For more information to help people develop better stoves for cooking with biomass fuels in developing regions, please see our web site: http://www.bioenergylists.org
To join the discussion list and see the current archives, please use this page: http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org
For more messages see our 1996-2004 Biomass Stoves Discussion List Archives.
From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Wed Aug 11 17:44:08 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 23:44:08 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] Checking if stoves list has migrated to mailman
Message-ID: <b08lh0pbki87gp40aamn2spedsa27fasdc@4ax.com>
I gather from traffic on other lists that we have been migrated to new
software, with a bit of luck it should not affect anyone and should
appear a seamless transition.
Of course if there are problems you won't see this message ;-)
AJH
From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Wed Aug 11 18:51:24 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 00:51:24 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] Re: stove design help
In-Reply-To: <045701c47d8b$cbbd1830$0000a398@Len>
References: <045701c47d8b$cbbd1830$0000a398@Len>
Message-ID: <aualh0dbua4rd7h9vppll1inak3b1tkd0k@4ax.com>
Repost
On Sun, 8 Aug 2004 14:08:02 -0700, Len Walde wrote:
>Clear Day
Raining here ;-)
>
>I am seeking a design for a small stove to use to reduce biomass to a recoverable ash. The project we are working on is to remove and recover metals from the soil using plants, called phytoremediation, for those new to the concept.
Interesting concept and one I delved into a while back. I was reading
then that some of the plants used (a poplar clone IIRC) could actually
respire metallic mercury as it removed it from soil?
>The plants will be solar dried then "ashed". It is important that there is no fugitive fly ash -- we must collect it all. The total volume of biomass at any one time will be 1/2 cubic foot at maximum, and this need not be ashed all at once, so small size is better.
>
>Any suggestions or links to designs would be most appreciated. I am hoping that with all of the great, creative talent subscribed to this list, I can find the help I need.
I'm not sure that this is an appropriate list to discuss this, though
I am open to comment, Tom Miles is the list owner and will have the
final say.
I am interested and have two likely routes which I am happy to discuss
off list, unless there is a large demand to discuss it here.
AJH
From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Wed Aug 11 18:51:23 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 00:51:23 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] Re: Manually powered forced air: The "Ejector effect" and
the "Coanda effect"; FIREPIPES
In-Reply-To: <08de01c47704$62ffc3c0$6401a8c0@TOM>
References: <4.3.1.2.20040603211809.0203ef00@mail.ilstu.edu>
<KGEALNHAOCPCAHEOEGHHGEIECGAA.snienhuys@snv.org.np>
<5.2.0.9.2.20040604215142.02127848@pop.iprimus.com.au>
<4.3.1.2.20040729223028.01ce2f00@mail.ilstu.edu>
<an4kg0hdf35f173d08ak8ag8ertbm3fff4@4ax.com>
<08de01c47704$62ffc3c0$6401a8c0@TOM>
Message-ID: <sralh01ad8c4s4r6qv2q2ahdd2s5mrvsbp@4ax.com>
Repost following migration
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 07:43:28 -0600, TBReed wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~
>Here's a simple test for the ejector effect, ie
>"a jet of air from a nozzle entrains its own weight of air approximately every 5 diameters. Momentum is conserved, so that a jet of a small amount (m1) of high velocity (V1) air can move a large quantity (m1+m2) of low velocity (V2) air.
>
> m1V1 = (m1+m2) V2
>
>Pucker up like to whistle (~1/8" nozzle)and blow a strong jet of air at your hand. You can feel/see the force at an inch or two; you can feel the cooling at 4-6 inches. At 1 ft you feel nothing because more and more air is moving slower and slower.
For clarification, in my reply I was answering Paul Andersons's
question "So, those interested in forced air should position the
source of the force slightly away from the opening. Therefore, an
otherwise weak force of air might just be enough."
From which I inferred he was talking about forced draught in general
and not just the special case of using your lungs. Unfortunately I
confused the issue by mentioning oxygen depletion and the reason a
small high speed blow could be better sustained by the lungs.
What I then missed out was the reason I felt a "mechanically" forced
air supply should not use entrainment as I considered it less energy
efficient.
Now as we have some agreement that these aspirators (ejector, coanda
or venturi effects) conserve momentum then I can illustrate why they
are likely to be less energy efficient, this need not of course put
them out of consideration as we have previously discussed that
chimneys are not particularly efficient, yet they have other
attributes.
So conservation of momentum says
m1V1 = (m1+m2) V2 where the numerical subscripts denote differing
masses and velocities
m1 is the mass of air in the power jet
V1 is its velocity
m2 is the mass of air entrained
V2 is the final velocity of the combined flow
But the energy in the flows is proportional to the mass and the square
of the velocity so:
0.5m1V1^2 is the input energy
0.5 (m1+m2)V2^2 is the energy of the combined flow.
If we use Tom's multiplier of tenfold for entrainment (and thus in the
lung blown case the oxygen depletion becomes almost insignificant at
around 5% down) then m2 = 10m1. Substituting into our first equation
gives V2=V1/11
output energy = 0.5(11m1)(11V1)^2
which looks like about 10% of the input energy to me.
It's a long time since I did algebra so it bears a bit of checking,
and I have probably made unacceptable approximations as the gases obey
different laws from incompressible fluids but it is why I plumped for
a fan, where we might expect conversions above 50%??
AJH
From vernle at comcast.net Wed Aug 11 19:13:33 2004
From: vernle at comcast.net (vernle at comcast.net)
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 00:13:33 +0000
Subject: [Stoves] Checking if stoves list has migrated to mailman (fwd)
Message-ID: <081220040013.3863.411AB62C000B9C9900000F1722007481840A04029D0A90@comcast.net>
---------------------- Forwarded Message: ---------------------
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk
To: stoves at listserv.repp.org
Subject: [Stoves] Checking if stoves list has migrated to mailman
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 22:42:02 +0000
I gather from traffic on other lists that we have been migrated to new
software, with a bit of luck it should not affect anyone and should
appear a seamless transition.
Of course if there are problems you won't see this message ;-)
AJH
_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
Stoves at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Thu Aug 12 04:48:02 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 10:48:02 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] resources page
Message-ID: <kkdmh0lql09q9u1u2e2p0b0tukv5irb2e6@4ax.com>
Without too much of a hiccup Erin and Vijai seem to have the resources
page on line at
http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves
I haven't had time to check it properly yet but the archive points
back to and old page.
http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/stoves/
seems to hold a current archive, though there are some truncated un
attributed massages there some of which may have been current. If
anyone posted on 19th or 11th August and the message has not
propagated I suggest you try it again.
If you find you want to change your subscription from or to digest, or
change delivery settings goto
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/options/stoves
Enter your e-mail address and the password contained in the welcome
message.
It looks like we no longer have the option of either normal subject
lines or [STOVES] added so currently all messages have [STOVES] in the
subject line.
AJH
From vrao at listserv.repp.org Thu Aug 12 06:45:18 2004
From: vrao at listserv.repp.org (vrao at listserv.repp.org)
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 07:45:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Stoves] resources page
In-Reply-To: <kkdmh0lql09q9u1u2e2p0b0tukv5irb2e6@4ax.com>
References: <kkdmh0lql09q9u1u2e2p0b0tukv5irb2e6@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <2614.68.228.14.204.1092311118.squirrel@www.repp.org>
Greetings,
Just a few additions to AJH's post.
If you *did not* receive a password (or deleted the password email), go to
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves (observe that it is
'listinfo' instead of 'options' )
you will be given an option to enter your email address and receive the
password at the end of the page, go ahead and enter your email address and
select 'password remind'.
You will then receive an email (save this email), since it will have a
direct link to your options page, where you can change personal
information , digest mode and so on.
> Without too much of a hiccup Erin and Vijai seem to have the resources
> page on line at
>
> http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves
>
> I haven't had time to check it properly yet but the archive points
> back to and old page.
>
> http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/stoves/
>
> seems to hold a current archive, though there are some truncated un
> attributed massages there some of which may have been current. If
> anyone posted on 19th or 11th August and the message has not
> propagated I suggest you try it again.
>
> If you find you want to change your subscription from or to digest, or
> change delivery settings goto
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/options/stoves
>
> Enter your e-mail address and the password contained in the welcome
> message.
>
> It looks like we no longer have the option of either normal subject
> lines or [STOVES] added so currently all messages have [STOVES] in the
> subject line.
>
> AJH
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>
>
From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Thu Aug 12 07:49:18 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:49:18 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] resources page
In-Reply-To: <2614.68.228.14.204.1092311118.squirrel@www.repp.org>
References: <kkdmh0lql09q9u1u2e2p0b0tukv5irb2e6@4ax.com>
<2614.68.228.14.204.1092311118.squirrel@www.repp.org>
Message-ID: <g3pmh01fs6gjhalr9jtofjmfk5cfciej4t@4ax.com>
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 07:45:18 -0400 (EDT), vrao at listserv.repp.org
wrote:
>
>Greetings,
>
>Just a few additions to AJH's post.
>
>If you *did not* receive a password (or deleted the password email), go to
>
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves (observe that it is
>'listinfo' instead of 'options' )
Thanks for that correction Vijai.
Don't you sleep ? ;-)
AJH
From crispin at newdawn.sz Thu Aug 12 15:25:17 2004
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 22:25:17 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] Looking for help finding a "generator torch "
Message-ID: <000001c480aa$83845520$0100a8c0@home>
Dear Friends
Can anyone help Tristan?
Thanks
Crispin
++++++++++++++
From: Production Partners and Pandamonium [mailto:legwork at iafrica.com]
I'm trying to source a torch I saw some years ago. It uses no batteries
- not the Freeplay product - on the handle there is a lever that when
repeatedly squeezed runs a generator. Can you help?
Regards,
Tristan Melland
Generic Africa
Tel: 27 (0) 11 467 1987
Fax: 27 (0) 11 705 3519
Cell: 27 (0) 83 758 7710
Email: legwork at iafrica.com
From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Thu Aug 12 15:44:25 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 21:44:25 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] Looking for help finding a "generator torch "
In-Reply-To: <000001c480aa$83845520$0100a8c0@home>
References: <000001c480aa$83845520$0100a8c0@home>
Message-ID: <e9lnh0l9rjdqsp7eheu82fklma07qq19cu@4ax.com>
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 22:25:17 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
> I'm trying to source a torch I saw some years ago. It uses no batteries
>- not the Freeplay product - on the handle there is a lever that when
>repeatedly squeezed runs a generator. Can you help?
http://www.thesensorycompany.co.uk/Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?productID=420
http://www.alibaba.com/photo/50150102/Squeeze_Flashlight.jpg if you
need thousands
http://www.edirectory.co.uk/pf/pages/moreinfoa.asp?pe=BCFDHDFQ_+Dyno+Torch&cid=880
Just from a quick google, no recommendation
AJH
From redbeard at xmission.com Thu Aug 12 16:13:43 2004
From: redbeard at xmission.com (Dan Maker)
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:13:43 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: [Stoves] Looking for help finding a "generator torch "
In-Reply-To: <000001c480aa$83845520$0100a8c0@home> from "Crispin
Pemberton-Pigott" at Aug 12, 2004 10:25:17 PM
Message-ID: <E1BvMtL-0005le-00@xmission.xmission.com>
This is a company local to me, here in Orem, UT USA
http://eeivdnew.securesites.com/store/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=BP&Product_Code=IN+CL+F100&Category_Code=FL
or
http://tinyurl.com/3o79t
Crispin Pemberton-Pigott said:
>
> Dear Friends
>
> Can anyone help Tristan?
>
> Thanks
> Crispin
>
> ++++++++++++++
>
> From: Production Partners and Pandamonium [mailto:legwork at iafrica.com]
>
> I'm trying to source a torch I saw some years ago. It uses no batteries
> - not the Freeplay product - on the handle there is a lever that when
> repeatedly squeezed runs a generator. Can you help?
>
> Regards,
> Tristan Melland
> Generic Africa
> Tel: 27 (0) 11 467 1987
> Fax: 27 (0) 11 705 3519
> Cell: 27 (0) 83 758 7710
> Email: legwork at iafrica.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>
--
Jack of all trades, master of none.
Fiber Artist - Genealogist - Kilt Maker - Linux Geek - Piper - Woodworker
http://www.xmission.com/~redbeard
From erin at trmiles.com Thu Aug 12 17:29:30 2004
From: erin at trmiles.com (Erin Miles Rasmussen)
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:29:30 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] resources page
In-Reply-To: <kkdmh0lql09q9u1u2e2p0b0tukv5irb2e6@4ax.com>
References: <kkdmh0lql09q9u1u2e2p0b0tukv5irb2e6@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <411BEF4A.4030601@trmiles.com>
Hi,
I updated the link to the archive, and implemented a bunch of look and
feel upgrades to the site that have been simmering for a long time. Let
me know (erin at trmiles.com) what you think -- and whether there are any
additional improvements you would like to see.
Erin (Miles) Rasmussen
list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk wrote:
>Without too much of a hiccup Erin and Vijai seem to have the resources
>page on line at
>
>http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves
>
>I haven't had time to check it properly yet but the archive points
>back to and old page.
>
>http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/stoves/
>
>seems to hold a current archive, though there are some truncated un
>attributed massages there some of which may have been current. If
>anyone posted on 19th or 11th August and the message has not
>propagated I suggest you try it again.
>
>If you find you want to change your subscription from or to digest, or
>change delivery settings goto
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/options/stoves
>
>Enter your e-mail address and the password contained in the welcome
>message.
>
>It looks like we no longer have the option of either normal subject
>lines or [STOVES] added so currently all messages have [STOVES] in the
>subject line.
>
>AJH
>_______________________________________________
>Stoves mailing list
>Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>
>
>
>
From Carefreeland at aol.com Sat Aug 14 02:46:00 2004
From: Carefreeland at aol.com (Carefreeland at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 03:46:00 EDT
Subject: [STOVES] Does the methane flame travel back?
Message-ID: <bb.43b3dba7.2e4f1d38@aol.com>
In a message dated 8/9/04 4:31:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN writes:
DD Dan Dimiduk comments
> Dear George,
> the flame does not travel back, because there is no oxygen in the gas
> collector or in the fermenter drum. Gunpowder explodes even within the
> confined space of the
> breech of a gun or inside a cartridge case, because it carries with it its
> own source of oxygen in the form of potassium chlorate.
DD One minor observation. True back gunpowder contains potassium nitrate,
not chlorate. If potassium chlorate were used, the gun would likely blow up as
it is shock sensative and will detonate (expode at the speed of the shock wave)
as opposed to burning rapidly.
DD If you want to test this, mix a VERY small pinch of potassium chlorate
with sulfur and grind in a morter and pestal. the cracking/popping you hear is a
detonation. Potassium nitrate will not do this as it is not shock sensative.
DD This is one reason why fireworks manufacture is so dangerous. The
chlorates are useful for colored flames though, or when you need a detonation, as in a
flash firecracker.
> Methane may also
> explode, as in the cylinder of an internal combustion engine, if it is mixed
> with the appropriate quantity of oxygen. But under the anaerobic conditions
> under which methane is produced and stored, it would not explode or burn as
> long as it is inside the gas holder or inside the fermenter.
> You also asked me if agricultural crop residues could be used for producing
> methane instead of making charcoal. Unfortunately, the anaerobic bacteria
> cannot digest lignin. Woody and lignified crop residues like cotton stalks,
> sugarcane leaves or wheat straw have to be first decomposed by aerobic
> organisms. The digested mass is then fed into a biogas digester. This is
> called two stage fermentation. It is used for agricultural residues and also
> for municipal solid waste, but not in a domestic methane fermenter, because
> the added cost of the extra fermenter and the extra space required by the
> system.
> The residual slurry of a biogas fermenter is a good organic source of plant
> nutrients, because the process of methane formation removes CO2 and CH4 from
> the biomass. Because of the selectinve removal of these elements form the
> biomass, the other constituents such a N,P,K,Ca, Fe, etc. get concentrated
> in residual slurry.
> I am copying the mesaage to the stovers' list.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: George McKessock <george at notable-cards.com>
> To: adkarve <adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
> Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 8:18 PM
> Subject: Re: AD of oil cake
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/stoves_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040814/d6e737ac/attachment.html
From larencorie at axilar.net Sun Aug 15 19:57:29 2004
From: larencorie at axilar.net (LarenCorie)
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 20:57:29 -0400
Subject: [Stoves] Note To List Administrator
References: <200408070400.i7740Dl28834@ns1.repp.org>
Message-ID: <008d01c4832c$2f488ce0$4c5c2745@default>
I apologize to the group for sending this request, this way,
but I have exactly followed the instructions that were sent
to me, when I originally joined, and have gotten no results.
As a member of the GreenBuilding list, I have been a
recent victim of REPP's resubscription blunder. As a result,
my settings for this group have been also changed. I have
tried the password sent to me, but have repeatedly been
told that it is not valid. I have sent several emails with
the command "SET STOVES DIGEST" to no avail.
Could the list administrator, please return my settings
to digest, as they were before they were accidentally
reset by REPP.org.
Thanks, and sorry for the interruption, folks.
-Laren Corie-
From vrao at ns2.misteam.net Sun Aug 15 23:32:01 2004
From: vrao at ns2.misteam.net (vrao)
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 00:32:01 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Stoves] Note To List Administrator
In-Reply-To: <008d01c4832c$2f488ce0$4c5c2745@default>
References: <200408070400.i7740Dl28834@ns1.repp.org>
<008d01c4832c$2f488ce0$4c5c2745@default>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0408160026120.17614@ns2.misteam.net>
While I have changed this user's settings, I would like people who dont
know their passwords to read this message.
Please go to repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
go to 'To unsubscribe from Stoves, get a password reminder, or change your
subscription options enter your subscription email address'
enter your email address and click 'unsubscribe or edit options'.
you will be given an option for 'password remind'
Once you have your password you can change your settings as per your
wishes instead of posting the same question on the mailing list again...
Thanks,
v
> I apologize to the group for sending this request, this way,
> but I have exactly followed the instructions that were sent
> to me, when I originally joined, and have gotten no results.
>
> As a member of the GreenBuilding list, I have been a
> recent victim of REPP's resubscription blunder. As a result,
> my settings for this group have been also changed. I have
> tried the password sent to me, but have repeatedly been
> told that it is not valid. I have sent several emails with
> the command "SET STOVES DIGEST" to no avail.
>
> Could the list administrator, please return my settings
> to digest, as they were before they were accidentally
> reset by REPP.org.
>
> Thanks, and sorry for the interruption, folks.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>
From phoenix98604 at earthlink.net Mon Aug 16 08:33:21 2004
From: phoenix98604 at earthlink.net (Phoenix)
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 08:33:21 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] Re: Document
Message-ID: <goxbmfmhdekopilsfwy@crest.org>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/stoves_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040816/0294a290/attachment.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Readme.com
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 21241 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/stoves_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040816/0294a290/attachment.obj
From crispin at newdawn.sz Mon Aug 16 12:52:38 2004
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 19:52:38 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] Paraffin single pot stove testing
Message-ID: <008901c483b9$ffc36380$0100a8c0@md>
Dear Stovers
Further to my earlier report about a simple to make paraffin stove for the
Free State Technikon that burns pretty cleanly I have some follow info that
may be of interest.
Tonight I was testing various layouts of red hot plate that is what the
paraffin hits in order to ignite the CO properly and I think the ideal
combination is now at hand.
I am using a perforated piece of 1.2mm stainless steel sheet on top with
three 'talons' under the preheater pipe to light the gas as it approaches
the hot perforated plate. There is basically no way around the plate for
gases to pass to the pot. Everything must come through the plate. Paul you
might like to comment on the pictures I will send you separately. The plate
is hot enough to maintain ignition.(Who else wants pics?)
There should be about 40mm between the jet of paraffin gas, and then the
little metal 'talons' (pre-igniters as I called them) then 8mm of height
which is the preheater tube diameter, then a clear gap of 6mm to the hot
perforated plate.
I have startlingly low CO figures for this combination. I do not have a
temperature for the plate but it is in excess of 900 deg C. I got several
readings of 0.0009 as the CO fraction of the CO2 with the concentration of
CO2 in the emissions in the 10% range. That was taken directly from the
edge of the fire. The COswings back and forth through 0.0013. The swinging
is probably due to the meter not the stove. It means approximately only 1
carbon atom in 1000 is failing to find 2 oxygen atoms.
I will send a 1.5 KW sample stove to Ludrick Barnard late this week and the
company that agreed to make some tiny fuel control valves is going to have
samples this week. The jets are off the shelf in certain places.
The first training will take place in Bloemfontein on 6 or 7 September for 2
days. Anyone interested in getting trained after that can contact Ludrick
Barnard (see address in header).
Regards
Crispin
From solar1 at zuper.net Mon Aug 16 13:14:17 2004
From: solar1 at zuper.net (Fundacion Centro de Desarrollo en Energia Solar)
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 14:14:17 -0400
Subject: [Stoves] Paraffin single pot stove testing
In-Reply-To: <008901c483b9$ffc36380$0100a8c0@md>
Message-ID: <BD4671B9.2A2%solar1@zuper.net>
> On 16/8/04 13:52, "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispin at newdawn.sz> wrote:
>
>> Dear Stovers
> (Who else wants pics?)
Hi Crispin
Thanks for the data. I am curious enough to ask for pictures.
Please say hello to Rina King and thank her for the great information she
sent us a while back.
Keep up the good work
David
From rmiranda at inet.com.br Mon Aug 16 13:39:11 2004
From: rmiranda at inet.com.br (Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda)
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 15:39:11 -0300
Subject: [Stoves] Paraffin single pot stove testing
In-Reply-To: <BD4671B9.2A2%solar1@zuper.net>
References: <008901c483b9$ffc36380$0100a8c0@md> <BD4671B9.2A2%solar1@zuper.net>
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.1.20040816153727.03294e88@inet.com.br>
I do want the pics too. Thanks Crispin. Hello Rina, we met in the
Philippines over a year ago. Cheers, Rog?rio
At 15:14 16/8/2004, Fundacion Centro de Desarrollo en Energia Solar wrote:
> > On 16/8/04 13:52, "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispin at newdawn.sz> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Stovers
> > (Who else wants pics?)
>Hi Crispin
>Thanks for the data. I am curious enough to ask for pictures.
>Please say hello to Rina King and thank her for the great information she
>sent us a while back.
>
>Keep up the good work
>David
>
>_______________________________________________
>Stoves mailing list
>Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
From tmiles at trmiles.com Mon Aug 16 13:48:31 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 11:48:31 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] Paraffin single pot stove testing
References: <008901c483b9$ffc36380$0100a8c0@md>
Message-ID: <018701c483c1$b1f53360$6401a8c0@OFFICE3>
Crispin,
We can put the pics on the stoves site if you want.
Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispin at newdawn.sz>
> I am using a perforated piece of 1.2mm stainless steel sheet on top with
> three 'talons' under the preheater pipe to light the gas as it approaches
> the hot perforated plate. There is basically no way around the plate for
> gases to pass to the pot. Everything must come through the plate. Paul
you
> might like to comment on the pictures I will send you separately. The
plate
> is hot enough to maintain ignition.(Who else wants pics?)
From mgp at telecom.net.et Tue Aug 17 12:39:05 2004
From: mgp at telecom.net.et (Melessaw Shanko)
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 20:39:05 +0300
Subject: [Stoves] Paraffin single pot stove testing
In-Reply-To: <BD4671B9.2A2%solar1@zuper.net>
Message-ID: <web-54657914@telecom.net.et>
Dear List Members,
I have a feeling that despite a stunning success of improved
stoves (the Lakech and the Mirt) in Ethiopia, when over
hundred stove programmes had failed during the last two
decades, their history and success is the least known to the
rest of the world. The Mirt stoves were developed as part of
a WB funded project in Ethiopia. Later ODA (DFID) supported
the commercialization phase ' and the GTZ: HHE/PNR Project
is disseminating these stoves in several urban areas in
Ethiopia. For those of you who are interested in improved
biomass Injera stoves (the Mirte) in Ethiopia the
URL=http://www.gtz.de/hep/download/Projectbrief1200pictures4-6.pdf
Melessaw Shanko
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 14:14:17 -0400
Fundacion Centro de Desarrollo en Energia Solar
<solar1 at zuper.net> wrote:
> > On 16/8/04 13:52, "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott"
> <crispin at newdawn.sz> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Stovers
> > (Who else wants pics?)
> Hi Crispin
> Thanks for the data. I am curious enough to ask for
> pictures.
> Please say hello to Rina King and thank her for the great
> information she
> sent us a while back.
>
> Keep up the good work
> David
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
From crispin at newdawn.sz Tue Aug 17 15:14:11 2004
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 22:14:11 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] R: Paraffin single pot stove testing
Message-ID: <000001c48496$c39a32c0$0100a8c0@home>
Dear Stovers
I have to agree with Melessaw: anything that can cook enjera is an
achievement.
The bottom of the three pictures on the link he gave shows the wood used
in urban areas: longitudinally split gum tree branches. They have lots
of little fractures in them and burn at a high rate of knots. Kind of a
smokey fuel too.
I am pretty sure there is a chimney on the back of the stove but it is
not clear in the picture. Melessawa, can you direct us to a picture
showing the chimney? How tall is it?
Thanks
Crispin
From tmiles at trmiles.com Tue Aug 17 16:28:49 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 14:28:49 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] Paraffin single pot stove testing
References: <web-54657914@telecom.net.et>
Message-ID: <008901c484a4$0a7e0330$6401a8c0@OFFICE3>
Melessaw
It's nice to hear from you. Thank you for the links. We've put links to the
GTZ/HEP project description and photos on the stoves web page at:
http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/
Kind regards,
Tom Miles
----- Original Message -----
From: "Melessaw Shanko" <mgp at telecom.net.et>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Paraffin single pot stove testing
>
> Dear List Members,
>
>
> I have a feeling that despite a stunning success of improved
> stoves (the Lakech and the Mirt) in Ethiopia, when over
> hundred stove programmes had failed during the last two
> decades, their history and success is the least known to the
> rest of the world. The Mirt stoves were developed as part of
> a WB funded project in Ethiopia. Later ODA (DFID) supported
> the commercialization phase ' and the GTZ: HHE/PNR Project
> is disseminating these stoves in several urban areas in
> Ethiopia. For those of you who are interested in improved
> biomass Injera stoves (the Mirte) in Ethiopia the
>
>
> URL=http://www.gtz.de/hep/download/Projectbrief1200pictures4-6.pdf
>
>
> Melessaw Shanko
>
From tmiles at trmiles.com Wed Aug 18 20:03:02 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 18:03:02 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] Paraffin single pot stove testing
References: <008901c483b9$ffc36380$0100a8c0@md>
Message-ID: <003b01c48588$4ca69ad0$6401a8c0@OFFICE3>
Crispin and ALL,
I've uploaded your pictures and related posts on the Paraffin single pot
stove testing to the Stoves webpage. Follow the link from
http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/
Thanks
Tom Miles
----- Original Message -----
From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispin at newdawn.sz>
To: "Stoves List" <STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Cc: "Ludrick Barnard" <lbarnard at tfs.ac.za>; "Rina King"
<rking at infodoor.co.za>; "David Hancock" <david.hancock at gtz.de>
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 10:52 AM
Subject: [Stoves] Paraffin single pot stove testing
> Dear Stovers
>
> Further to my earlier report about a simple to make paraffin stove for the
> Free State Technikon that burns pretty cleanly I have some follow info
that
> may be of interest.
>
> Tonight I was testing various layouts of red hot plate that is what the
> paraffin hits in order to ignite the CO properly and I think the ideal
> combination is now at hand.
>
> I am using a perforated piece of 1.2mm stainless steel sheet on top with
> three 'talons' under the preheater pipe to light the gas as it approaches
> the hot perforated plate. There is basically no way around the plate for
> gases to pass to the pot. Everything must come through the plate. Paul
you
> might like to comment on the pictures I will send you separately. The
plate
> is hot enough to maintain ignition.(Who else wants pics?)
>
> There should be about 40mm between the jet of paraffin gas, and then the
> little metal 'talons' (pre-igniters as I called them) then 8mm of height
> which is the preheater tube diameter, then a clear gap of 6mm to the hot
> perforated plate.
>
> I have startlingly low CO figures for this combination. I do not have a
> temperature for the plate but it is in excess of 900 deg C. I got several
> readings of 0.0009 as the CO fraction of the CO2 with the concentration of
> CO2 in the emissions in the 10% range. That was taken directly from the
> edge of the fire. The COswings back and forth through 0.0013. The
swinging
> is probably due to the meter not the stove. It means approximately only 1
> carbon atom in 1000 is failing to find 2 oxygen atoms.
>
> I will send a 1.5 KW sample stove to Ludrick Barnard late this week and
the
> company that agreed to make some tiny fuel control valves is going to have
> samples this week. The jets are off the shelf in certain places.
>
> The first training will take place in Bloemfontein on 6 or 7 September for
2
> days. Anyone interested in getting trained after that can contact Ludrick
> Barnard (see address in header).
>
> Regards
> Crispin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>
From j.undurraga at mi.cl Thu Aug 19 13:35:54 2004
From: j.undurraga at mi.cl (J. Undurraga)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:35:54 -0400
Subject: [Stoves] mailing list
Message-ID: <003b01c4861b$5c5f3980$8c00a8c0@pc.metropolisinter.com>
From solar1 at zuper.net Fri Aug 20 13:39:30 2004
From: solar1 at zuper.net (Fundacion Centro de Desarrollo en Energia Solar)
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:39:30 -0400
Subject: [Stoves] Re: [ethos] Re: report from ken
In-Reply-To: <4117AA9C.5010202@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <BD4BBDA2.3C31%solar1@zuper.net>
On 8/9/04 12:47, "ken goyer" <kgoyer at comcast.net> wrote:
> Dear friends, Recently, I went to Ghana to help an NGO, Enterprise
> Works, develop the six brick rocket stove. Alan Brewis, the director
> writes to me with the following comments:
>
>> "Our trails throw up the inevitable comments, it cooks fast, it uses less
>> fuel BUT I have to spend every minute tending it otherwise the fire goes
>> out - how can I look after the kids or do other things. Cant you make the
>> fireplace bigger so I can pack it with a bit more wood. We will have to
>> address this issue otherwise the thing just won't sell.
>>
>> I'm scratching my head, I'll get back to you later.
>>
>> Alan"
Alan, et al
One way we approach this is combining wood stove use with retained heat
cookers. These insulated containers are easily made and once the person has
practice to overcome natural tendency to disbelieve, their use becomes an
integral part of cooking.
By only having to bring the food to a boil and then cooking it in the
Retained heat cookers, the operator doesn't have to spend so much time
tending the fire.
Lots of folks are cooking this way since many cultures use foods requiring
simmering.
Please consider trying it first your self and then determining if it oould
be useful for those you work with. We are happy to aid you with more info if
you wish.
David
From adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in Sun Aug 22 00:12:05 2004
From: adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in (adkarve)
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 10:42:05 +0530
Subject: [Stoves] coppice shoots for rocket stove
Message-ID: <000001c4880a$7a466220$975341db@adkarve>
After attending the ETHOS conference in Kirkland, I made a Rocket Stove. It is working quite well. We have not yet given it to a user household. The complaint of our own staff members was that the stove accepts only very thin pieces of wood and that it would not be acceptable to our users as they were too lazy to split the wood down to the size required for operating this stove. There was also a discussion recently about the inconvenience of having to push the wood into the rocket stove at very short intervals of time. I have an answer to both the problems.
When a tree is coppiced, it produces about a dozen shoots. People generally keep only one of the shoots on the tree and remove all the others, to give this one shoot the chance to grow into a thick trunk. But if the coppice shoots are not removed, and are allowed to grow simultaneously, they all remain thin, attaining a girth of about 3 to 4 cm each. Ray Wijewardhane has made use of this characteristic to produce firewood on a large scale. I feel that the coppice shoots have the right diameter for being used in a rocket stove. A photograph was projected during the ETHOS conference of a woman in a Latin Americal country using a long stalk of maize as fuel in a rocket stove. If the diameter of a coppice shoot is between 3 and 5 cm, and if the housewife were to use about 2 meters of it during one cooking session, the coppice shoots need not even be cut transversely into smaller pieces. A single long piece, having a length of about 2 m can be used as fuel. It needs only to be periodically pushed into the stove. In our childhood, the horse-drawn carts used to have candle lamps, in which the candle was automatically pushed up by means of a spring, so that the flame of the candle was always in front of a reflector inside the lamp. One can think of a similar mechanism, perhaps operated by a pulley and weight mechanism, that would push the wooden piece automatically into the stove. With such a mechanism, the stove can be left unattended for longer periods. In the same way, culms of bamboo can also be used as fuel for a rocket stove.
Yours
A.D.Karve
From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Sun Aug 22 11:00:23 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 17:00:23 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] coppice shoots for rocket stove
In-Reply-To: <000001c4880a$7a466220$975341db@adkarve>
References: <000001c4880a$7a466220$975341db@adkarve>
Message-ID: <goghi09ijrhdspk9juvblq6f4ubbijgck5@4ax.com>
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 10:42:05 +0530, adkarve wrote:
>
>After attending the ETHOS conference in Kirkland, I made a Rocket Stove. It is working quite well. We have not yet given it to a user household. The complaint of our own staff members was that the stove accepts only very thin pieces of wood and that it would not be acceptable to our users as they were too lazy to split the wood down to the size required for operating this stove. There was also a discussion recently about the inconvenience of having to push the wood into the rocket stove at very short intervals of time. I have an answer to both the problems.
I think "lazy" is too strong a word to use, especially in view of the
work that goes into collecting the firewood in the first place. It is
more cost effective to be able to burn longer pieces, if possible.
Crispin and I discussed this on the list on May 17 2004, where he
proposes a metal flap and I a leather flap to allow longer material to
be in the feed tube without increasing the air supply over the sticks.
Because of the relative difficulty in cross cutting, rather than
splitting, cordwood was regularly burned in UK. The fire being
controlled by having the tips in the fire. Once the co radiation
between the logs became great enough they self extinguish, so the hot
part of the fire remained in the centre. Andirons facilitate this as
well by holding the log clear of the ash surface.
In the common air duct and feed tube of the rocket would the fire be
able to run back up the logs? Or is the draught strong enough to cool
the sticks in much the same way the air supply cools the wood in a
down draught gasifier?
The alternative is to have a separate fuel magazine which is steeply
sloped away from the stove and with a sealed top, the sticks then
feeding themselves under gravity to the fire, in effect like a cross
draught gasifier but with sufficient air for complete combustion being
provided. The heat losses in the part of the magazine away from the
combustion area would need to be sufficient to keep the rest of the
stick(s) below 230C to prevent pyrolysis of the whole batch.
AJH
From adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in Mon Aug 23 23:08:38 2004
From: adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in (adkarve)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:38:38 +0530
Subject: [Stoves] status of char briquettes and Sarai cooker
References: <1ec.2868ba31.2e5b56c7@aol.com>
Message-ID: <000001c489e0$fdffdce0$cf5541db@adkarve>
Dear Mr. Hodson,
thanks a lot for your inquiry. We have so far found that sugarcane leaves are the best raw material for the charring technology as sugarcane is harvested continuously for about 180 days, making dry leaves of sugarcane continuously available throughout this period. In the case of all the other crop species, the harvesting period is not only very short, but it is simultaneous for all the farms in any given region. Therefore, other forms of agrowaste such as wheat straw, cotton stalks or stalks of pigeonpea, are available only during that particular time. Farmers do not like the agricultural residues lying on their fields, and they just burn them in situ in order to prepare the fields for the next crop. The charcoal operation becomes very costly, if material is to be collected from different farms and stored at one place for future use.
Our last season was very poor, because there were two years of severe drought in our area, causing shrinkage in the area under sugarcane. As a result, the factories, that should normally have worked till about April, stopped operating in January itself. We thus suffered from a shortage of raw material. This year too it is going to be a similar story, as the drought of the last year has resulted in even further shrinkage in the sugarcane area. Several factories have declared that they would not even start their operations this year. The World Bank has predicted, that India, normally a sugar exporting country, would have to import sugar in 2005.
We have distributed about 50 kilns to various voluntary agencies that are working with us. I do not think that any of them has been able to operate the kiln continuously for any length of time, primarily because of the reasons given above.
Our cookers are however selling very well, because charcoal made from other woody biomass is available in the market. Because of our association with voluntary agencies spread all over Maharashtra, the sales have picked up even in the rural areas. Sale of cookers has been the main business of the co-operative firm started by us for commercialising our technologies. We are currently selling about 200 cookers every month, and the sales are likely to pick up as we have started to appoint distributors for our cookers in different areas of the state. The co-operative has so far sold about 10,000 cookers during the past three years, at an average price of about US$8 per cooker.
The householders are however keenly interested in using our char briquettes. The metal foundry owners have also shown interest in our briquettes as they represent a fuel equvalent in quality to foundry grade coke. Maharashtra is in the Western part of the country and the coke comes to Maharashtra by rail transport all the way from the Eastern part of the country. As a result, it is very costly.
As the demand for our charcoal has increased tremendously, we have introduced another business model, namely that of an entrepreneur operating a set of 20 kilns through rural landless families. The entrepreneur invests about US$6000 to purchase 20 kilns, a heavy duty extruder and other ancillaries. The kilns are operated by landless families, 2 to a family. The landless families do not buy the kilns but only operate them. They make char from whatever biomass that is available to them. Two persons, operating the two kilns in tandem for about 8 hours, can make daily about 100 kg char. The entrepreneur buys the char from the kiln operators at a price of about US$ 45 per tonne, converts it into briquettes and sells the briquettes at a price of about US$155 per tonne. Deducting his expenses of buying the char from the kiln operators, his own cost of briquetting the char, interest and depreciation on his capital investment and his overhead expenses, he makes a net profit of about US$60 per tonne of briquettes. He can expect to sell about 150 tonnes of briquettes in a year. However, even our own co-operative has not been able to test this model, because we were unable to get the sugarcane trash in sufficient quantity. We are now negotiating with farmers having bamboo, which also gives charcoal of very high quality, but then we would have to shift our operation to an entirely different geographic area of the state.
Yours
A.D.Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: THodson at aol.com
To: adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in
Cc: Paul S. Anderson ; Kfarhills at aol.com ; ballard at bankchampaign.com ; kevin.yonce at awning-tent.com
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 7:48 PM
Subject: Your Kiln Project
Dear Dr. Karve:
It has been a while since I asked how you are doing.
Have you had any success encouraging women to set up kiln enterprises? Has that worked better than seeking men to set them up?
Is the distribution of the stoves progressing? Do you still find that the stoves are better accepted in the city, than in rural areas?
Can you give us an idea of how many kilns are in operation and how many stoves are in use?
Thank you for any information you can provide.
Sincerely
Tom Hodson
Champaign West Rotary
From tombreed at comcast.net Fri Aug 27 08:11:24 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (TBReed)
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 07:11:24 -0600
Subject: [Stoves] Food vs Fuel vs Waste
References: <1c5.1d06d91e.2e5ea149@aol.com> <412D5C29.5030206@zuper.net>
Message-ID: <008f01c48c37$5df95dd0$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
Dear All;
The catch-phrase "Food vs Fuel" caught my eye in the exchange below. I believe it originated in the "gasohol" days when it was perceived that making ethanol for our cars was "wicked" when there were starving people in the world. This is naive, since most of the world suffers from overproduction of food (and overeating) and those who starve can blame local politics and distribution.
Food and fuel are complimentary rather than antagonistic because
o Most foods can't be eater unless they are cooked to render them digestible (and palatable)
o Most food production also produces waste biomass in the form of stover, cobs, shells, ....
I have recently been testing the saying from my friend Agua Das the
"It takes a calorie to cook a calorie".
I'm working on expanding this to
"It takes a calorie to wrap the calorie that cooks the calorie".
However, I don't yet have any hard data on this and would appreciate comments from the lists.
Onward,
TOM REED BEF
----- Original Message -----
From: Fundacion Centro de Desarrollol en Energia Solar
To: MMBTUPR at aol.com
Cc: GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 9:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Gasification]was- What am I doing on this list? is what areyoudoing on the list?
MMBTUPR at aol.com
Lewis L. Smith wrote:
Another problem is scaleup. For example, Community Power has some neat processes but so far they have only been developed for units of one MW or less. They tell me scaleup to 5 MW [which is what interests me] is going to cost some serious $$$. As we know, scaleup is not simple when we are dealing with cylindrical pressure vessels and rapidly circulating gases !
Lewis - thank you - nicely put
Concerning Community Power. Please tune me in to where I can learn more. (although I have some basic knowledge, I thought they had something like 15 kilowatt multi stations that also produced thermal energy useful for drying or low process heat)
Concerning scale up, in this particular circumstance, would it practice to build in series instead of larger systems? Of course in my cosmovision, where small communities in unaccessible terrain are the norm, reducing distribution system sizes makes sense. (ok I agree thats not always the case, but may be a viable alternative in many areas ?)
Can "scaling up" also to come mean faster and more numerous integration of small systems?
Over in the Bioenergy list, we have to come to some kind of judgment about the newer processes for the combustion of coal. If they are not environmentally acceptable as "transition processes", then we must expand biomass energy a lot faster than what people are now contemplating.
Over on the stove and solar cooking lists, I've observed the last couple of years that progress, team work, sharing and other forms of cooperation seem to be accelerating, translating into more replicable alternatives implemented in developing countries. I suspect that the argument for expanding biomass energy faster is appropriate.
And this is going to get us into to some fierce arguments with agricultural types over "food versus fuel".
In my circles, I keep running into the term "integrated systems" could this include growing some biomass, like bamboo parralle to food crops?
What is our strategic situation in this matter, and how do we handle the latter issue ?
The dialouge you have opened interests me, and is low tech enough that I may participate. Thanks
David
This is not to disparage anybody's concerns, but rather to express a preference as regards priorities.
So can we get back on the track ?
Thank you for your attention.
Cordially.
End.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
From crispin at newdawn.sz Fri Aug 27 12:40:37 2004
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 19:40:37 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] Advances in paraffin burning
Message-ID: <006701c48c5f$6e4df100$0100a8c0@md>
Sear Stovers
I have been fiddling onwards with this little paraffin stove, this time
working with a 1500 to 1600 watt stove (about 2.2cc/min or 7.5 hrs per
litre). I have found a new way to make a significant improvement in the
already reasonable CO figures.
Wanna guess what it is??
Preheated air!
Lo and behold, when I add preheated primary and partially preheated
secondary air (which is not so important) the CO level drops to a stable,
consistent 0.2% or less, and frequently, long periods of time at 0.04 to
0.03% of CO2. The meter is struggling to find anything to detect. I am
getting that rate at 150 to 250% excess air, but I think that is a number
diluted by the room air. The undiluted CO level is 80 ppm, meaning that
99.992% of the carbon is combusted to CO2. To improve the usefulness of the
stove could mean cutting down on the air supply until the CO level goes up
to perhaps 0.5 to 1% of CO2 and thus raise the temperature of the emission
stream.
There are quite a number of layouts that work well, different ignition
systems and different plates against which to work. I guess the best one
will the the one that heats the parts the least so they last the longest.
It is certainly not necessary fo have the preheating pipe and parts running
red hot, but they do tend to.
One of the parts that has been very effective at triggering ignition and
spreading the gas to burn well is the thing from a bath tub that you put the
plug into. It guess it is called a drain hole or something. They are made
from stainless steel and I found a guy near me who makes them. I get the
part before he puts the holes in them (looking like a little dish) though
you could just as well drop a small stainless steel disc in to cover the
holes if you got one from a scrap year. The shape is just right. I made
some holes in it with a nail and it didn't really improve anything (there
being nothing much to improve on) but it made the part run hotter which I
think is a bad thing. I got many readings of 0.05% with or without the
holes.
At the moment a No.3 cast iron pot is on it with 8,5 litres of water in it
(nearly full to the top). It is useable unshrouded, with all that heat
transfer efficiency stuff still to come. I expect a PHU of 50% or so will
be acceptable.
This will all make more sense when I have some pictures on the website.
Look for a www.vesto.co.za site coming to a server near you soon.
For those _really_ interested I have a little closeup MPEG video which I
give put a direct link to.
Regards
Crispin
From sylva at iname.com Fri Aug 27 14:38:00 2004
From: sylva at iname.com (sylva at iname.com)
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 14:38:00 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] administrivia
Message-ID: <20040827193800.9E7071CE303@ws1-6.us4.outblaze.com>
Stovers,
I have been a bit quiet lately as my normal e-mail address has become incompatible with the new mailman software, so this is by way of a test post and a request for anyone else who has had a post rejected to contact me.
AJH
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
From tmiles at trmiles.com Sat Aug 28 15:07:21 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 13:07:21 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] Search Discussion List Archives
References: <014e01c48aa1$7b6ec040$da0cc13f@SFKC.GOV.KH>
<00a701c48ce6$6c6a77a0$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
Message-ID: <002e01c48d3a$ba23e270$6401a8c0@OFFICE3>
REPP has provided us with a search engine dedicated to the Discussion List Archives. I've added it to the Gasification, Stoves, Carbon and Bioenergy Pages or you can use it directly at http://repp.org/htdig
The search links will take you to individual messages. Once you bring up a message you can move through the archives by thread, subject, author or date.
Kind regards,
Tom Miles
Gasification
http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html
Stoves
http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/index.htm
Bioenergy
http://www.repp.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html
----- Original Message -----
From: TBReed
To: Robert Deutsch ; Gasification
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 3:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Dear Mr. Moderator - Help!
Did anything come from the discussion several months ago on the optimum IC engine for gas burning, is someone going to build us an engine?
I DON'T REMEMBER THE DISCUSSION THEN, BUT HERE ARE A FEW COMMENTS THAT MAY NOT HAVE APPEARED
From solar1 at zuper.net Sat Aug 28 18:31:07 2004
From: solar1 at zuper.net (Fundacion Centro de Desarrollo en Energia Solar)
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:31:07 -0400
Subject: [Stoves] Search Discussion List Archives
In-Reply-To: <002e01c48d3a$ba23e270$6401a8c0@OFFICE3>
References: <014e01c48aa1$7b6ec040$da0cc13f@SFKC.GOV.KH> <00a701c48ce6$6c6a77a0$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
<002e01c48d3a$ba23e270$6401a8c0@OFFICE3>
Message-ID: <413115BB.4070201@zuper.net>
Tom Miles wrote:
>REPP has provided us with a search engine dedicated to the Discussion List Archives. I've added it to the Gasification, Stoves, Carbon and Bioenergy Pages or you can use it directly at http://repp.org/htdig
>
>The search links will take you to individual messages. Once you bring up a message you can move through the archives by thread, subject, author or date.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>Tom Miles
>
>
>
Wow, Tom
That is about the handiest addition i-ve seen in a long time. Thanks
From solar1 at zuper.net Sat Aug 28 18:44:59 2004
From: solar1 at zuper.net (Fundacion Centro de Desarrollo en Energia Solar)
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:44:59 -0400
Subject: [Stoves] Re: [ethos] New member
In-Reply-To: <001401c48b7b$a1c7ca40$6678040a@don>
References: <001401c48b7b$a1c7ca40$6678040a@don>
Message-ID: <413118FB.5050103@zuper.net>
Don O'Neal wrote:
> Greeting to all ETHOS members,
>
> I would like to introduce a new member of the HELPS organization Jorge
> Polanco.
>
> His first assignment is to develop a Retained Heat Cooker that is
> 'culturally appropriate' for Guatemala and to develop marketing,
> training, and distribution for the device. Jorge's email is
> je_polanco at yahoo.com <mailto:je_polanco at yahoo.com>.
>
> Since many of you have experience in this area I would appreciate it
> if you would advise Jorge of your experiences in order that Jorge
> not spend valuable time reinventing what has already been done.
>
Hola Jorge
Gracias por tu interes en ayudar tu proximo. I received your
communication of list and will reply to that more specifically in the
course of the coming week, with comments and pictures.
Perhaps it is elementary to you but a quick review in the new search
engine harvest a multitude of information, such as . . .
http://www.repp.org/pipermail/stoves/2003-September/000793.html
http://www.trmiles.com/stoves/Design/haybox.html
Perhaps you should consider joining the STOVES list as well as ETHOS.
un abrazo fraternal
David
From adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in Sat Aug 28 21:07:56 2004
From: adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in (adkarve)
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 07:37:56 +0530
Subject: [Stoves] Food vs Fuel vs Waste
References: <1c5.1d06d91e.2e5ea149@aol.com> <412D5C29.5030206@zuper.net>
<008f01c48c37$5df95dd0$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
Message-ID: <000001c48da1$4c00fa00$305541db@adkarve>
Dear Stovers,
This refers to the discussion on food vs fuel initiated by Tom Reed. The
farmer wants to convert his farm produce into money. He is not concerned
about the national concern about food self-sufficiency. In the case of
cotton in India, the cotton pests have become resistant to most of the
insecticides. The yield of cotton is steadily on the decline, in spite of
applying insecticide sprays at a frequency of 20 sprays in a season.
Nowadays the cotton farmer in the rainfed regions makes no profit at all,
but is indebted to the merchants who provide him with inputs on credit. The
safest way of agriculture in the rainfed areas is not to provide the crop
with any inputs that cost money. Use seed from the previous crop, use your
own bullock power and the labour of your own family. Although a monetary
value can be put on all these inputs, they are free to the farmer, and
therefore, whatever income he gets from his farm is net profit in his eyes.
An NGO in the cotton growing area in Maharashtra State has started
advocating this principle. The yield of no-input cotton is just 200 kg per
acre, as against 400 kg per acre with inputs, but while the farmers could
not repay their debts with their 400 kg/acre, they are now well off with
their 200 kg/acre. The government planners are opposed to the no-input
technology, because it would mean reducing the national production. But if
the farmer makes greater profit by not applying inputs, why should he apply
them?
Yours
A.D.Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: TBReed <tombreed at comcast.net>
To: <solar1 at zuper.net>; <GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>;
<STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Cc: Charles Stevenson <cstevenson at foster-miller.com>; Chuck Stevenson
<chuckmunk at comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 6:41 PM
Subject: [Stoves] Food vs Fuel vs Waste
Dear All;
The catch-phrase "Food vs Fuel" caught my eye in the exchange below. I
believe it originated in the "gasohol" days when it was perceived that
making ethanol for our cars was "wicked" when there were starving people in
the world. This is naive, since most of the world suffers from
overproduction of food (and overeating) and those who starve can blame local
politics and distribution.
Food and fuel are complimentary rather than antagonistic because
o Most foods can't be eater unless they are cooked to render them digestible
(and palatable)
o Most food production also produces waste biomass in the form of stover,
cobs, shells, ....
I have recently been testing the saying from my friend Agua Das the
"It takes a calorie to cook a calorie".
I'm working on expanding this to
"It takes a calorie to wrap the calorie that cooks the calorie".
However, I don't yet have any hard data on this and would appreciate
comments from the lists.
Onward,
TOM REED BEF
----- Original Message -----
From: Fundacion Centro de Desarrollol en Energia Solar
To: MMBTUPR at aol.com
Cc: GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 9:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Gasification]was- What am I doing on this list? is what
areyoudoing on the list?
MMBTUPR at aol.com
Lewis L. Smith wrote:
Another problem is scaleup. For example, Community Power has some
neat processes but so far they have only been developed for units of one MW
or less. They tell me scaleup to 5 MW [which is what interests me] is going
to cost some serious $$$. As we know, scaleup is not simple when we are
dealing with cylindrical pressure vessels and rapidly circulating gases !
Lewis - thank you - nicely put
Concerning Community Power. Please tune me in to where I can learn more.
(although I have some basic knowledge, I thought they had something like 15
kilowatt multi stations that also produced thermal energy useful for drying
or low process heat)
Concerning scale up, in this particular circumstance, would it practice to
build in series instead of larger systems? Of course in my cosmovision,
where small communities in unaccessible terrain are the norm, reducing
distribution system sizes makes sense. (ok I agree thats not always the
case, but may be a viable alternative in many areas ?)
Can "scaling up" also to come mean faster and more numerous integration
of small systems?
Over in the Bioenergy list, we have to come to some kind of
judgment about the newer processes for the combustion of coal. If they are
not environmentally acceptable as "transition processes", then we must
expand biomass energy a lot faster than what people are now contemplating.
Over on the stove and solar cooking lists, I've observed the last couple
of years that progress, team work, sharing and other forms of cooperation
seem to be accelerating, translating into more replicable alternatives
implemented in developing countries. I suspect that the argument for
expanding biomass energy faster is appropriate.
And this is going to get us into to some fierce arguments with
agricultural types over "food versus fuel".
In my circles, I keep running into the term "integrated systems" could
this include growing some biomass, like bamboo parralle to food crops?
What is our strategic situation in this matter, and how do we handle the
latter issue ?
The dialouge you have opened interests me, and is low tech enough that I
may participate. Thanks
David
This is not to disparage anybody's concerns, but rather to express
a preference as regards priorities.
So can we get back on the track ?
Thank you for your attention.
Cordially.
End.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
Stoves at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
From tombreed at comcast.net Sun Aug 29 10:56:32 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (Tom Reed)
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 09:56:32 -0600
Subject: [Stoves] Fw: [Gasification] Food vs Fuel vs Waste
Message-ID: <01c401c48de0$c77830b0$3401a8c0@TOMBREED>
> Dear Art, Tom Miles and All:
>
> I appreciate your concerns about returning some fraction of agricultural
> residues to the soil for maximum sustainability, and would have opposed
use
> of Ag resudues 25 years ago.
>
> However, I have heard from responsible agronomists that too much residue
> re-appication acts as a "negative fertilizer" so that fertilizer for next
> year's crops is used instead to help the bacteria. Therefore, farmers in
> many areas remove these residues from the fields (and burn them if
> permitted) to get ready for next year's crops.
>
> I hope we will hear many opinions from responsible agronomists on this
> topic, because it is a key issue in the use of surplus ag-residues,
> particularly for ag activities such as making ammonia and fuel. And using
> ag-residues responsibly can double the amount of biomass available to
> humans.
>
> What a benefit to have so many experts here at GASIFICATION and STOVES!
>
> COMMENTS?
>
> Your pal, TOM REED
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Art Krenzel" <phoenix98604 at earthlink.net>
> To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 12:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Food vs Fuel vs Waste
>
>
> > I am one of those who's concern becomes elevated when the issue of "food
> vs
> > fuel" is raised. But, I have found middle ground which does not attack
> > gasification.
> >
> > I am comfortable with gasification being used in non-ag products such as
> > trees etc. however the residues from food production should be returned
to
> > the soil as soil amendment to benefit the ensuing crops. These residues
> > represent the feedstocks for the soil bacteria which is necessary to
> > maintain the sustainability of the soil. Without sustainability of the
> > soil, we will need better teeth and digestion systems to live on forest
> > products if the soil fails.
> >
> > Biogas generation spans the issue since it recovers a portion of the
> energy
> > from high quality food wastes as biogas and the remainder of the biomass
> > goes into soil amendment. Trees are a poor choice for biogas production
> due
> > to limited solubility and higher percentage of lignin when compared to
> > products such as potatoes.
> >
> > I am currently involved in setting up a project which recovers separated
> > organic waste currently going to landfills (up to 26% of the waste
> stream).
> > This process dissolves the easily soluble components from the source
> > separated waste stream, which are bio-digested into biogas and then
> > recovering the less soluble solids and waste liquids as compost. The
> > process is thermophilic so the concerns for human pathogens is low to
> > non-existent and it recycles a high percentage of water to reduce the
> water
> > input requirements.
> >
> > Now my world hums along and my dander is under control.
> >
> > Tom Reed - I still love gasification but have attained more balance in
my
> > life. :-)
> >
> > Art Krenzel
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Arnt Karlsen" <arnt at c2i.net>
> > To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> > Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 6:22 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Gasification] Food vs Fuel vs Waste
> >
> >
> > > On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 07:11:24 -0600, TBReed wrote in message
> > > <008f01c48c37$5df95dd0$3201a8c0 at OFFICE>:
> > >
> > > > Dear All;
> > > >
> > > > The catch-phrase "Food vs Fuel" caught my eye in the exchange below.
> > > > I believe it originated in the "gasohol" days when it was perceived
> > > > that making ethanol for our cars was "wicked" when there were
starving
> > > > people in the world. This is naive, since most of the world suffers
> > > > from overproduction of food (and overeating) and those who starve
can
> > > > blame local politics and distribution.
> > >
> > > ..you're naive, they're too busy looking for food. ;-)
> > >
> > > --
> > > ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
> > > ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
> > > Scenarios always come in sets of three:
> > > best case, worst case, and just in case.
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Gasification mailing list
> > > Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> > > http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gasification mailing list
> > Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> > http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
From tombreed at comcast.net Sun Aug 29 12:06:39 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (Tom Reed)
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 11:06:39 -0600
Subject: [Stoves] Re: [Gasification] Food vs Fuel vs Waste
References: <1c5.1d06d91e.2e5ea149@aol.com> <412D5C29.5030206@zuper.net>
<008f01c48c37$5df95dd0$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
<079801c48c40$31c90630$05b1ca83@george1200>
Message-ID: <029001c48dea$8d114740$3401a8c0@TOMBREED>
Dear George:
Thanks for our thought provoking comments.
I have somewhat reluctangly come to the conclusion that cooking is a necessity for Humans, and is in fact an extension of our stomachs!
Fire has been used by Humans for > 100,000 years and has probably given us time to adapt to its benefits and minimize its penalties.
In particular, 10,000 years ago we began to depend on a grain based carbohydrate diet, and the population began escalating far beyond what our hunter gatherer diet could sustain. But grains must be cooked (and milled and winnowed) to make them edible.
But what do I know?
Lets let the STOVE list chew on this debate. Maybe their focus should be on avoiding cooked foods - but I doubt it.
COMMENTS?
Tom Reed
----- Original Message -----
From: George McKessock
To: TBReed
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 8:14 AM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Food vs Fuel vs Waste
> Most foods can't be eater unless they are cooked to render them digestible (and palatable)
I disagree with this one. There are many people who live mostly on raw food. It may
turn out that our reliance on cooking food is a major contributor to bad health. My interests
lie in using green technologies to run personal green houses in the winter months...
If people were able to produce their own fresh produce, it might reduce industrial-scale
farming (which is not usually naturally sustainable), reduce use of fossil fuels in both
production and transportation. In addition, a green house can *add* to house's heating
and thereby reduce consumption of mass energy.
Perhaps a better statement would be "Most foods that cannot be eaten unless cooked are
probably better left uneaten" :o)
George.
PS: I left this off the list because it's more philosophical than technical. It is meant as
a question to stir thought, and not as a jab or in any way negative... I have great
respect for you and your work.
From phoenix98604 at earthlink.net Sun Aug 29 13:19:13 2004
From: phoenix98604 at earthlink.net (Art Krenzel)
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 11:19:13 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] Food vs Fuel vs Waste
References: <1c5.1d06d91e.2e5ea149@aol.com>
<412D5C29.5030206@zuper.net><008f01c48c37$5df95dd0$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
<000001c48da1$4c00fa00$305541db@adkarve>
Message-ID: <004701c48df4$e779eac0$37bdf204@7k6rv21>
Dr. Reed and Dr. Karve,
Having recently completed the world's largest composting project (the
Willamette Valley of OR) approaching 2.0 million tons of ag waste per year
being put back onto 400,000 acres, I can speak with some experience on this
matter. I have received calls from the farmers who are doing the composting
reporting they are using less fertilizer, less herbicide, less diesel fuel
(increased soil tilth) and increased yields. I didn't change anything - I
just redirected them back to the way nature had worked out the crop residue
recycling system and their cropping system became better optimized.
The condition of "negative fertilizer" that you refer to is where the soils
are being used beyond nature's ability to provide sufficient nitrogen for
plant decomposition. Natural nitrogen (normally supplied by nature such as
in unfarmed prairie areas) is supplied by rainfall, animal manure and green
plants falling to the soil - man adds additional nitrogen in the form of
fertilizer. Nitrogen acts like a catalyst in the decomposition of plant
residues for the bacteria to eat and digest the cellulose. Since bacteria
have very small mouths, water is needed to solublize the nutrients so they
become a floating film on the surface to plant residue to become "plant
soup" for the bacteria to eat. Without water AND nitrogen, the system fails
and the plant residues will not decompose in a normal crop year and they
accumulate. NOW you have a problem! The carbon content of the soil
increases which further requires more nitrogen to decompose and a new life
axiom begins to take over.
The axiom is "if there is a competition for available nitrogen between
growth and decomposition, decomposition wins every time". So if you are
attempting to grow crops in soil which has large amounts of actively
decomposing plant matter - good luck, you will need it if you want the next
crop immediately. This explains the "negative fertilizer" condition that
you refer to where planting new crops in decomposing residues can result in
a decreased in plant growth of the new crop. I have concluded that this law
is necessary because if it were not that way, we would be up to our butts in
decomposing residue and new plants would not get available sunlight
necessary to grow. Ahh nature, it had it figured out so long ago.....
Moisture is a very critical issue because the bacteria can only eat
solubilzed "plant soup" in their decomposition of crop residues. So even
irrigation, unless applied often, does not provide sufficient moisture for
the time required to solublize the carbon before it dries out again. Only
soil moisture is normally retained and there is no direct path for the
microbes to reach the food that a full residue load represents (lying ABOVE
the soil) and will take a very long time to decompose. The solution is to
have the residue in intimate contact with the soil by discing some of the
dirt over the top of the residue to help pack it down and act as a well
distributed source of bacteria for the decomposition. Now the water can
have sufficient time to dissolve the cellulose carbon, there are bacteria in
the area and nitrogen from rainfall and the soil to act as a catalyst. The
system is near the surface where the faster aerobic bacteria can perform as
compared to below the surface where the slower anaerobic bacteria live. NOW
the system works.
Making 20 insecticide applications per year as a means of crop control and
saying it does not affect the natural bacterial levels is like saying
shooting a shotgun into a crowd only hits people between the ages of 20 -
22. A single desired effect of an insecticide may be very well known but
ALL of the collateral effects are NOT KNOWN. Growth progresses at the rate
of a limiting condition whether it is nitrogen, iron, moisture, plant
available foods, etc. Healthy living soil bacteria affect all of these
feedstocks. Plant residues represent all of the minerals and plant foods
necessary to produce the previous crop and we are less than smart not to use
them to produce the next crop.
I am sorry to take so much space to vent my passion but thank you for
reading it.
Art Krenzel
From tmiles at trmiles.com Sun Aug 29 13:59:21 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 11:59:21 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] Fw: [Gasification] Food vs Fuel vs Waste
References: <01c401c48de0$c77830b0$3401a8c0@TOMBREED>
Message-ID: <007401c48dfa$a456d130$6601a8c0@Yellow>
Tom,
This topic really belongs on the bioenergy list but it deserves a reply.
In all our projects we have found that because of the wonderful diversity
that we have in our natural and managed resources broad statements about
crop residues are useless. Residue management can be extremely site and crop
specific.In Oregon we have some soils that will not decompose residue that
has been incorporated. That gave rise in the 1940s to the widespread use of
open field burning to remove the straw. Open burning was banned in the 1970s
for health and safety. The last 30 years has been spent finding the
situations where residue removal is appropriate and developing alternative
cultivation techniques where burning cannot be used. In Oregon we don't
remove straw on all the grass seed fields. About 5-7.4 t/ha can usually be
removed as straw leaving about 3.7 t/a in stubble which is usually
incorporated. Many growers carefully monitor soil tilth. Art was involved in
efforts to improve soil tilth through composting. Incorporation is used
extensively for wheat straw in England where it was once thought to be
detrimental.
We tested processed and unprocessed straw for use as mulch on horticultural
crops. Using leaf tissue analysis we found that during the the first year
straw supressed weeds but as it decomposed it was a nutrient sink, retaining
nutrients rather than giving them up to the plants. But over a four year
period we found that straw compared favorably with any of our common mulches
including bark, sawdut or mushroom compost.
Today, 30 years after open burning was largely banned only a small fraction
of the more than 200,000 ha under grass seed cultivation here is burned each
year. Straw (700,000 tons/year) is removed and sold (exported for feed) from
mostly perenniel seed crops. Open field burning has been replaced by
mechanical destruction and removal of residues, increased mechanical working
of the soil and increased chemical use against weeds and diseases. The
higher cost of cultivation has forced many farmers out of business. Today
300 companies do the work that 1200 farm families did before. Of 360,00 ha
once cultivated in the valley more than 110,00 ha have been converted to
housing. Farm communities have also disappeared into housing developments.
The new home owners don't have to tolerate open field burning so they just
complain about the farmers while they pour their lawn and garden chemicals
into the river through their drains. In balance during 30 years more than
1/3 of our farmland has been taken out of production for suburban housing,
not for fuel. If you look at forest land you will find a similar
displacement of land from forest to urban housing. So I think the issues are
larger than food vs fuel vs waste.
Straw removal is not appropriate for all crops or soils. The crop, rainfall,
soil structure, tilth, habitat, erosion, general ecology and many other
factors come into play. In the US local agricultural extension agents often
know whether a particular field would benefit from residue removal and
whether the field next to it would not. They help farmers such as Oregon
Tilth http://www.tilth.org/site/ try a variety of techniques to maintain
fertility. In Iowa several years have been spent developing agronomic
techniques to determine when switchgrass residues can be removed for use as
a fuel or fiber. http://www.cvrcd.org/biomass.htm In Eastern Washington we
used the best available data to identify residues that could be removed
withouth affecting the soil using GIS techniqes http://www.fibercrops.org
Fiber Crop Mapping Project. As we see on the stoves and bioenergy lists
there are many such efforts going on around the world.
In the 1970s, as you know, we developed mobile devices for thermal
sanitation of grass seed fields following straw removal. There has recently
been some renewed interest in these machines so I plan to put reprints of
our reports on my website (tmiles at trmiles.com ). The machines were built as
a substitute for open burning straw and stubble. They were intended to burn
only the stubble and sanitize the field by destroying weeds and disease with
no pollution. We built and improved the machines over the years. The
machines used no auxiliary fuel, burned only the stubble and released 30 MW
(20 MW/ha x 1.5 ha/hr) with no visible plume. They accomplished the
agronomic and environmental objectives but at significant cost in capital
and labor. Only one model has been in use in recent years. They are not used
because as AD Karve illustrated with his cotton example, they increase
inputs (cost) without increasing revenue.
Tom Miles
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Reed" <tombreed at comcast.net>
> > I appreciate your concerns about returning some fraction of agricultural
> > residues to the soil for maximum sustainability, and would have opposed
> use
> > of Ag resudues 25 years ago.
> >
> > However, I have heard from responsible agronomists that too much residue
> > re-appication acts as a "negative fertilizer" so that fertilizer for
next
> > year's crops is used instead to help the bacteria. Therefore, farmers
in
> > many areas remove these residues from the fields (and burn them if
> > permitted) to get ready for next year's crops.
From keith at journeytoforever.org Sun Aug 29 14:04:55 2004
From: keith at journeytoforever.org (Keith Addison)
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 04:04:55 +0900
Subject: [Stoves] Food vs Fuel vs Waste
In-Reply-To: <004701c48df4$e779eac0$37bdf204@7k6rv21>
References: <1c5.1d06d91e.2e5ea149@aol.com>
<412D5C29.5030206@zuper.net><008f01c48c37$5df95dd0$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
<000001c48da1$4c00fa00$305541db@adkarve>
<004701c48df4$e779eac0$37bdf204@7k6rv21>
Message-ID: <v04210110bd57d13ebe46@[192.168.0.2]>
Hello Art, Tom, Dr Reed and all
I've been following this with interest, thankyou. There's some
interesting information on the "Food vs Fuel" objecion here, by the
way:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_food.html
Biofuels - Food or Fuel?
Art, I'd like to add to this that when Albert Howard developed the
Indore composting system in India in the early part of the last
century, finally putting composting on a sound scientific basis, and
coincidentally founding the organic farming movement in the doing, a
major aim was to optimise the amount of cowdung available to the
peasants, who really did have a Food vs Fuel problem - they needed
the cowdung for fertiliser and they also used it for their cooking
fires, and there wasn't enough for both, with the soil too often
coming second. Howard found that using more than a 20% ratio of dung
to plant residues in properly made compost achieved no additional
improvement in crop yields, and that the compost was much more
effective than the pure dung. Problem solved. That's about the same
mix you find on a forest floor, or a good pasture.
A further implication of this is that if you treat, or pre-treat, the
crop wastes properly, as you've done with composting, you can achieve
a much better result for soil maintenance with much less, which again
leaves plenty of crop residues for other purposes, whether cooking
fires or gasifiers.
(Howard said the peasants were his professors. He also said the pests
were his professors - pest attack simply indicated a soil problem.
The pest is specific to the problem, it's a diagnosis. Albrecht of
Missouri confirmed it, he could produce different pest onslaughts at
will, and chase them away again, just by manipulating the soil
conditions. Many people have confirmed it. Weeds act the same way. )
However, composting isn't really "natural", nature doesn't make
compost, nature mulches. Composting is a natural way of recycling
though, harnessing natural processes to good effect, but it's
something we humans do. "Man's work with nature that further's
nature's aims is the work that rewards him the best," it says in the
I Ching (though I couldn't find it there last time I looked, but the
I Ching's that kind of book).
There are a couple of exceptions though, it's not quite true that
nature never makes compost. There's an Australian bird that carefully
assembles large piles of organic matter to nest on, mixing it up with
droppings - arguably a compost pile. It even generates warmth, which
helps to hatch the eggs. Termites build tiny compost piles
underground from pulped wood to make the special soil needed for the
fungus farms that produce the only food they can eat. Sometimes there
are even manure worms in attendance at the compost site. Termites
could be the world's most scientific composters.
Anyway, never mind termites and weird Australian birds - do you
remember what I said when you first told me about your amazing
composting project? "You'll go straight to heaven!" I meant it too.
:-)
I fully agree, so-called "nitrogen robbery" from ploughing in crop
wastes is not an obstacle, just a problem, with a ready solution that
brings far more benefits than that. You could almost say it's an
opportunity.
Elaine Ingham has done some work on the effects of insecticides on
the soil life, the Soilfood Web as she calls it. It is as you say.
Best wishes
Keith Addison
Journey to Forever
KYOTO Pref., Japan
http://journeytoforever.org/
>Dr. Reed and Dr. Karve,
>
>Having recently completed the world's largest composting project (the
>Willamette Valley of OR) approaching 2.0 million tons of ag waste per year
>being put back onto 400,000 acres, I can speak with some experience on this
>matter. I have received calls from the farmers who are doing the composting
>reporting they are using less fertilizer, less herbicide, less diesel fuel
>(increased soil tilth) and increased yields. I didn't change anything - I
>just redirected them back to the way nature had worked out the crop residue
>recycling system and their cropping system became better optimized.
>
>The condition of "negative fertilizer" that you refer to is where the soils
>are being used beyond nature's ability to provide sufficient nitrogen for
>plant decomposition. Natural nitrogen (normally supplied by nature such as
>in unfarmed prairie areas) is supplied by rainfall, animal manure and green
>plants falling to the soil - man adds additional nitrogen in the form of
>fertilizer. Nitrogen acts like a catalyst in the decomposition of plant
>residues for the bacteria to eat and digest the cellulose. Since bacteria
>have very small mouths, water is needed to solublize the nutrients so they
>become a floating film on the surface to plant residue to become "plant
>soup" for the bacteria to eat. Without water AND nitrogen, the system fails
>and the plant residues will not decompose in a normal crop year and they
>accumulate. NOW you have a problem! The carbon content of the soil
>increases which further requires more nitrogen to decompose and a new life
>axiom begins to take over.
>
>The axiom is "if there is a competition for available nitrogen between
>growth and decomposition, decomposition wins every time". So if you are
>attempting to grow crops in soil which has large amounts of actively
>decomposing plant matter - good luck, you will need it if you want the next
>crop immediately. This explains the "negative fertilizer" condition that
>you refer to where planting new crops in decomposing residues can result in
>a decreased in plant growth of the new crop. I have concluded that this law
>is necessary because if it were not that way, we would be up to our butts in
>decomposing residue and new plants would not get available sunlight
>necessary to grow. Ahh nature, it had it figured out so long ago.....
>
>Moisture is a very critical issue because the bacteria can only eat
>solubilzed "plant soup" in their decomposition of crop residues. So even
>irrigation, unless applied often, does not provide sufficient moisture for
>the time required to solublize the carbon before it dries out again. Only
>soil moisture is normally retained and there is no direct path for the
>microbes to reach the food that a full residue load represents (lying ABOVE
>the soil) and will take a very long time to decompose. The solution is to
>have the residue in intimate contact with the soil by discing some of the
>dirt over the top of the residue to help pack it down and act as a well
>distributed source of bacteria for the decomposition. Now the water can
>have sufficient time to dissolve the cellulose carbon, there are bacteria in
>the area and nitrogen from rainfall and the soil to act as a catalyst. The
>system is near the surface where the faster aerobic bacteria can perform as
>compared to below the surface where the slower anaerobic bacteria live. NOW
>the system works.
>
>Making 20 insecticide applications per year as a means of crop control and
>saying it does not affect the natural bacterial levels is like saying
>shooting a shotgun into a crowd only hits people between the ages of 20 -
>22. A single desired effect of an insecticide may be very well known but
>ALL of the collateral effects are NOT KNOWN. Growth progresses at the rate
>of a limiting condition whether it is nitrogen, iron, moisture, plant
>available foods, etc. Healthy living soil bacteria affect all of these
>feedstocks. Plant residues represent all of the minerals and plant foods
>necessary to produce the previous crop and we are less than smart not to use
>them to produce the next crop.
>
>I am sorry to take so much space to vent my passion but thank you for
>reading it.
>
>Art Krenzel
From phoenix98604 at earthlink.net Sun Aug 29 15:15:11 2004
From: phoenix98604 at earthlink.net (Art Krenzel)
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 13:15:11 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] Fw: [Gasification] Food vs Fuel vs Waste
References: <01c401c48de0$c77830b0$3401a8c0@TOMBREED>
<007401c48dfa$a456d130$6601a8c0@Yellow>
Message-ID: <00b501c48e04$e44691e0$37bdf204@7k6rv21>
Tom,
you said:
> Residue management can be extremely site and crop
> specific.In Oregon we have some soils that will not decompose residue that
> has been incorporated. That gave rise in the 1940s to the widespread use
of
> open field burning to remove the straw.
Open fieldburning in OR was a CHEAP solution to handling the grass seed
residues. It was strengthened by the taught belief that all farming needed
was commercial NKP.
You said:
>Open burning was banned in the 1970s
> for health and safety.
The straw (pardon the pun) that broke the camels back was the automobile
accident near Lebanon, OR. The insurance companies told the farmers that if
they considered open field burning next year, they would not be able to
afford liability insurance. THEN the growers decided that it cost less to
deal with the grass straw residue than burn it. There are still grass seed
growers who give away their straw for free to get rid of it then add an
average of $126 per acre's worth of fertilizer to replace the minerals they
just gave away.
you said:
>The last 30 years has been spent finding the
> situations where residue removal is appropriate and developing alternative
> cultivation techniques where burning cannot be used. In Oregon we don't
> remove straw on all the grass seed fields. About 5-7.4 t/ha can usually be
> removed as straw leaving about 3.7 t/a in stubble which is usually
> incorporated.
Most of the grass in the Willamette Valley is perennial. It gets replanted
every 3 - 10 years depending upon field cleanliness and yield. The annual
varieties (the smaller component of the business) has the residues plowed
back each year.
You said:
> Many growers carefully monitor soil tilth. Art was involved in
> efforts to improve soil tilth through composting. Incorporation is used
> extensively for wheat straw in England where it was once thought to be
> detrimental.
Plowing puts the grass residues deeper in the soil where the predominant
bacterial processes are anaerobic (without oxygen) which are very much
slower than near the surface where bacterial decomposition occurs using
oxygen. Thus we are able to put back on the order of 5 t/ac of grass straw
in the fall and have no evidence there was any there in March of the
following year. One of the great things we have working for us here in OR
is nearly continuous rain in some form or another and no freezing weather
for several months of the winter. This adds nitrogen and keeps the residue
surfaces wet so they dissolve.
You said:
> Today, 30 years after open burning was largely banned only a small
fraction
> of the more than 200,000 ha under grass seed cultivation here is burned
each
> year.
I attended the specific meeting at the OR State Legislature when that
decision was made. The bill to eliminate open field burning was in the Ag
Committee and the representative from the Silverton, OR region would not let
the bill out of the committee unless his area was exempted and they had some
proven way to handle small disease outbreaks. Thus 60,000 acres were
exempted from the legislation. We felt that the loss of 60,000 acres of the
total acreage was an acceptable compromise since we gained over 300,000
which did comply. We figured that the non-participants would learn the
positive benefits using the fence row method. This is where one farmer
notices the neighbor has a better crop and asks why - one farm at a time.
The region that was exempted was in the foothills and has much sloping
ground which could benefit greatly from increased organic matter. This
logic was lost in the attempted representative government by the Silverton
legislator.
> Straw (700,000 tons/year) is removed and sold (exported for feed) from
> mostly perenniel seed crops. Open field burning has been replaced by
> mechanical destruction and removal of residues, increased mechanical
working
> of the soil and increased chemical use against weeds and diseases. The
> higher cost of cultivation has forced many farmers out of business. Today
> 300 companies do the work that 1200 farm families did before. Of 360,00 ha
> once cultivated in the valley more than 110,00 ha have been converted to
> housing.
There were 360,000 acres of grass in the Willamette Valley in the early
1990's when the no-open burning laws were passed. This has INCREASED to
425,000 acres today (after the legislation) per the Grass Seed Growers
Organization. The grass seed industry is going through the consolidation of
farms experienced in all cropping systems around the country. This is
caused by families not having anyone to pass the farm to because the
children went to school to became a doctor or gasification expert, the
increased focus on mechanization, the higher cost of machines putting them
out of the reach of small farmers, the cost of money, etc.
Thank you for the feedback!
Art
From tmiles at trmiles.com Sun Aug 29 18:17:05 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 16:17:05 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] Fw: [Gasification] Food vs Fuel vs Waste
References: <01c401c48de0$c77830b0$3401a8c0@TOMBREED><007401c48dfa$a456d130$6601a8c0@Yellow>
<00b501c48e04$e44691e0$37bdf204@7k6rv21>
Message-ID: <003c01c48e1f$66a0a170$6601a8c0@Yellow>
Art,
I excluded many of the legislative and economic details because I do not
feel they are relevant to the current topic. The burning phase down towards
a ban started in about 1969 and continued with varying regulation until the
ultimate ban you described in the late 1980s. (You are probably referring to
the accident in about 1987 which precipitated the current legislation.)
We have worked with growers on field sanitation and straw utilization from
1974 to the present, 2004. Open burning was cheap. Not burning is expensive.
Machine burning is more expensive. Several growers took a direct hit from
the legislation and sold the farm. Many of those farms were sold to housing
developers. The food vs fuel vs waste part of this discussion is that the
acreage that gets converted to housing goes out of agricultural production.
That is not a choice between food vs fuel vs waste. That is a loss of
productive agricultural land. (See Topsoil and Civilization, Vernon Gill
Carter and Tom Dale, Oklahoma University Press, 1955, Rev. 1975. Amazon.com)
Grass straw residues are byproducts of seed production. Any benefit received
from the straw makes it a coproduct not a competing use of the land
resource. The minimum amount of straw that can be removed economically here
at current prices is about 3.7 t/ha (1.5 t/acre) or about the same amount as
you would find in the stubble on a grass seed field after straw harvest.
The challenge is to find the highest and best use of the excess straw when
it is not used for agronomic purposes. From 1974 to 1977 we investigated and
tested more than 100 "promising" products and processes at the laboratory
and bench level. We took about 35 of those processes through the pilot stage
(1-2 t/hr) to make FOOD, FEED, FUELS, FIBERS and FEEDSTOCKS FOR CHEMICALS.
Larry Winiarski and others on these lists were part of that process as we
experimented with combustion, gasification and conversion to liquid fuels.
FEED and FIBER products were the only ones that we found markets for and
have remained economically viable since that time. The search for export
feed markets started in about 1972 and today has reached 650,00 tons per
year. Domestic feed/bedding markets consume about 50,000 tons. Fiber for
erosion control (usually spread at a rate of 2.5 t/ha treated) consumes a
small quanity. With the increased cost of fossil fuels there is renewed
interest in economic returns from FUEL and chemical FEEDSTOCKS.
Our objective in straw utilization is to find uses that will return enough
value to cover the cost of harvesting, transportation and processing and,
hopefully, the cost of treating the field. As you know the grass seed farmer
receives no money for the straw itself. Straw is removed as a service by a
straw merchant who must make a profit by selling the straw. He must receive
about $45/ton, or $3/GJ, for clean dry straw stored and delivered all year.
In the case of switchgrass, where no grain or seed crop is sold to offset
the cost of growing the crop, the cost can vary from $30 to $60/ton, or
$2-$4/GJ, depending on crop yield which varies in the US from 10-25 t/ha.
Fields growing switchgrass on the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) were
often growing FOOD - corn or soybeans - in the 1970s. Those fields were
highly erodable and became eligible for federal funds to plant the native
prairie grass, instead of food, to control erosion and provide habitat.
These fields were set aside because of a choice between food vs conservation
and water quality. The interest in renewable fuels provides a possible
return from excess straw residues.
In Denmark straw is used as a fuel for community heat and power where it is
paid for (subsidized) by taxes on oil and gas intended to promote renewable
fuels. Elsewhere in the world it is used as a domestic cooking fuel where it
is paid for by labor, or "sweat equity." In both cases it is an opportunity
fuel which should be used.
Tom
From duncan at kampalabuzz.com Mon Aug 30 07:40:36 2004
From: duncan at kampalabuzz.com (duncan at kampalabuzz.com)
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 05:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Stoves] how free are smoke free stoves.
Message-ID: <7828.81.199.21.106.1093869636.squirrel@webmail.kampalabuzz.com>
guys, i have just joined this stove research in uganda, so i actually know
less compared to u guys. however, today i tested a rocket elbow stove(shd
be smoke free) but i was taken aback. i dont know if i shd believe that
there is nothing like smoke free stoves because surely the amount of smoke
produced depends on the amount of firewood u feed in. believe me if u
also use very small sticks for a 3 stone fire(shd produce smoke), u will
get know smoke because there will be complete combustion.
please, help my brain otherwise i may get a brainjam
From duncan at kampalabuzz.com Mon Aug 30 07:41:42 2004
From: duncan at kampalabuzz.com (duncan at kampalabuzz.com)
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 05:41:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Stoves] how free are smoke free stoves.
Message-ID: <8542.81.199.21.106.1093869702.squirrel@webmail.kampalabuzz.com>
guys, i have just joined this stove research in uganda, so i actually know
less compared to u guys. however, today i tested a rocket elbow stove(shd
be smoke free) but i was taken aback. i dont know if i shd believe that
there is nothing like smoke free stoves because surely the amount of smoke
produced depends on the amount of firewood u feed in. believe me if u
also use very small sticks for a 3 stone fire(shd produce smoke), u will
get know smoke because there will be complete combustion.
please, help my brain otherwise i may get a brainjam
From dstill at epud.net Mon Aug 30 10:47:45 2004
From: dstill at epud.net (Dean Still)
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 08:47:45 -0700
Subject: FW: [Stoves] how free are smoke free stoves.
Message-ID: <20040830154746.A326747@telchar.epud.net>
Dear Duncan,
Yes, stoves will make smoke and yes, the open fire can be operated very
cleanly. In my opinion, it is necessary to use a chimney or hood to assure
smoke removal indoors. The challenge is to make stoves that are cleaner
burning on average than open fires but as you know a lot of the problem is
how the operator makes the fire...We are testing " clean burning stoves"
here at Aprovecho and while many are improvements over even a carefully run
open fire they all can be made to smoke by over fueling, etc. We are all
looking for better solutions here at STOVES...
All Best,
Dean
-----Original Message-----
From: stoves-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:stoves-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of
duncan at kampalabuzz.com
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 4:41 AM
To: stoves at listserv.repp.org
Subject: [Stoves] how free are smoke free stoves.
guys, i have just joined this stove research in uganda, so i actually know
less compared to u guys. however, today i tested a rocket elbow stove(shd
be smoke free) but i was taken aback. i dont know if i shd believe that
there is nothing like smoke free stoves because surely the amount of smoke
produced depends on the amount of firewood u feed in. believe me if u
also use very small sticks for a 3 stone fire(shd produce smoke), u will
get know smoke because there will be complete combustion.
please, help my brain otherwise i may get a brainjam
_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
Stoves at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
From phoenix98604 at earthlink.net Mon Aug 30 10:51:00 2004
From: phoenix98604 at earthlink.net (Art Krenzel)
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 08:51:00 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] Fw: [Gasification] Food vs Fuel vs Waste
References: <01c401c48de0$c77830b0$3401a8c0@TOMBREED><007401c48dfa$a456d130$6601a8c0@Yellow>
<00b501c48e04$e44691e0$37bdf204@7k6rv21>
<003c01c48e1f$66a0a170$6601a8c0@Yellow>
Message-ID: <003301c48ea9$26b80d70$91bdf204@7k6rv21>
Tom,
I will reply to some of the information you included but I do not want to
create any negative feelings. I hold the work that you and your father did
in high regard and do not want to degrade any of it in this discussion.
You said:
> We have worked with growers on field sanitation and straw utilization from
> 1974 to the present, 2004. Open burning was cheap. Not burning is
expensive.
> Machine burning is more expensive.
Burning farm residues is like the trash business. When you can dump your
trash by the roadside, it is cheap. When you haul it to a landfull, it is
expensive. When you recycle it, it is more expensive. What is the
responsible thing to do?
You said:
>Several growers took a direct hit from
> the legislation and sold the farm. Many of those farms were sold to
housing
> developers.
Many of the farmers who were impacted by the legislation were in their 50's
and early 60's. They chose to retire rather than make the financial
investment for the new method of farming. They figured it would take about
ten years to recover the costs associated with the new farming practice and
they did not want to make this commitment so late in life. This ALWAYS
occurs when there is a paradyme shift in any industry. This is not unique
to farming. Some sold to land developers because they offered the highest
price. I don't fault them or the market. Despite these changes, there is
was more land in grass seed production in the late 90's after the open field
burning legislation was passed than there was in the late 80's at the height
of open field burning. This was accomplished by converting from land which
had been used for less profitable crops, expanding to less productive land
and the perhipheral area widened for grass seed farms.
You said
> Our objective in straw utilization is to find uses that will return enough
> value to cover the cost of harvesting, transportation and processing and,
> hopefully, the cost of treating the field. As you know the grass seed
farmer
> receives no money for the straw itself. Straw is removed as a service by a
> straw merchant who must make a profit by selling the straw. He must
receive
> about $45/ton, or $3/GJ, for clean dry straw stored and delivered all
year.
In all of these scenarios, the straw itself was presented as having no value
to the farmer. Actually, the mineral content in the straw which was shipped
of the farm cost the grower $125 per acre to replace in fertilizer the next
year if the farming was to be done sustainably. When farmers began shipping
their straw off the farm rather than burning, they saw their soil P & K
values rapidly plummet from what they had seen during open field burning.
The growers who recycled their residues saw a minor drop in P & K levels and
could easily compensate during their regular fertilizer plan.
You said
> In the case of switchgrass, where no grain or seed crop is sold to offset
> the cost of growing the crop, the cost can vary from $30 to $60/ton, or
> $2-$4/GJ, depending on crop yield which varies in the US from 10-25 t/ha.
> Fields growing switchgrass on the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) were
> often growing FOOD - corn or soybeans - in the 1970s. Those fields were
> highly erodable and became eligible for federal funds to plant the native
> prairie grass, instead of food, to control erosion and provide habitat.
> These fields were set aside because of a choice between food vs
conservation
> and water quality.
I have managed our family small grains farm for some years now and can tell
you specifically why I put some of our land in CRP and it was not a food or
conservation decision. The land that was put in CRP was the least
productive and provided the poorest economic return. The government offered
me more money than I could net off the land by farming it. There was no
"should I produce food or conserve the soil" issue for me. It was pure
economics and I suspect that is what my neighbors used as a ruler as well.
Now I am in a soil building phase on those parcels and can hope to build the
land up during the term of my CRP contract. It is a free contract to allow
me to start with improved land in the future. Farmers don't sit out in the
field saying "should I produce food or conserve the land". Economics drives
the plan.
Again, despite my disagreement with your presentation, I hold the work you
and your father did during these times in the highest regard.
Art Krenzel
From Gavin at aa3genergi.force9.co.uk Mon Aug 30 11:20:01 2004
From: Gavin at aa3genergi.force9.co.uk (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 17:20:01 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] how free are smoke free stoves.
In-Reply-To: <7828.81.199.21.106.1093869636.squirrel@webmail.kampalabuzz.com>
Message-ID: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGKEJJDNAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
Dear Duncan,
I guess the other thing that "stovers" are doing is to try and use less fuel
for the same cooking result.
Open fires smoky or otherwise are really low efficiency.
Notwithstanding local cultural traditions newer stoves can be operated to be
cleaner burning and more efficient at heating so reducing pollution and the
disease that goes with it , and reducing the labour of firewood collecting
and the deforestation that goes with it.
I think that mostly we like playing with matches and this is an excuse ;-)
Good luck with your research I am sure you are better placed than us to
influence the health and wellbeing of Africa
Kindest regards
Gaivn
[GGG] <snip>
From tmiles at trmiles.com Mon Aug 30 12:20:09 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:20:09 -0700
Subject: [Bioenergy] Re: [Stoves] Fw: [Gasification] Food vs Fuel vs Waste
References: <E68635E5A1B47E4AB86E63E8A9FD9612514455@outlook.mainebondbank.com>
Message-ID: <010301c48eb5$e11c0070$6401a8c0@OFFICE3>
Mary Lou Gallup has correctly identified the URL for the Fiber Futures Fiber
Crop Mapping Project as :
http://www.fiberfutures.org/fibercrop/
Fiber Futures http://www.fiberfutures.org/ is a non profit organization
dedicated to the use of agricultural residues and non wood fibers. The
mapping project was part of an assessment that we did in 2001 of alternative
uses for wheat straw in Eastern Washington and Oregon. The map illustrates
the wide variability in straw residues using local agronomic criteria.
The Fiber Futures web site also has a good compendium of information on
straw utilization:
http://www.fiberfutures.org/straw/main.html
I note that the links to the Oregon Department of Agriculture pages on Smoke
Management and field burning history have changed to:
http://www.oda.state.or.us/nrd/smoke/
http://www.oda.state.or.us/nrd/smoke/WmVFBhist.html
Thanks for the correction.
Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mary Lou Gallup" <mlg at mainepoweroptions.org>
To: "'Tom Miles'" <tmiles at trmiles.com>
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 5:06 AM
Subject: RE: [Bioenergy] Re: [Stoves] Fw: [Gasification] Food vs Fuel vs
Waste
> Hi Tom,
> I believe you meant http://www.fiberfutures.org/fibercrop/ not
> http://www.fibercrops.org??
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Miles [mailto:tmiles at trmiles.com]
> Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 2:59 PM
> To: Tom Reed; STOVES
> Cc: The Bioenergy Discussion List
> Subject: [Bioenergy] Re: [Stoves] Fw: [Gasification] Food vs Fuel vs
> Waste
>
>
> Tom,
In Eastern Washington we
> used the best available data to identify residues that could be removed
> withouth affecting the soil using GIS techniqes http://www.fibercrops.org
> Fiber Crop Mapping Project.
From tombreed at comcast.net Tue Aug 31 08:45:39 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (TBReed)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 07:45:39 -0600
Subject: [Stoves] how free are smoke free stoves.
References: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGKEJJDNAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
Message-ID: <002c01c48f60$cfd6cdd0$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
Dear All:
I said the other day that "The Stove is an extension of the stomach". It
predigests the food with heat so there is less work for the stomach to do.
Cooking makes possible eating many things that would otherwise be
indigestible - like bread. (I suppose milling and grinding are also stomach
extensions.)
Therefore, a smoky stove is equivalent to having gas on the stomach! Keep
kooking klean.
TOM REED BEF
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gavin Gulliver-Goodall" <Gavin at aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
To: <duncan at kampalabuzz.com>; <stoves at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 10:20 AM
Subject: RE: [Stoves] how free are smoke free stoves.
> Dear Duncan,
>
> I guess the other thing that "stovers" are doing is to try and use less
fuel
> for the same cooking result.
> Open fires smoky or otherwise are really low efficiency.
>
> Notwithstanding local cultural traditions newer stoves can be operated to
be
> cleaner burning and more efficient at heating so reducing pollution and
the
> disease that goes with it , and reducing the labour of firewood collecting
> and the deforestation that goes with it.
>
> I think that mostly we like playing with matches and this is an excuse ;-)
>
> Good luck with your research I am sure you are better placed than us to
> influence the health and wellbeing of Africa
>
> Kindest regards
>
> Gaivn
>
>
> [GGG] <snip>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>
From tmiles at trmiles.com Tue Aug 31 21:01:13 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 19:01:13 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] Search engines
Message-ID: <001801c48fc7$99cd29c0$6401a8c0@OFFICE3>
All,
I hope you've all had a change to try the (HtDig) search engine for the List Archives. We now have all the messages since 1996 in one archive.
We've changed the search engine for the stoves site to Google. In 2001 I found that Google was not finding files at REPP, especially those in pdf files, so I paid for a service called Freefind to do a daily index of files that I kept on a mirror site. (Some of you have been confused when you have found yourself on my site. Google now does a pretty good job of indexing the 670 MB of files on the REPP Stoves site so we've started using it again.
Regards,
Tom Miles
http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/
Copyright © 2006 - 2009 All Rights Reserved.
Copyright is retained by the original contributor to the discussion list or web site.
Related Sites: Bioenergy, Stoves, Renewable Carbon, BioChar (Terra Preta)