too.

Andrew Heggie: I wondered about using the springs from a used spring bound
book to maintain the multiple gas conduits in this burner, from previous
experience I guess Elsen will get further with this than me!
AJH
p.s. If anyone wonders why my posting address (ahe1@cableol.co.uk) differs
from my return address (sylva@iname.com) it is because I am making use of
the iname forwarding service as my susbcription to my current isp is about
to cease and I am looking for a new provider.

 

 

From ferguson at antenna.nl Mon Nov 10 04:47:51 1997
From: ferguson at antenna.nl (Eric T. Ferguson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:42 2004
Subject: Message from Prasad on "FOM"
Message-ID: <199711100947.AA04180@antenna.nl>

(message resent because I received a "bounce" note from the server)
Dear Stovers,

I agree with practically everything Prasad says. Not so astonishing, as we
have known each other for some 18 years and often worked together. It is
amusing for us to exchange views like this, for he lives only about 6 min
by bike from here! Below, I only cite those parts of his text to which I
respond.

> Incidentally if you work in a Physics Department in the Netherlands, FOM
> stands for the Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter! Since there
> are a few of us on this list from the Netherlands, maybe it's useful to
> avoid the acronym FOM!!
If we use FoM it is already better, but we can't avoid all acronym
collisions in this world (remember BBC was once both UK broadcasting and
Brown Boveri Corporation (;-) .

> At the outset there is the question of reinventing the wheel.

I hope that our Stoves List will help those who are new to the field to
find their way quickly to existing knowledge. To all those working in the
field I would propose: before you start some laborious new activity, just
post your problem statement and your planned appraoch on this list, and we
will all do our best to bring you the information which is available from
earlier work.

> Now coming to the nitty-gritty of the discussion, the desire for a
> single number to capture the performance of a stove is quite strong.
> Unfortunately, even from the rather narrow vision of the "ivory
> tower", this has eluded our grasp.

Absolutely right. No single number can be enough to capture stove
performance. So perhaps that is the good reason to drop the notion "FOM".
What about using the expression "Key Parameters"? On the number of
parameters needed, Prasad continues:

> Coming to the view-point put forward by the Eindhoven-Apeldoorn Group,"
> we were of the firm opinion" that three parameters are required to
> adequately describe the stove performance. These are maximum power,
> minimum power (if you wish the turn-down ratio) and the efficiency. If
> these are measured with reasonable reliability, then we can calculate the
> fuel consumption of a stove for a variety of cooking situations with no
> more than high school physics. ....
I fully agree. I mentioned two numbers (efficiency at full power, and
minimum power) as measures of quality: of course I should have explicitly
included the value of "Full Power" as a measure of the size of the stove.
So Prasad's three (or any equivalent set) would be our "Key Parameters".

> Two more comments before I stop. Eric's statement that one should
> measure the efficiency while the water is boiling is absolutely
> correct from a theoretical point of view. Practically speaking it
> doesn't make that much difference. We have experimental evidence to
> support this claim. .....
True, it will not matter much to practical stove users; I only mentioned
it because but some researchers may want to work as accurately as possible.

> ..... Thus I believe that the gains one derives from Eric's procedure is
> rather marginal. It aint worth to go through that bother.
It's not extra bother, but less bother. If you do "water boiling tests",
starting with cold water, and bringing it to the boil, you are observing a
dynamic process, and in that process you want to know the amount of fuel
used at the very moment at which the water starts to boil. That is quite
difficult: you can't just tell the fuel to stop burning because you want to
weigh what is left. Now any physicist will find ways to make such
measurements all the same, but it is not really easy. What I propose is
simpler:

1. Run the stove at full power, and measure how much water it manages to
boil away per unit of time: that will give you the effective power put into
the pan. The fuel consumed in that time gives the input power, their ratio
is the efficiency. You can run this steady-state test for as long as you
like, making the measurements easier and less critical. The longer the
test, the less important errors in starting-up and in the final
measurements become.

2. Run it at minimum power (but with the added condition that the water
does not stop boiling): that gives the turn-down ratio. If the stove
produces more heat than what is needed to compensate for losses, that will
show up as evaporation. Again, a steady-state measurement.

That advantage, of only needing steady-state measurements to obtain the
"Key Parameters", is the main reason for my proposal.

> The second comment concerns the stove emissions. The above has
> ignored that aspect and that should await another opportunity, maybe,
> next week.

And of course, if you also try to produce charcoal, the whole notion of
"Key Paramters" will need to be expanded.

Happy cooking

Eric

|dr. E.T. Ferguson, Consultant for Energy and Development (MacFergus BV)|
|van Dormaalstraat 15, 5624 KH EINDHOVEN, Netherlands. |
|e-mail: e.ferguson@antenna.nl. phone:+31-40-2432878; fax:+31-40-2467036|

 

 

From larcon at sni.net Mon Nov 10 09:45:51 1997
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:42 2004
Subject: Chambers manual
Message-ID: <v01540b02b08b97b76470@[204.133.251.36]>

Stovers: Anyone able to help? Ron

>From: SKIDUB@aol.com
>Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 22:33:25 -0500 (EST)
>To: larcon@sni.net
>Subject: Chambers manual
>
>I have recently purchased a home built in 1938 and it has a working chambers
>in like new condition. it is amazing. However a manual would be very
>helpful to us. if it is available please send a copy to Jim Dunn - 13709
>Fairhill- Edmond, Okla. 73013 I also have a Servile gas refrigerator that I
>would like to sell if youknow of anyone interested. Thanks
>

Ronal W. Larson, PhD
21547 Mountsfield Dr.
Golden, CO 80401, USA
303/526-9629; FAX same with warning
larcon@sni.net

 

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Mon Nov 10 10:37:10 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:42 2004
Subject: converting sawdust to charcoal briquettes
Message-ID: <199711101039_MC2-279E-D96E@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear ELK:

Better half a loaf than none - by all means make sawdust charcoal, even if
you have to waste the 2/3 of the energy in the gas and volatiles. (However,
I hope you can burn them off as much as possible - they make a terrible
stink.) Later you can worry about using them to fuel you kiln. We still
don't recover the volatiles in making SeaSweep (carbonized at 350C for oil
absorbtion).

You are probably correct about the briquette being preferred to stick
charcoal in the marketplace. AND, go back and read about organized fuel
burning the the letter from Paul Hait. It really makes and amazing
difference in fuel consumption and time of lighting, and Paul might well
help you to get PYROMID stoves to the customers.

Onward.......... TOM REED

 

 

From ferguson at antenna.nl Mon Nov 10 11:13:13 1997
From: ferguson at antenna.nl (Eric T. Ferguson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:42 2004
Subject: converting sawdust to charcoal briquettes
Message-ID: <199711101607.AA20322@antenna.nl>

Dear Stovers,

On this list there is a lot of discussion on the of ways producing charcoal
as a by- or co-product of a wood- or sawdust stove.

I missed the beginning of this discussion. Can those who propose this
please explain why this is a good topic to research? In my view a stove -
to be economical - should adapt its heat output to the food being cooked.
When producing charcoal, stove will need to adapt to the efficiency of
charcoal production. It seems unlikely the two purposes will match.

The only purpose I would see is if the household has use for small
quantities of charcoal for special cooking, ironing, etc. Then it could be
a useful "side product" of a woodstove. But this would hardly be relevant
from the energy angle.

There has also been some mention of sawdust stoves: a tin packed with
sawdust around one or more sticks to make holes down the middle. Burns when
you light it. The design has been known for decades. The problem is that
the stove cannot be regulated. Does anyone know any place where these have
proven their worth and are in regular use?

Eric

|dr. E.T. Ferguson, Consultant for Energy and Development (MacFergus BV)|
|van Dormaalstraat 15, 5624 KH EINDHOVEN, Netherlands. |
|e-mail: e.ferguson@antenna.nl. phone:+31-40-2432878; fax:+31-40-2467036|

 

 

From ferguson at antenna.nl Mon Nov 10 11:14:35 1997
From: ferguson at antenna.nl (Eric T. Ferguson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:42 2004
Subject: FoM
Message-ID: <199711101606.AA20317@antenna.nl>

Thank you Elsen for your query:
> Date sent: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:25:02 +0300

> On the topic of Fom assesment for stove efficiency, Eric writes:
> >2. Run it at minimum power (but with the added condition that the water
> >does not stop boiling): that gives the turn-down ratio. If the stove
> >produces more heat than what is needed to compensate for losses, that
> >will show up as evaporation. Again, a steady-state measurement.
>
> I think I'm confused, but I'm not sure........ doesn't water evaporate
> when boiling at any level of heat input? Wouldn't more water be
> evaporated by running the stove as long as possible at near minimum
> level- just enough power to keep the water at a low boil?

Of course some water will always evaporate from a water surface at 100 C
(or cooler). That is part of the normal heat losses of cooking [note: if
you put a lid on the pan, this evaporation will cease: the water will
condense against the lid and run back. The loss that remains is then the
heat lost by the hot lid (and the other parts of the stove) to the cool
surroundings]. Pert of this loss is by radiation, part by convection, but
that is another story, which will keep till later.

If the minimum power is higher than what is needed to compensate for these
heat losses, extra water will be evaporated, and appear as steam escaping
round the edge of the lid or bubbles of steam coming up through the water.
If you are simmering, then that extra heat (fuel) is just wasted (of
course, if you are thickening a broth, then evaporating that water is just
your intention).

The famous "haybox" takes savings to the extreme. If the pan at 100 C is
put in a thickly insulated box with lid (at least 10 cm of good insulation
required all round), the heat losses are so low that the temperature will
not drop far below 100 C for hours. Then you are simmering without any
fuel conumption at all. I am still convinced this technique could be of
great use in fuelwood crisis areas.

On calculating real-life performance, Prasad states:
> three parameters are required to adequately describe stove performance.
> These are maximum power, minimum power (if you wish the turn-down ratio)
> and the efficiency. If these are measured with reasonable reliability,
> then we can calculate the fuel consumption of a stove for a variety of
> cooking situations with no more than high school physics.

Let me give an example: if the receipe states "bring the beans to the boil
and let them simmer for two hours", then (given the contents of the pan)
one can calculate, from the maximum power and the efficiency, how long
the food will take to come to the boil and how much fuel that takes. Then
minimum power for two hours tells how much extra fuel is used for simmering.

So if your stove has high efficiency at maximum power, but a poor turn-down
ratio, it will not be economical on cooking these beans, as it wastes much
fuel during simmering, and a stove with lower efficency but also low
minimum power could be better. But if you are just heating water or
thickening a broth the first stove will be better.

All three "Key Parameters" mentioned above can be measured by the two
steady-state experiments (accurate, pleasant and easy to run), that I
propose: "Maximum Power" and "Minimum Power". I hold that one can omit the
dynamic "water boiling test" with its difficulties of determining the fuel
remaining at the moment of reaching 100 C, and all tests using real food.

Perhaps you would like to tell us how you have been measuring your stoves
up to now, and what parameters you are using to characterise your stoves'
performance.

Has this helped to un-muddle you? If not, please ask again.

Happy stoving

Eric

|dr. E.T. Ferguson, Consultant for Energy and Development (MacFergus BV)|
|van Dormaalstraat 15, 5624 KH EINDHOVEN, Netherlands. |
|e-mail: e.ferguson@antenna.nl. phone:+31-40-2432878; fax:+31-40-2467036|

 

 

From elk at arcc.or.ke Mon Nov 10 14:42:26 1997
From: elk at arcc.or.ke (Elsen L. Karstad)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:43 2004
Subject: FoM on a hot Charcoal-Making-Wood-Gas Stove
Message-ID: <199711101944.WAA19638@arcc.or.ke>

Eric Furguson Asks;

>Perhaps you would like to tell us how you have been measuring your stoves
>up to now, and what parameters you are using to characterise your stoves'
>performance.

Well....... you asked for it Eric.....

Two levels of assessment are used: practicality (ease of use) and measurable
performance.

Starting from the beginning, with unscored but noted practical
considerations are:

- Ease of lighting.
- Time to stabilised flame (when primary air can be turned down and a stable
flame is maintianed in the combustion chamber & attached to
secondary air vents).
- How far secondary air can be reduced (the objective is fully closed)
without extinguishing flame in combustion chamber.
- How readily the flame in combustion chamber re-ignites if/when
extinguished in mid-burn.
- Responsiveness to primary air settings (time plus turndown estimate).
- How hot the exterior of the stove becomes.
- How much, if any, smoke- particularly during startup and at the end of burn.
- How 'fiddley' the stove is toward the end of the burn..... flame tends to
be maintained by gradually increasing the primary air, but
at one point or another flame in the combustion chamber is
maintained by consuming charcoal. The optimum end point
should be identifiable with a minimum of experience.

The scored (measurable without specialised instrumentation) items are simply:

- Time to boil. (9 min)
- Overall burn time. (100 min)
- Amount of fuel. (3.5 kg)
- Amount of water. (3.5 kg)
- Amount of water evaporated. (3.15 kg)
- Amount of charcoal produced. (670 grams)

Items in brackets are average results for the two stoves.

Typically, my 1can and 2can stoves boil off an amount of water almost equal
to the weight of dry wood fuel over 100 minutes and produce 19% completely
carbonised charcoal leaving no uncarbonised wood. I've been attemting to
extend burning time by minimising primary air under the impression that this
reduces the amount of ash by keeping most of the flame above the wood
attached to the secondary air vent and not directly on the wood. I've been
under the impression that a slow boil over an extended period of time
maximises water evaporation- I think that too much heat is wasted by this
stove at higher power settings and fuel is consumed disproportionately
faster than the water is boiled off.

At high power (estimated turn-down ratio of about 3.5) a flame is produced
that shoots out of the top of the stove past the pot producing soot, or, if
the exhaust gap is too small, the flame is extinguished and impressive
amounts of smokeare produced. At low power a simmer/low boil is maintained,
though primary air should be open just a crack to ensure good flame-holding.

Alex- taking notes? I'm not sending you an operator's manual with your 1can
stove!

I think that the reason I can't attain a 25% charcoal yield is that there is
always a small core of flame attached to the wood down low in the pyrolysis
cell fed by the primary air. This is the 'spark plug' of the stove.

I'm guilty of rambling here, but hopefully this rather random unsorted input
can help us reduce the in-field FoM assessment for a charcoal making stove
to a bare but serviceable minimum.

Keep on Cookin'

elk

 

 

From MBrown at LVMWD.dst.ca.us Mon Nov 10 14:57:35 1997
From: MBrown at LVMWD.dst.ca.us (Brown, Mike)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:43 2004
Subject: repair parts electric range
Message-ID: <E6F38817F53FD111A3BC00600891921A010EA8@TOPDOG>

I am looking for replacement parts for a
SEARS ROEBUCK
"Country Kitchen Electric Range"
Model Number 143.660670

Any help would be appreciated.

Thank You

 

From xtu57 at dial.pipex.com Mon Nov 10 16:10:06 1997
From: xtu57 at dial.pipex.com (Alpha trust)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:43 2004
Subject: charcoal making in the Lake District - small scale
Message-ID: <199711102110.QAA22068@solstice.crest.org>

I have read with interest some of the experiments you are carrying out with
charcoal burning.(on the internet crest.org/renewables etc). Is there
possibility that you could make contact with me in the UK to share ideas? I
seem to remember reading something about an underground kiln.I have been
burning in the Lake District for a year or so, using 45 UKgal oil drums.
I'd love to use a large kiln but haven't the funds !
My email address is BBlaxter@aol.com. My name is Bruce Blaxter.
I have an area of English oak woodland, a plantation from 80 years ago. My
wife and I work the woodland, 35 acres, coppicing and selective felling,
charcoal burning, wood turning. I'm also interested in straw house
building, timber frame consruction, vernacular architecture. Do you have
any information you could send me on these topics, please?
Thank you in anticipation. I look forward to hearing from anyone with
interest.
Yours sincerely,
Bruce (the Bodger)

 

From bmacdo at planetx.bloomu.edu Mon Nov 10 17:24:29 1997
From: bmacdo at planetx.bloomu.edu (Brad MacDonald)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:43 2004
Subject: converting sawdust to charcoal briquettes
In-Reply-To: <199711101607.AA20322@antenna.nl>
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.3.96.971110165944.39524A-100000@planetx.bloomu.edu>

On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, Eric T. Ferguson wrote:

> Does anyone know any place where these (sawdust stoves) have
> proven their worth and are in regular use?
>
*******************************************

Eric,

I got into these stoves in a very big way while working in the New Guinea
highlands from 1984-1986. Excessive domestic cooking smoke resulted in
chronic bronchitis and conjunctivitis in the local population but some
smoke was necessary to discourage destructive insects and to help
waterproof the roofing material. This was in the Upper Chimbu area for
anyone who knows PNG and there happens to be a fairly good sized sawmill
there. The sawdust at the time I first came was being burned in
smoldering heaps or dumped into the nearby stream.

I started working with lard tin stoves following the age-old blueprint but
soon developed a ferro-cement model which could be mass-produced for
around US .50 cents per unit. I used a 5 gallon plastic bucket as a
reusable form into which was nested a chicken wire basket. A large coffee
tin made the inside form with a smaller tin (later a large wooden dowel)
for the firehole mold. A thick cement mix (I forgotten the sand/cement
ratio but I probably have it written in my notes someplace) was poured in
the space between the coffee tin and the side of the bucket to incorporate
the chicken wire. A few grooves were carved into the top surface to allow
venting.

These stoves worked so well that the local community began to ask for
them. I formed a small youth group who began to manufacture the units for
sale at around U.S. $2.00 - $3.00 each. The natural consequence was that
the sawmill began to sell its waste sawdust at a nominal fee. We tried
them with rice husks and coffee hulls with mixed results. At the time
I left in '86, many of these sawdust stoves were in use in Chimbu. Flame
height is regulated by inserting a dry stick into the firehole to increase
heat. Removal of the stick causes the stove to glow without flaming or
smoking. Moisture content of the sawdust is, of course, a variable. I
should point out that the stoves were being used as a supplemental cooking
source and only in daylight hours. Traditional 3-stone fires were needed
at night for warmth and for light. A group of young ladies used the stoves
to make and sell small bags of popcorn during market day, thus the
popular interest in the stoves themselves.

I later developed a large version of the sawdust stove made from 55 gallon
drums which was being successfully used for a commercial bakery (scones
and breads). It was also lined with ferro-cement and used three
fireholes...worked remarkably well. Of the many stove designs I explored
while in New Guinea, nothing came close to the level of acceptance these
little cookers enjoyed. They are durable, attractive, portable and
inexpensive. I heard that USAID later sent a film unit in to
record a group in Lae making the stoves but I never saw the end result.
Before I left PNG I found that the UNITECH group in LAE had begun to
demonstrate the stoves. They were supposed to be featured in the updated
LikLik Buk which never materialized. I wrote a piece for Yumi Kirapim on
them and they were featured in the PNG national papers. It's hard to say
whether or not there has been any lasting benefit.

Anyone who'd like additonal info is welcome to contact me. I'm no engineer
but have had a lot of grassroots involvement with appropriate technologies
in both the Philippines and New Guinea.

Brad MacDonald
bmacdo@planetx.bloomu.edu

 

 

From sylva at iname.com Mon Nov 10 17:50:00 1997
From: sylva at iname.com (AJH)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:43 2004
Subject: converting sawdust to charcoal briquettes
Message-ID: <9711102253.AA26364@mars.cableol.net>

Summary Eric queried why we talk of charcoal making stoves
At 17:01 11/11/97,dr. E.T. Ferguson wrote:
>Dear Stovers,
>
>On this list there is a lot of discussion on the of ways producing charcoal
>as a by- or co-product of a wood- or sawdust stove.
>
>I missed the beginning of this discussion. Can those who propose this
>please explain why this is a good topic to research? In my view a stove -
>to be economical - should adapt its heat output to the food being cooked.
>When producing charcoal, stove will need to adapt to the efficiency of
>charcoal production. It seems unlikely the two purposes will match.

Andrew Heggie:I will have a try at this, I wondered what it was about when I
searched the list for information on charcoal making, hence I came in from
the opposite angle.
As I understand the history of this: in researching the possibility of
producing a smokeless biomas cookstove for under developed areas Ronal
Larson and Tom Reed decided to light a fire on top of the fuel, whilst still
drawing primary air up through the charge, to burn the pyrolisis gases
secondary air entered above the fuel and was burned in a combustion area
above the charge, This design lent itself to construction from two cans with
the secondary air gap between. It also led to complete combustion of the
pyrolisis gases which had not been possible in a fire lit at the botom (an
updraft fire) Reed/Larson named this inverted downdraft burning. This twocan
principle of IDD burning is being developed by ELK and Alex English amongst
others.

A side effect of this method is that after all volatiles have been burnt off
hot charcoal remains in the bottom can. I suspect because of its shorter
flame this charcoal if left to burn does not have as much effect on the
cooking pan of water at the top. Also it is necessary to increase primary
air to burn this charcoal, hence it is easier to extinguish it and keep it
as a by product, as you say it can be then used other cooking processes.
>
>The only purpose I would see is if the household has use for small
>quantities of charcoal for special cooking, ironing, etc. Then it could be
>a useful "side product" of a woodstove. But this would hardly be relevant
>from the energy angle.

>
>There has also been some mention of sawdust stoves: a tin packed with
>sawdust around one or more sticks to make holes down the middle. Burns when
>you light it. The design has been known for decades. The problem is that
>the stove cannot be regulated. Does anyone know any place where these have
>proven their worth and are in regular use?

I merely tried out the age old principle which had been mentioned on the
list by Tom Reed, I simply reasoned that it was not a lot different in
principle to top light this and treat it as we had our wood chunks.The old
method was presumably to light and run in an updraft mode. To better emulate
the situation with vertically arranged sticks I just increased the number of
gas holes. I did have problems with regulation and had to increase primary
air, which probably equates to high excess air usage. As has been mentioned
in this thread, by Ronal and Tom Reed, much charcoal making is done without
flaring the pyrolisis gases, this is held to be a polluting method in the
perceived wisdom of this list. Hence if a modified toplit idd twocan method
of carbonisation of sawdust could be used a pollution problem would be eased.

Even if the heat could not be used for cooking, because of the lack of
control you mention and my experience of needing extra draft from an
insulated flue, there is scope for a flue of refractory material maintaining
sufficient draw but also absorbing heat into its mass and then slowly giving
up this heat after a short burn, much as a storage heater, for domestic use.

As a further thought for Elsen, some previous discussion on the list
mentioned charcoal making in the exhaust of an ic engine. If the sawdust is
metered into the exhaust at a rate proportional to the engine load the char
dust could be collected in a cyclone and the exhaust gases be flared. There
may have to be some exhaust recirculation to keep the temperature below the
500C Tom Reed says is necessary for spontaneous combustion ( there being
sufficient excess oxygen present in a diesel exhaust at part load to cause a
problem, I recall stories of buildings being demolished by dust explosions).

On a charcoal usage front, is the world aware of the problem a water company
in the UK has had on using activated bone charcoal to filter the drinking
supply, there is an outcry from both vegetarian and ethnic groups. How is
charcoal derived from bone which I thought was basically CaCO3?

I have been referred to a publication of the Indian Academy of Science 1983
edited by Prasad and Verhaart on Wood Heat for Cooking, not having library
facilities to hand immediately, is this still available?
AJH

 

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Tue Nov 11 13:31:24 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:43 2004
Subject: converting sawdust to charcoal briquettes
Message-ID: <199711111334_MC2-27CB-271F@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Ron et al:

Too bad Ron doesn't have a mountain of sawdust in his yard rather than a
mountain of pine needles. (Ron has gorgeous home in the foothills of
Rockies - I'm on the prairie 1 mile almost straight down from him. Pine
grows well in both locations.)

Glad to hear Ron bring up the Grover pyrolysis stove. Seems to me to be
somewhat related to the sawdust (one hole, 2 hole, many hole?) stove.

I visited Prof. Grover in Delhi a year ago. He had just retired and was
lining up consulting jobs and had an office away from IIT Delhi. We
lunched, then pover to IIT Delhi where everyone knew him and his lab was
still functioning. He showed be Chinese coal briquettes that had multiple
holes, funtioning like the sawdust candle.
Maybe one of you can develop a six hole (or other) sawdust stove for
cooking instead of as a candle. I believe you might have to mix a little
starch or clay with the sawdust to hold it together while it is drying in
the sun - or keep it in the forming can. Maybe tapered holes (narrow at
the bottom) 1) for removing the pins and 2) to allow hot gases room for
expansion. Wish I had time to try it!

REGARDS ALL, TOM REED

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Tue Nov 11 13:34:09 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:43 2004
Subject: Message from Internet
Message-ID: <199711111333_MC2-27CB-2714@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Gay and All:

I received my copy of your Biomass Users Network, BUN 5 newsletter today
and am printing it out, EVEN AS WE SPEAK (or type). I look forward to
receiving your hard hard copy, no rush, but I will read my copy in the next
day or two and file the separate articles in appropriate places.

I use the back sides of recycled Xerox paper for such jobs. I suppose this
is primary recycling (using for original purpose). Does anyone else? 17
Pages saved!

I noticed a note by me on "Biomass Research Through the Internet" on P. 11
anks.
Keep up the great work. In my view India is the world center for the
development of small gasifiers (with lots of help from Europe, not much
from U.S.).

Yours truly, TOM REED

PS I have been working on my WWW page this weekend and hope to be "On Web"
in a few days. Looked at your page yesterday. Nice, but slow on a Sunday
afternoon.

 

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Tue Nov 11 18:14:41 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:43 2004
Subject: converting sawdust to charcoal briquettes
Message-ID: <199711111817_MC2-27CF-4909@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Eric (and others):

Here is the history of charcoal plus cooking.

When I first developed the inverted downdraft gasifier, I thought it had
many good features for cooking (using the evolved gases), but that making
charcoal was a negative feature, since 30% of the fuel value is unused.

My partner, Harry LaFontaine (an optimist) thought it was a GOOD feature.

And when Ron Larson called me about 1993 asking if I knew any way of
cooking with the volatiles from charcoal making, I was further moved toward
the MAYBE CHARCOAL camp.

But I agree with you - if you don't need charcoal and you do want to cook,
it is a nuisance.

~~~~
I was long puzzled by the 25% yield of charcoal from the inverted downdraft
gasifier when conventional gasifiers convert all but about 5% of the
charcoal to gas. I now believe that I know the answer and am planning a
series of experiments to pin it down. I believe it has to do with the
intensity of the pyrolysis process. Natural convection, low intensity ===>
high charcoal; forced convection, high intensity ===> low charcoal.

Cheers, TOM REED

 

From icantoo at connriver.net Wed Nov 12 06:04:23 1997
From: icantoo at connriver.net (Regan Pride)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:43 2004
Subject: charcoal conversion
In-Reply-To: <199711111817_MC2-27CF-4909@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <34698E4D.79E@connriver.net>

Dear Tom et al,

Your message about conversion of wood to charcoal in the IDD caught my
attention. Question: Does not a conventional wood burning stove operate
on natural convection? Yet I can run mine at low intensity (low air
flow) an nearly all the wood will be gassified.
I am interested in producing charcoal for cooking (barbecue) from
selected hardwoods and fruitwoods. I've begun experimenting with
variations on the two-can IDD using two 55 gallon drums. Can I share my
results when I get them?

Regan Pride
Icantoo Enterprises
icantoo@connriver.net

 

From pilots at nrv.net Wed Nov 12 16:37:31 1997
From: pilots at nrv.net (Ed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:43 2004
Subject: hill furnace
Message-ID: <346A225A.2A3F@nrv.net>

need tech.info can you help??

ed at pilots@usit.net

 

From tmiles at teleport.com Wed Nov 12 17:55:12 1997
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:43 2004
Subject: hill furnace
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19971112145819.00b09dbc@mail.teleport.com>

As in the Richard Hill furnace called the Jetstream, or some other?

Tom

At 04:40 PM 11/12/97 -0500, you wrote:
>need tech.info can you help??
>
>
>ed at pilots@usit.net
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Thomas R. Miles, TCI tmiles@teleport.com

1470 SW Woodward Way http://www.teleport.com/~tmiles/
Portland, Oregon, USA 97225 Tel (503) 292-0107 Fax (503) 605-0208

 

From cirri at ix.netcom.com Thu Nov 13 03:41:17 1997
From: cirri at ix.netcom.com (cirri@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:43 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <1997111314055511478@>

Dear Sir/Madam,

Let me introduce myself, I am the representative of Sadikun group from Indonesia. Our group have dealt in petroleum products for the last thirty years. We distribute products including
fuel, asphalt, wax, plastics. In addition to these products , we have lubricants dealerships, gas stations, a lubricant additive blending plant, and three LPG mini-filling stations. Our
construction company, P.T. Sinar Mutiara Indah, designs and builds petroleum installations such as depots. piping installations, LPG mini-filling stations, and gas stations.

We are eager to diversify our business line. As you know, we are closely acquainted with energy business, and we would like to open several pressing plants to produce industrial grade
and home cooking grade briquette in Indonesia. Unfortunately, our knowledge is minimum for setting-up a briquette plants. Will you tell me whom I should contact such as
indusrtrial/technologyconsultants, briquette pressing machine manufacturer, and etc. Please kindly share your knowledge with us.

sincerely,
Antawirya Husen

Ps: currently, I am residing in USA

my office address in Indonesia:
Antawirya Husen
Jl. Pinangsia Timur #4A phone :(62-21) 690-0926, 629-7880
Jakarta 11110 fax :(62-21) 659-8508
Indonesia

address in USA
Antawirya Husen
2225 Buchtel blvd #1002 phone :(1-303) 715-1637
Denver, CO 80210 fax : same
USA

e-mail address: cirri@ix.netcom.com

 

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Fri Nov 14 07:23:30 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:43 2004
Subject: charcoal conversion
Message-ID: <199711140726_MC2-2828-10BE@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Regan:

Yes your woodstove is natural convection, and YES it is also a charcoal
maker. If you observe each stick, you will see that locally it FIRST
converts to charcoal (in the "flaming combustion" mode), then that charcoal
burns (in glowing combustion). However, since the fuel isn't layered, both
processes are going on simultaneously.

In the IDD stove, the flaming combustion, being more intense, propogates
downward and thus denies oxygen to the subsequent charcoal.

However, when all the flaming combustion is complete, the charcoal begins
to burn in an updraft mode. If you monitor the temperature near the top,
it will sit at about 500C through the first stage, then jump to about 700C
as the charcoal burns.

It is unfortunate that the charcoal doesn't burn more intensely and keep up
high hear transfer for cooking. Maybe if it were extinguished and relit,
or burned from the top it would.

Good question, TOM REED

REGAN WROTE:
>Dear Tom et al,

Your message about conversion of wood to charcoal in the IDD caught
my
attention. Question: Does not a conventional wood burning stove operate
on natural convection? Yet I can run mine at low intensity (low air
flow) an nearly all the wood will be gassified.
I am interested in producing charcoal for cooking (barbecue) from
selected hardwoods and fruitwoods. I've begun experimenting with
variations on the two-can IDD using two 55 gallon drums. Can I share my
results when I get them?

Regan Pride
Icantoo Enterprises
icantoo@connriver.net
<

 

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sat Nov 15 09:06:19 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:43 2004
Subject: stoves-digest V1 #317
Message-ID: <199711150909_MC2-2840-26D8@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Regan:

We all hope you will share your results as fast as they arise. That is
what makes this such a unique forum. Not just talk!!!!

Yes your wood stove is natural convection (with a little help from the
chimney). But it has no way to prevent incoming air from contacting
charcoal after it is made. Every combustor of wood is of necessity also a
pyrolyser and gasifier, but the product is only heat.

Keep Pluggin' TOM REED

 

From admin at gamblingprofessor.com Sat Nov 15 22:28:09 1997
From: admin at gamblingprofessor.com (William J. Giroir)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:43 2004
Subject: Chambers Stoves
Message-ID: <346E856C.57B3@gamblingprofessor.com>

Dear Sir: Do you know of anyone within the United States that repairs
Chambers Stoves? Please advise...Thank you...Bill Giroir

 

From wyeanl at pc.jaring.my Sun Nov 16 08:26:28 1997
From: wyeanl at pc.jaring.my (Yean Lum, Woo)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:43 2004
Subject: Sawdust Briquette Charcoal
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971116213305.00696394@pop7.jaring.my>

Dear Elson.

Your desire to seek further information is already present in the web
http://www.geocities.com/rainforest/vines/2688.

Try your luck if you could get more the next time you visit the site.

 

Best Regard

 

From elk at arcc.or.ke Sun Nov 16 11:45:06 1997
From: elk at arcc.or.ke (Elsen L. Karstad)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:43 2004
Subject: Sawdust Briquette Charcoal
Message-ID: <199711161648.TAA12512@arcc.or.ke>

Yean Lum wrote:
>Dear Elson.
>
>Your desire to seek further information is already present in the web
>http://www.geocities.com/rainforest/vines/2688.
>
>Try your luck if you could get more the next time you visit the site.
>
Thanks for the lead, but this is a process that compresses the sawdust into
briquettes prior to carbonisation- using heavy machinery and plenty of
inputted energy.

If I can find a simple method of carbonising sawdust BEFORE briquetting, the
whole process could be manually operated and equipment would be minimal and
inexpensive.

Thanks for the lead - an interesting site.

elk

 

 

From sylva at iname.com Sun Nov 16 15:23:39 1997
From: sylva at iname.com (AJH)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:43 2004
Subject: Sawdust Briquette Charcoal
Message-ID: <9711162027.AA00359@mars.cableol.net>

At 19:48 16/11/97 +0300, Elsen wrote:
>If I can find a simple method of carbonising sawdust BEFORE briquetting, the
>whole process could be manually operated and equipment would be minimal and
>inexpensive.

Andrew Heggie: Elsen, following on from my earlier attempt with sawdust to
charcoal, I made some paper tubes about 10mm diameter and placed these in
the fuel cassette before filling with 200gm of dry sawdust. This seemed to
successfully allow primary air to the pyrolisis zone, burning of volatiles
took 16minutes. Again I could not control my secondary air and used too much
primary, this could be seen by the inverted flame around the paper tubes.
Charcoal yield was less than 10%, again I blame the high primary air supply.
AJH

 

 

From larcon at sni.net Mon Nov 17 21:57:21 1997
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:43 2004
Subject: Sawdust Briquette Charcoal (transfer from "enrica")
Message-ID: <v01540b04b0965b05027f@[204.133.251.10]>

To stovers (and especially Elsen) - This message seems to have been meant
for the full list. Ron

Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 18:34:08 -0800
From: "enrica@pc.jaring.my" <enrica@pc.jaring.my>
Reply-To: enrica@pc.jaring.my
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: larcon@lynx.sni.net
Subject: Sawdust Briquette Charcoal

Dear Sir,

We are in sawdust briquette charcoal production for years, if you are
interested in setting up a charcoal plant in East Africa, I guess we are
able to help you in supplying you information and technical know-how.
>From briquetting (without binder) to carbonization - we know very well.

Write to me if you need more information.

Dennis LEE
E-mail: enrica@pc.jaring.my

Ronal W. Larson, PhD
21547 Mountsfield Dr.
Golden, CO 80401, USA
303/526-9629; FAX same with warning
larcon@sni.net

 

 

From elk at arcc.or.ke Tue Nov 18 00:26:41 1997
From: elk at arcc.or.ke (Elsen L. Karstad)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:43 2004
Subject: carbonisation of sawdust - help?
Message-ID: <199711180530.IAA00318@arcc.or.ke>

Stovers;

I see I've opened a can of worms with the request for help in producing
charcoal briquettes from sawdust.

There have been several offers of help, some from the commercial sector, but
all involving the briquetting of raw sawdust as an initial stage, followed
by carbonisation.

I am not interested in briquetting sawdust. I have figured out how to
briquette carbonised sawdust though- and am working backward from this point.

What's needed (the missing link) is a technique for carbonising sawdust.
This needs to be done before briquetting, not after, in order to bring the
whole process down to the simplest technical level- a process that could
produce charcoal briquettes from sawdust that could conceivably involve
negligable energy input (a net release in fact) and equipment costing less
than USD $1000.00. Manual charcoal briquette production with a team of two
or three producing 300 kg/day is initially proposed.

There has been no indication whatsoever that any such process has been
developed yet. Lets do it here!

I am not interested in commercialising this. I'd like to develop the process
and ideally hand it over to the informal manufacturing sector if the kiln
technology proves simple enough.

I apologise for repeating myself - I've said this all before- but some may
have missed the message or content.

Help?

elk

 

 

From icantoo at connriver.net Tue Nov 18 09:07:54 1997
From: icantoo at connriver.net (Regan Pride)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:43 2004
Subject: carbonisation of sawdust - help?
In-Reply-To: <199711180530.IAA00318@arcc.or.ke>
Message-ID: <3471A402.6CB0@connriver.net>

Dear Elsen,

Have you considered trying to carbonize the sawdust in a retort style
gasifier. I'm experimenting with a variation of the two-can stove
wherein a smaller, sealed can lies within the pyrolysis chamber. Im my
version, the two "cans" are 55 gal. drums, and the retort is a 15 or 20
gal. drum. The smaller can has holes in the lid to allow the gases to
escape and mix with the other wood gasses and secondary air in the upper
chamber. I'm using solid hard wood, but maybe it would work with
sawdust. Comments?

Regan Pride
Icantoo Enterprises
Lisbon, NH 03585
icantoo@connriver.net

 

From elk at arcc.or.ke Tue Nov 18 11:54:32 1997
From: elk at arcc.or.ke (Elsen L. Karstad)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:43 2004
Subject: 2can gasifier carbonisation of sawdust
Message-ID: <199711181657.TAA19961@arcc.or.ke>

Regan Pride writes;

>In my
>version, the two "cans" are 55 gal. drums, and the retort is a 15 or 20
>gal. drum. The smaller can has holes in the lid to allow the gases to
>escape and mix with the other wood gasses and secondary air in the upper
>chamber. I'm using solid hard wood, but maybe it would work with
>sawdust.

This sounds worth a try, Regan. Is there fuelwood packed around the retort?
This sounds like the 'drawing charcoal' tin described some time ago, where
artists charcoal is produced from sticks placed in a small closed tin with
one small hole which is heated in center of a wood fire.

There's a possible scale problem here though, as we should aim for 300 kg of
carbonised sawdust per day. I estimate a 200 gal drum filled (loosely
packed?) with sawdust at, say, 12% moisture would hold 75 kg. At a 25%
yield, the carbonised sawdust would weigh 18.75 kg. Aiming for 300 kg, we'd
have to carbonise 16 drumfulls..... it's within the realm of possibilities
providing a cycle takes no more than 1 hour and a self-fueling woodgas
heated drum retort can be designed....Tom Reed?

Please try it in the 15-20 litre retort & let us know what happens! I'm
eager to hear about your 2drum stove in any case. I had one designed for my
staff canteen, but reckoned it'd need to be planted pretty deeply into the
ground to allow my short (not short-order; just short) cook access to what's
cooking in the pot. I'm using a huge improved ceramic-lined jiko and my
home-made charcoal briquettes instead- @ 6 kg a fill- for the time being.

The 1can is a shorter unit, though more difficult to construct. We're
waiting for Alex English's report on the one I sent to him recently.

Take Care;

elk

 

 

 

From cetep at reacciun.ve Tue Nov 18 16:31:29 1997
From: cetep at reacciun.ve (CETEP)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:43 2004
Subject: contactando
Message-ID: <34724174.4DEB@reacciun.ve>

Apreciados colegas:
estoy enviando este mensaje desde Venezuela para todas aquellas personas
y organizaciones que manejan el español como lenguaje preferente.
Estamos interesados en recibir respuestas de aquellos que llevan en
forma activa proyectos de difusion de fogones de leña mejorados y que
han fortalecido estos proyectos con actividades de reforestacion y
alimentacion, sobretodo de paises hermanos de latinoamerica, pero esto
no es una condicion absoluta.
Queremos intercambiar experiencias por esta via o de otra forma.
Llevamos ya 5 años promoviendo nuestro proyecto en este pais que los de
afuera creen que no tiene pobreza verdadera.
Manejamos cantidad de informacion que quisieramos compartir con gente
como nosotros. Gracias por anticipado.
Nacho Alzuru.

 

 

From english at adan.kingston.net Tue Nov 18 21:27:32 1997
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:43 2004
Subject: Tunnel Vision
Message-ID: <199711190330.WAA03901@adan.kingston.net>

Dear Elsen +

Here is an idea about carbonizing sawdust.

Imagine a long (say 2 meters) refractory tunnel with a cross
sectional opening of, say 3cm tall by 15cm wide. Only the bottom half
is open at both ends. Through this you move a long tray with sawdust
1.5 cm deep. At one end there is a chimney. This is the end the wet
sawdust enters the tunnel under a flap door. Near the other end there
is a series of air introduction tubes and perhaps a pilot light. As
the wet sawdust moves through the tunnel it is dried by the hot
combustion gasses. The trick would be to keep the fresh dry sawdust
moving into the flaming zone. Then the carbonized sawdust would
move under a flap door into a metal portion of the tunnel which
would have a minimum of air and would allow for quick cooling, and
then under another flap and out of the tunnel.

I would start by seeing how a flame,or simply the pyrolysis, will
propagate through a similar tunnel with a various depths of dry
sawdust and various heights of tunnel and chimney.

If the concept has any merit I would invision it working on a
turntable, using an axle and hub. The rotating circular table would
have three continuous troughs around the outside. A wide one in the
middle for the sawdust, flanked by two narrow ones each filled with
sand. The curved tunnel would be suspended over the table such that
metal edges would knife into and through the sand, thus providing a
seal. The tunnel would run about 3/4 of the circle, leaving room for
a sawdust hopper, next to the chimney, which will ' automatically'
keep the sawdust trough full. At the other end a plow would scoop the
carbonized sawdust out over the side and directly into Elsen's Better
Bricketter.

Enjoy, Alex

PS. Elsen I'll let you know when the " 1 can" arrives.

 

______________
Alex English
RR 2 Odessa Ontario
Canada K0H 2H0
Tel 1-613-386-1927
Fax 1-613-386-1211
Stoves Web Site http://www1.kingston.net/~english/Stoves.html

 

From icantoo at connriver.net Wed Nov 19 07:39:07 1997
From: icantoo at connriver.net (Regan Pride)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:43 2004
Subject: 2can gasifier carbonisation of sawdust
In-Reply-To: <199711181657.TAA19961@arcc.or.ke>
Message-ID: <3472E0AD.B2C@connriver.net>

Elsen,
Yes, fuelwood is packed around the retort. I didn't hear about the
"drawing charcoal" kiln. You are probably right about the scale problem
though. Sixteen drumfulls sounds like a lot of work and a lot of
fuelwood required. Another obstacle is the relatively short life of the
drums - about 100 firings. But drums are cheap, and if you have plenty
of fuelwood it may be feasible. You could set up several kilns and
operate them on a rotation - sort of like the Black Forest Kiln
described in Walter Emrich's book "Handbook of Charcoal Making."
I like the sound of Alex's "tunnel kiln" too. However, it may encounter
the same problem of scale. If you could manage the expense of the
equipment, I like the idea of a conveyer belt (must be metal) moving
through a metal conduit in similar fashion to Alex's.
I'll hit the lumber yard this week and get some sawdust for a test
firing this weekend.

Regan

 

From english at adan.kingston.net Wed Nov 19 12:54:29 1997
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:43 2004
Subject: "1 can " in Canada
Message-ID: <199711191858.NAA13671@adan.kingston.net>

Dear Elsen,

I have received your stove. We just fired it. We had some trouble
shutting down primary air so I stuffed some insulation against the
bottom. That reigned it in. We started outside and latter moved it
in out of the wind. It never lost flame but I felt that the wind
could bias the readings. CO2 started up around 17% and dropped to 4%
near the end. This is a familiar scenario of a declining burn rate.
CO was off the scale at 17% CO2, around 1300ppm at 10%CO2, around
1800ppm at 5%. Operator levels were around 20ppm.

Just a start, Alex

 

______________
Alex English
RR 2 Odessa Ontario
Canada K0H 2H0
Tel 1-613-386-1927
Fax 1-613-386-1211
Stoves Web Site http://www1.kingston.net/~english/Stoves.html

 

From SSDC45A at prodigy.com Wed Nov 19 21:30:49 1997
From: SSDC45A at prodigy.com ( KARL K HOCH)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:43 2004
Subject: Lange woodstoves from Denmark
Message-ID: <199711200234.VAA17378@mime2.prodigy.com>

I'm looking for parts for a Lange woodstove that I purchased about 20
years ago. Can you help?

 

From elk at arcc.or.ke Thu Nov 20 02:51:32 1997
From: elk at arcc.or.ke (E. L. Karstad)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:43 2004
Subject: "1 can " in Canada
Message-ID: <v01510100b099b3231232@[199.2.222.137]>

Alex;

Happy to hear the stove's arrived O.K.

The stove may not be set up properly...... I had to knock it down for shipment.

I'm surprised to hear that primary air was difficult to shut down- the vent
control is straight-forward & was pretty tight when I dismantled it for
shipping. Please review your method of assembly & get back to me. A direct
'Snapper' shot to me (or me to you) may resolve this if necessary.

The secondary air is not controllable- this is the ring of holes in the
bottom that circle the valved primary air vent. Make sure your 'insulation'
doesn't interfere with secondary air inflow.

Should you feel the exhaust venting needs to be increased, simply turn out
(bend) some of the tabs around the top. I fine-tune each stove in this
fashion. This stove is designed to operate with the pot in place acting to
provide some backpressure within the combustion chamber.

Please let me know:

1) comparative readings on emmissions- I've no yardstick to compare this &
other stoves by.

2) Wt. of fuelwood, Wt. of charcoal & whatever else you are able to measure.

Fell free to modify!

elk

_____________________________
Elsen Karstad
P.O Box 24371 Nairobi, Kenya
Tel:254 2 884437
E-mail: elk@arcc.or.ke
______________________________

 

 

From JKrysak at aol.com Thu Nov 20 08:14:55 1997
From: JKrysak at aol.com (JKrysak@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:43 2004
Subject: chambers stoves
Message-ID: <971120081816_-1071675401@mrin83.mail.aol.com>

IN NEED OF PARTS FOR SOME OLD CHAMBERS STOVES.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP

 

From larcon at sni.net Thu Nov 20 13:10:34 1997
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:43 2004
Subject: From Rogerio to Nacho message
Message-ID: <v01540b00b098f8e27dc9@[204.133.251.40]>

Stovers: the following got bounced to me. Thanks Rogerio. Nacho -
sorry for our limitations here; we look forward to hearing from you in
English. Ron

Dear Nacho: We are glad to hear from you and your interest in improved
woodstove promotion. This english list does have a lot of experts in the
subject, but I suggest you to write your message again in english, so you
can reach these experts. Meanwhile you can also consult with the
spanish-portugueze bioenergy list which includes over 60 experts in
bioenergy including woodstove from around the world. Please send your
message again in spanish to <bioenergia@sdnnic.org.ni>, and if you want to
subscribe it just send me a message that I will include you on the list.

Good luck with your search.

Rogerio Miranda

 

Estimado Nacho: Esta lista solamente se trabaja en ingles, y aun que de
ella participe varios expertos en fogones de lena, seria mejor que tu
escribiras nuevamente en ingles. Si quieres trabajat en espanol, le sugiro
que envie su mensagen a la lista <bioenergia@sdnnic.org.ni> que reune mas
de 60 expertos de varios paises y principalmente latinoamerica y que
discuten el tema de la bioenergia, incluindo las estufas de lena. En esta
lista las lenguas de trabajo son el espanol y portugues, y si usted quieres
hacer parte como miembro de esta lista por favor avisarame para que yo
pueda incluirlo.

saludos

rogerio miranda

At 05:31 PM 11/18/97 -0800, you wrote:
>Apreciados colegas:
>estoy enviando este mensaje desde Venezuela para todas aquellas personas
>y organizaciones que manejan el espaÒol como lenguaje preferente.
>Estamos interesados en recibir respuestas de aquellos que llevan en
>forma activa proyectos de difusion de fogones de leÒa mejorados y que
>han fortalecido estos proyectos con actividades de reforestacion y
>alimentacion, sobretodo de paises hermanos de latinoamerica, pero esto
>no es una condicion absoluta.
>Queremos intercambiar experiencias por esta via o de otra forma.
>Llevamos ya 5 aÒos promoviendo nuestro proyecto en este pais que los de
>afuera creen que no tiene pobreza verdadera.
>Manejamos cantidad de informacion que quisieramos compartir con gente
>como nosotros. Gracias por anticipado.
>Nacho Alzuru.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda
ATP/PROLENA/Nicaragua
Apartado Postal C-321
Managua, Nicaragua
telefax (505) 276 2015
EM <rmiranda@sdnnic.org.ni>

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Ronal W. Larson, PhD
21547 Mountsfield Dr.
Golden, CO 80401, USA
303/526-9629; FAX same with warning
larcon@sni.net

 

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Thu Nov 20 21:17:51 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:43 2004
Subject: carbonisation of sawdust - help?
Message-ID: <199711202121_MC2-28F0-CF93@compuserve.com>

Dear ELK et AL:

Quite right not to briquette sawdust, then pyrolyse. Makes no sense.

The PV work of compression of sawdust is about 1% of the heat of combustion
and is mechanically very expensive. As you have shown, if you pyrolyse
first, you can briquette with a minimum of pressure.

Yours truly, TOM REEd

PS Biomass is NOT an ideal gas, but still requires PV work.

 

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Thu Nov 20 21:18:02 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:43 2004
Subject: Top Down Rick Charcoal
Message-ID: <199711202121_MC2-28F0-CF99@compuserve.com>

Tom Reed - Over Oklahoma, travelling to Lubbock - 11/18/97

Dear Pyromaniacs:

You have heard a great deal in STOVES and GASIFICATION about "inverted
downdraft" or top down burning for gas and charcoal production. I have an
experiment to report here on Top Down Rick Charcoal making.

Last Spring I visited the Jack Daniels plant in Tennessee and saw their
charcoal production facility. (They use the charcoal - activated? - to
filter out the headache chemicals - fusil oils - in the whiskey.)

They start with hardwood cut on the tennessee ridges and slopes (not
valleys). They cut ~ 4 in diameter logs ~ 4 feet long and stack them in
layers, the logs in each lalyerat right angles to the those above and
below. The "RICK", thus constructed, is about a 4 foot cube. They then
set the rick on fire (TOP or BOTTOM??) and as charcoal appears they spray
watter on the outer layers so that only the volatiles of the wood are
burned.

I had never heard of this method of making (activated? cooking?) charcoal
before and wrote them asking a few questions and volunteering info on
pyrolysis.. They sent me a Jack Daniels keychain but no answers.

Thinking about this method of charcoal production, I decided to run a
"rick" experiment. I built two 5 1/4" cubes of 3/4X3/4X5/1/4 inch pine.
(I measured moisture content - 6.5%). I video taped the fireworks. The
first rick I carefully lighted only the top layer (Propane torch). It took
about 13 minutes to burn to the bottom layer, progressing one layer at a
time. The flame was 10-15 inches tall. I preume the air rises up through
the rick and loses its oxygen in the burning layer, so that charcoal in
layers above is protected from oxydation. I used a spray bottle to
extinguish the charcoal near the outer surface when it began to glow.
Yield of charcoal was 125 g, uniform and nicely formed. 24.7% yield on wet
basis, 26.5 dry basis. I did this in my garage and there was very little
smoke until the very end when I extinguished the whole mass with my
sprayer.

I then ignited the other rick (535 g)at the bottom. The whole cube was
rapidly enveloped in flames extending 20-30 in toward my ceiling. As the
flames left the lowest layer it was more difficult to keep the charcoal
from burning and the whole mass began to glow. Final yield 112 g of more
irregular charcoal, still quite good. More smoke, but I still did it in a
closed garage without excessive discomfort. Yield 21.0% WB, 22.4% DB.

In both cases the charcoal was very light, but held together nicely. There
were a few pieces at the bottom that did not burn completely.

This experiment raises a lot of questions. Might it be a useful
alternative to kiln charcoal? Can it be "tuned" for even higher yields?
Can it be "tuned" to make activated charcoal, using the high temperature of
the flames? Should the "rick" have a metal shield around it to prevent air
from entering at the sides and consuming charcoal? Insulated? Will both
top and bottom lighting work with wetter wood? What is the optimal spacing
of the logs?

I hope someone can try this on a larger scale and let us know what is
observed.

~~~~~
I recenly came across a WWW site, "TOP DOWN FEVER" - A Revolutionary new
(old) fire building technique. The site title is "WOOD HEAT", but I don't
see the URL on my offprint.

THey say that town down fire construction in fireplaces is sweeping the
country since 1992. (Our top down gasification dates back to 1985 - any
cross fertilization?) They stress the no smoke burning and other
advantages.

So, I recommend top down rick burning for charcoal manufacture. Think I'll
call Jack Daniels again and try to find an engineer.

CHEERS (as in a Cheery fire), TOM
REED

 

 

From icantoo at connriver.net Fri Nov 21 06:35:36 1997
From: icantoo at connriver.net (Regan Pride)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:44 2004
Subject: Top Down Rick Charcoal
In-Reply-To: <199711202121_MC2-28F0-CF99@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <347574CF.6931@connriver.net>

Tom Reed wrote:
>
> Tom Reed - Over Oklahoma, travelling to Lubbock - 11/18/97
>
> Dear Pyromaniacs:
>
> You have heard a great deal in STOVES and GASIFICATION about "inverted
> downdraft" or top down burning for gas and charcoal production. I have an
> experiment to report here on Top Down Rick Charcoal making.
>
> Last Spring I visited the Jack Daniels plant in Tennessee and saw their
> charcoal production facility. (They use the charcoal - activated? - to
> filter out the headache chemicals - fusil oils - in the whiskey.)
>
> They start with hardwood cut on the tennessee ridges and slopes (not
> valleys). They cut ~ 4 in diameter logs ~ 4 feet long and stack them in
> layers, the logs in each lalyerat right angles to the those above and
> below. The "RICK", thus constructed, is about a 4 foot cube. They then
> set the rick on fire (TOP or BOTTOM??) and as charcoal appears they spray
> watter on the outer layers so that only the volatiles of the wood are
> burned.
>
> I had never heard of this method of making (activated? cooking?) charcoal
> before and wrote them asking a few questions and volunteering info on
> pyrolysis.. They sent me a Jack Daniels keychain but no answers.
>
> Thinking about this method of charcoal production, I decided to run a
> "rick" experiment. I built two 5 1/4" cubes of 3/4X3/4X5/1/4 inch pine.
> (I measured moisture content - 6.5%). I video taped the fireworks. The
> first rick I carefully lighted only the top layer (Propane torch). It took
> about 13 minutes to burn to the bottom layer, progressing one layer at a
> time. The flame was 10-15 inches tall. I preume the air rises up through
> the rick and loses its oxygen in the burning layer, so that charcoal in
> layers above is protected from oxydation. I used a spray bottle to
> extinguish the charcoal near the outer surface when it began to glow.
> Yield of charcoal was 125 g, uniform and nicely formed. 24.7% yield on wet
> basis, 26.5 dry basis. I did this in my garage and there was very little
> smoke until the very end when I extinguished the whole mass with my
> sprayer.
>
> I then ignited the other rick (535 g)at the bottom. The whole cube was
> rapidly enveloped in flames extending 20-30 in toward my ceiling. As the
> flames left the lowest layer it was more difficult to keep the charcoal
> from burning and the whole mass began to glow. Final yield 112 g of more
> irregular charcoal, still quite good. More smoke, but I still did it in a
> closed garage without excessive discomfort. Yield 21.0% WB, 22.4% DB.
>
> In both cases the charcoal was very light, but held together nicely. There
> were a few pieces at the bottom that did not burn completely.
>
> This experiment raises a lot of questions. Might it be a useful
> alternative to kiln charcoal? Can it be "tuned" for even higher yields?
> Can it be "tuned" to make activated charcoal, using the high temperature of
> the flames? Should the "rick" have a metal shield around it to prevent air
> from entering at the sides and consuming charcoal? Insulated? Will both
> top and bottom lighting work with wetter wood? What is the optimal spacing
> of the logs?
>
> I hope someone can try this on a larger scale and let us know what is
> observed.
>
> ~~~~~
> I recenly came across a WWW site, "TOP DOWN FEVER" - A Revolutionary new
> (old) fire building technique. The site title is "WOOD HEAT", but I don't
> see the URL on my offprint.
>
> THey say that town down fire construction in fireplaces is sweeping the
> country since 1992. (Our top down gasification dates back to 1985 - any
> cross fertilization?) They stress the no smoke burning and other
> advantages.
>
> So, I recommend top down rick burning for charcoal manufacture. Think I'll
> call Jack Daniels again and try to find an engineer.
>
> CHEERS (as in a Cheery fire), TOM
> REED

Tom,
I remember seeing an advertisement for Jack Daniels in a magazine. The
ad showed a picture of a man tending a charcoal "rick" like you describe
- pretty cool. I have plenty of maple logs to try a rick firing, but
being that it's now below freezing outside, I don't have a good way to
get water to it. I don't have a garage. Maybe next spring.
btw: the Wood Heat site is www.wood-heat.com I ran across it a week
or so ago and bookmarked it.

Regan

 

From english at adan.kingston.net Fri Nov 21 08:10:53 1997
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:44 2004
Subject: 1can
Message-ID: <199711211414.JAA23230@adan.kingston.net>

Dear Elsen +

Indeed, I did mount the primary air damper on in reverse. That
and some additional hammering improved the seal. How ever I did a
bench mark test to compare. I filled the bottom of the pyrolysis cell
with insulation and did a burn. Thus with zero primary air I could
assess the behaviour of the stove. It can sustain a flame for quite a
while at a very low rate. It certainly restricts flame movement from
the top down to the grate.
Comparing this to a burn without the
insulation but with the primary air valve shut the flame moves fairly
quickly down to the grate. During this stage the rate of volatization
appears to exceed the capacity of the secondary air supply to
provide enough combustion air. A tall flame with high CO2 and CO
results. (17%, >2000ppm) A little smoke
and flame is visible around the pot. Once the flame front reaches
the bottom, the gasifier output is reduced and a gentle controllable
flame with CO2 around 10% and CO as low as 600ppm. So for the first
half of the burn the primary air has remained shut but leaking
slightly. The in order to sustain a flame I open it a crack. If I
lose flame I open it wide and then quickly shut it down when the
flame re ignites.

With just enough air to theoretically complete the combustion
equation for wood would yield a CO2% of around 20%. CO is generally
high due to imperfect mixing and a general lack of O2 around for the
CO to bump into. Give the same fire twice as much air and the CO2%
will be down around 8-10%. Given a decent environment for fire a
greater portion of the CO will be converted to CO2 and the CO levels
will be reduced, more than simple as a factor of dilution. This is
considered an indication of the quality of the combustion dynamic.
You can get very low CO levels from dilution, but I usually see an
increase due, I think, to the temperature drop that accompanies
dilution.

What does all this mean. Well I would like to hear from the folks who
have tested improved cooking stoves around the world so we can
compare. They are likely more concerned with particulate levels.
However I am quite sure that it would be considered benefitial to
reduce any stoves CO/ CO2 ratio. At 1000ppmCO and 10%CO2 which would
be an attainable result from your stove at medium-low fire, the
ratio would be .01 This is some what misleading due to
instabilities in the flame which tend to yield a fluctuating CO
concentration.

All this aside, I think the stove works great. I can operate it
with essentially no visible smoke and a minimum of fussing after only
a few tries. How is that for a yardstick. You have a remarkably simple
stove. It will not be easy to improve it at little or no additional
cost.

More latter, Alex
PS. Elsen, I will respond to your other questions.

______________
Alex English
RR 2 Odessa Ontario
Canada K0H 2H0
Tel 1-613-386-1927
Fax 1-613-386-1211
Stoves Web Site http://www1.kingston.net/~english/Stoves.html

 

From elk at arcc.or.ke Fri Nov 21 11:29:14 1997
From: elk at arcc.or.ke (Elsen L. Karstad)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:44 2004
Subject: 1can in Canada
Message-ID: <199711211632.TAA03148@arcc.or.ke>

Thanks Alex- you don't know what it means to me to actually have someone
else operate this stove & report back in an objective manner!

I'm pleased you're pleased (in other words).

As mentioned, please feel free to modify. If you need more secondary air,
then knock a few more air holes in the secondary air inflow ring in the
bottom- a nail & hammer'll do.

I'm eager to see how you tackle the turbulance- all my 'turbo' models have
been relegated to the scrap heap.

Regards;

elk

 

 

From john at gulland.ca Fri Nov 21 12:56:44 1997
From: john at gulland.ca (John Gulland)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:44 2004
Subject: Top Down
In-Reply-To: <199711202121_MC2-28F0-CF99@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19971121130111.007b1a90@host.mv.igs.net>

Tom Reed wrote:
>> I recenly came across a WWW site, "TOP DOWN FEVER" - A Revolutionary new
>> (old) fire building technique. The site title is "WOOD HEAT", but I don't
>> see the URL on my offprint.
>>
>> THey say that town down fire construction in fireplaces is sweeping the
>> country since 1992. (Our top down gasification dates back to 1985 - any
>> cross fertilization?) They stress the no smoke burning and other
>> advantages.
>>
Then Regan Pride wrote:
>btw: the Wood Heat site is www.wood-heat.com I ran across it a week or
>so ago and bookmarked it.
>

Stovers,
I host http://www.wood-heat.com and also follow the discussion on the
stoves list with interest. As I wrote in the article Top Down Fever
(http://www.wood-heat.com/topdown.htm), I learned about the top down
technique from the masonry heater people who learned it from their European
colleagues, who revived it from very old German (I think) practice.

For us in the residential heating business, the top down technique offers
important advantages over the conventional approach. It gives us reliable
and progressive ignition of a load of wood and an almost smokeless start
up. It means the user doesn't have to mess with the fire as much by
opening the door to add progressively larger pieces as the fire builds in
size. It is generally better to let a fire proceed undisturbed rather than
forcing it to recover from the chilling of an open door and cool pieces of
firewood. The top down technique means that we can put in a good load,
biggest pieces first, then heavy kindling, lighter kindling, then paper,
and light it off.

We, of course, are not intending to produce charcoal. The overriding
objective is to reduce smoke, which is normally the worst at start up
because of cold (relatively) wood and stove components. Burning top down
gives us bright, turbulent combustion right from the start and we don't get
into a fuel rich situation (depending on stove design) until later in the
burn cycle or until the combustion air supply is reduced.

I don't know of any instrumented tests of the relative particulate
emissions figures for top down vs conventional fire building. Mind you,
the EPA emissions test protocol which serves as the benchmark methodology
and for which there is a large data base, is based on a fuel load of
dimensional Douglas Fir nailed into a lattice or crib structure, and the
protocol calls for a hot start from the charcoal left from the previous
run, so any work on top down would not be strictly comparable to the
existing data base.

To some extent I promote the idea of top down burning because it draws
attention to the idea that responsible wood burning involves technique and
technique involves practice. It is a response to the more conventional
notion that any dummy can build and light a wood fire, especially if the
dummy is male. Actually, I don't much care if people adopt the top down
technique. I do care that they discuss, debate, and even argue about what
they think is the best technique. It causes us to focus on the fact that a
bad fire smokes and a good fire doesn't. And it hints at the idea that
smoke coming from your chimney is sort of like farting in public; its not
very sociable and tends to reflect badly on one.

Please note that the wood-heat.com site is strictly public information for
those who are currious about various aspect of wood heating. Its content
is not aimed at a scholarly audience, and it makes no attempt to be
academically balanced -- as if I had to tell you that!

Regards,
John
This is for business: http://www.gulland.ca
This is for pleasure: http://www.wood-heat.com

 

From bburt at adan.kingston.net Fri Nov 21 13:29:26 1997
From: bburt at adan.kingston.net (Brian Burt)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:44 2004
Subject: Top Down
Message-ID: <01bcf6ab$62b682e0$8834d2cd@bburt.kingston.net>

 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Gulland <john@gulland.ca
the EPA emissions test protocol which serves as the benchmark methodology
>and for which there is a large data base, is based on a fuel load of
>dimensional Douglas Fir nailed into a lattice or crib structure, and the
>protocol calls for a hot start from the charcoal left from the previous
>run, so any work on top down would not be strictly comparable to the
>existing data base.

Dear John;

Is this EPA data-base that you refer to available on the net.

Brian

 

 

From farrston at nep.net Fri Nov 21 21:14:28 1997
From: farrston at nep.net (Farrett-Stone)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:44 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <199711220218.VAA09550@nep-pub.affiliate.nortel.net>

Hi. I enjoyed your poem about wood. I have been trying to find out all
that I can about the proper burning of wood. I do not want to pollute the
air and and chimmney problems. So, according to the poem it is ok to burn
green ash and what about cherry? I have received 20 different answers and I
would value yours. Thanks, Mary reply to farrston@nep.net

 

 

From phoenix at transport.com Fri Nov 21 22:15:22 1997
From: phoenix at transport.com (Art Krenzel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:44 2004
Subject: 1can
Message-ID: <199711220319.TAA00820@s.transport.com>

Alex - how about hauling our your Snappy and letting us "see" what you are
evaluating? You take such good pictures!

Art Krenzel
phoenix@transport.com

 

 

From english at adan.kingston.net Sat Nov 22 08:06:05 1997
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:44 2004
Subject: 1can
In-Reply-To: <199711220319.TAA00820@s.transport.com>
Message-ID: <199711221409.JAA31185@adan.kingston.net>

Art
Some pictures and drawings of these charcoal making stoves and
burners have been on the web page for a while now. Is there something
in particular that you would like to see. Video Snappies don't always
do justice to moving images like flames.

Alex

 

> Alex - how about hauling our your Snappy and letting us "see" what you are
> evaluating? You take such good pictures!
>
> Art Krenzel
> phoenix@transport.com
>
>
>
>

______________
Alex English
RR 2 Odessa Ontario
Canada K0H 2H0
Tel 1-613-386-1927
Fax 1-613-386-1211
Stoves Web Site http://www1.kingston.net/~english/Stoves.html

 

From english at adan.kingston.net Sat Nov 22 11:26:36 1997
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:44 2004
Subject: Top Down Charcoal Makers
Message-ID: <199711221730.MAA07293@adan.kingston.net>

Dear Stovers

Summary: Its not as simple as I first thought.

When I first started trying this top down burning it was with no air
supply under the fuel. It worked with all the air washing in over the
top of the pail, or down around the bottom edge of the falling cone
arrangement. This really impressed me with the apparently steady rate
of burn. Tom R. and Ron L. were promoting air under models with Elsen
following their lead. I started using this approach and found it also
worked, but not exactly the same. With the venturi burner the fuel
dynamics are invisible, covered up. So now that I am using Elsen's
stove I find I am constantly removing the pot for a quick peek.
Observations and recent measurement seem to suggest to me that the
top lit "thumb" sized or larger sticks, with a minimum of under
fuel air, do not gasify sequentially from the top down. The flame
creeps down towards the air supply at a rate of 2-5 cm per
minute, unevenly. The rate of volatization increases over the first 5
or 10 minutes to a point where the pyrolysis gasses are rich with a
minimum of un reacted oxygen present. This is the point where most of
the fuel is reacting on its surface. After this a layer of char
developing on these surfaces reducing the efficiency of volatization
allowing a slow increase of O2 in the pryrolysis gasses. The fuel
shrinks and channels develop in the fuel.

Tom R's fuel was chips which would more likely restrict the flames
downward progress allow for complete gasification top down
sequentially. I have used twigs in small food cans, with a similar
arrangement to Elsens 1 can, where the fuel did behave in this
fashion.The same for straw and hay. Fuel diameter is obviously a big
factor.

Elsen's 1 Can went to Queen's yesterday for some continuous
measurement. With the primary valve shut through the first half of
the burn, the exhaust CO2 % steadily dropped from around 15% to 5%.
At this point I opened primary air a crack and the flame increased
slightly but CO2 continued to drop to below 1%. The CO/CO2 ratio
remained around .02 =/- .01 through the burn. Meanwhile the water
boiled at a simmer. Flame attachment was excellent even at these high
excess air levels. This stove has fixed secondary air openings, so I
believe the increase in excess air is due to an increase in the
unreacted air through the fuel.

Measurements from the venturi
burner test, where we have control over primary and secondary air
seem to support this hypothesis. With Primary air greatly
restricted the CO2 would drop slowly. Continuing to cut back on
secondary air would keep CO2 stable, at presumably lower outputs.

Yesterdays trial with the venturi burner gave some of the best
results to date. I think this is partly due to the dryness of the
wood, around 6% moisture. Having the air control allowed us to hold a
beautiful clean and compacted blue flame around the bluff body with
only the 20cm tall combustion chamber. So I feel that I have glimpsed
the holy grail, however fleetingly.

What does all this mean?

There are enough questions to keep me experimenting for a long time.

Alex

 

______________
Alex English
RR 2 Odessa Ontario
Canada K0H 2H0
Tel 1-613-386-1927
Fax 1-613-386-1211
Stoves Web Site http://www1.kingston.net/~english/Stoves.html

 

From phoenix at transport.com Sat Nov 22 20:10:42 1997
From: phoenix at transport.com (Art Krenzel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:44 2004
Subject: 1can
Message-ID: <199711230114.RAA27616@brutus.transport.com>

Alex - I was hoping to put the specific stove to the dialog we were having
during the current discussions. Your introduction of video pictures to the
forum was a major step forward in the flow of information and enhances your
excellent investigative reporting. I always look forward to your messages.

Art Krenzel
phoenix@transport.com

 

From english at adan.kingston.net Sat Nov 22 21:21:13 1997
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:44 2004
Subject: 1can
In-Reply-To: <199711230114.RAA27616@brutus.transport.com>
Message-ID: <199711230325.WAA03494@adan.kingston.net>

 

> Alex - I was hoping to put the specific stove to the dialog we were having
> during the current discussions. Your introduction of video pictures to the
> forum was a major step forward in the flow of information and enhances your
> excellent investigative reporting. I always look forward to your messages.

Dear Art
Thank you for the kind words. We are talking about the 1Can stove
shown in the top two pictures at http://www1.kingston.net/~english/PicKar.htm
Then click on "see diagram" beside the second picture to view a cross
sectional sketch of the 1 Can.

Hope that helps, Alex
>
> Art Krenzel
> phoenix@transport.com
>
>

______________
Alex English
RR 2 Odessa Ontario
Canada K0H 2H0
Tel 1-613-386-1927
Fax 1-613-386-1211
Stoves Web Site http://www1.kingston.net/~english/Stoves.html

 

From larcon at sni.net Sat Nov 22 21:50:47 1997
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:44 2004
Subject: Top Down Charcoal Makers
Message-ID: <v01540b01b09d0946ecff@[204.133.251.41]>

Summary: Some comments on Alex English' questions of 22 Nov.

>Dear Stovers
>
>Summary: Its not as simple as I first thought.
>
>When I first started trying this top down burning it was with no air
>supply under the fuel. It worked with all the air washing in over the
>top of the pail, or down around the bottom edge of the falling cone
>arrangement. This really impressed me with the apparently steady rate
>of burn. Tom R. and Ron L. were promoting air under models with Elsen
>following their lead. I started using this approach and found it also
>worked, but not exactly the same. With the venturi burner the fuel
>dynamics are invisible, covered up. So now that I am using Elsen's
>stove I find I am constantly removing the pot for a quick peek.
>Observations and recent measurement seem to suggest to me that the
>top lit "thumb" sized or larger sticks, with a minimum of under
>fuel air, do not gasify sequentially from the top down. The flame
>creeps down towards the air supply at a rate of 2-5 cm per
>minute, unevenly.

(RWL): This seems much too fast by about a factor of 5-10. Usually a 20
cm high stack lasts over an hour. I almost never have experienced uneven
pyrolysis front movement. Elsen has also talked about his (taller) "burn"
lasting an hour or two. I suggest trying 1) tighter fuel packing (I pack
as tight as I can), 2) much less primary air, and 3) using a starter
material that cannot fall through the un-converted fuel (which will start
combustion at the bottom or wherever it lands as it falls through). If you
can see a glow at the primary air holes early in the "burn", then you have
done something wrong - especially if it is only at one part of the
cross-section.

>The rate of volatization increases over the first 5
>or 10 minutes to a point where the pyrolysis gasses are rich with a
>minimum of un reacted oxygen present. This is the point where most of
>the fuel is reacting on its surface.

(RWL) This sounds like a very bad situation. There should be reaction
only over a downward traveling zone of width about 1-2 cm. Below this the
temperature should be too low to support combustion, and above this there
should be too little O2 to support combustion. I don't know Elsen's stove,
but I presume he would agree that your tests are not like his operations.

> After this a layer of char
>developing on these surfaces reducing the efficiency of volatization
>allowing a slow increase of O2 in the pryrolysis gasses. The fuel
>shrinks and channels develop in the fuel.

(RWL) I certainly have sometimes observed channels - but you should do
everything possible to avoid those (tight packing, lower primary air, and
right starter mechanism).
>
>Tom R's fuel was chips which would more likely restrict the flames
>downward progress allow for complete gasification top down
>sequentially. I have used twigs in small food cans, with a similar
>arrangement to Elsens 1 can, where the fuel did behave in this
>fashion.The same for straw and hay. Fuel diameter is obviously a big
>factor.

(RWL): Strongly agreed - but the "thumb size" is not a bad one for rural
fuel gatherers. It is easy to collect and carry and allows larger sizes to
be used for better purposes. Chip-sized charcoal is too small for direct
use in most "jikos". This is what Elsen is turning into briquettes.
>
>Elsen's 1 Can went to Queen's yesterday for some continuous
>measurement. With the primary valve shut through the first half of
>the burn, the exhaust CO2 % steadily dropped from around 15% to 5%.
>At this point I opened primary air a crack and the flame increased
>slightly but CO2 continued to drop to below 1%. The CO/CO2 ratio
>remained around .02 =/- .01 through the burn. Meanwhile the water
>boiled at a simmer.

(RWL): The only time I tried this, the CO2 stayed much more constant - at
about 10-12% all through the (hour-long) "burn". The O2 level was of
course inversely related, so that the sum was always about 21%. Is this
check working for you (i.e. are you measuring O2 level also?)?

The meter I was using had a lowest measureable CO level of 0.1% and
stayed below that level.

> Flame attachment was excellent even at these high
>excess air levels. This stove has fixed secondary air openings, so I
>believe the increase in excess air is due to an increase in the
>unreacted air through the fuel.
>
(RWL) Was there a flamelet at each and every secondary air hole? Through
the entire run? What is the size and spacing of these holes?
Is it possible to measure the CO and CO2 levels in the rising
pyrolysis gases below the secondary air inlets? Ideally, I believe this
should be close to zero % CO2, with measureable amounts of CH4 and H2, but
mostly CO (not necessarily near 20%) - and I'm guessing you did not have
that situation.

> Measurements from the venturi
>burner test, where we have control over primary and secondary air
>seem to support this hypothesis. With Primary air greatly
>restricted the CO2 would drop slowly. Continuing to cut back on
>secondary air would keep CO2 stable, at presumably lower outputs.

(RWL): I'm suggesting a different hypothesis of course (for the Elsen
stove - not yours)- which is that its operation is not as Elsen would like.
However, I haven't seen either his or your operation of his stove or of
your venturi type.
Can you remind me how you are controlling both primary and
secondary air?
>
>Yesterdays trial with the venturi burner gave some of the best
>results to date. I think this is partly due to the dryness of the
>wood, around 6% moisture. Having the air control allowed us to hold a
>beautiful clean and compacted blue flame around the bluff body with
>only the 20cm tall combustion chamber. So I feel that I have glimpsed
>the holy grail, however fleetingly.

(RWL): This sounds great - what is your charcoal yield and what is the CO
level?
>
> What does all this mean?
>
>There are enough questions to keep me experimenting for a long time.
>
>Alex
>

(RWL): Yep - we are about at the same stage as 100 years ago in the
development of the automobile. You are doing great work.

Regards Ron

Ronal W. Larson, PhD
21547 Mountsfield Dr.
Golden, CO 80401, USA
303/526-9629; FAX same with warning
larcon@sni.net

 

 

From celtic2 at ibm.net Sat Nov 22 23:45:13 1997
From: celtic2 at ibm.net (Stephen Allen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:44 2004
Subject: Top Down Charcoal Makers
In-Reply-To: <199711221730.MAA07293@adan.kingston.net>
Message-ID: <3477B67A.F70@ibm.net>

*.English wrote:
>
> Dear Stovers
>
> Summary: Its not as simple as I first thought.
>
> When I first started trying this top down burning it was with no air
> supply under the fuel. It worked with all the air washing in over the
> top of the pail, or down around the bottom edge of the falling cone
> arrangement. This really impressed me with the apparently steady rate
> of burn. Tom R. and Ron L. were promoting air under models with Elsen
> following their lead. I started using this approach and found it also
> worked, but not exactly the same. With the venturi burner the fuel
> dynamics are invisible, covered up. So now that I am using Elsen's
> stove I find I am constantly removing the pot for a quick peek.
> Observations and recent measurement seem to suggest to me that the
> top lit "thumb" sized or larger sticks, with a minimum of under
> fuel air, do not gasify sequentially from the top down. The flame
> creeps down towards the air supply at a rate of 2-5 cm per
> minute, unevenly. The rate of volatization increases over the first 5
> or 10 minutes to a point where the pyrolysis gasses are rich with a
> minimum of un reacted oxygen present. This is the point where most of
> the fuel is reacting on its surface. After this a layer of char
> developing on these surfaces reducing the efficiency of volatization
> allowing a slow increase of O2 in the pryrolysis gasses. The fuel
> shrinks and channels develop in the fuel.
>
> Tom R's fuel was chips which would more likely restrict the flames
> downward progress allow for complete gasification top down
> sequentially. I have used twigs in small food cans, with a similar
> arrangement to Elsens 1 can, where the fuel did behave in this
> fashion.The same for straw and hay. Fuel diameter is obviously a big
> factor.
>
> Elsen's 1 Can went to Queen's yesterday for some continuous
> measurement. With the primary valve shut through the first half of
> the burn, the exhaust CO2 % steadily dropped from around 15% to 5%.
> At this point I opened primary air a crack and the flame increased
> slightly but CO2 continued to drop to below 1%. The CO/CO2 ratio
> remained around .02 =/- .01 through the burn. Meanwhile the water
> boiled at a simmer. Flame attachment was excellent even at these high
> excess air levels. This stove has fixed secondary air openings, so I
> believe the increase in excess air is due to an increase in the
> unreacted air through the fuel.
>
> Measurements from the venturi
> burner test, where we have control over primary and secondary air
> seem to support this hypothesis. With Primary air greatly
> restricted the CO2 would drop slowly. Continuing to cut back on
> secondary air would keep CO2 stable, at presumably lower outputs.
>
> Yesterdays trial with the venturi burner gave some of the best
> results to date. I think this is partly due to the dryness of the
> wood, around 6% moisture. Having the air control allowed us to hold a
> beautiful clean and compacted blue flame around the bluff body with
> only the 20cm tall combustion chamber. So I feel that I have glimpsed
> the holy grail, however fleetingly.
>
> What does all this mean?
>
> There are enough questions to keep me experimenting for a long time.
>
> Alex
>
> ______________
> Alex English
> RR 2 Odessa Ontario
> Canada K0H 2H0
> Tel 1-613-386-1927
> Fax 1-613-386-1211
> Stoves Web Site http://www1.kingston.net/~english/Stoves.html
Please remove me from this mailing list:

Thank you; Stephen Allen......Celtic2@ibm.NET

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Nov 23 05:56:57 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:44 2004
Subject: Tunnel Vision
Message-ID: <199711230600_MC2-2942-7E6A@compuserve.com>

Dear Alex et al:

Your sawdust pyrolyser sounds very ingenious. It is the two dimensional
analogue of what one sees in a burning match, held horizontally, except
that the upper refractory collects the heat from the flame and radiates it
down while the lower refractory if covered by the pan and sawdust (if I
understand correctly. It is a little like our SEA SWEEP kily, a one foot
diameter pipe, externally heated, with an internal auger, 30 feet long.

Who will build it?

TOM REED

 

From Katt4117 at aol.com Sun Nov 23 09:15:15 1997
From: Katt4117 at aol.com (Katt4117@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:44 2004
Subject: need info
Message-ID: <971123091839_-1667333823@mrin45.mail.aol.com>

Trying to find any info on Nesco Deluxe 3 burner stove. Has oven and is
cream and green enamel. There is a glass bottle in a holder off to the left
side, I don't know what it held. Any ideas on how I can get this info?
Thanks,
Kathy

 

From elk at arcc.or.ke Sun Nov 23 11:44:48 1997
From: elk at arcc.or.ke (Elsen L. Karstad)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:44 2004
Subject: Tunnel Vision - sawdust carboniser.
Message-ID: <199711231648.TAA25830@arcc.or.ke>

Stovers;

If there's something that could be done with an angle grinder, electric
welder and a bunch of labour- I'll do it.

All I need are some working drawings of a sawdust carboniser that doesn't
require significant external energy input- that'll run on the gases produced.

You've all got my fax no.

By the way- I've got an unused 6 inch dia X 12 ft. auger lying around
somewhere.......

elk

At 06:00 23-11-97 -0500, you wrote:
>Dear Alex et al:
>
>Your sawdust pyrolyser sounds very ingenious. It is the two dimensional
>analogue of what one sees in a burning match, held horizontally, except
>that the upper refractory collects the heat from the flame and radiates it
>down while the lower refractory if covered by the pan and sawdust (if I
>understand correctly. It is a little like our SEA SWEEP kily, a one foot
>diameter pipe, externally heated, with an internal auger, 30 feet long.
>
>Who will build it?
>
>TOM REED
>
>

 

 

From dsu1 at is8.nyu.edu Sun Nov 23 16:33:56 1997
From: dsu1 at is8.nyu.edu (David Udell)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:44 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19971123162938.0068d684@is8.nyu.edu>

Hello, I write because I saw your posting ont he internet regarding an
owners manual for a chambers stove. I recently obtained such a stove (it
was left in the apartment I purchased), and have grown to enjoy it very
much, but don't yet have any idea what year it's from, and also do have
plenty of other questions about it. I would be most appreciative if you
were willing to part with a copy of your owner's manual. Do you still have
it. Do you have any other advice about chambers stoves. This one is
bright yellow and says prominently "cooks even with the fuel turned off."
Thanks. David Udell.

 

From english at adan.kingston.net Sun Nov 23 22:33:55 1997
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:44 2004
Subject: Tunnel Vision - sawdust carboniser.
In-Reply-To: <199711231648.TAA25830@arcc.or.ke>
Message-ID: <199711240437.XAA00954@adan.kingston.net>

 

> Stovers;
>
> If there's something that could be done with an angle grinder, electric
> welder and a bunch of labour- I'll do it.

What more does anyone need? Surely not drawings?
>
> All I need are some working drawings of a sawdust carboniser that doesn't
> require significant external energy input- that'll run on the gases produced.

My "Tunnel Vision" was an invitation to try. A few experiments should
tell you if your wasting your time. I don't have the ' energy'
to start another project, (maybe latter) and to make drawings would
be bit presumptuous, unless of course, my words make no sense at all.

So what's new?

Alex

 

>
> You've all got my fax no.
>
> By the way- I've got an unused 6 inch dia X 12 ft. auger lying around
> somewhere.......
>
> elk
>
> At 06:00 23-11-97 -0500, you wrote:
> >Dear Alex et al:
> >
> >Your sawdust pyrolyser sounds very ingenious. It is the two dimensional
> >analogue of what one sees in a burning match, held horizontally, except
> >that the upper refractory collects the heat from the flame and radiates it
> >down while the lower refractory if covered by the pan and sawdust (if I
> >understand correctly. It is a little like our SEA SWEEP kily, a one foot
> >diameter pipe, externally heated, with an internal auger, 30 feet long.
> >
> >Who will build it?
> >
> >TOM REED
> >
> >
>
>
>

______________
Alex English
RR 2 Odessa Ontario
Canada K0H 2H0
Tel 1-613-386-1927
Fax 1-613-386-1211
Stoves Web Site http://www1.kingston.net/~english/Stoves.html

 

From english at adan.kingston.net Sun Nov 23 22:34:02 1997
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:44 2004
Subject: Top Down Charcoal Makers
In-Reply-To: <v01540b01b09d0946ecff@[204.133.251.41]>
Message-ID: <199711240437.XAA00953@adan.kingston.net>

Dear Ron, Elsen +

Summary: Observations about 1 Can .

It is true that I have not been making a special effort to pack the
fuel as tightly as I think you are suggesting. It is not always easy
to do. The 1 Can "pyrolysis cell" has sloping edges which adds to the
challenge. I agree that loose fuel is a contributing factor to the
flame moving down. The dryness of the wood I am using could be
another factor. A little moisture may discourage or slow downward
creeping flame.

The fact that the flame moves down to the bottom quickly does not
mean that there is a shorter total burn time, or a lack of control
over the rate of burn. It does have an effect on charcoal yield and
flame stability.

Primary air control certainly seems to be an issue, but with a tight
fuel pack, perhaps not. I haven't seen any evidence that the flame
moving down is caused by falling kindling.

I seem to recall Elsen saying once, that loose fuel had worked and
that he frequently had flame down low that assisted as a pilot
light. Elsen???

> snip<
> (RWL): The only time I tried this, the CO2 stayed much more constant - at
> about 10-12% all through the (hour-long) "burn". The O2 level was of
> course inversely related, so that the sum was always about 21%. Is this
> check working for you (i.e. are you measuring O2 level also?)?
>
> The meter I was using had a lowest measurable CO level of 0.1% and
> stayed below that level.

We are not continuously measuring O2.
Which model did you test. Was it a basic metal stove or the insulated
version that was used in Tom's kitchen?

> > Flame attachment was excellent even at these high
> >excess air levels. This stove has fixed secondary air openings, so I
> >believe the increase in excess air is due to an increase in the
> >unreacted air through the fuel.

> (RWL) Was there a flamelet at each and every secondary air hole? Through
> the entire run? What is the size and spacing of these holes?

The 1 Can brings the secondary air through holes in the bottom of the
stove and up along the outside of the pyrolysis chamber. The flame
attaches to the top edge.

> Is it possible to measure the CO and CO2 levels in the rising
> pyrolysis gases below the secondary air inlets?

It is possible. I can see a long road ahead. Unfortunately I cannot
give this project priority just now. Fortunately the good professor
who is sponsoring this work at Queen's is keen to continue even after
the student has finished.

> Ideally, I believe this
> should be close to zero % CO2, with measurable amounts of CH4 and H2, but
> mostly CO (not necessarily near 20%) - and I'm guessing you did not have
> that situation.

Have you ever measured this. I hope to do a continuous measurement of
CO and CO2 in the uncombusted gas below the venturi. A single bag
sample that I mentioned a few weeks ago had
Vol. Dry.
O2 - 12.85%
CO2 -3.11%
CO - 6.41%
CH4 - 1.32%
NOx - 10.9ppm
UHC- 2.4%

>
> > Measurements from the venturi
> >burner test, where we have control over primary and secondary air
> >seem to support this hypothesis. With Primary air greatly
> >restricted the CO2 would drop slowly. Continuing to cut back on
> >secondary air would keep CO2 stable, at presumably lower outputs.
>
> (RWL): I'm suggesting a different hypothesis of course (for the Elsen
> stove - not yours)- which is that its operation is not as Elsen would like.
> However, I haven't seen either his or your operation of his stove or of
> your venturi type.

The venturi arrangement has masked some of these problems by combining
all gas streams from the fuel into one flow before ignition. However
, pilot lights aside, if I can reduce unreacted O2 in the gas it can
only help the performance of either stove. Tighter packing seems like
a good place to start. Have you ever tried it with the fuel stacked
horizontally?
> Can you remind me how you are controlling both primary and
> secondary air?

The ' academics ' have set up some rotary discs with three holes,
much like Tom had on the insulated chip model. These are mounted on
the ends of long tubes attached to manifolds so that the air
velocities can be measured. All quite impractical from a" stoves "
point of view.

> >Yesterdays trial with the venturi burner gave some of the best
> >results to date. I think this is partly due to the dryness of the
> >wood, around 6% moisture. Having the air control allowed us to hold a
> >beautiful clean and compacted blue flame around the bluff body with
> >only the 20cm tall combustion chamber. So I feel that I have glimpsed
> >the holy grail, however fleetingly.
>
> (RWL): This sounds great - what is your charcoal yield and what is the CO
> level?

I have stopped paying much attention to charcoal yield as
it consistently appears good. The CO level bottoms out on the
continuous monitor when things are working right. Usually under 100ppm
with my tester when the CO2 is between 8 % and 15%. We are still
having trouble with stability. Re ignition is not as easy as with
Elsen's 1Can. Consistently good gas appears to be the problem for
the venturi burner. Perhaps tightly packed fuel is the answer.

> (RWL): Yep - we are about at the same stage as 100 years ago in the
> development of the automobile.

I hope we can bypass the 'Edsel' stage.

Alex
>
> Regards Ron
>
> Ronal W. Larson, PhD
> 21547 Mountsfield Dr.
> Golden, CO 80401, USA
> 303/526-9629; FAX same with warning
> larcon@sni.net
>
>
>
>

______________
Alex English
RR 2 Odessa Ontario
Canada K0H 2H0
Tel 1-613-386-1927
Fax 1-613-386-1211
Stoves Web Site http://www1.kingston.net/~english/Stoves.html

 

From elk at arcc.or.ke Mon Nov 24 06:18:39 1997
From: elk at arcc.or.ke (E. L. Karstad)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:44 2004
Subject: 1can- Fuel Loading
Message-ID: <v01510100b09f0bae0a03@[199.2.222.131]>

Dear Alex, Ron + all;

There's no doubt that the looser the fuel packing, the greater the flame
within the lower reaches of the pyrolisis cell & the lower the charcoal
yield. Off the cuff I'd say that charcoal yield varies between 15 and 22%
dependant on how tightly the fuel is packed.

Using air-dried base-of-thumb sized sticks, I allow for the slightly
funnel-shaped pyrolisis cell by arranging sticks thin-end down.

I note that in almost all cases, there is a small central core of flame
centrally located in the fuelwood feeding off primary air. A small amount
of white ash results when charcoal is harvested. This is evidently why I
can't achieve the 25%+ charcoal yields that some kilns consistantly reach.

The flame does have a sparkplug effect though, and is the sole reason why
the stove re-ignites easily in response to opening primary air. In my mind
there's a net benefit with easier operation at the expense of a couple
percent points in charcoal production. This is especially evident when
using the stove indoors, as the acrid thick white smoke that's produced
when flame fails is very obnoxious & can't be good for the health.

Alex- I'm intrigued with your venturi approach. Have you put a drawing on
the website? If so I've missed it. I want to take a look at the grail too!
I've not produced much in the way of blue flame yet. Blue flame would be a
very strong 'selling point' here if achievable with ease of operation.

elk

_____________________________
Elsen Karstad
P.O Box 24371 Nairobi, Kenya
Tel:254 2 884437
E-mail: elk@arcc.or.ke
______________________________

 

 

From bburt at adan.kingston.net Mon Nov 24 07:56:26 1997
From: bburt at adan.kingston.net (Brian Burt)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:44 2004
Subject: 1can- Fuel Loading
Message-ID: <01bcf8d7$43d634a0$8834d2cd@bburt.kingston.net>

 

>
>Using air-dried base-of-thumb sized sticks, I allow for the slightly
>funnel-shaped pyrolisis cell by arranging sticks thin-end down.
>
>I note that in almost all cases, there is a small central core of flame
>centrally located in the fuelwood feeding off primary air. A small amount
>of white ash results when charcoal is harvested. This is evidently why I
>can't achieve the 25%+ charcoal yields that some kilns consistantly reach.

Dear Elsen;

Can you send us a Snappy of your fuel, the fuel charge in the pyrolysis
chamber, the char at the end of burn (in pyrolysis chamber) and the char in
a pile after quenching?

Brian

 

 

From english at adan.kingston.net Mon Nov 24 09:16:24 1997
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:44 2004
Subject: 1can- Fuel Loading
In-Reply-To: <v01510100b09f0bae0a03@[199.2.222.131]>
Message-ID: <199711241520.KAA21609@adan.kingston.net>

>
> Alex- I'm intrigued with your venturi approach. Have you put a drawing on
> the website? If so I've missed it. I want to take a look at the grail too!
> I've not produced much in the way of blue flame yet. Blue flame would be a
> very strong 'selling point' here if achievable with ease of operation.

Elsen,
The ' drawing ' is at http://www1.kingston.net/~english/Queens.htm
Remove the "variable height stove pipe chimney" and place a pot on
top. The dense blue flame was achieved with a thick wrap of
insulation around the secondary air preheat portion. Its still along
way from the 'selling point' due to 'lack of ease' of operation.

Alex

> elk
>
> _____________________________
> Elsen Karstad
> P.O Box 24371 Nairobi, Kenya
> Tel:254 2 884437
> E-mail: elk@arcc.or.ke
> ______________________________
>
>
>
>

______________
Alex English
RR 2 Odessa Ontario
Canada K0H 2H0
Tel 1-613-386-1927
Fax 1-613-386-1211
Stoves Web Site http://www1.kingston.net/~english/Stoves.html

 

From adesol.adesol at codetel.net.do Mon Nov 24 14:38:32 1997
From: adesol.adesol at codetel.net.do (Adesol)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:44 2004
Subject: Improved stoves - Latin America
Message-ID: <199711241144.PAA20694@server1.codetel.net.do>

Estimado Nacho:

Le escribo de la Republica Dominicana donde estamos arrancando un
diagnostico para un proyecto de estufas alternativas, preferiblemente las
de kerosene. Aunque aqui en el pais hay el uso de gas licuado de petroleo
(propane) va por su propia fuerza, hay varias comunidades ubicadas en
regiones montanosas donde hay poco acceso al gas propano y de escasos
recursos. Ademas del Cuerpo de Paz que trabajaba mucho en la promocion de
las estufas lorena y ceramica (aqui se llama "economica") durante los anos
ochenta, existe la organizacion ADEPE, la Asociacion para el Desarrollo de
la Provincia de Espaillat (region norte/este). que si han trabajado mucho
en eso y tuvieron exitos. Tambien tiene su proyecto de manejo de cuencas
pero creo que eso siguio lo de estufas. Dudo que sean socios de esta lista
de "stoves", sin embargo, asi se puede comunicar con ADEPE:
Lic. Dorca Barcacel, Directora Ejecutiva
Calle Presidente Vasquez, No. 52
Apdo. 35
Moca, Republica Dominicana
tel: (809)578-2811; fax: 578-3813

Ademas, existe un informe titulado "Stove Images" lo que es un analysis de
varias proyectos de fogones/estufas mejoradas de muchos paises. Se publico
en 1995 y cuenta con una lista larga de especialistas en Latinoamerica. No
tengo el libro conmigo aqui pero quizas se lo puede conseguir de GTZ
(Consultores Tecnicos Alemanes).

Se vende estufas de gas kerosene en Venezuela y se las usan en las zonas
rurales? Espero que le ayude la informacion. Un saludo fraternalde Sosua,

Cynthia Knowles
Asociada de Proyectos

 

 

From rmiranda at sdnnic.org.ni Mon Nov 24 23:32:10 1997
From: rmiranda at sdnnic.org.ni (Rogerio Miranda)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:44 2004
Subject: health impacts of kerosene stoves ?
In-Reply-To: <199711241144.PAA20694@server1.codetel.net.do>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.16.19971124213335.544fa464@ns.sdnnic.org.ni>

Dear Friends:

We are at the moment developing a proposal to be presented to an
international donor agency to finance part of a modernization program for
the use woodenergy in Nicaragua. One of the bases of our proposal is to
promote a first step toward the modernization of woodcooking in Managua,
from open and semi-open fires to closed fire with chimney, or an improved
stove.

One of the alternatives also being proposed by the donor is the use of
kerosene and LPG stoves. We wonder if the negative health impacts of
kerosene cooking has been studied. Our concerne is that kerosene advocates
always mention about the advantages of it, as lower cost, cleaner cooking,
reduce deforestation, and more practical to use, but never mention about
the negative impacts. I wonder if the gases from kerosene combustion
constitute any risk for the users. Any clue?

Thanks

Rogerio

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda
ATP/PROLENA/Nicaragua
Apartado Postal C-321
Managua, Nicaragua
telefax (505) 276 2015
EM <rmiranda@sdnnic.org.ni>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 

From cetep at reacciun.ve Tue Nov 25 06:58:07 1997
From: cetep at reacciun.ve (CETEP)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:44 2004
Subject: Suscripcion
Message-ID: <347AE3E9.3D96@reacciun.ve>

Estimado Rogerio:
Gracias por tu respuesta. La presente solo es para confirmarte nuestro
interes en suscribirnos a la otra red de la que nos hablas, es decir,
bioenergia. Te agradezco lo hagas y nos avises y gracias de nuevo por tu
gentileza.
Nacho Alzuru

 

 

From john at gulland.ca Tue Nov 25 08:47:34 1997
From: john at gulland.ca (John Gulland)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:44 2004
Subject: EPA stove list
In-Reply-To: <01bcf6ab$62b682e0$8834d2cd@bburt.kingston.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19971125085218.007b0200@host.mv.igs.net>

Brian Burt wrote:
>
>Dear John;
>
>Is this EPA data-base that you refer to available on the net.
>
>Brian
>

Brian and others,
I checked with my colleage Paul Tiegs, whose company conducts these EPA
tests on wood stoves, and this was his response:

"The EPA has not put their list of certified stoves on the Internet yet.
They are a bit slow but they "are working on it" as expressed by Bob
Marshall EPA's present lead man on woodstove certification. I'll let you
know if and when I find out they have a page for woodstoves."

I will pass on any information I receive.

Regards,
John

This is for business: http://www.gulland.ca
This is for pleasure: http://www.wood-heat.com

 

From panalytics at juno.com Tue Nov 25 09:47:57 1997
From: panalytics at juno.com (Nikhil Desai)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:44 2004
Subject: What are stoves?
In-Reply-To: <199711240700.CAA08360@solstice.crest.org>
Message-ID: <19971125.094552.8542.1.panalytics@juno.com>

As a newcomer to the list, I hesitate to ask what might seem like
dumb questions, but I figure if I didn't, I would remain dumb.

1. Is there some kind of a classification system for stoves -- by fuel,
size, cost, market segment, materials, or whatever else? Where can I find
it?

2. Does anybody have an idea how much investment is made in stoves -
households, commercial establishments, etc., or any other type of
classification - annually worldwide or particular grouping? Although I
don't have any ready figures for other appliances, I figure one can
probably make claims such as "The Latin American domestic refrigerator
market is x billion dollars per year, y % of it in single-door,
auto-defrost models, and z % in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Venezuela,
Colombia, and Mexico." Can someone give me an idea of what, for example,
is the market for domestic charcoal stoves in Asia?

3. I understand there are many household energy surveys in many
developing countries. Has anybody tried to compile and interpret any
information gleaned from those surveys as to what different market
segments (rural poor, urban rich, etc.) on average spend on purchase and
maintenance of stoves, or how such expenditures compare to the total
household durables purchases (most of which, I suspect, are basically
investments in energy enduse appliances, from cooking vessels and rice
cookers and pressure cookers to refrigerators and washing machines)?

4. Any views as to how entrepreneurs have picked up PV lighting market in
countries like Kenya but it seems to have taken decades for basic stoves
technologies to move across the Arabian Sea, for example?

Thanks in advance for any answers or leads, or at least for putting up
with such questions.

Nikhil Desai
panalytics@juno.com
703-748-0057/8

 

From kammen at phoenix.Princeton.EDU Tue Nov 25 09:57:40 1997
From: kammen at phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel M. Kammen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:44 2004
Subject: health impacts of kerosene stoves ?
Message-ID: <v0153050cb0a08e703b3c@[128.112.71.166]>

Response to Rogero Carneiro de Miranda on the health effects of kerosene.

Here is a quick summary of data on the emissions from kerosene stove, and I
will check to see what data correlating to health risks is available. The
table below gives an emissions comparison for one set of households in Kenya
that we surveyed a few years ago. I believe that I have a fair amount more
data as well, and will get it from the files as soon as I can.

Regards,
Dan Kammen

____________________________________________________________________
Fuel and Stove Combination Number [CO]
of Measurements (ppmv)

____________________________________________________________________
Dung/Traditional Stove 25 220 - 1760
Wood/Traditional Stove 38 140 - 550
Charcoal/Traditional Stove 14 230 - 650
Charcoal/Improved Stove 22 80 - 200
Kerosene Fuel and Stove 8 20 - 65
____________________________________________________________________

Table 4: The concentration of carbon monoxide, [CO], from indoor biofuel
combustion in Kenya for several different fuel and stove combinations. The
measurements are all for a typical range of concentrations measured one
meter above the stove during food preparation. These are instantaneous
values, not time averages. The data were collected in 1992 and 1993, from
homes in southern and eastern Kenya.

Reference:
Kammen, D. M. (1995) "From energy efficiency to social utility: Improved
cookstoves and the Small is Beautiful Model of development," in Energy as
an instrument for socio-economic development, Goldemberg, J. and Johansson,
T. B. (eds.) (United Nations Development Programme: New York), 50 - 62.

X-Sender: rmiranda@ns.sdnnic.org.ni
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 21:33:35
To: stoves@crest.org
From: Rogerio Miranda <rmiranda@sdnnic.org.ni>
Subject: health impacts of kerosene stoves ?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: owner-stoves@crest.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: stoves@crest.org

Dear Friends:

We are at the moment developing a proposal to be presented to an
international donor agency to finance part of a modernization program for
the use woodenergy in Nicaragua. One of the bases of our proposal is to
promote a first step toward the modernization of woodcooking in Managua,
from open and semi-open fires to closed fire with chimney, or an improved
stove.

One of the alternatives also being proposed by the donor is the use of
kerosene and LPG stoves. We wonder if the negative health impacts of
kerosene cooking has been studied. Our concerne is that kerosene advocates
always mention about the advantages of it, as lower cost, cleaner cooking,
reduce deforestation, and more practical to use, but never mention about
the negative impacts. I wonder if the gases from kerosene combustion
constitute any risk for the users. Any clue?

Thanks

Rogerio

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel M. Kammen
Assistant Professor of Public and International Affairs
Chair, Science, Technology and Environmental Policy (STEP) Program
201 5 Ivy Lane
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ 08544-1013

Tel: 609-258-2758 Fax: 609-258-6082 Email: kammen@princeton.edu
WWW: http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~kammen/
Secretary Jackie Schatz: Tel: 609-258-4821; Email: jackie@wws.princeton.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

From skip.hayden at cc2smtp.nrcan.gc.ca Tue Nov 25 12:30:45 1997
From: skip.hayden at cc2smtp.nrcan.gc.ca (Skip Hayden)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:44 2004
Subject: health impacts of kerosene stoves ?
Message-ID: <9710258804.AA880490035@cc2smtp.nrcan.gc.ca>

Just a comment on Dan's results. If the kerosene stove gets out of adjustment,
or if wick deposits are not removed, or if a lower grade of "kerosene" is used,
CO emissions can increase dramatically in a hurry.

Skip Hayden
Senior Reserach Scientist
Advanced Combustion Technologies
ETB/CETC
1 Haanel Drive
Ottawa, Canada K1A 1M1

TEL: (613) 996-3186
FAX: (613) 992-9335
e-mail: skip.hayden@nrcan.gc.ca
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: health impacts of kerosene stoves ?
Author: stoves@crest.org at internet
Date: 11/25/97 10:01 AM

Response to Rogero Carneiro de Miranda on the health effects of kerosene.

Here is a quick summary of data on the emissions from kerosene stove, and I
will check to see what data correlating to health risks is available. The
table below gives an emissions comparison for one set of households in Kenya
that we surveyed a few years ago. I believe that I have a fair amount more
data as well, and will get it from the files as soon as I can.

Regards,
Dan Kammen


____________________________________________________________________
Fuel and Stove Combination Number [CO]
of Measurements (ppmv)

____________________________________________________________________
Dung/Traditional Stove 25 220 - 1760
Wood/Traditional Stove 38 140 - 550
Charcoal/Traditional Stove 14 230 - 650
Charcoal/Improved Stove 22 80 - 200
Kerosene Fuel and Stove 8 20 - 65
____________________________________________________________________

Table 4: The concentration of carbon monoxide, [CO], from indoor biofuel
combustion in Kenya for several different fuel and stove combinations. The
measurements are all for a typical range of concentrations measured one
meter above the stove during food preparation. These are instantaneous
values, not time averages. The data were collected in 1992 and 1993, from
homes in southern and eastern Kenya.

Reference:
Kammen, D. M. (1995) "From energy efficiency to social utility: Improved
cookstoves and the Small is Beautiful Model of development," in Energy as an
instrument for socio-economic development, Goldemberg, J. and Johansson, T.
B. (eds.) (United Nations Development Programme: New York), 50 - 62.


X-Sender: rmiranda@ns.sdnnic.org.ni
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 21:33:35
To: stoves@crest.org
From: Rogerio Miranda <rmiranda@sdnnic.org.ni>
Subject: health impacts of kerosene stoves ?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: owner-stoves@crest.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: stoves@crest.org

Dear Friends:

We are at the moment developing a proposal to be presented to an
international donor agency to finance part of a modernization program for
the use woodenergy in Nicaragua. One of the bases of our proposal is to
promote a first step toward the modernization of woodcooking in Managua,
from open and semi-open fires to closed fire with chimney, or an improved
stove.

One of the alternatives also being proposed by the donor is the use of
kerosene and LPG stoves. We wonder if the negative health impacts of
kerosene cooking has been studied. Our concerne is that kerosene advocates
always mention about the advantages of it, as lower cost, cleaner cooking,
reduce deforestation, and more practical to use, but never mention about
the negative impacts. I wonder if the gases from kerosene combustion
constitute any risk for the users. Any clue?

Thanks

Rogerio



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel M. Kammen
Assistant Professor of Public and International Affairs
Chair, Science, Technology and Environmental Policy (STEP) Program
201 5 Ivy Lane
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ 08544-1013

Tel: 609-258-2758 Fax: 609-258-6082 Email: kammen@princeton.edu
WWW: http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~kammen/
Secretary Jackie Schatz: Tel: 609-258-4821; Email: jackie@wws.princeton.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

From kammen at phoenix.Princeton.EDU Tue Nov 25 13:07:34 1997
From: kammen at phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel M. Kammen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:45 2004
Subject: health impacts of kerosene stoves ?
Message-ID: <v01530502b0a0c4c1c511@[128.112.70.29]>

Skip is absolutley correct. We only have data from a few poorly maintained
stoves from the Kenya data set, but in those cases emissions rising by almost
a factor of 10 took place. It is also interesting, and a consistent problem,
that effects such as this are too often neglected in the design and promotion
of new and appropriate. technologies
- Dan
--

Just a comment on Dan's results. If the kerosene stove gets out of adjustment,
or if wick deposits are not removed, or if a lower grade of "kerosene" is used,
CO emissions can increase dramatically in a hurry.

Skip Hayden
Senior Reserach Scientist
Advanced Combustion Technologies
ETB/CETC
1 Haanel Drive
Ottawa, Canada K1A 1M1

TEL: (613) 996-3186
FAX: (613) 992-9335
e-mail: skip.hayden@nrcan.gc.ca

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel M. Kammen
Assistant Professor of Public and International Affairs
Chair, Science, Technology and Environmental Policy (STEP) Program
201 5 Ivy Lane
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ 08544-1013

Tel: 609-258-2758 Fax: 609-258-6082 Email: kammen@princeton.edu
WWW: http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~kammen/
Secretary Jackie Schatz: Tel: 609-258-4821; Email: jackie@wws.princeton.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

From rmiranda at sdnnic.org.ni Tue Nov 25 13:41:23 1997
From: rmiranda at sdnnic.org.ni (Rogerio Miranda)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:45 2004
Subject: health impacts of kerosene stoves ?
In-Reply-To: <v0153050cb0a08e703b3c@[128.112.71.166]>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.16.19971125103204.56479cf4@ns.sdnnic.org.ni>

 

Dear Daniel: thanks for your response.

At 10:02 AM 11/25/97 -0500, you wrote:I believe that I have a fair amount more
>data as well, and will get it from the files as soon as I can.

Looking forward to see it.

>____________________________________________________________________
>Fuel and Stove Combination Number [CO]
> of Measurements (ppmv)
____________________________________________________________________
>Dung/Traditional Stove 25 220 - 1760
>Wood/Traditional Stove 38 140 - 550
>Charcoal/Traditional Stove 14 230 - 650
>Charcoal/Improved Stove 22 80 - 200
>Kerosene Fuel and Stove 8 20 - 65
>____________________________________________________________________
>

Looking at your table, it seems definitly that kerosene has low emission
than biomass.
Do you know which is the maximun level recommended for health organizations ?

What about wood/improved stove. Will it has a lower level than
charcoal/improved stove?

Saludos

Rogerio

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda
ATP/PROLENA/Nicaragua
Apartado Postal C-321
Managua, Nicaragua
telefax (505) 276 2015
EM <rmiranda@sdnnic.org.ni>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 

From kammen at phoenix.Princeton.EDU Tue Nov 25 13:57:52 1997
From: kammen at phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel M. Kammen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:45 2004
Subject: health impacts of kerosene stoves ?
Message-ID: <v01530507b0a0d0227225@[128.112.70.29]>

The WHO recommended maximum is 40 - 46 ppmv.

See also, the comment by Skip Hayden which is all too true:
Just a comment on Dan's results. If the kerosene stove gets out of adjustment,
or if wick deposits are not removed, or if a lower grade of "kerosene" is used,
CO emissions can increase dramatically in a hurry.

The question of the emissions from wood/improved stoves is large issue.
I have an extensive research project underway in Kenya (> 400 people in
~ 80 households) to answer just that question. We are finding a wide
range of emissions levels from improved stoves, depending (not surprisingly)
on stove type, the form of the fuel, usage patters, etc. ... My student
Majid Ezzati and I are hoping to have a first report on the data in a
few months, which we will post.

Kirk Smith is also working on this topic and organizing an even larger
study, so over time we may get a set of large, comparative studies out.

>Dear Daniel: thanks for your response.
>
>At 10:02 AM 11/25/97 -0500, you wrote:I believe that I have a fair amount more
>>data as well, and will get it from the files as soon as I can.
>
>Looking forward to see it.
>
>>____________________________________________________________________
>>Fuel and Stove Combination Number [CO]
>> of Measurements (ppmv)
>____________________________________________________________________
>>Dung/Traditional Stove 25 220 - 1760
>>Wood/Traditional Stove 38 140 - 550
>>Charcoal/Traditional Stove 14 230 - 650
>>Charcoal/Improved Stove 22 80 - 200
>>Kerosene Fuel and Stove 8 20 - 65
>>____________________________________________________________________
>>
>
>
>Looking at your table, it seems definitly that kerosene has low emission
>than biomass.
>Do you know which is the maximun level recommended for health organizations ?
>
>What about wood/improved stove. Will it has a lower level than
>charcoal/improved stove?
>
>Saludos
>
>Rogerio
>
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda
> ATP/PROLENA/Nicaragua
> Apartado Postal C-321
> Managua, Nicaragua
> telefax (505) 276 2015
> EM <rmiranda@sdnnic.org.ni>
>
><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel M. Kammen
Assistant Professor of Public and International Affairs
Chair, Science, Technology and Environmental Policy (STEP) Program
201 5 Ivy Lane
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ 08544-1013

Tel: 609-258-2758 Fax: 609-258-6082 Email: kammen@princeton.edu
WWW: http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~kammen/
Secretary Jackie Schatz: Tel: 609-258-4821; Email: jackie@wws.princeton.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

From krksmith at uclink4.berkeley.edu Wed Nov 26 06:19:09 1997
From: krksmith at uclink4.berkeley.edu (Kirk R. Smith)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:45 2004
Subject: health impacts of kerosene stoves ?
Message-ID: <199711261121.DAA16846@uclink2.berkeley.edu>

There is another class of risks associated with kero use. I am not in my
office, but have there a number of papers documenting cases of poisoning in
developing countries in children who ingested kerosene, which is too often
stored at home in soda pop bottles and other misleading and too accessible
ways. There are also fire risks, of course, as well as cases of explosions
in kero stoves (infamous Chinese model sold around SE Asia and the Pacific
Islands in the early 1980s, for example).

Also, in my book there is a table of kerosene stove emission factors for CO
and particulates compared to emission factors of wood and other stoves.
CO is a concern mainly from the standpoint of acute overnight poisoning.
Some standards agencies, for example, list a CO/CO2 ratio limit as an
indicator of good combustion/safety in gas stoves. (Again, I think my book
has examples.) Particulate (more precisely, aerosol) emission factors by
kg, kJ, meal, etc. are probably a better indicator of overall health risk,
however, although the rate per unit time can be important for calculating
dosage.

CO by itself is somewhat inadequate as an indicator of CO poisoning
potential, however, since some high-volatile fuels, like wood, produce quite
enough CO to kill, but also produce so much irritating VOC that people are
driven to open windows or leave the room before succumbing. (It is quite
difficult to find authentic cases of CO poisoning from woodfires, although
there are many from charcoal and low-volatile coal fires.) Thus, true CO
poisoning potential is a function of both absolute CO emission rates and
some sort of irritant/CO ratio. It would be a good little research project
for someone to figure out reasonable emission safety limits for these two
parameters.

Cheers/K

 

 

From rmiranda at sdnnic.org.ni Wed Nov 26 13:07:44 1997
From: rmiranda at sdnnic.org.ni (Rogerio Miranda)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:45 2004
Subject: kirk smith book
In-Reply-To: <199711261121.DAA16846@uclink2.berkeley.edu>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.16.19971126093354.540738a2@ns.sdnnic.org.ni>

At 03:21 AM 11/26/97 -0800, you wrote:
>Also, in my book there is a table of kerosene stove emission factors for CO
>and particulates compared to emission factors of wood and other stoves.
>Cheers/K

Dear Kirk: Thanks for your comments about the kerosene health impact. I am
very interested in knowing more about your book. What it is about, its
contents and how can I posible buy a copy ?

rogerio
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda
ATP/PROLENA/Nicaragua
Apartado Postal C-321
Managua, Nicaragua
telefax (505) 276 2015
EM <rmiranda@sdnnic.org.ni>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 

From tmiles at teleport.com Wed Nov 26 20:05:37 1997
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:45 2004
Subject: Loop Test - Please Ignore
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19971126170924.00a23e9c@mail.teleport.com>

Just a test to see where the bounsng messages come from.

Regards,

Tom Miles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Thomas R. Miles, TCI tmiles@teleport.com

1470 SW Woodward Way http://www.teleport.com/~tmiles/
Portland, Oregon, USA 97225 Tel (503) 292-0107 Fax (503) 605-0208

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Thu Nov 27 08:11:28 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:45 2004
Subject: Top Down Charcoal Makers
Message-ID: <199711270814_MC2-29D8-27A6@compuserve.com>

Dear Alex et al:

The gradual progress of the air AGAINST the flow of air is the surprising,
counterintuitive feature of the inverted downdraft-top burning stove (or
rick or fireplace).

You suggested that for thumb sized sticks the flame front does not move
down in stratified fashion. I observed that too when I packed the sticks
too loosely. However, tight packing seemed to keep the flame front
horizontal. I suppose all the sticks should have the same moisture level,
or some flamelets will move faster than others.

Glad to hear of your beautiful blue flames. I am planning a campaign of
both pyrolysis and stove measurement as soon as this VOlume I - status of
Gasification is done.

Keep up the questions - and the answers. Incidenally I couldn't access
your website this morning. Problems?

Yours, TOM REED

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Thu Nov 27 08:11:40 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:45 2004
Subject: 1can- Fuel Loading
Message-ID: <199711270815_MC2-29D8-27AC@compuserve.com>

Elsen, Alex et al:

I see the "blue flame was achieved with heavy insulation on the secondary
burner.

I find it hard to believe that no one on this node has yet tried "riser
sleeve" insulation, in spite of my exhorations. Every oil burner in the
U.S. uses a riser sleeve (or equivalent) for insulation. They are
inexpenvive (1-2 dollars apiece in small quantity) and can be manufactured
in any shape desired. Once installed they can be rigidized.

If you can use cylindrical insulation 12 inches stall by 3 to 12 inches ID,
1/2 inch thick, and you send me the dimensions you want, I will mail you
each a tube for your inspection and testing. If you need other than a
cylindrical shape, I know someone (John Tatom of Atlanta) who was in the
business and could put me in the business.

And congractulations on all your successes without riser sleeves.

Your booster, TOM REED

 

From krksmith at uclink4.berkeley.edu Thu Nov 27 10:09:03 1997
From: krksmith at uclink4.berkeley.edu (Kirk R. Smith)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:45 2004
Subject: kirk smith book
Message-ID: <199711271511.HAA26621@uclink2.berkeley.edu>

Greetings, It is called "Biofuels, Air Pollution, and Health" (Plenum Press,
NYC, 452 pages) and even though 10 years old, is still in print, although it
never sold many per year. It is embarrassingly expensive, however, $95 last
I heard. Even the author's price is $75. I used to have a couple of copies
left for sending to LDCs. Let me check after the Thanksgiving holidays in a
week or so to see if I still have one that I could send.
Best/K

At 09:33 AM 11/26/97, you wrote:
>At 03:21 AM 11/26/97 -0800, you wrote:
>>Also, in my book there is a table of kerosene stove emission factors for CO
>>and particulates compared to emission factors of wood and other stoves.
>>Cheers/K

>Dear Kirk: Thanks for your comments about the kerosene health impact. I am
>very interested in knowing more about your book. What it is about, its
>contents and how can I posible buy a copy?

rogerio
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda
ATP/PROLENA/Nicaragua
Apartado Postal C-321
Managua, Nicaragua
telefax (505) 276 2015
EM <rmiranda@sdnnic.org.ni>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 

 

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sat Nov 29 17:46:44 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:45 2004
Subject: health impacts of kerosene stoves ?
Message-ID: <199711291745_MC2-2A15-C68E@compuserve.com>

By the Way:

I believe that in India diesel (subsidized) is often substituted for
kerosene in lamps - cheaper, but much smokier. Does this also occur for
cooking? Another factor in the kerosene - health question.

TOM REED

 

From doelle at ozemail.com.au Sun Nov 30 05:18:45 1997
From: doelle at ozemail.com.au (doelle)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:45 2004
Subject: health impacts of kerosene stoves ?
In-Reply-To: <199711291745_MC2-2A15-C68E@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19971130213644.006b5b08@ozemail.com.au>

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1311 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/stoves/attachments/19971130/a0219150/attachment.bin
From tmiles at teleport.com Sun Nov 30 22:01:07 1997
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:45 2004
Subject: Colombian Superior stove
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19971130190256.0075e388@mail.teleport.com>

>From: "Adesol" <adesol.adesol@codetel.net.do>
To: <stoves@crest.org>
Subject:Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 10:21:49 -0500

Does anyone have a full address for the Colombian company that manufactures
the Superior pressurized kerosene cooking stove? I have the name of a
company and that's it: Industria Superior de Artefactos.

I'm trying to order some for a project in the Dominican Republic. I would
appreciate any assistance you can offer. Thanks,

Cynthia
cknowles@igc.apc.org
*************************
Asociacion para el Desarrollo de la Energia Solar, Inc. (ADESOL)
Apdo. No. 1
Bella Vista, Sosua
Republica Dominicana
Tel: (809)471-0835 (36)
Fax: (809)471-0837
E-mail: adesol.adesol@codetel.net.do