BioEnergy Lists: Improved Biomass Cooking Stoves

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

May 2004 Biomass Cooking Stoves Archive

For more messages see our 1996-2004 Biomass Stoves Discussion List Archives.

From kenboak at STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK Tue May 4 12:13:31 2004
From: kenboak at STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK (Ken Boak)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:53 2004
Subject: One candle of heat
Message-ID: <TUE.4.MAY.2004.171331.0100.KENBOAK@STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK>

Tom & Stovers,

As a teenager, I used to make small pipettes from glass capillary tube and
turn a candle flame into a "blowpipe burner".

Just by blowing through a small jet into the candle flame you can form a
powerful precision blowtorch - with a flame of 2" , and several hundred
watts of heat - ideal for silver soldering and the like.

The effort required in blowing to maintain such a flame soon becomes
tiring - so I used to rig up a large container (1 gallon bottle) with an
airtight lid, and trickle water into it from a tap through another pipe.
The rising water displaces the air and you get a constant airflow. You have
to remember to turn off the tap otherwise you will spray water over the
candle and the workpiece.

regards,

Ken

From raywije at EUREKA.LK Sat May 1 17:15:17 2004
From: raywije at EUREKA.LK (Dr. Ray Wijewardene)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:03 2004
Subject: Availability of Fuel for smokeless (gasifier-type) domestic
cookers.
In-Reply-To: <003401c42eb4$eddbc310$6401a8c0@TOM>
Message-ID: <SAT.1.MAY.2004.141517.0700.RAYWIJE@EUREKA.LK>

Dear Tom.. ADK. et-al...

You may have observed that the trend we are trying to encourage and develop
in (SL)Sri Lanka is towards 'Re-Greening-Sri-Lanka' ... which is perhaps
much deeper than the development only of
improved stoves. Our earlier endeavours towards this objectives were
tremendously re-inforced when I saw the eroded and tree-less rural
countryside around Pune... a countryside which I recalled as tree-covered
and verdant when I used to visit Pune (often, - I had relations there) in my
much younger days, - some 65 years ago!... My subsequent travels around
other regions of (our nearest neighbour) India, now as a 'retired'
gentleman, greatly re-inforced my impression that unless we ACTIVELY try to
do something about it, we in Sri-Lanka too would soon be losing our own
verdant hillsides.... Once very much more verdant than they are now!!

It struck me that our verbal and sentimental endeavours to 'save the
forests'... 'save our trees'...'tree-hugging' etc. would lead us nowhere...
The sheer commercialism of CUTTING down trees for sale would have to be
addressed... and bettered! The trees used for domestic-fuel-wood by
willagers was, to my mind, (and also well substantiated in literature) a
tiny fraction of the trees being cut down by commercial interests ... not
only for timber, but far more for the (thermal) fuel-wood market in
industries.

And this was when we reverted to the ancient and time-proven (world-wide)
practise of 'coppicing'... Of only 'pruning' the branches in such a manner
as to permit the trees to grow lush and green again... to produce more
prunings or loppings or coppices. I learned a lot more about this during my
period as a principal scientist in West-Africa with IITA, the International
Institute of Tropical Agriculture, where the 'Alley-Cropping' or SALT
(Sloping-Agriculural Land Technology) system was developed to achieve a
state of sustainable fertility on the rain-fed sloping lands of the tropical
regions.

We soon discovered that this was a very sustainable process... and specially
in our tropical countries with year-round sunshine to promote year-round
growth....Plantation crops (tea, rubber, cocoa, bananas, coconuts, oil-palm
etc) have long proven the most sustainable of industries in the tropics...
and far healthier for our people than herded together in the western pattern
of factories and industries... where such enclosed premises are perhaps very
necessary in the winter months....

But we would have to make it commercially attractive (repeat COMMERCIALLY
ATTRACTIVE) for people to GROW the trees on a plantation scale, rather than
just 'fell and sell' them...Look around for woody areas to fell/cut and
convey to the various industries being established to exploit the wood.
Hence our earlier program was termed GROWING OUR OWN ENERGY... a
power-point-presentation of which those who joined us at Pune will have
seen. This endeavour was to promote the commercial GROWING of fuel-wood as
itself a profitable venture, both for industrial (thermal) use as well as
for the generation of electricity (and for which there is a substantial
market in SL and in all developing countries). We (my colleagues, Josph,
Nalin, Para et-al. and I) initially directed our attention towards
gasifiers.. an area in which Tom Reed is undoubtedly a world-authority, and
his publications thereon invaluable. We searched the world for suitable
gasifiers to meet OUR needs in what is very much still a developing
country.... And India seemed to have the most appropriate... homing in on
ANKUR in Baroda. An initial order (through our Ministry of Power & Energy
and Ministry of Science & Technology) for a 35 kW gasifier generator has
proven eminently satisfactory and been viewed (with some surprise!) in
steady operation by literally thousands of visitors. ... A further gasifier
ordered for the generation of industrial thermal heat was installed at a
very well reputed factory making activated charcoal... there to replace the
fuel-oil supplied to their boilers for the generatiion of steam. A further
gasifier from ANKUR is being installed to demonstrate the role of coppiced
fuel-wood in CHP (Combined-Heat-and-Power) where the gas generated in the
gasifier is used both for thermal (process-heat) as well as
electricity-generation. The fact that there is no smoke seen now from the
chimneys of the factories which replaced the burning of fuel-oil with
gasifiers, has made many kin the region wonder whether the factory still
operates!

This enabled local entreprenurs to develop systems for the growing and
supply to the gasifiers of coppiced fuel wood (in this case, primarily of
the NF trees Gliricidia and Accacia) from up to 50 miles away.. to receive
cash payment ($15 per tone) therefor. Soon there were queues of trailers and
trucks lining up to supply the wood, and the sustainability of the market
therefor has encouraged the growing of gliricidia trees on the surrounding
coconut plantations. This practise had long been urged by the scientists of
our Coconut Research Instiute, which had urged the growing of gliricida as a
high 'N-content' green-manure to meet the increasing fertility needs of the
coconut growing industry... and to replace tonnes and tones of imported
urea... the cost of which (with that of oil) has increased dramatically. On
my own little coconut plantation, we also installed a 'baby' (3.5 kW)
gasifier-generator (imported from ANKUR) which supplies all the domestic
electricity needs of the plantation-cottage labour and office... while also
supplying the electricity for the irrigation pumps supplying water to the
drip-irrigation system now being installed to each and every coconut-palm of
this plantation, and proving invaluable to combat the increasingly long
periods of drought which we have faced during the past several decades.

Surprisingly... it is not only the saving in energy costs but MORE the
savings in fertiliser costs through substition of the gliricida leaf (50 kgs
having the 'N' equivalent of 800 gms of urea earlier used per palm) The
increased 'greening' of the plantation by the rows and rows of gliricidia
planted in the avenues between the coconut palm has been remarked on and
commended by the many hundreds who come to 'look-see'... and hopefully adopt
themselves.

I say 'hopefully'... for if you think that they have all gone right ahead
and promptly emulated these - clearly very profitable and successful
demonstrations of the financial advantages of 'Growing our own Energy AND
FERTILITY'... then we all need another 'think'! It just doesn't happen
overnight. .. The 'Inevitabilty of Gradualness' as Bernard Shaw (I believe)
once wrote. But we have every expectatation that these practises will soon
become more widely used... and then perhaps 'snow-ball'!!

My special thanks in this endeavour (although not directly to 'Stoves') have
been to Tom Reed and ADKarve whose guidance throughout has been
invaluable.... The REAL 'spin-off' being in the area of 'Green-Manuring' and
the experience we are hereby acquiring to revert to the ancient, proven
sustainability, and clear financial benefits of 'scientifically' growing our
own green-manures to replace the now-prohibitively-expensive costs for
imported fertilisers.... an endeavour in which Growing of Our Own Energy
now appears to be a very profitable 'spin-off' from our efforts to Grow Our
Own Fertility. However, like Tom Reed I question the need for the energy
losses in the making of charcaol, if we could devote more attention to
utilising all the heat of the wood in a really appropriate wood-stove,
direct... as his team at BEF, ADK at Pune, and our Punchibanda at NERDC in
SL, are now endeavouring to achieve.

Tom Reed mentions the tremendous green and foul emissions usually
encountered in charcoal making. This was also experienced in the rural
making of charcoal from coconut shells in Sri Lanka. In recent years the
experience of gasification has encouraged our major producer (and
world-renowned exporter) of activated charcoal, to develop massive (6-8 MW)
plant to pyrolise coconut shells directly into charcoal AND use all the
effluent gasses in a totally enclosed system to produce not only the
charcoal and its activation but also the turbine-driven electricity they -
and their associated factories - need.... no smoke... no pollution... and
GREATLY reduced production costs.

My apologies for the length of this email...

Ray

RAY WIJEWARDENE.. Colombo, Sri Lanka.

-----Original Message-----
From: TBReed [mailto:tombreed@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 6:13 AM
To: adkarve; STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG; raywije@eureka.lk
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Availability of Fuel for smokeless (gasifier-type)
domestic cookers.

Dear ADKarve, Ray and All:

ADK said..
There is a ban in Maharashtra state on
> making charcoal from wood. There is ample prosopis juliflora (mesquite)
> growing everywhere. People cut it and sell it as firewood, but if we made
> charcoal from it, we would be breaking the law.

There are probably two good reasons for the law against making charcoal from
wood in Maharashtra (and possibly political and financial reasons as well).

1) The yield of charcoal from wood is typically 15-25%, so that >2/3 of the
energy is wasted.

2) Conventional charcoal making puts out incredible amounts of
yellow-green emissions, so that the "clean cooking" for the family becomes
dirty air for the rest of us!

ADK's new cane charcoal process has minimal emissions and would also have
minimal emissions for wood, I presume. This overcomes objection 2. If ADK
can now find some use for the heat that he generates by burning the
yellow-green tar emissions, he will have overcome objection 1.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
The process of toplit updraft (inverted downdraft) cooking on the other hand
uses 3/4 of the heat content for clean cooking by burning the emissions and
leaves 5-25% (depending on moisture content) as a charcoal by-product. There
must be some happy combination of these two processes.

Musing.

Tom Reed BEF

----- Original Message -----
From: "adkarve" <adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 7:49 AM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Availability of Fuel for smokeless (gasifier-type)
domestic cookers.

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Sat May 1 08:26:58 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:03 2004
Subject: Briquette CD
In-Reply-To: <000101c42f28$72d9f320$745441db@adkarve>
Message-ID: <SAT.1.MAY.2004.072658.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

If no one else has already voluntered to do this, I can make the
CDs. Although I think you might check around for a better courier, that's
awfully expensive. I bought some knife blades from India and the shipping was
only US$2.00 each, and they are considerably heavier and bigger than a CD. They
shipped them through http://www.ezworldwide.com and I paid for them through
PayPal -- which, if you haven't already tried, is a very simple and really great
way to make payments on the net.

On Sat, May 01, 2004 at 07:33:12AM +0530, adkarve wrote:
> Dear Stovers,
> A lot of people in the USA have expressed the wish to obtain the CD on the
> charcoal making process. The CD itself is quite cheap but the courier
> charges come to roughly US$25. Also the money transfer charges from the US
> to India are very high, coming to almost US$ 20. Therefore, the recipient in
> the US would have to pay almost US$50 for the CD. To avoid this hassle and
> the expenses, I am willing to send one CD to somebody who volunteers to copy
> it and send it to others within the US. All our Institute wants is US$ 2.5
> per CD which the volunteer pays to us. He may charge to the recipients the
> local US courier charges, packaging and the cost of the CD. The CD was shown
> in the Seattle conference on Feb.1, 2004 , at the Faculty of Engineering,
> University of Colorado, Fort Collins and also at National Renewable Energy
> Laboratory, Denver . One CD was handed over as a gift to one of these three.
> In case such a copy exists anywhere, or somebody has a copy in the memory of
> his computer, I authorise the owner to copy it and send it to the persons in
> USA, who have requested the CD from us.
> Yours
> A.D.Karve
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Hank or Margaret <w.burroughs@verizon.net>
> To: adkarve <adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>; <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 10:22 PM
> Subject: Briquette CD
>
>
> > How do we get one of these CDs? Sounds like an interesting project but
> the
> > income is probably too low for use in the United States. Still, I wonder
> > how some thing like this might work in a logged area that is slated for
> > slash burning. Maybe a valuable product could be made instead of a lot of
> > smoke!!
> >
> > Hank in the high desert
> >
> > SNIP-----
> >
> > > In case you wish to know more about this process, we can send you a
> video
> > CD
> > > showing the entire process step by step. The CD costs US$2.5. Postage
> and
> > > packing are extra.
> > > Yours
> > > Dr.A.D.Karve, President,
> > > Appropriate Rural Technology Institute,
> > > Pune, India.
> >
> >

--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com
Hoka hey!

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Sat May 1 09:28:15 2004
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:03 2004
Subject: Availability of Fuel for smokeless (gasifier-type) domestic
cookers.
Message-ID: <SAT.1.MAY.2004.072815.0600.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Ray:

Several follow-up questions on your e-mail of today.

1. Can you add a bit more on the economics of any or all of the several
plantation, combustion, and pyrolysis operations in Sri Lanka (preferably in
units of c/kWh or $/MJ - and tonnes/hectare/yr, etc) - and the percent
savings you are experiencing (including the fertilizer replacement
aspects)..

2. What are the resaons that you think people are moving slowly (if they
are) on emulating what you have started?

3. Has the activated charcoal pyrolysis operation you mentioned been
written up anywhere? What is the scale (tonnes per hour, etc) and
economics? Batch or continuous?

4. Could you (or Punchibanda) describe the Punchibanda stove and program
(sales to date, $/stove, etc). Is Punchibanda using his household stove at
all for charcoal-making?

Thanks in advance and congratulations for what you are doing in Sri Lanka.

Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: Dr. Ray Wijewardene <raywije@EUREKA.LK>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: Availability of Fuel for smokeless (gasifier-type) domestic
cookers.

> ---------------------- Information from the mail
header -----------------------
> Sender: The Stoves Discussion List <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Poster: "Dr. Ray Wijewardene" <raywije@EUREKA.LK>
> Subject: Re: Availability of Fuel for smokeless (gasifier-type)
domestic
> cookers.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
> Dear Tom.. ADK. et-al...
>
> You may have observed that the trend we are trying to encourage and
develop
> in (SL)Sri Lanka is towards 'Re-Greening-Sri-Lanka' ... which is perhaps
> much deeper than the development only of
> improved stoves. Our earlier endeavours towards this objectives were
> tremendously re-inforced when I saw the eroded and tree-less rural
> countryside around Pune... a countryside which I recalled as tree-covered
> and verdant when I used to visit Pune (often, - I had relations there) in
my
> much younger days, - some 65 years ago!... My subsequent travels around
> other regions of (our nearest neighbour) India, now as a 'retired'
> gentleman, greatly re-inforced my impression that unless we ACTIVELY try
to
> do something about it, we in Sri-Lanka too would soon be losing our own
> verdant hillsides.... Once very much more verdant than they are now!!
>
> It struck me that our verbal and sentimental endeavours to 'save the
> forests'... 'save our trees'...'tree-hugging' etc. would lead us
nowhere...
> The sheer commercialism of CUTTING down trees for sale would have to be
> addressed... and bettered! The trees used for domestic-fuel-wood by
> willagers was, to my mind, (and also well substantiated in literature) a
> tiny fraction of the trees being cut down by commercial interests ... not
> only for timber, but far more for the (thermal) fuel-wood market in
> industries.
>
> And this was when we reverted to the ancient and time-proven (world-wide)
> practise of 'coppicing'... Of only 'pruning' the branches in such a manner
> as to permit the trees to grow lush and green again... to produce more
> prunings or loppings or coppices. I learned a lot more about this during
my
> period as a principal scientist in West-Africa with IITA, the
International
> Institute of Tropical Agriculture, where the 'Alley-Cropping' or SALT
> (Sloping-Agriculural Land Technology) system was developed to achieve a
> state of sustainable fertility on the rain-fed sloping lands of the
tropical
> regions.
>
> We soon discovered that this was a very sustainable process... and
specially
> in our tropical countries with year-round sunshine to promote year-round
> growth....Plantation crops (tea, rubber, cocoa, bananas, coconuts,
oil-palm
> etc) have long proven the most sustainable of industries in the tropics...
> and far healthier for our people than herded together in the western
pattern
> of factories and industries... where such enclosed premises are perhaps
very
> necessary in the winter months....
>
> But we would have to make it commercially attractive (repeat COMMERCIALLY
> ATTRACTIVE) for people to GROW the trees on a plantation scale, rather
than
> just 'fell and sell' them...Look around for woody areas to fell/cut and
> convey to the various industries being established to exploit the wood.
> Hence our earlier program was termed GROWING OUR OWN ENERGY... a
> power-point-presentation of which those who joined us at Pune will have
> seen. This endeavour was to promote the commercial GROWING of fuel-wood as
> itself a profitable venture, both for industrial (thermal) use as well as
> for the generation of electricity (and for which there is a substantial
> market in SL and in all developing countries). We (my colleagues, Josph,
> Nalin, Para et-al. and I) initially directed our attention towards
> gasifiers.. an area in which Tom Reed is undoubtedly a world-authority,
and
> his publications thereon invaluable. We searched the world for suitable
> gasifiers to meet OUR needs in what is very much still a developing
> country.... And India seemed to have the most appropriate... homing in on
> ANKUR in Baroda. An initial order (through our Ministry of Power & Energy
> and Ministry of Science & Technology) for a 35 kW gasifier generator has
> proven eminently satisfactory and been viewed (with some surprise!) in
> steady operation by literally thousands of visitors. ... A further
gasifier
> ordered for the generation of industrial thermal heat was installed at a
> very well reputed factory making activated charcoal... there to replace
the
> fuel-oil supplied to their boilers for the generatiion of steam. A further
> gasifier from ANKUR is being installed to demonstrate the role of coppiced
> fuel-wood in CHP (Combined-Heat-and-Power) where the gas generated in the
> gasifier is used both for thermal (process-heat) as well as
> electricity-generation. The fact that there is no smoke seen now from the
> chimneys of the factories which replaced the burning of fuel-oil with
> gasifiers, has made many kin the region wonder whether the factory still
> operates!
>
> This enabled local entreprenurs to develop systems for the growing and
> supply to the gasifiers of coppiced fuel wood (in this case, primarily of
> the NF trees Gliricidia and Accacia) from up to 50 miles away.. to receive
> cash payment ($15 per tone) therefor. Soon there were queues of trailers
and
> trucks lining up to supply the wood, and the sustainability of the market
> therefor has encouraged the growing of gliricidia trees on the surrounding
> coconut plantations. This practise had long been urged by the scientists
of
> our Coconut Research Instiute, which had urged the growing of gliricida as
a
> high 'N-content' green-manure to meet the increasing fertility needs of
the
> coconut growing industry... and to replace tonnes and tones of imported
> urea... the cost of which (with that of oil) has increased dramatically.
On
> my own little coconut plantation, we also installed a 'baby' (3.5 kW)
> gasifier-generator (imported from ANKUR) which supplies all the domestic
> electricity needs of the plantation-cottage labour and office... while
also
> supplying the electricity for the irrigation pumps supplying water to the
> drip-irrigation system now being installed to each and every coconut-palm
of
> this plantation, and proving invaluable to combat the increasingly long
> periods of drought which we have faced during the past several decades.
>
> Surprisingly... it is not only the saving in energy costs but MORE the
> savings in fertiliser costs through substition of the gliricida leaf (50
kgs
> having the 'N' equivalent of 800 gms of urea earlier used per palm) The
> increased 'greening' of the plantation by the rows and rows of gliricidia
> planted in the avenues between the coconut palm has been remarked on and
> commended by the many hundreds who come to 'look-see'... and hopefully
adopt
> themselves.
>
> I say 'hopefully'... for if you think that they have all gone right ahead
> and promptly emulated these - clearly very profitable and successful
> demonstrations of the financial advantages of 'Growing our own Energy AND
> FERTILITY'... then we all need another 'think'! It just doesn't happen
> overnight. .. The 'Inevitabilty of Gradualness' as Bernard Shaw (I
believe)
> once wrote. But we have every expectatation that these practises will soon
> become more widely used... and then perhaps 'snow-ball'!!
>
> My special thanks in this endeavour (although not directly to 'Stoves')
have
> been to Tom Reed and ADKarve whose guidance throughout has been
> invaluable.... The REAL 'spin-off' being in the area of 'Green-Manuring'
and
> the experience we are hereby acquiring to revert to the ancient, proven
> sustainability, and clear financial benefits of 'scientifically' growing
our
> own green-manures to replace the now-prohibitively-expensive costs for
> imported fertilisers.... an endeavour in which Growing of Our Own Energy
> now appears to be a very profitable 'spin-off' from our efforts to Grow
Our
> Own Fertility. However, like Tom Reed I question the need for the energy
> losses in the making of charcaol, if we could devote more attention to
> utilising all the heat of the wood in a really appropriate wood-stove,
> direct... as his team at BEF, ADK at Pune, and our Punchibanda at NERDC in
> SL, are now endeavouring to achieve.
>
> Tom Reed mentions the tremendous green and foul emissions usually
> encountered in charcoal making. This was also experienced in the rural
> making of charcoal from coconut shells in Sri Lanka. In recent years the
> experience of gasification has encouraged our major producer (and
> world-renowned exporter) of activated charcoal, to develop massive (6-8
MW)
> plant to pyrolise coconut shells directly into charcoal AND use all the
> effluent gasses in a totally enclosed system to produce not only the
> charcoal and its activation but also the turbine-driven electricity they -
> and their associated factories - need.... no smoke... no pollution... and
> GREATLY reduced production costs.
>
> My apologies for the length of this email...
>
> Ray
>
> RAY WIJEWARDENE.. Colombo, Sri Lanka.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TBReed [mailto:tombreed@comcast.net]
> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 6:13 AM
> To: adkarve; STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG; raywije@eureka.lk
> Subject: Re: [STOVES] Availability of Fuel for smokeless (gasifier-type)
> domestic cookers.
>
>
> Dear ADKarve, Ray and All:
>
> ADK said..
> There is a ban in Maharashtra state on
> > making charcoal from wood. There is ample prosopis juliflora (mesquite)
> > growing everywhere. People cut it and sell it as firewood, but if we
made
> > charcoal from it, we would be breaking the law.
>
> There are probably two good reasons for the law against making charcoal
from
> wood in Maharashtra (and possibly political and financial reasons as
well).
>
> 1) The yield of charcoal from wood is typically 15-25%, so that >2/3 of
the
> energy is wasted.
>
> 2) Conventional charcoal making puts out incredible amounts of
> yellow-green emissions, so that the "clean cooking" for the family becomes
> dirty air for the rest of us!
>
> ADK's new cane charcoal process has minimal emissions and would also have
> minimal emissions for wood, I presume. This overcomes objection 2. If
ADK
> can now find some use for the heat that he generates by burning the
> yellow-green tar emissions, he will have overcome objection 1.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> The process of toplit updraft (inverted downdraft) cooking on the other
hand
> uses 3/4 of the heat content for clean cooking by burning the emissions
and
> leaves 5-25% (depending on moisture content) as a charcoal by-product.
There
> must be some happy combination of these two processes.
>
> Musing.
>
> Tom Reed BEF
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "adkarve" <adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
> To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 7:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [STOVES] Availability of Fuel for smokeless (gasifier-type)
> domestic cookers.
>

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Sat May 1 10:53:28 2004
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (adkarve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:03 2004
Subject: Emissions from charring kiln
Message-ID: <SAT.1.MAY.2004.202328.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Tom,
The ban on charcoal making is primarily to save the trees. We conducted
some tests with mesquite wood and found that, using our kiln, the output of
char is about 40% of the original weight of wood. This is excluding the
twigs and trash that is burned to start the process of pyrolysis. Once the
pyrolysis starts, the volatiles emanating from the wood are burned within
the kiln itself. They thus add to the process heat. Mesquite charcoal has a
high calorific value of about 6000 kCal/kg. The Government of India has
launched a national Bamboo Mission and people are being encouraged to plant
bamboo. It is one of the fastest growing woody plants. We have already
tested our kiln successfully for charring bamboo and we feel that if
sufficient people plant bamboo in their lands, the government may allow
bamboo to be used as a raw material for making charcoal.
You have a valid point about heat being wasted in the charcoal making
process. However, in our particular process, which uses sugarcane leaves, we
have to use a portable kiln, which is taken from field to field where the
trash is available. If the char can be made from a raw material available in
large quantity at one place (like groundnut hulls in a factory making
groundnut oil), it is possible to have a heat utilizing industry like a
bakery, or a lime kiln, next to the charcoaling unit, to utilise the waste
heat from the charcoaling process. But that is not possible in the case of
our portable unit. The advantage of charcoal made from sugarcane trash is
the low price of the briquettes (about 20 Cents per kg) and the low cost of
the charcoal stove
(about US$1 to 2). I don't think that the Turbo Stove
can be offered to consumers at less than US$10. We tested the stoves made by
Punchibanda in Srilanka, but the cheaper model, without the forced draft,
smokes too
much and the model with the electrically operated blower is too costly.
The clientele that could buy the forced draft model or the Turbo Stove might
prefer to buy my compact biogas system. Its small size offers exciting
configuration possibilities. We are still exploring them and therefore are
not yet ready with a commercial model.

Yours Nandu
----- Original Message -----
From: TBReed <tombreed@COMCAST.NET>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Availability of Fuel for smokeless
(gasifier-type)domestic cookers.

> Dear ADKarve, Ray and All:
>
> ADK said..
> There is a ban in Maharashtra state on
> > making charcoal from wood. There is ample prosopis juliflora (mesquite)
> > growing everywhere. People cut it and sell it as firewood, but if we
made
> > charcoal from it, we would be breaking the law.
>
> There are probably two good reasons for the law against making charcoal
from
> wood in Maharashtra (and possibly political and financial reasons as
well).
>
> 1) The yield of charcoal from wood is typically 15-25%, so that >2/3 of
the
> energy is wasted.
>
> 2) Conventional charcoal making puts out incredible amounts of
> yellow-green emissions, so that the "clean cooking" for the family becomes
> dirty air for the rest of us!
>
> ADK's new cane charcoal process has minimal emissions and would also have
> minimal emissions for wood, I presume. This overcomes objection 2. If
ADK
> can now find some use for the heat that he generates by burning the
> yellow-green tar emissions, he will have overcome objection 1.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> The process of toplit updraft (inverted downdraft) cooking on the other
hand
> uses 3/4 of the heat content for clean cooking by burning the emissions
and
> leaves 5-25% (depending on moisture content) as a charcoal by-product.
There
> must be some happy combination of these two processes.
>
> Musing.
>
> Tom Reed BEF
>
>

From w.burroughs at VERIZON.NET Sat May 1 13:48:10 2004
From: w.burroughs at VERIZON.NET (Hank or Margaret)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:03 2004
Subject: Emissions from charring kiln
Message-ID: <SAT.1.MAY.2004.104810.0700.W.BURROUGHS@VERIZON.NET>

Could you provide a little more information about your biogas system? Does
it include a biogas generator as well as a stove? Sounds interesting.

Hank in the high desert

> The clientele that could buy the forced draft model or the Turbo Stove
might
> prefer to buy my compact biogas system. Its small size offers exciting
> configuration possibilities. We are still exploring them and therefore are
> not yet ready with a commercial model.
>
> Yours Nandu

From rstanley at LEGACYFOUND.ORG Sat May 1 15:11:15 2004
From: rstanley at LEGACYFOUND.ORG (Richard Stanley)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:03 2004
Subject: Stove Performance Manual
In-Reply-To: <011c01c42ec2$eddaf760$cb83fea9@md>
Message-ID: <SAT.1.MAY.2004.211115.0200.RSTANLEY@LEGACYFOUND.ORG>

Crispin Paul et al,
Could not add more to the assessment Crispin as it applies directly to
the wet process briquette just as well. Had the same experience with
all kinds of AT / Renewable energy hardware adaptation for development
in Tanzania and Botswana for very similar reasons.

One can all sit back and analyse the testing process to fine lines but
in reality it is all about only one thing: Actual Consumer preference.

I suggest that it is really just that simple, or that complex an issue:
Simple if the "researcher:" is humble and patient enough to open the
idea to those who would become their market at the outset, and
complex, if same researcher decides to delay or or relegate their
involvment to one of "subjects or interviewees" (thats the systematic
logic we are trained in, in the west, right??) . We win the battle and
lose the war this way. The hardware and the data rolls out, then we
discover that few can use it or that they need "training". This then
calls for a trianing program when in fact it is the users who should be
training the researchers from the start. Its all about proactive and
early on engagement, as in right from the design phase, treating them
as as fellow human beings who have thoughts and observations and
experience.

anon, Richard Stanley

 

 

 

Crispin /Posix wrote:

>Dear Dean
>
>I agree with Paul: good idea and objective.
>
>I talked for quite some time with Peter Scott when he was in JHB a few weeks
>ago and I am worried that the operation of the Vesto you have is not
>understood. He said that they are still not able to get the type of
>combustion he saw when I was operating the stove in Vereeniging. I think it
>is a matter of its being over-fuelled in the beginning but I am not sure. I
>have never had a chance to demonstrate to any Aprovecho staff how the stove
>should be used. Even in Kirkland there was no suitable wood and I made do
>by breaking up some wet branches we found around the garden. I was reduced
>to talking about how it should be fuelled rather than demonstrating it.
>
>This raises the question of your finding out how stoves are supposed to be
>used if you are going to test them. If you get them from around the world it
>will also be necessary to know how to operate them properly in order to
>produce a meaningful comparison. How would you learn to operate our new
>downdraft Vesto?
>
>My experience with independent testing of water pumps, stoves, cooking oil
>presses and possibly other things I make but didn't know were being tested,
>is, to say the least, disappointing. I have not yet, even once, been asked
>to train an operator of a device we manufacture before 'independent testing'
>was undertaken. Why, I have no idea. Ordinary customers are all trained
>when they buy something but equipment testers all seem to feel no need of
>it. Even the German university that did emissions testing on the early
>Vesto did not receive any training in its operation. They said that when the
>stove was up to operating temperature the emissions met the German air
>quality standards for indoor cooking (like propane, natural gas kitchen
>stoves) but their heat transfer efficiency results were low because they
>wern't using the pots for which it was designed, about which I complained
>and about which nothing happened. C'est la vie. It was an independent
>test.
>
>Aprovecho, as a vigorous promoter of one type of stove (Rocket stoves in
>various manifestations) should, I think, go out of their way to ensure that
>the stoves they bring in are operated by someone familiar with them if they
>are going to publish something of a comparative and educational nature.
>
>There are several pitfalls involved with rating stoves for various things
>(rapid heating, higher power, low emissions) which have been discussed at
>length in this forum so I am glad you guys are doing this not me. If, for
>example, an operator is being told that they are going to be tested for high
>power output, then the stove can be operated so as to give the highest
>possible power. If the test is for lowest emissions, then a skillful
>operator will run the stove in a low-emissions manner. If it is for maximum
>PHU then the operator changes his technique accordingly.
>
>At the Kirkland meeting there was a presentation on a stove type being used
>in Brazil. Ostensibly it was a plancha Rocket stove. It had major problems
>with clogging of the chimney and he experimented with fibreglass as a filter
>to prevent it, but the fibreglass clogged so quickly he had to take it out.
>To me it appeared to be either a fuel problem or an operator problem because
>the combustion was obviously not going well. In my experience Rocket stoves
>do not normally have this type of problem so it would be unfair to judge the
>performance of Rocket stoves based on that project. As a builder and vendor
>of Rocket stoves, how would he do testing stoves made by others?
>
>It would be interesting to see what claim would be made in the output
>document for an open 'three stone' fire. Piet Visser showed 20 years ago
>that efficiencies of over 30% (PHU) are attainable. We usually see a claim
>of 10% or less for open fires, which is less than 1/3 of what the
>technololgy is capable of doing if skillfully operated. Would you invite
>Piet to run the three stone fire for comparison?
>
>If a Jiko stove is modestly overloaded with charcoal the CO production
>shoots up due to a lack of air. I wouldn't have a clue how much it should
>be loaded with in order to burn cleanly so I couldn't fairly test one for
>emissions.
>
>One way to test different stoves is to use the Stoves Camp and have people
>operate stoves they know well under test conditions. I have often asked for
>a similar (what is in fact a) 'competition' in the cooking oil press field
>where one finds many different models designed to extract sunflower oil. It
>takes about 4 months full time for a person to learn how to run an oil press
>properly. I have observed that operating an oil press is similar in many
>ways to operating a stove. Almost everything is a variable and a skilfull
>operator always gets better performance by optimizing things for the
>conditions of the test.
>
>What you are proposing is a valuable exercise. I feel that a well-run
>Mandaleo stove is pretty efficient when it is hot, certainly far more
>efficient that I see in the literature on it. It isn't being run correctly
>in my opinion. Being a simple device, it is all about operator training and
>fuel preparation. Given the huge improvement Christa Roth got when people
>were trained in Mandaleo stove operation it is clear that hardware+the right
>software is the necessary combination.
>
>Paul wrote:
>
>
>>I will provide an appropriate Juntos gasifier (most recent innovations).
>>
>>
>
>I think it would be wise for Paul to run the stove for the testing if he is
>available. Let him show us what it can do. I am very interested in the
>emissions level of a well run gasifier. It could point out new directions
>for our own research.
>
>Many thanks
>Crispin
>
>
>
>
>

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Sat May 1 20:09:35 2004
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (adkarve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:03 2004
Subject: Coppice shoots as fuel
Message-ID: <SUN.2.MAY.2004.053935.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Ray,
I have been looking at organic farming and there are many questions about
it. When one grows a plant and uses it for manuring another crop, you are
actually removing nutrients from one patch of the soil and adding to
another. In the case of nitrogen fixing plants, there is a net gain in the
nitrogen, but in the case of other nutrients, you are actually mining the
soil. Thus eventually there is bound to be depletion of the soil from where
you are removing the green manure. I have not yet found a suitable
explanation as to how to reconcile this with the high yield that farmers
report from organic farming.
As to Ron's question about the slow acceptance of new technologies, we too
have experienced the same phenomenon with our technologies. Human mind has
inertia and it needs a lot of energy to set it in motion.
Yours
A.D.Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Larson <ronallarson@QWEST.NET>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Availability of Fuel for smokeless
(gasifier-type)domestic cookers.

> Ray:
>
> Several follow-up questions on your e-mail of today.
>
> 1. Can you add a bit more on the economics of any or all of the several
> plantation, combustion, and pyrolysis operations in Sri Lanka (preferably
in
> units of c/kWh or $/MJ - and tonnes/hectare/yr, etc) - and the percent
> savings you are experiencing (including the fertilizer replacement
> aspects)..
>
> 2. What are the resaons that you think people are moving slowly (if they
> are) on emulating what you have started?
>
> 3. Has the activated charcoal pyrolysis operation you mentioned been
> written up anywhere? What is the scale (tonnes per hour, etc) and
> economics? Batch or continuous?
>
> 4. Could you (or Punchibanda) describe the Punchibanda stove and program
> (sales to date, $/stove, etc). Is Punchibanda using his household stove
at
> all for charcoal-making?
>
>
> Thanks in advance and congratulations for what you are doing in Sri Lanka.
>
> Ron
>
>

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Sun May 2 09:13:00 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:03 2004
Subject: Emissions from charring kiln
Message-ID: <SUN.2.MAY.2004.071300.0600.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Nandu:

Mesquite is considered a "weed tree" in Texas and other parts of the U.S.
What is it's status in India? If it is a weed tree, I should think it
should be exempted from the ban on wood charcoal making, particularly in
your kiln.

Does your kiln burn

1) "bottom up" in the classic charcoal manner or

2) "top down" in the top down updraft (inverted downdraft) manner?

Each has certain advantages. #1) burns a small amount of the wood under the
pile to dry the rest, they pyrolyse the rest. If you watch the emissions,
they are initially only steam (and incombustible); then a mixture of steam
and pyrolysis gas (hard to burn); and finally pyrolysis gas alone which can
be easily burned in a burner.

#2 can make very high charcoal yields with dry biomass, but if there is
significant moisture, each layer of charcoal will be partly consumed in
order to dry the next layer and yields diminish to ~5% charcoal if the
biomass is 30% moisture (wet basis). (At least those are the results in our
stoves.)

I fully sympathize with the poorest of the poor who can't afford $10 for an
efficient, clean, fast biomass stove. However, there are at least as many
"affluent poor" living in cities who are now burning kerosene or propane
with minimal emissions and would greatly benefit from a more advanced stove
that could burn biomass.

Comments?

TOM REED BEF STOVEWORKS

----- Original Message -----
From: "adkarve" <adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 8:53 AM
Subject: [STOVES] Emissions from charring kiln

> Dear Tom,
> The ban on charcoal making is primarily to save the trees. We conducted
> some tests with mesquite wood and found that, using our kiln, the output
of
> char is about 40% of the original weight of wood. This is excluding the
> twigs and trash that is burned to start the process of pyrolysis. Once the
> pyrolysis starts, the volatiles emanating from the wood are burned within
> the kiln itself. They thus add to the process heat. Mesquite charcoal has
a
> high calorific value of about 6000 kCal/kg. The Government of India has
> launched a national Bamboo Mission and people are being encouraged to
plant
> bamboo. It is one of the fastest growing woody plants. We have already
> tested our kiln successfully for charring bamboo and we feel that if
> sufficient people plant bamboo in their lands, the government may allow
> bamboo to be used as a raw material for making charcoal.
> You have a valid point about heat being wasted in the charcoal making
> process. However, in our particular process, which uses sugarcane leaves,
we
> have to use a portable kiln, which is taken from field to field where the
> trash is available. If the char can be made from a raw material available
in
> large quantity at one place (like groundnut hulls in a factory making
> groundnut oil), it is possible to have a heat utilizing industry like a
> bakery, or a lime kiln, next to the charcoaling unit, to utilise the waste
> heat from the charcoaling process. But that is not possible in the case of
> our portable unit. The advantage of charcoal made from sugarcane trash is
> the low price of the briquettes (about 20 Cents per kg) and the low cost
of
> the charcoal stove
> (about US$1 to 2). I don't think that the Turbo Stove
> can be offered to consumers at less than US$10. We tested the stoves made
by
> Punchibanda in Srilanka, but the cheaper model, without the forced draft,
> smokes too
> much and the model with the electrically operated blower is too costly.
> The clientele that could buy the forced draft model or the Turbo Stove
might
> prefer to buy my compact biogas system. Its small size offers exciting
> configuration possibilities. We are still exploring them and therefore are
> not yet ready with a commercial model.
>
> Yours Nandu
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: TBReed <tombreed@COMCAST.NET>
> To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 6:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [STOVES] Availability of Fuel for smokeless
> (gasifier-type)domestic cookers.
>
>
> > Dear ADKarve, Ray and All:
> >
> > ADK said..
> > There is a ban in Maharashtra state on
> > > making charcoal from wood. There is ample prosopis juliflora
(mesquite)
> > > growing everywhere. People cut it and sell it as firewood, but if we
> made
> > > charcoal from it, we would be breaking the law.
> >
> > There are probably two good reasons for the law against making charcoal
> from
> > wood in Maharashtra (and possibly political and financial reasons as
> well).
> >
> > 1) The yield of charcoal from wood is typically 15-25%, so that >2/3 of
> the
> > energy is wasted.
> >
> > 2) Conventional charcoal making puts out incredible amounts of
> > yellow-green emissions, so that the "clean cooking" for the family
becomes
> > dirty air for the rest of us!
> >
> > ADK's new cane charcoal process has minimal emissions and would also
have
> > minimal emissions for wood, I presume. This overcomes objection 2. If
> ADK
> > can now find some use for the heat that he generates by burning the
> > yellow-green tar emissions, he will have overcome objection 1.
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > The process of toplit updraft (inverted downdraft) cooking on the other
> hand
> > uses 3/4 of the heat content for clean cooking by burning the emissions
> and
> > leaves 5-25% (depending on moisture content) as a charcoal by-product.
> There
> > must be some happy combination of these two processes.
> >
> > Musing.
> >
> > Tom Reed BEF
> >
> >

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Sun May 2 10:42:45 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:03 2004
Subject: Coppice shoots as fuel - adoption of new technologies
Message-ID: <SUN.2.MAY.2004.164245.0200.>

Dear Dr Karve

>As to Ron's question about the slow acceptance of new technologies,
>we too have experienced the same phenomenon with our technologies.
>Human mind has inertia and it needs a lot of energy to set it in
motion.

I think the rate of a new technology's adoption is directly related to
the worthiness of the value proposition, to the person receiving the
offer. A very successful example of a rapid adoption of a new
technology is of course the cell phone. It offers something people want
for a price they are wiling to pay. They have to learn all sorts of
technical things about it, it requires constant feeding with money and
attention to keep it charged, but people sacrifice all sorts of other
things to get their hands on and use one.

Are we able to offer stoves with that sort of value proposition?

It is in many ways the quality of the offer itself, not the technology,
that convinces people to part with their old ways and adopt a new one.
There is very little said about 'promulgation' issues on this list, but
it is critical to the success of any improved stove programme.

The stove developer and programme manager, already having to know so
much about so many things, must also learn how to create a value
proposition: this device and these benefits for this much effort and
this amount of money.

This will lead to more successful implementation, I am sure.

Regards
Crispin

From dstill at EPUD.NET Sun May 2 12:36:36 2004
From: dstill at EPUD.NET (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:03 2004
Subject: Stove Performance Manual
In-Reply-To: <4093F653.6080406@legacyfound.org>
Message-ID: <SUN.2.MAY.2004.093636.0700.DSTILL@EPUD.NET>

Dear Friends,

One of the things I really admire about Integrated Pest Management is that
it brings decision making based on experiments to the peasant farmer.
Richard says to let the people decide what is best. But lots of farmers do
not know if, when, why pesticides are needed to protect their food. IPM
trains farmers to position little cardboard boxes in their field. The farmer
learns that when a certain number of harmful insects are in the boxes it's
time to spray. This frequently never occurs. IPM puts knowledge into the
hands of the user.

How to do this with stoves? Involve locals in the design process. Teach and
then use the Water Boiling Test to determine more successful designs. Teach
that testing is an ongoing process, that stoves can be improved as use and
the Controlled Cooking Test and Kitchen Performance Test point out problems.
Empower the local people, the NGO, with the tools to create successful
technology. Go down to Honduras with Tami Bond as she teaches a NGO to see
levels of CO and particulates in houses.

Without testing there is belief and belief, as we all know, is to some large
degree projection, to use a psychological term. Without testing the design
paradigm goes unchallenged by reality.

Best,

Dean

From rstanley at LEGACYFOUND.ORG Sun May 2 15:17:16 2004
From: rstanley at LEGACYFOUND.ORG (Richard Stanley)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:03 2004
Subject: Stove Performance Manual
In-Reply-To: <20040502163636.A08EE138@telchar.epud.net>
Message-ID: <SUN.2.MAY.2004.211716.0200.RSTANLEY@LEGACYFOUND.ORG>

Dean,

Sorry but I feel you may have misinterpreted me. My interpretation of
the innovative process-- in development setting-- is to interpret what
the user determines as utilitarian, to aid them in interpreting that in
numeric or verbal forms they may not have experience with and to act as
a information resource where I have new information they may not be
aware of. I indeed do invest in the belief that they alone know best
what works for them and what does not.

Its about local ownership of and hence assumption of local
responsibility for the solution in the long run.

Your analysis of performance data is great for us but they will have a
far greater value when they become "owned" by the user and integrated to
their own stove design within their own cultural context.

I'm the same side of the fence as you but perhaps about half a kilometer
distant,
best,
Richard Stanley

Dean Still wrote:

>Dear Friends,
>
>One of the things I really admire about Integrated Pest Management is that
>it brings decision making based on experiments to the peasant farmer.
>Richard says to let the people decide what is best. But lots of farmers do
>not know if, when, why pesticides are needed to protect their food. IPM
>trains farmers to position little cardboard boxes in their field. The farmer
>learns that when a certain number of harmful insects are in the boxes it's
>time to spray. This frequently never occurs. IPM puts knowledge into the
>hands of the user.
>
>How to do this with stoves? Involve locals in the design process. Teach and
>then use the Water Boiling Test to determine more successful designs. Teach
>that testing is an ongoing process, that stoves can be improved as use and
>the Controlled Cooking Test and Kitchen Performance Test point out problems.
>Empower the local people, the NGO, with the tools to create successful
>technology. Go down to Honduras with Tami Bond as she teaches a NGO to see
>levels of CO and particulates in houses.
>
>Without testing there is belief and belief, as we all know, is to some large
>degree projection, to use a psychological term. Without testing the design
>paradigm goes unchallenged by reality.
>
>Best,
>
>Dean
>
>
>
>
>

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Sun May 2 17:31:37 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:03 2004
Subject: Stove Performance Manual
Message-ID: <SUN.2.MAY.2004.233137.0200.>

Dear Dean

I think your points are essential and well supported.

>How to do this [which was snipped] with stoves? Involve locals in the
design process.

Clearly this is part of the development of a stove. The thing is, to
have a huge impact on the problem means getting literally billions of
people involved and there isn't enough money in the world to fund that
level of training just as there is no possibilty that the worlds
unemployment problems will be solved by 'foreign direct investment' in
urban factory jobs. The money to do it doesn't exist. Most people just
want to buy a stove. In fact that is what most people who own one do -
the three stove fire being a notable exception. American women don't
want to learn how to make and adjust a stove, they want to spend an hour
or two looking them over in a store and take one home that cooks and
bakes.

Can you imaging sitting in a Sears store trying to force shoppers to
learn how to use optimum pot sizes for meal volumes and variable heat
shields and retained heat cookers? A certain number of people will
listen, but not the vast majority. Our collective strategies must aim
to succeed on a large scale.

>Teach and then use the Water Boiling Test to determine more
>successful designs. Teach that testing is an ongoing process,
>that stoves can be improved as use and the Controlled Cooking
>Test and Kitchen Performance Test point out problems.

I agree these are central to the development process, but we can't
expect every cook to be a stove designer if we want implementation 'at
scale'.

The health trainers are also in the same communities trying to turn
every woman into a health practitioner, the education department to
create a nation of child educators and agriculture extension officers to
create market gardeners. In my opinion it would be more productive to
use some of that subsidized funding to teach people to generate more
income and then go to a store and buy something as hard to make and easy
to manufacture as a stove.

>Without testing there is belief and belief, as we all know, is to some
>large degree projection, to use a psychological term...

This is an point important to me. The thing is I can't expect everyone
who cooks to enter my world.

We have been trying the 'train them all to be experts' approach for a
long time and we are not making enough headway. We will need more
strategies and to make better offers.

My personal approach to development is to work on raising incomes in
imaginative ways rather than inventing ways to help people survive in
poverty. This is the foundation of that aspect of stove evaluation
titled 'Affordabilty'. Instead of working abstractly how much
disposable income people theoretically have for stove purchases, we
should work on making them an offer(s) they find attractive and let them
decide how to dispose of their income.

Regards
Crispin

From messinger.roth at AFRICA-ONLINE.NET Mon May 3 01:26:35 2004
From: messinger.roth at AFRICA-ONLINE.NET (Christa)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:03 2004
Subject: adoption of new technologies
Message-ID: <MON.3.MAY.2004.072635.0200.MESSINGER.ROTH@AFRICAONLINE.NET>

I do agree with Crispin, that a technology is more likely to be adopted if it addresses a real need and offers a visible direct benefit to people. Of course people must be made fully aware of the benefits of the technology or again, nobody will take it up. We should not blame a non-adoption of technology to the inertia of peoples' minds but rather to our own mind (if it was us trying to promote a non-starting technology and we did not do our homework properly).
Sometimes a good technology is offered to the wrong target group that can't afford it or has some other constraints and good reasons why NOT to adopt a technology.
Our lesson learnt is to start with the people and their needs first BEFORE promoting a technology. Just one example: our project started to promote fixed mudstoves that were very successful and self-spreading in Tanzania, but a non-starter in our region in Malawi. Reasons why? In Tanzania it was a high-land area where people have kitchens and use fireplaces for space heating as well throughout the year. In our region most people are too poor to have kitchens, so cooking ist done outside. Consequently a mud-stove on an outside veranda will get destroyed by the heavy rains in the rainy season. Also space heating is not a permanent issue in our low-lying area with only a few colder months. Conclusion: there was nothing wrong with the technology as such, but it was not 'appropriate' for the target group and this assessment had not been done before implementation. After analysing the failure, the project made a new attempt after two years and started to promote low-cost PORTABLE fired clay stoves, that can stand a bit of rain and can still be transferred inside a house for space heating in the few cold months if needed. To demonstrate the benefits ot the new stoves, cooking competitions were held in the communities where the same dish in the same type of pot was cooked on the new stove and the traditional 3-stone-stove with the same amount of firewood allocated to each stove. Public assessment of the firewood left over was impressive as it showed savings of 40 to 60 percent firewood (the 3-stones used 6-7 sticks of firewood as compared to 3-4 sticks on the new stove).
After those demonstrations nearly everybody wanted a stove and sessions were held in the communities to construct their own clay stove under the guidance of skilled promoters. The clay needed was normally locally available and could be collected at no cost. Moulding a stove proved to be no major problem even for unskilled people. The expertise was available within their own village as we had trained volunteers in each village.
Result: within two years the number of stoves in use shot above 20.000 in the 169 villages we were working with at that time.
We had now offered something that people seem to really want and demonstrated the benefits in an understandable, clear and convincing way. Plus, the technology was affordable and accessible within their means. There might be other more fuel-saving technologies invented, but they will not be as compatible with the specific local situation e.g. locally available materials and skills (anything containing metal is already a big problem).

There is no use of the most clever invention if it is something that people don't need or want or can afford. The slightest constraint will be a killer to a successful promulgation of any technology.

Regards from Malawi

Christa Roth
Advisor for Food Processing and Household Energy
Integrated Food Security Programme Mulanje
P.O. Box 438, Mulanje, Malawi, Phone +265-1-466 279, Fax -466 435
----- Original Message -----
From: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2004 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Coppice shoots as fuel - adoption of new technologies

Dear Dr Karve

>As to Ron's question about the slow acceptance of new technologies,
>we too have experienced the same phenomenon with our technologies.
>Human mind has inertia and it needs a lot of energy to set it in
motion.

I think the rate of a new technology's adoption is directly related to
the worthiness of the value proposition, to the person receiving the
offer. A very successful example of a rapid adoption of a new
technology is of course the cell phone. It offers something people want
for a price they are wiling to pay. They have to learn all sorts of
technical things about it, it requires constant feeding with money and
attention to keep it charged, but people sacrifice all sorts of other
things to get their hands on and use one.

Are we able to offer stoves with that sort of value proposition?

It is in many ways the quality of the offer itself, not the technology,
that convinces people to part with their old ways and adopt a new one.
There is very little said about 'promulgation' issues on this list, but
it is critical to the success of any improved stove programme.

The stove developer and programme manager, already having to know so
much about so many things, must also learn how to create a value
proposition: this device and these benefits for this much effort and
this amount of money.

This will lead to more successful implementation, I am sure.

Regards
Crispin

From K.Prasad at TUE.NL Tue May 4 07:42:07 2004
From: K.Prasad at TUE.NL (Prasad, K.)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:03 2004
Subject: Stove Performance Manual
Message-ID: <TUE.4.MAY.2004.134207.0200.K.PRASAD@TUE.NL>

Dear Crispin and all the Stovers

I'm sorry I have read only Crispin's mail on this subject. I shall get
around to the rest one of these days.One exception - I quickly went through
Dean's original message. I agree and disagree with the ideas. But I shall
come back to that in a week or ten days time. What attracted me to this was
a passage on what an American woman does. I bet my bottom dollar that is
what a woman does everywhere else - the only catch is that the American
woman can afford lot more than women who are condemned to use the open fire
using a fuel that is as and when available.

I'm afraid that what most of us - the Stove aficianados - do is to mimic the
Sears sales person. I do see the point of demonstration of new design ideas,
but alas we, the designers of improved cookstoves, do not eat the food she
cooks nor use the pots she can afford. More importantly we have such poor
ability to communicate with the users.

What we need is lot more of Tami Bonds and Liz Bates to get our message
across.

I don't have much time except to recount a tale I told Liz Bates many a moon
back. An IT engineer is left to fend his home with three young children over
a long weekend since his wife decided to go out with her her friends (
needless to say women!). He starts the day working out a schedule of how to
go about the business - presumably with the help of one of those box
diagrams. It takes him a couple of hours to get the task done. In the
meantime all hell breaks lose with the kids running amok around the house.
His diagram is more or less irrelevant. I would like to state in this
connection a comment of my former colleague and still a friend - Pete
Verhaart - on our our wonderful system diagram on stove designing: you have
to put real things in them boxes.

Yours
Prasad

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott [mailto:crispin@newdawn.sz]
Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2004 11:32 PM
To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Stove Performance Manual

Dear Dean

I think your points are essential and well supported.

>How to do this [which was snipped] with stoves? Involve locals in the
design process.

Clearly this is part of the development of a stove. The thing is, to
have a huge impact on the problem means getting literally billions of
people involved and there isn't enough money in the world to fund that
level of training just as there is no possibilty that the worlds
unemployment problems will be solved by 'foreign direct investment' in
urban factory jobs. The money to do it doesn't exist. Most people just
want to buy a stove. In fact that is what most people who own one do -
the three stove fire being a notable exception. American women don't
want to learn how to make and adjust a stove, they want to spend an hour
or two looking them over in a store and take one home that cooks and
bakes.

Can you imaging sitting in a Sears store trying to force shoppers to
learn how to use optimum pot sizes for meal volumes and variable heat
shields and retained heat cookers? A certain number of people will
listen, but not the vast majority. Our collective strategies must aim
to succeed on a large scale.

>Teach and then use the Water Boiling Test to determine more
>successful designs. Teach that testing is an ongoing process,
>that stoves can be improved as use and the Controlled Cooking
>Test and Kitchen Performance Test point out problems.

I agree these are central to the development process, but we can't
expect every cook to be a stove designer if we want implementation 'at
scale'.

The health trainers are also in the same communities trying to turn
every woman into a health practitioner, the education department to
create a nation of child educators and agriculture extension officers to
create market gardeners. In my opinion it would be more productive to
use some of that subsidized funding to teach people to generate more
income and then go to a store and buy something as hard to make and easy
to manufacture as a stove.

>Without testing there is belief and belief, as we all know, is to some
>large degree projection, to use a psychological term...

This is an point important to me. The thing is I can't expect everyone
who cooks to enter my world.

We have been trying the 'train them all to be experts' approach for a
long time and we are not making enough headway. We will need more
strategies and to make better offers.

My personal approach to development is to work on raising incomes in
imaginative ways rather than inventing ways to help people survive in
poverty. This is the foundation of that aspect of stove evaluation
titled 'Affordabilty'. Instead of working abstractly how much
disposable income people theoretically have for stove purchases, we
should work on making them an offer(s) they find attractive and let them
decide how to dispose of their income.

Regards
Crispin

From dstill at EPUD.NET Wed May 5 03:15:25 2004
From: dstill at EPUD.NET (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:03 2004
Subject: Dates for ETHOS Stoves Summer Camp
Message-ID: <WED.5.MAY.2004.001525.0700.DSTILL@EPUD.NET>

Dear STOVERS:

 

Do folks have a preference for dates for the 5 day ETHOS Stove Summer Camp
in Oregon? Can I suggest August or September.Nice to go sailing in the
evenings, swimming. We should have all the emission, exposure, fuel
efficiency equipment in full swing and it will be a great chance to see how
well charcoal making stoves perform. If downdraft is cleaner, look at the
Vesto if we can get an expert to run it, witness Tom's stove doing its
magic, watch the Rocket's red glare, etc.

 

Thanks,

 

Dean

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Wed May 5 04:42:43 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:03 2004
Subject: Dates for ETHOS Stoves Summer Camp
Message-ID: <WED.5.MAY.2004.104243.0200.CRISPIN@NEWDAWN.SZ>

Dear Dean

>Do folks have a preference for dates for the 5 day ETHOS
>Stove Summer Camp in Oregon?

How about Sept 2 to 6th? Is that a bad time to travel?

I hope to have for you the latest manifestation of the Vesto which will be
taking over from the present model.

Regards
Crispin

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Wed May 5 05:26:44 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:03 2004
Subject: New Type of Stove
Message-ID: <WED.5.MAY.2004.112644.0200.CRISPIN@NEWDAWN.SZ>

Dear Stovers

I am happy to announce the development of a stove that can burn in an
'ordinary way' as well as turn into a gasifier. To look at, it is pretty
much like the present Vesto except the control handle is near the bottom of
the stove instead of approximately halfway up the side.

It has an extended movement on the 'heat control' handle which successfully
turns the standard Vesto from a preheated air stove into a true gasifying
stove, at will. It can also be run in internediary, partial-gasifying modes
so I am sticking with the classification of its being a 'semi-gasifier'.

This has been accomplished simultaneously with the introduction of a new low
end cold air inlet to allow three distinct combustion conditions to occur:

1. With the handle to the left a Tsotso Stove-like vertical updraft
airpath is created for maximum power and shortest ignition or re-ignition
time. It has preheated secondary air only and the largest amount of
'chimney draft'.

2 In the centre position the handle creates a standard Vesto combustion
condition with controllable preheated primary and secondary air. In this
condition the draft is reduced as is the fuel combustion rate. This
transition is not sudden so a cook can choose a power setting that suits the
task or the fuel condition, type or load.

3. In the extreme right position the primary air to the combustion chamber
is virtually closed off and the stoves turns into a gasifier with
significantly reduced power and consequently prolonged fuel life while still
maintaining a clean burn.

There is only a single control lever. This combination of modes allows for
pretty good combustion efficiency throughout the power range without having
to remove fuel. It also allows for one to add more fuel that you need at
the time, and to "turn it up" at will. You can routinely put in different
sizes of fuel (branches, split logs, briquettes etc) individually or mixed
and adjust the lever to suit the heat requirement at the time.

Obviously in the gasifying condition it creates charcoal. When the volatiles
are gone, or just before, the lever is moved to the left and it becomes a
preheating charcoal burner. If you wait too long and the flame goes out,
move the elver to the left and allow air to enter freely until the flame is
re-established. It does not require the gasifying fuel to be processed or
chopped into uniform pieces, and it can be refuelled at any time, provided
the fuel is kept pretty much below the secondary air inlets in the
combustion chamber. When adding fuel it is normal to open the air supply
briefly to get the new fuel hot and lit before returning to a preheating or
gasifying condition again.

One problem faced by gasifiers is the maintainence of ignition of the gases
some distance from the charcoal-making point. I feel this has been
successfully addressed by keeping the combustion level directly above the
gasifying point. As the chamber is relatively small (about 5 inches in
diameter) and close to the fuel, the gases have been able to ignite
continuously from the heat of the coals glowing just below. I have tried 2
small inlets for the gasifying air supply however it is possible to
accidentally block off one or perhaps even both and I feel three is better.
Even if they are all blocked one can open the lever a crack to let some air
into the bottom of the grate.

There is a distinctive gas and flame path when operating this stove as a
gasifier: the gases are clearly coming up the inside surface of the
cylindrical combustion chamber and burning as they hit the incoming
preheated secondary air which enters horizontally. This creates a torordial
flow away from the walls towards the centre where the flames then take a
downward turn. The flame then rolls back towards the wall, looking rather
like a flaming donut. Once established this pattern seems to be quite
stable, possibly even drawing unused secondary air vertically down into the
centre of the simmering 'lake of fire' at the gas combustion point. It is
quite unlike anything I have seen before. It appears that this gas and
flame pattern is at least partially responsible for the maintenance of
ignition of the upwelling gases.

If there are people who have the time to download a large .mgp file (1.6
meg) I could put it on the New Dawn Engineering website so you can see the
various conditions. It shows the fuel burning normally as a standard Vesto,
conversion into a gasifier, and then returning to a normal fire again with a
small amount of text.

I think this design opens up new possibilties for stove designers. This
demonstration of a cold air free running v.s. preheating v.s. gasifying
stove with only a single control lever may open new vistas to exploration.
I feel one application of this approach is institutional stoves where a
large batch of unprocessed fuel can be tossed in and the power controlled
for one or two hours without further attention being paid to the fuel.

Gentlemen, light your matches!
Crispin

From english at KINGSTON.NET Wed May 5 06:44:35 2004
From: english at KINGSTON.NET (english@KINGSTON.NET)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:03 2004
Subject: New Type of Stove
In-Reply-To: <002501c43283$59fbdf40$cb83fea9@md>
Message-ID: <WED.5.MAY.2004.064435.0400.>

Crispin,
The flame you describe is quite similar to what some of Tom Reeds
powered stoves do.

How deep is your fuel chamber?

Alex

> There is a distinctive gas and flame path when operating this stove as a
> gasifier: the gases are clearly coming up the inside surface of the
> cylindrical combustion chamber and burning as they hit the incoming
> preheated secondary air which enters horizontally. This creates a torordial
> flow away from the walls towards the centre where the flames then take a
> downward turn. The flame then rolls back towards the wall, looking rather
> like a flaming donut. Once established this pattern seems to be quite
> stable, possibly even drawing unused secondary air vertically down into the
> centre of the simmering 'lake of fire' at the gas combustion point. It is
> quite unlike anything I have seen before. It appears that this gas and
> flame pattern is at least partially responsible for the maintenance of
> ignition of the upwelling gases.
>

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Tue May 4 23:42:53 2004
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (adkarve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:03 2004
Subject: organic farming
Message-ID: <WED.5.MAY.2004.091253.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Ray,
I have just returned from Jamner, a small town in Jalgaon District in North
Maharashtra, where I attended a two day meet of organic farmers. My
presentation pertained to our own technologies, which were very well
appreciated. I was surprised to know that many in the audience were
already practicing several of our technologies. I had delivered a lecture
last year in a village called Hyderpur in Madhya Pradesh. A Deputy Director
of Agriculture of Madhya Pradesh Government, who attended the Jamner
meeting, told me that after my lecture, the entire sugarcane in that area,
about 3600 acres, was planted by using sugarcane seedlings raised by the
villagers in a
nursery, and that they used my technique of topless greenhouse for raising
the seedlings not only of sugarcane but all the other seedlings required by
them. Also several of the organic farmers whom I met in Jamner were already
using our Sarai cooker, starch based biogas plant, and the topless
greenhouse. North Maharashtra is a major cotton growing area in India,
producing 30% of India's cotton. The farmers therefore evinced great
interest in our charcoaling process, because they have literally mountains
of cotton stocks, which could easily be converted into charcoal. The owner
of a foundry wanted to know if he could use charcoal made from cotton stalks
as fuel for melting the metal ingots in his foundry. The special quality
coke, which he has to get by train all the way from the mines in Bihar,
costs Rs.18 per kg, whereas the cotton stalk charcoal, if locally made,
would cost only Rs. 4 per kg. This is another example of my hypothesis,
that local, hand-made products are often cheaper than factory made products
because of increased costs of transport and increased corporate overheads.
I was invited, after the meeting in Jamner, by an Industrialist in Jalgaon.
He sent his car to Jamner to bring me to Jalgaon, which was a boon for me,
because I had to go to Jalgaon in any case, in order to catch the bus to
Pune. This Industrialist has specialised in biological products such as
papain from papaya, export of mango pulp, sale of tissue cultured plantlets
of banana, etc. He also has a large dairy farm and a biogas plant of 40
cubic meter capacity. It is fed daily with about 1000 kg of dung. He has
also installed an electricity generator which can be operated by using
biogas, but the generator is lying idle because all the biogas is totally
utilised in cooking meals for about 250 people, who work on his premises. He
wanted to know if he could raise his biogas production by using waste
starch. I saw his facility and told him to add about 25 kg grain flour daily
to his biogas plant, which would double his gas output. Also the mango
kernels and skins would be a good feedstock for biogas production. Only,
this material would have to be mechanically macerated into a slurry. I also
gave him a presentation about our other technologies. He was so impressed
that he has offered to establish live demonstrations of all the
technologists and to operate, at his own expense, a training centre in
Jalgaon. He claimed that he gets a couple of hundred thousand visitors every
year. That number would compare well with the brewery that Ron took us to
(in Golden, Colorado).
There were some very interesting things that I learned about organic
farming. Government of India has now laid down morms for certification of
organic food, and four organisations have been licensed by the Government to
give such certificates. Repreesentatives of two such organisations attended
the seminar in Jamner and talked about the process and the procedure of
certification. All the farmers who talked about organic farming were of
cource for it. Most of them said that they did not suffer any yield loss by
changing over from the chemical to organic farming, and that their profits
had increased because they did not spend any money on chemical fertilisers,
pesticides or hormones. The whole idea is to increase the bacterial
population in the soil. Some very bizzare formulations were being used by
them which included 1 kg per acre of butter fat, 1 kg per acre of honey,
about 10 kg of cowdung and 10 litres of cow urine. All the ingredients are
mixed, fermented for two days in a barrel and applied to the field through
irrigation water, once every three months. A large number of farmers are
doing just this and getting higher yield than with chemical fertilizers.
None of them uses chemical pesticides. I engaged these farmers in
private conversations and many of them admitted that instead of honey and
butter fat, they used sugar. The basic idea is similar to my biogas plant.
Farmyard manure and other forms of organic manure are difficult for the soil
bacteria to break down. If you applied plain sugar to the soil, it acts as
food for the soil bacteria and they multiply. Naturally occuring beneficial
micro-organisms like azotobacter, Pseudomonas, Rhizobium, Trichoderma,
phosphate solubilizing bacteria, bacillus thuringiensis etc. multiply, and
they not only feed the plants but also protect them from pests.
However, nobody could give me a rational answer to my objection that this
sort of farming, in which the elements taken up by the plants were not
replaced, amounted to mining the soil. There was one gentleman,
who said that the elements were transmutated by the bacteria, (meaning that
sodium gets converted into potassium). He claimed that this was a well
proven fact and already published in scientific journals. I assume that it
must have been only of the pseudo-scientific journals, which publish any
trash. The argument of transmutation of elements cannot be taken seriously,
but in the absence of any other plausible explanation, transmutation of
elements remains the only explanation to the observed phenomenon.
Yours
A.D.Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: Dr. Ray Wijewardene <raywije@eureka.lk>
To: adkarve <adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 8:46 AM
Subject: RE: [STOVES] Coppice shoots as fuel

> Dear AD... This point about mining bothered me too.... and I had discussed
> it with one of our finest ag.scientists here. (Prof.HPM Gunasena) His view
> (mind you he is a keen farmer and grower too... apart from being an
> ag.scientist) is that diferent plants have different mechanisms for the
> uptake of chemicals in the soil... and different systems (largely
> fungal?)for making them soluble for their own particular needs of that
> nutrient (chemical... whatever!). He has long felt that it is our lack of
> such understanding that has brought about the yield-ceilings we see in
crop
> culture, despite very considerable additions of the chemical fertiliser...
> whereas - he contends - that chemical given in a more 'acceptable' form
> gives it a fresh route of uptake....
>
> He points out the difference, in human wellness-results, between the
> pharmaceutical-drug industry
> and the previous (often more-organic or 'natural) medicines as prescribed
by
> the doctor and apothecary of yesteryear.
>
> We find that plants such a Titonia diversifolia (wild sunflower) have even
> more 'available' 'N' in their leaves, even, than glircidia (a NF tree)...
> PLUS three times as much K as any other plant we know. We are now
> experimenting (in rice, tea and coconut) with trying to 'feed' nutrients
> through the medium of other plants such as the gliricdia and titonia...
and
> have had some quite dramatic results which now encourage progressing to
very
> much more systematic trials.
>
> An area we had ignored was the 'logistics' of linking the natural manure
> with the cultured crop, as alternative to the system of highly localised
> chemical-application we now propound. He asked me 'Have you done an
> earthworm count recently?'... I was shocked to find hardly any!
>
> Incidentally, our older journals (circa 1930) soundly recommended these
> green-manuring practises... but they seem to have given way to commercial
> interests fostering the 'scientific' (N P K Mg) approach ... and guess
which
> side wins in such a battle?... For the time being I am adding both the
urea
> as well as the gliridcidia.. and KCl as well as titonia (to both tea and
> coconut ..both heavy users of K)to see whether we can pierce the yield
> barrier...
>
> Perhaps we (scientific-agriculturists) need to strike the 'middle-path'
> between the NPK crowd and the 'organic nutters'... as both a commercial
> grower of these three crops (my 'bread-and-butter)
> and psedoscientist I have both a commercial AND scientific interest in the
> outcome.
>
> Sincerely yours...(I am having difficulty responding to Ron L's deluge of
> questions.. guess I'll have to say 'I dont know yet!...
>
> RAY.
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Stoves Discussion List [mailto:STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On
> Behalf Of adkarve
> Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 5:10 PM
> To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: [STOVES] Coppice shoots as fuel
>
>
> Dear Ray,
> I have been looking at organic farming and there are many questions about
> it. When one grows a plant and uses it for manuring another crop, you are
> actually removing nutrients from one patch of the soil and adding to
> another. In the case of nitrogen fixing plants, there is a net gain in
the
> nitrogen, but in the case of other nutrients, you are actually mining the
> soil. Thus eventually there is bound to be depletion of the soil from
where
> you are removing the green manure. I have not yet found a suitable
> explanation as to how to reconcile this with the high yield that farmers
> report from organic farming.
> As to Ron's question about the slow acceptance of new technologies, we too
> have experienced the same phenomenon with our technologies. Human mind
has
> inertia and it needs a lot of energy to set it in motion.
> Yours
> A.D.Karve
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ron Larson <ronallarson@QWEST.NET>
> To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 6:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [STOVES] Availability of Fuel for smokeless
> (gasifier-type)domestic cookers.
>
>
> > Ray:
> >
> > Several follow-up questions on your e-mail of today.
> >
> > 1. Can you add a bit more on the economics of any or all of the several
> > plantation, combustion, and pyrolysis operations in Sri Lanka
(preferably
> in
> > units of c/kWh or $/MJ - and tonnes/hectare/yr, etc) - and the percent
> > savings you are experiencing (including the fertilizer replacement
> > aspects)..
> >
> > 2. What are the resaons that you think people are moving slowly (if
they
> > are) on emulating what you have started?
> >
> > 3. Has the activated charcoal pyrolysis operation you mentioned been
> > written up anywhere? What is the scale (tonnes per hour, etc) and
> > economics? Batch or continuous?
> >
> > 4. Could you (or Punchibanda) describe the Punchibanda stove and
program
> > (sales to date, $/stove, etc). Is Punchibanda using his household stove
> at
> > all for charcoal-making?
> >
> >
> > Thanks in advance and congratulations for what you are doing in Sri
Lanka.
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
>
>

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Wed May 5 00:08:37 2004
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (adkarve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:03 2004
Subject: Briquette CD
Message-ID: <WED.5.MAY.2004.093837.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Ralf,
it would help greatly. I shall check with our office to see if the MBs
mentioned by you are correct. I also faintly remember that an elderly
gentleman from Approvecho, who shared my table in one of the EPA workshop
sessions, requested me for the CD and I gave one to him. It was neither Dean
Still nor Larry Winiarsky, but somebody much thinner.
Yours
A.D.Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: Overend, Ralph <Ralph_Overend@nrel.gov>
To: Ron Larson <ronallarson@qwest.net>; Bryan Willson
<Bryan.Willson@colostate.edu>
Cc: A.D. Karve <adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 5:12 AM
Subject: RE: Briquette CD

Ron, Bryan, and AD: I still have the files in my machine - they are huge
(180 MB and 271 MB) and are in two folders - Ron I can make a CDROM with the
two folders in them for you.

Will this work?

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Wed May 5 08:51:18 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:03 2004
Subject: New Type of Stove
Message-ID: <WED.5.MAY.2004.145118.0200.CRISPIN@NEWDAWN.SZ>

Dear Alex

The whole chamber is 330mm deep and 128 in diamater. There are quite a lot
of perforations 200mm from the bottom providing most of the secondary air.
My calculation is that the airspeed through those holes is 400mm/sec but
that has not been measured. At the bottom of the gassing area an 8mm hole
shoots a flame across to the other side, rising as it does so. Not sure
what hte draft is in that area as I didn't model the airflow yet. i need a
coupld of temperatures and I didn't get time to collect them.

Regards
Crispin

++++++++++
Crispin,
The flame you describe is quite similar to what some of Tom Reeds
powered stoves do.

How deep is your fuel chamber?

Alex

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Wed May 5 09:00:46 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:03 2004
Subject: New Type of Stove
Message-ID: <WED.5.MAY.2004.150046.0200.CRISPIN@NEWDAWN.SZ>

Dear Alex

>The flame you describe is quite similar to what some of
>Tom Reeds powered stoves do.

I tink it is because he is supplying the air from the side as well, right?
If this torordial flow is mainly responsible for the continued ignition,
then I think we have an answer for Paul.

The deal is you have to push secondary air in hard enough to get a
donut-like flow pattern so that flames on one side reach possibly
uncombusting gas on the other, and also the return tip brings remnant flame
to the new gases.

It makes sense.

Regards
Crispin

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Wed May 5 09:19:30 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:03 2004
Subject: Measuring equipment - analogue data acquisition to USB port.
Message-ID: <WED.5.MAY.2004.151930.0200.CRISPIN@NEWDAWN.SZ>

Dear Stovers

Here is something that looks pretty useful and for the price it is even
better. Eight channels and uses a USB port to connect.

The direct link is
http://www.adeptscience.co.uk/products/dataacqu/hardware/product/Personal-Measurement-Device/775/1/3296/product3296.html

It comes with software, and like the others in its class, has to be
connected to a running computer.

Regards
Crispin
+++++++++

BUDGET PRICE FOR PERSONAL USB ACQUISITION MODULE
(Adept Scientific, 20 April 2004)

Measurement Computing's Personal Measurement Device range has caused quite a
stir in the data acquisition market in recent months, thanks to the
plug-in-and-go simplicity of USB and some appealingly low prices. The latest
model is the most impressive yet, offering eight channels of high speed
simultaneous sampling analogue input at a class leading price of less than
?(UKP)300. At 3.25in square and 1in high, the PMD-1608FS is sold as being
"big enough to make connecting field wiring easy, but small enough to fit on
even the most crowded workbench". It is available to buy in the UK and
Ireland from Adept Scientific.

Request free details from the supplier:
http://www.engineeringtalk.com/rdx/da/ade/269/1
* Read more: http://www.engineeringtalk.com/news/ade/ade269.html
or send a blank email to mailto:ade269@txt.engineeringtalk.com

From jeff.forssell at CFL.SE Wed May 5 11:13:00 2004
From: jeff.forssell at CFL.SE (Jeff Forssell)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:03 2004
Subject: organic farming
Message-ID: <WED.5.MAY.2004.171300.0200.JEFF.FORSSELL@CFL.SE>

Must admit that I have no sources but have somewhere heard that many necessary plant nutrients like potassium are found in unsoluble mineral forms in the soil and that by stimulating the microbial life in the soil, (often roots give sugar to bacteria) these "lower" forms are able to put these insoluble atoms into compounds that the plants can use.

> difficult for the soil bacteria to break down. If you applied
> plain sugar to the soil, it acts as food for the soil

> However, nobody could give me a rational answer to my
> objection that this sort of farming, in which the elements
> taken up by the plants were not replaced, amounted to mining
> the soil.

Though I feel that a recycling attitude to crop nutrients, which must include even human urine (esp) and possibly faeces (How is that spelled?) must be implemented in the long run. And that flush toilets are not the best way of doing that.

Jeff Forssell
SWEDISH AGENCY FOR FLEXIBLE LEARNING (CFL)
Box 3024
SE-871 03 H?RN?SAND /Sweden
http://www.cfl.se/?sid=60
+46(0)611-55 79 48 (Work) +46(0)611-55 79 80 (Fax Work)
+46(0)611-22 1 44 (Home) ( mobil: 070- 35 80 306; [070-4091514])

residence:
Gamla Karlebyv?gen 14 / SE-871 33 H?rn?sand /Sweden

e-mail: every workday: jeff.forssell@cfl.se <mailto:jeff.forssell@cfl.se>
Note my old mail address, jf@ssvh.se, is no longer active
(travel, visiting: jeff_forssell@hotmail.com & MSMessenger)

Personal homepage: < http://www.torget.se/users/i/iluhya/index.htm>
My village technology page: http://home.bip.net/jeff.forssell

Instant messengers Odigo 792701 (ICQ: 55800587; NM/MSM use hotmail address)

From snkm at BTL.NET Wed May 5 12:17:35 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:03 2004
Subject: organic farming
Message-ID: <WED.5.MAY.2004.101735.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 05:13 PM 5/5/2004 +0200, Jeff Forssell wrote:
>Must admit that I have no sources but have somewhere heard that many
necessary plant nutrients like potassium are found in unsoluble mineral
forms in the soil and that by stimulating the microbial life in the soil,
(often roots give sugar to bacteria) these "lower" forms are able to put
these insoluble atoms into compounds that the plants can use.
>
>> difficult for the soil bacteria to break down. If you applied
>> plain sugar to the soil, it acts as food for the soil

Modern processing of organic products have broken this chain.

As example -- I operate a small sugar cane crushing plant. In ancient
traditional style.

When boiling the cane juice we must continuously skim the surface and much
"slag" is removed in this manner.

This is then mixed with water and used as a fertilizer for the cane fields.
It contains organic sugar and minerals.

However -- in modern practice everything becomes a waste product -- toxic
in fact -- and out-side fertilizers are applied to growing cane.

Certainly -- it is much more labor intensive to make sugar by the old
methology -- and rather than pay the extra premium for labor added -- we
happily fool ourselves into bigger is better. Then much money is wasted
after in subsidizing of a process that can't work -- and all kinds of
fantasies about how modern methology is the best.

We are very confused as how to proceed. And the result is self destruction.

Certainly -- we here in 3rd world have the labor available to produce sugar
in the right manner. India is in fact supplying huge amounts of sugar still
produced in this ancient manner -- though racing to "modernize".

Further -- the end products are so opposite. White -- purified sugar -- is
a poison to us -- organic brown sugar is a health food.

Our priorities are so "confused" -- and this confusion will be the death of
us all.

We waste so much time spinning around the obvious. We are obsessed with
self destruction of our entire species.

Time for the great die-off -- indeed.

Peter Singfield -- in Belize

 

At 05:13 PM 5/5/2004 +0200, Jeff Forssell wrote:
>Must admit that I have no sources but have somewhere heard that many
necessary plant nutrients like potassium are found in unsoluble mineral
forms in the soil and that by stimulating the microbial life in the soil,
(often roots give sugar to bacteria) these "lower" forms are able to put
these insoluble atoms into compounds that the plants can use.
>
>> difficult for the soil bacteria to break down. If you applied
>> plain sugar to the soil, it acts as food for the soil
>
>> However, nobody could give me a rational answer to my
>> objection that this sort of farming, in which the elements
>> taken up by the plants were not replaced, amounted to mining
>> the soil.
>
>Though I feel that a recycling attitude to crop nutrients, which must
include even human urine (esp) and possibly faeces (How is that spelled?)
must be implemented in the long run. And that flush toilets are not the
best way of doing that.
>
>Jeff Forssell
>SWEDISH AGENCY FOR FLEXIBLE LEARNING (CFL)
>Box 3024
>SE-871 03 H?RN?SAND /Sweden
>http://www.cfl.se/?sid=60
>+46(0)611-55 79 48 (Work) +46(0)611-55 79 80 (Fax Work)
>+46(0)611-22 1 44 (Home) ( mobil: 070- 35 80 306; [070-4091514])
>
>residence:
>Gamla Karlebyv?gen 14 / SE-871 33 H?rn?sand /Sweden
>
>e-mail: every workday: jeff.forssell@cfl.se <mailto:jeff.forssell@cfl.se>
> Note my old mail address, jf@ssvh.se, is no longer active
>(travel, visiting: jeff_forssell@hotmail.com & MSMessenger)
>
>Personal homepage: < http://www.torget.se/users/i/iluhya/index.htm>
>My village technology page: http://home.bip.net/jeff.forssell
>
>Instant messengers Odigo 792701 (ICQ: 55800587; NM/MSM use hotmail address)
>

From list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Wed May 5 16:14:05 2004
From: list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:03 2004
Subject: organic farming
In-Reply-To: <BA468CE631F86A4D831FCBD4EB1C692C0C19D3@floyd.cfl.local>
Message-ID: <WED.5.MAY.2004.211405.0100.>

On Wed, 5 May 2004 17:13:00 +0200, Jeff Forssell wrote:

>Must admit that I have no sources but have somewhere heard that many necessary plant nutrients like potassium are found in unsoluble mineral forms in the soil and that by stimulating the microbial life in the soil, (often roots give sugar to bacteria) these "lower" forms are able to put these insoluble atoms into compounds that the plants can use.

I've also seen the term "available potassium" used, I always wondered
if that meant there was more actual potassium in the soil but it was
not usable by the plants. Most "available" nutrients are in the
topsoil because this is where residues from annual cycles are
returned, either as falling leaves or dying above ground parts, the
energy stores then being in the root systems or seeds. Under
undisturbed systems I think there is very good conservation of
potassium and phosphorus, I am less sure about nitrogen. Once you
start burning organic matter I think all nitrogen is lost and most
phosphorus ( subject to temperature and no special "mopping" compounds
in the fire).
>
>> difficult for the soil bacteria to break down. If you applied
>> plain sugar to the soil, it acts as food for the soil
>
>> However, nobody could give me a rational answer to my
>> objection that this sort of farming, in which the elements
>> taken up by the plants were not replaced, amounted to mining
>> the soil.

This comment by AD I agree entirely. It is also one of the worries I
have with regard to combustion of agricultural residues, simply
because they tend to have a higher ash (by which I mean mineral
nutrient) content than older wood, where the nutrient is concentrated
in the foliage and bark. In UK many woodland soils have withstood
nutrient depletion for many rotations, simply because the actual
offtake was small and the rotations relatively long, coupled with the
good mineral status of the soils at outset. Others, typically the
sands were denuded of tree cover and their ability to crop quite
quickly (in terms of 4000 years since man's agricultural efforts
became significant).

Of course if the agri waste is burnt in any case (to clear the land
for the next crop) then intervention to produce a refined fuel is
entirely laudable, indeed it may be possible to incorporate some
limestone into the briquette to trap phosphorus when it is cooked
with.
>
>Though I feel that a recycling attitude to crop nutrients, which must include even human urine (esp) and possibly faeces (How is that spelled?) must be implemented in the long run. And that flush toilets are not the best way of doing that.

I cannot disagree with this statement either but I do not see anything
that humans have done at the macro economic scale that has ever been
sustainable.

So my society, being very rich, has decreed that human waste should
not be easily returned to a cropping cycle for human food and will
import mineral fertiliser to replace potash and phosphates and will do
a straight swap of energy content with fossil fuels for nitrogenous
fertiliser.

Worse still is that we cannot grow food as cheaply as we can import
it, much of these imports will be from cash cropping of products where
the nutrients will not be replaced because the farmer is selling below
the price at which he can replace nutrients.

AJH

From list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Wed May 5 16:14:04 2004
From: list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:03 2004
Subject: New Type of Stove
In-Reply-To: <002501c43283$59fbdf40$cb83fea9@md>
Message-ID: <WED.5.MAY.2004.211404.0100.>

On Wed, 5 May 2004 11:26:44 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:

>If there are people who have the time to download a large .mgp file (1.6
>meg) I could put it on the New Dawn Engineering website so you can see the
>various conditions. It shows the fuel burning normally as a standard Vesto,
>conversion into a gasifier, and then returning to a normal fire again with a
>small amount of text.

I would like to see this in action, is that an mpg? Can anyone
recommend any more compact file formats? Perhaps also a warning of the
typical download time for dial up may be appropriate? Have you costed
the item yet?

AJH

From ensol at ACTRIX.GEN.NZ Wed May 5 16:55:58 2004
From: ensol at ACTRIX.GEN.NZ (Rob Bishop)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:04 2004
Subject: Measuring equipment - analogue data acquisition to USB port.
In-Reply-To: <008301c432a6$78d37360$cb83fea9@md>
Message-ID: <THU.6.MAY.2004.085558.1200.ENSOL@ACTRIX.GEN.NZ>

Of course, there's always the clasic "Microdatalogger" (www.datalogger.com).
Four channels, easy as anything to use, accepts any input. It was designed
for building energy diagnostics, so uses thermistors as its primary
temperature input, but could also accept thermocouples using a voltage input
(if you had a cold junction).

On 6/5/04 1:19 AM, "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispin@newdawn.sz> wrote:

> Dear Stovers
>
> Here is something that looks pretty useful and for the price it is even
> better. Eight channels and uses a USB port to connect.
>
> The direct link is
> http://www.adeptscience.co.uk/products/dataacqu/hardware/product/Personal-Meas
> urement-Device/775/1/3296/product3296.html
>
> It comes with software, and like the others in its class, has to be
> connected to a running computer.
>
> Regards
> Crispin
> +++++++++
>
> BUDGET PRICE FOR PERSONAL USB ACQUISITION MODULE
> (Adept Scientific, 20 April 2004)
>
> Measurement Computing's Personal Measurement Device range has caused quite a
> stir in the data acquisition market in recent months, thanks to the
> plug-in-and-go simplicity of USB and some appealingly low prices. The latest
> model is the most impressive yet, offering eight channels of high speed
> simultaneous sampling analogue input at a class leading price of less than
> ?(UKP)300. At 3.25in square and 1in high, the PMD-1608FS is sold as being
> "big enough to make connecting field wiring easy, but small enough to fit on
> even the most crowded workbench". It is available to buy in the UK and
> Ireland from Adept Scientific.
>
> Request free details from the supplier:
> http://www.engineeringtalk.com/rdx/da/ade/269/1
> * Read more: http://www.engineeringtalk.com/news/ade/ade269.html
> or send a blank email to mailto:ade269@txt.engineeringtalk.com

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Wed May 5 18:33:48 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:04 2004
Subject: Measuring equipment - analogue data acquisition to USB port.
Message-ID: <THU.6.MAY.2004.003348.0200.>

Dear Rob

>Of course, there's always the clasic "Microdatalogger"
(www.datalogger.com).

Can you confirm that there is a simple device which can log both
thermistors and thermocouples? I read as much as I could find and these
two devices seem to be read by different loggers. The problem is, as I
understand it, that the thermocouples have very low voltages and won't
work on thermocouple loggers. I would love to find out that this is not
true.

All the loggers that accept both, that I could find, have to be
programmable to accommodate the low voltage or the higher voltage, or
the 4-20 mAmp inputs. The cheapest 4 channel I could find that could do
that was a 3 channel (!) and cost CDN$550 + Software.

Advice sought!

Regards
Crispin

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Wed May 5 18:33:48 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:04 2004
Subject: organic farming
Message-ID: <THU.6.MAY.2004.003348.0200.>

Dear Organic Growers

>> However, nobody could give me a rational answer to my objection that
>> this sort of farming, in which the elements taken up by the plants
>> were not replaced, amounted to mining the soil.

>This comment by AD I agree entirely. It is also one of the worries
>I have with regard to combustion of agricultural residues, simply
>because they tend to have a higher ash (by which I mean mineral
>nutrient) content than older wood, ...

One thing that may be overlooked is that trees and foliage scrub dust
out of the air and in this way the mineral content of the soil can
actually increase over time, as long as there is something still growing
on the land.

The New Scientist once reported in a brief article that an acre of
poplars adds about 5 tons of dust to the ground per year. That is quite
a lot of mineral addition. It is also a way for people who are growing
things in a sensible way to benefit from the poor practices of farmers
who let their fields blow away in the wind.

All that is dust it not beneficial, but you get the idea. I think, Dr
Karve, this answers your question. Land that is well managed gains
fertility over time, right out of thin air.

Regards
Crispin

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Wed May 5 19:08:14 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:04 2004
Subject: Measuring equipment - analogue data acquisition to USB port.
(2)
Message-ID: <THU.6.MAY.2004.010814.0200.>

Dear Stovers

The "Microdatalogger" (MDL) (www.datalogger.com) is shown as costing
US$700 - Model 202 - which puts if in the same price league as the ACR
programmable logger from ACR in British Columbia.

The ACR software is CDN$200 and the MDL software is free (which it
should be!). The ACR one gives you 7 channels instead of 4. I
mentioned the 7 channel unit which has a 128K memory in the first post.
It can take different _types_ of intputs (voltage high and low, current)

The MDL is battery powered if you want. The memory capacity is not
shown. You can _rent_ them which is interesting.

It apparently cannot measure temperatures above 254 F, which is a
thermistor range and it appears to be a thermistor only device (not
programmable and not for thermocouples). It is marketed as an
architectural device (heating, ventilation and air conditioning
measuring).

There is a nearly identical device from Onset also with 4 channels for
about 1/2 the price but the MDL has an LED screen on board..

Regards
Crispin

From w.burroughs at VERIZON.NET Wed May 5 19:30:42 2004
From: w.burroughs at VERIZON.NET (Hank or Margaret)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:04 2004
Subject: organic farming
Message-ID: <WED.5.MAY.2004.163042.0700.W.BURROUGHS@VERIZON.NET>

Another way that the top soil gains fertility that I was taught in
Permaculture school is through the very deep rooted plants (like trees)
bringing up minerals from deep in the soil. This is one of the main reasons
for having trees in the plan for an organic garden.

Hank in the high desert

From Carefreeland at AOL.COM Wed May 5 23:20:50 2004
From: Carefreeland at AOL.COM (Carefreeland@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:04 2004
Subject: Organic farming.
Message-ID: <WED.5.MAY.2004.232050.EDT.>

Dear Stovers,
Yes, there is often a considerable amount of minerals available in
the soil which are not available to the plants. Most of the unavailable minerals
are combined chemically with other elements which form stable compounds.
Soil that has an unbalanced pH for example can be treated repeatedly with
chemical fertilizers and produce little response from the plants.
Fungi and lichens (which are microscopic plants and fungi living
together in symbiosis) are wonderful at producing organic acids which actually
dissolve rock. This is one example of clear evidence of the power of healthy soil
to provide for the plants growing in it.
Lack of oxygen in the soil is also a great limiter of plant growth.
While stagnate water in the soil can kill plant roots from lack of oxygen, a
replenished supply of highly oxygenated rainwater can in some soils provide more
oxygen than might be otherwise available. The common treatment for drowned
damaged roots is to continue to water the plant lightly but frequently.
Seedlings in the greenhouse are often misted frequently with the saturated soil
providing dissolved oxygen.
Soil science is among the most complex studies, yet basic principals
seem to guide the most successful gardeners. If soil is well drained, the
excess minerals which lock up valuable fertilizers tend to leach out while drawing
fresh oxygen into the soil with each rain or watering.
Nitrogen tends to be the first mineral in short supply in poor soils
as it can leave the soil through leaching or vaporization, if there is lack of
organic matter to hold it. Potassium can also be easily leached from low
organic matter soil. Phosphorus, tends to accumulate in the soil, however it is
quickly locked up in compounds making it unavailable to the plants. Iron is
often a catalyst for uptake of other minerals. At high pH Iron becomes locked up
as stable forms unavailable to plants.

Dan Dimiduk

From raywije at EUREKA.LK Thu May 6 18:48:09 2004
From: raywije at EUREKA.LK (Dr. Ray Wijewardene)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:04 2004
Subject: Basic economics of Producing our own wood-fuel and fertility
in Sri Lanka.
In-Reply-To: <027801c42f80$29ba2180$386d0443@net>
Message-ID: <THU.6.MAY.2004.154809.0700.RAYWIJE@EUREKA.LK>

I shall endeavour to respond to Ron Larsons questions as concisely as
possible, regarding the economics of growing (versus importing) our fuels
and urea fertiliser. Much of this data comes through our Ministry of Science
& Tecnology and our Coconut Research Instituie.

1. Considering a 1-hectare-plot of GLIRICIDIA SEPIUM (One of about 6 species
we use) planted at a spacing of 1-meter by 1-meter (i.e. 10,000 plants per
hectare) would yield 30 tonnes (dry) of fuel-wood and 26 tonnes of (fresh)
foliage, per year within 18-months of establishment. This yield would
increase by between 50% and 100% by the following year, and maintain these
figures on a sustainable basis (for at least 20 years.. many lasting for
over 50 years).. The sustainability is achieved by harvesting only the
branches (pollarding or coppicing) two or three times a year. The initial
lopping or pruning/pollarding takes place at about 1.5 metres height agl.
The main trunk of the tree is not cut after the initial lopping.... only the
branches are periodically pruned/coppiced for the fuel-wood... while the
foliage is utilised separately as green-manure. The cost of establishing a
1-hectare plantation of gliricida and maintaining it for 1-year is
SLRs25,000.

2. The fuel-wood is thus very conveniently sized for handling, manually, by
cart, by trailer etc.and can be used in approx. 25mm to 30mm diameter sizes,
to generate industrial heat or electrical energy. This fuel-wood has a
market value of SLRs.1,000 to 2,000 per tonne (1,000kg)(for USDollars divide
SLrs by 100). This replaces furnace oil to the value of Rs.8,000 used to
supply the same amount of heat (thus a saving of 50 to 75% in fuel costs)
The plant repayment is achieved in less than 6 months.

3. The foliage is used direct as nitrogenous fertiliser by burying it in the
soil or mulching it in the near proximity of the plants/trees being manured.
Considering the 'N' equivalent alone, research results over many years show
that 50 kg of fresh grliricidia foliage has the 'N' equivalent of 1 kg. of
urea (56%N) the price now paid for 1 kg of urea being SLRs.20 (SLRs2,000 per
tonne) Thus the value of the gliricidia foliage (not including the
fuel-wood) from a hectare is equivalent to Rs.10,000. Alternatively the
foliage is used for high protein cattle fodder. On my own little coconut
plantation, the cost of thus GROWING (only) my own needs of 'N' fertiliser
represents an over 50% reduction in costs... When condiering the added
savings in other plant nutrients as well, is is over 70%.... Add to these
savings the cost of energy saved (lighting and water-pumping)... MONEY GROWS
ON TREES!

4. The above considers only the 'N' equivalent of the foliage... there is
additional 'P', and 'K, and Mg in very substantial quantities... There are
also several other tropical tree/shrub species which not only yield high
biomass but also high levels of the other nutrients.... not mentioned here
to minimise the confusion of figures.

5 Q2 from Tom is a VERY good question and needs special response... "Why are
people moving very slowly to adopt this technology".... I think it is
because for years and years of MUCH lower oil prices the price for urea and
other processed fertiliers (as also for fuel-oil) has been MUCH lower, and
with the support from high-pressure advertising and marketing of the
fertiliser and agro-chemical companies the advantages for growing our own
fuels and fertilisers have hitherto been marginal... No so now...nor in the
future with countries prepared to go to war to protect and preserve their
sources. We at the tail end of the pipeline need NOW to develop and adopt
such alternatives ... or lapse into (still further) beggary! ... While wind
energy is a practical alternative in some countries, it is very rare in SL
that we have winds over the minimum of 5 m/sec to generate energy. PV energy
will cost us at least five-times the cost of fossil-fuel energy.. and
requires energy storage systems in addition to the imported PV panels.

We, too easily, overlook the fact that trees not only have a magnificent
spread of photo-synthetic area... but also the woody biomass in their trunks
and branches to store it. Collectors AND storage of present-day sunshine...
versus the ancient sunshine collected and stored in fossil fuels.... This is
why AD and several of us are looking once again into C4 plants versus the C3
we have considered hitherto.

Conclusion...Money DOES grow on trees....Certainly in the tropics... Blessed
as we are with year-round sunshine!

Ray Wijewardene.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Larson [mailto:ronallarson@qwest.net]
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 6:28 AM
To: Dr. Ray Wijewardene; STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: Availability of Fuel for smokeless (gasifier-type) domestic
cookers.

Ray:

Several follow-up questions on your e-mail of today.

1. Can you add a bit more on the economics of any or all of the several
plantation, combustion, and pyrolysis operations in Sri Lanka (preferably in
units of c/kWh or $/MJ - and tonnes/hectare/yr, etc) - and the percent
savings you are experiencing (including the fertilizer replacement
aspects)..

2. What are the resaons that you think people are moving slowly (if they
are) on emulating what you have started?

3. Has the activated charcoal pyrolysis operation you mentioned been
written up anywhere? What is the scale (tonnes per hour, etc) and
economics? Batch or continuous?

4. Could you (or Punchibanda) describe the Punchibanda stove and program
(sales to date, $/stove, etc). Is Punchibanda using his household stove at
all for charcoal-making?

Thanks in advance and congratulations for what you are doing in Sri Lanka.

Ron

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Wed May 5 21:02:49 2004
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (adkarve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:04 2004
Subject: organic farming
Message-ID: <THU.6.MAY.2004.063249.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Hank,
The deeper layers of the soil do not contribute much to the plants by way of
nutrients.
I just cannot contain myself from sharing this experience of mine from my
earlier incarnation as a plant breeder. In the seventies I conducted a
major study on a plant called safflower (Carthamus tinctorius). It is an
oilseed plant, resembling a thistle, which is planted after the rainy season
and which grows entirely on the soil moisture retained in the soil. I was
trying to cross these plants with each other, for which I had to get up very
early, go to the field before the anthers dehisced and pollinated stigmas of
their own flowers. I removed the anthers before they dehisced and then
pollinated the stigmas of the emasculated flowers from pollen of other
flowers. For the operation of removal of the anthers, I had to squat in
front of each plant, and I noticed that the soil surface under each plant
was quite muddy. In order to find out, if the moisture came up during the
night from the soil or if it was the plant itself that was dropping this
water on the ground, I enclosed some branches of the plants within polythene
bags. I was surprised to note that each bag had accumulated about 100
mililitres of water during a single night , showing that the plants were
watering the soil beneath their own canopy. The textbooks all said that
safflower had a taproot that followed the soil moisture profile, as the
moisture horizon went deeper and deeper into the soil. I therefore uprooted
some of the plants and was surprised to note they also had quite thick
laterally growing roots that grew parallel to the soil surface, just
underneath the soil. This showed that the plants take up water from the
deeper layers of the soil, wet the soil surface and reabsorb the water with
the help of the lateral roots. The top soil is always more fertile than the
lower layers of the soil, and this was a method used by the plants to take
up the nutrients from the top soil, which would otherwise not have become
available to them. I later realised, that almost all the post monsoon crops
showed this phenomenon. The farmers called it dew, but it was actually
water drawn from the lower layers of the soil and dropped as drops of water
from the leaves on the soil surface. In the case of chickpea (Cicer
arietinum), this water of guttation (as it is scientifically called) is
highly acidic, so that it can even dissolve limestone and release the
nutrients trapped in it.
Yours
A.D.Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: Hank or Margaret <w.burroughs@VERIZON.NET>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 5:00 AM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] organic farming

> Another way that the top soil gains fertility that I was taught in
> Permaculture school is through the very deep rooted plants (like trees)
> bringing up minerals from deep in the soil. This is one of the main
reasons
> for having trees in the plan for an organic garden.
>
> Hank in the high desert

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Thu May 6 07:59:57 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:04 2004
Subject: Gas and Biomass
Message-ID: <THU.6.MAY.2004.135957.0200.CRISPIN@NEWDAWN.SZ>

Dear Dr Karve

You will well remember the slogan at Kirkland: "Burn The Gas Not The
Biomass".

It seems that the stove we are now making suits the slogan: "Burn The Gas
Then The Biomass".

I like this as a new direction for stoves. It seems that the making of gas
and burning it very cleanly followed by the burning of the resulting
charcoal in a similarly clean fire offers a good chance to combine a total
net clean burn with some power variability, while mimicking the convenience
of propane or electricity.

So I was thinking about the economics of using a well chosen source of
biomass that could be made into a slug or plug of fuel to be placed into a
semi-gasifier without having to make charcoal, thus preserving some of the
heat value and the labour cost of the briquetting.

Is the dry cane leaf mass required to make 100gm of briquettes (remembering
to compensate for the missing starch) about 500gm? 600? A stove that burned
a cassette of 600 gm of sugar cane leaves might give more total cooking than
100gm of charcoal. Maybe twice as much, in a semi-gasifier stove.

It could be that the higher volume would present distribution problems
compared with the energy-dense charcoal. What do you think?

Regards
Crispin

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Thu May 6 14:39:23 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:04 2004
Subject: Long thin sticks was Re: [STOVES] Basic economics...
wood-fuel ...Sri Lanka.
In-Reply-To: <MEBBLDMOPKNIDAEAHNBBAEPCCEAA.raywije@eureka.lk>
Message-ID: <THU.6.MAY.2004.133923.0500.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Ray, and Stovers

As a developer of gasifiers along the lines of Tom Reed's small gasifiers,
I am interested in fuels that are consistent in size and qualities, but
"grown on trees." You wrote:

At 03:48 PM 5/6/04 -0700, Dr. Ray Wijewardene wrote:
>(snip)
>2. The fuel-wood is thus very conveniently sized for handling, manually, by
>cart, by trailer etc.and can be used in approx. 25mm to 30mm diameter sizes,
>to generate industrial heat or electrical energy.

For my small stoves, I would like thicknesses in the range of 5 mm to 10
mm, with lengths of up to 30 mm. I think that the Rocket stoves would also
like about 10 mm to 15 mm thicknesses and similar lengths. (I can make
shorter lengths easily, if needed.)

Instead of chipping the pollard-ed or coppice-ed wood, could it be easily
split? For example, could it be split by driving a wedged splitter down
the long axis, generating 3 or more long thin sticks?

Of course, what is true for splitting one type of wood (species, diameter,
age/dryness, etc.) would not necessarily hold for other types of
wood. BUT, when the process is defined, is easy to do, grows with
reasonable uniformity, and matches well with the needs of a stove that
serves the people well, then the important "fuel-and-stove" match is
accomplished.

This Stoves List Serve has already discussed the issues of "multi-fuels"
for stoves. Some stoves can and some stoves cannot use a variety of
fuels. The issue here is: can we get ONE specific reasonable biomass fuel
consistently???

I hope to report the results of this inquiry via the "Pre-processed biomass
fuels" Committee of ETHOS, of which I am a member.

Anyone have information on splitting SMALL wood? (NOT referring to
splitting logs).

Thanks in advance,

Paul

Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
Rotary University Teacher Grantee to Mozambique >10 mo of 2001-2003
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

From woolsey at NETINS.NET Thu May 6 15:30:02 2004
From: woolsey at NETINS.NET (Ed Woolsey)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:04 2004
Subject: FYI US Biomass Energy News
In-Reply-To: <00ae01c4338b$f658c520$cb83fea9@md>
Message-ID: <THU.6.MAY.2004.143002.0500.WOOLSEY@NETINS.NET>

Copy of Iowa Senator Harkin opening statement at today's US Senate Ag
committee hearing on biomass energy.
Ed Woolsey
Iowa

 

SENATOR TOM HARKIN (D-IA), RANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY
?Biomass Use in Energy Production: New Opportunities for Agriculture?
May 6, 2004

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this timely and vitally important
hearing. I am a long-time advocate of increasing our use of biomass for
fuels, products and power. With oil imports rising above 60 percent of our
total consumption, and gas prices skyrocketing, we need to wean our country
off its massive appetite for foreign petroleum.

Building energy independence and security with biomass means a stronger
economy and more jobs, improved farm income, a cleaner environment and
greatly-reduced net emissions of greenhouse gases. At the local level,
agricultural producers and communities can gain income and jobs, not only
from growing and processing crops but also through local ownership of
bioenergy enterprises. Farmer-owned cooperatives are already forming the
backbone of ethanol and biodiesel production in Iowa and elsewhere.
Relatively soon, I predict, we will see what I call ?electro-farming?.
Farms and local communities will generate their own electricity by
converting biomass to hydrogen, putting it through fuel cells and then
selling the excess back to the power grid.

Some of the most exciting developments in bioenergy and bio-based products
are in my state of Iowa. The potential is tremendous ? with Iowa?s
plentiful biomass and other renewable resources as well as outstanding
farmers and workers, biofuels producers, industrial biotechnology leaders
and academic institutions. Professor Tom Richard will tell us this morning
about some of the excellent work in this area at Iowa State University. The
University of Northern Iowa?s Ag-based Industrial Lubricants program is
manufacturing and selling a grease for railroad tracks made from soybeans
which is more effective than petroleum products and safer for the
environment. Just last year, Iowans created the nonprofit BIOWA Development
Association to provide leadership and support for the new bioeconomy.

We made real progress in this Committee two years ago by adopting the first
energy title ever in a farm bill. Senator Lugar and I worked together on
that from day one, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your cooperation and
support. This new energy title spurs demand for bio-based products, invests
in critical biomass research and development, supports developing renewable
energy and improving energy efficiency, and promotes bio-refineries. We
included Senator Lugar?s Biomass Research and Development Act, which I was
proud to cosponsor, and dedicated $75 million to carry it out.

Frankly, we need better support for bioenergy and bio-based products from
the Administration. I give credit to the Departments of Agriculture and
Energy for the work they have done. The problem is what is not being done.
Too much of the farm bill?s energy title is in the slow lane or sitting
idle; for example, the federal bio-based procurement requirement. The
president?s budget calls for cutting funding we dedicated in the farm bill
to renewable energy and bioenergy. DOE has dropped some of its biomass work
and kept funding for renewable energy and energy efficiency flat or on a
downward trend.
Looking ahead, we have work to do in Congress as well. At the top of the
list is enacting the national renewable fuel standard to more than double
our nation?s use of ethanol and biodiesel by 2012. We must invest more in
developing cutting-edge bio-refineries to produce products such as ethanol
in the tens of billions of gallons. We should strengthen the energy title
in the next farm bill and include more funding. And there are many other
important initiatives to further renewable energy, energy efficiency and
bio-based products.

I want to thank each of our witnesses for taking the time to testify today
on one of the most important challenges our society faces. Future
generations will bear the consequences of our action or inaction. We must
move swiftly and aggressively to realize the tremendous potential of the
bioeconomy.

From Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP Fri May 7 09:19:27 2004
From: Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP (Kanchan Rai)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:04 2004
Subject: Question regarding Measuring flue gas velocity
Message-ID: <FRI.7.MAY.2004.190427.0545.KANCHAN@KU.EDU.NP>

Dear stovers,
Can anyone suggest me how to measure the flue gas velocity (flow rate)
in the stove chimney. Ordinary anemometer (hot wire too) is not able to
operate at that temperature. Also it restricts the flow of the flue gas
inside chimney. I also thought about pitot tube but unless I have
precise pressure gauge, it is not possible to read the pressure
difference. Monometer, not easy to read the manometric liquid unless
the liquid has very less density, water is not sufficiently less dense,
(is there any other liquid with less density?)
Can any one have better way of doing this?
Pleas suggest.

Kanchan Rai
Research Assistant
RDC Unit
Kathmandu University
Kathmandu Nepal

From dstill at EPUD.NET Fri May 7 00:40:25 2004
From: dstill at EPUD.NET (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:04 2004
Subject: Gas and Biomass
In-Reply-To: <00ae01c4338b$f658c520$cb83fea9@md>
Message-ID: <THU.6.MAY.2004.214025.0700.DSTILL@EPUD.NET>

Dear Stovers,

Dear Friends,

I put together a quick survey of the literature concerning emissions from charcoal vs wood burning stoves. It appears that although wood stoves can produce more CO if they smolder all day, wood burning stoves seem to be generally cleaner burning, producing less CO and particulates, than charcoal stoves. (The following are quotes from the cited articles)

All Best,

Dean

A.) In the case of wood combustion, CO2 emission factor is in the range of 1560?1620 g kg?1. The emission factors for pollutants CO, CH4, TNMOC and NOx were in the ranges 19?136, 6?10, 6?9 and 0.05?0:2 g k g?1, respectively. In the case of charcoal combustion, CO2 emission factor is in the range of 2155?2567 g kg?1. The emission factors for pollutants CO, CH4, TNMOC were in the ranges 35?198, 6.7?7.8, 6?10 g kg?1, respectively. Comparison between wood and charcoal stoves shows that, CO2 and CO emission factor values for wood are lower as compared to charcoal. CH4 and TNMOC emission factors for wood are with the same range as compared to charcoal. Emission factors for NOx using wood is slightly lower than charcoal. The emission of all the pollutants per unit of useful heat was found to decrease with increasing stove efficiency for both wood and charcoal stoves.
(Emission Factors of Wood and Charcoal Cookstoves, S.C. Bhattacharya?, D.O. Albina, P. Abdul Salam , 2002)

B.) Emissions ratios for firewood and charcoal combustion from Brocard et al. (1996). Firewood Combustion CO/CO2 (%) Ignition 26.1 Flaming 5.7 Glowing 15.0 Smoldering 21.0 Charcoal (%) Making 24.0 Burning 15.5 Global BC/OC Inventory, rev 2.7 ? 2003.02.27 page 1T.

(AN ESTIMATE OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM COMMON KENYAN COOKSTOVES UNDER CONDITIONS OF ACTUAL USE, R Bailis, M Ezzati and DM Kammen)

C.) Taking CO as an example, it is estimated that in the starting phase of combustion, a three-stone wood fire emits about 188g CO per kg-fuel. Additional estimates in other phases of combustion are 52g CO per kg-fuel in the burning phase, 91g in the dying fire phase, 126g in the hot coal phase and 156g in the dying coal phase with little variation across households.
Averaging over each measurement-day introduces variation for reasons discussed above, so that the CO emissions factor for each household using the 3-stone fire, averaged over the course of the measurement day, ranges from about 61g to 95g CO per kg-fuel (79 ? 7 g-CO per kg-fuel: mean ? s.d.).

(GREENHOUSE IMPLICATIONS OF HOUSEHOLD STOVES: An Analysis for India
Kirk R. Smith, R. Uma, V.V.N. Kishore, Junfeng Zhang, V. Joshi, and M.A.K. Khalil)

D.) This study reports emission factors of carbon monoxide and size-resolved aerosols from combustion of wood, dung cake, and biofuel briquette in traditional and improved
stoves in India. Wood was the cleanest burning fuel, with higher emissions of CO from dung cake and particulate matter from both dung cake and briquette fuels. Combustion of dung cake, especially in an improved metal stove, resulted in extremely high pollutant emissions? Pollutant emissions increased with increasing stove thermal efficiency,
implying that thermal efficiency enhancement in the improved stoves was mainly from design features leading to increased heat transfer but not combustion efficiency.
Compared to the traditional stove, the improved stoves resulted in the lower pollutant emissions on a kW h-1 basis from wood combustion but in similar emissions from briquette and dung cake.

(Emission Factors of Carbon Monoxide and Size-Resolved Aerosols from Biofuel Combustion, C H A N D R A V E N K A T A R A M A N * A N D G . UMA M A H E S W A R A R A O)

E.) Table 6. Compilation of particulate matter emission factors for residential solid-fuel combustion.
Fuel/Technology References a EFPM (g/kg) b
Fossil fuels
Bituminous coal/
Apt. building stoker
2.0-2.4 [Beijing EPB, 1996], 6-18 [Hangebrauck et al., 1964], 1.3-
4.4 [Spitzer et al., 1998]
2.5?3.0
Bituminous coal/
Heating stove
10.4 [Butcher and Ellenbecker, 1982]; 10-22 (hot air furnace)
[Hughes and DeAngelis, 1982]; 17-79 [Jaasma and Macumber,
1982]; 0.6-65 [Sanborn, 1982]; 7.6 [Truesdale and Cleland,
1982]; 4.6?2.1 [Spitzer et al., 1998]
12?8
Bituminous coal/
Cooking
8.2 (open pit) [Mumford et al., 1987], 12?17 (clay stove) [Bond et
al., 2002], 0.13-14.5 (improved stove) [Zhang et al., 2000]
7.7?6.5
Lignite/all 2.7-6.5 [Bond et al., 2002] 4.6?4.6
Biofuels
Agricultural waste/
Domestic use
2.4-9.4 [Joshi et al., 1989], 1.7-4.0 (maize stalks) 4.7-17.8 (wheat
stalks) [Zhang et al., 2000], 0.63-4.3 (mustard stalks) and 0.8-16
(rice stalks) [Smith et al., 2000]
6.5?3.0
Animal waste/
Domestic use
4.9-5.6 [Joshi et al., 1989], 0.55-2.2 [Smith et al., 2000]; 3.9-4.9
[Venkataraman and Rao, 2001]
3.7?2.0
Charcoal/
Production
4.0?1.5 [Brocard et al., 1996]; 0.7-4.2 [Smith et al., 1999]; 8.4
[Pennise et al., 2001] (all in g/kg wood, not charcoal)
2.6?2.2
Charcoal/
Domestic use
3.9-7.5 [Oanh et al., 1999]; 2.4?0.7 [Smith et al., 2000] 4.1?4.8
Wood/
Apt. building stoker
1.0-1.7 [Spitzer et al., 1998], 1.4-3.9 (hot water boiler) [Hughes
and DeAngelis, 1982]
1.4?1.0
Wood/
Fireplace
11.8?11.6 [Houck and Tiegs, 1998]; 17.3 [EPA, AP-42]; 5-17
[Dasch, 1982]; 2.9-9.0 [McDonald et al., 2000]; 2.7-11.4 [Fine et
al., 2001]; 1.6-6.8 [Fine et al., 2002]
12?6
Wood/
Heating stove
0.66 [Truesdale and Cleland, 1982]; 1.2-3.3 [Spitzer et al., 1998];
6.1 (improved), 18.5 (conventional) [Houck and Tiegs, 1998]; 15.3
[U. S. EPA, 1996]; 1.6-6.4 [Butcher and Ellenbecker, 1982], 3.1
[Bond, 2000], 3.3-28 [Sanborn and Blanchet, 1982], 10.2-15.3
(cordwood), 2.1-4.4 (pellet stoves) [EPA AP-42], 2.3-7.2
[McDonald et al, 2000]
15?8
Wood/
Traditional cookstove
6.4-8.9 [Smith et al., 1987c], 1.9?0.7 [Joshi et al., 1989], 1.0
[Smith et al., 2000], 2.8 [Venkataraman and Rao, 2001]
3.9?3.0
Wood/
Improved cookstove
4.5 [Smith, 1987c], 2.0-2.8 [Joshi et al., 1989], 0.67-1.5 [Ballard-
Tremeer and Jawurek, 1996], 1.5-4.6 [Zhang et al., 2000], 1.2-4.0
[Smith et al., 2000], 0.9-1.2 [Venkataraman and Rao, 2001], 3.7
[Oanh et al., 2002]
2.3?0.8
Wood/
Open cooking fire
5?3 [Brocard et al., 1996], 0.8-1.1 [Ballard-Tremeer and
Jawurek, 1996], 0.94-2.0 [Smith et al., 2000], 8.5 (eucalyptus
chips) [Oanh et al., 1999]
3.8?2.1
(a) Ranges indicate multiple sources measured, while ??? indicates standard deviation of same source. (b) Under ?EFPM?,
??? indicates half-width of 95% confidence interval, not necessarily centered about the mean. See text for discussion of
other emission characteristics. (c) Citing conference proceedings by Butcher et al.

(Bond, D.G. Streets, K.F. Yarber, S.M. Nelson, J.-H. Woo, and Z. Klimont, A technology-based global inventory of black and organic carbon emissions from combustion, in press at Journal of Geophysical Research, 2004)

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Fri May 7 02:28:05 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:04 2004
Subject: Gas and Biomass
Message-ID: <FRI.7.MAY.2004.082805.0200.>

Dear Dean

Thanks for bringing up this topic:

"I put together a quick survey of the literature concerning emissions from charcoal vs wood burning stoves. It appears that although wood stoves can produce more CO if they smolder all day, wood burning stoves seem to be generally cleaner burning, producing less CO and particulates, than charcoal stoves. (The following are quotes from the cited articles)

There are some dragons that need to be slayed in this field:

"A.) In the case of wood combustion, CO2 emission factor is in the range of 1560?1620 g kg?1. The emission factors for pollutants CO, CH4, TNMOC and NOx were in the ranges 19?136, 6?10, 6?9 and 0.05?0:2 g k g?1, respectively. In the case of charcoal combustion, CO2 emission factor is in the range of 2155?2567 g kg?1. The emission factors for pollutants CO, CH4, TNMOC were in the ranges 35?198, 6.7?7.8, 6?10 g kg?1, respectively. Comparison between wood and charcoal stoves shows that, CO2 and CO emission factor values for wood are lower as compared to charcoal.

Note that the comparison is made per Kg, not per unit heating value of the fuel. Charcoal has far more heating value than wood per kg.

The heat for the most part comes from burning carbon. There is a lot more carbon in charcoal. The belief that charcoal gives off more CO that wood is not based on the amount of CO given off from releasing a certain amount of heat, but on comparing the total emissions from a certain _weight_ of fuel. Obviously this is a faulty comparison.

In addition, the comparisons having to do with emissions from stoves are device specific, yet the data is spoken of as if it is a characteristic of the fuel rather than the stove in which it is burned. This logical error (and others) pervades the citations. For example if dung is burned badly in a stove that does not have the needed layout to handle that type of fuel, it is not reasonable to say that _all_ stoves burning dung have a similar emissions profile. At the ETHOS conference Kirk gave a combustion efficiency of 73% for dung. Well....yeah, if you burn it badly in a device not designed to handle it! In another device it might be 95% yet the fuel is characterised as being a smokey, polluting one with a low combustion efficiency. Actually, dry dung burns very well if you use the right stove.

It would be equally unreasonable to say that the Panda paraffin stove CO emissions are in any way an example of the CO that is inherently produced by paraffin. It would be just as unreasonable to say that all paraffin stoves produce the same amount of CO per _kg_ of fuel compared with wood, or even that the amount of CO produced per KWH of heat is the same. Stoves differ.

Back to the charcoal: Typical CO2 emissions from the wood stoves that were surveyed (not all stoves or all possible stoves) was an average of about 1600 g/Kg of fuel. This pretty reasonably represents the amount of heat produced by burning 1 kg of wood (say, 16MJ). Note that the CO2 produced by a kg of charcoal is about 1.5 times more, meaning it has produce about 1.5 times as much cooking. The CO is, not surprisingly, about 1.5 times as much as well _per kg_ at the high end of the scale indicating that wood and charcoal produce very similar amounts of CO per unit heat produced. In the devices tested, charcoal does not give off more CO than wood when cooking any given meal. Your cited figures show this. Kobus' charcoal gasifier might have a far lower figure - we don't know the characteristics of his stove.

It is a separate issue that both these CO rates are device specific. If you use a stove that has a higher combustion efficiency, the CO figures would be lower and the CO2 figure correspondingly higher, showing a higher heat output.

Emissions per Kg
CO, CH4, TNMOC NOx
19?136, 6?10, 6?9 0.05?0:2 g (wood)
35?198, 6.7?7.8, 6?10 g (chacroal)

Note also that the CH4 is about the same for charcoal even though it is putting out about 1.5 times the heat, which means per unit work done it is 1/3 less. The TNMOC is also 1/3 less per 'cook'.

Charcoal is demonstrably less polluting than wood, when burned in those devices that were surveyed. That says nothing at all about other improved stoves in which the comparison may differ, both relative to each other and in absolute terms. For example, the camp stove from Tom Reed routinely meets the indoor air quality CO/CO2 rating of <2% which is at least three times better than mentioned in citation (B) for burning wood. Emissions depend on what you burn it in and how.

Sincerely
Crispin

From Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK Fri May 7 04:11:43 2004
From: Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:04 2004
Subject: Question regarding Measuring flue gas velocity
In-Reply-To: <42990.202.52.242.69.1083935967.squirrel@webmail.ku.edu.np>
Message-ID: <FRI.7.MAY.2004.091143.0100.GAVIN@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>

Kanchan,
Use a sloping manometer- the measuring part set at a low angle say 5degrees
(needs to be a known accurately measured angle.
Use a low viscosity liquid ie water with detergent in it.
You can make a horizontal scale that is calibrated with very small vertical
increments so you can easily measure flue draft of 0.01".

Good luck
Gavin

Gavin Gulliver-Goodall
3G Energi,

Tel +44 (0)1835 824201
Fax +44 (0)870 8314098
Mob +44 (0)7773 781498
E mail Gavin@3genergi.co.uk <mailto:Gavin@3genergi.co.uk>

The contents of this email and any attachments are the property of 3G Energi
and are intended for the confidential use of the named recipient(s) only.
They may be legally privileged and should not be communicated to or relied
upon by any person without our express written consent. If you are not an
addressee please notify us immediately at the address above or by email at
Gavin@3genergi.co.uk <mailto:Gavin@3genergi.co.uk>. Any files attached to
this email will have been checked with virus detection software before
transmission. However, you should carry out your own virus check before
opening any attachment. 3G Energi accepts no liability for any loss or
damage that may be caused by software viruses.

-----Original Message-----
From: The Stoves Discussion List [mailto:STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf
Of Kanchan Rai
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 14:19
To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [STOVES] Question regarding Measuring flue gas velocity

Dear stovers,
Can anyone suggest me how to measure the flue gas velocity (flow rate)
in the stove chimney. Ordinary anemometer (hot wire too) is not able to
operate at that temperature. Also it restricts the flow of the flue gas
inside chimney. I also thought about pitot tube but unless I have
precise pressure gauge, it is not possible to read the pressure
difference. Monometer, not easy to read the manometric liquid unless
the liquid has very less density, water is not sufficiently less dense,
(is there any other liquid with less density?)
Can any one have better way of doing this?
Pleas suggest.

Kanchan Rai
Research Assistant
RDC Unit
Kathmandu University
Kathmandu Nepal

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Fri May 7 04:23:39 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:04 2004
Subject: Making minerals available.
Message-ID: <FRI.7.MAY.2004.022339.0600.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Dan and All:

Obviously we are all interested in the sustainability of biomass production.
Mineral availability is a key issue. I wouldn't be interested in biomass
energy if I didn't think it could be sustainable.

Dan is so right that the minerals necessary for growth are often present,
but unavailable.

Mother Nature's solution to this is to use high temperatures to form
different mineral species in which the minerals ARE available. In
particular the lava from volcanoes is easily broken down to release
potassium and calcium that are "locked up" in clays. This explains the
incredible fertility of volcanic islands like Indonesia and Hawaii.

However, I don't think we are likely to make "synthetic lava" to fertilize
our gardens.

Comments?

TOM REED BEF 2 AM

----- Original Message -----
From: <Carefreeland@AOL.COM>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 9:20 PM
Subject: [STOVES] Organic farming.

> Dear Stovers,
> Yes, there is often a considerable amount of minerals available in
> the soil which are not available to the plants. Most of the unavailable
minerals
> are combined chemically with other elements which form stable compounds.
> Soil that has an unbalanced pH for example can be treated repeatedly with
> chemical fertilizers and produce little response from the plants.
> Fungi and lichens (which are microscopic plants and fungi living
> together in symbiosis) are wonderful at producing organic acids which
actually
> dissolve rock. This is one example of clear evidence of the power of
healthy soil
> to provide for the plants growing in it.
> Lack of oxygen in the soil is also a great limiter of plant growth.
> While stagnate water in the soil can kill plant roots from lack of oxygen,
a
> replenished supply of highly oxygenated rainwater can in some soils
provide more
> oxygen than might be otherwise available. The common treatment for drowned
> damaged roots is to continue to water the plant lightly but frequently.
> Seedlings in the greenhouse are often misted frequently with the saturated
soil
> providing dissolved oxygen.
> Soil science is among the most complex studies, yet basic
principals
> seem to guide the most successful gardeners. If soil is well drained, the
> excess minerals which lock up valuable fertilizers tend to leach out while
drawing
> fresh oxygen into the soil with each rain or watering.
> Nitrogen tends to be the first mineral in short supply in poor
soils
> as it can leave the soil through leaching or vaporization, if there is
lack of
> organic matter to hold it. Potassium can also be easily leached from low
> organic matter soil. Phosphorus, tends to accumulate in the soil, however
it is
> quickly locked up in compounds making it unavailable to the plants. Iron
is
> often a catalyst for uptake of other minerals. At high pH Iron becomes
locked up
> as stable forms unavailable to plants.
>
> Dan Dimiduk

From lanny at ROMAN.NET Fri May 7 06:23:49 2004
From: lanny at ROMAN.NET (Lanny Henson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:04 2004
Subject: Gas and Biomass
Message-ID: <FRI.7.MAY.2004.062349.0400.LANNY@ROMAN.NET>

Dear Dean and Stove Friends,
Thanks for providing the literature concerning emissions from charcoal vs
wood burning stoves.

It looks like wood stoves are cleaner than charcoal stoves using the same
amount of fuel however in some cases charcoal stoves can use less fuel to do
the same job therefore create less emissions.

For slow cooking (beans, chicken stew) wood is a problem because it is
difficult to maintain a clean burning fire that is small enough to maintain
a slow simmer. With charcoal you can burn as slow as you need. Sure the
concentration of emissions are high but the volume of exhaust can be very
very small. With wood more air flow (exhaust) is needed and this allows heat
to escape the system.
For quick cooking (rice or wok cooking) wood is great because it is faster
and the fire can be large enough to heat up the combustion chamber for a
clean burn.
Thanks again,
Lanny

 

----- Original Message -----
From: Dean Still <dstill@EPUD.NET>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 12:40 AM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Gas and Biomass

> Dear Stovers,
>
> Dear Friends,
>
> I put together a quick survey of the literature concerning emissions from
charcoal vs wood burning stoves. It appears that although wood stoves can
produce more CO if they smolder all day, wood burning stoves seem to be
generally cleaner burning, producing less CO and particulates, than charcoal
stoves. (The following are quotes from the cited articles)
>
> All Best,
>
> Dean
>
>
> A.) In the case of wood combustion, CO2 emission factor is in the range of
1560?1620 g kg?1. The emission factors for pollutants CO, CH4, TNMOC and NOx
were in the ranges 19?136, 6?10, 6?9 and 0.05?0:2 g k g?1, respectively. In
the case of charcoal combustion, CO2 emission factor is in the range of
2155?2567 g kg?1. The emission factors for pollutants CO, CH4, TNMOC were in
the ranges 35?198, 6.7?7.8, 6?10 g kg?1, respectively. Comparison between
wood and charcoal stoves shows that, CO2 and CO emission factor values for
wood are lower as compared to charcoal. CH4 and TNMOC emission factors for
wood are with the same range as compared to charcoal. Emission factors for
NOx using wood is slightly lower than charcoal. The emission of all the
pollutants per unit of useful heat was found to decrease with increasing
stove efficiency for both wood and charcoal stoves.
> (Emission Factors of Wood and Charcoal Cookstoves, S.C. Bhattacharya?,
D.O. Albina, P. Abdul Salam , 2002)
>
> B.) Emissions ratios for firewood and charcoal combustion from Brocard et
al. (1996). Firewood Combustion CO/CO2 (%) Ignition 26.1 Flaming 5.7
Glowing 15.0 Smoldering 21.0 Charcoal (%) Making 24.0 Burning 15.5 Global
BC/OC Inventory, rev 2.7 ? 2003.02.27 page 1T.
>
> (AN ESTIMATE OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM COMMON KENYAN COOKSTOVES
UNDER CONDITIONS OF ACTUAL USE, R Bailis, M Ezzati and DM Kammen)
>
> C.) Taking CO as an example, it is estimated that in the starting phase of
combustion, a three-stone wood fire emits about 188g CO per kg-fuel.
Additional estimates in other phases of combustion are 52g CO per kg-fuel in
the burning phase, 91g in the dying fire phase, 126g in the hot coal phase
and 156g in the dying coal phase with little variation across households.
> Averaging over each measurement-day introduces variation for reasons
discussed above, so that the CO emissions factor for each household using
the 3-stone fire, averaged over the course of the measurement day, ranges
from about 61g to 95g CO per kg-fuel (79 ? 7 g-CO per kg-fuel: mean ? s.d.).
>
> (GREENHOUSE IMPLICATIONS OF HOUSEHOLD STOVES: An Analysis for India
> Kirk R. Smith, R. Uma, V.V.N. Kishore, Junfeng Zhang, V. Joshi, and M.A.K.
Khalil)
>
> D.) This study reports emission factors of carbon monoxide and
size-resolved aerosols from combustion of wood, dung cake, and biofuel
briquette in traditional and improved
> stoves in India. Wood was the cleanest burning fuel, with higher emissions
of CO from dung cake and particulate matter from both dung cake and briquett
e fuels. Combustion of dung cake, especially in an improved metal stove,
resulted in extremely high pollutant emissions? Pollutant emissions
increased with increasing stove thermal efficiency,
> implying that thermal efficiency enhancement in the improved stoves was
mainly from design features leading to increased heat transfer but not
combustion efficiency.
> Compared to the traditional stove, the improved stoves resulted in the
lower pollutant emissions on a kW h-1 basis from wood combustion but in
similar emissions from briquette and dung cake.
>
> (Emission Factors of Carbon Monoxide and Size-Resolved Aerosols from
Biofuel Combustion, C H A N D R A V E N K A T A R A M A N * A N D G . UMA M
A H E S W A R A R A O)
>
>
> E.) Table 6. Compilation of particulate matter emission factors for
residential solid-fuel combustion.
> Fuel/Technology References a EFPM (g/kg) b
> Fossil fuels
> Bituminous coal/
> Apt. building stoker
> 2.0-2.4 [Beijing EPB, 1996], 6-18 [Hangebrauck et al., 1964], 1.3-
> 4.4 [Spitzer et al., 1998]
> 2.5?3.0
> Bituminous coal/
> Heating stove
> 10.4 [Butcher and Ellenbecker, 1982]; 10-22 (hot air furnace)
> [Hughes and DeAngelis, 1982]; 17-79 [Jaasma and Macumber,
> 1982]; 0.6-65 [Sanborn, 1982]; 7.6 [Truesdale and Cleland,
> 1982]; 4.6?2.1 [Spitzer et al., 1998]
> 12?8
> Bituminous coal/
> Cooking
> 8.2 (open pit) [Mumford et al., 1987], 12?17 (clay stove) [Bond et
> al., 2002], 0.13-14.5 (improved stove) [Zhang et al., 2000]
> 7.7?6.5
> Lignite/all 2.7-6.5 [Bond et al., 2002] 4.6?4.6
> Biofuels
> Agricultural waste/
> Domestic use
> 2.4-9.4 [Joshi et al., 1989], 1.7-4.0 (maize stalks) 4.7-17.8 (wheat
> stalks) [Zhang et al., 2000], 0.63-4.3 (mustard stalks) and 0.8-16
> (rice stalks) [Smith et al., 2000]
> 6.5?3.0
> Animal waste/
> Domestic use
> 4.9-5.6 [Joshi et al., 1989], 0.55-2.2 [Smith et al., 2000]; 3.9-4.9
> [Venkataraman and Rao, 2001]
> 3.7?2.0
> Charcoal/
> Production
> 4.0?1.5 [Brocard et al., 1996]; 0.7-4.2 [Smith et al., 1999]; 8.4
> [Pennise et al., 2001] (all in g/kg wood, not charcoal)
> 2.6?2.2
> Charcoal/
> Domestic use
> 3.9-7.5 [Oanh et al., 1999]; 2.4?0.7 [Smith et al., 2000] 4.1?4.8
> Wood/
> Apt. building stoker
> 1.0-1.7 [Spitzer et al., 1998], 1.4-3.9 (hot water boiler) [Hughes
> and DeAngelis, 1982]
> 1.4?1.0
> Wood/
> Fireplace
> 11.8?11.6 [Houck and Tiegs, 1998]; 17.3 [EPA, AP-42]; 5-17
> [Dasch, 1982]; 2.9-9.0 [McDonald et al., 2000]; 2.7-11.4 [Fine et
> al., 2001]; 1.6-6.8 [Fine et al., 2002]
> 12?6
> Wood/
> Heating stove
> 0.66 [Truesdale and Cleland, 1982]; 1.2-3.3 [Spitzer et al., 1998];
> 6.1 (improved), 18.5 (conventional) [Houck and Tiegs, 1998]; 15.3
> [U. S. EPA, 1996]; 1.6-6.4 [Butcher and Ellenbecker, 1982], 3.1
> [Bond, 2000], 3.3-28 [Sanborn and Blanchet, 1982], 10.2-15.3
> (cordwood), 2.1-4.4 (pellet stoves) [EPA AP-42], 2.3-7.2
> [McDonald et al, 2000]
> 15?8
> Wood/
> Traditional cookstove
> 6.4-8.9 [Smith et al., 1987c], 1.9?0.7 [Joshi et al., 1989], 1.0
> [Smith et al., 2000], 2.8 [Venkataraman and Rao, 2001]
> 3.9?3.0
> Wood/
> Improved cookstove
> 4.5 [Smith, 1987c], 2.0-2.8 [Joshi et al., 1989], 0.67-1.5 [Ballard-
> Tremeer and Jawurek, 1996], 1.5-4.6 [Zhang et al., 2000], 1.2-4.0
> [Smith et al., 2000], 0.9-1.2 [Venkataraman and Rao, 2001], 3.7
> [Oanh et al., 2002]
> 2.3?0.8
> Wood/
> Open cooking fire
> 5?3 [Brocard et al., 1996], 0.8-1.1 [Ballard-Tremeer and
> Jawurek, 1996], 0.94-2.0 [Smith et al., 2000], 8.5 (eucalyptus
> chips) [Oanh et al., 1999]
> 3.8?2.1
> (a) Ranges indicate multiple sources measured, while ??? indicates
standard deviation of same source. (b) Under ?EFPM?,
> ??? indicates half-width of 95% confidence interval, not necessarily
centered about the mean. See text for discussion of
> other emission characteristics. (c) Citing conference proceedings by
Butcher et al.
>
> (Bond, D.G. Streets, K.F. Yarber, S.M. Nelson, J.-H. Woo, and Z. Klimont,
A technology-based global inventory of black and organic carbon emissions
from combustion, in press at Journal of Geophysical Research, 2004)
>

From Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK Fri May 7 10:21:19 2004
From: Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:04 2004
Subject: Question regarding Measuring flue gas velocity - on the side
In-Reply-To: <002b01c4342f$62b73e60$cb83fea9@md>
Message-ID: <FRI.7.MAY.2004.152119.0100.GAVIN@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>

Not original though- these are a standard off the shelf product here in the
UK where flue draught measurement is a requirement for installation of
chimneys -but easy for stovers to make so its good to contribute for a
change.
Onward
Gavin

-----Original Message-----
From: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott [mailto:crispin@newdawn.sz]
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 12:52
To: Gavin Gulliver-Goodall
Subject: Re: Question regarding Measuring flue gas velocity - on the side

Dear Gavin

>Use a sloping manometer- the measuring part set at a low
>angle say 5degrees (needs to be a known accurately measured angle.

That is a very clever idea!

Thanks!
Crispin

From list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Fri May 7 10:55:37 2004
From: list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:04 2004
Subject: Question regarding Measuring flue gas velocity - on the side
In-Reply-To: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGOEBLDJAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
Message-ID: <FRI.7.MAY.2004.155537.0100.>

On Fri, 7 May 2004 15:21:19 +0100, Gavin Gulliver-Goodall wrote:

>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott [mailto:crispin@newdawn.sz]
>Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 12:52
>To: Gavin Gulliver-Goodall
>Subject: Re: Question regarding Measuring flue gas velocity - on the side
>
>Dear Gavin
>
>>Use a sloping manometer- the measuring part set at a low
>>angle say 5degrees (needs to be a known accurately measured angle.
>
>That is a very clever idea!

>Not original though- these are a standard off the shelf product here in the
>UK where flue draught measurement is a requirement for installation of
>chimneys -but easy for stovers to make so its good to contribute for a
>change.
>Onward
>Gavin
>

OK Gav and stovers, for my contribution look at
http://www.wokingnursery.co.uk/manometersmall.jpg

or for the big picture remove "small"

This is my manometer, a bit old but functional. Here you see it with
the tube canted over in the shallowest angle for measuring small
pressures or depressions. The liquid used is some red dyed organic
compound that does no form a meniscus, so it gives an easy read out.

The scale you can see is in inches of water gauge for when the vial is
vertical, as you change the angle you also change the scale.

Note also the leveling feet and twin spirit levels.

AJH

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Fri May 7 11:42:08 2004
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (adkarve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:04 2004
Subject: Making minerals available.
Message-ID: <FRI.7.MAY.2004.211208.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Dan,
thanks a lot for you insightful message. Thanks also Crispin for
highlighting windborne dust as a source of plant nutrients.
The motto of the organic farmers is "feed the bacteria and the bacteria
would feed the plants". This is explained by the assumption that soil
bacteria break down minerals in the soil to release the individual nutrient
elements. The organic farmers in India therefore apply honey, butter fat,
sugar, etc. to the soil. These substances serve as food for the bacteria
which then multiply at a faster rate. Roots of many crop species are known
to exude sugar into the soil. This is a mechanism aimed at increasing the
number of bacteria residing in the root zone. Many bacteria like the
Azotobacter, Pseudomonas and the blue-green algae (yes, they are bacteria)
also produce plant growth hormones, which help plants to grow faster.
Ray wanted to know, how much sugar he should apply to each of his coconut
palm trees. I really do not know. The organic farmers in India apply 10 kg
sugar per acre, once every 3 months. Thus, if you have 100 coconut palms
per acre in your field, you should apply about 100 g sugar to each plant.
Just dissolve the sugar in water and apply the water to the palm trees
through their irrigation water. It may also attract ants, but the ants won't
be able to separate the sugar from the soil.It is the bacteria that would
ultimately eat the sugar and multiply.
Yours
A.D.Karve

From dstill at EPUD.NET Sat May 8 01:14:06 2004
From: dstill at EPUD.NET (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:04 2004
Subject: Gas and Biomass
In-Reply-To: <000201c433fc$8221e0d0$e49dfea9@home>
Message-ID: <FRI.7.MAY.2004.221406.0700.DSTILL@EPUD.NET>

Dear Crispin, Lanny,

We just tested 4 charcoal burning stoves from Africa and I was surprised by
several things. Do you notice the same characteristics? Charcoal burning is
very new to me...

1.) Charcoal burns at a cooler temperature than wood unless there is a lot
of draft up through the fire.

2.) If the bed of charcoal is about the same size as the pot moving the pot
closer to the fire does not help heat transfer very much because the pot
"sees" the same sized radiation source.

3.) Heating up a charcoal fire by pulling air up through the charcoal
increases temperatures which greatly improves heat transfer from a radiation
source.

4.) Charcoal stoves are less efficient than wood fires because the Delta T
and velocity of flue gases are reduced and radiation from a low temperature
source does not make up the difference.

5.) Higher power in a charcoal stove is dangerous because so much CO is
released at one time.

6.) Increasing temperatures in a charcoal stove does not clean up combustion
it just produces more CO. It takes flames to combust CO, charcoal burns
without flame and therefore releases more CO.

7.) Hot fires with lots of active flames burn up CO. Whenever a stove starts
to make charcoal CO rises because too much fuel is being introduced without
enough air for complete combustion to occur. Clean combustion makes little
or no charcoal.

Best,

Dean

From english at KINGSTON.NET Sat May 8 07:24:34 2004
From: english at KINGSTON.NET (english@KINGSTON.NET)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:04 2004
Subject: New Type of Stove
In-Reply-To: <005f01c432a0$69097480$cb83fea9@md>
Message-ID: <SAT.8.MAY.2004.072434.0400.>

Crispin,
The reason I asked about depth of fuel has to do with flame stability.
When the chamber is full the rolling donut of flame and excess air can
touch the top fuel and cause it to glow which in turn offers an ignition
point. If the fuel is granular and shrinks as it is consumed to charcoal
the top surface will receed downward away from the secondary air
inlets. The flame may loose contact with a glowing ember and if it goes
out will not necessarily reignite. This is usually only an issue at low
fireing rates. Perhaps you haven't had this problem?
Alex

> Dear Alex
>
> The whole chamber is 330mm deep and 128 in diameter. There are quite a lot
> of perforations 200mm from the bottom providing most of the secondary air.
> My calculation is that the air speed through those holes is 400mm/sec but
> that has not been measured. At the bottom of the gassing area an 8mm hole
> shoots a flame across to the other side, rising as it does so. Not sure
> what hte draft is in that area as I didn't model the airflow yet. i need a
> coupld of temperatures and I didn't get time to collect them.
>
> Regards
> Crispin
>
> ++++++++++
> Crispin,
> The flame you describe is quite similar to what some of Tom Reeds
> powered stoves do.
>
> How deep is your fuel chamber?
>
> Alex
>

From raywije at EUREKA.LK Sat May 8 08:22:07 2004
From: raywije at EUREKA.LK (Dr. Ray Wijewardene)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:04 2004
Subject: Gas and Biomass
In-Reply-To: <20040508051406.53EC05B@telchar.epud.net>
Message-ID: <SAT.8.MAY.2004.052207.0700.RAYWIJE@EUREKA.LK>

Thank you Dean for some VERY useful reminders as to the nature of combustion
and burning. We need to keep in mind the importance of radiation heat quite
apart from convectional heat....With my wood-burning gasifier stove
(ex-Punchi-Banda of NERD)we use a wire-mesh screen (made of the element-wire
from a long-disused electric-stove) just above the out-let from the stove.
It glows beautifully orange-red and (I feel sure) provides tremendous
additional radiated heat to the pan above... We get greatly reduced cooking
times thereby, and I only wish we had a way to regulate the heat to a
'simmer-heat' with these gasifier stoves... The inability to 'regulate' the
heat seems a common complaint of them all!... Ray Wijewardene

-----Original Message-----
From: The Stoves Discussion List [mailto:STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On
Behalf Of Dean Still
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 10:14 PM
To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Gas and Biomass

Dear Crispin, Lanny,

We just tested 4 charcoal burning stoves from Africa and I was surprised by
several things. Do you notice the same characteristics? Charcoal burning is
very new to me...

1.) Charcoal burns at a cooler temperature than wood unless there is a lot
of draft up through the fire.

2.) If the bed of charcoal is about the same size as the pot moving the pot
closer to the fire does not help heat transfer very much because the pot
"sees" the same sized radiation source.

3.) Heating up a charcoal fire by pulling air up through the charcoal
increases temperatures which greatly improves heat transfer from a radiation
source.

4.) Charcoal stoves are less efficient than wood fires because the Delta T
and velocity of flue gases are reduced and radiation from a low temperature
source does not make up the difference.

5.) Higher power in a charcoal stove is dangerous because so much CO is
released at one time.

6.) Increasing temperatures in a charcoal stove does not clean up combustion
it just produces more CO. It takes flames to combust CO, charcoal burns
without flame and therefore releases more CO.

7.) Hot fires with lots of active flames burn up CO. Whenever a stove starts
to make charcoal CO rises because too much fuel is being introduced without
enough air for complete combustion to occur. Clean combustion makes little
or no charcoal.

Best,

Dean

From raywije at EUREKA.LK Sat May 8 08:32:56 2004
From: raywije at EUREKA.LK (Dr. Ray Wijewardene)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:04 2004
Subject: Making minerals available.
In-Reply-To: <000101c43451$611e7d80$395341db@adkarve>
Message-ID: <SAT.8.MAY.2004.053256.0700.RAYWIJE@EUREKA.LK>

Dear AD... I thought you'd be pleased to hear that the 'sugar-for-coconuts'
treatment is already under way. We have separated two plots of 50 coconut
trees each which will receive the 'sugar-treatment' at four-monthly
intervals... 100 gms per palm per treatment (How much further can one take
this TLC?... I guess it will be chocolates next.. for the cocoa-butter,
too!) There are six control plots too, and leaf-samples taken (4th leaf in
each tree)... so we keep a 'tag' on the nutritional uptake too. Thanks for
the suggestion.... I'm sure our earthworms (wot's left of them!) will bless
you, AD... Ray.

-----Original Message-----
From: The Stoves Discussion List [mailto:STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On
Behalf Of adkarve
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 8:42 AM
To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Making minerals available.

Dear Dan,
thanks a lot for you insightful message. Thanks also Crispin for
highlighting windborne dust as a source of plant nutrients.
The motto of the organic farmers is "feed the bacteria and the bacteria
would feed the plants". This is explained by the assumption that soil
bacteria break down minerals in the soil to release the individual nutrient
elements. The organic farmers in India therefore apply honey, butter fat,
sugar, etc. to the soil. These substances serve as food for the bacteria
which then multiply at a faster rate. Roots of many crop species are known
to exude sugar into the soil. This is a mechanism aimed at increasing the
number of bacteria residing in the root zone. Many bacteria like the
Azotobacter, Pseudomonas and the blue-green algae (yes, they are bacteria)
also produce plant growth hormones, which help plants to grow faster.
Ray wanted to know, how much sugar he should apply to each of his coconut
palm trees. I really do not know. The organic farmers in India apply 10 kg
sugar per acre, once every 3 months. Thus, if you have 100 coconut palms
per acre in your field, you should apply about 100 g sugar to each plant.
Just dissolve the sugar in water and apply the water to the palm trees
through their irrigation water. It may also attract ants, but the ants won't
be able to separate the sugar from the soil.It is the bacteria that would
ultimately eat the sugar and multiply.
Yours
A.D.Karve

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Sat May 8 14:48:35 2004
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:04 2004
Subject: Basic economics of Producing our own wood-fuel and fertility
in Sri Lanka.
Message-ID: <SAT.8.MAY.2004.124835.0600.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Ray:

Thanks for the added information.

1. On my question #1 (economics) - I deduce that your fuel is costing
about 1 to 2 US cents per kg - which must include the initial costs of
establishing the plantation. My guess is that most wood burning areas
around the world can do about the same - but that in developed countries our
costs would be much higher (whereas our conventional fuels are cheaper
here). I'd sure like to hear if anyone has similar data.

As we have been using about 18 MJ/kg, this is (taking near the upper end
of your cost range) $.018/18 MJ = $1/GJ ~ $1/ MMBtu. (See
http://www.onlineconversion.com/energy.htm for this sort of conversion).
This is about the same as the US price of coal at the mine mouth and about
20% of our present price of natural gas (recently even 10%).

But I still don't know how much to value the fertilizer value of the
leaves. I think you said that the fertilizer value was about the same
(true?). If so, could we say that in a closed sytem, that the fuel cost
could be further reduced by half to being more like $.50/GJ? Or has that
extra value already been taken into account?

Your diameter dimension of 25-35 mm is perfect for pyrolyzing stoves if
the length could be obtained to order (about 25 to 35 cm - different for
different stoves). Is this fuel available or being used in cook stoves as
well as in the boilers?

In your reply on the value of the urea replacement, I think there may be
several errors - which I ask that you check. It seems that urea might be
worth SLR 20 per kg (not SLR.20) and SLR20,000 per tonne (not SLR 2,000).
In US terms this would be about $200/tonne or $.2/kg. Correct?

This would seem to say that one hectare costs about $250 for
establishment and the first year - but has a minimum of $300 (wood) and $100
(urea replacement) payback in the first year (maximum is $300 higher). If
so - where do I sign up to be an investor? I know of no other investment
anywhere in the world with such a good return (I know I may have dropped
some of the costs of harvesting and transport - but this still looks darn
good.) I congratulate you for getting it started and opening your system
up for visitors and informing this list.

As an aside, I am involved as an intervenor against our local utility
(the PSCo part of Xcel Energy) - where they talk about (I am sure they will
eventually ignore) a CO2 penalty of $6 or $12/ tonne of C02 (multiply by 2.2
to get in terms of C). These dollar penalties (which I think are on the low
side) is approaching your costs of fuel. In other words - the Sri Lankans
could sell their CO2 displacement benefits to we in Colorado and have almost
free fuel.

On my question #2 (reasons for going slow) - You attribute it first to
having low fuel costs - but I have to respectfully disagree. In the US, our
oil prices were higher in constant dollar terms back in the 70s. We still
(even at $35/Bbl) are lower than many of those earlier years. I presume
that your urea generally starts as natural gas? That of course has been
much lower in cost than today - but not ever by the savings ratio calculated
above.

But I do agree more on your second reason - of advertising and
convenience. If only the poor could have access to some of the skills of
modern advertising.

But mostly, I think the reason is that people like yourself were not
being listened to. Maybe those in government who could have started such
demonstrations were even corrupt - or at least stupid (that is my opinion of
the US problem). We need many more demonstrations like yours and I hope
others on the list will see how good the investment can be - exactly as Ray
is stating and can find a few hectares and the few hundred needed dollars to
show the importance of coppicing. Immediately.

Ray - Thanks for your two very complete answers.

On my questions 3 (commercial pyrolysis) and 4 (Punchibanda stove) - I
still hope you can send something. I think each of these is as important
as the fuel production aspect.

Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: Dr. Ray Wijewardene <raywije@eureka.lk>
To: Ron Larson <ronallarson@qwest.net>; <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 4:48 PM
Subject: RE: Basic economics of Producing our own wood-fuel and fertility in
Sri Lanka.

> I shall endeavour to respond to Ron Larsons questions as concisely as
> possible, regarding the economics of growing (versus importing) our fuels
> and urea fertiliser. Much of this data comes through our Ministry of
Science
> & Tecnology and our Coconut Research Instituie.
>
> 1. Considering a 1-hectare-plot of GLIRICIDIA SEPIUM (One of about 6
species
> we use) planted at a spacing of 1-meter by 1-meter (i.e. 10,000 plants per
> hectare) would yield 30 tonnes (dry) of fuel-wood and 26 tonnes of (fresh)
> foliage, per year within 18-months of establishment. This yield would
> increase by between 50% and 100% by the following year, and maintain these
> figures on a sustainable basis (for at least 20 years.. many lasting for
> over 50 years).. The sustainability is achieved by harvesting only the
> branches (pollarding or coppicing) two or three times a year. The initial
> lopping or pruning/pollarding takes place at about 1.5 metres height agl.
> The main trunk of the tree is not cut after the initial lopping.... only
the
> branches are periodically pruned/coppiced for the fuel-wood... while the
> foliage is utilised separately as green-manure. The cost of establishing a
> 1-hectare plantation of gliricida and maintaining it for 1-year is
> SLRs25,000.
>
> 2. The fuel-wood is thus very conveniently sized for handling, manually,
by
> cart, by trailer etc.and can be used in approx. 25mm to 30mm diameter
sizes,
> to generate industrial heat or electrical energy. This fuel-wood has a
> market value of SLRs.1,000 to 2,000 per tonne (1,000kg)(for USDollars
divide
> SLrs by 100). This replaces furnace oil to the value of Rs.8,000 used to
> supply the same amount of heat (thus a saving of 50 to 75% in fuel costs)
> The plant repayment is achieved in less than 6 months.
>
> 3. The foliage is used direct as nitrogenous fertiliser by burying it in
the
> soil or mulching it in the near proximity of the plants/trees being
manured.
> Considering the 'N' equivalent alone, research results over many years
show
> that 50 kg of fresh grliricidia foliage has the 'N' equivalent of 1 kg.
of
> urea (56%N) the price now paid for 1 kg of urea being SLRs.20 (SLRs2,000
per
> tonne) Thus the value of the gliricidia foliage (not including the
> fuel-wood) from a hectare is equivalent to Rs.10,000. Alternatively the
> foliage is used for high protein cattle fodder. On my own little coconut
> plantation, the cost of thus GROWING (only) my own needs of 'N' fertiliser
> represents an over 50% reduction in costs... When condiering the added
> savings in other plant nutrients as well, is is over 70%.... Add to these
> savings the cost of energy saved (lighting and water-pumping)... MONEY
GROWS
> ON TREES!
>
> 4. The above considers only the 'N' equivalent of the foliage... there is
> additional 'P', and 'K, and Mg in very substantial quantities... There are
> also several other tropical tree/shrub species which not only yield high
> biomass but also high levels of the other nutrients.... not mentioned here
> to minimise the confusion of figures.
>
> 5 Q2 from Tom is a VERY good question and needs special response... "Why
are
> people moving very slowly to adopt this technology".... I think it is
> because for years and years of MUCH lower oil prices the price for urea
and
> other processed fertiliers (as also for fuel-oil) has been MUCH lower, and
> with the support from high-pressure advertising and marketing of the
> fertiliser and agro-chemical companies the advantages for growing our own
> fuels and fertilisers have hitherto been marginal... No so now...nor in
the
> future with countries prepared to go to war to protect and preserve their
> sources. We at the tail end of the pipeline need NOW to develop and adopt
> such alternatives ... or lapse into (still further) beggary! ... While
wind
> energy is a practical alternative in some countries, it is very rare in SL
> that we have winds over the minimum of 5 m/sec to generate energy. PV
energy
> will cost us at least five-times the cost of fossil-fuel energy.. and
> requires energy storage systems in addition to the imported PV panels.
>
> We, too easily, overlook the fact that trees not only have a magnificent
> spread of photo-synthetic area... but also the woody biomass in their
trunks
> and branches to store it. Collectors AND storage of present-day
sunshine...
> versus the ancient sunshine collected and stored in fossil fuels.... This
is
> why AD and several of us are looking once again into C4 plants versus the
C3
> we have considered hitherto.
>
> Conclusion...Money DOES grow on trees....Certainly in the tropics...
Blessed
> as we are with year-round sunshine!
>
> Ray Wijewardene.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Larson [mailto:ronallarson@qwest.net]
> Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 6:28 AM
> To: Dr. Ray Wijewardene; STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: Re: Availability of Fuel for smokeless (gasifier-type) domestic
> cookers.
>
>
> Ray:
>
> Several follow-up questions on your e-mail of today.
>
> 1. Can you add a bit more on the economics of any or all of the several
> plantation, combustion, and pyrolysis operations in Sri Lanka (preferably
in
> units of c/kWh or $/MJ - and tonnes/hectare/yr, etc) - and the percent
> savings you are experiencing (including the fertilizer replacement
> aspects)..
>
> 2. What are the resaons that you think people are moving slowly (if they
> are) on emulating what you have started?
>
> 3. Has the activated charcoal pyrolysis operation you mentioned been
> written up anywhere? What is the scale (tonnes per hour, etc) and
> economics? Batch or continuous?
>
> 4. Could you (or Punchibanda) describe the Punchibanda stove and program
> (sales to date, $/stove, etc). Is Punchibanda using his household stove
at
> all for charcoal-making?
>
>
> Thanks in advance and congratulations for what you are doing in Sri Lanka.
>
> Ron
>
>
>
>
>

From rmiranda at INET.COM.BR Sun May 9 04:50:25 2004
From: rmiranda at INET.COM.BR (Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:04 2004
Subject: [ethos] honduran work report
In-Reply-To: <BAY99-F23Xee4fDGCl900004ab5@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <SUN.9.MAY.2004.055025.0300.RMIRANDA@INET.COM.BR>

>Mike:

>Thanks for sharing the work done in Honduras. It was nice talking to you,
>at least by phone in Tegucigalpa ....

Could you please just explain why the garate produces higher efficiency
than the shelf in the rocket stove? Is that because more air comes trough
the wood sticks?

With the Dayton volunteers coming at the end of this month, we plan to
experiment with an ash tray, and also experiment with different chimney
highs.. Do you have any clue how hight should be the chimney for the justa
stove? we use 2.7 meters high...

rogerio

 

At 10:24 p.m. 06/05/04 -0700, miguel hatfield wrote:

 

 

>Hey there Ethos and other stovers,
>
>Here is a report I just finished on the work we are doing in Honduras this
>year. We are hoping to get a initial business (or four) up and running at
>least in the fledgling stages this fall. We are looking for an intern to
>be our low impact eyes and ears for the first year of the project. For
>the most part we want Hondurans to be making this work for themselves but
>it is always great to have someone on the ground year round who speaks our
>same language and is computer age savy. I talked with Stuart of Trees,
>Water and People and there are some funds available for a small stipend
>($250 a month or so which is quite enough to live well in Honduras). If
>anyone is interested or knows anybody interested please contact me or dean
>at <mailto:apro@efn.org>apro@efn.org. They would have to be able to come
>to Aprovecho for a short intensive in stoves and hopefully have some
>handle on spanish. It is a great cultural experience that! you will not
>forget and the people you would be working with in Honduras are wonderfull.
>
>Hope all is great for you this spring,
>
>Mike Hatfield
>
>
>----------
><http://g.msn.com/8HMBENUS/2755??PS=47575>Is your PC infected? Get a FREE
>online computer virus scan from McAfee? Security.

From list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Sat May 8 17:20:20 2004
From: list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:04 2004
Subject: Gas and Biomass
In-Reply-To: <20040508051406.53EC05B@telchar.epud.net>
Message-ID: <SAT.8.MAY.2004.222020.0100.>

On Fri, 7 May 2004 22:14:06 -0700, Dean Still wrote:

>Dear Crispin, Lanny,
>
>We just tested 4 charcoal burning stoves from Africa and I was surprised by
>several things. Do you notice the same characteristics? Charcoal burning is
>very new to me...
>
>1.) Charcoal burns at a cooler temperature than wood unless there is a lot
>of draft up through the fire.

I cannot see how you can have the correct combustion conditions if you
observe this. Charcoal needs less total mass flow to liberate the same
heat as wood, it also needs far less secondary air. This is why it
achieves higher temperatures. The heat is all in or just above the
bed.
>
>2.) If the bed of charcoal is about the same size as the pot moving the pot
>closer to the fire does not help heat transfer very much because the pot
>"sees" the same sized radiation source.

This may be true for radiation but the flue gases can easily be
diluted by entraining air from the sides, reducing the flue gas
temperature and hence the delta T across the pot interface.
>
>3.) Heating up a charcoal fire by pulling air up through the charcoal
>increases temperatures which greatly improves heat transfer from a radiation
>source.

Basically because you are creating an up draught gasifier and the coal
bed is all at ~1100C.
>
>4.) Charcoal stoves are less efficient than wood fires because the Delta T
>and velocity of flue gases are reduced and radiation from a low temperature
>source does not make up the difference.

It should be the opposite except I suspect natural draught charcoal
fires are used with unnecessary excess air. A blown wood fire will be
hard put to exceed 1600C, a similar charcoal one will reach above
2000C. In practice I doubt the natural draught air velocities will be
reached to make best use of charcoal's higher cv.
>
>5.) Higher power in a charcoal stove is dangerous because so much CO is
>released at one time.

This points to the charcoal fire operating partly in up draught
gasifying mode with insufficient secondary air AND/OR heat losses in
the system quenching out proper combustion of the resultant CO2/CO
mixture.
>
>6.) Increasing temperatures in a charcoal stove does not clean up combustion
>it just produces more CO. It takes flames to combust CO, charcoal burns
>without flame and therefore releases more CO.

Yes I can see this, charcoal will start burning at <400C, if the bed
is thin and the air velocity low it will be mostly a C+O2=>CO2
reaction, if the bed is thicker and temperatures rise towards 700C
then there will be reduction of some CO2 to CO, as this rises and
cools below its spontaneous ignition temperature, before reaching more
air it will not burn out. Further if the resulting CO2 and CO mixture
is below about 2MJ/m3 I doubt it can sustain a flame. This is why CO
levels rise so badly just before and just after refueling a serial
batch loaded device.
>
>7.) Hot fires with lots of active flames burn up CO.

Yes, given sufficient time.

> Whenever a stove starts
>to make charcoal CO rises because too much fuel is being introduced without
>enough air for complete combustion to occur. Clean combustion makes little
>or no charcoal.

Non sequitur.

Clean combustion produces very little CO.
Clean combustion of pyrolysis offgas produces little CO and can leave
a residue of charcoal, as amply demonstrated by the reed-larson idd
stove.

To completely burn out wood to ash you must supply primary air and
secondary air in the correct ratio. If the fire bed is above pyrolysis
temperature and primary air is insufficient then char will be
produced, if char is produced so is pyrolysis offgas, so increased
secondary air is needed to burn this out. If the combustion chamber
temperature is hot (say above 1300C) and secondary air is below
stoichiometric for the offgas CO is the most likely PIC.

Meter in fuel to form a thin bed and excess primary air and this
condition is unlikely to arise (but your grate will not last).

AJH

From list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Sat May 8 17:20:20 2004
From: list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:04 2004
Subject: Gas and Biomass
In-Reply-To: <MEBBLDMOPKNIDAEAHNBBOEBFCFAA.raywije@eureka.lk>
Message-ID: <SAT.8.MAY.2004.222020.0100.>

On Sat, 8 May 2004 05:22:07 -0700, Dr. Ray Wijewardene wrote:

>(ex-Punchi-Banda of NERD)we use a wire-mesh screen (made of the element-wire
>from a long-disused electric-stove) just above the out-let from the stove.
>It glows beautifully orange-red and (I feel sure) provides tremendous
>additional radiated heat to the pan above...

I too have a feeling that we should make better use of radiative heat
transfer, it should go some way to overcome one of the difficulties at
the gas to pot interface, the boundary layer.

Given a clear, low emissivity flue gas or flame with negligible re
radiation from the combustion chamber or sides it should be a fairly
simple experiment to compare with or without your wire (inconel?)
grid.

AJH

From Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP Sun May 9 06:51:41 2004
From: Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP (Kanchan Rai)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:04 2004
Subject: Question regarding Measuring flue gas velocity
In-Reply-To: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGEEBBDJAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
Message-ID: <SUN.9.MAY.2004.163641.0545.KANCHAN@KU.EDU.NP>

Dear Mr. Gavin
Thanks for your suggestion. Yes its a smart idea to make water less
viscous but how can we get the viscosity or density of water + detergent
mixture? how much % of each ; water and detergent?

kanchan

> Kanchan,
> Use a sloping manometer- the measuring part set at a low angle say
> 5degrees (needs to be a known accurately measured angle.
> Use a low viscosity liquid ie water with detergent in it.
> You can make a horizontal scale that is calibrated with very small
> vertical increments so you can easily measure flue draft of 0.01".
>
> Good luck
> Gavin
>
> Gavin Gulliver-Goodall
> 3G Energi,
>
> Tel +44 (0)1835 824201
> Fax +44 (0)870 8314098
> Mob +44 (0)7773 781498
> E mail Gavin@3genergi.co.uk <mailto:Gavin@3genergi.co.uk>
>
> The contents of this email and any attachments are the property of 3G
> Energi and are intended for the confidential use of the named
> recipient(s) only. They may be legally privileged and should not be
> communicated to or relied upon by any person without our express written
> consent. If you are not an addressee please notify us immediately at
> the address above or by email at Gavin@3genergi.co.uk
> <mailto:Gavin@3genergi.co.uk>. Any files attached to this email will
> have been checked with virus detection software before transmission.
> However, you should carry out your own virus check before opening any
> attachment. 3G Energi accepts no liability for any loss or damage that
> may be caused by software viruses.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Stoves Discussion List [mailto:STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On
> Behalf Of Kanchan Rai
> Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 14:19
> To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: [STOVES] Question regarding Measuring flue gas velocity
>
> Dear stovers,
> Can anyone suggest me how to measure the flue gas velocity (flow rate)
> in the stove chimney. Ordinary anemometer (hot wire too) is not able to
> operate at that temperature. Also it restricts the flow of the flue gas
> inside chimney. I also thought about pitot tube but unless I have
> precise pressure gauge, it is not possible to read the pressure
> difference. Monometer, not easy to read the manometric liquid unless
> the liquid has very less density, water is not sufficiently less dense,
> (is there any other liquid with less density?)
> Can any one have better way of doing this?
> Pleas suggest.
>
> Kanchan Rai
> Research Assistant
> RDC Unit
> Kathmandu University
> Kathmandu Nepal

From pverhaart at IPRIMUS.COM.AU Sun May 9 03:17:23 2004
From: pverhaart at IPRIMUS.COM.AU (Peter Verhaart)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:04 2004
Subject: Gas and Biomass
In-Reply-To: <vjhq90dnh06i4miac96flrqct3s4gvdb6m@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <SUN.9.MAY.2004.171723.1000.PVERHAART@IPRIMUS.COM.AU>

The idea of a wire screen to anchor the flames is a very good one and
resistance wire (being resistance wire) has quite a good resistance to heat.
It might be an idea for Crispin and Alex instead of depending on the top
surface of the fuel bed.

Peter Verhaart

At 22:20 08/05/2004 +0100, you wrote:
>On Sat, 8 May 2004 05:22:07 -0700, Dr. Ray Wijewardene wrote:
>
> >(ex-Punchi-Banda of NERD)we use a wire-mesh screen (made of the element-wire
> >from a long-disused electric-stove) just above the out-let from the stove.
> >It glows beautifully orange-red and (I feel sure) provides tremendous
> >additional radiated heat to the pan above...
>
>I too have a feeling that we should make better use of radiative heat
>transfer, it should go some way to overcome one of the difficulties at
>the gas to pot interface, the boundary layer.
>
>Given a clear, low emissivity flue gas or flame with negligible re
>radiation from the combustion chamber or sides it should be a fairly
>simple experiment to compare with or without your wire (inconel?)
>grid.
>
>AJH

From Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK Sun May 9 06:22:43 2004
From: Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:04 2004
Subject: Question regarding Measuring flue gas velocity
In-Reply-To: <60671.202.79.62.21.1084099901.squirrel@webmail.ku.edu.np>
Message-ID: <SUN.9.MAY.2004.112243.0100.GAVIN@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>

Kanchan,

Experiment! I suggest enough detergent to wash your hands will reduce the
meniscus . add a little ink so you can see the fluid level clearly and away
you go.

Good luck!!

Gavin

 

Dear Mr. Gavin
Thanks for your suggestion. Yes its a smart idea to make water less
viscous but how can we get the viscosity or density of water + detergent
mixture? how much % of each ; water and detergent?

kanchan

> Kanchan,
> Use a sloping manometer- the measuring part set at a low angle say
> 5degrees (needs to be a known accurately measured angle.
> Use a low viscosity liquid ie water with detergent in it.
> You can make a horizontal scale that is calibrated with very small
> vertical increments so you can easily measure flue draft of 0.01".
>
> Good luck
> Gavin
>
> Gavin Gulliver-Goodall
> 3G Energi,
>
> Tel +44 (0)1835 824201
> Fax +44 (0)870 8314098
> Mob +44 (0)7773 781498
> E mail Gavin@3genergi.co.uk <mailto:Gavin@3genergi.co.uk>
>
> The contents of this email and any attachments are the property of 3G
> Energi and are intended for the confidential use of the named
> recipient(s) only. They may be legally privileged and should not be
> communicated to or relied upon by any person without our express written
> consent. If you are not an addressee please notify us immediately at
> the address above or by email at Gavin@3genergi.co.uk
> <mailto:Gavin@3genergi.co.uk>. Any files attached to this email will
> have been checked with virus detection software before transmission.
> However, you should carry out your own virus check before opening any
> attachment. 3G Energi accepts no liability for any loss or damage that
> may be caused by software viruses.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Stoves Discussion List [mailto:STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On
> Behalf Of Kanchan Rai
> Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 14:19
> To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: [STOVES] Question regarding Measuring flue gas velocity
>
> Dear stovers,
> Can anyone suggest me how to measure the flue gas velocity (flow rate)
> in the stove chimney. Ordinary anemometer (hot wire too) is not able to
> operate at that temperature. Also it restricts the flow of the flue gas
> inside chimney. I also thought about pitot tube but unless I have
> precise pressure gauge, it is not possible to read the pressure
> difference. Monometer, not easy to read the manometric liquid unless
> the liquid has very less density, water is not sufficiently less dense,
> (is there any other liquid with less density?)
> Can any one have better way of doing this?
> Pleas suggest.
>
> Kanchan Rai
> Research Assistant
> RDC Unit
> Kathmandu University
> Kathmandu Nepal

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Sun May 9 10:09:34 2004
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (adkarve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:04 2004
Subject: Briquette CD
Message-ID: <SUN.9.MAY.2004.193934.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear stovers and others,
it's great news that Harmon is ready to supply the CD. I am copying this
message to several persons who had requested the CD from me, with a request
to contact hseaver@cybershamanix.com for their copies. Mr.
Rajiv Bakshi wanted to pay with his credit card. I do not know how one goes
about it, because I have never used a credit card. I hope Harmon can handle
it.
Yours
A.D.Karve

----- Original Message -----
From: Harmon Seaver <hseaver@cybershamanix.com>
To: Overend, Ralph <Ralph_Overend@nrel.gov>
Cc: adkarve <adkarve@pn2.vsnl.net.in>; Ron Larson <ronallarson@qwest.net>;
Bryan Willson <Bryan.Willson@ColoState.Edu>; Tom Miles <tmiles@trmiles.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 5:31 AM
Subject: Re: Briquette CD

> Okay, I got the CD from Ralph, and his postage to me for sending it
from CO
> to WI was just a little over US$1.00. The CDs and cases are about US$0.50
each
> and the padded envelopes another US$0.50. Not sure what labels would be,
but how
> about US$4.00 for all shipped inside the US. Postage outside the US would
be
> more, but I guess I'd just have to handle that on a case by case basis.
> People can pay me through Paypal at my email address or send a check or
cash
> to:
>
> Harmon Seaver
> 651 Jackson St.
> Oshkosh, WI 54901
>
>
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com
> Hoka hey!
>

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Sun May 9 10:46:45 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:05 2004
Subject: Briquette CD
In-Reply-To: <00a201c435d1$a5e805e0$b15341db@adkarve>
Message-ID: <SUN.9.MAY.2004.094645.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 07:39:34PM +0530, adkarve wrote:
> Dear stovers and others,
> it's great news that Harmon is ready to supply the CD. I am copying this
> message to several persons who had requested the CD from me, with a request
> to contact hseaver@cybershamanix.com for their copies. Mr.
> Rajiv Bakshi wanted to pay with his credit card. I do not know how one goes
> about it, because I have never used a credit card. I hope Harmon can handle
> it.
> Yours
> A.D.Karve
>

I have no way to take credit cards directly, however, that's what Paypal is
for -- everyone should have an account there. It's free, it's easy, and it
allows you to pay money internationally to people with a credit card or direct
bank withdrawal. It's also very secure. Go to:

https://www.paypal.com/

It also handles currency exchanges quite well. And again, since I don't
know what the total postage would be outside the US, please send me your mailing
address first so I can figure out the total.

 

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Harmon Seaver <hseaver@cybershamanix.com>
> To: Overend, Ralph <Ralph_Overend@nrel.gov>
> Cc: adkarve <adkarve@pn2.vsnl.net.in>; Ron Larson <ronallarson@qwest.net>;
> Bryan Willson <Bryan.Willson@ColoState.Edu>; Tom Miles <tmiles@trmiles.com>
> Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 5:31 AM
> Subject: Re: Briquette CD
>
>
> > Okay, I got the CD from Ralph, and his postage to me for sending it
> from CO
> > to WI was just a little over US$1.00. The CDs and cases are about US$0.50
> each
> > and the padded envelopes another US$0.50. Not sure what labels would be,
> but how
> > about US$4.00 for all shipped inside the US. Postage outside the US would
> be
> > more, but I guess I'd just have to handle that on a case by case basis.
> > People can pay me through Paypal at my email address or send a check or
> cash
> > to:
> >
> > Harmon Seaver
> > 651 Jackson St.
> > Oshkosh, WI 54901
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Harmon Seaver
> > CyberShamanix
> > http://www.cybershamanix.com
> > Hoka hey!
> >

--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com
Hoka hey!

From dstill at EPUD.NET Sun May 9 12:31:40 2004
From: dstill at EPUD.NET (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:05 2004
Subject: Gas and Biomass
In-Reply-To: <bmhq90l6dcdevsuuvm7cajk2avan0oq89e@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <SUN.9.MAY.2004.093140.0700.DSTILL@EPUD.NET>

Dear Andrew,

Replying after your comments in capital letters.

On Fri, 7 May 2004 22:14:06 -0700, Dean Still wrote:

>Dear Crispin, Lanny,
>
>We just tested 4 charcoal burning stoves from Africa and I was surprised by
>several things. Do you notice the same characteristics? Charcoal burning is
>very new to me...
>
>1.) Charcoal burns at a cooler temperature than wood unless there is a lot
>of draft up through the fire.

I cannot see how you can have the correct combustion conditions if you
observe this. Charcoal needs less total mass flow to liberate the same
heat as wood, it also needs far less secondary air. This is why it
achieves higher temperatures. The heat is all in or just above the
bed.

YES< IT SURPRISED ME. BUT UNLESS THERE WAS ADDED DRAFT THROUGH THE CHARCOAL
THE TEMPERATURE AT THE POT WAS SURPRISINGLY LOW EVEN THOUGH THE POT WAS VERY
CLOSE TO THE CHARCOAL. LOTS OF HEAT BUT DELIVERED AT LOWER TEMPERATURE?
>
>2.) If the bed of charcoal is about the same size as the pot moving the pot
>closer to the fire does not help heat transfer very much because the pot
>"sees" the same sized radiation source.

This may be true for radiation but the flue gases can easily be
diluted by entraining air from the sides, reducing the flue gas
temperature and hence the delta T across the pot interface.

YES TALKING ABOUT RADIATION. AND YES THERE WAS NO SKIRT AROUND THE POT.
>
>3.) Heating up a charcoal fire by pulling air up through the charcoal
>increases temperatures which greatly improves heat transfer from a
radiation
>source.

Basically because you are creating an up draught gasifier and the coal
bed is all at ~1100C.
>
>4.) Charcoal stoves are less efficient than wood fires because the Delta T
>and velocity of flue gases are reduced and radiation from a low temperature
>source does not make up the difference.

It should be the opposite except I suspect natural draught charcoal
fires are used with unnecessary excess air. A blown wood fire will be
hard put to exceed 1600C, a similar charcoal one will reach above
2000C. In practice I doubt the natural draught air velocities will be
reached to make best use of charcoal's higher cv.
>I WAS TESTING STOVES FROM AFRICA WITHOUT ADDED DRAFT. THEY EACH HAD A DOOR
FOR LETTING IN MORE AIR FOR HIGH POWER AND LESS AIR FOR LOWER POWER>
>5.) Higher power in a charcoal stove is dangerous because so much CO is
>released at one time.

This points to the charcoal fire operating partly in up draught
gasifying mode with insufficient secondary air AND/OR heat losses in
the system quenching out proper combustion of the resultant CO2/CO
mixture.
>THESE STOVES DO NOT ADD SECONDARY AIR AND BASICALLY ARE JUST BUCKETS TO
HOLD CHARCOAL>
>6.) Increasing temperatures in a charcoal stove does not clean up
combustion
>it just produces more CO. It takes flames to combust CO, charcoal burns
>without flame and therefore releases more CO.

Yes I can see this, charcoal will start burning at <400C, if the bed
is thin and the air velocity low it will be mostly a C+O2=>CO2
reaction, if the bed is thicker and temperatures rise towards 700C
then there will be reduction of some CO2 to CO, as this rises and
cools below its spontaneous ignition temperature, before reaching more
air it will not burn out. Further if the resulting CO2 and CO mixture
is below about 2MJ/m3 I doubt it can sustain a flame. This is why CO
levels rise so badly just before and just after refueling a serial
batch loaded device.
>
>7.) Hot fires with lots of active flames burn up CO.

Yes, given sufficient time.

> Whenever a stove starts
>to make charcoal CO rises because too much fuel is being introduced without
>enough air for complete combustion to occur. Clean combustion of wood makes
little
>or no charcoal.

Non sequitur.

Clean combustion produces very little CO.
Clean combustion of pyrolysis offgas produces little CO and can leave
a residue of charcoal, as amply demonstrated by the reed-larson idd
stove.
I IMAGINE THAT TOM'S STOVE IS CLEAN BURNING BECAUSE A WALL OF FLAME IS
CREATED ACROSS THE OPENING THROUGH WHICH GASES MUST PASS, IN WHICH THEY ARE
COMBUSTED.
To completely burn out wood to ash you must supply primary air and
secondary air in the correct ratio.

ONLY IF THERE IS INSUFFICIENT OXYGEN ABOVE THE FIRE IN THE COMBUSTION
CHAMBER. IF ADDED OXYGEN IS NOT NEEDED ADDING COOLER SECONDARY AIR IS NOT
NECESSARILY HELPFUL.
If the fire bed is above pyrolysis
temperature and primary air is insufficient then char will be
produced, if char is produced so is pyrolysis offgas, so increased
secondary air is needed to burn this out. If the combustion chamber
temperature is hot (say above 1300C) and secondary air is below
stoichiometric for the offgas CO is the most likely PIC.

Meter in fuel to form a thin bed and excess primary air and this
condition is unlikely to arise (but your grate will not last).
YES, I AGREE. GRATE NEEDS TO BE CERAMIC.

All Best,

Dean

From rstanley at LEGACYFOUND.ORG Sun May 9 13:45:06 2004
From: rstanley at LEGACYFOUND.ORG (Richard Stanley)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:05 2004
Subject: Briquette CD
In-Reply-To: <00a201c435d1$a5e805e0$b15341db@adkarve>
Message-ID: <SUN.9.MAY.2004.194506.0200.RSTANLEY@LEGACYFOUND.ORG>

Dear AD et al.,

The best payment management system I've seen and use for our training
materials and equipment sales, is Paypal. <www.paypal.com> . This
service receives payments from the client puts it in a holding account
which you then either draw upon for your own purchases or transfer to
your own bank account. They charge about 2.9% for this You do not have
to have acredit card they handle that bit for you. Its nothing more
than an electronic version of what was used in days of old for
international shipping just about 100 X faster and more reliable.

Richard Stanley

adkarve wrote:

>Dear stovers and others,
>it's great news that Harmon is ready to supply the CD. I am copying this
>message to several persons who had requested the CD from me, with a request
>to contact hseaver@cybershamanix.com for their copies. Mr.
>Rajiv Bakshi wanted to pay with his credit card. I do not know how one goes
>about it, because I have never used a credit card. I hope Harmon can handle
>it.
>Yours
>A.D.Karve
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Harmon Seaver <hseaver@cybershamanix.com>
>To: Overend, Ralph <Ralph_Overend@nrel.gov>
>Cc: adkarve <adkarve@pn2.vsnl.net.in>; Ron Larson <ronallarson@qwest.net>;
>Bryan Willson <Bryan.Willson@ColoState.Edu>; Tom Miles <tmiles@trmiles.com>
>Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 5:31 AM
>Subject: Re: Briquette CD
>
>
>
>
>> Okay, I got the CD from Ralph, and his postage to me for sending it
>>
>>
>from CO
>
>
>>to WI was just a little over US$1.00. The CDs and cases are about US$0.50
>>
>>
>each
>
>
>>and the padded envelopes another US$0.50. Not sure what labels would be,
>>
>>
>but how
>
>
>>about US$4.00 for all shipped inside the US. Postage outside the US would
>>
>>
>be
>
>
>>more, but I guess I'd just have to handle that on a case by case basis.
>> People can pay me through Paypal at my email address or send a check or
>>
>>
>cash
>
>
>>to:
>>
>>Harmon Seaver
>>651 Jackson St.
>>Oshkosh, WI 54901
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>Harmon Seaver
>>CyberShamanix
>>http://www.cybershamanix.com
>>Hoka hey!
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Sun May 9 15:15:15 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:05 2004
Subject: New Type of Stove - ignition
Message-ID: <SUN.9.MAY.2004.211515.0200.>

Dear Alex

>The reason I asked about depth of fuel has to do with flame stability.

To me the flame looks pretty unstable in that is never gets to look like
a jetted gas flame like Tom's fan powered stove, but it does stay pretty
much at the same height.

>When the chamber is full the rolling donut of flame and excess
>air can touch the top fuel and cause it to glow which in turn offers
>an ignition point.

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Sun May 9 15:15:15 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:05 2004
Subject: Gas and Biomass - Peter V
Message-ID: <SUN.9.MAY.2004.211515.0200.>

Dear Peter

Thanks for coming in on the wire story.

>It might be an idea for Crispin and Alex instead of
>depending on the top surface of the fuel bed.

In the cases I have observed in the new Vesto, the top of the fuel is
not involved in ignition because it is not top lit. I conclude this
because I can see that the top of the fuel is not burning at all for a
lot of the time. I am taking a regular fire and turning it suddenly
into a gasifier, which means the combustion is in various places on the
fuel to start with. When the air is reduced, the fuel tends to burn on
the bottom only, or near it. The top of the fuel (not being top lit) is
so starved of oxygen that goes out, even if it was burning before as the
air supply is so limited it is used up at the bottom of the fire. Thus
the fuel charcoals from the bottom up. I am talking about a fuel load
of 200-400gms. Burning at a rate of 4 gm/minute it gives 50-100 minutes
of cooking (simmering) without much attention.

At any time the air can be opened up and the heat output restored to
'high' again. It's cool!

As the combustion under the fuel tends to be localized, there is almost
always a thin lick of flame coming up from one place or another and this
seems to ensure a stable flame. The flame tends to shoot from one of
the 2 or 3 air inlets.

Something that disturbs this gas fire harmony is adding just exactly
enough air to the bottom of the fuel bed to induce real flames on one
side of the grate and still have gassing on the other side. The flame
'deck' gets so disturbed by the hot flame that the smoke on the gassing
side separates and may not light. You need to have chunky fuel blocking
a lot of the grate to get this. Then it smokes on that side. It
doesn't seem to happen when the fuel is small, even fiddling with the
air trying to induce the condition.

The solution is either to cut off the air (back to gasifying mode) or to
open the air supply wider so both sides of the grate get enough air to
give proper flames. The preheated secondary can then work properly with
the primary flames.

I am basically using the (very limited) incoming primary air to drive a
flame jet that burns and charcoals the lower part of the fuel and which
causes a localized upward ignition source. A small holes is cheaper
than a wire!

Regards
Crispin

From aes at BITSTREAM.NET Sun May 9 20:50:21 2004
From: aes at BITSTREAM.NET (AES)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:05 2004
Subject: Monolithic rocket
Message-ID: <SUN.9.MAY.2004.195021.0500.AES@BITSTREAM.NET>

In Seattle, I saw for the first time a monolithic Rocket stove. In fact
there were a few models of a monolithic stove versus the six brick version.
At that time I was told it was a first run version from Apro. What has the
testing told us about this model versus the six brick type? It seems a big
advantage to have the stove as one piece but has there been any other
testing of the monolithic rocket stove? Are there any problems with it?
Does anyone with experience have any preference to the monolithic version
versus the six brick version?

Any input is welcomed.

Thanks,

Bruce

From jeff.forssell at CFL.SE Mon May 10 02:56:11 2004
From: jeff.forssell at CFL.SE (Jeff Forssell)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:05 2004
Subject: Toxic metal in "tincanium" stoves??
Message-ID: <MON.10.MAY.2004.085611.0200.JEFF.FORSSELL@CFL.SE>

> cooking) is made with the above metals, what toxicity
> problems could arise?
>
> The galvanized coating (zinc, right?) will melt and run down
> and can be made into a white powder.

I know that when welding galvanized iron that the Zinc oxides are considered dangerous. (In swedish: "svets frossa". I can't find any description of what that is. But frossa usually includes "frothing at the mouth"). The white "powder" can often come out as smoke. (I have some vague memory of some greenish compund forming also , but it could just be a vision colored by the protective glasses. I would imagine that the possible risks would be at the first hightemperature firings and after that negligible. So I would do like with a new mantle (radioactive coating) for a pressure lamp- light i outside the first time.

Jeff Forssell
SWEDISH AGENCY FOR FLEXIBLE LEARNING (CFL)
Box 3024
SE-871 03 H?RN?SAND /Sweden
http://www.cfl.se/?sid=60
+46(0)611-55 79 48 (Work) +46(0)611-55 79 80 (Fax Work)
+46(0)611-22 1 44 (Home) ( mobil: 070- 35 80 306; [070-4091514])

residence:
Gamla Karlebyv?gen 14 / SE-871 33 H?rn?sand /Sweden

e-mail: every workday: jeff.forssell@cfl.se <mailto:jeff.forssell@cfl.se>
Note my old mail address, jf@ssvh.se, is no longer active
(travel, visiting: jeff_forssell@hotmail.com & MSMessenger)

Personal homepage: < http://www.torget.se/users/i/iluhya/index.htm>
My village technology page: http://home.bip.net/jeff.forssell

Instant messengers Odigo 792701 (ICQ: 55800587; NM/MSM use hotmail address)

From ventfory at IAFRICA.COM Tue May 11 07:25:03 2004
From: ventfory at IAFRICA.COM (Kobus)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:05 2004
Subject: Gas and Biomass
Message-ID: <TUE.11.MAY.2004.132503.0200.VENTFORY@IAFRICA.COM>

Dean and others,

My take on the charcoal (in a stove) discussion is that current charcoal stoves are not very energy efficient nor are they emission efficient.
From Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP Tue May 11 21:32:58 2004
From: Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP (Kanchan Rai)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:05 2004
Subject: which emission is more important measuring
Message-ID: <WED.12.MAY.2004.071758.0545.KANCHAN@KU.EDU.NP>

Dear stovers,
I have some questions on the kind of emissions produced by burning wood.
There are several kind of emissions from the wood burning stoves. such
as

CO2 -
not harmful for human health but cause of global warming.

CO emission -
CO mixes with heamoglobean and forms oxyhaemoglobean. Makes blood
deffiecient on absorbing oxygen. When CO replaces more than 50 % oxygan
in the vital organ that requires large amount of oxygen, such as brain
and heart, fails.

In the high altitude mountain areas in my country, Nepal, such as
Humla and Jumla, people use open fire places with all the windows and
doors closed and with no ventillation (places are too cold in
winter, open fire places provides cooking and space heating).
imagine how much the amount of CO produced inside that room. I was
surprised of seeing their survival in that environment. May be one of
the cause of high infant mortality, and low life expectancy at that
area.

Particle emissions -
Particle emission is another hand not generally measured during stove
tests. It is generally found that particles of 10-6 micrometer stucks in
nose, 5-3 micrometer on wind pipe and less than 3 micrometer goes inside
lungs. (<1 micrometer depositS in air pocket0. I have seen the situation
of open fire places in Humla and Jumla WHERE I noticed the particles are
all around the room ( I don't know the size).

Other emissions (CH4, NOx, SOx ... )

Which emission is the worst one ? Which do you think is important to
measure when testing stove?

Is there any relationship between combustion quality, CO emission and
Particle emission. In straight thinking, if the combustion is good both
CO emission and particle emission should be less and opposite when
combustion is poor. Does this apply always?

or depends on other things too ???

KANCHAN RAI
RDC Unit
Kathmandu University
Dhulikhel, Kavre
Nepal

From dstill at EPUD.NET Tue May 11 23:57:12 2004
From: dstill at EPUD.NET (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:05 2004
Subject: ETHOS Stoves Summer Camp August 20-23
Message-ID: <TUE.11.MAY.2004.205712.0700.DSTILL@EPUD.NET>

Dear Friends,

 

Everyone is invited to attend the ETHOS Stoves Summer Camp, August 20 to 23
at Aprovecho Research Center. We will be testing cooking stoves from around
the world for:

 

EMISSIONS using a Enerac 3000E, a hood described by Grant Ballard-Tremeer,
and a nephalometer.

EXPOSURE using a testing hut with HOBO CO monitors and Buck Personal Air
Sampler for particulates.

FUEL EFFICIENCY, FIREPOWER, TURNDOWN will be measured with the new Shell/UCB
Water Boiling Test.

 

Everyone is invited to bring their favorite stove!!

 

Classes will be provided by Aprovecho staff. There will be time each day for
discussion of results. I expect that we will generate information on the
relative performance of downdraft stoves, sidefeed Rocket type stoves, the
Vesto, charcoal making stoves, Tom's inverted downdraft stoves, etc.

 

Let's put our minds together and figure out how to create a really clean
burning, fuel efficient $10 stove!!

 

Aprovecho is located 18 miles south of Eugene, Oregon and about 100 miles
south of Portland. We have five rooms in the strawbale dormitory for guests
($25/night) and can offer four camping spots ($10/night) here as well. I can
arrange very inexpensive lodging in a nearby Tibetan Buddhist monastery or
there are lots of normal hotels in the area and State Parks with camping..

 

The cost of the Stove Summer Camp is a sliding scale depending on your
financial circumstances. COST: from $800 to FREE. Lunch costs $7 per day.
Donuts and good strong organic coffee from Chiapas every morning free.

 

I hope that several scholarships will become available. Please make
reservations as soon as possible.

There has been a lot of interest and we would like to limit the attendance
to 25 people or so. I'll send you a map with local information, etc.

 

Looking forward to seeing you! Let's invent together!

 

Best,

 

Dean

From krishnakumar_07 at YAHOO.CO.UK Wed May 12 01:57:34 2004
From: krishnakumar_07 at YAHOO.CO.UK (=?iso-8859-1?q?krishna=20kumar?=)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:05 2004
Subject: ETHOS Stoves Summer Camp August 20-23
In-Reply-To: <20040512035712.B992D28A@telchar.epud.net>
Message-ID: <WED.12.MAY.2004.065734.0100.KRISHNAKUMAR07@YAHOO.CO.UK>

I would like to know what is the procedure to apply
for scholarships.

 

--- Dean Still <dstill@EPUD.NET> wrote: > Dear
Friends,
>
>
>
> Everyone is invited to attend the ETHOS Stoves
> Summer Camp, August 20 to 23
> at Aprovecho Research Center. We will be testing
> cooking stoves from around
> the world for:
>
>
>
> EMISSIONS using a Enerac 3000E, a hood described by
> Grant Ballard-Tremeer,
> and a nephalometer.
>
> EXPOSURE using a testing hut with HOBO CO monitors
> and Buck Personal Air
> Sampler for particulates.
>
> FUEL EFFICIENCY, FIREPOWER, TURNDOWN will be
> measured with the new Shell/UCB
> Water Boiling Test.
>
>
>
> Everyone is invited to bring their favorite stove!!
>
>
>
> Classes will be provided by Aprovecho staff. There
> will be time each day for
> discussion of results. I expect that we will
> generate information on the
> relative performance of downdraft stoves, sidefeed
> Rocket type stoves, the
> Vesto, charcoal making stoves, Tom's inverted
> downdraft stoves, etc.
>
>
>
> Let's put our minds together and figure out how to
> create a really clean
> burning, fuel efficient $10 stove!!
>
>
>
> Aprovecho is located 18 miles south of Eugene,
> Oregon and about 100 miles
> south of Portland. We have five rooms in the
> strawbale dormitory for guests
> ($25/night) and can offer four camping spots
> ($10/night) here as well. I can
> arrange very inexpensive lodging in a nearby Tibetan
> Buddhist monastery or
> there are lots of normal hotels in the area and
> State Parks with camping..
>
>
>
> The cost of the Stove Summer Camp is a sliding scale
> depending on your
> financial circumstances. COST: from $800 to FREE.
> Lunch costs $7 per day.
> Donuts and good strong organic coffee from Chiapas
> every morning free.
>
>
>
> I hope that several scholarships will become
> available. Please make
> reservations as soon as possible.
>
> There has been a lot of interest and we would like
> to limit the attendance
> to 25 people or so. I'll send you a map with local
> information, etc.
>
>
>
> Looking forward to seeing you! Let's invent
> together!
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Dean

=====
krish

 

 

____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html

From lanny at ROMAN.NET Wed May 12 06:02:08 2004
From: lanny at ROMAN.NET (Lanny Henson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:05 2004
Subject: Gas and Biomass
Message-ID: <WED.12.MAY.2004.060208.0400.LANNY@ROMAN.NET>

Dean and All,

The point that I did not make so well is that for simmering charcoal can be
throttled way down to burn with out attention.
If you have a sealed and insulated stove enclosure (haybox) then 25 to 50
grams per hour should do the job.
Thanks for the good comments.
Lanny

----- Original Message -----
From: Dean Still <dstill@EPUD.NET>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2004 1:14 AM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Gas and Biomass

> Dear Crispin, Lanny,
>
> We just tested 4 charcoal burning stoves from Africa and I was surprised
by
> several things. Do you notice the same characteristics? Charcoal burning
is
> very new to me...
>
> 1.) Charcoal burns at a cooler temperature than wood unless there is a lot
> of draft up through the fire.
>
> 2.) If the bed of charcoal is about the same size as the pot moving the
pot
> closer to the fire does not help heat transfer very much because the pot
> "sees" the same sized radiation source.
>
> 3.) Heating up a charcoal fire by pulling air up through the charcoal
> increases temperatures which greatly improves heat transfer from a
radiation
> source.
>
> 4.) Charcoal stoves are less efficient than wood fires because the Delta T
> and velocity of flue gases are reduced and radiation from a low
temperature
> source does not make up the difference.
>
> 5.) Higher power in a charcoal stove is dangerous because so much CO is
> released at one time.
>
> 6.) Increasing temperatures in a charcoal stove does not clean up
combustion
> it just produces more CO. It takes flames to combust CO, charcoal burns
> without flame and therefore releases more CO.
>
> 7.) Hot fires with lots of active flames burn up CO. Whenever a stove
starts
> to make charcoal CO rises because too much fuel is being introduced
without
> enough air for complete combustion to occur. Clean combustion makes little
> or no charcoal.
>
> Best,
>
> Dean

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Sun May 9 16:08:58 2004
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:05 2004
Subject: Fw: launch announcement
Message-ID: <SUN.9.MAY.2004.130858.0700.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

Dear Friends,

We're very pleased to announce that Winrock International has launched

the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air website at www.PCIAonline.org. This is an exciting opportunity to enhance our ability to fulfill the Partnership's mission to improve health, livelihood and quality of life by reducing exposure to indoor air pollution, primarily among women and children, from household energy use.

Current Partners are already listed on the "Partners" page. We invite those of you who have not yet joined the Partnership to do so by completing the "Become a Partner" form, including information on your organization's work in household energy and health. This profile information will then be made available on the site, enabling Partners to become familiar with one another and share experiences in this arena. Note to existing Partners: please also complete this form so we may include your organization's information on the site!

We also encourage you to sign up for the PCIAonline listserv to receive Partnership announcements on such things as upcoming events and requests for proposals.

The website will be expanded as additional Partnership materials, activities, and information become available. Our intention is to supplement existing websites and web-based resources. Therefore, we will provide you with links to relevant household energy and health websites on the "References" and "Partners" webpages.

We believe the website will be a tremendous resource and communication tool for the Partnership and its Partners. We welcome your comments and suggestions. Please send them to Brenda Doroski at doroski.brenda@epa.gov and me at lbuttner@winrock.org.

Best regards,

Lisa B?ttner

Winrock International

From rmiranda at INET.COM.BR Thu May 13 10:09:39 2004
From: rmiranda at INET.COM.BR (Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:05 2004
Subject: [ethos] Monolithic rocket
In-Reply-To: <002101c43628$c60e6380$0200a8c0@D289YG11>
Message-ID: <THU.13.MAY.2004.110939.0300.RMIRANDA@INET.COM.BR>

Bruce: From our point of view as manufacturers of the Ecostove, the 6
bricks is good since we avoid cracking of the ceramic, and it is easier to
produce within standard measurements. In the other hand it is more complex
to put together, and for our stoves which are portable and must be
transported to longer and mostly bad roads, the 6 bricks is more risk to
fall apart while on travel.

The monolitic is easier to assemble into the Ecostove and also more
resistant while on transportation, but in the other hand is more risk to
crack. I liked the monolitic model I saw in Seattle, indeed I brought it
with me, and we are trying to make a similar one here. I do prefer
monolitic so far.

Cheers

Rogerio

At 07:50 p.m. 09/05/04 -0500, AES wrote:
>In Seattle, I saw for the first time a monolithic Rocket stove. In fact
>there were a few models of a monolithic stove versus the six brick version.
>At that time I was told it was a first run version from Apro. What has the
>testing told us about this model versus the six brick type? It seems a big
>advantage to have the stove as one piece but has there been any other
>testing of the monolithic rocket stove? Are there any problems with it?
>Does anyone with experience have any preference to the monolithic version
>versus the six brick version?
>
>Any input is welcomed.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Bruce
>
>
>
>---
>To unsubscribe, send email to majormail@vrac.iastate.edu with
>this as the first line in the BODY of the message: unsubscribe ethos
>---

From dstill at EPUD.NET Thu May 13 01:51:53 2004
From: dstill at EPUD.NET (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:05 2004
Subject: [ethos] Monolithic rocket
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20040513110307.02469ad0@inet.com.br>
Message-ID: <WED.12.MAY.2004.225153.0700.DSTILL@EPUD.NET>

Dear Rogerio and Bruce,

I've experimented a bit with monolithic pours to make a stove in one piece.
The stove Rogerio has was made using the recipe for vermiculite/clay. I
think that pressing the wet mixture results in a stronger fired material.
Also I have placed pieces of paper in the monolithic pour to create
expansion joints. The stove cracks in these places making a six brick stove.
But the monolithic stove is surrounded by a cement body so the cracking does
not break apart the stove. I have a stove in the lab that has been fired 50
times made monolithically with insulative mix of clay/sawdust inside and a
harder mix on the outside. The harder mix has twice the clay/same amount of
sawdust. Actually I like charcoal grains/clay better than sawdust/clay. The
charcoal is very light and seems to be a good insulation. Using a light and
a heavier/more durable mix seems to work. This could be a pretty inexpensive
stove.

But we need more time to develop the idea. I love Rogerio's idea of placing
Aerated Autoclavated Concrete (AAC) around a baldosa combustion chamber,
especially if the baldosa is a bit lighter than normal, say .8 gram per cc.

All Best,

Dean

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Thu May 13 13:52:49 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:05 2004
Subject: Fuel size in pyrolysis stoves
In-Reply-To: <00b701c4352d$12831f00$886c0443@net>
Message-ID: <THU.13.MAY.2004.125249.0500.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

At 12:48 PM 5/8/04 -0600, Ron Larson wrote:

> Your diameter dimension of 25-35 mm is perfect for pyrolyzing stoves if
>the length could be obtained to order (about 25 to 35 cm - different for
>different stoves).

Ron, 25 to 35 mm (inch to 1.3 inches diameter) seems rather thick for the
pyrolysis stoves that I am making. I have not had much success with such
thicknesses.

Please send more comments about how long it takes for pyrolysis to reach
the center of such sticks in comparison to the downward progression of the
pyrolysis zone.

Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
Rotary University Teacher Grantee to Mozambique >10 mo of 2001-2003
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Thu May 13 16:12:39 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:05 2004
Subject: Toxic metal in "tincanium" stoves??
In-Reply-To: <BA468CE631F86A4D831FCBD4EB1C692C0C19E6@floyd.cfl.local>
Message-ID: <THU.13.MAY.2004.151239.0500.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Jeff and all,

Jeff is the only response to my question about toxic metals in "tincanium"
stoves. His observations about galvanized metal make sense.

Unless others have comments to make, this topic can be closed for the time
being.

Thanks.

Paul

At 08:56 AM 5/10/04 +0200, Jeff Forssell wrote:
> > cooking) is made with the above metals, what toxicity
> > problems could arise?
> >
> > The galvanized coating (zinc, right?) will melt and run down
> > and can be made into a white powder.
>
>I know that when welding galvanized iron that the Zinc oxides are
>considered dangerous. (In swedish: "svets frossa". I can't find any
>description of what that is. But frossa usually includes "frothing at the
>mouth"). The white "powder" can often come out as smoke. (I have some
>vague memory of some greenish compund forming also , but it could just be
>a vision colored by the protective glasses. I would imagine that the
>possible risks would be at the first hightemperature firings and after
>that negligible. So I would do like with a new mantle (radioactive
>coating) for a pressure lamp- light i outside the first time.
>
>Jeff Forssell
>SWEDISH AGENCY FOR FLEXIBLE LEARNING (CFL)
>Box 3024
>SE-871 03 H?RN?SAND /Sweden
>http://www.cfl.se/?sid=60
>+46(0)611-55 79 48 (Work) +46(0)611-55 79 80 (Fax Work)
>+46(0)611-22 1 44 (Home) ( mobil: 070- 35 80 306; [070-4091514])
>
>residence:
>Gamla Karlebyv?gen 14 / SE-871 33 H?rn?sand /Sweden
>
>e-mail: every workday: jeff.forssell@cfl.se <mailto:jeff.forssell@cfl.se>
> Note my old mail address, jf@ssvh.se, is no longer active
>(travel, visiting: jeff_forssell@hotmail.com & MSMessenger)
>
>Personal homepage: < http://www.torget.se/users/i/iluhya/index.htm>
>My village technology page: http://home.bip.net/jeff.forssell
>
>Instant messengers Odigo 792701 (ICQ: 55800587; NM/MSM use hotmail address)

Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
Rotary University Teacher Grantee to Mozambique >10 mo of 2001-2003
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

From jeff.forssell at CFL.SE Thu May 13 17:55:06 2004
From: jeff.forssell at CFL.SE (Jeff Forssell)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:05 2004
Subject: SV: [STOVES] Toxic metal in "tincanium" stoves??
Message-ID: <THU.13.MAY.2004.235506.0200.JEFF.FORSSELL@CFL.SE>


I had another thought: Some (most? few nowadays?) cans have small amounts of solder on their joints which contain lead. I know that in Sweden we are now supposed to separate ordinary lightbulbs from the mixed trash because the small solder connections on them make up a not so negligible amount of our total lead contamination (Now that gasoline is unleaded). I expect that it is a much lesser problem than the smokey kitchens which the stoves we "push" hopefully will eliminate.

I also got this comment about zinc from Peter Verhaart:

Not a greenish compound, Zinc burns easily and with a greenish flame. When welding galvanised steel, the zinc boils off and the vapour burns, forming a white oxide, ZnO. It is good at blocking UV rays from the sun and is used to make an ointment that our Cricket heros apply to parts of their face to prevent sunburn.


From list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Thu May 13 18:58:36 2004
From: list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:05 2004
Subject: Gas and Biomass
In-Reply-To: <00e101c4374a$cc8cbea0$60271ec4@kobus>
Message-ID: <THU.13.MAY.2004.235836.0100.>

On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:25:03 +0200, Kobus wrote:

>My take on the charcoal (in a stove) discussion is that current charcoal stoves are not very energy efficient nor are they emission efficient.

I am beginning to form this view also.
>
>The reason why the heat output from a glowing charcoal fire, although consistently hot, may not appear impressive to Dean, is probably due to he fact that the Volatile Matter (VM) or gas (5 - 10 MJ/kg)

If we can ignore the combustion products from the heat used to
volatilise this I would have put it up in the 12MJ/kg region.

> has already been driven out during start-up, or during the first 10 minutes (guess?) of combustion and it is the carbon or "coke" burning (17 to 20 MJ/kg)

Again the charcoal should be in the order of 24MJ up to the carbon
limit of 30MJ/kg.

Your initial tests do seem to indicate that the top down wood burner
is cleaner when in the pyrolysis phase than when char burning under
natural draught.

AJH

From list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Thu May 13 18:58:37 2004
From: list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:05 2004
Subject: Fuel size in pyrolysis stoves
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20040513124831.00d50a60@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.13.MAY.2004.235837.0100.>

On Thu, 13 May 2004 12:52:49 -0500, Paul S. Anderson wrote:

>
>Ron, 25 to 35 mm (inch to 1.3 inches diameter) seems rather thick for the
>pyrolysis stoves that I am making. I have not had much success with such
>thicknesses.

Paul, perhaps you should dry the bigger sizes a bit better.
>
>Please send more comments about how long it takes for pyrolysis to reach
>the center of such sticks in comparison to the downward progression of the
>pyrolysis zone.

Good question and worth a bit of experimentation. I guess you could
start a top down (idd) burn and stop it half way by dowsing it, then
dissect the sticks.

Now with bone dry sticks the heat necessary to cause pyrolysis is only
the specific heat of the wood by the raise in temperature to ~270C, at
which stage it should become exothermic. So if the flaming pyrolysis
effect is at the surface of the sticks the speed at which pyrolysis
can penetrate the stick is dependant on the conductivity of the wood.
The ability of the wood to absorb head is dependant on its surface
area. Now these two properties can be combined and defined as the Biot
number, mentioned by Tom Reed fairly recently either here or the
gasification list. Now I wonder if the Biot number falls below 1 then
the sticks will car at the same level as the flaming pyrolysis front,
if more than 1 it will leave wood as like a sharpened pencil
surrounded by char.

Of course in practice the moisture in the wood will modify this as it
will prevent the wood pyrolysing until it has been driven off.

AJH

From list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Thu May 13 18:58:36 2004
From: list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:05 2004
Subject: Gas and Biomass
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20040509171251.02320de0@pop.iprimus.com.au>
Message-ID: <THU.13.MAY.2004.235836.0100.>

On Sun, 9 May 2004 17:17:23 +1000, Peter Verhaart wrote:

>The idea of a wire screen to anchor the flames is a very good one and
>resistance wire (being resistance wire) has quite a good resistance to heat.
>It might be an idea for Crispin and Alex instead of depending on the top
>surface of the fuel bed.

Flame holding is well worth experimenting with but in this context
where we are seeking to use the high emissivity of the glowing metal
wires to increase radiation transfer to the pot the wire must be after
the completion of the flame.

AJH

From list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Thu May 13 18:58:37 2004
From: list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:05 2004
Subject: which emission is more important measuring
In-Reply-To: <40348.202.79.62.21.1084325578.squirrel@webmail.ku.edu.np>
Message-ID: <THU.13.MAY.2004.235837.0100.>

On Wed, 12 May 2004 07:17:58 +0545, Kanchan Rai wrote:

>Dear stovers,
>I have some questions on the kind of emissions produced by burning wood.
>There are several kind of emissions from the wood burning stoves. such
>as

OK I'll have a bash at this but there are more erudite scholars on the
list who know more.
>
>CO2 -
>not harmful for human health but cause of global warming.

CO2 is one of many gases implicated in trapping more of the sun's
rays, its significance in the current scenario is that we humans have
doubled the concentration of this gas in the atmosphere in two
significant tranches, by clearances of forests for agriculture and
then , since industrialisation, by the combustion of carbon reserves
previously locked underground. The combustion of wood for domestic
fires is neutral if the amount used is replaced by growing plants.
>
>CO emission -
>CO mixes with heamoglobean and forms oxyhaemoglobean.

It forms carbon monoyhaemoglobin which binds with the haemoglobin
molecule more strongly than the oxyhaemoglobin, hence preventing
oxygen being carried by the blood.

> Makes blood
>deffiecient on absorbing oxygen. When CO replaces more than 50 % oxygan
>in the vital organ that requires large amount of oxygen, such as brain
>and heart, fails.

In the extreme carbon monoxide poisoning causes the victim to go
bright pink.

>
>In the high altitude mountain areas in my country, Nepal, such as
>Humla and Jumla, people use open fire places with all the windows and
>doors closed and with no ventillation (places are too cold in
>winter, open fire places provides cooking and space heating).
>imagine how much the amount of CO produced inside that room. I was
>surprised of seeing their survival in that environment. May be one of
>the cause of high infant mortality, and low life expectancy at that
>area.

There is little doubt from postings to this list that the combustion
products of wood fires is the biggest single cause of infant
respiratory disease, I am not sure if one particular product of
incomplete combustion has been identified as most significant.
>
>Particle emissions -
>Particle emission is another hand not generally measured during stove
>tests. It is generally found that particles of 10-6 micrometer stucks in
>nose, 5-3 micrometer on wind pipe and less than 3 micrometer goes inside
>lungs. (<1 micrometer depositS in air pocket0. I have seen the situation
>of open fire places in Humla and Jumla WHERE I noticed the particles are
>all around the room ( I don't know the size).

I think this is one of the harder products to measure, it's not only
the size being small enough to become embedded in mucous tissue but
also the carcinogenic nature of some PICs.
>
>Other emissions (CH4, NOx, SOx ... )
>
>Which emission is the worst one ? Which do you think is important to
>measure when testing stove?

Guessing I would say NOx, but wood fires are not particularly bad on
NOx or SOx.

>
>Is there any relationship between combustion quality, CO emission and
>Particle emission. In straight thinking, if the combustion is good both
>CO emission and particle emission should be less and opposite when
>combustion is poor. Does this apply always?

I think so but I still wonder if blown (gasifier) combustion whilst
being fine on combustion quality can be bad on fly ash in the <PM10
classes.

AJH

From list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Thu May 13 18:58:36 2004
From: list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:05 2004
Subject: Gas and Biomass
In-Reply-To: <20040509163140.2107E59D@telchar.epud.net>
Message-ID: <THU.13.MAY.2004.235836.0100.>

On Sun, 9 May 2004 09:31:40 -0700, Dean Still wrote:

>Dear Andrew,
>
>Replying after your comments in capital letters.

Why I'm not deaf ;-)

>I cannot see how you can have the correct combustion conditions if you
>observe this. Charcoal needs less total mass flow to liberate the same
>heat as wood, it also needs far less secondary air. This is why it
>achieves higher temperatures. The heat is all in or just above the
>bed.
>
>YES< IT SURPRISED ME. BUT UNLESS THERE WAS ADDED DRAFT THROUGH THE CHARCOAL
>THE TEMPERATURE AT THE POT WAS SURPRISINGLY LOW EVEN THOUGH THE POT WAS VERY
>CLOSE TO THE CHARCOAL. LOTS OF HEAT BUT DELIVERED AT LOWER TEMPERATURE?

Shouldn't be, the amount of heat is dependant on the mass of charcoal
burned, the temperature is then dependant on the adiabatic reaction
temperature and the mass flow.

>It should be the opposite except I suspect natural draught charcoal
>fires are used with unnecessary excess air. A blown wood fire will be
>hard put to exceed 1600C, a similar charcoal one will reach above
>2000C. In practice I doubt the natural draught air velocities will be
>reached to make best use of charcoal's higher cv.
>>I WAS TESTING STOVES FROM AFRICA WITHOUT ADDED DRAFT. THEY EACH HAD A DOOR
>FOR LETTING IN MORE AIR FOR HIGH POWER AND LESS AIR FOR LOWER POWER>

Dean I have no knowledge or experience of charcoal stoves in use for
domestic cooking, except the occasional home barbecue. I have only set
eyes on an "improved" jiko in a local politician's office. I can
accept that charcoal stoves in normal use do not optimally burn
charcoal. I can also accept that their users may consider them clean
burning whilst being unaware of their own exposure to CO.

>Clean combustion produces very little CO.
>Clean combustion of pyrolysis offgas produces little CO and can leave
>a residue of charcoal, as amply demonstrated by the reed-larson idd
>stove.
>I IMAGINE THAT TOM'S STOVE IS CLEAN BURNING BECAUSE A WALL OF FLAME IS
>CREATED ACROSS THE OPENING THROUGH WHICH GASES MUST PASS, IN WHICH THEY ARE
>COMBUSTED.

I think this is one of the attributes of a top lit stove, it
establishes a flame which effectively incinerates difficult to burn
PICs generated lower down in the fire bed, in the flame of the high cv
offgas generated.

>To completely burn out wood to ash you must supply primary air and
>secondary air in the correct ratio.
>
>ONLY IF THERE IS INSUFFICIENT OXYGEN ABOVE THE FIRE IN THE COMBUSTION
>CHAMBER. IF ADDED OXYGEN IS NOT NEEDED ADDING COOLER SECONDARY AIR IS NOT
>NECESSARILY HELPFUL.

OK I suggest you are citing the special case when the fire bed is not
deep enough to generate CO, in your case because you meter in the
fuel. In the traditional updraught fire all the primary air is
initially reacted in the fire bed and subsequently much is reduced
back to CO, secondary air must be supplied to burn out this CO.

AJH

From pverhaart at IPRIMUS.COM.AU Thu May 13 21:06:21 2004
From: pverhaart at IPRIMUS.COM.AU (Peter Verhaart)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:05 2004
Subject: SV: [STOVES] Toxic metal in "tincanium" stoves??
In-Reply-To: <BA468CE631F86A4D831FCBD4EB1C692C0ACD62@floyd.cfl.local>
Message-ID: <FRI.14.MAY.2004.110621.1000.PVERHAART@IPRIMUS.COM.AU>

Jeff,

I don't think any cans nowadays are soldered. The cylindrical body
is welded and the ends are rolled on. All clean steel with an appropriate
(in most cases) coating.

It is good that someone brings these matters up.

Peter Verhaart

At 23:55 13/05/2004 +0200, you wrote:
>
>I had another thought: Some (most? few nowadays?) cans have small amounts
>of solder on their joints which contain lead. I know that in Sweden we are
>now supposed to separate ordinary lightbulbs from the mixed trash because
>the small solder connections on them make up a not so negligible amount of
>our total lead contamination (Now that gasoline is unleaded). I expect
>that it is a much lesser problem than the smokey kitchens which the stoves
>we "push" hopefully will eliminate.
>
>I also got this comment about zinc from Peter Verhaart:
>
>Not a greenish compound, Zinc burns easily and with a greenish flame. When
>welding galvanised steel, the zinc boils off and the vapour burns, forming
>a white oxide, ZnO. It is good at blocking UV rays from the sun and is
>used to make an ointment that our Cricket heros apply to parts of their
>face to prevent sunburn.
>
>
>
>

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Fri May 14 01:01:15 2004
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:05 2004
Subject: Fuel size in pyrolysis stoves (and a bit more)
Message-ID: <THU.13.MAY.2004.230115.0600.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Hi Stovers

A. Wood size
1. I agree with Andrew that part of the problem could be fuel dryness.
I am also fascinated by the idea that a Biot number could be used here - but
have no expertise to add futher to that type of analysis. This sounds like
one to carry further - but not by me.
2. I should have been a bit more explicit in commenting on wood size.
For smaller diameter stoves (say less than 15 cm) , I can agree with Paul
that 35 mm fuel diameter might be too large - but I think 25 mm should work
OK. I have done a fair amount of the testing with stoves of 30 cm dia
(needed for cooking enjira) and I am quite sure that I successfully used
fuel appreciably larger then than 35 mm. I think pyrolysis top-lit
vertically loaded wood pieces might need a minimum number of pieces - with
larger and smaller stoves having the same minimum number of pieces. Just
working from memory, I think that minimum might be on the order of 25
pieces - and I think it larger than 10 and less than 50. Having more than
this minimum number is OK (ie small is good - but we don't want to spend a
lot of time splitting wood)
3. I have found it important that the fuel used be round (and preferably
quite straight and of relatively uniform size) - and that is part of the
reason for commenting favorably on Ray W's coppicing statistics. I am
guessing that Ray's fuel supply fits these desirable characteristics. When
testing out at Aprovecho, I found it very difficult to use the flat slats
provided by Dean - but this is of course no problem for our prospective
usual rural clientele.
4. More importantly, Ray may not want (branch-end) material of 10-15 mm
size dia - and thus pyrolysis stover fuel might be then guaranteed to be
available and maybe cheap - and (as Paul may be suggesting) better.

B. Andrew's answers
1. I want to thank Andrew for answering Paul - and at about the same
giving very astute answers for four other technical questions just now.
2. A few weeks ago I asked Andrew if he could permanently take over my
"stoves" coordinator role and he agreed. Now I can take credit for Andrew
doing a great job as a coordinator.
3. I intend to read all the "stoves" messages - but have to stay
detached for several more years. The reason is that in March I was elected
as Vice - Chair (Chair in 2006 and 2007) of the American Solar Energy
Society (ASES) and now find myself sleeping a lot less than I used to.
Please let me know of any opportunity to plug RE technologies - in almost
any environment. But my interest in developing country stoves has to be put
on the back burner for 3.5 years. I think we have a great list (mostly due
to Tom Miles) and am assuminging that all stove problems will have
disappeared by the end of 2007.
4. You all have a great resource in Andrew and I thank him for being
willing to take over as a moderator and leave my conscience clear.

Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Heggie <list@sylva.icuklive.co.uk>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: Fuel size in pyrolysis stoves

> ---------------------- Information from the mail
header -----------------------
> Sender: The Stoves Discussion List <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Poster: Andrew Heggie <list@SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK>
> Subject: Re: Fuel size in pyrolysis stoves
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
> On Thu, 13 May 2004 12:52:49 -0500, Paul S. Anderson wrote:
>
> >
> >Ron, 25 to 35 mm (inch to 1.3 inches diameter) seems rather thick for
the
> >pyrolysis stoves that I am making. I have not had much success with such
> >thicknesses.
>
> Paul, perhaps you should dry the bigger sizes a bit better.
> >
> >Please send more comments about how long it takes for pyrolysis to reach
> >the center of such sticks in comparison to the downward progression of
the
> >pyrolysis zone.
>
> Good question and worth a bit of experimentation. I guess you could
> start a top down (idd) burn and stop it half way by dowsing it, then
> dissect the sticks.
>
> Now with bone dry sticks the heat necessary to cause pyrolysis is only
> the specific heat of the wood by the raise in temperature to ~270C, at
> which stage it should become exothermic. So if the flaming pyrolysis
> effect is at the surface of the sticks the speed at which pyrolysis
> can penetrate the stick is dependant on the conductivity of the wood.
> The ability of the wood to absorb head is dependant on its surface
> area. Now these two properties can be combined and defined as the Biot
> number, mentioned by Tom Reed fairly recently either here or the
> gasification list. Now I wonder if the Biot number falls below 1 then
> the sticks will car at the same level as the flaming pyrolysis front,
> if more than 1 it will leave wood as like a sharpened pencil
> surrounded by char.
>
> Of course in practice the moisture in the wood will modify this as it
> will prevent the wood pyrolysing until it has been driven off.
>
> AJH
>

From elk at WANANCHI.COM Fri May 14 01:26:06 2004
From: elk at WANANCHI.COM (Elsen Karstad)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:05 2004
Subject: CO V.S. Particulates
Message-ID: <FRI.14.MAY.2004.082606.0300.ELK@WANANCHI.COM>

There's been some interesting communication in the group on the topic of charcoal V.S. wood stove (indoor) pollution lately, and it seems to be challenging the pre-conceived idea that wood is dirty, charcoal is clean.

Vented improved stoves aside- excluding the omni-present ceramic Jiko- I had always thought that charcoal was indeed the preferred fuel (over wood) for mitigating indoor pollution. Didn't Dan Kammen illustrate that recently with his work here in Kenya?

I think that the definition of 'pollution' must be linked to ARI- Acute Respiratory Illness, no? And isn't ARI primarily a particulate mediated issue? Where does CO come in?

Pretty well every single (sane/sober) adult I've every asked about CO here in Kenya is aware of it. They may not know what it is, or what fuels are better or worse, but they know that it's related inversely to ventilation, & they know it can be a killer. Most people even know the symptoms of CO poisoning.

On a related topic, in my experience, the bigger the charcoal stove, the better/hotter/more efficiently it burns. My big staff kitchen jiko at work (18 inches dia.) produces blue flames up to 6 inches above the vendors waste charcoal briquettes it burns. I doubt if there's much unburnt CO produced there.

rgds to all;

elk
--------------------------------
Elsen L. Karstad
elk@wananchi.com
www.chardust.com
Nairobi, Kenya

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Thu May 13 21:21:57 2004
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (adkarve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:05 2004
Subject: charcoal stove
Message-ID: <FRI.14.MAY.2004.065157.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear stovers,
We are disseminating a charcoal burning steam cooker called Sarai Cooker. It
is a stove and cooker combination, whereby the stove is so designed that it
would accept just a single layer of briquettes. In this way, the hot flue
gases do not pass through a bed of uncombusted coal to generate carbon
monoxide. In addition, the cooker vessel is enclosed in a jacket which
forces the flue gases to pass through a narrow gap of about 4 mm between the
jacket and the cooker vessel. This ensures better heat transfer. As a
result, the cooker cooks simultaneously rice, beans and vegetables or meat
for a family of five, using just 100 grams of char briquettes. The cooker
has become very popular and a cooperative, which has been licensed by us to
sell the cooker and the charcoal briquettes has already sold more than 6000
pieces in the last two years. All the cooker users have automatically become
permanent customers of charcoal briquettes. The name Sarai Cooker has been
registered as a trade mark.
After following the discussion on coal, I was wondering if the carbon
monoxide menace can be eliminated by having a top-lit charcoal stove? I
shall certainly conduct the necessary trials, but if somebody has already
done it, I shall be grateful for having that information.
Yours
Dr.A.D.Karve, President
Appropriate Rural Technology Institute
Pune, India.

From ajh at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Fri May 14 09:43:58 2004
From: ajh at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (AJH)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:05 2004
Subject: which emission is more important measuring
In-Reply-To: <51923.202.52.242.69.1084548078.squirrel@webmail.ku.edu.np>
Message-ID: <FRI.14.MAY.2004.144358.0100.AJH@SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK>

On Fri, 14 May 2004 21:06:18 +0545 (NPT), Kanchan Rai wrote:

>> On Wed, 12 May 2004 07:17:58 +0545, Kanchan Rai wrote:
>
>> OK I'll have a bash at this but there are more erudite scholars on the
>> list who know more.
>
>Atleast somebody responded on this topic its really helpful

I am glad if it was helpful perhaps others will chip in later.
>
>>
>> In the extreme carbon monoxide poisoning causes the victim to go
>> bright pink.

In retrospect I realise I was being too Anglocentric in this
observation, I should have just pointed out the blood colour is
brighter in serious cases and this will affect skin and outer body
parts visually, mind I hope no one needs to make this sort of
observation in practice.

>>
>> There is little doubt from postings to this list that the combustion
>> products of wood fires is the biggest single cause of infant
>> respiratory disease, I am not sure if one particular product of
>> incomplete combustion has been identified as most significant.

Here ELK has laid the blame on particulates.
>
>I can't say that it is but am sure that the major cause is the
>combustion products in those areas responsible for infant martality and
>less life expectancy. I attached a photo which was taken last april in
>Jumla. If you are not interested just skip this.

Kanchan, this photo puts things in perspective for me, I am not
troubled by attachments but others may be due to bandwidth
considerations, Tom Miles puts interesting photographs on the stove
website so people can make their own decision to look if they want.

I imagine most on the list are familiar with spam and viruses and take
their own precautions but just a reminder to be wary of any
attachments purporting to come from the list or contributors to it,
spammers and virus propagators are more knowledgeable about e-mail
than I, they can easily spoof from addresses and to my knowledge since
using this new e-mail address viruses have been identified in messages
wrongly attributed to three recent stoves' posters.

If this sort of thing is putting off people from contributing to the
list then feel free to post directly to me then, as long as you are
subscribed to the list, I will forward it stripped of any addresses.
Now back to your picture:
>
>Yes its true. I like to measure particle emissions for my stove testing
>in Kathmandu University. But don't know how as I couldnot afford to
>setup laboratory the kind how people measure this thing. Some body could
>suggest easy and cost effective way?

You are conversing with someone who is very sceptical of the value of
university laboratories, in UK at least :-(.

I think you could do comparative tests by sucking a known volume of
air through a tissue of fixed cross section. Then you can look at the
dark disc formed by the particulates. Plainly the temperature of the
sample must be below the temperature at which the tissue degrades.
Here there are flue gas testing kits which work on this principle, for
soot particles.

To me the conditions shown (indoors?) are unacceptable and a good
reason why this stoves list exists. Is the standing child trying to
get warm by radiative heat from the fire. Would you like to indicate
the circumstances of the photograph?

How much does the iron support tripod cost in comparison to a rocket
stove?

I see from the picture that the fire is stoked with long branches fed
in as they burn, this is similar to the principle or the rocket stove
and less adaptable to other batch loaded devices which need smaller
(more highly comminuted) sticks.

I would say from the smoke and the orange flames running into black
tips that this is a very inefficient fire, it is over stoked, too near
the pot and quenched by outside air, not to mention the effects on the
occupants. The only redeeming feature seems to be that the wood
appears to be fairly dry.

AJH

From list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Fri May 14 09:43:58 2004
From: list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:05 2004
Subject: CO V.S. Particulates
In-Reply-To: <000801c43993$e95d2d30$c040083e@toshibauser>
Message-ID: <FRI.14.MAY.2004.144358.0100.>

On Fri, 14 May 2004 08:26:06 +0300, Elsen Karstad wrote:

>Vented improved stoves aside- excluding the omni-present ceramic Jiko- I had always thought that charcoal was indeed the preferred fuel (over wood) for mitigating indoor pollution. Didn't Dan Kammen illustrate that recently with his work here in Kenya?
>
>I think that the definition of 'pollution' must be linked to ARI- Acute Respiratory Illness, no? And isn't ARI primarily a particulate mediated issue? Where does CO come in?

I think you are right but I did not want to discount the possibility
that CO may have some effect, I did read that cigarette smokers made
adaptations to breathing an atmosphere chronically high in CO.

Also as you indicate the comparison being made is with an open (three
stone or tripod) fire and an unimproved charcoal burner, neither of
which are likely to compare well with the sorts of stove Dean and
others are promoting.
>
>Pretty well every single (sane/sober) adult I've every asked about CO here in Kenya is aware of it. They may not know what it is, or what fuels are better or worse, but they know that it's related inversely to ventilation, & they know it can be a killer. Most people even know the symptoms of CO poisoning.

Thanks for that piece if information.
>
>On a related topic, in my experience, the bigger the charcoal stove, the better/hotter/more efficiently it burns.

Makes sense, the heat losses are through the surfaces, as dimensions
increase volume increases with the cube of the dimension, surface area
with the square, so heat generation out paces losses.

>My big staff kitchen jiko at work (18 inches dia.) produces blue flames up to 6 inches above the vendors waste charcoal briquettes it burns. I doubt if there's much unburnt CO produced there.

Sounds like it is operating as a true updraught fire with good
secondary combustion, rather than smouldering as a surface combustion.

AJH

From list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Fri May 14 09:43:58 2004
From: list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:05 2004
Subject: Fuel size in pyrolysis stoves (and a bit more)
In-Reply-To: <01c501c43970$7d44d580$2f630443@net>
Message-ID: <FRI.14.MAY.2004.144358.0100.>

On Thu, 13 May 2004 23:01:15 -0600, Ron Larson wrote:

> 2. A few weeks ago I asked Andrew if he could permanently take over my
>"stoves" coordinator role and he agreed. Now I can take credit for Andrew
>doing a great job as a coordinator.

I was pleased to be asked, in the event I have been able to reply to
quite a few posts, because I am "between" jobs, whilst the onus will
be on me to answer FAQs, which I will endeavour to do, I may be unable
to respond as fast as I might wish.

I share Ronal's enthusiasm for renewable energy technology as well as
wishing to contribute what knowledge I can to the stoves issues, I
hope the change from Ronal's optimism does not become too apparent,
the goal remains the same. Good luck in you new role Ronal.

AJH

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Fri May 14 10:04:51 2004
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (adkarve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:05 2004
Subject: Congratulations
Message-ID: <FRI.14.MAY.2004.193451.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Ron,
please accept congratulations from all the members of Appropriate Rural
Technology Institute and especially from the three Karves, for your election
to the vice-chair of the American Solar Energy Society. Please do not neglet
the stovers. Remember, biomass represents stored solar energy.
It was a remarkable co-incidence, that just yesterday I was approached by a
75 year old civil engineer who retired from the Mumbai Municipal Corporation
and who has been working since then on solar energy as his hobby. He has
developed a low cost automatic tracking device for parabolic mirrors that
are used in solar thermal devices. He did not give me any details about his
invention, but after talking with him for about an hour I could deduce that
he uses a light sensor and some sort of a feedback mechanism which orients
the sensor to receive the maximum light intensity (something similar to the
mechanism used by the sunflower). It is a relatively simple mechanical
system, which a roadside mechanic put together under the guidance of the
inventor. He has applied for an Indian patent and he wishes to commercialise
his invention. I thought that in your new Avatar you may be able to guide
him.
There is also good news to report from ARTI. I just received an E-mail
from Ms Brenda Doroski of USEPA that our proposal for standardisation and
commercialisation of our starch/sugar based biogas plant has been approved
by USEPA for funding. We had been working on it with our own funds for the
last three months and have made much progress in the design, and in
optimising the C/N ratio of the feedstock.
Yours
Meena, Priya and Nandu

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Fri May 14 13:42:15 2004
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:06 2004
Subject: Congratulations
Message-ID: <FRI.14.MAY.2004.114215.0600.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

AD: see notes below.

----- Original Message -----
From: adkarve <adkarve@pn2.vsnl.net.in>
To: Ron Larson <ronallarson@QWEST.NET>
Cc: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 8:04 AM
Subject: Congratulations

> Dear Ron,
> please accept congratulations from all the members of Appropriate Rural
> Technology Institute and especially from the three Karves, for your election
> to the vice-chair of the American Solar Energy Society. Please do not neglet
> the stovers.

RWL: A.D. , Priya and all others at ARTI - Thanks. Just so others can keep track of ASES - let me urge other solar-enthusiasts to periodically peek in at www.ases.org. Nothing there now on stoves, but at our 2005 conference in Orlando, we will probably have a few papers on stoves as we share the conference with ISES - our "mother" organization (we are bigger now I think - but I urge all to sign up for their free bi-monthly "RE-Focus".)

> Remember, biomass represents stored solar energy.

RWL: ASES has just re-started a biomass technical group. We are trying to be known for much more than "solar" in a narrow sense. Also, I have been thinking more and more on biomass as one of the likely best ways (methanol and ethanol) to move toward a hydrogen economy, which we have talked about a few times on this list. See http://www.solartoday.org/2004/may_june04/h2_right_future.htm for some of my thoughts on this - which just came out in the ASES magazine.

> It was a remarkable co-incidence, that just yesterday I was approached by a
> 75 year old civil engineer who retired from the Mumbai Municipal Corporation
> and who has been working since then on solar energy as his hobby. He has
> developed a low cost automatic tracking device for parabolic mirrors that
> are used in solar thermal devices. He did not give me any details about his
> invention, but after talking with him for about an hour I could deduce that
> he uses a light sensor and some sort of a feedback mechanism which orients
> the sensor to receive the maximum light intensity (something similar to the
> mechanism used by the sunflower). It is a relatively simple mechanical
> system, which a roadside mechanic put together under the guidance of the
> inventor. He has applied for an Indian patent and he wishes to commercialise
> his invention. I thought that in your new Avatar you may be able to guide
> him.

RWL: Please try to get us into e-mail contact. Not my area but I know some people who might like to read about it and help.

> There is also good news to report from ARTI. I just received an E-mail
> from Ms Brenda Doroski of USEPA that our proposal for standardisation and
> commercialisation of our starch/sugar based biogas plant has been approved
> by USEPA for funding. We had been working on it with our own funds for the
> last three months and have made much progress in the design, and in
> optimising the C/N ratio of the feedstock.

RWL: Great news - congratulations. How about telling us what you have recently learned. (Incidentally many of the so-called hydrogen approaches are really working with methane - and yours may be the cheapest methane around. By the end of the decade you may be finding people siphoning off some of your methane forrunning their off-grid computers.

Ron

> Yours
> Meena, Priya and Nandu
>
>

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Fri May 14 20:21:00 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:06 2004
Subject: CO V.S. Particulates
Message-ID: <SAT.15.MAY.2004.022100.0200.>

Dear Everyone

I hope this is the right thread subject for this comment:

[ELK]
>On a related topic, in my experience, the bigger the charcoal stove,
>the better/hotter/more efficiently it burns.

I have been thinking of what Dean reported when burning charcoal in I
presume was a Jiko-shaped stove, in that he noticed a perceptibly low
combustion temperature on the one hand, and on the other when he put the
pot closer to the charcoal bed it did not increase the heat transfer
efficiency appreciably, or perhaps at all.

I am going now with my first impression which is that the combustion was
being interfered with by the cold bottom of the pot, quenching the flame
in some way, leading to a cooler overall temperature, lower Delta T and
high CO. Lowering the pot only made it worse, though it may have
slightly increased the heat transfer, this was either exactly
compensated by further chilling of the fire, or there was a net loss and
even higher CO.

If the pot is high enough above the charcoal bed to allow the CO to burn
efficiently, apparently 6 inches in the case of the large charcoal
stove, then one would expect CO production to be very low. Unburned CO
is not a characteristic of charcoal, it is characteristic of lousy
combustion, or perhaps I should say sub-optimal.

I have heard expressed a number of times the opinion that heat transfer
efficiency from a hot coal bed is governed, or largely governed by the
inverse square rule for radiation.

Dean's experiment showed that the is probably not true. It is certainly
not true for any enclosed fire stove as the heat is only lost to the
stove body on a loss related to the increase in stove height, not the
square of the increase. Increased height give more room to liberate
heat from the gases.

For this reason bringing a pot lower could even reduce the PHU of the
stove by killing more fire than there is an increase in radiative heat
transfer. Resul: net loss in PHU value + more CO.

Perhaps Dean, you could repeat the experiment with, as others have
commented, less charcoal in the bed so that the air supply matches the
fuel requrement, and then put the pot higher and drop an adjustable heat
shield around it so the heat loss to the side are minimized. This would
give the flame a chance to finish burning the CO for a lowering of
emissions and a higher heat transfer efficiency.

I am wondering if the Jiko could be improved by deepening the sides and
raising the pot 1 inch.

Regards
Crispin

From Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP Sat May 15 09:21:22 2004
From: Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP (Kanchan Rai)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:06 2004
Subject: Mountain areas in Nepal also common test standard for stove to
AJH, PV and others
Message-ID: <SAT.15.MAY.2004.190622.0545.KANCHAN@KU.EDU.NP>

Fri, May 14, 2004 7:28 pm AJH wrote

>I can't say that it is but am sure that the major cause is the
>combustion products in those areas responsible for infant martality and
> less life expectancy. I attached a photo which was taken last april in
> Jumla. If you are not interested just skip this.

>Kanchan, this photo puts things in perspective for me, I am not
>troubled by attachments but others may be due to bandwidth
>considerations, Tom Miles puts interesting photographs on the stove
> website so people can make their own decision to look if they want.

Ans: I send an email to Mr. Tom Miles for posting my report but I
haven?t got any reply. I will really be happy to post my stuffs.

(In the mean time, I am building a website of my work in Kathmandu
University, Nepal especially on stove. It will show you the condition in
mountain areas, their life style, stove implementation through KU, bit
of my research, drawings of our stoves, animations of stove (how it
works), some basic theories on combustion with online calculations and
so on , will be updated periodically) I am really working too hard for
this . You?ll find lots of pictures that I guess will really thrill you,
and you will think about the worst part of world where most of the Stover?s
ignores to do work. Its really challenging to develop a stove for high
altitude places with very low cost. I hope I?ll

>I imagine most on the list are familiar with spam and viruses and take
> their own precautions but just a reminder to be wary of any
>attachments purporting to come from the list or contributors to it,
> spammers and virus propagators are more knowledgeable about e-mail than
> I, they can easily spoof from addresses and to my knowledge since using
> this new e-mail address viruses have been identified in messages
> wrongly attributed to three recent stoves' posters.

Ans: I apologize if someone gets trouble from my attachment; I didn?t
mean to do that.

>
>Yes its true. I like to measure particle emissions for my stove testing
> in Kathmandu University. But don't know how as I couldnot afford to
> setup laboratory the kind how people measure this thing. Some body
> could suggest easy and cost effective way?

>You are conversing with someone who is very sceptical of the value of
> university laboratories, in UK at least :-(.

Ans: I expect suggestions for my laboratory set up. I assume you don?t
mind. Isn?t this possible to make a discussion list standard of stove
testing so that results are comparable between the people in the list.

Is there any standard in discussion list for stove testing so that
results are comparable if I am not aware of it?

>I think you could do comparative tests by sucking a known volume of air
> through a tissue of fixed cross section. Then you can look at the dark
> disc formed by the particulates. Plainly the temperature of the sample
> must be below the temperature at which the tissue degrades. Here there
> are flue gas testing kits which work on this principle, for soot
> particles.

Ans: Could you illustrate more on testing kits

>To me the conditions shown (indoors?) are unacceptable and a good
> reason why this stoves list exists. Is the standing child trying to
> get warm by radiative heat from the fire. Would you like to indicate
> the circumstances of the photograph?

Ans: The condition is worst than shown in the picture. This is the camera
flash which makes people visible; in real you can only see the flame and
faint shadows like structures around it, that is in the day. Yes the
children with very less to wear depends radiative flame from open fire
whole day long. It is on april, comparably warm. In winter with snow
fall all around the village (-10C to ? 15C), no alternatives. Guess now
doesn?t that flame kills them and proves SMOKE is really a killer in the
kitchen.

>How much does the iron support tripod cost in comparison to a rocket
> stove?
>I see from the picture that the fire is stoked with long branches fed
> in as they burn, this is similar to the principle or the rocket stove
> and less adaptable to other batch loaded devices which need smaller
> (more highly comminuted) sticks.

Ans: I am not sure about the cost, I?ll ask to the people and give you
the answer but my guess its < NRs 100 (1 US$ = NRs 74), I?ll comfirm it
later. Rocket stove (I don?t know much, as I come to know this after
joining this discussion list); I think is the best stove in terms of
cost for the poor people but mountain areas where people need stove for
cooking and for room heating (not small amount, HUGE !!!), I am not
sure either it provides the both needs?

As I am saying I am building a lab in Kathmandu university, I would love
to test efficiency and heat transfer (radiative and convective) inside
the room from ROCKET STOVE. May be some modification helps to satisfy
the need in Mountain areas.

But what we are doing through Kathmandu University is disseminating a
stove called ?Jumla Design Stove? (3 pot hole, metal stove). Results are
satisfactory till this date.

I am working on developing a new stove for the mountain areas, I made 2
prototypes, 1st one is not successful but 2nd now needs to test.

>I would say from the smoke and the orange flames running into black
> tips that this is a very inefficient fire, it is over stoked, too near
> the pot and quenched by outside air, not to mention the effects on the
> occupants. The only redeeming feature seems to be that the wood
>appears to be fairly dry.

Ans: In the pictures it seems the dry wood. But most of the time people
use moist wood (about 30% - 40% moisture). I remind you, people doesn?t
want to cut wood in small pieces. As our stove needs to cut 25-30 cm in
lenth 2.5-3 cm in dia. When we go to the villages they opens the door of
the stove and puts larger logs.

THEY THINKS ONLY LARGER LOGS GIVE THEM MUCH HEAT INSIDE THE ROOM.
We are trying to convice them everytime we go there. We teach them what
size of firewood to burn, how to use stove? They acts like they know
everything but when we visit again same thing happens again. Until they
are educated enough its very hard to change their thinking.

For Rocket stove, people would never convince to cut the wood in small
pieces that is needed for the stove.

Kanchan Rai
Research, Development and Consultancy Unit
Kathmandu University
POB 6250

From koopmans at LOXINFO.CO.TH Sat May 15 01:39:52 2004
From: koopmans at LOXINFO.CO.TH (Auke Koopmans)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:06 2004
Subject: Fw: [STOVES] Mountain areas in Nepal also common test standard
for stove to AJH, PV and others
Message-ID: <SAT.15.MAY.2004.123952.0700.KOOPMANS@LOXINFO.CO.TH>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Auke Koopmans" <koopmans@loxinfo.co.th>
To: "Kanchan Rai" <Kanchan@KU.EDU.NP>
Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Mountain areas in Nepal also common test standard for
stove to AJH, PV and others

> Kanchan,
>
> You should try to contact Kayeswar Man Sulpya. He is at the moment working
> in Cambodia but he has done quite a bit of stove testing when he was still
> working at Tribhuvan University in Kathmandu. Sulpya can be contacted at
> kayesulpya@online.com.kh or kaju_sulpya@hotmail.com or
> kayesulpya@bigpond.com.kh.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Auke
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kanchan Rai" <Kanchan@KU.EDU.NP>
> To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 8:21 PM
> Subject: [STOVES] Mountain areas in Nepal also common test standard for
> stove to AJH, PV and others
>
>
> > Fri, May 14, 2004 7:28 pm AJH wrote
> >
> > >I can't say that it is but am sure that the major cause is the
> > >combustion products in those areas responsible for infant martality and
> > > less life expectancy. I attached a photo which was taken last april in
> > > Jumla. If you are not interested just skip this.
> >
> > >Kanchan, this photo puts things in perspective for me, I am not
> > >troubled by attachments but others may be due to bandwidth
> > >considerations, Tom Miles puts interesting photographs on the stove
> > > website so people can make their own decision to look if they want.
> >
> > Ans: I send an email to Mr. Tom Miles for posting my report but I
> > haven't got any reply. I will really be happy to post my stuffs.
> >
> > (In the mean time, I am building a website of my work in Kathmandu
> > University, Nepal especially on stove. It will show you the condition in
> > mountain areas, their life style, stove implementation through KU, bit
> > of my research, drawings of our stoves, animations of stove (how it
> > works), some basic theories on combustion with online calculations and
> > so on , will be updated periodically) I am really working too hard for
> > this . You'll find lots of pictures that I guess will really thrill you,
> > and you will think about the worst part of world where most of the
> Stover's
> > ignores to do work. Its really challenging to develop a stove for high
> > altitude places with very low cost. I hope I'll
> >
> > >I imagine most on the list are familiar with spam and viruses and take
> > > their own precautions but just a reminder to be wary of any
> > >attachments purporting to come from the list or contributors to it,
> > > spammers and virus propagators are more knowledgeable about e-mail
than
> > > I, they can easily spoof from addresses and to my knowledge since
using
> > > this new e-mail address viruses have been identified in messages
> > > wrongly attributed to three recent stoves' posters.
> >
> > Ans: I apologize if someone gets trouble from my attachment; I didn't
> > mean to do that.
> >
> > >
> > >Yes its true. I like to measure particle emissions for my stove testing
> > > in Kathmandu University. But don't know how as I couldnot afford to
> > > setup laboratory the kind how people measure this thing. Some body
> > > could suggest easy and cost effective way?
> >
> > >You are conversing with someone who is very sceptical of the value of
> > > university laboratories, in UK at least :-(.
> >
> > Ans: I expect suggestions for my laboratory set up. I assume you don't
> > mind. Isn't this possible to make a discussion list standard of stove
> > testing so that results are comparable between the people in the list.
> >
> > Is there any standard in discussion list for stove testing so that
> > results are comparable if I am not aware of it?
> >
> > >I think you could do comparative tests by sucking a known volume of air
> > > through a tissue of fixed cross section. Then you can look at the dark
> > > disc formed by the particulates. Plainly the temperature of the sample
> > > must be below the temperature at which the tissue degrades. Here there
> > > are flue gas testing kits which work on this principle, for soot
> > > particles.
> >
> > Ans: Could you illustrate more on testing kits
> >
> > >To me the conditions shown (indoors?) are unacceptable and a good
> > > reason why this stoves list exists. Is the standing child trying to
> > > get warm by radiative heat from the fire. Would you like to indicate
> > > the circumstances of the photograph?
> >
> > Ans: The condition is worst than shown in the picture. This is the
camera
> > flash which makes people visible; in real you can only see the flame and
> > faint shadows like structures around it, that is in the day. Yes the
> > children with very less to wear depends radiative flame from open fire
> > whole day long. It is on april, comparably warm. In winter with snow
> > fall all around the village (-10C to - 15C), no alternatives. Guess now
> > doesn't that flame kills them and proves SMOKE is really a killer in the
> > kitchen.
> >
> > >How much does the iron support tripod cost in comparison to a rocket
> > > stove?
> > >I see from the picture that the fire is stoked with long branches fed
> > > in as they burn, this is similar to the principle or the rocket stove
> > > and less adaptable to other batch loaded devices which need smaller
> > > (more highly comminuted) sticks.
> >
> > Ans: I am not sure about the cost, I'll ask to the people and give you
> > the answer but my guess its < NRs 100 (1 US$ = NRs 74), I'll comfirm it
> > later. Rocket stove (I don't know much, as I come to know this after
> > joining this discussion list); I think is the best stove in terms of
> > cost for the poor people but mountain areas where people need stove for
> > cooking and for room heating (not small amount, HUGE !!!), I am not
> > sure either it provides the both needs?
> >
> > As I am saying I am building a lab in Kathmandu university, I would love
> > to test efficiency and heat transfer (radiative and convective) inside
> > the room from ROCKET STOVE. May be some modification helps to satisfy
> > the need in Mountain areas.
> >
> > But what we are doing through Kathmandu University is disseminating a
> > stove called "Jumla Design Stove" (3 pot hole, metal stove). Results are
> > satisfactory till this date.
> >
> > I am working on developing a new stove for the mountain areas, I made 2
> > prototypes, 1st one is not successful but 2nd now needs to test.
> >
> > >I would say from the smoke and the orange flames running into black
> > > tips that this is a very inefficient fire, it is over stoked, too near
> > > the pot and quenched by outside air, not to mention the effects on the
> > > occupants. The only redeeming feature seems to be that the wood
> > >appears to be fairly dry.
> >
> > Ans: In the pictures it seems the dry wood. But most of the time people
> > use moist wood (about 30% - 40% moisture). I remind you, people doesn't
> > want to cut wood in small pieces. As our stove needs to cut 25-30 cm in
> > lenth 2.5-3 cm in dia. When we go to the villages they opens the door of
> > the stove and puts larger logs.
> >
> > THEY THINKS ONLY LARGER LOGS GIVE THEM MUCH HEAT INSIDE THE ROOM.
> > We are trying to convice them everytime we go there. We teach them what
> > size of firewood to burn, how to use stove? They acts like they know
> > everything but when we visit again same thing happens again. Until they
> > are educated enough its very hard to change their thinking.
> >
> > For Rocket stove, people would never convince to cut the wood in small
> > pieces that is needed for the stove.
> >
> >
> > Kanchan Rai
> > Research, Development and Consultancy Unit
> > Kathmandu University
> > POB 6250
> >
>

From elk at WANANCHI.COM Sat May 15 02:32:27 2004
From: elk at WANANCHI.COM (Elsen Karstad)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:06 2004
Subject: matching the pot to the stove
Message-ID: <SAT.15.MAY.2004.093227.0300.ELK@WANANCHI.COM>

Crispin's recent message on possible improvements to the popular ceramic Jiko (charcoal burning stove) led me to the conclusion that a couple significant modifications could indeed be made if jikos could be marketed differently.

Designing a Jiko for a specific pot size would allow a heat shield to be incorporated to allow much greater heat contact, as well as building in a more exact distance from charcoal fuel to pot bottom. I'm sure that with a known pot size a few more fine-tuning modifications could be incorporated, and the stove's efficiency improved by a good measure. This would also theoretically reduce indoor air pollution due to inefficient combustion.

This depends very much on the marketing- do we have any examples for stoves being designed around a fixed pot-size? If so, how was this accepted by the consumer? The Karve's Sarai Cooker (I have one & it's a joy to use) is certainly one such success. Maybe this avenue of investigation could lead to some very real improvement for existing stoves on a least-cost basis.

elk

--------------------------------
Elsen L. Karstad
elk@wananchi.com
www.chardust.com
Nairobi, Kenya

From list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Sat May 15 06:05:54 2004
From: list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:06 2004
Subject: Mountain areas in Nepal also common test standard for stove
to AJH, PV and others
In-Reply-To: <49802.202.79.62.21.1084627282.squirrel@webmail.ku.edu.np>
Message-ID: <SAT.15.MAY.2004.110554.0100.>

On Sat, 15 May 2004 19:06:22 +0545, Kanchan Rai wrote:

>
>>Kanchan, this photo puts things in perspective for me, I am not
>>troubled by attachments but others may be due to bandwidth
>>considerations, Tom Miles puts interesting photographs on the stove
>> website so people can make their own decision to look if they want.
>
>Ans: I send an email to Mr. Tom Miles for posting my report but I
>haven?t got any reply. I will really be happy to post my stuffs.

We are all volunteers running contributing here so delays are bound to
happen while we earn our livings. Erin is revamping the site at
present. Perhaps I can lessen the load a bit and put some photos on
one of the sites I look after.
>
>(In the mean time, I am building a website of my work in Kathmandu
>University, Nepal especially on stove. It will show you the condition in
>mountain areas, their life style, stove implementation through KU, bit
>of my research, drawings of our stoves, animations of stove (how it
>works), some basic theories on combustion with online calculations and
>so on , will be updated periodically) I am really working too hard for
>this . You?ll find lots of pictures that I guess will really thrill you,
>and you will think about the worst part of world where most of the Stover?s
>ignores to do work. Its really challenging to develop a stove for high
>altitude places with very low cost. I hope I?ll

Sounds like you have given yourself a big task, I hope you have
visited the stoves resources at and linked from

http://solstice.crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/

because there is a lot of practical knowledge out there. Perhaps your
conditions will have similarities to those in South America?

>Ans: I expect suggestions for my laboratory set up. I assume you don?t
>mind. Isn?t this possible to make a discussion list standard of stove
>testing so that results are comparable between the people in the list.

There has been a lot of discussion on testing, standards and figures
of merit for stoves, much of this was outside my experience, depending
on practical experience of cookers in the field.
>
>Is there any standard in discussion list for stove testing so that
>results are comparable if I am not aware of it?

I'll hope Dean chips in here??

>
>Ans: Could you illustrate more on testing kits

Again it is a bit beyond my experience, I had hoped to "look after" a
flue testing kit after our university project finished, however it was
deemed too valuable and sits unused in an office in Wales somewhere
:-(. Alex English is familiar with testing large oil burners and may
be able to run through some procedures??

>Ans: The condition is worst than shown in the picture. This is the camera
>flash which makes people visible; in real you can only see the flame and
>faint shadows like structures around it, that is in the day. Yes the
>children with very less to wear depends radiative flame from open fire
>whole day long. It is on april, comparably warm. In winter with snow
>fall all around the village (-10C to ? 15C), no alternatives. Guess now
>doesn?t that flame kills them and proves SMOKE is really a killer in the
>kitchen.

So the fuel use must be large? I would have thought a cleaner burn
would result in considerably less wood needed.
>
>
>Ans: I am not sure about the cost, I?ll ask to the people and give you
>the answer but my guess its < NRs 100 (1 US$ = NRs 74), I?ll comfirm it
>later. Rocket stove (I don?t know much, as I come to know this after
>joining this discussion list); I think is the best stove in terms of
>cost for the poor people but mountain areas where people need stove for
>cooking and for room heating (not small amount, HUGE !!!), I am not
>sure either it provides the both needs?

Looking at the configuration I think the rocket stove could be adapted
to both take long sticks, fed in manually, and provide continuous
heat. The ones being discussed made from clay would seem worth a look
at for constant use. Modifications may be needed for sufficient turn
down.

A vented stove would seem most appropriate here as it would mean far
less air changes in the room.

>
>But what we are doing through Kathmandu University is disseminating a
>stove called ?Jumla Design Stove? (3 pot hole, metal stove). Results are
>satisfactory till this date.
>
>I am working on developing a new stove for the mountain areas, I made 2
>prototypes, 1st one is not successful but 2nd now needs to test.

Please let us know how it goes.

>
> THEY THINKS ONLY LARGER LOGS GIVE THEM MUCH HEAT INSIDE THE ROOM.

Or is it that larger logs limit the surface area exposed to air and
thus give a crude form of power limiting?

>We are trying to convice them everytime we go there. We teach them what
>size of firewood to burn, how to use stove? They acts like they know
>everything but when we visit again same thing happens again. Until they
>are educated enough its very hard to change their thinking.

This seems to be a common theme where intervention from outside
introduces changes which are not readily assimilated, previous posters
to the list referred to this as "top down dissemination", the view is
that the idea needs to be grown organically with input from the peer
group of users, often the womenfolk.

AJH

From list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Sat May 15 06:05:54 2004
From: list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:06 2004
Subject: charcoal stove
In-Reply-To: <000001c439b6$19067060$af5441db@adkarve>
Message-ID: <SAT.15.MAY.2004.110554.0100.>

On Fri, 14 May 2004 06:51:57 +0530, adkarve wrote:

> The name Sarai Cooker has been
>registered as a trade mark.

Perhaps we could have a photo to add to the article at
http://solstice.crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/PKarve/sarai.html

although Erin may well have this in hand.

>After following the discussion on coal, I was wondering if the carbon
>monoxide menace can be eliminated by having a top-lit charcoal stove? I
>shall certainly conduct the necessary trials, but if somebody has already
>done it, I shall be grateful for having that information.

There is no doubt that you can burn charcoal in a top lit, downward
burning stove, it's one of the techniques I used to see how the char
resulting from an initial wood burn could be used. I also used this
method to burn bituminous coal whilst Ronal was with me.

What I never got to the bottom of was that the temperature of the
primary combustion region did not get hot enough (I measured about
500C IIRC) for CO generation, which perceived wisdom suggests should
be 700C. Now of course burning carbon is an equilibrium reaction
depending on temperature and depth of firebed so it might just be that
the temperature is enough to generate enough gas and sensible heat for
the enthalpy of the offgas to support a CO flame. Also there may still
be enough volatiles left in the charcoal to assist this.

I "recycled" the char from top down burns by sifting out the ash with
a cooking sieve between burns.

I have no CO testing gear so I am unable to comment on this but it did
support a blue flame.

In the cooking context a disadvantage would be that it introduces a
lot of height into the cooker.

AJH

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Sun May 16 16:00:10 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:06 2004
Subject: Gas and Biomass
In-Reply-To: <d4q7a09d24pjfjmo6qk9t964u2uff7meds@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <SUN.16.MAY.2004.150010.0500.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

At 11:58 PM 5/13/04 +0100, Andrew Heggie wrote:
snip
>OK I suggest you are citing the special case when the fire bed is not
>deep enough to generate CO, in your case because you meter in the
>fuel.

What is a sufficient or desirable depth of the char / and/or fire bed?

In the IDD (Tom Reed version = TLUD = top lit up draft) gasifiers, the char
accumulates during the pyrolysis process, and then after pyrolysis the char
is consumed (or can be removed). So the TLUD gasifiers can make the depth
needed.

But what is the minimal depth before the advantages of char depth stop?

Concerning burning of coal in steam locomotives, I have heard that the
depth should be 15 times the average diameter of the fuel chunks? But if
the fuel is of long sticks vertical in a gasifier, then the air flow might
become increasingly easy (less resistance) as the fuel sticks shrink in size.

Regarding charcoal, I visualize a Weber cooker with a single layer of
charcoal. Is that the "low temp" way for the total heat, as opposed to
stacking the charcoal and getting more TOTAL heat??

Paul
Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
Rotary University Teacher Grantee to Mozambique >10 mo of 2001-2003
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Sun May 16 16:10:14 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:06 2004
Subject: Fuel size in pyrolysis stoves
In-Reply-To: <vct7a09mu30hs0iptvfugdplol0ua0vent@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <SUN.16.MAY.2004.151014.0500.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

At 11:58 PM 5/13/04 +0100, Andrew Heggie wrote:
>snip
>
>Of course in practice the moisture in the wood will modify this [rate of
>becoming char] as it
>will prevent the wood pyrolysing until it has been driven off.

This raises the important question of PRE-DRYING of the fuel wood.

Most of us have stoves with "surplus heat" or lost heat up the chimney or
into some space. So, are there easy ways to use that heat to dry the wood?

Having a "rack" with wood chips or sticks suspended above the stove is not
very attractive and has safety issues.

Does anyone have any experience with organized and intentional drying of
the fuels (excluding "let it sit in the sun" and "use only the old dry
stuff.")?

Paul

Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
Rotary University Teacher Grantee to Mozambique >10 mo of 2001-2003
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Sun May 16 16:14:14 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:06 2004
Subject: SV: [STOVES] Toxic metal in "tincanium" stoves??
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20040514110146.021ce740@pop.iprimus.com.au>
Message-ID: <SUN.16.MAY.2004.151414.0500.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

At 11:06 AM 5/14/04 +1000, Peter Verhaart wrote:
>Jeff,
>
> I don't think any cans nowadays are soldered. The cylindrical body
>is welded and the ends are rolled on. All clean steel with an appropriate
>(in most cases) coating.

Any info on the coatings, especially when subjected to the temperatures of
our stove fires?

Anyone have a friend in the "can" business?

Paul

Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
Rotary University Teacher Grantee to Mozambique >10 mo of 2001-2003
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Sun May 16 16:22:54 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:06 2004
Subject: Gas and Biomass
Message-ID: <SUN.16.MAY.2004.152254.0500.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

AD Karve has answered part of my question in a different message:

He wrote:
... the stove [Sarai Cooker] is so designed that it
would accept just a single layer of briquettes. In this way, the hot flue
gases do not pass through a bed of uncombusted coal to generate carbon
monoxide.

Makes sense: If there is no provision for the combustion of the CO, then
the thick layers of char (intended to gasify to get the CO) can be
detrimental.

Paul

******** old message is below ************

At 11:58 PM 5/13/04 +0100, Andrew Heggie wrote:
snip
>OK I suggest you are citing the special case when the fire bed is not
>deep enough to generate CO, in your case because you meter in the
>fuel.

What is a sufficient or desirable depth of the char / and/or fire bed?

In the IDD (Tom Reed version = TLUD = top lit up draft) gasifiers, the char
accumulates during the pyrolysis process, and then after pyrolysis the char
is consumed (or can be removed). So the TLUD gasifiers can make the depth
needed.

But what is the minimal depth before the advantages of char depth stop?

Concerning burning of coal in steam locomotives, I have heard that the
depth should be 15 times the average diameter of the fuel chunks? But if
the fuel is of long sticks vertical in a gasifier, then the air flow might
become increasingly easy (less resistance) as the fuel sticks shrink in size.

Regarding charcoal, I visualize a Weber cooker with a single layer of
charcoal. Is that the "low temp" way for the total heat, as opposed to
stacking the charcoal and getting more TOTAL heat??

Paul
Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
Rotary University Teacher Grantee to Mozambique >10 mo of 2001-2003
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Sun May 16 16:35:01 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:06 2004
Subject: Fuel size in pyrolysis stoves (and a bit more)
In-Reply-To: <01c501c43970$7d44d580$2f630443@net>
Message-ID: <SUN.16.MAY.2004.153501.0500.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Ron,

Can you provide any photos or dimensions of the IDD gasifiers that you made
and used in Ethiopia (and anything earlier you did in Sweden)?

And THANKS for your great efforts as the moderator of the Stoves List Serve
for so many years!!!!!!!!!!

Does the ASES deal with solar ovens/solar cooking, or just PV and high tech??

Paul

At 11:01 PM 5/13/04 -0600, Ron Larson wrote:
>Hi Stovers
>
>A. Wood size
> 1. I agree with Andrew that part of the problem could be fuel dryness.
>I am also fascinated by the idea that a Biot number could be used here - but
>have no expertise to add futher to that type of analysis. This sounds like
>one to carry further - but not by me.
> 2. I should have been a bit more explicit in commenting on wood size.
>For smaller diameter stoves (say less than 15 cm) , I can agree with Paul
>that 35 mm fuel diameter might be too large - but I think 25 mm should work
>OK. I have done a fair amount of the testing with stoves of 30 cm dia
>(needed for cooking enjira) and I am quite sure that I successfully used
>fuel appreciably larger then than 35 mm. I think pyrolysis top-lit
>vertically loaded wood pieces might need a minimum number of pieces - with
>larger and smaller stoves having the same minimum number of pieces. Just
>working from memory, I think that minimum might be on the order of 25
>pieces - and I think it larger than 10 and less than 50. Having more than
>this minimum number is OK (ie small is good - but we don't want to spend a
>lot of time splitting wood)
> 3. I have found it important that the fuel used be round (and preferably
>quite straight and of relatively uniform size) - and that is part of the
>reason for commenting favorably on Ray W's coppicing statistics. I am
>guessing that Ray's fuel supply fits these desirable characteristics. When
>testing out at Aprovecho, I found it very difficult to use the flat slats
>provided by Dean - but this is of course no problem for our prospective
>usual rural clientele.
> 4. More importantly, Ray may not want (branch-end) material of 10-15 mm
>size dia - and thus pyrolysis stover fuel might be then guaranteed to be
>available and maybe cheap - and (as Paul may be suggesting) better.
>
>B. Andrew's answers
> 1. I want to thank Andrew for answering Paul - and at about the same
>giving very astute answers for four other technical questions just now.
> 2. A few weeks ago I asked Andrew if he could permanently take over my
>"stoves" coordinator role and he agreed. Now I can take credit for Andrew
>doing a great job as a coordinator.
> 3. I intend to read all the "stoves" messages - but have to stay
>detached for several more years. The reason is that in March I was elected
>as Vice - Chair (Chair in 2006 and 2007) of the American Solar Energy
>Society (ASES) and now find myself sleeping a lot less than I used to.
>Please let me know of any opportunity to plug RE technologies - in almost
>any environment. But my interest in developing country stoves has to be put
>on the back burner for 3.5 years. I think we have a great list (mostly due
>to Tom Miles) and am assuminging that all stove problems will have
>disappeared by the end of 2007.
> 4. You all have a great resource in Andrew and I thank him for being
>willing to take over as a moderator and leave my conscience clear.
>
>Ron
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Andrew Heggie <list@sylva.icuklive.co.uk>
>To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 4:58 PM
>Subject: Re: Fuel size in pyrolysis stoves
>
>
> > ---------------------- Information from the mail
>header -----------------------
> > Sender: The Stoves Discussion List <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> > Poster: Andrew Heggie <list@SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK>
> > Subject: Re: Fuel size in pyrolysis stoves
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-----
> >
> > On Thu, 13 May 2004 12:52:49 -0500, Paul S. Anderson wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Ron, 25 to 35 mm (inch to 1.3 inches diameter) seems rather thick for
>the
> > >pyrolysis stoves that I am making. I have not had much success with such
> > >thicknesses.
> >
> > Paul, perhaps you should dry the bigger sizes a bit better.
> > >
> > >Please send more comments about how long it takes for pyrolysis to reach
> > >the center of such sticks in comparison to the downward progression of
>the
> > >pyrolysis zone.
> >
> > Good question and worth a bit of experimentation. I guess you could
> > start a top down (idd) burn and stop it half way by dowsing it, then
> > dissect the sticks.
> >
> > Now with bone dry sticks the heat necessary to cause pyrolysis is only
> > the specific heat of the wood by the raise in temperature to ~270C, at
> > which stage it should become exothermic. So if the flaming pyrolysis
> > effect is at the surface of the sticks the speed at which pyrolysis
> > can penetrate the stick is dependant on the conductivity of the wood.
> > The ability of the wood to absorb head is dependant on its surface
> > area. Now these two properties can be combined and defined as the Biot
> > number, mentioned by Tom Reed fairly recently either here or the
> > gasification list. Now I wonder if the Biot number falls below 1 then
> > the sticks will car at the same level as the flaming pyrolysis front,
> > if more than 1 it will leave wood as like a sharpened pencil
> > surrounded by char.
> >
> > Of course in practice the moisture in the wood will modify this as it
> > will prevent the wood pyrolysing until it has been driven off.
> >
> > AJH
> >

Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
Rotary University Teacher Grantee to Mozambique >10 mo of 2001-2003
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Sun May 16 19:25:26 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:06 2004
Subject: Mountain areas in Nepal also common test standard for stove
to AJH, PV and others
Message-ID: <MON.17.MAY.2004.012526.0200.>

Dear Kanchan

I have read your posts with great interest. You are facing a stove
design problem that is mentioned from time to time and it seems to fall
into a certain class of problem, being:
thin air (altitude)
+ highly variable fuel size but a preference for poorly dried large
pieces
+ only one type of fuel available (or affordable)
+ a need for significant space heating
+ significant indoor air pollution problem.

Other places I know of requiring similar solutions to yours are
Northern and Western Canada (wood),
Mongolia (imported coal), Lesotho (dung),
Gauteng (Johannesburg area) in RSA (coal and some wood) and
central Namibia (wood).

>> THEY THINK ONLY LARGER LOGS GIVE THEM MUCH HEAT INSIDE THE ROOM.

AJH wrote:
>Or is it that larger logs limit the surface area exposed to air and
>thus give a crude form of power limiting?

I agree with this analysis. When you put in the end of a large log, it
is self-limiting but still provides a long burn without having to attend
the fire. It also means you don't have to split the log which is
difficult, requires suitable tools and effort.

If you carefully watch someone trying to generate a lot of heat burning
small pieces of wood you will observe that unless there are frequent
interventions buy the operator, the power output of the fire varies a
lot. When a large, thick piece is burning, that problem pretty much
resolves itself. That could be another reason for the belief that only
large fuel gives high heat output.

In my experience large thick pieces are usually burning in confined
spaces and the combustion efficiency is not very good (a lot of smoke).
Not may stoves or ever fireplaces burn large logs well.

AJH mentioned using a "vented stove". I took this to mean that he
refers to stoves with cold outside air entering the stove to burn the
fuel. Is that right?

I have only even seen expensive fireplaces using cold air from outside
the room. By brother in law has a house heated with such a combination
system - fuel oil and supplemented with wood which is in a fireplace.
The cold outside air comes in to burn the wood and the heat is pumped
through the house be means of a forced air system (a fan and ducting).
It is very efficient.

Some years ago I was asked to assist a stove project that was working on
improving coal stoves in yurts in Mongolia and the most obvious and
effective improvement was to run a tube or channel for air from outside
the yurt skin under the floor to the bottom of the coal stove and then
burn that air instead of taking warm air from the room and feeding it
into the fire. Using air from the room was pulling in cold air around
the door and windows creating unhealthy and uncomfortable drafts.

It happened that this was a very easy change to make because of the
layout of the yurt (portable house) suited it.

In your case you would have to look into how you could build the outside
air inlet through the wall without breaking construction taboos, and
sealing the fuel feed door (in the room) when the wood was inside the
stove. This also means you are creating an enclosed fire which runs on
very different 'rules' from more open fires and stoves. It also gives
you certain control over all sorts of combustion parameters. This is
good!

I have written my contribution to your 'perfect' stove. It needs the
following:

- High mass (clay and stone and cement) - something outwardly resembling
a Lorena Stove but with different internal parts and air flows

- Preheated secondary air based on either metal or a clay pot with holes
in it, at or just above the initial combustion area.

- Outdoor air feeding the fire through the outside wall so as to avoid
taking hot air (heat) from the room thus reducing drafts.

- A fuel feed door that can mostly be closed (doesn't have to be
perfect) which means the fuel has to be cut to a length that can be
accomodated in the combustion chamber - perhaps 500mm? The fuel could
be large or small. Long pieces could be accomodated by making a
U-shaped metal plate to try to seal the gaps.

- A chimney to the outside with sufficient draft to prevent varying
winds reversing the chimney gas flow.

- If a metal chimney is used, the incoming air can be preheated by
downdrafting the cold air against the outside of the chimney. With a
high mass stove this is quite easy to do because there is room for it.

- if it is a clay tile chimney, you can create a hot air exchange that
is not as efficienct but basically you run the air through parts of the
stove body to heat it. You gain combustion efficiency doing this so
'losing' the heat is not a problem. It isn't really lost. It raises
the temperature of the combustions gases which increases heat transfer
to a pot.

- The closing of the feed door will reduce the radiation of heat into
the room, but you can extend the 'stove' by feeding the chimney gases
through a long channel or bench-like flue to increase the area radiating
heat into the room. This also adds mass so it will maintain an even
temperature for a long time with a fluctuating fire.

This description presumes that people can build in clay and stone and
possibly cement for next to nothing - only their time and effort.

>But what we are doing through Kathmandu University is
>disseminating a stove called "Jumla Design Stove" (3
>pot hole, metal stove). Results are satisfactory till this date.

Is this in your $15 range? If metal can be used, remember that getting
the cold air from outside and preheating it is a major improvement.
Metal can also be used to transfer heat to the room by making the
cooking surface large or long.

This stove could be adapted to take air from outside and if it is all
metel, air can be preheated using outgoing flue gas heat. This layout
makes the room far more comfortable because it nearly eliminates cold
air drafts. One thing to check is whether the CO and CO2 levels in the
room creep upwards. This can happen if there is a wind against the air
inlet wall and simultaneously a leaky or open window or door on the
opposite side of the room. Fumes can be drawn out of the stove and into
the room in such circumsances. This condition can also prevail with a
regular stove running on air from the room, but you should establish if
it is better or worse.

Best regards
Crispin

From w.burroughs at VERIZON.NET Sun May 16 19:30:23 2004
From: w.burroughs at VERIZON.NET (Hank)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:06 2004
Subject: Fuel size in pyrolysis stoves
Message-ID: <SUN.16.MAY.2004.163023.0700.W.BURROUGHS@VERIZON.NET>

When we moved to Oregon I was only 11 years old. We moved in December and
did not have any dry wood for our heater or kitchen stove. A neighbor gave
us some trees to cut down so the wood was both wet and GREEN.

For the kitchen stove, we dried the wood in the oven all winter long when
Mom was not baking any food. I still remember the smell of the pine pitch!
The heater wood was just stood up on end around the back and sides of the
heater. Guess we got hunidifying benefits, too.

Sure was a lot less work the next winter when we had wood that had dried all
summer in the wood shed.

While the rack above the stove pipe might look strange, it would seem to be
a workable solution if there is no dry wood available. Sounds like in many
areas they gather the wood as it is needed rather then storing a "winters"
supply. Obviously the wood will be wet if it rains.

Hank in the high desert
where it seldom rains!

From rbailis at SOCRATES.BERKELEY.EDU Sun May 16 20:06:26 2004
From: rbailis at SOCRATES.BERKELEY.EDU (Rob Bailis)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:06 2004
Subject: CO V.S. Particulates
Message-ID: <SUN.16.MAY.2004.170626.0700.>

Elsen and fellow Stovers,

I'm a little bit late on this thread, but I thought I should respond
since I've done a bit of work in this area. I've added comments on
Elk's questions below...

Elsen Karstad wrote:

> There's been some interesting communication in the group on the topic of charcoal V.S. wood stove (indoor) pollution lately, and it seems to be challenging the pre-conceived idea that wood is dirty, charcoal is clean.
>
> Vented improved stoves aside- excluding the omni-present ceramic Jiko- I had always thought that charcoal was indeed the preferred fuel (over wood) for mitigating indoor pollution. Didn't Dan Kammen illustrate that recently with his work here in Kenya?
>

RB: I'm very interested in this trade-off between wood and charcoal -
especially in the Kenyan context. Dan's work in Kenya was with Majid
Ezzati now at Harvard's school of public health - their results showed
essentially that charcoal is much cleaner than wood burned in an open
fire for the end-user. They found that the concentration of PM10 in
homes using charcoal was, on average, 90% lower than PM10 in homes using
an open wood fire and roughly 75% lower than PM10 in homes using ceramic
lined wood stoves (the Maendaleo stove, for those of you familiar with
Kenya's stove scene). These differences are based on 24 hour averages
of measured PM concentrations taken during cooking activities, which
means that peak PM levels were actually much higher, but for brief
periods of time. The time-average allows different days' measurements
to be compared and also allows us to estimate how much smoke the people
living in the homes are actally exposed to. The measurements were done
in a fairly large sample of households and have modest standard errors,
so that these differences are statistically significant.

For those not familiar with the lingo, PM10 is shorthand for smoke
particles under 10 microns in diameter. The most dangerous particles
are smaller still (less than 2.5 microns), but this measurement includes
them.

>
> I think that the definition of 'pollution' must be linked to ARI- Acute Respiratory Illness, no? And isn't ARI primarily a particulate mediated issue? Where does CO come in?

RB: Pollution is a general term for potentially harmful "stuff" we don't
want present in a particular environment. If you link pollution (lets
say indoor air pollution or IAP) to ARI, then you miss CO and other
stuff as well (for example, CH4, with is harmless to people in small
quantities but terrible for global warming). I'm not saying you'd be
wrong to link pollution to ARI in this way, but just that you need to be
explicit about the sort of pollution you're talking about.

>
> Pretty well every single (sane/sober) adult I've every asked about CO here in Kenya is aware of it. They may not know what it is, or what fuels are better or worse, but they know that it's related inversely to ventilation, & they know it can be a killer. Most people even know the symptoms of CO poisoning.

RB: This is interesting - when I'm in Kenya talking about the health
impacts from cooking fuels, most people make the link to CO from
charcoal even though they may not name it explicitly - people ARE aware
of it and I'm glad you point that out. Still, every year you read of a
few accidental deaths from CO poisoning in the Kenyan papers, but you
rarely (never?) read about ARI. Theres definitely a disconnect in the
media and public's awareness of the nature of the risks associated with
household energy technologies.

Incidentally, Majid also measured CO in his field work. He found small
but statistically significant differences in 24 hour average
concentrations, with homes using charcoal about 10% higher than homes
with open wood fires, and about 3% higher than homes with ceramic wood
stoves. In all cases the average concentrations were above USEPA
standards, but lower than the level at which we expect to see serious
physical symptoms (the EPA sets their standards well below the level
where an average people would get noticeably ill). This is not to say
CO is not a concern - only that, in my understanding, its less of a
concern than PM. But still, the is a definite responsibility falling
squarely on both researchers like me and businesspeople like Elk
(actually, anyone with an interest in household energy) to make sure
people are aware of the risks associated with household stoves and fuels
- both from PM and CO.

> On a related topic, in my experience, the bigger the charcoal stove, the better/hotter/more efficiently it burns. My big staff kitchen jiko at work (18 inches dia.) produces blue flames up to 6 inches above the vendors waste charcoal briquettes it burns. I doubt if there's much unburnt CO produced there.

RB: I've found that its hard to predict the amount of CO that will be
emitted from a charcoal fire without doing the actual measurements.
Elk, what I think you're referring to is high and low power charcoal
combustion. A big stove will only burn "better/hotter/more efficiently"
if you turn up the power, right? You can also make it slowly smolder if
you cut off the air. Now, I haven't done any measurements of different
size KCJs but I have done some measurements of KCJs at hi and low power.
These were very rough measurements, but I found higher concentrations of
CO in the exhaust at higher power than at low power. In general, the CO
produced by incomplete combustion depends both on the combustion
efficiency and the quantity of fuel burned per unit time (the stove's
power). When you burn a fuel like charcoal, which is hard to combust
completely, you can have better combustion efficiency and still produce
more CO. Counterintuitive? Well, consider this hypothetical situation:
at low power you may have about 80% combustion efficiency with roughly
20% of your fuel carbon content going into CO rather than CO2. At high
power (3X low power for the sake of argument) you may get 90% combustion
efficiency with 10% of your fuel carbon going into CO rather than CO2.
In this situation you get less CO per unit mass of fuel burned, but
you're burning three times as much fuel per unit time so that even
though your fuel is burning hotter and more cleanly, you'll end up with
higher a concentration of CO in the kitchen. You may argue that my
combustion efficiencies seem low, but for a bottom-lit charge of
charcoal with natural venitlation provided by the KCJ's open door, I'd
argue its harder to do better than 90% combustion efficiency unless you
sit the jiko outside in a stiff wind or add a mechnical blower -
charcoal just doesn't burn that well in a KCJ-style stove (this would
explain the relatively low temperatures that Dean spoke of).

This hypothetical exercise is supported by my colleague Evans Kituyi's
(U of Nairobi) work on fuel combustion emissions in Kenya - he found
that in the transition from glowing (high power) to smoldering (low
power) combustion in charcoal stoves, CO concentration decreased while
the CO to CO2 ratio (a proxy for combustion efficiency) increased, which
shows that both CO emissions AND combustion efficiency were higher at
high power and lower at low power. Unfortunately, he didn't measure PM,
so I can't make any assertions about the relative emissions of PM from
charcoal at high and low power.

Before I close this (already too long letter) I wanted to mention
something about pot sizes. In a later message, you mention the
possibility of designing a jiko for specific pot sizes, but only if
marketing techniques were changed. This is really difficult for Kenya,
as I think you're aware. People typically have several different sizes
of pot and even very poor folks use more than one size of pot in the
home, no? In addition, pots are far more durable goods than jikos -
they last much longer - so convincing people to replace their current
varied pots for a standard size would be a really hard sell. Finally,
unlike in S Africa, there are currently no standard pot sizes, but a
hodge-podge of imported and locally built pots of different sizes - even
roughly similar pots may differ by a few mm, which is enough to upset
combustion in stoves designed with a high sensitivity to gap widths.
Perhaps I'm too pessimistic, but I don't see any way that a stove
designed for an exact pot-size could be promoted successfully in Kenya
without a huge amount of intervention, do you?

BTW - if anyone is interested in papers describing the research I've
cited here (Ezzati and Kammen's or Kituyi's) I've cc-ed them on this
email so you can contact them directly or contact me off-list and I can
send the relevant papers.

Rob Bailis

PhD candidate
UC Berkeley - Energy and Resources Group
4152 Etcheverry Hall #1730
Berkeley, CA 94720

From aes at BITSTREAM.NET Sun May 16 20:35:32 2004
From: aes at BITSTREAM.NET (AES)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:06 2004
Subject: [ethos] Monolithic rocket
Message-ID: <SUN.16.MAY.2004.193532.0500.AES@BITSTREAM.NET>

Dean, Rogeriero,

In your model Dean do you fire a clay mixture ceramic stove, THEN cover it
with the cement mixture? How thick is the cement mixture? Is it applied by
hand? I am interested in hearing more about your results. Any photos or
reports yet?

thanks,

Bruce
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean Still" <dstill@epud.net>
To: "'Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda'" <rmiranda@inet.com.br>; "'AES'"
<aes@bitstream.net>; <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>; <ethos@vrac.iastate.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 12:51 AM
Subject: RE: [ethos] Monolithic rocket

> Dear Rogerio and Bruce,
>
> I've experimented a bit with monolithic pours to make a stove in one
piece.
> The stove Rogerio has was made using the recipe for vermiculite/clay. I
> think that pressing the wet mixture results in a stronger fired material.
> Also I have placed pieces of paper in the monolithic pour to create
> expansion joints. The stove cracks in these places making a six brick
stove.
> But the monolithic stove is surrounded by a cement body so the cracking
does
> not break apart the stove. I have a stove in the lab that has been fired
50
> times made monolithically with insulative mix of clay/sawdust inside and a
> harder mix on the outside. The harder mix has twice the clay/same amount
of
> sawdust. Actually I like charcoal grains/clay better than sawdust/clay.
The
> charcoal is very light and seems to be a good insulation. Using a light
and
> a heavier/more durable mix seems to work. This could be a pretty
inexpensive
> stove.
>
> But we need more time to develop the idea. I love Rogerio's idea of
placing
> Aerated Autoclavated Concrete (AAC) around a baldosa combustion chamber,
> especially if the baldosa is a bit lighter than normal, say .8 gram per
cc.
>
> All Best,
>
> Dean
>
>
>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe, send email to majormail@vrac.iastate.edu with
> this as the first line in the BODY of the message: unsubscribe ethos
> ---

From Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP Mon May 17 12:10:30 2004
From: Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP (Kanchan Rai)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:06 2004
Subject: Mountain areas in Nepal also common test standard for stove
to AJH, PV and others
Message-ID: <MON.17.MAY.2004.215530.0545.KANCHAN@KU.EDU.NP>

>
> So the fuel use must be large? I would have thought a cleaner burn
> would result in considerably less wood needed.

Yes! the fuel consumption per day by a family is huge. On open fire
20-35 kg per day depending upon the size of family. Somewhere in Karnali
Community Skill Training (KCST)(now it doesnot exist which used to work
in Jumla),annual report, I found upto 60 kg/day in some families, but it
doesn't suprises me, as I have been there and saw the use of fire wood.
>>

>
> Looking at the configuration I think the rocket stove could be adapted
> to both take long sticks, fed in manually, and provide continuous
> heat. The ones being discussed made from clay would seem worth a look
> at for constant use. Modifications may be needed for sufficient turn
> down.
>
>A vented stove would seem most appropriate here as it would mean far
> less air changes in the room.

Please tell me more about vented stove, I really doesn't get the picture

I still doesn't convice with current design of rocket stove to use in
such places. But in my experience with "Jumla design stove", as the
stove has surface area large and uninsulated. The upper plate heats upto
350 C and side plates about 150C - 300 C when its burning on full
power.From my preliminary experiment more than 40 % of firewood energy
is used for heating the room (convection heat transfer and radiation
heat transfer from the surfaces of the stove). Upper plate of stove
gives much of the heat inside the room.
>

>>I am working on developing a new stove for the mountain areas, I made
>> 2
>> prototypes, 1st one is not successful but 2nd now needs to test.
>
> Please let us know how it goes.

I will surely inform you
>
>>
>> THEY THINKS ONLY LARGER LOGS GIVE THEM MUCH HEAT INSIDE THE ROOM.
>
> Or is it that larger logs limit the surface area exposed to air and
> thus give a crude form of power limiting?
>
May be its true, but from conversation I feel they love big fires.

>
> AJH

From raywije at EUREKA.LK Mon May 17 04:21:51 2004
From: raywije at EUREKA.LK (Dr. Ray Wijewardene)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:06 2004
Subject:
In-Reply-To: <38512.202.52.242.69.1084810230.squirrel@webmail.ku.edu.np>
Message-ID: <MON.17.MAY.2004.012151.0700.RAYWIJE@EUREKA.LK>

While we continue to deliberate on the stoves which SHOULD be used, more
popularly by housewives in the poorer countries, and the factors of
efficiency etc. by which WE scientists and experimenters evaluate them, I am
increasingly reminded of the words of John Kenneth Galbraith.. once also
U.S.Ambassador for India during the Kennedy period.

'Farmers rightly sense there is danger in the counsel of any-one who does
not, HIMSELF, have to
LIVE by the RESULTS"

Not only do those words apply to the failure of much of agricultural
research to reach - and be adopted by - the farmer in our developing
nations, I believe they also apply to most other (sincerely developed)
technologies which fail to be 'adopted' by the very people for whom they
were intended. The ITDG (Intermediate-Technology-Development-Group) in the
UK tried to address this dilemma in a book titled "Perfected, yet Rejected".
Perhaps the values which WE hold as significant differ considerably from
those of the rural societies we believe we are serving.

Here, the successful adoption by farmers of so many of ADKarve's
technologies bears very careful appreciation...

On the other hand we must also note the success with which the highy
commercialised 'consumer' industries manage to 'market' their
products...Heavy and colourful advertising through a variety of the
increasingly-popular 'media' industries with 'high-pressure' incentives also
to intermediaries and 'sales-men'....deferred-payment terms which tie-up the
farmer between one harvest season and the next... Our endeavours to convey
the propriety of a new product or technique - even on grounds of health -
pale into insignificance beside those which pertain to entertainment. When
we speak of the 'poor-farmer'... I realise we know less and less what makes
these societies 'tick'. Certainly, factors such as 'health', 'efficiency',
and 'convenience' from THEIR point of view are based on very different
criteria from those which we have come to understand through learning and
science.

To me, all this is - as in 'The King and I" - a "puzzlement"! The exchanges
between most of us on the 'Stoves' list... even more so!

Ray Wijewardene... Sri-Lanka.

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: The Stoves Discussion List [mailto:STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On
Behalf Of Kanchan Rai
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 9:11 AM
To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Mountain areas in Nepal also common test standard
for stove to AJH, PV and others

>
> So the fuel use must be large? I would have thought a cleaner burn
> would result in considerably less wood needed.

Yes! the fuel consumption per day by a family is huge. On open fire
20-35 kg per day depending upon the size of family. Somewhere in Karnali
Community Skill Training (KCST)(now it doesnot exist which used to work
in Jumla),annual report, I found upto 60 kg/day in some families, but it
doesn't suprises me, as I have been there and saw the use of fire wood.
>>

>
> Looking at the configuration I think the rocket stove could be adapted
> to both take long sticks, fed in manually, and provide continuous
> heat. The ones being discussed made from clay would seem worth a look
> at for constant use. Modifications may be needed for sufficient turn
> down.
>
>A vented stove would seem most appropriate here as it would mean far
> less air changes in the room.

Please tell me more about vented stove, I really doesn't get the picture

I still doesn't convice with current design of rocket stove to use in
such places. But in my experience with "Jumla design stove", as the
stove has surface area large and uninsulated. The upper plate heats upto
350 C and side plates about 150C - 300 C when its burning on full
power.From my preliminary experiment more than 40 % of firewood energy
is used for heating the room (convection heat transfer and radiation
heat transfer from the surfaces of the stove). Upper plate of stove
gives much of the heat inside the room.
>

>>I am working on developing a new stove for the mountain areas, I made
>> 2
>> prototypes, 1st one is not successful but 2nd now needs to test.
>
> Please let us know how it goes.

I will surely inform you
>
>>
>> THEY THINKS ONLY LARGER LOGS GIVE THEM MUCH HEAT INSIDE THE ROOM.
>
> Or is it that larger logs limit the surface area exposed to air and
> thus give a crude form of power limiting?
>
May be its true, but from conversation I feel they love big fires.

>
> AJH

From jeff.forssell at CFL.SE Mon May 17 04:53:18 2004
From: jeff.forssell at CFL.SE (Jeff Forssell)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:06 2004
Subject: Pot size problem
Message-ID: <MON.17.MAY.2004.105318.0200.JEFF.FORSSELL@CFL.SE>

> Before I close this (already too long letter) I wanted to
> mention something about pot sizes. In a later message, you
> mention the possibility of designing a jiko for specific pot
> sizes, but only if marketing techniques were changed. This
> is really difficult for Kenya, as I think you're aware.
> People typically have several different sizes of pot and even
> very poor folks use more than one size of pot in the home,
> no? In addition, pots are far more durable goods than jikos
> - they last much longer - so convincing people to replace
> their current varied pots for a standard size would be a
> really hard sell. Finally, unlike in S Africa, there are
> currently no standard pot sizes, but a hodge-podge of
> imported and locally built pots of different sizes - even
> roughly similar pots may differ by a few mm, which is enough
> to upset combustion in stoves designed with a high
> sensitivity to gap widths.
> Perhaps I'm too pessimistic, but I don't see any way that a
> stove designed for an exact pot-size could be promoted
> successfully in Kenya without a huge amount of intervention, do you?

I know that in Tanzania and Rwanda the stardard pots seem to be the flat bottom cheap spun aluminum pots with vertical sides and a horizontal 1-2 cm lip. The increments in diameter are surely partially done for the merchandising. By having sizes that fit into each other a bicycle can easily compactly carry a LOT of pots.

If one were to popularize spun aluminum pots that had SLOPING sides 2 possibilities might arise:
1) many identicle pots could easily be compactly stored, transported
2) perhaps many different sizes could have an identicle BOTTOM size and shape which would make it easy to arrange good thermal contact for all the sizes AND still be able to be compactly nested (which makes them popular with sellers and is even an advantage at home

Does anyone know where these (spun aluminum) pots are made?

Jeff Forssell
SWEDISH AGENCY FOR FLEXIBLE LEARNING (CFL)
Box 3024
SE-871 03 H?RN?SAND /Sweden
http://www.cfl.se/?sid=60
+46(0)611-55 79 48 (Work) +46(0)611-55 79 80 (Fax Work)
+46(0)611-22 1 44 (Home) ( mobil: 070- 35 80 306; [070-4091514])

residence:
Gamla Karlebyv?gen 14 / SE-871 33 H?rn?sand /Sweden

e-mail: every workday: jeff.forssell@cfl.se <mailto:jeff.forssell@cfl.se>
Note my old mail address, jf@ssvh.se, is no longer active
(travel, visiting: jeff_forssell@hotmail.com & MSMessenger)

Personal homepage: < http://www.torget.se/users/i/iluhya/index.htm>
My village technology page: http://home.bip.net/jeff.forssell

Instant messengers Odigo 792701 (ICQ: 55800587; NM/MSM use hotmail address)

From list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Mon May 17 05:10:41 2004
From: list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:06 2004
Subject: Mountain areas in Nepal also common test standard for
stove to AJH, PV and others
In-Reply-To: <000001c43b9d$21eef830$e49dfea9@home>
Message-ID: <MON.17.MAY.2004.101041.0100.>

On Mon, 17 May 2004 01:25:26 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:

>AJH mentioned using a "vented stove". I took this to mean that he
>refers to stoves with cold outside air entering the stove to burn the
>fuel. Is that right?

Sorry I should simply have said to use a chimney.
>
>I have only even seen expensive fireplaces using cold air from outside
>the room. By brother in law has a house heated with such a combination
>system - fuel oil and supplemented with wood which is in a fireplace.
>The cold outside air comes in to burn the wood and the heat is pumped
>through the house be means of a forced air system (a fan and ducting).
>It is very efficient.

This design is meant to prevent cold draughts and high air changes, it
never made a lot of sense to me. Alex English recently suggested a
move in the opposite direction whereby the excess heat in the walls of
a chimney stack of a room sealed, vented stove could entrain and eject
stale air from a room.

>
>In your case you would have to look into how you could build the outside
>air inlet through the wall without breaking construction taboos, and
>sealing the fuel feed door (in the room) when the wood was inside the
>stove. This also means you are creating an enclosed fire which runs on
>very different 'rules' from more open fires and stoves. It also gives
>you certain control over all sorts of combustion parameters. This is
>good!

Yes, but at a cost in heat transfer to the pan, not to mention capital
cost, it does look to me a route to pursue in this case.

>- A fuel feed door that can mostly be closed (doesn't have to be
>perfect) which means the fuel has to be cut to a length that can be
>accomodated in the combustion chamber - perhaps 500mm? The fuel could
>be large or small. Long pieces could be accomodated by making a
>U-shaped metal plate to try to seal the gaps.

I was thinking along the lines of a rocket stove with maybe a soft
leather flap controlling air entering around the stick, my worry is
that there is no provision (or normally any need) for secondary air in
the rocket. A more conventional stove uses primary air as the power
control, the resulting offgases entraining secondary air in a fairly
self regulating manner.
>
>- A chimney to the outside with sufficient draft to prevent varying
>winds reversing the chimney gas flow.

Yes, but this implies some loss of energy.

AJH

From list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Mon May 17 05:10:41 2004
From: list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:06 2004
Subject: Gas and Biomass
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20040516151849.024d08c0@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.17.MAY.2004.101041.0100.>

On Sun, 16 May 2004 15:22:54 -0500, Paul S. Anderson wrote:

>AD Karve has answered part of my question in a different message:
>
>He wrote:
>... the stove [Sarai Cooker] is so designed that it
>would accept just a single layer of briquettes. In this way, the hot flue
>gases do not pass through a bed of uncombusted coal to generate carbon
>monoxide.
>
>Makes sense: If there is no provision for the combustion of the CO, then
>the thick layers of char (intended to gasify to get the CO) can be
>detrimental.

That's my view but I have no experience of this cooker, the aim would
be to provide sufficient air for a C+O2=>CO2 reaction and then not
allow conditions for the CO2+C=>2CO reaction to occur, as the first
reaction is highly exothermic it means you need to take heat out of
the system quickly.

AJH

From ajh at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Mon May 17 05:10:42 2004
From: ajh at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (AJH)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:06 2004
Subject: Mountain areas in Nepal also common test standard for stove
to AJH, PV and others
In-Reply-To: <38512.202.52.242.69.1084810230.squirrel@webmail.ku.edu.np>
Message-ID: <MON.17.MAY.2004.101042.0100.AJH@SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK>

On Mon, 17 May 2004 21:55:30 +0545, Kanchan Rai wrote:

>Please tell me more about vented stove, I really doesn't get the picture

Sorry Kanchan, I meant a stove which is essentially a boxed sealed
from the room air, with just holes for air inlet and a chimney which
vents to the outside, I realise this is likely to be too large a
cultural leap as well as having high cost implications.
>
>I still doesn't convice with current design of rocket stove to use in
>such places. But in my experience with "Jumla design stove", as the
>stove has surface area large and uninsulated. The upper plate heats upto
>350 C and side plates about 150C - 300 C when its burning on full
>power.From my preliminary experiment more than 40 % of firewood energy
>is used for heating the room (convection heat transfer and radiation
>heat transfer from the surfaces of the stove). Upper plate of stove
>gives much of the heat inside the room.

Have we seen any pictures of the Jumla yet? It's not one I recall
seeing.

AJH

From list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Mon May 17 05:10:42 2004
From: list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:06 2004
Subject: CO V.S. Particulates
In-Reply-To: <40A80202.ABF16848@socrates.berkeley.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.17.MAY.2004.101042.0100.>

On Sun, 16 May 2004 17:06:26 -0700, Rob Bailis wrote:

>
>Before I close this (already too long letter)

It certainly was not too long, it was on topic and informative, thank
you Rob.

I'm probably being too over enthusiastic with replies to the list so
I'll try and calm down now ;-).

AJH

From list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Mon May 17 05:10:42 2004
From: list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:06 2004
Subject: Fuel size in pyrolysis stoves
In-Reply-To: <001301c43b9d$c57b1a60$6501a8c0@dslverizon.net>
Message-ID: <MON.17.MAY.2004.101042.0100.>

On Sun, 16 May 2004 16:30:23 -0700, Hank wrote:

>
>While the rack above the stove pipe might look strange, it would seem to be
>a workable solution if there is no dry wood available. Sounds like in many
>areas they gather the wood as it is needed rather then storing a "winters"
>supply. Obviously the wood will be wet if it rains.

Hank, I think in overall energy terms there is only a small case for
drying but (about 14% with 50% mc wwb), as you found there are other
benefits. The biggest benefit is that on small lossy stoves it is
unlikely you can get clean burning conditions with we would. So the
pre drying in the oven is a pre requisite of clean burning, poor
burning results in a lot of the fuel value being wasted up the chimney
unburned (PICs products of incomplete combustion).

AJH

From list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Mon May 17 05:10:41 2004
From: list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:06 2004
Subject: Gas and Biomass
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20040516144859.024c3100@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.17.MAY.2004.101041.0100.>

On Sun, 16 May 2004 15:00:10 -0500, Paul S. Anderson wrote:

>What is a sufficient or desirable depth of the char / and/or fire bed?

It looks like you provided one answer to this in citing the steam
locomotive case, Tom Reed, way back, has said 20 diameters. It will be
a progressive thing reaching a point where negligible O2 or CO2
survive the trip through the hot coals, mind it has to stay hot
enough.
>
>But what is the minimal depth before the advantages of char depth stop?

I would be wary of saying there is an advantage in forming an
updraught CO generating bed, it's just that different burning
conditions result, a downside is that temperatures in the firebed can
be quite damaging to the stove parts.

>Regarding charcoal, I visualize a Weber cooker with a single layer of
>charcoal. Is that the "low temp" way for the total heat, as opposed to
>stacking the charcoal and getting more TOTAL heat??

Total heat is just dependant on mass of any given fuel burned
completely, the temperature will depend on how you do it but is
largely inversely proportional to mass flow through the stove, where
mass flow is made up from air supply and mass of fuel consumed in the
period.

This is neglecting losses from the system, which are very significant
in small devices.

AJH

From list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Mon May 17 05:10:41 2004
From: list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:06 2004
Subject: Fuel size in pyrolysis stoves
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20040516150447.024c0730@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.17.MAY.2004.101041.0100.>

On Sun, 16 May 2004 15:10:14 -0500, Paul S. Anderson wrote:

>
>This raises the important question of PRE-DRYING of the fuel wood.
>
>Most of us have stoves with "surplus heat" or lost heat up the chimney or
>into some space. So, are there easy ways to use that heat to dry the wood?

Often this "surplus heat" is illusory in the stoves context,
especially with regard to chimneys, if the stack temperature falls too
low the chimney doesn't perform its task and condensates form in the
chimney.
>
>Having a "rack" with wood chips or sticks suspended above the stove is not
>very attractive and has safety issues.
>
>Does anyone have any experience with organized and intentional drying of
>the fuels (excluding "let it sit in the sun" and "use only the old dry
>stuff.")?

I would say "let it sit in the sun" was a perfectly valid use of solar
power to add value to the fuel supply. There is more to be gained by
rapid drying as this limits dry matter (=fuel) loss to degradation by
rotting. What I know about conditions in UK's temperate climate is
that drying is rapid with good natural air flow and small sizes
conversely larger sizes seldom dry in a summer and under humid
conditions perishable species will suffer serious loss of dry matter,
so it pays to comminute these soon after harvest.

I thought I could make a convincing case for "forced" drying but even
in UK the added value seldom equals the cost, in the stoves context I
suspect the capital cost will put it entirely out of court.

Gav may like to have a word as he did some practical work on a large
forced air chip dryer for a proposed large scale power plant in N
England.

AJH

From Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP Mon May 17 15:27:22 2004
From: Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP (Kanchan Rai)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:06 2004
Subject: Mountain areas in Nepal also common test standard for stove
to AJH, PV and others
Message-ID: <TUE.18.MAY.2004.011222.0545.KANCHAN@KU.EDU.NP>

Please visit
www.geocities.com/slmsku
I have just put my introduction page but nothing much. More I'll put
later. you can see the pictures of the stove.

kanchan

> On Mon, 17 May 2004 21:55:30 +0545, Kanchan Rai wrote:
>
>>Please tell me more about vented stove, I really doesn't get the
>> picture
>
> Sorry Kanchan, I meant a stove which is essentially a boxed sealed
> from the room air, with just holes for air inlet and a chimney which
> vents to the outside, I realise this is likely to be too large a
> cultural leap as well as having high cost implications.
>>
>>I still doesn't convice with current design of rocket stove to use in
>> such places. But in my experience with "Jumla design stove", as the
>> stove has surface area large and uninsulated. The upper plate heats
>> upto 350 C and side plates about 150C - 300 C when its burning on
>> full power.From my preliminary experiment more than 40 % of firewood
>> energy is used for heating the room (convection heat transfer and
>> radiation heat transfer from the surfaces of the stove). Upper plate
>> of stove gives much of the heat inside the room.
>
> Have we seen any pictures of the Jumla yet? It's not one I recall
> seeing.
>
> AJH

From lanny at ROMAN.NET Mon May 17 05:49:06 2004
From: lanny at ROMAN.NET (Lanny Henson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:06 2004
Subject: Congratulations ASES
Message-ID: <MON.17.MAY.2004.054906.0400.LANNY@ROMAN.NET>

The congratulations goes to ASES for getting someone as wise as Ron Larson.

Lanny Henson

>I was elected as Vice - Chair (Chair in 2006 and 2007) of the >American
Solar Energy Society (ASES)

From english at KINGSTON.NET Mon May 17 06:54:02 2004
From: english at KINGSTON.NET (english@KINGSTON.NET)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:06 2004
Subject: CO V.S. Particulates
In-Reply-To: <40A80202.ABF16848@socrates.berkeley.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.17.MAY.2004.065402.0400.>

Thanks Rob.
Please send the web link if there is one.
Similar studies can be reviewed at

http://ehs.sph.berkeley.edu/krsmith/publications/default.htm
under the heading;

Household Fuels in Developing Countries: Measurements
Alex

 

> BTW - if anyone is interested in papers describing the research I've
> cited here (Ezzati and Kammen's or Kituyi's) I've cc-ed them on this
> email so you can contact them directly or contact me off-list and I can
> send the relevant papers.
>
> Rob Bailis
>
> PhD candidate
> UC Berkeley - Energy and Resources Group
> 4152 Etcheverry Hall #1730
> Berkeley, CA 94720
>

From english at KINGSTON.NET Mon May 17 06:54:03 2004
From: english at KINGSTON.NET (english@KINGSTON.NET)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:06 2004
Subject: Gas and Biomass
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20040516151849.024d08c0@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.17.MAY.2004.065403.0400.>

Dear Paul and A.D.
I don't think you need to do anything special to generate lots of CO
from charcoal. My informal testing showed higher CO/CO2 from thiner
beds, including single layers, of burning charcoal.

Where the Sarai Cooker likely shines from a CO emissions point of
view is it total per task, grams/meal.

I guess we need to see the more data.

Alex

> AD Karve has answered part of my question in a different message:
>
> He wrote:
> ... the stove [Sarai Cooker] is so designed that it
> would accept just a single layer of briquettes. In this way, the hot flue
> gases do not pass through a bed of uncombusted coal to generate carbon
> monoxide.
>
> Makes sense: If there is no provision for the combustion of the CO, then
> the thick layers of char (intended to gasify to get the CO) can be
> detrimental.
>
> Paul
>
> ******** old message is below ************
>
> At 11:58 PM 5/13/04 +0100, Andrew Heggie wrote:
> snip
> >OK I suggest you are citing the special case when the fire bed is not
> >deep enough to generate CO, in your case because you meter in the
> >fuel.
>
> What is a sufficient or desirable depth of the char / and/or fire bed?
>
> In the IDD (Tom Reed version = TLUD = top lit up draft) gasifiers, the char
> accumulates during the pyrolysis process, and then after pyrolysis the char
> is consumed (or can be removed). So the TLUD gasifiers can make the depth
> needed.
>
> But what is the minimal depth before the advantages of char depth stop?
>
> Concerning burning of coal in steam locomotives, I have heard that the
> depth should be 15 times the average diameter of the fuel chunks? But if
> the fuel is of long sticks vertical in a gasifier, then the air flow might
> become increasingly easy (less resistance) as the fuel sticks shrink in size.
>
> Regarding charcoal, I visualize a Weber cooker with a single layer of
> charcoal. Is that the "low temp" way for the total heat, as opposed to
> stacking the charcoal and getting more TOTAL heat??
>
> Paul
> Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
> Rotary University Teacher Grantee to Mozambique >10 mo of 2001-2003
> Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
> Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
> E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
>

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Mon May 17 07:28:12 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:06 2004
Subject: Pot size problem
Message-ID: <MON.17.MAY.2004.132812.0200.CRISPIN@NEWDAWN.SZ>

Dear Jeff

The spun pots are easily made in a very simple workshop so theya re probably
made all over the place. There is such an operation in Swaziland in a small
village.

They do not make that which you described but it is the dominant shape in
Ethiopia too.

The do not have to have handles which save a lot on manufacturing. Hart in
South Africa would do well to produce them as their bottom of the line
range.

Regards

Crispin

>I know that in Tanzania and Rwanda the stardard pots seem
>to be the flat bottom cheap spun aluminum pots with vertical
>sides and a horizontal 1-2 cm lip...

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Mon May 17 07:36:13 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:06 2004
Subject: Toxic metal in "tincanium" stoves??
Message-ID: <MON.17.MAY.2004.133613.0200.CRISPIN@NEWDAWN.SZ>

Dear Paul

The cans we have made (25 litre) are tin plated (all of them - no exception,
large and small) and they are then sprayed with a varnish. For no extra
charge the weld is sprayed on the inside to prevent rust if you like (which
I do).

It is very likely that most cans are sprayed with a varnish of some sort to
prevent foods eating the can.

When Kris from the factory comes around I will ask him what goes inside most
cans to see if there is something else I have missed.

The cans for holding pool chemicals are coated with something else after
fabrication because that stuff is nasty.

Regards
Crispin

Any info on the coatings, especially when subjected to the temperatures of
our stove fires?

Anyone have a friend in the "can" business?

Paul

Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Mon May 17 09:30:50 2004
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:06 2004
Subject: Gas and Biomass
Message-ID: <MON.17.MAY.2004.073050.0600.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Andrew, Paul etal

The most efficient charcoal burner I have heard of on "stoves" was the
"Pyromid" (http://www.pyromid.net/oldsite/index.html). I do not believe it
has been tested for CO emissions - but someone should. Seems to not be in
production - so here is hoping Paul Hait - inventor - will tell us more.
The main features of this product are:

a. careful spacing of the (vertically upright) pillow briquets (so
radiated energy horizontally was used to further combustion of the
neighbor - much as in holey briquets which we haven't heard much about
recently in this context - and which was similar to what the Karves are now
doing with the Serai "pellet" geometry.)

b. air holes (slits) from below - strategically placed and sized.
There must have been some preheating of the air.

c. stainless steel - for its reflective properties.

d. Angled outer surfaces so the reflected energy arrived at the cooking
surface.

e. Close (optimum?) spacing to the food being cooked

f. Covers for a baking/roasting function and heat retention

g. Folds up remarkably - but I don't think this is critical for normal
everyday use in developing countries

I would love to know what the CO content is - as Paul Hait claimed a large
factor in reduction of charcoal use over the Weber design - whose design he
would strongly disfavor. My guess is that CO output was low - mainly
because of the fuel spacing and highe temperatures thereby cheaply obtained.
For use in developing countries, we need more work on placement of cylinders
(ala Elsen).

My main point is that funders like Shell and EPA need to fund emissions
testing (of stoves not kitchens) of highly efficient units of all kinds.

Ron

 

----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Heggie <list@SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 3:10 AM
Subject: Re: Gas and Biomass

> ---------------------- Information from the mail
header -----------------------
> Sender: The Stoves Discussion List <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Poster: Andrew Heggie <list@SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK>
> Subject: Re: Gas and Biomass
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
> On Sun, 16 May 2004 15:00:10 -0500, Paul S. Anderson wrote:
>
> >What is a sufficient or desirable depth of the char / and/or fire bed?
>
> It looks like you provided one answer to this in citing the steam
> locomotive case, Tom Reed, way back, has said 20 diameters. It will be
> a progressive thing reaching a point where negligible O2 or CO2
> survive the trip through the hot coals, mind it has to stay hot
> enough.
> >
> >But what is the minimal depth before the advantages of char depth stop?
>
> I would be wary of saying there is an advantage in forming an
> updraught CO generating bed, it's just that different burning
> conditions result, a downside is that temperatures in the firebed can
> be quite damaging to the stove parts.
>
> >Regarding charcoal, I visualize a Weber cooker with a single layer of
> >charcoal. Is that the "low temp" way for the total heat, as opposed to
> >stacking the charcoal and getting more TOTAL heat??
>
> Total heat is just dependant on mass of any given fuel burned
> completely, the temperature will depend on how you do it but is
> largely inversely proportional to mass flow through the stove, where
> mass flow is made up from air supply and mass of fuel consumed in the
> period.
>
> This is neglecting losses from the system, which are very significant
> in small devices.
>
> AJH
>

From ken at BASTERFIELD.COM Mon May 17 09:53:52 2004
From: ken at BASTERFIELD.COM (Ken Basterfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:06 2004
Subject: Fuel size in pyrolysis stoves
In-Reply-To: <rlvga0tto9tmrdkb7a1040227iuseh3qlo@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <MON.17.MAY.2004.145352.0100.KEN@BASTERFIELD.COM>

Beekeepers use a solar wax melter, a bit like a solar collector but with
a tray into which old combs are placed and a basin for the wax to run
into in the bottom. Even single glazing over the top will rapidly melt
out the wax on a typical UK sunny summer day. In our context, with so
many redundant windows available from the double glazed window
replacement firms, such solar fuel dryers would be cheap and cheerful. I
realize that there are not many double glazing firms in the third world,
but many will have temperatures that don't need a glazed cover to the
dryer.
Ken

 

I've stopped 4,875 spam messages. You can too!
One month FREE spam protection at http://www.cloudmark.com/spamnetsig/

-----Original Message-----
From: The Stoves Discussion List [mailto:STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG] On
Behalf Of Andrew Heggie
Sent: 17 May 2004 10:11
To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Fuel size in pyrolysis stoves

On Sun, 16 May 2004 15:10:14 -0500, Paul S. Anderson wrote:

>
>This raises the important question of PRE-DRYING of the fuel wood.
>
>Most of us have stoves with "surplus heat" or lost heat up the chimney
or
>into some space. So, are there easy ways to use that heat to dry the
wood?

Often this "surplus heat" is illusory in the stoves context,
especially with regard to chimneys, if the stack temperature falls too
low the chimney doesn't perform its task and condensates form in the
chimney.
>
>Having a "rack" with wood chips or sticks suspended above the stove is
not
>very attractive and has safety issues.
>
>Does anyone have any experience with organized and intentional drying
of
>the fuels (excluding "let it sit in the sun" and "use only the old dry
>stuff.")?

I would say "let it sit in the sun" was a perfectly valid use of solar
power to add value to the fuel supply. There is more to be gained by
rapid drying as this limits dry matter (=fuel) loss to degradation by
rotting. What I know about conditions in UK's temperate climate is
that drying is rapid with good natural air flow and small sizes
conversely larger sizes seldom dry in a summer and under humid
conditions perishable species will suffer serious loss of dry matter,
so it pays to comminute these soon after harvest.

I thought I could make a convincing case for "forced" drying but even
in UK the added value seldom equals the cost, in the stoves context I
suspect the capital cost will put it entirely out of court.

Gav may like to have a word as he did some practical work on a large
forced air chip dryer for a proposed large scale power plant in N
England.

AJH

---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.642 / Virus Database: 410 - Release Date: 24/03/2004

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.642 / Virus Database: 410 - Release Date: 24/03/2004

From rvanderplas at YAHOO.COM Mon May 17 05:13:25 2004
From: rvanderplas at YAHOO.COM (Robert J. van der Plas)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:06 2004
Subject: matching the pot to the stove
In-Reply-To: <00c101c43a46$99902920$a940083e@toshibauser>
Message-ID: <MON.17.MAY.2004.111325.0200.RVANDERPLAS@YAHOO.COM>

In Rwanda all-metal stoves were sold for different pot sizes (Rondereza)
that sink into the stove; at least one manufacturer recently modified this
design and incorporated the ceramic firebox from the Jiko; I'll send you a
picture off-line. In West Africa, several stove models are normally sold
for different pot sizes, there's a multi-sized stove (Sakanal
multi-marmite) that allows different sized pots to sink into the
stove. Since most people are aware of the CO problem, they cook outside.

The main problem of stoves is not efficiency, but efficiency at what costs.
You can have the most efficient stove ever, if you can't sell if for $5-10,
no-one will use it. The current "improved" charcoal stoves (the KCJs -
Kenya Ceramic Jiko- and some other models) do a reasonably good job in
providing a very low-cost piece of equipment that is used for daily cooking
by millions of households in Africa; these stoves use energy relatively
efficient. It will be very difficult to come up with a stove that (i)
performs better than a KCJ, (ii) is sold for the same or less than what a
KCJ is sold for now, and (iii) is accepted by households (for the type of
food they cook, the way they like to cook it, and the way the stove
looks). People don't care about fuel-air ratios, C02 emissions, charcoal
making or gasifying stoves, etc,; they just want to cook their food as
quickly and simply as possible, without any hassle.

However, there are also millions of households in Africa that use
"traditional" charcoal stoves that perform far worse than a KCJ (after all,
that's why the KCJ is called an improved stove). These other stoves are
sold for much less money than the KCJ, with $1-2 no exception. The real
challenge is to develop a stove that is (almost) as good as the KCJ, costs
a lot less, and is still accepted by households. If you are able to do
just that, you have provided a major service to both (rural) development
and the environment.

Regards,

Robert

 

At 09:32 AM 5/15/2004 +0300, you wrote:
>Crispin's recent message on possible improvements to the popular ceramic
>Jiko (charcoal burning stove) led me to the conclusion that a couple
>significant modifications could indeed be made if jikos could be marketed
>differently.
>
>Designing a Jiko for a specific pot size would allow a heat shield to be
>incorporated to allow much greater heat contact, as well as building in a
>more exact distance from charcoal fuel to pot bottom. I'm sure that with a
>known pot size a few more fine-tuning modifications could be incorporated,
>and the stove's efficiency improved by a good measure. This would also
>theoretically reduce indoor air pollution due to inefficient combustion.
>
>This depends very much on the marketing- do we have any examples for
>stoves being designed around a fixed pot-size? If so, how was this
>accepted by the consumer? The Karve's Sarai Cooker (I have one & it's a
>joy to use) is certainly one such success. Maybe this avenue of
>investigation could lead to some very real improvement for existing stoves
>on a least-cost basis.
>
>elk
>
>
>--------------------------------
>Elsen L. Karstad
>elk@wananchi.com
>www.chardust.com
>Nairobi, Kenya

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Mon May 17 10:20:13 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:07 2004
Subject:
Message-ID: <MON.17.MAY.2004.112013.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Ray

You hit the nail right on the head, but I think rather subtly. :-)

Too often the Boy Scouts of the world spend their time and effort helping
little old ladies across the street, when the little old lady did not want
to go across the street. Too often, the well meaning people of the world do
an excellent job of solving the wrong problem. Too often the brilliant
caring helping people look for clever, elegant or perfect solutions, when a
solution that is "good enough" is, by definition, good enough. Too often,
the projects that can secure grant funds are promoted, with the prime
objective being getting the grant, rather than getting the job done.

I wrote Kanchan, and he was kind enough to send me a picture showing the
appalling conditions that these people live in. Dreadfully sad, almost
inhumane. Everyone on the Stoves List should get a copy of this picture,
print it off, and look at it before thinking of providing a "stove
solution."

These people have every right to be wary of "Smart People from Away." After
all, it was "Smart People from Away" that brought them nitrogen fertilizer,
Organized Religion, TV, oil, and snowmobiles. :-).

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Ray Wijewardene" <raywije@EUREKA.LK>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 5:21 AM
Subject: Re: [STOVES]

> While we continue to deliberate on the stoves which SHOULD be used, more
> popularly by housewives in the poorer countries, and the factors of
> efficiency etc. by which WE scientists and experimenters evaluate them, I
am
> increasingly reminded of the words of John Kenneth Galbraith.. once also
> U.S.Ambassador for India during the Kennedy period.
>
> 'Farmers rightly sense there is danger in the counsel of any-one who does
> not, HIMSELF, have to
> LIVE by the RESULTS"
>
> Not only do those words apply to the failure of much of agricultural
> research to reach - and be adopted by - the farmer in our developing
> nations, I believe they also apply to most other (sincerely developed)
> technologies which fail to be 'adopted' by the very people for whom they
> were intended. The ITDG (Intermediate-Technology-Development-Group) in the
> UK tried to address this dilemma in a book titled "Perfected, yet
Rejected".
> Perhaps the values which WE hold as significant differ considerably from
> those of the rural societies we believe we are serving.
>
> Here, the successful adoption by farmers of so many of ADKarve's
> technologies bears very careful appreciation...
>
> On the other hand we must also note the success with which the highy
> commercialised 'consumer' industries manage to 'market' their
> products...Heavy and colourful advertising through a variety of the
> increasingly-popular 'media' industries with 'high-pressure' incentives
also
> to intermediaries and 'sales-men'....deferred-payment terms which tie-up
the
> farmer between one harvest season and the next... Our endeavours to
convey
> the propriety of a new product or technique - even on grounds of health -
> pale into insignificance beside those which pertain to entertainment. When
> we speak of the 'poor-farmer'... I realise we know less and less what
makes
> these societies 'tick'. Certainly, factors such as 'health', 'efficiency',
> and 'convenience' from THEIR point of view are based on very different
> criteria from those which we have come to understand through learning and
> science.
>
> To me, all this is - as in 'The King and I" - a "puzzlement"! The
exchanges
> between most of us on the 'Stoves' list... even more so!
>
> Ray Wijewardene... Sri-Lanka.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Stoves Discussion List [mailto:STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On
> Behalf Of Kanchan Rai
> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 9:11 AM
> To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: Re: [STOVES] Mountain areas in Nepal also common test standard
> for stove to AJH, PV and others
>
>
> >
> > So the fuel use must be large? I would have thought a cleaner burn
> > would result in considerably less wood needed.
>
> Yes! the fuel consumption per day by a family is huge. On open fire
> 20-35 kg per day depending upon the size of family. Somewhere in Karnali
> Community Skill Training (KCST)(now it doesnot exist which used to work
> in Jumla),annual report, I found upto 60 kg/day in some families, but it
> doesn't suprises me, as I have been there and saw the use of fire wood.
> >>
>
> >
> > Looking at the configuration I think the rocket stove could be adapted
> > to both take long sticks, fed in manually, and provide continuous
> > heat. The ones being discussed made from clay would seem worth a look
> > at for constant use. Modifications may be needed for sufficient turn
> > down.
> >
> >A vented stove would seem most appropriate here as it would mean far
> > less air changes in the room.
>
> Please tell me more about vented stove, I really doesn't get the picture
>
> I still doesn't convice with current design of rocket stove to use in
> such places. But in my experience with "Jumla design stove", as the
> stove has surface area large and uninsulated. The upper plate heats upto
> 350 C and side plates about 150C - 300 C when its burning on full
> power.From my preliminary experiment more than 40 % of firewood energy
> is used for heating the room (convection heat transfer and radiation
> heat transfer from the surfaces of the stove). Upper plate of stove
> gives much of the heat inside the room.
> >
>
> >>I am working on developing a new stove for the mountain areas, I made
> >> 2
> >> prototypes, 1st one is not successful but 2nd now needs to test.
> >
> > Please let us know how it goes.
>
> I will surely inform you
> >
> >>
> >> THEY THINKS ONLY LARGER LOGS GIVE THEM MUCH HEAT INSIDE THE ROOM.
> >
> > Or is it that larger logs limit the surface area exposed to air and
> > thus give a crude form of power limiting?
> >
> May be its true, but from conversation I feel they love big fires.
>
> >
> > AJH

From Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP Mon May 17 23:32:30 2004
From: Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP (Kanchan Rai)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:07 2004
Subject: Mountain areas in Nepal also common test standard for
stove to AJH, PV and others
Message-ID: <TUE.18.MAY.2004.091730.0545.KANCHAN@KU.EDU.NP>

Dear Mr. Crispin,
Thanks for taking time for writing suggestions. It is very helpful

> I have read your posts with great interest. You are facing a stove
> design problem that is mentioned from time to time and it seems to >
> fall into a certain class of problem, being: thin air (altitude)

Ans
(Yes it?s true. How much do you think effects in 2,500 m to 3,000 m)

> + highly variable fuel size but a preference for poorly dried large
> pieces
> + only one type of fuel available (or affordable)

Ans
yes! only pinewood is available but free of cost as long as forest
exists)

> + a need for significant space heating
> + significant indoor air pollution problem.

Other places I know of requiring similar solutions to yours are
Northern and Western Canada (wood),
Mongolia (imported coal), Lesotho (dung),
Gauteng (Johannesburg area) in RSA (coal and some wood) and
central Namibia (wood).

Ans (probably the people living in Humla and Jumla is poorest of all, no
road transportation, to reach the nearest road from Jumla takes 5 days
and from Humla 15 days walk, only transportation mean is aeroplane which
people living there couldnot afford)

> Some years ago I was asked to assist a stove project that was working
> > on improving coal stoves in yurts in Mongolia and the most obvious
> and effective improvement was to run a tube or channel for air from
> > outside the yurt skin under the floor to the bottom of the coal
> stove and then burn that air instead of taking warm air from the room
> and feeding it into the fire. Using air from the room was pulling in
> cold air > around the door and windows creating unhealthy and
> uncomfortable drafts.

Ans
It?s a good idea to take the air outside room. But don?t you think it
needs long tube or channel that makes stove expensive.

It happened that this was a very easy change to make because of the
layout of the yurt (portable house) suited it.

>In your case you would have to look into how you could build the outside
>air inlet through the wall without breaking construction taboos, and
>sealing the fuel feed door (in the room) when the wood was inside the
>stove. This also means you are creating an enclosed fire which runs on
>very different 'rules' from more open fires and stoves. It also gives
>you certain control over all sorts of combustion parameters. This is
>good!

Ans
I recently developed a stove which is similar to your suggestion A
primary air is preheated below the primary combustion chamber and
secondary air partly preheated below the primary combustion chamber and
partly on the wall of a primary combustion zone. This air then opens at
the top of primary combustion zone where secondary combustion occurs.
After complete combustion the hot gases goes to the other chamber which
will be uninsulated and will use for heating the room. Right now all the
parts are made of mild steel and chimney of GI sheet.

My idea for next phase is to make primary combustion chamber and part of
secondary combustion zone using locally available material (but for air
passages use metal parts), (some kind of ceramics which can be made
locally at that place) and third chamber for room heating of metal. The
upper plate will also be made using metal. As from my preliminary
experiments on Jumla design stove much of the heat is transferred inside
the room from the upper plate.

> I have written my contribution to your 'perfect' stove. It needs the
> following:

>- High mass (clay and stone and cement) - something outwardly
> resembling a Lorena Stove but with different internal parts and air >
> flows

Ans: Clay in those areas is not good for making stove. there is a need
of huge amount of energy for room heating which clay stove will not able
to fulfill. Stones in other hand when periodical heating and cooling
during cooking will cracks.

>- Preheated secondary air based on either metal or a clay pot with >
> holes in it, at or just above the initial combustion area.
Ans
Similar to above

>- Outdoor air feeding the fire through the outside wall so as to avoid
> taking hot air (heat) from the room thus reducing drafts.

Ans
Good idea but I am afraid of additional cost of stove due to this

> - A fuel feed door that can mostly be closed (doesn't have to be
> perfect) which means the fuel has to be cut to a length that can be
> accomodated in the combustion chamber - perhaps 500mm?

Ans
In current jumla design stove and my protptype its upto 300 mm and 25 mm
dia

The fuel > could be large or small. Long pieces could be
accomodated by making > a U-shaped metal plate to try to seal the gaps.

Ans
I haven?t got the picture of U-shaped metal plate. Please elaborate more

>- A chimney to the outside with sufficient draft to prevent varying
> winds reversing the chimney gas flow.

>- If a metal chimney is used, the incoming air can be preheated by
> downdrafting the cold air against the outside of the chimney. With a
> high mass stove this is quite easy to do because there is room for it.
Ans:
If I am right, pressure inside the combustion chamber should be
sufficiently less compared to atmospheric air so it sucks the preheated
air downwards. Again it?s the cost that matters.

> - if it is a clay tile chimney, you can create a hot air exchange >
> that is not as efficienct but basically you run the air through parts
> > of the stove body to heat it. You gain combustion efficiency doing
> > this so 'losing' the heat is not a problem. It isn't really lost.
> > It raises the temperature of the combustions gases which increases
> > heat transfer to a pot.

>- The closing of the feed door will reduce the radiation of heat into
> the room, but you can extend the 'stove' by feeding the chimney gases
>through a long channel or bench-like flue to increase the area >
> radiating
> heat into the room. This also adds mass so it will maintain an even
> temperature for a long time with a fluctuating fire.

Ans
Current Jumla design stove and my prototype both has door.

This description presumes that people can build in clay and stone and
possibly cement for next to nothing - only their time and effort.

>But what we are doing through Kathmandu University is
>disseminating a stove called "Jumla Design Stove" (3
>pot hole, metal stove). Results are satisfactory till this date.

> Is this in your $15 range? If metal can be used, remember that
> getting the cold air from outside and preheating it is a major
> improvement. Metal can also be used to transfer heat to the room by
> making the cooking surface large or long.

Ans
NO the stove cost about NRs 3,700 (1 US$ = NRs 73) in Nepalgunj where we
manufacture it. As there is only air transportation available, it costs
NRs 50 - 60 per kg. The stove weights about 35 kg. Hence NRs 2000 only
for transportation for each stove. Villagers pay NRs 2,000 to NRs 2,500
and rest they get subsidy. Mr Alex Zahnd in RDC unit in Kathmandu
University implements the stove through external sponsors and till this
dates he is able to implement the stove in more than 2000 stove
according to our record.

> This stove could be adapted to take air from outside and if it is all
> metel, air can be preheated using outgoing flue gas heat. This layout
> makes the room far more comfortable because it nearly eliminates cold
> air drafts. One thing to check is whether the CO and CO2 levels in
> the room creep upwards. This can happen if there is a wind against
> the air inlet wall and simultaneously a leaky or open window or door
> on the opposite side of the room. Fumes can be drawn out of the stove
> and into the room in such circumstances. This condition can also
> prevail with a regular stove running on air from the room, but you
> should establish if it is better or worse.

Ans
Jumla design stove which is a simple design stove with not much control
on air and preheating, costs NRs 3,700 and NRs 2,000 (1 US$ = NRs 73)
transportation cost. Our dream stove with air from outside the room and
preheating system will definitely add more costs if we make stove using
metal. What I believe is that, making primary and part of secondary
combustion zone using locally available material (but internal parts
using metals), a third heating zone using metal and upper plate of stove
and chimney of metal will fulfill the need. But bitter part is the
material available in those places doesn?t have any property that helps
on construction of stove for those areas except stone for 3 stone open
fire place.

Thanks again
kanchan

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Mon May 17 18:27:53 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:07 2004
Subject: Gas and Biomass
Message-ID: <TUE.18.MAY.2004.002753.0200.>

Dear Stovers

I really like the idea of exploring unconventional methods of stove
construction and I look forward to seeing one the Pyromid stoves
working.

One of the things I haven't seem much talked about is shaping the
mouldable fuels to the stove. Why should we accept that charcoal
briquettes have to be little pillows just because that is easy to make
in an automatic machine?

The biomass briquettes are well suited to this, though they have been
made round with a hole in the center for what are probably reasons
related to the making of the inexpensive briquette press, not
necessarily to the stove's needs or shape.

So...how about shaping the charcoal briquettes into unconventional
shapes. What about extruding thin cylinders instead of pillows
(a-la-Charka) or toothpaste things that look like solid macaroni
(a-la-Karve). How about making charcoal sheets? Stars? Logs?
Tetrahedrons? Dodidecahedrons? How about spagetti shaped charcoal?

If you were told that you could make the charcoal _any_ shape you
wanted, how would you shape it so that it produced the right amount of
heat after the right amount of time from the start of cooking? Surely
Dr Karve or someone using charcoal can describe the amount of heat they
need for a certain cooking task so that some imaginative briquetters can
try to create exactly that heat/time profile.

In the same way that a holey briquette is almost a combustible stove, we
could try to make a large charcoal briquette (brick?) in the shape of a
stove that burns itself out at the end of the 'cook'.

The material is pretty strong, stable and easily formed.

I have tried making coal dust into large shapes using soil-cement as a
binder, formed under high pressure in a manual brick press. It is
strong enough to hold together during transport to a house. This could
be done with charcoal dust as well with reduced pressure.

Regards
Crispin

++++++++++++++++

Andrew, Paul etal

The most efficient charcoal burner I have heard of on "stoves" was
the "Pyromid" (http://www.pyromid.net/oldsite/index.html).

[snip]

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Mon May 17 18:27:53 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:07 2004
Subject: matching the pot to the stove
Message-ID: <TUE.18.MAY.2004.002753.0200.>

Dear Robert v.d.Plass

Thank you for this succinct contribution:

>However, there are also millions of households in Africa
>that use "traditional" charcoal stoves that perform far worse
>than a KCJ (after all, that's why the KCJ is called an improved
>stove). These other stoves are sold for much less money than
>the KCJ, with $1-2 no exception. The real challenge is to
>develop a stove that is (almost) as good as the KCJ, costs a
>lot less, and is still accepted by households. If you are able to
>do just that, you have provided a major service to both (rural)
>development and the environment.

Apart from exploring how to make stoves that suit the market, the pot
and the vendors, I think we should look creatively at how to use the
materials and the supply chain in the formal sector (where many of the
materials originate) to create lower cost stoves that provide more
service.

This is a form of deflation. The idea is to provide more for the same
cost, rather like a computer market. The computers drop in cost each
year because there is so much effort placed on working out increases in
performance and reduction in size (increased complexity within the same
budget).

Applying this approach to stoves one quickly sees that it is through the
forming of parts at a low cost where progress can most easily be made.
Formed materials (parts) entering the system at the price of raw
materials provides efficiency and appearance gains without an increase
in price.

A recent trend that will be of interest is that the cost of 3CR12 and
409 stainless steel has dropped in relation to galvanized iron sheeting,
apparently because of demand for steel from China. Plain iron is
increasing at 2 to 4 times the rate of low end stainless steel. Part of
it may be manipulation of the market, however the benefits are still
there: lower costs for increased life if better materials can be used.

To give you an idea how close these are in price, a combustion chamber
made from 1.6mm galv. mild steel sheet will have a life 'X'. At a cost
of say, $1.20 per kg (just as an example).

A similar combustion chamber made from SS409 (which is slightly cheaper
than 3CR12 in this area) can be made from 0.6mm sheet and will have life
'3X'. It will cost about $2.25 per kg, but the final cost of the part
will cost 30% less.

This means we deliver 3 times the stove life for a lower cost by moving
to a higher tech material.

The part forming process can be mechanized so as to provide efficient
door closing, good hinges, strong lips and accurate fits for liners.
Hand assembly and fitting the parts together provides the continued
employment of artisans who shift their contribution from energy-wasting
profiling operations to the assembly and fitting of controllers,
shrouds, handles, feet etc.

The manufacture of steel window frames on a small scale works on this
model. The windows look exactly the same as mass produced products
because the same basic components are traded through rural shops.

There is no reason why poor people can not enjoy the benefits of
modernity's knowledge and other resources that are frequently only a few
miles away.

Regards
Crispin

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Mon May 17 21:15:28 2004
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (adkarve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:07 2004
Subject: Mountain areas in Nepal also common test standardfor
stove to AJH, PV and others
Message-ID: <TUE.18.MAY.2004.064528.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Mr.Rai,
While describing the situation of Nepalese living a high altitudes, you
stated <only pinewood is available but free of cost as long as forest
exists>.
This means that you also have a lot of pine needles. These can be converted
into charcoal and briquetted by using our technology, which works
beautifully for sugarcane leaves.
Yours
Dr.A.D.Karve, President,
Appropriate Rural Technology Institute,
Pune.

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Tue May 18 11:31:22 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:07 2004
Subject: Carbon Credit - what is it worth?
Message-ID: <TUE.18.MAY.2004.103122.0500.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Stovers (especially Ronal, but others might have inputs also),

For the biomass-burning people around the developing world, is there any
financial value in Kyoto-agreement "carbon credit"? Here are the reasons
for my question:

Kanchan Rai wrote:
Yes! the fuel consumption per day by a family is huge. On open fire
20-35 kg per day depending upon the size of family. Somewhere in Karnali
Community Skill Training (KCST)(now it does not exist which used to work
in Jumla),annual report, I found up to 60 kg/day in some families, but it
doesn't suprises me, as I have been there and saw the use of fire wood.
--- end of quote----

Those people are not saving charcoal (carbon), but they could. and the
small gasifiers being developed along the lines/principles of the
Reed-Larson IDD gasifier stoves are very good at making charcoal. So....

Assume that a family produces and saves 1 KG of good quality carbon (char)
per day, and agrees to NOT burn it or allow anyone else to burn it. That
is 365 kg per year, or 1000 kg per 3 years. One metric ton of carbon per
household in 3 years.

What is a ton of sequestered carbon worth? And who would pay for it?

We are reminded that many of these households do not see (touch/hold) more
than a single US$ per day, or a $1000 per 3 years. Therefore, $100 is 10%
income increase for some of them. But if the ton of carbon is worth only
$10, then the 1% increase would hardly be of any interest.

And if the calculation are based on villages of 300 households, that would
be 100 tons per year. What might that amount be worth to the
village/community? Part of a road? Support for a health clinic? Some
educational project? or CREDIT for the introduction of the stoves that
will generate the income?

And if the carbon production is more than a kg per household per day, then
what are the numbers, and do they have any significance for the
person/community?

Finally, whatever the figures are today, perhaps in some future decades the
values will be considerably higher.

Related: What to do with the carbon? Easy!!!! Spread it into the
gardens and agricultural fields, with the emerging benefits of the "terra
preta" (black earth) soils. Absolutely sequestered in a highly appropriate
way.

This could be a win-win-win-win-.... situation.

Paul

Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
Rotary University Teacher Grantee to Mozambique >10 mo of 2001-2003
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

From Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP Tue May 18 21:30:35 2004
From: Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP (Kanchan Rai)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:07 2004
Subject: Mountain areas in Nepal also common test standardfor
stove to AJH, PV and others
In-Reply-To: <000101c43cdf$bb34f4c0$225641db@adkarve>
Message-ID: <WED.19.MAY.2004.071535.0545.KANCHAN@KU.EDU.NP>

Dear Dr. Karve
Yes there is pine needles available in those places .pine cone is
avialable too. some villagers use pinecone during cooking but it burns
quickly. Yes may be there is a possiblity of briquetting technology. But I
guess pine needle or pine cone is not itself a good binder for making
briquettes. i have an experience making briquette using waste paper and
saw dust but not using pine needles.
Could you elaborate more on your technology

kanchan rai

> Dear Mr.Rai,
> While describing the situation of Nepalese living a high altitudes, you
> stated <only pinewood is available but free of cost as long as forest
> exists>.
> This means that you also have a lot of pine needles. These can be
> converted into charcoal and briquetted by using our technology, which
> works
> beautifully for sugarcane leaves.
> Yours
> Dr.A.D.Karve, President,
> Appropriate Rural Technology Institute,
> Pune.

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Tue May 18 11:54:53 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:07 2004
Subject: Sarai Cooker
In-Reply-To: <40A8618B.29490.37A8B5@localhost>
Message-ID: <TUE.18.MAY.2004.105453.0500.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

A.D.

Some of us would like to have / make a Sarai Cooker (or close
equivalent). This is not a simple "copy the CD" solution (like for the CD
about briquettes). So here are some questions and comments:

1. Will you (ARTI, your co-workers) allow others to make Sarai Cookers?
2. What conditions would you impose?
3. What would you like in return?

One option is to "show and tell" and let us make them if we want.
Another option is that you state some conditions and only provide LIMITED
permissions to those who agree to your conditions.

I hope that you foresee that Sarai Cookers (or regionally adapted versions)
might be successful in Latin America or Africa or elsewhere in Asia, and
perhaps even in USA/Canada and/or Europe. That probably would require some
of us outside of India to be involved.

As for me, I am especially interested in how my very smallest gasifiers
could perhaps be compatible with the Sarai Cooker.

I would be happy to discuss this with you off-List, but I am sure that many
others are also interested in the discussion, and possibly in the results.

Paul
Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
Rotary University Teacher Grantee to Mozambique >10 mo of 2001-2003
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Tue May 18 14:19:36 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:07 2004
Subject: Carbon Credit - what is it worth?
Message-ID: <TUE.18.MAY.2004.151936.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Paul

That is a neat concept you are working toward: the biomass energy the Third
World people burn means an absence of fossil carbon being burned. So, if
they stay off fossil fuel, they should indeed be entitled to a carbon
credit.

Actually, they should get the credit for the fossil fuel that they don't
burn, rather than the charcoal that they bury. A Carbon Credit payment would
encourage them to keep with the biomass, and avoid the switch to fossil
sourced fuels.

Perhaps an even better way would be to pay the Carbon Credit to a "Forestry
Co-op" that could work to reforesting of the areas from which the wood was
taken. This sort of system would also be a lot administrateable.

Best wishes,

Kevin Chisholm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul S. Anderson" <psanders@ILSTU.EDU>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 12:31 PM
Subject: [STOVES] Carbon Credit - what is it worth?

> Stovers (especially Ronal, but others might have inputs also),
>
> For the biomass-burning people around the developing world, is there any
> financial value in Kyoto-agreement "carbon credit"? Here are the reasons
> for my question:
>
> Kanchan Rai wrote:
> Yes! the fuel consumption per day by a family is huge. On open fire
> 20-35 kg per day depending upon the size of family. Somewhere in Karnali
> Community Skill Training (KCST)(now it does not exist which used to work
> in Jumla),annual report, I found up to 60 kg/day in some families, but it
> doesn't suprises me, as I have been there and saw the use of fire wood.
> --- end of quote----
>
> Those people are not saving charcoal (carbon), but they could. and the
> small gasifiers being developed along the lines/principles of the
> Reed-Larson IDD gasifier stoves are very good at making charcoal. So....
>
> Assume that a family produces and saves 1 KG of good quality carbon (char)
> per day, and agrees to NOT burn it or allow anyone else to burn it. That
> is 365 kg per year, or 1000 kg per 3 years. One metric ton of carbon per
> household in 3 years.
>
> What is a ton of sequestered carbon worth? And who would pay for it?
>
> We are reminded that many of these households do not see (touch/hold) more
> than a single US$ per day, or a $1000 per 3 years. Therefore, $100 is 10%
> income increase for some of them. But if the ton of carbon is worth only
> $10, then the 1% increase would hardly be of any interest.
>
> And if the calculation are based on villages of 300 households, that would
> be 100 tons per year. What might that amount be worth to the
> village/community? Part of a road? Support for a health clinic? Some
> educational project? or CREDIT for the introduction of the stoves that
> will generate the income?
>
> And if the carbon production is more than a kg per household per day, then
> what are the numbers, and do they have any significance for the
> person/community?
>
> Finally, whatever the figures are today, perhaps in some future decades
the
> values will be considerably higher.
>
> Related: What to do with the carbon? Easy!!!! Spread it into the
> gardens and agricultural fields, with the emerging benefits of the "terra
> preta" (black earth) soils. Absolutely sequestered in a highly
appropriate
> way.
>
> This could be a win-win-win-win-.... situation.
>
> Paul
>
>
> Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
> Rotary University Teacher Grantee to Mozambique >10 mo of 2001-2003
> Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
> Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
> E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Tue May 18 15:59:37 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (tombreed@COMCAST.NET)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:07 2004
Subject: Carbon Credit - what is it worth?
Message-ID: <TUE.18.MAY.2004.195937.0000.>

Dear Paul and Aul:
k
Interesting comments on the extravagent use of wood for cooking(30 kg/d ~10 t/y) only.

I get tired of US/EU self castigation in energy usage. I remember reading in Hottel and Howard about 1973 that, while total US energy was approaching 10^17 quads (ecajoules?) that the consumption per person had gone down in the last century due to more efficient use. My grandfather required a pile of wood the size of his house (30X30X30 ~ 300 cords~300 tons hardwood) to heat it, due to very little insulation. I could probably heat my bigger house with < 2 tons (2 cords of wood pellets due to good insulation, efficient combustion and better distribution and temperature control.

So, being comfortable doesn't need to be wasteful. Just smart.
~~~~~
I am currently in Urbana, IL helping my wife console her sister for the loss of her son (smoking, age 41). No high speed internet here. My temporary address is tombreed3@aol.com. (Neat trick for comcast customers on the road: Install the 1099 free hours of AOL and cancel when the trip is over. ) Maybe I'll like it so much I'll keep it!

Hope to see Dr. Bond on Friday. Back to my tombreed@comcast.net address next Monday.

Tom Reed Woodgas Stoves

TOM REED

 

> Dear Paul
>
> That is a neat concept you are working toward: the biomass energy the Third
> World people burn means an absence of fossil carbon being burned. So, if
> they stay off fossil fuel, they should indeed be entitled to a carbon
> credit.
>
> Actually, they should get the credit for the fossil fuel that they don't
> burn, rather than the charcoal that they bury. A Carbon Credit payment would
> encourage them to keep with the biomass, and avoid the switch to fossil
> sourced fuels.
>
> Perhaps an even better way would be to pay the Carbon Credit to a "Forestry
> Co-op" that could work to reforesting of the areas from which the wood was
> taken. This sort of system would also be a lot administrateable.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin Chisholm
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul S. Anderson" <psanders@ILSTU.EDU>
> To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 12:31 PM
> Subject: [STOVES] Carbon Credit - what is it worth?
>
>
> > Stovers (especially Ronal, but others might have inputs also),
> >
> > For the biomass-burning people around the developing world, is there any
> > financial value in Kyoto-agreement "carbon credit"? Here are the reasons
> > for my question:
> >
> > Kanchan Rai wrote:
> > Yes! the fuel consumption per day by a family is huge. On open fire
> > 20-35 kg per day depending upon the size of family. Somewhere in Karnali
> > Community Skill Training (KCST)(now it does not exist which used to work
> > in Jumla),annual report, I found up to 60 kg/day in some families, but it
> > doesn't suprises me, as I have been there and saw the use of fire wood.
> > --- end of quote----
> >
> > Those people are not saving charcoal (carbon), but they could. and the
> > small gasifiers being developed along the lines/principles of the
> > Reed-Larson IDD gasifier stoves are very good at making charcoal. So....
> >
> > Assume that a family produces and saves 1 KG of good quality carbon (char)
> > per day, and agrees to NOT burn it or allow anyone else to burn it. That
> > is 365 kg per year, or 1000 kg per 3 years. One metric ton of carbon per
> > household in 3 years.
> >
> > What is a ton of sequestered carbon worth? And who would pay for it?
> >
> > We are reminded that many of these households do not see (touch/hold) more
> > than a single US$ per day, or a $1000 per 3 years. Therefore, $100 is 10%
> > income increase for some of them. But if the ton of carbon is worth only
> > $10, then the 1% increase would hardly be of any interest.
> >
> > And if the calculation are based on villages of 300 households, that would
> > be 100 tons per year. What might that amount be worth to the
> > village/community? Part of a road? Support for a health clinic? Some
> > educational project? or CREDIT for the introduction of the stoves that
> > will generate the income?
> >
> > And if the carbon production is more than a kg per household per day, then
> > what are the numbers, and do they have any significance for the
> > person/community?
> >
> > Finally, whatever the figures are today, perhaps in some future decades
> the
> > values will be considerably higher.
> >
> > Related: What to do with the carbon? Easy!!!! Spread it into the
> > gardens and agricultural fields, with the emerging benefits of the "terra
> > preta" (black earth) soils. Absolutely sequestered in a highly
> appropriate
> > way.
> >
> > This could be a win-win-win-win-.... situation.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
> > Rotary University Teacher Grantee to Mozambique >10 mo of 2001-2003
> > Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
> > Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
> > E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

From solar1 at ZUPER.NET Tue May 18 16:35:56 2004
From: solar1 at ZUPER.NET (Fundacion Centro para el Desarrollo con Energia Solar)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:07 2004
Subject: Carbon Credit - what is it worth?
In-Reply-To: <007201c43d05$57a13510$5a9a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <TUE.18.MAY.2004.163556.0400.SOLAR1@ZUPER.NET>

in a previous message, Kevin Chisholm on 5/18/04 14:19 at
kchisholm@ca.inter.net wrote:
Kevin said
> Dear Paul
>
> That is a neat concept you are working toward: the biomass energy the Third
> World people burn means an absence of fossil carbon being burned. So, if
> they stay off fossil fuel, they should indeed be entitled to a carbon
> credit.
>
>> Paul Said . . . .
>> Stovers (especially Ronal, but others might have inputs also),
>> For the biomass-burning people around the developing world, is there any
>> financial value in Kyoto-agreement "carbon credit"? Here are the reasons
>> for my question:
>>>
>> This could be a win-win-win-win-.... situation.
>>
>> Paul
>>
Please consider these thoughts prepared last year for discussions unrelated
to the stove list . . .

Justification For Ecological Cooker/ Reforestation Program

 

It is known that worldwide an average family uses about 4 tonnes of wood or
equivalent in fossil fuel per year for cooking. That translates into about
6.31 to 8.51 tonnes of CO2 (see note below). Taking into consideration that
not all families will achieve optimum savings, we use the quantity of 7.42
tonnes per cooking system per year so that a 65% or better fuel savings
(results of solar cooker program according to data gathered in surveys 2000
to 2003) means a reduction of approximately 4.8 tonnes of CO2 per year per
cooking system..

A cooking system is designed to last 15 to 20 years. Let us use the
conservative figure of 15 years useful lifetime of the cooking system.

We have built over the last years in the following manner. (based on
2002-2003 data, since then about 500 more are in use)

78 x 3 years = 234
267 x 2 years = 534
500 x 1 year = 500
1,268 systems x 4.8 tonnes during the 3-year period could equal
6,086.4 tonnes. Over 15 years this reduction of CO2 could become about
91,296 tonnes. Assigning an assumed green certificate value of 3 US$ per
tone, the value of those existing systems would be 273,888 $US, or
approximately 216.00 $US for each system.

We project the ability to produce and disseminate between 1,000 and 5,000
ecological cooker systems per year over the next 10 years.
Year 2003 1,000 cookers x 216 x = 216,000
Year 2004 2,000 cookers x 216 x = 432,000
Year 2005 2,500 cookers x 216 x = 540,000
Year 2006 2,500 cookers x 216 x = 540,000
Year 2007 3,000 cookers x 216 x = 648,000
Year 2008 3,000 cookers x 216 x = 648,000
Year 2009 3,500 cookers x 216 x = 756,000
Year 2010 4,000 cookers x 216 x = 864,000
Year 2011 4,500 cookers x 216 x = 972,000
Year 2012 5,000 cookers x 216 x = 1,080,000
Year 2013 5,000 cookers x 216 x = 1,080,000

 

36,000 cooker systems x 4.8 mT/CO2 x 15 years x 3 $US per tone =
7,776,000 $US value of Green Certificates.

Furthermore, combining the ecological cooker system program with a
reforestation program that takes into consideration and allows for an 80%
reduction in fuel wood use for cooking, and provides for planting and caring
for 150 trees (for each participating family) of native species and specific
fire wood species by the rural population participating in the ecological
cooker program will greatly increase the capture and reduction of CO2.

Now, calculating the CO2 value removed from the atmosphere by each tree to
be 3 tonnes over the average life span we are using (15 ? 20 years) 150
trees equals 450 tonnes x 3 $US amounts to a green certificate value of
1,350.00 $US per family. 36,000 participants could generate the value of
48,600,000.00 $US during the program.

Value added for ecological cooker systems 7,776,000.00 $US
Value added for reforestation and controlled use 48,600,000.00 $US
Total Green Certificate value possible through the program
56,376,000.00 $US

Granted, this monologue has many suppositions, however this simplified
vision gives us a basis for utilizing the documentation from the Project
Design Document for Eritrea Dissemination of Improved Stoves Program, and
the Verification Document for Eritrea Dissemination of Improved Stoves
Program (EDISP) as the basis to formulate a PROJECT DESIGN of THE BOLIVIAN
PROGRAM FOR DISSEMINATION OF ECOLOGICAL COOKERS AND REFORESTATION.

Adapting the existing project design to actual conditions in Bolivia for
biomass use, we can derive more accurate figures for green certificate
values. Even if revised values became just 50% of the figures shown above,
there is justification for this program.

Through project experience and methodology developed by David and Ruth
Whitfield during 4 years of determining that this technology can be
assimilated into Bolivian culture, much experience has been gained about the
needs and abilities of the mostly rural and peri-urban population in
Bolivia. The foundation, Centro de Desarrollo en Energ?a Solar is prepared
to apply this knowledge in conjunction with others to develop and implement
a strategy acceptable under the Clean Development Initiative Guidelines.

As Executive Director of CEDESOL, I invite you to consider collaborating
with us to establish a Clean Development Project Fund based on the amounts
that have been and could be harvested in this and other initiatives.

Respectfully submitted

David E. Whitfield V.

NOTE: The calculations are based on an average derived from the method
described on Page 2 - section 5.31 of Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Reference Manual. Carbon content of
biomass is stated as 0.43 - 0.58 kg C/kg Biomass while CO2 equivalent of
carbon is 3.67 kg CO2/kg C. The 65% fuel saving is derived from data
gathered during 6 month follow up interviews of 378 participants during the
execution of the Bolivian Ecological Cooker project 2002 ? 2003.

Recall that the term Ecological Cookers or as Wilfred Pimentel uses,
Integrated Cooking Systems (ideas he brought back after doing a project with
us in late 2002) referred to the combined use of solar cookers, retained
heat cookers and efficient wood stoves like the Rocket Stove.

The money generated on paper form the green certificates pays for the
construction, distribution, dissemination and monitoring of the systems and
sustainable use reforestation.

--
In dreams begin our possibilities
Shakespeare

David Whitfield
Director
CEDESOL
P.O. Box 4723
La Paz Bolivia South America
591-2-2414882 office 591 774 24269 cellular

solar1@zuper.net
aguaviva@zuper.net
dewv@yahoo.com

http://www.solarcooking.org/media/broadcast/whitfield/bio-whitfield.htm

http://www.thehungersite.com

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Tue May 18 17:33:11 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:07 2004
Subject: Carbon Credit - what is it worth?
Message-ID: <TUE.18.MAY.2004.233311.0200.>

Dear Paul

There are two valuable contributions in your post - stimulating ones I
guess I can say.

No. 1 You could probably gasify those pine needles Dr Karve talked
about without having to chop or slice anything.

No. 2 The value of the carbon influence etc saved by not burning wood
was looked at very carefully by the GTZ Solar project in RSA (I think
solarcookers.co.za) and they concluded that the value of carbon that
could generate a credit if wood is 'not burned' is 30% of the saved
wood's carbon content.

There is a lot of data and analysis to support this view which you could
get from David Hancock's files. They spent a fortune investigating this
with the intention to get carbon credits for solar cookers as a method
of reducing their distributed cost.

I had a meeting today with the Renewable Energy Association of Swaziland
and which this question came up and Hannah the project leader said there
remains a question which we will have to answer one way or another:
Kyoto Agreement-based carbon trading falls into two distinct categories
which have different mechanisms: carbon avoidance (not burning coal) and
sequestration (planting new forests of trees).

It is not totally clear where distributed application (lots of stoves)
falls in this, in spite of it obviously being biomass by type. The
argument was made in GTZ's document that avoidance of cutting trees is
the same as planting them and one hopes basic sanity prevails, but don't
bet on it. Preventing one person from cutting a tree may just leave it
free to be cut down by someone else. One might have to do aerial
surveys or something to document it for requisite (periodic)
evaluation-cum-proof of savings.

The Solar Cooker Project calculated the standing growth continuing to
grow, the rotting of old trees not burned, the opening of space for new
trees to grow buy cutting the others down to burn, the efficiency of the
combustion and I suppose the type of trees in the area west of
Johannesburg.

The bottom line is 30%. If you have a carbon content of 50% in the
wood, then saving 30 Kg of wood a day would give you 4.5Kg carbon = just
about 13.5kg of CO2 to trade. That is about 5 tons per year. If your
stove can last 3 years you could get 15 tons x $10 (?) = $150 per stove
installed, if you can satisfy the CDM conditions which are rigorous.

At the present time I am hoping that with the help of Boris Kamstra, New
Dawn Energy Systems (in RSA) will be able to start a realistic
initiative to get the concept of distributed wood stoves as an
acceptable application of the CDM CO2 initiative. All that failing, we
could start trading the carbon on a parallel market - perhaps the Black
Carbon Trading Company, or Tami's favourite, the Renegade Traders
Association.

Regards
Crispin

From lanny at ROMAN.NET Tue May 18 17:54:28 2004
From: lanny at ROMAN.NET (Lanny Henson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:07 2004
Subject: The Bain Marie Pot
Message-ID: <TUE.18.MAY.2004.175428.0400.LANNY@ROMAN.NET>

Dear Stove Friends,
Are you familiar with the Bain Marie Pot?
This may be just the pot for sunken pot stoves.
They are used as steam table inserts so the sizes are standard.
They have a large surface area for collecting heat and a small surface area
to loose heat.
They are made from stainless which is clean and durable.
They are not too expensive. The 8.25QT pot is $10.98 and the lid is $2.37.
http://www.instawares.com/crestware.0.97.3-1.0.htm
The flat lid allows for stacking of the pots.
This is a European invention but I have not been able to find the metric
version.
Does anyone have a source and specs for metric Bain Marie pots ?
Is this cost too high to be the standard sunken pot?
Anyone know an India or China source?
The manufacture category is "Deep Drawn Stainless"
Thanks,
Lanny Henson

From solar1 at ZUPER.NET Tue May 18 22:50:18 2004
From: solar1 at ZUPER.NET (Fundacion Centro para el Desarrollo con Energia Solar)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:07 2004
Subject: Carbon Credit - what is it worth?
In-Reply-To: <000c01c43d1f$d12686a0$e49dfea9@home>
Message-ID: <TUE.18.MAY.2004.225018.0400.SOLAR1@ZUPER.NET>

in a previous message, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott on 5/18/04 17:33 at
crispin@newdawn.sz wrote:
> No. 2 The value of the carbon influence etc saved by not burning wood
> was looked at very carefully by the GTZ Solar project in RSA (I think
> solarcookers.co.za) and they concluded that the value of carbon that
> could generate a credit if wood is 'not burned' is 30% of the saved
> wood's carbon content.
>
> The bottom line is 30%. If you have a carbon content of 50% in the
> wood, then saving 30 Kg of wood a day would give you 4.5Kg carbon = just
> about 13.5kg of CO2 to trade. That is about 5 tons per year. If your
> stove can last 3 years you could get 15 tons x $10 (?) = $150 per stove
> installed, if you can satisfy the CDM conditions which are rigorous.
>
> At the present time I am hoping that with the help of Boris Kamstra, New
> Dawn Energy Systems (in RSA) will be able to start a realistic
> initiative to get the concept of distributed wood stoves as an
> acceptable application of the CDM CO2 initiative. All that failing, we
> could start trading the carbon on a parallel market - perhaps the Black
> Carbon Trading Company, or Tami's favourite, the Renegade Traders
> Association.
>
> Regards
> Crispin
>
Dear Crispin,

Unfortunately, even after spending 3.6 million dollars, the excellent South
African GTZ solar cooker project only managed to produce users at what they
calculated to be 38% of the time.

Our under funded project here in Bolivia was able to document 65% fuel
savings which indicates the users prepared their meals with the solar
cookers either in solar mode or retained heat mode 65% of the time.

That certainly changes the numbers for the value of CO2 and GHGs.

Our main difference was in methodology. Instead of starting our focusing on
technology and manufacturing efficiencies, we focus on technology exchange
through sociological approaches. Now as demand has increased, we are
helping the private sector supply demand with low interest micro loans to
purchase the equipment.

You must know that there already is a successful stove project based on CDM

Why not research the Project Design Document for Eritrea Dissemination of
Improved Stoves Program and use that as your starting point.

We have a different perspective which we haven't gotten funding for yet but
considering that reforestation is a community project, assuring the
sustainable use also, and that the Carbon credits will actually belong to
the communities (minus the govs percentage), we propose to hold them in
trust for the communities and pay the campesinos for the reforestation with
ecological cookers. We are talking efficient rocket stoves, retained heat
cookers, solar cookers, eventually solar water heaters and finally PV
systems, as the evaluation team ratifies the carbon savings and performance
of cooker use.

We suggest using a system similar to the one described in "Greenhouse Gas
Emissions by Cooking With Different Fuels
and the Reduction Potential of Solar Cookers - Internal Draft 5, 13/08/2002
- Michael Grupp, Synopsis, Route d?Olmet, F ? 34700 Lod?ve, Marlett Wentzel,
Palmer Development Consulting, Pretoria"

If we could all collaborate on a methodology eventually replicable, perhaps
we can see a billion stoves in our lifetime!

David Whitfield

--
"It is always the simple that produces the marvelous" Amelia Barr

 

http://www.solarcooking.org/media/broadcast/whitfield/bio-whitfield.htm

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Tue May 18 21:20:44 2004
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (adkarve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:07 2004
Subject: char briquettes
Message-ID: <WED.19.MAY.2004.065044.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Mr. Rai,
please find below a write up of the briquetting technology. The charcoal
formed from such material is powdery. You have to use a suitable binder to
make briquettes. We use flour swept from the floor of a flour mill. It is
available at a price of about Rs. 2 to 3 per kg. The flour is boiled with a
little water to make the binder paste.

Briquetted charcoal from sugarcane trash
Appropriate Rural Technology Institute,
Maninee Apartments, Survey no. 13, Dhayarigaon, Pune 411 041, India.

INTRODUCTION
Dry leaves, left in the field after harvest of sugarcane, are called trash.
On an average, a hectare of sugarcane generates about 10 tonnes of trash.
Because it has no value as cattle fodder, and because it also resists
decomposition, the trash is burnt in situ, in order to clear the field for
the next crop. It is estimated, that in the State of Maharashtra, more than
4000,000 tonnes of trash are destroyed in this way. Pyrolysing the trash and
converting it into fuel briquettes, can be a very profitable, small scale,
rural business.

THE PROCESS
The charring kiln, a portable cylindrical structure (about 150 cm wide and
100 cm tall) made out of sheet iron, is placed in the field, where sugarcane
harvest is in progress. The trash is filled into cylindrical metal
containers, 37.5 cm wide and 60 cm tall. The kiln takes 7 such containers at
a time. All containers together accommodate 21 kg of trash. After loading
the containers into the kiln, the top of the kiln is closed with sheet metal
lid, which is provided with a chimney. About 10 kg trash is burnt underneath
the containers (in the kiln) to start the process of pyrolysis. The heat of
the trash burning underneath the containers pyrolyses the trash in the
containers. Pyrolysis gas generated in the process leaves the containers
through holes in their bottom, and it too burns, to serve as additional fuel
in this process. Each batch, taking about 40 minutes to complete, produces
about 7 kg char (30% of the trash filled in the barrelsThree workers can
simultaneously operate two kilns to produce daily about 100kg char. The char
is powdered, mixed with a suitable binder, and shaped, with the help of a
mold, into briquettes. Our mould allows one person to produce daily about
100 kg briquettes. The briquettes are laid out in the sun for drying.
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS (1US$=Indian Rupees 45).
The operator must have some land for drying the briquettes. The capital cost
of two kilns and a set of 42 containers is about Rs. 26,000 . Thus a family
unit of 4 persons can produce daily 100 kg briquettes, which can be sold at
a price of Rs.5 per kg. A family can thus earn daily Rs. 500 per day, which
is equivalent to the income of an urban middle class family. Use can be made
of other agricultural waste material such as stems of cotton, pigeonpea,
safflower, wheat and rice straw, maize cobs, or leaf litter from any
plantation crop like rubber, cashew, mango, papaya, etc. Wood can also be
converted into charcoal by using this unit. If wood is used as the raw
material, there is no need for converting it into briquettes. If the 16
weeks of the rainy (monsoon) season are excluded, such a unit can work for
about 36 weeks in a year, earning more than Rs. 100,000 (US$2250). The
metallic kilns and barrels would however eventually burn out. Even assuming
a total replacement of these items every year, the profit from this
operation would be annually Rs. 74,000, or roughly Rs. 6000 per month, which
is a very good income by Indian rural standards.
We have also developed another economic model, in which an entrepreneur
invests money in 20 kilns, which are distributed to 10 families. It requires
two members of the family to operate two kilns, with which they make daily
100 kg char. This is purchased by the entrepreneur at Rs. 2 per kg. He
operates a heavy duty extruder to convert the char into briquettes and sells
them. In this model, the families operating the kilns earn only Rs. 200 per
day, but they do not invest any money. The entrepreneur makes a net annual
profit of Rs. 600,000 (equivalent to the salary of a high official in New
Delhi). In this model, we have taken into consideration the depreciation on
machinery and the kilns, bank interest and operating expenses into
consideration.
Yours
A.D.Karve

----- Original Message -----
From: Kanchan Rai <Kanchan@KU.EDU.NP>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 7:00 AM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] RE : Mountain areas in Nepal also common test
standardforstove to AJH, PV and others

> Dear Dr. Karve
> Yes there is pine needles available in those places .pine cone is
> avialable too. some villagers use pinecone during cooking but it burns
> quickly. Yes may be there is a possiblity of briquetting technology. But I
> guess pine needle or pine cone is not itself a good binder for making
> briquettes. i have an experience making briquette using waste paper and
> saw dust but not using pine needles.
> Could you elaborate more on your technology
>
> kanchan rai
>
> > Dear Mr.Rai,
> > While describing the situation of Nepalese living a high altitudes, you
> > stated <only pinewood is available but free of cost as long as forest
> > exists>.
> > This means that you also have a lot of pine needles. These can be
> > converted into charcoal and briquetted by using our technology, which
> > works
> > beautifully for sugarcane leaves.
> > Yours
> > Dr.A.D.Karve, President,
> > Appropriate Rural Technology Institute,
> > Pune.

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Tue May 18 23:13:07 2004
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (adkarve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:07 2004
Subject: Annual wood per family
Message-ID: <WED.19.MAY.2004.084307.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Mr.Whitfield,

Our own findings in India are that a family uses about 8 kg wood when it
uses the traditional horseshoe shaped mud stove and just 2kg per day when it
uses our improved cookstove. This is slightly less than three tonnes per
family per year in the case of the traditional and just 730 kg in the case
of the improved stove. If the family were to use charcoal (or char
briquettes) and an efficient stove/cooker, it would need just 200 kg
charcoal per year. I am talking here only of the fuel used for cooking and
not for roomheating or bath water heating. The advantage of charcoal is that
it can be produced from agricultural waste, and therefore the trees are not
cut.
Yours
A.D.Karve

From rstanley at LEGACYFOUND.ORG Wed May 19 07:43:14 2004
From: rstanley at LEGACYFOUND.ORG (Richard Stanley)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:07 2004
Subject: Pot size problem
In-Reply-To: <BA468CE631F86A4D831FCBD4EB1C692C4D7AA0@floyd.cfl.local>
Message-ID: <WED.19.MAY.2004.134314.0200.RSTANLEY@LEGACYFOUND.ORG>

Jeff,
I was looking at the possibility of a funel shaped stove top-cum-pot
holder, (widening upward), fitted with a series of three radiating
(internal) spokes. Each of these spokes or rails would have a series of
steps or notches. Increasingly larger diameter pots (whether flat or
round bottomed), would seat on (or in the case of flat bottoms), in, the
progressively wider spaced notches (read notches at larger radii), all
down within the funnel enclosure. The gas clearance between the pot and
the funnel is maintained this way and the pot stability is somewhat
better maintained than with a fixed width flat top.
Lakini, ... one doe not optimise enclosure of the pot as with a vertical
ring, nor perhaps might one realise the stack effect, such a vertical
ring would effectively create. More disconcerting, the larger pots will
be further away from (higher from) the fire bed.

So now from an extension standpoint (perhaps the real the sticky part),
all we have to do is convince the user to cook foods requiring
intensive heat (meat, hot water for tea or coffee etc.) in small
diameter pots, and slower simmering foods. beans, stew, mize meal
porridge pablum etc., in larger pots. Hmmm small extension problem or ???

What do you all think on this: Anybody with experience with same or
similar idea ?
What is the effect of creating a large and rapidly widening exhaust
area for the cooling gasses as they pass by outer edges of the pot?

Salaams, Jeff,

Richard / SA Paushof

>
>
>
>
>

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Wed May 19 08:46:31 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:07 2004
Subject: Carbon Credit - what is it worth?
Message-ID: <WED.19.MAY.2004.144631.0200.CRISPIN@NEWDAWN.SZ>

Dear David

>> The bottom line is 30%.

>Unfortunately, even after spending 3.6 million dollars, the excellent
>South African GTZ solar cooker project only managed to produce
>users at what they calculated to be 38% of the time.

I feel that you are of the impression that the 30% figure relates to how the
stoves were used. I want to clear that up. The 30% figure relates to the
wood save, not how or at what rate it was not burned.

I stumbled across the solar cooker project as David Hancock was taking it
over near the end of its life. Within saying much more, I would venture
that the best thing to come out of it is a well grounded assessment
(CDM-worthy) analysis of the saleable CO2 from a ton of wood not burned.

I am happy to hear that you have had such a high rate of use. That is
encouraging.

The document you cites was the one produced for the GTZ solar cooker project
by Marlett and others at Palmer Dev C.

>Our main difference was in methodology. Instead of
>starting our focusing on technology and manufacturing
>efficiencies, we focus on technology exchange through
>sociological approaches.

I agree. They have focussed (pardon the pun) on parabolic cookers with
estimate made as to how to make them in large enough quantities to leave an
unsubsidized market working on its own in the formal sector. It is a steel
hill to climb. They also spent money on developing a small folding
non-parabolic (the T-16) which is beautiful but no one can afford it.

>You must know that there already is a successful stove project based on CDM

Yes I have heard about it existing but not heard if they are selling
anything and getting the money. I presume it is working for them.

>Why not research the Project Design Document for Eritrea
>Dissemination of Improved Stoves Program and use that as
>your starting point.

>We have a different perspective which we haven't gotten funding
>for yet but considering that reforestation is a community project,
>assuring the sustainable use also...

I am wondering if you are in any way subsidizing the whole process. For
example, if you pulled out, would the cookers continue to sell and would
everyone in the distribution chain make a living?

In South Africca where income are relatively high, it is difficult to find a
product people will pay enough for to support the supply and training
system.

>If we could all collaborate on a methodology eventually
>replicable, perhaps we can see a billion stoves in our lifetime!

This is what I am hoping to do. I have a feeling it will be easier for coal
not burned than wood not burned.

Thanks
Crispin

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Wed May 19 10:05:22 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:07 2004
Subject: Understanding Carbon... Was Re: [STOVES] Carbon Credit - what is
it worth?
Message-ID: <WED.19.MAY.2004.110522.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Crispin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispin@newdawn.sz>

> >> The bottom line is 30%.
>
> >Unfortunately, even after spending 3.6 million dollars, the excellent
> >South African GTZ solar cooker project only managed to produce
> >users at what they calculated to be 38% of the time.
>
> I feel that you are of the impression that the 30% figure relates to how
the
> stoves were used. I want to clear that up. The 30% figure relates to the
> wood save, not how or at what rate it was not burned.
>
I think I might be a bit confused on the "Carbon Credits" issue. Here is
how I see things. Could you, or anyone else please correct me if and where I
am in error?

Clearly, burning fossil fuel of any sort brings additional or "new carbon"
into the biosphere. This "new carbon" is assumed to be responsible for
climate change, and the "Carbon Credits" are given to reduce "new carbon
additions" to the biosphere.

The burning of biomass does not have any net effect on the biosphere,
because biomass carbon is already in the biosphere, and burning of it does
not "add what is already there." Similarly, growing trees does not remove
any carbon from the biosphere. All it does is "momentarily" remove it from
atmospheric or oceanic circulation.

The burning of biomass is "a good thing", simply, and only, because it
eliminates the need to burn fossil energy. It should be given "Carbon
Credits" based on the need for fossil carbon that it displaces. The growth
of trees does not remove carbon from the biosphere, so Carbon Credits should
not be given for simply "putting carbon into short term storage." On the
other hand, conversion of biomass to charcoal, and burying the charcoal
outside the biosphere should indeed qualify for Carbon Credits, because this
carbon is being removed from the biosphere. It is the equivalent to "the
un-mining of coal."

I would very much appreciate comments on where my thinking is fuzzy or
incorrect on the Carbon Credit concept.

Thanks.

Kevin Chisholm

From rstanley at LEGACYFOUND.ORG Wed May 19 09:24:15 2004
From: rstanley at LEGACYFOUND.ORG (Richard Stanley)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:07 2004
Subject: Gas and Biomass
In-Reply-To: <000301c43c5e$3960e3e0$e49dfea9@home>
Message-ID: <WED.19.MAY.2004.152415.0200.RSTANLEY@LEGACYFOUND.ORG>

Crispin,

My thoughts exactly, Lets add a handle too ! Seriously, this is exactly
the idea we have been proposing all along.

Your and other's discussion around carbon credits too, is interesting
from a non charred biomas briquette standpoint: What may I ask wopuld be
the carbon credit for pure biomass and ZERO wood use in the fuel ?

Finally, on holeey ness of the briquette ..

the role of the hole, without stove scroll, is to give it soul but that
needn't be your goal...

The hole is what gives the briquette ( an otherwise low density pile of
semi rotted leaves and stuff) its outstanding performance in an open
three stone fire, open grill or hearth. Put them into your Vesto or a
rocket or other improved insulated stoves, and the hole adds little soul.

The hole induces gassflow through what is in effect an insulated
combustion chamber cum mini chimney, precisely what most of the
improved stoves provide. The only real advantagee of retaining the hole
would therefore be found in reducing the drying time of the
(wet-process) briquette, in production. It would agreeably make
production far faster to NOT have th deal with the hole as this requires
far more water to ensure the necessary flow of material into the
cyllinder, and it takes far more time to load and empty the center guide
pipe(for creating said hole). At least thisis the case for the basic
batch fed press.

Wholey,

Richard Stanley

 

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:

>Dear Stovers
>
>I really like the idea of exploring unconventional methods of stove
>construction and I look forward to seeing one the Pyromid stoves
>working.
>
>One of the things I haven't seem much talked about is shaping the
>mouldable fuels to the stove. Why should we accept that charcoal
>briquettes have to be little pillows just because that is easy to make
>in an automatic machine?
>
>The biomass briquettes are well suited to this, though they have been
>made round with a hole in the center for what are probably reasons
>related to the making of the inexpensive briquette press, not
>necessarily to the stove's needs or shape.
>
>So...how about shaping the charcoal briquettes into unconventional
>shapes. What about extruding thin cylinders instead of pillows
>(a-la-Charka) or toothpaste things that look like solid macaroni
>(a-la-Karve). How about making charcoal sheets? Stars? Logs?
>Tetrahedrons? Dodidecahedrons? How about spagetti shaped charcoal?
>
>If you were told that you could make the charcoal _any_ shape you
>wanted, how would you shape it so that it produced the right amount of
>heat after the right amount of time from the start of cooking? Surely
>Dr Karve or someone using charcoal can describe the amount of heat they
>need for a certain cooking task so that some imaginative briquetters can
>try to create exactly that heat/time profile.
>
>In the same way that a holey briquette is almost a combustible stove, we
>could try to make a large charcoal briquette (brick?) in the shape of a
>stove that burns itself out at the end of the 'cook'.
>
>The material is pretty strong, stable and easily formed.
>
>I have tried making coal dust into large shapes using soil-cement as a
>binder, formed under high pressure in a manual brick press. It is
>strong enough to hold together during transport to a house. This could
>be done with charcoal dust as well with reduced pressure.
>
>Regards
>Crispin
>
>++++++++++++++++
>
>Andrew, Paul etal
>
> The most efficient charcoal burner I have heard of on "stoves" was
>the "Pyromid" (http://www.pyromid.net/oldsite/index.html).
>
>[snip]
>
>
>
>
>

From solar1 at ZUPER.NET Wed May 19 10:39:55 2004
From: solar1 at ZUPER.NET (Fundacion Centro para el Desarrollo con Energia Solar)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:07 2004
Subject: Carbon Credit - what is it worth?
In-Reply-To: <00d101c43d9f$ec798da0$cb83fea9@md>
Message-ID: <WED.19.MAY.2004.103955.0400.SOLAR1@ZUPER.NET>

Hi Crispin,
In my way of looking at the figures cited, if 30% of the wood normally used
is saved then that relates to how the cookers are used!

With this in mind, we calculate that if users average a 65% fuel savings (in
money) that translates to reducing consumption of what ever type of fuel by
65%. Crispin, bear in mind that this was just for the solar box cookers,
used in solar and retained heat mode. In our Eco cooker program, that we
are trying to spread mostly into the rural areas, an efficient wood cooker
is added. In other areas that use carbon briquettes then an efficient
charcoal cooker would be used, etc.

The Rocket for example has been cited as reducing fuel consumption by 35 to
45 %. Lets say 30%. Bear in mind that the 4 tonnes per year figure I
cited is a world average previously takes into consideration Dr. Karve's
figures of a little less than 3 tonnes in India. (although it is important
to work with actual data in specific locations).

So if we use all three types of cooking systems together, we can actually
reduce fuel consumption by closer to 80%. Now using Dr. Karve?s improved
stove example, if an Indian family normally consumes close to 3 tonnes of
fuel, but with his improved stove that amount is reduced to 750kgs, then
with the Eco or integrated systems they could reduce consumption of fuel to
only around 255 kgs per year.

This table from the paper cited previously gives some interesting
information.

Global estimates Wood Coal Kerosene LPG Biogas
Electricity Dung Waste
Number of users millions 2500 100 500 1000 50 1000
500 500
Global consumption per fuel million t/a 1190 10 23 25 1
83 238 204
Global emissions CO2 by fuel million t/a CO2 equivalent 483 29
41 75 0 193 0 0
Global emissions non-CO2 by fuel million t/a CO2 equivalent 150 0
0 0 0 2 52 44
Global emissions by fuel million t/a CO2 equivalent 633 29 42
76 0 196 52 44

 

>in a previous message, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott on 5/19/04 08:46 at
crispin@newdawn.sz wrote: Dear David
>
>>> The bottom line is 30%.
>
>> Unfortunately, even after spending 3.6 million dollars, the excellent
>> South African GTZ solar cooker project only managed to produce
>> users at what they calculated to be 38% of the time.
>
> I feel that you are of the impression that the 30% figure relates to how the
> stoves were used. I want to clear that up. The 30% figure relates to the
> wood save, not how or at what rate it was not burned.
>
> I stumbled across the solar cooker project as David Hancock was taking it
> over near the end of its life. Within saying much more, I would venture
> that the best thing to come out of it is a well grounded assessment
> (CDM-worthy) analysis of the saleable CO2 from a ton of wood not burned.
>
Can you send me a copy of his work please?

> I am happy to hear that you have had such a high rate of use. That is
> encouraging.
>
I didn?t know David Hancock, but am sorry to hear that he passed on. I
believe it is all these grains of sand that will add up to make a difference
in the long run.

> The document you cites was the one produced for the GTZ solar cooker project
* by Marlett and others at Palmer Dev C.

I meet the Palmer team while I was in South Africa in Nov of 2000 at the
International Solar Cooking Congress in Kimberly where I presented a paper
on Solar dryers and another one on the Commercial dissemination of
Ecological Cookers here in Bolivia, where I planted the need for holistic
solutions, i.e.. Efficient wood, retained heat and solar cookers.
>
>> Our main difference was in methodology. Instead of
>> starting our focusing on technology and manufacturing
>> efficiencies, we focus on technology exchange through
>> sociological approaches.
>
> I agree. They have focussed (pardon the pun) on parabolic cookers with
> estimate made as to how to make them in large enough quantities to leave an
> unsubsidized market working on its own in the formal sector. It is a steel
> hill to climb. They also spent money on developing a small folding
> non-parabolic (the T-16) which is beautiful but no one can afford it.
>
>> You must know that there already is a successful stove project based on CDM
>
> Yes I have heard about it existing but not heard if they are selling
> anything and getting the money. I presume it is working for them.
>
>> Why not research the Project Design Document for Eritrea
>> Dissemination of Improved Stoves Program and use that as
>> your starting point.
>
>> We have a different perspective which we haven't gotten funding
>> for yet but considering that reforestation is a community project,
>> assuring the sustainable use also...
>
> I am wondering if you are in any way subsidizing the whole process. For
> example, if you pulled out, would the cookers continue to sell and would
> everyone in the distribution chain make a living?
>
Actually Crispin, the first stage was with a subsidy through a French NGO,
but that helped us develop demand, try out micro credit and polish
methodology. Since then, I have separated from Sobre la Roca, which is now
totally owned by a Bolivian woman and totally run by Bolivians. We
(Foundation CEDESOL) have helped them secure micro credit for their clients
purchasing the Ecological cookers and they are beginning their marketing
program now. Their projections are 500 cookers for the remainder of 2004,
1500 in 2005 and 3000 in 2006. Of course this is without the carbon
credits.

Today at this moment a popular television program called Speaking Naturally
(health foods, cooking techniques etc) is at the Sobre la Roca offices and
work shop filming how to use the three types of cookers. They also are
offering reduced rates for TV advertising and the lady who runs the show has
asked to sell cookers out of her store front.

Sobre la Roca has also secured the distribution for the new HotPot solar
cooker developed by Solar Household Energy (Dar Curtis who was at the Ethos
meeting last) and are awaiting t5he units in late June of July.

We still haven?t established that everyone in the distribution chain will
make a living, but the commercial dissemination has seriously begun.

> In South Africca where income are relatively high, it is difficult to find a
> product people will pay enough for to support the supply and training
> system.
>
>> If we could all collaborate on a methodology eventually
>> replicable, perhaps we can see a billion stoves in our lifetime!
>
> This is what I am hoping to do. I have a feeling it will be easier for coal
> not burned than wood not burned.
>
> Thanks
> Crispin
>
Dear friends, regardless of the type of efficient biomass cooker implemented
(determined by predominate fuel types) significant reductions will be
achieved by incorporating solar cooker and retained heat cooking in
combination with the other fuels, even fossil fuels.

I am sure we all have had bad experiences with different aspects of these
systems, but we shouldn?t discount that they can be successful if the right
approach is utilized.

Looking forward to adapting more are we learn from you all.
--
"There is no passion to be found playing small - in settling for a life that
is less than the one you are capable of living." - Nelson Mandela

David Whitfield
Director
CEDESOL
P.O. Box 4723
La Paz Bolivia South America
591-2-2414882 office 591 774 24269 cellular

solar1@zuper.net
aguaviva@zuper.net
dewv@yahoo.com

http://www.solarcooking.org/media/broadcast/whitfield/bio-whitfield.htm

http://www.thehungersite.com

From solar1 at ZUPER.NET Wed May 19 12:08:44 2004
From: solar1 at ZUPER.NET (Fundacion Centro para el Desarrollo con Energia Solar)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:07 2004
Subject: Understanding Carbon... Was Re: [STOVES] Carbon Credit - what
is it worth?
In-Reply-To: <002d01c43daa$81654990$fe9a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <WED.19.MAY.2004.120844.0400.SOLAR1@ZUPER.NET>

in a previous message, Kevin Chisholm on 5/19/04 10:05 at
kchisholm@ca.inter.net wrote:

>>
> I think I might be a bit confused on the "Carbon Credits" issue. Here is
> how I see things. Could you, or anyone else please correct me if and where I
> am in error?
>
>
> I would very much appreciate comments on where my thinking is fuzzy or
> incorrect on the Carbon Credit concept.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Kevin Chisholm
>
Kevin, please consider this information. . .sorry it is a bit long - some
comes from Point Carbon documents and other from the earlier paper I cited.
I can send you the sources if you want.

The emerging carbon market encompasses both project-based emission
reduction transactions, whereby a buyer participates in the financing of a
project which reduces greenhouse gases (GHGs) emissions compared with what
would have happened otherwise, and gets some of the emission reductions
(ERs) thus generated in return; and trades of GHG emission allowances
allocated under existing, or incoming, cap-and-trade GHG emissions control
regimes.

? Volume exchanged on the carbon market has more than doubled since 2002,
with more than 70 million tCO2e traded as of November 2003. The vast
majority
of this volume was exchanged through project-based transactions, most of
which are intended for compliance under the Kyoto Protocol.
? Buyers are governments, public-private partnerships like the Prototype
Carbon Fund, and increasingly private companies, especially from Japan.
Private sector acting alone now represents more than 40% of all the volume
of
emission reductions purchased in developing countries.
? In 2003, nine out of ten tonnes of emission reductions originate from
projects located in transition economies or developing countries. Latin
America is the leading region in volume terms, followed by Asia and
Transition Economies.
Africa, as well as the poorest countries in Asia, is essentially bypassed,
raising concerns about the long-term distribution of the benefits of the
Clean Development Mechanism.
? Prices differ depending on the segment of the market, and on the structure
of the transaction. For example, within transactions intended for Kyoto
compliance, the risk that the emission reductions might ultimately not be
registered under the Clean Development Mechanism or Joint Implementation
commands a significant premium.
emissions are lowest for biogas, followed by LPG, Kerosene, agricultural
waste and dung, whereas coal, wood, and electricity (from a coal, oil, gas
and nuclear power mix) show the highest GHG emissions

non-CO2 GHG emissions (represented by CH4 and N2O) cause an important part
of fuel wood, agricultural waste and dung emissions

the use of a solar cooker can avoid the emission of several tons of CO2
equivalent during its life cycle, at costs of 12$/t for the replacement of
wood.

The global GHG emissions by the use of fuel for cooking are in the order of
5% of the estimated emissions by all human activities world-wide.

Cooking is one of the foremost energy uses world-wide and causes important
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The quantification of these emissions is a
central prerequisite for corrective action such as emission trading in the
sense of the Kyoto Protocol.

For the analysis of the GHG emission of fuels, it is important to
distinguish between:

CO2 emissions which can be partly or completely recycled by plant growth,
and

non-CO2 GHG emissions, caused by incomplete combustion, which cannot be
recycled by plant growth.

The GHG contributions of emissions other than CO2 are calculated for the 2
most important contributors, CH4 and N2O. They are expressed in mass CO2
equivalent.

The CO2 impact of the burning of biomass is a complex issue (Herold, 1998;
WBGU, 1998). It is a common misunderstanding that only fossil fuels
contribute to the rising level of CO2 in the atmosphere. In this sense, the
use of biomass for fuel is frequently characterized as CO2-neutral. In fact,
biomass use for fuel can be CO2-neutral, but it is not always. Any change in
stored carbon (e.g. in trees and other plants, but also in stored dead wood
such as furniture) results in changes in the atmospheric CO2 level. Three
types of situations can be distinguished:

1. A net CO2 increase is caused e.g. by clearing of forest with subsequent
burning of the cleared wood. If the forest is replaced by agricultural use,
a small part of the CO2 increase is reversed; the same applies if primary
forest is replaced by secondary forest containing only 30 to 60% of the
original C stock (WBGU, 1998). The burning (and the rotting) of dead wood
also causes a net GHG increase.

2. A sustainably exploited forest where felled trees are burned, but
continuously re-grown (and where the stored C remains constant) is
CO2-neutral, just as the clearing of secondary forest where felled trees are
not burned but durably used as building materials, furniture, etc.

3. A decrease of CO2 can be expected in the case of a sustainably exploited
forest where felled trees are not burned but used as building materials,
etc.

It is clear that most of the fuel wood production in developing countries
belongs to a type 1 situation above, i.e. causes a net increase in
atmospheric CO2 levels. This is particularly true for commercially cut fuel
wood, since sustainable forest management is radically more expensive than
clearing (although firm regulations and incentives can tilt the balance the
other way). On the other hand, a type 2 situation can be ascribed to the
burning of ?indirect wood? , i.e. residues from wood cut for other purposes,
and particularly residues which would have been burned in any case.

Under these assumptions, the global consumption of fuel wood for cooking
(FWC) can be divided in a direct part (FWCD: wood felled or harvested for
cooking ? only this direct part is assumed to cause a net increase of CO2),
and an indirect part (FWCI: by-products from wood cut for other purposes but
used for cooking ? this part is assumed to be CO2-neutral):

The paper by Synopsis maintains that under the given assumptions, close to
50% of the CO2 emissions caused by fuel wood for cooking can be considered
CO2-neutral.

Carbon management is the control of carbon emissions within the economic,
social, technical and policy constraints that impinge on individuals,
companies and countries.

Managing carbon emissions can be achieved by considering the four broad
categories defined below:

 

* Housekeeping
Reducing waste and better use of existing technology.
* Energy Supply
Use of renewable or low carbon intensity fuels.
* Re-engineering and design
New products, processes and ways of working.
* Mitigation
Offsetting emissions by forestry or other projects.

Abrazos
David
--
Since light travels faster than sound, is that why some
people appear bright until you hear them speak?
Steven Wright

David Whitfield
Director
CEDESOL
P.O. Box 4723
La Paz Bolivia South America
591-2-2414882 office 591 715 16356 cellular

solar1@zuper.net
aguaviva@zuper.net
dewv@yahoo.com

http://www.solarcooking.org/media/broadcast/whitfield/bio-whitfield.htm
http://www.quickinfo247.com/86196/FCS
http://www.thehungersite.com

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Wed May 19 13:03:05 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:07 2004
Subject: Dr. Karve's Movies on CD
In-Reply-To: <20040509144645.GA6279@cybershamanix.com>
Message-ID: <WED.19.MAY.2004.120305.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

So far I've only received one order for the CD, so I'm not sure if everyone
is aware that they are available, or what is on the CD. Dr. Karve has made two
very nice short films, both of which are on this CD. The first film shows his
charcoal kiln operation in detail, and also the process for making briquettes
from the charcoal. It also shows his charcoal-fired cooker being used in good
detail.
The second movie is about growing and processing bamboo. Both films are very
well done and very informative. I think it would be a very good thing if we
could get these widely distributed around the world, with the people getting
them perhaps making more copies and distributing them to others.
I wish I had a better internet connection than my DSL line, I'd put these
films up on my web server for access as streaming video.

--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com
Hoka hey!

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Wed May 19 13:46:30 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:07 2004
Subject: Dr. Karve's Movies on CD
In-Reply-To: <20040519170305.GB16569@cybershamanix.com>
Message-ID: <WED.19.MAY.2004.124630.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

The cost of the CD is $4.00 including shipping (in the US, not sure about
elsewhere) and the address is:

Harmon Seaver
651 Jackson St.
Oshkosh, WI 54901

Or just pay for it with Paypal and email.

--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com
Hoka hey!

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Wed May 19 18:47:18 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:07 2004
Subject: RE Carbon Credit - what is it worth?
Message-ID: <THU.20.MAY.2004.004718.0200.>

Dear David

First, David Hancock did not come to his end, it was the project that
was coming to its end! He is alive and well and working at teh Central
Energy Fund in Johannesburg.

He agrees with you that the combined savings are in the 80-83% range for
improved wood stove, solar and retained heat cooker.

>Can you send me a copy of his work please?

Can you write to him? It is the project's work that was completed
before he got there. I don't know his present email address off by
heart. I will try to find it.

Richard S have you got it??

> We still haven't established that everyone in the distribution
> chain will make a living, but the commercial dissemination
> has seriously begun.

It seems to me you are well on your way!

Regards
Crispin

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Wed May 19 18:47:18 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:07 2004
Subject: Gas and Biomass
Message-ID: <THU.20.MAY.2004.004718.0200.>

Dear Richard

Carbon credits for non-woody biomass: 1/3 of the carbon in the wood not
burned. Roughly this is equal in CO2 mass to the avoided wood.

Holes: Enclosed stoves don't need the hole and it shouldn't be round if
the combustion chamber is too. The water can be reduced I agree, and it
allows a simpler mechanism to be use to squeeze the water out after
forming.

Faster drying: Make it thinner top to bottom.

I'll bet we can make a really fast lighting charcoal brick shaped like a
little Vesto!

Regards
Crispin

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Stanley [mailto:rstanley@legacyfound.org]
Sent: 19 May 2004 15:24
To: crispin@newdawn.sz
Cc: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Gas and Biomass

Crispin,

My thoughts exactly, Lets add a handle too ! Seriously, this is exactly
the idea we have been proposing all along.

Your and other's discussion around carbon credits too, is interesting
from a non charred biomas briquette standpoint: What may I ask wopuld be
the carbon credit for pure biomass and ZERO wood use in the fuel ?

Finally, on holeey ness of the briquette ..

the role of the hole, without stove scroll, is to give it soul but that
needn't be your goal...

The hole is what gives the briquette ( an otherwise low density pile of
semi rotted leaves and stuff) its outstanding performance in an open
three stone fire, open grill or hearth. Put them into your Vesto or a
rocket or other improved insulated stoves, and the hole adds little
soul.

The hole induces gassflow through what is in effect an insulated
combustion chamber cum mini chimney, precisely what most of the
improved stoves provide. The only real advantagee of retaining the hole
would therefore be found in reducing the drying time of the
(wet-process) briquette, in production. It would agreeably make
production far faster to NOT have th deal with the hole as this requires
far more water to ensure the necessary flow of material into the
cyllinder, and it takes far more time to load and empty the center guide
pipe(for creating said hole). At least thisis the case for the basic
batch fed press.

Wholey,

Richard Stanley

 

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:

Dear Stovers

 

I really like the idea of exploring unconventional methods of stove

construction and I look forward to seeing one the Pyromid stoves

working.

 

One of the things I haven't seem much talked about is shaping the

mouldable fuels to the stove. Why should we accept that charcoal

briquettes have to be little pillows just because that is easy to make

in an automatic machine?

 

The biomass briquettes are well suited to this, though they have been

made round with a hole in the center for what are probably reasons

related to the making of the inexpensive briquette press, not

necessarily to the stove's needs or shape.

 

So...how about shaping the charcoal briquettes into unconventional

shapes. What about extruding thin cylinders instead of pillows

(a-la-Charka) or toothpaste things that look like solid macaroni

(a-la-Karve). How about making charcoal sheets? Stars? Logs?

Tetrahedrons? Dodidecahedrons? How about spagetti shaped charcoal?

 

If you were told that you could make the charcoal _any_ shape you

wanted, how would you shape it so that it produced the right amount of

heat after the right amount of time from the start of cooking? Surely

Dr Karve or someone using charcoal can describe the amount of heat they

need for a certain cooking task so that some imaginative briquetters can

try to create exactly that heat/time profile.

 

In the same way that a holey briquette is almost a combustible stove, we

could try to make a large charcoal briquette (brick?) in the shape of a

stove that burns itself out at the end of the 'cook'.

 

The material is pretty strong, stable and easily formed.

 

I have tried making coal dust into large shapes using soil-cement as a

binder, formed under high pressure in a manual brick press. It is

strong enough to hold together during transport to a house. This could

be done with charcoal dust as well with reduced pressure.

 

Regards

Crispin

 

++++++++++++++++

 

Andrew, Paul etal

 

The most efficient charcoal burner I have heard of on "stoves" was

the "Pyromid" (http://www.pyromid.net/oldsite/index.html).

 

[snip]

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Wed May 19 18:47:18 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:07 2004
Subject: Understanding Carbon... Was Carbon Credit - what is it worth?
Message-ID: <THU.20.MAY.2004.004718.0200.>

"A weak man goes where he is smiled at." - Herero saying (Namibia)

Dear Kevin

At the risk of getting yelled at by a lot of people (perhaps not so many
on this list, but other lists I belong to) I will have a stab and
answering your questions truthfully, as I understand the CO2 issue after
years of looking at it.

>>The 30% figure relates to
>> the wood save, not how or at what rate it was not burned.

>Clearly, burning fossil fuel of any sort brings additional or
>"new carbon" into the biosphere.

One can argue that the 'real' biosphere includes everything that came
from it (i.e. coal) which was removed many eons ago. These days we
ignore the fact that the carbon in coal was taken out of the atmosphere
and define the biosphere more narrowly: it has been claimed by some
unnamed people that the biosphere includes wood from trees that we see
growing, but NOT peat which they appear to consider to be a coal-like
class of carbon.

Peat burning is considered to be adding 'fossil carbon' to the
atmosphere, even though it hasn't been in the ground all that long, not
comparable with the age of trees. Someone can happily correct me on
this but I believe that the amount of carbon in peat and tundra far
exceeds the total amount of carbon in the coal deposits of the entire
world. Some people make the argument that peat is 'recycling biomass'
and some say it is fossil fuel and should be left there. Peat is a
pretty good biofuel.

Peat rots to methane. Coal does not. Because this aspect of carbon in
the biosphere complicates matters, it is almost completely ignored, even
though it is the largest potential factor in atmospheric CO2 or methane,
as I understand the math. Should we burn it or let it rot?

>This "new carbon" is assumed to be responsible for
>climate change, ...

As very wise souls have taken the time to tell us on this very group,
this is an assumption and is yet to be proven conclusively. Some say it
promotes ice ages and some say it promotes large storms or a dry, heated
Earth. I have written several post to this group showing that a
significant amount of the claimed temperature rise in the norther
hemisphere is caused by heat moving more effectively from the equatorial
regions. The amount of heating greatly exceeds the claimed effects of
CO2 and other 'greenhouse gases'. Where is it coming from, I ask?

The loudest mouths in the 'environmental movements' have the microphone
at the moment and they say climate change is all about CO2. Most
scientists know it isn't all about CO2, even if CO2 is partly
responsible, however there is a tacit agreement 'in the movement' that
we will concentrate on CO2 because big fast developing countries create
so much of it. This argument was repeated at the EPA meeting in
Kirkland even though nearly everyone in the room knows there is an
element of 'con' in the claim.

There is a certain element of 'back to the eath' a-la-"Whole Earth
Catalogue" to the arguments against modernism. There are good ideas
contained in the spirit of that movement. People do not want the
'unity' about CO2 split with contradictory information. Some of the
'leaders' at Kyoto Johannesburg and have said that in as many words. In
short, complete truth is not as important as unity on the CO2 issue.

>...and the "Carbon Credits" are given to reduce
>"new carbon additions" to the biosphere.

Yes. That is what Kyoto / GEF / CDM is all about.

>The burning of biomass does not have any net effect
>on the biosphere, because biomass carbon is already
>in the biosphere, and burning of it does not "add what
>is already there."

You have said this before and technically, over a long period of time
(lifetimes), you are correct. The things is, people have seen the
ghastly destruction of the rain forests and the loss of interesting and
rare species living in them, and are confabulating these two issues. It
is quite true that destroying vast swathes of forest is a terrible
calamity, but as you point out, it doesn't really make any long term
difference to the CO2 in the atmosphere as it will no doubt cycle out
again as trees re-grow somethere on the planet.

This last argument is opposed by people who say, "Suppose we change the
atmosphere so drastically with our CO2 production that the trees don't
grow back because the world will be so hot from the greenhouse effect
there will be a desert everywhere, or else the storms will be so strong
that everything wil blow flat every few years," and so on.

We know from the paeleontological record that when the eath has been a
great deal hotter than it is now, and when the CO2 level was far higher
(many fold higher) vegetative growth took place as at astronomical rate,
presumable creating the coal fields we have now. This seems to argue
against the 'hot, dry, CO2 rich earth' scenario.

A completely different and equally alarmist projection is that the earth
will heat up from CO2 effects, a great deal of water will evaporate,
huge cloud masses will form and an ice age will commence in as little as
20 years. There is some evidence that this should have happened even
without man's interference just as the industrial age was beginning so I
am not sure what to say about this one. Why didn't the ice age begin on
cue? It would have been the third in our current series.

As you are probably aware, a couple of good sized volcanoes like Mt St
Helens (which I was priviledged to hear blow up all the way from
Vancouver) puts out far more CO2 and SO4 than the entire history of the
human race so I really can't understand how the stick-shakers calling
for what they term, "the cautionary principle" applies to us all. It
appears there is a general ignorance that the cautionary principle is a
two edged sword. Caution in GM foods is very different from caution in
manipulating the atmosphere. It is likely we can live without GM foods
if that were necessary, but we cannot live without energy. A separate
issue is who should do the cleaning up: wood stove users or stove using
people driving gasoline burners?

Cautionary Principle: Should we be cautious about spending huge
resources on limiting CO2 from getting into the atmosphere that could
otherwise be spent on limiting methane instead? Or uplifting the
huddled masses of mankind from destitution? Or are we so angry at
developed countries for being rich that we want to punish them no matter
what the opportunity cost to those who have been left out of the
over-development initiative?

The usual calls for action imply that the rich will spend the money on
themselves in their countries to save the world, thus, by proxy,
benefitting the poor with their self-lavished technological largesse.
Thus we see rich countries spending very large sums of money on creating
new forms of energy for themselves and offering to sell it/them to poor
countries, while simultaneously creating a political and social climate
that encourages the poor countries to be socially responsible enough to
avoid the mess they got themselves into. China is one country that has
ignored this pressure pretty effectively. I think India might also have
done so.

Kevin, you have pointed out that simply growing masses of trees would
solve all sorts of energy problems. Swaziland does exactly that. About
1/2 the energy used in the country is biomass and the amount of tree
cover is increasing, without any significant government intervention.
No one holds Swaziland up as an example of what to do about CO2 or
energy. Why? Not rich enough to get noticed? On CNN we see $1.5
million wind turbines in Denmark, not efficient wood stoves.

On a different tack, there is a 'noise' in the South that we should get
a chance to develop first, then we will clean up as the Northerners have
done. It is a very sad and dangerous situation from the point of view
of access to resources. Poor people can't afford their own resources
these days. South Africa, a notoriously treeless country, is exporting
masses of densified wood sawdust logs to Sweden! Can you believe it??

>Similarly, growing trees does not remove any carbon
>from the biosphere. All it does is "momentarily" remove
>it from atmospheric or oceanic circulation.

Agreed, so from a CO2 point of view is it not very important. The bulk
CO2 fuels are coal and natural gas as they fall outside the 'time
threshold' and are viewed as fossils.

>The burning of biomass is "a good thing", simply, and only,
>because it eliminates the need to burn fossil energy.

Exactly. There is even more: People keep seeking high tech answers to
energy problems. Why? Because they can be patented and sold? I
presume so. That and an infatuation with machinery. People on this
list have said again and again that vehicles can run on wood gas.

People spend billions (literally) looking for oil and other people spend
millions fighting the cutting of trees for use in construction and fuel.
Why not spend billions (literally) hiring poor people to grow forests?
That would absorb very large amounts of CO2, if that is the overall
desire. It would also put huge amounts of perfectly good energy in the
hands of the world's people on a distributed, sustainable basis without
having to trade it over oceans. I can't find anything fundamentally
defective with this argument, whereas as I see all sorts of fundamental
defects in the arguments against the use of biomass and the promotion of
things like the 'hydrogen economy'.

> [Biomass} should be given "Carbon Credits" based on the need
>for fossil carbon that it displaces.

This is basically what the CDM system is all about. There is no space
to discuss the sensibility of the system - it is a /fait-acompli/ and
agreed upon by a lot of countries.

>The growth of trees does not remove carbon from the
>biosphere, so Carbon Credits should not be given for
>simply "putting carbon into short term storage."

I presume you will agree that this is only true in the longer term, and
assuming that the argument about a hot dry Earth is incorrect.

The 'short term storage' aspect is a source of major disagreement and
was one of the major reasons the USA gave for refusing to sign the Kyoto
agreement. I mentioned this before: the USA was not allowed under the
agreement to count the huge proliferation of the eastern hardwood
forests as 'new' because it was once a forest a couple of centuries ago.

I wonder if this same argument would be used to argue against carbon
credits for refforesting the Sahara desert? That was once a forest.
Should Libya or Mauritania be disallowed carbon credits for working out
how to get a viable forest going in the central Sahara? Perhaps some
environmental movements are angry at the USA and anything they can do to
mess them up is fair. The USA was only going to be able to count 'new'
forests if they cut them down first, but not the eastern ones.

I have seen different figures for the amount of national CO2 generation
that the fast-spreading forests in the USA are absorbing, but it is
probably between 60 and 80% of 'non-natural' CO2. Environmentalists
rightly point out that this is a temporary measure because the forest
can't keep increasing forever. That is true, but perhaps by the time is
peaks, we will have discovered that the future is biomass and there will
be enough for everyone.

>On the other hand, conversion of biomass to charcoal, and
>burying the charcoal outside the biosphere should indeed
>qualify for Carbon Credits, because this carbon is being
>removed from the biosphere. It is the equivalent to "the
>un-mining of coal."

I would not be surprised to find that if everyone in the whole world did
this every Saturday, all day, it would be a pittance compared with the
amount taken out of the atmosphere by the oceans which happens without
any effort at all. It is simply ridiculous to think we can make that
much of a comparative impact.

Supposing everyone did that as an act of global responsibility. After a
period growing masses of biomass - trillions of tons - to make charcoal
and bury it, we would rediscover that, years before on the STOVES group,
the observation was made that if we simply used the biomass for fuel, we
wouldn't need very much other fuel.

But then...there is no guarantee that any of this effort would bring
lasting benefit because firstly, we don't know for sure why the Earth is
warming up, if indeed it is, and a couple of major volcanoes per century
would completely erase everything that puny mankind has done.

All in all, this argument only gets more complicated with time. I am
anxiously waiting for a member of this group who has written a scholarly
paper on the subject to step out of the shadows and publish their work
in _Nature_ and turn this whole CO2/greenhouse issue on its head. It is
NOT about CO2.

My advice? Stop worrying about oil and start planting trees on the
thawing tundra. The oil will run out all by itself. Not so with
forests. We can put them almost anywhere we want.

Regards
Crispin

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Wed May 19 23:36:49 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:07 2004
Subject: Fuel size in pyrolysis stoves
In-Reply-To: <1tuga05sbfu1ommaacld7n6guppoiatsov@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <WED.19.MAY.2004.223649.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 10:10:42AM +0100, Andrew Heggie wrote:
> On Sun, 16 May 2004 16:30:23 -0700, Hank wrote:
>
> >
> >While the rack above the stove pipe might look strange, it would seem to be
> >a workable solution if there is no dry wood available. Sounds like in many
> >areas they gather the wood as it is needed rather then storing a "winters"
> >supply. Obviously the wood will be wet if it rains.
>
> Hank, I think in overall energy terms there is only a small case for
> drying but (about 14% with 50% mc wwb), as you found there are other
> benefits. The biggest benefit is that on small lossy stoves it is
> unlikely you can get clean burning conditions with we would. So the
> pre drying in the oven is a pre requisite of clean burning, poor
> burning results in a lot of the fuel value being wasted up the chimney
> unburned (PICs products of incomplete combustion).

With the big iron "range" type cookstove that Hank was talking about, it
isn't just a matter of clean burning, but primarily one of burning well enough
to put out enough heat to cook, especially baking. I've had many years of
experience with cooking on the old wood cookstoves, and also had a lot of
experience dealing with a seriously disgruntled wife when the wood wasn't dry
enough. And it was very species specific, as well. Totally dry pine, cedar, or
spruce wouldn't do at all, other than as kindling. Dry birch was acceptable, but
mostly dry maple was demanded (or oak and hickory when we lived where that
grew), and I spent a lot of time out in the sugarbush looking for small, bone
dry, dead maple saplings about 2"-4" diameter.
I've been thinking a lot lately of some way to convert one of those ranges to
burn chips in the IDD fashion.

 

--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com
Hoka hey!

From snienhuys at SNV.ORG.NP Thu May 20 02:02:10 2004
From: snienhuys at SNV.ORG.NP (Sjoerd Nienhuys)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:07 2004
Subject: Understanding Carbon...
In-Reply-To: <BCD0FE8E.36D8%solar1@zuper.net>
Message-ID: <THU.20.MAY.2004.114710.0545.SNIENHUYS@SNV.ORG.NP>

Stovers,

The biogas programme in Nepal has realised more than 100,000 biogas reactors
and embarked on a programme of another 200,000 farmers with some cattle
depended earlier on 4-6 tonnes firewood per year for cooking fuel.

The Nepal biogas programme applied for CDM credits by first hiring a
consultant to establish a baseline for the measuring of the CO2 savings, and
has registered with the CDM Executive Board. Currently it is in the process
of verification. The first negotiations with the World Bank "small
projects" Carbon Fund are underway for the sale of about 4,5 tonnes CO2
reduction per new biogas reactor per year. A payment for a mid-term fixed
contract of about USD 4-5/tonne is considered, but after selling to the WB
higher prices may be obtained on the free trading market for the excess
number of biogas reactors installed.

One of the issues in the definition of the baseline is: to what extent the
biogas reactors reduce the emission of CO2 which would have occurred
otherwise. That is comparing the situation of before the biogas reactors and
after the biogas reactors were built. Comparable with stoves.

Another important aspect is the additionality. Would the building of
200,000 biogas reactors have occurred when there was not the 'subsidy' of
the CDM credits? If not, than the project is acceptable under the
conditions of CDM trading by the WB. If they were built anyhow, than the
biogas programme could not be registered under the WB-CDM scheme. If only
half the number of the new biogas reactors would have been built without the
'subsidy' than the other half would be taken into consideration for the CDM
scheme. The additionality for biogas is extra valid because it also has a
large impact on In-house Air Pollution (gender, children) and reduction of
labour on firewood collection/chopping, tending fire.

In the calculation of the CDM for biogas (or stoves) the deforestation
aspect is very important. The amount of CO2 displacement is calculated (in
the small projects programme of the WB) on the basis on non-sustainable
forests. This means that it must be assessed whether or not the biogas
reactors or stoves reduce the deforestation or add to the sustainability of
the forests. This requires extensive statistical calculations on
deforestation patterns and possibly GIS measurements. In Nepal we were not
able to realise this because of lack of data. Therefore the consultant,
developing the baseline methodology, had to take very average figures on
deforestation from the Ministries of Forest.

For 'large scale' CDM projects the reduced deforestation aspect cannot yet
be used, see comments from Fundacion...

The Nepal biogas programme is possibly able to register and sell CO2 credits
under the CDM arrangement because all biogas reactors are constructed under
supervision and quality control, and they are guaranteed to operate without
failing (with a +90% operational rate), for a substantially longer period
than the 6-10 year CDM contract agreements.

In developing a "small projects" CDM project on stoves, the above should be
taken into consideration. First the approval of the baseline technology.
The verifiable registration and quality control on the stoves manufacturing
and operation may be an important point. For both a central and
administrative strong organisation is required.

Regards,

Sjoerd Nienhuys
Senior Renewable Energy Advisor SNV-Nepal
Tel: 5523444, extension 112.
snienhuys@snv.org.np

Carbon fund WB www.biocarbonfund.org www.CarbonFinance.org
www.prototypecarbonfund.org

UNFCCC and Kyoto protocol http://cdm.unfccc.int

Nepal Biogas programme www.panasia.org.sg/nepalnet/technology/biogas.htm
www.biogasnepal.org

 

-----Original Message-----
From: The Stoves Discussion List [mailto:STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On
Behalf Of Fundacion Centro para el Desarrollo con Energia Solar
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 9:54 PM
To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Understanding Carbon... Was Re: [STOVES] Carbon
Credit - what is it worth?

in a previous message, Kevin Chisholm on 5/19/04 10:05 at
kchisholm@ca.inter.net wrote:

>>
> I think I might be a bit confused on the "Carbon Credits" issue. Here is
> how I see things. Could you, or anyone else please correct me if and where
I
> am in error?
>
>
> I would very much appreciate comments on where my thinking is fuzzy or
> incorrect on the Carbon Credit concept.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Kevin Chisholm
>
Kevin, please consider this information. . .sorry it is a bit long - some
comes from Point Carbon documents and other from the earlier paper I cited.
I can send you the sources if you want.

The emerging carbon market encompasses both project-based emission
reduction transactions, whereby a buyer participates in the financing of a
project which reduces greenhouse gases (GHGs) emissions compared with what
would have happened otherwise, and gets some of the emission reductions
(ERs) thus generated in return; and trades of GHG emission allowances
allocated under existing, or incoming, cap-and-trade GHG emissions control
regimes.

From takeda at SONIC.NET Thu May 20 03:28:05 2004
From: takeda at SONIC.NET (Matthew Takeda)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:07 2004
Subject: Gas and Biomass
Message-ID: <THU.20.MAY.2004.002805.0700.TAKEDA@SONIC.NET>

Ron Larson wrote:
>Andrew, Paul etal
>
> The most efficient charcoal burner I have heard of on "stoves" was the
>"Pyromid" (http://www.pyromid.net/oldsite/index.html). I do not believe it
>has been tested for CO emissions - but someone should. Seems to not be in
>production - so here is hoping Paul Hait - inventor - will tell us more.

I was waiting for someone more knowledgeable to speak up here, but I
haven't seen any replies, so here is what I know:

I was in contact with Rives McDow, Paul's partner, a year or so ago. I
actually purchased one of the Pyromid stoves, with all of the accessories
and have been considering selling it. It is my understanding that they are
working on outsourcing production, as they have a major order to fill. If I
recall correctly, it was the Red Cross, which had chosen the Pyromid as
their emergency disaster relief stove, so the order was in the thousands.
Anyway, Paul is the Director of research and development, and handles all
the marketing aspects for the company. If it hasn't changed, he can be
reached at 541-318-6361, by email at paul@pyromid.net.

Matthew Takeda
the JOAT
From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Thu May 20 07:52:06 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (tombreed@COMCAST.NET)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:07 2004
Subject: Gas and Biomass
Message-ID: <THU.20.MAY.2004.115206.0000.>

Dear Matthew, Paul and All:

I have used the Pyromid stove and find it an interesting inevention and example of carrying good ideas into production.

As marketed, it is particularly adapted to burning the briquettes made for the barbecuing market.

Charcoal fires are excellent for producing low intensity, clean, radiative heat. Our WoodGas stove produces 3 kW in a 10 cm diameter (~75 cm^2) circle, so about 40 W/cm^2. The Pyromid stove produces approximately similar heat over ~ 25 cm circle, so has 1/6th the heat transfer rate. (Maybe somewhat better due to the efficiency of radiative transfer compared to convective flame transfer).

So the Pyromid stove is useless for boiling water, but great for cooking meat. Our WoodGas stove needs to have its heat diffused for cooking meat or Enjira.
~~~~~~
We have paid a great deal of attention to the efficiency and emissions of stoves, but very little to the heat transfer intensity which is equally important in evaluating a particular source for a particular kind of cooking. I hope our members who think in numbers will begin to focus on this as well.

I'd appreciate more comments on the relevance of heat transfer intensity in cooking.

Yours truly, THOMAS REED WOODGAS COOKING

 

 

> Ron Larson wrote:
> >Andrew, Paul etal
> >
> > The most efficient charcoal burner I have heard of on "stoves" was the
> >"Pyromid" (http://www.pyromid.net/oldsite/index.html). I do not believe it
> >has been tested for CO emissions - but someone should. Seems to not be in
> >production - so here is hoping Paul Hait - inventor - will tell us more.
>
> I was waiting for someone more knowledgeable to speak up here, but I
> haven't seen any replies, so here is what I know:
>
> I was in contact with Rives McDow, Paul's partner, a year or so ago. I
> actually purchased one of the Pyromid stoves, with all of the accessories
> and have been considering selling it. It is my understanding that they are
> working on outsourcing production, as they have a major order to fill. If I
> recall correctly, it was the Red Cross, which had chosen the Pyromid as
> their emergency disaster relief stove, so the order was in the thousands.
> Anyway, Paul is the Director of research and development, and handles all
> the marketing aspects for the company. If it hasn't changed, he can be
> reached at 541-318-6361, by email at paul@pyromid.net.
>
> Matthew Takeda
> the JOAT

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Thu May 20 09:15:42 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:07 2004
Subject: From Cecil Cook: Understanding Carbon... Was Carbon Credit - what
is it worth?
Message-ID: <THU.20.MAY.2004.151542.0200.CRISPIN@NEWDAWN.SZ>

From: "Cecil's Mail" <cstcook@net4u.co.za>
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 6:49 AM

Dear Mr CPP,

What a magnificent read!!! I really enjoyed thinking it through. The
half-learned have a talent for turning stable complexities into unstable
simplicities and then building careers and politics around their ignorance.
We self important and guilt ridden northerners like to scare ourselves by
imagining that we are environmental bin Ladens who demonically enjoy
terrorizing humankind. Our demons are techno-witches, who are imagined to
have the power to wantonly destroy the earth. I guess there is so much free
floating guilt, self loathing, and anger that collectively we must project
it somewhere. So, we invent eco-demons who cause the fires of hell to blaze
literally and figuratively. Eco-demons are eco-terrorists. Eco-terorists
commit eco-cide. And the Manichean war between the forces of good and evil
continues unabated.

My contribution to the discussion is that it makes a great deal of
difference to me if all the atmospheric pollution from the combusting of
fossil fuels takes place in my vicinity and gets filtered through my lungs
and water because I get sickly, feel bad, and die a painful death due to one
or another environmentally triggered illness. I do not live everywhere. I
live in one or several different places on the planet. So, if all the
people in Soweto went back to their ancestral villages and took their CO2
production with them, the resulting dispersion of pollution would solve
some, perhaps all of the problems. If the population of the planet
redistributed itself relatively evenly around the habitable and arable parts
of the globe, the ecology of combustion radically shifts, does it not??

I once read that the entire population of the world could easily fit inside
the state of Texas with each family getting a suburban plot of say 25 x 40
meters (1000 sq meters) of its own. I did not believe that was possible so
I looked up the land area of TX, converted it into sq meters, and divided by
1 billion households, give or take a couple of million. I discovered that
at that time TX was big enough to accommodate the entire population of the
world. I don't know today. I figured that out about 25 years ago. I do
not have the actual size of the state of TX at hand right now. Let me work
the figures backward. If there are 1,000,000,000 families of 5/6 persons x
.1 hectares (1,000 sq meters per family) = 100,000,000 hectares or 1,000,000
sq kms which is a square that is 1000 kms x 1000 kms (or 600 miles x 600
miles). The USA has +/- 9,000,000 sq kms of land mass (+/- 3,600,000 sq
miles). Let's say that TX is 8% of this area or 720,000 sq kms (288,000 sq
miles). So, Texas is no longer big enough to accommodate 1,000,000 families
on a 1,000 sq meter suburban plot. The size of the plot is now probably
about 720 sq meters per family, which is twice the size of the plots in
Mdantsane [near East London].

What is the point of this exercise? Not exactly sure. Pushing my Texas
solution a bit further. If we give each family another 8 hectares for food,
fiber, energy, air, infrastructure, industry, recreation, etc. then the USA
could accommodate all 1,000,000,000 households, although much of this land
would be pretty hard to use (hot dry deserts, cold high mountains, etc.). I
guess I was thinking about putting all the pollution caused by 6 billion
human beings in one huge world city/suburbia/industrial zone. If everybody
lived in an Alexandra [RSA] like environment breathing noxious coal/auto/gas
fumes - particularly on a cold winter nite - then I am pretty certain that
folks would understand that much of the problem is caused by 'over
concentration' of population. If this same population is evenly distributed
across the planet, then we do not really have that much of a man made
pollution problem when we think about how dirty volcanoes, peat fields, and
nature are - not to mention the odd gigantic comet strike every other 100
million years or so.

[snip]

In search and service,
Cecil

From kenboak at STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK Thu May 20 10:42:31 2004
From: kenboak at STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK (Ken Boak)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:07 2004
Subject: From Cecil Cook: Understanding Carbon... Was Carbon Credit - what
is it worth?
Message-ID: <THU.20.MAY.2004.154231.0100.KENBOAK@STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK>

Cecil,

Interesting exercise though it is to divide the USA usable agricultural area
by the Worlds population and decide how much land each family would have to
farm - it is not of much practical purpose. Can a family survive from
produce grown on just 360m2?

This type of sub-division of land disappeared in most western countries over
200 yrs ago - disbanded for the need to be able to grow crops more
efficiently, and for some to specialise in agriculture (farmers) and others
(factory workers, industrialists), to get on with Industrial Revolutions
and start world wars etc.

Going back to a system where every man and his family is expected to till
their own plot of land would not only be inefficient - nor would it be
environmentally friendly.

Remember the mistakes made in China 50 years ago when Mao wanted to
increase the countries steel production with "backyard furnaces" - an
environmental distaster, the true figures of how many Chinese died of
starvation as a result as they gave up agriculture and focussed their
energies on unusable pig-iron - will probably never be known.

However I do believe that somewhere between "everyman for himself" and the
mega-farms of the American mid-west there is an ideal size for a
co-operative venture which is not only sustainable but carbon neutral using
a sensible amount of mechanisation fuelled on vegetable oil.

 

Ken

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Thu May 20 04:30:10 2004
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (adkarve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:07 2004
Subject: Sarai stove experiments
Message-ID: <THU.20.MAY.2004.140010.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Stovers,
We are currently having 15 school kids, who have completed their 8th
standard (14 year olds). They are working in our Institute on various
technologies of ours. One set of students has been given the Sarai cooker.
One of the tasks given to them was to measure the temperature of the char
briquettes that are combusted in this cooker. Under normal air supply, the
briquettes burned at a temperature of just 300 Celsius. But when they blew
air through a blowpipe held below the grate, temperature of the char
briquettes shot up to 700 Celsius. This suggests a modification to the
existing design. We shall construct a chimney for the cooker to create the
necessary draft.
Another experiment conducted by the school kids was to use the cooker as an
oven. Normally we add about 100 ml water to the cooker vessel, so that the
temperature inside the cooker vessel never exceeds 100 Celcius. But if this
water is not present, the cooker vessel gets overheated and instead of
cooking the items, it roasts them. By using this principle, the kids baked
cakes in the cooker. the cooker vessel encompasses three pots, placed one
on top of the other. The kids could bake three cakes simultaneously, one in
each pot. The fuel required was the same as for cooking a meal, namely 100 g
briquettes per cooking. The kids had great fun making their own cakes and
eating them. Initially they did not get the mixture right, and the cakes
did not rise, but now they have got the hang of it. Throughout the last two
weeks of their experiments, they have been eating midday meals cooked by
themselves, including cakes.
Yours
A.D.Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: Harmon Seaver <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 9:06 AM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Fuel size in pyrolysis stoves

> On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 10:10:42AM +0100, Andrew Heggie wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 May 2004 16:30:23 -0700, Hank wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >While the rack above the stove pipe might look strange, it would seem
to be
> > >a workable solution if there is no dry wood available. Sounds like in
many
> > >areas they gather the wood as it is needed rather then storing a
"winters"
> > >supply. Obviously the wood will be wet if it rains.
> >
> > Hank, I think in overall energy terms there is only a small case for
> > drying but (about 14% with 50% mc wwb), as you found there are other
> > benefits. The biggest benefit is that on small lossy stoves it is
> > unlikely you can get clean burning conditions with we would. So the
> > pre drying in the oven is a pre requisite of clean burning, poor
> > burning results in a lot of the fuel value being wasted up the chimney
> > unburned (PICs products of incomplete combustion).
>
> With the big iron "range" type cookstove that Hank was talking about,
it
> isn't just a matter of clean burning, but primarily one of burning well
enough
> to put out enough heat to cook, especially baking. I've had many years of
> experience with cooking on the old wood cookstoves, and also had a lot of
> experience dealing with a seriously disgruntled wife when the wood wasn't
dry
> enough. And it was very species specific, as well. Totally dry pine,
cedar, or
> spruce wouldn't do at all, other than as kindling. Dry birch was
acceptable, but
> mostly dry maple was demanded (or oak and hickory when we lived where that
> grew), and I spent a lot of time out in the sugarbush looking for small,
bone
> dry, dead maple saplings about 2"-4" diameter.
> I've been thinking a lot lately of some way to convert one of those
ranges to
> burn chips in the IDD fashion.
>
>
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com
> Hoka hey!

From LButtner at WINROCK.ORG Thu May 20 10:35:16 2004
From: LButtner at WINROCK.ORG (Lisa Buttner)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:08 2004
Subject: Household Energy and Health job announcement
Message-ID: <THU.20.MAY.2004.103516.0400.LBUTTNER@WINROCK.ORG>

Dear Stovers,

Winrock is currently seeking to hire a household energy specialist with cross-sectoral project and program development experience in household energy, preferably with attention to indoor air pollution and health. Please share the announcement below with anyone you think might be interested.

Thanks and regards,

Lisa B?ttner
Clean Energy Group
Winrock International
1621 N. Kent Street, Suite 1200
Arlington, VA 22209
lbuttner@winrock.org

----------------------------------------------------------------
POSITION TITLE: Program Officer

DEPARTMENT: Household Energy and Indoor Air Pollution

REPORTS TO: Senior Program Officer

POSITION SUMMARY:

Supports program development and implementation of household energy and health initiatives in developing countries. Programmatic and administrative duties will help to ensure quality work addressing the gender, technology, health, environmental, behavioral and socioeconomic implications of household energy use.

MAJOR RESPONSIBILITIES:

* Conceptualizing and developing strategies for effective household energy and health initiatives in developing countries.
* Representing and marketing household energy and health initiatives to other stakeholders and potential partners.
* Developing strategic partnerships and links to complementary efforts.
* Coordinating the technical contributions of Winrock partners and staff.
* Helping to meet donor programmatic and administrative reporting requirements.

OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES:

* Contribute to ongoing new business development efforts.
* Perform other tasks as may be assigned by SPO.

QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND:

Education: A Master's degree in related field

Experience: At least five years of cross-sectoral project and program development experience in household energy, preferably with attention to indoor air pollution and health. Experience managing programs funded by large donor institutions. Extensive contacts in the development, health, and sustainable energy arenas.

Skills: Familiarity with broad array of technologies used to provide rural and urban energy services in developing countries, sound project and financial management skills, staff management experience.

Other: Excellent written and oral communication skills, English and at least one other major language.

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Thu May 20 11:19:08 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:08 2004
Subject: Heat, Transfer Ratio & Effectiveness
Message-ID: <THU.20.MAY.2004.101908.0500.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Good Day All !

I just read Tom Reeds comments on heat transfer intensity, and intensely
agree with him!

I'm throwing these comments/observations out there, with a request for
thought provoking replies/answers.

The following :
Using a 1x1x1m cube NO TOP enclosure with the heat source in the enclosure,
as well as the item being heated, and for the sake of testing, a "meat
thermometer stuck in the away side of the cube of meat" and the meat
starting at room temp. (the enclosure can be steel, tin, bricks, cement
blocks, insulated, un-insulated, whatever! it just can't burn).

1) "If an electric heat source is 98% efficient, and uses 10-KW/h of
electricity how long would it take to heat the center of a 2kg cube of meat
to 80c, and what would it's electrical consumption have been?" (NOTE: the
electric heat source can be under, over, or beside the cube of meat)

2) "Using the same said enclosure, BUT using a wood fire, BESIDE the meat
NOT BELOW, and using an amount of wood that equals 10kw/h (about 2kg) of
wood burning, how long would it take the wood to heat the same sized 2kg
cube of meat?"

I have done this test, and it is quite shocking what the results are.....

Anyone Up to the challenge? or want the results?

I'll ask/tell the what's & why's in the next portion of this thread.
(But I will say this, think "Spectrum of Light" IR to UV kinda stuff).

Greg Manning

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

From kenboak at STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK Thu May 20 12:49:40 2004
From: kenboak at STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK (Ken Boak)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:08 2004
Subject: Heat, Transfer Ratio & Effectiveness
Message-ID: <THU.20.MAY.2004.174940.0100.KENBOAK@STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK>

Greg,

You certainly have started a thought-provoking thread. I would be
fascinated in your results.

Having had some experience of barbequeing meat over charcoal I would be
tempted to say that the transfer of heat from burning charcoal into the meat
is more efficient than trying to do the same thing with electrical
resistance (not microwaves) heating.

I am not sure why you say "beside the meat - not below" because this would
be a counter-intuitive way of cooking meat.

BTW - A 2kg cube of meat - is that a Canadian portion? Most cultures tend
to slice meat thinner so that it cooks quicker, and little chance for it
still being uncooked/unsafe in the centre.

Incidently most electric ovens use an element rated at about 2500W - so at
30 minutes per pound that's 10kWh.

Ken

----- Original Message -----
From: "a31ford" <a31ford@INETLINK.CA>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 4:19 PM
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] [STOVES] Heat, Transfer Ratio & Effectiveness

> Good Day All !
>
> I just read Tom Reeds comments on heat transfer intensity, and intensely
> agree with him!
>
> I'm throwing these comments/observations out there, with a request for
> thought provoking replies/answers.
>
> The following :
> Using a 1x1x1m cube NO TOP enclosure with the heat source in the
enclosure,
> as well as the item being heated, and for the sake of testing, a "meat
> thermometer stuck in the away side of the cube of meat" and the meat
> starting at room temp. (the enclosure can be steel, tin, bricks, cement
> blocks, insulated, un-insulated, whatever! it just can't burn).
>
> 1) "If an electric heat source is 98% efficient, and uses 10-KW/h of
> electricity how long would it take to heat the center of a 2kg cube of
meat
> to 80c, and what would it's electrical consumption have been?" (NOTE: the
> electric heat source can be under, over, or beside the cube of meat)
>
> 2) "Using the same said enclosure, BUT using a wood fire, BESIDE the meat
> NOT BELOW, and using an amount of wood that equals 10kw/h (about 2kg) of
> wood burning, how long would it take the wood to heat the same sized 2kg
> cube of meat?"
>
> I have done this test, and it is quite shocking what the results are.....
>
> Anyone Up to the challenge? or want the results?
>
> I'll ask/tell the what's & why's in the next portion of this thread.
> (But I will say this, think "Spectrum of Light" IR to UV kinda stuff).
>
> Greg Manning
>
> Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
>

From Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK Thu May 20 15:30:17 2004
From: Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:08 2004
Subject: OT Heat, Transfer Ratio & Effectiveness
In-Reply-To: <094001c43e8a$7cb4d010$0100a8c0@dell3>
Message-ID: <THU.20.MAY.2004.203017.0100.GAVIN@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>

Ken ,
Electric ovens may be rated at 2500W but they do not operate continuously.
As the oven is insulated the element cycles on and off to maintain a set
temperature. So the energy required to cook a joint is a lot les than 10kWh.

We have an electric barbeque with "lava rock" over resistance elements.
Again it is thermostatically controlled - like an electric hob. And it cooks
just the same as a charcoal barbeque except for the smoke flavour.

If the element was positioned vertically - like a kebab cooker in a
greek/Turkish take away then the fat would not drip onto the heat source
causing flaring and subsequent burnt patches on the meat.

I am not sure how this is relevant to third world cooking maybe they should
all be issued with a "lean mean fat-reducing machine?!"
Cheers
Gavin

Gavin Gulliver-Goodall
3G Energi,

Tel +44 (0)1835 824201
Fax +44 (0)870 8314098
Mob +44 (0)7773 781498
E mail Gavin@3genergi.co.uk <mailto:Gavin@3genergi.co.uk>

The contents of this email and any attachments are the property of 3G Energi
and are intended for the confidential use of the named recipient(s) only.
They may be legally privileged and should not be communicated to or relied
upon by any person without our express written consent. If you are not an
addressee please notify us immediately at the address above or by email at
Gavin@3genergi.co.uk <mailto:Gavin@3genergi.co.uk>. Any files attached to
this email will have been checked with virus detection software before
transmission. However, you should carry out your own virus check before
opening any attachment. 3G Energi accepts no liability for any loss or
damage that may be caused by software viruses.

-----Original Message-----
From: The Stoves Discussion List [mailto:STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf
Of Ken Boak
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 17:50
To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Heat, Transfer Ratio & Effectiveness

Greg,

You certainly have started a thought-provoking thread. I would be
fascinated in your results.

Having had some experience of barbequeing meat over charcoal I would be
tempted to say that the transfer of heat from burning charcoal into the meat
is more efficient than trying to do the same thing with electrical
resistance (not microwaves) heating.

I am not sure why you say "beside the meat - not below" because this would
be a counter-intuitive way of cooking meat.

BTW - A 2kg cube of meat - is that a Canadian portion? Most cultures tend
to slice meat thinner so that it cooks quicker, and little chance for it
still being uncooked/unsafe in the centre.

Incidently most electric ovens use an element rated at about 2500W - so at
30 minutes per pound that's 10kWh.

Ken

----- Original Message -----
From: "a31ford" <a31ford@INETLINK.CA>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 4:19 PM
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] [STOVES] Heat, Transfer Ratio & Effectiveness

> Good Day All !
>
> I just read Tom Reeds comments on heat transfer intensity, and intensely
> agree with him!
>
> I'm throwing these comments/observations out there, with a request for
> thought provoking replies/answers.
>
> The following :
> Using a 1x1x1m cube NO TOP enclosure with the heat source in the
enclosure,
> as well as the item being heated, and for the sake of testing, a "meat
> thermometer stuck in the away side of the cube of meat" and the meat
> starting at room temp. (the enclosure can be steel, tin, bricks, cement
> blocks, insulated, un-insulated, whatever! it just can't burn).
>
> 1) "If an electric heat source is 98% efficient, and uses 10-KW/h of
> electricity how long would it take to heat the center of a 2kg cube of
meat
> to 80c, and what would it's electrical consumption have been?" (NOTE: the
> electric heat source can be under, over, or beside the cube of meat)
>
> 2) "Using the same said enclosure, BUT using a wood fire, BESIDE the meat
> NOT BELOW, and using an amount of wood that equals 10kw/h (about 2kg) of
> wood burning, how long would it take the wood to heat the same sized 2kg
> cube of meat?"
>
> I have done this test, and it is quite shocking what the results are.....
>
> Anyone Up to the challenge? or want the results?
>
> I'll ask/tell the what's & why's in the next portion of this thread.
> (But I will say this, think "Spectrum of Light" IR to UV kinda stuff).
>
> Greg Manning
>
> Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
>

From rstanley at LEGACYFOUND.ORG Thu May 20 17:04:25 2004
From: rstanley at LEGACYFOUND.ORG (Richard Stanley)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:08 2004
Subject: RE Carbon Credit - what is it worth?
In-Reply-To: <001201c43df3$690d19b0$e49dfea9@home>
Message-ID: <THU.20.MAY.2004.230425.0200.RSTANLEY@LEGACYFOUND.ORG>

Crispin / David,
Sorry but I do not have David Hancock's email . He is now part of the
CEF (Central Energy Fund) in south africa, if that can get you closer.
Talk about confusion... That was a good one..
Richard

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:

>Dear David
>
>First, David Hancock did not come to his end, it was the project that
>was coming to its end! He is alive and well and working at teh Central
>Energy Fund in Johannesburg.
>
>He agrees with you that the combined savings are in the 80-83% range for
>improved wood stove, solar and retained heat cooker.
>
>
>
>>Can you send me a copy of his work please?
>>
>>
>
>Can you write to him? It is the project's work that was completed
>before he got there. I don't know his present email address off by
>heart. I will try to find it.
>
>Richard S have you got it??
>
> > We still haven't established that everyone in the distribution
>
>
>>chain will make a living, but the commercial dissemination
>>has seriously begun.
>>
>>
>
>It seems to me you are well on your way!
>
>Regards
>Crispin
>
>
>
>
>

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Thu May 20 17:44:11 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:08 2004
Subject: Sarai stove experiments
Message-ID: <THU.20.MAY.2004.234411.0200.>

Dear AD

>But when they blew air through a blowpipe held below the
>grate, temperature of the char briquettes shot up to 700
>Celsius. This suggests a modification to the existing design.

In your opinion does this mean that the charcoal was creating a lot of
CO when burning at a low temperature? Has it been measured?

Thanks
Crispin

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Thu May 20 22:47:47 2004
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (adkarve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:08 2004
Subject: Sarai stove experiments
Message-ID: <FRI.21.MAY.2004.081747.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Crispin,
I shall measure the CO emanations from the SARAI cooker. Because everybody
was talking about RSP, we did not pay much attention to CO. I have also
suggested a design change with a chimney attachment to create greater draft.
The total quantityof char coal burned at a time in the Sarai cooker is just
100g. Because the starting material, sugarcane leaves are highly silicious
and lignified, the ash content in the coal is around 35 %. It takes about 45
minutes for total burnout. So I assume that the rate of CO production would
be negligible. In our latitude, we always have all the windows and doors of
the kitchen and the house open. As I have already state, we have sold more
than 6000 Sarai cookers and not a single customer has complained about its
performance and discomfort during use.
Yours
A.D.Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispin@newdawn.sz>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 3:14 AM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Sarai stove experiments

> Dear AD
>
> >But when they blew air through a blowpipe held below the
> >grate, temperature of the char briquettes shot up to 700
> >Celsius. This suggests a modification to the existing design.
>
> In your opinion does this mean that the charcoal was creating a lot of
> CO when burning at a low temperature? Has it been measured?
>
> Thanks
> Crispin

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Thu May 20 23:20:08 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:08 2004
Subject: OT Heat, Transfer Ratio & Effectiveness
In-Reply-To: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGEELLDJAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
Message-ID: <THU.20.MAY.2004.222008.0500.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Hello, Ken, Gavin & All

I'm Glad some have picked up on this thread, and please, others are welcome
to "chime in". The relationship of "The lean-mean fat reducing machine"
actually DOES come into this equation, simply from the standpoint of
"wavelength" (more on this later).

Oh, BTW (By The Way) Since the fire is a "wide open burn" the test should be
done outdoors, also, another note about the test, is that the wood fire may
require more than 2kg of wood, so keep track of the amount of wood used...

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: The Stoves Discussion List [mailto:STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On
Behalf Of Gavin Gulliver-Goodall
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 2:30 PM
To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [STOVES] OT Heat, Transfer Ratio & Effectiveness

Ken ,
Electric ovens may be rated at 2500W but they do not operate continuously.
As the oven is insulated the element cycles on and off to maintain a set
temperature. So the energy required to cook a joint is a lot les than 10kWh.

We have an electric barbeque with "lava rock" over resistance elements.
Again it is thermostatically controlled - like an electric hob. And it cooks
just the same as a charcoal barbeque except for the smoke flavour.

If the element was positioned vertically - like a kebab cooker in a
greek/Turkish take away then the fat would not drip onto the heat source
causing flaring and subsequent burnt patches on the meat.

I am not sure how this is relevant to third world cooking maybe they should
all be issued with a "lean mean fat-reducing machine?!"
Cheers
Gavin

Gavin Gulliver-Goodall
3G Energi,

Tel +44 (0)1835 824201
Fax +44 (0)870 8314098
Mob +44 (0)7773 781498
E mail Gavin@3genergi.co.uk <mailto:Gavin@3genergi.co.uk>

The contents of this email and any attachments are the property of 3G Energi
and are intended for the confidential use of the named recipient(s) only.
They may be legally privileged and should not be communicated to or relied
upon by any person without our express written consent. If you are not an
addressee please notify us immediately at the address above or by email at
Gavin@3genergi.co.uk <mailto:Gavin@3genergi.co.uk>. Any files attached to
this email will have been checked with virus detection software before
transmission. However, you should carry out your own virus check before
opening any attachment. 3G Energi accepts no liability for any loss or
damage that may be caused by software viruses.

-----Original Message-----
From: The Stoves Discussion List [mailto:STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf
Of Ken Boak
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 17:50
To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Heat, Transfer Ratio & Effectiveness

Greg,

You certainly have started a thought-provoking thread. I would be
fascinated in your results.

Having had some experience of barbequeing meat over charcoal I would be
tempted to say that the transfer of heat from burning charcoal into the meat
is more efficient than trying to do the same thing with electrical
resistance (not microwaves) heating.

I am not sure why you say "beside the meat - not below" because this would
be a counter-intuitive way of cooking meat.

BTW - A 2kg cube of meat - is that a Canadian portion? Most cultures tend
to slice meat thinner so that it cooks quicker, and little chance for it
still being uncooked/unsafe in the centre.

Incidently most electric ovens use an element rated at about 2500W - so at
30 minutes per pound that's 10kWh.

Ken

----- Original Message -----
From: "a31ford" <a31ford@INETLINK.CA>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 4:19 PM
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] [STOVES] Heat, Transfer Ratio & Effectiveness

> Good Day All !
>
> I just read Tom Reeds comments on heat transfer intensity, and intensely
> agree with him!
>
> I'm throwing these comments/observations out there, with a request for
> thought provoking replies/answers.
>
> The following :
> Using a 1x1x1m cube NO TOP enclosure with the heat source in the
enclosure,
> as well as the item being heated, and for the sake of testing, a "meat
> thermometer stuck in the away side of the cube of meat" and the meat
> starting at room temp. (the enclosure can be steel, tin, bricks, cement
> blocks, insulated, un-insulated, whatever! it just can't burn).
>
> 1) "If an electric heat source is 98% efficient, and uses 10-KW/h of
> electricity how long would it take to heat the center of a 2kg cube of
meat
> to 80c, and what would it's electrical consumption have been?" (NOTE: the
> electric heat source can be under, over, or beside the cube of meat)
>
> 2) "Using the same said enclosure, BUT using a wood fire, BESIDE the meat
> NOT BELOW, and using an amount of wood that equals 10kw/h (about 2kg) of
> wood burning, how long would it take the wood to heat the same sized 2kg
> cube of meat?"
>
> I have done this test, and it is quite shocking what the results are.....
>
> Anyone Up to the challenge? or want the results?
>
> I'll ask/tell the what's & why's in the next portion of this thread.
> (But I will say this, think "Spectrum of Light" IR to UV kinda stuff).
>
> Greg Manning
>
> Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
>

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Fri May 21 02:58:01 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:08 2004
Subject: Chimney gas velocity meters
Message-ID: <FRI.21.MAY.2004.085801.0200.CRISPIN@NEWDAWN.SZ>

Dear Stovers

I found the following companies selling gas velocity meters, though actually Alnor is a subsidiary of TSI. The direct link to these is http://www.eeprocess.com/air_velocity_meters.htm

Alnor
Fume Hood and Air Flow Monitors | Hydronic Testing and Balancing Instruments
Indoor Air Quality Instruments | Ventilation Testing and Balancing Instruments

Dickson Instruments - temperature, humidity and pressure chart recorders, data loggers and remote monitoring systems.

TSI Incorporated Combustion Analysis, Test Instruments, Gas Monitors, Indoor Air Quality, Air Velocity Meters, Transducers, Calibrators, Micromanometers, Thermohygrometers, Rotating Vane Anemometers, Ventilation Meters, Air Hoods, and Ventilation Testing/Balancing.


Regards
Crispin

From takeda at SONIC.NET Thu May 20 20:00:39 2004
From: takeda at SONIC.NET (Matthew Takeda)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:08 2004
Subject: Gas and Biomass
In-Reply-To: <052020041152.20168.40AC9BE5000E4DBC00004EC822007507840B0A0
A9D0D03019B@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <THU.20.MAY.2004.170039.0700.TAKEDA@SONIC.NET>

Tom Reed wrote:
>As marketed, it is particularly adapted to burning the briquettes made for
>the barbecuing market.

That is true, although I have used it with non-briquetted hardwood charcoal
successfully.

>... So the Pyromid stove is useless for boiling water, but great for
>cooking meat. Our WoodGas stove needs to have its heat diffused for
>cooking meat or Enjira.

Not totally useless, but very inefficient, compared to a stove designed to
deliver a higher intensity heat over a smaller area. On the other hand, the
Pyromid does a number of things quite well, including grilling, smoking,
and baking, for which other stoves are not as well suited.

>... I'd appreciate more comments on the relevance of heat transfer
>intensity in cooking.

The term, "cooking," covers a wide variety of activities with an equally
wide range of heat-level and heat-transfer requirements. Broiling requires
high-intensity radiant heat transfer, baking requires moderate-intensity
radiant/convective heat transfer. Even if you restrict it to those
techniques that require direct, conductive transfer the range goes from the
blowtorch-like short-duration needs of a wok to the long-duration,
low-intensity heat needed for simmering, braising, or pressure-cooking (all
of which require an initial step of being brought to or near the boil
before the heat is reduced).

Some of this is a controllability issue, solved by being able to throttle
the heat output of a burner, but some applications may only be met through
customized designs. I've always assumed that one of the initial steps in
the design of the stoves we've seen here was an analysis of how the
ultimate end-users cook.

Matthew Takeda

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Fri May 21 10:33:09 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (tombreed@COMCAST.NET)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:08 2004
Subject: Gas and Biomass
Message-ID: <FRI.21.MAY.2004.143309.0000.>

Dear Matthew and ALL:

Your poihave a nts are very well taken - that there are a large number of different requirements for heat transfer for different cooking, so either your one stove needs a wide range of abilities (easy with electric and gas, hard with wood) or you need a number of cookers.

Here at STOVES we tend to think in terms of boiling water - useful but not universal. It would be very useful if someone would extimate the types of cooking prevalent in each country with an estimate of fraction of each. Ethos could have a committee on this, preferably with one member from each major country.

I remember that we agonized quite a while about how to cook Enjira (typically 60 cm in diameter) on our woodgas stove (heat source10 cm in diameter). Easy solution. An aluminum griddle will conduct that heat from the flames to all points because its heat conductivity is VERY high. Etc.

TOM REED WOODGAS STOVES

 

> Tom Reed wrote:
> >As marketed, it is particularly adapted to burning the briquettes made for
> >the barbecuing market.
>
> That is true, although I have used it with non-briquetted hardwood charcoal
> successfully.
>
> >... So the Pyromid stove is useless for boiling water, but great for
> >cooking meat. Our WoodGas stove needs to have its heat diffused for
> >cooking meat or Enjira.
>
> Not totally useless, but very inefficient, compared to a stove designed to
> deliver a higher intensity heat over a smaller area. On the other hand, the
> Pyromid does a number of things quite well, including grilling, smoking,
> and baking, for which other stoves are not as well suited.
>
> >... I'd appreciate more comments on the relevance of heat transfer
> >intensity in cooking.
>
> The term, "cooking," covers a wide variety of activities with an equally
> wide range of heat-level and heat-transfer requirements. Broiling requires
> high-intensity radiant heat transfer, baking requires moderate-intensity
> radiant/convective heat transfer. Even if you restrict it to those
> techniques that require direct, conductive transfer the range goes from the
> blowtorch-like short-duration needs of a wok to the long-duration,
> low-intensity heat needed for simmering, braising, or pressure-cooking (all
> of which require an initial step of being brought to or near the boil
> before the heat is reduced).
>
> Some of this is a controllability issue, solved by being able to throttle
> the heat output of a burner, but some applications may only be met through
> customized designs. I've always assumed that one of the initial steps in
> the design of the stoves we've seen here was an analysis of how the
> ultimate end-users cook.
>
> Matthew Takeda

From dstill at EPUD.NET Fri May 21 10:37:59 2004
From: dstill at EPUD.NET (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:08 2004
Subject: temperature and Co in charcoal burning
Message-ID: <FRI.21.MAY.2004.073759.0700.DSTILL@EPUD.NET>

Dear Stovers,

 

Rob Bailis and I have been chatting about charcoal and wood burning. We both
agree on the following points:

 

CO emissions in charcoal burning seem to be directly related to firepower.
If a certain fraction of fuel C ends up as CO, then increasing the rate at
which the fuel is burned will increase the rate of CO emissions. Even if
you improve combustion a little bit, so that less C ends up as CO, you will
still see more CO released because at best you'll go from 80 to 90%
combustion efficiency - even doubling firepower. It's really hard to get
full combustion from charcoal in these kinds of stoves. In tests at
Aprovecho raising temperatures of in the combustion chamber did not
noticeably reduce production of CO.

 

Charcoal can produce less smoke than firewood. Research conducted in Kenya
has shown that indoor concentrations of smoke measured as PM10 (particulate
matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter) is 88% lower in households using
charcoal than in similar households using firewood in open fires and 76%
lower than households using improved ceramic-lined woodstoves (Ezzati, M.,
D.Kammen, et al. 2000).[1] This is significant because the concentrations of
particulate matter commonly found in households using firewood pose a
greater health risk than concentrations of CO found in households using
either firewood or charcoal. Of course, CO is a dangerous pollutant,
however exposure to smoke (particulates) has a greater impact on people's
health (WHO 2002 World Health Report).

 

I would add that many experiments will be conducted soon at Aprovecho
looking at PM and CO in lots of different stoves. I'll be posting results on
the ETHOS website frequently.STOVERS can check out comparative performance
at the ETHOS Stoves Summer Camp.

 

Rob Bailis is an expert in this field and a really helpful, hard working
guy. He's a tremendous resource for STOVERS on IAQ questions! This
complicated subject is his back yard.

 

Best,

 

Dean

_____

[1] Here's the full reference: Ezzati, M., D. Kammen, et al. (2000).
"Comparison of Emissions and Residential Exposure from Traditional and
Improved Cookstoves in Kenya." Environmental Science and Technology 34(4).

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Fri May 21 10:41:52 2004
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:08 2004
Subject: Sarai stove experiments
Message-ID: <FRI.21.MAY.2004.084152.0600.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

AD:

A chimney augmenter may be helpful - but I believe you already have a
pretty good chimney geometry (I recall a chimney height already of 30 or
more cm - much more than most charcoal burners). . My guess is that there
will be better payoff in finding ways to keep out undesired entrained air
(ie limiting the excess secondary air) - thereby forcing more air to come up
through the burning charcoal. Can you remind us if you have a door to close
after inserting the fuel "pellets"? A door will lower the internal
pressure above the charcoal "bed" and should signficantly incease your air
flow without
needing to add more chimney

Adding an air flow control below the charcoal will enable you to control the
power level as well.

Is the Serai shown in any web photo? I couldn't find one just now.

Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: adkarve <adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: Sarai stove experiments

> ---------------------- Information from the mail
header -----------------------
> Sender: The Stoves Discussion List <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Poster: adkarve <adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
> Subject: Re: Sarai stove experiments
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
> Dear Crispin,
> I shall measure the CO emanations from the SARAI cooker. Because everybody
> was talking about RSP, we did not pay much attention to CO. I have also
> suggested a design change with a chimney attachment to create greater
draft.
> The total quantityof char coal burned at a time in the Sarai cooker is
just
> 100g. Because the starting material, sugarcane leaves are highly silicious
> and lignified, the ash content in the coal is around 35 %. It takes about
45
> minutes for total burnout. So I assume that the rate of CO production
would
> be negligible. In our latitude, we always have all the windows and doors
of
> the kitchen and the house open. As I have already state, we have sold more
> than 6000 Sarai cookers and not a single customer has complained about its
> performance and discomfort during use.
> Yours
> A.D.Karve
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispin@newdawn.sz>
> To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 3:14 AM
> Subject: Re: [STOVES] Sarai stove experiments
>
>
> > Dear AD
> >
> > >But when they blew air through a blowpipe held below the
> > >grate, temperature of the char briquettes shot up to 700
> > >Celsius. This suggests a modification to the existing design.
> >
> > In your opinion does this mean that the charcoal was creating a lot of
> > CO when burning at a low temperature? Has it been measured?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Crispin
>

From cree at DOWCO.COM Fri May 21 10:49:16 2004
From: cree at DOWCO.COM (John Olsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:08 2004
Subject: Charcoal can produce less smoke than firewood
Message-ID: <FRI.21.MAY.2004.074916.0700.CREE@DOWCO.COM>

I am always reading the term "firewood", on the list.
Because charcoal is always used dry, shouldn't the comparison be made with
dried firewood,
which has had the bark and contaminants removed.

John Olsen
www.heatloginc.com

 

 

 

 

 

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.686 / Virus Database: 447 - Release Date: 5/14/2004

From rbailis at SOCRATES.BERKELEY.EDU Fri May 21 11:41:08 2004
From: rbailis at SOCRATES.BERKELEY.EDU (Rob Bailis)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:08 2004
Subject: Charcoal can produce less smoke than firewood
Message-ID: <FRI.21.MAY.2004.084108.0700.>

John and others,

This is an interesting point and the answer is yes and no. It depends the
kind of comparison you want to make. If you want to do lab experiments and
conteol all possibe sources of error I'd suggest you use clean dry wood (as
Dean does in his tests at Apro), but if you want to actually measure levels of
pollution in people's homes, you have to measure what they use - otherwise you
can't get an accurate measurement of their exposures.

rb

John Olsen wrote:

> I am always reading the term "firewood", on the list.
> Because charcoal is always used dry, shouldn't the comparison be made with
> dried firewood,
> which has had the bark and contaminants removed.
>
> John Olsen
> www.heatloginc.com
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.686 / Virus Database: 447 - Release Date: 5/14/2004

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Fri May 21 12:22:34 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:08 2004
Subject: Charcoal can produce less smoke than firewood
Message-ID: <FRI.21.MAY.2004.132234.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Rob

How much "pollution" comes simply from the wood itself?

(Molds, spores, dust, insects, bacteria, etc.)

Kevin Chisholm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Bailis" <rbailis@socrates.Berkeley.EDU>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Charcoal can produce less smoke than firewood

> John and others,
>
> This is an interesting point and the answer is yes and no. It depends the
> kind of comparison you want to make. If you want to do lab experiments
and
> conteol all possibe sources of error I'd suggest you use clean dry wood
(as
> Dean does in his tests at Apro), but if you want to actually measure
levels of
> pollution in people's homes, you have to measure what they use - otherwise
you
> can't get an accurate measurement of their exposures.
>
> rb
>
> John Olsen wrote:
>
> > I am always reading the term "firewood", on the list.
> > Because charcoal is always used dry, shouldn't the comparison be made
with
> > dried firewood,
> > which has had the bark and contaminants removed.
> >
> > John Olsen
> > www.heatloginc.com
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.686 / Virus Database: 447 - Release Date: 5/14/2004

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Fri May 21 18:02:45 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:08 2004
Subject: temperature and Co in charcoal burning
Message-ID: <SAT.22.MAY.2004.000245.0200.>

Dear Dean and Dr Karve Sr.

This is very valuable, especially if it is a characteristic of the fuel
and not a characteristic of the stove.

>CO emissions in charcoal burning seem to be directly related
>to firepower. If a certain fraction of fuel C ends up as CO, then
>increasing the rate at which the fuel is burned will increase the
>rate of CO emissions.

I was wondering if the Sarai cooker will benefit from the proposed new
chimney. It seems that the ability of charcoal to burn continuously at
a low temperature is the problem.

Tami gave a temperature one which was a minimum for initiating the
combustion of CO. Wasn't it 700 C or so?

If the Sarai cooker is burning at 3 to 500 degres, then it will take
quite a bit of chimney to get the burn rate up to a point at which the
CO ignites effectively, and it simply might not. Is that bad? How
bad?.

As the supression of oxidation is related to quenching of the flame by
the surrounding stove components, the pot bottom or cold air, perhaps
some consideration can be given by the group to raising the temperature
of the air fed to the charcoal so that the fire will burn hotter without
increasing the burn rate. Insulating the chamber might help, but there
is little point to the insulation if there is significant excess air or
if it is cold.

>In tests at Aprovecho raising temperatures of in the
>combustion chamber did not noticeably reduce production of CO.

How was this done? Can you try heating the air over a plenum before it
enters the fire to promote a higher burn temperature? Try 300 then 500
then 700 degrees to see if it makes any difference at all. If it works
at some temperature (say, 97+% combustion eff) then we can strategize
together how to get the required temperature.

Dr Karve, I suspect that the total emissions of CO in you cooker are low
in total, even if they are high compared with the amount of fuel burned.
The fact remains that very little fuel is burned.

The danger is from total exposure over time, not CO% so it seems at this
stage you are not creating any danger for anyone.

On the side of charcoal packets it is written that there is a danger of
CO from burning the product. Is the basic problem that the devices are
not really optimized to burning this fuel?

Regards
Crispin

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Fri May 21 19:49:31 2004
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:08 2004
Subject: temperature and Co in charcoal burning
Message-ID: <FRI.21.MAY.2004.194931.0400.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

Crispin,

Just an obervation: in industrial boilers we find that the vapor
temperature (above a grate) needs to be about 760 C and the O2 about 6%
for good CO burnout (to less than 25 ppm). That assumes that you have good
O2 mixing which is accomplished by using fans to create well placed jets
of combustion air.

It seems to me that it would be tough to duplicate that in a stove unless
you used forced air and a fan like Tom's woodgas stove. The vortex in your
Vesto would benefit from some external energy (from a fan) but that would
obviously limit the field of users.

Tom Miles

On Sat, 22 May 2004 00:02:45 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
<crispin@NEWDAWN.SZ> wrote:

>Tami gave a temperature one which was a minimum for initiating the
>combustion of CO. Wasn't it 700 C or so?

>Regards
>Crispin

From Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP Sat May 22 10:16:29 2004
From: Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP (Kanchan Rai)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:08 2004
Subject: emissions not only from stove in Kitchen in Jumla and Humla
Message-ID: <SAT.22.MAY.2004.200129.0545.KANCHAN@KU.EDU.NP>

Dear all,
Since there has been lots of discussion on CO emission and particulate
emission due to stove.

Do everybody thinks thats the only emission inside the kitchen is from
smoke?

In case of mountain areas of Nepal ----> NO!!!

The kitchen is very big in size, most of the people have only one room for
a family.

Since the yellow flame from open fire couldnot produce much light inside
room, they use small sticks of firewood which is deeped in resin (sticky
liquid which comes out when we cut living pine trees) taken from pine
trees. one sticks last about 5 minutes and they will put another one. This
process happens as long as people stays inside room. In winter its a whole
day process as people just sits around open fire and they need light to.

There are 2 disadvantages of this

1. In terms of deforestation

people make wound on pine trees to collect the resin ("jharro" in local
language). Every day they cuts deeper and deeper to collect the resin. In
the long term the tree fell down and dies. I hundreds of trees just felled
due due to this process. Which is one of the resons of deforestation in
those areas.

2. In terms of kitchen emissions
The stick deeped in the resin produce much smoke compared to the light
produced by it. This produce much smoke compared to the light produced by
the stove.

I want to tell that even if we introduce a stove, what will we do about
smoke unless we can provide them a good way of lighting. electricity is a
dream at those areas . I am sure they can't stop burning the resin sticks.
Experiece is Jumla stove is similar in some parts of Jumla. Even there is
very less smoke due to the stove but there is plenty of stove due to their
traditional lighting system.

That's why people just consider to design stove for warmer places and
often ignores high altitude places as there are many challanges people
would face.

Kanchan Rai
RDC UNIT
Kathmandu University

From Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP Sat May 22 10:31:00 2004
From: Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP (Kanchan Rai)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:08 2004
Subject: corrected emissions not only from stove in Kitchen in Jumla and
Humla
Message-ID: <SAT.22.MAY.2004.201600.0545.KANCHAN@KU.EDU.NP>

Dear all,
Since there has been lots of discussion on CO emission and particulate
emission due to stove.

Do everybody thinks thats the only emission inside the kitchen is from
stove?

In case of mountain areas of Nepal ----> NO!!!

The kitchen is very big in size, most of the people have only one room
for a family.

Since the yellow flame from open fire couldnot produce much light inside
room, they use small sticks of firewood which is deeped in resin (sticky
liquid which comes out when we cut living pine trees) taken from pine
trees. one sticks last about 5 minutes and they will put another one.
This process happens as long as people stays inside room. In winter its
a whole day process as people just sits around open fire and they need
light to.

There are 2 disadvantages of this

1. In terms of deforestation

people make wound on pine trees to collect the resin ("jharro" in local
language). Every day they cuts deeper and deeper to collect the resin.
In the long term the tree fell down and dies. I saw hundreds of trees just
felled due due to this process. Which is one of the resons of
deforestation in those areas.

2. In terms of kitchen emissions
The stick deeped in the resin produce much smoke compared to the light
produced by it. This produce much smoke compared to the light produced
by the stove.

I want to tell that even if we introduce a stove, what will we do about
smoke unless we can provide them a good way of lighting. electricity is
a dream at those areas . I am sure they can't stop burning the resin
sticks. Experiece is Jumla stove is similar in some parts of Jumla. Even
there is very less smoke due to the stove but there is plenty of stove
due to their traditional lighting system.

That's why people just consider to design stove for warmer places and
often ignores high altitude places as there are many challanges people
would face.

Kanchan Rai
RDC UNIT
Kathmandu University

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Sat May 22 03:14:41 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:08 2004
Subject: corrected emissions not only from stove in Kitchen in Jumla
and Humla
Message-ID: <SAT.22.MAY.2004.041441.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Kanchan

Thanks very much for the insight into the total problem.

It is fascinating indeed to see people "from away" can miss out on an
essential part of a problem. Such a problem, and its impact, never occurred
to me.

Would it be possible for these people to make candles out of animal fat? Do
you know if anyone has ever tried to make a "smokeless rosin burner?"

Pardon my ignorance, but does their building style make use of windows?

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kanchan Rai" <Kanchan@KU.EDU.NP>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 11:31 AM
Subject: [STOVES] corrected emissions not only from stove in Kitchen in
Jumla and Humla

> Dear all,
> Since there has been lots of discussion on CO emission and particulate
> emission due to stove.
>
> Do everybody thinks thats the only emission inside the kitchen is from
> stove?
>
> In case of mountain areas of Nepal ----> NO!!!
>
> The kitchen is very big in size, most of the people have only one room
> for a family.
>
> Since the yellow flame from open fire couldnot produce much light inside
> room, they use small sticks of firewood which is deeped in resin (sticky
> liquid which comes out when we cut living pine trees) taken from pine
> trees. one sticks last about 5 minutes and they will put another one.
> This process happens as long as people stays inside room. In winter its
> a whole day process as people just sits around open fire and they need
> light to.
>
> There are 2 disadvantages of this
>
> 1. In terms of deforestation
>
> people make wound on pine trees to collect the resin ("jharro" in local
> language). Every day they cuts deeper and deeper to collect the resin.
> In the long term the tree fell down and dies. I saw hundreds of trees just
> felled due due to this process. Which is one of the resons of
> deforestation in those areas.
>
> 2. In terms of kitchen emissions
> The stick deeped in the resin produce much smoke compared to the light
> produced by it. This produce much smoke compared to the light produced
> by the stove.
>
> I want to tell that even if we introduce a stove, what will we do about
> smoke unless we can provide them a good way of lighting. electricity is
> a dream at those areas . I am sure they can't stop burning the resin
> sticks. Experiece is Jumla stove is similar in some parts of Jumla. Even
> there is very less smoke due to the stove but there is plenty of stove
> due to their traditional lighting system.
>
> That's why people just consider to design stove for warmer places and
> often ignores high altitude places as there are many challanges people
> would face.
>
> Kanchan Rai
> RDC UNIT
> Kathmandu University

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Sat May 22 10:18:32 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:08 2004
Subject: Sarai stove experiments
In-Reply-To: <012001c43f41$c28f1e80$3d6c0443@net>
Message-ID: <SAT.22.MAY.2004.091832.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 08:41:52AM -0600, Ron Larson wrote:
> AD:
>
> A chimney augmenter may be helpful - but I believe you already have a
> pretty good chimney geometry (I recall a chimney height already of 30 or
> more cm - much more than most charcoal burners). . My guess is that there
> will be better payoff in finding ways to keep out undesired entrained air
> (ie limiting the excess secondary air) - thereby forcing more air to come up
> through the burning charcoal. Can you remind us if you have a door to close
> after inserting the fuel "pellets"? A door will lower the internal
> pressure above the charcoal "bed" and should signficantly incease your air
> flow without
> needing to add more chimney
>
> Adding an air flow control below the charcoal will enable you to control the
> power level as well.
>
> Is the Serai shown in any web photo? I couldn't find one just now.

You should check out the the film shorts that Dr. Karve made, the one with
the charcoal kiln, etc. also shows the cooker in operation in quite good detail.
Someone, can't remember who right off, was asking if Dr. Karve was willing to
let his cooker design be public domain. I don't think that's really the answer,
as it would seem that India is probably the place that something like that can
be produced the most cheaply, other than perhaps China. The real problem is
distribution, getting someone with the capital to import a container lot of
them. I'd love to become a US distributor for those cookers, I think they'd sell
pretty well in the US, but don't have anywhere near the capital to set it up.
I wonder if the cooker could be fitted with a small IDD stove that would fit
the briquette chamber and burn wood pellets? That would be an awesome camping
stove/cooker.

--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com
Hoka hey!

From list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Sat May 22 10:29:32 2004
From: list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:08 2004
Subject: Dr. Karve's Movies on CD
In-Reply-To: <20040519170305.GB16569@cybershamanix.com>
Message-ID: <SAT.22.MAY.2004.152932.0100.>

On Wed, 19 May 2004 12:03:05 -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:

> So far I've only received one order for the CD, so I'm not sure if everyone
>is aware that they are available, or what is on the CD. Dr. Karve has made two
>very nice short films, both of which are on this CD. The first film shows his
>charcoal kiln operation in detail, and also the process for making briquettes
>from the charcoal. It also shows his charcoal-fired cooker being used in good
>detail.

Harmon what format are the movie files in? I have grave doubts my
computer can render dvd.

> The second movie is about growing and processing bamboo. Both films are very
>well done and very informative. I think it would be a very good thing if we
>could get these widely distributed around the world, with the people getting
>them perhaps making more copies and distributing them to others.

What's the total content of the CD in MB? Perhaps I could mirror your
operation, I shall look into paypal though my daughter would happily
lend me some dollars which could be sent by us internal mail.

> I wish I had a better internet connection than my DSL line, I'd put these
>films up on my web server for access as streaming video.

The trouble with that would be getting payment for the content, are
the pictures marked with copyright to Dr. Karve's organisation? How
long would the files take you to transmit? My e-mail seems to arrive
at about 6MB/minute.

AJH

From ajh at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Sat May 22 10:32:03 2004
From: ajh at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (AJH)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:08 2004
Subject: Sarai stove experiments
In-Reply-To: <012001c43f41$c28f1e80$3d6c0443@net>
Message-ID: <SAT.22.MAY.2004.153203.0100.AJH@SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK>

On Fri, 21 May 2004 08:41:52 -0600, Ron Larson wrote:

>AD:
>
> A chimney augmenter may be helpful - but I believe you already have a
>pretty good chimney geometry (I recall a chimney height already of 30 or
>more cm - much more than most charcoal burners). . My guess is that there
>will be better payoff in finding ways to keep out undesired entrained air
>(ie limiting the excess secondary air) - thereby forcing more air to come up
>through the burning charcoal. Can you remind us if you have a door to close
>after inserting the fuel "pellets"? A door will lower the internal
>pressure above the charcoal "bed" and should signficantly incease your air
>flow without
>needing to add more chimney

The stoves list has been busy whilst I have been away from a computer!

From ajh at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Sat May 22 10:32:04 2004
From: ajh at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (AJH)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:08 2004
Subject: temperature and Co in charcoal burning
In-Reply-To: <001d01c43f7f$5cf87600$e49dfea9@home>
Message-ID: <SAT.22.MAY.2004.153204.0100.AJH@SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK>

On Sat, 22 May 2004 00:02:45 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:

>
>If the Sarai cooker is burning at 3 to 500 degres, then it will take
>quite a bit of chimney to get the burn rate up to a point at which the
>CO ignites effectively, and it simply might not. Is that bad? How
>bad?.

My point being that in current use the temperature does not get high
enough to push the equilibrium more toward production of CO, as
temperature increases by controlling air mass flow then there is a
shift in conditions to favour CO, which is difficult to ignite in
dilutions with Nitrogen and CO2, unless the spontaneous ignition
temperature is maintained.

AJH

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Sat May 22 12:28:46 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:08 2004
Subject: Dr. Karve's Movies on CD
In-Reply-To: <vp6ua01k1f59do80mc6puq6634le52kkl4@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <SAT.22.MAY.2004.112846.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 03:29:32PM +0100, Andrew Heggie wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 2004 12:03:05 -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:
>
> > So far I've only received one order for the CD, so I'm not sure if everyone
> >is aware that they are available, or what is on the CD. Dr. Karve has made two
> >very nice short films, both of which are on this CD. The first film shows his
> >charcoal kiln operation in detail, and also the process for making briquettes
> >from the charcoal. It also shows his charcoal-fired cooker being used in good
> >detail.
>
> Harmon what format are the movie files in? I have grave doubts my
> computer can render dvd.

These work with Windows Media Player. I think they probably would also work
quite well on a Mac too.

>
> > The second movie is about growing and processing bamboo. Both films are very
> >well done and very informative. I think it would be a very good thing if we
> >could get these widely distributed around the world, with the people getting
> >them perhaps making more copies and distributing them to others.
>
> What's the total content of the CD in MB? Perhaps I could mirror your
> operation, I shall look into paypal though my daughter would happily
> lend me some dollars which could be sent by us internal mail.
>

These are quite big files, one is 180MB and the other is 271MB

> > I wish I had a better internet connection than my DSL line, I'd put these
> >films up on my web server for access as streaming video.
>
> The trouble with that would be getting payment for the content, are
> the pictures marked with copyright to Dr. Karve's organisation?

Oh, I don't care about getting paid for them, I'm only charging for the cost
of the materials and postage and a little for my time and gas to run to the
postoffice.

> How
> long would the files take you to transmit? My e-mail seems to arrive
> at about 6MB/minute.
>

My problem with sending them out is that my DSL line has great download speed
(but even so these would take a fairly long time to download) but they cap the
upload speed pretty badly. So my trying to send them out would probably take
many hours.

--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com
Hoka hey!

From list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Sat May 22 12:57:23 2004
From: list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:08 2004
Subject: Dr. Karve's Movies on CD
In-Reply-To: <20040522162846.GC22985@cybershamanix.com>
Message-ID: <SAT.22.MAY.2004.175723.0100.>

On Sat, 22 May 2004 11:28:46 -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:

>> The trouble with that would be getting payment for the content, are
>> the pictures marked with copyright to Dr. Karve's organisation?
>
> Oh, I don't care about getting paid for them, I'm only charging for the cost
>of the materials and postage and a little for my time and gas to run to the
>postoffice.

I may have misunderstood but I thought a portion of the cost was to go
to support Dr Karve's organisation?

AJH

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Sat May 22 13:30:12 2004
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:08 2004
Subject: Sarai stove experiments
Message-ID: <SAT.22.MAY.2004.113012.0600.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Harmon (cc AD Karve):

Is it possible for you to get a few frames from the video to Tom Miles?
It probably is easier for you than for AD. I have seen the video several
times but don't remember the details clearly. In your opinion, would a door
get more air past the charcoal? I am trying to emphasize the importance of
air control and where the air is flowing. Big openings are not what any
modern biomass combusters are using.

Thanks for all you have done to make this DVD available.

On the issue of CO production, we should note that AD and Priya are
using a form of broken-up charcoal "brick" that simulates the "holey" brick
geometry. That is, there is a clear path for air from the bottom to flow
smoothly upwards between opposite surfaces of the "bits of charcoal" which
are capturing much the escaping radiation and keeping temperatures high - as
in the "Pyromid" and in "holey" briquettes. I believe the video was made
when they were still using "holey" briquettes.

Ron

 

----- Original Message -----
From: Harmon Seaver <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 8:18 AM
Subject: Re: Sarai stove experiments

> ---------------------- Information from the mail
header -----------------------
> Sender: The Stoves Discussion List <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Poster: Harmon Seaver <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>
> Subject: Re: Sarai stove experiments
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
> On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 08:41:52AM -0600, Ron Larson wrote:
> > AD:
> >
> > A chimney augmenter may be helpful - but I believe you already have
a
> > pretty good chimney geometry (I recall a chimney height already of 30 or
> > more cm - much more than most charcoal burners). . My guess is that
there
> > will be better payoff in finding ways to keep out undesired entrained
air
> > (ie limiting the excess secondary air) - thereby forcing more air to
come up
> > through the burning charcoal. Can you remind us if you have a door to
close
> > after inserting the fuel "pellets"? A door will lower the internal
> > pressure above the charcoal "bed" and should signficantly incease your
air
> > flow without
> > needing to add more chimney
> >
> > Adding an air flow control below the charcoal will enable you to control
the
> > power level as well.
> >
> > Is the Serai shown in any web photo? I couldn't find one just now.
>
>
> You should check out the the film shorts that Dr. Karve made, the one
with
> the charcoal kiln, etc. also shows the cooker in operation in quite good
detail.
> Someone, can't remember who right off, was asking if Dr. Karve was
willing to
> let his cooker design be public domain. I don't think that's really the
answer,
> as it would seem that India is probably the place that something like that
can
> be produced the most cheaply, other than perhaps China. The real problem
is
> distribution, getting someone with the capital to import a container lot
of
> them. I'd love to become a US distributor for those cookers, I think
they'd sell
> pretty well in the US, but don't have anywhere near the capital to set it
up.
> I wonder if the cooker could be fitted with a small IDD stove that
would fit
> the briquette chamber and burn wood pellets? That would be an awesome
camping
> stove/cooker.
>
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com
> Hoka hey!
>

From rbailis at SOCRATES.BERKELEY.EDU Sat May 22 13:49:59 2004
From: rbailis at SOCRATES.BERKELEY.EDU (Rob Bailis)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:08 2004
Subject: Charcoal can produce less smoke than firewood
Message-ID: <SAT.22.MAY.2004.104959.0700.>

Kevin,

You wrote:

> Dear Rob
>
> How much "pollution" comes simply from the wood itself?
>
> (Molds, spores, dust, insects, bacteria, etc.)
>

This is an interesting question. The short answer is, I have no idea.

The longer answer is, I've never thought to ask rural folks if they
consider these things real problems, annoyances, or not even worth
worrying about. To my knowledge, no one from outside has looked at it
or discussed whether any of these other "pollutants" present problems.
My first guess is that they don't present health problems on the same
scale that we observe from exposure to smoke from solid fuels (8th
leading cause of mortality in developing countries worldwide according
to the WHO). I don't want to downplay the impact of allergens and other
environmental pollutants that you mention (I don't even know the scale
of the effects), but my gut instinct is that these things simply don't
impact people's health on the same scale that smoke does.

Also, given the living conditions of rural folks in Kenya (where I have
the bulk of my experience) and elsewhere, it would be really difficult
to distinguish the "Molds, spores, dust, insects, bacteria, etc." that
result solely from wood from similar "pollution" introduced into the
home from other vectors. Think about the factors that might bring these
things into a rural home: grass thatch roofing materials, pets, dirt
floors, limited access to water and sanitation services, walls made from
mud and dung, living in close proximity to livestock and grain stores,
etc. All of these things result in the pollutants you mention, while
none of them result in smoke or other combustion emissions. Measuring
smoke from solid fuels in real people's houses is not easy, but it would
be far more difficult to measure these other things and determine how
much resulted from fuelwood.

Finally, with other public health problems taking such a devastating
toll in Africa, I wouldn't expect anyone to put time, money, and effort
into studying allergens or other environmental pollutants like these in
rural Africa unless there was evidence of a strong link to the big
killers - AIDS, malnutrition, water-borne diseases, malaria and smoke
from solid fuels...

rb

Kevin Chisholm wrote:

> Dear Rob
>
> How much "pollution" comes simply from the wood itself?
>
> (Molds, spores, dust, insects, bacteria, etc.)
>
> Kevin Chisholm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rob Bailis" <rbailis@socrates.Berkeley.EDU>
> To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 12:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [STOVES] Charcoal can produce less smoke than firewood
>
> > John and others,
> >
> > This is an interesting point and the answer is yes and no. It
> depends the
> > kind of comparison you want to make. If you want to do lab
> experiments
> and
> > conteol all possibe sources of error I'd suggest you use clean dry
> wood
> (as
> > Dean does in his tests at Apro), but if you want to actually measure
>
> levels of
> > pollution in people's homes, you have to measure what they use -
> otherwise
> you
> > can't get an accurate measurement of their exposures.
> >
> > rb
> >

From dstill at EPUD.NET Sat May 22 13:50:04 2004
From: dstill at EPUD.NET (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:08 2004
Subject: temperature and Co in charcoal burning
In-Reply-To: <LISTSERV%2004052119493192@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Message-ID: <SAT.22.MAY.2004.105004.0700.DSTILL@EPUD.NET>

Tom,

Yes, it's difficult to get good mixing without a fan. The three design
mantras that seem to help lower CO here are:

1.) Keep only the hot part of the stick burning while the rest of the stick
is kept cold, not producing smoke.

2.) Fill a space above the combustion zone with flame.

3.) Create better mixing using the rising air to turn a fan. A fan turned by
updraft under the Vesto might work? We have tried draft run fans above and
below the cylindrical combustion chamber. Works like candle powered
Christmas carousels...

A question for you: Do you need spark to ignite the CO at 760C and 6% O2?

All Best,

Dean

-----Original Message-----
From: The Stoves Discussion List [mailto:STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG] On Behalf
Of Tom Miles
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 3:50 PM
To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [STOVES] temperature and Co in charcoal burning

Crispin,

Just an obervation: in industrial boilers we find that the vapor
temperature (above a grate) needs to be about 760 C and the O2 about 6%
for good CO burnout (to less than 25 ppm). That assumes that you have good
O2 mixing which is accomplished by using fans to create well placed jets
of combustion air.

It seems to me that it would be tough to duplicate that in a stove unless
you used forced air and a fan like Tom's woodgas stove. The vortex in your
Vesto would benefit from some external energy (from a fan) but that would
obviously limit the field of users.

Tom Miles

On Sat, 22 May 2004 00:02:45 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
<crispin@NEWDAWN.SZ> wrote:

>Tami gave a temperature one which was a minimum for initiating the
>combustion of CO. Wasn't it 700 C or so?

>Regards
>Crispin

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Sat May 22 14:18:07 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:08 2004
Subject: Dr. Karve's Movies on CD
In-Reply-To: <1g1va0pl0nbobl4s0daphmmg33t3seeu3e@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <SAT.22.MAY.2004.131807.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 05:57:23PM +0100, Andrew Heggie wrote:
> On Sat, 22 May 2004 11:28:46 -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:
>
> >> The trouble with that would be getting payment for the content, are
> >> the pictures marked with copyright to Dr. Karve's organisation?
> >
> > Oh, I don't care about getting paid for them, I'm only charging for the cost
> >of the materials and postage and a little for my time and gas to run to the
> >postoffice.
>
> I may have misunderstood but I thought a portion of the cost was to go
> to support Dr Karve's organisation?
>
> AJH

My understanding was that he had simply released them to the world. We
could, of course, charge something more to go to him, although considering that
there's only been two orders thus far, I'm rather doubtful as to how much that
would actually generate.
If there were lots of orders, it would make it a lot more economical for me
to do this, buying CDs, etc. in bulk and not having to drive across the city to
the postoffice to mail each one separately. If I have to spend 30-45 minutes,
depending on how long I have to stand in line, just to mail each one, it really
eats up my time. Even recording them is a lot faster if I'm doing them in
batches.

--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com
Hoka hey!

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Sat May 22 14:41:24 2004
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:08 2004
Subject: [ethos] RE: [STOVES] temperature and Co in charcoal burning
Message-ID: <SAT.22.MAY.2004.114124.0700.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

A pilot flame would be important. I still have to buy my Vesto so I can
experiment.

A great example of mixing in the flame at the point of secondary air
introduction is on Tom Reed's stove
http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/Reed/Pics%20in%20files.jpg

We saw a similar flame with the Vesto when it got the vortex going at higher
power levels.

One way to think of it is that the density of the air to be mixed is similar
to the density of the pyrolysis gases (CO) to be burned. It takes energy to
mix the two otherwise they stratify without burning. We call it "sneakage"
when the CO from the grate sneaks past the secondary air jets.

Years ago (ca. 1979) Dick Hill (U of Maine, Orono) used concentrated air
jets in his Jetstream wood stove/boiler that were entirely induced by stack
draft. If I recall his CO burnout was quite good. The stove was made by
Hampton then by a firm in Nova Scotia (Kerr Tempest) that I think is now
long gone.

Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean Still" <dstill@epud.net>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>; <ethos@vrac.iastate.edu>
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 10:50 AM
Subject: [ethos] RE: [STOVES] temperature and Co in charcoal burning

> Tom,
>
> Yes, it's difficult to get good mixing without a fan. The three design
> mantras that seem to help lower CO here are:
>
> 1.) Keep only the hot part of the stick burning while the rest of the
stick
> is kept cold, not producing smoke.
>
> 2.) Fill a space above the combustion zone with flame.
>
> 3.) Create better mixing using the rising air to turn a fan. A fan turned
by
> updraft under the Vesto might work? We have tried draft run fans above and
> below the cylindrical combustion chamber. Works like candle powered
> Christmas carousels...
>
> A question for you: Do you need spark to ignite the CO at 760C and 6% O2?
>
> All Best,
>
> Dean
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Stoves Discussion List [mailto:STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG] On
Behalf
> Of Tom Miles
> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 3:50 PM
> To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: Re: [STOVES] temperature and Co in charcoal burning
>
> Crispin,
>
> Just an obervation: in industrial boilers we find that the vapor
> temperature (above a grate) needs to be about 760 C and the O2 about 6%
> for good CO burnout (to less than 25 ppm). That assumes that you have good
> O2 mixing which is accomplished by using fans to create well placed jets
> of combustion air.
>
> It seems to me that it would be tough to duplicate that in a stove unless
> you used forced air and a fan like Tom's woodgas stove. The vortex in your
> Vesto would benefit from some external energy (from a fan) but that would
> obviously limit the field of users.
>
> Tom Miles
>
> On Sat, 22 May 2004 00:02:45 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
> <crispin@NEWDAWN.SZ> wrote:
>
> >Tami gave a temperature one which was a minimum for initiating the
> >combustion of CO. Wasn't it 700 C or so?
>
> >Regards
> >Crispin
>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe, send email to majormail@vrac.iastate.edu with
> this as the first line in the BODY of the message: unsubscribe ethos
> ---
>

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Sat May 22 14:48:40 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:08 2004
Subject: temperature and Co in charcoal burning
Message-ID: <SAT.22.MAY.2004.204840.0200.CRISPIN@NEWDAWN.SZ>

Dear AJH

>>If the Sarai cooker is burning at 3 to 500 degres, then it will take
>>quite a bit of chimney to get the burn rate up to a point at which the
>>CO ignites effectively, and it simply might not. Is that bad? How
>>bad?.

>My point being that in current use the temperature does not get high
>enough to push the equilibrium more toward production of CO, as
>temperature increases by controlling air mass flow then there is a
>shift in conditions to favour CO, which is difficult to ignite in
>dilutions with Nitrogen and CO2, unless the spontaneous ignition
>temperature is maintained.

Quite so. I am wondering if our can run the entire stove at a different
temperature to see at what condition some thing else happens.

When we get higher heat transfer efficiencies, it is more and more important
to be able to maintain a small, hot fire. This issue of burning a small
quantity of charcoal seems like a good test case.

Thanks
Crispin

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Sat May 22 14:51:25 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:08 2004
Subject: Sarai stove experiments
In-Reply-To: <033e01c44022$70bb3800$3d6c0443@net>
Message-ID: <SAT.22.MAY.2004.135125.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 11:30:12AM -0600, Ron Larson wrote:
> Harmon (cc AD Karve):
>
> Is it possible for you to get a few frames from the video to Tom Miles?

I'm not sure how to do that, I'll to take a look at it, but I can't do it
this week as I'm packing right now for a trip and won't be back until Thurs.

> It probably is easier for you than for AD. I have seen the video several
> times but don't remember the details clearly. In your opinion, would a door
> get more air past the charcoal? I am trying to emphasize the importance of
> air control and where the air is flowing. Big openings are not what any
> modern biomass combusters are using.

I'd have to look at it again.

 

Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com
Hoka hey!

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Sat May 22 15:01:12 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:08 2004
Subject: Sarai stove experiments
Message-ID: <SAT.22.MAY.2004.210112.0200.CRISPIN@NEWDAWN.SZ>

Dear AJH

You wrote:
>Bearing in mind we have Dean and Alex posting of poor CO:CO2
>performance (Alex alluded to informal testing, Dean cited some papers)
>of "unimproved" charcoal cookers and Crispin and ELK having positive
>views on the comparative emissions of charcoal compared with wood,
>plus the comment that the use of charcoal for cooking is deeply
>embedded in cultural and economic aspects of the user community, I
>need to see a few above fire CO figures to take a view either way.

I want to make a small correction to this. The positive view I had was
based on the papers Dean cited, not my own measurements, though I see
someone talked about far lower total pollution in Kenyan homes burning
charcoal compared with wood.

The papers cited charcoal producing more CO per kg of fuel, and I was
pointing out that the charcoal, according to the figures given, produced
less CO per MJ of heat (actual cooking). Paraffin in a Panda stove probably
produces even more CO than charcoal per Kg but then that isn't how the
comparison should be made in my view.

So far I haven't made up my mind about the charcoal. I inherently dislike
it so much from an environmental point of view except when made as Karve is
doing it: based on real waste that might get burned anyway. There are
millions of tons of forest waste available around here and towards
Carolina/Ermelo. It just lies there after tree felling and occasionally
catches fire.

If I get a chance I will try to burn some charcoal with preheated air at
different temperatures to see what happens to the CO level in a small fire.

Regards
Crispin

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Sat May 22 15:08:03 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:08 2004
Subject: temperature and Co in charcoal burning
Message-ID: <SAT.22.MAY.2004.160803.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Dean
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean Still" <dstill@EPUD.NET>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] temperature and Co in charcoal burning

> Tom,
>
> Yes, it's difficult to get good mixing without a fan.

I wonder has anybody ever tried to create velocity and draft using a
chimney? ;-)

I've been pushing chimneys and stacks on the Stoves List for the past 3 or 4
years now, but the concept never caught fire. (Pun intended.) Chimneys and
stacks have another benefit also... they take tars and smoke outside the
living space.

Chimneys and stacks and exhaust hoods seem like a pretty good idea to me.
Any idea why they don't catch on?

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm

From lanny at ROMAN.NET Sat May 22 16:35:17 2004
From: lanny at ROMAN.NET (Lanny Henson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:08 2004
Subject: Simple Chimney Cap
Message-ID: <SAT.22.MAY.2004.163517.0400.LANNY@ROMAN.NET>

Here is a simple chimney cap design that can be made from the end of a round
exhaust pipe.
It is not quiet as good as an expensive cap with a wind band but it will do.

http://www.lanny.us/cap.html

Lanny Henson

From lanny at ROMAN.NET Sat May 22 18:14:28 2004
From: lanny at ROMAN.NET (Lanny Henson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: temperature and Co in charcoal burning
Message-ID: <SAT.22.MAY.2004.181428.0400.LANNY@ROMAN.NET>

Kevin,
You convinced me a long time ago about chimneys. Even a short chimney helps.
Having said that, the Saria stove shows us how well low and slow can work
without a chimney.
The insulated vent cover on my charcoal slow cooker adds 15 inches of draft
height to the stove. It makes a big difference in the flow. It also allows
another pot to be stacked. You can add a short piece of pipe to the exhaust
outlet on top for more flow.
http://www.lanny.us/

Lanny Henson

----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] temperature and Co in charcoal burning

> Dear Dean
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dean Still" <dstill@EPUD.NET>
> To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 2:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [STOVES] temperature and Co in charcoal burning
>
>
> > Tom,
> >
> > Yes, it's difficult to get good mixing without a fan.
>
> I wonder has anybody ever tried to create velocity and draft using a
> chimney? ;-)
>
> I've been pushing chimneys and stacks on the Stoves List for the past 3 or
4
> years now, but the concept never caught fire. (Pun intended.) Chimneys and
> stacks have another benefit also... they take tars and smoke outside the
> living space.
>
> Chimneys and stacks and exhaust hoods seem like a pretty good idea to me.
> Any idea why they don't catch on?
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Kevin Chisholm

From Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP Sun May 23 09:28:59 2004
From: Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP (Kanchan Rai)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: corrected emissions not only from stove in Kitchen in Jumla
and Humla
Message-ID: <SUN.23.MAY.2004.191359.0545.KANCHAN@KU.EDU.NP>

Dear Kevin,

I have no idea regarding the candle out of animal fat but some of the
families posses some sheeps. Ocasonally people kill sheep to get meat but I
don't know how much they can get fat from that.

I haven't heard any work done on smokeless resing burner till this date.

The kitchen often have very small windows which is almost closed during
cooking. Windows are made of wood so when it is closed there is no
possibility of entering light inside the room.

With regards,
kanchan

> Dear Kanchan
>
> Thanks very much for the insight into the total problem.
>
> It is fascinating indeed to see people "from away" can miss out on an
> essential part of a problem. Such a problem, and its impact, never
> occurred to me.
>
> Would it be possible for these people to make candles out of animal
> fat? Do you know if anyone has ever tried to make a "smokeless rosin
> burner?"
>
> Pardon my ignorance, but does their building style make use of
> windows?
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Kevin Chisholm
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kanchan Rai" <Kanchan@KU.EDU.NP>
> To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 11:31 AM
> Subject: [STOVES] corrected emissions not only from stove in Kitchen
> in Jumla and Humla
>
>
>> Dear all,
>> Since there has been lots of discussion on CO emission and
>> particulate emission due to stove.
>>
>> Do everybody thinks thats the only emission inside the kitchen is
>> from stove?
>>
>> In case of mountain areas of Nepal ----> NO!!!
>>
>> The kitchen is very big in size, most of the people have only one
>> room for a family.
>>
>> Since the yellow flame from open fire couldnot produce much light
>> inside room, they use small sticks of firewood which is deeped in
>> resin (sticky liquid which comes out when we cut living pine trees)
>> taken from pine trees. one sticks last about 5 minutes and they will
>> put another one. This process happens as long as people stays inside
>> room. In winter its a whole day process as people just sits around
>> open fire and they need light to.
>>
>> There are 2 disadvantages of this
>>
>> 1. In terms of deforestation
>>
>> people make wound on pine trees to collect the resin ("jharro" in
>> local language). Every day they cuts deeper and deeper to collect the
>> resin. In the long term the tree fell down and dies. I saw hundreds
>> of trees just felled due due to this process. Which is one of the
>> resons of
>> deforestation in those areas.
>>
>> 2. In terms of kitchen emissions
>> The stick deeped in the resin produce much smoke compared to the
>> light produced by it. This produce much smoke compared to the light
>> produced by the stove.
>>
>> I want to tell that even if we introduce a stove, what will we do
>> about smoke unless we can provide them a good way of lighting.
>> electricity is a dream at those areas . I am sure they can't stop
>> burning the resin sticks. Experiece is Jumla stove is similar in some
>> parts of Jumla. Even there is very less smoke due to the stove but
>> there is plenty of stove due to their traditional lighting system.
>>
>> That's why people just consider to design stove for warmer places and
>> often ignores high altitude places as there are many challanges
>> people would face.
>>
>> Kanchan Rai
>> RDC UNIT
>> Kathmandu University

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Sun May 23 00:44:11 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: corrected emissions not only from stove in Kitchen in Jumla
and Humla
Message-ID: <SUN.23.MAY.2004.014411.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Kanchan
Subject: Re: [STOVES] corrected emissions not only from stove in Kitchen in
Jumla and Humla

> Dear Kevin,
>
> I have no idea regarding the candle out of animal fat but some of the
> families posses some sheeps. Ocasonally people kill sheep to get meat but
I
> don't know how much they can get fat from that.

Any fat that can be saved from the carcas can be rendered to yield tallow.
The tallow can be formed around a wick, and then they have a candle.

The following sites are helpful for making candles, making wicks, and
selecting wicks:
http://candleandsoap.about.com/od/candlemaking1/
http://pixel.cs.vt.edu/aramsey/civil/hall/halljune101861.txt
>
> I haven't heard any work done on smokeless resing burner till this date.
>
Neither have I! :-) However, it is an interesting combustion challenge. I
make rosin from spruce and fir tree resin, and it is very sticky stuff.
However, it does flow, and it may very well be possible to make a "self
feeding rosin candle. "

> The kitchen often have very small windows which is almost closed during
> cooking. Windows are made of wood so when it is closed there is no
> possibility of entering light inside the room.
>
It would be quite economical to make "windows" from 6 mil construction grade
polyethylene film. They degrade on exposure to UV, but they should last a
year. The poly "window" could be installed directly in the same "window
opening", and the wooden "window door" could be left open to let light in
without letting out all the warmed air within the kitchen.

Are there any local traditions, customs, or taboos that would prevent the
use of such windows?

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm

> With regards,
> kanchan
>
> > Dear Kanchan
> >
> > Thanks very much for the insight into the total problem.
> >
> > It is fascinating indeed to see people "from away" can miss out on an
> > essential part of a problem. Such a problem, and its impact, never
> > occurred to me.
> >
> > Would it be possible for these people to make candles out of animal
> > fat? Do you know if anyone has ever tried to make a "smokeless rosin
> > burner?"
> >
> > Pardon my ignorance, but does their building style make use of
> > windows?
> >
> > Kindest regards,
> >
> > Kevin Chisholm
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Kanchan Rai" <Kanchan@KU.EDU.NP>
> > To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> > Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 11:31 AM
> > Subject: [STOVES] corrected emissions not only from stove in Kitchen
> > in Jumla and Humla
> >
> >
> >> Dear all,
> >> Since there has been lots of discussion on CO emission and
> >> particulate emission due to stove.
> >>
> >> Do everybody thinks thats the only emission inside the kitchen is
> >> from stove?
> >>
> >> In case of mountain areas of Nepal ----> NO!!!
> >>
> >> The kitchen is very big in size, most of the people have only one
> >> room for a family.
> >>
> >> Since the yellow flame from open fire couldnot produce much light
> >> inside room, they use small sticks of firewood which is deeped in
> >> resin (sticky liquid which comes out when we cut living pine trees)
> >> taken from pine trees. one sticks last about 5 minutes and they will
> >> put another one. This process happens as long as people stays inside
> >> room. In winter its a whole day process as people just sits around
> >> open fire and they need light to.
> >>
> >> There are 2 disadvantages of this
> >>
> >> 1. In terms of deforestation
> >>
> >> people make wound on pine trees to collect the resin ("jharro" in
> >> local language). Every day they cuts deeper and deeper to collect the
> >> resin. In the long term the tree fell down and dies. I saw hundreds
> >> of trees just felled due due to this process. Which is one of the
> >> resons of
> >> deforestation in those areas.
> >>
> >> 2. In terms of kitchen emissions
> >> The stick deeped in the resin produce much smoke compared to the
> >> light produced by it. This produce much smoke compared to the light
> >> produced by the stove.
> >>
> >> I want to tell that even if we introduce a stove, what will we do
> >> about smoke unless we can provide them a good way of lighting.
> >> electricity is a dream at those areas . I am sure they can't stop
> >> burning the resin sticks. Experiece is Jumla stove is similar in some
> >> parts of Jumla. Even there is very less smoke due to the stove but
> >> there is plenty of stove due to their traditional lighting system.
> >>
> >> That's why people just consider to design stove for warmer places and
> >> often ignores high altitude places as there are many challanges
> >> people would face.
> >>
> >> Kanchan Rai
> >> RDC UNIT
> >> Kathmandu University
>
>
>

From Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK Sun May 23 03:54:42 2004
From: Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: Dr. Karve's Movies on CD
In-Reply-To: <1g1va0pl0nbobl4s0daphmmg33t3seeu3e@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <SUN.23.MAY.2004.085442.0100.GAVIN@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>

I'd go with Andrew here that Harmon should use the service he is offering to
support ( in a small way) the work of Dr. Karve by asking a nominal sum from
us "wealthy westerners" to go towards Dr Karves projects.

Kind regards
Gavin

-----Original Message-----
From: The Stoves Discussion List [mailto:STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf
Of Andrew Heggie
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 17:57
To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Dr. Karve's Movies on CD

On Sat, 22 May 2004 11:28:46 -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:

>> The trouble with that would be getting payment for the content, are
>> the pictures marked with copyright to Dr. Karve's organisation?
>
> Oh, I don't care about getting paid for them, I'm only charging for the
cost
>of the materials and postage and a little for my time and gas to run to the
>postoffice.

I may have misunderstood but I thought a portion of the cost was to go
to support Dr Karve's organisation?

AJH

From raywije at EUREKA.LK Sun May 23 05:49:01 2004
From: raywije at EUREKA.LK (Dr. Ray Wijewardene)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: Sarai stove experiments
In-Reply-To: <000101c43e7a$f881b9c0$a35e41db@adkarve>
Message-ID: <SUN.23.MAY.2004.024901.0700.RAYWIJE@EUREKA.LK>

Dear AD an'all... AD's message about the kids experiments with cooking was
about the most heartening I've read for years!!..Tha's what research is
about! Congrats and thanks, AD... RAY W.

-----Original Message-----
From: The Stoves Discussion List [mailto:STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On
Behalf Of adkarve
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 1:30 AM
To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [STOVES] Sarai stove experiments

Dear Stovers,
We are currently having 15 school kids, who have completed their 8th
standard (14 year olds). They are working in our Institute on various
technologies of ours. One set of students has been given the Sarai cooker.
One of the tasks given to them was to measure the temperature of the char
briquettes that are combusted in this cooker. Under normal air supply, the
briquettes burned at a temperature of just 300 Celsius. But when they blew
air through a blowpipe held below the grate, temperature of the char
briquettes shot up to 700 Celsius. This suggests a modification to the
existing design. We shall construct a chimney for the cooker to create the
necessary draft.
Another experiment conducted by the school kids was to use the cooker as an
oven. Normally we add about 100 ml water to the cooker vessel, so that the
temperature inside the cooker vessel never exceeds 100 Celcius. But if this
water is not present, the cooker vessel gets overheated and instead of
cooking the items, it roasts them. By using this principle, the kids baked
cakes in the cooker. the cooker vessel encompasses three pots, placed one
on top of the other. The kids could bake three cakes simultaneously, one in
each pot. The fuel required was the same as for cooking a meal, namely 100 g
briquettes per cooking. The kids had great fun making their own cakes and
eating them. Initially they did not get the mixture right, and the cakes
did not rise, but now they have got the hang of it. Throughout the last two
weeks of their experiments, they have been eating midday meals cooked by
themselves, including cakes.
Yours
A.D.Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: Harmon Seaver <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 9:06 AM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Fuel size in pyrolysis stoves

> On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 10:10:42AM +0100, Andrew Heggie wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 May 2004 16:30:23 -0700, Hank wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >While the rack above the stove pipe might look strange, it would seem
to be
> > >a workable solution if there is no dry wood available. Sounds like in
many
> > >areas they gather the wood as it is needed rather then storing a
"winters"
> > >supply. Obviously the wood will be wet if it rains.
> >
> > Hank, I think in overall energy terms there is only a small case for
> > drying but (about 14% with 50% mc wwb), as you found there are other
> > benefits. The biggest benefit is that on small lossy stoves it is
> > unlikely you can get clean burning conditions with we would. So the
> > pre drying in the oven is a pre requisite of clean burning, poor
> > burning results in a lot of the fuel value being wasted up the chimney
> > unburned (PICs products of incomplete combustion).
>
> With the big iron "range" type cookstove that Hank was talking about,
it
> isn't just a matter of clean burning, but primarily one of burning well
enough
> to put out enough heat to cook, especially baking. I've had many years of
> experience with cooking on the old wood cookstoves, and also had a lot of
> experience dealing with a seriously disgruntled wife when the wood wasn't
dry
> enough. And it was very species specific, as well. Totally dry pine,
cedar, or
> spruce wouldn't do at all, other than as kindling. Dry birch was
acceptable, but
> mostly dry maple was demanded (or oak and hickory when we lived where that
> grew), and I spent a lot of time out in the sugarbush looking for small,
bone
> dry, dead maple saplings about 2"-4" diameter.
> I've been thinking a lot lately of some way to convert one of those
ranges to
> burn chips in the IDD fashion.
>
>
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com
> Hoka hey!

From list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Sun May 23 06:14:26 2004
From: list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: Sarai stove experiments
In-Reply-To: <005a01c4402f$2e50bbe0$cb83fea9@md>
Message-ID: <SUN.23.MAY.2004.111426.0100.>

On Sat, 22 May 2004 21:01:12 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:

>Dear AJH
>
>You wrote:
>>Bearing in mind we have Dean and Alex posting of poor CO:CO2
>>performance (Alex alluded to informal testing, Dean cited some papers)
>>of "unimproved" charcoal cookers and Crispin and ELK having positive
>>views on the comparative emissions of charcoal compared with wood,
>>plus the comment that the use of charcoal for cooking is deeply
>>embedded in cultural and economic aspects of the user community, I
>>need to see a few above fire CO figures to take a view either way.
>
>I want to make a small correction to this. The positive view I had was
>based on the papers Dean cited, not my own measurements, though I see
>someone talked about far lower total pollution in Kenyan homes burning
>charcoal compared with wood.

The clarification is fine, I was not intending my small precis to
carry any judgmental tones.

>
>So far I haven't made up my mind about the charcoal. I inherently dislike
>it so much from an environmental point of view except when made as Karve is
>doing it: based on real waste that might get burned anyway.

I think the important point about Dr. Karve's work, and that at
chardust, is that it is a commercial venture that seems to be catching
on, I have pointed out other technologies where charcoal is made
cleanly PLUS the heat is used to good effect, yet these have not been
adopted.

Here in UK some of the big players in importing barbecue charcoal are
going into local production, due to the collapse of forestry markets
making a cheap resource available again, their analysis does not seem
to make them interested in making use of waste heat, even though they
acknowledge the need for an incinerator for the offgas.

I am also reminded of a post some years back about burning rice hulls
to produce silica, for silica gel, where also the capital cost of
using the heat in another process could not compete with simply
setting fire to piles of rice husks.

>If I get a chance I will try to burn some charcoal with preheated air at
>different temperatures to see what happens to the CO level in a small fire.

I will look forward to seeing them, maybe as a start just measuring CO
levels in a simple jiko at different levels of charcoal may give some
pointers, logging charcoal depth, CO and temperature as the fire burns
down.

I've just dropped my brother off for a flight to SA and asked him to
see if he can buy me a simple charcoal stove.

AJH

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Sun May 23 08:44:19 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: Charcoal burning to CO2
Message-ID: <SUN.23.MAY.2004.064419.0600.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Alex, ADK, Das, Tom Miles and All :

As a chemist and thermodynamicist, I ponder things I don't have time to
investigate. Consider the following:

Alex is correct that a major product of air passing through an incandescent
(T>700C) bed of hot charcoal is CO, the reactions being

1) 2 C (in excess) + O2 ==> 2CO 28 kcal/mole produced
2) C + O2 ===> CO2 96 kcal/mole produced

At temperatures over 900 C (yellow to white heat), reaction 1 dominates.
Below 700 C, 2) dominates. If you wish to know the exact equilibrium ratios
of CO/CO2, it is necessary to calculate it from the free energies and
equilibrium constants from 700 to 900.

If there is a source of more oxygen above the charcoal bed and temperature
can be kept above 700 C, the CO will continue to burn to CO2 and one can
typically see beautiful blue flames above a bed of hot char. But excess air
above also can quench the flames, resulting in a house full of CO and dead
people.

~~~~~~~~~
The reaction temperature for 1) with air is about 1200 C. (A blacksmith's
forge approximates this...) The temperature for 2) with air would be about
2100C, except that in the presence of excess carbon 1) would dominate.

So reaction 1) is great for gasification and the CO can then be used to
power cars etc.
~~~~~~
I speculate that if one passed a mixture of air and sufficient recycled
combustion products through a bed of charcoal, one would have a much lower
reaction temperature that would favor reaction 2) and still produce heat in
the neighborhood of 500-700 C with very low CO content , sufficient for most
purposes. It would be easy enough to aspirate the exhaust gases into the
intake air in a controlled manner with an ejector.

With all the discussion of making charcoal from junk biomass here at the
web, someone should investigate this as a method of producing safe heat for
drying etc.

Yours truly,

TOM REED THE BEF STOVEWORKS

 

----- Original Message -----
From: <english@kingston.net>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 4:54 AM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Gas and Biomass

> Dear Paul and A.D.
> I don't think you need to do anything special to generate lots of CO
> from charcoal. My informal testing showed higher CO/CO2 from thiner
> beds, including single layers, of burning charcoal.
>
> Where the Sarai Cooker likely shines from a CO emissions point of
> view is it total per task, grams/meal.
>
> I guess we need to see the more data.
>
> Alex
>
> > AD Karve has answered part of my question in a different message:
> >
> > He wrote:
> > ... the stove [Sarai Cooker] is so designed that it
> > would accept just a single layer of briquettes. In this way, the hot
flue
> > gases do not pass through a bed of uncombusted coal to generate carbon
> > monoxide.
> >
> > Makes sense: If there is no provision for the combustion of the CO,
then
> > the thick layers of char (intended to gasify to get the CO) can be
> > detrimental.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > ******** old message is below ************
> >
> > At 11:58 PM 5/13/04 +0100, Andrew Heggie wrote:
> > snip
> > >OK I suggest you are citing the special case when the fire bed is not
> > >deep enough to generate CO, in your case because you meter in the
> > >fuel.
> >
> > What is a sufficient or desirable depth of the char / and/or fire bed?
> >
> > In the IDD (Tom Reed version = TLUD = top lit up draft) gasifiers, the
char
> > accumulates during the pyrolysis process, and then after pyrolysis the
char
> > is consumed (or can be removed). So the TLUD gasifiers can make the
depth
> > needed.
> >
> > But what is the minimal depth before the advantages of char depth stop?
> >
> > Concerning burning of coal in steam locomotives, I have heard that the
> > depth should be 15 times the average diameter of the fuel chunks? But
if
> > the fuel is of long sticks vertical in a gasifier, then the air flow
might
> > become increasingly easy (less resistance) as the fuel sticks shrink in
size.
> >
> > Regarding charcoal, I visualize a Weber cooker with a single layer of
> > charcoal. Is that the "low temp" way for the total heat, as opposed to
> > stacking the charcoal and getting more TOTAL heat??
> >
> > Paul
> > Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
> > Rotary University Teacher Grantee to Mozambique >10 mo of 2001-2003
> > Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
> > Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
> > E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
> >

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Sun May 23 08:52:48 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: Congratulations ASES
Message-ID: <SUN.23.MAY.2004.065248.0600.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Ron and All:

Congratulations to Ron for keeping the ASES alive and, (I hope), healthy.

I remember that when I first went to work in renewable energy in 1978 that
the ASES had no interest in biomass, so I published many other places, but
not there, even though they are only 20 miles away in Boulder.

I hope that ASES has awakened to the fact that the most practical and most
renewable energy is biomass. Photovoltaics and wind energy are intermittent
while biomass is always available. Biomass gasifiers can supply power for
~$2000/kW of generation capacity, while photovoltaics and wind are still in
the $10,000 to $20,000 range if you take into account availability (they
don't).

I would be interested in Ron's take on what ASES's present stance is.

Your well wisher,

TOM REED

 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lanny Henson" <lanny@ROMAN.NET>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 3:49 AM
Subject: [STOVES] Congratulations ASES

> The congratulations goes to ASES for getting someone as wise as Ron
Larson.
>
> Lanny Henson
>
> >I was elected as Vice - Chair (Chair in 2006 and 2007) of the >American
> Solar Energy Society (ASES)

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Sun May 23 09:26:34 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: Sarai stove experiments
Message-ID: <SUN.23.MAY.2004.082634.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

Hallo Harmon,
You can look up the Sarai Cooker at this following site. All the items shown
there are assemled together.
http://india.shellfoundation.net/goto.php/view/887/forum.htm

And in answer to your question "Can you remind us if you have a door to
close after inserting the fuel "pellets"? "

Yes, there is a small door which is closed.

I have been following the discussions on the stove list,
so here are some answers to the many questions:
1. The maximum temperature reached usually is around 300 -350 degree
centigrade.
2. I have checked the CO emissions it never exceeds 6 ppm. I could not
check the CO2 as we do not have the necessary equipments. PM10 level of
particulate matter or smoke is also next to negligible.
3. With a bit more insulation with cloth or cotton wrap on the outer jacket
the steamed food was found to keep food hot ( not warm) upto 6 hrs.
4. It can also be used to bake food e.g cakes and pies etc. They come out
beautifully and do not burn (the fear that is always there with ovens) .

With Best Wishes,
Karabi.
--
Dr.Karabi Dutta.
Breathe Easy Network India http://india.shellfoundation.net
About me:
http://india.shellfoundation.net/goto.php/User:KarabiDutta
Email me at: karabi@shellfoundation.net
---------------------------------------------------

----- Original Message -----
From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Sarai stove experiments

> On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 08:41:52AM -0600, Ron Larson wrote:
> > AD:
> >
> > A chimney augmenter may be helpful - but I believe you already have
a
> > pretty good chimney geometry (I recall a chimney height already of 30 or
> > more cm - much more than most charcoal burners). . My guess is that
there
> > will be better payoff in finding ways to keep out undesired entrained
air
> > (ie limiting the excess secondary air) - thereby forcing more air to
come up
> > through the burning charcoal. Can you remind us if you have a door to
close
> > after inserting the fuel "pellets"? A door will lower the internal
> > pressure above the charcoal "bed" and should signficantly incease your
air
> > flow without
> > needing to add more chimney
> >
> > Adding an air flow control below the charcoal will enable you to control
the
> > power level as well.
> >
> > Is the Serai shown in any web photo? I couldn't find one just now.
>
>
> You should check out the the film shorts that Dr. Karve made, the one
with
> the charcoal kiln, etc. also shows the cooker in operation in quite good
detail.
> Someone, can't remember who right off, was asking if Dr. Karve was
willing to
> let his cooker design be public domain. I don't think that's really the
answer,
> as it would seem that India is probably the place that something like that
can
> be produced the most cheaply, other than perhaps China. The real problem
is
> distribution, getting someone with the capital to import a container lot
of
> them. I'd love to become a US distributor for those cookers, I think
they'd sell
> pretty well in the US, but don't have anywhere near the capital to set it
up.
> I wonder if the cooker could be fitted with a small IDD stove that
would fit
> the briquette chamber and burn wood pellets? That would be an awesome
camping
> stove/cooker.
>
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com
> Hoka hey!

----- End forwarded message -----

--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com
Hoka hey!

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Sun May 23 07:22:15 2004
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (adkarve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: Pot size problem
Message-ID: <SUN.23.MAY.2004.165215.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Richard,
several of our clay and cement cookstove models have a funnel shaped
pothole, so that a round pot of any size fits into the hole. The pot also
seals the hole, so that the flue gases do not come out of the pothole but
brush along the bottom of the pot and go out through the chimney. This
prevents smoke getting into the kitchen atmosphere, but since only the
bottom of the pot is exposed to the flames and flue gases, the efficiency of
the stove is reduced. With a sunken pot, the entire pot, except for its top,
is exposed to the fire and therefore the efficiency of the stove is much
higher. One can perhaps think of pots having wide rims, whereby the rim of
all the pots has the same size. In this way, although the pot sinks into the
stove through the pothole, the rim prevents it falling into the stove and
the rim also seals the pothole, preventing smoke from polluting the kitchen
atmosphere.
A.D.Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Stanley <rstanley@LEGACYFOUND.ORG>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Pot size problem

> Jeff,
> I was looking at the possibility of a funel shaped stove top-cum-pot
> holder, (widening upward), fitted with a series of three radiating
> (internal) spokes. Each of these spokes or rails would have a series of
> steps or notches. Increasingly larger diameter pots (whether flat or
> round bottomed), would seat on (or in the case of flat bottoms), in, the
> progressively wider spaced notches (read notches at larger radii), all
> down within the funnel enclosure. The gas clearance between the pot and
> the funnel is maintained this way and the pot stability is somewhat
> better maintained than with a fixed width flat top.
> Lakini, ... one doe not optimise enclosure of the pot as with a vertical
> ring, nor perhaps might one realise the stack effect, such a vertical
> ring would effectively create. More disconcerting, the larger pots will
> be further away from (higher from) the fire bed.
>
> So now from an extension standpoint (perhaps the real the sticky part),
> all we have to do is convince the user to cook foods requiring
> intensive heat (meat, hot water for tea or coffee etc.) in small
> diameter pots, and slower simmering foods. beans, stew, mize meal
> porridge pablum etc., in larger pots. Hmmm small extension problem or ???
>
> What do you all think on this: Anybody with experience with same or
> similar idea ?
> What is the effect of creating a large and rapidly widening exhaust
> area for the cooling gasses as they pass by outer edges of the pot?
>
> Salaams, Jeff,
>
> Richard / SA Paushof
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Sun May 23 07:42:59 2004
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (adkarve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: Briquette CD
Message-ID: <SUN.23.MAY.2004.171259.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Harmon,
thanks for your words of appreciation. We have not yet produced a CD
describing our compact biogas fermenter, because we are still in the process
of standardising the technology. There are several questions that need to be
answered. The ideal C/N ratio is one of them. We are also testing various
sources of N, including urea, ammoniacal salts, and proteins (nitrates are
out because they would add oxygen to the system), different design
configurations, different materials for the tanks, frequencies of feeding,
effect of temperature and methods of overcoming the adverse effect of low
temperature, etc. Several people have just copied our present prototype.
Although they are getting satisfactory results, we have decided to wait till
we have standardised all the parameters before making a CD.
Yours
A.D.Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: Harmon Seaver <hseaver@cybershamanix.com>
To: adkarve <adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Briquette CD

> Dr. Karve;
> I really like the two movies on that CD. Do you have one like that for
your
> methane digester as well?
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com
>

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Sun May 23 08:28:54 2004
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (adkarve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: Can we grow trees everywhere?
Message-ID: <SUN.23.MAY.2004.175854.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Grasses and shrubs are more suited for the relatively arid areas, which
receive less than 300 mm rainfall. They can support goats and sheep, to
provide humans with a livelihood. Whatever the animals do not eat can still
be used as fuel.
A.D.Karve

Crispin wrote:

> My advice? Stop worrying about oil and start planting trees on the
> thawing tundra. The oil will run out all by itself. Not so with
> forests. We can put them almost anywhere we want.
>
> Regards
> Crispin

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Sun May 23 09:47:03 2004
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (adkarve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: Annual wood per family
Message-ID: <SUN.23.MAY.2004.191703.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Rob,
our group has been working on stoves since 1984. Although I have been a member of this group since 1988, I used to work on agricultural and botany related themes. I started to take interest in cookstoves only since 1996, after I became President of this organisation (the buck stops here). The figures of 8 and 2 kg before and after installation of the improved cookstove belong to information gathered by others when I was not associated with this work. I think our workers asked housewives how much fuel they collected on a particular fuel collecting trip, and how long (days) it lasted. Our surveyors weighed the loads collected by them and divided the weight of the load by the number of days reported by them. The figures of 8 kg per day before and 2 kg per day after installation of the improved stoves were a result of such calculations.
Yours
A.D.Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: Rob Bailis
To: adkarve ; Kirk Smith
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 9:54 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Annual wood per family

Dr Karve,
Greetings. You and I have never communicated directly, but I think we have been on some shared communications. I am a PhD student in the Energy and Resources Group at the University of California in the US. I am assisting Kirk Smith (cc-ed here) to develop monitoring and assessment tools for stove performance in Shell's HEH projects and I will be travelling to India in July to conduct training workshops for ARTI and Development Alternatives on the protocols that we have developed. I recognize that your organization has a wealth of experience with stove promotion and I hope to be able to integrate that into the protocols that we will introduce.

I am writing specifically in response to one of your recent postings to the Stoves listserve with the subject heading of this email. You wrote:

Our own findings in India are that a family uses about 8 kg wood when it
uses the traditional horseshoe shaped mud stove and just 2kg per day when it uses our improved cookstove.
Our stove performance protocol includes measurements of fuel consumption in households like what you report here. As you know, this is one of the more difficult aspects of stove performance testing and I am curious how you obtained these figures. Are they based on actual fuel consumption measurements or qualitative surveys? Do you have an established procedure that you follow when you assess fuel consumption in households? We have already drafted a "Kitchen Performance Test" (KPT) that is designed to assess actual fuel consumption, but I would be interested to understand and learn from your methods as well. If you have an established protocol for doing these assessments, can you send it to me? Thank you. I hope we get a chance to meet when I am India,
Rob Bailis
PhD candidate
Energy and Resources Group
UC Berkeley

adkarve wrote:

Dear Mr.Whitfield,
Our own findings in India are that a family uses about 8 kg wood when it
uses the traditional horseshoe shaped mud stove and just 2kg per day when it
uses our improved cookstove. This is slightly less than three tonnes per
family per year in the case of the traditional and just 730 kg in the case
of the improved stove. If the family were to use charcoal (or char
briquettes) and an efficient stove/cooker, it would need just 200 kg
charcoal per year. I am talking here only of the fuel used for cooking and
not for roomheating or bath water heating. The advantage of charcoal is that
it can be produced from agricultural waste, and therefore the trees are not
cut.
Yours
A.D.Karve

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Sun May 23 10:40:12 2004
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (adkarve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: temperature and Co in charcoal burning
Message-ID: <SUN.23.MAY.2004.201012.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Crispin,
It is true that you cnnot produce much CO by burning just 100 g coal (and
that too having more than 30 percent ash). Secondly, our kitchens are well
ventilated. But I would still like to tinker around the cooker and see if
can improve its performance. I got interested in the temperature aspect,
when a foundry owner told me that the special quality coke that his foundry
needed was priced at Rs. 18 per kg whereas our char briquettes were selling
at Rs.10 per kg. When the temperature at which our briquettes burned in the
Sarai cooker, we found that the temperature of the burning coals was only
300 degrees. The foundry wanted a temperature of around 800 to 1000 degrees.
The foundry must be burning its coal in a specially designed furnace, and I
am quite sure that our briquettes would also give the same temperature as
coke, if they are burned in the foundry's furnace. If the foundry owner gets
the kind of temperature that he wants, he is willing to buy 2 tonnes every
week. The sad part is, that we just do not have char briquettes to
sell.Because of two year's cosecutive famine, the sugarcane acreage has
declined. This year the factories stopped their campaign in January, about
three months earlier than normal, and the next year is going to be even more
disatrous.

Yours
A.D.Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispin@newdawn.sz>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 3:32 AM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] temperature and Co in charcoal burning

> Dear Dean and Dr Karve Sr.
>
> This is very valuable, especially if it is a characteristic of the fuel
> and not a characteristic of the stove.
>
> >CO emissions in charcoal burning seem to be directly related
> >to firepower. If a certain fraction of fuel C ends up as CO, then
> >increasing the rate at which the fuel is burned will increase the
> >rate of CO emissions.
>
> I was wondering if the Sarai cooker will benefit from the proposed new
> chimney. It seems that the ability of charcoal to burn continuously at
> a low temperature is the problem.
>
> Tami gave a temperature one which was a minimum for initiating the
> combustion of CO. Wasn't it 700 C or so?
>
> If the Sarai cooker is burning at 3 to 500 degres, then it will take
> quite a bit of chimney to get the burn rate up to a point at which the
> CO ignites effectively, and it simply might not. Is that bad? How
> bad?.
>
> As the supression of oxidation is related to quenching of the flame by
> the surrounding stove components, the pot bottom or cold air, perhaps
> some consideration can be given by the group to raising the temperature
> of the air fed to the charcoal so that the fire will burn hotter without
> increasing the burn rate. Insulating the chamber might help, but there
> is little point to the insulation if there is significant excess air or
> if it is cold.
>
> >In tests at Aprovecho raising temperatures of in the
> >combustion chamber did not noticeably reduce production of CO.
>
> How was this done? Can you try heating the air over a plenum before it
> enters the fire to promote a higher burn temperature? Try 300 then 500
> then 700 degrees to see if it makes any difference at all. If it works
> at some temperature (say, 97+% combustion eff) then we can strategize
> together how to get the required temperature.
>
> Dr Karve, I suspect that the total emissions of CO in you cooker are low
> in total, even if they are high compared with the amount of fuel burned.
> The fact remains that very little fuel is burned.
>
> The danger is from total exposure over time, not CO% so it seems at this
> stage you are not creating any danger for anyone.
>
> On the side of charcoal packets it is written that there is a danger of
> CO from burning the product. Is the basic problem that the devices are
> not really optimized to burning this fuel?
>
> Regards
> Crispin

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Sun May 23 11:04:49 2004
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (adkarve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: Sarai stove experiments
Message-ID: <SUN.23.MAY.2004.203449.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear AJH and others,
we have a device to measure CO. I have asked our staff to measure it. When I
get the results, I shall report them.
Yours
A.D.Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: AJH <ajh@SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 8:02 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Sarai stove experiments

> On Fri, 21 May 2004 08:41:52 -0600, Ron Larson wrote:
>
> >AD:
> >
> > A chimney augmenter may be helpful - but I believe you already have a
> >pretty good chimney geometry (I recall a chimney height already of 30 or
> >more cm - much more than most charcoal burners). . My guess is that
there
> >will be better payoff in finding ways to keep out undesired entrained air
> >(ie limiting the excess secondary air) - thereby forcing more air to come
up
> >through the burning charcoal. Can you remind us if you have a door to
close
> >after inserting the fuel "pellets"? A door will lower the internal
> >pressure above the charcoal "bed" and should signficantly incease your
air
> >flow without
> >needing to add more chimney
>
> The stoves list has been busy whilst I have been away from a computer!
>
> From a previous posting that the above fire temperature is 300C and a
> forced draught can increase this to 700C plus Tom Miles observations
> about the conditions necessary to burn out CO at the industrial level
> I would think it unwise to increase draught, because in essence you
> are turning the surface effect carbon burning to CO2 into a CO
> generating device, for which good secondary combustion conditions must
> be provided.
>
> Also we must consider the "moderating" effect the high silica ash
> content, these sugar cane trash derived have, in the feedback of
> combustion heat to adjacent carbon particles. Intuitively they will
> interfere with the propagation of the combustion, in effect both
> reduce its temperature, as heat will be absorbed by the ash till the
> combustion temperature is reached and then transferred out as the ash
> cools, and the thermal path and resistance is increased.
>
> >
> >Adding an air flow control below the charcoal will enable you to control
the
> >power level as well.
>
> The under fire primary air acts as a control on the production of CO,
> increasing with bed temperature and depth, I suspect in normal use of
> the Sarai the CO generation is low but similarly the conditions do not
> exist for it to burn out either.
>
>
> Bearing in mind we have Dean and Alex posting of poor CO:CO2
> performance (Alex alluded to informal testing, Dean cited some papers)
> of "unimproved" charcoal cookers and Crispin and ELK having positive
> views on the comparative emissions of charcoal compared with wood,
> plus the comment that the use of charcoal for cooking is deeply
> embedded in cultural and economic aspects of the user community, I
> need to see a few above fire CO figures to take a view either way. I
> wonder if the ultimate case of charcoal burning in a low temperature
> air controlled (or starved) device is the hand warmers available here
> (UK) for outdoor pursuits. This consists of a single "stick" of
> reconstituted char burning within a mineral wool, all within a metal
> case. I am not sure if an oxygenator (like potassium nitrate) is
> incorporated with the char.
>
> Of course we need also to know the composition of the char, we are
> unlikely to be using metallurgical grade charcoal "soaked" at 900C,
> especially using a retort, where the containment would not withstand
> the treatment, so there are volatiles being released. When they burn I
> think CO is most likely to be a PIC.
>
> What I cannot decide is what to go for, with what are likely to be
> high volatiles briquettes, an increased temperature and full secondary
> combustion or a surface effect char burn with poor combustion of
> volatiles. With high grade charcoal I'd bet on the latter.
>
> AJH

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Sun May 23 11:09:30 2004
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (adkarve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: Dr. Karve's Movies on CD
Message-ID: <SUN.23.MAY.2004.203930.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Stovers,
We want the technology to reach as many people as possible. There is no
copyright.
Yours
A.D.Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Heggie <list@SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 10:27 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Dr. Karve's Movies on CD

> On Sat, 22 May 2004 11:28:46 -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:
>
> >> The trouble with that would be getting payment for the content, are
> >> the pictures marked with copyright to Dr. Karve's organisation?
> >
> > Oh, I don't care about getting paid for them, I'm only charging for
the cost
> >of the materials and postage and a little for my time and gas to run to
the
> >postoffice.
>
> I may have misunderstood but I thought a portion of the cost was to go
> to support Dr Karve's organisation?
>
> AJH

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Sun May 23 11:15:31 2004
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (adkarve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: Sarai stove experiments
Message-ID: <SUN.23.MAY.2004.204531.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Ron,
thanks a lot for you suggestion. We do not have the Sarai cooker on our
website, but the CD on charcoal shows the Sarai cooker. The gap between the
cooker vessel and the jacket surrounding it, must be acting as a chimney,
but as you suspect, it is drawing external air not through the coal bed but
directly from outside. We do have a door below the level of the charcoal
bed. The door is kept permanently open.
We show holey briquettes in the video but actually we are now using
cylindrical briquettes manufactured with the help of an extruder. But the
briquettes are placed in a single layer, so that the gaps in the adjacent
briquettes act in a way similar to the holey briquettes in the video.
Yours
Nandu
----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Larson <ronallarson@qwest.net>
To: adkarve <adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>; <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: Sarai stove experiments

> AD:
>
> A chimney augmenter may be helpful - but I believe you already have a
> pretty good chimney geometry (I recall a chimney height already of 30 or
> more cm - much more than most charcoal burners). . My guess is that
there
> will be better payoff in finding ways to keep out undesired entrained air
> (ie limiting the excess secondary air) - thereby forcing more air to come
up
> through the burning charcoal. Can you remind us if you have a door to
close
> after inserting the fuel "pellets"? A door will lower the internal
> pressure above the charcoal "bed" and should signficantly incease your air
> flow without
> needing to add more chimney
>
> Adding an air flow control below the charcoal will enable you to control
the
> power level as well.
>
> Is the Serai shown in any web photo? I couldn't find one just now.
>
> Ron
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: adkarve <adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
> To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 8:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Sarai stove experiments
>
>
> > ---------------------- Information from the mail
> header -----------------------
> > Sender: The Stoves Discussion List <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> > Poster: adkarve <adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
> > Subject: Re: Sarai stove experiments
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Dear Crispin,
> > I shall measure the CO emanations from the SARAI cooker. Because
everybody
> > was talking about RSP, we did not pay much attention to CO. I have also
> > suggested a design change with a chimney attachment to create greater
> draft.
> > The total quantityof char coal burned at a time in the Sarai cooker is
> just
> > 100g. Because the starting material, sugarcane leaves are highly
silicious
> > and lignified, the ash content in the coal is around 35 %. It takes
about
> 45
> > minutes for total burnout. So I assume that the rate of CO production
> would
> > be negligible. In our latitude, we always have all the windows and doors
> of
> > the kitchen and the house open. As I have already state, we have sold
more
> > than 6000 Sarai cookers and not a single customer has complained about
its
> > performance and discomfort during use.
> > Yours
> > A.D.Karve
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispin@newdawn.sz>
> > To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 3:14 AM
> > Subject: Re: [STOVES] Sarai stove experiments
> >
> >
> > > Dear AD
> > >
> > > >But when they blew air through a blowpipe held below the
> > > >grate, temperature of the char briquettes shot up to 700
> > > >Celsius. This suggests a modification to the existing design.
> > >
> > > In your opinion does this mean that the charcoal was creating a lot of
> > > CO when burning at a low temperature? Has it been measured?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Crispin
> >
>

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Sun May 23 13:57:04 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: RE Simple Chimney Cap
Message-ID: <SUN.23.MAY.2004.195704.0200.>

Dear Lanny

More power to you for making (another) clear and simply 'training
video'.

Thanks
Crispin

>Here is a simple chimney cap design that can be made
>from the end of a round exhaust pipe. It is not quiet as
>good as an expensive cap with a wind band but it will do.

>http://www.lanny.us/cap.html

>Lanny Henson

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Sun May 23 13:57:04 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: Pot size problem
Message-ID: <SUN.23.MAY.2004.195704.0200.>

Dear AD

Faced with the pot size problem, both with flat bottomed and 3-legged
cast iron pots I am using round metal washers that one places over the
hole so that the remaining round hole in the centre is appropriate for
the pot. It is possible that getting a foundry in India to make a round
plate to serve as a base with 'nesting' rings would be cheap and very
attractive. These are see on cast iron stoves and are an important
'sub-assembly' for stove producers.

Flanged pots will sink into the appropriate hole size so that not all
pots have their own large flange. I am beginning to really like the
flanged pot. Marvellous heat transfers on closed stoves.
.
Regards
Crispin

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Sun May 23 13:57:04 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: corrected emissions not only from stove in Kitchen in Jumla
and Humla
Message-ID: <SUN.23.MAY.2004.195704.0200.>

Dear Paul Anderson and Kanchan

Don't you think that you might be able to make smoke out of pine pitch
in a gasifier by spreading it over pine shavings and then burning it in
some form of a a mantle lantern?

What happens when you run wood gas into a mantle lantern? Doesn't the
mantle solve the re-lighting problem?

Using something as amazingly inconvenient as a new stick every 5 minutes
would make filling a small soup tin with shavings every 30-60 minutes
look attractive. It would also give off a lot more light and probably
far lower emissions.

Anyone have an analysis of the chemistry of pine pitch?

It seems to be smokey, perhaps because the combustion temperature is not
high enough in ordinary stoves. That can be solved.

Regards
Crispin

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Sun May 23 13:57:04 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: temperature and Co in charcoal burning
Message-ID: <SUN.23.MAY.2004.195704.0200.>

Dear Lanny

>The insulated vent cover on my charcoal slow cooker adds
>15 inches of draft height to the stove.

I say Peter Scott demonstrate a 6-brick Rocket stove with a tall pot
shield on it and that helped a great deal in the inducing of draft.
Something like that does not have to be part of the 'device' but can
arguably been seen as part of the whole cooking experience becaise ti
should be calculated in the total draft.

If we can get people to use pot shields routinely and if the stoves are
built to accept them easily, there is more air flow to work with,
especially form the point of view of controlling the flow at different
points in the combustion.

This might be very important in an effort ot burn a small qualtity of
charcoal at a time and then add enough very hot secondary air to burn
the properly. This would achieve the double victory of limiting the
power to a low level and being extremely clean burning.

Regards
Crispin

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Sun May 23 13:57:04 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: Sarai stove experiments
Message-ID: <SUN.23.MAY.2004.195704.0200.>

Dear AJH

>I've just dropped my brother off for a flight to SA and
>asked him to see if he can buy me a simple charcoal stove.

I forwarded the message about the pyromid stove to Rina King and her
comment was that people apparently seen the Cob charcoal (i.e. the
pyromid stove is not as interesting or flexible).

I suggest you ask for a Cob charcoal stove as they are pretty
interesting and are starting to sell like crazy.

The Jiko type stove is not available in the region except perhaps in
Mo?ambique. A number of different manifestations of the IKJ were
collected by one NGO here in Swaziland from all over but they were not
really 'in production' anywhere. Most were _dreadful_.

Charcoal is an expensive fuel here. Much cheaper to use wood or
paraffin or electricity or coal. Charcoal is about US$0.024 per
MegeJoule. The other are, respectively, 0.00, 0.0118, 0.0112 and 0.0107
(delivered to the house, otherwise 0.0027). Poor people burn coal.

The standard charcoal burning devices are home-made BBQ's and
fantastically expensive 'braais' of a deep-dished variety. The cheapest
comercially available braai is a thin metal box the size of a cake tin
on legs (about $18.95) or a Vesto at $36.70 (without VAT).

Regards
Crispin

From ajh at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Sun May 23 15:13:01 2004
From: ajh at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (AJH)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: Sarai stove experiments
In-Reply-To: <20040523132634.GA24198@cybershamanix.com>
Message-ID: <SUN.23.MAY.2004.201301.0100.AJH@SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK>

On Sun, 23 May 2004 08:26:34 -0500, Harmon Seaver forwarded Karabi who
wrote:

>I have been following the discussions on the stove list,
>so here are some answers to the many questions:
>1. The maximum temperature reached usually is around 300 -350 degree
>centigrade.

This is as Dr. Karve said and generally not hot enough to produce much
CO

>2. I have checked the CO emissions it never exceeds 6 ppm.

Which is very good, to me it also suggests the char briquettes are
also high quality (low volatiles) so may well be OK for smelting as
Dr. Karve hopes.

> I could not
>check the CO2 as we do not have the necessary equipments.

you could easily infer it if you know the excess air used because with
low volatiles char you will not be producing any water.

> PM10 level of
>particulate matter or smoke is also next to negligible.

Again this suggests low volatiles in the char briquettes, though the
binder (boiled flour) may be a source of some.

AJH

From jmdavies at TELKOMSA.NET Sun May 23 14:09:00 2004
From: jmdavies at TELKOMSA.NET (John Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: temperature and Co in charcoal burning
Message-ID: <SUN.23.MAY.2004.200900.0200.JMDAVIES@TELKOMSA.NET>

Greetings,

Not biomass! but a chimney is a necessary part of my "coal gasifier stove"
( fossil fuel )
A 2.7 m height gives the necessary draft to create the velocities needed to
combust, cleanly, the bitumen volatiles given off in a burner above the
coal bed. This also removes all combustion gasses from the house.

While not poisonous I have read that if CO2 levels reach a certain point,
the human body lacks energy and tiredness results. Could the levels in a
house reach this point, and be detrimental to general wellbeing ?

John Davies

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>

> I wonder has anybody ever tried to create velocity and draft using a
> chimney? ;-)
>
> I've been pushing chimneys and stacks on the Stoves List for the past 3 or
4
> years now, but the concept never caught fire. (Pun intended.) Chimneys and
> stacks have another benefit also... they take tars and smoke outside the
> living space.

From lanny at ROMAN.NET Sun May 23 18:01:20 2004
From: lanny at ROMAN.NET (Lanny Henson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: Pot Flange
Message-ID: <SUN.23.MAY.2004.180120.0400.LANNY@ROMAN.NET>

It just occurred to me that a storm collar shape could be used as a pot
flange.
http://www.lanny.us/pf.html less than 100kb

Lanny Henson

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Sun May 23 18:18:16 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: Carbon Credit - what is it worth?
In-Reply-To: <001401c43df3$6bd847a0$e49dfea9@home>
Message-ID: <SUN.23.MAY.2004.171816.0500.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Stovers,

First, my thanks to David in Bolivia and Crispin in Swaziland for their
helpful comments. The issues are not resolved, but we are better informed.

Second, much more will be forthcoming on the benefits of burying char in
the soil. It will not be as lumps but as dispersed fine particles that
assist the cation exchanges and assist plant growth. Therefore, I cannot
agree with Crispin who wrote: (more from me below).

At 12:47 AM 5/20/04 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>I would not be surprised to find that if everyone in the whole world did
>this [put char in the soil] every Saturday, all day, it would be a
>pittance compared with the
>amount taken out of the atmosphere by the oceans which happens without
>any effort at all. It is simply ridiculous to think we can make that
>much of a comparative impact.
>
>Supposing everyone did that as an act of global responsibility. After a
>period growing masses of biomass - trillions of tons - to make charcoal
>and bury it, we would rediscover that, years before on the STOVES group,
>the observation was made that if we simply used the biomass for fuel, we
>wouldn't need very much other fuel.

A. To improve the soil and to feed people better is desirable, even if it
means "wasting" some very good heat-capacity of the charcoal.

B. If the poor people can get PAID for sequestering the char, and/or if
that could be used to get appropriate stoves to them (and the associated
health benefits), then it would be desirable.

C. The char-in-soil is carbon reduction that can be monitored and cannot
be reversed simply by someone who decides to burn a forest for which
someone else received the carbon credit payment.

D. We are NOT talking about the wasteful process used today to make
charcoal. Those people cut forests and throw away massive heat (about 65
to 80% of the heat value, depending on the biomass) just to create
char. (And when AD Karve's char-making from bagasse can be coupled with
some use of the heat, then that will be an even better innovation that we
should take very seriously.!!)

E. MOST of our improved stoves and the "3-stove fires" are not very good
at making char because the pyrolysis and the char-gasifying are intimately
mingled. BUT Tom Reed's IDD (Top-Lit Up-Draft = TLUD is what I call it)
small stove is FIRST as pyrolysis device, and the char can be removed
before the char-gasifying takes place.

F. In June in Georgia (USA) there is a conference about char sequestration
and use of char in soils. I will not be going to it, but I am in contact
with one of the presenters and I hope to have further information to report
at a later date. That is not my field, but it is starting to become
relevant to our stoves work as sources of char. You can go to this address
http://www.uga.edu/news/artman/publish/040518terrapreta.shtml for some
basic info.

Thanks again to Crispin and David for some great information.

Paul

 

 

Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D.
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
NOTE: Retired from teaching. Active in Stoves development.
For fastest contact, please call home phone: 309-452-7072

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Sun May 23 20:00:39 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: temperature and Co in charcoal burning
Message-ID: <SUN.23.MAY.2004.210039.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear John

It is good to see someone else appreciating chimneys!! :-)

CO2 accumulation is definitely a consideration in normal living
circumstances.

Normal household ventilation should be about 15 SCFM per person, to remove
moisture, odors and CO2.

One can get this ventilation in many ways:
1: Infiltration losses because of loose construction.
2: Ventilation for other purposes (bathroom fans, stove exhaust fans, etc)
3: Inadvertent opening and closing of doors
4: Combustion air requirements for stoves and furnaces.
5: And, of course, purposeful ventilation.

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Davies" <jmdavies@TELKOMSA.NET>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] temperature and Co in charcoal burning

> Greetings,
>
> Not biomass! but a chimney is a necessary part of my "coal gasifier stove"
> ( fossil fuel )
> A 2.7 m height gives the necessary draft to create the velocities needed
to
> combust, cleanly, the bitumen volatiles given off in a burner above the
> coal bed. This also removes all combustion gasses from the house.
>
> While not poisonous I have read that if CO2 levels reach a certain point,
> the human body lacks energy and tiredness results. Could the levels in a
> house reach this point, and be detrimental to general wellbeing ?
>
> John Davies
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>
>
> > I wonder has anybody ever tried to create velocity and draft using a
> > chimney? ;-)
> >
> > I've been pushing chimneys and stacks on the Stoves List for the past 3
or
> 4
> > years now, but the concept never caught fire. (Pun intended.) Chimneys
and
> > stacks have another benefit also... they take tars and smoke outside the
> > living space.

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Sun May 23 22:16:30 2004
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: Congratulations ASES
Message-ID: <SUN.23.MAY.2004.201630.0600.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Tom (cc stoves):

----- Original Message -----
From: TBReed <tombreed@COMCAST.NET>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 6:52 AM
Subject: Re: Congratulations ASES

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender: The Stoves Discussion List <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Poster: TBReed <tombreed@COMCAST.NET>
> Subject: Re: Congratulations ASES
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Dear Ron and All:
>
> Congratulations to Ron for keeping the ASES alive and, (I hope), healthy.

RWL: Thans. We are approaching year # 50 - so there is at least that much health. But we are striving hard to grow and hope to make that happen soon by offering a new low-cost membership. Has to be approved by our members at our annual meeting in Portland in mid-July.
>
> I remember that when I first went to work in renewable energy in 1978 that
> the ASES had no interest in biomass, so I published many other places, but
> not there, even though they are only 20 miles away in Boulder.
>
> I hope that ASES has awakened to the fact that the most practical and most
> renewable energy is biomass. Photovoltaics and wind energy are intermittent
> while biomass is always available. Biomass gasifiers can supply power for
> ~$2000/kW of generation capacity, while photovoltaics and wind are still in
> the $10,000 to $20,000 range if you take into account availability (they
> don't).
>
> I would be interested in Ron's take on what ASES's present stance is.

RWL: Tom is correct that ASES has been labeled (from the outside) as a solar-only group. When the ASES name was chosen 50 years ago, "solar" included all that we now term "renewable". We have had many discussions about a name change - as we wish still to be identified with all the RE forms. This is especially true of biomass, which is included in an ASES Technical group headed by our mutual friend Paul Notari. I think there are about 400 members in that group and am including Paul in this response in case anyone wants to hear more. There are 32 state chapters and almost all include biomass in their purview.

Tom's cost numbers for PV are about a factor of 2 too high. For wind they are off by a factor of ten to twenty (for 1.5 MW machines in farms of 100+ MW - in Colorado, they now are installed for less than $1000/kW). About two weeks ago, our new 162 Lamar wind plant was dedicated - giving energy (after a 1.8 cent production tax credit) into our local grid at about 3.3 cents per kWh - much less than new natural gas or coal. Because of fuel and O&M, we appear to be well behind Sri Lanka's great biomass numbers - unfortunately. Because of our state rules (no benefits considered for environmental benefits, jobs, etc), biomass systems here will have to provide electricity at less than about 5-6 cents. Coal can do this, but both their capital costs and fuels costs are appreciably less than that of Biomass (at the 750 MW level they are proposing).

Ron

Your well wisher,
>
> TOM REED
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lanny Henson" <lanny@ROMAN.NET>
> To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 3:49 AM
> Subject: [STOVES] Congratulations ASES
>
>
> > The congratulations goes to ASES for getting someone as wise as Ron
> Larson.
> >
> > Lanny Henson
> >
> > >I was elected as Vice - Chair (Chair in 2006 and 2007) of the >American
> > Solar Energy Society (ASES)
>

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Sun May 23 20:41:15 2004
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (adkarve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: Burying charcoal
Message-ID: <MON.24.MAY.2004.061115.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Paul,
the charcoal made from agricultural waste like sugarcane leaves or wheat
straw is quite often powdery. At least one hobby gardener in Pune city is
using our charred sugarcane leaves as a medium to grow vegetables in. He
grow the vegetables on the terrace of his house and therefore he wanted a
light material. He tried out our char and found that it gave good results.
Yours
A.D.Karve

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Sun May 23 21:12:28 2004
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (adkarve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: Experiments by school kids
Message-ID: <MON.24.MAY.2004.064228.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Ray,
giving school children an opportunity to conduct simple experiments during the summer vacation (the month of May) is a regular part of ARTI's programme. It is sometimes a bother to manage a crowd of 15 kids, but it is also great fun. Last year, one group conducted experiments with our sawdust stove and came to the conclusion that the pot must be kept at a height of 40 mm above the pothole in order to get optimum heat transfer and least emissions. The sawdust stoves produce a lot of volatiles. It the pot is kept too near the pothole, the volatiles get cooled by coming in contact with the pot bottom and not only do the condensates deposit themselves on the pot surface but also produce a lot of smoke. Therefore it was attempted to increase the distance between the pot and the pothole. Another group produced rooted leaves by treating the petioles of leaves with a rooting hormone. If the leaf is excised along with the axillary bud, the bud grows into a shoot and you ultimately get a complete plant. We have christened this method of cloning by the fancy name of autotrophic organ culture, because the food required during the process is produced and provided to the growing organs by the rooted leaf. Also last year, a girl from Jalgaon got the first prize in the State's school children's science competition with a working model of a biogas plant using grain flour as feedstock. Just yesterday we completed installation and testing of a large forty cubic meter biogas plant, also in Jalgaon, which provides methane to the kitchen of a school hostel. The methane is produced daily from about 20 kg starchy material (leftover food and waste flour swept from the floor of a local flour mill. We now have a very ambitious plan to produce and sell methane as automotive fuel. At least two industrialists have shown interest in this process. So we are well on our way to a new green energy revolution.
I reproduce below a news release listing our latest achievements:

ARTI'S COMPACT BIOGAS PLANT WINS U.S. AWARD.
> >
> > Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI), has been working on biomass
> > based improved fuels and cooking systems for the last 8 years. ARTI
> > received, in February 2002, Rs.two million as the Ashden Award for
> Renewable Energy, 2002, for
> > developing the technology of making charcoal briquettes from agricultural
> > waste and the Sarai cooker, which uses these briquettes as fuel. In
> January
> > 2003, ARTI received from Shell Foundation, London, a grant of Rs.15
> million,
> > for commercialising improved biomass based fuels and cooking systems in
> > India. This work was being conducted till 2002 by the Ministry of
> > Non-Conventional Energy Sources, Government of India, under a government
> > sponsored welfare programme called the National Programme on Improved
> > Cookstoves (NPIC). This programme was terminated by the Government of
> India,
> > because it failed to have any impact at all. Under the Shell funded
> project,
> > ARTI disseminates charcoal briquettes, Sarai cooker and various models of
> > energy efficient cookstoves that were developed under NPIC, through
> > commercial enterprises based on these technologies. The prices of the fuel
> > and the devices have not been subsidised. The customers have to pay the
> full
> > price. Under this programme, about 100 artisans have already started small
> > rural enterprises under the guidance of ARTI.
> > About two years ago, ARTI developed, under the guidance of its President,
> > Dr.A.D.Karve, a compact biogas system, which uses starch or sugar as
> > feedstock. Just one kg of starch or sugar yields the same amount of
> methane
> > as 40 kg of cattle dung. Whereas cattle dung requires about 40 days to
> get
> > converted into gas, the starch/sugar based biogas plant delivers the gas
> in
> > just 6 to 8 hours. Waste starch in the form of rain damaged grain, banana
> > rhizomes, non-edible seeds of various tree species, oilcake of non-edible
> > oilseeds, etc. is plentifully available in the rural areas. While the
> > smallest traditional domestic biogas plant has a volume of about 2 cubic
> > meters, the new compact biogas system is just as large as a household
> > refrigerator. This invention was publicised by Dr. Karve under the title
> > "The Blue Flame Revolution". Papers based on this concept were also
> > presented by him in international seminars held in October 2003 in
> > Yogyakarta, Indonesia, and in January 2004 in Seattle, U.S.A. A short note
> > on this technology was also published in the premier scientific journal
> > "Science".
> > The smoke and soot generated by traditional cookstoves using traditional
> > fuels like stalks of cotton or pigeonpea, maize cobs, dung cakes, etc.
> cause
> > indoor air pollution in rural households. Because the improved fuels and
> > improved cookstoves mitigate this problem, the United States Environmental
> > Protection Agency (USEPA) had already accorded the status of a partner
> > organisation to ARTI under its pragramme called "Partnership for Clean
> > Indoor Air". Under the same programme, the USEPA has sanctioned to ARTI a
> > grant amounting to about Rs.six million, for standardising and
> > commercialising the compact biogas technology. The project, having a
> > duration of two years, would be conducted under the leadership of Dr.
> > A.D.Karve.

From snienhuys at SNV.ORG.NP Mon May 24 06:17:42 2004
From: snienhuys at SNV.ORG.NP (Sjoerd Nienhuys)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: Understanding Carbon...
Message-ID: <MON.24.MAY.2004.160242.0545.SNIENHUYS@SNV.ORG.NP>

Stovers,

Carbon credit for wood stoves may be feasible, the following can be learned
from the Nepal biogas programme

The biogas programme in Nepal has realised more than 100,000 biogas reactors
and embarked on a programme of another 200,000 farmers with some cattle
depended earlier on 4-6 tonnes firewood per year for cooking fuel.

The Nepal biogas programme applied for CDM credits by first hiring a
consultant to establish a baseline for the measuring of the CO2 savings, and
has registered with the CDM Executive Board. Currently it is in the process
of verification. The first negotiations with the World Bank "small
projects" Carbon Fund are underway for the sale of about 4,5 tonnes CO2
reduction per new biogas reactor per year. A payment for a mid-term fixed
contract of about USD 4-5/tonne is considered, but after selling to the WB
higher prices may be obtained on the free trading market for the excess
number of biogas reactors installed.

One of the issues in the definition of the baseline is: to what extent the
biogas reactors reduce the emission of CO2 which would have occurred
otherwise. That is comparing the situation of before the biogas reactors and
after the biogas reactors were built. Comparable with stoves.

Another important aspect is the additionality. Would the building of
200,000 biogas reactors have occurred when there was not the 'subsidy' of
the CDM credits? If not, than the project is acceptable under the
conditions of CDM trading by the WB. If they were built anyhow, than the
biogas programme could not be registered under the WB-CDM scheme. If only
half the number of the new biogas reactors would have been built without the
'subsidy' than the other half would be taken into consideration for the CDM
scheme. The additionality for biogas is extra valid because it also has a
large impact on In-house Air Pollution (gender, children) and reduction of
labour on firewood collection/chopping, tending fire.

In the calculation of the CDM for biogas (or stoves) the deforestation
aspect is very important. The amount of CO2 displacement is calculated (in
the small projects programme of the WB) on the basis on non-sustainable
forests. This means that it must be assessed whether or not the biogas
reactors or stoves reduce the deforestation or add to the sustainability of
the forests. This requires extensive statistical calculations on
deforestation patterns and possibly GIS measurements. In Nepal we were not
able to realise this because of lack of data. Therefore the consultant,
developing the baseline methodology, had to take very average figures on
deforestation from the Ministries of Forest.

For 'large scale' CDM projects the reduced deforestation aspect cannot yet
be used, see comments from Fundacion...

The Nepal biogas programme is possibly able to register and sell CO2 credits
under the CDM arrangement because all biogas reactors are constructed under
supervision and quality control, and they are guaranteed to operate without
failing (with a +90% operational rate), for a substantially longer period
than the 6-10 year CDM contract agreements.

In developing a "small projects" CDM project on stoves, the above should be
taken into consideration. First the approval of the baseline technology.
The verifiable registration and quality control on the stoves manufacturing
and operation may be an important point. For both a central and
administrative strong organisation is required.

Regards,

Sjoerd Nienhuys
Senior Renewable Energy Advisor SNV-Nepal
Tel: 5523444, extension 112.
snienhuys@snv.org.np

Carbon fund WB www.biocarbonfund.org www.CarbonFinance.org
www.prototypecarbonfund.org

UNFCCC and Kyoto protocol http://cdm.unfccc.int

Nepal Biogas programme www.panasia.org.sg/nepalnet/technology/biogas.htm
www.biogasnepal.org

 

-----Original Message-----
From: The Stoves Discussion List [mailto:STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On
Behalf Of Fundacion Centro para el Desarrollo con Energia Solar
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 9:54 PM
To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Understanding Carbon... Was Re: [STOVES] Carbon
Credit - what is it worth?

in a previous message, Kevin Chisholm on 5/19/04 10:05 at
kchisholm@ca.inter.net wrote:

>>
> I think I might be a bit confused on the "Carbon Credits" issue. Here is
> how I see things. Could you, or anyone else please correct me if and where
I
> am in error?
>
>
> I would very much appreciate comments on where my thinking is fuzzy or
> incorrect on the Carbon Credit concept.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Kevin Chisholm
>
Kevin, please consider this information. . .sorry it is a bit long - some
comes from Point Carbon documents and other from the earlier paper I cited.
I can send you the sources if you want.

The emerging carbon market encompasses both project-based emission
reduction transactions, whereby a buyer participates in the financing of a
project which reduces greenhouse gases (GHGs) emissions compared with what
would have happened otherwise, and gets some of the emission reductions
(ERs) thus generated in return; and trades of GHG emission allowances
allocated under existing, or incoming, cap-and-trade GHG emissions control
regimes.

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Mon May 24 05:29:22 2004
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (adkarve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: Sarai stove experiments
Message-ID: <MON.24.MAY.2004.145922.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Stovers,
Dr.Karabi Dutta, who generated the data about the CO and suspended
particulate matter produced by the Sarai cooker, is a colleague of ours in
Appropriate Rural Technology Institute. She would be working together with
a team from Liverpool University and also with Dr. Kirk Smith. Dr. Smith has
developed some instruments for measurement of CO and particulate matter. A
colleague of Dr.Smith's was already here and he has taught our staff members
how to use the gadgets. Dr. Dutta would test the air quality in rural
kitchens with and without our improved cookstoves. We intend to conduct the
study in 5 locations, in different climatic zones of our state. The study
would most probably commence in June.
Yours
A.D.Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: AJH <ajh@SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 12:43 AM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Sarai stove experiments

> On Sun, 23 May 2004 08:26:34 -0500, Harmon Seaver forwarded Karabi who
> wrote:
>
> >I have been following the discussions on the stove list,
> >so here are some answers to the many questions:
> >1. The maximum temperature reached usually is around 300 -350 degree
> >centigrade.
>
> This is as Dr. Karve said and generally not hot enough to produce much
> CO
>
> >2. I have checked the CO emissions it never exceeds 6 ppm.
>
> Which is very good, to me it also suggests the char briquettes are
> also high quality (low volatiles) so may well be OK for smelting as
> Dr. Karve hopes.
>
> > I could not
> >check the CO2 as we do not have the necessary equipments.
>
> you could easily infer it if you know the excess air used because with
> low volatiles char you will not be producing any water.
>
> > PM10 level of
> >particulate matter or smoke is also next to negligible.
>
> Again this suggests low volatiles in the char briquettes, though the
> binder (boiled flour) may be a source of some.
>
> AJH

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Mon May 24 10:35:39 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: Charcoal, Biological Batteries, and Plant Transistors
Message-ID: <MON.24.MAY.2004.113539.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear AD

The concept of using charcoal in agriculture intrigues me greatly. What
intrigues me even more is that you are in a unique position to explore the
concept further, being the only Charcoal Burner in the world with a
Doctorate in Botany. :-)

It is well known that "organic gardening" yields plants which are more
healthy and resistant to pests and diseases, and that the fruits from such
plants are more flavourful and nutritious. In part, I feel that a reason is
that the crops are less likely to be grown in an "intense" manner, requiring
frequent additions of NPK, but with inadequate replacement of vitally
important trace elements. In part also, is the benefit of fungal systems
which can solubilize phos, and provide it to plant rootlets in exchange for
sugar. What intrigues me greatly is the potential for the presence of
charcoal to introduce electrochemistry into the growth process. In addition,
graphite is known for its enormous internal surface area per unit volume.

Adding significant quantities of charcoal to soil could thus create a "plant
battery system" of some sort, assisting in the mobilizing of nutrients, and
in addition, the enormous surface area of charcoal could provide
significantly increased substrate to enable more prolific growth of soil
life-forms, such as virus, bacteria, fungus, etc which also can potentially
act as catalysts, solubilizers, and transporters.

Consider that the highly active charcoal could act as a pole for a
"biological battery," to generate micro power in the soil. The availability
of "power" could potentially permit enhanced "soil corrosion", that
liberated otherwise unavailable nutrients. Given that the graphite is in
very fine size ranges, it is also quite conceivable that several "charcoal
cells" could line themselves up as a battery, to produce some multiple of
the basic "charcoal cell voltage" . This could be very important for
activation energy considerations.

Transistors employ a substrate such as silicon, and a dopant, such as
arsenic or gallium. Their function is to basically control a larger flow of
current, using a small flow. Given that we have some level of current
generated in the soil with the charcoal, is it perhaps possible that the
plant rootlets could provide an organic dopant, as a "trigger signal," to
enable larger current flows whenever it wanted nutrients mobilized?

There is a lot of fun stuff going on in plant root systems. Perhaps plants
will grow better if you replace their batteries?

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm

----- Original Message -----
From: "adkarve" <adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 9:41 PM
Subject: [STOVES] Burying charcoal

> Dear Paul,
> the charcoal made from agricultural waste like sugarcane leaves or wheat
> straw is quite often powdery. At least one hobby gardener in Pune city is
> using our charred sugarcane leaves as a medium to grow vegetables in. He
> grow the vegetables on the terrace of his house and therefore he wanted a
> light material. He tried out our char and found that it gave good results.
> Yours
> A.D.Karve

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Mon May 24 18:13:53 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: Charcoal, Biological Batteries, and Plant Transistors
Message-ID: <TUE.25.MAY.2004.001353.0200.>

Dear Kevin

You are reminding me about a simple gound-based battery system that you
can use to generate power. Perhaps it can be used to power small fans
for stoves!

Basically you dig two pits and fill them with various things that allow
you to make a single cell in the ground.

The charcoal aspect is interesting. Could it help, and if so, how?

Regards
Crispin

From dbneeley at YAHOO.COM Mon May 24 19:31:23 2004
From: dbneeley at YAHOO.COM (David Neeley)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: Greetings, and thanks!
In-Reply-To: <200405240400.i4O401720515@ns1.repp.org>
Message-ID: <MON.24.MAY.2004.163123.0700.>

I am a new member of the STOVES list, and so far I am in
the beginning stages of learning.

However, it is already quite clear that the work that you
folks are doing is of immense use to a huge percentage of
mankind today, and as these techniques become more
widespread, to all of us on the earth.

Because I am only a beginner in this, I regret that I can
not contribute meaningfully to the discussion. However, may
I simply thank each of you for doing such important and
far-reaching work?

I know that such tasks often must seem like the "labors of
Hercules" with little recognition outside of a rather small
community. Therefore, I simply wanted to say that I have
become quite excited by the implications of your continuing
work. I shall now return to "lurker" mode but you may be
sure I am reading carefully each day to improve my
understanding in this area.

Thank you all most sincerely!

David Neeley

 

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Mon May 24 20:46:29 2004
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (adkarve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: Charcoal, Biological Batteries, and Plant Transistors
Message-ID: <TUE.25.MAY.2004.061629.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Kevin,
the accepted theory about uptake of nutrients by plants from the soil is
that the roots produce carbondioxide, which dissolves in the cell sap to
produce H2 and CO3 ions. These are electrically charged particles. The
hydrogen ions are exchanged by the roots for the metallic ions that the
plant needs and the carbonate ions are exchanged for nitrate, phosphate and
sulphate ions. So, electrical charges too are flowing in and out of the
plant cell in the form of the ions. I really do not know, how the carbon may
be influencing this process. We are not equipped to do the quantitative
measurements of the electrical charges and their inflow and outflow, but we
can conduct simple pot experiments and measure the yield or dry weight of
the whole plant after raising it in different substrates. I shall see if I
can interest somebody on our staff to conduct such experiments with
different proportions of charcoal in the potting medium.
Yours
A.D.Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 8:05 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Charcoal, Biological Batteries, and Plant Transistors

> Dear AD
>
> The concept of using charcoal in agriculture intrigues me greatly. What
> intrigues me even more is that you are in a unique position to explore the
> concept further, being the only Charcoal Burner in the world with a
> Doctorate in Botany. :-)
>
> It is well known that "organic gardening" yields plants which are more
> healthy and resistant to pests and diseases, and that the fruits from such
> plants are more flavourful and nutritious. In part, I feel that a reason
is
> that the crops are less likely to be grown in an "intense" manner,
requiring
> frequent additions of NPK, but with inadequate replacement of vitally
> important trace elements. In part also, is the benefit of fungal systems
> which can solubilize phos, and provide it to plant rootlets in exchange
for
> sugar. What intrigues me greatly is the potential for the presence of
> charcoal to introduce electrochemistry into the growth process. In
addition,
> graphite is known for its enormous internal surface area per unit volume.
>
> Adding significant quantities of charcoal to soil could thus create a
"plant
> battery system" of some sort, assisting in the mobilizing of nutrients,
and
> in addition, the enormous surface area of charcoal could provide
> significantly increased substrate to enable more prolific growth of soil
> life-forms, such as virus, bacteria, fungus, etc which also can
potentially
> act as catalysts, solubilizers, and transporters.
>
> Consider that the highly active charcoal could act as a pole for a
> "biological battery," to generate micro power in the soil. The
availability
> of "power" could potentially permit enhanced "soil corrosion", that
> liberated otherwise unavailable nutrients. Given that the graphite is in
> very fine size ranges, it is also quite conceivable that several "charcoal
> cells" could line themselves up as a battery, to produce some multiple of
> the basic "charcoal cell voltage" . This could be very important for
> activation energy considerations.
>
> Transistors employ a substrate such as silicon, and a dopant, such as
> arsenic or gallium. Their function is to basically control a larger flow
of
> current, using a small flow. Given that we have some level of current
> generated in the soil with the charcoal, is it perhaps possible that the
> plant rootlets could provide an organic dopant, as a "trigger signal," to
> enable larger current flows whenever it wanted nutrients mobilized?
>
> There is a lot of fun stuff going on in plant root systems. Perhaps plants
> will grow better if you replace their batteries?
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Kevin Chisholm
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "adkarve" <adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
> To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 9:41 PM
> Subject: [STOVES] Burying charcoal
>
>
> > Dear Paul,
> > the charcoal made from agricultural waste like sugarcane leaves or wheat
> > straw is quite often powdery. At least one hobby gardener in Pune city
is
> > using our charred sugarcane leaves as a medium to grow vegetables in. He
> > grow the vegetables on the terrace of his house and therefore he wanted
a
> > light material. He tried out our char and found that it gave good
results.
> > Yours
> > A.D.Karve

From Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP Tue May 25 11:26:54 2004
From: Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP (Kanchan Rai)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: corrected emissions not only from stove in Kitchen in Jumla
and Humla
Message-ID: <TUE.25.MAY.2004.211154.0545.KANCHAN@KU.EDU.NP>

> Dear Kanchan
> Subject: Re: [STOVES] corrected emissions not only from stove in
> Kitchen in Jumla and Humla
>
>
>> Dear Kevin,

Thanks for the sites
>
> The following sites are helpful for making candles, making wicks, and
> selecting wicks:
> http://candleandsoap.about.com/od/candlemaking1/
> http://pixel.cs.vt.edu/aramsey/civil/hall/halljune101861.txt
>>

> Neither have I! :-) However, it is an interesting combustion
> challenge. I make rosin from spruce and fir tree resin, and it is very
> sticky stuff. However, it does flow, and it may very well be possible
> to make a "self feeding rosin candle. "

>>
> It would be quite economical to make "windows" from 6 mil construction
> grade polyethylene film. They degrade on exposure to UV, but they
> should last a year. The poly "window" could be installed directly in
> the same "window opening", and the wooden "window door" could be left
> open to let light in without letting out all the warmed air within the
> kitchen.

As I already wrote you and you have seen the condition through picture,
people are very poor. Since stone, mud and timber are free of costs and
they make their home themselves. How much do you think it would cost to
put polyethylene film for windows of size, let say "2 feet x 1 feet".
Another thing is the insulation property of the sheet. Does that bears a
good insulation property.

>
> Are there any local traditions, customs, or taboos that would prevent
> the use of such windows?

I think the cost is the major factor for such windows.Nobody knows
the way out other than their traditional windows, people are hardly educated.
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Kevin Chisholm
>
>> With regards,
>> kanchan
>>
>> > Dear Kanchan
>> >
>> > Thanks very much for the insight into the total problem.
>> >
>> > It is fascinating indeed to see people "from away" can miss out on
>> an essential part of a problem. Such a problem, and its impact, never
>> occurred to me.
>> >
>> > Would it be possible for these people to make candles out of animal
>> fat? Do you know if anyone has ever tried to make a "smokeless rosin
>> burner?"
>> >
>> > Pardon my ignorance, but does their building style make use of
>> windows?
>> >
>> > Kindest regards,
>> >
>> > Kevin Chisholm
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Kanchan Rai" <Kanchan@KU.EDU.NP>
>> > To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>> > Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 11:31 AM
>> > Subject: [STOVES] corrected emissions not only from stove in
>> Kitchen
>> in Jumla and Humla
>> >
>> >
>> >> Dear all,
>> >> Since there has been lots of discussion on CO emission and
>> >> particulate emission due to stove.
>> >>
>> >> Do everybody thinks thats the only emission inside the kitchen is
>> from stove?
>> >>
>> >> In case of mountain areas of Nepal ----> NO!!!
>> >>
>> >> The kitchen is very big in size, most of the people have only one
>> room for a family.
>> >>
>> >> Since the yellow flame from open fire couldnot produce much light
>> inside room, they use small sticks of firewood which is deeped in
>> resin (sticky liquid which comes out when we cut living pine trees)
>> taken from pine trees. one sticks last about 5 minutes and they will
>> put another one. This process happens as long as people stays inside
>> room. In winter its a whole day process as people just sits around
>> open fire and they need light to.
>> >>
>> >> There are 2 disadvantages of this
>> >>
>> >> 1. In terms of deforestation
>> >>
>> >> people make wound on pine trees to collect the resin ("jharro" in
>> local language). Every day they cuts deeper and deeper to collect the
>> resin. In the long term the tree fell down and dies. I saw
>> hundreds of trees just felled due due to this process. Which is one
>> of the resons of
>> >> deforestation in those areas.
>> >>
>> >> 2. In terms of kitchen emissions
>> >> The stick deeped in the resin produce much smoke compared to the
>> light produced by it. This produce much smoke compared to the
>> light produced by the stove.
>> >>
>> >> I want to tell that even if we introduce a stove, what will we do
>> about smoke unless we can provide them a good way of lighting.
>> electricity is a dream at those areas . I am sure they can't stop
>> burning the resin sticks. Experiece is Jumla stove is similar in some
>> parts of Jumla. Even there is very less smoke due to the stove but
>> there is plenty of stove due to their traditional lighting
>> system.
>> >>
>> >> That's why people just consider to design stove for warmer places
>> and often ignores high altitude places as there are many challanges
>> people would face.
>> >>
>> >> Kanchan Rai
>> >> RDC UNIT
>> >> Kathmandu University

From Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP Tue May 25 11:27:46 2004
From: Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP (Kanchan Rai)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:09 2004
Subject: corrected emissions not only from stove in Kitchen in Jumla
and Humla
Message-ID: <TUE.25.MAY.2004.211246.0545.KANCHAN@KU.EDU.NP>

Dear Kevin,

Thanks for the sites
>
> The following sites are helpful for making candles, making wicks, and
> selecting wicks:
> http://candleandsoap.about.com/od/candlemaking1/
> http://pixel.cs.vt.edu/aramsey/civil/hall/halljune101861.txt
>>

> Neither have I! :-) However, it is an interesting combustion
> challenge. I make rosin from spruce and fir tree resin, and it is very
> sticky stuff. However, it does flow, and it may very well be possible
> to make a "self feeding rosin candle. "

>>
> It would be quite economical to make "windows" from 6 mil construction
> grade polyethylene film. They degrade on exposure to UV, but they
> should last a year. The poly "window" could be installed directly in
> the same "window opening", and the wooden "window door" could be left
> open to let light in without letting out all the warmed air within the
> kitchen.

As I already wrote you and you have seen the condition through picture,
people are very poor. Since stone, mud and timber are free of costs and
they make their home themselves. How much do you think it would cost to
put polyethylene film for windows of size, let say "2 feet x 1 feet".
Another thing is the insulation property of the sheet. Does that bears a
good insulation property.

>
> Are there any local traditions, customs, or taboos that would prevent
> the use of such windows?

I think the cost is the major factor for such windows.Nobody knows the
way out other than their traditional windows, people are hardly
educated.

regards,
Kanchan
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Kevin Chisholm
>
>> With regards,
>> kanchan
>>
>> > Dear Kanchan
>> >
>> > Thanks very much for the insight into the total problem.
>> >
>> > It is fascinating indeed to see people "from away" can miss out on
>> an essential part of a problem. Such a problem, and its impact, never
>> occurred to me.
>> >
>> > Would it be possible for these people to make candles out of animal
>> fat? Do you know if anyone has ever tried to make a "smokeless rosin
>> burner?"
>> >
>> > Pardon my ignorance, but does their building style make use of
>> windows?
>> >
>> > Kindest regards,
>> >
>> > Kevin Chisholm
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Kanchan Rai" <Kanchan@KU.EDU.NP>
>> > To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>> > Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 11:31 AM
>> > Subject: [STOVES] corrected emissions not only from stove in
>> Kitchen
>> in Jumla and Humla
>> >
>> >
>> >> Dear all,
>> >> Since there has been lots of discussion on CO emission and
>> >> particulate emission due to stove.
>> >>
>> >> Do everybody thinks thats the only emission inside the kitchen is
>> from stove?
>> >>
>> >> In case of mountain areas of Nepal ----> NO!!!
>> >>
>> >> The kitchen is very big in size, most of the people have only one
>> room for a family.
>> >>
>> >> Since the yellow flame from open fire couldnot produce much light
>> inside room, they use small sticks of firewood which is deeped in
>> resin (sticky liquid which comes out when we cut living pine trees)
>> taken from pine trees. one sticks last about 5 minutes and they will
>> put another one. This process happens as long as people stays inside
>> room. In winter its a whole day process as people just sits around
>> open fire and they need light to.
>> >>
>> >> There are 2 disadvantages of this
>> >>
>> >> 1. In terms of deforestation
>> >>
>> >> people make wound on pine trees to collect the resin ("jharro" in
>> local language). Every day they cuts deeper and deeper to collect the
>> resin. In the long term the tree fell down and dies. I saw
>> hundreds of trees just felled due due to this process. Which is one
>> of the resons of
>> >> deforestation in those areas.
>> >>
>> >> 2. In terms of kitchen emissions
>> >> The stick deeped in the resin produce much smoke compared to the
>> light produced by it. This produce much smoke compared to the
>> light produced by the stove.
>> >>
>> >> I want to tell that even if we introduce a stove, what will we do
>> about smoke unless we can provide them a good way of lighting.
>> electricity is a dream at those areas . I am sure they can't stop
>> burning the resin sticks. Experiece is Jumla stove is similar in some
>> parts of Jumla. Even there is very less smoke due to the stove but
>> there is plenty of stove due to their traditional lighting
>> system.
>> >>
>> >> That's why people just consider to design stove for warmer places
>> and often ignores high altitude places as there are many challanges
>> people would face.
>> >>
>> >> Kanchan Rai
>> >> RDC UNIT
>> >> Kathmandu University

From Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP Tue May 25 11:47:21 2004
From: Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP (Kanchan Rai)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: corrected emissions not only from stove in Kitchen in Jumla
and Humla
Message-ID: <TUE.25.MAY.2004.213221.0545.KANCHAN@KU.EDU.NP>

Sun, May 23, 2004 11:42 pm Crispin wrote:

> Dear Paul Anderson and Kanchan
>
> Don't you think that you might be able to make smoke out of pine pitch
> in a gasifier by spreading it over pine shavings and then burning it
> in some form of a a mantle lantern?

> What happens when you run wood gas into a mantle lantern? Doesn't the
> mantle solve the re-lighting problem?

Do you mean the same gasifier or stove for cooking, space heating and
lighting or separate gasifier just for lighting?

>
> Using something as amazingly inconvenient as a new stick every 5
> minutes would make filling a small soup tin with shavings every 30-60
> minutes look attractive. It would also give off a lot more light and
> probably far lower emissions.

Do you have any experience on such device or do anybody tried such
system?

>
> Anyone have an analysis of the chemistry of pine pitch?

i would love to know if any body did the analysis

>
> It seems to be smokey, perhaps because the combustion temperature is
> not high enough in ordinary stoves. That can be solved.

>
> Regards
> Crispin

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Tue May 25 01:49:51 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: Windows...Was: Re: [STOVES] corrected emissions not only from
stove in Kitchen in Jumla and Humla
Message-ID: <TUE.25.MAY.2004.024951.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Kanchan
----- Original Message -----
Subject: Re: [STOVES] corrected emissions not only from stove in Kitchen in
Jumla and Humla

...del...
> >>
> > It would be quite economical to make "windows" from 6 mil construction
> > grade polyethylene film. They degrade on exposure to UV, but they
> > should last a year. The poly "window" could be installed directly in
> > the same "window opening", and the wooden "window door" could be left
> > open to let light in without letting out all the warmed air within the
> > kitchen.
>
> As I already wrote you and you have seen the condition through picture,
> people are very poor. Since stone, mud and timber are free of costs and
> they make their home themselves. How much do you think it would cost to
> put polyethylene film for windows of size, let say "2 feet x 1 feet".

The 6 mil poly sheeting would cost in the range of about $US.10 per square
foot maximum here in Canada. Straight sticks of wood about 1" diameter,
could be made into a frame to support the plastic.

> Another thing is the insulation property of the sheet. Does that bears a
> good insulation property.
>
Two layers could be used... one on the "inside" and one on teh "outside" of
the above frame. This would create a "double glazed" effect. Total cost
would be less than $US.50

Note that the polyethylene film is slightly "milky" in appearance, and the
person would not have a clear view outside. Clear vinyl film would allow
people to see outside easily. However, it is much more expensive... perhaps
$US.50 to $US1.00 per square foot.

Very roughly, the heat loss through a single sheet of poly would be
approximately equivalent to the heat loss through a 1" wood board, and the
double glazing would be approximately equivalent to the heat loss through a
2" board.
> >
> > Are there any local traditions, customs, or taboos that would prevent
> > the use of such windows?
>
> I think the cost is the major factor for such windows.Nobody knows
> the way out other than their traditional windows, people are hardly
educated.
> >
While they may lack formal education, they are probably very resourceful and
creative. I would bet that if you brought them a roll of 6 mil (.006"
thickness) polyethylene film, you would be amazed at the clever uses they
would find for it.

Best wishes,

Kevin Chisholm

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Tue May 25 04:00:18 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: Greetings, and thanks!
Message-ID: <TUE.25.MAY.2004.100018.0200.CRISPIN@NEWDAWN.SZ>

Dear David N

It was not so long ago that Paul Anderson and I were lurking too. I was
'told' to join the group some years ago and never found it but now we are
both so interested in the social and environmental implications of what an
individual can do or stimulate we are both doing little else.

Hang in there! There is an amazing group of socially motivated people on
this group and it really does lead to action, not only words.

Welcome!
Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
New Dawn Engineering
Swaziland
www.newdawnengineering.com

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Tue May 25 04:11:00 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: Pitch pine lighting
Message-ID: <TUE.25.MAY.2004.101100.0200.CRISPIN@NEWDAWN.SZ>

Dear Kanchan

>> What happens when you run wood gas into a mantle lantern? Doesn't the
>> mantle solve the re-lighting problem?

>Do you mean the same gasifier or stove for cooking, space heating and
>lighting or separate gasifier just for lighting?

My suggestion was to look into using a combination of things that Tom Reed
and Paul are doing: making a soup-can sized gasifier with pine shavings
soaked in 'pitch' and then perhaps using a chimney to create draft (perhaps
a 50mm tube 60mm long) and making a Coleman-style mantle lamp buring that
gas. There are many potential problems including fouling of the mantle.

>Do you have any experience on such device or do anybody
>tried such system?

I have never seen a mantle lamp working on wood gas.

Regards
Crispin

From list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Tue May 25 04:34:40 2004
From: list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: Greetings, and thanks!
In-Reply-To: <20040524233123.38945.qmail@web41107.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.25.MAY.2004.093440.0100.>

On Mon, 24 May 2004 16:31:23 -0700, David Neeley wrote:

>I am a new member of the STOVES list, and so far I am in
>the beginning stages of learning.

Welcome to the stoves list David, any contributions you make will be
well received, we're a friendly bunch in a distant sort of way.

AJH

From list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Tue May 25 04:34:41 2004
From: list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: corrected emissions not only from stove in Kitchen in Jumla
and Humla
In-Reply-To: <34973.202.52.242.69.1085500041.squirrel@webmail.ku.edu.np>
Message-ID: <TUE.25.MAY.2004.093441.0100.>

On Tue, 25 May 2004 21:32:21 +0545, Kanchan Rai wrote:

>> Using something as amazingly inconvenient as a new stick every 5
>> minutes would make filling a small soup tin with shavings every 30-60
>> minutes look attractive. It would also give off a lot more light and
>> probably far lower emissions.
>
>Do you have any experience on such device or do anybody tried such
>system?

Not quite what Kevin was referring to but Aqua Das did mention that he
had made a gasifier which heated the mantel of a coleman lamp, giving
a light output equivalent to a 60W incandescent bulb, this was OCT
2002 in the archive, Dean has a link to his work
http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/Still/lantern/lantern

from June last year

AJH

From list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Tue May 25 04:51:10 2004
From: list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: corrected emissions not only from stove in Kitchen in Jumla
and Humla
In-Reply-To: <vp06b016defa0lg9bd3c50oc97bjnnkiq7@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.25.MAY.2004.095110.0100.>

On Tue, 25 May 2004 09:34:41 +0100, Andrew Heggie wrote:

>
>Not quite what Kevin was referring to but Aqua Das did mention that he
>had made a gasifier which heated the mantel of a coleman lamp, giving
>a light output equivalent to a 60W incandescent bulb, this was OCT
>2002 in the archive, Dean has a link to his work
>http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/Still/lantern/lantern

As a post script, I thought I would mention that in the "good old
days" (English in joke about an aspect of victorian life) the stages
in theaters were lit by a town gas flame heating limestone, the light
being given off being limelight. I have not seen it but it could get
around some of the problems of a gas mantle with regard to fragility
and sooting up, though there must be a safety issue from having a hot
lump of limestone in a building. Also the limestone would gradually be
converted to quicklime.

AJH

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Tue May 25 04:47:37 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: corrected emissions not only from stove in Kitchen in Jumla
and Humla
Message-ID: <TUE.25.MAY.2004.104737.0200.CRISPIN@NEWDAWN.SZ>

Dear Kanchan

With this free stone, mud and wood, do they build chimneys?

Can we assume that they could build a chimney to create draft for the stoves
instead of buying a metal stove pipe?

In answer to your earlier question about putting a pipe to bring in cold air
from outside, this can be accomplished without a pipe by digging a channel
under the floor and covering it with thin stones and putting the floor
surface down again.

An outside air inlet can provide a great deal more heat in the room but if
the air needs to be cleaned continuously, I think an interesting combination
of things can work:

an internal chimney that brings air from the top of the room (the smokiest
portion of the air) down to the stove to be burned in the fire + an external
chimney to provide draft + an external air supply of cold outside air + a
layout such that the incoming cold air is heated by the mass of the mud and
stone of the fireplace + a metal stove consisting of a box with a door
sitting on a mud and stone soundation that provides the air channels in and
out.

In other words, use the building materials that are free for everything they
can be (air and smoke channels) and use the metal only for that part which
must be fabricated into heat radiators and combustion chambers.

Such a stove would be massive and store a great deal of heat, it would draft
smoke from light-sticks out, it would reduce air turnover keeping more heat
in, and it would remove all the fire smoke, and finally it would cost less
than the stove shown on your website because the greater protion of it would
be make from local stone and mud.

Regards
Crispin

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Tue May 25 09:54:21 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: corrected emissions not only from stove in Kitchen in Jumla
and Humla
Message-ID: <TUE.25.MAY.2004.105421.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Andrew

Pure limestone is converted to lime, CaO at 1,648 F. The color of the stone
and the lime at this temperature range is similar to anything else that is
at that temperature. Nothing spectacular... same as iron, or brick would
look like.

At some higher temperature.... I am guessing 1,900 F, the character of the
light from the Lime changes remarkably and is very bright. The effect is
very similar to the effect on a "gas mantle", an "Aladdin Mantle (kerosene
heated mantle) or a Coleman mantle (heated with a naphtha flame). I have
previously heard that an oxy-hydrogen flame was used for making "limelight"
in theatres, and am interested to hear that Town Gas was also used. I used
to run wood fired lime kilns, and under certain conditions, we did indeed
get a spectacular "lime light". I have never seen a oxy-hydrogen or Town Gas
lime light, so I don't know if it is the same, but what I have seen in wood
fired lime kilns is remarkably brighter than any other wood fire that I have
seen.

The problem with lime is simply that it has poor physical properties... it
is great while it is working, but if you let it go cold, then it hydrates
(picks up moisture from the air), slakes (picks up CO2 from the air) or
generally falls apart. Also, the lime lights were generally made by playing
a gas flame on the surface of a lump of lime, rather than making use of a
"surface combustion phenomenon, as is employed with the "gas mantle."

I would think that one could make a "wood gas mantle light" somewhat as
follows, at relatively low cost, and without too much difficulty:
1: Bicycle tire pump.
2: A 5 gallon can or a 45 gallon drum, to serve as a pressure reservoir
3: A pressurized gasifier, using charcoal as fuel
4: A Bunsen Burner
5: A gas mantle, or a replaceable lump of limestone

Best wishes,

Kevin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Heggie" <list@SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 5:51 AM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] corrected emissions not only from stove in Kitchen in
Jumla and Humla

> On Tue, 25 May 2004 09:34:41 +0100, Andrew Heggie wrote:
>
> >
> >Not quite what Kevin was referring to but Aqua Das did mention that he
> >had made a gasifier which heated the mantel of a coleman lamp, giving
> >a light output equivalent to a 60W incandescent bulb, this was OCT
> >2002 in the archive, Dean has a link to his work
>
>http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/Still/lantern/lantern
>
> As a post script, I thought I would mention that in the "good old
> days" (English in joke about an aspect of victorian life) the stages
> in theaters were lit by a town gas flame heating limestone, the light
> being given off being limelight. I have not seen it but it could get
> around some of the problems of a gas mantle with regard to fragility
> and sooting up, though there must be a safety issue from having a hot
> lump of limestone in a building. Also the limestone would gradually be
> converted to quicklime.
>
> AJH

From list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Tue May 25 15:34:06 2004
From: list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: corrected emissions not only from stove in Kitchen in Jumla
and Humla
In-Reply-To: <002301c44260$fdb46c50$e89a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <TUE.25.MAY.2004.203406.0100.>

On Tue, 25 May 2004 10:54:21 -0300, Kevin Chisholm wrote:

>Dear Andrew
>
>Pure limestone is converted to lime, CaO at 1,648 F. The color of the stone
>and the lime at this temperature range is similar to anything else that is
>at that temperature. Nothing spectacular... same as iron, or brick would
>look like.
>
>At some higher temperature.... I am guessing 1,900 F, the character of the
>light from the Lime changes remarkably and is very bright. The effect is
>very similar to the effect on a "gas mantle", an "Aladdin Mantle (kerosene
>heated mantle) or a Coleman mantle (heated with a naphtha flame). I have
>previously heard that an oxy-hydrogen flame was used for making "limelight"
>in theatres, and am interested to hear that Town Gas was also used. I used
>to run wood fired lime kilns, and under certain conditions, we did indeed
>get a spectacular "lime light". I have never seen a oxy-hydrogen or Town Gas
>lime light, so I don't know if it is the same, but what I have seen in wood
>fired lime kilns is remarkably brighter than any other wood fire that I have
>seen.

Thanks for the correction Kevin, it was oxy hydrogen, not town gas and
air as I thought. I have done a websearch and this

http://www.chem.leeds.ac.uk/delights/texts/Demonstration_19.htm

Seems to cover most points, note especially the different luminance
under differing flames, not purely to do with flame temperature!

I have just done a couple of experiments, first to see how limestone
CaCO3 is changed to lime CaO, I first tried a propane torch on a small
piece of roadstone (tested with some old battery acid to make sure it
fizzed) on a pad of cerablanket, it just glowed dull red with no
apparent change after 5 minutes. What sort of time and conditions
prevailed in your lime kilns?

Next I played an oxy acetylene flame on it, this seemed to melt and
possibly sublime the stone. It did glow bright white, especially in a
carburising flame. I did not have time to go further but the stone is
largely unchanged apart from a vitrified surface, would a softer chalk
be better? It was hot enough to burn a hole in the cerablanket.

On the one hand the mention of the oxy hydrogen flame (the gases being
produced by electrolysis in the article) points to the required
temperature being high, yet you managed "certain conditions" to
achieve the effect, I believe an air blown gasifier with dry wood will
exceed 1600C (2912F). The article seems to point to an additional
ephemeral effect of the hydrogen and oxygen flame luminescence, other
flames (like alcohol, carbon disulphide or ether flames do not have
such an effect) so your special conditions must have produced the
right proportions of oxygen hydrogen and surface temperature to
interact with the lime.

Still because of this special effect it looks like it puts it out of
court for lighting with a wood stove, maybe we'll have to stick with
the yellow luminance of burning soot particles in a diffuse woodgas
flame?

AJH

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Tue May 25 16:32:23 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: Stover Introductions Re: [STOVES] Greetings, and thanks!
In-Reply-To: <20040524233123.38945.qmail@web41107.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.25.MAY.2004.153223.0500.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Dear David and other "Lurkers",

You are VERY welcome to the Stoves list serve. Lurk all you want.

But it would be nice to have some idea about who you (and other lurkers)
are. At least what geographical area, major interests, any special
knowledge, etc.

Just reply to this message with the same Subject "Stover Introductions" and
I assure you that at least a few of us will read about you and appreciate
your attributes.

Thanks,

Paul

At 04:31 PM 5/24/04 -0700, David Neeley wrote:
>I am a new member of the STOVES list, and so far I am in
>the beginning stages of learning.
>
>However, it is already quite clear that the work that you
>folks are doing is of immense use to a huge percentage of
>mankind today, and as these techniques become more
>widespread, to all of us on the earth.
>
>Because I am only a beginner in this, I regret that I can
>not contribute meaningfully to the discussion. However, may
>I simply thank each of you for doing such important and
>far-reaching work?
>
>I know that such tasks often must seem like the "labors of
>Hercules" with little recognition outside of a rather small
>community. Therefore, I simply wanted to say that I have
>become quite excited by the implications of your continuing
>work. I shall now return to "lurker" mode but you may be
>sure I am reading carefully each day to improve my
>understanding in this area.
>
>Thank you all most sincerely!
>
>David Neeley
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
>http://messenger.yahoo.com/

Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D.
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
NOTE: Retired from teaching. Active in Stoves development.
For fastest contact, please call home phone: 309-452-7072

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Tue May 25 16:37:32 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: USA stovers in coconut country??
In-Reply-To: <20040524233123.38945.qmail@web41107.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.25.MAY.2004.153732.0500.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Are any Stovers in the USA living where coconuts are grown?

Or do you have a good friend in such a location?

If so, I would like to obtain a box or two of coconut HUSKS (the fiber
stuff), preferably reasonable dry. Let me know about any shipping costs.

Must be in USA because of ease of mailing it to me.

I plan on burning it in my Juntos gasifier stoves.

After any general reply that might interest all, we can then discuss this
"off-list".

Thanks,

Paul
Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D.
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
NOTE: Retired from teaching. Active in Stoves development.
For fastest contact, please call home phone: 309-452-7072

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Tue May 25 16:57:12 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: corrected emissions not only from stove in Kitchen in Jumla
and Humla
Message-ID: <TUE.25.MAY.2004.175712.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Andrew
...del...
>
> Thanks for the correction Kevin, it was oxy hydrogen, not town gas and
> air as I thought. I have done a websearch and this
>
> http://www.chem.leeds.ac.uk/delights/texts/Demonstration_19.htm
>
> Seems to cover most points, note especially the different luminance
> under differing flames, not purely to do with flame temperature!

A very interesting article indeed.
>
> I have just done a couple of experiments, first to see how limestone
> CaCO3 is changed to lime CaO, I first tried a propane torch on a small
> piece of roadstone (tested with some old battery acid to make sure it
> fizzed) on a pad of cerablanket, it just glowed dull red with no
> apparent change after 5 minutes. What sort of time and conditions
> prevailed in your lime kilns?

Wood fired shaft kilns, using 6"x4" stone had a stone/lime residence time of
about 4 days, producing about 8 tons per day of lime. Rotary kilns, using
3/4x3/8" stone had a residence time of about 4 hours and produced about 300
TPD. These used high calcium limestone, with low MgO, Al2O3, and SiO2. You
may have a very low grade limestone, with a lot of other oxides present.
Additionally, I tried good stone out in the air with a torch, as you
describe, and got similar results. Very difficult to burn lime stones "out
in the open." Possibly you may be able to configure a simple "shaft kiln
with a stone bed depth of say 6 stone diameters and a width of say 19 stone
diameters. You will probably get Calcined Lime from teh interior pebbles
relatively easy.
>
> Next I played an oxy acetylene flame on it, this seemed to melt and
> possibly sublime the stone.

The "melting" is due to fluxing by other impurities. Typically silica.
"Spitting" and "spalling" is usually an indicated of a hydrate present. I
don't know what eh fuming could indicate. It is certainly not Ca or CaO...
that is very stable.

It did glow bright white, especially in a
> carburising flame. I did not have time to go further but the stone is
> largely unchanged apart from a vitrified surface, would a softer chalk
> be better? It was hot enough to burn a hole in the cerablanket.

It should have changed to a white, pulverent CaO. The vitrification and
apparently unchanged nature are a result of impurities.
>
> On the one hand the mention of the oxy hydrogen flame (the gases being
> produced by electrolysis in the article) points to the required
> temperature being high, yet you managed "certain conditions" to
> achieve the effect, I believe an air blown gasifier with dry wood will
> exceed 1600C (2912F). The article seems to point to an additional
> ephemeral effect of the hydrogen and oxygen flame luminescence, other
> flames (like alcohol, carbon disulphide or ether flames do not have
> such an effect) so your special conditions must have produced the
> right proportions of oxygen hydrogen and surface temperature to
> interact with the lime.
>
On reading the article you suggested, I now feel that I was not seeing a
"true" lime light, but rather, the "start of a true limelight"... the lime
looked impressively hotter than the rest of the firebox.

The really bright effect was noted at the tail end of he burn, just before
teh finished lime was drawn from the kiln. After charging with wood stopped,
and teh fire was dying down, there was a period of virtually perfect
combustion where the effect was most apparent. Then, as the fire did die
down, and teh furnace and lime column started to cool and shrink, the charge
would then draw itself, and re-firing started.

> Still because of this special effect it looks like it puts it out of
> court for lighting with a wood stove, maybe we'll have to stick with
> the yellow luminance of burning soot particles in a diffuse woodgas
> flame?

Too bad you are in Scotland(?) and I am in Nova Scotia. Otherwise, I would
suggest "Lets get a box of beer and build a wood fired lime lighting system.
" :-) It would be a lot of fun.

Best wishes,

Kevin Chisholm
>
> AJH

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Tue May 25 18:08:11 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: corrected emissions not only from stove in Kitchen in Jumla
and Humla
In-Reply-To: <002301c44260$fdb46c50$e89a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <TUE.25.MAY.2004.170811.0500.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Kevin,

Using what you wrote (below), how can we make this work? (more below)

At 10:54 AM 5/25/04 -0300, Kevin Chisholm wrote:

>I would think that one could make a "wood gas mantle light" somewhat as
>follows, at relatively low cost, and without too much difficulty:
>1: Bicycle tire pump.
>2: A 5 gallon can or a 45 gallon drum, to serve as a pressure reservoir
>3: A pressurized gasifier, using charcoal as fuel
>4: A Bunsen Burner
>5: A gas mantle, or a replaceable lump of limestone

Let's break this into two parts: Creation of the gases, and combustion
of the gases for light.

What are you expecting from the items 1, 2, 3 on your list?

And what is the configuration for 4 and 5 (including how the gases enter,
and at what temperatures)?

This should be fun!!

Paul

 

Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D.
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
NOTE: Retired from teaching. Active in Stoves development.
For fastest contact, please call home phone: 309-452-7072

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Tue May 25 18:13:16 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: RE corrected emissions not only from stove in Kitchen in Jumla
and Humla
Message-ID: <WED.26.MAY.2004.001316.0200.>

Dear Stovers

>Pure limestone is converted to lime, CaO at 1,648 F.

[etc]

I have been experimenting with a paraffin stove that is
pretty-off-the-wall in terms of the design strictures I have to work
with. Getting it working has been interesting because I am allowed
virtually no 'machining' operations.

Getting the paraffin to boil is a prerequisite and having had some
success at this I was wondering if I boiled pine resin would it make a
gas? Would it burn? Brightly?

If so then perhaps the way to get light from a pine resin 'fuel' is to
generate a gas and then burn it with adequate air and preheating.

Of course there might be something left over that would clog everything
up! Amber of some kind?

Regards
Crispin

From english at KINGSTON.NET Wed May 26 06:32:46 2004
From: english at KINGSTON.NET (english@KINGSTON.NET)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: USA stovers in coconut country??
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20040525153231.024e7eb0@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.26.MAY.2004.063246.0400.>

> If so, I would like to obtain a box or two of coconut HUSKS (the fiber
> stuff), preferably reasonable dry. Let me know about any shipping costs.

Paul,
Check out your local garden supply store, they use matted coconut
husk as liners for wire hanging baskets.
Alex

> Thanks,
>
> Paul
> Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D.
> Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
> Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
> E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
> NOTE: Retired from teaching. Active in Stoves development.
> For fastest contact, please call home phone: 309-452-7072
>

From pverhaart at IPRIMUS.COM.AU Wed May 26 06:46:42 2004
From: pverhaart at IPRIMUS.COM.AU (Peter Verhaart)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: RE corrected emissions not only from stove in Kitchen in
Jumla and Humla
In-Reply-To: <000401c442a5$7e5b0d70$e49dfea9@home>
Message-ID: <WED.26.MAY.2004.204642.1000.PVERHAART@IPRIMUS.COM.AU>

At 00:13 26/05/2004 +0200, you wrote:
>Dear Stovers
>
> >Pure limestone is converted to lime, CaO at 1,648 F.
>
>[etc]
>
>
>Getting the paraffin to boil is a prerequisite and having had some
>success at this I was wondering if I boiled pine resin would it make a
>gas? Would it burn? Brightly?

If 'paraffin' is the British equivalent of the US (and OZ) 'kerosene', then
I believe it is the highest boiling petroleum (to increase confusion, the
Dutch call kerosene 'petroleum', except when it goes into jet engines,
thanks to journo's and other influential ignorants, they call it 'kerosine'
) fraction that can be distilled at atmospheric or even somewhat elevated
pressure without decomposing.
Diesel fuel, being a higher boiling petroleum fraction, will decompose, for
that reason it is injected into the IC engines.

Resins, look what I found on the Web.

.........................
The general conception of a resin is a noncrystalline body, insoluble in
water, mostly soluble in alcohol, essential oils, ether and hot fatty oils,
softening and melting under the influence of heat, not capable of
sublimation, and burning with a bright but smoky flame. A typical resin is
a transparent or translucent mass, with a vitreous fracture and a faintly
yellow or brown colour, non-odorous or having only a slight turpentine odor
and taste. Many compound resins, however, from their admixture with
essential oils, have distinct and characteristic odours.
...........................

>If so then perhaps the way to get light from a pine resin 'fuel' is to
>generate a gas and then burn it with adequate air and preheating.

I would expect the result to be messy. Amber needs time to become so, a few
millenia, I believe

>Of course there might be something left over that would clog everything
>up! Amber of some kind?
Cheers,

Peter Verhaart

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Wed May 26 07:28:24 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: RE corrected emissions not only from stove in Kitchen in Jumla
and Humla
Message-ID: <WED.26.MAY.2004.132824.0200.CRISPIN@NEWDAWN.SZ>

Dear Peter V

>and burning with a bright but smoky flame.

So, what is in the smoke? Is it like diesel in that it burns with a smokey flame because the combustion conditions are not right? Same for paraffin / kerosene. Lots of smoke it is is not boiled first.

Now....where to get a bottle of pine resin.....

Regards
Crispin

From Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP Wed May 26 21:24:30 2004
From: Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP (Kanchan Rai)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: use of outside air with analysis KR
Message-ID: <THU.27.MAY.2004.070930.0545.KANCHAN@KU.EDU.NP>

Dear Crispin

>With this free stone, mud and wood, do they build chimneys?

No they don?t build chimneys.

>Can we assume that they could build a chimney to create draft for the
> >stoves instead of buying a metal stove pipe?

They put their open fire place at the center of the kitchen and
everybody sits around it. It is difficult to make a chimney out of stone
(only available and possible material) at the center. I guess a hood is
also needed above the open fire. In present condition, all the hot gases
trapped inside the room, though smoky but makes room warm (one of the
cause they don?t want chimney) and close all the windows.

>In answer to your earlier question about putting a pipe to bring in
> >cold air from outside, this can be accomplished without a pipe by
> >digging a channel under the floor and covering it with thin stones and
> >putting the floor surface down again. An outside air inlet can provide
> a great deal more heat in the room >but if the air needs to be cleaned
> continuously, I think an >interesting combination of things can work:

It seems possible. But my question is does this makes any difference? MY
ANALYSIS
Let?s say, we are burning a pinewood (15 % moisture) with burning rate
of 2 kg/hr. With an excess air of 150%, we need about 29 kg (volume of
24 m3) of air in one hour, which we need from inside the room, if we
don?t take air from outside. Let say the room temp is 25 C and the air
coming from doors from the outside to replace the consumed air by stove
is at 0 C. Hence we have to heat 29 kg of air from 0 C to 25 C to
maintain the room temperature.

Specific heat of air is 1.15 kJ/kg K. So for 29 kg of air we need 29 kg*
1.15 kJ/kg C * (25-0) C. That is about 0.834 MJ of fuel energy. The Net
heating value of fuel with 15 % moisture is 17.6 MJ/kg (for 2 kg its
35.2 MJ). It is 2.36 % of heating value of wood. So in other word if we
use air from outside the room, it saves the 2.36 % of fuel energy for
heating the room. If we use the stove for 10 hours, its 8.34 MJ, which
is equivalent to 0.47 kg of firewood (17.6 MJ/kg). So in 10 hours time
(say 1 day) we save 0.47 kg of wood, 14.1 kg in a month and 169.2 kg in
a year, using air outside the room.
Please Comment if any mistake
(Air has a very low specific heat, we don?t need much energy to increase
the air temperature inside but it?s the walls made of stone and mud
which absorbs much of heat from the air)

But a question arises on the FLAME TEMPERATURE!!!
If we use air of 25 C inside the room or used the air of 0 C outside the
room, how much the flame temperature varies? With O C air definitely
lowers the flame temperature and that affects the heat radiating from
the flame unless we have a secondary zone with preheated air injecting.
That in my knowledge ultimately lowers the potential of stove to heat
the room. I will try to analyze it later, this is really an interesting
topic.

>an internal chimney that brings air from the top of the room (the
> >smokiest portion of the air) down to the stove to be burned in the
> >fire + an external chimney to provide draft + an external air supply
> >of cold outside air + a layout such that the incoming cold air is
> >heated by the mass of the mud and stone of the fireplace + a metal
> >stove consisting of a box with a door sitting on a mud and stone
> >soundation that provides the air channels in and out. In other words,
> use the building materials that are free for >everything they can be
> (air and smoke channels) and use the metal only >for that part which
> must be fabricated into heat radiators and >combustion chambers.

My idea is similar to yours in a way that only heating part should be of
metal. I am thinking of a stove with combustion chamber (primary and
secondary) of light ceramics made of local material similar to the
ceramics developed by Damon Ogle, Dean still, Dr Margaret Pinnell, Brad
van Appeal for rocket stove(From Boiling point: forest fuel and food) .
Only metal parts will be the heating tank, upper plate and chimney. I
tried some combination at my home but stopped work right now; I will
start the work as soon as my laboratory is ready.

>Such a stove would be massive and store a great deal of heat, it would
> >draft smoke from light-sticks out, it would reduce air turnover
> >keeping more heat in, and it would remove all the fire smoke, and
> >finally it would cost less than the stove shown on your website
> >because the greater portion of it would be make from local stone and
> >mud.

Yes! definitely it will be the best in terms of cost and quality.

Regards
Kanchan

From ajh at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Wed May 26 16:58:22 2004
From: ajh at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (AJH)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: corrected emissions not only from stove in Kitchen in Jumla
and Humla
In-Reply-To: <00bd01c4429a$f4f2b4c0$e89a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <WED.26.MAY.2004.215822.0100.AJH@SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK>

On Tue, 25 May 2004 17:57:12 -0300, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
<snipped useful replies to my questions>

>Too bad you are in Scotland(?)

No, though it is my family ancestral home, Gavin Gulliver-Goodall
lives there, about 400m north of me. I am in England, SW of London and
within 14 miles of its main airport.

>and I am in Nova Scotia.

I know, I would have dropped in on you as I think I was only 5 miles
away, except the other 260+ passengers may have objected to the
diversion ;-), I liked the look of Nova Scotia, maybe one day.

> Otherwise, I would
>suggest "Lets get a box of beer and build a wood fired lime lighting system.
>" :-) It would be a lot of fun.

Sounds good to me, though I have only been on an international flight
twice, once there and once back. I currently have the time but for
that reason lack the other requisite resource ;-).

AJH

From pverhaart at IPRIMUS.COM.AU Wed May 26 19:45:20 2004
From: pverhaart at IPRIMUS.COM.AU (Peter Verhaart)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: RE corrected emissions not only from stove in Kitchen in
Jumla and Humla
In-Reply-To: <006301c44318$5c4f6640$cb83fea9@md>
Message-ID: <THU.27.MAY.2004.094520.1000.PVERHAART@IPRIMUS.COM.AU>

Dear Crispin,

At 13:28 26/05/2004 +0200, you wrote:
>Dear Peter V
>
> >and burning with a bright but smoky flame.
>
>So, what is in the smoke? Is it like diesel in that it burns with a
>smokey flame because the combustion conditions are not right? Same for
>paraffin / kerosene. Lots of smoke it is is not boiled first.

Carbon plus lots of nasties.
Before you or I were even thought of, people burned aethyn (acetylene) for
lighting. To increase the lumens without soot, the fishtail burner was
developed, allowing a larger flat flame (and more light) with more external
surface area to allow complete combustion through diffusion.
Another way to have clean diffusion flames is to have a lot of small flames
instead of one big one. A small flame has a larger external surface area
per unit volume.

>Now....where to get a bottle of pine resin.....

From a friendly violinist?

Cheers,

Peter

From list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Thu May 27 08:25:14 2004
From: list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: Flames for lighting
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20040527093649.021a2a08@pop.iprimus.com.au>
Message-ID: <THU.27.MAY.2004.132514.0100.>

I have changed the thread name to see if we can continue the
discussion of this aspect, I think it is still relevant to stoves even
though no longer relevant to cooking.

On Thu, 27 May 2004 09:45:20 +1000, Peter Verhaart wrote:

>Dear Crispin,

>>So, what is in the smoke? Is it like diesel in that it burns with a
>>smokey flame because the combustion conditions are not right? Same for
>>paraffin / kerosene. Lots of smoke it is is not boiled first.
>
>Carbon plus lots of nasties.

Anyone care to elaborate on what and how these nasties are formed,
currently I believe they are PICs formed when a hydrogen atom finds an
oxygen atom preferentially to the remaining carbon compound it split
from. So it is basically a lack of oxygen but why is it that this
sooty particle, probably with some nasty aromatic compound attached to
it, becomes so difficult to burn out? because the benzene ring, of the
attached aromatic is a stable one?

>Before you or I were even thought of, people burned aethyn (acetylene) for
>lighting. To increase the lumens without soot, the fishtail burner was
>developed, allowing a larger flat flame (and more light) with more external
>surface area to allow complete combustion through diffusion.
>Another way to have clean diffusion flames is to have a lot of small flames
>instead of one big one. A small flame has a larger external surface area
>per unit volume.

As you say an un premixed acetylene flame is very sooty, does it have
any especial luminance advantage over a candle flame? Definitely as
you add oxygen in the premix it firstly goes a brighter white before
the stable two cones of pale blue flame at stoichiometric mix.

A notable difference between pictures of the turbo stove and the
original reed-larson idd stove is that the premixed flame of the
former is lacking in luminance but the latter has a lazy yellow
diffuse (and less stable?) flame.

Now we know you can have a clean burning diffuse flame, as candles do.
We also know that the yellow glow is from small carbon particles
glowing in the heat of the flame, presumably the initial reaction
being the consumption of hydrogen and oxygen and then the subsequent
combustion of the carbon particles once they reach enough oxygen at
the edge of the flame. So will it be possible to provide conditions
where this resin can be burnt for high luminance and a completely
clean burn? Or is it that conditions will always exist for sufficient
pyrolysis to take place to liberate flammable offgas but in so doing
stable sooty, possibly aromatic, pics will be released and there be
insufficient time or temperature to react them?

My take on the idd diffuse flame is that the pyrolysis offgas consists
of mainly the decomposition products of the linearly linked cellulose
and hemi cellulose , the lignin (a phenolic like compound with benzene
rings) largely remains behind to form the majority of the "fixed"
carbon char. I wondered if the lack of benzene ring compounds in the
offgas made it easier to burn out in the "soft" flame?

As to the small flame having better surface area I note that if you
light a single sheet of polythene it burns both cleanly and with a
bluish flame, put fire to a lot of polythene sacks and the result is a
smoky yellow flame.

AJH

From jeff.forssell at CFL.SE Thu May 27 09:16:46 2004
From: jeff.forssell at CFL.SE (Jeff Forssell)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: Thermal tensions
Message-ID: <THU.27.MAY.2004.151646.0200.JEFF.FORSSELL@CFL.SE>

This is actually a side track from the light from flames track.

There was a link in that discussion:
http://www.chem.leeds.ac.uk/delights/texts/Demonstration_19.htm
to a very informative page about "lime light" and more. At the end there was a short passage about the manufacturing of halogen lamps:

"Curiously the oxy-hydrogen flame will burn perfectly well underwater and, surprisingly, even under liquid nitrogen! In the manufacture of quarts-halogen bulbs it in necessary to have the filler gas, usually argon (bp -186 oC / 87K) or xenon (bp -108 oC / 165K) at relatively high pressure ca. 3 bar. However it is not possible to seal the lamp envelope if the pressure inside is greater than the pressure outside. In order to melt seal the quarts, the envelope is immersed in liquid nitrogen (bp -196 oC / 77K) and the gas is condensed into the lamp 'bulb' from a fixed volume in another vessel. "

I found that astounding, that a bulb could survive the thermal tension I imagine the bulb would have when everything returned to room temp.

With the excuse that " thermal tension problems can arise in some
stoves/ovens)" I've decided to submit this though it might be considered "offlist".

I've stumbled on a possible explanation:

I wondered if the expansion of quartz is radically different from the glass that I experienced "blowing".

An Internet search yielded

Quartz:
Coefficient of thermal expansion: 5.5E-7 cm/(cm*K) (average from 20?C to 320?C)

Glass:
You'll find that the expansion coefficient runs between 4 and 16 x 10^-6/deg. C.
Common optical glasses tend to run around 7 and is probably about the figure that I'd use for plate glass.

Which means that glass expands about 10 times more. I still find it surprising the quartz holds. Are there any other tricks in the trade?

Jeff Forssell
SWEDISH AGENCY FOR FLEXIBLE LEARNING (CFL)
Box 3024
SE-871 03 H?RN?SAND /Sweden
http://www.cfl.se/?sid=60
+46(0)611-55 79 48 (Work) +46(0)611-55 79 80 (Fax Work)
+46(0)611-22 1 44 (Home) ( mobil: 070- 35 80 306; [070-4091514])

residence:
Gamla Karlebyv?gen 14 / SE-871 33 H?rn?sand /Sweden

e-mail: every workday: jeff.forssell@cfl.se <mailto:jeff.forssell@cfl.se>
Note my old mail address, jf@ssvh.se, is no longer active
(travel, visiting: jeff_forssell@hotmail.com & MSMessenger)

Personal homepage: < http://www.torget.se/users/i/iluhya/index.htm>
My village technology page: http://home.bip.net/jeff.forssell

Instant messengers Odigo 792701 (ICQ: 55800587; NM/MSM use hotmail address)

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Thu May 27 10:50:57 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: Thermal tensions
Message-ID: <THU.27.MAY.2004.115057.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Forssell" <jeff.forssell@CFL.SE>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 10:16 AM
Subject: [STOVES] Thermal tensions

This is actually a side track from the light from flames track.

K: I also find it very difficult to resist an interesting distraction!! :-)

I also found the article fascinating. To deal with your very final
inquiry...
Silica bricks are used in the steel trade for a number of reasons, one of
which is its resistance to spalling. There are several quartz crystalline
phases... quartz, tridamite and cristobalite. There is a large dimensional
change on the transition from one phase to the other, but as long as you
don't transit the phase change temperature, it is virtually impossible to
spall the brick. This is because of the exceedingly low coefficient of
thermal expansion "on the interphase plateaus."

K: Depending on the furnace, simply cooling a furnace gradually can lead to
its destruction. Even if it is cooled slowly, when it contracts the
settlement may cause cracks and openings at joints which fill with debris.
On reheating, the structure can become distorted and fail.

K: Fascinating stuff, this quartz.

Kevin Chisholm

There was a link in that discussion:
http://www.chem.leeds.ac.uk/delights/texts/Demonstration_19.htm
to a very informative page about "lime light" and more. At the end there was
a short passage about the manufacturing of halogen lamps:

"Curiously the oxy-hydrogen flame will burn perfectly well underwater and,
surprisingly, even under liquid nitrogen! In the manufacture of
quarts-halogen bulbs it in necessary to have the filler gas, usually argon
(bp -186 oC / 87K) or xenon (bp -108 oC / 165K) at relatively high pressure
ca. 3 bar. However it is not possible to seal the lamp envelope if the
pressure inside is greater than the pressure outside. In order to melt seal
the quarts, the envelope is immersed in liquid nitrogen (bp -196 oC / 77K)
and the gas is condensed into the lamp 'bulb' from a fixed volume in another
vessel. "

I found that astounding, that a bulb could survive the thermal tension I
imagine the bulb would have when everything returned to room temp.

With the excuse that " thermal tension problems can arise in some
stoves/ovens)" I've decided to submit this though it might be considered
"offlist".

I've stumbled on a possible explanation:

I wondered if the expansion of quartz is radically different from the glass
that I experienced "blowing".

An Internet search yielded

Quartz:
Coefficient of thermal expansion: 5.5E-7 cm/(cm*K) (average from 20?C to
320?C)

Glass:
You'll find that the expansion coefficient runs between 4 and 16 x
10^-6/deg. C.
Common optical glasses tend to run around 7 and is probably about the
figure that I'd use for plate glass.

Which means that glass expands about 10 times more. I still find it
surprising the quartz holds. Are there any other tricks in the trade?

From Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK Thu May 27 16:56:39 2004
From: Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: Flames for lighting
In-Reply-To: <7vlbb0lptklhlav7mge0l0eaot5ajf7s2l@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <THU.27.MAY.2004.215639.0100.GAVIN@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>

[GGG] <snip>Now we know you can have a clean burning diffuse flame, as
candles do
[GGG] No they don't they are very smoky, hold a piece of white paper 6-12"
above a candle and see!- Andrew I am amazed at you! Maybe a wick sticking
out of a Top down stove would help??!
.
We also know that the yellow glow is from small carbon particles
glowing in the heat of the flame, presumably the initial reaction
being the consumption of hydrogen and oxygen and then the subsequent
combustion of the carbon particles once they reach enough oxygen at
the edge of the flame. So will it be possible to provide conditions
where this resin can be burnt for high luminance and a completely
clean burn? Or is it that conditions will always exist for sufficient
pyrolysis to take place to liberate flammable offgas but in so doing
stable sooty, possibly aromatic, pics will be released and there be
insufficient time or temperature to react them?

My take on the idd diffuse flame is that the pyrolysis offgas consists
of mainly the decomposition products of the linearly linked cellulose
and hemi cellulose , the lignin (a phenolic like compound with benzene
rings) largely remains behind to form the majority of the "fixed"
carbon char. I wondered if the lack of benzene ring compounds in the
offgas made it easier to burn out in the "soft" flame?

As to the small flame having better surface area I note that if you
light a single sheet of polythene it burns both cleanly and with a
bluish flame, put fire to a lot of polythene sacks and the result is a
smoky yellow flame.

[GGG] How many times dir you have to test this to ensure you were correct!!!
;_)
[GGG] GGG

AJH

From rbadhi at YAHOO.COM Thu May 27 16:56:48 2004
From: rbadhi at YAHOO.COM (Rajendra Adhikari)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: THANKS AND JUMLA STOVE
Message-ID: <THU.27.MAY.2004.135648.0700.RBADHI@YAHOO.COM>

Dear Stovers

First of all I would like to thank Mr. Steve Spence for allowing me recently to participate in this interesting and useful discussion forum. I have been keenly studying the various remarks and suggestions about Kanchan Rai's Cookstove for Jumla in Nepal - my motherland; and would like to submit a few remarks:-

1. Based on my field studies of cookstoves particularly used in high altitude areas (e.g., Mustang of Nepal bordering Tibet plateau) the proposed cookstove for Jumla should incorporate the following essential features:-
1.1 Facility for generation of hot water from the cookstoves, which is very useful for daily use in such cold places.
1.2 Facility for baking local breads (wheat/maize/millet) besides rice cooking.
1.3 Chimney (which is most probably provided) should be duly designed so as to perform properly irrespective of the direction of the blowing wind.

2. Regarding the room lighting facility , I think, instead of the biomass based devices,
the better approach (technically and economically) would be the dissemination of low cost, portable,environment friendly Nickel metal hydride battery powered White LED based lamps , called "TUKIMARA" ( i.e., kerosene killer) in Nepali. One such lamp fitted with 3 or 4 White LEDs (which consumes approx. 120 to 150 milliwatt in total) could easily make the kitchen relatively comfortable with light and with greatly reduced indoor air pollution.The batteries could be easily charged by pedal power or by 3 to 5 watt solar PV module. This will also enable them to daily run the radios. Some INGOs have already successfully demonstrated nearly 20 units of such lamps in some villages of Jumla.

Regards to all.

R. B. Adhikari

Consulting Engineer

rbadhi@yahoo.com

 

 

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Thu May 27 18:03:20 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: THANKS AND JUMLA STOVE
Message-ID: <FRI.28.MAY.2004.000320.0200.>

Dear RB

I like the idea of the HE-LED's (high efficiency light emitting diodes)
but it would be more useful if the power was generated by the fire that
is apparently burning nearly all the time.

With a cold wall only inches away power might be generated by a hot/cold
device of low efficiency. The LEDs are very efficienct now.

It is true that I can get about 50-75 millivolts per junction with a
simple thermocouple?

As an LED is a current driven device we may not need much voltage.
Would 30 junctions in series be enough to overcome the forward voltage
drop in the diode?

A stove-top TEG with a watt or two might be very affordable.

What does it actually take to operate and LED in terms of voltage and
current, and how many junctions would that represent stacked and heated
by a fire and to what temperature?

Surely this is not difficult to make by hand?

Thanks
Crispin

From Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP Fri May 28 10:56:12 2004
From: Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP (Kanchan Rai)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: THANKS AND JUMLA STOVE
Message-ID: <FRI.28.MAY.2004.204112.0545.KANCHAN@KU.EDU.NP>

Dear R. B. Adhikari you wrote:

> Dear Stovers
>
> First of all I would like to thank Mr. Steve Spence for allowing me
> recently to participate in this interesting and useful discussion
> forum. I have been keenly studying the various remarks and suggestions
> about Kanchan Rai's Cookstove for Jumla in Nepal - my motherland; and
> would like to submit a few remarks:-
>
Thanks for taking time for writing and sharing experience from Mustang.
The place are similar in terms of altitude and need of stove for cooking
and room heating.But the economically people are far back in Humla and
Jumla (western Nepal). I have recently given a training to the local
people from solukhumbu (eastern Nepal) about Improved Cooking stoves
especially the Jumla Desing stove. From their view that there is no
trouble adopting such stoves because they can pay for the stove but in
weastern part it is not possible without subsidy. I guess that the
people in mustang is economically in good condition.

> 1. Based on my field studies of cookstoves particularly used in high
> altitude areas (e.g., Mustang of Nepal bordering Tibet plateau) the
> proposed cookstove for Jumla should incorporate the following
> essential features:- 1.1 Facility for generation of hot water from the
> cookstoves, which is very useful for daily use in such cold places.
> 1.2 Facility for baking local breads (wheat/maize/millet) besides
> rice cooking. 1.3 Chimney (which is most probably provided) should be
> duly designed so as to perform properly irrespective of the direction
> of the blowing wind.

As from suggestions. Jumla stove consists all the things you have
mentioned. It has 3 pot holes, a roti gilling access directly to flame,
stainless tank for drinking water and chimney. What kind of stove you
saw in Mustang? Do they use metal stove?

>
> 2. Regarding the room lighting facility , I think, instead of the
> biomass based devices, the better approach (technically and
> economically) would be the dissemination of low cost,
> portable,environment friendly Nickel metal hydride battery powered
> White LED based lamps , called "TUKIMARA" ( i.e., kerosene killer) in
> Nepali. One such lamp fitted with 3 or 4 White LEDs (which consumes
> approx. 120 to 150 milliwatt in total) could easily make the kitchen
> relatively comfortable with light and with greatly reduced indoor air
> pollution.The batteries could be easily charged by pedal power or by
> 3 to 5 watt solar PV module. This will also enable them to daily run
> the radios. Some INGOs have already successfully demonstrated nearly
> 20 units of such lamps in some villages of Jumla.

In jumla KU RDC we implement Wled (white light emitting diodes) lights
and pitlatrine along with stoves, we introduced such kind of
technology in Jumla and probably in Nepal, we are not an INGO its
through university. Each unit consists of 10 WLEDs consumes less than a
watt, (3 to 4 in our experience not sufficient to light kitchen). In
Jumla, 2 villages Mohri gaun and Dopha were provided Wleds with stove.
Mohri gaun, whole village of 25 houses were lighted using a single 40
watt solar panel and 3 sets of battery bank. Now in Humla about 14
villages will get stove , pit latrine and Wleds through KU RDC. Since I
am a stove person, the discussion on light through effiecient use of
biomass is very beneficial. As you might know a Unit of 10 Wleds costs
about NRS 1500 (about US$ 20, solar panel and battery bank. it is quite
expensive for people living in Jumla and Humla unless they are given
subsidy. So if we develop a light through biomass it will be much
beneficial in my view.

Kanchan Rai
Reseach, Development and Consultancy
Kathmandu Universiy
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger

From Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP Fri May 28 11:02:54 2004
From: Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP (Kanchan Rai)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: use of outside air with analysis KR
Message-ID: <FRI.28.MAY.2004.204754.0545.KANCHAN@KU.EDU.NP>

I wrote on Thu, May 27, 2004 7:09 am

It seems nobody is interested on my analysis. Is this really a crap?

Kanchan

Dear Crispin

>With this free stone, mud and wood, do they build chimneys?

No they don?t build chimneys.

>Can we assume that they could build a chimney to create draft for the
> >stoves instead of buying a metal stove pipe?

They put their open fire place at the center of the kitchen and
everybody sits around it. It is difficult to make a chimney out of stone
(only available and possible material) at the center. I guess a hood is
also needed above the open fire. In present condition, all the hot gases
trapped inside the room, though smoky but makes room warm (one of the
cause they don?t want chimney) and close all the windows.

>In answer to your earlier question about putting a pipe to bring in
> >cold air from outside, this can be accomplished without a pipe by
> digging a channel under the floor and covering it with thin stones and
> putting the floor surface down again. An outside air inlet can provide
> a great deal more heat in the room >but if the air needs to be cleaned
> continuously, I think an >interesting combination of things can work:

It seems possible. But my question is does this makes any difference? MY
ANALYSIS
Let?s say, we are burning a pinewood (15 % moisture) with burning rate
of 2 kg/hr. With an excess air of 150%, we need about 29 kg (volume of
24 m3) of air in one hour, which we need from inside the room, if we
don?t take air from outside. Let say the room temp is 25 C and the air
coming from doors from the outside to replace the consumed air by stove
is at 0 C. Hence we have to heat 29 kg of air from 0 C to 25 C to
maintain the room temperature.

Specific heat of air is 1.15 kJ/kg K. So for 29 kg of air we need 29 kg*
1.15 kJ/kg C * (25-0) C. That is about 0.834 MJ of fuel energy. The Net
heating value of fuel with 15 % moisture is 17.6 MJ/kg (for 2 kg its
35.2 MJ). It is 2.36 % of heating value of wood. So in other word if we
use air from outside the room, it saves the 2.36 % of fuel energy for
heating the room. If we use the stove for 10 hours, its 8.34 MJ, which
is equivalent to 0.47 kg of firewood (17.6 MJ/kg). So in 10 hours time
(say 1 day) we save 0.47 kg of wood, 14.1 kg in a month and 169.2 kg in
a year, using air outside the room.
Please Comment if any mistake
(Air has a very low specific heat, we don?t need much energy to increase
the air temperature inside but it?s the walls made of stone and mud
which absorbs much of heat from the air)

But a question arises on the FLAME TEMPERATURE!!!
If we use air of 25 C inside the room or used the air of 0 C outside the
room, how much the flame temperature varies? With O C air definitely
lowers the flame temperature and that affects the heat radiating from
the flame unless we have a secondary zone with preheated air injecting.
That in my knowledge ultimately lowers the potential of stove to heat
the room. I will try to analyze it later, this is really an interesting
topic.

>an internal chimney that brings air from the top of the room (the
> >smokiest portion of the air) down to the stove to be burned in the
> fire + an external chimney to provide draft + an external air supply
> of cold outside air + a layout such that the incoming cold air is
> heated by the mass of the mud and stone of the fireplace + a metal
> stove consisting of a box with a door sitting on a mud and stone
> soundation that provides the air channels in and out. In other words,
> use the building materials that are free for >everything they can be
> (air and smoke channels) and use the metal only >for that part which
> must be fabricated into heat radiators and >combustion chambers.

My idea is similar to yours in a way that only heating part should be of
metal. I am thinking of a stove with combustion chamber (primary and
secondary) of light ceramics made of local material similar to the
ceramics developed by Damon Ogle, Dean still, Dr Margaret Pinnell, Brad
van Appeal for rocket stove(From Boiling point: forest fuel and food) .
Only metal parts will be the heating tank, upper plate and chimney. I
tried some combination at my home but stopped work right now; I will
start the work as soon as my laboratory is ready.

>Such a stove would be massive and store a great deal of heat, it would
> >draft smoke from light-sticks out, it would reduce air turnover
> keeping more heat in, and it would remove all the fire smoke, and
> finally it would cost less than the stove shown on your website
> because the greater portion of it would be make from local stone and
> mud.

Yes! definitely it will be the best in terms of cost and quality.

Regards
Kanchan

From list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Fri May 28 07:51:55 2004
From: list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: THANKS AND JUMLA STOVE
In-Reply-To: <20040527205648.80493.qmail@web41608.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <FRI.28.MAY.2004.125155.0100.>

On Thu, 27 May 2004 13:56:48 -0700, Rajendra Adhikari wrote:

Welcome Rajendra
>First of all I would like to thank Mr. Steve Spence for allowing me recently to participate in this interesting and useful discussion forum.

It's good that Steve Spence referred you here, I do not recall him
posting here, perhaps he reads the archive every now and then.

>2. Regarding the room lighting facility , I think, instead of the biomass based devices,
>the better approach (technically and economically) would be the dissemination of low cost, portable,environment friendly Nickel metal hydride battery powered White LED based lamps , called "TUKIMARA" ( i.e., kerosene killer) in Nepali. One such lamp fitted with 3 or 4 White LEDs (which consumes approx. 120 to 150 milliwatt in total) could easily make the kitchen relatively comfortable with light and with greatly reduced indoor air pollution.The batteries could be easily charged by pedal power or by 3 to 5 watt solar PV module. This will also enable them to daily run the radios. Some INGOs have already successfully demonstrated nearly 20 units of such lamps in some villages of Jumla.

It is also interesting to see you consider this fairly high tech
approach has merit, I hope the economics do allow the step from smoky
flames to clean solar PV/battery powered LEDs to be used. From your
posts it looks like the whole package is economic despite LEDs lower
output in lumen per watt compared with high frequency fluorescent
lighting, I assume because the capital cost (especially of the smaller
number of electronic parts) is lower?

AJH

From list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Fri May 28 07:51:54 2004
From: list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: use of outside air with analysis KR
In-Reply-To: <37083.202.52.242.69.1085756574.squirrel@webmail.ku.edu.np>
Message-ID: <FRI.28.MAY.2004.125154.0100.>

On Fri, 28 May 2004 20:47:54 +0545, Kanchan Rai wrote:

>I wrote on Thu, May 27, 2004 7:09 am
>
>It seems nobody is interested on my analysis. Is this really a crap?

Patience Kanchan, I was waiting to see if anyone else would respond
and I had the time to look at it after a cursory first look.

It looks like you have calculated the amount of wood that is saved by
not removing warm air from the room for cooking but rather taking cold
outside air direct to a room sealed stove.

There are two points I would note, firstly a minimum number of air
changes are necessary to remove moisture, CO2 etc. in any case, this
may as well be ejected up the chimney (were it feasible to have one).
The other is that the popular reason for taking the air directly from
outside to the stove is to avoid the, otherwise, net movement of cool
air from outside through the various cracks and gaps in the walls,
doors and windows down along the floor to the central stove. These
cold draughts at ground level alter the perceived comfort of the room
because having your feet colder than your head feels colder.

So your numbers need to reflect the planned air changes for that size
of room and the number of occupants as well.

>
>But a question arises on the FLAME TEMPERATURE!!!
>If we use air of 25 C inside the room or used the air of 0 C outside the
>room, how much the flame temperature varies? With O C air definitely
>lowers the flame temperature and that affects the heat radiating from
>the flame unless we have a secondary zone with preheated air injecting.
>That in my knowledge ultimately lowers the potential of stove to heat
>the room. I will try to analyze it later, this is really an interesting
>topic.

It may well change the design of the stove but I suggest the
difference is small and that as the energy vented from the room is a
sum of the ventilation losses and the flue gas losses that if the
ventilation losses are in effect combustion air and flue temperature
remains the same there is no difference, the difference becomes
significant when the combustion causes more air changes in the room
than are desirable.

This all assumes that it is feasible to provide any sort of room
sealed cooking and heating stove, which actually seems a big leap to
me.

AJH

From list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Fri May 28 07:51:52 2004
From: list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: Flames for lighting
In-Reply-To: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGOEAADKAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
Message-ID: <FRI.28.MAY.2004.125152.0100.>

On Thu, 27 May 2004 21:56:39 +0100, Gavin Gulliver-Goodall wrote:

>[GGG] <snip>Now we know you can have a clean burning diffuse flame, as
>candles do
>[GGG] No they don't they are very smoky, hold a piece of white paper 6-12"
>above a candle and see!- Andrew I am amazed at you! Maybe a wick sticking
>out of a Top down stove would help??!

Well in the interests of science I have just conducted the above
experiment for 5 minutes and there is no visible smoke on the paper.

We have talked of the science of wicks and candles before, I feel a
well made candle is a wonderful self optimising system. There is just
sufficient feedback to liquify the wax, the wick maintains the correct
length to evaporate just the right amount of liquid. The vapour then
burns with a characteristic blue base finishing in a rounded yellow
flame.

Incidentally I believe the reed-larson idd stove has similar
attributes.

So whilst I will grant you that the candle may not be very clean
burning it is visibly clean burning, which is more than can be said
for the description given for the resin burning on a stick, which
started the discussion.

I have started an attempt at gathering resin, we have pine trees which
have invaded a habitat of conservation interest, so I am tapping one
to fill a small bottle top with resin.

Does this resin need further treatment before being used?

I am minded to scribe a thin slot in a horizontal stick of charcoal
and see if by restricting the width of the resin burning I can supply
enough air.

I would like to know a rule of thumb for particulate emissions as to
at what point health is likely to be affected, in order that some kind
of cost benefit could be attributed to the alternative ways of
providing light e.g. what is the particulate load of a flue gas if the
black smoke is just visible?

>As to the small flame having better surface area I note that if you
>light a single sheet of polythene it burns both cleanly and with a
>bluish flame, put fire to a lot of polythene sacks and the result is a
>smoky yellow flame.
>
>[GGG] How many times dir you have to test this to ensure you were correct!!!
>;_)
>[GGG] GGG

As with the best pyromaniacs I like to see what happens. In the early
days of synthetic music one of the sound sources was a recording of
globules of burning polythene falling from a burning plastic bag, the
term coined was zorch IIRC.

AJH

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Fri May 28 00:29:01 2004
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (adkarve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: Annual wood per family
Message-ID: <FRI.28.MAY.2004.095901.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Ms. Dhammika,
It would not be possible to explain the construction of our stoves in an internet message. Our stoves are scientifically designed and because their dimensions are important, we use a mould for making them. The mould has several parts and one has to follow a specific sequence of assembling the mould and filling it with clay or cement mortar. There is also a particular sequence that one has to follow in dismantling the mould, so that the parts are removed without damaging the cookstove. Proficiency in using the mould can only be achieved through practice. We normally conduct a ten day course for artisans, and also give each trainee a videoCD which shows all the steps of assembling and filling the mould and dissembling it. We can send a trainer to you with the mould, so that he can conduct a training course for your artisans, but you would have to find a donor to pay for his travel and local hospitality. We have conducted training courses in the Philippines and Thailand.
Yours
A.D.Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: linda dhammika
To: adkarve
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Annual wood per family

I am the founder of a Primary health care centre in rural Zambia serving 12,000 people who are presently cooking by the very wasteful 3 bricks and firewood method. Please could you send me the details of how to build one of your improved stoves. Thank you Linda Dhammika.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Fri May 28 14:40:55 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: Flames for lighting
Message-ID: <FRI.28.MAY.2004.204055.0200.>

Dear Andrew H

I am wondering if it would be easiest to add something cheap to the pine
resin to improve its ability to flow and/or burn, and therefore being
able to be used in a reservoir and with a wick or a wick tube.

The pine resin in a pine cone makes them very good for lighting a fire -
if you don't mind the smoke, however if you put them in with enough wood
already burning, the effect / presence is hardly noticeable.

If there is something else that can be mixed with it - a thinner and a
retardant of some kind such as a little candle wax mixed with fine sand
it might be able to improve the burning and slow down the burning to the
point of a clean(er) burn. Can bees wax be used as a dilutant?

If the light is clean but greatly reduced, you can light two or three.

I would like to know if the resin burns on its own, or only when
supported by a burning stick. If only with a stick, then we can
immediately improve the situation be working on the ability of the stick
to maintain a fire (i.e. slow it down).

Can you dribble a coil onto a flat plate and light one end?

Can the resin be catalytically cracked in a tiny pressure chamber like a
capped pipe? Can something flammable in the resin be distilled out?

Regards
Crispin

I have started an attempt at gathering resin, we have pine trees which
have invaded a habitat of conservation interest, so I am tapping one to
fill a small bottle top with resin.

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Fri May 28 15:03:01 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: use of outside air with analysis KR
Message-ID: <FRI.28.MAY.2004.210301.0200.>

Dear Kanchan

Andrew wrote:

>Patience Kanchan, I was waiting to see if anyone else would
>respond and I had the time to look at it after a cursory first look.

Ditto. Kind of a busy week here in Swaziland.

You calculations look good and the main point raised by Andrew is sound:
you will need some change in air from the room to outside whatever you
do. As it is very difficult to completely seal a stove there isn't such
a problem. The stove will be under negative air pressure all the time
because of the chimney and some air will be taken from the room into the
stove through the door and joints.

The 'gain' is to limit the change in air to a point where it is
comfortable. A significant benefit is that it will be far healthier to
have less CO and CO2 and Nox etc in the room compared with an open fire.
This you can get with a hood or a chimney, but it is the cold drafts
that are the cause of much discomfort. A lot of that can go. If you
have 150% excess air, then you could reduce drafts by having 40% of the
air draft into the room and out through the stove, and 60% come from
outside without affecting the fire much. Building a more efficient fire
(better stove) and buring all the smoke might reduce firewood
consumption by 50% and the air required by _more_ then 50% (less excess
air required) reducing the cross-room drafts from 40% of air to less
than 20% of its present value.

People prefer, as you said a couple of times, to have a large roaring
fire because they think that is the only way to get warm. This is
reasonable because if you are facing a large fire and have a cold wind
perpetually blowing at your back you will prefer a larger fire in front.

If you prevent unnecessary drafts you save burning some of the wood
because people 'feel more comfortable' with a smaller fire of a similar
efficiency.

If you have 150% excess air passing through the system, it is far better
that the air is cold and comes from outside. To heat air from -25 to
+25 takes far less energy than to heat it from +25 to +800. I don't
believe there is much or an argument to look for in the heating of
colder air.

If you draw that air through windows (which blows the air against the
adjacent window walls) they feel cold to the touch. If the walls were
warmer the feeling is different.

It would be very helpful if you would do an experiment in a room with
outside air connected to the stove through the wall. You might be very
surprised how much warmer the room gest with any given amount of wood.

Next, light the resin stick and hold them in a way that the smoke can be
drawn into the stove at some point, like a partially open door supply
40% of the fire's need. In other words, lose some of the air from the
room but do it to draw the light-smoke out and into the fire. This may
be remarkably inconvenient when you first try it, but you could
establish in principle that such a light may not necessarily pollute the
room if you can capture the smoke.

Lastly a 'warm room' is more a matter of 'perception' than most people
think. Keep the floor warm, vent the smoke through a high vent in the
roof and use outside air (and excess air) to run the fire.

Regards
Crispin

From kenboak at STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK Fri May 28 15:37:50 2004
From: kenboak at STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK (Ken Boak)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: Global Stove Challenge
Message-ID: <FRI.28.MAY.2004.203750.0100.KENBOAK@STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK>

Stovers,

Sitting in a comfortable house in suburbia, it is easy to become disassociated with the immediate day to day cooking problems that face perhaps 1/3rd of the world's human population.

I was immediately made aware of the grim reality of the situation by the request by Linda Dhammika for details on how to build improved cooking stoves..........

"I am the founder of a Primary health care centre in rural Zambia serving 12,000 people who are presently cooking by the very wasteful 3 bricks and firewood method. Please could you send me the details of how to build one of your improved stoves. Thank you Linda Dhammika."

Perhaps, it would be an intuitive exercise for members of the stoves list to jointly around the globe devote a weekend cooking in this manner, to get a full understanding of what difficulties are faced.

With the summer months ahead, perhaps we could organise a Global Stove Challenge, with several different stove designs being simultaneously tested by volunteers in their respecive countries, and the results being published on the web so that all can access them.

Those knowledgeable about foodstuffs could create several standard recipies and it would be up to members to follow the recipie and attempt to cook the meal, using the stove design of their choice. Some initial work would be required to standardise on fuel types and fuel quantities. A questionaire form would allow the findings to be documented.

Perhaps this sort of event would be within the scope of A.D Karve's school students to organise?

Anyone up for the challenge?

 

regards,

Ken Boak

London

From Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK Fri May 28 17:25:20 2004
From: Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: Flames for lighting
In-Reply-To: <fs2eb012gbjd2a9h449i8vstikdc3hk00v@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <FRI.28.MAY.2004.222520.0100.GAVIN@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>

AJH,
I think the smokyness of candles will depend on the quality of the wax and
the relative wick/wax diameter.

I have certainly collected quite a lot of smoke from candles before now but
have not performed the experiment recently so will bow to your observations.

Have you tried a flue gas analyser on one?? Perhaps you r esteemed
colleagues could lend you theirs- it looked pretty unused when I saw it
last!
GGG

On Thu, 27 May 2004 21:56:39 +0100, Gavin Gulliver-Goodall wrote:

>[GGG] <snip>Now we know you can have a clean burning diffuse flame, as
>candles do
>[GGG] No they don't they are very smoky, hold a piece of white paper 6-12"
>above a candle and see!- Andrew I am amazed at you! Maybe a wick sticking
>out of a Top down stove would help??!

Well in the interests of science I have just conducted the above
experiment for 5 minutes and there is no visible smoke on the paper.

From rbadhi at YAHOO.COM Fri May 28 17:39:05 2004
From: rbadhi at YAHOO.COM (Rajendra Adhikari)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: Jmla Stove
Message-ID: <FRI.28.MAY.2004.143905.0700.RBADHI@YAHOO.COM>

on Friday 28 May 2004 Kanchan wrote:

>Thanks for taking time for writing and sharing experience from Mustang.
>The place are similar in terms of altitude and need of stove for cooking and room >heating.
>But economically people are far back in Humla and Jumla (western Nepal).
> I guess that the people in mustang is economically in good condition.
>What kind of stove you saw in Mustang? Do they use metal stove?
>

In mustang also there are many poor families like in Jumla, specially the lower caste in that specific society. The rich ones have fixed type clay stove, which they use during warm days; and also a portable metallic stove which they use generally during cold period of the year to cook the food and to warm the room. The rich family runs the metallic cookstoves 24 hours a day, because he has to survive in the biting cold. Specially in Upper Mustang adjacent to Tibet you could roughly classify a family as a rich one, if he has: (1) a metallic stove in the room and (2) collection of fire wood spread over the top of the flat roof of the house.

 

The poor ones have no metallic stove, and live with the age old clay or stone type fire place. But the biting reality is that both the rich and the poor must have some sort of cookstove to live on this earth. In Jumla or in Solokhumbu in Nepal, Thank God, at least firewood/pine wood is still available either free of cost or at a very low price. But in Upper Mustang firewood is a very costly item, sometimes unaffordable to the common poor. The poor houses do not have any firewood collected over the top of the roof.

 

Ordinary chimney with fixed exhaust position will not work properly in high altitude areas with strong blowing wind and wind often changing the blowing direction. If the exhaust of the chimney is against the wind , smoke will blow back to the fireplace. If it is in the same direction, extra draft will be created inside the chimney leading to the unnecessary burning of the costly biomass. How have you designed the chimney to cope with this problem?

 

R. B. Adhikari

rbadhi@yahoo.com

 

 

 

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Fri May 28 21:52:02 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: RE corrected emissions not only from stove in Kitchen in
Jumla and Humla
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20040527093649.021a2a08@pop.iprimus.com.au>
Message-ID: <FRI.28.MAY.2004.205202.0500.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Peter,

Could what you described below possibly work with the "woodgas" (pyrolysis
gases) such as what Tom Reed and I are producing? If yes, could you make one?

Paul

At 09:45 AM 5/27/04 +1000, Peter Verhaart wrote:
>Dear Crispin,
>
>At 13:28 26/05/2004 +0200, you wrote:
>>Dear Peter V
>>
>> >and burning with a bright but smoky flame.
>>
>>So, what is in the smoke? Is it like diesel in that it burns with a
>>smokey flame because the combustion conditions are not right? Same for
>>paraffin / kerosene. Lots of smoke it is is not boiled first.
>
>Carbon plus lots of nasties.
>Before you or I were even thought of, people burned aethyn (acetylene) for
>lighting. To increase the lumens without soot, the fishtail burner was
>developed, allowing a larger flat flame (and more light) with more external
>surface area to allow complete combustion through diffusion.
>Another way to have clean diffusion flames is to have a lot of small flames
>instead of one big one. A small flame has a larger external surface area
>per unit volume.
>
>
>>Now....where to get a bottle of pine resin.....
>
> From a friendly violinist?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Peter

Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D.
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
NOTE: Retired from teaching. Active in Stoves development.
For fastest contact, please call home phone: 309-452-7072

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Fri May 28 22:30:15 2004
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (adkarve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: Charcoal CD; burning wood gas
Message-ID: <SAT.29.MAY.2004.080015.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Paul,
now that the CD is easily available from a US Source for just 4 Dollars from
Harmon Seaver, I request you to please get a copy from that source.
Wood gas burns with a blue flame, without smoke or suit, if it is let out
from the wood gas generator through a hole having a small diameter. We have
tested this long ago, and use the same principle in our charcoaling oven.
The barrels holding the biomass to be charred have a small hole, through
which the pyrolysis gas emerges. It burns within the kiln itself. The kiln
produces smoke only for about the first 5 minutes. After the pyrolysis gas
starts to burn, the smoke stops.
Yours
A.D.Karve

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul S. Anderson <psanders@ILSTU.EDU>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 7:22 AM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] RE corrected emissions not only from stove in Kitchen
inJumla and Humla

> Peter,
>
> Could what you described below possibly work with the "woodgas" (pyrolysis
> gases) such as what Tom Reed and I are producing? If yes, could you make
one?
>
> Paul
>
> At 09:45 AM 5/27/04 +1000, Peter Verhaart wrote:
> >Dear Crispin,
> >
> >At 13:28 26/05/2004 +0200, you wrote:
> >>Dear Peter V
> >>
> >> >and burning with a bright but smoky flame.
> >>
> >>So, what is in the smoke? Is it like diesel in that it burns with a
> >>smokey flame because the combustion conditions are not right? Same for
> >>paraffin / kerosene. Lots of smoke it is is not boiled first.
> >
> >Carbon plus lots of nasties.
> >Before you or I were even thought of, people burned aethyn (acetylene)
for
> >lighting. To increase the lumens without soot, the fishtail burner was
> >developed, allowing a larger flat flame (and more light) with more
external
> >surface area to allow complete combustion through diffusion.
> >Another way to have clean diffusion flames is to have a lot of small
flames
> >instead of one big one. A small flame has a larger external surface area
> >per unit volume.
> >
> >
> >>Now....where to get a bottle of pine resin.....
> >
> > From a friendly violinist?
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Peter
>
> Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D.
> Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
> Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
> E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
> NOTE: Retired from teaching. Active in Stoves development.
> For fastest contact, please call home phone: 309-452-7072

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Fri May 28 23:02:47 2004
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (adkarve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: International conference
Message-ID: <SAT.29.MAY.2004.083247.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Stovers,
The Solar Energy Society of India, which is affiliated to the International Solar Energy Society, wants to hold an International conference in January 2005 in Pune, India. The conference would cover all aspects of renewal energy, with special emphasis on rural energy use e.g. stand-alone electricity generating systems for villages, cooking energy for villages, biogas, and of course solar energy. I attended a meeting yesterday of the organising committee, and was told that there would also be a full day for the Asia-Pacific region. Those interested may contact Mr. Sunil Natu sunilnatu@vsnl.net for details.

I also take this opportunity to announce that in January 2006, ARTI would like to host a conference devoted solely to biomass based fuels and cooking systems. We would have completed, by that time, the project funded by Shell Foundation, and therefore, we expect to present concrete results of emission testing under field conditions, and success in commercialising the stoves technology. It would also offer an opportunity to stovers all the world over to display new systems developed by them since the last conference in 2000. About 100 rural entrepreneurs, trained by us, have already started to sell our fuels and cookstoves on a purely commercial basis. Our cookstoves conference would be a cosy, informal and low-cost affair. We shall keep politicians and other bigwigs out, because they just waste the time of the audience by talking platitudes. Funding suggestions would be welcome.
Yours A.D.Karve

From list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Sat May 29 07:45:07 2004
From: list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: Flames for lighting
In-Reply-To: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGMEAKDKAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
Message-ID: <SAT.29.MAY.2004.124507.0100.>

On Fri, 28 May 2004 22:25:20 +0100, Gavin Gulliver-Goodall wrote:

>AJH,
>I think the smokyness of candles will depend on the quality of the wax and
>the relative wick/wax diameter.

Indubitably, we know that the wick size is critical.
>
>I have certainly collected quite a lot of smoke from candles before now but
>have not performed the experiment recently so will bow to your observations.

It's easy to collect soot just use a cold metallic object and lower it
into the flame to quench the carbon burnout.
>
>Have you tried a flue gas analyser on one??

No

>Perhaps you r esteemed
>colleagues could lend you theirs- it looked pretty unused when I saw it
>last!

Very sore point, at least they let you see it ;-), technically I
should have a 1/6th timeshare in it :-), I wonder if the british tax
payers would rather it sat in a cupboard rather than doing some stoves
tests, after all they paid for it ;-).

AJH

From list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Sat May 29 07:45:07 2004
From: list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:10 2004
Subject: Flames for lighting
In-Reply-To: <001501c444e3$53f1d880$e49dfea9@home>
Message-ID: <SAT.29.MAY.2004.124507.0100.>

On Fri, 28 May 2004 20:40:55 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:

>Dear Andrew H
>
>I am wondering if it would be easiest to add something cheap to the pine
>resin to improve its ability to flow and/or burn, and therefore being
>able to be used in a reservoir and with a wick or a wick tube.

It's early days for me yet, I have just returned with the bottle top
full I have collected from one quarter helical scribe mark on one
small tree in 48 hours. I suspect I would need to freshen up the cuts
every day to keep it running. It's summer here, so possibly at peak
production.

http://www.wokingnursery.co.uk/resin/resin.html is hosting a 4
pictures temporarily C/O my brother in law, to illustrate this
message.

Any way it is fascinating stuff, a clear, sticky, viscous fluid. It
ignites readily and has a very sooty flame, once wicked it burns
stably. I just need to see how thin a substrate I can get it to burn
on.

As I suspect it is the nearest thing to a hydrocarbon that the people
in this part of Nepal can get I cannot see what else they could add,
though I will try a bit of methanol next week, as I will be away for a
week now.

>
>If the light is clean but greatly reduced, you can light two or three.

yes or establish a thin line.

>
>I would like to know if the resin burns on its own,

yes, a freshly harvested blob burns on my stainless steel sink but
thins out with the heat and then I guess the heat losses extinguishes
it with some browned resin remaining.

>Can the resin be catalytically cracked in a tiny pressure chamber like a
>capped pipe? Can something flammable in the resin be distilled out?

More experiments to do, it's now looking more likely that a small
metal container and fishtail burner as described by Peter Verhaart is
indicated. Peter also pointed out to me that the "nasties" associated
with particulates, I said benzene ring based, he says poly cyclic
which implies linked rings, are very stable like PCBs, which is why
they become difficult to burn once released. I believe benzo a pyrene
from smoke is one of the worst carcinogens and is one of the many
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) associated with biomass
burning. No one has yet responded to the possibility that these derive
from the lignin fraction rather than the cellulose fraction or whether
they are less likely to be in the offgas from charcoal producing
stoves compared with full wood burning stoves.

AJH

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Sat May 29 08:42:15 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:11 2004
Subject: Flames for lighting
Message-ID: <SAT.29.MAY.2004.094215.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Andrew
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Heggie" <list@SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Flames for lighting

> On Fri, 28 May 2004 20:40:55 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>
> >Dear Andrew H
> >
> >I am wondering if it would be easiest to add something cheap to the pine
> >resin to improve its ability to flow and/or burn, and therefore being
> >able to be used in a reservoir and with a wick or a wick tube.
>
> It's early days for me yet, I have just returned with the bottle top
> full I have collected from one quarter helical scribe mark on one
> small tree in 48 hours. I suspect I would need to freshen up the cuts
> every day to keep it running.

I don't know about pine but there is a big diference between the tapping of
Balsam Fir and White Spruce. White spruce is easy to tap... gash the tre and
it keeps coming, and coming, and coming, as a slow ooze for at least a year.
Balsam Fir resin, on the other hand, is smart. It wicks itself into the the
wound area, and then has sense enough to scab over, and stop flowing.

It's summer here, so possibly at peak
> production.
>
> http://www.wokingnursery.co.uk/resin/resin.html is hosting a 4
> pictures temporarily C/O my brother in law, to illustrate this
> message.
>
> Any way it is fascinating stuff, a clear, sticky, viscous fluid. It
> ignites readily and has a very sooty flame, once wicked it burns
> stably. I just need to see how thin a substrate I can get it to burn
> on.

Andrew, I think you are onto something really good, with your concept of a
wick. There are two basic ways to go... the "Candle Concept", or teh "Whale
Oil Lamp" concept.
>
> As I suspect it is the nearest thing to a hydrocarbon that the people
> in this part of Nepal can get I cannot see what else they could add,
> though I will try a bit of methanol next week, as I will be away for a
> week now.
>
One other thing they should do is to check out the relative cost of Pine
Resin and kerosine: It would be very simple if the Pine Resin was more than
kerosine... they could simply trade resin for kerosine, and use a proven
kerosine mantle lamp.

There are interesting philisophical implications here... trading indigenous
product for foreign product, and then becoming dependant on foreign product.
Perhaps the best way for them to go would be to use a "Heggie Lamp" as their
base case, so they would always have something to depend on, and then, if
the market for Pine Resin in relation to kerosine was good, they could sell
it to their advantage.
>
> >
> >If the light is clean but greatly reduced, you can light two or three.
>
> yes or establish a thin line.
>
> >
> >I would like to know if the resin burns on its own,
>
> yes, a freshly harvested blob burns on my stainless steel sink but
> thins out with the heat and then I guess the heat losses extinguishes
> it with some browned resin remaining.
>
Another interesting experiment would be to do exactly the reverse of this:
run the blob of resin onto a hot plate, rather than a "quench plate". This
could be the equivalent to a spoon supported above a bed of charcoal.

> >Can the resin be catalytically cracked in a tiny pressure chamber like a
> >capped pipe? Can something flammable in the resin be distilled out?

Sure!! The "Naval Stores Industries" are based on this very concept.
Turpentine is made this way.
>
How can you go away at a time like this, when there is fire to be set, and
beer to be drunk? :-)

Best Wishes,

Kevin Chisholm

From lanny at ROMAN.NET Sat May 29 08:58:43 2004
From: lanny at ROMAN.NET (Lanny Henson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:11 2004
Subject: The Grok Cook Top
Message-ID: <SAT.29.MAY.2004.085843.0400.LANNY@ROMAN.NET>

Dear Stovers,
I had a plan to build a large wok using an open drum. I wanted the pan to
seal to the open drum top well enough to vent the exhaust. I plan use a 28
or 30" wok pan. The problem was that I was just too busy to get into the
city to purchase the wok.
I tried to understand the problem completely so I had drink and built a
conical shape pan.
I chose the cone shape because it can be made from an inexpensive square or
round sheet of steel.
It made a multi-purpose cook top that cooked like a griddle or a wok. It is
a GROK!
The conical shape that has several advantages.
One is that thinner metal can be used. Thin flat metal puckers and warps
when heated but the grok shape stays true when hot.
True enough to seal to a stove body like a open drum, when using a short
chimney to create negative pressure.
A seal is necessary in this stove design for maximum draft and to capture
and vent the exhaust.
Unlike a wok's spherical surface the conical shape cooks more flat and a
flat spatula can be used.
The grok also cooks like a wok. Hot oil ponds in the center of the pan, the
items to be cooked are mixed into the oil and then pushed up the side to
drain. The grok tilts to pour liquid out of one corner.
Unfortunately the stove a bulky biomass burner (fired with straw) did not
work well. I did have a few good burns but nothing consistent. The cook top
works fine but the stove will need more development.

http://www.lanny.us/grok.html about 100kb.

Thanks for your attention,
Lanny Henson

From lanny at ROMAN.NET Sat May 29 09:18:15 2004
From: lanny at ROMAN.NET (Lanny Henson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:11 2004
Subject: Flames for lighting/ wicks
Message-ID: <SAT.29.MAY.2004.091815.0400.LANNY@ROMAN.NET>

I once used a fiberglass stove rope for a grease wick.
It seemed to burn clean and was wind resistant. After it heated up it would
render fat and burn for hours.
I reformed a pipe hanging staple for the wick holder.
It may not apply but here is the link.
http://www.lanny.us/gwick.html

Lanny Henson

----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 8:42 AM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Flames for lighting

> Dear Andrew
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrew Heggie" <list@SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK>
> To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 8:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [STOVES] Flames for lighting
>
>
> > On Fri, 28 May 2004 20:40:55 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
> >
> > >Dear Andrew H
> > >
> > >I am wondering if it would be easiest to add something cheap to the
pine
> > >resin to improve its ability to flow and/or burn, and therefore being
> > >able to be used in a reservoir and with a wick or a wick tube.
> >
> > It's early days for me yet, I have just returned with the bottle top
> > full I have collected from one quarter helical scribe mark on one
> > small tree in 48 hours. I suspect I would need to freshen up the cuts
> > every day to keep it running.
>
> I don't know about pine but there is a big diference between the tapping
of
> Balsam Fir and White Spruce. White spruce is easy to tap... gash the tre
and
> it keeps coming, and coming, and coming, as a slow ooze for at least a
year.
> Balsam Fir resin, on the other hand, is smart. It wicks itself into the
the
> wound area, and then has sense enough to scab over, and stop flowing.
>
> It's summer here, so possibly at peak
> > production.
> >
> > http://www.wokingnursery.co.uk/resin/resin.html is hosting a 4
> > pictures temporarily C/O my brother in law, to illustrate this
> > message.
> >
> > Any way it is fascinating stuff, a clear, sticky, viscous fluid. It
> > ignites readily and has a very sooty flame, once wicked it burns
> > stably. I just need to see how thin a substrate I can get it to burn
> > on.
>
> Andrew, I think you are onto something really good, with your concept of a
> wick. There are two basic ways to go... the "Candle Concept", or teh
"Whale
> Oil Lamp" concept.
> >
> > As I suspect it is the nearest thing to a hydrocarbon that the people
> > in this part of Nepal can get I cannot see what else they could add,
> > though I will try a bit of methanol next week, as I will be away for a
> > week now.
> >
> One other thing they should do is to check out the relative cost of Pine
> Resin and kerosine: It would be very simple if the Pine Resin was more
than
> kerosine... they could simply trade resin for kerosine, and use a proven
> kerosine mantle lamp.
>
> There are interesting philisophical implications here... trading
indigenous
> product for foreign product, and then becoming dependant on foreign
product.
> Perhaps the best way for them to go would be to use a "Heggie Lamp" as
their
> base case, so they would always have something to depend on, and then, if
> the market for Pine Resin in relation to kerosine was good, they could
sell
> it to their advantage.
> >
> > >
> > >If the light is clean but greatly reduced, you can light two or three.
> >
> > yes or establish a thin line.
> >
> > >
> > >I would like to know if the resin burns on its own,
> >
> > yes, a freshly harvested blob burns on my stainless steel sink but
> > thins out with the heat and then I guess the heat losses extinguishes
> > it with some browned resin remaining.
> >
> Another interesting experiment would be to do exactly the reverse of this:
> run the blob of resin onto a hot plate, rather than a "quench plate". This
> could be the equivalent to a spoon supported above a bed of charcoal.
>
> > >Can the resin be catalytically cracked in a tiny pressure chamber like
a
> > >capped pipe? Can something flammable in the resin be distilled out?
>
> Sure!! The "Naval Stores Industries" are based on this very concept.
> Turpentine is made this way.
> >
> How can you go away at a time like this, when there is fire to be set, and
> beer to be drunk? :-)
>
> Best Wishes,
>
> Kevin Chisholm

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Sat May 29 10:12:38 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:11 2004
Subject: Smoky flames...
Message-ID: <SAT.29.MAY.2004.081238.0600.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Gavin, Andrew and All:

Here's some science and philosophy for the Memorial Day weekend.... Feel
free to delete if not your cup of tea.
~~~~~~~
Emerson said "Everything in Nature contains all the powers of Nature;
everything is made of the same hidden stuff". I take this to mean that if I
can truly understand the combustion phenomena evident in the candle flame, I
can extend them to all other flames.

Michael Faraday's Lectures on the Chemical History of a Candle" were given
to young people at the Royal Institution in London in the 1860s and were
wildly popular with both children and adults. It is useful to have
knowledge about things, but it is still more useful to know how that
knowledge has been gained and how it may grow. (From the introduction to
CHC).

~~~~~~~~
Andrew and Garvin are both correct about candle smoke (message below). I
must fired up a candle. Using a cold tablespoon to quench the flame, I see
that

Putting it just above the wick for 1-2 seconds, I only condense evaporated
wax

Putting it near the tip I get copious soot and no wax deposit

Putting it 1 inch above the luminous flame I get no soot in 20-30 seconds.

I conclude that going up the flame first I get paraffin vapor ready to burn,
then the vapor is pyrolysed to make soot, and finally with sufficient quiet
air all the soot burns.

I have always been amazed at how little soot a stable candle flame emits in
a quiet room and how much when the air is turbulent.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is a test for liquid fuels called the "smoke point" flame test. See
for instance

XXPTEE-SmokePoint

Smoke Point Lamp - Used for ASTM D1322 Smoke Test of Various Petroleum
Products at http://www.aironline.com/pte/eqp-pte.htm)

 

~~~~~~~

The smoke test lamp is much like a conventional kerosene wicked lamp. You
fill it with the desired fuel, light it and gradually turn up the flame
until it begins to smoke. You then back down as little as possible and
measure the height of the flame.

When I was developing biodiesel from waste vegetable oil in 1990, Professor
Gary in the petroleum department of the Colorado School of Mines told me
that the smoke test lamp is a good indicator of cetane.
"Octane" is the measure of a fuel's ability to resist pre-ignition;
otherwise the engine knocks. The most important characteristic of diesel
fuel is the cetane number, as this indicates how readily the fuel
self-ignites.
"Cetane" is the measure of the fuel's ability to ignite quickly and easily,
otherwise you get diesel knock. So it isn't surprising that cetane is
inverse to octane - diesel fuels don't work in spark engines and spark fuels
don't work in diesel engines for this and other reasons.

Cetane is a straight chain hydrocarbon, C16H34, similar to the fatty acids
that form the backbone of biodiesel. It is 100 on the cetane scale and
would support a very long flame without smoking. . Zero on the scale is
methylnaphthalene, an aromatic hydrocarbon. Smokes like hell.

Biodiesel from fats and oils typically has much higher cetane number (50 to
100) than petroleum diesel (about 42 today). This can be shown in the smoke
point lamp.

~~~~~~~`
I suppose similar considerations apply to waxes and so they could be rated
by making test candles and seeing how long a flame they will support without
smoking.

So, the humble candle is a very instructive device for beginning to
understand pyrolysis and combustion.

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF STOVEWORKS
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gavin Gulliver-Goodall" <Gavin@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Flames for lighting

> AJH,
> I think the smokyness of candles will depend on the quality of the wax and
> the relative wick/wax diameter.
>
> I have certainly collected quite a lot of smoke from candles before now
but
> have not performed the experiment recently so will bow to your
observations.
>
> Have you tried a flue gas analyser on one?? Perhaps you r esteemed
> colleagues could lend you theirs- it looked pretty unused when I saw it
> last!
> GGG
>
>
> On Thu, 27 May 2004 21:56:39 +0100, Gavin Gulliver-Goodall wrote:
>
> >[GGG] <snip>Now we know you can have a clean burning diffuse flame, as
> >candles do
> >[GGG] No they don't they are very smoky, hold a piece of white paper
6-12"
> >above a candle and see!- Andrew I am amazed at you! Maybe a wick sticking
> >out of a Top down stove would help??!
>
>
> Well in the interests of science I have just conducted the above
> experiment for 5 minutes and there is no visible smoke on the paper.

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Sat May 29 10:20:09 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:11 2004
Subject: Global Stove Challenge
In-Reply-To: <054c01c444eb$4ec8ead0$0100a8c0@DELL3>
Message-ID: <SAT.29.MAY.2004.092009.0500.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Good Day Ken & all,

Your Comments have awakened a "STOVES Lurker" (OK, I do post to stoves
sometimes, but mostly I sit in gasification).

I wholeheartedly agree, that getting back to "nature" so to speak, and
actually using/working with the items we are designing/testing/talking
of/with/about would be "the best teacher" we could find/have.

Our family has made the switch to gasification heating, and trust me, in our
geographic area, heating is a MUST, in the winter (NOT a luxury) minus 40c
is way to cold. In that fact, I would say that we are somewhat "Practicing
what we preach" (yes we still have electricity & drive cars).

The point I am getting at is this, when we made the decision to change from
electric heat to wood fired gasification (outdoor boiler system) we had NO
IDEA of the responsibilities/problems that would be required/arise, however
NOW that we have done it for a full winter, I'm happy to say "I think I know
a little more, about what I'm talking about" :) when it comes to the subject
of gasification (But also on that note, I say that stoves still elude
me).......

Have a great weekend!!

Greg Manning

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

 

-----Original Message-----
From: The Stoves Discussion List [mailto:STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On
Behalf Of Ken Boak
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 2:38 PM
To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [STOVES] Global Stove Challenge

Stovers,

Sitting in a comfortable house in suburbia, it is easy to become
disassociated with the immediate day to day cooking problems that face
perhaps 1/3rd of the world's human population.

I was immediately made aware of the grim reality of the situation by the
request by Linda Dhammika for details on how to build improved cooking
stoves..........

"I am the founder of a Primary health care centre in rural Zambia serving
12,000 people who are presently cooking by the very wasteful 3 bricks and
firewood method. Please could you send me the details of how to build one of
your improved stoves. Thank you Linda Dhammika."

Perhaps, it would be an intuitive exercise for members of the stoves list to
jointly around the globe devote a weekend cooking in this manner, to get a
full understanding of what difficulties are faced.

With the summer months ahead, perhaps we could organise a Global Stove
Challenge, with several different stove designs being simultaneously
tested by volunteers in their respecive countries, and the results being
published on the web so that all can access them.

Those knowledgeable about foodstuffs could create several standard recipies
and it would be up to members to follow the recipie and attempt to cook the
meal, using the stove design of their choice. Some initial work would be
required to standardise on fuel types and fuel quantities. A questionaire
form would allow the findings to be documented.

Perhaps this sort of event would be within the scope of A.D Karve's school
students to organise?

Anyone up for the challenge?

 

regards,

Ken Boak

London

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Sat May 29 10:41:55 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:11 2004
Subject: Smoky flames...
In-Reply-To: <004b01c44586$ff6bb700$02750818@TOM>
Message-ID: <SAT.29.MAY.2004.094155.0500.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Good Day, Tom & All,

I just wanted to say "I love it when tom talks" :)

Have a great weekend all !!!

Greg Manning,

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

 

-----Original Message-----
From: The Stoves Discussion List [mailto:STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On
Behalf Of TBReed
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 9:13 AM
To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [STOVES] Smoky flames...

Dear Gavin, Andrew and All:

Here's some science and philosophy for the Memorial Day weekend.... Feel
free to delete if not your cup of tea.
~~~~~~~
Emerson said "Everything in Nature contains all the powers of Nature;
everything is made of the same hidden stuff". I take this to mean that if I
can truly understand the combustion phenomena evident in the candle flame, I
can extend them to all other flames.

Michael Faraday's Lectures on the Chemical History of a Candle" were given
to young people at the Royal Institution in London in the 1860s and were
wildly popular with both children and adults. It is useful to have
knowledge about things, but it is still more useful to know how that
knowledge has been gained and how it may grow. (From the introduction to
CHC).

~~~~~~~~
Andrew and Garvin are both correct about candle smoke (message below). I
must fired up a candle. Using a cold tablespoon to quench the flame, I see
that

Putting it just above the wick for 1-2 seconds, I only condense evaporated
wax

Putting it near the tip I get copious soot and no wax deposit

Putting it 1 inch above the luminous flame I get no soot in 20-30 seconds.

I conclude that going up the flame first I get paraffin vapor ready to burn,
then the vapor is pyrolysed to make soot, and finally with sufficient quiet
air all the soot burns.

I have always been amazed at how little soot a stable candle flame emits in
a quiet room and how much when the air is turbulent.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is a test for liquid fuels called the "smoke point" flame test. See
for instance

XXPTEE-SmokePoint

Smoke Point Lamp - Used for ASTM D1322 Smoke Test of Various Petroleum
Products at http://www.aironline.com/pte/eqp-pte.htm)

 

~~~~~~~

The smoke test lamp is much like a conventional kerosene wicked lamp. You
fill it with the desired fuel, light it and gradually turn up the flame
until it begins to smoke. You then back down as little as possible and
measure the height of the flame.

When I was developing biodiesel from waste vegetable oil in 1990, Professor
Gary in the petroleum department of the Colorado School of Mines told me
that the smoke test lamp is a good indicator of cetane.
"Octane" is the measure of a fuel's ability to resist pre-ignition;
otherwise the engine knocks. The most important characteristic of diesel
fuel is the cetane number, as this indicates how readily the fuel
self-ignites.
"Cetane" is the measure of the fuel's ability to ignite quickly and easily,
otherwise you get diesel knock. So it isn't surprising that cetane is
inverse to octane - diesel fuels don't work in spark engines and spark fuels
don't work in diesel engines for this and other reasons.

Cetane is a straight chain hydrocarbon, C16H34, similar to the fatty acids
that form the backbone of biodiesel. It is 100 on the cetane scale and
would support a very long flame without smoking. . Zero on the scale is
methylnaphthalene, an aromatic hydrocarbon. Smokes like hell.

Biodiesel from fats and oils typically has much higher cetane number (50 to
100) than petroleum diesel (about 42 today). This can be shown in the smoke
point lamp.

~~~~~~~`
I suppose similar considerations apply to waxes and so they could be rated
by making test candles and seeing how long a flame they will support without
smoking.

So, the humble candle is a very instructive device for beginning to
understand pyrolysis and combustion.

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF STOVEWORKS
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gavin Gulliver-Goodall" <Gavin@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Flames for lighting

> AJH,
> I think the smokyness of candles will depend on the quality of the wax and
> the relative wick/wax diameter.
>
> I have certainly collected quite a lot of smoke from candles before now
but
> have not performed the experiment recently so will bow to your
observations.
>
> Have you tried a flue gas analyser on one?? Perhaps you r esteemed
> colleagues could lend you theirs- it looked pretty unused when I saw it
> last!
> GGG
>
>
> On Thu, 27 May 2004 21:56:39 +0100, Gavin Gulliver-Goodall wrote:
>
> >[GGG] <snip>Now we know you can have a clean burning diffuse flame, as
> >candles do
> >[GGG] No they don't they are very smoky, hold a piece of white paper
6-12"
> >above a candle and see!- Andrew I am amazed at you! Maybe a wick sticking
> >out of a Top down stove would help??!
>
>
> Well in the interests of science I have just conducted the above
> experiment for 5 minutes and there is no visible smoke on the paper.

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Sat May 29 13:06:10 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:11 2004
Subject: Flames for lighting
Message-ID: <SAT.29.MAY.2004.190610.0200.>

Dear Andrew

Exactly the sort of info we need.

If the stainless steel under the sample was heating up from the flame
and making the resin spread out, then the next thing to try is a
terracotta plate with a groove in it as the support structure.

This could be a low temperature flat fired clay saucer with a spiral
inscribed into it before firing.

Make the groove about 4mm wide and 2 to 3mm deep. Then pour the resin
into the groove, round and round to make a spiral of resin sitting on a
clay (poor heat conducting) plate.

Hold the plate horizontal. Light the resin at one end and see of it
burns well enough to get to the other end.

If the pine stick is responsible for lighting the resin ahead of where
it would otherwise burn to, then this method might slow the burn and
limit smoke production as it will prevent (mostly) over-liquifying the
resin and lighting more of it than has to be burning to keep it going.

If it lights up too quickly before buring out at the start, make the
line or resin thinner and thinner to see how little can be lit at a
time.

Being a narrow strip of resin it will approximate the fan-tail burner.
If it still smokes a lot, try holding a shiny tube (like an aluminum
tube) about 25mm in diameter and 75mm long in such a way that the upper
part of the flame is inside the vertical tube. Hold it with pliers as it
will get hot.

This will induce some hot air into the upper flame in a little chimney
and reflect the heat around a bit and might help the smokey portion to
burn more completely. The light will get out of the lower part of the
flame and tube may help burn the smoke. You will have to follow the
flame as it travels around the spiral, but I am interested to know if it
improves the combustion.

I will work out how to get some resin here in an unnoticeable manner.

Regards
Crispin

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Sat May 29 13:18:53 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:11 2004
Subject: Smoky flames...
Message-ID: <SAT.29.MAY.2004.191853.0200.>

Dear Tom

>Biodiesel from fats and oils typically has much higher
>cetane number (50 to 100) than petroleum diesel (about
>42 today). This can be shown in the smoke point lamp.

So the real question of the hour is, "What is the cetane number for pine
resin?"

Thanks
Crispin

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Sat May 29 19:38:41 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:11 2004
Subject: Cracking oils
Message-ID: <SUN.30.MAY.2004.013841.0200.>

Dear Dr Tom

I have been asking about cracking oils and resin. I tried heat alone:

I put some sunflower cooking oil in a covered stainless steel pot on a
hot stove until there emerged a significant amount of smoke (the
temperature inside peaked).

I then took it outside and opened the lid. After an initial burst of
smoke from the contents, the liquid inside burst into flames and burned
with a very clean pale blue flame until the liquid contents were gone.
Sunflower oil does not burn like that

That happened?

Regards
Crispin

From rbadhi at YAHOO.COM Sat May 29 23:42:58 2004
From: rbadhi at YAHOO.COM (Rajendra Adhikari)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:11 2004
Subject: White LED Lamp
Message-ID: <SAT.29.MAY.2004.204258.0700.RBADHI@YAHOO.COM>

On Fri, 28 May 2004 00:03:20 +0200 Crispin wrote:

 

>I like the idea of the HE-LED's (high efficiency light >emitting diodes) but it would be more useful if the power >was generated by the fire that is apparently burning nearly all >the time. As LED is a current driven device we may not need >much voltage.Would 30 junctions in series be enough to

>overcome the forward voltage drop in the diode?

>A stove-top TEG with a watt or two might be very affordable.

>What does it actually take to operate and LED in terms of

>voltage and current, and how many junctions would that

>represent stacked and heated by a fire and to what

>temperature?

>

 

If we take 4 white LEDs each of luminous intensity 9,200 mcd, the voltage required is 3.6 to 4 Volts and current required is

approx.150 mA ; say 600 milliwatt per lamp. For 3 lamps total power input would be in the range of 1.8 watt. If we could generate net 2 watts by thermoelectric modules, lighting

requirement of one household should be fully met. Besides

TEG/TEM one DC-DC converter will also be required to

maintain a constant 4 V DC supply.

 

 

Regards

 

R. B. Adhikari

 

<rbadhi@yahoo.com>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger

From Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP Sun May 30 14:33:57 2004
From: Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP (Kanchan Rai)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:11 2004
Subject: use of outside air with analysis KR
Message-ID: <MON.31.MAY.2004.001857.0545.KANCHAN@KU.EDU.NP>

> On Fri, May 28, 2004 5:36 pm , Andrew wrote:
>
>>I wrote on Thu, May 27, 2004 7:09 am

>
> It looks like you have calculated the amount of wood that is saved by
> not removing warm air from the room for cooking but rather taking cold
> outside air direct to a room sealed stove.

Yes it is
>
> There are two points I would note, firstly a minimum number of air
> changes are necessary to remove moisture, CO2 etc. in any case, this
> may as well be ejected up the chimney (were it feasible to have one).

I Assumed an ideal case when there is no leakage of CO2 inside the room
and everything goes out through chimney but which is not possible in
real case.

> The other is that the popular reason for taking the air directly from
> outside to the stove is to avoid the, otherwise, net movement of cool
> air from outside through the various cracks and gaps in the walls,
> doors and windows down along the floor to the central stove. These
> cold draughts at ground level alter the perceived comfort of the room
> because having your feet colder than your head feels colder.

For the passage of air on the ground might be insulated using locally
available material. A tree called silver porch is available in that
area, which has a paper like layers which is very good insulator. People
use such thing to insulate their roof.

>
> So your numbers need to reflect the planned air changes for that size
> of room and the number of occupants as well.

How much do you suggest the air changes for the room of size 10 feet *
12 feet with 8 feet height when burning rate is 2kg/hr ?

>
>>
>>But a question arises on the FLAME TEMPERATURE!!!
>>If we use air of 25 C inside the room or used the air of 0 C outside
>> the room, how much the flame temperature varies? With O C air
>> definitely lowers the flame temperature and that affects the heat
>> radiating from the flame unless we have a secondary zone with
>> preheated air injecting. That in my knowledge ultimately lowers the
>> potential of stove to heat the room. I will try to analyze it later,
>> this is really an interesting topic.
>
> It may well change the design of the stove but I suggest the
> difference is small and that as the energy vented from the room is a
> sum of the ventilation losses and the flue gas losses that if the
> ventilation losses are in effect combustion air and flue temperature
> remains the same there is no difference, the difference becomes
> significant when the combustion causes more air changes in the room
> than are desirable.
>
> This all assumes that it is feasible to provide any sort of room
> sealed cooking and heating stove, which actually seems a big leap to
> me.
Yes it is a big leap and in practically its not possible to achieve
totally sealed cooking and heating stove in low cost.
>

Thanks
Kanchan

From Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP Sun May 30 14:34:09 2004
From: Kanchan at KU.EDU.NP (Kanchan Rai)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:11 2004
Subject: use of outside air with analysis KR
Message-ID: <MON.31.MAY.2004.001909.0545.KANCHAN@KU.EDU.NP>

Dear crispin,
>

> A lot of that can go. If you
> have 150% excess air, then you could reduce drafts by having 40% of
> the air draft into the room and out through the stove, and 60% come
> from outside without affecting the fire much.

It looks a better solution to use minimum air inside the room to keep
the air clean inside.

Building a more efficient fire
> (better stove) and buring all the smoke might reduce firewood
> consumption by 50% and the air required by _more_ then 50% (less
> excess air required) reducing the cross-room drafts from 40% of air to
> less than 20% of its present value.

As firewood consists more than 80% of volatile gases and 20 % remains as
charcoal. So theooretically more than 80% of air is used for burning
volatile matter. I am thinking of a stove which use 80% of air for
burning volatile matter which will be taken from outside the room and
preheated in primary combustion zone or pyrolysis zone. And rest 20% of
air is used inside the room for charcoal burning. This stove will burned
most of the volatiles that causes the emission which will generate
maximum of woods energy taking very less air inside the room.

>
> People prefer, as you said a couple of times, to have a large roaring
> fire because they think that is the only way to get warm. This is
> reasonable because if you are facing a large fire and have a cold wind
> perpetually blowing at your back you will prefer a larger fire in
> front.
>
In Jumla and Humla, with the windows closed and a small vent (12 cm-15cm
dia) on the ceiling which does not provide much draft for smoke. Air
comes from doors which is often opened and the cracks of the walls. As i
wrote in earlier emails, problem due to smoke will reduce more than half
just introducing a hood over a fire and a chimney but this will also
takes energy from inside keeping room cold.

> If you prevent unnecessary drafts you save burning some of the wood
> because people 'feel more comfortable' with a smaller fire of a
> similar efficiency.
>
> If you have 150% excess air passing through the system, it is far
> better that the air is cold and comes from outside. To heat air from
> -25 to +25 takes far less energy than to heat it from +25 to +800. I
> don't believe there is much or an argument to look for in the heating
> of colder air.
>
> If you draw that air through windows (which blows the air against the
> adjacent window walls) they feel cold to the touch. If the walls were
> warmer the feeling is different.
>
> It would be very helpful if you would do an experiment in a room with
> outside air connected to the stove through the wall. You might be
> very surprised how much warmer the room gest with any given amount of
> wood.

I got the point, its a cold air draught inside the room that makes
people to feel cold rather than the energy absorbed by air to increase
its temperature.

>
> Next, light the resin stick and hold them in a way that the smoke can
> be drawn into the stove at some point, like a partially open door
> supply 40% of the fire's need. In other words, lose some of the air
> from the room but do it to draw the light-smoke out and into the fire.
> This may be remarkably inconvenient when you first try it, but you
> could
> establish in principle that such a light may not necessarily pollute
> the room if you can capture the smoke.

It is an another important aspect for stove designing to use smoke from
the burining resin stick inside the stove. But there is two
disadvantages of burning resin stick; one is trapped smoke inside the
room and another huge number of trees dies due to this process. One
aspect can be solved by the above process but what about the another
aspect. So there must be the way to light small stick not using resin. I
want to avoid the lighting using resin.

>
> Lastly a 'warm room' is more a matter of 'perception' than most people
> think. Keep the floor warm, vent the smoke through a high vent in the
> roof and use outside air (and excess air) to run the fire.
>
regards
kanchan

From pverhaart at IPRIMUS.COM.AU Sun May 30 05:32:13 2004
From: pverhaart at IPRIMUS.COM.AU (Peter Verhaart)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:11 2004
Subject: Flames for lighting
In-Reply-To: <ebheb0hnd0dbb5843lhfr31fufrknufjic@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <SUN.30.MAY.2004.193213.1000.PVERHAART@IPRIMUS.COM.AU>

Yes please, Andrew. I always mean to Cc: it to the list but am easily
distracted.
Thank you. Not a bad word about Ronal, but I am very happy with the way you
moderate the list.
Cheers,

Peter Verhaart

At 14:59 28/05/2004 +0100, you wrote:
>On Fri, 28 May 2004 23:08:29 +1000, Peter Verhaart wrote:
>
> >I think polycyclic compounds are even more stable, like PCB's .
>
>
>Good stuff Peter, would you forward this to the Stoves list or shall
>I?
>
>AJH

From pverhaart at IPRIMUS.COM.AU Sun May 30 05:49:51 2004
From: pverhaart at IPRIMUS.COM.AU (Peter Verhaart)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:11 2004
Subject: Global Stove Challenge
In-Reply-To: <054c01c444eb$4ec8ead0$0100a8c0@DELL3>
Message-ID: <SUN.30.MAY.2004.194951.1000.PVERHAART@IPRIMUS.COM.AU>

At 20:37 28/05/2004 +0100, you wrote:
>Stovers,
>
>Sitting in a comfortable house in suburbia, it is easy to become
>disassociated with the immediate day to day cooking problems that face
>perhaps 1/3rd of the world's human population.
>
>Snip

 

>Perhaps, it would be an intuitive exercise for members of the stoves list
>to jointly around the globe devote a weekend cooking in this manner, to
>get a full understanding of what difficulties are faced.

Done that. With care we could get a heat transfer efficiency of around 30 %.
As to cookbooks, a little while back I wrote down the following thoughts.
..................................
Cookbook
Prasad, possibly with connivance from Tami Bond, has volunteered the Piets
to write a cookbook, presumably for use in developing countries.
This throws up a multitude of questions, some of which are:
1 Who is the target Group?
2 Can they read?
3 If they can read, can they follow written instructions?
4 Do they posses watches?
5 What kind of measuring gear do they possess?
6 Can or will they use it?

Assuming the target group can follow written instructions, does not possess
watches but has been issued with a measuring cup (Australian, 250 ml).
This allows recipes for cooking staple foods such as rice, corn (maize) and
pulses.
Rice is cooked when all the water has been absorbed, one could even take
one grain and chew it to see if it is cooked. (One should give out a
warning not to follow the bad examples from Hollywood movies where the
housewife tastes food from the pan and puts the spoon with her saliva back
in the pan)
Pulses should, in order to save fuel and time, be soaked overnight before
cooking. The cookedness can be judged from their softness.
...............................

Peter Verhaart

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Sun May 30 10:38:27 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:11 2004
Subject: Global Stove Challenge
Message-ID: <SUN.30.MAY.2004.083827.0600.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Ken and all:

Neat idea. We need a closer connection between the builder and the user.
We could all try our woodgas stove separately and take some pictures if you
have a "Challenge Recipe".

Keep us posted....

TOM REED BEF STOVEWORKS WOODGASLLC

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Boak" <kenboak@STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 1:37 PM
Subject: [STOVES] Global Stove Challenge

Stovers,

Sitting in a comfortable house in suburbia, it is easy to become
disassociated with the immediate day to day cooking problems that face
perhaps 1/3rd of the world's human population.

I was immediately made aware of the grim reality of the situation by the
request by Linda Dhammika for details on how to build improved cooking
stoves..........

"I am the founder of a Primary health care centre in rural Zambia serving
12,000 people who are presently cooking by the very wasteful 3 bricks and
firewood method. Please could you send me the details of how to build one of
your improved stoves. Thank you Linda Dhammika."

Perhaps, it would be an intuitive exercise for members of the stoves list to
jointly around the globe devote a weekend cooking in this manner, to get a
full understanding of what difficulties are faced.

With the summer months ahead, perhaps we could organise a Global Stove
Challenge, with several different stove designs being simultaneously
tested by volunteers in their respecive countries, and the results being
published on the web so that all can access them.

Those knowledgeable about foodstuffs could create several standard recipies
and it would be up to members to follow the recipie and attempt to cook the
meal, using the stove design of their choice. Some initial work would be
required to standardise on fuel types and fuel quantities. A questionaire
form would allow the findings to be documented.

Perhaps this sort of event would be within the scope of A.D Karve's school
students to organise?

Anyone up for the challenge?

 

regards,

Ken Boak

London

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Sun May 30 11:02:12 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:11 2004
Subject: Smoky flames...
Message-ID: <SUN.30.MAY.2004.170212.0200.>

Dear Tom

>I am guessing that the cetane number will be low because of
>the ring structure of turpentine (like the zero on the cetane scale).

OK. I am sure it is a compounded material but an answer might be a
guide to a place to start looking at how to make it burnable. Suppose
for example, that we found a way to tap the tree without killing them?
Then Kanchan would not be worried about the destruction of trees
collecting it. I have seen pine trees leak resin for years and there
might be a way to tap them without killing them and show people how to
do it.

>Isn't resin too heavy for candle type wicking?

It is my opinion that anything can be fed up a wick if the conditions
are right: wax, oil, fat, resin, thinners etc.

Do people in Nepal have chickens? That is a potential source of 'oil'
(chicken fat) which can be used as a blending agent.

There are also trees that could be planted there to provide wax from
their berries. This would provide a long term solution at very low
cost. We do not always have to live and work with the resources at hand.
We can create new resources and frequently do so. Training people in
the use or manufacture of stoves is the creation of a _human_ resource
that did not exist before. We can create natural resources as well for
stove solutions.

If the best answer is to grow something that can survive at that
altitude and which gives a lighting fuel, it is a viable option. In the
meantime I'll bet the best lighting answer is a small wood gasifier.

Many thanks.
Cripsin

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Sun May 30 11:11:01 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:11 2004
Subject: use of outside air with analysis KR
Message-ID: <SUN.30.MAY.2004.171101.0200.>

Dear Kanchan

>I got the point, its a cold air draught inside the room
>that makes people to feel cold rather than the energy
>absorbed by air to increase its temperature.

Exactly.

It would be interesting to put a hood over the fire to capture most of
the smoke and feed it into the ceiling vent hole to see if you can get
most of the smoke out of the room without losing a lot of heat. The
heat lost could be quantified and a decision made about whether extra
wood required (if any) was worth the improvement in air quality.

Then a channel under the floor leading to the fire could provide about
1/2 the air required for the fire and you could quantify if there was a
reduction in wood needed. In total there may be a saving + cleaner air
+ a higher degree of comfort without any stove at all - just a hood and
changes to the air supply.

The hood could in fact be in the form of a chimney made from local
materials. If I lived there, that is what I would build for myself.

Regards
Crispin

From dstill at EPUD.NET Sun May 30 11:25:04 2004
From: dstill at EPUD.NET (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:11 2004
Subject: Partnership for Clean Indoor Air
Message-ID: <SUN.30.MAY.2004.082504.0700.DSTILL@EPUD.NET>

Dear Friends,

Many of us know the EPA folks at the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air. The
Partnership, responding to the UN resolution that indoor air pollution
caused by combustion must be reduced, has done a great job creating a
powerful coalition worldwide. I think that most members of our stove
community have had some exposure to their work. I see a much more active
interest in stoves these days which often constellates around the
Partnership.

We can make this effort more successful by bringing in new members:
countries, organizations, ngo's, non profits. Membership is free, brochures
are available from John Mitchell or print out the web page...

mitchell.john@epamail.epa.gov

I hope that we can pass around the information and double the size of the
Partnership each year. Here is the web page address:

http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pcia.html

Please make the connection personally and have the organization contact John
or the PCIA.

Let's help the millions who need better stoves!

Best,

Dean

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Sun May 30 11:45:57 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:11 2004
Subject: Flameless Burning
Message-ID: <SUN.30.MAY.2004.174557.0200.>

Dear Stovers

Earlier this year John Davies asked if anyone had workd with flameless
combustion (surface combustion in a hot porus block).

I have found a recent reference to this at
http://www.sunmachine.de/english/main.html

There is a picture of a natural gas fired Stirling engine under which is
written:

"However, the "Stirling engine in the gas boiler" has only become
suitable for domestic use due to the development of the new FLOX?
recuperator burner that, at combustion temperatures of 1000?C, delivers
the necessary efficiency and drastically reduces the level of exhaust
pollution by means of flame-less oxidation."

There isn't any explanation of how they do it.

Regards
Crispin

From larencorie at AXILAR.NET Sun May 30 10:16:23 2004
From: larencorie at AXILAR.NET (LarenCorie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:11 2004
Subject: White LED Lamp
Message-ID: <SUN.30.MAY.2004.101623.0400.LARENCORIE@AXILAR.NET>

It would be much more efficient to use a
fluorescent light, instead of LEDs, though
their life is shorter. The initial cost is
much lower, too.

-Laren Corie-

Rajendra Adhikari <rbadhi@YAHOO.COM> wrote;

> On Fri, 28 May 2004 00:03:20 +0200 Crispin wrote:
>
> >I like the idea of the HE-LED's (high efficiency light
>emitting diodes) but it would be more useful if the power
>was generated by the fire that is apparently burning nearly
>all the time. As LED is a current driven device we may not
> need much voltage.Would 30 junctions in series be enough to
>overcome the forward voltage drop in the diode?
>A stove-top TEG with a watt or two might be very affordable.
>What does it actually take to operate and LED in terms of
>voltage and current, and how many junctions would that
>represent stacked and heated by a fire and to what
>temperature?

> If we take 4 white LEDs each of luminous intensity 9,200 mcd,
>the voltage required is 3.6 to 4 Volts and current required is
>
> approx.150 mA ; say 600 milliwatt per lamp. For 3 lamps total power input
would be in the range of 1.8 watt. If we could generate net 2 watts by
thermoelectric modules, lighting
>
> requirement of one household should be fully met. Besides
>
> TEG/TEM one DC-DC converter will also be required to
>
> maintain a constant 4 V DC supply.

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Sun May 30 12:54:00 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:11 2004
Subject: The Grok Cook Top
In-Reply-To: <000501c4457c$cb531ee0$c0387f41@oemcomputer>
Message-ID: <SUN.30.MAY.2004.115400.0500.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Lanny Henson strikes again!!!!!! Congratulations on another useful
innovation.

By the way, in Mexico (and in some REAL Mexican grocery stores in the USA)
you can buy a combination wok and flat griddle. The wok bowl is rather
shallow (about one inch in a 10 inch diameter) and holds the hot cooking
oils, and then the cooked food is pulled or pushed up the side and onto the
flat ring around the wok. If the wok radius is about 5 inches, the ring
adds another 3 or 4 inches to the radius all the way around. I have two
sizes (neither is in this office so I cannot measure now).

Don Quiote de la Mancha wore a barber's shaving pan as his helmet. The
Mexican device is much the same, but without the curved notch for the
throat of the person being shaved.

Paul

At 08:58 AM 5/29/04 -0400, Lanny Henson wrote:
>Dear Stovers,
>I had a plan to build a large wok using an open drum. I wanted the pan to
>seal to the open drum top well enough to vent the exhaust. I plan use a 28
>or 30" wok pan. The problem was that I was just too busy to get into the
>city to purchase the wok.
>I tried to understand the problem completely so I had drink and built a
>conical shape pan.
>I chose the cone shape because it can be made from an inexpensive square or
>round sheet of steel.
>It made a multi-purpose cook top that cooked like a griddle or a wok. It is
>a GROK!
>The conical shape that has several advantages.
>One is that thinner metal can be used. Thin flat metal puckers and warps
>when heated but the grok shape stays true when hot.
>True enough to seal to a stove body like a open drum, when using a short
>chimney to create negative pressure.
>A seal is necessary in this stove design for maximum draft and to capture
>and vent the exhaust.
>Unlike a wok's spherical surface the conical shape cooks more flat and a
>flat spatula can be used.
>The grok also cooks like a wok. Hot oil ponds in the center of the pan, the
>items to be cooked are mixed into the oil and then pushed up the side to
>drain. The grok tilts to pour liquid out of one corner.
>Unfortunately the stove a bulky biomass burner (fired with straw) did not
>work well. I did have a few good burns but nothing consistent. The cook top
>works fine but the stove will need more development.
>
>http://www.lanny.us/grok.html about 100kb.
>
>Thanks for your attention,
>Lanny Henson

Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D.
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
NOTE: Retired from teaching. Active in Stoves development.
For fastest contact, please call home phone: 309-452-7072

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Sun May 30 15:28:20 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:11 2004
Subject: White LED Lamp
Message-ID: <SUN.30.MAY.2004.212820.0200.>

Dear Stovers

I would like to challenge all the stovers to find a price and a power
pack that will light up a rural home (one room) with the heat from a
stove. It must be something that I can buy and install.

Laren wrote:
"It would be much more efficient to use a fluorescent light, instead of
LEDs, though their life is shorter. The initial cost is much lower,
too."

This is very useful, however I don't know how I would drive it with a
thermocouple-type device. Doesn't it require a high starting voltage?

Rajendra wrote:
"approx.150 mA ; say 600 milliwatt per lamp. For 3 lamps total power
input would be in the range of 1.8 watt."

But that a TEG/TEM "...DC-DC converter will also be required"

I am wondering if these are HE-LED's (high efficiency) or just regular
white LED's.

Can anyone give an example a whole system and where to get the parts?

Many thanks on behalf of the millions sitting in darkened rooms each
night around a smokey fire.
Crispin

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Sun May 30 15:33:05 2004
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:11 2004
Subject: The Grok Cook Top
Message-ID: <SUN.30.MAY.2004.213305.0200.>

Dear Nearly-Flattop Cookers

There is a variation of the almost flat plate for almost-pan-frying a
BBQ steak which instead of having a central depression for hold the oil
has a central hole to drain it into the fire.

http://www.newdawnengineering.com/website/stove/singlestove/vesto/vesto3
lres.jpg

Or higher resolution

http://www.newdawnengineering.com/website/stove/singlestove/vesto/vesto3
hres.jpg

It is pressed out of a laser-cut mild steel profile.

Regards
Crispin

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Sun May 30 16:08:44 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:11 2004
Subject: White LED Lamp
In-Reply-To: <000701c4467c$4564cee0$e49dfea9@home>
Message-ID: <SUN.30.MAY.2004.150844.0500.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Hi,

Last October at the Sustainable Resources conference in Colorado, there was
a presentation about LED's for light for the impoverished. Unfortunately,
I was not able to get to that session. Was any Stover present then?

Is the LED for residential lighting just hype, or is it really "just around
the corner."?

Previously, the Stovers have discussed the use of TED's but the conclusion
seemed to be that the devices were too costly to get the limited power. I
even purchased a "Radio-Lantern" and eventually met a key person (including
demos) of that product that is now basically ended.

Similar to Crispin, I would like to see continuing Stover activity to get a
solution to this crucial problem of light in dark houses.

Paul

At 09:28 PM 5/30/04 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>Dear Stovers
>
>I would like to challenge all the stovers to find a price and a power
>pack that will light up a rural home (one room) with the heat from a
>stove. It must be something that I can buy and install.
>
>Laren wrote:
>"It would be much more efficient to use a fluorescent light, instead of
>LEDs, though their life is shorter. The initial cost is much lower,
>too."
>
>This is very useful, however I don't know how I would drive it with a
>thermocouple-type device. Doesn't it require a high starting voltage?
>
>Rajendra wrote:
>"approx.150 mA ; say 600 milliwatt per lamp. For 3 lamps total power
>input would be in the range of 1.8 watt."
>
>But that a TEG/TEM "...DC-DC converter will also be required"
>
>I am wondering if these are HE-LED's (high efficiency) or just regular
>white LED's.
>
>Can anyone give an example a whole system and where to get the parts?
>
>Many thanks on behalf of the millions sitting in darkened rooms each
>night around a smokey fire.
>Crispin

Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D.
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
NOTE: Retired from teaching. Active in Stoves development.
For fastest contact, please call home phone: 309-452-7072

From kgoyer at COMCAST.NET Mon May 31 02:51:03 2004
From: kgoyer at COMCAST.NET (ken goyer)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:11 2004
Subject: White LED Lamp
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20040530145938.02500590@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <SUN.30.MAY.2004.235103.0700.KGOYER@COMCAST.NET>

Stove powered lighting

By Ken Goyer

May 2004

For the last year I have been developing a light for homes with no
electricity. I discovered that LED bright white lights have become quite
inexpensive. While they produce very little light by my light addicted
standards they are sufficient to cook, read, change the baby's diapers,
walk around outside at night, etc. In the course of thinking about the
logistics of this light I learned that in this country we throw away
fifteen million cell phones with batteries every year (even more this
year). I decided to pursue the idea of a rechargeable cell phone battery
powering a light in someone's home. I thought that the child could take
the battery to school where there is electricity and recharge the
battery while he is in school. Then take the battery home to power the
light. THIS IS A GOOD IDEA! Except for the areas where there is
absolutely no electricity (Maybe half of the world). So how do we
generate even a little bit of power, economically? Photovoltaics holds
much promise for the future but still seem to be slightly unattainable.
I knew of thermocouples and the peltier effect and the seebeck
effect and decided to try an experiment making a thermopile from copper
and iron wire. Twisting and hammering nine junctions, and then heating
one side with a propane torch I managed to generate 0.02volts. Not very
impressive. From internet research I learned that the state of the art
has increased radically in recent times. Now thermocouples are made from
semiconductive materials and produce respectable amounts of electricity.
I purchased one of these on ebay and researched the purchase of them
from China. They are quite inexpensive and quite impressive. The one I
am using here in the photo below, is designed to heat or cool, depending
on which direction current flows through it. While it functions to
generate electricity I am reluctant to crank it up all of the way for
fear of melting it down. But there are some thermocouples that are
specifically designed to produce power when heated from one side and
cooled from the other. I have produced enough power from this one to run
a small motor that Tom Reed could use for his stove.
The easiest way to learn of these is to do a Google search for
thermocouples. A small amount of searching will yield large results. My
biggest problem at the moment is to develop a battery charging circuit
and voltage regulating circuit for the LED lights. I would be most
grateful if there are any volunteers to help me with this project.
Last year I made five LED lights run from Motorola cell phone
batteries for the five families in Teosinte with no electricity. They
were generally well received but only two of them remained in use for
the year. One had a defective battery and even though a person was in
charge of replacing and fixing such things it was never brought to his
attention. In one case the child was too shy to take the battery to
school and have it recharged and in the other case the person didn't
understand that the battery could be recharged. He used the light until
it went dead (several months) and then set it aside until I came to
query him about it.
Lack of lighting in the world is a major problem. Try sitting every
night in total darkness because you are too poor to buy oil, or a candle
and you will appreciate why this problem should be addressed for
humanitarian reasons.
Please see the photos below and for the stoves list I will ask Tom
Miles if he would be so kind as to post the pictures on the stoves
page. Thanks for your attention and interest in this subject. Ken

 

Paul S. Anderson wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Last October at the Sustainable Resources conference in Colorado,
> there was
> a presentation about LED's for light for the impoverished.
> Unfortunately,
> I was not able to get to that session. Was any Stover present then?
>
> Is the LED for residential lighting just hype, or is it really "just
> around
> the corner."?
>
> Previously, the Stovers have discussed the use of TED's but the
> conclusion
> seemed to be that the devices were too costly to get the limited
> power. I
> even purchased a "Radio-Lantern" and eventually met a key person
> (including
> demos) of that product that is now basically ended.
>
> Similar to Crispin, I would like to see continuing Stover activity to
> get a
> solution to this crucial problem of light in dark houses.
>
> Paul
>
> At 09:28 PM 5/30/04 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>
>> Dear Stovers
>>
>> I would like to challenge all the stovers to find a price and a power
>> pack that will light up a rural home (one room) with the heat from a
>> stove. It must be something that I can buy and install.
>>
>> Laren wrote:
>> "It would be much more efficient to use a fluorescent light, instead of
>> LEDs, though their life is shorter. The initial cost is much lower,
>> too."
>>
>> This is very useful, however I don't know how I would drive it with a
>> thermocouple-type device. Doesn't it require a high starting voltage?
>>
>> Rajendra wrote:
>> "approx.150 mA ; say 600 milliwatt per lamp. For 3 lamps total power
>> input would be in the range of 1.8 watt."
>>
>> But that a TEG/TEM "...DC-DC converter will also be required"
>>
>> I am wondering if these are HE-LED's (high efficiency) or just regular
>> white LED's.
>>
>> Can anyone give an example a whole system and where to get the parts?
>>
>> Many thanks on behalf of the millions sitting in darkened rooms each
>> night around a smokey fire.
>> Crispin
>
>
> Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D.
> Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
> Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
> E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
> NOTE: Retired from teaching. Active in Stoves development.
> For fastest contact, please call home phone: 309-452-7072
>

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Mon May 31 10:01:31 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:31:11 2004
Subject: White LED Lamp
In-Reply-To: <40BAD5D7.8070903@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <MON.31.MAY.2004.090131.0500.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Ken,

As you know, I am working on a small gasifier related to Tom Reed's
campstove, but for impoverished areas. I would appreciate the specifics
about what you suggested:

>I have produced enough power from this one to run
>a small motor that Tom Reed could use for his stove.

How "tricky" is it to do this? How much cooling (fins??) was needed? How
big is it? I think Tom is using a motor needing 1 watt of power at 1.5 volts.

I was shown a thermocouple that was flat and very sensitive to the pressure
and placement in the "radio-lantern" device.

Paul

 

 

 

 

At 11:51 PM 5/30/04 -0700, ken goyer wrote:
>Stove powered lighting
>
>By Ken Goyer
>
>May 2004
>
>For the last year I have been developing a light for homes with no
>electricity. I discovered that LED bright white lights have become quite
>inexpensive. While they produce very little light by my light addicted
>standards they are sufficient to cook, read, change the baby's diapers,
>walk around outside at night, etc. In the course of thinking about the
>logistics of this light I learned that in this country we throw away
>fifteen million cell phones with batteries every year (even more this
>year). I decided to pursue the idea of a rechargeable cell phone battery
>powering a light in someone's home. I thought that the child could take
>the battery to school where there is electricity and recharge the
>battery while he is in school. Then take the battery home to power the
>light. THIS IS A GOOD IDEA! Except for the areas where there is
>absolutely no electricity (Maybe half of the world). So how do we
>generate even a little bit of power, economically? Photovoltaics holds
>much promise for the future but still seem to be slightly unattainable.
> I knew of thermocouples and the peltier effect and the seebeck
>effect and decided to try an experiment making a thermopile from copper
>and iron wire. Twisting and hammering nine junctions, and then heating
>one side with a propane torch I managed to generate 0.02volts. Not very
>impressive. From internet research I learned that the state of the art
>has increased radically in recent times. Now thermocouples are made from
>semiconductive materials and produce respectable amounts of electricity.
>I purchased one of these on ebay and researched the purchase of them
>from China. They are quite inexpensive and quite impressive. The one I
>am using here in the photo below, is designed to heat or cool, depending
>on which direction current flows through it. While it functions to
>generate electricity I am reluctant to crank it up all of the way for
>fear of melting it down. But there are some thermocouples that are
>specifically designed to produce power when heated from one side and
>cooled from the other. I have produced enough power from this one to run
>a small motor that Tom Reed could use for his stove.
> The easiest way to learn of these is to do a Google search for
>thermocouples. A small amount of searching will yield large results. My
>biggest problem at the moment is to develop a battery charging circuit
>and voltage regulating circuit for the LED lights. I would be most
>grateful if there are any volunteers to help me with this project.
> Last year I made five LED lights run from Motorola cell phone
>batteries for the five families in Teosinte with no electricity. They
>were generally well received but only two of them remained in use for
>the year. One had a defective battery and even though a person was in
>charge of replacing and fixing such things it was never brought to his
>attention. In one case the child was too shy to take the battery to
>school and have it recharged and in the other case the person didn't
>understand that the battery could be recharged. He used the light until
>it went dead (several months) and then set it aside until I came to
>query him about it.
> Lack of lighting in the world is a major problem. Try sitting every
>night in total darkness because you are too poor to buy oil, or a candle
>and you will appreciate why this problem should be addressed for
>humanitarian reasons.
> Please see the photos below and for the stoves list I will ask Tom
>Miles if he would be so kind as to post the pictures on the stoves
>page. Thanks for your attention and interest in this subject. Ken
>
>
>
>Paul S. Anderson wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Last October at the Sustainable Resources conference in Colorado,
>>there was
>>a presentation about LED's for light for the impoverished.
>>Unfortunately,
>>I was not able to get to that session. Was any Stover present then?
>>
>>Is the LED for residential lighting just hype, or is it really "just
>>around
>>the corner."?
>>
>>Previously, the Stovers have discussed the use of TED's but the
>>conclusion
>>seemed to be that the devices were too costly to get the limited
>>power. I
>>even purchased a "Radio-Lantern" and eventually met a key person
>>(including
>>demos) of that product that is now basically ended.
>>
>>Similar to Crispin, I would like to see continuing Stover activity to
>>get a
>>solution to this crucial problem of light in dark houses.
>>
>>Paul
>>
>>At 09:28 PM 5/30/04 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>>
>>>Dear Stovers
>>>
>>>I would like to challenge all the stovers to find a price and a power
>>>pack that will light up a rural home (one room) with the heat from a
>>>stove. It must be something that I can buy and install.
>>>
>>>Laren wrote:
>>>"It would be much more efficient to use a fluorescent light, instead of
>>>LEDs, though their life is shorter. The initial cost is much lower,
>>>too."
>>>
>>>This is very useful, however I don't know how I would drive it with a
&