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

October 2004 Biomass Cooking Stoves Archive

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

From tombreed at comcast.net Fri Oct 1 06:31:03 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (TBReed)
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 05:31:03 -0600
Subject: [Stoves] Fw: World's largest and smallest gasifiers ...
Message-ID: <007701c4a7aa$227aab40$3201a8c0@OFFICE>

----- Original Message -----
From: TBReed
To: LWheeler45 at aol.com ; GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG ; STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Cc: Bill Ayres ; Garvin DeShazer
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 9:20 AM
Subject: World's largest and smallest gasifiers ...

Dear LW:

In answer to your question, the largest gasifiers I have seen are produced by PRIME ENERGY (see http://www.primenergy.com/Projects_detail_id12.htm?id=12.htm). I visited them about 1998. They have several dozen plants running around the world and are experimenting with other feedstocks. I believe they have gasified more biomass than all other gasifiers combined, including > 1 million in Europe during WWII. (Typically 20 to 200 kW).

Very impressive...

On the other hand, biomass is widely distributed and we also need smaller ones for distributed power. Here's a VERY small one that I carry in my pocket for demonstrations of the important difference between updraft (char burning, tar making) and downdraft (tar burning, char making) gasifiers. This is the tarburning, charmaking mode.

TOM REED Moderator - Gasification

Email didn't allow pics.

Construction Photograph
September 1995

Background Description
Early in 1995, PRM Energy Systems, Inc., (the gasification technology patent holder) was contracted by a multinational rice mill company in Greenville, Mississippi to convert 330 tons per day of rice hulls into renewable energy. Two (2) model KC-18 gasifiers, operating in parallel, produce about 120,000 pounds per hour of high pressure steam. The steam is directed to a steam turbine, electric generator with an extraction lobe to remove steam from the turbine for consumption in the rice milling operation. Heater Specialists, a sister company to Primenergy, completed the shop fabrication of the equipment in September of 1995 and shipped the system via barge to the Greenville docks. The equipment was unloaded at the docks by Heater Specialists sister field construction company, Mohawk Field Services, Inc. Field construction of the gasification equipment was completed in late fall of that year and the gasifiers were started in October of 1995.


The Project
Rice hulls are air conveyed from the rice mill and delivered into storage silos. On a level demand signal, hulls are transferred from storage into "metering bins". An energy demand signal from the centralized process controller varies the rate of feed of the rice hulls into each gasifier. Process conditions within the gasification vessels are automatically controlled to assure maximum conversion of the solid hull into hot, synthesis gas without the formation of glass or slag. The synthesis gases enter into a "pre-burn" combustion tube prior to introduction into the heat recovery, steam-generating boiler. The purpose of the pre-burn is to minimize the production of the air pollutant, nitrogen oxide. By partially burning the gases, nitrogen atoms recombine into atmospheric nitrogen rather than forming the air polluting nitrogen oxide. The final burning of the gases occurs at the entry point into the boiler. At normal operating conditions, sufficient steam is produced in the boiler to generate about five thousand two hundred kilowatts (5,200 kW) of high voltage electricity and thirty thousand (30,000) pounds per hour of medium pressure steam that is sent to the rice mill.


----- Original Message -----
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com
To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 10:51 PM
Subject: [Gasification] Questions

Where is the largest operational Gasification system located?
What is the fuel source and what is produced?

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

From mirano at stonline.sk Fri Oct 1 12:39:55 2004
From: mirano at stonline.sk (mirano)
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 19:39:55 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] new charcoal production system, how to market it ? -HELP,
Chris ADAM
Message-ID: <000601c4a7dd$ac10a700$6fc551d5@w9o1u1>

dear Chris
I'm interesting for more info about it. I'm charcoal producer from Slovakia and I would like to help you with marketing in central and east europe.
Please send me answer.

regards.

Miroslav Porochnavy

CHARCOAL SLOVAKIA spol. s r.o.
Kochanovce 217
066 01 Humenne
Slovakia
tel: 00421 57 7750807 , 00421 907 910 327
fax: 00421 57 7750807
e-mail: mirano23 at stonline.sk

-=x=-
Skontrolovan? antiv?rov?m programom NOD32

 

From yark at uiuc.edu Fri Oct 1 22:45:11 2004
From: yark at uiuc.edu (Tami Bond)
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 22:45:11 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] Energy for Sustainable Development
In-Reply-To: <000101c4a43d$6a4fee00$705641db@adkarve>
References: <e0.1ffc71e.2e886f64@aol.com>
<000101c4a43d$6a4fee00$705641db@adkarve>
Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20041001223807.01fa6d50@express.cites.uiuc.edu>

Stovers:

A new issue of Energy for Sustainable Development on the topic of cooking
fuels is available at...
http://ieiglobal.org/vol8_issue3.html

There are couple of articles (including mine) on problems, and many more on
solutions.

Happy reading!

Tami

 

From tmiles at trmiles.com Fri Oct 1 23:36:46 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 21:36:46 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] Heat Exchangers in Masonry Wood stoves
Message-ID: <00aa01c4a839$7d22c750$6401a8c0@tomslaptop>

----- Original Message -----
From: mike
To: stoves at listserv.repp.org
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 9:31 AM
Subject: Heat Exchangers in Masonry Wood stoves

i,m trying to do the same thing . i have a big wood cook stove that goes all winter, my house is 3,500 sq feet with an underfloor oil fired water radiant system. is there some way to tie the wood cookstove into the system. i,ve considered a coil in the firebox running through a coil fixed to the back of the stove then tying it into the basement floor loop. any help would be appreciated . thank you. michael in maine

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Sat Oct 2 09:16:51 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 15:16:51 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] Energy for Sustainable Development
In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.2.20041001223807.01fa6d50@express.cites.uiuc.edu>
References: <e0.1ffc71e.2e886f64@aol.com>
<000101c4a43d$6a4fee00$705641db@adkarve>
<6.0.1.1.2.20041001223807.01fa6d50@express.cites.uiuc.edu>
Message-ID: <5lctl053lo5icrm7o9dr3ss06mjt0nfe0g@4ax.com>

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 22:45:11 -0500, Tami Bond wrote:

>A new issue of Energy for Sustainable Development on the topic of cooking
>fuels is available at...
>http://ieiglobal.org/vol8_issue3.html

Tami

Is there a way of downloading the whole issue as a pdf, rather than
having to download each separate section?

AJH

From crispin at newdawn.sz Sun Oct 3 13:22:49 2004
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 20:22:49 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] GNU General Public License for stove designs
Message-ID: <000001c4a976$03b86df0$0100a8c0@home>

Dear Stove Makers and Users

I am impressed by the spirit of the GNU General Public License as it
relates to software that people have developed intending to assist the
public good.

There is an interesting read to be had on
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html where the details of the inner
workings of a GNU General Public License are described. In very brief,
it shows how, after making something useful, how to have it available to
people even if it passes through many hands and gets modified along the
way.

It is intended to prevent someone protecting a unique design (or
software) that has as an essential part or feature, an essential part of
feature that was prevously made public by a GNU General Public License.
What this means is that I invent a blower for small stoves and make it
available 'free', but with a licence that says you can use it (with
credit to me). The licence states it cannot be used to make something
which will prevent people having similarly free use of whatever is
tacked onto it later. It is an interesting concept.

The reason I bring it up is that there is a new type of stove (I think)
which I would like to put into this category of development.

It is called the FSP Stove standing for the Free State Paraffin Stove.
The FSP Stove is paraffin stove which has great potential to save tens
of thousands of lives and clean up the air for millions of hundreds of
millions of users. It is also very safe and fuel efficient. The idea
is to make the basic mechanism of the stove available to the public for
download from a website with complete drawings and assembly
instructions. Apart from the safety impact it could save mostly poor
people about 20 billion dollars a year in fuel costs.

Stoves based on this FSP burner could be in many different forms and
shapes, all of which should have the same beneficial attributes because
the design is sound and reliable.

By selling a few of the FSP stoves we can destroy novelty (meaning it
can't be patented anywhere) but still there will be things like
instructions on how to make them properly and operating guidelines etc.
These are copyrightable and could fall under the GNU General Public
License system.

Does anyone have comments on this topic? Who is into public paraffin
stove design?

Regards
Crispin

 

From stoves at ecoharmony.com Sun Oct 3 13:55:13 2004
From: stoves at ecoharmony.com (Grant Ballard-Tremeer)
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 19:55:13 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] GNU General Public License for stove designs
In-Reply-To: <000001c4a976$03b86df0$0100a8c0@home>
References: <000001c4a976$03b86df0$0100a8c0@home>
Message-ID: <24095694.20041003195513@ecoharmony.com>

Dear Crispin and friends!

Briefly, I VERY much support your idea. As you may know the HEDON
Knowledge Base is released under the GNU Free Documentation License
with the idea that information is publicly available for use -
provided derivative documents are also make available publicly under
the same license: www.hedon.info/goto.php/Copyright

I also know the pedegree of your paraffin stove - which looks
EXCELLENT! I owe an email or two on that - I haven't forgotten.

All the best - I am very interested in your stove and fully support
the GNU idea!

Regards
Grant

--
Grant Ballard-Tremeer PhD, CEng, MIMechE, MEI
Visit Eco on the web at http://ecoharmony.com
64C Fairholme Road, W14 9JY, London, UK
Tel +44-(0)20 7386 7930
Fax +44-(0)870 137 2360 and +44-(0)70 9236 7695
email grant at ecoharmony.com
HEDON Household Energy Network http://hedon.info
SPARKNET Knowledge Network http://sparknet.info
Partners for Africa http://partners4africa.org
Breathe Easy Network India http://india.shellfoundation.net
About me: http://hedon.info/goto.php/User:GrantBallard-Tremeer
-------------------

Sunday, October 3, 2004, 7:22:49 PM, you wrote:

CPP> Dear Stove Makers and Users

CPP> I am impressed by the spirit of the GNU General Public License as it
CPP> relates to software that people have developed intending to assist the
CPP> public good.

 

 

From solar1 at zuper.net Sun Oct 3 17:50:32 2004
From: solar1 at zuper.net (Fundacion Centro de Desarrollo en Energia Solar)
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 18:50:32 -0400
Subject: [Stoves] GNU General Public License for stove designs
In-Reply-To: <000001c4a976$03b86df0$0100a8c0@home>
References: <000001c4a976$03b86df0$0100a8c0@home>
Message-ID: <41608238.9030104@zuper.net>

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:

>Dear Stove Makers and Users
>
>I am impressed by the spirit of the GNU General Public License as it
>relates to software that people have developed intending to assist the
>public good.
>Does anyone have comments on this topic? Who is into public paraffin
>stove design?
>
>Regards
>Crispin
>
>
>
>
>
I support your idea Crispin. Tell us how we can help or participate

From solar1 at zuper.net Mon Oct 4 19:19:18 2004
From: solar1 at zuper.net (Fundacion Centro de Desarrollo en Energia Solar)
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 20:19:18 -0400
Subject: [Stoves] Re: [ethos] ECOSTOVE receive the "Home Planet award 2004"
In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041004164409.02e9ff08@inet.com.br>
References: <6.1.1.1.0.20041004164409.02e9ff08@inet.com.br>
Message-ID: <4161E886.1050205@zuper.net>

Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda wrote:

> Sao Paulo, Brazil, September 15th, 2004

> Within the "Product category" award for this year, ECOFOGAO (the
> Brazilian version of the Ecostove) was selected among the top five
> home products.

Fantastic news Rogerio. Congradulations and thanks for doing so much to
help spread a great solution to serious problems.
ADELANTE
abrazos
David

From adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in Tue Oct 5 08:38:39 2004
From: adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in (adkarve)
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 19:08:39 +0530
Subject: [Stoves] congratulations
Message-ID: <000001c4ab41$192e38a0$215641db@adkarve>

Congratulations Rogerio for selection of the Ecostove among the top five home products
A.D.Karve

From sylva at iname.com Fri Oct 8 03:37:25 2004
From: sylva at iname.com (Cat Weazel)
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 03:37:25 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] ECOSTOVE receive the "Home Planet award 2004"
Message-ID: <20041008083725.D03B44BDAB@ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com>

I have had to resort to a web mailer to post to the list again as
this message bounced back to me.

Message are restricted on length and attachments but I can deal with
these and temporarily put them on a website, like I have done here.

Andrew Heggie

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 12:24:53 -0400, rmiranda at inet.com.br wrote:

>Sao Paulo, Brazil, September 15th, 2004
>
>The "Premio Planeta Casa" or Home Planet Award, is an initiative of Casa
>Claudia, a leading Brazilian magazine specialized in architecture and
>interior design. Beginning in 2001, Casa Claudia with the institutional
>support from UNESCO (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural
>Organization) early awards top actions, products, and architectural and
>interior design projects with the purpose to highlight and
>promote the environment conservation and sustainable development.
>
>Within the "Product category" award for this year, ECOFOGAO (the Brazilian
>version of the Ecostove) was selected among the top five home products.
>
>See the video clip of the award ceremony at
>http://casaclaudia.abril.com.br/livre/video/42.shtml.
>
>See ECOFOGAO web site at www.ecofogao.com.br
>
>"For the Ecofogao team* this award is a recognition of our outstanding
>technological contribution towards household energy modernization with a
>woodstove, and a honour to be selected among other quality products"
>Rog?rio Miranda, Ecofogao Ltda Director.
>
>* Ecofogao Ltda also recognizes as part of the team who helped to develop
>the Ecostove, the contributions from PROLE?A/Nicaragua, Trees, Water and
>People, and Aprovecho Research Centre.

Pictures too big to post to the list can be seen for a short while at:

http://www.sylva.icuklive.co.uk/P1010022.JPG

http://www.sylva.icuklive.co.uk/186d5e8.jpg

Well done Rog?rio

AJH

--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

 

From dstill at epud.net Fri Oct 8 09:26:24 2004
From: dstill at epud.net (Dean Still)
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 07:26:24 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] Thank you
Message-ID: <20041008142625.F1BB2AD@telchar.epud.net>

Dear Friends,

I want to thank all of the folks who helped to build the emission equipment/
testing hood at Aprovecho. We are up and running after 7 months of hard
work, returning equipment, laboriously tracking down problems, etc. Dr. Tami
Bond, Dr. Dale Andreatta, Damon Ogle have spent hundreds of hours making the
complicated system work. Dale built the hood and wrote software. Tami
visited frequently and spent untold hours here. She designed the system and
mothered it into life. Damon is a wonderfully stubborn friend who although
tempted, like myself, to fix it with a sledgehammer at times was not going
to give up until the system was functioning.

Aprovecho is incredibly indebted to these three fine folks who donate their
energy trying to help the poor breathe less smoke, use less biomass. Murdock
Trust and the Shell Foundation gave us the funds but it was actualized
because Tami, Dale and Damon persevered through frustration and were
committed to the project come Hell or high water.

Watching real time data on particulates, CO, CO2, hydrocarbons, temperature
opens a window into how stoves function. Damon and I have spent the last few
days learning new things every hour or so. It is an incredible resource.

Our STOVE community is made from such energetic, altruistic, very able
people. It is a constant pleasure to work with this amazing group, many who
have become such good friends. The ETHOS/STOVES community is learning how to
build better stoves because of the selfless efforts of so many of its
members.

Best,

Dean

 

From sylva at iname.com Fri Oct 8 10:09:42 2004
From: sylva at iname.com (sylva at iname.com)
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 16:09:42 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] Thank you
In-Reply-To: <20041008142625.F1BB2AD@telchar.epud.net>
References: <20041008142625.F1BB2AD@telchar.epud.net>
Message-ID: <o7bdm0t358h4hjk2bv5ad8ga78tr3rv8nk@4ax.com>

On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 07:26:24 -0700, Dean Still wrote:

>
>Watching real time data on particulates, CO, CO2, hydrocarbons, temperature
>opens a window into how stoves function. Damon and I have spent the last few
>days learning new things every hour or so. It is an incredible resource.

That makes me envious, I hope you'll be letting us know what you are
managing to see.

AJH

From crispin at newdawn.sz Fri Oct 8 10:39:10 2004
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin)
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 17:39:10 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] Thank you
Message-ID: <002501c4ad4c$f7491c60$0100a8c0@md>

Dear Aprovecho Staff

I agree with Andrew - we are all the better for this leading effort.

There is no shortage of altruism at Aprovecho either, long before your
atmospheric testing triumverate appeared. It is initiatives like your with
an international perspective that drives the real, positive developments in
the world.

Sincerely
Crispin

 

From dstill at epud.net Sat Oct 9 11:58:00 2004
From: dstill at epud.net (Dean Still)
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 09:58:00 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] FW: Using the Murdock/Shell emissions equipment
Message-ID: <20041009165801.E1F61107@telchar.epud.net>

 

Dear AJH,

A year or so ago, when Damon and I thought about how to best use the new
equipment our thinking was to first see how stoves are performing then get
this information to consumers to inform their decisions. After this review
we plan to use that info as a base upon which to then study how to create a
better performing stove. That's our 2005 project.

With support from Murdock Trust and Shell Foundation, and the ETHOS
Emissions Group, Damon and I have been studying 20 stoves in use in three
separate ways: 1.)three tests of each using the updated Water Boiling Test
2.)seeing how each performs in a test kitchen using the ITDG equipment (HOBO
CO monitors and a BUCK filter for particulates) and now 3.)using the
nephalometer, Enerac 3000E, Lab View hood arrangement that graphs
particulates, CO/CO2, hydrocarbons and temperatures.

Dr. Mark Bryden at Iowa State is analyzing the data and will be helping to
write up the results. He and I are teamed up to get him experimental info so
he can create an accurate mathematical model of how stoves work. I think
that Mark's model is really the purpose of our experiments here. Dr. Bryden
in many ways leads this work. He has been coordinating our research efforts
for about 4 years now, before and after being president of ETHOS.

The stoves are:

1.) open fire
2.) mud wall around fire
3.) VITA stove
4.) ARTI stove
5.) Jiko
6.) Tom Reed fan stove
7.) Propane
8.) Alcohol
9.) Kerosene
10.) Charcoal (Ghana)
11.) Charcoal (Mali)
12.) Solar
13.) Retained Heat Cooker
14.) HELPS ONIL
15.) GIRA Patsari
16.) World Food Program Refugee
17.) Ecostove (Brazil)
18.) TWP Justa
19.) Vesto
20.) Ugandan two pot

We have completed the Water Boiling Tests and almost finished the Test
Kitchen emission testing. This week Damon and I went nuts and did about 10
tests using the new hood equipment. WE have another month of work to do all
the hood experiments...

All of this data will soon be available. We plan to pass it out at the ETHOS
meeting January 29 in Kirkland WA. It will be on a CD. Also the
EPA/Shell/PCIA are planning to publish it as a no cost to you booklet to be
called "A Comparative Guide to Cook Stoves". The Partnership for Clean
Indoor Air has been incredibly helpful, always responsive...(They are
helping the World Food Program publish a booklet on refugee stoves,
expanding membership, lending a hand wherever possible, funding so many
projects, etc.)

It is tremendously exciting to be lucky enough to be able to look at stove
performance. Hopefully everyone can use the equipment (if it's still
working!) at the next Stoves Camp or if anyone is passing through town
please come on by. Eventually we'd like to offer free testing to NGO's, etc,
if possible...

All Best,

Dean

 

 

From sylva at iname.com Sun Oct 10 07:09:52 2004
From: sylva at iname.com (sylva at iname.com)
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 13:09:52 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] FW: Using the Murdock/Shell emissions equipment
In-Reply-To: <20041009165801.E1F61107@telchar.epud.net>
References: <20041009165801.E1F61107@telchar.epud.net>
Message-ID: <bj9im0lbju9s4f58i76230813mcruo2svp@4ax.com>

Firstly a warning, I am posting this reply using two addresses to see
if I can fathom why I am having sporadic problems in posting.

On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 09:58:00 -0700, Dean Still wrote:

>With support from Murdock Trust and Shell Foundation, and the ETHOS
>Emissions Group, Damon and I have been studying 20 stoves in use in three
>separate ways:

Dean, at the moment I only see posts to Ethos when they are copied to
Stoves. I cannot reply to Ethos, which was in the original to: field.

>1.)three tests of each using the updated Water Boiling Test
>2.)seeing how each performs in a test kitchen using the ITDG equipment (HOBO
>CO monitors and a BUCK filter for particulates) and now 3.)using the
>nephalometer, Enerac 3000E, Lab View hood arrangement that graphs
>particulates, CO/CO2, hydrocarbons and temperatures.

Could you give a brief synopsis of these pieces of equipment?
>
>Dr. Mark Bryden at Iowa State is analyzing the data and will be helping to
>write up the results. He and I are teamed up to get him experimental info so
>he can create an accurate mathematical model of how stoves work. I think
>that Mark's model is really the purpose of our experiments here. Dr. Bryden
>in many ways leads this work. He has been coordinating our research efforts
>for about 4 years now, before and after being president of ETHOS.

Sounds exciting and eminently sensible, as I have no academic
background I cannot comment on the rigour of your tests but with the
experts involved I have faith they have chosen well.
>
>The stoves are:
>
>1.) open fire
>2.) mud wall around fire

Okay

>3.) VITA stove
>4.) ARTI stove

Brief descriptions anyone?

>5.) Jiko

The typical meal bucket for burning charcoal, sometimes "improved"
with a pottery insert.

>6.) Tom Reed fan stove

Derived from the Reed-Larson idd stove that introduced me to this list
but with a small battery fan added.

>7.) Propane
>8.) Alcohol
>9.) Kerosene

Okay

>10.) Charcoal (Ghana)
>11.) Charcoal (Mali)

Significantly different?

>12.) Solar

OK

>13.) Retained Heat Cooker

Haybox or more sophisticated insulation?

>14.) HELPS ONIL
>15.) GIRA Patsari
>16.) World Food Program Refugee

Brief descriptions anyone?

>17.) Ecostove (Brazil)
>18.) TWP Justa
>19.) Vesto
>20.) Ugandan two pot

I am familiar with these from postings and our web resource

http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/StovesA_Z.html

>All of this data will soon be available. We plan to pass it out at the ETHOS
>meeting January 29 in Kirkland WA. It will be on a CD.

I look forward to this.

AJH

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Sun Oct 10 07:07:17 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 13:07:17 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] FW: Using the Murdock/Shell emissions equipment
In-Reply-To: <20041009165801.E1F61107@telchar.epud.net>
References: <20041009165801.E1F61107@telchar.epud.net>
Message-ID: <2f9im0hpdqn9nv37vsuepeq63vqu8818ga@4ax.com>

Firstly a warning, I am posting this reply using two addresses to see
if I can fathom why I am having sporadic problems in posting.

On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 09:58:00 -0700, Dean Still wrote:

>With support from Murdock Trust and Shell Foundation, and the ETHOS
>Emissions Group, Damon and I have been studying 20 stoves in use in three
>separate ways:

Dean, at the moment I only see posts to Ethos when they are copied to
Stoves. I cannot reply to Ethos, which was in the original to: field.

>1.)three tests of each using the updated Water Boiling Test
>2.)seeing how each performs in a test kitchen using the ITDG equipment (HOBO
>CO monitors and a BUCK filter for particulates) and now 3.)using the
>nephalometer, Enerac 3000E, Lab View hood arrangement that graphs
>particulates, CO/CO2, hydrocarbons and temperatures.

Could you give a brief synopsis of these pieces of equipment?
>
>Dr. Mark Bryden at Iowa State is analyzing the data and will be helping to
>write up the results. He and I are teamed up to get him experimental info so
>he can create an accurate mathematical model of how stoves work. I think
>that Mark's model is really the purpose of our experiments here. Dr. Bryden
>in many ways leads this work. He has been coordinating our research efforts
>for about 4 years now, before and after being president of ETHOS.

Sounds exciting and eminently sensible, as I have no academic
background I cannot comment on the rigour of your tests but with the
experts involved I have faith they have chosen well.
>
>The stoves are:
>
>1.) open fire
>2.) mud wall around fire

Okay

>3.) VITA stove
>4.) ARTI stove

Brief descriptions anyone?

>5.) Jiko

The typical meal bucket for burning charcoal, sometimes "improved"
with a pottery insert.

>6.) Tom Reed fan stove

Derived from the Reed-Larson idd stove that introduced me to this list
but with a small battery fan added.

>7.) Propane
>8.) Alcohol
>9.) Kerosene

Okay

>10.) Charcoal (Ghana)
>11.) Charcoal (Mali)

Significantly different?

>12.) Solar

OK

>13.) Retained Heat Cooker

Haybox or more sophisticated insulation?

>14.) HELPS ONIL
>15.) GIRA Patsari
>16.) World Food Program Refugee

Brief descriptions anyone?

>17.) Ecostove (Brazil)
>18.) TWP Justa
>19.) Vesto
>20.) Ugandan two pot

I am familiar with these from postings and our web resource

http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/StovesA_Z.html

>All of this data will soon be available. We plan to pass it out at the ETHOS
>meeting January 29 in Kirkland WA. It will be on a CD.

I look forward to this.

AJH

From tmiles at trmiles.com Sun Oct 10 19:25:17 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:25:17 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] Re: [ethos] RE: Using the Murdock/Shell emissions equipment
References: <20041009165505.B234D36@telchar.epud.net>
Message-ID: <00fd01c4af2b$741e3dd0$6401a8c0@tomslaptop>

Dean,

Just a reminder: the stoves list will only accept messages with a total of
10 addresses. When a message is addressed to more than 10 it goes to the
moderators for approval. I think you can get around that by using blind
carbon copy or Bcc: but I haven't tried it.

Can we develop a one web page profile for each of the stoves that you are
testing? That would be a good reference in itself. You are probably
developing the information anyway as part of stoves characterization.

Thanks

Tom

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean Still" <dstill at epud.net>
Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2004 9:55 AM
Subject: [ethos] RE: Using the Murdock/Shell emissions equipment

> 1.) open fire
> 2.) mud wall around fire
> 3.) VITA stove
> 4.) ARTI stove
> 5.) Jiko
> 6.) Tom Reed fan stove
> 7.) Propane
> 8.) Alcohol
> 9.) Kerosene
> 10.) Charcoal (Ghana)
> 11.) Charcoal (Mali)
> 12.) Solar
> 13.) Retained Heat Cooker
> 14.) HELPS ONIL
> 15.) GIRA Patsari
> 16.) World Food Program Refugee
> 17.) Ecostove (Brazil)
> 18.) TWP Justa
> 19.) Vesto
> 20.) Ugandan two pot

 

From adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in Sun Oct 10 20:52:05 2004
From: adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in (adkarve)
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 07:22:05 +0530
Subject: [Stoves] FW: Using the Murdock/Shell emissions equipment
References: <20041009165801.E1F61107@telchar.epud.net>
<bj9im0lbju9s4f58i76230813mcruo2svp@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <003401c4af37$8a210b60$b25641db@adkarve>

Dear Dean,
I am happy to know that you have included ARTI stove in your tests, but I am
not sure which model you would be testing. ARTI has developed a large number
of stoves and in order to differentiate between them, we have given
different names to them. None of the models is called ARTI. We had sent some
years ago a single pot stove without chimney to Bryan. It had a bottom grate
and a top grate. The bottom grate served to provide the fuel with air and
the top grate served as the flame concentrater. Are you refering to this
model?
Yours
A.D.Karve.
Appropriate Rural Technology Institute
Pune, India.
----- Original Message -----
From: <sylva at iname.com>
To: <STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] FW: Using the Murdock/Shell emissions equipment

Firstly a warning, I am posting this reply using two addresses to see
if I can fathom why I am having sporadic problems in posting.

On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 09:58:00 -0700, Dean Still wrote:

>With support from Murdock Trust and Shell Foundation, and the ETHOS
>Emissions Group, Damon and I have been studying 20 stoves in use in three
>separate ways:

Dean, at the moment I only see posts to Ethos when they are copied to
Stoves. I cannot reply to Ethos, which was in the original to: field.

>1.)three tests of each using the updated Water Boiling Test
>2.)seeing how each performs in a test kitchen using the ITDG equipment
(HOBO
>CO monitors and a BUCK filter for particulates) and now 3.)using the
>nephalometer, Enerac 3000E, Lab View hood arrangement that graphs
>particulates, CO/CO2, hydrocarbons and temperatures.

Could you give a brief synopsis of these pieces of equipment?
>
>Dr. Mark Bryden at Iowa State is analyzing the data and will be helping to
>write up the results. He and I are teamed up to get him experimental info
so
>he can create an accurate mathematical model of how stoves work. I think
>that Mark's model is really the purpose of our experiments here. Dr. Bryden
>in many ways leads this work. He has been coordinating our research efforts
>for about 4 years now, before and after being president of ETHOS.

Sounds exciting and eminently sensible, as I have no academic
background I cannot comment on the rigour of your tests but with the
experts involved I have faith they have chosen well.
>
>The stoves are:
>
>1.) open fire
>2.) mud wall around fire

Okay

>3.) VITA stove
>4.) ARTI stove

Brief descriptions anyone?

>5.) Jiko

The typical meal bucket for burning charcoal, sometimes "improved"
with a pottery insert.

>6.) Tom Reed fan stove

Derived from the Reed-Larson idd stove that introduced me to this list
but with a small battery fan added.

>7.) Propane
>8.) Alcohol
>9.) Kerosene

Okay

>10.) Charcoal (Ghana)
>11.) Charcoal (Mali)

Significantly different?

>12.) Solar

OK

>13.) Retained Heat Cooker

Haybox or more sophisticated insulation?

>14.) HELPS ONIL
>15.) GIRA Patsari
>16.) World Food Program Refugee

Brief descriptions anyone?

>17.) Ecostove (Brazil)
>18.) TWP Justa
>19.) Vesto
>20.) Ugandan two pot

I am familiar with these from postings and our web resource

http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/StovesA_Z.html

>All of this data will soon be available. We plan to pass it out at the
ETHOS
>meeting January 29 in Kirkland WA. It will be on a CD.

I look forward to this.

AJH
_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
Stoves at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

 

From rustywater at earthlink.net Mon Oct 11 09:59:04 2004
From: rustywater at earthlink.net (Rusty Shuping)
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:59:04 -0400
Subject: [Stoves] Activated Charcoal Production
Message-ID: <410-220041011114594815@earthlink.net>

 

Dear people at Stoves

I ran across one thread mentioning Activated charcoal production.
I have been working in safe drinking water development since 1999 and
this year have become acquainted with slow sand filter technology.
I also did a short safe water trip to the Amazon River Basin in Peru.
The combination of slow sand filter and charcoal filtering would be
very beneficial to the people of this area. The charcoal filtering of drinking
water could have great benefits because of pollution from upstream
contaminants, possibly from petroleum producers.
Any direction to postings, files or other information concerning small scale
Activated Charcoal production will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely

Rusty Shuping

From elk at wananchi.com Mon Oct 11 23:48:19 2004
From: elk at wananchi.com (Elsen Karstad)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 07:48:19 +0300
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Activated Charcoal
References: <20041011160008.41E03D736@ns2.misteam.net>
Message-ID: <004201c4b019$d24429d0$b750083e@toshibauser>

Hi Rusty;

I'm interested in the topic as well. In Kenya there's a pronounced shortage
of safe drinking water & some horrific seasonal disease outbreaks-
particularly during the annual rains in arid areas when all sorts of nasty
things become re-hydrated. Biomass fuel use & environmental impact goes up
appreciably as people combat this threat by boiling their domestic water.
Could suitable filtration replace boiling entirely?

Stovers? Any info on how to 'activate' charcoal- particularly links to
internet based information, would be appreciated.

rgds;
elk

> Dear people at Stoves
>
> I ran across one thread mentioning Activated charcoal production.
> I have been working in safe drinking water development since 1999 and
> this year have become acquainted with slow sand filter technology.
> I also did a short safe water trip to the Amazon River Basin in Peru.
> The combination of slow sand filter and charcoal filtering would be
> very beneficial to the people of this area. The charcoal filtering of
drinking
> water could have great benefits because of pollution from upstream
> contaminants, possibly from petroleum producers.
> Any direction to postings, files or other information concerning small
scale
> Activated Charcoal production will be greatly appreciated.
>
> Sincerely
>
> Rusty Shuping
>

 

From tmiles at trmiles.com Tue Oct 12 02:07:01 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:07:01 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Activated Charcoal
References: <20041011160008.41E03D736@ns2.misteam.net>
<004201c4b019$d24429d0$b750083e@toshibauser>
Message-ID: <012101c4b02a$3dea0b40$6401a8c0@tomslaptop>

This topic deserves more attention.

You can find some activated carbon links at:
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html

Regards,

Tom Miles

----- Original Message -----
From: "Elsen Karstad" <elk at wananchi.com>
To: <stoves at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 9:48 PM
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Activated Charcoal

> Hi Rusty;
>
> I'm interested in the topic as well. In Kenya there's a pronounced
shortage
> of safe drinking water & some horrific seasonal disease outbreaks-
> particularly during the annual rains in arid areas when all sorts of nasty
> things become re-hydrated. Biomass fuel use & environmental impact goes up
> appreciably as people combat this threat by boiling their domestic water.
> Could suitable filtration replace boiling entirely?
>
> Stovers? Any info on how to 'activate' charcoal- particularly links to
> internet based information, would be appreciated.
>
> rgds;
> elk
>
>
> > Dear people at Stoves
> >
> > I ran across one thread mentioning Activated charcoal production.
> > I have been working in safe drinking water development since 1999 and
> > this year have become acquainted with slow sand filter technology.
> > I also did a short safe water trip to the Amazon River Basin in Peru.
> > The combination of slow sand filter and charcoal filtering would be
> > very beneficial to the people of this area. The charcoal filtering of
> drinking
> > water could have great benefits because of pollution from upstream
> > contaminants, possibly from petroleum producers.
> > Any direction to postings, files or other information concerning small
> scale
> > Activated Charcoal production will be greatly appreciated.
> >
> > Sincerely
> >
> > Rusty Shuping
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>
>

 

From mantal at hawaii.edu Tue Oct 12 03:19:28 2004
From: mantal at hawaii.edu (Michael J. Antal, Jr.)
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 22:19:28 -1000
Subject: [Stoves] Activated Charcoal Production
In-Reply-To: <410-220041011114594815@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <DKEKJFDEBAHEFLPFIOFOIEKJCMAA.mantal@hawaii.edu>

Dear Rusty: this message comes to you from Budapest where for one month I am
studying the properties of biocarbons (charcoal)with colleagues in the
Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

Most charcoals possess a surface area (comparable to iodine number) of 100
to 400 m2/g. The required IN of commercial activated charcoal used to treat
water in the cities of the USA is 1000. Cities usually use IN instead of
surface area as the criteria for purchase of activated carbons. Because of
their requirement, untreated (i.e. unactivated) charcoal is usually not used
to treat water.

Nevertheless, charcoals with an IN of 200 to 400 are good adsorbents and can
make more efficient use of the original biomass than an activated carbon
(note that 50% of the weight of the charcoal will be lost during
activation). I can send you a technical article on this issue if you are
interested.

In summary I encourage you to explore the use of charcoal for water
treatment. Activation is costly and not easily done. Furthermore, what is
not well-understood is that in the "big picture" charcoal may be a better
choice for water treatment than activated carbon.

Best wishes, Michael.

Michael J. Antal, Jr.
Coral Industries Distinguished Professor of Renewable Energy Resources
Hawaii Natural Energy Institute
School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology (SOEST)
1680 East-West Rd., POST 109
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Honolulu, HI 96822

Phone: 808/956-7267
Fax: 808/956-2336
http://www.hnei.hawaii.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: stoves-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:stoves-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of Rusty Shuping
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 4:59 AM
To: stoves at listserv.repp.org
Subject: [Stoves] Activated Charcoal Production

 

 

Dear people at Stoves

I ran across one thread mentioning Activated charcoal production.
I have been working in safe drinking water development since 1999 and
this year have become acquainted with slow sand filter technology.
I also did a short safe water trip to the Amazon River Basin in Peru.
The combination of slow sand filter and charcoal filtering would be
very beneficial to the people of this area. The charcoal filtering of
drinking
water could have great benefits because of pollution from upstream
contaminants, possibly from petroleum producers.
Any direction to postings, files or other information concerning small scale
Activated Charcoal production will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely

Rusty Shuping
_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
Stoves at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

 

From pverhaart at iprimus.com.au Tue Oct 12 05:24:46 2004
From: pverhaart at iprimus.com.au (Peter Verhaart)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:24:46 +1000
Subject: [Stoves] Activated Charcoal Production
In-Reply-To: <DKEKJFDEBAHEFLPFIOFOIEKJCMAA.mantal@hawaii.edu>
References: <410-220041011114594815@earthlink.net>
<DKEKJFDEBAHEFLPFIOFOIEKJCMAA.mantal@hawaii.edu>
Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20041012202007.01a12490@pop.iprimus.com.au>

I think Mike Antal makes a lot of sense when he suggests using normal
charcoal instead of activated carbon for water purification in developing
countries.
To get a comparable active surface ares you need 2.5 to 10 times the mass
of active carbon. And much less fuss producing it.

Peter Verhaart

At 18:19 12/10/2004, you wrote:
>Dear Rusty: this message comes to you from Budapest where for one month I am
>studying the properties of biocarbons (charcoal)with colleagues in the
>Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
>
>Most charcoals possess a surface area (comparable to iodine number) of 100
>to 400 m2/g. The required IN of commercial activated charcoal used to treat
>water in the cities of the USA is 1000. Cities usually use IN instead of
>surface area as the criteria for purchase of activated carbons. Because of
>their requirement, untreated (i.e. unactivated) charcoal is usually not used
>to treat water.

From tombreed at comcast.net Tue Oct 12 06:28:13 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (tombreed at comcast.net)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:28:13 +0000
Subject: [Stoves] Activated Charcoal Production
Message-ID: <101220041128.4645.416BBFCC0004F3FF0000122522007507840B0A0A9D0D03019B@comcast.net>

Dear Piet, Mike, Stoves and Gasification;

Sometimes the best is the enemy of the good. If 100-400 IN charcoal is easily available at low cost, use it.

When wood is gasified the yield of charcoal is only 3-10% and the process of converting the rest to gas is much like that that is used for making activated charcoal. Depending on the process I believe the IN can be as high as 400 without further effort and Agua Das and I think that a small change in the gasifier output could produce activated charcoal with an IN of 800-1000.

I hope someone can send Mike Antal some gasifier charcoal to test while he is in Budapest...

Onward, TOM REED

-------------- Original message --------------

> I think Mike Antal makes a lot of sense when he suggests using normal
> charcoal instead of activated carbon for water purification in developing
> countries.
> To get a comparable active surface ares you need 2.5 to 10 times the mass
> of active carbon. And much less fuss producing it.
>
> Peter Verhaart
>
>
> At 18:19 12/10/2004, you wrote:
> >Dear Rusty: this message comes to you from Budapest where for one month I am
> >studying the properties of biocarbons (charcoal)with colleagues in the
> >Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
> >
> >Most charcoals possess a surface area (comparable to iodine number) of 100
> >to 400 m2/g. The required IN of commercial activated charcoal used to treat
> >water in the cities of the USA is 1000. Cities usually use IN instead of
> >surface area as the criteria for purchase of activated carbons. Because of
> >their requirement, untreated (i.e. unactivated) charcoal is usually not used
> >to treat water.
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

From tombreed at comcast.net Tue Oct 12 06:48:50 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (tombreed at comcast.net)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:48:50 +0000
Subject: [Stoves] Re: [Gasification] Methanol at MIT and End of Oil
Message-ID: <101220041148.26003.416BC49F00086E9D0000659322007456720B0A0A9D0D03019B@comcast.net>

Dear Lewis Smith and All:

While general politics should be off list for Stoves and Gasification, the future production and cooking of foods and energy are things we are doing something about. Gasification can make other liquid fuels to replace oil and ammonia to grow food; Stoves is focused on improved cooking with biomass. We may need both sooner than most people think.

"Life after Oil" may (like Moore in 9-11) overstate the case to alert people to very real but exagerated dangers - or could be on the money. "The future is never revealed", so we do our best with predictions and experts and keep our ears open.

I had dinner with King Hubbert about 1985 and asked for his predictions on when world oil would peak. He begged off the question, saying that

Other nations don't keep as good records as we do

OPEC nations have every incentive to exagerate their reserves

I think he would be the first to agree that his prediction of peak US oil in 1973 was partly good luck, just as my publication of METHANOL: A CLEAN FUEL FOR THE FUTURE in SCIENCE happened to coincide with the first oil shortage caused by OPEC.

Time to get busy finding the replacements for oil.... I'm in Boston on business working on Trash to Gas. Better to light one little candle than to curse the darkness.

Bye, TOM REED

-------------- Original message --------------
to Gasification List from Lewis L. Smith

Tom B. Reed has asked us to comment on two links.

The story about methanol doesn't surprise me, as I worked for five years for an independent refiner with a total capacity for processing crude oil of 160,000 BCD and or 30,000 BCD, for turning naphtha into benzene and xylenes. The "big boys" can really play rough when they want to.

As for "Life after the oil crash", Google Advanced Search turns up nothing on the author !

By way of a preface, allow me to state that I regard large organizations, whether they be Enron or the Federal government, with a jaundiced eye. I do believe that they are more than necessary evils. Indeed large oil companies and large governments have their uses. In particular, government can be an effective instrument of national economic policy, on occasion ! For example, the "seven sisters" helped the world to mitigate the worst effects of the OPEC embargo in 1973. And as Stalin said, Roosevelt "saved capitalism" !

However, one must watch them "like a hawk", especially when a CEO claims to have a direct pipeline to God ! Indeed I am very concerned about the damage which is being done to our constitutional rights in the name of fighting terror. Some people forget that if we become like the Taliban, we lose this war, even if there are no Taliban left anywhere.

My comments on the text follow [a long article or a short book ?] ???

This is really two documents tied together. One is about the coming peak in crude-oil production and its consequences. The other is about a mishmash of related and unrelated subjects.

Although I don't agree with the author on the timing and consequences of the crude-oil peak, it is coming. Moreover, he marshals and presents his evidence on this subject very effectively. Indeed what he says needs to be said, in order to provoke a wider public discussion than has occurred to date.

His point about the possibility of a sudden decline in the production of old fields is, for example, well taken. However, neither he nor anyone he cites has the information to predict this with certainty for a particular field. Moreover, he doesn't help his case by citing Hubbert. Hubbert "lucked out". Hubbert's method ignores technological progress and the interplay of prices, E&D costs and demand.

And when the author pontificates with equal and absolute certainty on a whole lot of noncrude matters, he undermines his credibility. Nobody can possibly know so much. In particular, his assertion that "the physics and math of renewable energy don't add up" is absurd.

Finally, in presenting the noncrude part in terms of whole slew of conspiracy theories, he takes himself "out of the arena" of current political discourse in the USA. In so doing, he not only risks losing any support which he may have generated with the reader previously [for his position on peak crude] but actually he threatens to damage all who hold that position. To repeat, I don't agree with his position on peak crude, but the case needs to be made more publicly and by people who will not alienate others by their positions on what are "side issues", as far as the peak-crude issue is concerned.

In my judgment, world crude production will peak in this century, but whether it does in five years or fifty years is not at all clear. [If I had to "pick a number", I would pick 12.5, but don't hold me to it !]

In the oil industry, unlike many other industries, current data is not very accurate, and accurate date is not very current. In fact, even a lot of "ancient history" is not very accurate, due to industry secrecy and the failure to publish "corrected" numbers. For example ???

??? There are discrepancies of hundreds of thousands of barrels per day in the historical series for the annual production of Saudi crude oil, as between supposedly "official" or "reliable" sources.

??? On various occasions, the OPEC Secretariat has complained that members "lie" [sic] to the Secretariat in reporting statistics. [But it doesn't say how often, who or what about !]

??? Many of the time series for the smaller or more secretive producers are obviously based on only occasional sampling. One month, someone got what they thought was a pretty good number in BCD's [or total barrels] for "Lower Slobovia", and that number is repeated, month after month, until another "good" number is obtained.

??? The most cited sources [BP, "Oil & Gas Journal", OPEC and the UN] are not primary sources, but don't they tell you where they got their data for specific countries. For example, BP draws heavily on OGJ, the latter uses information from OPEC and OPEC from OGJ ! One suspects that some circularity is introduced thereby. At the very least, mistakes are widely propagated and, by shear repetition, become accepted among policy makers.

??? In many countries, the most interesting information, that about inventories, ships at sea, well capacities and well histories, are "secrets of state". The person who is caught trying to find out [and some consulting firms hire people to do this] may be killed on the spot.

Most important, the current and historical information required make good judgments about the future production of particular oil fields or wells is jealously guarded. Most of the people who are currently talking about peak oil don't have this information, and very few of those who have it are talking. Moreover, those few who have it and are talking, wont reveal what they have ! So, for example, it is impossible for the author of the link to be able to forecast certain well-related numbers with the accuracy which he claims.

The best we have to go on is people who [a] talk and [b] who know [or have known] the people who have the required info. Examples are a recently retired official of Saudi Aramco or the Iranian official cited by the author of the link. On this basis, we can say with a probability of greater that 50% that there is definitely a problem, with two aggravating factors. We may not have enough time to fix it. And we cant put any odds on the latter statement ! In brief, the question of "How much time is left" a matter of uncertainty, not risk.

So the critical question is not "When will crude production peak" but "Will coal gasification become environmentally acceptable ?", so that coal can be our major 'transition fuel' to a world without fossil fuels. If it wont, we are in deep you know what.

If we have enough time, there are options in the transition-fuel category, in addition to the gasification of mined coal. For example ???

??? Gasification of coal in the mine.

??? The Shell Middle Distillates process for obtaining diesel, kerosene and naphtha from natural gas, especially applicable to currently "stranded" gas fields. [This has been proven for years in Malaysia and will now be used in Qatar's prolific fields.]

??? Subsea methane hydrates. [There is an enormous supply, but we have no idea how to get it out !]

If we don't have enough time, we get into a big "food versus fuel" argument ! [Among other inconveniences !]

Cordially.

End.

From tmiles at trmiles.com Tue Oct 12 11:11:52 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:11:52 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] Activated Charcoal Production
References: <101220041128.4645.416BBFCC0004F3FF0000122522007507840B0A0A9D0D03019B@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <006401c4b076$3f23b230$6501a8c0@OFFICE3>

Tom,

I agree that water treatment would be an excellent local use of char from
gasification or gasifying stoves. There is a suspicion, however, that char
from gasification contains toxic compounds, especially benzene, and require
special water treatment. The common measure in the US is the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). TCLP limit for benzene is 0.5
mg/L. Procedures are described in 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix II or in EPA's
publication, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, SW-486.

Where is there toxicity data for biomass chars from gasification or
combustion?

I asked the gasification list earlier if anyone had any TCLP data for char
from gasification and got no response.

The only information I find online is from Brightstar: "The TCLP testing
completed on the char to date indicates that the char is suitable for
disposal to non-hazardous
landfill."http://www.brightstarenvironmental.com/html/env%20frame%20set/envtext.htm

Data I have found for semivolatile and volatile organics have been mostly
from high temperature oxidizing processes in which organic toxics including
benzene have been below detection limits. I have found no information for
small scale gasifiers or combustors that may produce significant tars.

Is the char safe for filtering drinking water or do we simply have no data?

Thanks

Tom

 

----- Original Message -----
From: <tombreed at comcast.net>
To: "Peter Verhaart" <pverhaart at iprimus.com.au>; <STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>;
<gasification at ns2.misteam.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 4:28 AM
Subject: RE: [Stoves] Activated Charcoal Production

> Dear Piet, Mike, Stoves and Gasification;
>
> Sometimes the best is the enemy of the good. If 100-400 IN charcoal is
> easily available at low cost, use it.
>
> When wood is gasified the yield of charcoal is only 3-10% and the process
> of converting the rest to gas is much like that that is used for making
> activated charcoal. Depending on the process I believe the IN can be as
> high as 400 without further effort and Agua Das and I think that a small
> change in the gasifier output could produce activated charcoal with an IN
> of 800-1000.
>
> I hope someone can send Mike Antal some gasifier charcoal to test while he
> is in Budapest...
>
> Onward, TOM REED
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
>> I think Mike Antal makes a lot of sense when he suggests using normal
>> charcoal instead of activated carbon for water purification in developing
>> countries.
>> To get a comparable active surface ares you need 2.5 to 10 times the mass
>> of active carbon. And much less fuss producing it.
>>
>> Peter Verhaart
>>
>>
>> At 18:19 12/10/2004, you wrote:
>> >Dear Rusty: this message comes to you from Budapest where for one month
>> >I am
>> >studying the properties of biocarbons (charcoal)with colleagues in the
>> >Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
>> >
>> >Most charcoals possess a surface area (comparable to iodine number) of
>> >100
>> >to 400 m2/g. The required IN of commercial activated charcoal used to
>> >treat
>> >water in the cities of the USA is 1000. Cities usually use IN instead of
>> >surface area as the criteria for purchase of activated carbons. Because
>> >of
>> >their requirement, untreated (i.e. unactivated) charcoal is usually not
>> >used
>> >to treat water.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Stoves mailing list
>> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>
>

 

From psanders at ilstu.edu Tue Oct 12 11:35:25 2004
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:35:25 -0500
Subject: Regular charcoal for water treatment (was [Stoves] Activated
Charcoal Production)
In-Reply-To: <DKEKJFDEBAHEFLPFIOFOIEKJCMAA.mantal@hawaii.edu>
References: <410-220041011114594815@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20041012111827.022c25d0@mail.ilstu.edu>

At 10:19 PM 10/11/04 -1000, Michael J. Antal, Jr. wrote:
>Dear Rusty:

snip

>Nevertheless, charcoals with an IN of 200 to 400 are good adsorbents and can
>make more efficient use of the original biomass than an activated carbon
>(note that 50% of the weight of the charcoal will be lost during
>activation). I can send you a technical article on this issue if you are
>interested.

Michael, I would like to see the technical article, and probably several
others would also like to see it.

If the file is rather large, please send it just to me. Or also send a
copy to Tom Miles who can put it at the repp Internet site.

I believe that your comment advocating using regular charcoal (instead of
activated charcoal) will have some significant impact, especially because
you have now reached the "Stovers" who are dealing with micro-scale
combustion (residential stoves) that could make the charcoal that helps the
household stay healthy.

Although we want to believe what you wrote (and I will be quoting your
e-mail unless you tell me not to do so), we do need some substantial
documentation (other than your e-mail) if we are going to advocate regular
charcoal as a family health material. It would be nice to have such
information in a compact and authoritative "place/document(s)". But we
will start by gathering the pieces of information.

We will have many questions, including
1. HOW to set up the water treatment with the charcoal.
2. WHAT can be removed from the water (and what is not removed by the
regular charcoal).

Note that I changed the "Subject:" line to now reflect this aspect of
charcoal usage.

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 at 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 rustywater at earthlink.net Tue Oct 12 17:49:34 2004
From: rustywater at earthlink.net (Rusty Shuping)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:49:34 -0400
Subject: [Stoves] Activated Charcoal excitment and thankful
Message-ID: <410-2200410212224934334@earthlink.net>

Dear Stovers,

I sincerely appreciate all of the input and excitement that I am seeing concerning activated charcoal and regular charcoal
as a filter media. This is new territory for me as well as most people who I know who are involved in safe drinking water
development. I am more of a tradesman than an engineer but do not have trouble understanding all of the good information I am
receiving. Safe drinking water is hard to come by in many parts of the world though water may be plentiful. When I am thirsty at work I drink
good water that has been through a multi million dollar filtration and chlorination system and then the water and even the water
for the ice machine has gone though a very nice but inexpensive carbon filter. The result is excellent safe water that tastes great.
Much of the world, or may I say the most of the world does not afford such luxury. I have been spending what time I can in helping
to provide good water to third world people. The children are especially vulnerable to "bad water." Without going into detail I assure
you that there is plenty of and at times not even enough "bad water" to go around. Yes it sounds Ironic but it is true.

Friends please keep this thread going. All of your comments are welcome and email me with any files you would like. I keep my
mailbox cleaned out.

sincerely

Rusty Shuping

rustywater at earthlink.net

From tmiles at trmiles.com Tue Oct 12 20:12:25 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:12:25 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] Activated Charcoal excitment and thankful
References: <410-2200410212224934334@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <004701c4b0c1$c38b00a0$6501a8c0@OFFICE3>

In order to understand the use of charcoal in improving water quality I've
added a few links to the Charcoal web pages.
http://www.repp.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html

One reference I found is from the Water Sanitation and Health site of the
World Health Organization. It
appears that charcoal is best used for improving odor and taste and most
effective when used in combination with other techniques but it is not
recommended for microbial contaminants.

2.3 Charcoal and activated carbon adsorption
Charcoal and activated carbon have been used extensively as adsorbents for
water treatment in the developed and developing world. The main application
is the reduction of toxic organic compounds as well as objectionable taste
and odor compounds in the water. In developed countries granular or powdered
activated carbon are used in community water treatment and granular or
pressed carbon block is typically used for point-of-use or household water
treatment (AWWA, 1999; LeChevallier and McFeters, 1990. Although fresh or
virgin charcoal or activated carbon will adsorb microbes, including
pathogens, from water, dissolved organic matter in the water rapidly takes
up adsorption sites and the carbon rapidly develops a biofilm. Therefore,
carbon is not likely to appreciably reduce pathogenic enteric microbes in
water over an extended period of time. If anything, carbon particles are
prone to shedding heterotrophic plate count bacteria and other colonizing
microbes into the product water, thereby reducing the microbial quality. In
many point-of-use devices the carbon is impregnated or commingled with
silver that serves as a bacteriostatic agent to reduce microbial
colonization and control microbial proliferation in the product water. Fecal
indicator bacteria, such as total and fecal coliforms, and opportunistic
bacterial pathogens, such as Aeromonas species are capable of colonizing
carbon particles and appearing in product water. For these reasons,
activated carbon is not recommended as a treatment method to reduce
pathogenic microbes in drinking water. Additional treatment, such as
chemical disinfection, often is needed to reduce microbe levels in
carbon-treated water. Mixed media containing carbon along with chemical
agents effective in microbial retention have been developed and evaluated.
For example, carbon filters containing aluminum or iron precipitates have
been described, and these filters have achieved appreciable microbial
reduction in laboratory scale tests (Farrah et al., 2000). Therefore, it is
possible that granular activated carbon filter media prepared with chemical
agents more effective in retaining microbes may eventually become more
widely available for point-of-use treatment of household water. However, the
conventional charcoal and activated carbon media currently available for
water treatment are not recommended for use at the household level to reduce
microbial contaminants. Only charcoal or activated carbon media that been
combined with other materials to improve microbial reductions should be
considered for household treatment of collected and stores water and then
only if there are performance data or certifications to verify effective
microbial reductions.

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/wsh0207/en/index6.html

 

 

 

From elk at wananchi.com Wed Oct 13 00:01:47 2004
From: elk at wananchi.com (Elsen Karstad)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 08:01:47 +0300
Subject: Fw: [Gasification] Re: [Stoves] Activated Charcoal Production
Message-ID: <001b01c4b0e1$c6bc83f0$8650083e@toshibauser>

This mssg from Doug Williams bounced for some reason........

elk-moderator

----- Original Message -----
From: "Graeme Williams" <graeme at powerlink.co.nz>
To: <gasification at ns2.misteam.net>; <STOVES at listserv.repp.org>; "Peter
Verhaart" <pverhaart at iprimus.com.au>; <tombreed at comcast.net>; "Tom Miles"
<tmiles at trmiles.com>
Cc: <GASIFICATION at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 10:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Re: [Stoves] Activated Charcoal Production

> Tom,
> I doubt if data exists for many gasifiers on the toxicity of surplus char
to
> the gas making process. What I can tell you though is that gasifiers that
> make surplus char are more likely to have toxic char than gasifiers which
> subject this char to the endothermic heat of the reduction zone. The char
> becomes activated and highly porous, but the efficiency of the gas making
> process leaves little left that might be sold for water purification. We
> had an analysis done of our cleanout charcoal in Germany, and it was
> approved for use to pass our water condensate through before going down
the
> drain. Unfortunately most of the communication of that time was on
thermal
> fax paper and I have a lot of blank pages in the files from this time, but
I
> will find time to see if that file survived.
>
> Regards
>
> Doug Williams
> Fluidyne.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Miles" <tmiles at trmiles.com>
> To: <tombreed at comcast.net>; "Peter Verhaart" <pverhaart at iprimus.com.au>;
> <STOVES at listserv.repp.org>; <gasification at ns2.misteam.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 5:11 AM
> Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Stoves] Activated Charcoal Production
>
>
> > Tom,
> >
> > I agree that water treatment would be an excellent local use of char
from
> > gasification or gasifying stoves. There is a suspicion, however, that
char
> > from gasification contains toxic compounds, especially benzene, and
> require
> > special water treatment. The common measure in the US is the Toxicity
> > Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). TCLP limit for benzene is 0.5
> > mg/L. Procedures are described in 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix II or in
EPA's
> > publication, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, SW-486.
> >
> > Where is there toxicity data for biomass chars from gasification or
> > combustion?
> >
> > I asked the gasification list earlier if anyone had any TCLP data for
char
> > from gasification and got no response.
> >
> > The only information I find online is from Brightstar: "The TCLP testing
> > completed on the char to date indicates that the char is suitable for
> > disposal to non-hazardous
> >
>
landfill."http://www.brightstarenvironmental.com/html/env%20frame%20set/envt
> ext.htm
> >
> > Data I have found for semivolatile and volatile organics have been
mostly
> > from high temperature oxidizing processes in which organic toxics
> including
> > benzene have been below detection limits. I have found no information
for
> > small scale gasifiers or combustors that may produce significant tars.
> >
> > Is the char safe for filtering drinking water or do we simply have no
> data?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Tom
> >
>
>

 

From rustywater at earthlink.net Wed Oct 13 00:14:55 2004
From: rustywater at earthlink.net (Rusty Shuping)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 01:14:55 -0400
Subject: [Stoves] Activated Charcoal and appropiate technology
Message-ID: <410-220041031351455440@earthlink.net>

Dear stovers and Tom

Thanks for your comments they hold much practical information.

Tom wrote in part. Therefore,carbon is not likely to appreciably reduce pathogenic enteric microbes in
water over an extended period of time. If anything, carbon particles are prone to shedding heterotrophic plate
count bacteria and other colonizing
microbes into the product water, thereby reducing the microbial quality. In
many point-of-use devices the carbon is impregnated or commingled with
silver that serves as a bacteriostatic agent to reduce microbial
colonization and control microbial proliferation in the product water. Fecal
indicator bacteria, such as total and fecal coliforms, and opportunistic
bacterial pathogens, such as Aeromonas species are capable of colonizing
carbon particles and appearing in product water. For these reasons,
activated carbon is not recommended as a treatment method to reduce
pathogenic microbes in drinking water.

I agree that using charcoal alone would probably not do the job of removing bacterial contamination
long term. But depending on the source of water there are several options. In the areas where i have been working
in Peru and Possibly Brazil in the near future river water is a big drinking source. When treating river water it could run into
a three step process to greatly improve the quality.
Some things to consider are, and can be very practical to remedy in a third world situation are as follows.

1. High turbidity. In this case just letting the water settle for a few days will make improvements and will also prepare the water
to be acceptable for the next step.

2. Bacterial and parasitical contamination. This can be removed through biosand filtration where the biomat in the sand filter
is very effective in destroying and filtering out organic contamination. This can be done on a household basis.
One thing to look at is that the water source might not have enough combination to support the biomat in the top of the slow sand
filter when using river water and in many case the well water. If this is this case then there shouldn't be a problem either way
in going to the charcoal filtration where the microbe population will be minimal.
It is extremely important when using small scale biosand filtration on a house to house basis that the water supply be consistent
to keep the biomass on an even keel. As an example you wouldn't want to use the filter for river water where there would be a
good supply of microbes to feed the biomat and then suddenly switch to well water for a few days and then back to river water.
This could end up with an ineffective slow sand filter as far as removing microbes. When using a properly set up slow sand
filter as high as 99.9 % elimination of microbes and parasites can be obtained. This alone is a tremendous improvement in water quality.

3. Inorganic contamination through heavy metals, petroleum byproducts or naturally occurring sulfur. In some areas of Peru many wells
have been bored with good results and providing safe water. One problem is that the water simply does not taste and smell as good as the untreated
river water. In these situations going directly from well to charcoal filtration might work perfectly. Pollution of the rivers and streams with inorganic
materials has been a serious problem. Educating the villagers to use the well water wherever available is an ongoing task and can be difficult
especially when well water smells bad and does not taste good.

Charcoal filtration may help with many of the water problems in the river villages. If an affordable and practical means of producing a charcoal
that can be used in this instance were to become available it could be to tremendous advantage. It may or may not be possible to produce
a lab grade charcoal in a cottage industry setting but if a product can be made available that will work even though it may not be quite
good as some of the more expensive ones available it still could bring an improvement to quality of life.
"Appropriate Technology" is just that.
If activated charcoal can be produced and used it would be great. If Regular charcoal can be used by just using more of it to obtain more surface
area it would be great. I just seem to think this has been a neglected area in safe water development in the third world and now is the time
to put a plan together for something that will work.

thanks so much

Rusty Shuping

From psanders at ilstu.edu Wed Oct 13 02:02:47 2004
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 02:02:47 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] Activated Charcoal and appropiate technology
In-Reply-To: <410-220041031351455440@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20041013014728.022f3ed0@mail.ilstu.edu>

Rusty,

When are you going to Peru or Brazil? And can you conduct some tests there
of use of regular charcoal for improving the taste of otherwise good water?

Small quantities (a few kilos) of charcoal can be easily and quickly made
with the pyrolysis gasifiers that Tom Reed and I (and others) are
developing. I do not know the scientific characteristics of this charcoal,
and do not have time nor money to do it. But you have "clean water" as
your primary interest, so I hope you could check on some charcoal filtering.

I believe that the charcoal produced in the pyrolysis gasifiers COULD be
different depending on the fuel stock used. PERHAPS char from one biomass
(bamboo?? or reeds??) could be better or worse than from another (corn
cobs, or wood chips from tree XX ). We only need to find one or two that
work for a particular location, and the local people can get the clean
smelling water that they want.

Your comments and your travel plans, please.

Paul

 

At 01:14 AM 10/13/04 -0400, Rusty Shuping wrote:
>Dear stovers and Tom
>(snip)
>I agree that using charcoal alone would probably not do the job of
>removing bacterial contamination
>long term. But depending on the source of water there are several options.
>In the areas where i have been working
>in Peru and Possibly Brazil in the near future river water is a big
>drinking source. When treating river water it could run into
>a three step process to greatly improve the quality.
>Some things to consider are, and can be very practical to remedy in a
>third world situation are as follows.
>(snip)
>
>3. Inorganic contamination through heavy metals, petroleum byproducts or
>naturally occurring sulfur. In some areas of Peru many wells
>have been bored with good results and providing safe water. One problem is
>that the water simply does not taste and smell as good as the untreated
> river water. In these situations going directly from well to charcoal
> filtration might work perfectly. Pollution of the rivers and streams with
> inorganic
>materials has been a serious problem. Educating the villagers to use the
>well water wherever available is an ongoing task and can be difficult
>especially when well water smells bad and does not taste good.
>
>Charcoal filtration may help with many of the water problems in the river
>villages. If an affordable and practical means of producing a charcoal
>that can be used in this instance were to become available it could be to
>tremendous advantage. It may or may not be possible to produce
>a lab grade charcoal in a cottage industry setting but if a product can be
>made available that will work even though it may not be quite
> good as some of the more expensive ones available it still could bring
> an improvement to quality of life.
>"Appropriate Technology" is just that.
>If activated charcoal can be produced and used it would be great. If
>Regular charcoal can be used by just using more of it to obtain more surface
>area it would be great. I just seem to think this has been a neglected
>area in safe water development in the third world and now is the time
>to put a plan together for something that will work.
>
>thanks so much
>
>Rusty Shuping
>_______________________________________________
>Stoves mailing list
>Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

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 at 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 Wed Oct 13 13:43:57 2004
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:43:57 -0500
Subject: Regular charcoal for water treatment (was [Stoves]
Activated Charcoal Production)
In-Reply-To: <DKEKJFDEBAHEFLPFIOFOGELBCMAA.mantal@hawaii.edu>
References: <4.3.1.2.20041012111827.022c25d0@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20041013132026.022d4690@mail.ilstu.edu>

Michael,

Thank you. I noticed that you did not send it to the Stoves list
serve. Your written comments are the most important, so I am sending those
now, without the Figure 4 which is actually summed up in your comments here.

Basically, (and confirmed by the posting by Tom Miles yesterday), filtering
with charcoal seems to mainly for taste and color, and NOT for bacteria etc
removal nor for removing sediments.

Secondly, for the impact of filtering for taste and color, it seems from
your comments that using double the weight of regular charcoal has about
the same impact as some weight of activated charcoal (assuming similar
preparation to get the desired surface area.)

Therefore, if charcoal is reasonably plentiful, just use the double weight
and save yourself the bother and expense of making activated charcoal.

AND, assuming the regular charcoal is only wet (and not prohibitively
contaminated by whatever it removed from the water to make the water taste
better), then just let the charcoal dry out and use it as a fuel or in a
soil pot mixture.

This discussion has NOT shed light on any "substances" in the charcoal that
would make it unacceptable as a filter material. BUT, if the activation
process does NOT change the char chemical ingredients by driving out the
undesirable substances (as well as changing the physical weight to get the
m2/gm higher), then we can say that regular charcoal as clean as the
activated charcoal would be.

Note that we discuss activated CHARcoal (which is char made from wood), and
not activated COKEcoal (char made from coal).

To me it SEEMS likely that Rusty's work in Peru and Brazil and elsewhere
should be able to use regular charcoal (prepared to appropriate m2/gm)
instead of bothering with activating the charcoal.

Michael, does this make sense? and is there any evidence that the
absorption and other characteristics of the surface area of double-weight
regular charcoal filters is any worse than absorption etc of the
single-weight activated charcoal?

Paul

At 03:37 AM 10/13/04 -1000, you wrote:
>Hi Paul: I have attached the only activated carbon pdf file I have with me
>here in Budapest. Our approach is not low tech, but Fig 4 in the paper
>offers lots of food for thougtht. Basically it teaches that carbons with
>high specific surface areas (m2/g) achieve these high areas by lowering the
>bulk density of the carbon (i.e. decreasing the g in m2/g) rather than
>increasing the surface area (i.e. increasing the m2 in m2/g). So high
>surface area carbons are simply wasteful of carbon. Hence my comment that a
>good charcoal may be better than an activated carbon for use as an adsorbent
>in the big picture sense.
>
>As you know, the conventional approach to making an activated carbon is
>steam gasification of charcoal. The maximum surface area is usually
>obtained at about 50% burnoff. You can take it from there!
>
>Best regards, Michael.
>
>P.S. I am not qualified to advocate charcoal vs activated carbon as a
>family health material. My remarks pertained to chemical engineering issues
>concerning yields, surface areas and IN.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul S. Anderson [mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 6:35 AM
>To: Michael J. Antal, Jr.; rustywater at earthlink.net;
>stoves at listserv.repp.org
>Subject: Regular charcoal for water treatment (was [Stoves] Activated
>Charcoal Production)
>
>
>At 10:19 PM 10/11/04 -1000, Michael J. Antal, Jr. wrote:
> >Dear Rusty:
>
>snip
>
> >Nevertheless, charcoals with an IN of 200 to 400 are good adsorbents and
>can
> >make more efficient use of the original biomass than an activated carbon
> >(note that 50% of the weight of the charcoal will be lost during
> >activation). I can send you a technical article on this issue if you are
> >interested.
>
>Michael, I would like to see the technical article, and probably several
>others would also like to see it.
>
> If the file is rather large, please send it just to me. Or also send a
>copy to Tom Miles who can put it at the repp Internet site.
>
>I believe that your comment advocating using regular charcoal (instead of
>activated charcoal) will have some significant impact, especially because
>you have now reached the "Stovers" who are dealing with micro-scale
>combustion (residential stoves) that could make the charcoal that helps the
>household stay healthy.
>
>Although we want to believe what you wrote (and I will be quoting your
>e-mail unless you tell me not to do so), we do need some substantial
>documentation (other than your e-mail) if we are going to advocate regular
>charcoal as a family health material. It would be nice to have such
>information in a compact and authoritative "place/document(s)". But we
>will start by gathering the pieces of information.
>
>We will have many questions, including
>1. HOW to set up the water treatment with the charcoal.
>2. WHAT can be removed from the water (and what is not removed by the
>regular charcoal).
>
>Note that I changed the "Subject:" line to now reflect this aspect of
>charcoal usage.
>
>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 at 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
>

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 at 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 tmiles at trmiles.com Thu Oct 14 09:44:18 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 07:44:18 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] Fw: Designing a Charcoal Kiln.
Message-ID: <01a301c4b1fc$57018990$6701a8c0@Yellow>

----- Original Message -----
From: ranti adeyinka omoluabi2002 at yahoo.com
To: stoves at listserv.repp.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 10:46 PM
Subject: Designing a Charcoal Kiln.

Dear stovers,

I need to designed a charcoal kiln to be used in charing the waste wood generated as a bye products in my company.

My company is situated in Lagos Nigeria and we are into woodorking.I have design a brasillian behive kiln but there is difficulty in getting the refractory bricks and mortars to be used for the construction of the the said bricks.

I will appreciate it if any of my fellow stovers can advise on how to build the brazillian beehive kiln or give me a contact of the person or company that will help in the construction of the said kiln.

However I will also appreciate it if you can give me a simple design that my engineers can work on to produce a simple retort kiln or ring kiln because the level of the waste wood is increasing day by day and I need to start doing something about it.

I will appreciate it if you treat this my request with urgency and respond on time.

Thanks for the anticipated co operation.
Kind Regards

Yinka Adewumi,
P.O.Box 1506,Lagos
Lagos- Nigeria

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From tmiles at trmiles.com Thu Oct 14 10:52:08 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 08:52:08 -0700
Subject: Regular charcoal for water treatment (was [Stoves]Activated
Charcoal Production)
References: <4.3.1.2.20041012111827.022c25d0@mail.ilstu.edu>
<4.3.1.2.20041013132026.022d4690@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <008501c4b20d$feb48960$6501a8c0@OFFICE3>

Paul, Rusty,

Is there a water quality lab near a project site where charcoal from stoves
could be tested in filtration arrangments? Charcoal samples might also be
sent to a lab for characterization.

This would seem to be a useful health benefit of charcoal producing stoves.

If 30 grams of charcoal are produced per 1000 grams of wood how much water
could be filtered before the charcoal needed to be changed?

Tom Miles

 

 

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Thu Oct 14 12:57:02 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 18:57:02 +0100
Subject: Regular charcoal for water treatment (was [Stoves]Activated
Charcoal Production)
In-Reply-To: <008501c4b20d$feb48960$6501a8c0@OFFICE3>
References: <4.3.1.2.20041012111827.022c25d0@mail.ilstu.edu>
<4.3.1.2.20041013132026.022d4690@mail.ilstu.edu>
<008501c4b20d$feb48960$6501a8c0@OFFICE3>
Message-ID: <9cftm0h3462un9btnuv3m8icplbi0326pk@4ax.com>

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 08:52:08 -0700, Tom Miles wrote:

>If 30 grams of charcoal are produced per 1000 grams of wood how much water
>could be filtered before the charcoal needed to be changed?

If the charcoal were then dried why shouldn't it then be used in a
simple charcoal stove? Cascaded use of the wood, I love it.

AJH

From psanders at ilstu.edu Thu Oct 14 14:01:33 2004
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:01:33 -0500
Subject: Fwd: RE: Regular charcoal for water treatment (was [Stoves]
Activated Charcoal Production)
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20041014135911.022e4c50@mail.ilstu.edu>

>Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 21:27:34 -1000
>From: "Michael J. Antal, Jr." <mantal at hawaii.edu>
>Subject: RE: Regular charcoal for water treatment (was [Stoves] Activated
> Charcoal Production)
>To: "Paul S. Anderson" <psanders at ilstu.edu>
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
>Importance: Normal
>Original-recipient: rfc822;psanders at ilstu.edu
>
>Hi Paul: your synopsis below makes sense to me. What is really needed is
>some tests by qualified Civil Engineers of the ability of charcoal to remove
>contaminants from water side-by-side with AC. I have had many discussions
>with our CE water quality experts and have given them some charcoal for
>testing but so far I have received no results. When I learn something
>substantive, I will share it with members of the list. Thanks, Michael.

Any Stovers have access to get done what Michael suggests? If not, we will
wait for results he hopes to get.

Rusty, are you positioned to help make this happen?

Paul

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul S. Anderson [mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 8:44 AM
>To: Michael J. Antal, Jr.
>Cc: stoves at listserv.repp.org
>Subject: RE: Regular charcoal for water treatment (was [Stoves]
>Activated Charcoal Production)
>
>
>Michael,
>
>Thank you. I noticed that you did not send it to the Stoves list
>serve. Your written comments are the most important, so I am sending those
>now, without the Figure 4 which is actually summed up in your comments here.
>
>Basically, (and confirmed by the posting by Tom Miles yesterday), filtering
>with charcoal seems to mainly for taste and color, and NOT for bacteria etc
>removal nor for removing sediments.
>
>Secondly, for the impact of filtering for taste and color, it seems from
>your comments that using double the weight of regular charcoal has about
>the same impact as some weight of activated charcoal (assuming similar
>preparation to get the desired surface area.)
>
>Therefore, if charcoal is reasonably plentiful, just use the double weight
>and save yourself the bother and expense of making activated charcoal.
>
>AND, assuming the regular charcoal is only wet (and not prohibitively
>contaminated by whatever it removed from the water to make the water taste
>better), then just let the charcoal dry out and use it as a fuel or in a
>soil pot mixture.
>
>This discussion has NOT shed light on any "substances" in the charcoal that
>would make it unacceptable as a filter material. BUT, if the activation
>process does NOT change the char chemical ingredients by driving out the
>undesirable substances (as well as changing the physical weight to get the
>m2/gm higher), then we can say that regular charcoal as clean as the
>activated charcoal would be.
>
>Note that we discuss activated CHARcoal (which is char made from wood), and
>not activated COKEcoal (char made from coal).
>
>To me it SEEMS likely that Rusty's work in Peru and Brazil and elsewhere
>should be able to use regular charcoal (prepared to appropriate m2/gm)
>instead of bothering with activating the charcoal.
>
>Michael, does this make sense? and is there any evidence that the
>absorption and other characteristics of the surface area of double-weight
>regular charcoal filters is any worse than absorption etc of the
>single-weight activated charcoal?
>
>Paul
>
>At 03:37 AM 10/13/04 -1000, you wrote:
> >Hi Paul: I have attached the only activated carbon pdf file I have with me
> >here in Budapest. Our approach is not low tech, but Fig 4 in the paper
> >offers lots of food for thougtht. Basically it teaches that carbons with
> >high specific surface areas (m2/g) achieve these high areas by lowering the
> >bulk density of the carbon (i.e. decreasing the g in m2/g) rather than
> >increasing the surface area (i.e. increasing the m2 in m2/g). So high
> >surface area carbons are simply wasteful of carbon. Hence my comment that
>a
> >good charcoal may be better than an activated carbon for use as an
>adsorbent
> >in the big picture sense.
> >
> >As you know, the conventional approach to making an activated carbon is
> >steam gasification of charcoal. The maximum surface area is usually
> >obtained at about 50% burnoff. You can take it from there!
> >
> >Best regards, Michael.
> >
> >P.S. I am not qualified to advocate charcoal vs activated carbon as a
> >family health material. My remarks pertained to chemical engineering
>issues
> >concerning yields, surface areas and IN.
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Paul S. Anderson [mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu]
> >Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 6:35 AM
> >To: Michael J. Antal, Jr.; rustywater at earthlink.net;
> >stoves at listserv.repp.org
> >Subject: Regular charcoal for water treatment (was [Stoves] Activated
> >Charcoal Production)
> >
> >
> >At 10:19 PM 10/11/04 -1000, Michael J. Antal, Jr. wrote:
> > >Dear Rusty:
> >
> >snip
> >
> > >Nevertheless, charcoals with an IN of 200 to 400 are good adsorbents and
> >can
> > >make more efficient use of the original biomass than an activated carbon
> > >(note that 50% of the weight of the charcoal will be lost during
> > >activation). I can send you a technical article on this issue if you are
> > >interested.
> >
> >Michael, I would like to see the technical article, and probably several
> >others would also like to see it.
> >
> > If the file is rather large, please send it just to me. Or also send a
> >copy to Tom Miles who can put it at the repp Internet site.
> >
> >I believe that your comment advocating using regular charcoal (instead of
> >activated charcoal) will have some significant impact, especially because
> >you have now reached the "Stovers" who are dealing with micro-scale
> >combustion (residential stoves) that could make the charcoal that helps the
> >household stay healthy.
> >
> >Although we want to believe what you wrote (and I will be quoting your
> >e-mail unless you tell me not to do so), we do need some substantial
> >documentation (other than your e-mail) if we are going to advocate regular
> >charcoal as a family health material. It would be nice to have such
> >information in a compact and authoritative "place/document(s)". But we
> >will start by gathering the pieces of information.
> >
> >We will have many questions, including
> >1. HOW to set up the water treatment with the charcoal.
> >2. WHAT can be removed from the water (and what is not removed by the
> >regular charcoal).
> >
> >Note that I changed the "Subject:" line to now reflect this aspect of
> >charcoal usage.
> >
> >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 at 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
> >
>
>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 at 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

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 at 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 Thu Oct 14 14:36:05 2004
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 21:36:05 +0200
Subject: RE Regular charcoal for water treatment (was
[Stoves]Activated Charcoal Production)
Message-ID: <002801c4b225$13cc32a0$0100a8c0@home>

Dear AJH

>If the charcoal were then dried why shouldn't it then be used
>in a simple charcoal stove? Cascaded use of the wood, I love it.

Sheer genius!

Regards
Crispin

 

From tmiles at trmiles.com Thu Oct 14 15:48:19 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:48:19 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] Fw: pellets-briquetts in Sweden
Message-ID: <061401c4b22f$9c75f640$6501a8c0@OFFICE3>

----- Original Message -----
From: Heatlogs Australia heatlogsau at xtra.co.nz
To: stoves at listserv.repp.org
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 8:27 PM
Subject: pellets-briquetts in Sweden

Hi People

I would like to make contact re pelletisation of wood

Kind regards
Kerry Paget
Heatlogs Australia

From tmiles at trmiles.com Thu Oct 14 15:43:01 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:43:01 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] Fw: Wood combustion emissions
Message-ID: <061301c4b22f$9c655470$6501a8c0@OFFICE3>

FWD to List. I'm not sure who the intended recipient is. . . "Mr. Jim"?
----- Original Message -----
From: Kartz Eng
To: stoves at listserv.repp.org
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 10:53 PM
Subject: Wood combustion emissions

Mr.Jim

I happen to browse thru your article on the sawdust logs. I am from Mlaaysia and am of the opinion of the marketing feasibility of pue sawdust logs. In your article you had mentioned of a sawmill in Halifax going into the sawlog production. Appreciate further details on where to get more infowith regards to the manufacture of these logs

Regards

Rajoo
ravindrafe at hotmail.com

From tmiles at trmiles.com Thu Oct 14 15:56:14 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:56:14 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] Fw: Charcoal Pellet Fuel
Message-ID: <08f201c4b230$de6dab00$6501a8c0@OFFICE3>

----- Original Message -----
From: TARKAN AYKAC tarkanaykac at tnn.net
To: stoves at listserv.repp.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 7:39 AM
Subject: Charcoal Pellet Fuel

Dear Sir,

We are one of the leading coal briquetting producers in Turkey. We also would like to go into charcoal producing and briquetting. We do interest in continuous charcoal retorts and consider to purchase one. Can you assist us about this matter?

I look forward to hearing from you soon,

Kind Regards,

Tarkan Ayka?

?NTERKARBON

Industry & Trade Import-Export Ltd. Co.

Address: Savas Mah. 41 Sokak Murat Han No:3 K:5 Iskenderun-TURKEY

Tel: +90 326 614 3203

Fax: +90 326 626 2040

Mobile:+90 532 282 0240


From psanders at ilstu.edu Thu Oct 14 16:51:05 2004
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 16:51:05 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] Fw: Charcoal Pellet Fuel
In-Reply-To: <08f201c4b230$de6dab00$6501a8c0@OFFICE3>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20041014164710.02300c60@mail.ilstu.edu>

Stovers,

Any anyone tell me what the charcoal producers USEFULLY do with the gases
and heat that become available when the charcoal in made?

Do we ask this question to the people in Turkey and elsewhere?

In Mozambique, the "old way" just sends off the heat and smoke and gases.

Paul

At 01:56 PM 10/14/04 -0700, Tom Miles wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: TARKAN AYKAC tarkanaykac at tnn.net
>To: stoves at listserv.repp.org
>Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 7:39 AM
>Subject: Charcoal Pellet Fuel
>
>
>Dear Sir,
>
>
>
>We are one of the leading coal briquetting producers in Turkey. We also
>would like to go into charcoal producing and briquetting. We do interest
>in continuous charcoal retorts and consider to purchase one. Can you
>assist us about this matter?
>
>I look forward to hearing from you soon,
>
>Kind Regards,
>
>Tarkan Ayka?
>
>
>
>?NTERKARBON
>
>Industry & Trade Import-Export Ltd. Co.
>
>
>
>Address: Savas Mah. 41 Sokak Murat Han No:3 K:5 Iskenderun-TURKEY
>
>Tel: +90 326 614 3203
>
>Fax: +90 326 626 2040
>
>Mobile:+90 532 282 0240
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Stoves mailing list
>Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

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 at 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 rustywater at earthlink.net Fri Oct 15 05:42:14 2004
From: rustywater at earthlink.net (Rusty Shuping)
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 06:42:14 -0400
Subject: [Stoves] charcoal waterfiltration and biomat
Message-ID: <410-2200410515104214614@earthlink.net>

Stovers,

Thanks for all of the input on charcoal filtration. One concern that has come to light is
ths possible formation of a biomass in the charcaol filter. I have read that is
does happen. To lengthen the useful life of the charcoal and keep harmful bacteria
from developing in the filter itself what could be done.
I know of silver being added to ceramic candles before firing. Silver has a way of preventing
growth of bacteria. Has anyone heard of this being used in conjunction with charcaol?
It sounds like it might work. I have a few ideas of how this might be done but would like to get
comments from others first.

thanks
Rusty

From phoenix98604 at earthlink.net Fri Oct 15 10:38:00 2004
From: phoenix98604 at earthlink.net (Art Krenzel)
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 08:38:00 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] charcoal waterfiltration and biomat
References: <410-2200410515104214614@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <002101c4b2cc$f4aa4ad0$c5c0f204@7k6rv21>

Rusty,

Silver particles have been used with charcoal in small Point of Use filters
for over ten years in the US.

Check with the drinking water purification business for information.

Art Krenzel, P.E.
PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES
10505 NE 285TH Street
Battle Ground, WA 98604
360-666-1883 voice
phoenix98604 at earthlink.net

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rusty Shuping" <rustywater at earthlink.net>
To: <stoves at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 3:42 AM
Subject: [Stoves] charcoal waterfiltration and biomat

> I know of silver being added to ceramic candles before firing. Silver has
a way of preventing
> growth of bacteria. Has anyone heard of this being used in conjunction
with charcaol?
> It sounds like it might work. I have a few ideas of how this might be done
but would like to get
> comments from others first.
>
> thanks
> Rusty
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>

 

From tmiles at trmiles.com Fri Oct 15 13:08:27 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:08:27 -0700
Subject: Fw: [Stoves] Fw: Designing a Charcoal Kiln.
Message-ID: <009001c4b2e2$06cfa100$6501a8c0@OFFICE3>

Here's a good reference courtesy of Miguel Trossero of the FAO.

> ring kiln see
> * Simple Technologies for charcoal making, Forestry Paper No. 41 1987 (E)
> http://www.fao.org/docrep/X5328e/X5328e00.htm
>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: stoves-bounces at listserv.repp.org
> [mailto:stoves-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Tom Miles
> Sent: 14 October 2004 16:44
> To: STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: [Stoves] Fw: Designing a Charcoal Kiln.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ranti adeyinka omoluabi2002 at yahoo.com
> To: stoves at listserv.repp.org
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 10:46 PM
> Subject: Designing a Charcoal Kiln.
>
>
> Dear stovers,
>
> I need to designed a charcoal kiln to be used in charing the waste wood
> generated as a bye products in my company.
>
> My company is situated in Lagos Nigeria and we are into woodorking.I have
> design a brasillian behive kiln but there is difficulty in getting the
> refractory bricks and mortars to be used for the construction of the the
> said
> bricks.
>
> I will appreciate it if any of my fellow stovers can advise on how to
> build
> the brazillian beehive kiln or give me a contact of the person or company
> that will help in the construction of the said kiln.
>
> However I will also appreciate it if you can give me a simple design that
> my
> engineers can work on to produce a simple retort kiln or ring kiln because
> the level of the waste wood is increasing day by day and I need to start
> doing something about it.
>
> I will appreciate it if you treat this my request with urgency and respond
> on
> time.
>
> Thanks for the anticipated co operation.
> Kind Regards
>
> Yinka Adewumi,
> P.O.Box 1506,Lagos
> Lagos- Nigeria
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>
>

 

From elk at wananchi.com Sat Oct 16 01:55:02 2004
From: elk at wananchi.com (Elsen Karstad)
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 09:55:02 +0300
Subject: [Stoves] Fw: Cohune Nut
Message-ID: <00ba01c4b34d$714668f0$c350083e@toshibauser>

Forwarded from a non-member enquiry.

elk

----- Original Message -----
From: Blackburst at aol.com
To: stoves at listserv.repp.org
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 6:48 PM
Subject: Cohune Nut

Peter:

I am researching a VERY obscure incident from 1960 or so, an apparent con game, where a promoter named Lawrence Taylor and a man named J. "Mac" McHenry took money from an investor to develop what has been described to me as the "Kahunie Nut", or the "Carosa Nut", in then-British Honduras. The nut could be crushed in a Jeep-mounted device, and the pulp would be of some value to NASA in the space program(!?!). This was supposedly complicated by the nut being protected as the "national plant", or some such thing.

I did a web search for "Nut British Honduras", and I came upon your page, which mentions the "cohune nut". This is so close to "Kahunie" that I wondered if you have any additional info about it. Does any of this ring a bell?

Stephen Roy

 

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Sat Oct 16 08:00:42 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:00:42 +0100
Subject: RE Regular charcoal for water treatment (was [Stoves]Activated
Charcoal Production)
In-Reply-To: <002801c4b225$13cc32a0$0100a8c0@home>
References: <002801c4b225$13cc32a0$0100a8c0@home>
Message-ID: <de62n09u1f5k7qcv39kr9vae2notigqu84@4ax.com>

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 21:36:05 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:

>Dear AJH
>
>>If the charcoal were then dried why shouldn't it then be used
>>in a simple charcoal stove? Cascaded use of the wood, I love it.
>
>Sheer genius!

I'm glad you liked it, in fact way back when we were discussing the
uses of the micro production of char from reed-larson idd type cookers
Alex English and I had a brief exchange. My proposal at the time was
that as cheap wood gasification to run an ic reciprocating engine,
long term with trouble free gas clean up and no tar contamination of
engine and lubricant, has proven elusive that this char might be
agglomerated at a local level and used to run such an engine for
limited communal power. A recent post to the gasification list
prompted me to revisit this in relation to a simple power control used
in primitive engines, particularly applicable now with the
availability of electronic means to form a "clean" supply. Simple high
carbon coal gasifiers were used in the early days of such engines.

We need to note the cautions pointed out in Rusty's later post and Tom
Miles' links that domestic activated water filtering is deprecated,
the filter can act as a source of pathogenic bacteria. Tom also
pointed out that the tars still prevalent in low temperature char can
be carcinogenic. Char from these char making stoves may best be
subjected to a higher temperature (such as in a simple updraught
gasifier) to reduce tars if the filtration by char is viable.

AJH

From crispin at newdawn.sz Sat Oct 16 09:05:22 2004
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 16:05:22 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Cohune Nut
Message-ID: <000101c4b389$389bc2c0$0100a8c0@home>

Dear ELK and Peter

There is another possibility that the name was something from the word
"croshaw" (possibly 'carosuh') was being mispronounced as "carosa"
(possibly 'crosaw').

Given that it was a con and the people involved not very sure of the
name, the connection could be as follows:

In Liberia on the coast lived a 'tribe' known as the Croshaw. They had
come into possesion of cashew fruit and nuts which they determined were
beneficial to anyone who had them. It was reported to me by Henry
Appleton (a native Liberian from the extreme south, Grebo people) that
the Croshaw people went throughout great regions of what was or what
became Liberia planting them. People enjoyed the fruits therefo, though
not the nuts because they were never trained how to get the nut out. He
pointed to one in Bomi Hills and asked me what they could do with them
because he had heard that croshaw nuts were valuable. I gave the usual
answers about people steaming the outer parts off in a fire, toxins
involved etc.

Cashews are widely grown in Mo?ambique, partially processed and
accumulated at trading stations. They used to export nearly $200
million worth a year. It is very labour-intensive to get that much in
one place because the trees do not produce much weight per year in nuts.
People eat the fruit everywhere and one nut hangs from the bottom of
each one. You need a lot of people involved to get a ton of processed
nuts.

The technology used to crack the nut can indeed be a jeep-mounted
small-industry-sized 'nut cracker' that goes from place to place
processing the crop that has been gathered. The nuts are then fried in
their own oil, or the oil pressed out in a standard oil press such as a
piston press or a rotary expeller. Cashew or 'croshaw' nut oil is
indeed valuable.

I have never tried it as a rocket fuel or a very low temperature
lubricant but who knows?!

Regards
Crispin

+++++++++++++++++

Peter:

I am researching a VERY obscure incident from 1960 or so, an apparent
con game, where a promoter named Lawrence Taylor and a man named J.
"Mac" McHenry took money from an investor to develop what has been
described to me as the "Kahunie Nut", or the "Carosa Nut", in
then-British Honduras. The nut could be crushed in a Jeep-mounted
device, and the pulp would be of some value to NASA in the space
program(!?!). This was supposedly complicated by the nut being protected
as the "national plant", or some such thing.

I did a web search for "Nut British Honduras", and I came upon your
page, which mentions the "cohune nut". This is so close to "Kahunie"
that I wondered if you have any additional info about it. Does any of
this ring a bell?

Stephen Roy

 

From crispin at newdawn.sz Sat Oct 16 09:05:22 2004
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 16:05:22 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] "High death toll from indoor smoke" posted on BBC on line
Message-ID: <000301c4b389$46397a80$0100a8c0@home>

High death toll from indoor smoke

 

Indian woman cooking with basic stove. Pic by Marc Lopatin
<http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40181000/jpg/_40181168_stove203.j
pg>
Many women in India are at risk
Thick acrid smoke rising from stoves and fires inside homes causes
around 1.6m deaths a year in developing countries, say experts.

The World Health Organization is calling for greater efforts to combat
indoor air pollution.

The agency says it is one of the major causes of death and disease in
the world's poorest countries.

According to the WHO, women and children in rural areas are at greatest
risk.

However, it says that while the millions of deaths from well-known
communicable diseases often make headlines, indoor air pollution remains
a silent and unreported killer.

Nearly half of the world continues to cook with solid fuels such as
dung, wood, agricultural residues and coal.

Smoke from burning these fuels gives off a poisonous cocktail of
particles and chemicals that bypass the body's defences and more than
doubles the risk of respiratory illnesses such as bronchitis and
pneumonia.

High concentrations

According to the WHO, a typical wood-fired cooking stove creates carbon
monoxide and other noxious fumes at concentrations up to 500 times the
allowable limit.

As a result, day in day out, and for hours at a time, rural women and
their children in particular are subjected to levels of smoke in their
homes that far exceed international safety standards.

The World Energy Assessment estimates that the amount of smoke from
these fires is the equivalent of consuming two packs of cigarettes a
day.

However, these families are faced with what amounts to a non-choice -
not cooking using these fuels, or not eating.

 

Mother and child with basic cooking conditions. Pic by Marc Lopatin.
<http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40181000/jpg/_40181202_childstove
203.jpg>
Many children are among the victims
The WHO says cleaner stoves, fuels and smoke hoods are desperately
needed. It is also calling on governments and aid organisations to do
more to highlight the dangers.

It made a start at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in
Johannesburg two years ago when it was instrumental in setting up the
Global Partnership for Clean Indoor Air.

"But this is just the beginning," the WHO said in a joint statement with
the UN Development Programme.

"We need the same attention paid to this killer in the kitchen as is
paid to other major killers."

The US Environmental Protection Agency has announced $1.3m funding for
11 pilot projects to seek ways to reduce people's exposure to indoor air
pollution.

The Shell Foundation, set up by the oil company to promote environmental
issues, is also running clean stove pilots in six countries: Ethiopia,
Ghana, Guatemala, India, Kenya and Mexico.

Director Kurt Hoffman said: "We welcome the news that the WHO and the
UNDP are taking a global stand on indoor air pollution.

"Given the rich world's sensitivity to smoke and pollution, it's
appalling that we have ignored its deadly impact on the poor for so
long.

"There are solutions being developed which could dramatically reduce the
death toll but people first need to be aware that indoor smoke is a
major health and environmental hazard."

 

 

From tmiles at trmiles.com Sat Oct 16 12:38:54 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 10:38:54 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] Dissemination - What's the Score?
Message-ID: <000801c4b3a7$06995940$6701a8c0@Yellow>

It has been a very productive year. It's rewarding to see the synergism that has developed among stovers and the creativity that has produced. Many organizations have been recognized this year for their achievements in stove development, health and safety and stove dissemination.

Where do we stand on dissemination? Don Oneal urged us earlier this year to work harder on getting stoves built and in use. Stoves are an integral part of Don's (HELPS) program to improve health and habitat in Guatemala http://www.fni.com/%7edononeal/ His factory approach has helped disseminate the plancha.

How successful are other organizations in getting improved stoves adopted at the village or regional scale? How do we measure progress? Can we see improvements in health and safety?

Afrepren/FWD, Aprovecho, Arecop, ARTI, BACIP Pakistan, BEF, Breathe Easy Network, Cedesol, Center for Entrepreneurship in International Health and Development, DFID, Ecofogao, Enterprise Works, Environmental Health Project, ETHOS, HEDON, Gira, GTZ, IFPS, HELPS, ITDG, Juntos, Legacy, Masons on a Mission, MGP Ltd., NARI, Newdawn, Partnership for Clean Air, Project Gaia, RDC, Prolena, SNV Nepal, SIDA, TatEDO, Trees Water and People, UC Berkeley, Unafamila, UNDP, Venter Forestry.

Tom

From crispin at newdawn.sz Sat Oct 16 17:34:06 2004
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 00:34:06 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Dissemination - What's the Score?
Message-ID: <000001c4b3d0$40b0e200$0100a8c0@home>

Dear Stovers

>It has been a very productive year.

Yup.

>Where do we stand on dissemination?

I can say that the private or 'factory' approach is working in
measurable form in South Africa. I have made more than 1100 Vestos this
year and by any measure of a new stove technology in this region, that
is an advance. There has been some recognition of the approach to
combustion: preheating air and using reflection as a method of rapidly
getting a fire going - nearly as fast as lighting a propane stove and
certainly faster and cleaner than a paraffin stove.

As I have said before, without this stoves group, this would _not_ have
happened. Credit where it is due!

Something that I keep meaning to put out to the group in a sensible
format is the progress on the FSP stove. This is the official name for
the paraffin burner I made for the Free State Technikon's rapid
production and protyping centre. This is going gangbusters and I feel a
little remiss for not have put out some explanatory messages by now.
Just too-oo many things going on over here in Swaziland.

The FSP Stove
This is a paraffin burning 2Kw burner which can be fitted into any stove
you like. It can be retrofitted into a coal or wood stove. It is based
on the layout of the REDI stove from Switzerland which means a separate
tank, often a plastic container but it could be anything, connected by a
hose to a metal stand and burner. Unlke the REDI stove, it has only one
jet and is fitted with a fuel control valve for power control. It hasa
non-return valve in the feed pipe to prevent pulsing and it does not
need the operator to raise and lower the tank to get it started or turn
it off. This means it can be built into the house as a fixture, much
like a propane stove, but using cheaper and lower pressure fittings (0.2
bars).

In Sptember five people at the Technikon n Bloemfontein were trained in
the making of the stove. The first completed and running unit made by a
student had a CO output of 0.02% of CO2. It performed to spec which
means it will use 1 litre per 6.6 hours and cost less than $5. It takes
hand tools only to fabricate. Additoinal stoves can be easily chained
to the same fuel tank so a single pot stove can a month later be made
into a 2 pot stove and so on.

We are now making 1200 sets of components for the FSP stove and it will
hit the market on 4 November if all goes to plan. Ten producers will be
trained in the production of the stove. They will get 100 sets of
materials for 100 stoves and that will form the basis of their business
thereafter. The contact person is Ludrick Barnard.

After that we expect a very large increase in the demand for the stoves.
I have shown one to different people from gardeners to welders and 100%
of the people who see it want to buy one. It will save about $18 a
month in paraffin use and will probably retail in simple for for a
similar amount. There is good money in making them as it only takes
about an hour to build.

This is then, a 'commercial' approach to the technology dissemination,
though it has only being made viable by the inventor and funder agreeing
to make the technology public so that it can be copied in its initial
form by anyone who wants to do so. I have added a page today to our
website under 'Stoves' but it is empty save for a link to the MPG video
of the burner running. It is an early version but the image is clear
enough. I will get to a better description sometime in the next few
weeks including full drawings and instructions for assembly and
maintenance. That will take time of course.

Vesto Coal Stove
Also, I have 8 downdraft coal stoves in the field for lighting and use
evaluation, price sensitivity testing and installation needs. The
initial response is very positive. This is a new layout for coal
combustion on a small scale, designed around getting the fire going
(relatively) quickly, burning as little as 1/2 a kilo of coal at a time,
and featuring a sunken pot (second pot) water heater. Ther is no
special need to prepare the fuel (for size). It is a two pot stove with
a high degree of portability. It is basically smokeless to look at
though I am not all that impressed with the CO levels given what I see
from paraffin and wood in a hot Vesto biomass stove. Anyway, that is
what coal is like. It is very clean when coking the coal - clean enough
to legally vent into the room! It is the burning of the coke that is
the problem, like charcoal.

I expect the coal stove to be very popular because it is going to be
cheap (very high acceptance levels at $80) and much prettier. We
introduced it as a black mild steel stove for evaluation of function and
performance but it will hit the market in shiny stainless steel. We
wanted to know what people thought of the technology before they were
attracted by shiny objects.

The genius of the commercial approach is a marketing plan that thinks
people will only buy stoves that look good, are aspirational devices,
and perform better than other devices on the market, and finally, save
fuel (which means saving money).

Remember how I said at the January ETHOS conference that there were
people missing who should be invited next year? It is the marketing
people. The marketing professionals are not usually invited to stove
promotions (too 'commercial') yet we want the technology to sell itself.

Technologies do not sell themselves. People do not wat to buy a stove,
they want to buy cooked food. They don't want to own the latest
technology, they want a stove they can show their neighbours and be
proud of. I hope we will bring in some marketing experts to address the
next ETHOS conference, or perhaps just listen and then advise us on what
they are _not_ hearing in our consultations. Too many good stoves are
not successful in the market.

Keep 'em cookin'!

Regards
Crispin

 

From phoenix98604 at earthlink.net Sat Oct 16 19:08:55 2004
From: phoenix98604 at earthlink.net (Art Krenzel)
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 17:08:55 -0700
Subject: Regular charcoal for water treatment (was [Stoves]Activated
Charcoal Production)
References: <4.3.1.2.20041012111827.022c25d0@mail.ilstu.edu>
<4.3.1.2.20041013132026.022d4690@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <000e01c4b3dd$7eca0690$4ec3f204@7k6rv21>

Paul,

You said:

> Basically, (and confirmed by the posting by Tom Miles yesterday),
filtering
> with charcoal seems to mainly for taste and color, and NOT for bacteria
etc
> removal nor for removing sediments.

You have presented the actual facts in why charcoal is used in purifying
drinking water. It is primarily used to correct taste, color and remove
organics. Other technologies such as UV disinfections, chlorination, silver
ions, etc deal with the rest of the problem - bacteria, viruses and other
microorganisms. It is always advisable to put a mechanical pre-filter ahead
of all of these technologies to remove particulates such as sand, dirt, etc
prior to pretreatment techniques. It will be the cheapest item in the
process train and makes quite alot of difference.

I have come across a manufacturer of copper and zinc granules
(http://www.kdfft.com/) which can be used as a primary filter prior to
charcoal. The metal ions remove hydrogen sulfide, some water borne heavy
metals and kill various microorganisms prior to reaching the charcoal
filter. It's use, prior to a carbon filter, can extend the life of a carbon
filter 10 - 15 times. The metal ion prefilter is low in cost and has a very
long lifetime. It makes your hard won charcoal go quite a bit longer before
it needs to be changed. I successfully used a variation of this technology
for years in wash water recycling systems.

It is not new technology but granules of copper and zinc are certainly
sufficiently low tech to work in a third world environment.

Art Krenzel, P.E.
PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES
10505 NE 285TH Street
Battle Ground, WA 98604
360-666-1883 voice
phoenix98604 at earthlink.net

 

 

From adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in Sat Oct 16 21:22:51 2004
From: adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in (adkarve)
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 07:52:51 +0530
Subject: [Stoves] Dissemination - What's the Score?
References: <000801c4b3a7$06995940$6701a8c0@Yellow>
Message-ID: <000001c4b43e$1b8e5020$a95841db@adkarve>

Dear Tom,
here's a gist of the progress achieved so far by ARTI.
In January 2003 we launched, under sponsorship of Shell Foundation, London,
a programme called Commercialisation of Improved Biomass Fuels and Cooking
Devices in India. Two Phases of the programme, namely test marketing and
training of potential entrepreneurs, are over. Because it requires dry
weather both for charcoal making and also for drying the clay cookstoves,
the commercial production and sale of our fuels and cooking devices would
begin earnestly now, after the end of the monsoon. Till date our trained
entrepreneurs have sold slightly more than 20,000 stoves. The charcoal, made
from sugarcane leaves and other agricultural waste, is in such big demand,
that we cannot produce enough of it. The target set for this project is that
by the end of the year 2005, we should have at least 100 trained
entrepreneurs in the field, and each of them should have sold cookstoves to
at least 1000 families. Our field staff are of the opinion that the
programme would achieve double the target.
Our compact biogas digester is still in the prototype stage. It works on
feedstock having a physiologically high calorie content. The conventional
models use feedstock such as dung, distillery waste or other organic wastes,
which do not have much of a nutritional value as far as the bacteria are
concerned. So naturally the bacteria are reluctant to work for you. With
feedstock containing starch or sugar, they work very efficiently. While a
ton of the conventional feeedstock yields only 10 kg of methane, a ton of
our feedstock yields 250 kg of methane, with the result that our biogas
system is 25 times as efficient as the conventional one as far as quantity
of feedstock is concened and 40 times as efficient as far as the time is
concenred. We could thus reduce the size, and therefore, the price of a
biogas digester. About 100 such biogas plants are already in operation in
the state of Maharashtra, India.. After having failed to get the Rolex award
for this discovery, we submitted a project proposal to The United States
Environmental Protection Agency for funding the work of standardisation and
dissemination of this biogas system in India. I have just received the long
awaited communication from USEPA that the contract papers of the grant have
been sent to us for our signature. Incidentally, the USEPA are providing us
with more money than the amount that we were expecting from Rolex Award.
Yours
Dr.A.D.Karve, President,
Appropriate Rural Technology Institute,
Pune, India.
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com>
To: <STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>; <ethos at vrac.iastate.edu>
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 11:08 PM
Subject: [Stoves] Dissemination - What's the Score?

It has been a very productive year. It's rewarding to see the synergism that
has developed among stovers and the creativity that has produced. Many
organizations have been recognized this year for their achievements in stove
development, health and safety and stove dissemination.

Where do we stand on dissemination? Don Oneal urged us earlier this year to
work harder on getting stoves built and in use. Stoves are an integral part
of Don's (HELPS) program to improve health and habitat in Guatemala
http://www.fni.com/%7edononeal/ His factory approach has helped disseminate
the plancha.

How successful are other organizations in getting improved stoves adopted at
the village or regional scale? How do we measure progress? Can we see
improvements in health and safety?

Afrepren/FWD, Aprovecho, Arecop, ARTI, BACIP Pakistan, BEF, Breathe Easy
Network, Cedesol, Center for Entrepreneurship in International Health and
Development, DFID, Ecofogao, Enterprise Works, Environmental Health Project,
ETHOS, HEDON, Gira, GTZ, IFPS, HELPS, ITDG, Juntos, Legacy, Masons on a
Mission, MGP Ltd., NARI, Newdawn, Partnership for Clean Air, Project Gaia,
RDC, Prolena, SNV Nepal, SIDA, TatEDO, Trees Water and People, UC Berkeley,
Unafamila, UNDP, Venter Forestry.

Tom

_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
Stoves at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

 

From snkm at btl.net Sun Oct 17 10:41:04 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 09:41:04 -0600
Subject: [Stoves] Dissemination - What's the Score?
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041017085745.009635d0@pop.btl.net>

Dear AD;

Regarding:

"compact biogas digester"

and this line:

>With feedstock containing starch or sugar, they work very efficiently

How well would raw sugar cane juice work? Would it need to be concentrated
further (easy to achieve) or diluted more?

As sugar cane abounds in my area and is freely available (for such small
amounts as would be required for home cooking purposes) I can imagine many
that would be interested in acquiring your "compact biogas digester".

In the past I have ordered numerous items from India (including the small
cane crusher I operate now) and found no problems in arranging payments or
receiving goods -- though it takes and average of 6 to 10 months to
complete a transaction.

Still -- we could do an honorable technology exchange and pay a reasonable
royalty for every unit made here in Belize -- under your guidance.

This guidance could be accomplished through Email only.

You might even consider opening a small company here in Belize for
manufacturing for central American market -- specializing on just a cane
juice fed "compact biogas digester"

All of the above could be arranged economically in time and costs by internet.

Further -- we have many late arrivals -- now Belizean Citizens -- most of
these merchants with much family still in India -- all could be arranged
through people such as this as well.

The operate shops here selling items imported mostly from China and India.

But it would "cost" to do such -- simpler to deal direct -- if possible.

Peter Singfield

Belize, Central america

At 07:52 AM 10/17/2004 +0530, adkarve wrote:
>Dear Tom,
>here's a gist of the progress achieved so far by ARTI.
>In January 2003 we launched, under sponsorship of Shell Foundation, London,
>a programme called Commercialisation of Improved Biomass Fuels and Cooking
>Devices in India. Two Phases of the programme, namely test marketing and
>training of potential entrepreneurs, are over. Because it requires dry
>weather both for charcoal making and also for drying the clay cookstoves,
>the commercial production and sale of our fuels and cooking devices would
>begin earnestly now, after the end of the monsoon. Till date our trained
>entrepreneurs have sold slightly more than 20,000 stoves. The charcoal, made
>from sugarcane leaves and other agricultural waste, is in such big demand,
>that we cannot produce enough of it. The target set for this project is that
>by the end of the year 2005, we should have at least 100 trained
>entrepreneurs in the field, and each of them should have sold cookstoves to
>at least 1000 families. Our field staff are of the opinion that the
>programme would achieve double the target.
>Our compact biogas digester is still in the prototype stage. It works on
>feedstock having a physiologically high calorie content. The conventional
>models use feedstock such as dung, distillery waste or other organic wastes,
>which do not have much of a nutritional value as far as the bacteria are
>concerned. So naturally the bacteria are reluctant to work for you. With
>feedstock containing starch or sugar, they work very efficiently. While a
>ton of the conventional feeedstock yields only 10 kg of methane, a ton of
>our feedstock yields 250 kg of methane, with the result that our biogas
>system is 25 times as efficient as the conventional one as far as quantity
>of feedstock is concened and 40 times as efficient as far as the time is
>concenred. We could thus reduce the size, and therefore, the price of a
>biogas digester. About 100 such biogas plants are already in operation in
>the state of Maharashtra, India.. After having failed to get the Rolex award
>for this discovery, we submitted a project proposal to The United States
>Environmental Protection Agency for funding the work of standardisation and
>dissemination of this biogas system in India. I have just received the long
>awaited communication from USEPA that the contract papers of the grant have
>been sent to us for our signature. Incidentally, the USEPA are providing us
>with more money than the amount that we were expecting from Rolex Award.
>Yours
>Dr.A.D.Karve, President,
>Appropriate Rural Technology Institute,
>Pune, India.

 

From w.burroughs at verizon.net Sat Oct 16 23:38:39 2004
From: w.burroughs at verizon.net (Hank)
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:38:39 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] Congrats and a question for Dr Karve
References: <000801c4b3a7$06995940$6701a8c0@Yellow>
<000001c4b43e$1b8e5020$a95841db@adkarve>
Message-ID: <000b01c4b403$ba205840$9faef204@oemcomputer>

Dr. Karve,

Congratulations on the success of your stove and charcoal programs. I found
your CD very interesting even though it does not seem too applicable to the
"average" citizen in the United States. Still my son, Evan, and I are
working on possible ideas. One example, there is a lot of sagebrush and
tumble weeds growing in Eastern Oregon that could be removed to make room
for more valuable grasses. This costs quite a bit so being able to get some
value for the removed "weeds" could help.

Is it possible to get more information on your compact biogas digester
prototypes? Producing a gas might work better then making charcoal here.
We do use quite a few gas appliances such as barbecues and outdoor heaters.

Hank Burroughs
now located in the Oregon Outback

 

From snkm at btl.net Sun Oct 17 13:18:44 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 12:18:44 -0600
Subject: [Stoves] Reviewing A.D. Karve's methane digestion device
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041017121733.00998d10@pop.btl.net>

(Flipping this to Gas list as well -- being as this is about gas making)

Posting this with all respect to A. D. Karve -- who in my opinion is the
brightest beacon of pratical solutions on this mail list for all we here
living in 3rd world.

Now -- this posting should get a few gears engaged!

Quoting A.D. Karve:

"The gas produced by this
system has thus almost the same calorific value as LPG. It burns without
smoke or soot, producing an almost invisible bluish flame similar to
that of LPG."

As by now a few stover list members might be scratching their collective
minds -- along these lines:

Gee -- gas production for cook stoves is a fine methology to avoid death
due to smoke inhalation. Instead of harvesting/finding biomass for fuel --
than intensive fuel conditioning -- designing tricky stoves that need
constant attention to burn smoke free -- still requiring chimney and vents
-- just grow some sugar cane!

so -- for now -- "Focussing" on cane juice as portable fuel for A.D.s
digester.

OK -- how do really poor people make cane juice??

Traditionally -- here in Central America:

Hand extraction of cane juice involves boring two holes in a tree -- the
upper one has a moveable stick inserted -- the lower a fatter -- jammed in
hard -- not moveable -- the "anvil" inserted.

A stalk of cane is placed between these two -- the top stick being raised
-- then pressed down -- squeezing out juice -- this is repeated down the
length of cane. The juices collected below.

If we can get A. D. to enter into discussion -- some questions need be asked.

1: Will fresh cane juice be a good "food" for your digester?

re:

Because the
material to be fed into the biogas plant consists mainly of starch and
sugary material like sugarcane juice or fruit pulp,

2: How much cane juice would be required per day to supply for normal
cooking needs?

(I self answer that based on information A.D has sent -- below)

3: Is it possible that the residual stalk -- which when extracted in this
inefficient manner - -and still contains much sugar juice -- can also be
added to digester?? (Could digestion of begasse further enhance gas product
out?)

Re:

"Our studies also indicated that
the gas yield could be increased by using combinations of feedstock
materials. We are now looking at additives such as micronutrients,
nitrogen, phosphorous compounds etc."

Bagasse is very mineral rich.

4: The residue after digestion -- you note is a valid fertilizer agent --
is it a possible animal feed as well??

Re:

"The effluent slurry generated daily by the plant
is just a couple of litres. It can be used as manure for plants growing
around the house."

5: Source for bacteria required??

Self answer from notes below:

We do not use any special bacteria. To begin with we mix
about 10 kg cattle dung and water and pour the slurry into the
fermenter.

and:

However, to make the system more readily acceptable to the
users, we shall have to produce the culture ourselves and give it to the
users along with the biogas plant.

6: Is this device difficult to build??

Self answer:

A schoolgirl submitted a working model of it in a statewide
science project competition and won the first prize in the state.

***************************

Ok -- found this to self-answer #2:

"1kg of sugar or starch yields about 400 litres of methane,
within a period of 6 to 8 hours. This quantity is enough for cooking one
meal for 5 to 6 persons."

So that would mean around 12 kilograms of cane using the crude extraction
methology above -- quite labor instensive -- but then -- a small hand
operated rool type crusher could be used by numerous families to save much
labor.

You can see example of such at:

http://www.rajeximp.com/products/sc.html

I have acquired and operated model "A" -- powered by a two HP electric
engine -- for well over on year now. When in use we process 1400 kilo of
cane stalk per day -- 3 workers.

This at better efficiency of juice extraction than the above -- but keeping
a safety in guestimation factor there -- say the same --

1400/12 -- sufficient per day to supply fuel for 117 meals to be cooked.

At village level this would mean each household would collect by container
the required amount of cane juice -- daily -- for their needs in their own
individual digesters.

So yes -- "portable-fuel"

*********************************************

To bring others on this list up to speed:

Posted to this list originally:

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:48:03 +0530
Reply-To: "A.D. Karve" <adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Extracted of importance:

I have developed a highly compact biogas plant, having a volume of just
400 litres. It operates on waste starch (spoilt grain, nonedible seed of
various species, oilcake of non-edible oilseeds, rhizomes of banana, canna,
nutgrass, arums, flour swept from the floor of a flour mill etc.) and
produces about 800 litres of gas from just 1 kg starch. It produces daily
just 5 litres of effluent, which can just be thrown at the base of any tree,
or applied to the vegetable bed in the backyard. The retention time of dung
in the dung-based biogas fermenter is 6 weeks, while that of starch is only
6 hours, which is why the volume of the fermenter could be reduced. The
biogas produced from starch has about 60% methane by weight, while that
produced from cattle dung has only 25% methane by weight. As a result, even
the 800 litres produced by my biogas plant is enough for cooking the meal of
a family.
We are trying to commercialise this new biogas fermenter. It costs only
US$30 as against US$250 for the conventional biogas fermenter.
Yours A.D.Karve

***********************************

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 05:50:59 +0530
Reply-To: "A.D. Karve" <adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

"Extracted":

As far as the biogas fermenter is concerned, it is a small version of the
standard moving dome biogas plant, a very simple contraption
consisting of two drums, telescoping into one another. the outer drum is
open at the top and the inner one is open at its bottom. The outer drum is
filled with the material to be fermented and the inner drum is lowered into
it. A tap at the top of the inner drum is kept open while lowering the drum
into the outer one, and when it has been completely inserted into the outer
drum, the tap is closed. The gas accumulates in the inner drum which gets
lifted up due to increased buoyancy. (If a girl falls accidentally into
water, she should not remove her dress because the air caught in the dress
acts like a buoy :-))The inner drum is provided with a tap at the top,
through which the biogas can be led to the burner. Both the drums have a
capacity of approximately 200 litres.
A.D.Karve

******************************

Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 05:58:20 +0530
Reply-To: "A.D. Karve" <adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Several members asked me to provide more details about the compact
biogas plant being developed by us. I give below the latest status of
this technology.

The biogas plant consists of two cylindrical vessels telescoping into
one another. The larger vessel, called the fermenter, has a total
internal volume of about 500 lit. A drum having diameter of 85 cm and
height of 85 cm would have the desired volume. The smaller vessel, which
telescopes into the larger one, serves as the gas-holder. The diameter
of the gas holder is about 2 cm smaller than that of the fermenter. The
fermenter vessel is provided with appropriate inlet and outlet pipes for
introducing the feedstock into it and for removal of spent slurry from
it. The gas holder is provided with a gas tap, through which the gas is
led to the burner. This system uses starchy or sugary material as
feedstock. 1kg of sugar or starch yields about 400 litres of methane,
within a period of 6 to 8 hours. This quantity is enough for cooking one
meal for 5 to 6 persons. The biogas produced by this system contains
theoretically about equal volumes of carbondioxide and methane, but in
reality, it turned out to have less than 5% carbondioxide. This
phenomenon is explained by the fact that carbon dioxide dissolves in the
water in the fermenter vessel and diffuses out of it through the 1 cm
gap between the fermenter and the gas holder. The gas produced by this
system has thus almost the same calorific value as LPG. It burns without
smoke or soot, producing an almost invisible bluish flame similar to
that of LPG.

Several prototypes, in operation for more than a year, have been
successfully tested using various feedstocks. The potential candidate
feedstocks, namely rain damaged or insect damaged grain, flour spilled
on the floor of a flour mill, oilcake from non-edible oilseeds, seed of
various tree species, non-edible rhizomes (banana, arums, dioscoreas),
leftover food, spoiled and misshapen fruits, non-edible and wild fruits,
spoilt fruit juice, etc. are readily available in rural areas. This
system is much easier to operate than the dung based biogas plant,
because of the relatively small quantities of feedstock and effluent
slurry to be handled. The effluent slurry generated daily by the plant
is just a couple of litres. It can be used as manure for plants growing
around the house. The 500 litre biogas plant, mass produced from moulded
plastic drums, would cost about Rs. 3,500 (US$ 78). The smallest
cattle-dung based domestic biogas plant costs about Rs. 12,000 (US$267).
It requires daily 40kg dung, and owing to the retention period of almost
40 days, such plants have a minimum capacity of 2000 litres. They
generate daily 80 to 100 litres of effluent slurry. Daily handling of
such large quantities of feedstock and effluent is considered to be
arduous and bothersome by users.
Preliminary studies indicated that the amount of biogas produced and the
retention period varied from feedstock to feedstock and from season to
season. Also, when the feedstock was changed from one form to another,
the system took a few days to stabilise. Our studies also indicated that
the gas yield could be increased by using combinations of feedstock
materials. We are now looking at additives such as micronutrients,
nitrogen, phosphorous compounds etc., which might bacterial action and
yield more gas at a faster rate. Since the users would depend mainly
upon locally available feedstock, field trials are essential to
determine the retention periods and gas yield for different raw materials.
Many people in India, who read my article in a local neuspaper, copied
our design and have started to use this biogas plant in their
households. A schoolgirl submitted a working model of it in a statewide
science project competition and won the first prize in the state. A
company supplying science equipment to educational institute wants to
manufacture models (50 litre capacity) for supply to schools and colleges.
We have supplied 200 litre models to 10 voluntary agencies in different
regions for demonstrating this technology to villagers in their
respective areas. This model is meant for areas where the main diet is
rice. This model yields enough gas to operate a pressure cooker to cook
rice, beans, vegetables or meat for a family of five. In areas, where
the main diet of the people consists of unleavened flat bread, somewhat
like the tortilla, each piece of bread is made individually, and
therefore the stove has to be in operation for a longer time. In such
cases, we recommend the five hundred litre model.

A.D.Karve

***************************

Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 08:06:52 +0530
Reply-To: "A.D. Karve" <adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
Sender: The Stoves Discussion List <STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>

Dear Mr. Henson,
The fermenter vessel contains almost 200 litres of liquid. When you
pour a few litres of feedstock slurry into the biogas plant, a
corresponding quantity comes out of the outlet pipe. Because the
material to be fed into the biogas plant consists mainly of starch and
sugary material like sugarcane juice or fruit pulp, the slurry consists
almost exclusively of water with a little suspended matter in it. In the
case of cattle dung or municipal soild waste, the slurry is thicker,
because the feedstock material contains a lot of cellulose and lignin,
which are not as easily digestible as starch or sugar. Because the
effluent also consists of bacteria, and because the quantum of the
effluent is very small (just a few litres), we mix the starch powder or
fruit pulp into the effluent slurry and recycle it. We are currently
advocating that the feedstock be fed into the biogas plant once in the
morning and once again in the evening. Because the reaction time is
short, one can theoretically have a continuous drip feed, but the
relatively high viscosity of the feedstock may cause mechanical problems
like clogging of the dripper. It may also be theoretically possible to
produce alcohol and methane simultaneously, but we haven't looked for
alcohol. The system however runs on vinegar, which is the oxidised
product of alcohol. The system is sensitive to temperature. Here in Pune
it is not as cold as in the US, but at present the night temperatures
touch 10 degrees C. This lowering of the night temperature has reduced
the gas outflow considerably. However, it would not be difficult to
cover the drums with an insulating material and conserve the heat
produced by the bacterial process. I t would however add to the cost of
the system. We do not use any special bacteria. To begin with we mix
about 10 kg cattle dung and water and pour the slurry into the
fermenter. However, to make the system more readily acceptable to the
users, we shall have to produce the culture ourselves and give it to the
users along with the biogas plant. Dung is a dirty and smelly material.
In the initial phase, we add daily just 200 grams of flour. When gas
starts emanating, we test it for its combustibility. We get combustible
gas in 7 to 15 days.After the methane production has started, we
increase the daily dose of 1 kg starch at each feeding. The inlet and
outlet pipes have a diameter of about 5 cm.
A.D.Karve

 

***************************

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 19:38:38 +0530
Reply-To: adkarve <adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

 

Dear Mr. Manar,
please tell me what is meant by AD, VS and TS.

I wish to correct the figures of oilcake used and biogas generated. It
takes daily about 30 kg oilcake to produce 15 cubic meters of gas.But this
gas consists of almost pure methane. It is not a case of co-generation, but
direct fermentation. Cattle dung was used only initially as a source of
bacteria, but for more than a month, they are using only oilcake.

Let me also correct a fallacy that is current among scientists and laymen
alike. The fact, that methanogenic bacteria are found in the excreta of
animals, led people to think that dung was their food. It is not. One
should take the advice of Mark Twain, namely not to allow school to
interfer with one's education, seriously. These bacteria live in our
intestines and eat whatever we eat. They are swept out of the intestine
along with undigested food and therefore they are found in the faeces.
Because dung is not the food of these bacteria, they have to take the help
of several other species of faecal bacteria, which break down the dung into
sugars and organic acids, before the methanogenic bacteria can convert
them into methane. As a result, the quantity of methane produced from dung
(and distillery effluent, paper factory waste, municipal solid waste etc.)
is very low in proportion to the feedstock used, and secondly, it also
takes a lot of time.
Mr. Malar wanted to know the production potential of oilcake to methane. It
is stated in the standard textbooks on biogas technology, that 1 kg of
starch or sugar produces about 800 litres of biogas, out of which about 400
litres are methane. In our biogas plants, the reaction time of the
starch-to-methane process is 8 hours. Theoretically, the product should
also contain equal volume of carbon dioxide, but in the system that we are
using, the carbon dioxide dissolves in the water in the fermenter and
diffuses out of the fermenter through the gap between the fermenter vessel
and the moving dome. After seeing the nalysis of our biogas, somebody
suggested that we could use our gas for a driving a car. We do not have the
compressor to put the gas into a cylinder, but we operated a petrol driven
portable electricity generator for about two hours, using just the biogas
produced from oilcake.
Yours
Dr.A.D.Karve, President,
Appropriate Rural Technology Institute,
Pune, India.

**************************************

rom: Carefreeland at aol.com
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 03:46:00 EDT
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Does the methane flame travel back?
To: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN, stoves at listserv.repp.org

"extracted"

Methane may also
explode, as in the cylinder of an internal combustion engine, if it is mixed
with the appropriate quantity of oxygen. But under the anaerobic conditions
under which methane is produced and stored, it would not explode or burn as
long as it is inside the gas holder or inside the fermenter.
You also asked me if agricultural crop residues could be used for producing
methane instead of making charcoal. Unfortunately, the anaerobic bacteria
cannot digest lignin. Woody and lignified crop residues like cotton stalks,
sugarcane leaves or wheat straw have to be first decomposed by aerobic
organisms. The digested mass is then fed into a biogas digester. This is
called two stage fermentation. It is used for agricultural residues and also
for municipal solid waste, but not in a domestic methane fermenter, because
the added cost of the extra fermenter and the extra space required by the
system.

The residual slurry of a biogas fermenter is a good organic source of plant
nutrients, because the process of methane formation removes CO2 and CH4 from
the biomass. Because of the selectinve removal of these elements form the
biomass, the other constituents such a N,P,K,Ca, Fe, etc. get concentrated
in residual slurry.

Now -- for those on the Gas list that have made it down this far -- what do
you believe is the practical economic viability of converting abandoned
sugar factory plants into centralized gas production facilities for further
distribution??

Peter Singfield -- in Belize

From rstanley at legacyfound.org Mon Oct 18 13:37:01 2004
From: rstanley at legacyfound.org (Richard Stanley)
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:37:01 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] Re: [Gasification] Reviewing A.D. Karve's methane
digestion device
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20041017121733.00998d10@pop.btl.net>
References: <3.0.32.20041017121733.00998d10@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <41740D4D.6020104@legacyfound.org>

Peter et al .

I wholeheartedly support the concept and AD's pioneering work and yours.
Now couple this with what is already known about biogas burners (I
wonder AD, about the viscosity of the gas. Assuming its exits the
digester at about the same pressure as a conventional floating drum
biogas plant) do you have to use a larger bore burner then LPG
appliances or..?

Having lived daily with my own conventional biogas plant at my own house
in Tanzania for four years, the very improvements Ad suggests with thie
new version, are exactly on the mark toward widespread adaptability.
Now all we need is a thinking and for a change legally elected president
to guide the policy here...
Aluta continua,
Richard Stanley,
from the US of the North American continent

Peter Singfield wrote:

>(Flipping this to Gas list as well -- being as this is about gas making)
>
>Posting this with all respect to A. D. Karve -- who in my opinion is the
>brightest beacon of pratical solutions on this mail list for all we here
>living in 3rd world.
>
>Now -- this posting should get a few gears engaged!
>
>Quoting A.D. Karve:
>
>"The gas produced by this
>system has thus almost the same calorific value as LPG. It burns without
>smoke or soot, producing an almost invisible bluish flame similar to
>that of LPG."
>
>
>As by now a few stover list members might be scratching their collective
>minds -- along these lines:
>
>Gee -- gas production for cook stoves is a fine methology to avoid death
>due to smoke inhalation. Instead of harvesting/finding biomass for fuel --
>than intensive fuel conditioning -- designing tricky stoves that need
>constant attention to burn smoke free -- still requiring chimney and vents
>-- just grow some sugar cane!
>
>so -- for now -- "Focussing" on cane juice as portable fuel for A.D.s
>digester.
>
>
>OK -- how do really poor people make cane juice??
>
>Traditionally -- here in Central America:
>
>Hand extraction of cane juice involves boring two holes in a tree -- the
>upper one has a moveable stick inserted -- the lower a fatter -- jammed in
>hard -- not moveable -- the "anvil" inserted.
>
>A stalk of cane is placed between these two -- the top stick being raised
>-- then pressed down -- squeezing out juice -- this is repeated down the
>length of cane. The juices collected below.
>
>If we can get A. D. to enter into discussion -- some questions need be asked.
>
>1: Will fresh cane juice be a good "food" for your digester?
>
>re:
>
>Because the
>material to be fed into the biogas plant consists mainly of starch and
>sugary material like sugarcane juice or fruit pulp,
>
>2: How much cane juice would be required per day to supply for normal
>cooking needs?
>
>(I self answer that based on information A.D has sent -- below)
>
>3: Is it possible that the residual stalk -- which when extracted in this
>inefficient manner - -and still contains much sugar juice -- can also be
>added to digester?? (Could digestion of begasse further enhance gas product
>out?)
>
>Re:
>
>"Our studies also indicated that
>the gas yield could be increased by using combinations of feedstock
>materials. We are now looking at additives such as micronutrients,
>nitrogen, phosphorous compounds etc."
>
>Bagasse is very mineral rich.
>
>4: The residue after digestion -- you note is a valid fertilizer agent --
>is it a possible animal feed as well??
>
>Re:
>
>"The effluent slurry generated daily by the plant
>is just a couple of litres. It can be used as manure for plants growing
>around the house."
>
>5: Source for bacteria required??
>
>Self answer from notes below:
>
>We do not use any special bacteria. To begin with we mix
>about 10 kg cattle dung and water and pour the slurry into the
>fermenter.
>
>and:
>
>However, to make the system more readily acceptable to the
>users, we shall have to produce the culture ourselves and give it to the
>users along with the biogas plant.
>
>6: Is this device difficult to build??
>
>Self answer:
>
>A schoolgirl submitted a working model of it in a statewide
>science project competition and won the first prize in the state.
>
>***************************
>
>Ok -- found this to self-answer #2:
>
>"1kg of sugar or starch yields about 400 litres of methane,
>within a period of 6 to 8 hours. This quantity is enough for cooking one
>meal for 5 to 6 persons."
>
>So that would mean around 12 kilograms of cane using the crude extraction
>methology above -- quite labor instensive -- but then -- a small hand
>operated rool type crusher could be used by numerous families to save much
>labor.
>
>You can see example of such at:
>
>http://www.rajeximp.com/products/sc.html
>
>I have acquired and operated model "A" -- powered by a two HP electric
>engine -- for well over on year now. When in use we process 1400 kilo of
>cane stalk per day -- 3 workers.
>
>This at better efficiency of juice extraction than the above -- but keeping
>a safety in guestimation factor there -- say the same --
>
>1400/12 -- sufficient per day to supply fuel for 117 meals to be cooked.
>
>At village level this would mean each household would collect by container
>the required amount of cane juice -- daily -- for their needs in their own
>individual digesters.
>
>So yes -- "portable-fuel"
>
>
>*********************************************
>
>To bring others on this list up to speed:
>
>
>Posted to this list originally:
>
>Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:48:03 +0530
>Reply-To: "A.D. Karve" <adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
>
>Extracted of importance:
>
>I have developed a highly compact biogas plant, having a volume of just
>400 litres. It operates on waste starch (spoilt grain, nonedible seed of
>various species, oilcake of non-edible oilseeds, rhizomes of banana, canna,
>nutgrass, arums, flour swept from the floor of a flour mill etc.) and
>produces about 800 litres of gas from just 1 kg starch. It produces daily
>just 5 litres of effluent, which can just be thrown at the base of any tree,
>or applied to the vegetable bed in the backyard. The retention time of dung
>in the dung-based biogas fermenter is 6 weeks, while that of starch is only
>6 hours, which is why the volume of the fermenter could be reduced. The
>biogas produced from starch has about 60% methane by weight, while that
>produced from cattle dung has only 25% methane by weight. As a result, even
>the 800 litres produced by my biogas plant is enough for cooking the meal of
>a family.
> We are trying to commercialise this new biogas fermenter. It costs only
>US$30 as against US$250 for the conventional biogas fermenter.
>Yours A.D.Karve
>
>***********************************
>
>Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 05:50:59 +0530
>Reply-To: "A.D. Karve" <adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
>
>"Extracted":
>
>As far as the biogas fermenter is concerned, it is a small version of the
>standard moving dome biogas plant, a very simple contraption
>consisting of two drums, telescoping into one another. the outer drum is
>open at the top and the inner one is open at its bottom. The outer drum is
>filled with the material to be fermented and the inner drum is lowered into
>it. A tap at the top of the inner drum is kept open while lowering the drum
>into the outer one, and when it has been completely inserted into the outer
>drum, the tap is closed. The gas accumulates in the inner drum which gets
>lifted up due to increased buoyancy. (If a girl falls accidentally into
>water, she should not remove her dress because the air caught in the dress
>acts like a buoy :-))The inner drum is provided with a tap at the top,
>through which the biogas can be led to the burner. Both the drums have a
>capacity of approximately 200 litres.
>A.D.Karve
>
>******************************
>
>Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 05:58:20 +0530
>Reply-To: "A.D. Karve" <adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
>
> Several members asked me to provide more details about the compact
>biogas plant being developed by us. I give below the latest status of
>this technology.
>
>The biogas plant consists of two cylindrical vessels telescoping into
>one another. The larger vessel, called the fermenter, has a total
>internal volume of about 500 lit. A drum having diameter of 85 cm and
>height of 85 cm would have the desired volume. The smaller vessel, which
>telescopes into the larger one, serves as the gas-holder. The diameter
>of the gas holder is about 2 cm smaller than that of the fermenter. The
>fermenter vessel is provided with appropriate inlet and outlet pipes for
>introducing the feedstock into it and for removal of spent slurry from
>it. The gas holder is provided with a gas tap, through which the gas is
>led to the burner. This system uses starchy or sugary material as
>feedstock. 1kg of sugar or starch yields about 400 litres of methane,
>within a period of 6 to 8 hours. This quantity is enough for cooking one
>meal for 5 to 6 persons. The biogas produced by this system contains
>theoretically about equal volumes of carbondioxide and methane, but in
>reality, it turned out to have less than 5% carbondioxide. This
>phenomenon is explained by the fact that carbon dioxide dissolves in the
>water in the fermenter vessel and diffuses out of it through the 1 cm
>gap between the fermenter and the gas holder. The gas produced by this
>system has thus almost the same calorific value as LPG. It burns without
>smoke or soot, producing an almost invisible bluish flame similar to
>that of LPG.
>
>Several prototypes, in operation for more than a year, have been
>successfully tested using various feedstocks. The potential candidate
>feedstocks, namely rain damaged or insect damaged grain, flour spilled
>on the floor of a flour mill, oilcake from non-edible oilseeds, seed of
>various tree species, non-edible rhizomes (banana, arums, dioscoreas),
>leftover food, spoiled and misshapen fruits, non-edible and wild fruits,
>spoilt fruit juice, etc. are readily available in rural areas. This
>system is much easier to operate than the dung based biogas plant,
>because of the relatively small quantities of feedstock and effluent
>slurry to be handled. The effluent slurry generated daily by the plant
>is just a couple of litres. It can be used as manure for plants growing
>around the house. The 500 litre biogas plant, mass produced from moulded
>plastic drums, would cost about Rs. 3,500 (US$ 78). The smallest
>cattle-dung based domestic biogas plant costs about Rs. 12,000 (US$267).
>It requires daily 40kg dung, and owing to the retention period of almost
>40 days, such plants have a minimum capacity of 2000 litres. They
>generate daily 80 to 100 litres of effluent slurry. Daily handling of
>such large quantities of feedstock and effluent is considered to be
>arduous and bothersome by users.
>Preliminary studies indicated that the amount of biogas produced and the
>retention period varied from feedstock to feedstock and from season to
>season. Also, when the feedstock was changed from one form to another,
>the system took a few days to stabilise. Our studies also indicated that
>the gas yield could be increased by using combinations of feedstock
>materials. We are now looking at additives such as micronutrients,
>nitrogen, phosphorous compounds etc., which might bacterial action and
>yield more gas at a faster rate. Since the users would depend mainly
>upon locally available feedstock, field trials are essential to
>determine the retention periods and gas yield for different raw materials.
>Many people in India, who read my article in a local neuspaper, copied
>our design and have started to use this biogas plant in their
>households. A schoolgirl submitted a working model of it in a statewide
>science project competition and won the first prize in the state. A
>company supplying science equipment to educational institute wants to
>manufacture models (50 litre capacity) for supply to schools and colleges.
>We have supplied 200 litre models to 10 voluntary agencies in different
>regions for demonstrating this technology to villagers in their
>respective areas. This model is meant for areas where the main diet is
>rice. This model yields enough gas to operate a pressure cooker to cook
>rice, beans, vegetables or meat for a family of five. In areas, where
>the main diet of the people consists of unleavened flat bread, somewhat
>like the tortilla, each piece of bread is made individually, and
>therefore the stove has to be in operation for a longer time. In such
>cases, we recommend the five hundred litre model.
>
>A.D.Karve
>
>***************************
>
>Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 08:06:52 +0530
>Reply-To: "A.D. Karve" <adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
>Sender: The Stoves Discussion List <STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>
> Dear Mr. Henson,
> The fermenter vessel contains almost 200 litres of liquid. When you
>pour a few litres of feedstock slurry into the biogas plant, a
>corresponding quantity comes out of the outlet pipe. Because the
>material to be fed into the biogas plant consists mainly of starch and
>sugary material like sugarcane juice or fruit pulp, the slurry consists
>almost exclusively of water with a little suspended matter in it. In the
>case of cattle dung or municipal soild waste, the slurry is thicker,
>because the feedstock material contains a lot of cellulose and lignin,
>which are not as easily digestible as starch or sugar. Because the
>effluent also consists of bacteria, and because the quantum of the
>effluent is very small (just a few litres), we mix the starch powder or
>fruit pulp into the effluent slurry and recycle it. We are currently
>advocating that the feedstock be fed into the biogas plant once in the
>morning and once again in the evening. Because the reaction time is
>short, one can theoretically have a continuous drip feed, but the
>relatively high viscosity of the feedstock may cause mechanical problems
>like clogging of the dripper. It may also be theoretically possible to
>produce alcohol and methane simultaneously, but we haven't looked for
>alcohol. The system however runs on vinegar, which is the oxidised
>product of alcohol. The system is sensitive to temperature. Here in Pune
>it is not as cold as in the US, but at present the night temperatures
>touch 10 degrees C. This lowering of the night temperature has reduced
>the gas outflow considerably. However, it would not be difficult to
>cover the drums with an insulating material and conserve the heat
>produced by the bacterial process. I t would however add to the cost of
>the system. We do not use any special bacteria. To begin with we mix
>about 10 kg cattle dung and water and pour the slurry into the
>fermenter. However, to make the system more readily acceptable to the
>users, we shall have to produce the culture ourselves and give it to the
>users along with the biogas plant. Dung is a dirty and smelly material.
>In the initial phase, we add daily just 200 grams of flour. When gas
>starts emanating, we test it for its combustibility. We get combustible
>gas in 7 to 15 days.After the methane production has started, we
>increase the daily dose of 1 kg starch at each feeding. The inlet and
>outlet pipes have a diameter of about 5 cm.
>A.D.Karve
>
>
>
>
>***************************
>
>Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 19:38:38 +0530
>Reply-To: adkarve <adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
>
>
>
>Dear Mr. Manar,
>please tell me what is meant by AD, VS and TS.
>
>I wish to correct the figures of oilcake used and biogas generated. It
>takes daily about 30 kg oilcake to produce 15 cubic meters of gas.But this
>gas consists of almost pure methane. It is not a case of co-generation, but
>direct fermentation. Cattle dung was used only initially as a source of
>bacteria, but for more than a month, they are using only oilcake.
>
>Let me also correct a fallacy that is current among scientists and laymen
>alike. The fact, that methanogenic bacteria are found in the excreta of
>animals, led people to think that dung was their food. It is not. One
>should take the advice of Mark Twain, namely not to allow school to
>interfer with one's education, seriously. These bacteria live in our
>intestines and eat whatever we eat. They are swept out of the intestine
>along with undigested food and therefore they are found in the faeces.
>Because dung is not the food of these bacteria, they have to take the help
>of several other species of faecal bacteria, which break down the dung into
>sugars and organic acids, before the methanogenic bacteria can convert
>them into methane. As a result, the quantity of methane produced from dung
>(and distillery effluent, paper factory waste, municipal solid waste etc.)
>is very low in proportion to the feedstock used, and secondly, it also
>takes a lot of time.
>Mr. Malar wanted to know the production potential of oilcake to methane. It
>is stated in the standard textbooks on biogas technology, that 1 kg of
>starch or sugar produces about 800 litres of biogas, out of which about 400
>litres are methane. In our biogas plants, the reaction time of the
>starch-to-methane process is 8 hours. Theoretically, the product should
>also contain equal volume of carbon dioxide, but in the system that we are
>using, the carbon dioxide dissolves in the water in the fermenter and
>diffuses out of the fermenter through the gap between the fermenter vessel
>and the moving dome. After seeing the nalysis of our biogas, somebody
>suggested that we could use our gas for a driving a car. We do not have the
>compressor to put the gas into a cylinder, but we operated a petrol driven
>portable electricity generator for about two hours, using just the biogas
>produced from oilcake.
>Yours
>Dr.A.D.Karve, President,
>Appropriate Rural Technology Institute,
>Pune, India.
>
>
>**************************************
>
>rom: Carefreeland at aol.com
>Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 03:46:00 EDT
>Subject: Re: [STOVES] Does the methane flame travel back?
>To: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN, stoves at listserv.repp.org
>
>"extracted"
>
>Methane may also
>explode, as in the cylinder of an internal combustion engine, if it is mixed
>with the appropriate quantity of oxygen. But under the anaerobic conditions
>under which methane is produced and stored, it would not explode or burn as
>long as it is inside the gas holder or inside the fermenter.
>You also asked me if agricultural crop residues could be used for producing
>methane instead of making charcoal. Unfortunately, the anaerobic bacteria
>cannot digest lignin. Woody and lignified crop residues like cotton stalks,
>sugarcane leaves or wheat straw have to be first decomposed by aerobic
>organisms. The digested mass is then fed into a biogas digester. This is
>called two stage fermentation. It is used for agricultural residues and also
>for municipal solid waste, but not in a domestic methane fermenter, because
>the added cost of the extra fermenter and the extra space required by the
>system.
>
>The residual slurry of a biogas fermenter is a good organic source of plant
>nutrients, because the process of methane formation removes CO2 and CH4 from
>the biomass. Because of the selectinve removal of these elements form the
>biomass, the other constituents such a N,P,K,Ca, Fe, etc. get concentrated
>in residual slurry.
>
>Now -- for those on the Gas list that have made it down this far -- what do
>you believe is the practical economic viability of converting abandoned
>sugar factory plants into centralized gas production facilities for further
>distribution??
>
>
>Peter Singfield -- in Belize
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
>
>
>
>

 

From snkm at btl.net Sun Oct 17 13:54:20 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 12:54:20 -0600
Subject: [Stoves] Reviewing A.D. Karve's methane digestion device
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041017125017.00942100@pop.btl.net>

***********************
If we can get A. D. to enter into discussion -- some questions need be asked.

1: Will fresh cane juice be a good "food" for your digester?

**********************

Further investigations of my extensive archives on hard drive have derived
A.D.'s answer to this question -- above -- addressed to me personally on
this same mail list -- and some time back!

So embarrassing to age and lose my mental capacities --

Here is that answer:

Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 19:27:25 +0530
From: "A.D. Karve" <adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in>
Subject: Re: [STOVES] compact biogas plant
To: Peter Singfield <snkm at btl.net>, STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
X-Accept-Language: en-us

Dear Peter,

Our biogas plant accepts both sugarcane juice as also macerated whole
sugarcane.

In the case of the latter, the advantage is that the cellulose in the cane
is also converted into gas, albeit after a retention period of about 20
days.

The maceration is done with the help of a machine called the chaff cutter,
which is used for chopping stems of sorghum or maize into small pieces. One
can set the machine to give different sizes of the chopped up material.

We use the setting for the smallest pieces. Under Indian conditions, where
we get rains only during the four months of monsoon, sugarcane needs
irrigation.

Therefore it is not such a simple crop to grow and it is also costly. There
are many crops that produce starchy material (e.g. sorghum, pearl millet,
sweet potato and several perennial tree species). Many of them can be grown
purely under rainfed situations, and therefore starchy material is
generally cheaper.

It can also be stored more easily than sugarcane juice or sirup.

I have not patented my biogas plant as I use the same standard design. The
fact that one can get methane from starch or sugar is also not my
invention.

This is common information to everybody in the biogas game. Many people
have reported high biogas yields with oilcakes. There was however a general
tendency among all workers to use only waste material such as animal dung,
municipal solid waste, distillery effluent etc. as the raw material for
making methane.

All that I did was to conduct some experiments with starchy and sugary
material. When I got good results, I started to search for such material
that could be used as feedstock without competing with human or animal
food, and found that farmers generally have a lot of starchy and sugary
material, which they considered as waste. One can of course have commercial
methane production using commercially grown starchy material such as
sorghum or tapioka. The farmer does not care for what his produce is being
used for, after he has sold it.

In fact none of our technologies is patented, as we want them to reach the
people who are need of them.

As to diversifying our operation to other areas, would certainly like to
do it, if the money is made available for it.

Yours
A.D.Karve

**************in reply to********************

Peter Singfield wrote:
At 05:58 AM 1/5/2004 +0530, A.D. Karve wrote:
Several members asked me to provide more details about the compact
biogas plant being developed by us. I give below the latest status of
this technology.

Dear A.D.Karve;

I live in Belize, Central America, in a small village "Xaibe" -- that is
literally surrounded in cane fields.

I wonder if an optimized version of your design could be made to operate on
only fresh cane juice??

Have you tried this as of yet??

For the other stovers on the list -- sugar cane is a wonderfully productive
plant for any place in the tropics. Very easy to grow. For a large
percentage of the world's poorest populations it is feasible to have a
small plot of cane. This certainly would solve the "where do we find all
the biomass to burn" problem!

Certainly -- it would be of interest to me to pursue this topic further.

Mr. A.D.Karve -- it is commercially impossible to ship such devices around
the globe. But have you considered diversifying your operation to other
areas??

"Franchising" this gas producer -- based specifically on cane juice --
would be in teresting and profitable.

One small cane crusher in each village would suffice for everyone's gas
generator.

Though this is about gas -- and is about small stoves -- there may be a few
on this list adverse to such a discussion being as it deals not with --
what to date -- is considered as standard "stove".

But then -- locking oneself into a rigid mind set is often counter
productive to innovation or eventual application.

By coincidence I happen to have that "one small cane crusher" --

Peter Singfield
Belize





From phoenix98604 at earthlink.net Mon Oct 18 10:08:00 2004
From: phoenix98604 at earthlink.net (Art Krenzel)
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 08:08:00 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] Dissemination - What's the Score?
References: <3.0.32.20041017085745.009635d0@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <006901c4b524$438ada80$73bdf204@7k6rv21>

Peter,

Before we get all "frothy" over the biogas issue and start handing out Nobel
Peace Prizes, we need to get down to the biochemistry of biogas.

As I had told you in other emails, biogas has been around for thousands of
years and is in widespread use around the world in most rural temperate or
tropical climates. It is a great method of reducing the energy content of
manure wastes especially in confined areas. The process depends upon the
ability to dissolve starches and sugars in a water solution because the
microbes do not have any teeth to chew solids. They glean their livelihood
from "organic soup".

You can try to dissolve a tree by putting it in water and still have almost
a complete tree left in six months. If you puree flour in water, it
dissolves almost instantly into "organic soup" and the microbes can begin to
digest it. The key to measuring how fast and how much gas you will get from
a feedstock is to look at the % Volatile Solids because that is an estimate
of the part which can be dissolved in water as food for the microbes to eat.

You want to use feedstocks which have a high volatile solids content and
dissolve quickly to have an economical anaerobic process. Nature did not
have any problem producing natural gas from wood because it had alot of time
to do it in. We seem not to have that advantage. To speed up the
dissolution of the solid, use small particles or thin sheets of the
feedstocks and raise the temperature to improve the solubility rate. Bagass
is not the best feedstock for methane production because it has low volatile
solids and it takes a very long time to dissolve in water. It will work but
the storage volume for the dissolution will be very high and the methane
production rate will be quite low. Flour, on the other hand, meets our need
for speed and can be economic.

Any soluble feedstock (sugar, starch, cellulose, etc) will decompose by
microbial action when dissolved in water and a broadband source of microbes
from a source such as manure is added. The most efficient microbe species
for that food source, temperature, pH, dissolved salt, etc will become
dominant and they will produce a specific range of digestion products.

Sugars are a special feedstock for this decomposition and the process is
called fermentation - used to make beer. To prevent the competition between
microbes, only select yeasts are fed into the sugary beer wort in an effort
to make a pure, tasty brew. IF you added manure to the cane juice, you
would get a wide range of products which could include methane and some
alcohol (but not alot) and a not-so-tasty beverage. The controlled
fermentation process, where cleanliness, the introduction of a select yeast
and minimum of contaminants is paramount, is a special subset to anaerobic
decomposition and it produces a drinkable product. DO NOT DRINK THE PRODUCT
OF A MANURE BASED FERMENTATION! Sorry, I got carried away there - I must be
watching too much FEAR FACTOR on TV. :-)

The question is - which product has the most value in the society you live
in when it comes to the proper process for cane juice - beer or methane.

I was waiting for Tom Miles to enter the foray since I believe he is the
moderator on the biogas listserve as well. I had to act as a humble
substitute.

 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm at btl.net>
To: <STOVES at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 8:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Dissemination - What's the Score?

>
> Dear AD;
>
> Regarding:
>
> "compact biogas digester"
>
> and this line:
>
> >With feedstock containing starch or sugar, they work very efficiently
>
> How well would raw sugar cane juice work? Would it need to be concentrated
> further (easy to achieve) or diluted more?
>
> As sugar cane abounds in my area and is freely available (for such small
> amounts as would be required for home cooking purposes) I can imagine many
> that would be interested in acquiring your "compact biogas digester".
>
> In the past I have ordered numerous items from India (including the small
> cane crusher I operate now) and found no problems in arranging payments or
> receiving goods -- though it takes and average of 6 to 10 months to
> complete a transaction.
>
> Still -- we could do an honorable technology exchange and pay a reasonable
> royalty for every unit made here in Belize -- under your guidance.
>
> This guidance could be accomplished through Email only.
>
> You might even consider opening a small company here in Belize for
> manufacturing for central American market -- specializing on just a cane
> juice fed "compact biogas digester"
>
> All of the above could be arranged economically in time and costs by
internet.
>
> Further -- we have many late arrivals -- now Belizean Citizens -- most of
> these merchants with much family still in India -- all could be arranged
> through people such as this as well.
>
> The operate shops here selling items imported mostly from China and India.
>
> But it would "cost" to do such -- simpler to deal direct -- if possible.
>
> Peter Singfield
>
> Belize, Central america
>
>
> At 07:52 AM 10/17/2004 +0530, adkarve wrote:
> >Dear Tom,
> >here's a gist of the progress achieved so far by ARTI.
> >In January 2003 we launched, under sponsorship of Shell Foundation,
London,
> >a programme called Commercialisation of Improved Biomass Fuels and
Cooking
> >Devices in India. Two Phases of the programme, namely test marketing and
> >training of potential entrepreneurs, are over. Because it requires dry
> >weather both for charcoal making and also for drying the clay cookstoves,
> >the commercial production and sale of our fuels and cooking devices would
> >begin earnestly now, after the end of the monsoon. Till date our trained
> >entrepreneurs have sold slightly more than 20,000 stoves. The charcoal,
made
> >from sugarcane leaves and other agricultural waste, is in such big
demand,
> >that we cannot produce enough of it. The target set for this project is
that
> >by the end of the year 2005, we should have at least 100 trained
> >entrepreneurs in the field, and each of them should have sold cookstoves
to
> >at least 1000 families. Our field staff are of the opinion that the
> >programme would achieve double the target.
> >Our compact biogas digester is still in the prototype stage. It works on
> >feedstock having a physiologically high calorie content. The conventional
> >models use feedstock such as dung, distillery waste or other organic
wastes,
> >which do not have much of a nutritional value as far as the bacteria are
> >concerned. So naturally the bacteria are reluctant to work for you. With
> >feedstock containing starch or sugar, they work very efficiently. While a
> >ton of the conventional feeedstock yields only 10 kg of methane, a ton of
> >our feedstock yields 250 kg of methane, with the result that our biogas
> >system is 25 times as efficient as the conventional one as far as
quantity
> >of feedstock is concened and 40 times as efficient as far as the time is
> >concenred. We could thus reduce the size, and therefore, the price of a
> >biogas digester. About 100 such biogas plants are already in operation in
> >the state of Maharashtra, India.. After having failed to get the Rolex
award
> >for this discovery, we submitted a project proposal to The United States
> >Environmental Protection Agency for funding the work of standardisation
and
> >dissemination of this biogas system in India. I have just received the
long
> >awaited communication from USEPA that the contract papers of the grant
have
> >been sent to us for our signature. Incidentally, the USEPA are providing
us
> >with more money than the amount that we were expecting from Rolex Award.
> >Yours
> >Dr.A.D.Karve, President,
> >Appropriate Rural Technology Institute,
> >Pune, India.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>

 

From adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in Sun Oct 17 23:04:04 2004
From: adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in (adkarve)
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 09:34:04 +0530
Subject: [Stoves] A.D. Karve's methane digestion device
References: <3.0.32.20041017125017.00942100@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <000001c4b525$2cbcbac0$c35341db@adkarve>

Dear Stovers,
I was flooded with requests from members for details of the compact biogas
digester. Peter Springfield presented a nice collection of my own postings.
They contain several contradictions and discrepancies. The digester is still
in the prototype stage and we are still working on it. It is thus going
through a process of evolution and it may take some time before we come out
with the ultimate optimal design. The present status is that a family needs
about 500 litres of methane (roughly 130 g by weight) for cooking a meal.
Therefore, the gas holder has to have the capacity to hold about 500 litres
of gas. In a model, having two cylinders telescoping into one another, this
automatically determines the volume of the digester (lower barrel), which
too must have a volume of about 500 litres. We have several firms selling
plastic water tanks. By searching in the market, one can find two 500 litre
tanks having slightly different diameters. The tank with the smaller
diameter serves as the gas holder and the one with the larger diameter
serves as the fermenter. It is advisable to have black tanks and to keep
them exposed to direct sunlight, as the reaction runs faster with higher
temperature. To start the fermenter, one uses about 10 kg cattle dung mixed
with water and fills the fermenter tank. It takes about 8 days before the
gas accumulation starts. The accumulated gas lifts the gas holder. Test the
gas every day for its combustibility. If it is not combustible, just let it
escape. Once you start getting combustible gas, start feeding the fermenter
with the high starch/sugar feedstock. Feed about 1 kg equivalent of sugar or
starch in the morning and again 1kg equivalent in the evening. We have so
far successfully used flour of cereal grains, flour of a whole lot of seeds
collected from various tree species, leftover food, sugarcane juice,
macerated whole sugarcane, oilcakes of edible as well non-edible oilseeds,
pulp of papaya, bananas, mangoes, rotten onions, macerated tubers of potato,
tapioka, sweet potato, taro etc. The conventional biogas plants use
feedstock having high organic carbon content but low calorific value. It is
a universal rule that every output of work requires a corresponding input of
energy. In the conventional biogas plants, the conventional feedstock is low
in physiologically available calories. So naturally the gas output is also
low. The stovers understand calories. When talking with stovers about fuel,
the first question that is asked is about the calorific value of the fuel.
But apparently the biogas workers do not understand calories. They talk of
C/N ratio, organic matter that can be volatilized and many other things,
which make no sense to me.
Now that we are on the way to getting a grant from USEPA, we want to scale
up the manufacture of the present model with the help of a plastic
manufacturer. It is our aspiration that the model, having a gas holder of
500 litre capacity should not cost more than about US$50. The gas stove with
two burners costs US$20. The total expenditure is about the same as the
present price of an LPG system, which includes the deposit for the LPG
cylinder. Anybody who has already installed a conventional biogas system in
his house, has only to switch from dung to the new feedstock. Many people
have already done it.
Yours
A.D.Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Singfield <snkm at btl.net>
To: <STOVES at listserv.repp.org>; <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 12:24 AM
Subject: [Stoves] Reviewing A.D. Karve's methane digestion device

>
> ***********************
> If we can get A. D. to enter into discussion -- some questions need be
asked.
>
> 1: Will fresh cane juice be a good "food" for your digester?
>
> **********************
>
> Further investigations of my extensive archives on hard drive have derived
> A.D.'s answer to this question -- above -- addressed to me personally on
> this same mail list -- and some time back!
>
> So embarrassing to age and lose my mental capacities --
>
> Here is that answer:
>
> Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 19:27:25 +0530
> From: "A.D. Karve" <adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in>
> Subject: Re: [STOVES] compact biogas plant
> To: Peter Singfield <snkm at btl.net>, STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> X-Accept-Language: en-us
>
> Dear Peter,
>
> Our biogas plant accepts both sugarcane juice as also macerated whole
> sugarcane.
>
> In the case of the latter, the advantage is that the cellulose in the cane
> is also converted into gas, albeit after a retention period of about 20
> days.
>
> The maceration is done with the help of a machine called the chaff cutter,
> which is used for chopping stems of sorghum or maize into small pieces.
One
> can set the machine to give different sizes of the chopped up material.
>
> We use the setting for the smallest pieces. Under Indian conditions,
where
> we get rains only during the four months of monsoon, sugarcane needs
> irrigation.
>
> Therefore it is not such a simple crop to grow and it is also costly.
There
> are many crops that produce starchy material (e.g. sorghum, pearl millet,
> sweet potato and several perennial tree species). Many of them can be
grown
> purely under rainfed situations, and therefore starchy material is
> generally cheaper.
>
> It can also be stored more easily than sugarcane juice or sirup.
>
> I have not patented my biogas plant as I use the same standard design. The
> fact that one can get methane from starch or sugar is also not my
> invention.
>
> This is common information to everybody in the biogas game. Many people
> have reported high biogas yields with oilcakes. There was however a
general
> tendency among all workers to use only waste material such as animal dung,
> municipal solid waste, distillery effluent etc. as the raw material for
> making methane.
>
> All that I did was to conduct some experiments with starchy and sugary
> material. When I got good results, I started to search for such material
> that could be used as feedstock without competing with human or animal
> food, and found that farmers generally have a lot of starchy and sugary
> material, which they considered as waste. One can of course have
commercial
> methane production using commercially grown starchy material such as
> sorghum or tapioka. The farmer does not care for what his produce is
being
> used for, after he has sold it.
>
> In fact none of our technologies is patented, as we want them to reach the
> people who are need of them.
>
> As to diversifying our operation to other areas, would certainly like to
> do it, if the money is made available for it.
>
> Yours
> A.D.Karve
>
> **************in reply to********************
>
> Peter Singfield wrote:
> At 05:58 AM 1/5/2004 +0530, A.D. Karve wrote:
> Several members asked me to provide more details about the compact
> biogas plant being developed by us. I give below the latest status of
> this technology.
>
> Dear A.D.Karve;
>
> I live in Belize, Central America, in a small village "Xaibe" -- that is
> literally surrounded in cane fields.
>
> I wonder if an optimized version of your design could be made to operate
on
> only fresh cane juice??
>
> Have you tried this as of yet??
>
> For the other stovers on the list -- sugar cane is a wonderfully
productive
> plant for any place in the tropics. Very easy to grow. For a large
> percentage of the world's poorest populations it is feasible to have a
> small plot of cane. This certainly would solve the "where do we find all
> the biomass to burn" problem!
>
> Certainly -- it would be of interest to me to pursue this topic further.
>
> Mr. A.D.Karve -- it is commercially impossible to ship such devices around
> the globe. But have you considered diversifying your operation to other
> areas??
>
> "Franchising" this gas producer -- based specifically on cane juice --
> would be in teresting and profitable.
>
> One small cane crusher in each village would suffice for everyone's gas
> generator.
>
> Though this is about gas -- and is about small stoves -- there may be a
few
> on this list adverse to such a discussion being as it deals not with --
> what to date -- is considered as standard "stove".
>
> But then -- locking oneself into a rigid mind set is often counter
> productive to innovation or eventual application.
>
> By coincidence I happen to have that "one small cane crusher" --
>
> Peter Singfield
> Belize
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

 

From snkm at btl.net Mon Oct 18 11:10:50 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:10:50 -0600
Subject: [Stoves] Dissemination - What's the Score?
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041018100936.009c7b20@pop.btl.net>

(Let's make soup)

Hi Art;

Thanks for all the input.

In this years searching and reviewing of super critical water reactors and
biomass I could not help but note that at relatively low temps -- lower
than required for reformation -- all cellulose dissolves into water -- due
to the pressure.

You don't suppose ---------

>Any soluble feedstock (sugar, starch, cellulose, etc) will decompose by
>microbial action when dissolved in water and a broadband source of microbes
>from a source such as manure is added.

Have appended more extracts along these lines below from your original
message.

If you put water at ambient temperature in a sufficiently strong steel
container (reactor) and seal it -- then heat to 550 F -- you get over
10,000 PSI pressure -- due to water "expansion" --

Course -- with a water biomass slurry at even that relatively (to
reformation) pressure -- you might get more -- due to gas evolving -- but
then -- not much more - -as it is hard to push 10,000 psi around -- and the
gasses will tend to stay dissolved.

At 6040 F the same container goes well beyond 15,000 PSI pressure.

So -- X quantities of biomass slurry inserted into such a cylinder/reactor
heated for Y period at even 500 F will turn biomass slurry into biomass
water solution.

Now -- for small units -- how big a batch per day of whole -- fresh -- cane
juice slurry would need to be processed to feed a bio digester??

Want Urls for quotes on steel tubing 10 in diameter -- lengths to forty
feet -- rated at 10,000 PSI at 100 F??

Not that expensive. Considering the amount of product produced and how long
it will last -- maintenance free so to speak.

You need not fancy valving -- just bolted/locked/sealed end caps.

There is no reformation involved at those low temps -- so it is just
heating water to that temperature and letting sit for a very short period
(Should I look up the refs and post them -- believe it is 30 seconds or so)

Less energy required than "boiling" --

True -- it is a radical thought process -- and might well deserved to be
damned -- if but for no other reason -- especially these days!

Of course -- if one wanted to do streaming processing of large tonnage per
day -- you put a cement pump at one end of that cylinder and a valve
release mechanism at the other -- cement pumps work fine for those
pressures -- and are being used at present for exactly that -- posted those
Urls already "once" --

So -- blend well then heat -- make soup -- feed bio digester.

What I am really interested in and you might be able to supply Art is this:

In the very end -- how much of initial energy -- as in for example -- BTU
per pound -- comes out in the bio digestion product as gas??

Now -- that could kill this line of thought right there.

But if it is "respectable" -- better hang up your gasifiers right now --

I'm pressed for time right now -- later I'll work that out according to the
figures A.D. posted.

Even if one burns some of the product gas to heat reactor -- though a
simple biomass combustion chamber would suffice. Think of a closed off
single tube boiler -- eh??

Heat can be raised gently in a timely fashion -- highly advisable in fact
if you don't want to blow yourself and you neighbors up -- it would take
only a very small fire box.

Can this all be made "small to micro"?? You bet it can!!

Besides -- biomass soups might have all kinds of other applications.
Dissolved in water cellulose might even be considered a portable fuel --
just as it is.

Dump into your digesting gas tank in your vehicle and putt -- putt -- putt --

Every village could be in the soup business to.

I know -- just to radical a concept --

Peter -- Belize

At 08:08 AM 10/18/2004 -0700, Art Krenzel wrote:
>Peter,
> The process depends upon the
>ability to dissolve starches and sugars in a water solution because the
>microbes do not have any teeth to chew solids. They glean their livelihood
>from "organic soup".
>
>You can try to dissolve a tree by putting it in water and still have almost
>a complete tree left in six months. >

To speed up the
>dissolution of the solid, use small particles or thin sheets of the
>feedstocks and raise the temperature to improve the solubility rate.

>Any soluble feedstock (sugar, starch, cellulose, etc) will decompose by
>microbial action when dissolved in water and a broadband source of microbes
>from a source such as manure is added.

From phoenix98604 at earthlink.net Mon Oct 18 12:22:30 2004
From: phoenix98604 at earthlink.net (Art Krenzel)
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:22:30 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Stoves] Dissemination - What's the Score?
References: <3.0.32.20041018100936.009c7b20@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <001801c4b537$0d927fb0$f1c0f204@7k6rv21>

Peter,

You said: > (Let's make soup)
> In this years searching and reviewing of super critical water reactors and
> biomass I could not help but note that at relatively low temps -- lower
> than required for reformation -- all cellulose dissolves into water -- due
> to the pressure.

You are correct, under supercritical conditions, all cellulose should
dissolve in the water. Unfortunately most reactions which benefit from
super critical conditions, need to occur under super critical conditions.
When you cool them back down, there are precipitates and supersaturation
conditions which could coat heat transfer surfaces, etc. These could lead
to building use-once-and-throw-away reactors which could be quite expensive.

Why not work WITH nature instead of forcing it all the time. You have
aspired to the right lifestyle there in Belize- relax. Use the products
which are easily soluble in water (and there are many) and reduce your
labor. Tanks cost about $2 per gallon, much cheaper than high pressure
pipe. Plan ahead and have your gas production on line the day you need it
by using a floating top water tank.

> If you put water at ambient temperature in a sufficiently strong steel
> container (reactor) and seal it -- then heat to 550 F -- you get over
> 10,000 PSI pressure -- due to water "expansion" --
>
> Course -- with a water biomass slurry at even that relatively (to
> reformation) pressure -- you might get more -- due to gas evolving -- but
> then -- not much more - -as it is hard to push 10,000 psi around -- and
the
> gasses will tend to stay dissolved.
>
> At 6040 F the same container goes well beyond 15,000 PSI pressure.

I think that was a typo - I think you meant 604 deg F.

> So -- X quantities of biomass slurry inserted into such a cylinder/reactor
> heated for Y period at even 500 F will turn biomass slurry into biomass
> water solution.
>
> Now -- for small units -- how big a batch per day of whole -- fresh --
cane
> juice slurry would need to be processed to feed a bio digester??

I turn the question around - how many BTU's do you want per day?

> Want Urls for quotes on steel tubing 10 in diameter -- lengths to forty
> feet -- rated at 10,000 PSI at 100 F??
>
> Not that expensive. Considering the amount of product produced and how
long
> it will last -- maintenance free so to speak.

Putting the high cost of the reactors aside, just the physical problems of
getting bagass into a 10 inch diameter tube in a routine manner is quite
high. The high pressure concrete pumps only really work with fluidized
particles. Moyno pumps are not a good choice for stringy, abrasive things
either. Once you get into stringy things like raw bagass feedstocks, the
valves bridge open quickly and you lose the pressure in the vessel. Bagass
needs to be composted and put back into the soil as it's best use. Food
waste and organic oils are great choices for biogas production.

> You need not fancy valving -- just bolted/locked/sealed end caps.
>
> There is no reformation involved at those low temps -- so it is just
> heating water to that temperature and letting sit for a very short period
> (Should I look up the refs and post them -- believe it is 30 seconds or
so)
>
> Less energy required than "boiling" --
>
> True -- it is a radical thought process -- and might well deserved to be
> damned -- if but for no other reason -- especially these days!

Peter, your thoughts are radical and interesting but I think they fail just
because of the material handling problems of getting biomass into up to 40
ft lengths of 10 inch diameter tubes in a cost effective manner. Most
likely, you would need some form of mechanical process since the hand labor
process would require a significant amount of daily hand labor. It might
work for a demonstration but I wouldn't be able to run the process for more
than a couple of days before the luster of the adventure would be gone.
:-)

> What I am really interested in and you might be able to supply Art is
this:
>
> In the very end -- how much of initial energy -- as in for example -- BTU
> per pound -- comes out in the bio digestion product as gas??

I must confess to have made a technical term error in my previous posting.
Instead of % volatile solids, I meant % soluble solids in the feedstock.
Solubility of cellose can be inhanced using super critical conditions as
proposed by Peter.

The answer is that you generate approximately 5 cubic feet of 600 - 650 BTU
(65% methane 35% carbon dioxide) biogas per pound of soluble solids digested
in a preferably methane generating process. For instance, you can get less
gas if the biological process generates alcohols rather than acetates.
Acetates are the preferred feedstock of the methanogenic bacteria. The rate
and degree of completion of the reaction is quite pH sensitive as well.

> Now -- that could kill this line of thought right there.

Thou hast said it.

Art Krenzel

> At 08:08 AM 10/18/2004 -0700, Art Krenzel wrote:
> >Peter,
> > The process depends upon the
> >ability to dissolve starches and sugars in a water solution because the
> >microbes do not have any teeth to chew solids. They glean their
livelihood
> >from "organic soup".
> >
> >You can try to dissolve a tree by putting it in water and still have
almost
> >a complete tree left in six months. >
>
> To speed up the
> >dissolution of the solid, use small particles or thin sheets of the
> >feedstocks and raise the temperature to improve the solubility rate.
>
> >Any soluble feedstock (sugar, starch, cellulose, etc) will decompose by
> >microbial action when dissolved in water and a broadband source of
microbes
> >from a source such as manure is added.
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>

 

From snkm at btl.net Mon Oct 18 15:14:33 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:14:33 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Stoves] Dissemination - What's the
Score?
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041018141325.009464a0@pop.btl.net>

OK Art;

At 10:22 AM 10/18/2004 -0700, Art Krenzel wrote:
>Peter,
>
>You are correct, under supercritical conditions, all cellulose should
>dissolve in the water. Unfortunately most reactions which benefit from
>super critical conditions, need to occur under super critical conditions.
>When you cool them back down, there are precipitates and supersaturation
>conditions which could coat heat transfer surfaces, etc. These could lead
>to building use-once-and-throw-away reactors which could be quite expensive.
>

That is the data I was looking for -- thanks!

>Why not work WITH nature instead of forcing it all the time. You have
>aspired to the right lifestyle there in Belize- relax. Use the products
>which are easily soluble in water (and there are many) and reduce your
>labor.

Yup -- back to plan "A" -- got small sugar cane press -- cane industry is
collapsing here -- cane fields like a sea of green laying all about --
worthless now -- so just do cane juice.

>Tanks cost about $2 per gallon, much cheaper than high pressure
>pipe.

Even cheaper here -- pvc/fiberglass tanks (water cisterns) -- excellent
"reaction vessels -- 50 cents per gallon. Tank made of SS TP 304 (I know
not food quality) 20 gauge -- $1.00 per gallon.

>> At 6040 F the same container goes well beyond 15,000 PSI pressure.
>
>I think that was a typo - I think you meant 604 deg F.

-- yes
>> Now -- for small units -- how big a batch per day of whole -- fresh --
>cane
>> juice slurry would need to be processed to feed a bio digester??
>
>I turn the question around - how many BTU's do you want per day?
>

A.D. says 500 liters bio digester gas for one meal --

>
>> Not that expensive. Considering the amount of product produced and how
>long
>> it will last -- maintenance free so to speak.
>
>Putting the high cost of the reactors aside, just the physical problems of
>getting bagass into a 10 inch diameter tube in a routine manner is quite
>high. The high pressure concrete pumps only really work with fluidized
>particles.

Actually -- the paper mill stone grinders of times past comes to mind --
pulping.

But your right -- next big problem.

>Moyno pumps are not a good choice for stringy, abrasive things
>either. Once you get into stringy things like raw bagass feedstocks, the
>valves bridge open quickly and you lose the pressure in the vessel.

The valves are at the other end of the reactor -- it is continuous flow
example. And not so much a valve are a flow regulator -- or even a fixed
size orifice -- and adjust by pump rate.

>Bagass
>needs to be composted and put back into the soil as it's best use. Food
>waste and organic oils are great choices for biogas production.
>

Yes -- all that bagasse just piles up. When dry -- very nice fuel -- but
manually -- you sweat steady feeding the boiler -- i know -- i run a small
one.

OK -- you win - -tell me more about composting. In small two roll sugar
cane juice presses the bagasse is one long flattened out strip.

>
>Peter, your thoughts are radical and interesting but I think they fail just
>because of the material handling problems of getting biomass into up to 40
>ft lengths of 10 inch diameter tubes in a cost effective manner. Most
>likely, you would need some form of mechanical process since the hand labor
>process would require a significant amount of daily hand labor. It might
>work for a demonstration but I wouldn't be able to run the process for more
>than a couple of days before the luster of the adventure would be gone.
>:-)

Your right!! It suffers from the same headaches all gasification process
endure -- fuel conditioning headaches!

>> In the very end -- how much of initial energy -- as in for example -- BTU
>> per pound -- comes out in the bio digestion product as gas??
>
>I must confess to have made a technical term error in my previous posting.
>Instead of % volatile solids, I meant % soluble solids in the feedstock.
>Solubility of cellose can be inhanced using super critical conditions as
>proposed by Peter.
>
>The answer is that you generate approximately 5 cubic feet of 600 - 650 BTU
>(65% methane 35% carbon dioxide) biogas per pound of soluble solids digested
>in a preferably methane generating process. For instance, you can get less
>gas if the biological process generates alcohols rather than acetates.
>Acetates are the preferred feedstock of the methanogenic bacteria. The rate
>and degree of completion of the reaction is quite pH sensitive as well.
>

so if one really wanted to supercharge this system --

I take cane juice -- raw -- no boiling -- no concentrating. I place in tank
and ferment to cane juice "beer" - -about 6 to 7% alcohol. I rig up a small
air pump with air stone as used in a fish aquarium and turn beer to vinegar --

I then add cow patty soup -- and get lot's of methane fast -- from a small
bio digester.

Would this be worth the effort in that production would be so greatly
increased that one could use vinegar as the portable fuel??

That is a reactor where methane production is governed by feed rate of
vinegar to bio digester??

Why bother with all this extra effort??

Here is a few "maybes"

#1 Cane vinegar:

This is a fine product for human consumption. It is rich in micronutrients
of the most import kind -- has no sugar.

So benefits of cane juice -- which is considered -- with just cause -- a
medicinal drink in many countries -- can be had by diabetics -- who due to
mineral depletion as part of their problems -- need it most of all.

"Fresh" cane juice is impossible to store for more than 24 hours. Cane
vinegar -- like wine -- ages well. The older the better.

Food preservation is a mighty important item in 3rd world where people
can't afford "feezers" -- cane vinegar with some salt in solution will
ferment safely so many foods for longer term storage -- plus add to
nutritional and health benefits of that food in the process.

I am under the impression that it is the bacteria "lactobacillus" that we
are talking about?

So -- it is an easy and simple process -- but takes some time -- say one
month -- to end up with lot's of cane vinegar. More than you can give away
for "food" -- so yes -- need to know if this is the better fuel for that
process -- if so -- it fits into this flow diagram well.

2: Bagasse

Art -- you have my undivided attention at this point regarding composting
bagasse - -and what uses there are for that product after.

A while back it was pointed out that compost is bad for growing stuff in.
So -- how does one make it good?

One can build a small thermal plant and use bagasse for fuel -- but bagasse
from small presses is far to moist to burn well. Drying is fast when the
sun is out -- impossible when it rains even a little -- once every few days.

That means building roof -- and over a relatively large area. Even for a
small press like I operate.

One has to feed bagasse continuously to a furnace for things to work -- it
burns like gasoline -- poof!! -- and you grab stringy strips and pack/fold
those into packages -- then insert through fire door -- you just never can
stop --

The other option for bagasse -- one that A.D. is involved with -- is making
charcoal -- any input on that A.D.??

for my small operation - -as it stands now -- about 1/3 of the bagasse is
burned for concentrating raw cane juice to a SG of 1.085 to 1.090 for
making cane wine -- roughly 12% alcohol -- and the rest just piles up!!

What a terrible waste of biomass. -- So not -- 3rd potential application --

Gasifying bagasse --

But again -- all the same hassles fuel conditioning -- plus worse!!

What is simple and straight forward is cane grinding to extract cane juice
-- no boiling -- fermenting (which is does quick enough on it's own -- just
give it the good container) -- converting to vinegar -- again -- it does
that on it's own to -- if exposed to air -- but takes months to years --
unless aerated.

Still -- the small air pump uses very little power -- one small solar panel
-- a small battery -- and a small inverter would slave those energy needs.

Now -- would that greatly enhance and benifit methane production by
bio-digestion?

The advantage to local village style economies is one central processing
unit could then supply vinegar (portable "fuel") for many bio-digesters --
and each individual biodigester could be far smaller than noemal -- and
less costly??

And further -- it might even work for running a genset?? Even if just a
very small one -- 1000 watts or less?

All with the very minimum of capital investment -- and not so labor
intensive that people starve for lack of time to go grow food -- or the
cane as far as that goes!

As for gasifiers -- turning bagasse into charcoal might be the best method
of fuel conditioning of all!

Or -- turning this wheel right around -- small charcoal gasifiers to supply
product for cooking!!

Kind of a double whammy --

all that would then be "wasted" is off gasses from the charcoal making
process -- and heat in that processing.

But then again -- we might have use for that as well -- but how to kerep is
simple??

Certainly -- small partial combustion gasifiers using charcoal are "simple"
-- as are small cane crushers -- as are tanks and vats -- as is a
biodigester --

Tom Reed -- bagasse charcoal will probably be a dust -- so it need
briquetting??

A.D. -- is that not what you are doing now -- charcoal dust to briguetts??

And no -- we can't afford the pelletizer --

Everything comes with a price --

Peter

>
>> Now -- that could kill this line of thought right there.
>
>Thou hast said it.
>
>Art Krenzel
>

 

From crispin at newdawn.sz Mon Oct 18 15:49:23 2004
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:49:23 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] Chimney-heated oven
Message-ID: <000601c4b553$f94777a0$0100a8c0@home>

Dear Stovers

Anyone interested in looking at an oven heated by a chimney can visit
Cactus Jack's tent stoves. They claim to have a very long burn time for
a full load of wood by severely restricting the air supply. I can't
imagine what the emissions are like given the method of controll is to
make the combuston just about expire, but anyway, it has a chimney.

They seem to have 5 models of their wood burning "Cylinder Stoves" all
of which are designed to heat canvas tents.

http://www.cactusjacks.net/stoves.html

Regards
Crispin

 

From a31ford at inetlink.ca Mon Oct 18 16:16:30 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:16:30 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] Chimney-heated oven
In-Reply-To: <000601c4b553$f94777a0$0100a8c0@home>
Message-ID: <009101c4b557$bd3e1080$1900a8c0@a31server>

OMG !!!

Looks like a mini version of the old 45 gal. drum double burners we used up
north.
They quit using them because all the exploration time was used to get
firewood... :)

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: stoves-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:stoves-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of Crispin
Pemberton-Pigott
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 3:49 PM
To: STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [Stoves] Chimney-heated oven

Dear Stovers

Anyone interested in looking at an oven heated by a chimney can visit
Cactus Jack's tent stoves. They claim to have a very long burn time for
a full load of wood by severely restricting the air supply. I can't
imagine what the emissions are like given the method of controll is to
make the combuston just about expire, but anyway, it has a chimney.

They seem to have 5 models of their wood burning "Cylinder Stoves" all
of which are designed to heat canvas tents.

http://www.cactusjacks.net/stoves.html

Regards
Crispin

_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
Stoves at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

 

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Mon Oct 18 16:56:22 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:56:22 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] Fw: Charcoal Pellet Fuel
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20041014164710.02300c60@mail.ilstu.edu>
References: <08f201c4b230$de6dab00$6501a8c0@OFFICE3>
<4.3.1.2.20041014164710.02300c60@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <mie8n0hchf21r374avf0t9gctjs6rhh55n@4ax.com>

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 16:51:05 -0500, Paul S. Anderson wrote:

>Any anyone tell me what the charcoal producers USEFULLY do with the gases
>and heat that become available when the charcoal in made?

Nowadays most often nothing, charcoal is a high added value product in
the wealthy world, so its sale price bears little relation to its fuel
value. The cost of recouping the heat in the typically remote places
it is made is not seen to justify the cost. IIRC the large simcoa
plant in Oz vented 2MW of clean hot gases from its stack.

In the undeveloped world the charcoal making equipment is rudimentary
as there is no capital available for better.

I have previously cited initiatives to use offgas flare, from making
coconut shells into char, to dry copra .

I have seen an old reference to a mid european pyrolysis chemical
works whose primary product was industrial acetic acid from the low
temperature pyrolysis of beech wood. The later products were burned in
a large single cylinder reciprocating engine, which needed frequent de
coking. This was achieved by workers entering the cylinder with pick
axes!

From my posts you will no doubt have gathered that I still see an
integrated approach to charcoal making as a good step in changing the
economics of harvesting forest products for biomass to energy schemes.
To this end we (just about) demonstrated how a gas turbine could be
direct fired from pyrolysis offgas. I still see this as having vast
potential.

AJH

From crispin at newdawn.sz Mon Oct 18 17:22:01 2004
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 00:22:01 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Chimney-heated oven
Message-ID: <001401c4b560$e64e3730$0100a8c0@home>

Dear Greg

How about http://www.walltentshop.com/CatStoves.html for 35 different
types of stove - some made of titanium! There are apparently 5 models
of pellet burning stoves, boasting that they do not require electricity.
Huh.

"Light weight".....40 pounds?

"Blaze" and "Inferno"......

There are no claims of fuel efficiency from any of the ones I can find.

There is a _lot_ out there!

Regards
Crispin

-----Original Message-----
From: stoves-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:stoves-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of a31ford
Sent: 18 October 2004 23:17
To: STOVES (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [Stoves] Chimney-heated oven

OMG !!!

Looks like a mini version of the old 45 gal. drum double burners we
used up north. They quit using them because all the exploration time was
used to get firewood... :)

Greg

 

From adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in Mon Oct 18 11:11:29 2004
From: adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in (adkarve)
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:41:29 +0530
Subject: [Stoves] Reviewing A.D. Karve's methane digestion device
References: <3.0.32.20041017125017.00942100@pop.btl.net>
<41741ABF.1070301@legacyfound.org>
Message-ID: <000201c4b573$3e3bf600$7f5641db@adkarve>

Dear Richard,
thanks a lot for the pictures. Converting organic matter into biogas does
not allow the full calorific value of the material to be utilized, whereas
briquetting it and burning it releases all the calories inherent in it. The
biogas route is preferable if the energy is to be used for cooking, or as
fuel in an internal combustion engine, because biogas is a cleanly burning
fuel. Briquetting and burning would be more useful for an industry, that has
proper furnaces to burn this material. Well designed furnaces, providing
extra air through blowers at appropriate positions in the furnace, burns the
biomass quite cleanly. Briquetted solid biomass is in good demand by
industries in the Western part of India, because all the coal mines are in
the eastern part. Transporting the coal from East to West makes coal very
costly for the industries in the Western part of India. The biomass
briquettes have the same calorific value as mineral coal, and therefore the
briquettes are sold at about the same price as mineral coal.
Yours
A.D.Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Stanley <rstanley at legacyfound.org>
To: A.D. Karve <adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in>
Cc: Peter Singfield <snkm at btl.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 1:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Reviewing A.D. Karve's methane digestion device

> Dear Ad,
> Ref dissemination of your biogas improvements, why do you simply not
> make a small "how to" phamplet about this technology and sell it through
> your website ? This is what we do with our briquettes but certainly it
> is not a new idea to one of your own experience.
>
> As to chopping and preparing material for it, we developed and tested
> a thresher-masher-chopper device (appropriately but unexitedly named the
> TMC1) in Uganda, Kenya and Mali over the past five years. (picts
> attached). It was designed more for reducing and defibrating material
> for our biomass briquettes (which is probably a far more demanding task
> than simply chopping it up for your digester) but it can easily be
> adapted by changing our smaller outlet screen for a larger one, for
> prepping biomass for your generator.
> In its present (fine screen) version, one operator can reduce, daily,
> about 200 - 250 Kg of dry, loose biomatter, (scrap paper, corn cobs,
> leaves, stalks, stems, roots, twigs, straws and grasses, clumps of
> charcoal and selected (polyethelene) plastic bags etc), to flayed
> cornflake sized flakes and chards. We have not tried volumes of sugar
> cane stalks but its blade chopping port (on side wall) handles corn
> stalks and otther more brittle elongated materials and paper, quite
> well. I developed it with the idea of having it produced in various
> countries, but if the demand were there, we could crank out the
> plans...to support your generator. Then again, there are lots of field
> chopping technologies available for your application already.
>
> Chopping aside, your development here is probably one of the most
> significant ideas to come out of our list in a long time and I for one
> would be more than happy to promote it for you anywhere I travel with
> all credits to your foundation. If you have some information compiled I
> will be more than happy to provide a link to you on our own website and
> I encourage all others so concerned, to do so.
> Kind regards
> Richard Stanley
> legacy foundation
>
> Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> >***********************
> >If we can get A. D. to enter into discussion -- some questions need be
asked.
> >
> >1: Will fresh cane juice be a good "food" for your digester?
> >
> >**********************
> >
> >Further investigations of my extensive archives on hard drive have
derived
> >A.D.'s answer to this question -- above -- addressed to me personally on
> >this same mail list -- and some time back!
> >
> >So embarrassing to age and lose my mental capacities --
> >
> >Here is that answer:
> >
> >Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 19:27:25 +0530
> >From: "A.D. Karve" <adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in>
> >Subject: Re: [STOVES] compact biogas plant
> >To: Peter Singfield <snkm at btl.net>, STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> >X-Accept-Language: en-us
> >
> >Dear Peter,
> >
> >Our biogas plant accepts both sugarcane juice as also macerated whole
> >sugarcane.
> >
> >In the case of the latter, the advantage is that the cellulose in the
cane
> >is also converted into gas, albeit after a retention period of about 20
> >days.
> >
> >The maceration is done with the help of a machine called the chaff
cutter,
> >which is used for chopping stems of sorghum or maize into small pieces.
One
> > can set the machine to give different sizes of the chopped up material.
> >
> >We use the setting for the smallest pieces. Under Indian conditions,
where
> >we get rains only during the four months of monsoon, sugarcane needs
> >irrigation.
> >
> >Therefore it is not such a simple crop to grow and it is also costly.
There
> > are many crops that produce starchy material (e.g. sorghum, pearl
millet,
> >sweet potato and several perennial tree species). Many of them can be
grown
> > purely under rainfed situations, and therefore starchy material is
> >generally cheaper.
> >
> >It can also be stored more easily than sugarcane juice or sirup.
> >
> >I have not patented my biogas plant as I use the same standard design.
The
> >fact that one can get methane from starch or sugar is also not my
> >invention.
> >
> >This is common information to everybody in the biogas game. Many people
> >have reported high biogas yields with oilcakes. There was however a
general
> >tendency among all workers to use only waste material such as animal
dung,
> >municipal solid waste, distillery effluent etc. as the raw material for
> >making methane.
> >
> >All that I did was to conduct some experiments with starchy and sugary
> >material. When I got good results, I started to search for such material
> >that could be used as feedstock without competing with human or animal
> >food, and found that farmers generally have a lot of starchy and sugary
> >material, which they considered as waste. One can of course have
commercial
> >methane production using commercially grown starchy material such as
> >sorghum or tapioka. The farmer does not care for what his produce is
being
> >used for, after he has sold it.
> >
> >In fact none of our technologies is patented, as we want them to reach
the
> >people who are need of them.
> >
> >As to diversifying our operation to other areas, would certainly like to
> >do it, if the money is made available for it.
> >
> >Yours
> >A.D.Karve
> >
> >**************in reply to********************
> >
> > Peter Singfield wrote:
> > At 05:58 AM 1/5/2004 +0530, A.D. Karve wrote:
> > Several members asked me to provide more details about the
compact
> >biogas plant being developed by us. I give below the latest status of
> >this technology.
> >
> >Dear A.D.Karve;
> >
> >I live in Belize, Central America, in a small village "Xaibe" -- that is
> >literally surrounded in cane fields.
> >
> >I wonder if an optimized version of your design could be made to operate
on
> >only fresh cane juice??
> >
> >Have you tried this as of yet??
> >
> >For the other stovers on the list -- sugar cane is a wonderfully
productive
> >plant for any place in the tropics. Very easy to grow. For a large
> >percentage of the world's poorest populations it is feasible to have a
> >small plot of cane. This certainly would solve the "where do we find all
> >the biomass to burn" problem!
> >
> >Certainly -- it would be of interest to me to pursue this topic further.
> >
> >Mr. A.D.Karve -- it is commercially impossible to ship such devices
around
> >the globe. But have you considered diversifying your operation to other
> >areas??
> >
> >"Franchising" this gas producer -- based specifically on cane juice --
> >would be in teresting and profitable.
> >
> >One small cane crusher in each village would suffice for everyone's gas
> >generator.
> >
> >Though this is about gas -- and is about small stoves -- there may be a
few
> >on this list adverse to such a discussion being as it deals not with --
> >what to date -- is considered as standard "stove".
> >
> >But then -- locking oneself into a rigid mind set is often counter
> >productive to innovation or eventual application.
> >
> >By coincidence I happen to have that "one small cane crusher" --
> >
> >Peter Singfield
> >Belize
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Stoves mailing list
> >Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> >http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

 

 

 

From snkm at btl.net Mon Oct 18 19:47:01 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:47:01 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Stoves] Dissemination - What's the
Score?
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041018183938.009a5940@pop.btl.net>

At 01:58 PM 10/18/2004 -0700, Len Walde wrote:
>Peter:
>
>If you start with a large poly bag, -- think "Ag-Bag" ( search google) chop
>the fresh cane, recover and save the juice for inclusion, add yeast and in a
>few days you will have rough alcohol, you will have to distill it to rid it
>of H2O and then denature it to be legal. ( Or not! , as the case may be!)
>Use denatured alcohol for engine fuel. Let the remainder of biomass ferment
>to silage as cow/goat feed or add to the AD, with animal manure to produce
>methane. Why waste all of that good sugar when you can covert it simply to
>fuel? Brazil runs thousands of cars on it. Also, if you have a source of
>other high sugar waste ( fruit etc.) you can add it at the same time.
>
>Now you know!
>
>Good luck,
>
>Len Walde
>

Hi Len;

That was the original plan. Aguahol -- 80% strong rum. No blending -- just
run it straight.

Well -- one would need at least $15 per gallon to do it though. Remember --
it takes two gallons of aguahol to equal one gallon of gasoline -- in BTU
-- fuel milage -- value.

Stills of any kind are strictly illegal here.

They even have a very tight sugar making monopoly -- only one company is
allowed to own and operate a cane crusher -- and I had to get special
permission from Government just to bring one small cane crusher in this
country!!

That on experimental basis only.

Still -- I'm parking that venture until gasoline get's over -- saying --
$12 us per gallon. By then I believe approval for a still will be easy to get!

As for "alternative" portable fuels -- plant oils -- as extracted from
African Oil Palms as example -- keeps looking better and better.

I hope to put in about 1/4 acre of special high production oil palms in the
coming year -- and see if indeed that can produce 1/4 of 1500 gallons -- or
say 375 gallons per year.

Say even 7 gallons per week -- and I burn less than 3 gallons per week now
for transportation needs -- we travel little these days.

Four gallons per week should be more than sufficient for electrical energy
needs. when this style of crunch comes -- if it should -- but better
prepared a little anyway -- I'll be putting acid into a 15 kva set of
plante style power plant -- lead acid batteries.

These live for 20 years after they first see acid. Have indefinite life
when stored "dry/new"

So genset will run at peak efficiency (the right load for max fuel
efficiency) for 4 or so hours every two days.

My oil expeller set up does an easy 5 gallons per hour. So figure 75 hours
of oil processing time per year.

They start producing in 3 years time -- are full rating in 5 -- and game
over at 20 years from planting.

We also have a lot of "wild" plant oils here -- like "Cohune" --

The system I describe is far to expensive for normal 3rd world use. So is
of no value for this discussion.

 

Peter

 

 

 

From tmiles at trmiles.com Tue Oct 19 12:03:14 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:03:14 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] Dissemination - What's the Score?
References: <000801c4b3a7$06995940$6701a8c0@Yellow>
<000001c4b43e$1b8e5020$a95841db@adkarve>
Message-ID: <00ad01c4b5fd$f1fe1350$6501a8c0@OFFICE3>

All,

A simple question reveals an explosion of stoves: Crispin, AD Karve, Ken
Goyer and Peter Scott have reponded so far with stoves blooming all over.
Their stories show the dissemination of a wide variety of stoves, fuels and
applications.

Crispin must be keeping the paraffin lamp burning late in the evening to
have built 1100 Vestos this year. That should surely help establish the
stove and draw reactions from users.

Having sold more than 20,000 stoves in the course of completing the Testing
and Development and Entrepreneur Training phases of their 2003 Shell project
ARTI has demonstrated the introduction of a new fuel resource, an accepted
technology for using it, and a clear understanding and use of the social
environment as AD Karve described to us in February. They're looking forward
to a major expansion in the next year.

Ken Goyer presents his efforts in stove dissementation in a series of photo
essays found on the Stoves page.Ken takes us to five project sites in El
Salvador, Mexico, Uganda and Ghana. The photos show how he uses local clays
to build rocket stoves in different environments. They demonstrate how the
different stove designs lend themselves to local entrepreneurial
dissemination. I'm reminded of the cottage industry and trading approach to
dissemination taken by the Asian region (ARECOP). Ken and Wilf also show
stoves and solar cookers working in the same environment.

Peter Scott presents a compendium of 9 reports on the Stoves site on Rocket
Stoves in Sub-Saharan Africa. The reports cover work by Peter and Jayme
Vineyard over the last year in Uganda, Kenya, Lesotho, Mozambique, Malawi,
and Zambia. As with Peter's previous reports he shows an agile adaptation of
rocket principles to a variety of situations. He's also included an updated
version of the Rocket Stove Design Guide.

http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/

We look forward to reports by other organizations on their current progress
in disseminating stoves.

Many thanks

Tom Miles

 

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com>
> To: <STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>; <ethos at vrac.iastate.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 11:08 PM
> Subject: [Stoves] Dissemination - What's the Score?
>
>
> It has been a very productive year. It's rewarding to see the synergism
> that
> has developed among stovers and the creativity that has produced. Many
> organizations have been recognized this year for their achievements in
> stove
> development, health and safety and stove dissemination.
>
> Where do we stand on dissemination? Don Oneal urged us earlier this year
> to
> work harder on getting stoves built and in use. Stoves are an integral
> part
> of Don's (HELPS) program to improve health and habitat in Guatemala
> http://www.fni.com/%7edononeal/ His factory approach has helped
> disseminate
> the plancha.
>
> How successful are other organizations in getting improved stoves adopted
> at
> the village or regional scale? How do we measure progress? Can we see
> improvements in health and safety?
>
> Afrepren/FWD, Aprovecho, Arecop, ARTI, BACIP Pakistan, BEF, Breathe Easy
> Network, Cedesol, Center for Entrepreneurship in International Health and
> Development, DFID, Ecofogao, Enterprise Works, Environmental Health
> Project,
> ETHOS, HEDON, Gira, GTZ, IFPS, HELPS, ITDG, Juntos, Legacy, Masons on a
> Mission, MGP Ltd., NARI, Newdawn, Partnership for Clean Air, Project Gaia,
> RDC, Prolena, SNV Nepal, SIDA, TatEDO, Trees Water and People, UC
> Berkeley,
> Unafamila, UNDP, Venter Forestry.
>
> Tom
>

 

From psanders at ilstu.edu Tue Oct 19 13:10:06 2004
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:10:06 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] 3 watt electricity generation/storage
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20041019122653.02168300@mail.ilstu.edu>

Stovers,

For the VERY small gasifier stoves that Tom Reed and I are developing (See
Tom's WoodGas CampStove at www.woodgasllc.com ), one important
version is with forced air (the Natural Draft versions are my Juntos stoves
that are not the topic here).

Forced air via fan or blower. Easiest way is with electricity. Tom's unit
does well with ONE AA battery (1.5 volts) and uses about one watt of power,
running for 3 to 6 hours on one battery depending on using high or low
setting and battery quality. (I think I got those numbers correct.)

My question is: In areas that are off grid and could rely on battery power
IF they could afford the batteries, what are the options for getting about
2 or 3 watts of power from some battery (ANY battery can be specified) AND
the ability to recharge that battery by human power, probably with a crank.

The "crank-powered" radio (sold in South Africa) is great, but too costly
and probably not enough watt power, and is based on the mechanical "winding
down" of the loaded ?springs? inside.

Instead, I am thinking of a nice rechargeable battery that is probably
better suited to the job than would be the very small AA rechargeable
batteries sold in the affluent world. But I will consider any options on
the batteries and volts, etc.

I have a nice 12 volt sealed battery about 2 x 5 x 15 cm ( 1 x 2 x 6
inches) that I would love to be able to recharge manually. But maybe 6
volt or 3 volt technology could be better.

Recharging would be done by a hand crank to turn a small DC motor in
reverse, creating an electrical charge. (I think I got that right.) I
have no idea of the size issues here, but I expect that a smallish motor
would be fine.

Hey, what about a generator from an automobile or motorcycle? MUST be
cheap, meaning in mass production now. (Sorry, I just checked with an
auto-electric shop and was told that those car parts need very high
RPM.) But the thought was along the lines of what I am trying to do.

On this list we have discussed "lemon-power" and hand-shaker film-canisters
to give a little power for operating LEDs. (and I successfully tried both
of those, but was not convinced that there would be sustainable or
reasonable power). Also, we have mentioned "falling weights" that slowly
give mechanical power to turn a fan (did not seem to be sufficient, unless
someone can present a working model that can be replicated easily in the
developing world.)

Summary, Mama needs to run her stove needing 3 watts of power for at least
2 hours, preferably 4 hours or more, each day on one charge of the
electricity generated and stored in her home, and that charge came from
someone turning a crank for xx minutes with the electricity saved in a
battery or other "device," all at very low cost of the materials. And if
some slightly larger unit can make the electricity for serving 5 or 10
household, that would create an off-grid "utility" enterprise in the village.

And then comes white LEDs and other users of the SMALL power, but first
let's get the power.

I hope you have some suggestions that will lead us to some practical solutions.

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 at 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 phoenix98604 at earthlink.net Tue Oct 19 13:26:58 2004
From: phoenix98604 at earthlink.net (Art Krenzel)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:26:58 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] 3 watt electricity generation/storage
References: <4.3.1.2.20041019122653.02168300@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <001c01c4b609$39428c40$8dc3f204@7k6rv21>

Paul,

Unless you plan to live in a cave or where it is dark six months of the
year, 3 watts of power can easily be generated by a small solar panel.

I would put you on the crank of a motor generator for a few days generating
this power and you would see the "solar light" of my suggestion. Manual
cranking gets old after awhile even for a 10 year old boy. You would see
why I am focused on NO MOVING PARTS technology.

There are also thermoelectric generators which will use heat to produce
electric power.

These industries are not able to grow and use the economy of making many
thousands of the same item due to a lack of a large end user base.

We need to take a systems approach to the solution of this problem rather
than a focused solution.

Art Krenzel, P.E.
PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES
10505 NE 285TH Street
Battle Ground, WA 98604
360-666-1883 voice
phoenix98604 at earthlink.net

 

From rstanley at legacyfound.org Tue Oct 19 13:51:31 2004
From: rstanley at legacyfound.org (Richard Stanley)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:51:31 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] 3 watt electricity generation/storage
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20041019122653.02168300@mail.ilstu.edu>
References: <4.3.1.2.20041019122653.02168300@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <41756233.3030503@legacyfound.org>

Paul, and Tom R,

Surely you have tried direct wind up spring to fan power no ? Wy go
throuhg electric power at all when you can simply wind us a simple clock
spring runnign a small cooling fan (commonly it functions as the speed
governer on such units anyway ? Ignorance begets the most amazing naked
questions I await your collective illumination (PS. Paul and Tom, have
two photos of you both and your wife form the SV conference which I
promise to get to you in a week or so, just after return to J bg.
Richard Stanley

Paul S. Anderson wrote:

> Stovers,
>
> For the VERY small gasifier stoves that Tom Reed and I are developing
> (See Tom's WoodGas CampStove at www.woodgasllc.com ), one
> important version is with forced air (the Natural Draft versions are
> my Juntos stoves that are not the topic here).
>
> Forced air via fan or blower. Easiest way is with electricity. Tom's
> unit does well with ONE AA battery (1.5 volts) and uses about one watt
> of power, running for 3 to 6 hours on one battery depending on using
> high or low setting and battery quality. (I think I got those numbers
> correct.)
>
> My question is: In areas that are off grid and could rely on battery
> power IF they could afford the batteries, what are the options for
> getting about 2 or 3 watts of power from some battery (ANY battery can
> be specified) AND the ability to recharge that battery by human power,
> probably with a crank.
>
> The "crank-powered" radio (sold in South Africa) is great, but too
> costly and probably not enough watt power, and is based on the
> mechanical "winding down" of the loaded ?springs? inside.
>
> Instead, I am thinking of a nice rechargeable battery that is probably
> better suited to the job than would be the very small AA rechargeable
> batteries sold in the affluent world. But I will consider any options
> on the batteries and volts, etc.
>
> I have a nice 12 volt sealed battery about 2 x 5 x 15 cm ( 1 x 2 x 6
> inches) that I would love to be able to recharge manually. But maybe
> 6 volt or 3 volt technology could be better.
>
> Recharging would be done by a hand crank to turn a small DC motor in
> reverse, creating an electrical charge. (I think I got that right.)
> I have no idea of the size issues here, but I expect that a smallish
> motor would be fine.
>
> Hey, what about a generator from an automobile or motorcycle? MUST be
> cheap, meaning in mass production now. (Sorry, I just checked with an
> auto-electric shop and was told that those car parts need very high
> RPM.) But the thought was along the lines of what I am trying to do.
>
> On this list we have discussed "lemon-power" and hand-shaker
> film-canisters to give a little power for operating LEDs. (and I
> successfully tried both of those, but was not convinced that there
> would be sustainable or reasonable power). Also, we have mentioned
> "falling weights" that slowly give mechanical power to turn a fan (did
> not seem to be sufficient, unless someone can present a working model
> that can be replicated easily in the developing world.)
>
> Summary, Mama needs to run her stove needing 3 watts of power for at
> least 2 hours, preferably 4 hours or more, each day on one charge of
> the electricity generated and stored in her home, and that charge came
> from someone turning a crank for xx minutes with the electricity saved
> in a battery or other "device," all at very low cost of the
> materials. And if some slightly larger unit can make the
> electricity for serving 5 or 10 household, that would create an
> off-grid "utility" enterprise in the village.
>
> And then comes white LEDs and other users of the SMALL power, but
> first let's get the power.
>
> I hope you have some suggestions that will lead us to some practical
> solutions.
>
> 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 at 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>
>
>

 

From snkm at btl.net Tue Oct 19 13:59:06 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:59:06 -0600
Subject: [Stoves] Gas-er-up!! Data listings -- process flow --
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041019125752.009bc690@pop.btl.net>

General Composition of Bio-Gas Produced From Farm Wastes
CH4 methane 54 - 70%
CO2 carbon dioxide 27 - 45%
N2 nitrogen 0.5 - 3%
H2 hydrogen 1 - 10%
CO carbon monoxide 0.1%
O2 oxygen 0.1%
H2S hydrogen sulfide trace

Fuel Value of Bio-Gas and Other Major Fuel Gases
Fuel gas Fuel value (BTU/ft3)
Coal (town) gas 450-500
Bio-gas 540-700
Methane 896-1069
Natural gas 1047-1210

Nat Gas (methane or
propane-based) 1050-2200
Propane 2200-2600
Butane 2900-3400
Producer gas 135-170
SynGas 290-320
Coke oven Gas
(pyrolysis) 550-560

Biology of Digestion:

Bio-Succession in the Digester:

Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that digestion is a
biological process.

The "anaerobic" bacteria responsible for digestion can't survive with even
the slightest trace of oxygen. So, because of the oxygen in the manure
mixture fed to the digester, there is a long period after loading before
actual digestion takes place. During this initial "aerobic" period, traces
of oxygen are used up by oxygen-loving bacteria, and large amounts of
carbon dioxide (C02) are released.

When oxygen disappears, the digestion process can begin. That process
involves a series of reactions by several kinds of anaerobic bacteria
feeding on the raw organic matter. As different kinds of these bacteria
become active, the by-products of the first kind of bacteria provide the
food for the other kind (Fig. 6). In the first stages of digestion, organic
material which is digestible (fats, proteins and most starches) are broken
down by acid producing bacteria into simple compounds. The acid bacteria
are capable of rapid reproduction and are not very sensitive to changes in
their environment. Their role is to excrete enzymes, liquefy the raw
materials and convert the complex materials into simpler substances
(especially volatile acids, which are low molecular weight organic acids --
See 4 Raw Materials).

The most important volatile acid is acetic acid (table vinegar is dilute
acetic acid), a very common by-product of all fat, starch and protein
digestion. About 70% of the methane produced during fermentation comes from
acetic acid (Ref. 12).

Ref 12: Jeris, J. & P. McCarty. 1965. The Biochemistry of Methane
Fermentation Using C14 Traces. Journal Water Poll. Control Fed., 37(2):
178-192.

Once the raw material has been liquefied by the acid producing bacteria,
methane producing bacteria convert the volatile acids into methane gas.
Unlike the acid bacteria, methane bacteria reproduce slowly and are very
sensitive to changes in the conditions of their environment. (More
information on the biology of methane fermentation can be found in Ref. 13
and 14.)

Refs 13 and 14:

13. Boswell, A. M. 1947. Microbiology and Theory of Anaerobic Digestion.
Sewage Works Journal 19:28.

14. Barker, H. 1956. Bacterial Fermentations. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Biologically, then, successful digestion depends upon achieving and (for
continuous-load digesters) maintaining a balance between those bacteria
which produce organic acids and those bacteria which produce methane gas
from the organic acids.

************************

Looking at the compass -- where does it point??

Production of cane juice is a relatively straight forward procedure -- from
manual level (two stick jammed in a tree) -- the micro mechanized -- small
two roll cane crusher -- to large crushers of great capacity -- as seen in
sugar making factories.

In any and all cases -- it is simple process -- let's call this a "given" --

Compare this to chopping down a tree -- cutting to right lengths --
splitting it -- to result in fire wood.

Fuel conditioning loads in cane juice extraction is probably much less.

The rest of this process can be very "passive".

The cane juice once stored in a cistern will ferment by natural means to
alcohol of 5 to 7% content in 10 to 15 days. The only requirement being
absence of O2 -- which is arranged easily --

One the cane juice has completely fermented it can be "racked" into a fresh
container -- and the "yeast" thus recovered. Yeast is a powerful food
product -- be it for human consumption -- or as supplementary addition to
animal feeds.

(I have some interesting papers on this -- but for another time and place)

Suffice to say -- the yeast by product alone more than pays the cost of a
cistern "waiting" for fermentation to complete.

The voided fermentation cistern is then replenished with fresh cane juice.
And that cycle repeats.

The fermented juice now racked into a fresh cistern is allowed to turn to
vinegar.

This rate of this process can be greatly increased by introduction of air.

Some methods of aeration.

1: Draw out liquid from bottom of tank then pour down from a small tower
suspended over the tank -- and while falling down it passes over -- well here:

Process

Water is concentrated to 10 per cent level by fortifying with sugar. The
fortified water is then fermented by inoculating the solution with yeast,
Sacharomyces cerviseae.

After alcoholic fermentation for about 4 to 5 days, the clear liquid is
siphoned off and inoculated with mother vinegar containing acetobacter
bacteria. The alcoholic ferment obtained is then fed into a vinegar
generator where the feed is uniformly sprayed over the surface of the
porous packing medium (corn cobs). Here the alcoholic ferment is oxidized
to acetic acid. The product is run out from the packing medium by gravity
flow into the receiving vat from where it is recycled into the vinegar
generator and the process of acetification is repeated until a strength of
4 per cent is attained.

Vinegar is also a "food" -- and also a food preservative --

Now -- a possible missing link to this flow diagram is:

"Once the raw material has been liquefied by the acid producing bacteria,
methane producing bacteria convert the volatile acids into methane gas."

Ergo -- the ultimate value added village level methane producer might be
the one that uses vinegar (4%) as the feed -- and one encourages only (easy
enough to do in an acidic environment) "methane producing bacteria convert
the volatile acids into methane gas"

A.D. -- your sitting on the grant money -- figure it's worth while
investigating??

I have not found anything in regards to what by-products would be produced
in this final process -- that is after bacteria have converted acid to
methane.

Fertilizer?? Or more "food"?? Or both??

And of course -- just what to do with all that bagasse!! Compost and make
fertilizer? Would the effluents from the final stage -- after methane
production of vinegar -- in the digester be the right thing to mix with
bagasse for increasing compost values?? As bagasse from a two roller
crusher still contains residual sugars -- and moisture --

"Poof" they are calling me -- got to go --

by the way -- it is acetobacter bacteria -- not lactobacillus -- than makes
vinegar??

Or: mycoderma aceti , the bacteria culture, used to make vinegar??

Or:

Epicurious' food dictionary defines Mother of Vinegar as: A slimy, gummy
substance made up of various bacteria ? specifically mycoderma aceti ? that
cause fermentation in wine and cider and turn them into vinegar. Known as
m?re de vinaigre in French and sometimes simply as "mother" in English, its
growth is best fostered in a medium-warm environment (60?-85?F). The mother
should be transferred to a new mixture or discarded once the liquid has
turned to vinegar.

Later I will check that out better --

Peter -- in Belize

 

 

 

From psanders at ilstu.edu Tue Oct 19 14:30:48 2004
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:30:48 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] 3 watt electricity generation/storage
In-Reply-To: <001c01c4b609$39428c40$8dc3f204@7k6rv21>
References: <4.3.1.2.20041019122653.02168300@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20041019141022.022e7940@mail.ilstu.edu>

Art and all,

You wrote about using solar energy (PV) and said:
>We need to take a systems approach to the solution of this problem
>rather than a focused solution.

Okay. Combine the two (PV and systems approach) and let's have SMALL
affordable PV with battery (because people do cook at night) and get the
very low watts that are needed to run the stoves.

We must assume that the sun does not always shine every day with intensity
in all of the places, so I propose three levels:
A. for reliably sunny places
B. for moderately sunny/cloudy places
C. for reliably cloudy/shady places, including small clearing in tall
forests with seldom sunlight direct to the ground.

And this MUST be low cost. Not some developed world solution that cannot
be afforded nor sustained. The competition to the PV could be a 10 year
old kid who does need to turn the crank for 40 minutes per day.

I want to believe that PV will solve the problem. But now, it needs to be
detailed in a working and workable way. I hope you and others can provide
such details for small size of PV and type/size of battery and anything
else in the system up to the point of the wires going to the fan/blower
motors.

SMALL motors are about a dollar each in bulk, and we can get the fan blades
made locally or very cheaply. So $2 or 4 or max of 6 dollars for the
fan/blower system to deliver forced air to the small gasifier stove. How
much $ for the PV and battery plus whatever else is needed?

I am open to ALL possible solutions to get this small amount of power.

Note: When oil prices go sky high, PV and TED/TEM could start to look
inexpensive. But the current situation (now to 3 years time frame) is my
concern.

Paul

At 11:26 AM 10/19/04 -0700, Art Krenzel wrote:
>Paul,
>
>Unless you plan to live in a cave or where it is dark six months of the
>year, 3 watts of power can easily be generated by a small solar panel.
>
>I would put you on the crank of a motor generator for a few days
>generating this power and you would see the "solar light" of my
>suggestion. Manual cranking gets old after awhile even for a 10 year old
>boy. You would see why I am focused on NO MOVING PARTS technology.
>
>There are also thermoelectric generators which will use heat to produce
>electric power.
>
>These industries are not able to grow and use the economy of making many
>thousands of the same item due to a lack of a large end user base.
>
>We need to take a systems approach to the solution of this problem rather
>than a focused solution.
>
>Art Krenzel, P.E.
>PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES
>10505 NE 285TH Street
>Battle Ground, WA 98604
>360-666-1883 voice
>phoenix98604 at earthlink.net
>

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 at 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 Oct 19 14:37:22 2004
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:37:22 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] 3 watt electricity generation/storage
In-Reply-To: <41756233.3030503@legacyfound.org>
References: <4.3.1.2.20041019122653.02168300@mail.ilstu.edu>
<4.3.1.2.20041019122653.02168300@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20041019143200.022e62d0@mail.ilstu.edu>

Richard,

I have not seen such a device that would seem adequate. Have you or anyone
else seen or have one? Must run for at least 30 minutes, and better for an
hour (so the person assigned to crank up the spring is not permanently tied
to the forced air device.)

When I see it working I will be much more "convinced."

Personally, I would like the "lemon light" method if it could be sufficient
and sustainable. Grow your electricity on a tree. Crispin is the
"specialist" with this. Is there any chance that lemon light could be
sufficient?

Paul

At 08:51 PM 10/19/04 +0200, Richard Stanley wrote:
>Paul, and Tom R,
>
>Surely you have tried direct wind up spring to fan power no ? Wy go
>throuhg electric power at all when you can simply wind us a simple clock
>spring runnign a small cooling fan (commonly it functions as the speed
>governer on such units anyway ? Ignorance begets the most amazing naked
>questions I await your collective illumination (PS. Paul and Tom, have
>two photos of you both and your wife form the SV conference which I
>promise to get to you in a week or so, just after return to J bg.
>Richard Stanley
>
>
>Paul S. Anderson wrote:
>
>>Stovers,
>>
>>For the VERY small gasifier stoves that Tom Reed and I are developing
>>(See Tom's WoodGas CampStove at www.woodgasllc.com ), one important
>>version is with forced air (the Natural Draft versions are my Juntos
>>stoves that are not the topic here).
>>
>>Forced air via fan or blower. Easiest way is with electricity. Tom's
>>unit does well with ONE AA battery (1.5 volts) and uses about one watt of
>>power, running for 3 to 6 hours on one battery depending on using high or
>>low setting and battery quality. (I think I got those numbers correct.)
>>
>>My question is: In areas that are off grid and could rely on battery
>>power IF they could afford the batteries, what are the options for
>>getting about 2 or 3 watts of power from some battery (ANY battery can be
>>specified) AND the ability to recharge that battery by human power,
>>probably with a crank.
>>
>>The "crank-powered" radio (sold in South Africa) is great, but too costly
>>and probably not enough watt power, and is based on the mechanical
>>"winding down" of the loaded ?springs? inside.
>>
>>Instead, I am thinking of a nice rechargeable battery that is probably
>>better suited to the job than would be the very small AA rechargeable
>>batteries sold in the affluent world. But I will consider any options on
>>the batteries and volts, etc.
>>
>>I have a nice 12 volt sealed battery about 2 x 5 x 15 cm ( 1 x 2 x 6
>>inches) that I would love to be able to recharge manually. But maybe 6
>>volt or 3 volt technology could be better.
>>
>>Recharging would be done by a hand crank to turn a small DC motor in
>>reverse, creating an electrical charge. (I think I got that right.)
>>I have no idea of the size issues here, but I expect that a smallish
>>motor would be fine.
>>
>>Hey, what about a generator from an automobile or motorcycle? MUST be
>>cheap, meaning in mass production now. (Sorry, I just checked with an
>>auto-electric shop and was told that those car parts need very high
>>RPM.) But the thought was along the lines of what I am trying to do.
>>
>>On this list we have discussed "lemon-power" and hand-shaker
>>film-canisters to give a little power for operating LEDs. (and I
>>successfully tried both of those, but was not convinced that there would
>>be sustainable or reasonable power). Also, we have mentioned "falling
>>weights" that slowly give mechanical power to turn a fan (did not seem to
>>be sufficient, unless someone can present a working model that can be
>>replicated easily in the developing world.)
>>
>>Summary, Mama needs to run her stove needing 3 watts of power for at
>>least 2 hours, preferably 4 hours or more, each day on one charge of the
>>electricity generated and stored in her home, and that charge came from
>>someone turning a crank for xx minutes with the electricity saved in a
>>battery or other "device," all at very low cost of the materials. And
>>if some slightly larger unit can make the
>>electricity for serving 5 or 10 household, that would create an off-grid
>>"utility" enterprise in the village.
>>
>>And then comes white LEDs and other users of the SMALL power, but first
>>let's get the power.
>>
>>I hope you have some suggestions that will lead us to some practical
>>solutions.
>>
>>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 at 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
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Stoves mailing list
>>Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>>
>>

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 at 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 willing at mts.net Tue Oct 19 14:46:02 2004
From: willing at mts.net (Scott Willing)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:46:02 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] 3 watt electricity generation/storage
In-Reply-To: <41756233.3030503@legacyfound.org>
References: <4.3.1.2.20041019122653.02168300@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <417528AA.29769.E2921D@localhost>

Gentlemen,

<delurk>

I'm an electronics technologist by education, living off-grid in
the affluent world. Perhaps because of practical experience, this
direct mechanical idea appeals most to me. Some form of
escapement would be needed to maintain a fairly constant output
over time (further complicated if multi-speed operation was
needed) but I still think this is a promising direction to take.

I just purchased a couple of the Tom Reed stoves. As a long-time
lurker on this list, I wanted to see them work, and to contribute
in a small way to the cause through my purchase.

As it happens, I have some surplus off-spec 5W solar panels that
are actually good for about 3W, and some smaller panels
integrated into battery chargers that are suitable for charging
AA cells but not for driving the stove motor directly.

The amorphous 3W panels are almost a foot square, fragile, and
enormously expensive for third world use, even at the giveaway
price I paid for them. Furthermore even they are unsuited to
direct connection to the stove. They are 12V panels and would not
even produce their derated 3W when connected to a small motor.
(Solar panels are essentially current sources; their current is
nearly constant over a wide range of operating voltages right
down to a short circut, but the power output varies accordingly.)

I did want to make one observation on the subject of battery
type. Paul's 12V sealed battery is almost certainly a "gel cel"
i.e. a lead-acid battery with gelled electrolyte.

Lead-acid batteries are happiest when fully charged, and should
rarely if ever be fully discharged. Their lifetime is related to
the number of charge/discharge cycles but also to the depth of
discharge. Simply put: run them flat and they will not live long.
Also, if one overcharges a sealed gell cell it will vent (a good
thing, as the alternative is to explode) and this too shortens
its life dramatically.

OTOH, the common NiCad battery, as is readily available in AA
form, can not only handle deep discharge, it performs better if
it is deeply discharged as a matter of routine.

So -- human nature being what it is -- would you rather have a
battery that is easily damaged by deep discharge, or one that
"likes" it?

As much as the idea of a small solar panel driving the little
stove appeals to me, a few AA NiCad's and a small solar charger
would be a much better and more flexible solution.

Best regards
Scott Willing
<relurk>

On 19 Oct 2004 at 20:51, Richard Stanley wrote:

> Paul, and Tom R,
>
> Surely you have tried direct wind up spring to fan power no ? Wy
> go throuhg electric power at all when you can simply wind us a
> simple clock spring runnign a small cooling fan (commonly it
> functions as the speed governer on such units anyway ? Ignorance
> begets the most amazing naked questions I await your collective
> illumination (PS. Paul and Tom, have two photos of you both and
> your wife form the SV conference which I promise to get to you in
> a week or so, just after return to J bg. Richard Stanley
>
>
> Paul S. Anderson wrote:
>
> > Stovers,
> >
> > For the VERY small gasifier stoves that Tom Reed and I are
> > developing (See Tom's WoodGas CampStove at www.woodgasllc.com
> > ), one important version is with forced air (the Natural
> > Draft versions are my Juntos stoves that are not the topic
> > here).
> >
> > Forced air via fan or blower. Easiest way is with electricity.
> > Tom's unit does well with ONE AA battery (1.5 volts) and uses
> > about one watt of power, running for 3 to 6 hours on one battery
> > depending on using high or low setting and battery quality. (I
> > think I got those numbers correct.)
> >
> > My question is: In areas that are off grid and could rely on
> > battery power IF they could afford the batteries, what are the
> > options for getting about 2 or 3 watts of power from some
> > battery (ANY battery can be specified) AND the ability to
> > recharge that battery by human power, probably with a crank.
> >
> > The "crank-powered" radio (sold in South Africa) is great, but
> > too costly and probably not enough watt power, and is based on
> > the mechanical "winding down" of the loaded ?springs? inside.
> >
> > Instead, I am thinking of a nice rechargeable battery that is
> > probably better suited to the job than would be the very small
> > AA rechargeable batteries sold in the affluent world. But I
> > will consider any options on the batteries and volts, etc.
> >
> > I have a nice 12 volt sealed battery about 2 x 5 x 15 cm ( 1 x 2
> > x 6 inches) that I would love to be able to recharge manually.
> > But maybe 6 volt or 3 volt technology could be better.
> >
> > Recharging would be done by a hand crank to turn a small DC
> > motor in reverse, creating an electrical charge. (I think I got
> > that right.) I have no idea of the size issues here, but I
> > expect that a smallish motor would be fine.
> >
> > Hey, what about a generator from an automobile or motorcycle?
> > MUST be cheap, meaning in mass production now. (Sorry, I just
> > checked with an auto-electric shop and was told that those car
> > parts need very high RPM.) But the thought was along the lines
> > of what I am trying to do.
> >
> > On this list we have discussed "lemon-power" and hand-shaker
> > film-canisters to give a little power for operating LEDs. (and
> > I successfully tried both of those, but was not convinced that
> > there would be sustainable or reasonable power). Also, we
> > have mentioned "falling weights" that slowly give mechanical
> > power to turn a fan (did not seem to be sufficient, unless
> > someone can present a working model that can be replicated
> > easily in the developing world.)
> >
> > Summary, Mama needs to run her stove needing 3 watts of power
> > for at least 2 hours, preferably 4 hours or more, each day on
> > one charge of the electricity generated and stored in her home,
> > and that charge came from someone turning a crank for xx minutes
> > with the electricity saved in a battery or other "device," all
> > at very low cost of the materials. And if some slightly larger
> > unit can make the electricity for serving 5 or 10 household,
> > that would create an off-grid "utility" enterprise in the
> > village.
> >
> > And then comes white LEDs and other users of the SMALL power,
> > but first let's get the power.
> >
> > I hope you have some suggestions that will lead us to some
> > practical solutions.
> >
> > 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 at 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> > Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> > http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

 

From phoenix98604 at earthlink.net Tue Oct 19 15:03:17 2004
From: phoenix98604 at earthlink.net (Art Krenzel)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:03:17 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] Gas-er-up!! Data listings -- process flow --
References: <3.0.32.20041019125752.009bc690@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <006801c4b616$ad7c8090$8dc3f204@7k6rv21>

Peter,

You have taken off with the zeal of an Evangelist with this biogas project!
You did a great job gathering the necessary information for you bio process.

You said:
>Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that digestion is a
>biological process.

>The "anaerobic" bacteria responsible for digestion can't survive with even
>the slightest trace of oxygen. So, because of the oxygen in the manure
>mixture fed to the digester, there is a long period after loading before
>actual digestion takes place. During this initial "aerobic" period, traces
>of oxygen are used up by oxygen-loving bacteria, and large amounts of
>carbon dioxide (C02) are released.

Actually, in the latest biogas technology, the anaerobic process is broken
into two separate steps. The first step, acetate formation by organic
acids, is somewhat tolerant of the presence of small amounts of oxygen. The
second stage, methanation, the presence of any oxygen means sudden and
instant death to the methagens.

Just Google TWO PHASE ANAEROBIC DIGESTION for the latest information.

>Biologically, then, successful digestion depends upon achieving and (for
>continuous-load digesters) maintaining a balance between those bacteria
>which produce organic acids and those bacteria which produce methane gas
>from the organic acids.

Again, the newer production anaerobic processes are hybrids. They have
daily batch tanks for the first stage (hydrolyis and acetate formation) and
pulse feeding of the second stage (methane formation). The net effect is
that we have a continuous process that can handle surge loading on the feed
side and a near constant output of biogas.

Peter, I still think you should make beer. Think of it - now we could have
a reason for our Evangelistic rants! :-) We could sell the bad batches of
beer as vinegar and have two markets.

I built and operated a microbrewery during one of my earlier lives and it
was a pleasure - especially at break time. :-)

Art Krenzel

 

 

 

 

From snkm at btl.net Tue Oct 19 15:14:41 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:14:41 -0600
Subject: [Stoves] From vinegar to Methane
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041019141206.009bc690@pop.btl.net>

Gasifying vinegar -- it's all about enzymes produced by bacteria!

Code word: "methyl coenzyme M"

code word: "methanogenesis"

Code words: "Methanosarcina thermophila"
"Methanosarcina barkeri"

And really reaching -- as in what to do with all the CO2 from fermenting
cane juice!

"Elucidation of the pathway for CO2 reduction to CH4"

Highlighting from the second abstract below:

Enzymes have been purified and characterized. The genes encoding these
enzymes have been cloned, sequenced, transcriptionally mapped, and their
regulation defined on a molecular level. This review emphasizes recent
developments concerning the enzymes which are unique to the acetate
fermentation pathway in M. thermophila.

You don't suppose -- have tank full of diluted -- natural -- vinegar -- add
enzymes -- here come de gas?? Start motor -- drive off??

Interesting indeed!

It is all about "passive" production of gas -- in this case -- methane. no
machinery required -- just let sit in tank. No gasifier to fiddle with --
no distillery to fiddle with -- no fiddling around at all.

Or how about fermenting butane -- a truly ideal portable fuel.

Butanol-isopropanol Fermentation
The butanol-isopropanol fermentation (Refs. 7 to 9) is mediated by the
anaerobic bacterium Clostridium butylicum. A wide variety of carbohydrate
feeds maybe used. Saccharin feeds yield 30 to 33 percent mixed solvents,
based on the original sugars. At 33 to 37 deg C. the fermentation is
complete within 30 to 40 hours. Product ratios vary with the strain and
with culture conditions, but are normally in the range 33 to 65 percent
n-butanol, 19 to 44 percent isopropanol, 1 to 24 percent acetone, and 0 to
3 percent ethanol. This fermentation has been supplanted by petrochemical
synthetic processes.

Oh ya -- want to bet on that last line -- eh?? Check this out!!

Anaerobic digestion of organic solids wastes has been investigated as an
alternative methane source. Various cost estimates have been made which
indicate production costs, including gas purification and compression, in
the range of $0.40 to $2.00 per million Btu. The major cost items, and
sources of variability in the estimates, are the digester capital costs,
waste sludge disposal cost, and the credit or debit associated with the
collection and preparation of the solid waste feed material. Multiple
staging and separate optimization of anaerobic digestion may provide
reduced capital costs through lower detention times and reduced operation
and maintenance costs by improved process stability.

Price of natural gas is now over $8.00 per per million Btu.

Mr. Wheeler -- are you paying any attention to these lines of "thought"??

Take you sugar cane -- use the juices to make lot's of gas -- burn the
bagasse to makes lot of power.

You can burn it direct as it comes out of a big crusher set up (55%
humidity) -- get 25% out of that as export electrical power -- or you can
really get complicated -- playing around with all kinds of plumbers
nightmares -- and maybe get 25% if your lucky -- and then God only know for
how long per year -- or how long before it dies!

And if you want to really reach for the stars -- do this with bagasse:

Cellulose Degradation

A significant portion of the organic matter suitable for fermentation to
fuels is cellulosic. Cellulosic materials tend to resist biochemical
degradation. A system has been described which utilizes fungal cellulase
for the hydrolysis of cellulose (Refs. 22 and 23). Wilke (Ref. 24)
described a system for the net production of 429 tons of glucose (5.88%
w/w) per day from 885 tons of waste paper at a cost of $18.56 per ton of
glucose, excluding credits or debits associated with the disposal of the
paper.

Instead of man's machines -- maybe we should be paying more attention to
mother nature's little "helpers" -- eh?

 

Peter -- Belize

***********on with it***************

Acetate catabolism by Methanosarcina barkeri: evidence for involvement of
carbon monoxide dehydrogenase, methyl coenzyme M, and methylreductase.

Krzycki JA, Lehman LJ, Zeikus JG.

The pathway of acetate catabolism in Methanosarcina barkeri strain MS was
studied by using a recently developed assay for methanogenesis from acetate
by soluble enzymes in cell extracts. Extracts incubated with
[2-14C]acetate, hydrogen, and ATP formed 14CH4 and [14C]methyl coenzyme M
as products. The apparent Km for acetate conversion to methane was 5 mM. In
the presence of excess acetate, both the rate and duration of methane
production was dependent on ATP. Acetyl phosphate replaced the cell extract
methanogenic requirement for both acetate and ATP (the Km for ATP was 2
mM). Low concentrations of bromoethanesulfonic acid and cyanide, inhibitors
of methylreductase and carbon monoxide dehydrogenase, respectively, greatly
reduced the rate of methanogenesis. Precipitation of CO dehydrogenase in
cell extracts by antibodies raised to 95% purified enzyme inhibited both CO
dehydrogenase and acetate-to-methane conversion activity. The data are
consistent with a model of acetate catabolism in which methylreductase,
methyl coenzyme M, CO dehydrogenase, and acetate-activating enzymes are
components. These results are discussed in relation to acetate uptake and
rate-limiting transformation mechanisms in methane formation.

**********2nd*************

Enzymology of the fermentation of acetate to methane by Methanosarcina
thermophila.

Ferry JG.

Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Pennsylvania State
University, University Park 16802-4500, USA.

Biologically-produced CH4 derives from either the reduction of CO2 or the
methyl group of acetate by two separate pathways present in anaerobic
mierobes from the Archaea domain. Elucidation of the pathway for CO2
reduction to CH4, the first to be investigated, has yielded several novel
enzymes and cofactors. Most of the CH4 produced in nature derives from the
methyl group of acetate. Methanosarcina thermophila is a moderate
thermophile which ferments acetate by reducing the methyl group to CH4 with
electrons derived from oxidation of the carbonyl group to CO2. The pathway
in M. thermophila is now understood on a biochemical and genetic level
comparable to understanding of the CO2-reducing pathway. Enzymes have been
purified and characterized. The genes encoding these enzymes have been
cloned, sequenced, transcriptionally mapped, and their regulation defined
on a molecular level. This review emphasizes recent developments concerning
the enzymes which are unique to the acetate fermentation pathway in M.
thermophila.

Publication Types:
Review
Review, Tutorial

PMID: 9233537 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

From psanders at ilstu.edu Tue Oct 19 16:14:57 2004
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:14:57 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] 3 watt electricity generation/storage
In-Reply-To: <417528AA.29769.E2921D@localhost>
References: <41756233.3030503@legacyfound.org>
<4.3.1.2.20041019122653.02168300@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20041019155604.022f89d0@mail.ilstu.edu>

Scott,

Thanks for your informed comments. Here are some questions:

You wrote: this direct mechanical idea appeals most to me. Some form of
escapement would be needed to maintain a fairly constant output
over time

What is "escapement" in reference to mechanical solutions to the problem?

Also you wrote: As much as the idea of a small solar panel driving the
little
stove appeals to me, a few AA NiCad's and a small solar charger
would be a much better and more flexible solution.

Good. You are distinguishing between a solar panel "driver" and a solar
panel "charger." Apart from the meaning of the words, I do not understand
the difference. Is it in construction, price, uses, etc?

BTW, my 12 volt battery is a deep discharge type. Pricey but I use it in
situations where I cannot frequently do the shallow and often recharging.

Now for your task: :-)) You have one or more of Tom Reed's Woodgas
Campstoves. Can you make it operate using the solar charger and
rechargeable batteries? I am VERY interested in having that capability.

Comparing my forced air version of the Juntos gasifier, it is essentially
like Tom Reed's but with tin cans and the whole fan unit is separate
(called an "air base") so it can have any type of forced air system
available. IF you took the campstove and cut off the bottom of the outside
cylinder, keeping the fan and plug-in battery intact, that would function
like an air base. (I do not suggest that you do that, but instead simply
bypass his battery so that your own external configuration of solar charger
and battery can be used instead.)

The advantages of electricity will allow you also to have a "control" of
the current. So your device could plug into the "high heat" plug, and you
could regulate from high to medium to low heat via the control of the
current to the fan. (Tom's unit has a plug in for high and another plug
in for low.)

Scott. Please "lurk no more." :-)) We need your inputs!! Thanks,

Paul

At 02:46 PM 10/19/04 -0500, Scott Willing wrote:
>Gentlemen,
>
><delurk>
>
>I'm an electronics technologist by education, living off-grid in
>the affluent world. Perhaps because of practical experience, this
>direct mechanical idea appeals most to me. Some form of
>escapement would be needed to maintain a fairly constant output
>over time (further complicated if multi-speed operation was
>needed) but I still think this is a promising direction to take.
>
>I just purchased a couple of the Tom Reed stoves. As a long-time
>lurker on this list, I wanted to see them work, and to contribute
>in a small way to the cause through my purchase.
>
>As it happens, I have some surplus off-spec 5W solar panels that
>are actually good for about 3W, and some smaller panels
>integrated into battery chargers that are suitable for charging
>AA cells but not for driving the stove motor directly.
>
>The amorphous 3W panels are almost a foot square, fragile, and
>enormously expensive for third world use, even at the giveaway
>price I paid for them. Furthermore even they are unsuited to
>direct connection to the stove. They are 12V panels and would not
>even produce their derated 3W when connected to a small motor.
>(Solar panels are essentially current sources; their current is
>nearly constant over a wide range of operating voltages right
>down to a short circut, but the power output varies accordingly.)
>
>I did want to make one observation on the subject of battery
>type. Paul's 12V sealed battery is almost certainly a "gel cel"
>i.e. a lead-acid battery with gelled electrolyte.
>
>Lead-acid batteries are happiest when fully charged, and should
>rarely if ever be fully discharged. Their lifetime is related to
>the number of charge/discharge cycles but also to the depth of
>discharge. Simply put: run them flat and they will not live long.
>Also, if one overcharges a sealed gell cell it will vent (a good
>thing, as the alternative is to explode) and this too shortens
>its life dramatically.
>
>OTOH, the common NiCad battery, as is readily available in AA
>form, can not only handle deep discharge, it performs better if
>it is deeply discharged as a matter of routine.
>
>So -- human nature being what it is -- would you rather have a
>battery that is easily damaged by deep discharge, or one that
>"likes" it?
>
>As much as the idea of a small solar panel driving the little
>stove appeals to me, a few AA NiCad's and a small solar charger
>would be a much better and more flexible solution.
>
>Best regards
>Scott Willing
><relurk>
>
>
>On 19 Oct 2004 at 20:51, Richard Stanley wrote:
>
> > Paul, and Tom R,
> >
> > Surely you have tried direct wind up spring to fan power no ? Wy
> > go throuhg electric power at all when you can simply wind us a
> > simple clock spring runnign a small cooling fan (commonly it
> > functions as the speed governer on such units anyway ? Ignorance
> > begets the most amazing naked questions I await your collective
> > illumination (PS. Paul and Tom, have two photos of you both and
> > your wife form the SV conference which I promise to get to you in
> > a week or so, just after return to J bg. Richard Stanley
> >
> >
> > Paul S. Anderson wrote:
> >
> > > Stovers,
> > >
> > > For the VERY small gasifier stoves that Tom Reed and I are
> > > developing (See Tom's WoodGas CampStove at www.woodgasllc.com
> > > ), one important version is with forced air (the Natural
> > > Draft versions are my Juntos stoves that are not the topic
> > > here).
> > >
> > > Forced air via fan or blower. Easiest way is with electricity.
> > > Tom's unit does well with ONE AA battery (1.5 volts) and uses
> > > about one watt of power, running for 3 to 6 hours on one battery
> > > depending on using high or low setting and battery quality. (I
> > > think I got those numbers correct.)
> > >
> > > My question is: In areas that are off grid and could rely on
> > > battery power IF they could afford the batteries, what are the
> > > options for getting about 2 or 3 watts of power from some
> > > battery (ANY battery can be specified) AND the ability to
> > > recharge that battery by human power, probably with a crank.
> > >
> > > The "crank-powered" radio (sold in South Africa) is great, but
> > > too costly and probably not enough watt power, and is based on
> > > the mechanical "winding down" of the loaded ?springs? inside.
> > >
> > > Instead, I am thinking of a nice rechargeable battery that is
> > > probably better suited to the job than would be the very small
> > > AA rechargeable batteries sold in the affluent world. But I
> > > will consider any options on the batteries and volts, etc.
> > >
> > > I have a nice 12 volt sealed battery about 2 x 5 x 15 cm ( 1 x 2
> > > x 6 inches) that I would love to be able to recharge manually.
> > > But maybe 6 volt or 3 volt technology could be better.
> > >
> > > Recharging would be done by a hand crank to turn a small DC
> > > motor in reverse, creating an electrical charge. (I think I got
> > > that right.) I have no idea of the size issues here, but I
> > > expect that a smallish motor would be fine.
> > >
> > > Hey, what about a generator from an automobile or motorcycle?
> > > MUST be cheap, meaning in mass production now. (Sorry, I just
> > > checked with an auto-electric shop and was told that those car
> > > parts need very high RPM.) But the thought was along the lines
> > > of what I am trying to do.
> > >
> > > On this list we have discussed "lemon-power" and hand-shaker
> > > film-canisters to give a little power for operating LEDs. (and
> > > I successfully tried both of those, but was not convinced that
> > > there would be sustainable or reasonable power). Also, we
> > > have mentioned "falling weights" that slowly give mechanical
> > > power to turn a fan (did not seem to be sufficient, unless
> > > someone can present a working model that can be replicated
> > > easily in the developing world.)
> > >
> > > Summary, Mama needs to run her stove needing 3 watts of power
> > > for at least 2 hours, preferably 4 hours or more, each day on
> > > one charge of the electricity generated and stored in her home,
> > > and that charge came from someone turning a crank for xx minutes
> > > with the electricity saved in a battery or other "device," all
> > > at very low cost of the materials. And if some slightly larger
> > > unit can make the electricity for serving 5 or 10 household,
> > > that would create an off-grid "utility" enterprise in the
> > > village.
> > >
> > > And then comes white LEDs and other users of the SMALL power,
> > > but first let's get the power.
> > >
> > > I hope you have some suggestions that will lead us to some
> > > practical solutions.
> > >
> > > 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 at 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
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Stoves mailing list
> > > Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> > > http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> > Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> > http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Stoves mailing list
>Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

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 at 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 snkm at btl.net Tue Oct 19 16:54:54 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:54:54 -0600
Subject: [Stoves] Gas-er-up!! Data listings -- process flow --
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041019154716.009bc690@pop.btl.net>

 

At 01:03 PM 10/19/2004 -0700, Art Krenzel wrote:
>Peter,
>
>You have taken off with the zeal of an Evangelist with this biogas project!
>You did a great job gathering the necessary information for you bio process.
>

Well -- we have LLWheeler shaking our collective tree in regards to why
something aint happening -- as you know -- I have claimed for years the
entire industry is in a rut.

I made my living by researching and applying results from researching --
but researching gas production is not my occupation.

But it is hard to resist shaking collective tree -- having seen the fun
LWheeler is getting -- thought I would as well.

You might note by the last posting -- it gets deeper and deeper.

Now -- can't we consider using a little less machinery -- and a little more
of Mother's helpers??

In fact -- we better consider alternatives -- as a rule -- the older a
technology gets -- the more chance it can be knocked off it's imagined high
horse.

Seems to me Tom Taylor was involved with gasifying biomasses to syngas
using mother's little helpers -- what happened to that side Tom??

I am only doing an over view in regards to present state of the art -- but
seems to me times are a changing??

>You said:
>>Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that digestion is a
>>biological process.
>
>Actually, in the latest biogas technology, the anaerobic process is broken
>into two separate steps. The first step, acetate formation by organic
>acids, is somewhat tolerant of the presence of small amounts of oxygen. The
>second stage, methanation, the presence of any oxygen means sudden and
>instant death to the methagens.

I'm reviewing and saving to hard drive some three stage processes right now
-- maybe will comment on this later -- if the moderators don't shut me down
first that is.

>
>Just Google TWO PHASE ANAEROBIC DIGESTION for the latest information.
>

Thanks -- I will --

>
>>Biologically, then, successful digestion depends upon achieving and (for
>>continuous-load digesters) maintaining a balance between those bacteria
>>which produce organic acids and those bacteria which produce methane gas
>>from the organic acids.
>

I'm trying to find the part about bacteria reducing CO2 to methane right now.

>Again, the newer production anaerobic processes are hybrids. They have
>daily batch tanks for the first stage (hydrolyis and acetate formation) and
>pulse feeding of the second stage (methane formation). The net effect is
>that we have a continuous process that can handle surge loading on the feed
>side and a near constant output of biogas.

Well -- the model I use from the beginning is going from raw "juice" -- to
alcohol -- to vinegar -- then to gas. but in a very "passive" manner.

We here in 3rd world like "passive" -- while people like LWheeler like big
plumber's nightmares.

Time will tell -- as always.

>
>Peter, I still think you should make beer. Think of it - now we could have
>a reason for our Evangelistic rants! :-) We could sell the bad batches of
>beer as vinegar and have two markets.
>

Cane wine here is called Chee-Cha- - and I have been consuming nothing but
Chee-cha for years now. As required -- not all the time.

One of our greatest causes of poor health is alcohol -- because the mass
produced stuff is lacking in so much. A good Cheecha is highly "medicinal"
- -as it supplies an incredible range of mineral micronutrients -- as well
as vitamins -- etc -- from the yeast.

Stuff coming out of the plumber's nightmares might pass FAD approval -- but
are still long term poisons for the human body. hard liquor strips minerals
out of the body - -especially the liver -- and you know where that neds up.
Chee cha replenishes vital minerals. And all in the most perfect dietary form.

Of course -- rules of the highly slanted playing field makes it all but
impossible to break into the market place in modern nations in regards to
introucing alcoholic content products -- well -- have a happy cancer event
-- not to mention cardiovascular -- liver -- etc problems.

Better dead than not politically correct is the motto --

>I built and operated a microbrewery during one of my earlier lives and it
>was a pleasure - especially at break time. :-)

I could be producing an easy 600 liters a day. But instead -- I process 10
tens of cane once per year to put up a measily 1750 or so liters.

This year I plan to also do a run of 1750 liters of vinegar -- as well as
1750 of cheecha -- ergo -- my sudden interest in this topic.

What holds me back is 20 liter containers to rack the product into -- I
recycle 20 liter plastic cooking oil containers.

Even small traces of oil will ruin a wine -- so each container does 48
hours of soaking full of caustic soda. Then a thorough rinse job after.

I can but acquire -- on average -- 5 such containers per week -- at a cost
of $1.25 US each.

Finding sufficient 1 litter bottles is the next problem. But I have that
well in hand -- paying $0.05 per empty one liter plastic coca cola bottles
-- which i have found to be of excellent food grade quality.

These to require washing -- and everything -- before racking -- need to be
sterilized -- using "Sodium"

Cheecha is 12 to 13% alcohol. The taste takes getting used to -- but the
effects are excellent. you wake up ready to charge -- rather than with a
head-ache.

It also has interesting diuretic properties --

Now -- the two phase process is appended

But here is the "meat":

"COD loads of 20-60 kg/m3/day for acidogenic fermentation (1st phase) and
6-30 kg/n^/day for methanogenic fermentation (2nd phase)."

As in: Make vinegar first -- then transmute to methane after.

Hmm -- sound familliar -- eh??

As in make vinegar -- then deliver that to village biodigestors to make
methane -- for stoves.

 

Peter

>
>Art Krenzel

Two-phase methane fermentation processes

Novel bioreactors for methane fermentation such as the UASB, UAFP, and AFBR
experience inherent problems when operated at high COD loads, due to the
fact that the overall growth rate of acidogenic bacteria proceeds faster
(10-fold) than that of methanogenic bacteria. When this occurs, inhibitory
products such as volatile fatty acids and H2 accumulate in the reactor,
slowing down the entire process. In order to overcome this, two-phase
processes consisting of acidogenic and methanogenic fermentation's have
been investigated (16).

In one full-scale two-phase system + the Anodek process (Belgium) + 70-97%
COD removal and biogas production of 3-13 Kg/m2 day with a methane content
of 65 to 80% was obtained when operated at COD loads of 20-60 kg/m3/day for
acidogenic fermentation (1st phase) and 6-30 kg/n^/day for methanogenic
fermentation (2nd phase). In another example, a two-phase system consisting
of a complete stirred reactor for the first phase and a UASB for the second
phase was constructed. When this system was applied in the treatment of
alcohol distillery waste (COD =10,000 mg//) at HRTs of 16-72 hours in the
first phase, and 14 hours in the second phase, 84% COD removal and 92% BOD
removal were accomplished. A two-phase system consisting of a UAFP for the
first phase and a horizontal AFP for the second phase has also been
proposed, with which it should be possible to treat sewage waste water (COD
800 to 2,600 mg/l) at HRTs of 2-5.5 hours with a high methane content (~90%).

In addition, since SS in waste water greatly influences the performance of
the UASB or UAFP, an acidogenic fermentation first phase in combination
with a UASB or UAFP second phase is useful in reducing the SS which enter
the second phase.

 

From willing at mts.net Tue Oct 19 17:21:48 2004
From: willing at mts.net (Scott Willing)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:21:48 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] 3 watt electricity generation/storage
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20041019155604.022f89d0@mail.ilstu.edu>
References: <417528AA.29769.E2921D@localhost>
Message-ID: <41754D2C.21172.227796@localhost>

On 19 Oct 2004 at 16:14, Paul S. Anderson wrote:

> Scott,
>
> Thanks for your informed comments. Here are some questions:
>
> You wrote: this direct mechanical idea appeals most to me. Some
> form of escapement would be needed to maintain a fairly constant
> output over time
>
> What is "escapement" in reference to mechanical solutions to the
> problem?

Something that serves to regulate the release of the energy, as
in a camera shutter or wind-up watch. The wind-up clock or watch
is the better example as it is directly related: if it weren't
for the escapement, the watch would run fast when the spring was
freshly wound and then slow down progressively as it relaxed.

Though I'm no expert in watchworks (or anything else for that
matter; I probably should've added that caveat at the outset) it
seems to me that a pendulum is the core of a typical escapement.
This is connected more or less directly to a lever, pivoted in
the middle, and having a tooth at each end. The lever engages a
gear alternately with each tooth as it swings back and forth,
such that for each swing of the pendulum, the gear is allowed to
advance two teeth's worth. (Hope the grammar police aren't going
to look closely at that one.) Thus the pendulum regulates the
rotation of the entire mechanism.

>From what I remember of taking watches apart as a kid, the
function of the pendulum is emulated by a second spring operating
on a rotating weight, such that the spring winds and unwinds once
per second or two. Likewise, as I recall, this operates a two-
toothed lever / gear combination and thus regulates the speed of
the main spring's unwinding.

> Also you wrote: As much as the idea of a small solar panel
> driving the little stove appeals to me, a few AA NiCad's and a
> small solar charger would be a much better and more flexible
> solution.
>
> Good. You are distinguishing between a solar panel "driver" and a
> solar panel "charger." Apart from the meaning of the words, I do
> not understand the difference. Is it in construction, price,
> uses, etc?

Assuming one has a solar panel of sufficient power to drive the
motor directly (let's say it's 3W continuous) and enough
insolation (a.k.a. sun!) then one wouldn't need batteries.

However if one has a battery and a smaller panel, say 1W, that
wouldn't have enough power to run the motor directly, one can
harvest photons at the lower power level, store them in the
battery over time, and then use them up later at 3 times the
rate. So (ignoring losses) if you had 3 hours of sunshine then
your little 1W panel could tuck away enough energy for 1 hour of
stove time. As a bonus, of course, you get to cook in the
evening.

> BTW, my 12 volt battery is a deep discharge type. Pricey but I
> use it in situations where I cannot frequently do the shallow and
> often recharging.

"Deep discharge" in this case designates a lead-acid battery that
has been optimized for cycle use rather than, say, a starting
battery. A starting battery has large plate area (many thin
perforated plates) as it is designed to deliver lots of current
quickly), whereas your battery will have fewer, thicker plates
and slightly different chemistry. Indeed your battery will last a
lot longer than a starting-type lead-acid battery.

However this does not change the relative characteristics of lead-
acid vs nickle-cadmium chemistries.

> Now for your task: :-)) You have one or more of Tom Reed's
> Woodgas Campstoves. Can you make it operate using the solar
> charger and rechargeable batteries? I am VERY interested in
> having that capability.

Not meaning to be off-putting in any way, but this almost isn't
even worth a test inasmuch as it's a forgone conclusion that it
will work. The maximum speed will be somewhat less than with an
alkaline battery, because the characteristic voltage of a single
NiCad cell is lower, around 1.25V vs 1.5 for alkaline.

However NiCad has another advantage in that its voltage tends to
stay more constant as it discharges, then it dies quite quickly.
Alkaline output voltage droops more as it discharges.

> Comparing my forced air version of the Juntos gasifier, it is
> essentially like Tom Reed's but with tin cans and the whole fan
> unit is separate (called an "air base") so it can have any type of
> forced air system available. IF you took the campstove and cut
> off the bottom of the outside cylinder, keeping the fan and
> plug-in battery intact, that would function like an air base. (I
> do not suggest that you do that, but instead simply bypass his
> battery so that your own external configuration of solar charger
> and battery can be used instead.)

What I'm advocating is simply charging one or more batteries in
an off-the-shelf solar charger (small ones are about the size of
the four batteries they'll hold) and then transferring one of the
batteries from the charger into the existing holder.

With a bigger solar panel you could actually hook things together
with a couple of diodes and have the panel contribute to driving
the motor, charge the battery, or both, depending on insolation
and loading. No user intervention required.

Diode voltage drops would be significant in this setup though,
since the voltage is so low to start with. (A typical silicon
diode drops 0.5 to 0.7V when forward-biased.) This can be
mitigated with the choice of appropriate diodes, but going to a
higher voltage arrangement (e.g. 3V motor + 2 cells) might be
required.

> The advantages of electricity will allow you also to have a
> "control" of the current. So your device could plug into the
> "high heat" plug, and you could regulate from high to medium to
> low heat via the control of the current to the fan. (Tom's unit
> has a plug in for high and another plug in for low.)

Yep. There's a resistor on one to reduce the voltage/current to
the motor. Arguably a waste of energy there, but not very much
and the alternatives are far too complex to be justified!

> Scott. Please "lurk no more." :-)) We need your inputs!!
> Thanks,

You're welcome.

Cheers,
-=s

> Paul
>
>
> At 02:46 PM 10/19/04 -0500, Scott Willing wrote:
> >Gentlemen,
> >
> ><delurk>
> >
> >I'm an electronics technologist by education, living off-grid in
> >the affluent world. Perhaps because of practical experience, this
> >direct mechanical idea appeals most to me. Some form of
> >escapement would be needed to maintain a fairly constant output
> >over time (further complicated if multi-speed operation was
> >needed) but I still think this is a promising direction to take.
> >
> >I just purchased a couple of the Tom Reed stoves. As a long-time
> >lurker on this list, I wanted to see them work, and to contribute
> >in a small way to the cause through my purchase.
> >
> >As it happens, I have some surplus off-spec 5W solar panels that
> >are actually good for about 3W, and some smaller panels
> >integrated into battery chargers that are suitable for charging
> >AA cells but not for driving the stove motor directly.
> >
> >The amorphous 3W panels are almost a foot square, fragile, and
> >enormously expensive for third world use, even at the giveaway
> >price I paid for them. Furthermore even they are unsuited to
> >direct connection to the stove. They are 12V panels and would not
> >even produce their derated 3W when connected to a small motor.
> >(Solar panels are essentially current sources; their current is
> >nearly constant over a wide range of operating voltages right
> >down to a short circut, but the power output varies accordingly.)
> >
> >I did want to make one observation on the subject of battery
> >type. Paul's 12V sealed battery is almost certainly a "gel cel"
> >i.e. a lead-acid battery with gelled electrolyte.
> >
> >Lead-acid batteries are happiest when fully charged, and should
> >rarely if ever be fully discharged. Their lifetime is related to
> >the number of charge/discharge cycles but also to the depth of
> >discharge. Simply put: run them flat and they will not live long.
> >Also, if one overcharges a sealed gell cell it will vent (a good
> >thing, as the alternative is to explode) and this too shortens
> >its life dramatically.
> >
> >OTOH, the common NiCad battery, as is readily available in AA
> >form, can not only handle deep discharge, it performs better if
> >it is deeply discharged as a matter of routine.
> >
> >So -- human nature being what it is -- would you rather have a
> >battery that is easily damaged by deep discharge, or one that
> >"likes" it?
> >
> >As much as the idea of a small solar panel driving the little
> >stove appeals to me, a few AA NiCad's and a small solar charger
> >would be a much better and more flexible solution.
> >
> >Best regards
> >Scott Willing
> ><relurk>
> >
> >
> >On 19 Oct 2004 at 20:51, Richard Stanley wrote:
> >
> > > Paul, and Tom R,
> > >
> > > Surely you have tried direct wind up spring to fan power no ?
> > > Wy go throuhg electric power at all when you can simply wind
> > > us a simple clock spring runnign a small cooling fan (commonly
> > > it functions as the speed governer on such units anyway ?
> > > Ignorance begets the most amazing naked questions I await your
> > > collective illumination (PS. Paul and Tom, have two photos of
> > > you both and your wife form the SV conference which I promise
> > > to get to you in a week or so, just after return to J bg.
> > > Richard Stanley
> > >
> > >
> > > Paul S. Anderson wrote:
> > >
> > > > Stovers,
> > > >
> > > > For the VERY small gasifier stoves that Tom Reed and I are
> > > > developing (See Tom's WoodGas CampStove at
> > > > www.woodgasllc.com
> > > > ), one important version is with forced air (the Natural
> > > > Draft versions are my Juntos stoves that are not the topic
> > > > here).
> > > >
> > > > Forced air via fan or blower. Easiest way is with
> > > > electricity. Tom's unit does well with ONE AA battery (1.5
> > > > volts) and uses about one watt of power, running for 3 to 6
> > > > hours on one battery depending on using high or low setting
> > > > and battery quality. (I think I got those numbers correct.)
> > > >
> > > > My question is: In areas that are off grid and could rely
> > > > on battery power IF they could afford the batteries, what
> > > > are the options for getting about 2 or 3 watts of power from
> > > > some battery (ANY battery can be specified) AND the ability
> > > > to recharge that battery by human power, probably with a
> > > > crank.
> > > >
> > > > The "crank-powered" radio (sold in South Africa) is great,
> > > > but too costly and probably not enough watt power, and is
> > > > based on the mechanical "winding down" of the loaded
> > > > ?springs? inside.
> > > >
> > > > Instead, I am thinking of a nice rechargeable battery that
> > > > is probably better suited to the job than would be the very
> > > > small AA rechargeable batteries sold in the affluent world.
> > > > But I will consider any options on the batteries and volts,
> > > > etc.
> > > >
> > > > I have a nice 12 volt sealed battery about 2 x 5 x 15 cm ( 1
> > > > x 2 x 6 inches) that I would love to be able to recharge
> > > > manually. But maybe 6 volt or 3 volt technology could be
> > > > better.
> > > >
> > > > Recharging would be done by a hand crank to turn a small DC
> > > > motor in reverse, creating an electrical charge. (I think I
> > > > got that right.) I have no idea of the size issues here,
> > > > but I expect that a smallish motor would be fine.
> > > >
> > > > Hey, what about a generator from an automobile or
> > > > motorcycle? MUST be cheap, meaning in mass production now.
> > > > (Sorry, I just checked with an auto-electric shop and was
> > > > told that those car parts need very high RPM.) But the
> > > > thought was along the lines of what I am trying to do.
> > > >
> > > > On this list we have discussed "lemon-power" and hand-shaker
> > > > film-canisters to give a little power for operating LEDs.
> > > > (and I successfully tried both of those, but was not
> > > > convinced that there would be sustainable or reasonable
> > > > power). Also, we have mentioned "falling weights" that
> > > > slowly give mechanical power to turn a fan (did not seem to
> > > > be sufficient, unless someone can present a working model
> > > > that can be replicated easily in the developing world.)
> > > >
> > > > Summary, Mama needs to run her stove needing 3 watts of
> > > > power for at least 2 hours, preferably 4 hours or more, each
> > > > day on one charge of the electricity generated and stored in
> > > > her home, and that charge came from someone turning a crank
> > > > for xx minutes with the electricity saved in a battery or
> > > > other "device," all at very low cost of the materials. And
> > > > if some slightly larger unit can make the electricity for
> > > > serving 5 or 10 household, that would create an off-grid
> > > > "utility" enterprise in the village.
> > > >
> > > > And then comes white LEDs and other users of the SMALL
> > > > power, but first let's get the power.
> > > >
> > > > I hope you have some suggestions that will lead us to some
> > > > practical solutions.
> > > >
> > > > 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 at 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
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Stoves mailing list
> > > > Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> > > > http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Stoves mailing list
> > > Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> > > http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Stoves mailing list
> >Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> >http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>
> 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 at 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 Oct 19 18:19:07 2004
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:19:07 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] 3 watt electricity generation/storage
In-Reply-To: <41754D2C.21172.227796@localhost>
References: <4.3.1.2.20041019155604.022f89d0@mail.ilstu.edu>
<417528AA.29769.E2921D@localhost>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20041019180248.0192ef00@mail.ilstu.edu>

Scott,

I enjoyed your response and learned from it.

Please pardon the corny jokes below, but the intention is sincere.

As your name implies, I hope that you are Willing.

You were not "put-offish" any more than I am "put-onish". (grammar police
need not reply.)

I am requesting your assistance. You mentioned an "off the shelf" solar
charger unit,. Please now direct me to where I can get such a thing.

Sorry that I have minimal knowledge of what is or where to put a diode or
two. How do I get such a thing that is so simple that you and others who
understand it can hardly find reason to be interested in it? I agree with
you, it is a foregone conclusion that it will work. But until I have one
(or at least until someone has one), it is "non-real" and we cannot give
good costs of production or models for copying in schools or shops overseas.

I especially like the combination unit that charges OR runs the motor OR both.

Now, please help me get such a thing (within 10 days would be especially
good, but beggars can't be choosers, but I am headed to a conference and
would like to have at least a photograph of the device and the results of
at least one run of using the device.

Yes, I will pay for the materials. And I will even consider paying for the
services, but that should be done off list.

Hoping you and others might all be willing to do this task, or give
sufficient details of what and how so that I or my friend Doug or someone
can get it done.

Thanks in advance.

Paul

At 05:21 PM 10/19/04 -0500, Scott Willing wrote:
>On 19 Oct 2004 at 16:14, Paul S. Anderson wrote:
>
> > Scott,
> >
> > Thanks for your informed comments. Here are some questions:
> >
> > You wrote: this direct mechanical idea appeals most to me. Some
> > form of escapement would be needed to maintain a fairly constant
> > output over time
> >
> > What is "escapement" in reference to mechanical solutions to the
> > problem?
>
>Something that serves to regulate the release of the energy, as
>in a camera shutter or wind-up watch. The wind-up clock or watch
>is the better example as it is directly related: if it weren't
>for the escapement, the watch would run fast when the spring was
>freshly wound and then slow down progressively as it relaxed.
>
>Though I'm no expert in watchworks (or anything else for that
>matter; I probably should've added that caveat at the outset) it
>seems to me that a pendulum is the core of a typical escapement.
>This is connected more or less directly to a lever, pivoted in
>the middle, and having a tooth at each end. The lever engages a
>gear alternately with each tooth as it swings back and forth,
>such that for each swing of the pendulum, the gear is allowed to
>advance two teeth's worth. (Hope the grammar police aren't going
>to look closely at that one.) Thus the pendulum regulates the
>rotation of the entire mechanism.
>
> >From what I remember of taking watches apart as a kid, the
>function of the pendulum is emulated by a second spring operating
>on a rotating weight, such that the spring winds and unwinds once
>per second or two. Likewise, as I recall, this operates a two-
>toothed lever / gear combination and thus regulates the speed of
>the main spring's unwinding.
>
> > Also you wrote: As much as the idea of a small solar panel
> > driving the little stove appeals to me, a few AA NiCad's and a
> > small solar charger would be a much better and more flexible
> > solution.
> >
> > Good. You are distinguishing between a solar panel "driver" and a
> > solar panel "charger." Apart from the meaning of the words, I do
> > not understand the difference. Is it in construction, price,
> > uses, etc?
>
>Assuming one has a solar panel of sufficient power to drive the
>motor directly (let's say it's 3W continuous) and enough
>insolation (a.k.a. sun!) then one wouldn't need batteries.
>
>However if one has a battery and a smaller panel, say 1W, that
>wouldn't have enough power to run the motor directly, one can
>harvest photons at the lower power level, store them in the
>battery over time, and then use them up later at 3 times the
>rate. So (ignoring losses) if you had 3 hours of sunshine then
>your little 1W panel could tuck away enough energy for 1 hour of
>stove time. As a bonus, of course, you get to cook in the
>evening.
>
> > BTW, my 12 volt battery is a deep discharge type. Pricey but I
> > use it in situations where I cannot frequently do the shallow and
> > often recharging.
>
>"Deep discharge" in this case designates a lead-acid battery that
>has been optimized for cycle use rather than, say, a starting
>battery. A starting battery has large plate area (many thin
>perforated plates) as it is designed to deliver lots of current
>quickly), whereas your battery will have fewer, thicker plates
>and slightly different chemistry. Indeed your battery will last a
>lot longer than a starting-type lead-acid battery.
>
>However this does not change the relative characteristics of lead-
>acid vs nickle-cadmium chemistries.
>
> > Now for your task: :-)) You have one or more of Tom Reed's
> > Woodgas Campstoves. Can you make it operate using the solar
> > charger and rechargeable batteries? I am VERY interested in
> > having that capability.
>
>Not meaning to be off-putting in any way, but this almost isn't
>even worth a test inasmuch as it's a forgone conclusion that it
>will work. The maximum speed will be somewhat less than with an
>alkaline battery, because the characteristic voltage of a single
>NiCad cell is lower, around 1.25V vs 1.5 for alkaline.
>
>However NiCad has another advantage in that its voltage tends to
>stay more constant as it discharges, then it dies quite quickly.
>Alkaline output voltage droops more as it discharges.
>
> > Comparing my forced air version of the Juntos gasifier, it is
> > essentially like Tom Reed's but with tin cans and the whole fan
> > unit is separate (called an "air base") so it can have any type of
> > forced air system available. IF you took the campstove and cut
> > off the bottom of the outside cylinder, keeping the fan and
> > plug-in battery intact, that would function like an air base. (I
> > do not suggest that you do that, but instead simply bypass his
> > battery so that your own external configuration of solar charger
> > and battery can be used instead.)
>
>What I'm advocating is simply charging one or more batteries in
>an off-the-shelf solar charger (small ones are about the size of
>the four batteries they'll hold) and then transferring one of the
>batteries from the charger into the existing holder.
>
>With a bigger solar panel you could actually hook things together
>with a couple of diodes and have the panel contribute to driving
>the motor, charge the battery, or both, depending on insolation
>and loading. No user intervention required.
>
>Diode voltage drops would be significant in this setup though,
>since the voltage is so low to start with. (A typical silicon
>diode drops 0.5 to 0.7V when forward-biased.) This can be
>mitigated with the choice of appropriate diodes, but going to a
>higher voltage arrangement (e.g. 3V motor + 2 cells) might be
>required.
>
> > The advantages of electricity will allow you also to have a
> > "control" of the current. So your device could plug into the
> > "high heat" plug, and you could regulate from high to medium to
> > low heat via the control of the current to the fan. (Tom's unit
> > has a plug in for high and another plug in for low.)
>
>Yep. There's a resistor on one to reduce the voltage/current to
>the motor. Arguably a waste of energy there, but not very much
>and the alternatives are far too complex to be justified!
>
> > Scott. Please "lurk no more." :-)) We need your inputs!!
> > Thanks,
>
>You're welcome.
>
>Cheers,
>-=s
>
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > At 02:46 PM 10/19/04 -0500, Scott Willing wrote:
> > >Gentlemen,
> > >
> > ><delurk>
> > >
> > >I'm an electronics technologist by education, living off-grid in
> > >the affluent world. Perhaps because of practical experience, this
> > >direct mechanical idea appeals most to me. Some form of
> > >escapement would be needed to maintain a fairly constant output
> > >over time (further complicated if multi-speed operation was
> > >needed) but I still think this is a promising direction to take.
> > >
> > >I just purchased a couple of the Tom Reed stoves. As a long-time
> > >lurker on this list, I wanted to see them work, and to contribute
> > >in a small way to the cause through my purchase.
> > >
> > >As it happens, I have some surplus off-spec 5W solar panels that
> > >are actually good for about 3W, and some smaller panels
> > >integrated into battery chargers that are suitable for charging
> > >AA cells but not for driving the stove motor directly.
> > >
> > >The amorphous 3W panels are almost a foot square, fragile, and
> > >enormously expensive for third world use, even at the giveaway
> > >price I paid for them. Furthermore even they are unsuited to
> > >direct connection to the stove. They are 12V panels and would not
> > >even produce their derated 3W when connected to a small motor.
> > >(Solar panels are essentially current sources; their current is
> > >nearly constant over a wide range of operating voltages right
> > >down to a short circut, but the power output varies accordingly.)
> > >
> > >I did want to make one observation on the subject of battery
> > >type. Paul's 12V sealed battery is almost certainly a "gel cel"
> > >i.e. a lead-acid battery with gelled electrolyte.
> > >
> > >Lead-acid batteries are happiest when fully charged, and should
> > >rarely if ever be fully discharged. Their lifetime is related to
> > >the number of charge/discharge cycles but also to the depth of
> > >discharge. Simply put: run them flat and they will not live long.
> > >Also, if one overcharges a sealed gell cell it will vent (a good
> > >thing, as the alternative is to explode) and this too shortens
> > >its life dramatically.
> > >
> > >OTOH, the common NiCad battery, as is readily available in AA
> > >form, can not only handle deep discharge, it performs better if
> > >it is deeply discharged as a matter of routine.
> > >
> > >So -- human nature being what it is -- would you rather have a
> > >battery that is easily damaged by deep discharge, or one that
> > >"likes" it?
> > >
> > >As much as the idea of a small solar panel driving the little
> > >stove appeals to me, a few AA NiCad's and a small solar charger
> > >would be a much better and more flexible solution.
> > >
> > >Best regards
> > >Scott Willing
> > ><relurk>
> > >
> > >
> > >On 19 Oct 2004 at 20:51, Richard Stanley wrote:
> > >
> > > > Paul, and Tom R,
> > > >
> > > > Surely you have tried direct wind up spring to fan power no ?
> > > > Wy go throuhg electric power at all when you can simply wind
> > > > us a simple clock spring runnign a small cooling fan (commonly
> > > > it functions as the speed governer on such units anyway ?
> > > > Ignorance begets the most amazing naked questions I await your
> > > > collective illumination (PS. Paul and Tom, have two photos of
> > > > you both and your wife form the SV conference which I promise
> > > > to get to you in a week or so, just after return to J bg.
> > > > Richard Stanley
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Paul S. Anderson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Stovers,
> > > > >
> > > > > For the VERY small gasifier stoves that Tom Reed and I are
> > > > > developing (See Tom's WoodGas CampStove at
> > > > > www.woodgasllc.com
> > > > > ), one important version is with forced air (the Natural
> > > > > Draft versions are my Juntos stoves that are not the topic
> > > > > here).
> > > > >
> > > > > Forced air via fan or blower. Easiest way is with
> > > > > electricity. Tom's unit does well with ONE AA battery (1.5
> > > > > volts) and uses about one watt of power, running for 3 to 6
> > > > > hours on one battery depending on using high or low setting
> > > > > and battery quality. (I think I got those numbers correct.)
> > > > >
> > > > > My question is: In areas that are off grid and could rely
> > > > > on battery power IF they could afford the batteries, what
> > > > > are the options for getting about 2 or 3 watts of power from
> > > > > some battery (ANY battery can be specified) AND the ability
> > > > > to recharge that battery by human power, probably with a
> > > > > crank.
> > > > >
> > > > > The "crank-powered" radio (sold in South Africa) is great,
> > > > > but too costly and probably not enough watt power, and is
> > > > > based on the mechanical "winding down" of the loaded
> > > > > ?springs? inside.
> > > > >
> > > > > Instead, I am thinking of a nice rechargeable battery that
> > > > > is probably better suited to the job than would be the very
> > > > > small AA rechargeable batteries sold in the affluent world.
> > > > > But I will consider any options on the batteries and volts,
> > > > > etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have a nice 12 volt sealed battery about 2 x 5 x 15 cm ( 1
> > > > > x 2 x 6 inches) that I would love to be able to recharge
> > > > > manually. But maybe 6 volt or 3 volt technology could be
> > > > > better.
> > > > >
> > > > > Recharging would be done by a hand crank to turn a small DC
> > > > > motor in reverse, creating an electrical charge. (I think I
> > > > > got that right.) I have no idea of the size issues here,
> > > > > but I expect that a smallish motor would be fine.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hey, what about a generator from an automobile or
> > > > > motorcycle? MUST be cheap, meaning in mass production now.
> > > > > (Sorry, I just checked with an auto-electric shop and was
> > > > > told that those car parts need very high RPM.) But the
> > > > > thought was along the lines of what I am trying to do.
> > > > >
> > > > > On this list we have discussed "lemon-power" and hand-shaker
> > > > > film-canisters to give a little power for operating LEDs.
> > > > > (and I successfully tried both of those, but was not
> > > > > convinced that there would be sustainable or reasonable
> > > > > power). Also, we have mentioned "falling weights" that
> > > > > slowly give mechanical power to turn a fan (did not seem to
> > > > > be sufficient, unless someone can present a working model
> > > > > that can be replicated easily in the developing world.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Summary, Mama needs to run her stove needing 3 watts of
> > > > > power for at least 2 hours, preferably 4 hours or more, each
> > > > > day on one charge of the electricity generated and stored in
> > > > > her home, and that charge came from someone turning a crank
> > > > > for xx minutes with the electricity saved in a battery or
> > > > > other "device," all at very low cost of the materials. And
> > > > > if some slightly larger unit can make the electricity for
> > > > > serving 5 or 10 household, that would create an off-grid
> > > > > "utility" enterprise in the village.
> > > > >
> > > > > And then comes white LEDs and other users of the SMALL
> > > > > power, but first let's get the power.
> > > > >
> > > > > I hope you have some suggestions that will lead us to some
> > > > > practical solutions.
> > > > >
> > > > > 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 at 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
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Stoves mailing list
> > > > > Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> > > > > http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Stoves mailing list
> > > > Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> > > > http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
> > >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >Stoves mailing list
> > >Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> > >http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
> >
> > 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 at 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
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Stoves mailing list
>Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

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 at 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 Tue Oct 19 11:24:16 2004
From: adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in (adkarve)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:54:16 +0530
Subject: [Stoves] sugar to alcohol or sugar to biogas
References: <3.0.32.20041018183938.009a5940@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <000001c4b63b$1c0f31a0$b75841db@adkarve>

This refers to the discussion between Len Walde and Peter Springfield on
this subject.
The conversion rate of sugar to alcohol is roughly 400 g of alcohol from 1
kg sugar, and that of sugar to methane is about 270 g of methane from 1 kg
sugar. Methane has a much higher calorific value than alcohol, so that the
net calorific yield would be about the same, whether you make alcohol or
methane. The biogas fermentation process yields a mixture of methane and
carbondioxide in roughly the ratio of one methane to three carbondioxide by
weight. The advantage of methane is,. that even when it is mixed with
carbondioxide, it can still serve as fuel in a dual fuel engine. Alcohol, on
the hand, must be totally freed from water, before it can be be mixed with
petrol to be used as gasohol in an internal combustion engine. Separation of
alcohol from water requires further input of energy. Another advantage of
methane is that there are no legal restrictions on its production or use,
whereas in the case of alcohol, its production, sale, storage and use all
require permission from the Government.
Yours
A.D.Karve

 

From willing at mts.net Tue Oct 19 20:13:31 2004
From: willing at mts.net (Scott Willing)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:13:31 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] 3 watt electricity generation/storage
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20041019180248.0192ef00@mail.ilstu.edu>
References: <41754D2C.21172.227796@localhost>
Message-ID: <4175756B.29369.BFAF43@localhost>

On 19 Oct 2004 at 18:19, Paul S. Anderson wrote:

> Scott,
>
> I enjoyed your response and learned from it.

Music to my ears.

> Please pardon the corny jokes below, but the intention is sincere.
>
> As your name implies, I hope that you are Willing.

I'm afraid so. Gets me into lots of trouble. :-)

> You were not "put-offish" any more than I am "put-onish".
> (grammar police need not reply.)

Good.

> I am requesting your assistance. You mentioned an "off the shelf"
> solar charger unit,. Please now direct me to where I can get such
> a thing.

Try this website:

http://www.cetsolar.com/solarbatchargers.htm

This is a good page to ponder because the units offered run the
gamut from the very expensive (relatively high power, with
complex electronics for charging "fussy" battery chemistries such
as nickel metal hydride etc. and/or running laptop computers
directly) right down to the tiny pocket charger that I was
thinking specifically of, at the very bottom of the page.
Chargers of exactly this sort can be found at hundreds of
retailers world-wide.

Electrically this type of charger is dead simple. It typically
consists of a half-dozen PV cells wired in series to produce
about 3V open circuit (silicon solar cells are around 0.5V each),
a diode in series with the PV cells, and a battery holder that
takes up to four AA cells in parallel.

The function of the diode is to permit current in one direction
only. This is necessary to prevent the batteries from being
discharged by the panel; when the panel is dark, current would
flow into it from the batteries were it not for the diode. (Diode
= electrical check valve.)

The available charging current is split among the batteries in
the holder. So, the more batteries you're trying to charge, the
longer it's going to take.

The label on the back of the unit I have estimates charging time
as follows:

Batts Time (hrs)
1 2 - 3
2 4 - 6
3 7 - 10
4 10 - 14

It's overcast, snowing and dark here at the moment so I can't
check my memory on this, but it seems to me that this little
charger (I have the 4AA unit shown) produces 100mA or less in
full sun. However, the times given don't square with the AA cells
I have handy (on which the label suggests charging at 85mA for 14
hours).

Not all AA NiCads are born equal, with modern types having up to
twice the capacity of older or cheaper ones. (Therefore requiring
longer charging times.) This may have something to do with the
apparent contradiction between my memory of the charger output
and its estimate of 2-3 hours for a single cell.

It might be useful to through out some information on battery
capacity, charging and the like.

Battery capacity is typically expressed in AmpHours, which is
simply and conveniently Amperes * Hours.

An ideal 1AHr battery would be fully charged by a current of 1A
over a period of 1 hour, or by a current of 100mA (0.1A) for a
period of 10 hours, etc.

This mythical ideal battery could then supply a current of 1A for
1 hour, or 500mA for 2 hours, or 100mA for 10 hours, etc.

The ideal battery does not exist of course.

1. Real batteries cannot be charged at too high a current or they
will overheat and possibly fail. (Let's see, if I give it 10A, I
should be able to charge it in only 6 mi -- BANG --)

2. At the other extreme, if the charging current is too low, it
will not be enough to overcome the battery's self-discharge and
the battery will eventually go flat.

3. Non-ideal factors (various losses) mean that the power storage
efficiency of the battery is never 100%; you have to put more
than their rated capacity into them to fully charge them.

4. The specified capacity (C) of the battery is itself subject to
a fudge factor. Capacity is normally specified at a certain
current. Often this is C/20, though other possibilities exist. If
the rate - and for that matter, the temperature as well - are not
stated explicitly, the battery capacity is not fully specified.

"C/20" is simply the current that will empty the battery over 20
hours. In the case of our 1AHr battery, this current would
1AHr/20Hrs or a mere 0.05A = 50mA. Thus "1Ahr" really means
something like "if you discharge this battery at 25 degrees C and
50mA, it will take 20 hours to flatten it."

Now, if you draw current at a higher rate than C/20, you'll get
less than the rated capacity, whereas if you draw current at a
lower rate than C/20, you'll get a little more.

AFAIR AA cells are typically in the 400 to 850mAhr capacity range
with the 850mAhr types usually designated "high capacity."

Safe charging current is usually specified at around C/10, or
about 850mAhrs/10hrs = 85mA for a high-capacity AA cell. "Safe"
means that you can almost leave them at this current indefinitely
and not damage them.

Faster charging is possible, and some batteries are designated as
quick-charge types. Any battery can be quick-charged, but it's
best that they are specifically rated to handle a higher charging
current, as high as C/4 or so. In the case of quick charging,
this means that the charger* must be sophisticated enough to
terminate the charge when the batteries are full or their
lifetime will be shortened. (*Human operator or electronic
control circuit.)

The beauty of the small solar charger / NiCad combination is its
simplicity, reliability and relative safety.

- If the solar cells aren't too powerful, it will be hard to
overcharge the batteries so close supervision or fancy control
circuits aren't required. Cheaper and more dependable that way.

- One or many batteries can be connected in parallel without
special circuitry and (unless a cell is damaged) the current will
split more or less evenly amongst them - even enough for
practical applications anyway.

> Sorry that I have minimal knowledge of what is or where to put a
> diode or two. How do I get such a thing that is so simple that
> you and others who understand it can hardly find reason to be
> interested in it? I agree with you, it is a foregone conclusion
> that it will work. But until I have one (or at least until
> someone has one), it is "non-real" and we cannot give good costs
> of production or models for copying in schools or shops overseas.
>
> I especially like the combination unit that charges OR runs the
> motor OR both.

I can send you a diagram off-line, or is there a place to post
such a thing? Hmm, I'll try some ASCII art below (view with a
fixed-width font or this will look like h*ll).

D1
-----|>|-----------------
+| | |
------ +| -----
| PV | === | M |
| | - Bat | |
------ | -----
| | |
-------------------------

When I started drawing this I realized that in this case there's
no need for a second diode. Sweet. Basically all one is doing is
connecting the solar charger arrangement directly to the motor. A
garden-variety silicon diode would be OK in this case assuming
sufficient panel voltage, since it isn't in the battery/motor
loop and therefore does not reduce the battery voltage getting to
the motor.

Note that the motor requires much higher current to start than it
does to keep going; one could imagine having a panel with enough
jam to run the motor but not start it, in which case being able
to access the fan blades in order to provide a little start-up
spin might be a good thing.

If the panel could supply enough current to charge the battery as
well as run the motor, then it would undoubtedly be powerful
enough to overcharge the battery when the motor wasn't running.

As incredibly simple as this circuit appears, the interactions
are not necessarily so. Wouldn't be a bad idea to put it together
and make some measurements.

> Now, please help me get such a thing (within 10 days would be
> especially good, but beggars can't be choosers, but I am headed to
> a conference and would like to have at least a photograph of the
> device and the results of at least one run of using the device.

Refer to the page referenced, or simply search "AA solar charger"
and you'll turn up tens if not hundreds of sources. Here's
another:

http://www.global-merchants.com/home/solars.htm

You'll notice they have the exact same 4AA unit as appears at the
bottom of the other page. This, and a couple of AA NiCads, and
you're all set.

Heck, if it would help I could ship you my 4AA charger and a
couple of NiCads, but as we're actually snowed in by a prairie
storm at the moment, it may be the weekend before I'm anywhere
near a post office.

> Yes, I will pay for the materials. And I will even consider
> paying for the services, but that should be done off list.
>
> Hoping you and others might all be willing to do this task, or
> give sufficient details of what and how so that I or my friend
> Doug or someone can get it done.

I've been looking for an opportunity to contribute to the good
work on this list for years, and I'll gladly send a better
diagram and/or discuss how to get this together with whomever you
like. Time is a bit of a challenge for me at the moment, but that
always seems to be the case.

> Thanks in advance.

HTH.
-=s

> Paul
>
> At 05:21 PM 10/19/04 -0500, Scott Willing wrote:
> >On 19 Oct 2004 at 16:14, Paul S. Anderson wrote:
> >
> > > Scott,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your informed comments. Here are some questions:
> > >
> > > You wrote: this direct mechanical idea appeals most to me.
> > > Some form of escapement would be needed to maintain a fairly
> > > constant output over time
> > >
> > > What is "escapement" in reference to mechanical solutions to
> > > the problem?
> >
> >Something that serves to regulate the release of the energy, as
> >in a camera shutter or wind-up watch. The wind-up clock or watch
> >is the better example as it is directly related: if it weren't
> >for the escapement, the watch would run fast when the spring was
> >freshly wound and then slow down progressively as it relaxed.
> >
> >Though I'm no expert in watchworks (or anything else for that
> >matter; I probably should've added that caveat at the outset) it
> >seems to me that a pendulum is the core of a typical escapement.
> >This is connected more or less directly to a lever, pivoted in
> >the middle, and having a tooth at each end. The lever engages a
> >gear alternately with each tooth as it swings back and forth,
> >such that for each swing of the pendulum, the gear is allowed to
> >advance two teeth's worth. (Hope the grammar police aren't going
> >to look closely at that one.) Thus the pendulum regulates the
> >rotation of the entire mechanism.
> >
> > >From what I remember of taking watches apart as a kid, the
> >function of the pendulum is emulated by a second spring operating
> >on a rotating weight, such that the spring winds and unwinds once
> >per second or two. Likewise, as I recall, this operates a two-
> >toothed lever / gear combination and thus regulates the speed of
> >the main spring's unwinding.
> >
> > > Also you wrote: As much as the idea of a small solar panel
> > > driving the little stove appeals to me, a few AA NiCad's and a
> > > small solar charger would be a much better and more flexible
> > > solution.
> > >
> > > Good. You are distinguishing between a solar panel "driver"
> > > and a solar panel "charger." Apart from the meaning of the
> > > words, I do not understand the difference. Is it in
> > > construction, price, uses, etc?
> >
> >Assuming one has a solar panel of sufficient power to drive the
> >motor directly (let's say it's 3W continuous) and enough
> >insolation (a.k.a. sun!) then one wouldn't need batteries.
> >
> >However if one has a battery and a smaller panel, say 1W, that
> >wouldn't have enough power to run the motor directly, one can
> >harvest photons at the lower power level, store them in the
> >battery over time, and then use them up later at 3 times the
> >rate. So (ignoring losses) if you had 3 hours of sunshine then
> >your little 1W panel could tuck away enough energy for 1 hour of
> >stove time. As a bonus, of course, you get to cook in the
> >evening.
> >
> > > BTW, my 12 volt battery is a deep discharge type. Pricey but
> > > I use it in situations where I cannot frequently do the
> > > shallow and often recharging.
> >
> >"Deep discharge" in this case designates a lead-acid battery that
> >has been optimized for cycle use rather than, say, a starting
> >battery. A starting battery has large plate area (many thin
> >perforated plates) as it is designed to deliver lots of current
> >quickly), whereas your battery will have fewer, thicker plates
> >and slightly different chemistry. Indeed your battery will last a
> >lot longer than a starting-type lead-acid battery.
> >
> >However this does not change the relative characteristics of
> >lead- acid vs nickle-cadmium chemistries.
> >
> > > Now for your task: :-)) You have one or more of Tom
> > > Reed's Woodgas Campstoves. Can you make it operate using the
> > > solar charger and rechargeable batteries? I am VERY
> > > interested in having that capability.
> >
> >Not meaning to be off-putting in any way, but this almost isn't
> >even worth a test inasmuch as it's a forgone conclusion that it
> >will work. The maximum speed will be somewhat less than with an
> >alkaline battery, because the characteristic voltage of a single
> >NiCad cell is lower, around 1.25V vs 1.5 for alkaline.
> >
> >However NiCad has another advantage in that its voltage tends to
> >stay more constant as it discharges, then it dies quite quickly.
> >Alkaline output voltage droops more as it discharges.
> >
> > > Comparing my forced air version of the Juntos gasifier, it is
> > > essentially like Tom Reed's but with tin cans and the whole
> > > fan unit is separate (called an "air base") so it can have any
> > > type of forced air system available. IF you took the
> > > campstove and cut off the bottom of the outside cylinder,
> > > keeping the fan and plug-in battery intact, that would
> > > function like an air base. (I do not suggest that you do
> > > that, but instead simply bypass his battery so that your own
> > > external configuration of solar charger and battery can be
> > > used instead.)
> >
> >What I'm advocating is simply charging one or more batteries in
> >an off-the-shelf solar charger (small ones are about the size of
> >the four batteries they'll hold) and then transferring one of the
> >batteries from the charger into the existing holder.
> >
> >With a bigger solar panel you could actually hook things together
> >with a couple of diodes and have the panel contribute to driving
> >the motor, charge the battery, or both, depending on insolation
> >and loading. No user intervention required.
> >
> >Diode voltage drops would be significant in this setup though,
> >since the voltage is so low to start with. (A typical silicon
> >diode drops 0.5 to 0.7V when forward-biased.) This can be
> >mitigated with the choice of appropriate diodes, but going to a
> >higher voltage arrangement (e.g. 3V motor + 2 cells) might be
> >required.
> >
> > > The advantages of electricity will allow you also to have a
> > > "control" of the current. So your device could plug into the
> > > "high heat" plug, and you could regulate from high to medium
> > > to low heat via the control of the current to the fan.
> > > (Tom's unit has a plug in for high and another plug in for
> > > low.)
> >
> >Yep. There's a resistor on one to reduce the voltage/current to
> >the motor. Arguably a waste of energy there, but not very much
> >and the alternatives are far too complex to be justified!
> >
> > > Scott. Please "lurk no more." :-)) We need your
> > > inputs!! Thanks,
> >
> >You're welcome.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >-=s
> >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > > At 02:46 PM 10/19/04 -0500, Scott Willing wrote:
> > > >Gentlemen,
> > > >
> > > ><delurk>
> > > >
> > > >I'm an electronics technologist by education, living off-grid
> > > >in the affluent world. Perhaps because of practical
> > > >experience, this direct mechanical idea appeals most to me.
> > > >Some form of escapement would be needed to maintain a fairly
> > > >constant output over time (further complicated if multi-speed
> > > >operation was needed) but I still think this is a promising
> > > >direction to take.
> > > >
> > > >I just purchased a couple of the Tom Reed stoves. As a
> > > >long-time lurker on this list, I wanted to see them work, and
> > > >to contribute in a small way to the cause through my
> > > >purchase.
> > > >
> > > >As it happens, I have some surplus off-spec 5W solar panels
> > > >that are actually good for about 3W, and some smaller panels
> > > >integrated into battery chargers that are suitable for
> > > >charging AA cells but not for driving the stove motor
> > > >directly.
> > > >
> > > >The amorphous 3W panels are almost a foot square, fragile,
> > > >and enormously expensive for third world use, even at the
> > > >giveaway price I paid for them. Furthermore even they are
> > > >unsuited to direct connection to the stove. They are 12V
> > > >panels and would not even produce their derated 3W when
> > > >connected to a small motor. (Solar panels are essentially
> > > >current sources; their current is nearly constant over a wide
> > > >range of operating voltages right down to a short circut, but
> > > >the power output varies accordingly.)
> > > >
> > > >I did want to make one observation on the subject of battery
> > > >type. Paul's 12V sealed battery is almost certainly a "gel
> > > >cel" i.e. a lead-acid battery with gelled electrolyte.
> > > >
> > > >Lead-acid batteries are happiest when fully charged, and
> > > >should rarely if ever be fully discharged. Their lifetime is
> > > >related to the number of charge/discharge cycles but also to
> > > >the depth of discharge. Simply put: run them flat and they
> > > >will not live long. Also, if one overcharges a sealed gell
> > > >cell it will vent (a good thing, as the alternative is to
> > > >explode) and this too shortens its life dramatically.
> > > >
> > > >OTOH, the common NiCad battery, as is readily available in AA
> > > >form, can not only handle deep discharge, it performs better
> > > >if it is deeply discharged as a matter of routine.
> > > >
> > > >So -- human nature being what it is -- would you rather have
> > > >a battery that is easily damaged by deep discharge, or one
> > > >that "likes" it?
> > > >
> > > >As much as the idea of a small solar panel driving the little
> > > >stove appeals to me, a few AA NiCad's and a small solar
> > > >charger would be a much better and more flexible solution.
> > > >
> > > >Best regards
> > > >Scott Willing
> > > ><relurk>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >On 19 Oct 2004 at 20:51, Richard Stanley wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Paul, and Tom R,
> > > > >
> > > > > Surely you have tried direct wind up spring to fan power
> > > > > no ? Wy go throuhg electric power at all when you can
> > > > > simply wind us a simple clock spring runnign a small
> > > > > cooling fan (commonly it functions as the speed governer
> > > > > on such units anyway ? Ignorance begets the most amazing
> > > > > naked questions I await your collective illumination (PS.
> > > > > Paul and Tom, have two photos of you both and your wife
> > > > > form the SV conference which I promise to get to you in a
> > > > > week or so, just after return to J bg. Richard Stanley
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul S. Anderson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Stovers,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For the VERY small gasifier stoves that Tom Reed and I
> > > > > > are developing (See Tom's WoodGas CampStove at
> > > > > > www.woodgasllc.com
> > > > > > ), one important version is with forced air (the
> > > > > > Natural
> > > > > > Draft versions are my Juntos stoves that are not the
> > > > > > topic here).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Forced air via fan or blower. Easiest way is with
> > > > > > electricity. Tom's unit does well with ONE AA battery
> > > > > > (1.5 volts) and uses about one watt of power, running
> > > > > > for 3 to 6 hours on one battery depending on using high
> > > > > > or low setting and battery quality. (I think I got
> > > > > > those numbers correct.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My question is: In areas that are off grid and could
> > > > > > rely on battery power IF they could afford the
> > > > > > batteries, what are the options for getting about 2 or 3
> > > > > > watts of power from some battery (ANY battery can be
> > > > > > specified) AND the ability to recharge that battery by
> > > > > > human power, probably with a crank.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The "crank-powered" radio (sold in South Africa) is
> > > > > > great, but too costly and probably not enough watt
> > > > > > power, and is based on the mechanical "winding down" of
> > > > > > the loaded ?springs? inside.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Instead, I am thinking of a nice rechargeable battery
> > > > > > that is probably better suited to the job than would be
> > > > > > the very small AA rechargeable batteries sold in the
> > > > > > affluent world. But I will consider any options on the
> > > > > > batteries and volts, etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have a nice 12 volt sealed battery about 2 x 5 x 15 cm
> > > > > > ( 1 x 2 x 6 inches) that I would love to be able to
> > > > > > recharge manually. But maybe 6 volt or 3 volt technology
> > > > > > could be better.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Recharging would be done by a hand crank to turn a small
> > > > > > DC motor in reverse, creating an electrical charge. (I
> > > > > > think I got that right.) I have no idea of the size
> > > > > > issues here, but I expect that a smallish motor would be
> > > > > > fine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hey, what about a generator from an automobile or
> > > > > > motorcycle? MUST be cheap, meaning in mass production
> > > > > > now. (Sorry, I just checked with an auto-electric shop
> > > > > > and was told that those car parts need very high RPM.)
> > > > > > But the thought was along the lines of what I am trying
> > > > > > to do.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On this list we have discussed "lemon-power" and
> > > > > > hand-shaker film-canisters to give a little power for
> > > > > > operating LEDs. (and I successfully tried both of those,
> > > > > > but was not convinced that there would be sustainable or
> > > > > > reasonable power). Also, we have mentioned "falling
> > > > > > weights" that slowly give mechanical power to turn a fan
> > > > > > (did not seem to be sufficient, unless someone can
> > > > > > present a working model that can be replicated easily in
> > > > > > the developing world.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Summary, Mama needs to run her stove needing 3 watts of
> > > > > > power for at least 2 hours, preferably 4 hours or more,
> > > > > > each day on one charge of the electricity generated and
> > > > > > stored in her home, and that charge came from someone
> > > > > > turning a crank for xx minutes with the electricity
> > > > > > saved in a battery or other "device," all at very low
> > > > > > cost of the materials. And if some slightly larger
> > > > > > unit can make the electricity for serving 5 or 10
> > > > > > household, that would create an off-grid "utility"
> > > > > > enterprise in the village.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And then comes white LEDs and other users of the SMALL
> > > > > > power, but first let's get the power.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I hope you have some suggestions that will lead us to
> > > > > > some practical solutions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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 at 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
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Stoves mailing list
> > > > > > Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> > > > > > http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Stoves mailing list
> > > > > Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> > > > > http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >Stoves mailing list
> > > >Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> > > >http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
> > >
> > > 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 at 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
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Stoves mailing list
> >Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> >http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>
> 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 at 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 rmiranda at inet.com.br Tue Oct 19 20:03:03 2004
From: rmiranda at inet.com.br (Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 23:03:03 -0200
Subject: [Stoves] Ashden Awards closing date Nov, 30th
In-Reply-To: <101220041148.26003.416BC49F00086E9D0000659322007456720B0A0
A9D0D03019B@comcast.net>
References: <101220041148.26003.416BC49F00086E9D0000659322007456720B0A0A9D0D03019B@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041019230003.032676c0@inet.com.br>

 

The World?s leading sustainable energy awards scheme calls for entries for 2005

 

 

?250,000 prize money is on offer for best renewable energy projects world-wide

 

 

Closing dates for entries is 30 November 2004

London 10 October 2004 ? The Ashden Awards for Sustainable Energy are now
looking for entries from inspirational and innovative local sustainable
energy projects from across the globe including the UK to compete for up to
?250,000 of prize money.

The Ashden Awards reward outstanding projects that can demonstrate how
local sustainable energy can be used not only to slow down the factors that
contribute to climate change, but also to radically transform the lives of
communities whose lack of access to essential energy often condemns them to
a life of daily struggle for survival.

With rural communities in the developing world facing an increasingly
difficult battle against poverty, climate change, deforestation and
pollution, the importance of rewarding and highlighting schemes that
utilize renewable energy as a way of both meeting human development needs
and reducing our dependence on fossil fuels is now more important than ever.

The Awards will be presented at a VIP ceremony at the Royal Geographical
Society in London in June 2005.

Last year?s overseas finalists were congratulated by HRH Prince Charles. A
palace spokesperson commented: ?The Prince of Wales was enormously
encouraged to meet these remarkable people who are all making a substantial
impact in alleviating poverty and helping protect our fragile environment
both at the local and global level. They set a marvellous example which the
Prince of Wales hopes will encourage others to follow?

In 2005 the Ashden Awards for Sustainable Energy will be offering four
awards of up to ?30,000 each for Overseas projects in the developing world
and three awards of ?30,000 each for UK projects.

For 2005, the Ashden Awards are inviting applications from Overseas
projects in developing countries which use renewable energy to address the
following areas: Food, Light, Health, Education and Enterprise.

Past Overseas finalists include projects featuring micro-hydro power
(India, Kenya and Pakistan) solar lighting and electricity (India) solar
water purification systems (Tanzania), solar telecommunications systems
(Peru) and fuel efficient cooking stoves (Pakistan, Guatemala, Nicaragua,
Eritrea and Kenya)

For more information on the Ashden Awards, including downloadable
application forms, please visit
<http://www.ashdenawards.org/>www.ashdenawards.org or contact: Danielle
Jones on + 44 207 410 0330; email: danielle.jones at sfct.org.uk

Notes to editors:
The Ashden Awards for Sustainable Energy were created in 2001 by the Ashden
Trust, one of the Sainsbury Family Charitable Trusts. By highlighting and
recognising such exemplary and successful examples of renewable energy use
in the developing world and as well as the UK, the Ashden Awards aim to
persuade policy makers, funders and other NGOs to recognise renewable
energy as a crucial tool for meeting the human development needs of poor
communities across the globe whilst simultaneously addressing the urgent
environmental issues of deforestation, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions
and the threat of climate change.

The Ashden Awards have an expert panel of judges that comprises academics,
practitioners, journalists and development NGO representatives, all working
in the field of sustainable energy.

From snkm at btl.net Tue Oct 19 22:33:43 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:33:43 -0600
Subject: [Stoves] sugar to alcohol or sugar to biogas
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041019213213.009c8dd0@pop.btl.net>

Dear A.D.

At 09:54 PM 10/19/2004 +0530, adkarve wrote:
>This refers to the discussion between Len Walde and Peter Springfield on
>this subject.

*******snipped*******

>Alcohol, on
>the hand, must be totally freed from water, before it can be be mixed with
>petrol to be used as gasohol in an internal combustion engine.

Not true -- aguahol -- or 80% alcohol "rum" is a wonderful fuel as is --
and much easier to manufacture than pure ethanol -- but yes -- it can't be
blended with gasoline -- engines need changed air/fuel ratios -- to start
with. And cold starting in the more northern countries will be a problem --

Brazil operated a large percentage of it;s vehicle on strong rum only for
many years -- I believe the first Ford car was strong rum fuels -- and when
I was young -- all racing motorcycles used "aguahol".

The first diesel used peanut oil for fuel.

>>Separation of
>alcohol from water requires further input of energy.

Yes -- and further processing and not of a passive nature.

>>Another advantage of
>methane is that there are no legal restrictions on its production or use,
>whereas in the case of alcohol, its production, sale, storage and use all
>require permission from the Government.

And that is probably the most excellent point of all!

I have not yet been able to find any data on the very neat turn you have
taken in regards to bio digestion. All present state of the art biomass
digesters -- and all the science to go with that field -- appears to be
fixated on using sewage.

(As indeed every aspect of ethanol production is fixated on "pure" -- is
terrifically difficult to make -- a very energy piggish (compared to making
strong rum) process -- and totally out of the domain of rolling your own in
a 3rd world country.

Regarding high energy feed stocks for bio digesters --

I believe your in the position to write the book on this.

But unless a super fast digester can be designed small enough to fit on a
vehicle and productive enough to power said vehicle on a continuous basis
-- I do not see applications to replace portable fuels.

On the other hand -- for operating stationary power plants -- it might be
an exciting new development.

Now -- if you could produce butane -- then you would have a true portable
fuel.

Peter -- Belize

>Yours
>A.D.Karve
>
>_______________________________________________
>Stoves mailing list
>Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>

From adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in Tue Oct 19 20:02:54 2004
From: adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in (adkarve)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 06:32:54 +0530
Subject: [Stoves] Re: Biomethanation fo de-oiled cake
References: <000201c4b600$2f770140$c1f6f73d@home>
Message-ID: <000901c4b657$84476d20$0f5841db@adkarve>

Dear Mr. Balaji,
There were two mistakes in the message of mine, that you have reproduced. I am sorry for them. Firstly, the biodigester working on oilcake of Madhuka indica actually uses 30 to 32 kg of oilcake (and not 16) to produce about 15 cubic meters of methane. The time taken by this reaction is just 24 hours. The weight of methane produced would be about 5.5 kg, having a clorific value of roughly 10,000 KCal/kg. The second correction that I would like to make is that it would have taken daily about 600 kg dung (not 40 kg) to produce the same amount of methane. I have always worked only on cooking energy and have never worked on electricity generation. Therefore I am unable to answer your questions. Many workers have operated electricity generators on methane and data of conversion rates from methane to electricity must be available in the relevant literature.
----- Original Message -----
From: balaji
To: adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 10:36 PM
Subject: Biomethanation fo de-oiled cake

Dear Dr. Karve,

We are in the process of preparing pre-feasibility for a 1000 lpd biodiesel (transesterification) plant in TN based on Pongamia/Jatropha/Neem oil and are considering the use of oil cake for generation of parasitic/surplus power via gasification+gas engine combination. The gasification technology is from IISc, Bangalore.

The specific fuel consumption is about 1 kg/kWh of gross power produced at the alternator terminals, and the internal power needs of the gasifier system in turn are about 18%, accounting for a specific fuel consumption of about 1.2 kg/kWh exported. Assuming 3500 kCal/kg for biomass @10% moisture (I don't know the value for de-oiled cake, but expect it to be higher by 10-15%), gasification efficiency @ 80% w/w, generator efficiency on cold gas at about 31%, results in overall conversion of biomass into net electricity exported @ 21%. The capital cost is in the region of Rs. 30000/kWe on gross basis.

We understand from the following mail that biomethanation may offer higher efficiency. We would like your views on the capital cost and cycle efficiency of oilcake to electricity on similar lines (after accounting for parasitic loads for biogas plant) to enable us to recommend the least life cycle cost option to our clients. We would also look to collaborating with you on this.

Regards.

balaji

----- Original Message -----
>Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:04:45 +0530
>Sender: The Stoves Discussion List <STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>From: adkarve <adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
>Subject: Re: [STOVES] compact biogas system
>To: STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
>
>Dear Tom,
>The system that I mentioned in my previous mail produces 16 cubic meters of
>biogas, using 16 kg of oilcake of non-edible oilseeds, once every 24hours.
>One would require 40 kg dung and fermentation period of 40 days to produce
>the same quantity of biogas. Because of the residual oil and the high
>protein content of the oilcake, its calorific value is much greater than
>that of starch from cereal grains, rhizomes or tubers. As a result, this
>particular system is 1600 times as efficient as the conventional biogas
>plants. Another person, with whom we are collaborating, has a biogas plant
>producing daily 40 cubic meters of gas. He used to feed it daily with 1000
>kg dung, but now he is using daily a mixture of 200 kg cattle dung and 15 kg
>sorghum grain flour. He is reluctant to switch over completely to sorghum,
>as he feels that the bacteria may go on strike if they did not get their
>daily dose of dung. In his case, he replaces 800 kg dung by 15 kg flour and
>reduces the reaction time from 40 days to one day. He thus gets an
>efficiency that is 2000 times that of the traditional system.
>In the moving dome reactors that we use, the gas holder telescopes into the
>fermenter. Therefore, the total volume of the system is twice that of the
>volume of the gas that you expect to get from it. Now that we have achieved
>a higher efficiency of biogas generation, we are thinking of delinking the
>fermenter from the gas holder, similar to the new air-conditioners, in which
>the noisy compressor is kept out of the room and only the delivery mechanism
>for the cool air is inside the room.
>Yours
>Nandu

From crispin at newdawn.sz Wed Oct 20 03:46:31 2004
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:46:31 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] RE: 3 watt electricity generation/storage
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20041019122653.02168300@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <000d01c4b681$59f5bd90$0100a8c0@home>

Dear Paul

"Hey, what about a generator from an automobile or motorcycle? MUST be
cheap, meaning in mass production now. (Sorry, I just checked with an
auto-electric shop and was told that those car parts need very high
RPM.)"

I want to dispel this notion. Yes, alternators do indeed run at high
speeds, but the whole point of changing from car generators to car
alternators (which are three-phase by the way) was that they did -not_
ned to be run at high speeds to give a charging voltage.

Remember old Beetles? That the 'generator light' would glow red at an
idle because the voltage from the generator run by the fan belt wasn't
turning fast enough to give a voltage above that of the battery and the
current would, on balance, flow out of the battery to run the electrical
needs of the vehicle.

They don't do that any more because we now use alternators. The
alternator generates (pretty much) a fixed voltage with a declining
current. This means that at 500 RPM an alternator can charge a 12 volt
battery, but at a very low rate compared with 5000 RPM. The voltage
doesn't change much across that range. The automobile mechanic thinks
of the days when generators were around and batteries ran dead if the
vehicle was left running for a long time. In certain circumstances it
could still happen with alternators, but if you watch closely, it almost
never does.

I once designed a pedal-powered alternator for rurning projectors in
rural areas.

Choose a small Chinese tractor alternator (15 to 20 amps at 12 volts)
and then run it at a few hundred RPM. IT generates plenty of power to
run a fan. It will not work, however, unless it has power running
through the field coil to start with (an alternator has a rotating
field).

Regards
Crispin

 

From snkm at btl.net Wed Oct 20 10:22:51 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:22:51 -0600
Subject: [Stoves] Re: RE : [Gasification] Make wood vinegar from bagasse?
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041020084702.00960b70@pop.btl.net>

At 09:25 AM 10/20/2004 +0200, Gr?goire JOVICIC wrote:
>What is the bamboo vinegar application ?

Vinegar converts well to methane by passive processing in a bio digester.

Charcoal -- the other product -- is a semi-portable fuel. As so well
demonstrated during WWII. With charcoal as fuel gasifiers become practical.

Pyrolysis is "active" processing however.

Quite sure: what can be done with bamboo can be done with bagasse.

I guess the thought here is to use nature to fuel condition as much as
possible in a reliable and passive manner. And at an efficient in seedy
manner.

Passive processing of biomass by methane digestion alone is far to slow --
and requires capital investment in very large digester construction to make
sufficient -- that makes it impractical for village levels.

Though wood vinegar is presently produced in a speedy manner using modern
equipments -- for many years -- thousands probably -- it was made in a
simpler manner.

"The bamboo charcoal and bamboo vinegar are conventionally produced in the
kiln made of soil. The bamboo placed in the soil kiln is burned and the air
is intercepted when the fire turns completely and then fire is extinguished
(The natural method). Consequently, the one-cycle needs 5 to 7 days to
produce them."

And:

"The wood used for distillation was air dried for 6 to 18 months."

So we are talking fuel conditioning for humidity along the lines of a
partial combustion gasifier -- however -- no worries about size
conditioning --

And the final active processing can be done at village level.

Further -- many charcoal makers in the world -- still today -- are already
operating in such manner.

>From what we see presented to date -- it is quite possible that the raw
"wood-vinegar" can be digested to a high quality biogas rich in methane --
passively -- in a compact bio digester.

So -- like the charcoal -- another semi portable fuel.

Some rough examples --

fully portable fuel examples: Tanks of butane -- gallons of gasoline --
diesel - -alcohol.

Semi portable: Charcoal -- cane juice -- vinegar

Non portable: biogas -- producer gas -- thermal heat.

Just as examples of broad classification niches.

Portable fuels excel for vehicles -- mechanized transportation.

Semi portable can also be applied for transportation -- but not as efficiently

Non portable are for stationary power plants -- if small and economical --
cooking stoves.

Passive fuel conditioning is where no activities are required for a fuel
producing or process

EG: Fermentation -- biogas digestion -- drying (naturally)

Though equipments are still required -- vats -- roof.

Active fuel conditioning includes harvesting -- crushing/chipping --
distillation -- gasification -- pyrolization -- operation of a thermal
plant -- etc.

Each classification can be further broken down to intensity.

As example -- harvesting sugar can manually with a machete and delivered
with out machinery compared to harvesting trees which require axes -- saws
-- chain saws and heavy trucks for transport.

Chipping is a far more intensive mechanical activity than crushing/pressing
to extract juices.

Looking at the last machine in a line -- in any flow diagram of biomass to
energy -- is a huge mistake often made.

With biomass -- Fuel conditioning to reach the final "machine" is where the
real problems lay.

One LWheeler will probably learn about the hard way.

And another reason that people like Gene of Hurst Boilers are still doing
good business selling thermal power plants!

Simplicity has it's advantages. Hurst power plant are simple -- but operate
with a steam quality to low to achieve good over all efficiencies.

However -- marry a Hurst Boiler to an ORMAT -- replace steam with thermal
oil -- no pressures -- one can realize 25% over all efficiencies rather
than 5% -- and achieve greater reliability and simplicity of operation.

At 25% over all efficiencies using straight thermal systems -- it is just
about impossible to justify gasifiers -- plasma arcs -- steam reformers --
etc.

The more complicated the system -- the more it depends on scale of sizing
to "theoretically" pay for itself.

Thus certain types of centralized processing require huge amounts of
biomass to be delivered. The larger the central power plant -- the greater
the distances -- and just the transport of biomass fuels becomes an energy
head-ache -- and one that the promoters of the power plant often forget to
mention.

In 3rd world the "view" is much clearer -- and one knows that delivery --
transport -- is a major problem.

So in good over all design -- it would appear better to decentralize power
production. Meaning much less power distribution losses from power plant to
end user -- and much less costs for transport of fuel to one centralized
station.

Still -- everyone is thinking big to huge --

A.D. Karve's proposition meets most of the requirements for 3rd world power
-- and thermal -- generation.

Small is beautiful -- but micro sized is better ---

 

Peter

>
>-----Message d'origine-----
>De?: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
>[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] De la part de Peter
>Singfield
>Envoy??: mercredi 20 octobre 2004 06:20
>??: gasification at listserv.repp.org
>Objet?: [Gasification] Make wood vinegar from bagasse?
>
>
>Half kidding -- but of interest to the pyrolysis crew??
>
>

From crispin at newdawn.sz Wed Oct 20 10:41:21 2004
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:41:21 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] RE: 3 watt electricity generation/storage
Message-ID: <000801c4b6bb$4bb18040$0100a8c0@home>

Dear Paul and All

I think to be able to analyse this fan-blown air business, we need to
have a description of the problem at a lower order.

By that I mean the description of a need for "3 watts" of power is
actually based on an assumed electric air blowing device - a small
motor. Device selection should be made later on.

I want to know how much air you really need to provide in litres per
minute, and the pressure you need to maintain while providing it.

For example, to provide 1 Kw you need something like 10 litres of O2 per
minute and at an O2 concentration of 20.8% in the air, that gives 48
litres of air movement, about 800cc per second. If 75% of that is 'free
draft' (or induced draft or available from near the forced flame) and
25% is provided by the fan, then the fan must push 200 cc per second.

An analysis like that will give us a firmer base for consultation and
might lead to a new approach to giving you the best technical solution.

Regards
Crispin

 

From phoenix98604 at earthlink.net Wed Oct 20 10:50:16 2004
From: phoenix98604 at earthlink.net (Art Krenzel)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 08:50:16 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] 3 watt electricity generation/storage
References: <4.3.1.2.20041019122653.02168300@mail.ilstu.edu>
<4.3.1.2.20041019141022.022e7940@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <009601c4b6bc$7f21e090$27bdf204@7k6rv21>

Paul,

One of the parameters for recharging batteries is the rate of recharge.
Typically, batteries are recharged at a C/20 (Capacity/20 hours) rate to
prevent overheating. So even if you had mains power (110 V, 20 amps) a
three watt battery should be recharged over a longer period like several
hours.

I think that the recharge solution is that the solar cell should provide a
trickle charge all day and enhance the battery output during times of fan
use.

Art Krenzel

 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul S. Anderson" <psanders at ilstu.edu>
To: "Art Krenzel" <phoenix98604 at earthlink.net>; <stoves at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] 3 watt electricity generation/storage

> Art and all,
>
> You wrote about using solar energy (PV) and said:
> >We need to take a systems approach to the solution of this problem
> >rather than a focused solution.
>
> Okay. Combine the two (PV and systems approach) and let's have SMALL
> affordable PV with battery (because people do cook at night) and get the
> very low watts that are needed to run the stoves.
>
> We must assume that the sun does not always shine every day with intensity
> in all of the places, so I propose three levels:
> A. for reliably sunny places
> B. for moderately sunny/cloudy places
> C. for reliably cloudy/shady places, including small clearing in tall
> forests with seldom sunlight direct to the ground.
>
> And this MUST be low cost. Not some developed world solution that cannot
> be afforded nor sustained. The competition to the PV could be a 10 year
> old kid who does need to turn the crank for 40 minutes per day.
>
> I want to believe that PV will solve the problem. But now, it needs to be
> detailed in a working and workable way. I hope you and others can provide
> such details for small size of PV and type/size of battery and anything
> else in the system up to the point of the wires going to the fan/blower
> motors.
>
> SMALL motors are about a dollar each in bulk, and we can get the fan
> blades made locally or very cheaply. So $2 or 4 or max of 6 dollars for
> the fan/blower system to deliver forced air to the small gasifier stove.
> How much $ for the PV and battery plus whatever else is needed?
>
> I am open to ALL possible solutions to get this small amount of power.
>
> Note: When oil prices go sky high, PV and TED/TEM could start to look
> inexpensive. But the current situation (now to 3 years time frame) is my
> concern.
>
> Paul
>
> At 11:26 AM 10/19/04 -0700, Art Krenzel wrote:
>>Paul,
>>
>>Unless you plan to live in a cave or where it is dark six months of the
>>year, 3 watts of power can easily be generated by a small solar panel.
>>
>>I would put you on the crank of a motor generator for a few days
>>generating this power and you would see the "solar light" of my
>>suggestion. Manual cranking gets old after awhile even for a 10 year old
>>boy. You would see why I am focused on NO MOVING PARTS technology.
>>
>>There are also thermoelectric generators which will use heat to produce
>>electric power.
>>
>>These industries are not able to grow and use the economy of making many
>>thousands of the same item due to a lack of a large end user base.
>>
>>We need to take a systems approach to the solution of this problem rather
>>than a focused solution.
>>
>>Art Krenzel, P.E.
>>PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES
>>10505 NE 285TH Street
>>Battle Ground, WA 98604
>>360-666-1883 voice
>>phoenix98604 at earthlink.net
>>
>
> 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 at 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 a31ford at inetlink.ca Wed Oct 20 12:58:09 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:58:09 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] RE: 3 watt electricity generation/storage
In-Reply-To: <000801c4b6bb$4bb18040$0100a8c0@home>
Message-ID: <00e501c4b6ce$5c7adad0$1900a8c0@a31server>

Good day all!

One point I would like to make in all of this 3 watt stuff.....

What voltage are you going after ? The reason I ask is it's much easier to
make 3 watts at 10kV than it is at 12V.

Greg Manning,

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

 

From kenboak at stirlingservice.freeserve.co.uk Wed Oct 20 13:33:50 2004
From: kenboak at stirlingservice.freeserve.co.uk (Ken Boak)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:33:50 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] RE: 3 watt electricity generation/storage
References: <00e501c4b6ce$5c7adad0$1900a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <05da01c4b6d3$65251420$0c00000a@DELL3>

Greg & Stovers,

I think it could be assumed that you were trying to drive a small, low
voltage dc fan rated between 5 and 12 volts.

May I suggest looking at Peltier heat pump devices as used in automotive
drinks chillers.

Gently heat these up - but do not exceed 68 degrees centigrade across the
Peltier device - and you will get volts out.

You even have the low voltage fan you need right there in the chiller. The
forced air draught to the stove even comes out pre-warmed.

Try a google search on peltier coolers china or www.hicooltec.com

 

Ken

 

From willing at mts.net Wed Oct 20 13:52:06 2004
From: willing at mts.net (Scott Willing)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:52:06 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] RE: 3 watt electricity generation/storage
In-Reply-To: <05da01c4b6d3$65251420$0c00000a@DELL3>
Message-ID: <41766D86.31631.D8E454@localhost>

Hey Ken,

Where's my woodstove-top 100W Stirling generator? :-)

I dunno what it's actually rated at, but the motor in Tom Reed's
woodgas campstove (of which I have a few) is intended to run off
a single AA cell.

AFAIK from lurking for a few years, Peltier and thermocouple
devices have been discussed to death in this forum. Cost is the
killer, which is why I'm a bit surprised that there's any
interest in the small solar panel / AA NiCad approach I've been
fleshing out. Cheap to me, but perhaps still prohibitive for the
intended market.

I like the wind-up motor idea. As long as you have a removeable
key and a means of safely handling a hot stove, the periodic need
to rewind doesn't seem like a concept-killer. The relative
mechanical complexity of the mechanism for third-world production
may be, though. You can't beat the power-on-demand aspect and
there's no toxic waste either. (Even rechargeables don't live
forever.)

Perhaps if ST Semiconductor had delivered, or does deliver, on
their promise of a cheap (by an order of magnitude or more) new
non-silicon solar cell technology, we'd be laughing.

Cheers,
-=s

 

On 20 Oct 2004 at 19:33, Ken Boak wrote:

> Greg & Stovers,
>
> I think it could be assumed that you were trying to drive a small,
> low voltage dc fan rated between 5 and 12 volts.
>
> May I suggest looking at Peltier heat pump devices as used in
> automotive drinks chillers.
>
> Gently heat these up - but do not exceed 68 degrees centigrade
> across the Peltier device - and you will get volts out.
>
> You even have the low voltage fan you need right there in the
> chiller. The forced air draught to the stove even comes out
> pre-warmed.
>
> Try a google search on peltier coolers china or www.hicooltec.com
>
>
>
> Ken
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

 

From kenboak at stirlingservice.freeserve.co.uk Wed Oct 20 13:56:06 2004
From: kenboak at stirlingservice.freeserve.co.uk (Ken Boak)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:56:06 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] RE: 3 watt electricity generation/storage
References: <00e501c4b6ce$5c7adad0$1900a8c0@a31server>
<05da01c4b6d3$65251420$0c00000a@DELL3>
Message-ID: <05e501c4b6d6$820ad0e0$0c00000a@DELL3>

Here is one Chinese manufacturer offering thermoelectric modules for
generation of small amounts of power

http://www.sitechina.com/thermoelectric/Pspec.html

The key to the efficiency is good cooling of the cold side of the TE module.
These devices are easily overcooked!

regards,

Ken

 

From kenboak at stirlingservice.freeserve.co.uk Wed Oct 20 14:03:42 2004
From: kenboak at stirlingservice.freeserve.co.uk (Ken Boak)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 20:03:42 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] RE: 3 watt electricity generation/storage
References: <41766D86.31631.D8E454@localhost>
Message-ID: <05f601c4b6d7$92c19300$0c00000a@DELL3>

Scott,

One lesson we all need to learn is that all products will one day come from
China. This is an irreversible trend.

Peltier devices, solar panels, rechargeable batteries, VW cars - all
available in China at about 1/5th of the price we buy them for in the West.

The solar lamp I bought in the UK cost the equivalent of $8 - complete with
NiCd batteries - I am sure that this cost less that $2 to make in China. It
would probably run a pc fan for 1 hour when fully charged.

 

Ken

 

From snkm at btl.net Wed Oct 20 14:15:53 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:15:53 -0600
Subject: [Stoves] RE: 3 watt electricity generation/storage
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041020131431.009a32d0@pop.btl.net>

Dear all;

>I once designed a pedal-powered alternator for rurning projectors in
>rural areas.

Been waiting for someone else to mention this -- but no one has.

You can take any hand powered battery driven tool and turn that into a
generator -- plus it comes with it's own battery!!

A portable hand held drill with nicad battery is not an expensive item.

As long as you turn the chuck faster than the battery would -- you will
charge battery!!

This is a very efficient charger as it has permanent magnets for field.

You can hook this up to any bicycle wheel in the most exceptionally easy
manner.

Take the rubber bushing from any back car shock absorber -- fit bolt with
washer on head through it -- then take nut on other end with washer and
tighten. You thus have a rubber flat pulley with -- say -- one end of bolt
still hanging out there.

Chick the bolt into the hand drill -- rig up a brace so that contacts
fairly center on back bicycle tire -- now peddle!!

The smaller cheaper portable hand drills are 7.2 volts.

Not only do you get fan power -- but you also still have a functional small
hands drill -- or indeed -- a little power pack -- or mechanical rotary
device.

You might also later use a small solar panel for this same hand drill -- to
charge.

One might be able to chuck in a propeller -- bingo -- a small -- micro
sized - -windmill -- all self contained. Just clamp (radiator hose clamps
work well) to post --

All small DC motors with permanent magnets for field are excellent -- high
efficiency -- generators -- of their rated voltage.

Such as the motor in a scrap VCR that turns the tape --- 12 volts --
probably can charge 3 watts.

You have big ones used as electric fans for car radiator cooling.

You guys never knew this??

No changes in wiring -- etc -- just spin and power comes out of the same
two wires used to put power in!

You can buy surplus "new" electric hand drill motors for less than 50 cents
each!! But they have to be turning real fast to generate power!! (And that
gearing is supplied in the hand drill itself)

Need about 15,000 or so RPM -- which is just great if you got an old car
turbo handy and you want to make a mini ORC running -- using the car turbo
as a "turbo-extractor" -- as that likes to run even faster than 15,000!!

Any series wound motor can also be turned into a generator -- but you have
to change a few wires around -- and it is not permanent magnet -- rather
electro magnet -- field coils.

Motorcycle alternators used to be all permanent magnet -- don't know about
the newer models.

All motorcycle starters are permanent magnet -- and low rpm on the shaft
(they have internal planetary gearing reduction.

These make exception wind mill generators and of very high efficiency --
for the least cost -- and greatest reliability.

You can get these from China -- very economical! And in many sizes.

Our board engine starters are also permanent magnet --

Should i keep on -- or is this enough?

OK -- one last shot across the bows then.

You can buy small generators with permanent magnet -- high efficiency --
already with clamps -- etc -- to mount on bicycle frame -- with neat
swinging spring design so head flips and presses again tire -- to run
bicycle lamps -- 6 plus volts -- probably for 50 cents each or less -- in
China.

I had one of those on my bike when I was a kid in Canada -- only it was
made in England.

I'll bet the Chinese make one such with a battery already in the ciruit.

And that is the "device" I was waiting for some one to "contribute" -- all
the rest of this posting is just my weird sense of humor -- tongue in
typing --

(why do people always get to complicated when it comes to engineering any
system??)

If you stuck that bicycle wheel with shaft and bearing up in the air --as
in just lift the entire bike and tie it to top of post -- wrapped plastic
bags over spokes in the correct manner -- you probably have a 3 watt of
more windmill -- using that same wheel "dynamo" described above -- right??

And you just need take it down -- to drive around -- and still have lights
at night!!

Now -- there should be at least ten viable grant money projects right in
this posting -- right guys??

Have fun then ---

Peter -- Belize -- making rain happen

At 10:46 AM 10/20/2004 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>Dear Paul
>
>"Hey, what about a generator from an automobile or motorcycle? MUST be
>cheap, meaning in mass production now. (Sorry, I just checked with an
>auto-electric shop and was told that those car parts need very high
>RPM.)"
>
>I want to dispel this notion. Yes, alternators do indeed run at high
>speeds, but the whole point of changing from car generators to car
>alternators (which are three-phase by the way) was that they did -not_
>ned to be run at high speeds to give a charging voltage.
>
>Remember old Beetles? That the 'generator light' would glow red at an
>idle because the voltage from the generator run by the fan belt wasn't
>turning fast enough to give a voltage above that of the battery and the
>current would, on balance, flow out of the battery to run the electrical
>needs of the vehicle.
>
>They don't do that any more because we now use alternators. The
>alternator generates (pretty much) a fixed voltage with a declining
>current. This means that at 500 RPM an alternator can charge a 12 volt
>battery, but at a very low rate compared with 5000 RPM. The voltage
>doesn't change much across that range. The automobile mechanic thinks
>of the days when generators were around and batteries ran dead if the
>vehicle was left running for a long time. In certain circumstances it
>could still happen with alternators, but if you watch closely, it almost
>never does.
>
>I once designed a pedal-powered alternator for rurning projectors in
>rural areas.
>
>Choose a small Chinese tractor alternator (15 to 20 amps at 12 volts)
>and then run it at a few hundred RPM. IT generates plenty of power to
>run a fan. It will not work, however, unless it has power running
>through the field coil to start with (an alternator has a rotating
>field).
>
>Regards
>Crispin
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Stoves mailing list
>Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>

From adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in Wed Oct 20 01:32:18 2004
From: adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in (adkarve)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:02:18 +0530
Subject: [Stoves] sugar to alcohol or sugar to biogas
References: <3.0.32.20041019213213.009c8dd0@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <000101c4b70a$072a86c0$4a5641db@adkarve>

Dear Peter,
when cars use CNG they do not produce it in the car, but carry a cylinder
that is filled with compressed CNG. You can use methane in exactly the same
manner.
A.D.Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Singfield <snkm at btl.net>
To: adkarve <adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in>; <STOVES at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] sugar to alcohol or sugar to biogas

>
> Dear A.D.
>
> At 09:54 PM 10/19/2004 +0530, adkarve wrote:
> >This refers to the discussion between Len Walde and Peter Springfield on
> >this subject.
>
> *******snipped*******
>
> >Alcohol, on
> >the hand, must be totally freed from water, before it can be be mixed
with
> >petrol to be used as gasohol in an internal combustion engine.
>
> Not true -- aguahol -- or 80% alcohol "rum" is a wonderful fuel as is --
> and much easier to manufacture than pure ethanol -- but yes -- it can't be
> blended with gasoline -- engines need changed air/fuel ratios -- to start
> with. And cold starting in the more northern countries will be a
problem --
>
> Brazil operated a large percentage of it;s vehicle on strong rum only for
> many years -- I believe the first Ford car was strong rum fuels -- and
when
> I was young -- all racing motorcycles used "aguahol".
>
> The first diesel used peanut oil for fuel.
>
> >>Separation of
> >alcohol from water requires further input of energy.
>
> Yes -- and further processing and not of a passive nature.
>
> >>Another advantage of
> >methane is that there are no legal restrictions on its production or use,
> >whereas in the case of alcohol, its production, sale, storage and use all
> >require permission from the Government.
>
> And that is probably the most excellent point of all!
>
> I have not yet been able to find any data on the very neat turn you have
> taken in regards to bio digestion. All present state of the art biomass
> digesters -- and all the science to go with that field -- appears to be
> fixated on using sewage.
>
> (As indeed every aspect of ethanol production is fixated on "pure" -- is
> terrifically difficult to make -- a very energy piggish (compared to
making
> strong rum) process -- and totally out of the domain of rolling your own
in
> a 3rd world country.
>
> Regarding high energy feed stocks for bio digesters --
>
> I believe your in the position to write the book on this.
>
> But unless a super fast digester can be designed small enough to fit on a
> vehicle and productive enough to power said vehicle on a continuous basis
> -- I do not see applications to replace portable fuels.
>
> On the other hand -- for operating stationary power plants -- it might be
> an exciting new development.
>
> Now -- if you could produce butane -- then you would have a true portable
> fuel.
>
> Peter -- Belize
>
> >Yours
> >A.D.Karve
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Stoves mailing list
> >Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> >http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
> >

 

From adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in Wed Oct 20 07:54:21 2004
From: adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in (adkarve)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 18:24:21 +0530
Subject: [Stoves] Re: Two phase biogas fermenter
References: <3.0.32.20041019125752.009bc690@pop.btl.net>
<006801c4b616$ad7c8090$8dc3f204@7k6rv21>
Message-ID: <000201c4b70a$0804ba20$4a5641db@adkarve>

Dear Art,
the two phase system of fermentation looks very nice on paper, and is also
good for getting methane from paper, but in practice, one loses a lot of
calories in the aerobic phase. A very well known research institute in India
installed a two phase biogas plant to take care of the household waste
generated by people living in their campus. A large part of the waste
consists of leftover starchy food (bread, rice, beans, potatos, noodles
etc.) and a
relatively small part of the waste was from vegetables and paper (we sell
waste
paper in India).The vegetable waste and paper were cellulosic.
The waste was first allowed to decompose aerobically and
the leachates from this digester were fed into the anaerobic digesger.
In this case, the starchy part of the waste, that should have
gone straight into the anaerobic digester, was lost in the process of
aerobic decomposition. In India, they have made a fetish out of the C/N
ratio
and therefore biogas experts are afraid of loading the system with too much
carbohydrate. The biogas experts, at least
in India, consider 30 as the ideal C/N ratio. This is the C/N ratio of
cattle dung.
I have operated my biogas system using cereal flour, which has
90% starch and 10% protein, with oilcake having almost equal quantities of
starch and protein, and with fruit pulp and sugarcane juice, which are very
poor in
protein content. The biogas plants were operated for months on end.
In all these cases I got almost the theoretically calculated methane
quantity.
Yours
A.D.Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: Art Krenzel <phoenix98604 at earthlink.net>
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>; <STOVES at listserv.repp.org>; Peter
Singfield <snkm at btl.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 1:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Gas-er-up!! Data listings -- process flow --

> Peter,
>
> You have taken off with the zeal of an Evangelist with this biogas
project!
> You did a great job gathering the necessary information for you bio
process.
>
> You said:
> >Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that digestion is a
> >biological process.
>
> >The "anaerobic" bacteria responsible for digestion can't survive with
even
> >the slightest trace of oxygen. So, because of the oxygen in the manure
> >mixture fed to the digester, there is a long period after loading before
> >actual digestion takes place. During this initial "aerobic" period,
traces
> >of oxygen are used up by oxygen-loving bacteria, and large amounts of
> >carbon dioxide (C02) are released.
>
> Actually, in the latest biogas technology, the anaerobic process is broken
> into two separate steps. The first step, acetate formation by organic
> acids, is somewhat tolerant of the presence of small amounts of oxygen.
The
> second stage, methanation, the presence of any oxygen means sudden and
> instant death to the methagens.
>
> Just Google TWO PHASE ANAEROBIC DIGESTION for the latest information.
>
>
> >Biologically, then, successful digestion depends upon achieving and (for
> >continuous-load digesters) maintaining a balance between those bacteria
> >which produce organic acids and those bacteria which produce methane gas
> >from the organic acids.
>
> Again, the newer production anaerobic processes are hybrids. They have
> daily batch tanks for the first stage (hydrolyis and acetate formation)
and
> pulse feeding of the second stage (methane formation). The net effect is
> that we have a continuous process that can handle surge loading on the
feed
> side and a near constant output of biogas.
>
> Peter, I still think you should make beer. Think of it - now we could
have
> a reason for our Evangelistic rants! :-) We could sell the bad batches
of
> beer as vinegar and have two markets.
>
> I built and operated a microbrewery during one of my earlier lives and it
> was a pleasure - especially at break time. :-)
>
> Art Krenzel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

 

 

From rstanley at legacyfound.org Wed Oct 20 21:37:27 2004
From: rstanley at legacyfound.org (Richard Stanley)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 04:37:27 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] sugar to alcohol or sugar to biogas
In-Reply-To: <000101c4b70a$072a86c0$4a5641db@adkarve>
References: <3.0.32.20041019213213.009c8dd0@pop.btl.net>
<000101c4b70a$072a86c0$4a5641db@adkarve>
Message-ID: <417720E7.8030303@legacyfound.org>

Dear Ad,

From hands on experience with methane for four years in Tanzania, to
my knowledge, the inability to comperess methane is p[recisely what
made it unattractive for use in vehicles: The wisdom of the times then
suggested to many of us, that methane as a relatively short chained
hydrocarbon, could not easily be compressed: In fact the energy
required to compress it was greater than the energy it gave off.
Correct me if I am wrong: I would love to be, given its potential...
Richard Stanley

adkarve wrote:

>Dear Peter,
>when cars use CNG they do not produce it in the car, but carry a cylinder
>that is filled with compressed CNG. You can use methane in exactly the same
>manner.
>A.D.Karve
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Peter Singfield <snkm at btl.net>
>To: adkarve <adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in>; <STOVES at listserv.repp.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 9:03 AM
>Subject: Re: [Stoves] sugar to alcohol or sugar to biogas
>
>
>
>
>>Dear A.D.
>>
>>At 09:54 PM 10/19/2004 +0530, adkarve wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This refers to the discussion between Len Walde and Peter Springfield on
>>>this subject.
>>>
>>>
>>*******snipped*******
>>
>>
>>
>>>Alcohol, on
>>>the hand, must be totally freed from water, before it can be be mixed
>>>
>>>
>with
>
>
>>>petrol to be used as gasohol in an internal combustion engine.
>>>
>>>
>>Not true -- aguahol -- or 80% alcohol "rum" is a wonderful fuel as is --
>>and much easier to manufacture than pure ethanol -- but yes -- it can't be
>>blended with gasoline -- engines need changed air/fuel ratios -- to start
>>with. And cold starting in the more northern countries will be a
>>
>>
>problem --
>
>
>>Brazil operated a large percentage of it;s vehicle on strong rum only for
>>many years -- I believe the first Ford car was strong rum fuels -- and
>>
>>
>when
>
>
>>I was young -- all racing motorcycles used "aguahol".
>>
>>The first diesel used peanut oil for fuel.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Separation of
>>>>
>>>>
>>>alcohol from water requires further input of energy.
>>>
>>>
>>Yes -- and further processing and not of a passive nature.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Another advantage of
>>>>
>>>>
>>>methane is that there are no legal restrictions on its production or use,
>>>whereas in the case of alcohol, its production, sale, storage and use all
>>>require permission from the Government.
>>>
>>>
>>And that is probably the most excellent point of all!
>>
>>I have not yet been able to find any data on the very neat turn you have
>>taken in regards to bio digestion. All present state of the art biomass
>>digesters -- and all the science to go with that field -- appears to be
>>fixated on using sewage.
>>
>>(As indeed every aspect of ethanol production is fixated on "pure" -- is
>>terrifically difficult to make -- a very energy piggish (compared to
>>
>>
>making
>
>
>>strong rum) process -- and totally out of the domain of rolling your own
>>
>>
>in
>
>
>>a 3rd world country.
>>
>>Regarding high energy feed stocks for bio digesters --
>>
>>I believe your in the position to write the book on this.
>>
>>But unless a super fast digester can be designed small enough to fit on a
>>vehicle and productive enough to power said vehicle on a continuous basis
>>-- I do not see applications to replace portable fuels.
>>
>>On the other hand -- for operating stationary power plants -- it might be
>>an exciting new development.
>>
>>Now -- if you could produce butane -- then you would have a true portable
>>fuel.
>>
>>Peter -- Belize
>>
>>
>>
>>>Yours
>>>A.D.Karve
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Stoves mailing list
>>>Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>>>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Stoves mailing list
>Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>
>
>
>
>

From phoenix98604 at earthlink.net Wed Oct 20 22:28:20 2004
From: phoenix98604 at earthlink.net (Art Krenzel)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 20:28:20 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] Re: Two phase biogas fermenter
References: <3.0.32.20041019125752.009bc690@pop.btl.net><006801c4b616$ad7c8090$8dc3f204@7k6rv21>
<000201c4b70a$0804ba20$4a5641db@adkarve>
Message-ID: <000c01c4b71e$03fcfd70$34c3f204@7k6rv21>

Dear Dr. Karve,

The answer to the problem you describe is quite simple - the processing
steps were done in the improper sequence. The reason that food waste
(vegetables, starchy foods, etc) are such a processing problem is that they
are very high energy sources. This energy can be reduced either aerobically
(with a great deal of effort to reduce smell) or anaerobically (in a sealed
vessel). If one first processes the food waste aerobically and then adds
the residue to an anaerobic process, they have stripped off and wasted the
highest energy of the food waste and you get very little biogas.

The proper sequence is to first treat the high energy food waste
anaerobically to produce methane until the initial energy of the food waste
becomes considerably less. THEN treat the digested solids via an aerobic
decomposition to produce compost. Now you have recovered a great deal of
the available energy as methane and still have sufficient energy to produce
a compost which can self heat and kill weed seeds.

The two processes are compatible IF you put them in the right sequence and
you have a good biofilter to handle the odors produced when the process is
converted from anaerobic to aerobic.

Food wastes contain too much energy to process aerobically very conveniently
without odor problems. If the initial process is anaerobic, the resulting
solids can be easily composted without significant odor worries.

When people refer to C/N ratio, they are most likely referring to an aerobic
digestion process (composting) which wastes the highest energy of food waste
as heat to evaporate entrained water or heat air. Carbon is the food of
choice of the methanogenic bacteria. Nitrogen is not a desired feedstock
component for anaerobic digestion however the process can tolerate it's
presence. Excess nitrogen can lead to ammonia formation which can cause
runaway pH problems in the digester causing the digestion and methanation
processes to deviate from optimum and slow down.

Using only the leachate from the aerobic process (as was done by your
example) produces poor quantities of methane because the leachate does not
contain all the soluble energy available from the vegetative feedstocks.

Also, most or all of the water from the anaerobic process can be added to
the aerobic composting process to keep it cool and hydrated. A significant
amount of the water can be recycled in the anaerobic process until dissolved
salts become a problem.

Paper feedstocks are a poor choice to add to an anaerobic digestion process.
It takes too long to digest the wood fibers requiring the in-process liquid
storage and capital costs to skyrocket. Anaerobic feedstocks should be
starchy, vegetables and grains which are easily dissolved so the digestion
process can be completed in about four days or so.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your email.

Art Krenzel

 

----- Original Message -----
From: "adkarve" <adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in>
To: <STOVES at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 5:54 AM
Subject: [Stoves] Re: Two phase biogas fermenter

> Dear Art,
> the two phase system of fermentation looks very nice on paper, and is also
> good for getting methane from paper, but in practice, one loses a lot of
> calories in the aerobic phase. A very well known research institute in
> India
> installed a two phase biogas plant to take care of the household waste
> generated by people living in their campus. A large part of the waste
> consists of leftover starchy food (bread, rice, beans, potatos, noodles
> etc.) and a
> relatively small part of the waste was from vegetables and paper (we sell
> waste
> paper in India).The vegetable waste and paper were cellulosic.
> The waste was first allowed to decompose aerobically and
> the leachates from this digester were fed into the anaerobic digesger.
> In this case, the starchy part of the waste, that should have
> gone straight into the anaerobic digester, was lost in the process of
> aerobic decomposition. In India, they have made a fetish out of the C/N
> ratio
> and therefore biogas experts are afraid of loading the system with too
> much
> carbohydrate. The biogas experts, at least
> in India, consider 30 as the ideal C/N ratio. This is the C/N ratio of
> cattle dung.
> I have operated my biogas system using cereal flour, which has
> 90% starch and 10% protein, with oilcake having almost equal quantities of
> starch and protein, and with fruit pulp and sugarcane juice, which are
> very
> poor in
> protein content. The biogas plants were operated for months on end.
> In all these cases I got almost the theoretically calculated methane
> quantity.
> Yours
> A.D.Karve
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Art Krenzel <phoenix98604 at earthlink.net>
> To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>; <STOVES at listserv.repp.org>; Peter
> Singfield <snkm at btl.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 1:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Gas-er-up!! Data listings -- process flow --
>
>
>> Peter,
>>
>> You have taken off with the zeal of an Evangelist with this biogas
> project!
>> You did a great job gathering the necessary information for you bio
> process.
>>
>> You said:
>> >Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that digestion is a
>> >biological process.
>>
>> >The "anaerobic" bacteria responsible for digestion can't survive with
> even
>> >the slightest trace of oxygen. So, because of the oxygen in the manure
>> >mixture fed to the digester, there is a long period after loading before
>> >actual digestion takes place. During this initial "aerobic" period,
> traces
>> >of oxygen are used up by oxygen-loving bacteria, and large amounts of
>> >carbon dioxide (C02) are released.
>>
>> Actually, in the latest biogas technology, the anaerobic process is
>> broken
>> into two separate steps. The first step, acetate formation by organic
>> acids, is somewhat tolerant of the presence of small amounts of oxygen.
> The
>> second stage, methanation, the presence of any oxygen means sudden and
>> instant death to the methagens.
>>
>> Just Google TWO PHASE ANAEROBIC DIGESTION for the latest information.
>>
>>
>> >Biologically, then, successful digestion depends upon achieving and (for
>> >continuous-load digesters) maintaining a balance between those bacteria
>> >which produce organic acids and those bacteria which produce methane gas
>> >from the organic acids.
>>
>> Again, the newer production anaerobic processes are hybrids. They have
>> daily batch tanks for the first stage (hydrolyis and acetate formation)
> and
>> pulse feeding of the second stage (methane formation). The net effect is
>> that we have a continuous process that can handle surge loading on the
> feed
>> side and a near constant output of biogas.
>>
>> Peter, I still think you should make beer. Think of it - now we could
> have
>> a reason for our Evangelistic rants! :-) We could sell the bad batches
> of
>> beer as vinegar and have two markets.
>>
>> I built and operated a microbrewery during one of my earlier lives and it
>> was a pleasure - especially at break time. :-)
>>
>> Art Krenzel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Stoves mailing list
>> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>

 

From phoenix98604 at earthlink.net Wed Oct 20 22:33:15 2004
From: phoenix98604 at earthlink.net (Art Krenzel)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 20:33:15 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] sugar to alcohol or sugar to biogas
References: <3.0.32.20041019213213.009c8dd0@pop.btl.net><000101c4b70a$072a86c0$4a5641db@adkarve>
<417720E7.8030303@legacyfound.org>
Message-ID: <001e01c4b71e$b4151940$34c3f204@7k6rv21>

Richard,

I believe that the energy balance you refer to is the liquefaction energy of
methane.

The liquefaction of methane requires on the order of 40% of the energy
available in the gases at the oilfield.

It requires less energy to compress methane to 3000 psi.

Art Krenzel, P.E.
PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES
10505 NE 285TH Street
Battle Ground, WA 98604
360-666-1883 voice
phoenix98604 at earthlink.net

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Stanley" <rstanley at legacyfound.org>
To: "adkarve" <adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in>; <STOVES at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] sugar to alcohol or sugar to biogas

> Dear Ad,
>
> From hands on experience with methane for four years in Tanzania, to my
> knowledge, the inability to comperess methane is p[recisely what made it
> unattractive for use in vehicles: The wisdom of the times then suggested
> to many of us, that methane as a relatively short chained hydrocarbon,
> could not easily be compressed: In fact the energy required to compress
> it was greater than the energy it gave off.
> Correct me if I am wrong: I would love to be, given its potential...
> Richard Stanley
>
> adkarve wrote:
>
>>Dear Peter,
>>when cars use CNG they do not produce it in the car, but carry a cylinder
>>that is filled with compressed CNG. You can use methane in exactly the
>>same
>>manner.
>>A.D.Karve
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: Peter Singfield <snkm at btl.net>
>>To: adkarve <adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in>; <STOVES at listserv.repp.org>
>>Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 9:03 AM
>>Subject: Re: [Stoves] sugar to alcohol or sugar to biogas
>>
>>
>>
>>>Dear A.D.
>>>
>>>At 09:54 PM 10/19/2004 +0530, adkarve wrote:
>>>
>>>>This refers to the discussion between Len Walde and Peter Springfield on
>>>>this subject.
>>>>
>>>*******snipped*******
>>>
>>>
>>>>Alcohol, on
>>>>the hand, must be totally freed from water, before it can be be mixed
>>>>
>>with
>>
>>>>petrol to be used as gasohol in an internal combustion engine.
>>>>
>>>Not true -- aguahol -- or 80% alcohol "rum" is a wonderful fuel as is --
>>>and much easier to manufacture than pure ethanol -- but yes -- it can't
>>>be
>>>blended with gasoline -- engines need changed air/fuel ratios -- to start
>>>with. And cold starting in the more northern countries will be a
>>>
>>problem --
>>
>>>Brazil operated a large percentage of it;s vehicle on strong rum only for
>>>many years -- I believe the first Ford car was strong rum fuels -- and
>>>
>>when
>>
>>>I was young -- all racing motorcycles used "aguahol".
>>>
>>>The first diesel used peanut oil for fuel.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Separation of
>>>>>
>>>>alcohol from water requires further input of energy.
>>>>
>>>Yes -- and further processing and not of a passive nature.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Another advantage of
>>>>>
>>>>methane is that there are no legal restrictions on its production or
>>>>use,
>>>>whereas in the case of alcohol, its production, sale, storage and use
>>>>all
>>>>require permission from the Government.
>>>>
>>>And that is probably the most excellent point of all!
>>>
>>>I have not yet been able to find any data on the very neat turn you have
>>>taken in regards to bio digestion. All present state of the art biomass
>>>digesters -- and all the science to go with that field -- appears to be
>>>fixated on using sewage.
>>>
>>>(As indeed every aspect of ethanol production is fixated on "pure" -- is
>>>terrifically difficult to make -- a very energy piggish (compared to
>>>
>>making
>>
>>>strong rum) process -- and totally out of the domain of rolling your own
>>>
>>in
>>
>>>a 3rd world country.
>>>
>>>Regarding high energy feed stocks for bio digesters --
>>>
>>>I believe your in the position to write the book on this.
>>>
>>>But unless a super fast digester can be designed small enough to fit on a
>>>vehicle and productive enough to power said vehicle on a continuous basis
>>>-- I do not see applications to replace portable fuels.
>>>
>>>On the other hand -- for operating stationary power plants -- it might be
>>>an exciting new development.
>>>
>>>Now -- if you could produce butane -- then you would have a true portable
>>>fuel.
>>>
>>>Peter -- Belize
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yours
>>>>A.D.Karve
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Stoves mailing list
>>>>Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>>>>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Stoves mailing list
>>Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>

 

From adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in Wed Oct 20 22:37:52 2004
From: adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in (adkarve)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:07:52 +0530
Subject: [Stoves] Re: RE : [Gasification] Make wood vinegar from bagasse?
References: <3.0.32.20041020084702.00960b70@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <000301c4b726$7f86d6c0$1d5841db@adkarve>

Dear Peter,
the bamboo vinegar is not acetic acid. I do not know exactly what its
components are, but it is not acetic acid, and I doubt if the methane
produce bacteria would accept it as feedstock.
A.D.Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Singfield <snkm at btl.net>
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>; <STOVES at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 8:52 PM
Subject: [Stoves] Re: RE : [Gasification] Make wood vinegar from bagasse?

At 09:25 AM 10/20/2004 +0200, Gr?goire JOVICIC wrote:
>What is the bamboo vinegar application ?

Vinegar converts well to methane by passive processing in a bio digester.

 

 

From adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in Wed Oct 20 22:53:19 2004
From: adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in (adkarve)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:23:19 +0530
Subject: [Stoves] RE: 3 watt electricity generation/storage
References: <000801c4b6bb$4bb18040$0100a8c0@home>
Message-ID: <000401c4b726$8014bee0$1d5841db@adkarve>

I have been following the discussion on air blowers. What I report below has
nothing to do with blowing seconday air into a stove but I thought I should
mention it anyway.
I was recently in Vietnam. In Hanoi I noticed glass pyramids on practically
all the houses. The apex of the pyramid was cut off and a small rotating
metallic dome with slits was fitted on it. When the sun shone on the
pyramid, the air inside it became hot and, becoming lighter, it flowed out
through the hole in the apex. The air passing through the slits of the
metallic dome caused it to rotate. Its speed indicated the amount of air
being thrown out of the house. This air thrown out was naturally replaced by
cooler air coming in through the windows into the house. The pyramid thus
served as the house aerator, used for creating a current of air through the
house. I am seriously thinking of putting such a device directly above the
stoves in a kitchen. Must consult an architect about it.
Yours
A.D.Karve

 

From rstanley at legacyfound.org Wed Oct 20 23:22:22 2004
From: rstanley at legacyfound.org (Richard Stanley)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 06:22:22 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] sugar to alcohol or sugar to biogas
In-Reply-To: <001e01c4b71e$b4151940$34c3f204@7k6rv21>
References: <3.0.32.20041019213213.009c8dd0@pop.btl.net><000101c4b70a$072a86c0$4a5641db@adkarve>
<417720E7.8030303@legacyfound.org>
<001e01c4b71e$b4151940$34c3f204@7k6rv21>
Message-ID: <4177397E.5070004@legacyfound.org>

Art,
It seems to me that my gurus were referring to the cost of compressing
methane which was collected directly from the biogas digester (a near
atmospheric pressure), to 3000psi for storage in a tank. I do no know
about liquefaction energy per se. Please do enlighten me on the phase
changes ch4 undergoes and respective energy distribution in the
compression process.
Thanks,

Richard

Art Krenzel wrote:

> Richard,
>
> I believe that the energy balance you refer to is the liquefaction
> energy of methane.
>
> The liquefaction of methane requires on the order of 40% of the energy
> available in the gases at the oilfield.
>
> It requires less energy to compress methane to 3000 psi.
>
> Art Krenzel, P.E.
> PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES
> 10505 NE 285TH Street
> Battle Ground, WA 98604
> 360-666-1883 voice
> phoenix98604 at earthlink.net
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Stanley"
> <rstanley at legacyfound.org>
> To: "adkarve" <adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in>; <STOVES at listserv.repp.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 7:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] sugar to alcohol or sugar to biogas
>
>
>> Dear Ad,
>>
>> From hands on experience with methane for four years in Tanzania, to
>> my knowledge, the inability to comperess methane is p[recisely what
>> made it unattractive for use in vehicles: The wisdom of the times
>> then suggested to many of us, that methane as a relatively short
>> chained hydrocarbon, could not easily be compressed: In fact the
>> energy required to compress it was greater than the energy it gave off.
>> Correct me if I am wrong: I would love to be, given its potential...
>> Richard Stanley
>>
>> adkarve wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Peter,
>>> when cars use CNG they do not produce it in the car, but carry a
>>> cylinder
>>> that is filled with compressed CNG. You can use methane in exactly
>>> the same
>>> manner.
>>> A.D.Karve
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Peter Singfield <snkm at btl.net>
>>> To: adkarve <adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in>; <STOVES at listserv.repp.org>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 9:03 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [Stoves] sugar to alcohol or sugar to biogas
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Dear A.D.
>>>>
>>>> At 09:54 PM 10/19/2004 +0530, adkarve wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This refers to the discussion between Len Walde and Peter
>>>>> Springfield on
>>>>> this subject.
>>>>>
>>>> *******snipped*******
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Alcohol, on
>>>>> the hand, must be totally freed from water, before it can be be mixed
>>>>>
>>> with
>>>
>>>>> petrol to be used as gasohol in an internal combustion engine.
>>>>>
>>>> Not true -- aguahol -- or 80% alcohol "rum" is a wonderful fuel as
>>>> is --
>>>> and much easier to manufacture than pure ethanol -- but yes -- it
>>>> can't be
>>>> blended with gasoline -- engines need changed air/fuel ratios -- to
>>>> start
>>>> with. And cold starting in the more northern countries will be a
>>>>
>>> problem --
>>>
>>>> Brazil operated a large percentage of it;s vehicle on strong rum
>>>> only for
>>>> many years -- I believe the first Ford car was strong rum fuels -- and
>>>>
>>> when
>>>
>>>> I was young -- all racing motorcycles used "aguahol".
>>>>
>>>> The first diesel used peanut oil for fuel.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Separation of
>>>>>>
>>>>> alcohol from water requires further input of energy.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes -- and further processing and not of a passive nature.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Another advantage of
>>>>>>
>>>>> methane is that there are no legal restrictions on its production
>>>>> or use,
>>>>> whereas in the case of alcohol, its production, sale, storage and
>>>>> use all
>>>>> require permission from the Government.
>>>>>
>>>> And that is probably the most excellent point of all!
>>>>
>>>> I have not yet been able to find any data on the very neat turn you
>>>> have
>>>> taken in regards to bio digestion. All present state of the art
>>>> biomass
>>>> digesters -- and all the science to go with that field -- appears
>>>> to be
>>>> fixated on using sewage.
>>>>
>>>> (As indeed every aspect of ethanol production is fixated on "pure"
>>>> -- is
>>>> terrifically difficult to make -- a very energy piggish (compared to
>>>>
>>> making
>>>
>>>> strong rum) process -- and totally out of the domain of rolling
>>>> your own
>>>>
>>> in
>>>
>>>> a 3rd world country.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding high energy feed stocks for bio digesters --
>>>>
>>>> I believe your in the position to write the book on this.
>>>>
>>>> But unless a super fast digester can be designed small enough to
>>>> fit on a
>>>> vehicle and productive enough to power said vehicle on a continuous
>>>> basis
>>>> -- I do not see applications to replace portable fuels.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand -- for operating stationary power plants -- it
>>>> might be
>>>> an exciting new development.
>>>>
>>>> Now -- if you could produce butane -- then you would have a true
>>>> portable
>>>> fuel.
>>>>
>>>> Peter -- Belize
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Yours
>>>>> A.D.Karve
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Stoves mailing list
>>>>> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>>>>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Stoves mailing list
>>> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Stoves mailing list
>> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>>
>
>
>
>
>

 

From phoenix98604 at earthlink.net Thu Oct 21 00:26:11 2004
From: phoenix98604 at earthlink.net (Art Krenzel)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:26:11 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] sugar to alcohol or sugar to biogas
References: <3.0.32.20041019213213.009c8dd0@pop.btl.net><000101c4b70a$072a86c0$4a5641db@adkarve>
<417720E7.8030303@legacyfound.org>
<001e01c4b71e$b4151940$34c3f204@7k6rv21>
<4177397E.5070004@legacyfound.org>
Message-ID: <003c01c4b72e$7a9d14f0$34c3f204@7k6rv21>

Richard,

The compression economics of biogas are considerably different than the
compression of field natural gas because the raw biogas contains
approximately 35% inert CO2. As you know, the capital costs (due to large
compressors sizes necessary to handle the volumes of gases at the lower
pressures) are higher during the first stages of compression. These costs
are exacerbated when you are compressing a significant amount of inert or
non-revenue gas with the methane.

To keep costs low, the biogas stream is normally pretreated using membrane
technology at moderate pressures to strip off most of the CO2 from the gas
stream being compressed. The gas stream needs to be compressed to between
300 and 350 psig and refrigerated before all of the CO2 is gone.

I do not have the phase change data of methane available. I had approached
the problem earlier by working on recovering the CO2 as an additional
revenue stream to get some of my information. My numbers came from a study
to ship LNG from Libya to Boston by ship. There were significant losses by
evaporation enroute and in transferring the liquified fuel between storage
vessels. Fuel costs have changed somewhat since the report was prepared
some time ago as well.

Thank you.

Art

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Stanley" <rstanley at legacyfound.org>
To: "Art Krenzel" <phoenix98604 at earthlink.net>
Cc: "adkarve" <adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in>; <STOVES at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 9:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] sugar to alcohol or sugar to biogas

> Art,
> It seems to me that my gurus were referring to the cost of compressing
> methane which was collected directly from the biogas digester (a near
> atmospheric pressure), to 3000psi for storage in a tank. I do no know
> about liquefaction energy per se. Please do enlighten me on the phase
> changes ch4 undergoes and respective energy distribution in the
> compression process.
> Thanks,
>
> Richard
>
>
> Art Krenzel wrote:
>
>> Richard,
>>
>> I believe that the energy balance you refer to is the liquefaction energy
>> of methane.
>>
>> The liquefaction of methane requires on the order of 40% of the energy
>> available in the gases at the oilfield.
>>
>> It requires less energy to compress methane to 3000 psi.
>>
>> Art Krenzel, P.E.
>> PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES
>> 10505 NE 285TH Street
>> Battle Ground, WA 98604
>> 360-666-1883 voice
>> phoenix98604 at earthlink.net
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Stanley"
>> <rstanley at legacyfound.org>
>> To: "adkarve" <adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in>; <STOVES at listserv.repp.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 7:37 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Stoves] sugar to alcohol or sugar to biogas
>>
>>
>>> Dear Ad,
>>>
>>> From hands on experience with methane for four years in Tanzania, to my
>>> knowledge, the inability to comperess methane is p[recisely what made
>>> it unattractive for use in vehicles: The wisdom of the times then
>>> suggested to many of us, that methane as a relatively short chained
>>> hydrocarbon, could not easily be compressed: In fact the energy
>>> required to compress it was greater than the energy it gave off.
>>> Correct me if I am wrong: I would love to be, given its potential...
>>> Richard Stanley
>>>
>>> adkarve wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Peter,
>>>> when cars use CNG they do not produce it in the car, but carry a
>>>> cylinder
>>>> that is filled with compressed CNG. You can use methane in exactly the
>>>> same
>>>> manner.
>>>> A.D.Karve
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Peter Singfield <snkm at btl.net>
>>>> To: adkarve <adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in>; <STOVES at listserv.repp.org>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 9:03 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Stoves] sugar to alcohol or sugar to biogas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Dear A.D.
>>>>>
>>>>> At 09:54 PM 10/19/2004 +0530, adkarve wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This refers to the discussion between Len Walde and Peter Springfield
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> this subject.
>>>>>>
>>>>> *******snipped*******
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Alcohol, on
>>>>>> the hand, must be totally freed from water, before it can be be mixed
>>>>>>
>>>> with
>>>>
>>>>>> petrol to be used as gasohol in an internal combustion engine.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Not true -- aguahol -- or 80% alcohol "rum" is a wonderful fuel as
>>>>> is --
>>>>> and much easier to manufacture than pure ethanol -- but yes -- it
>>>>> can't be
>>>>> blended with gasoline -- engines need changed air/fuel ratios -- to
>>>>> start
>>>>> with. And cold starting in the more northern countries will be a
>>>>>
>>>> problem --
>>>>
>>>>> Brazil operated a large percentage of it;s vehicle on strong rum only
>>>>> for
>>>>> many years -- I believe the first Ford car was strong rum fuels -- and
>>>>>
>>>> when
>>>>
>>>>> I was young -- all racing motorcycles used "aguahol".
>>>>>
>>>>> The first diesel used peanut oil for fuel.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Separation of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> alcohol from water requires further input of energy.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes -- and further processing and not of a passive nature.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Another advantage of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> methane is that there are no legal restrictions on its production or
>>>>>> use,
>>>>>> whereas in the case of alcohol, its production, sale, storage and use
>>>>>> all
>>>>>> require permission from the Government.
>>>>>>
>>>>> And that is probably the most excellent point of all!
>>>>>
>>>>> I have not yet been able to find any data on the very neat turn you
>>>>> have
>>>>> taken in regards to bio digestion. All present state of the art
>>>>> biomass
>>>>> digesters -- and all the science to go with that field -- appears to
>>>>> be
>>>>> fixated on using sewage.
>>>>>
>>>>> (As indeed every aspect of ethanol production is fixated on "pure" --
>>>>> is
>>>>> terrifically difficult to make -- a very energy piggish (compared to
>>>>>
>>>> making
>>>>
>>>>> strong rum) process -- and totally out of the domain of rolling your
>>>>> own
>>>>>
>>>> in
>>>>
>>>>> a 3rd world country.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding high energy feed stocks for bio digesters --
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe your in the position to write the book on this.
>>>>>
>>>>> But unless a super fast digester can be designed small enough to fit
>>>>> on a
>>>>> vehicle and productive enough to power said vehicle on a continuous
>>>>> basis
>>>>> -- I do not see applications to replace portable fuels.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the other hand -- for operating stationary power plants -- it might
>>>>> be
>>>>> an exciting new development.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now -- if you could produce butane -- then you would have a true
>>>>> portable
>>>>> fuel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter -- Belize
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yours
>>>>>> A.D.Karve
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Stoves mailing list
>>>>>> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>>>>>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Stoves mailing list
>>>> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>>>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Stoves mailing list
>>> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

 

From adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in Thu Oct 21 00:04:37 2004
From: adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in (adkarve)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:34:37 +0530
Subject: [Stoves] sugar to alcohol or sugar to biogas
References: <3.0.32.20041019213213.009c8dd0@pop.btl.net>
<000101c4b70a$072a86c0$4a5641db@adkarve>
<417720E7.8030303@legacyfound.org>
Message-ID: <000001c4b765$08a49440$035641db@adkarve>

Dear Richard,
I do not have hands on experience in biogas compressing, but have seen vehicles both in Mumbai and Delhi being run on compressed CNG. There is also one CNG delivery station in Pune, but haven't met anybody in Pune using CNG in his vehicle. Most probably this station is meant for people from Mumbai who visit Pune (a distance of about 200 km). The CNG is delivered under 200 atmosphere pressure, so that one cubic meter is compressed into 5 litres. One litre of compressed CNG gives twice the mileage as petrol and costs just half as much. I was told that natural gas is also predominently methane. Since the technology of compressing and delivering CNG is already available in India, it should be possible to set up a rural business to produce methane on a large scale and offer it in cylinders, more or less on the same lines as LPG. With my compact biogas technology, the capital cost of methane production has come down drastically. The household fermenter using cattle dung as feedstock costs about US$270 while my system, producing the same amount of gas, would cost only US$45. The raw material for producing the methane would be purchased from the villagers themselves, and if one were to explain to them the expenses involved in the entire process, one can arrive at a price that would be mutually acceptable to the entrepreneur and the buyers. One can operate the business as a co-operative, on the same lines as the milk co-operatives are operated. The persons supplying the raw material for methane production would be shareholders of the co-operative. With ever increasing prices of petroleum, this option has started to make economic sense.
A.D.Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Stanley
To: adkarve ; STOVES at listserv.repp.org
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] sugar to alcohol or sugar to biogas

Dear Ad,

From hands on experience with methane for four years in Tanzania, to my knowledge, the inability to comperess methane is p[recisely what made it unattractive for use in vehicles: The wisdom of the times then suggested to many of us, that methane as a relatively short chained hydrocarbon, could not easily be compressed: In fact the energy required to compress it was greater than the energy it gave off.
Correct me if I am wrong: I would love to be, given its potential...
Richard Stanley

adkarve wrote:

Dear Peter,
when cars use CNG they do not produce it in the car, but carry a cylinder
that is filled with compressed CNG. You can use methane in exactly the same
manner.
A.D.Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Singfield <snkm at btl.net>
To: adkarve <adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in>; <STOVES at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] sugar to alcohol or sugar to biogas


Dear A.D.

At 09:54 PM 10/19/2004 +0530, adkarve wrote:

This refers to the discussion between Len Walde and Peter Springfield on
this subject.

*******snipped*******


Alcohol, on
the hand, must be totally freed from water, before it can be be mixed

with

petrol to be used as gasohol in an internal combustion engine.

Not true -- aguahol -- or 80% alcohol "rum" is a wonderful fuel as is --
and much easier to manufacture than pure ethanol -- but yes -- it can't be
blended with gasoline -- engines need changed air/fuel ratios -- to start
with. And cold starting in the more northern countries will be a

problem --

Brazil operated a large percentage of it;s vehicle on strong rum only for
many years -- I believe the first Ford car was strong rum fuels -- and

when

I was young -- all racing motorcycles used "aguahol".

The first diesel used peanut oil for fuel.


Separation of

alcohol from water requires further input of energy.

Yes -- and further processing and not of a passive nature.


Another advantage of

methane is that there are no legal restrictions on its production or use,
whereas in the case of alcohol, its production, sale, storage and use all
require permission from the Government.

And that is probably the most excellent point of all!

I have not yet been able to find any data on the very neat turn you have
taken in regards to bio digestion. All present state of the art biomass
digesters -- and all the science to go with that field -- appears to be
fixated on using sewage.

(As indeed every aspect of ethanol production is fixated on "pure" -- is
terrifically difficult to make -- a very energy piggish (compared to

making

strong rum) process -- and totally out of the domain of rolling your own

in

a 3rd world country.

Regarding high energy feed stocks for bio digesters --

I believe your in the position to write the book on this.

But unless a super fast digester can be designed small enough to fit on a
vehicle and productive enough to power said vehicle on a continuous basis
-- I do not see applications to replace portable fuels.

On the other hand -- for operating stationary power plants -- it might be
an exciting new development.

Now -- if you could produce butane -- then you would have a true portable
fuel.

Peter -- Belize


Yours
A.D.Karve

_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
Stoves at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves


_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
Stoves at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

 

 

From rstanley at legacyfound.org Thu Oct 21 09:07:42 2004
From: rstanley at legacyfound.org (Richard Stanley)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:07:42 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] sugar to alcohol or sugar to biogas
In-Reply-To: <000001c4b765$08a49440$035641db@adkarve>
References: <3.0.32.20041019213213.009c8dd0@pop.btl.net> <000101c4b70a$072a86c0$4a5641db@adkarve> <417720E7.8030303@legacyfound.org>
<000001c4b765$08a49440$035641db@adkarve>
Message-ID: <4177C2AE.7010803@legacyfound.org>

Dear AD,

Thanks for that information. It along with your biogas generating system
sounds fantastic. May I offer you an exchange: wet process briquetting
and material processing for your biogas system technology, when you
finalise it ? I assure you that we can use it all thoughout east and
southern africa.

Richard Stanley

adkarve wrote:

>Dear Richard,
>I do not have hands on experience in biogas compressing, but have seen vehicles both in Mumbai and Delhi being run on compressed CNG. There is also one CNG delivery station in Pune, but haven't met anybody in Pune using CNG in his vehicle. Most probably this station is meant for people from Mumbai who visit Pune (a distance of about 200 km). The CNG is delivered under 200 atmosphere pressure, so that one cubic meter is compressed into 5 litres. One litre of compressed CNG gives twice the mileage as petrol and costs just half as much. I was told that natural gas is also predominently methane. Since the technology of compressing and delivering CNG is already available in India, it should be possible to set up a rural business to produce methane on a large scale and offer it in cylinders, more or less on the same lines as LPG. With my compact biogas technology, the capital cost of methane production has come down drastically. The household fermenter using cattle dung as feedstock costs about US$270 while my system, producing the same amount of gas, would cost only US$45. The raw material for producing the methane would be purchased from the villagers themselves, and if one were to explain to them the expenses involved in the entire process, one can arrive at a price that would be mutually acceptable to the entrepreneur and the buyers. One can operate the business as a co-operative, on the same lines as the milk co-operatives are operated. The persons supplying the raw material for methane production would be shareholders of the co-operative. With ever increasing prices of petroleum, this option has started to make economic sense.
>A.D.Karve
>----- Original Message -----
> From: Richard Stanley
> To: adkarve ; STOVES at listserv.repp.org
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 8:07 AM
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] sugar to alcohol or sugar to biogas
>
>
> Dear Ad,
>
> From hands on experience with methane for four years in Tanzania, to my knowledge, the inability to comperess methane is p[recisely what made it unattractive for use in vehicles: The wisdom of the times then suggested to many of us, that methane as a relatively short chained hydrocarbon, could not easily be compressed: In fact the energy required to compress it was greater than the energy it gave off.
> Correct me if I am wrong: I would love to be, given its potential...
> Richard Stanley
>
> adkarve wrote:
>
>Dear Peter,
>when cars use CNG they do not produce it in the car, but carry a cylinder
>that is filled with compressed CNG. You can use methane in exactly the same
>manner.
>A.D.Karve
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Peter Singfield <snkm at btl.net>
>To: adkarve <adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in>; <STOVES at listserv.repp.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 9:03 AM
>Subject: Re: [Stoves] sugar to alcohol or sugar to biogas
>
>
>
>Dear A.D.
>
>At 09:54 PM 10/19/2004 +0530, adkarve wrote:
>
>This refers to the discussion between Len Walde and Peter Springfield on
>this subject.
>
>*******snipped*******
>
>
>Alcohol, on
>the hand, must be totally freed from water, before it can be be mixed
>
>with
>
>petrol to be used as gasohol in an internal combustion engine.
>
>Not true -- aguahol -- or 80% alcohol "rum" is a wonderful fuel as is --
>and much easier to manufacture than pure ethanol -- but yes -- it can't be
>blended with gasoline -- engines need changed air/fuel ratios -- to start
>with. And cold starting in the more northern countries will be a
>
>problem --
>
>Brazil operated a large percentage of it;s vehicle on strong rum only for
>many years -- I believe the first Ford car was strong rum fuels -- and
>
>when
>
>I was young -- all racing motorcycles used "aguahol".
>
>The first diesel used peanut oil for fuel.
>
>
>Separation of
>
>alcohol from water requires further input of energy.
>
>Yes -- and further processing and not of a passive nature.
>
>
>Another advantage of
>
>methane is that there are no legal restrictions on its production or use,
>whereas in the case of alcohol, its production, sale, storage and use all
>require permission from the Government.
>
>And that is probably the most excellent point of all!
>
>I have not yet been able to find any data on the very neat turn you have
>taken in regards to bio digestion. All present state of the art biomass
>digesters -- and all the science to go with that field -- appears to be
>fixated on using sewage.
>
>(As indeed every aspect of ethanol production is fixated on "pure" -- is
>terrifically difficult to make -- a very energy piggish (compared to
>
>making
>
>strong rum) process -- and totally out of the domain of rolling your own
>
>in
>
>a 3rd world country.
>
>Regarding high energy feed stocks for bio digesters --
>
>I believe your in the position to write the book on this.
>
>But unless a super fast digester can be designed small enough to fit on a
>vehicle and productive enough to power said vehicle on a continuous basis
>-- I do not see applications to replace portable fuels.
>
>On the other hand -- for operating stationary power plants -- it might be
>an exciting new development.
>
>Now -- if you could produce butane -- then you would have a true portable
>fuel.
>
>Peter -- Belize
>
>
>Yours
>A.D.Karve
>
>_______________________________________________
>Stoves mailing list
>Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Stoves mailing list
>Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Stoves mailing list
>Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>
>
>
>
>

 

From snkm at btl.net Thu Oct 21 12:10:25 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 11:10:25 -0600
Subject: [Stoves] sugar to alcohol or sugar to biogas
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041021105812.00962cf0@pop.btl.net>

At 08:33 PM 10/20/2004 -0700, Art Krenzel wrote:
>Richard,
>
>I believe that the energy balance you refer to is the liquefaction energy of
>methane.
>
>The liquefaction of methane requires on the order of 40% of the energy
>available in the gases at the oilfield.
>
>It requires less energy to compress methane to 3000 psi.
>
>Art Krenzel, P.E.

But a veritable small fortune for compressors and storage tanks --

Again -- would it be possible -- with proper prior conditioning (such as
making vinegar - -wither from post fermentation or pyrolization
"wood-vinegar")to produce a concentrated "fuel" for a bio digester.

So that then the bio digester could be more compact -- faster production --
and as such -- could be imposed on the vehicle to be fueled by methane much
as charcoal fueled gasifiers did during WWII.

I ran out of time to pursue the looking for Mr. perfect agent -- to convert
vinegar to methane.

But that family of bacteria exist -- and they are in fact responsible at
present for a lot of the methane produced in biodigesters.

The idea would be to encourage a specific species of these bacteria to
perform in a vinegar medium at the most efficient and rapid rate.

Then villagers could product vinegar for fuel.

Just like they produced charcoal for gasifiers back when.

As this "concept" appear to have never been forwarded before -- searching
shows up nothing in regards to such.

It might be a good project for A.D. though.

Start with the cow dung culture -- then keep adding vinegar. Till other
forms of bacteria die off -- and just the vinegar producing ones are left.

I'm tempted to get started myself -- but am trying to source an aquarium
air pump with air stones for bubbling wine to vinegar.

Easy where most of you live -- but impossible here in Belize.

Peter

From snkm at btl.net Thu Oct 21 13:16:10 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 12:16:10 -0600
Subject: [Stoves] Re: RE : [Gasification] Make wood vinegar from bagasse?
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041021121122.009d2ad0@pop.btl.net>

At 09:07 AM 10/21/2004 +0530, adkarve wrote:
>Dear Peter,
>the bamboo vinegar is not acetic acid. I do not know exactly what its
>components are, but it is not acetic acid, and I doubt if the methane
>produce bacteria would accept it as feedstock.
>A.D.Karve

I believe you are correct -- thanks for this input!

Right now -- it looks like charcoal is the best product to achieve from
bagasse.

Though Art brings up the important qualifier -- composting to fertilizer.

I must find time to review "pyrolization" -- as that is another potential
option.

The gasses from such are also a rich stove fuel -- plus the charcoal product.

Peter

From psanders at ilstu.edu Thu Oct 21 15:14:07 2004
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:14:07 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] 3 watt electricity generation/storage
In-Reply-To: <4175756B.29369.BFAF43@localhost>
References: <4.3.1.2.20041019180248.0192ef00@mail.ilstu.edu>
<41754D2C.21172.227796@localhost>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20041021141921.00d75670@mail.ilstu.edu>

Stovers,

WOW, what a great selection of messages on this topic!!!!! THIS is what
I LOVE about the Stoves List serve.

Thanks to all who have contributed, especially to "Lurker Scott" who is
indeed "Willing." Where do you live, Scott, so we can imagine and
appreciate you snow-bound conditions (especially by those in the hot
climates.)?

Sorry I cannot specify to Crispin the amount of air flow/force needed. I
am not yet that advanced, but Tom Reed might be able to give some
info. The air flow is really quite modest. But there are complications
whenever the ducting and constricting and whatever else happens to the
air. Therefore, I like reasonably abundant air and I put barriers (sliding
metal "disks-with hand-holds on top" that slide easily down into slots that
I cut into the channel of the air duct. I use a hacksaw to go about
half-way down the pipe or can I am using.

So, feel free to give me all the air power your favorite solution can
provide. It just needs to have a gentle blow through a 3 inch diameter
hole when it reaches the bottom of the "air base" of my stove. Hold your
hand about 8 to 10 inches in front of your mouth and give a gentle blow
that you can sustain for about 10 seconds.

The purpose of my initial message was to get such small air power. ANY
solution is of interest, and the ultimate users of the stove might choose
between 5 or more air options, including the following which are considered
ACTIVE lines of discussion:

Mechanical:
1. Wind-up
2. Simple blowers/fans with continual human action.
3. Stirling engine

Electrical:
4. TEM/TED/TMG devices to create power from heat
5. Solar panel for battery recharging and direct connection to fan in
daylight.
6. Lemon-Light (separate posting to follow)
7. Any "on-grid" or community-solar or wind-driven system that provides
the little electricity that will drive the fan
8. Generators using DC motors and any power to make them turn (bicycles,
manual, etc.) (as explained by Peter's message.)

(as well as having solutions with natural draft)

While we can discuss forever, the proof or value of our discussions will
be when we have actual solutions. On several of the above, (1,3,4,5) there
are some true possibilities, thanks in large part to continuing efforts by
several of you.

Probably #8 is the one that merits some close attention but does not yet
have a leader/contact person. I hope someone steps forward about this
option. Perhaps some other "Lurkers" might be ready to get more involved,
via the Stoves list serve or directly through me or another Stover. (I
greatly appreciate Peter's knowledge and point of view, but I cannot
volunteer someone just because he or she expounded on a neglected
idea/technology.)

The above comments are NOT to discourage anyone from getting into the work
on any of the technologies.

Summary: I will soon be giving out directions on the construction of the
small gasifiers originated by Tom Reed and modified/simplified/altered by
me. The main version is the one with the forced air. Any and all of the
above mentioned methods will be potentially of use in proportion to the
number of people who find ways to get and use them. And I am referring to
the very financially poor populations. The more options they have, the
better for them to find something that works well in their society and
their households.

Thanks again, because as is obvious from my messages, I personally do NOT
have the technical knowledge that you Stovers contribute. And I do not
have time to learn it. I just want to get some workable solutions, in this
case it refers to forced air. Other times I seek solutions on about fuels,
and of course the gasifier issues are among my favorites. Sorry if
sometimes I am a little "dense" or if I forget that you told me about
something months or years ago.

But I depend on all of you. Please keep up the great efforts.

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 at 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 snkm at btl.net Thu Oct 21 20:57:30 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:57:30 -0600
Subject: [Stoves] RE: 3 watt electricity generation/storage
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041021190059.0099d280@pop.btl.net>

At 05:11 PM 10/21/2004 -0700, ken goyer wrote:
>>>>
From Ken Goyer Dear friends, On the subject of the battery powered
drill turned into a generator. This sounds like a really great idea. I have
a question. I assume that the switch of the drill has to be on for the
current to flow. But then the drill will run on the motor. Do you need to
put a blocking diode someplace to keep the current from flowing back into
the motor? If so, where?
Or do you merely have to overpower the drill with more power than it puts
out? Which direction should the drill turn or is there circuitry in the
drill that accounts for the rotation? Thanks, Ken
>>>>>

Oops -- your right -- you need the diode -- at least one!!

I did the actual prototype -- using a surplus portable hand drill motor --
and hooking that to a small model airplane engine -- about 20 some odd
years back now.

used the model airplane motor direct coupled to get the 15,000 RPM required.

It was not a practical generator set up!! Fuel efficiency was horrendous!

But your right -- without the diode -- your not going to make it work!

And that same diode has to be turned off when you want to use drill!

Or -- do like the old automotive generators did -- have a cut-out relay in
line.

Or -- get your generator up to speed -- then connect the battery -- as in
turn on the switch??

Or -- probably -- just let the batter be a motor -- turning your bicycle
wheel -- but what ever extra power you put into pedalling goes back as
current to charge the battery --

sure -- that will work!! After all -- your turning in the same direction --
not the opposite.

so now -- for all practical purposes -- you don't need the diode or other
controller -- and you can test which is the right direction by just moving
the forward reverse switch -- when the wheel turns in the same direction
you pedal -- your on line!

Oops -- now i remember how we started the model airplane engine -- by
simply throwing the battery switch -- there was no diode!

now -- what else can be spun at 15,000 plus rpm -- for direct coupling -- I
know -- air tool turbines!!

Or a car turbo charger unit!!

Shades of a micro ORC system -- eh??

Peter

From willing at mts.net Thu Oct 21 18:04:19 2004
From: willing at mts.net (Scott Willing)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:04:19 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] 3 watt electricity generation/storage
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20041021141921.00d75670@mail.ilstu.edu>
References: <4175756B.29369.BFAF43@localhost>
Message-ID: <4177FA23.21990.C0E1E@localhost>

On 21 Oct 2004 at 15:14, Paul S. Anderson wrote:

> Thanks to all who have contributed, especially to "Lurker Scott"
> who is indeed "Willing."

...though only rarely able.

> Where do you live, Scott, so we can
> imagine and appreciate you snow-bound conditions (especially by
> those in the hot climates.)?

North of Roblin, Manitoba, Canada.

The snow arrived Sunday and in abundance, a little too early for
us to have completed all the fall tasks. Still hoping for one
more melt, though not counting on it.

-=s

From kgoyer at comcast.net Thu Oct 21 19:11:36 2004
From: kgoyer at comcast.net (ken goyer)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:11:36 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] RE: 3 watt electricity generation/storage
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20041020131431.009a32d0@pop.btl.net>
References: <3.0.32.20041020131431.009a32d0@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <41785038.8080200@comcast.net>

From Ken Goyer Dear friends, On the subject of the battery powered
drill turned into a generator. This sounds like a really great idea. I
have a question. I assume that the switch of the drill has to be on for
the current to flow. But then the drill will run on the motor. Do you
need to put a blocking diode someplace to keep the current from flowing
back into the motor? If so, where?
Or do you merely have to overpower the drill with more power than it
puts out? Which direction should the drill turn or is there circuitry in
the drill that accounts for the rotation? Thanks, Ken
Peter Singfield wrote:

>Dear all;
>
>
>
>>I once designed a pedal-powered alternator for rurning projectors in
>>rural areas.
>>
>>
>
>
>Been waiting for someone else to mention this -- but no one has.
>
>You can take any hand powered battery driven tool and turn that into a
>generator -- plus it comes with it's own battery!!
>
>A portable hand held drill with nicad battery is not an expensive item.
>
>As long as you turn the chuck faster than the battery would -- you will
>charge battery!!
>
>This is a very efficient charger as it has permanent magnets for field.
>
>You can hook this up to any bicycle wheel in the most exceptionally easy
>manner.
>
>Take the rubber bushing from any back car shock absorber -- fit bolt with
>washer on head through it -- then take nut on other end with washer and
>tighten. You thus have a rubber flat pulley with -- say -- one end of bolt
>still hanging out there.
>
>Chick the bolt into the hand drill -- rig up a brace so that contacts
>fairly center on back bicycle tire -- now peddle!!
>
>The smaller cheaper portable hand drills are 7.2 volts.
>
>Not only do you get fan power -- but you also still have a functional small
>hands drill -- or indeed -- a little power pack -- or mechanical rotary
>device.
>
>You might also later use a small solar panel for this same hand drill -- to
>charge.
>
>One might be able to chuck in a propeller -- bingo -- a small -- micro
>sized - -windmill -- all self contained. Just clamp (radiator hose clamps
>work well) to post --
>
>All small DC motors with permanent magnets for field are excellent -- high
>efficiency -- generators -- of their rated voltage.
>
>Such as the motor in a scrap VCR that turns the tape --- 12 volts --
>probably can charge 3 watts.
>
>You have big ones used as electric fans for car radiator cooling.
>
>You guys never knew this??
>
>No changes in wiring -- etc -- just spin and power comes out of the same
>two wires used to put power in!
>
>You can buy surplus "new" electric hand drill motors for less than 50 cents
>each!! But they have to be turning real fast to generate power!! (And that
>gearing is supplied in the hand drill itself)
>
>Need about 15,000 or so RPM -- which is just great if you got an old car
>turbo handy and you want to make a mini ORC running -- using the car turbo
>as a "turbo-extractor" -- as that likes to run even faster than 15,000!!
>
>Any series wound motor can also be turned into a generator -- but you have
>to change a few wires around -- and it is not permanent magnet -- rather
>electro magnet -- field coils.
>
>Motorcycle alternators used to be all permanent magnet -- don't know about
>the newer models.
>
>All motorcycle starters are permanent magnet -- and low rpm on the shaft
>(they have internal planetary gearing reduction.
>
>These make exception wind mill generators and of very high efficiency --
>for the least cost -- and greatest reliability.
>
>You can get these from China -- very economical! And in many sizes.
>
>Our board engine starters are also permanent magnet --
>
>Should i keep on -- or is this enough?
>
>OK -- one last shot across the bows then.
>
>You can buy small generators with permanent magnet -- high efficiency --
>already with clamps -- etc -- to mount on bicycle frame -- with neat
>swinging spring design so head flips and presses again tire -- to run
>bicycle lamps -- 6 plus volts -- probably for 50 cents each or less -- in
>China.
>
>I had one of those on my bike when I was a kid in Canada -- only it was
>made in England.
>
>I'll bet the Chinese make one such with a battery already in the ciruit.
>
>And that is the "device" I was waiting for some one to "contribute" -- all
>the rest of this posting is just my weird sense of humor -- tongue in
>typing --
>
>(why do people always get to complicated when it comes to engineering any
>system??)
>
>If you stuck that bicycle wheel with shaft and bearing up in the air --as
>in just lift the entire bike and tie it to top of post -- wrapped plastic
>bags over spokes in the correct manner -- you probably have a 3 watt of
>more windmill -- using that same wheel "dynamo" described above -- right??
>
>And you just need take it down -- to drive around -- and still have lights
>at night!!
>
>Now -- there should be at least ten viable grant money projects right in
>this posting -- right guys??
>
>Have fun then ---
>
>Peter -- Belize -- making rain happen
>
>
>At 10:46 AM 10/20/2004 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>
>
>>Dear Paul
>>
>>"Hey, what about a generator from an automobile or motorcycle? MUST be
>>cheap, meaning in mass production now. (Sorry, I just checked with an
>>auto-electric shop and was told that those car parts need very high
>>RPM.)"
>>
>>I want to dispel this notion. Yes, alternators do indeed run at high
>>speeds, but the whole point of changing from car generators to car
>>alternators (which are three-phase by the way) was that they did -not_
>>ned to be run at high speeds to give a charging voltage.
>>
>>Remember old Beetles? That the 'generator light' would glow red at an
>>idle because the voltage from the generator run by the fan belt wasn't
>>turning fast enough to give a voltage above that of the battery and the
>>current would, on balance, flow out of the battery to run the electrical
>>needs of the vehicle.
>>
>>They don't do that any more because we now use alternators. The
>>alternator generates (pretty much) a fixed voltage with a declining
>>current. This means that at 500 RPM an alternator can charge a 12 volt
>>battery, but at a very low rate compared with 5000 RPM. The voltage
>>doesn't change much across that range. The automobile mechanic thinks
>>of the days when generators were around and batteries ran dead if the
>>vehicle was left running for a long time. In certain circumstances it
>>could still happen with alternators, but if you watch closely, it almost
>>never does.
>>
>>I once designed a pedal-powered alternator for rurning projectors in
>>rural areas.
>>
>>Choose a small Chinese tractor alternator (15 to 20 amps at 12 volts)
>>and then run it at a few hundred RPM. IT generates plenty of power to
>>run a fan. It will not work, however, unless it has power running
>>through the field coil to start with (an alternator has a rotating
>>field).
>>
>>Regards
>>Crispin
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Stoves mailing list
>>Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>>
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>Stoves mailing list
>Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>
>
>

From kchisholm at ca.inter.net Fri Oct 22 11:19:17 2004
From: kchisholm at ca.inter.net (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:19:17 -0300
Subject: [Stoves] RE: 3 watt electricity generation/storage
References: <3.0.32.20041020131431.009a32d0@pop.btl.net>
<41785038.8080200@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <008d01c4b852$e51f2870$519a0a40@kevin>

Heres an interesting set of experiments to do before getting too far down
the road with plans to use an electric drill for generation...

1: Remove the battery, or leave the drill unplugged, and turn the chuck by
hand. Note how much torque is required to simply spin the generator with no
load.

2: Get a second drill, and couple the chucks together. Use the second drill,
in reverse, to turn the first drill. (Unplugged, or with battery removed).
Then measure output voltage from the first drill.

3: Put a lightbulb "across the lines" of the first drill, and plug in the
drill. (or install the battery) Then:
3:1 Start the second drill, and see if the light goes dim, as a result of
generating power that it is tending to feed back into the line (or battery.)
3:2 If the light intensity does not change, then turn on the driven drill
and repeat the experiment.

Should be interesting. It should suggest alternative experiments. It should
give a good perspective on how such a drill would perform as a generator.

Kevin

----- Original Message -----
From: "ken goyer" <kgoyer at comcast.net>
To: "Peter Singfield" <snkm at btl.net>; <STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 9:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] RE: 3 watt electricity generation/storage

> From Ken Goyer Dear friends, On the subject of the battery powered
> drill turned into a generator. This sounds like a really great idea. I
> have a question. I assume that the switch of the drill has to be on for
> the current to flow. But then the drill will run on the motor. Do you
> need to put a blocking diode someplace to keep the current from flowing
> back into the motor? If so, where?
> Or do you merely have to overpower the drill with more power than it
> puts out? Which direction should the drill turn or is there circuitry in
> the drill that accounts for the rotation? Thanks, Ken
> Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> >Dear all;
> >
> >
> >
> >>I once designed a pedal-powered alternator for rurning projectors in
> >>rural areas.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >Been waiting for someone else to mention this -- but no one has.
> >
> >You can take any hand powered battery driven tool and turn that into a
> >generator -- plus it comes with it's own battery!!
> >
> >A portable hand held drill with nicad battery is not an expensive item.
> >
> >As long as you turn the chuck faster than the battery would -- you will
> >charge battery!!
> >
> >This is a very efficient charger as it has permanent magnets for field.
> >
> >You can hook this up to any bicycle wheel in the most exceptionally easy
> >manner.
> >
> >Take the rubber bushing from any back car shock absorber -- fit bolt with
> >washer on head through it -- then take nut on other end with washer and
> >tighten. You thus have a rubber flat pulley with -- say -- one end of
bolt
> >still hanging out there.
> >
> >Chick the bolt into the hand drill -- rig up a brace so that contacts
> >fairly center on back bicycle tire -- now peddle!!
> >
> >The smaller cheaper portable hand drills are 7.2 volts.
> >
> >Not only do you get fan power -- but you also still have a functional
small
> >hands drill -- or indeed -- a little power pack -- or mechanical rotary
> >device.
> >
> >You might also later use a small solar panel for this same hand drill --
to
> >charge.
> >
> >One might be able to chuck in a propeller -- bingo -- a small -- micro
> >sized - -windmill -- all self contained. Just clamp (radiator hose clamps
> >work well) to post --
> >
> >All small DC motors with permanent magnets for field are excellent --
high
> >efficiency -- generators -- of their rated voltage.
> >
> >Such as the motor in a scrap VCR that turns the tape --- 12 volts --
> >probably can charge 3 watts.
> >
> >You have big ones used as electric fans for car radiator cooling.
> >
> >You guys never knew this??
> >
> >No changes in wiring -- etc -- just spin and power comes out of the same
> >two wires used to put power in!
> >
> >You can buy surplus "new" electric hand drill motors for less than 50
cents
> >each!! But they have to be turning real fast to generate power!! (And
that
> >gearing is supplied in the hand drill itself)
> >
> >Need about 15,000 or so RPM -- which is just great if you got an old car
> >turbo handy and you want to make a mini ORC running -- using the car
turbo
> >as a "turbo-extractor" -- as that likes to run even faster than 15,000!!
> >
> >Any series wound motor can also be turned into a generator -- but you
have
> >to change a few wires around -- and it is not permanent magnet -- rather
> >electro magnet -- field coils.
> >
> >Motorcycle alternators used to be all permanent magnet -- don't know
about
> >the newer models.
> >
> >All motorcycle starters are permanent magnet -- and low rpm on the shaft
> >(they have internal planetary gearing reduction.
> >
> >These make exception wind mill generators and of very high efficiency --
> >for the least cost -- and greatest reliability.
> >
> >You can get these from China -- very economical! And in many sizes.
> >
> >Our board engine starters are also permanent magnet --
> >
> >Should i keep on -- or is this enough?
> >
> >OK -- one last shot across the bows then.
> >
> >You can buy small generators with permanent magnet -- high efficiency --
> >already with clamps -- etc -- to mount on bicycle frame -- with neat
> >swinging spring design so head flips and presses again tire -- to run
> >bicycle lamps -- 6 plus volts -- probably for 50 cents each or less -- in
> >China.
> >
> >I had one of those on my bike when I was a kid in Canada -- only it was
> >made in England.
> >
> >I'll bet the Chinese make one such with a battery already in the ciruit.
> >
> >And that is the "device" I was waiting for some one to "contribute" --
all
> >the rest of this posting is just my weird sense of humor -- tongue in
> >typing --
> >
> >(why do people always get to complicated when it comes to engineering any
> >system??)
> >
> >If you stuck that bicycle wheel with shaft and bearing up in the air --as
> >in just lift the entire bike and tie it to top of post -- wrapped plastic
> >bags over spokes in the correct manner -- you probably have a 3 watt of
> >more windmill -- using that same wheel "dynamo" described above --
right??
> >
> >And you just need take it down -- to drive around -- and still have
lights
> >at night!!
> >
> >Now -- there should be at least ten viable grant money projects right in
> >this posting -- right guys??
> >
> >Have fun then ---
> >
> >Peter -- Belize -- making rain happen
> >
> >
> >At 10:46 AM 10/20/2004 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Dear Paul
> >>
> >>"Hey, what about a generator from an automobile or motorcycle? MUST be
> >>cheap, meaning in mass production now. (Sorry, I just checked with an
> >>auto-electric shop and was told that those car parts need very high
> >>RPM.)"
> >>
> >>I want to dispel this notion. Yes, alternators do indeed run at high
> >>speeds, but the whole point of changing from car generators to car
> >>alternators (which are three-phase by the way) was that they did -not_
> >>ned to be run at high speeds to give a charging voltage.
> >>
> >>Remember old Beetles? That the 'generator light' would glow red at an
> >>idle because the voltage from the generator run by the fan belt wasn't
> >>turning fast enough to give a voltage above that of the battery and the
> >>current would, on balance, flow out of the battery to run the electrical
> >>needs of the vehicle.
> >>
> >>They don't do that any more because we now use alternators. The
> >>alternator generates (pretty much) a fixed voltage with a declining
> >>current. This means that at 500 RPM an alternator can charge a 12 volt
> >>battery, but at a very low rate compared with 5000 RPM. The voltage
> >>doesn't change much across that range. The automobile mechanic thinks
> >>of the days when generators were around and batteries ran dead if the
> >>vehicle was left running for a long time. In certain circumstances it
> >>could still happen with alternators, but if you watch closely, it almost
> >>never does.
> >>
> >>I once designed a pedal-powered alternator for rurning projectors in
> >>rural areas.
> >>
> >>Choose a small Chinese tractor alternator (15 to 20 amps at 12 volts)
> >>and then run it at a few hundred RPM. IT generates plenty of power to
> >>run a fan. It will not work, however, unless it has power running
> >>through the field coil to start with (an alternator has a rotating
> >>field).
> >>
> >>Regards
> >>Crispin
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Stoves mailing list
> >>Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> >>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >_______________________________________________
> >Stoves mailing list
> >Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> >http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

 

From psanders at ilstu.edu Fri Oct 22 11:56:41 2004
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:56:41 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] RE: 3 watt electricity generation/storage
In-Reply-To: <008d01c4b852$e51f2870$519a0a40@kevin>
References: <3.0.32.20041020131431.009a32d0@pop.btl.net>
<41785038.8080200@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20041022115051.026718a0@mail.ilstu.edu>

Kevin, Ken, Peter, and other Stovers.

I can only pretend to follow the details of the electronics/electricity
generation being discussed with the small motors. But I hope that you and
others will keep at it and eventually come up with something that can be
made and is sustainable, practical, and appropriate at one or more levels
of societies that have needs for the small electrical power.
Please keep me and the others informed of the progress.

I will write a separate message to all about why this is important to reach
a "product", not just a curiosity or toy or school lesson.

Paul

At 01:19 PM 10/22/04 -0300, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>Heres an interesting set of experiments to do before getting too far down
>the road with plans to use an electric drill for generation...
>
>1: Remove the battery, or leave the drill unplugged, and turn the chuck by
>hand. Note how much torque is required to simply spin the generator with no
>load.
>
>2: Get a second drill, and couple the chucks together. Use the second drill,
>in reverse, to turn the first drill. (Unplugged, or with battery removed).
>Then measure output voltage from the first drill.
>
>3: Put a lightbulb "across the lines" of the first drill, and plug in the
>drill. (or install the battery) Then:
>3:1 Start the second drill, and see if the light goes dim, as a result of
>generating power that it is tending to feed back into the line (or battery.)
>3:2 If the light intensity does not change, then turn on the driven drill
>and repeat the experiment.
>
>Should be interesting. It should suggest alternative experiments. It should
>give a good perspective on how such a drill would perform as a generator.
>
>Kevin
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "ken goyer" <kgoyer at comcast.net>
>To: "Peter Singfield" <snkm at btl.net>; <STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 9:11 PM
>Subject: Re: [Stoves] RE: 3 watt electricity generation/storage
>
>
> > From Ken Goyer Dear friends, On the subject of the battery powered
> > drill turned into a generator. This sounds like a really great idea. I
> > have a question. I assume that the switch of the drill has to be on for
> > the current to flow. But then the drill will run on the motor. Do you
> > need to put a blocking diode someplace to keep the current from flowing
> > back into the motor? If so, where?
> > Or do you merely have to overpower the drill with more power than it
> > puts out? Which direction should the drill turn or is there circuitry in
> > the drill that accounts for the rotation? Thanks, Ken
> > Peter Singfield wrote:
> >
> > >Dear all;
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>I once designed a pedal-powered alternator for rurning projectors in
> > >>rural areas.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >Been waiting for someone else to mention this -- but no one has.
> > >
> > >You can take any hand powered battery driven tool and turn that into a
> > >generator -- plus it comes with it's own battery!!
> > >
> > >A portable hand held drill with nicad battery is not an expensive item.
> > >
> > >As long as you turn the chuck faster than the battery would -- you will
> > >charge battery!!
> > >
> > >This is a very efficient charger as it has permanent magnets for field.
> > >
> > >You can hook this up to any bicycle wheel in the most exceptionally easy
> > >manner.
> > >
> > >Take the rubber bushing from any back car shock absorber -- fit bolt with
> > >washer on head through it -- then take nut on other end with washer and
> > >tighten. You thus have a rubber flat pulley with -- say -- one end of
>bolt
> > >still hanging out there.
> > >
> > >Chick the bolt into the hand drill -- rig up a brace so that contacts
> > >fairly center on back bicycle tire -- now peddle!!
> > >
> > >The smaller cheaper portable hand drills are 7.2 volts.
> > >
> > >Not only do you get fan power -- but you also still have a functional
>small
> > >hands drill -- or indeed -- a little power pack -- or mechanical rotary
> > >device.
> > >
> > >You might also later use a small solar panel for this same hand drill --
>to
> > >charge.
> > >
> > >One might be able to chuck in a propeller -- bingo -- a small -- micro
> > >sized - -windmill -- all self contained. Just clamp (radiator hose clamps
> > >work well) to post --
> > >
> > >All small DC motors with permanent magnets for field are excellent --
>high
> > >efficiency -- generators -- of their rated voltage.
> > >
> > >Such as the motor in a scrap VCR that turns the tape --- 12 volts --
> > >probably can charge 3 watts.
> > >
> > >You have big ones used as electric fans for car radiator cooling.
> > >
> > >You guys never knew this??
> > >
> > >No changes in wiring -- etc -- just spin and power comes out of the same
> > >two wires used to put power in!
> > >
> > >You can buy surplus "new" electric hand drill motors for less than 50
>cents
> > >each!! But they have to be turning real fast to generate power!! (And
>that
> > >gearing is supplied in the hand drill itself)
> > >
> > >Need about 15,000 or so RPM -- which is just great if you got an old car
> > >turbo handy and you want to make a mini ORC running -- using the car
>turbo
> > >as a "turbo-extractor" -- as that likes to run even faster than 15,000!!
> > >
> > >Any series wound motor can also be turned into a generator -- but you
>have
> > >to change a few wires around -- and it is not permanent magnet -- rather
> > >electro magnet -- field coils.
> > >
> > >Motorcycle alternators used to be all permanent magnet -- don't know
>about
> > >the newer models.
> > >
> > >All motorcycle starters are permanent magnet -- and low rpm on the shaft
> > >(they have internal planetary gearing reduction.
> > >
> > >These make exception wind mill generators and of very high efficiency --
> > >for the least cost -- and greatest reliability.
> > >
> > >You can get these from China -- very economical! And in many sizes.
> > >
> > >Our board engine starters are also permanent magnet --
> > >
> > >Should i keep on -- or is this enough?
> > >
> > >OK -- one last shot across the bows then.
> > >
> > >You can buy small generators with permanent magnet -- high efficiency --
> > >already with clamps -- etc -- to mount on bicycle frame -- with neat
> > >swinging spring design so head flips and presses again tire -- to run
> > >bicycle lamps -- 6 plus volts -- probably for 50 cents each or less -- in
> > >China.
> > >
> > >I had one of those on my bike when I was a kid in Canada -- only it was
> > >made in England.
> > >
> > >I'll bet the Chinese make one such with a battery already in the ciruit.
> > >
> > >And that is the "device" I was waiting for some one to "contribute" --
>all
> > >the rest of this posting is just my weird sense of humor -- tongue in
> > >typing --
> > >
> > >(why do people always get to complicated when it comes to engineering any
> > >system??)
> > >
> > >If you stuck that bicycle wheel with shaft and bearing up in the air --as
> > >in just lift the entire bike and tie it to top of post -- wrapped plastic
> > >bags over spokes in the correct manner -- you probably have a 3 watt of
> > >more windmill -- using that same wheel "dynamo" described above --
>right??
> > >
> > >And you just need take it down -- to drive around -- and still have
>lights
> > >at night!!
> > >
> > >Now -- there should be at least ten viable grant money projects right in
> > >this posting -- right guys??
> > >
> > >Have fun then ---
> > >
> > >Peter -- Belize -- making rain happen
> > >
> > >
> > >At 10:46 AM 10/20/2004 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Dear Paul
> > >>
> > >>"Hey, what about a generator from an automobile or motorcycle? MUST be
> > >>cheap, meaning in mass production now. (Sorry, I just checked with an
> > >>auto-electric shop and was told that those car parts need very high
> > >>RPM.)"
> > >>
> > >>I want to dispel this notion. Yes, alternators do indeed run at high
> > >>speeds, but the whole point of changing from car generators to car
> > >>alternators (which are three-phase by the way) was that they did -not_
> > >>ned to be run at high speeds to give a charging voltage.
> > >>
> > >>Remember old Beetles? That the 'generator light' would glow red at an
> > >>idle because the voltage from the generator run by the fan belt wasn't
> > >>turning fast enough to give a voltage above that of the battery and the
> > >>current would, on balance, flow out of the battery to run the electrical
> > >>needs of the vehicle.
> > >>
> > >>They don't do that any more because we now use alternators. The
> > >>alternator generates (pretty much) a fixed voltage with a declining
> > >>current. This means that at 500 RPM an alternator can charge a 12 volt
> > >>battery, but at a very low rate compared with 5000 RPM. The voltage
> > >>doesn't change much across that range. The automobile mechanic thinks
> > >>of the days when generators were around and batteries ran dead if the
> > >>vehicle was left running for a long time. In certain circumstances it
> > >>could still happen with alternators, but if you watch closely, it almost
> > >>never does.
> > >>
> > >>I once designed a pedal-powered alternator for rurning projectors in
> > >>rural areas.
> > >>
> > >>Choose a small Chinese tractor alternator (15 to 20 amps at 12 volts)
> > >>and then run it at a few hundred RPM. IT generates plenty of power to
> > >>run a fan. It will not work, however, unless it has power running
> > >>through the field coil to start with (an alternator has a rotating
> > >>field).
> > >>
> > >>Regards
> > >>Crispin
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>_______________________________________________
> > >>Stoves mailing list
> > >>Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> > >>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >Stoves mailing list
> > >Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> > >http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> > Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> > http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>
>_______________________________________________
>Stoves mailing list
>Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

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 at 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 Fri Oct 22 12:14:54 2004
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:14:54 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] Lemon Light Revisited
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20041022115731.02672b40@mail.ilstu.edu>

Crispin, Ken and all,

I made a small lemon-light arrangement (much like Crispin's in the ice cube
tray) in a foam egg carton, using copper and zinc (galvanized steel) placed
horizontally with small space between them. I had 5 or 6 cells with about
a square inch (about 4 sq cm) of each metal in each cell. Got my 2 white
LEDs (3.5 volt) to light. But after several hours it was weak and then died.

As I understand it, the number of cells in series will determine the
voltage. and the surface area of the two metals will determine the "power"
(should I say watts?). Surface area can be increased by connecting in
parallel two or more of the cell-series, OR by having larger cells with
larger surface areas. Correct me if that is incorrect, please.

My questions are:
1. How many cells to get to 3 volts (or some other reasonable number of volts)
2. How much surface area to get to XX or YY watts?
3. Although lemons "grow on trees", are there other fluids that would be
better and still be attainable in various situations? I assume that some
vitamin C tablets (citric acid) in water could do an equivalent job (?).
4. What kinds of "life span" can we expect from each of the juice, the
copper and the zinc?
5. Is there or is there not any reason for hope that such systems could be
"appropriate, sustainable, and practical." ??

During the earlier discussion of Lemon Light, I went to the website
(unknown to me now) with the pictures of the "potato power" (?) for a full
speaker system with amplifier. It covered the bed of a medium size
truck!! We do not need anywhere near that amount of power, so I hope that
a viable system might be devised.

See my next message on "Why very small power is needed."

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 at 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 snkm at btl.net Fri Oct 22 12:19:05 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:19:05 -0600
Subject: [Stoves] RE: 3 watt electricity generation/storage
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041022111735.009a15b0@pop.btl.net>

At 01:19 PM 10/22/2004 -0300, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>Heres an interesting set of experiments to do before getting too far down
>the road with plans to use an electric drill for generation...
>
>2: Get a second drill, and couple the chucks together. Use the second drill,
>in reverse, to turn the first drill. (Unplugged, or with battery removed).
>Then measure output voltage from the first drill.
>

Would suggest an electric drill with variable RPM control for the driver
drill --

Portable drill turn relatively slow RPM at the chuck -- being highly geared
down -- you need above it's normal rpm to make it charge that battery --
electric -- plug in drills -- turn much faster. So you'll be able to get
charging current.

You simply take a short bar of iron -- like a 6 inch nail with head cut off
-- and chuck into both drills -- hold one in each hand -- hit the trigger
for the electric drill -- and the portable drill will start generating once
rpm give it high enough voltage to.

Yes -- there are torque losses due to gearing -- but hey -- cheap price to
pay for a small -- portable -- generator!

There are numerous articles on how to build -- even out of wood -- small
generators for small windmills.

go here:

http://otherpower.com/danb/woodmill.html

That is even the home made permanent magnet alternator being made mostly of
wood.

And easy enough for any 3rd world carpenter to make up.

So -- you get some small shops going doing this where they have wind -- and
they can have some lights -- as well as power for the fan -- and you can
even get away with all this without needing an expensive battery!

(A 25 cent -- solid state -- regulator in line with power out is all you need)

OK -- you need six 5 cents or so each diodes as well.

Figure on a constant 50 watts -- plenty for running a small radio -- some
super white led lights -- and that fan.

Pretty simple to do --

 

Peter -- Belize

>3: Put a lightbulb "across the lines" of the first drill, and plug in the
>drill. (or install the battery) Then:
>3:1 Start the second drill, and see if the light goes dim, as a result of
>generating power that it is tending to feed back into the line (or battery.)
>3:2 If the light intensity does not change, then turn on the driven drill
>and repeat the experiment.
>
>Should be interesting. It should suggest alternative experiments. It should
>give a good perspective on how such a drill would perform as a generator.
>
>Kevin
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "ken goyer" <kgoyer at comcast.net>
>To: "Peter Singfield" <snkm at btl.net>; <STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 9:11 PM
>Subject: Re: [Stoves] RE: 3 watt electricity generation/storage
>
>
>> From Ken Goyer Dear friends, On the subject of the battery powered
>> drill turned into a generator. This sounds like a really great idea. I
>> have a question. I assume that the switch of the drill has to be on for
>> the current to flow. But then the drill will run on the motor. Do you
>> need to put a blocking diode someplace to keep the current from flowing
>> back into the motor? If so, where?
>> Or do you merely have to overpower the drill with more power than it
>> puts out? Which direction should the drill turn or is there circuitry in
>> the drill that accounts for the rotation? Thanks, Ken
>> Peter Singfield wrote:
>>
>> >Dear all;
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>I once designed a pedal-powered alternator for rurning projectors in
>> >>rural areas.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >Been waiting for someone else to mention this -- but no one has.
>> >
>> >You can take any hand powered battery driven tool and turn that into a
>> >generator -- plus it comes with it's own battery!!
>> >
>> >A portable hand held drill with nicad battery is not an expensive item.
>> >
>> >As long as you turn the chuck faster than the battery would -- you will
>> >charge battery!!
>> >
>> >This is a very efficient charger as it has permanent magnets for field.
>> >
>> >You can hook this up to any bicycle wheel in the most exceptionally easy
>> >manner.
>> >
>> >Take the rubber bushing from any back car shock absorber -- fit bolt with
>> >washer on head through it -- then take nut on other end with washer and
>> >tighten. You thus have a rubber flat pulley with -- say -- one end of
>bolt
>> >still hanging out there.
>> >
>> >Chick the bolt into the hand drill -- rig up a brace so that contacts
>> >fairly center on back bicycle tire -- now peddle!!
>> >
>> >The smaller cheaper portable hand drills are 7.2 volts.
>> >
>> >Not only do you get fan power -- but you also still have a functional
>small
>> >hands drill -- or indeed -- a little power pack -- or mechanical rotary
>> >device.
>> >
>> >You might also later use a small solar panel for this same hand drill --
>to
>> >charge.
>> >
>> >One might be able to chuck in a propeller -- bingo -- a small -- micro
>> >sized - -windmill -- all self contained. Just clamp (radiator hose clamps
>> >work well) to post --
>> >
>> >All small DC motors with permanent magnets for field are excellent --
>high
>> >efficiency -- generators -- of their rated voltage.
>> >
>> >Such as the motor in a scrap VCR that turns the tape --- 12 volts --
>> >probably can charge 3 watts.
>> >
>> >You have big ones used as electric fans for car radiator cooling.
>> >
>> >You guys never knew this??
>> >
>> >No changes in wiring -- etc -- just spin and power comes out of the same
>> >two wires used to put power in!
>> >
>> >You can buy surplus "new" electric hand drill motors for less than 50
>cents
>> >each!! But they have to be turning real fast to generate power!! (And
>that
>> >gearing is supplied in the hand drill itself)
>> >
>> >Need about 15,000 or so RPM -- which is just great if you got an old car
>> >turbo handy and you want to make a mini ORC running -- using the car
>turbo
>> >as a "turbo-extractor" -- as that likes to run even faster than 15,000!!
>> >
>> >Any series wound motor can also be turned into a generator -- but you
>have
>> >to change a few wires around -- and it is not permanent magnet -- rather
>> >electro magnet -- field coils.
>> >
>> >Motorcycle alternators used to be all permanent magnet -- don't know
>about
>> >the newer models.
>> >
>> >All motorcycle starters are permanent magnet -- and low rpm on the shaft
>> >(they have internal planetary gearing reduction.
>> >
>> >These make exception wind mill generators and of very high efficiency --
>> >for the least cost -- and greatest reliability.
>> >
>> >You can get these from China -- very economical! And in many sizes.
>> >
>> >Our board engine starters are also permanent magnet --
>> >
>> >Should i keep on -- or is this enough?
>> >
>> >OK -- one last shot across the bows then.
>> >
>> >You can buy small generators with permanent magnet -- high efficiency --
>> >already with clamps -- etc -- to mount on bicycle frame -- with neat
>> >swinging spring design so head flips and presses again tire -- to run
>> >bicycle lamps -- 6 plus volts -- probably for 50 cents each or less -- in
>> >China.
>> >
>> >I had one of those on my bike when I was a kid in Canada -- only it was
>> >made in England.
>> >
>> >I'll bet the Chinese make one such with a battery already in the ciruit.
>> >
>> >And that is the "device" I was waiting for some one to "contribute" --
>all
>> >the rest of this posting is just my weird sense of humor -- tongue in
>> >typing --
>> >
>> >(why do people always get to complicated when it comes to engineering any
>> >system??)
>> >
>> >If you stuck that bicycle wheel with shaft and bearing up in the air --as
>> >in just lift the entire bike and tie it to top of post -- wrapped plastic
>> >bags over spokes in the correct manner -- you probably have a 3 watt of
>> >more windmill -- using that same wheel "dynamo" described above --
>right??
>> >
>> >And you just need take it down -- to drive around -- and still have
>lights
>> >at night!!
>> >
>> >Now -- there should be at least ten viable grant money projects right in
>> >this posting -- right guys??
>> >
>> >Have fun then ---
>> >
>> >Peter -- Belize -- making rain happen
>> >
>> >
>> >At 10:46 AM 10/20/2004 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>Dear Paul
>> >>
>> >>"Hey, what about a generator from an automobile or motorcycle? MUST be
>> >>cheap, meaning in mass production now. (Sorry, I just checked with an
>> >>auto-electric shop and was told that those car parts need very high
>> >>RPM.)"
>> >>
>> >>I want to dispel this notion. Yes, alternators do indeed run at high
>> >>speeds, but the whole point of changing from car generators to car
>> >>alternators (which are three-phase by the way) was that they did -not_
>> >>ned to be run at high speeds to give a charging voltage.
>> >>
>> >>Remember old Beetles? That the 'generator light' would glow red at an
>> >>idle because the voltage from the generator run by the fan belt wasn't
>> >>turning fast enough to give a voltage above that of the battery and the
>> >>current would, on balance, flow out of the battery to run the electrical
>> >>needs of the vehicle.
>> >>
>> >>They don't do that any more because we now use alternators. The
>> >>alternator generates (pretty much) a fixed voltage with a declining
>> >>current. This means that at 500 RPM an alternator can charge a 12 volt
>> >>battery, but at a very low rate compared with 5000 RPM. The voltage
>> >>doesn't change much across that range. The automobile mechanic thinks
>> >>of the days when generators were around and batteries ran dead if the
>> >>vehicle was left running for a long time. In certain circumstances it
>> >>could still happen with alternators, but if you watch closely, it almost
>> >>never does.
>> >>
>> >>I once designed a pedal-powered alternator for rurning projectors in
>> >>rural areas.
>> >>
>> >>Choose a small Chinese tractor alternator (15 to 20 amps at 12 volts)
>> >>and then run it at a few hundred RPM. IT generates plenty of power to
>> >>run a fan. It will not work, however, unless it has power running
>> >>through the field coil to start with (an alternator has a rotating
>> >>field).
>> >>
>> >>Regards
>> >>Crispin
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>_______________________________________________
>> >>Stoves mailing list
>> >>Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>> >>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >Stoves mailing list
>> >Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>> >http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Stoves mailing list
>> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>
>_______________________________________________
>Stoves mailing list
>Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>

From psanders at ilstu.edu Fri Oct 22 13:43:42 2004
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:43:42 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] Why very small power is needed for forced air
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20041022121457.02660110@mail.ilstu.edu>

Stovers,

This message is a statement, plus the start of some discussions. Many/most
of you know all of this already, but here is an attempt to say it so that
others with less background can understand the topic of forced air for
combustion devices.

By very small power, I mean 1 to 6 volts and just a few (1 to 8??) watts of
electricity. (Mechanical power is also of interest but not emphasized here.)

Established uses would be:
1. Power for WLEDs (white LEDs).
2. Recharge cell phones and such devices.
3. Power for small fans for forced air to (gasifier) stoves.

# 3 raises the question of why is force air needed.

Fires have been burning for millennia without forced air. Once lit, they
burn utilizing natural draft. True. Of the stoves under discussion on our
Stoves-list, none utilize forced air except Tom Reed's gasifiers and my
variations thereof.

ALL burning of dry biomass (therefore, ALL of our stoves) involves
pyrolysis (call it "smoke making") and the consumption of the char. Except
in the gasifiers, these two processes are co-mingled and virtually
simultaneous and rather complex in actual fires. And that is one of the
main reasons we have so much discussion about smoke and emissions.

In the small gasifiers, the pyrolysis gases are created separately. (For
this discussion, we will assume that the resultant charcoal is not burned,
but is dumped into an extinguishing container for some later use.) The
minimal natural draft in the fuel cylinder can sustain the smouldering of
the biomass with the result of "smoke" gases. Use a little taller
cylinder, and Tom Reed's woodgas campstove would not need a fan FOR THE
CREATION OF THE PYROLYSIS GASES.

BUT, when the pyrolysis gases are liberated, they rise with natural
convection (I did not say natural draft, I said natural convection). At
that time those gases are ready for "secondary combustion" processes, but
(without assistance) they will NOT give a nice flame. Some will burn in a
very weak flame for a short while, but the combustion of those gases is not
vigorous, and commonly a "smokey mess" will result.

HERE at the intended level of the secondary combustion, secondary air
(containing O2) needs to be mixed (forcibly injected) in correct amounts
into the pyrolysis gases.

AND the convective forces of the rising "smoke" will not provide the power
to inject (or suck in via negative pressure) the secondary air without
assistance.

The assistance can be from a chimney with a special base that allows
secondary air to enter at the correct place in the correct amounts. I have
done much work on this issue of natural draft, all of which I have shown
and shared with Tom Reed. Tom stopped his work on natural draft in 1997, 4
years before I met him.

I do have a successful version of the natural draft Juntos stove, but it is
still "sensitive" and "tricky" and not ready to give to the world because
inexperienced people with unsuccessful attempts to make and use it could
give it a bad reputation before it can be improved and introduced
properly. Factors include the length of the "internal chimney" (prior to
the position of the pot/plancha) and the length (if any) of any
"post-point-of heat-use" chimney.

Natural draft also requires that at least 20% of the generated heat is
sacrificed up the chimney in order to sustain the natural draft, which is
via negative pressure.

So, the other alternative is forced air, also known as positive
pressure. And for that we need some form of power to drive the air.

In Tom's Woodgas Campstove, the secondary air comes through appropriately
sized holes and with appropriate volumes near the top of the fuel
cylinder. Proper mixture means GREAT secondary combustion. CLEANER
secondary combustion because we are just dealing with gases, not with the
much more variable biomass. (The size of pieces, moisture levels, types of
wood, etc. are issues resolved down in the pyrolysis cylinder.)

With proper forced air, the combustion of the gases is virtually complete
in a very small vertical distance, eliminating much of the problem of
having flames licking the bottom of the pots leaving soot and causing
smokey conditions past the pot.

Tom's estimate is that 1 watt of energy to deliver the forced air will
result in 1000 watts of heat energy from the biomass combustion. 1000 to
1 is an impressive ratio.

And there is no real need to build a large stove or even to have a chimney
(but Tom and I like chimneys and we like hoods in kitchens.) But the
"combustion unit" that I have been discussing can readily be connected to
existing "stove structures" with any number of variations and functions.

This "problem" of needing or benefiting significantly from forced air does
not exist for other cooking, whether LP gas, or electric, or biogas or any
of the other biomass stoves. Modern furnaces use electric power to
pump/spray fuel oil. And pellet stoves typically need forced air because
they keep such a small amount of fuel on the "tray" for burning. But to
put forced air into the technologies of Rocket, Vesto, Vita, etc, etc, does
not make sense. They are designed for natural draft.

Therefore, the small gasifier stoves being designed by Tom Reed and Paul
Anderson are probably the only ones that seek the small power to obtain
forced air for the combustion process.

Comments are encouraged.

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 at 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 list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Fri Oct 22 12:35:59 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:35:59 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] Forward of Paul's discussion with Scott
Message-ID: <q2hin05immpb17pr3fdt1p89bqh1d1l5ht@4ax.com>

This message had an attachment so did not get to the list, the diagram
can be seen at http://www.sylva.icuklive.co.uk/Willing.gif

Stovers,

Scott sent me a message that could be of interest to others. so here
it
is, with a attached diagram.

Paul

>Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:15:34 -0500
>From: Scott Willing <>
>Subject: Re: [Stoves] 3 watt electricity generation/storage
>To: "Paul S. Anderson" <>

>
>Paul,
>
>Up to the eyeballs in alligators but I wanted to post a quick
>response since I'm in the habit of forgetting otherwise. Comments
>in-line below.
>
>On 21 Oct 2004 at 14:18, Paul S. Anderson wrote:
>
> > Scott,
> >
> > Thanks for the enthusiastic response. See my reply to all via
> > Stoves soon.
> >
> > I have ordered 2 of the units like you have. Lower price was the
> > first listing, and that is connected with Sustainable Living group
> > that conducts the Sustainable Resources conference that I attended
> > last month.
>
>Excellent, that was lucky.
>
> >
> > Question: On the solar charger of 4 AA batteries, we need to have
> > some (2??) wires come off to go to the motor, right? Please tell
> > me exactly how I am to do this. I can drill holes and connect
> > wires.
>
>My idea of connecting both battery and panel at the same time was
>really aimed at a larger panel.
>
>I would tend to keep this charger separate since it cannot supply
>sufficient current to run the motor (100mA vs 250mA or so). I'd
>use two batteries so that one can be kept in the stove and one in
>the charger out in the sun, swapping them as needs dictate.
>
>It's true that if the two are interconnected, the little panel
>could at least contribute.
>
>A low-tech means of interconnecting them, without modifying
>either the charger or the stove, would be to fashion a gubbins to
>bridge the two battery holders.
>
>Here's where a picture is worth the proverbial 1000 words. See
>attached PDF.
>
>The idea is simply to install one end of this in the battery
>holder of the stove, and the other end in the charger along with
>one or more actual NiCad batteries.
>
>Another variation would be to forego one of the dummy batteries
>and simply put a compatible "barrel" type DC connector on the end
>of the wire, eliminating the need for the stove's original
>battery holder. Finally, one could eliminate the other dummy
>battery and simply solder this wire/connector directly onto the
>solar charger, preferably by making a small hole in the case and
>internal connections so that all four battery bays were left
>open. As long as polarity is observed you can't go wrong.
>
> > Also probably would be good to have readings from my micrometer
> > (or some other device) about the operations? If so, where and
> > how should that info be gathered, and what info do we want to
> > know?
>
>Need to think about this.
> >
> > Looking at the other chargers at the site, it seems logical and
> > easy to have ability to charge other battery types as well, both
> > in size and volts. Is that true? If so, how can this small unit
> > be "wired" to allow connecting of other batteries?
>
>The simple solar charger / NiCad battery combo is a marriage made
>in heaven. All other battery types require relatively complex
>electronics to control charging and are therefore more expensive,
>less reliable, and certainly unsuitable for direct connection as
>described above.
>
> > I was relieved by your reply where you stated you were wondering
> > how you could contribute to the Stoves list serve. Your
> > knowledge is GREATLY appreciated by me. Others know much of that
> > stuff, but they mostly have different agendas. For me, I want
> > functional items to support the gasifier stoves and related
> > efforts. Eventually, the items must be made at low cost by
> > appropriately skilled people in developing countries. I accept
> > some high tech purchases and/or components (and I am not
> > advocating making the small electric motors), but what is "off the
> > shelf" today is NOT functional for what I need as household energy
> > devices.
> >
> > I hope you contribute to many of the discussions still to come.
>
>If I can be of some use I would be only too happy to.
>
> > Thanks,
> >
> > BTY, what does HTH mean?
>
>Happy To Help
>
>and where do you live?
>
>Boggy Creek Manitoba, north of Roblin near the Duck Mountains.
>

 

From guyiii at cox.net Fri Oct 22 14:12:13 2004
From: guyiii at cox.net (GuyW)
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:12:13 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] RE: 3 watt electricity generation/storage
References: <3.0.32.20041022111735.009a15b0@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <018801c4b86b$0a184270$4701a8c0@guyiiipc>

Actually, the link is (now?):

http://otherpower.com/woodmill.html

-Guy-

 

> At 01:19 PM 10/22/2004 -0300, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
> >Heres an interesting set of experiments to do before getting too far down
> >the road with plans to use an electric drill for generation...
> >
> >2: Get a second drill, and couple the chucks together. Use the second
drill,
> >in reverse, to turn the first drill. (Unplugged, or with battery
removed).
> >Then measure output voltage from the first drill.
> >
>
> Would suggest an electric drill with variable RPM control for the driver
> drill --
>
> Portable drill turn relatively slow RPM at the chuck -- being highly
geared
> down -- you need above it's normal rpm to make it charge that battery --
> electric -- plug in drills -- turn much faster. So you'll be able to get
> charging current.
>
> You simply take a short bar of iron -- like a 6 inch nail with head cut
off
> -- and chuck into both drills -- hold one in each hand -- hit the trigger
> for the electric drill -- and the portable drill will start generating
once
> rpm give it high enough voltage to.
>
> Yes -- there are torque losses due to gearing -- but hey -- cheap price to
> pay for a small -- portable -- generator!
>
> There are numerous articles on how to build -- even out of wood -- small
> generators for small windmills.
>
> go here:
>
> http://otherpower.com/danb/woodmill.html
>
> That is even the home made permanent magnet alternator being made mostly
of
> wood.
>
> And easy enough for any 3rd world carpenter to make up.
>
> So -- you get some small shops going doing this where they have wind --
and
> they can have some lights -- as well as power for the fan -- and you can
> even get away with all this without needing an expensive battery!
>
> (A 25 cent -- solid state -- regulator in line with power out is all you
need)
>
> OK -- you need six 5 cents or so each diodes as well.
>
> Figure on a constant 50 watts -- plenty for running a small radio -- some
> super white led lights -- and that fan.
>
> Pretty simple to do --
>
>
>
> Peter -- Belize
>
>
> >3: Put a lightbulb "across the lines" of the first drill, and plug in the
> >drill. (or install the battery) Then:
> >3:1 Start the second drill, and see if the light goes dim, as a result of
> >generating power that it is tending to feed back into the line (or
battery.)
> >3:2 If the light intensity does not change, then turn on the driven drill
> >and repeat the experiment.
> >
> >Should be interesting. It should suggest alternative experiments. It
should
> >give a good perspective on how such a drill would perform as a generator.
> >
> >Kevin
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "ken goyer" <kgoyer at comcast.net>
> >To: "Peter Singfield" <snkm at btl.net>; <STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> >Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 9:11 PM
> >Subject: Re: [Stoves] RE: 3 watt electricity generation/storage
> >
> >
> >> From Ken Goyer Dear friends, On the subject of the battery powered
> >> drill turned into a generator. This sounds like a really great idea. I
> >> have a question. I assume that the switch of the drill has to be on for
> >> the current to flow. But then the drill will run on the motor. Do you
> >> need to put a blocking diode someplace to keep the current from flowing
> >> back into the motor? If so, where?
> >> Or do you merely have to overpower the drill with more power than it
> >> puts out? Which direction should the drill turn or is there circuitry
in
> >> the drill that accounts for the rotation? Thanks, Ken
> >> Peter Singfield wrote:
> >>
> >> >Dear all;
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>I once designed a pedal-powered alternator for rurning projectors in
> >> >>rural areas.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Been waiting for someone else to mention this -- but no one has.
> >> >
> >> >You can take any hand powered battery driven tool and turn that into a
> >> >generator -- plus it comes with it's own battery!!
> >> >
> >> >A portable hand held drill with nicad battery is not an expensive
item.
> >> >
> >> >As long as you turn the chuck faster than the battery would -- you
will
> >> >charge battery!!
> >> >
> >> >This is a very efficient charger as it has permanent magnets for
field.
> >> >
> >> >You can hook this up to any bicycle wheel in the most exceptionally
easy
> >> >manner.
> >> >
> >> >Take the rubber bushing from any back car shock absorber -- fit bolt
with
> >> >washer on head through it -- then take nut on other end with washer
and
> >> >tighten. You thus have a rubber flat pulley with -- say -- one end of
> >bolt
> >> >still hanging out there.
> >> >
> >> >Chick the bolt into the hand drill -- rig up a brace so that contacts
> >> >fairly center on back bicycle tire -- now peddle!!
> >> >
> >> >The smaller cheaper portable hand drills are 7.2 volts.
> >> >
> >> >Not only do you get fan power -- but you also still have a functional
> >small
> >> >hands drill -- or indeed -- a little power pack -- or mechanical
rotary
> >> >device.
> >> >
> >> >You might also later use a small solar panel for this same hand
drill --
> >to
> >> >charge.
> >> >
> >> >One might be able to chuck in a propeller -- bingo -- a small -- micro
> >> >sized - -windmill -- all self contained. Just clamp (radiator hose
clamps
> >> >work well) to post --
> >> >
> >> >All small DC motors with permanent magnets for field are excellent --
> >high
> >> >efficiency -- generators -- of their rated voltage.
> >> >
> >> >Such as the motor in a scrap VCR that turns the tape --- 12 volts --
> >> >probably can charge 3 watts.
> >> >
> >> >You have big ones used as electric fans for car radiator cooling.
> >> >
> >> >You guys never knew this??
> >> >
> >> >No changes in wiring -- etc -- just spin and power comes out of the
same
> >> >two wires used to put power in!
> >> >
> >> >You can buy surplus "new" electric hand drill motors for less than 50
> >cents
> >> >each!! But they have to be turning real fast to generate power!! (And
> >that
> >> >gearing is supplied in the hand drill itself)
> >> >
> >> >Need about 15,000 or so RPM -- which is just great if you got an old
car
> >> >turbo handy and you want to make a mini ORC running -- using the car
> >turbo
> >> >as a "turbo-extractor" -- as that likes to run even faster than
15,000!!
> >> >
> >> >Any series wound motor can also be turned into a generator -- but you
> >have
> >> >to change a few wires around -- and it is not permanent magnet --
rather
> >> >electro magnet -- field coils.
> >> >
> >> >Motorcycle alternators used to be all permanent magnet -- don't know
> >about
> >> >the newer models.
> >> >
> >> >All motorcycle starters are permanent magnet -- and low rpm on the
shaft
> >> >(they have internal planetary gearing reduction.
> >> >
> >> >These make exception wind mill generators and of very high
efficiency --
> >> >for the least cost -- and greatest reliability.
> >> >
> >> >You can get these from China -- very economical! And in many sizes.
> >> >
> >> >Our board engine starters are also permanent magnet --
> >> >
> >> >Should i keep on -- or is this enough?
> >> >
> >> >OK -- one last shot across the bows then.
> >> >
> >> >You can buy small generators with permanent magnet -- high
efficiency --
> >> >already with clamps -- etc -- to mount on bicycle frame -- with neat
> >> >swinging spring design so head flips and presses again tire -- to run
> >> >bicycle lamps -- 6 plus volts -- probably for 50 cents each or less --
in
> >> >China.
> >> >
> >> >I had one of those on my bike when I was a kid in Canada -- only it
was
> >> >made in England.
> >> >
> >> >I'll bet the Chinese make one such with a battery already in the
ciruit.
> >> >
> >> >And that is the "device" I was waiting for some one to "contribute" --
> >all
> >> >the rest of this posting is just my weird sense of humor -- tongue in
> >> >typing --
> >> >
> >> >(why do people always get to complicated when it comes to engineering
any
> >> >system??)
> >> >
> >> >If you stuck that bicycle wheel with shaft and bearing up in the
air --as
> >> >in just lift the entire bike and tie it to top of post -- wrapped
plastic
> >> >bags over spokes in the correct manner -- you probably have a 3 watt
of
> >> >more windmill -- using that same wheel "dynamo" described above --
> >right??
> >> >
> >> >And you just need take it down -- to drive around -- and still have
> >lights
> >> >at night!!
> >> >
> >> >Now -- there should be at least ten viable grant money projects right
in
> >> >this posting -- right guys??
> >> >
> >> >Have fun then ---
> >> >
> >> >Peter -- Belize -- making rain happen
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >At 10:46 AM 10/20/2004 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>Dear Paul
> >> >>
> >> >>"Hey, what about a generator from an automobile or motorcycle? MUST
be
> >> >>cheap, meaning in mass production now. (Sorry, I just checked with
an
> >> >>auto-electric shop and was told that those car parts need very high
> >> >>RPM.)"
> >> >>
> >> >>I want to dispel this notion. Yes, alternators do indeed run at high
> >> >>speeds, but the whole point of changing from car generators to car
> >> >>alternators (which are three-phase by the way) was that they
did -not_
> >> >>ned to be run at high speeds to give a charging voltage.
> >> >>
> >> >>Remember old Beetles? That the 'generator light' would glow red at an
> >> >>idle because the voltage from the generator run by the fan belt
wasn't
> >> >>turning fast enough to give a voltage above that of the battery and
the
> >> >>current would, on balance, flow out of the battery to run the
electrical
> >> >>needs of the vehicle.
> >> >>
> >> >>They don't do that any more because we now use alternators. The
> >> >>alternator generates (pretty much) a fixed voltage with a declining
> >> >>current. This means that at 500 RPM an alternator can charge a 12
volt
> >> >>battery, but at a very low rate compared with 5000 RPM. The voltage
> >> >>doesn't change much across that range. The automobile mechanic
thinks
> >> >>of the days when generators were around and batteries ran dead if the
> >> >>vehicle was left running for a long time. In certain circumstances
it
> >> >>could still happen with alternators, but if you watch closely, it
almost
> >> >>never does.
> >> >>
> >> >>I once designed a pedal-powered alternator for rurning projectors in
> >> >>rural areas.
> >> >>
> >> >>Choose a small Chinese tractor alternator (15 to 20 amps at 12 volts)
> >> >>and then run it at a few hundred RPM. IT generates plenty of power
to
> >> >>run a fan. It will not work, however, unless it has power running
> >> >>through the field coil to start with (an alternator has a rotating
> >> >>field).
> >> >>
> >> >>Regards
> >> >>Crispin
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>_______________________________________________
> >> >>Stoves mailing list
> >> >>Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> >> >>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >_______________________________________________
> >> >Stoves mailing list
> >> >Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> >> >http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Stoves mailing list
> >> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> >> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Stoves mailing list
> >Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> >http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>

 

From willing at mts.net Fri Oct 22 14:27:37 2004
From: willing at mts.net (Scott Willing)
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 14:27:37 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] Forward of Paul's discussion with Scott
In-Reply-To: <q2hin05immpb17pr3fdt1p89bqh1d1l5ht@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <417918D9.430.6D0DC2@localhost>

On 22 Oct 2004 at 18:35, list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk wrote:

> This message had an attachment so did not get to the list, the
> diagram can be seen at http://www.sylva.icuklive.co.uk/Willing.gif

...although it's missing the bottom two thumbtacks. Likely the
readers on this list would be able to figure that out though.

I suggested this to Paul mainly as a quick means of proving
concept without modifying anything or requiring soldering
capabilities. However this fudge introduces a bunch of contacts
into the equation, guaranteed to reduce reliability.

No question that the better approach would be to wire the DC
connector directly to the charger, replacing the original battery
holder completely.

In a pinch, other battery types (e.g. alkaline) could still be
used, merely by turning the charger upside down to keep the panel
dark, thus converting it into a simple battery holder. Even
"officially" rechargable alkalines require fairly sophisticated
charging circuitry, and I've never specifically researched the
possible consequences of connecting a 100mA panel to one. Perhaps
nothing in the short term, but I wouldn't counsel a long-term
test within shrapnel range.

-=s

From psanders at ilstu.edu Fri Oct 22 16:51:25 2004
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:51:25 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] Oil instead of water
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20041020084702.00960b70@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20041022163906.0267b100@mail.ilstu.edu>

Stovers,

This topic stems from something Peter wrote, so I quote him below (much
snipped):

At 09:22 AM 10/20/04 -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:

>Simplicity has it's advantages. Hurst power plant are simple -- but operate
>with a steam quality to low to achieve good over all efficiencies.
>
>However -- marry a Hurst Boiler to an ORMAT -- replace steam with thermal
>oil -- no pressures -- one can realize 25% over all efficiencies rather
>than 5% -- and achieve greater reliability and simplicity of operation.

Please educate me, but aim for a practical "product". The issue is:

Is it possible and feasible to substitute some form of oil (vegetable or
mineral or either?) into the heat exchange system (instead of heating water
that boils at 100 C and creates dangerous pressures), and have benefits of
capturing the heat for useful purposes without too many extra costs or
problems/dangers?

Useful purposes include cooking, room heating, heat transfer to slightly
further locations, drying of something, creation of electricity via
turbines/engines, etc.

Peter also wrote in the same message:
>Small is beautiful -- but micro sized is better ---
Let that be part of the guidelines in this discussion.

Note: All of our stoves create heat. This is a question about how we can
make better use of it.

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 at 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 snkm at btl.net Fri Oct 22 19:29:27 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:29:27 -0600
Subject: [Stoves] Re: Oil instead of water
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041022182632.009b1e40@pop.btl.net>

Hi Paul;

>Please educate me, but aim for a practical "product". The issue is:
>
>Is it possible and feasible to substitute some form of oil (vegetable or
>mineral or either?) into the heat exchange system (instead of heating water
>that boils at 100 C and creates dangerous pressures), and have benefits of
>capturing the heat for useful purposes without too many extra costs or
>problems/dangers?

For house heating -- etc -- hot water circulation -- say 160 F -- is perfect.

For cooking -- thermal oil is used already -- as in deep frying.

Geothermal power plants work very well at 450F -- and rather than go
through the expense and numerous approval processes for using pressurized
steam -- using a thermal oil heated to 450 F cuts a lot of corners.

but thermal oil of that nature are not "cheap" -- and you must circulate a
lot more of that to transfer the same heat requirements that you would with
hot water -- pressurized water -- or steam.

Still -- a circulation system increase of four to 6 factors is not such a
major cost -- especially as compared to using steam under those same
circumstances.

And as there is no pressures involved -- it is a lot safer.

In the past -- for my experiments in super critical steam -- I used a
liquid metal bath -- specifically -- zinc die cast alloy #3

At 1000 to 1200 F -- nothing can beat it for heat transfer efficiencies --
you need not circulate it -- just immerse a coil into the molten bath --
inject fluid you wish to vaporize -- and you get plenty of if very fast.
Water is the fluid I was using then.

The advantage of this is a very stable temperature control -- so you can
play around with extreme steam quality without worrying about a hot spot
occurring on a section of tubing -- the metal heating to high -- swelling
-- and bursting like a balloon.

Liquid metal baths are extremely viable for superheating.

Flame on a tube with super heated steam in it (a very rarified atmosphere
for heat absorption is an engineers nightmare to design and control at
temperatures around 1200 F.

As I could not effort the very specialized tubes -- of exotic alloys --
plus heat/fame control is a nightmare at that point -- I went the liquid
metal bath route.

In the past -- they also use molten salt baths -- in the 350 to 600 F range.

Early torpedoes where propelled in such manner. Look it up.

You also have a heat battery effect -- as when liquids change state --
their is a latent heat of fusion factor.

So solidifying metal or salt baths realized a huge amount of heat released.

Zinc die cast alloy number 3 melted at around 750 F -- if I remember right.

So if you filled a thermos with a few pounds of that in liquid state you
would have quite a pocket warmer for chilly days --

One solidified -- and heat dissipated -- you simply heat it to melting
again -- heat battery is recharged.

There are specialize metal alloys that melt at below the boiling
temperature of water --

And of course -- mercury is liquid at room temps.

In the past -- mercury boilers were used in some major power plants. Binary
working fluids -- the second fluid being steam.

Today you could go three stages -- the last being an ORC.

Let me look up one example of a Mercury boiler --

Binary-Vapor cycles:

The critical state point of steam is3206.2 psi at a temperature of 705.4 F.
Several plants have been built to use fluid with higher boiling temperature
superimposed on the regular steam cycle, forming a binary vapor cycle. The
mercury vapor-steam cycle provides one of the most efficient means of
generating power from fuel.

OK -- an example plant:

The Kearny station of Public Service Electric and Gas Corporation -- N. J.
-- operated a mercury binary cycle power plant.

OK -- this in the early 1930's now!!

The Kearny plant delivers:

A 20,000 kw mercury boiler/turbine unit then delivers steam (from second
stage) to a 33,000 kw turbine for a total of 53,000 kw for the combines
mercury-steam unit.

The heat rate for this combination averaged 9175 btu per kwh (net) output.

3414 btu = one kwh.

3414/9175 = 37.2% efficiency.

Steam coming out the back of the mercury vapor condenser was 400 psi --
"saturated"

So temperature was 444.59 F

Ideal temperature for top efficiencies for an ORC -- but not ideal steam
quality for a steam cycle power plant.

So -- if you had that same mercury turbine running binary cycle with a
refrigerant in and ORC -- you would get probably get better than 45% over
all efficiencies.

Using that same 1932 combustion power plant --

Anyway -- I use a slang word for all the above -- "Topping" -- as in a
Topping turbine.

You could also "Top" the high heat using a externally heated gas turbine --
then recovering the wast heat from that using an ORC system -- and again --
45% or better over all plant efficiencies. Gas turbines work out a lot
cheaper than super critical steam boilers and turbines (which also easily
get 45% plus) -- and look maw -- no steam pressure anywhere!!

Thermal heat exhangers to heat air for expansion in Gas turbine -- then a
thermal boiler heating picking up heat to thermal oil to circulate to ORC
-- from exhaust of gas turbine and furnace flu stack.

And you do not need humungous scale of economics to do this either! But you
certainly do for super critical water steam power plants!

Modern super critcal steam turbines do the topping and lower end extraction
all in one straight through line -- by multiple stages -- in the same long
turbine unit.

Peter

 

At 04:51 PM 10/22/2004 -0500, Paul S. Anderson wrote:
>Stovers,
>
>This topic stems from something Peter wrote, so I quote him below (much
>snipped):
>
>At 09:22 AM 10/20/04 -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:
>
>>Simplicity has it's advantages. Hurst power plant are simple -- but operate
>>with a steam quality to low to achieve good over all efficiencies.
>>
>>However -- marry a Hurst Boiler to an ORMAT -- replace steam with thermal
>>oil -- no pressures -- one can realize 25% over all efficiencies rather
>>than 5% -- and achieve greater reliability and simplicity of operation.
>
>Please educate me, but aim for a practical "product". The issue is:
>
>Is it possible and feasible to substitute some form of oil (vegetable or
>mineral or either?) into the heat exchange system (instead of heating water
>that boils at 100 C and creates dangerous pressures), and have benefits of
>capturing the heat for useful purposes without too many extra costs or
>problems/dangers?
>
>Useful purposes include cooking, room heating, heat transfer to slightly
>further locations, drying of something, creation of electricity via
>turbines/engines, etc.
>
>Peter also wrote in the same message:
>>Small is beautiful -- but micro sized is better ---
>Let that be part of the guidelines in this discussion.
>
>Note: All of our stoves create heat. This is a question about how we can
>make better use of it.
>
>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 at 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 Fri Oct 22 20:59:07 2004
From: kgoyer at comcast.net (ken goyer)
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:59:07 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] RE: 3 watt electricity generation/storage
Message-ID: <4179BAEB.20003@comcast.net>

One last thought (from me) on this subject. On the step machine at the
gym I can produce 250 watts of power for one half hour. The step
machine tells me that I have used 500 calories to do this. People in the
refugee camps in Uganda are getting 400 calories per day food allotment.
Everyone in developing countries wants to better their life and not just
make more work for themselves. Let's try and develop devices that create
energy for people and not merely transform human power into another
form. I vote for wind and water power. Best regards, Ken Goyer

 

From kchisholm at ca.inter.net Fri Oct 22 21:25:11 2004
From: kchisholm at ca.inter.net (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 23:25:11 -0300
Subject: [Stoves] RE: 3 watt electricity generation/storage
References: <4179BAEB.20003@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <015101c4b8a7$8d3f1f70$519a0a40@kevin>

Dear Ken
----- Original Message -----
From: "ken goyer" <kgoyer at comcast.net>
To: <STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 10:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] RE: 3 watt electricity generation/storage

> One last thought (from me) on this subject. On the step machine at the
> gym I can produce 250 watts of power for one half hour.

Either you are in awesome shape, or the machine is in error. I have heard
that in human powered flight experiments, a man in good shape can develop
about 375 watts for about 30 seconds, but can sustain only about 150 watts
power output.

The step
> machine tells me that I have used 500 calories to do this.

375 watts converts to 322 kcal per hour. Since you did this work for only
1/2 hour, you really expended about 161 kcal.

People in the
> refugee camps in Uganda are getting 400 calories per day food allotment.
> Everyone in developing countries wants to better their life and not just
> make more work for themselves. Let's try and develop devices that create
> energy for people and not merely transform human power into another
> form. I vote for wind and water power. Best regards, Ken Goyer

I would suggest that it is indeed unfortunate that Uganda Refugees are
getting only 400 calories per day. However, 2/3 of he people in teh USA are
overweight to obese. There is perhaps a bigger need for human power machines
in the US. At any rate, I would also suggest that while wind and water power
are excellent where the site permits, there are very few suitable sites
where they would work cost effectively.

Best wishes,

Kevin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

 

From tmiles at trmiles.com Fri Oct 22 22:07:58 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:07:58 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] Fw: [ethos] Dissemination - What's the Score?
Message-ID: <001801c4b8ad$8b68f120$46f43442@tomslaptop>

----- Original Message -----
From: Stuart Conway
To: Tom Miles
Cc: ethos at vrac.iastate.edu ; Patrick Flynn
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: [ethos] Dissemination - What's the Score?

Tom,

TWP, Aprovecho, and our project partners in Central America are having a lot of success introducing our Justa and Ecostoves into both rural and urban areas and will have built 10,000 improved stoves by the end of the year in the region. PROLENA in Nicaragua, one of partners, is on track to produce and sell 2000 Ecostoves this year alone and 5,000 total since TWP and Apro introduced the stove technology in 1999. Our other partners have built 5,000 Justa stoves:

AHDESA in Honduras - 3,000 Justa stoves
FUDEMCO, Arboles and Peace Corps Volunteers - 1,400 Justa stoves in El Salvador
TWP/Guatemala has built 600 Justa stoves in Guatemala

We are having good success at getting local people to adopt the stoves through our local stove promoters. The hold up to building more stoves is usually financial. However, introducing less expensive stoves that people can afford to buy without credit and micro-enterprise approaches like we are doing in Nicaragua and Honduras show a lot of promise for wider dissemination of the stoves.

We have measured progress on fuelwood savings, time savings, and on health benefits through surveys and are now undertaking field studies on emissions/indoor air pollution in houses with traditional stove versus houses with our improved stoves in Honduras. So, we will have some more scientific data on the health benefits of our stoves next year. Our surveys have shown up to 66% savings on fuelwood use with the Justa stove and 70% average savings in time spent cooking with the Justa stove compared to traditional stoves. Women also report lower incidence of respiratory diseases, eye problems, cleaner kitchen environment, and other health benefits.

Stuart Conway
Trees, Water & People

Tom Miles wrote:

It has been a very productive year. It's rewarding to see the synergism that has developed among stovers and the creativity that has produced. Many organizations have been recognized this year for their achievements in stove development, health and safety and stove dissemination.

Where do we stand on dissemination? Don Oneal urged us earlier this year to work harder on getting stoves built and in use. Stoves are an integral part of Don's (HELPS) program to improve health and habitat in Guatemala http://www.fni.com/%7edononeal/ His factory approach has helped disseminate the plancha.

How successful are other organizations in getting improved stoves adopted at the village or regional scale? How do we measure progress? Can we see improvements in health and safety?

Afrepren/FWD, Aprovecho, Arecop, ARTI, BACIP Pakistan, BEF, Breathe Easy Network, Cedesol, Center for Entrepreneurship in International Health and Development, DFID, Ecofogao, Enterprise Works, Environmental Health Project, ETHOS, HEDON, Gira, GTZ, IFPS, HELPS, ITDG, Juntos, Legacy, Masons on a Mission, MGP Ltd., NARI, Newdawn, Partnership for Clean Air, Project Gaia, RDC, Prolena, SNV Nepal, SIDA, TatEDO, Trees Water and People, UC Berkeley, Unafamila, UNDP, Venter Forestry.

Tom

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Sat Oct 23 04:04:07 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 10:04:07 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] Why very small power is needed for forced air
Message-ID: <1h7kn0hu7qeroj3pj0nedn5rsk76ot4rt7@4ax.com>

This post from Ray got trapped for some reason:

From: "Dr. Ray Wijewardene" <>
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 13:48:00 +0600

As a user of small-gassifier for domestic/farm electricity-generation
(3.5
kW... to light 6 houses AND provide pumped water for our
drip-irrigation
system for 10,000 coconut palms) I would like to add to Paul
Anderson's
excellent dissertation on small-power and forced air.
Our gassifier-generator (supplied by ANKUR of Baroda, India) is
completely
'stand-alone' and does not need the blower which is customarily used
with
gasifiers to promote the flow of air through the combusting
(reducing?)
zone. It incorporates a simple venturi generated by the fine spray of
'scrubbing' water (i.e. the water-spray to remove any tar particles
before
the gasses proceed into the saw-dust filter and cloth filter before
entering
the IC (spark-ignition) engine. Even at 1000 hours of operation this
little
IC engine had accumulated a negligible amount of carbon in the
cylinder
head/piston.

I have never ceased to be amazed by the air-boosting power of even
this
simple venturi which you can easily demonstate for yourself by rolling
a
sheet of A4 paper into a 1" diameter tube. First hold one end of the
tube
near your mouth and see what sort of air-flow you observe from the far
end
with the other hand held near it. Then move the 'pipe' gradually away
from
your mouth and you will observe a GREATLY increased flow of air coming
from
the other end... induced air-flow!. I believe we need to make MUCH
greater
use of such venturi and air 'booster' effects to promote a large flow
of air
from just a very small 'blow'.

Ray Wijewardene

 

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Sat Oct 23 04:16:44 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 10:16:44 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] Re: RE : [Gasification] Make wood vinegar from bagasse?
Message-ID: <v68kn0hnmp9qn72i2a0jpjc35jp2jjifle@4ax.com>

Non member submission, I have invited poster to subscribe:

From: "Sulpya "
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 12:53:05 +0700
Cc: <STOVES at listserv.repp.org>

Dear Karve,

Normally wood vinegar contains 3-7 % acetic acid but in bamboo vinegar
(Phyllostachys pubescens) it has 2.3 % acetic acid. We are using wood
vinegar or bamboo vinegar in compost making diluting 100 times and
sprinkle
it on the fermenting compost. It is recommended that higher than this
concentration may sterilize the compost.

K.M.Sulpya

 

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Sat Oct 23 04:26:05 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 10:26:05 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] RE: 3 watt electricity generation/storage
In-Reply-To: <4179BAEB.20003@comcast.net>
References: <4179BAEB.20003@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <4i8kn0dtnoilbu2btipknq6k1bqnq7jvnj@4ax.com>

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:59:07 -0700, ken goyer wrote:

>One last thought (from me) on this subject. On the step machine at the
>gym I can produce 250 watts of power for one half hour. The step
>machine tells me that I have used 500 calories to do this. People in the
>refugee camps in Uganda are getting 400 calories per day food allotment.

I'm not qualified to comment on the power or conversion efficiencies
of human muscles but a number of those calories are still being burnt
when the body is quiescent.

>Everyone in developing countries wants to better their life and not just
>make more work for themselves. Let's try and develop devices that create
>energy for people and not merely transform human power into another
>form.

I agree, I think tending a cooking fire is a chore, adding muscles
power to the equation makes it more onerous. Also we need to consider
the benefits, both real and perceived. I like forced draught because I
can see it achieves better combustion, especially of more awkward
fuels, but good performance is obtained with natural draught. Make
forced draught onerous and cooks may prefer to put up with worse
smoke.

AJH

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Sat Oct 23 04:57:01 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 10:57:01 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] Forward of Paul's discussion with Scott
In-Reply-To: <417918D9.430.6D0DC2@localhost>
References: <q2hin05immpb17pr3fdt1p89bqh1d1l5ht@4ax.com>
<417918D9.430.6D0DC2@localhost>
Message-ID: <4s9kn0thr203oojj5b874an8mf478qkf9q@4ax.com>

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 14:27:37 -0500, Scott Willing wrote:

>On 22 Oct 2004 at 18:35, list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk wrote:
>
>> This message had an attachment so did not get to the list, the
>> diagram can be seen at http://www.sylva.icuklive.co.uk/Willing.gif
>
>...although it's missing the bottom two thumbtacks. Likely the
>readers on this list would be able to figure that out though.

Yes, sorry about over cropping the image, I was rushing to get the
message onto the list.

I am behind on readings some of stoves posts and will do so soon.

The gist I get from you is that nicads (notwithstanding their
environmental impact) are particularly suited to low cost solar pv
chargers.

In UK we have cheap (GBP6) solar garden lights sold as special offers
in discount stores.
http://www.gardenitems.co.uk/solar_lights_designer_cascade.php

Shows a more expensive item that looks similar.

I have happily used one as a light in my tent. These tend to be a
small solar pv cell set in a stainless steel "hood" containing 2 AA
nicads and a white led with a switch. I think they fully charge the
battery on a typical day but have not kept one to test.

AJH

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Sat Oct 23 05:29:14 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 11:29:14 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] administrivia
Message-ID: <rsbkn0d3hdf3ca2epam8kj1lra5u1lr2ai@4ax.com>

A reminder that currently the STOVE list is set to reject posts with
attachments ( as a hygiene measure and because some members have poor
bandwidth to access their mail) and also posts from non members.

As far as possible Tom Miles deals with posts that appear genuine but
are rejected for the above reasons but it depends on noticing them
amongst the large number of messages that are "bounced" by mailman,
the list software.

Elsen Karstad and I try to back Tom up in keeping the list running
smoothly.

In the past the list software would post my name with the but
currently it only uses my subscribed address, so some people may not
realise I am Andrew Heggie, a woodman from SE England, and I sign
myself AJH.

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Sat Oct 23 10:44:23 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:44:23 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] sugar to alcohol or sugar to biogas
In-Reply-To: <003c01c4b72e$7a9d14f0$34c3f204@7k6rv21>
References: <3.0.32.20041019213213.009c8dd0@pop.btl.net><000101c4b70a$072a86c0$4a5641db@adkarve>
<417720E7.8030303@legacyfound.org>
<001e01c4b71e$b4151940$34c3f204@7k6rv21>
<4177397E.5070004@legacyfound.org>
<003c01c4b72e$7a9d14f0$34c3f204@7k6rv21>
Message-ID: <9fnkn0pllrsjspu25oub454qi21qmn8aq4@4ax.com>

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:26:11 -0700, Art Krenzel wrote:

>To keep costs low, the biogas stream is normally pretreated using membrane
>technology at moderate pressures to strip off most of the CO2 from the gas
>stream being compressed. The gas stream needs to be compressed to between
>300 and 350 psig and refrigerated before all of the CO2 is gone.

Seems good, high pressure membrane technology must be a cheaper way of
separating out gases over liquefaction nowadays as BOC sell quite
small oxygen separation plants now. I have read that small (farm)
scale plant can remove some CO2 by using alternating cold water
columns, the CO2 dissolves preferentially to the methane. Once
saturated the column can be heated to drive off the CO2.

Similarly H2S can be stripped by passing the biogas through steel
swarf, which is then rejuvenated by exposure to air.
>
>I do not have the phase change data of methane available.

http://www.airliquide.com/en/business/products/gases/gasdata/index.asp?GasID=41

was a link I found.

> I had approached
>the problem earlier by working on recovering the CO2 as an additional
>revenue stream to get some of my information. My numbers came from a study
>to ship LNG from Libya to Boston by ship. There were significant losses by
>evaporation enroute and in transferring the liquified fuel between storage
>vessels. Fuel costs have changed somewhat since the report was prepared
>some time ago as well.

As I said from being self sufficient in ng since about 1975 UK is now
an importer, most by pipeline under the channel I suspect. Some is
arriving by ship and this will be vastly increased at a planned
terminal in Wales.

I thought the natural boil off in the vessel would be used to fire the
ship's engines but apparently ship's fuel oil is much cheaper, so it
pays to use ship power to re liquify the gas and run it back to the
insulated tanks, which must be around ambient pressure.

AJH

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Sat Oct 23 10:44:23 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:44:23 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] sugar to alcohol or sugar to biogas
In-Reply-To: <001e01c4b71e$b4151940$34c3f204@7k6rv21>
References: <3.0.32.20041019213213.009c8dd0@pop.btl.net><000101c4b70a$072a86c0$4a5641db@adkarve>
<417720E7.8030303@legacyfound.org>
<001e01c4b71e$b4151940$34c3f204@7k6rv21>
Message-ID: <c0mkn0p51o5em4la4774q9otbqh0hl26eh@4ax.com>

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 20:33:15 -0700, Art Krenzel wrote:

>I believe that the energy balance you refer to is the liquefaction energy of
>methane.

OK so this will be made up of power to pressurise the gas to below
it's critical point and power to run the refrigerant plant plus all
the losses involved.
>
>The liquefaction of methane requires on the order of 40% of the energy
>available in the gases at the oilfield.

Seems very high, UK now imports LNG so it must be economic to
transport it this way.

http://www.airliquide.com/en/business/products/gases/gasdata/index.asp?GasID=41

The methane will give up its latent heat of vapourisation (0.5MJ/kg)
in being liquified so this is not a factor in the above energy
balance, though disposing of the heat may be.

>
>It requires less energy to compress methane to 3000 psi.

Are you sure? The energy required to compress a gas to 3000psi
(~200bar) will be at best the integral of p=rt/v if t is held constant
in an isothermal process. We would need a p verses v curve for a
practical process to work out the area under an actual curve,
neglecting losses. I know the Sulzer "fuelmaker" pump for domestic cng
is a three stage pump, so it will be far less than ideal.

To liquefy ng the critical pressure is 45.96 bar and refrigerating
below -82C. So I would have expected a refrigeration process with a
COP of better than 2, which means we would use 1MJ/kg, and compression
to 45.96 would be less energy intensive than compression to 200bar.

Of course high pressure cylinders remain the only practical means of
transporting cng at the small scale.

AJH

 

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Sat Oct 23 10:44:23 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:44:23 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Dissemination - What's the Score?
In-Reply-To: <000001c4b3d0$40b0e200$0100a8c0@home>
References: <000001c4b3d0$40b0e200$0100a8c0@home>
Message-ID: <s7okn0pl3emokj67ga4fagelhil71qqst9@4ax.com>

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 00:34:06 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:

>
>The FSP Stove
>This is a paraffin burning 2Kw burner which can be fitted into any stove
>you like. It can be retrofitted into a coal or wood stove. It is based
>on the layout of the REDI stove from Switzerland which means a separate
>tank, often a plastic container but it could be anything, connected by a
>hose to a metal stand and burner. Unlke the REDI stove, it has only one
>jet and is fitted with a fuel control valve for power control. It hasa
>non-return valve in the feed pipe to prevent pulsing and it does not
>need the operator to raise and lower the tank to get it started or turn
>it off. This means it can be built into the house as a fixture, much
>like a propane stove, but using cheaper and lower pressure fittings (0.2
>bars).

How much would this cost to ship abroad as a kit of parts Crispin?

I was surprised to see from the movie that the blue flames all appear
to be below the glowing ss plate, with no apparent flames above it.

AJH

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Sat Oct 23 10:44:24 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:44:24 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] RE: 3 watt electricity generation/storage
In-Reply-To: <000d01c4b681$59f5bd90$0100a8c0@home>
References: <4.3.1.2.20041019122653.02168300@mail.ilstu.edu>
<000d01c4b681$59f5bd90$0100a8c0@home>
Message-ID: <ucokn0ltriup61uldqd0gmifj0cfv28jhn@4ax.com>

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:46:31 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:

>
>"Hey, what about a generator from an automobile or motorcycle? MUST be
>cheap, meaning in mass production now. (Sorry, I just checked with an
>auto-electric shop and was told that those car parts need very high
>RPM.)"

With the rate in change of computers in the western world the disc
drives must be a good resource. I note also that small excavators
(Kubota) now have minute permanent magnet alternators on them.

AJH

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Sat Oct 23 10:44:24 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:44:24 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] sugar to alcohol or sugar to biogas
In-Reply-To: <417720E7.8030303@legacyfound.org>
References: <3.0.32.20041019213213.009c8dd0@pop.btl.net>
<000101c4b70a$072a86c0$4a5641db@adkarve>
<417720E7.8030303@legacyfound.org>
Message-ID: <1ttkn05vmcl558lbvsr4tq71okojebslrl@4ax.com>

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 04:37:27 +0200, Richard Stanley wrote:

>Dear Ad,
>
> From hands on experience with methane for four years in Tanzania, to
>my knowledge, the inability to comperess methane is p[recisely what
>made it unattractive for use in vehicles: The wisdom of the times then
>suggested to many of us, that methane as a relatively short chained
>hydrocarbon, could not easily be compressed: In fact the energy
>required to compress it was greater than the energy it gave off.
>Correct me if I am wrong: I would love to be, given its potential...

If you look at the Fuelmaker site

http://www.fuelmaker.com/Products/NaturalGasRefueling/ProductSpecifications/Specifications/International.htm

They claim to compress ng to 200bar at a rate of 17m^3/hr with a max
electrical requirement of 6.720kW(e), this is 0.395 kwhr(e)/m^3 at
maximum rated power, they give an average per cycle of 3.6-4.8kWhrs(e)
but I cannot readily see what volume this relates to.

The gas has a cv of 39MJ/m^3, that's 10.8kWhr(t)/m^3, so the ratio of
compression power to thermal power is 3.66%, notwithstanding
electrical power costs 3 times the thermal power to make.

AJH

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Sat Oct 23 10:47:37 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:47:37 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] sugar to alcohol or sugar to biogas
In-Reply-To: <000001c4b765$08a49440$035641db@adkarve>
References: <3.0.32.20041019213213.009c8dd0@pop.btl.net>
<000101c4b70a$072a86c0$4a5641db@adkarve>
<417720E7.8030303@legacyfound.org>
<000001c4b765$08a49440$035641db@adkarve>
Message-ID: <56ukn0pidgqcl9dae6dujgkmncmtekf8iv@4ax.com>

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:34:37 +0530, adkarve wrote:
> CNG is delivered under 200 atmosphere pressure, so that one cubic meter is compressed into 5 litres. One litre of compressed CNG gives twice the mileage as petrol and costs just half as much.

NG supplied in England has a calorific value of about 39MJ/m^3 LHV,
43MJ/m^3 HHV, at STP, as the chemical energy of the gas does not
change on compression this is all in the 5litre high pressure tank.
Petrol has a calorific value of 43.7MJ/kg LHV, 48MJ/kg HHV which is
about 35MJ/litre so the cng contains about a fifth of the energy of
the same volume of petrol, when compressed to 200bar.

AJH

From phoenix98604 at earthlink.net Sat Oct 23 10:58:13 2004
From: phoenix98604 at earthlink.net (Art Krenzel)
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 08:58:13 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] sugar to alcohol or sugar to biogas
References: <3.0.32.20041019213213.009c8dd0@pop.btl.net><000101c4b70a$072a86c0$4a5641db@adkarve><417720E7.8030303@legacyfound.org><001e01c4b71e$b4151940$34c3f204@7k6rv21>
<c0mkn0p51o5em4la4774q9otbqh0hl26eh@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <004b01c4b919$1b1d1bf0$0ec0f204@7k6rv21>

Andrew,

Richard Stanley and I had been communicating off list on this issue however
your posting asked more questions.

One of our rounds of discussion went like this:
One cannot compress a mixture of methane and CO2 to 3000 psig without
causing the CO2 to drop out. CO2 has a vapor pressure of about 830 psig at
room temperature. At any pressure above this (at room temperature) the CO2
is a liquid. Therefore, CO2 must be removed or it would solidify as the
temperature drops and cause process difficulties at higher pressures and
lower temperatures.

The current commercial technology used to liquefy methane uses a combination
of refrigeration and pressure.

Here is the definitive article on methane liquefaction of methane from
oilfields:
http://www.leachate.com/Papers/Liquefied%20methane%20as%20a%20viable%20route%20to%20landfill%20gas%20utilisat.pdf

In a small methane liquefaction facility (24 metric tons per day), the
process consumes 43% of the incoming energy to produce liquid methane.
Economy of scale (bigger plants) could improve this efficiency somewhat but
due to some of the qualities of the methane molecule, it is still requires a
great loss of energy to liquefy methane.

Here is another article which deals with biogas directly and they say
liquefaction in that case is not economic at all. Liquefying methane,
beginning with biogas, is an even bigger problem due to the high CO2 content
and, perhaps, plant size.
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/farmmgt/05002.html

Another of the attendant losses is due to vaporization during shipment.
Typically 1 - 3% of the liquid is lost per day. Put a big tank of liquid
methane on a ship without gas re-refrigeration (expensive) and you could
arrive at the destination with nearly empty tanks in a trip across the
Atlantic.

Art Krenzel

 

From phoenix98604 at earthlink.net Sat Oct 23 11:29:05 2004
From: phoenix98604 at earthlink.net (Art Krenzel)
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 09:29:05 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] Re: RE : [Gasification] Make wood vinegar from bagasse?
References: <v68kn0hnmp9qn72i2a0jpjc35jp2jjifle@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <006801c4b91d$6acbd570$0ec0f204@7k6rv21>

Mr. Sulpya,

You said:
>Normally wood vinegar contains 3-7 % acetic acid but in bamboo vinegar
>(Phyllostachys pubescens) it has 2.3 % acetic acid. We are using wood
>vinegar or bamboo vinegar in compost making diluting 100 times and
>sprinkle
>it on the fermenting compost. It is recommended that higher than this
>concentration may sterilize the compost.

Why are you adding diluted acetic acid to your compost? Are you doing a
form of bolkashi or acidic decomposition?

What does you entire composting process look like?

Art Krenzel

 

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Sat Oct 23 11:36:01 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 17:36:01 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] Buffalo gourd
Message-ID: <u22ln01hhhvpc2nn32cstql43r80sbqi62@4ax.com>

Non member message, I have invites Wm McCrary to subscribe.

From: Mccraryw
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:22:51 EDT

Am interested in any information regarding growing, processing, etc of
buffalo gourd for use as alternative fuel resource.
Thank You
Wm McCrary

 

From crispin at newdawn.sz Sat Oct 23 14:17:40 2004
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 21:17:40 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] Re: Oil instead of water
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20041022182632.009b1e40@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <007c01c4b934$f9f04e90$0100a8c0@home>

Dear Paul'n'All

The normal low-tech choice for a heat transfer fluid that doesn't boil
at 100 is peanut oil. It has a high boiling point, it cheap and
available and does not break down as easily as a lot of other veggie
oils.

At St Joseph's Mission just east of Manzini, you passed two solar
cookers made by Mercedes Benz trainees/students that use peanut oil as
the working fluid.

Peanut oil is widely avalable in Afrcan countries and can be made with
simply equipment (floating it off ground peanuts).

Regards
Crispin

 

From snkm at btl.net Sat Oct 23 16:19:21 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 15:19:21 -0600
Subject: [Stoves] Heat Capacitors -- heat batteries -- latent heat of fusion
devices
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041023144441.009b3ac0@pop.btl.net>

Just searched "Latent Heat of fusion Boiler"

All kinds of stuff popped up.

This single PDF file is extremely interesting --

http://www.cibse.org/pdfs/Latent%20heat%20storage.pdf

Basically --

If you build a room with concrete blocks and filled the blocks with coconut
oil -- you could store heat from sun during the day to warm house at night!

Or -- if you have a solar collector -- and need heat when the sun goes down
-- melt coconut oil during sun time -- storing heat into the latent heat of
fusion of changing it from coconut butter to coconut oil -- then at night
is goes from oil back to butter -- releasing heat as it goes through it's
change of state.

This is about low temperature heat batteries. But you are talking
incredible heat transfer efficiencies!

Good quality coconut oil changes state at 80 F.

Peter -- Belize

 

From snkm at btl.net Sat Oct 23 16:19:14 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 15:19:14 -0600
Subject: [Stoves] Heat Capacitors -- heat batteries -- latent heat of fusion
devices
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041023150825.0093d850@pop.btl.net>

A second great exasmple:

http://www.trainweb.org/tusp/news/fireless.html

Highlighting:

"Thermal storage tanks containing a molten compound, storing thermal energy
in its latent heat of fusion phenomena, could be included in the loco's
boiler/water tank."

And this part is of vital interest:

"In Southern Africa, lithium nitrate which melts at 260-deg C, occurs quite
naturally and could be used as a thermal storage medium, as its energy of
fusion is 159 Btu/lb."

500 F results in a good 450 F after heat tranfer "droop" -- perfect for
heating refrigerent at optimla efficiency levels!!

So -- as example --

#1: A relatively simple solar collector can prodcue 600 F to melt this salt
bath at 500 F -- so that one would have a heat battery to keep running
things after the sun has set.

#2: It is extremely easy using even the small stoves on this list to heat a
salt bath (lithium nitrate) to it's melting point -- and thus -- instead of
having to mind a fire contiously -- just do so every so often.

The salt bath can ever be lifte on and off the stove!

This is a long article -- but read it through -- it is chocked full of
innovative ideas. Lot of spin-offs and education to be derived.

"The research challenges are to develop a high density compound which melts
between 300-deg C and 500-deg C, with a very high level of latent heat of
fusion. Some compounds already exist in this range, such as lithium
hydroxide, which results from steam coming into contact with the naturally
occurring lithium nitrate. However, this may not be the optimal compound,
as the area of thermal energy storage using latent heat of fusion is wide
open for new research. At present, there remains much more to research and
discover, than what is already known in this field."

Could not agree more!

and this one:

"Advances in nanotechnology could theoretically enable development of
suitable multi-metal oxides for use in a thermal storage locomotive. Such
technology could be applied to atoms like uranium and thorium, which will
bond to oxygen and possible via oxygen to other atoms which bond to oxygen.
The thickness, atomic structure and insulation of the thermal storage tanks
could contain radiation, while the thermal energy being stored could enable
a locomotive to operate distances of 500-1,000-miles on a charge of energy,
delivering some 3,000-hp continuously to the rails. Thermal energy storage
technology is a field that is wide open for future research, with the
potential for yielding worthwhile and useful results."

Wow!!

I should contact this guy and introduce him to ORCs though ---

And maybe I should be dusting off those old patents to??

Peter -- Belize

RESEARCHING THE 21st CENTURY FIRELESS STEAM RAILWAY LOCOMOTIVE

The traditional wood, coal and oil burning Stephenson type steam railway
locomotive had a fireless derivative which graced the shunting yards, the
"fireless cooker". This engine was essential a giant thermos bottle laying
on its side and was dependent on a remote firebox as its heat source.

Maintenance and operating costs of a fireless cooker were low, due to the
absence of the firebox and smokebox, two of the high maintenance items on a
traditional steamer. Energy recharging of the cooker engine was done by
passing steam through a heat exchanger line, which ran in coiled fashion
through this type of locomotive combination "boiler"/water tank.

Prior to recharge, the combination boiler/water tank would be 80% filled
with water. It would then be connected to an external steam line, which
would heat the water in the tank to temperatures of 400-degrees fahrenheit
(200-centigrade), with internal tank pressures rising up to 400-psi (pounds
per square inch). The cylinders would operate at pressures of 150-psi.
After a recharge, the steam heater line was disconnected and the driver
would open the throttle, resulting in the sudden generation of "flash
steam" inside the boiler/water tank, as a slight pressure drop occurred.
Like its counterpart which carried an on-board firebox, the cooker too
required the occasional boiler washdown to remove scale.

In countries like Spain and Austria, fireless cookers still see commercial
service in shunting yards and hauling passenger cars at low speed over
short distances.

Traditionally, a source of waste steam has been the energy source of
fireless cookers, though in more modern times other alternatives are
available. A small on-board natural gas burner could circulate superheated
gas through the cooker's on-board heat-exchanger line, while at the same
time avoiding the soot buildup problem incurred when using wood, coal or
oil in more conventional steamers. Solar thermal panel technology can also
be applied to heating the traditional cooker engine, though hot oil would
need to be circulated through the engine's heat exchanger line.

Modernizing the Fireless Cooker:

Modernizing the traditional fireless cooker to deliver higher power and
greater operating range is possible. Modern metallurgy and manufacturing
techniques can allow for larger, better insulated boiler/water tanks
capable of pressures of 1,500-psi and water temperatures of 600-degrees F
(400-deg.C). Thermal storage tanks containing a molten compound, storing
thermal energy in its latent heat of fusion phenomena, could be included in
the loco's boiler/water tank.

In Southern Africa, lithium nitrate which melts at 260-deg C, occurs quite
naturally and could be used as a thermal storage medium, as its energy of
fusion is 159 Btu/lb. Unlike electric storage batteries, some thermal
storage compounds have virtually infinite life expectancy.

The use of a thermal storage tank allows for several other options. A
separate reserve water tank could be incorporated into the system, along
with a water pump to add water to the heater tank. The thermal tank allows
for the superheating of steam prior to entering the cylinders, as well as
for reheating lower pressure steam if a double expansion cylinder system is
used. Heating the thermal tank via solar thermal technology, using fibre
optic lines of Al2O3 (processed bauxite) to transmit the concentrated
infrared spectrum to the locomotive, also becomes an option.

While the cooker bypasses the labour-intensive maintenance requirements of
a the firebox and smokebox, water and boiler system washdowns will still be
required. This cost can be reduced and efficiency can be improved by
switching from an open system of exhausting waste steam and refilling the
water storage tank, to a closed system which recycles the water.

While the South African condensing steamers were troublesome, some research
undertaken by ACE (American Coal Enterprises) showed that the condensor
problems can be resolved by passing exhaust steam through a cooled
expansion valve system, which would transform the exhaust steam into hot
water. The South African engines were designed to cool the exhaust steam
directly in the radiators, while the ACE system cools high temperature
water, after it has pre-heated cool water being pumped into the main
thermal storage/heater system.

A contemporary cooker engine could dispense with the frequent boiler
washdowns as well as firebox and smokebox maintenance requirements. While a
small thermal storage tank could be incorporated into the boiler/water
tanks of traditional cookers, a modern cooker could separate the two. A
large, high temperature thermal storage system with pipes running through
it, may exist separately from the water storage system. Thermal recharging
would focus exclusively on the thermal tank, not on a high pressure
combined "boiler"/water tank. Operating steam pressures could be in the
350-500-psi range, instead of 1,500-2,000 - psi range. The thermal storage
mediums could be changed from lithium nitrate to other compounds and
mixtures, to raise energy storage levels, locomotive output as well as
operating duration. The intention would be to transform the shunting yard
workhorse into an engine with mainline capabilities.

Turbine Cooker Locomotive;

While the traditional Stephenson derived steam locomotive, especially in
double expansion superheated form, has merit, a turbine alternative is
possible. Traditionally, turbine propulsion only delivers its maximum
efficiency at maximum output, with drastic reductions in efficiency as
throttle settings are reduced. This shortcoming, unfortunately, marred
earlier steam turbine locomotives.

The system proposed for the contemporary steam turbine electric locomotive
would take advantage of this characteristic of turbines, as well as the
fact that turbines are sold on the basis of power output. A 4-turbine
system in a 1-2-4-8 power ratio would be able to offer 15-power settings,
all at maximum output and maximum efficiency at each power setting.
Example, a 4-turbine system using a 250-hp, 500-hp, 1,000-hp and 2,000-hp
system would yield a maximum of 3,750-horsepower, yet offer 15-increments
at jumps of 250-hp, from a low of 250-hp right up to maximum. This system
could recover its extra turbine costs within a year of service, resulting
from savings in energy costs.

The 4-turbine system could operate in either a stored thermal energy
locomotive or in a design which boils water and raises steam by on-board
combustion of a fuel, like coal slurry, an oil unsuitable for a piston
engine, or a solvent fuel which would destroy the lubrication in a piston
engine. A modern steamer using the multi-turbine system could become a
multi-fuel locomotive, operating on fuels which a present day diesel
locomotive's engine could not be adapted to. World oil projections indicate
a worldwide decline in oil production after 2010, meaning that other energy
sources will have to be considered. A study undertaken by the London School
of Economics during the late 1980's, revealed that a modern steam
locomotive could be more cost effective than diesel or electric traction.

A Fuel Cell Cooker Locomotive:

A considerable amount of research effort and funding is being directed
toward developing fuel cell technology geared toward the transportation
industry. The automotive industry is betting on the proton exchange
membrane (PEM) fuel cell as a possible alternative to the piston engine.
This type of fuel cell typically operates on hydrogen gas, which it
combined with oxygen to produce water and electricity which powers the
electric motor. PEM fuel cells typically operate below 40% efficiency,
which electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen has an efficiency of 70%.
If the electricity to produce the hydrogen comes from a thermal electric
power station (nuclear/coal/natural gas/hydrogen fusion), it would be less
costly and more efficient charging up a fireless cooker locomotive directly
from the waste heat of the thermal power station.

There are, however, two types of fuel cell which could be used in
locomotives, in tandem with fireless cooker technology. The molten
carbonate fuel cell (MCFC) and solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) operate at high
temperatures (600-deg C - 750-deg C) and can use natural gas as their fuel
source. The reject heat from the fuel cell could add to the thermal energy
being converted to traction in the multi-turbine system. Several types of
fuel cells incur greatly reduced life expectancies if operated continuously
at maximum efficiency. In starting a heavy train, fuel cells (which cost
some $2,000 US per Kilowatt) would have to operate at maximum output and
efficiency, reducing its useful life expectancy. Alternatively the fuel
cells could be operated to assist the thermal propulsion side of the fuel
cell cooker locomotive (fccl), which could reliably operate at maximum
output for prolonged periods, repeatedly.

After 2010, greater use of electricity in transportation is a distinct
possibility. The increased demand for power could result in accompanying
price increases. In city transit services, fuel cell buses and electric
trolleybuses and trams could become more numerous, as could electrified
railway lines. This will be combined with increase use of electric cars and
vans, which would try to connect to major power producers. Opposition to
building new mega-power stations is high in many countries, as demand for
power increases. More home users may opt to generate their own power using
solar panels and wind turbines, both of which are dropping in price, while
using new generation high efficiency lighting technology. While such
initiatives will ease the demand for electric power, the economics of
operating a new generation steam locomotive could make it extremely
competitive against straight electric and modified diesel traction.

Energy Storage in the Cooker;

Energy storage for the cooker engine comes directly from the fundamentals
of thermochemistry as well as metallurgy. The research challenges are to
develop a high density compound which melts between 300-deg C and 500-deg
C, with a very high level of latent heat of fusion. Some compounds already
exist in this range, such as lithium hydroxide, which results from steam
coming into contact with the naturally occurring lithium nitrate. However,
this may not be the optimal compound, as the area of thermal energy storage
using latent heat of fusion is wide open for new research. At present,
there remains much more to research and discover, than what is already
known in this field.

Compounds of aluminium (aluminum) can form a basis of thermal energy
storage. Aluminum mixed with hydrogen peroxide produces aluminum hydroxide
(Al(OH)3), which could then be mixed with any of three alkaline metals,
lithium, sodium or potassium. The result would be compounds like Al(LiO)3,
Al(NaO)3, or Al(KO)3. These are multi-metal oxides which could be mixed in
certain proportions to yield a desired melting temperature and a high
latent heat of fusion. Metals like vanadium and beryllium do bond to oxygen
to yield extremely high melting temperatures and high latent heats of
fusion. The oxygen atom can also simultaneously bond to aluminum and
beryllium, forming a cyclic molecule comprising a single beryllium atom and
multiple aluminum and oxygen atoms. The latent heat of fusion remains
extremely high, though the melting temperature is 1,000-deg C lower than
for beryllium oxide. Mixing the Beryllium-Oxygen-Aluminum molecule with
another similar molecule, could lower its melting temperature to below
500-deg C, where it would become useable.

Advances in nanotechnology could theoretically enable development of
suitable multi-metal oxides for use in a thermal storage locomotive. Such
technology could be applied to atoms like uranium and thorium, which will
bond to oxygen and possible via oxygen to other atoms which bond to oxygen.
The thickness, atomic structure and insulation of the thermal storage tanks
could contain radiation, while the thermal energy being stored could enable
a locomotive to operate distances of 500-1,000-miles on a charge of energy,
delivering some 3,000-hp continuously to the rails. Thermal energy storage
technology is a field that is wide open for future research, with the
potential for yielding worthwhile and useful results.

Renewable "combustion";

Latent heat of fusion of a molten compound in an insulated container is one
means of thermal energy storage. Another method would borrow concepts used
in present and past thermodynamic machinery, where a fuel was burned and
the heat of combustion yielded thermal energy to drive pistons and turn
wheels. Another way of looking at such systems is to classify them in a
broad definition, i.e; their thermal energy resulted from the heat of
formation.

In a wood or coal burning steam locomotive, the compounds being formed were
carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and sometimes sulphur dioxide and sulphur
trioxide if the coal had a high sulphur content. In an internal combustion
engine, a hydrocarbon fuel is ignited and water vapour, carbon dioxide,
carbon monoxide and sometimes nitrous oxides are formed. The burning of the
fuel was often regarded as a non-reversible process, as mother nature had
to process the carbon dioxide in plant leaves to return oxygen to the
atmosphere and incorporate the carbon into the plant.

The concept of producing heat via processes involving the heat of
formation, could be extended to include reversible processes. Example,
hydrogen and magnesium will join chemically to form magnesium hydride and
release a tremendous amount of heat in the process. The heat can be used to
generate steam to drive turbines, which will drive electric alternators
which in turn will power up locomotive driving wheels. During a recharge
cycle, heat can be infused into the magnesium hydride, resulting in the two
dissociating from each other; the hydrogen can be stored on a separate tank
until re-use in another repeat cycle of raising thermal energy from heat of
formation. Mixing carbon dioxide and sodium oxide will produce sodium
carbonate and a measure of heat energy, however, the levels of this energy
may not be readily available for locomotive use. However, this chemical
process is a reversible one, which can be repeated many times, essentially
using the same compounds.

Using a reversible form of heat of formation is another method of operating
a thermal rechargeable locomotive. Again, there is much untapped research
potential in this area of thermochemistry, with as yet undiscovered
rechargeable energy storage options for the future. Much research funding
is presently concentrated into two main areas: fuel cell technology as
fusion energy, where two or more hydrogen molecules will fuse to form
helium (heat of formation, again) and release a great deal of thermal
energy (without the alpha, beta and gamma radiation of a nuclear
powerstation). Thermal rechargeable railway engines could, in the future,
be re-energised at fusion power stations, on waste heat that could be heat
pumped into the thermal storage media.

Conclusions:

-Steam railway traction is a valid option for the future, especially after
2010, after which world oil production is projected to decline, with
accompanying price increases.

-Much untapped, unexplored research opportunity exists in the field of
thermochemistry and chemistry, that could result in making future steam
railway locomotives competitive.

Harry Valentine.
Transportation Researcher.
November 2000.
harrycv at hotmail.com

 

From crispin at newdawn.sz Sat Oct 23 16:50:14 2004
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 23:50:14 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] RE: 3 watt electricity generation/storage
Message-ID: <008c01c4b94a$5453c0f0$0100a8c0@home>

Dear Friends

"I'm not qualified to comment on the power or conversion efficiencies of
human muscles but a number of those calories are still being burnt when
the body is quiescent."

Research has shown that some mesmerized 'couch potatoes' watching
television use fewer calories that when they are asleep!

Regards
Crispin

 

From crispin at newdawn.sz Sat Oct 23 16:50:14 2004
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 23:50:14 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Dissemination - What's the Score? - FSP stove
Message-ID: <008901c4b94a$50e1a4a0$0100a8c0@home>

Dear Andrew

>How much would this cost to ship abroad as a kit of parts Crispin?

I don't have a full kit quite yet but it is immenent. I have kits of
brass parts of you can snip he rest out of a sheet. The brass parts are
$3.60 each plus shipping if you order a lot. They are 20 grams per set.
I expect the whole kit to be under $10, maybe $8.

>I was surprised to see from the movie that the blue flames
>all appear to be below the glowing ss plate, with no apparent
>flames above it.

Quite so. The combustion takes place beside the central depressed
portion of the stainless steel ignitor plate, and under the 'lip' or
outer edge which is most of the diameter (76mm OD). There is no flame
under the centre.

With the combustion tube and ignitor plate installed on a REDI stove
there was an increase in performance and huge reduction in CO production
(2 orders of magnitude). The original REDI air tube was far too small
to get the combustion going well. In the REDI the flame is nearly
invisible - not even much blue - not quite sure why. I am not convinced
it wouldn't show up if filmed at night (like the video you saw) but it
is nearly 'not there'. Sort of small scale FLOX.

I measured a flame temperature of 990 C max. The end of the probe goes
bright white so it is probably higher than the indicated value. It is
nearly double the temperature of the Panda paraffin flame.

Incidentally when that central ignitor plate falls off (as the stove
tips over) the flame goes out immediately. Instantly. The is a major
score for the FSP stove. It is very, very safe.

Regards
Crispin

 

From crispin at newdawn.sz Sat Oct 23 16:50:14 2004
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 23:50:14 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Why very small power is needed for forced air
Message-ID: <008d01c4b94a$578f15d0$0100a8c0@home>

Dear Paul and Ray

Ray wrote: "I have never ceased to be amazed by the air-boosting power
of even this simple venturi which you can easily demonstate for yourself
by rolling a sheet of A4 paper into a 1" diameter tube. First hold one
end of the tube near your mouth and see what sort of air-flow you
observe from the far end with the other hand held near it. Then move the
'pipe' gradually away from your mouth and you will observe a GREATLY
increased flow of air coming from the other end... induced air-flow!. I
believe we need to make MUCH greater use of such venturi and air
'booster' effects to promote a large flow of air from just a very small
'blow'."

There is a two stage effect that can be exploited which means blowing
into a venturi which them blows intoa bigger venturi and then into a
pipe. The idea is to apply a very small amount of higher pressure
water/steam/fluid to a large diameter pipe efficiently. This is done in
as many as 3 or even 5 stages. The result is a very large amount of low
pressure air being drawn into the big pipe. It looks a lot like a
nested stack of progessively larger funnels held slightly apart.

Regards
Crispin

 

From crispin at newdawn.sz Sat Oct 23 16:50:14 2004
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 23:50:14 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] RE: 3 watt electricity generation/storage
Message-ID: <008f01c4b94a$5dc0a040$0100a8c0@home>

Dear Kevin and Ken

>I have heard that in human powered flight experiments,
>a man in good shape can develop about 375 watts for
>about 30 seconds, but can sustain only about 150 watts
>power output.

Bicycle racers can maintain 200 watts for a long time. I agree Ken is
fit.

>375 watts converts to 322 kcal per hour.

There are Calories and calories. I think there is a unit mis-match
here.

A person operating a manual rock crusher puts out about 80 useful watts.

A woman pumping water with her arms using a hand pump can maintain 40
watts output for more than an hour.

One applied watt is a large amount of air at a low pressure.

Regards
Crispin

 

From crispin at newdawn.sz Sat Oct 23 16:50:14 2004
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 23:50:14 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Why very small power is needed for forced air
Message-ID: <009001c4b94a$5fbc7040$0100a8c0@home>

Dear Paul

I have an amazing spreadsheet Nigel made for me for calculating chimney
draft but one of the things missing from it is a power rating for the
draft produced by burning X amount of biomass in Y minutes with Z amount
of excess air into a chimney with diameter W at temperature T. It
compensates for fuel moisture but not CO in the CO2 (slight heat loss
not worked out).

How much draft is 1 watt of motor power? Is it a mass and rate of
ascent, a sort of inverse-falling-weight calculation?

I would prefer an answer in -pascals or -millibars (negative draft in a
chimney) and litres per second of flow into that chimney. Does anyone
have an idea?

About the natural draft solution:

I think there are other layouts that could induce more draft, adequate
draft, and higher pressure draft. It is probably too soon to give up on
the natural approach because although the amount of power you require is
low, it is darn hard to get.

I asked before about the quantity of air required and the pressure it
needs to be at but I didn't see any answers except from AJH (see below).

Surely you know this from your experiments? Do you have a manometer
that reads in inches of water hooked into the air channel?

Can you calculate from the amount of excess air (O2 actually) coming
out, and the rate of fuel burning, what the volume of air passing though
the fan must therefore be?

AJH: I think there may be a mismatch between the amount of pressure
required for Tom's stove and the nature of a CPU fan, and that may
explain the (estimated) low efficiency. If you are not correct about
only 20% excess air, then the performance might be better but my
observation remains: the pressure in the Reed stove is probably much
higher than the pressure drop over the CPU heat sink and that little fan
is optimised for the latter.

Putting a circular sticker over the fan to decrease the effective length
of the blades and increase the hub diameter might use less power and
make no difference to the stove. Might even improve it. Dr Peter South
(NRC Canada) convinced me that the optimum shape of a fan is unknowable
until the formulas have been run. It might have to be mostly hub! The
classic shape for medium pressure, high volume is a squirrel cage, not a
fan.

Thanks
Crispin

 

From tmiles at trmiles.com Sat Oct 23 18:58:38 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:58:38 -0700
Subject: Fw: [Stoves] electric/wood stove
Message-ID: <006401c4b95c$6707f100$08f43442@tomslaptop>

----- Original Message -----
From: TOWTOFIX at aol.com
To: stoves at listserv.repp.org
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 2:46 PM
Subject: [Stoves] electric/wood stove

I have a Monarch Electric Range style NCF119P electric/wood stove in my cabin,thinking about remolding and removing this unit are you still looking for one? If so e-mail me and we can talk.

Thanks John
wwwtowtofix at aol.com

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Sun Oct 24 05:12:30 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 11:12:30 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] sugar to alcohol or sugar to biogas
In-Reply-To: <004b01c4b919$1b1d1bf0$0ec0f204@7k6rv21>
References: <3.0.32.20041019213213.009c8dd0@pop.btl.net><000101c4b70a$072a86c0$4a5641db@adkarve><417720E7.8030303@legacyfound.org><001e01c4b71e$b4151940$34c3f204@7k6rv21>
<c0mkn0p51o5em4la4774q9otbqh0hl26eh@4ax.com>
<004b01c4b919$1b1d1bf0$0ec0f204@7k6rv21>
Message-ID: <4rumn0dalc0246l2b6dgfgs7n9v8p86lt6@4ax.com>

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 08:58:13 -0700, Art Krenzel wrote:

>Andrew,
>
>Richard Stanley and I had been communicating off list on this issue however
>your posting asked more questions.

Yes it's probably getting off topic for STOVES.
>
>One of our rounds of discussion went like this:
>One cannot compress a mixture of methane and CO2 to 3000 psig without
>causing the CO2 to drop out. CO2 has a vapor pressure of about 830 psig at
>room temperature. At any pressure above this (at room temperature) the CO2
>is a liquid. Therefore, CO2 must be removed or it would solidify as the
>temperature drops and cause process difficulties at higher pressures and
>lower temperatures.

And I would have thought this was a mechanism for removing it, like
reverse fractional distillation, this is how nitrogen and oxygen were
separated out from all the other industrial gases (major player in
this field is "Air Products" which sought of suggests their source)
>
>The current commercial technology used to liquefy methane uses a combination
>of refrigeration and pressure.
>
>Here is the definitive article on methane liquefaction of methane from
>oilfields:
>http://www.leachate.com/Papers/Liquefied%20methane%20as%20a%20viable%20route%20to%20landfill%20gas%20utilisat.pdf
>
>In a small methane liquefaction facility (24 metric tons per day), the
>process consumes 43% of the incoming energy to produce liquid methane.
>Economy of scale (bigger plants) could improve this efficiency somewhat but
>due to some of the qualities of the methane molecule, it is still requires a
>great loss of energy to liquefy methane.

OK the pdf above does point to some of the discrepancies, they
actually quote a fairly low Carnot efficiency for the "heat engine"
needed to refrigerate the gas and differentiate (as is proper) between
motive power requirement and the chemical power in the LNG. Their
overall figure at the wellhead plant is 74%.
>
>Here is another article which deals with biogas directly and they say
>liquefaction in that case is not economic at all. Liquefying methane,
>beginning with biogas, is an even bigger problem due to the high CO2 content
>and, perhaps, plant size.
>http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/farmmgt/05002.html

I can understand this difficulty with the contaminants in biogas,
there is little doubt it is best used as is on the small scale,
however I do question the more vague figures in this document.
>
>Another of the attendant losses is due to vaporization during shipment.
>Typically 1 - 3% of the liquid is lost per day. Put a big tank of liquid
>methane on a ship without gas re-refrigeration (expensive) and you could
>arrive at the destination with nearly empty tanks in a trip across the
>Atlantic.
>
I think I commented on this, essentially all fuels are not equal based
on their chemical energy alone. I must say I remain surprised at the
energy costs in transporting LNG, it looks like thermally it is worse
than shipping the energy as solid ammonium nitrate fertiliser.

AJH

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Sun Oct 24 05:17:43 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 11:17:43 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Why very small power is needed for forced air
In-Reply-To: <009001c4b94a$5fbc7040$0100a8c0@home>
References: <009001c4b94a$5fbc7040$0100a8c0@home>
Message-ID: <0a0nn09sdibplikrts0od5m75r0q13q1me@4ax.com>

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 23:50:14 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:

>Dear Paul
>
>I have an amazing spreadsheet Nigel made for me for calculating chimney
>draft but one of the things missing from it is a power rating for the
>draft produced by burning X amount of biomass in Y minutes with Z amount
>of excess air into a chimney with diameter W at temperature T. It
>compensates for fuel moisture but not CO in the CO2 (slight heat loss
>not worked out).

Sounds interesting, any chance of seeing it or is the intellectual
property a problem?
>
>How much draft is 1 watt of motor power?

Draft? Isn't that what US servicemen have to report to ;-).

You're not specifying the dimensions properly, draught is just a
negative pressure, it has dimensions of pressure over area (cross
section) so you can only calculate a force. To get power you need to
have terms for energy per unit time. So you need this force times
distance per second.

> Is it a mass and rate of
>ascent, a sort of inverse-falling-weight calculation?
>
>I would prefer an answer in -pascals or -millibars (negative draft in a
>chimney) and litres per second of flow into that chimney. Does anyone
>have an idea?

Hey, I thought I posted these. I suggested a rate of supply of air
(dimensions of volume per second) and made a stab at pressure, I'll
bet I got the maths wrong somewhere along the line though.
>
>About the natural draft solution:
>
>I think there are other layouts that could induce more draft, adequate
>draft, and higher pressure draft. It is probably too soon to give up on
>the natural approach because although the amount of power you require is
>low, it is darn hard to get.

I agree all of this statement, I argued with Ronal over this way back
but I think he was right. The cost benefit of forced air may simply
not be attainable.

<snipped unanswered questions about air requirements>

>AJH: I think there may be a mismatch between the amount of pressure
>required for Tom's stove and the nature of a CPU fan, and that may
>explain the (estimated) low efficiency.

Whilst the efficiency may be low it may be an inevitable consequence
of small size, this is why gas turbines don't perform well below
250kW.

 

> If you are not correct about
>only 20% excess air,

It was an intuitive guess.

> then the performance might be better but my
>observation remains: the pressure in the Reed stove is probably much
>higher than the pressure drop over the CPU heat sink and that little fan
>is optimised for the latter.

If it is a cpu fan then it is axial flow, their efficiency drops under
increased back pressure.
>
> The
>classic shape for medium pressure, high volume is a squirrel cage, not a
>fan.

Yes a centrifugal fan has better characteristics at pressure than an
axial flow one.

AJH

 

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Sun Oct 24 05:18:17 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 11:18:17 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] Re: Oil instead of water
In-Reply-To: <007c01c4b934$f9f04e90$0100a8c0@home>
References: <3.0.32.20041022182632.009b1e40@pop.btl.net>
<007c01c4b934$f9f04e90$0100a8c0@home>
Message-ID: <7b0nn0lqh1u3t62g3veve6pulugrpdggf1@4ax.com>

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 21:17:40 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:

>At St Joseph's Mission just east of Manzini, you passed two solar
>cookers made by Mercedes Benz trainees/students that use peanut oil as
>the working fluid.

Thermal oil is a well established heat transfer medium in industry,
this is the first I have heard it used in a domestic setting (apart
from deep fat frying).

AJH

 

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Sun Oct 24 05:18:40 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 11:18:40 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Dissemination - What's the Score? - FSP stove
In-Reply-To: <008901c4b94a$50e1a4a0$0100a8c0@home>
References: <008901c4b94a$50e1a4a0$0100a8c0@home>
Message-ID: <ub0nn0p1t4f0ram00k4qco7k812c2ahhth@4ax.com>

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 23:50:14 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:

>Dear Andrew
>
>>How much would this cost to ship abroad as a kit of parts Crispin?
>
>I don't have a full kit quite yet but it is immenent. I have kits of
>brass parts of you can snip he rest out of a sheet. The brass parts are
>$3.60 each plus shipping if you order a lot. They are 20 grams per set.
>I expect the whole kit to be under $10, maybe $8.

OK I'm good for that when you have it all together but I only want to
try one as a guinea pig, let's see what the postage will be, maybe it
will make a lightweight backpacking stove.

AJH

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Sun Oct 24 05:17:59 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 11:17:59 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Why very small power is needed for forced air
In-Reply-To: <008d01c4b94a$578f15d0$0100a8c0@home>
References: <008d01c4b94a$578f15d0$0100a8c0@home>
Message-ID: <ia0nn051h2p2sp6nvv395rkgjtv619r07u@4ax.com>

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 23:50:14 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:

>Ray wrote: "I have never ceased to be amazed by the air-boosting power
>of even this simple venturi which you can easily demonstate for yourself
>by rolling a sheet of A4 paper into a 1" diameter tube. First hold one
>end of the tube near your mouth and see what sort of air-flow you
>observe from the far end with the other hand held near it. Then move the
>'pipe' gradually away from your mouth and you will observe a GREATLY
>increased flow of air coming from the other end... induced air-flow!. I
>believe we need to make MUCH greater use of such venturi and air
>'booster' effects to promote a large flow of air from just a very small
>'blow'."

Fine except I would say this was an ejector rather than a venturi. The
venturi works specifically by increasing the velocity through a
restriction, it is the depression due to this that sucks fuel in a
carburetor. Just like the depression on top of a wing is caused by
increasing the distance air is forced to travel over it.

Some while back I posted why I did not consider this to be efficient
compared with a fan, I stand to be corrected.

AJH

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Sun Oct 24 05:28:37 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 11:28:37 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] Buffalo gourd
In-Reply-To: <u22ln01hhhvpc2nn32cstql43r80sbqi62@4ax.com>
References: <u22ln01hhhvpc2nn32cstql43r80sbqi62@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <6u0nn0ds83jap82kth7r6776ehtmrqsbt2@4ax.com>

>From: Mccraryw
>Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:22:51 EDT
>
>Am interested in any information regarding growing, processing, etc of
>buffalo gourd for use as alternative fuel resource.
>Thank You
>Wm McCrary

I have had two replies to this:

From: GeneShu at aol.com
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 14:09:47 EDT

To: Wm. McCrary. I call help provide info on buffalo gourd roots as a
solid nearly smokeless fuel (to mitigate smoke-related illnesses and
mortality), and for conversion of the root starch to fuel ethanol, and
for the seedoil as a source of biodiesel, or illuminating fuel. Also,
I can provide copies of our pertinent publications. Please make your
questions as specific as possible. How did you learn abouot buffalo
gourd? Best wishes, Gene Shultz, Washington University in St. Louis.

****

William,

There was a lot of work done on buffalo gourd in the Southwest in the
early 1990s. I remember reports in about 1995 by Jack Whittier, now
with a group called McNeil Technologies. Search the US Department of
Energy Western Regional Biomass Program (Westbioenergy.org ) site for
possible reports.

Tom Miles

 

From crispin at newdawn.sz Sun Oct 24 05:52:02 2004
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:52:02 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] Re: Peanut Oil instead of water
Message-ID: <000101c4b9b7$82e90700$0100a8c0@home>

Dear Andrew

>>At St Joseph's Mission just east of Manzini, you passed two solar
>>cookers made by Mercedes Benz trainees/students that use peanut
>>oil as the working fluid.

>Thermal oil is a well established heat transfer medium in industry,
>this is the first I have heard it used in a domestic setting (apart
from
>deep fat frying).

Mercedes did a student search for the most appropriate working fluid and
came up with peanut oil as the best choice. I checked its boiling
point, tendency to hang together when heated and I agree. It is
makeable in a small village. Al big plusses. And if it leaks you can
always lick it off your finger!

Regards
Crispin

 

From crispin at newdawn.sz Sun Oct 24 07:30:49 2004
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 14:30:49 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Why very small power is needed for forced air
Message-ID: <000501c4b9c5$64c82270$0100a8c0@home>

Dear Andrew

>>...spreadsheet ...for calculating chimney draft

>Sounds interesting, any chance of seeing it or is
>the intellectual property a problem?

IP is not a problem. It is a written thing so all one has to do is
write (c) on it and say "Copyright" and no one can pass it off as their
own work.

The real problem is this: I work with Quattro Pro and it is not very
compatible with the simpler Excel, for example Excel apparently can't
import QPro multi-sheet files (neither can Qpro export them in Excel
format) and Excel can't deal with QPro floating objects (which this
has).

Hmmm... How about I send you an Excel export and you see what you see??
I assume everyone else on the planet uses Excel (by force).

The advantage of other people checking out somewhat complicated
spreadsheets is that they usually find errors!

Regards
Crispin

 

From snkm at btl.net Sun Oct 24 09:48:36 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 08:48:36 -0600
Subject: [Stoves] sugar to alcohol or sugar to biogas
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041024081545.009a2430@pop.btl.net>

At 11:12 AM 10/24/2004 +0100, list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 08:58:13 -0700, Art Krenzel wrote:
>
>>Andrew,
>>
>>Richard Stanley and I had been communicating off list on this issue however
>>your posting asked more questions.
>
>Yes it's probably getting off topic for STOVES.

The real solution from a logical point of view is to build reforming plants
at the existing large gas deposits -- do the conversions there -- ship the
end products rather than waste so much gas trying to move it to processing
points far away.

Ergo -- ship butane -- propane -- fertilizer -- not natural gas.

People in the distant future will look back on us an consider how so very
ignorant we were.

Peter

From a31ford at inetlink.ca Sun Oct 24 10:35:49 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 10:35:49 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] Quattro and Excel
In-Reply-To: <000501c4b9c5$64c82270$0100a8c0@home>
Message-ID: <002701c4b9df$2415cab0$1900a8c0@a31server>

Dear Crispin, and all...

I might stand corrected on this, but I recall having to do some spreadsheet
conversions for government use, and Excel will import Quattro documents,
retaining any "1 page only" calculations (Key words here are "1 page only",
if they cross 2 or more pages they will disappear).

I'm not that knowledgeable about Quattro, but in Excel, one must manually
install the extra conversion filters from the original CD (they are NOT
installed in a default installation).

Insert the original MS office CD, and go to "add remove features",
"conversion tools & filters", if memory serves correct there are 4 extra
converters needed for Quattro.

When doing the conversion, the documents must be open in each program, and
use "Copy & Paste" functions to convert the document , one page at a time,
this will retain the original calculations, as noted above.

Greg Manning,

 

-----Original Message-----
From: stoves-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:stoves-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of Crispin
Pemberton-Pigott
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 7:31 AM
To: STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Why very small power is needed for forced air

Dear Andrew

>>...spreadsheet ...for calculating chimney draft

>Sounds interesting, any chance of seeing it or is
>the intellectual property a problem?

IP is not a problem. It is a written thing so all one has to do is
write (c) on it and say "Copyright" and no one can pass it off as their
own work.

The real problem is this: I work with Quattro Pro and it is not very
compatible with the simpler Excel, for example Excel apparently can't
import QPro multi-sheet files (neither can Qpro export them in Excel
format) and Excel can't deal with QPro floating objects (which this
has).

Hmmm... How about I send you an Excel export and you see what you see??
I assume everyone else on the planet uses Excel (by force).

The advantage of other people checking out somewhat complicated
spreadsheets is that they usually find errors!

Regards
Crispin

_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
Stoves at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

 

From snkm at btl.net Sun Oct 24 09:48:37 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 08:48:37 -0600
Subject: [Stoves] Re: Peanut Oil instead of water
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041024082329.009a6720@pop.btl.net>

If you want the very -- very -- best:

Jojoba oil

Approximate boiling point -- 500 - 548 deg C

http://www.ajorp.com/products.htm

By the way -- what is the boiling (or even "burning") point of peanut oil??

And then -- there is Castor oil as well.

but more on Jojoba:

Indian Institute of Petroleum,Dehradun has developed following Process,
Products & Formulations based on Jojoba oil :
Two stroke engine oil.
Sulphurisation of Jojoba oil for extreme pressure additives.
Industrial gear oil formulations using sulphurised Jojoba oil of low
sulphur content.
Industrial gear oil formulations using sulphurised Jojoba oil of high
sulphur content.
Cutting oils.

Peter -- Belize

At 12:52 PM 10/24/2004 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>Dear Andrew
>
>>>At St Joseph's Mission just east of Manzini, you passed two solar
>>>cookers made by Mercedes Benz trainees/students that use peanut
>>>oil as the working fluid.
>
>>Thermal oil is a well established heat transfer medium in industry,
>>this is the first I have heard it used in a domestic setting (apart
>from
>>deep fat frying).
>
>Mercedes did a student search for the most appropriate working fluid and
>came up with peanut oil as the best choice. I checked its boiling
>point, tendency to hang together when heated and I agree. It is
>makeable in a small village. Al big plusses. And if it leaks you can
>always lick it off your finger!
>
>Regards
>Crispin
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Stoves mailing list
>Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>

From willing at mts.net Sun Oct 24 10:56:29 2004
From: willing at mts.net (Scott Willing)
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 10:56:29 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] Forward of Paul's discussion with Scott
Message-ID: <417B8A5D.9454.2D1A9A@localhost>

On 23 Oct 2004 at 10:57, list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk wrote:

> Yes, sorry about over cropping the image, I was rushing to get
> the message onto the list.

No worries. I'd sent it directly to Paul as I knew better than to
post an attachment to the list. I'm one of those low-bandwidth
people who doesn't appreciate that sort of thing. :-)

> The gist I get from you is that nicads (notwithstanding their
> environmental impact) are particularly suited to low cost
> solar pv chargers.

Yep.

> In UK we have cheap (GBP6) solar garden lights sold as special
> offers in discount stores.
> http://www.gardenitems.co.uk/solar_lights_designer_cascade.php

> Shows a more expensive item that looks similar.

We received a pair as a gift.

> I have happily used one as a light in my tent. These tend to
> be a small solar pv cell set in a stainless steel "hood"
> containing 2 AA nicads and a white led with a switch. I
> think they fully charge the battery on a typical day but
> have not kept one to test.

Depends on what a typical day is in your neck o' the woods, but
it's certainly possible.

Our garden lights come on automatically when the panel goes dark.
During the summer, they're usually still glowing, though weakly,
at dawn. Performance drops off in spring/fall and of course in
winter it's entirely pointless. (Never mind the availability of
photons, the temperatures are more than a little challenging for
the batteries.)

Though I've never measured ours, based on panel size I suspect
the output will be in the same neighborhood as my little solar
battery charger, around 100mA or so. Typical LED operating
currents are in the area of 20mA or so (give or take 10mA). That
would appear to suggest 5 hours of run time for 1 hour of sun,
but once you figure on the non- ideal angle of incidence during
some or all of the day, real-world losses, battery inefficiencies
etc., I'd make a bold guess that a 1:1 ratio of run-time:charge-
time is closer to the truth in practice.

The little stove fan appears to draw around 250mA while running,
though I wouldn't hang my hat on that; it's too much for the
200mA range on my meter but far too small for an accurate
measurement on the 10A range. In any case the ratio would be far
less than 1:1, but that' probably OK as one isn't likely (?) to
be using the stove for hours at a time.

-=s

> AJH
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

 

 

From tmiles at trmiles.com Sun Oct 24 12:01:22 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 10:01:22 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Why very small power is needed for forced air
References: <000501c4b9c5$64c82270$0100a8c0@home>
Message-ID: <00c601c4b9eb$d77b9470$28f43442@tomslaptop>

Crispin,

Excel will import Quatto pro. Send a copy along and I'll see what can be
done. We can probably program it in Java and make a web useable version of
it.

Tom

 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispin at newdawn.sz>
To: <STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 5:30 AM
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Why very small power is needed for forced air

> Dear Andrew
>
> >>...spreadsheet ...for calculating chimney draft
>
> >Sounds interesting, any chance of seeing it or is
> >the intellectual property a problem?
>
> IP is not a problem. It is a written thing so all one has to do is
> write (c) on it and say "Copyright" and no one can pass it off as their
> own work.
>
> The real problem is this: I work with Quattro Pro and it is not very
> compatible with the simpler Excel, for example Excel apparently can't
> import QPro multi-sheet files (neither can Qpro export them in Excel
> format) and Excel can't deal with QPro floating objects (which this
> has).
>
> Hmmm... How about I send you an Excel export and you see what you see??
> I assume everyone else on the planet uses Excel (by force).
>
> The advantage of other people checking out somewhat complicated
> spreadsheets is that they usually find errors!
>
> Regards
> Crispin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>
>

 

From sylva at iname.com Sun Oct 24 12:20:41 2004
From: sylva at iname.com (sylva at iname.com)
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:20:41 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] (no subject)
Message-ID: <20041024172041.A9E091CE305@ws1-6.us4.outblaze.com>

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 14:30:49 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:

>IP is not a problem. It is a written thing so all one has to do is
>write (c) on it and say "Copyright" and no one can pass it off as their
>own work.

That may well be the theory...... ;-)
>
>The real problem is this: I work with Quattro Pro and it is not very
>compatible with the simpler Excel, for example Excel apparently can't
>import QPro multi-sheet files (neither can Qpro export them in Excel
>format) and Excel can't deal with QPro floating objects (which this
>has).

M$ do a free download converter fro QPro, I expect I could find a copy
of word perfect office if I tried hard.
>
>Hmmm... How about I send you an Excel export and you see what you see??

Please send both an Excel export and the QPro file

>I assume everyone else on the planet uses Excel (by force).

Perhaps by default, I'm quite happy to us M$ products that came
(secondhand) with this old pooter except for communicating with the
internet or as integrated packages.

AJH
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

 

From sylva at iname.com Sun Oct 24 12:22:03 2004
From: sylva at iname.com (sylva at iname.com)
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:22:03 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] (no subject)
Message-ID: <20041024172204.0A2FB1CE304@ws1-6.us4.outblaze.com>

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 10:56:29 -0500, Scott Willing wrote:

>
>Depends on what a typical day is in your neck o' the woods, but
>it's certainly possible.
Our day varies quite a bit during the year as we are at 51N. I imagine
that the majority of clients for wood stoves will be nearer the
equator and have less change in daylight throughout the year.

Even here I have seen a major solar pv installation claim an average
(day and night if my interpretation is correct) of 17% of installed
capacity generated. I was quite impressed and still wonder how much is
produced when overcast.
>
>Our garden lights come on automatically when the panel goes dark.
>During the summer, they're usually still glowing, though weakly,
>at dawn. Performance drops off in spring/fall and of course in
>winter it's entirely pointless. (Never mind the availability of
>photons, the temperatures are more than a little challenging for
>the batteries.)

OK but the test for our clients will be how the battery stands up to
this use, I understood nicads were challenged at more than 300 charge
discharge cycles.
>
>Though I've never measured ours, based on panel size I suspect
>the output will be in the same neighborhood as my little solar
>battery charger, around 100mA or so. Typical LED operating
>currents are in the area of 20mA or so (give or take 10mA). That
>would appear to suggest 5 hours of run time for 1 hour of sun,
>but once you figure on the non- ideal angle of incidence during
>some or all of the day, real-world losses, battery inefficiencies
>etc., I'd make a bold guess that a 1:1 ratio of run-time:charge-
>time is closer to the truth in practice.

It's a good point to start.
>
>The little stove fan appears to draw around 250mA while running,

With a single nicad this suggests 1/3W, nearly an order of magnitude
less than Paul S thought he needed.

>though I wouldn't hang my hat on that; it's too much for the
>200mA range on my meter but far too small for an accurate
>measurement on the 10A range. In any case the ratio would be far
>less than 1:1, but that' probably OK as one isn't likely (?) to
>be using the stove for hours at a time.

Yes and consider that the solar light has 2 nicads. Now how can we use
this device without expecting the cook to swap cells between devices.
We need a fan capable of economically using 2.6V and a way of mounting
the solar light in sunshine and close enough to the stove to avoid I2R
losses in the connecting cable.
AJH
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

 

From phoenix98604 at earthlink.net Sun Oct 24 15:58:55 2004
From: phoenix98604 at earthlink.net (Art Krenzel)
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 13:58:55 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] sugar to alcohol or sugar to biogas
References: <3.0.32.20041019213213.009c8dd0@pop.btl.net><000101c4b70a$072a86c0$4a5641db@adkarve><417720E7.8030303@legacyfound.org><001e01c4b71e$b4151940$34c3f204@7k6rv21><c0mkn0p51o5em4la4774q9otbqh0hl26eh@4ax.com><004b01c4b919$1b1d1bf0$0ec0f204@7k6rv21>
<4rumn0dalc0246l2b6dgfgs7n9v8p86lt6@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <010901c4ba0c$47576420$76c0f204@7k6rv21>

Andrew,

The previous message said:
>>One cannot compress a mixture of methane and CO2 to 3000 psig without
>>causing the CO2 to drop out. CO2 has a vapor pressure of about 830 psig
>>at
>>room temperature. At any pressure above this (at room temperature) the
>>CO2
>>is a liquid. Therefore, CO2 must be removed or it would solidify as the
>>temperature drops and cause process difficulties at higher pressures and
>>lower temperatures.

>And I would have thought this was a mechanism for removing it, like
>reverse fractional distillation, this is how nitrogen and oxygen were
>separated out from all the other industrial gases (major player in
>this field is "Air Products" which sought of suggests their source)

Fractional distillation is the preferred separation method when the boiling
points of the components at the same pressure are very close. This is not
at all the case with CO2 and methane and therefore would not be the process
of choice.

My information comes primarily from working with people who separate CO2
from a variety of gaseous feedstocks in an effort to recover the CO2 and
produce a sufficiently clean waste stream for other recovery to occur.

Art.

 

 

 

From psanders at ilstu.edu Sun Oct 24 17:52:20 2004
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 17:52:20 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Why very small power is needed for forced air
In-Reply-To: <009001c4b94a$5fbc7040$0100a8c0@home>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20041024175033.02668460@mail.ilstu.edu>

To Tom Reed (and others),

Can we get answers for Crispin's questions? (Tom has been on a trip, I
believe. So I hope he can reply soon.)

Paul

At 11:50 PM 10/23/04 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>Dear Paul
>
>I have an amazing spreadsheet Nigel made for me for calculating chimney
>draft but one of the things missing from it is a power rating for the
>draft produced by burning X amount of biomass in Y minutes with Z amount
>of excess air into a chimney with diameter W at temperature T. It
>compensates for fuel moisture but not CO in the CO2 (slight heat loss
>not worked out).
>
>How much draft is 1 watt of motor power? Is it a mass and rate of
>ascent, a sort of inverse-falling-weight calculation?
>
>I would prefer an answer in -pascals or -millibars (negative draft in a
>chimney) and litres per second of flow into that chimney. Does anyone
>have an idea?
>
>About the natural draft solution:
>
>I think there are other layouts that could induce more draft, adequate
>draft, and higher pressure draft. It is probably too soon to give up on
>the natural approach because although the amount of power you require is
>low, it is darn hard to get.
>
>I asked before about the quantity of air required and the pressure it
>needs to be at but I didn't see any answers except from AJH (see below).
>
>Surely you know this from your experiments? Do you have a manometer
>that reads in inches of water hooked into the air channel?
>
>Can you calculate from the amount of excess air (O2 actually) coming
>out, and the rate of fuel burning, what the volume of air passing though
>the fan must therefore be?
>
>AJH: I think there may be a mismatch between the amount of pressure
>required for Tom's stove and the nature of a CPU fan, and that may
>explain the (estimated) low efficiency. If you are not correct about
>only 20% excess air, then the performance might be better but my
>observation remains: the pressure in the Reed stove is probably much
>higher than the pressure drop over the CPU heat sink and that little fan
>is optimised for the latter.
>
>Putting a circular sticker over the fan to decrease the effective length
>of the blades and increase the hub diameter might use less power and
>make no difference to the stove. Might even improve it. Dr Peter South
>(NRC Canada) convinced me that the optimum shape of a fan is unknowable
>until the formulas have been run. It might have to be mostly hub! The
>classic shape for medium pressure, high volume is a squirrel cage, not a
>fan.
>
>Thanks
>Crispin
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Stoves mailing list
>Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

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 at 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 Sun Oct 24 17:32:43 2004
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 17:32:43 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] Heat Capacitors -- heat batteries -- latent heat
of fusion devices
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20041023150825.0093d850@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20041024172234.02664440@mail.ilstu.edu>

Peter and all,
At 03:19 PM 10/23/04 -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:

>A second great exasmple:
>
>http://www.trainweb.org/tusp/news/fireless.html
>
>Highlighting:

I like it. Not from the point of view of locomotives and other big stuff,
but what about for SMALL applications? Heating a sealed container, and
then releasing the energy when needed.

Might be dangerous for explosions and might run up the costs, but
interesting when we consider that the cook in a remote area might need to
"re-heat" something conveniently.

Reminded me of seeing some "fireless cookers" at Pioneer Village museum in
Minden, Nebraska, a few weeks ago. Their collection of heating devices is
great and in chronological order from 1830s to 1970s.

The fireless cooker was an insulated box (haybox style) but where they
place stones that had handles and were heated directly and then placed in
the box with the pot of food to cook. The rock held the heat for enough
time to be useful. Sign said it was widely used for a while.

Anything like this still being used?

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 at 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 Sun Oct 24 17:46:32 2004
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 17:46:32 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Why very small power is needed for forced air
In-Reply-To: <008d01c4b94a$578f15d0$0100a8c0@home>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20041024174221.02668a10@mail.ilstu.edu>

Crispin,

Okay. I will accept what you wrote for the present. But now to make it a
practical application. You are allowed to make assumptions on modest
technology (some kind of source of pressurized air, for example). But how
will it be made to give the modest stream of air flow that I am seeking?

I am not doubting it. I just need the practical and producible
result. Let's see if this can become a reality.

Paul

At 11:50 PM 10/23/04 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>Dear Paul and Ray
>
>Ray wrote: "I have never ceased to be amazed by the air-boosting power
>of even this simple venturi which you can easily demonstate for yourself
>by rolling a sheet of A4 paper into a 1" diameter tube. First hold one
>end of the tube near your mouth and see what sort of air-flow you
>observe from the far end with the other hand held near it. Then move the
>'pipe' gradually away from your mouth and you will observe a GREATLY
>increased flow of air coming from the other end... induced air-flow!. I
>believe we need to make MUCH greater use of such venturi and air
>'booster' effects to promote a large flow of air from just a very small
>'blow'."
>
>There is a two stage effect that can be exploited which means blowing
>into a venturi which them blows intoa bigger venturi and then into a
>pipe. The idea is to apply a very small amount of higher pressure
>water/steam/fluid to a large diameter pipe efficiently. This is done in
>as many as 3 or even 5 stages. The result is a very large amount of low
>pressure air being drawn into the big pipe. It looks a lot like a
>nested stack of progessively larger funnels held slightly apart.
>
>Regards
>Crispin
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Stoves mailing list
>Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

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 at 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 Oct 24 19:33:54 2004
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 02:33:54 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Why very small power is needed for forced air
Message-ID: <000a01c4ba2a$52c56f00$838cfea9@home>

Dear Paul

I don't think this can go very much farther without knowing what the air
pressure and volume is. As you have working devices you can check with
what works best, right?

Regards
Crispin

 

From snkm at btl.net Sun Oct 24 20:04:44 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 19:04:44 -0600
Subject: [Stoves] Heat Capacitors -- heat batteries -- latent heat
of fusion devices
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041024190311.00962c30@pop.btl.net>

>The fireless cooker was an insulated box (haybox style) but where they
>place stones that had handles and were heated directly and then placed in
>the box with the pot of food to cook. The rock held the heat for enough
>time to be useful. Sign said it was widely used for a while.

Excellent example Paul!

That is just with specific heat -- latent heat does it a couple of hundred
times better -- that is stores a couple of hundred times more heat -- plus
stabilizes to one fixed temperature.

So -- you could take a standard pressure cooker -- insert into a larger
container -- filling the place between these two with a solid designed to
melt and release latent heat -- at say 225 F -- insulate it all about the
outside -- but leave to bottom bare.

You then put a little bit of water in it -- put it over any stove -- place
the pressure regulator back on -- heat.

When steam comes out the top take this pot/cooker off the stove -- dash out
the remaining water. Put insulated cover back on -- set into an insulated
base.

Now -- even 10 or more hours later -- you can open top -- add food to be
pressure cooked -- add a little water -- put cover back on -- let vent some
steam (to drive off all air) then put a heavier weight on the vent -- so it
no longer can vent (no worries -- it can't go beyond the pressures of the
latent heat bath)

In this manner you can cook very large meals in the most efficient way --
and healthy as well -- fireless!!

Do not know if this has a practical application -- but interesting all the
same.

Also -- this same technique could give on the ultimate thermos for hot
coffee! Use a substance that will work -- at say -- 165 F

It's a wonder Wall Mart's are not selling these already??

Maybe next month??

Heat capacitors (as in regulating a tricky thermodynamic process) and heat
batteries (portable heat) are long known concepts but hardly applied -- yet.

One would imagine the wood burning house heating crowd would just love this
technology -- make one big fire one time -- heat the house for a couple of
days after.

Or -- just fill your walls with coconut oil! (or better -- make your floor
a -- saying -- 3 inch deep coconut oil reservoir -- 78F f being just nice.

Also -- how about your waterbed??? Circulate steam though tubing in it one
time -- for an hour or so -- have warm bed for a week or more?

That would be very low pressure steam -- like from your pressure cooker.

Would also work good in green houses -- use solar heater to melt/heat
coconut oil. Have oil in 4 inch pvc tubes between rows of plants -- put
solar heating on manifold at one end -- no pumping required. Or -- just
circulate solar heated water to melt oil.

Then sun heat both day and night!!

It goes on and on and on.

Endless possibilities just waiting to be dreamed up!

Peter -- Belize

At 05:32 PM 10/24/2004 -0500, Paul S. Anderson wrote:
>Peter and all,
>At 03:19 PM 10/23/04 -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:
>
>>A second great exasmple:
>>
>>http://www.trainweb.org/tusp/news/fireless.html
>>
>>Highlighting:
>
>I like it. Not from the point of view of locomotives and other big stuff,
>but what about for SMALL applications? Heating a sealed container, and
>then releasing the energy when needed.
>
>Might be dangerous for explosions and might run up the costs, but
>interesting when we consider that the cook in a remote area might need to
>"re-heat" something conveniently.
>
>Reminded me of seeing some "fireless cookers" at Pioneer Village museum in
>Minden, Nebraska, a few weeks ago. Their collection of heating devices is
>great and in chronological order from 1830s to 1970s.
>
>The fireless cooker was an insulated box (haybox style) but where they
>place stones that had handles and were heated directly and then placed in
>the box with the pot of food to cook. The rock held the heat for enough
>time to be useful. Sign said it was widely used for a while.
>
>Anything like this still being used?
>
>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 at 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 tombreed at comcast.net Mon Oct 25 09:30:59 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (tombreed at comcast.net)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:30:59 +0000
Subject: [Stoves] Carbohydrate Conversion Routes
Message-ID: <102520041430.28444.417D0E0B0003FA6100006F1C22007614380B0A0A9D0D03019B@comcast.net>

Dear Art, ADK; Peter and All:

Forgot to put a SUBJECT on this...

TOM

It is important to know details (the trees) but also important to step back and look at the forest sometimes.

Oil, petroleum, ... is approximately CH2, hence the name Hydro-Carbon. Great fuels, but going going ... gone forces to look at Mother Nature's energy systems and she avoids hydrocarbons because they are non biodegradable. Animal fats and vegetable oils have almost the same energy density but can be unravelled when used up.

Biomass, paper, starches, celluloses and sugars are approximately C-H2O, hence the name Carbon-Hydrate. It is useful to examine the conversions of CH2O to energy

1) Dehydration (pyrolysis) removes the H2O and leaves charcoal, well known for 300,000 years
CH2O ==> C + H2O
2) Catalytic reforming
CH2O ==> CO + H2
gives synthesis gas from which we can make alcohols, ammonia and Fischer Tropsch hydrocarbons.
3) Anaerobic digestion, disproportionation
2 CH2O ==> CO2 + CH4
is a simultaneous oxidation and reduction and is accomplished by digestion.
4) Aerobic digestion
CH2O + O2 ==> CO2 + H2O
merely wastes the energy.

Nice to have all these choices.

Tom Reed BEF

the two phase system of fermentation looks very nice on paper, and is also
good for getting methane from paper, but in practice, one loses a lot of
calories in the aerobic phase. A very well known research institute in India
installed a two phase biogas plant to take care of the household waste
generated by people living in their campus. A large part of the waste
consists of leftover starchy food (bread, rice, beans, potatos, noodles
etc.) and a
relatively small part of the waste was from vegetables and paper (we sell
waste
paper in India).The vegetable waste and paper were cellulosic.
The waste was first allowed to decompose aerobically and
the leachates from this digester were fed into the anaerobic digesger.
In this case, the starchy part of the waste, that should have
gone straight into the anaerobic digester, was lost in the process of
aerobic decomposition. In India, they have made a fetish out of the C/N
ratio
and therefore biogas experts are afraid of loading the system with too much
carbohydrate. The biogas experts, at least
in India, consider 30 as the ideal C/N ratio. This is the C/N ratio of
cattle dung.
I have operated my biogas system using cereal flour, which has
90% starch and 10% protein, with oilcake having almost equal quantities of
starch and protein, and with fruit pulp and sugarcane juice, which are very
poor in
protein content. The biogas plants were operated for months on end.
In all these cases I got almost the theoretically calculated methane
quantity.
Yours
A.D.Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: Art Krenzel <phoenix98604 at earthlink.net>
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>; <STOVES at listserv.repp.org>; Peter
Singfield <snkm at btl.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 1:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Gas-er-up!! Data listings -- process flow --

> Peter,
>
> You have taken off with the zeal of an Evangelist with this biogas
project!
> You did a great job gathering the necessary information for you bio
process.
>
> You said:
> >Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that digestion is a
> >biological process.
>
> >The "anaerobic" bacteria responsible for digestion can't survive with
even
> >the slightest trace of oxygen. So, because of the oxygen in the manure
> >mixture fed to the digester, there is a long period after loading before
> >actual digestion takes place. During this initial "aerobic" period,
traces
> >of oxygen are used up by oxygen-loving bacteria, and large amounts of
> >carbon dioxide (C02) are released.
>
> Actually, in the latest biogas technology, the anaerobic process is broken
> into two separate steps. The first step, acetate formation by organic
> acids, is somewhat tolerant of the presence of small amounts of oxygen.
The
> second stage, methanation, the presence of any oxygen means sudden and
> instant death to the methagens.
>
> Just Google TWO PHASE ANAEROBIC DIGESTION for the latest information.
>
>
> >Biologically, then, successful digestion depends upon achieving and (for
> >continuous-load digesters) maintaining a balance between those bacteria
> >which produce organic acids and those bacteria which produce methane gas
> >from the organic acids.
>
> Again, the newer production anaerobic processes are hybrids. They have
> daily batch tanks for the first stage (hydrolyis and acetate formation)
and
> pulse feeding of the second stage (methane formation). The net effect is
> that we have a continuous process that can handle surge loading on the
feed
> side and a near constant output of biogas.
>
> Peter, I still think you should make beer. Think of it - now we could
have
> a reason for our Evangelistic rants! :-) We could sell the bad batches
of
> beer as vinegar and have two markets.
>
> I built and operated a microbrewery during one of my earlier lives and it
> was a pleasure - especially at break time. :-)
>
> Art Krenzel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

 

_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
Stoves at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

From snkm at btl.net Sun Oct 24 20:04:44 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 19:04:44 -0600
Subject: [Stoves] Heat Capacitors -- heat batteries -- latent heat
of fusion devices
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041024190311.00962c30@pop.btl.net>

>The fireless cooker was an insulated box (haybox style) but where they
>place stones that had handles and were heated directly and then placed in
>the box with the pot of food to cook. The rock held the heat for enough
>time to be useful. Sign said it was widely used for a while.

Excellent example Paul!

That is just with specific heat -- latent heat does it a couple of hundred
times better -- that is stores a couple of hundred times more heat -- plus
stabilizes to one fixed temperature.

So -- you could take a standard pressure cooker -- insert into a larger
container -- filling the place between these two with a solid designed to
melt and release latent heat -- at say 225 F -- insulate it all about the
outside -- but leave to bottom bare.

You then put a little bit of water in it -- put it over any stove -- place
the pressure regulator back on -- heat.

When steam comes out the top take this pot/cooker off the stove -- dash out
the remaining water. Put insulated cover back on -- set into an insulated
base.

Now -- even 10 or more hours later -- you can open top -- add food to be
pressure cooked -- add a little water -- put cover back on -- let vent some
steam (to drive off all air) then put a heavier weight on the vent -- so it
no longer can vent (no worries -- it can't go beyond the pressures of the
latent heat bath)

In this manner you can cook very large meals in the most efficient way --
and healthy as well -- fireless!!

Do not know if this has a practical application -- but interesting all the
same.

Also -- this same technique could give on the ultimate thermos for hot
coffee! Use a substance that will work -- at say -- 165 F

It's a wonder Wall Mart's are not selling these already??

Maybe next month??

Heat capacitors (as in regulating a tricky thermodynamic process) and heat
batteries (portable heat) are long known concepts but hardly applied -- yet.

One would imagine the wood burning house heating crowd would just love this
technology -- make one big fire one time -- heat the house for a couple of
days after.

Or -- just fill your walls with coconut oil! (or better -- make your floor
a -- saying -- 3 inch deep coconut oil reservoir -- 78F f being just nice.

Also -- how about your waterbed??? Circulate steam though tubing in it one
time -- for an hour or so -- have warm bed for a week or more?

That would be very low pressure steam -- like from your pressure cooker.

Would also work good in green houses -- use solar heater to melt/heat
coconut oil. Have oil in 4 inch pvc tubes between rows of plants -- put
solar heating on manifold at one end -- no pumping required. Or -- just
circulate solar heated water to melt oil.

Then sun heat both day and night!!

It goes on and on and on.

Endless possibilities just waiting to be dreamed up!

Peter -- Belize

At 05:32 PM 10/24/2004 -0500, Paul S. Anderson wrote:
>Peter and all,
>At 03:19 PM 10/23/04 -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:
>
>>A second great exasmple:
>>
>>http://www.trainweb.org/tusp/news/fireless.html
>>
>>Highlighting:
>
>I like it. Not from the point of view of locomotives and other big stuff,
>but what about for SMALL applications? Heating a sealed container, and
>then releasing the energy when needed.
>
>Might be dangerous for explosions and might run up the costs, but
>interesting when we consider that the cook in a remote area might need to
>"re-heat" something conveniently.
>
>Reminded me of seeing some "fireless cookers" at Pioneer Village museum in
>Minden, Nebraska, a few weeks ago. Their collection of heating devices is
>great and in chronological order from 1830s to 1970s.
>
>The fireless cooker was an insulated box (haybox style) but where they
>place stones that had handles and were heated directly and then placed in
>the box with the pot of food to cook. The rock held the heat for enough
>time to be useful. Sign said it was widely used for a while.
>
>Anything like this still being used?
>
>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 at 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 tombreed at comcast.net Mon Oct 25 09:27:25 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (tombreed at comcast.net)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:27:25 +0000
Subject: [Stoves] (no subject)
Message-ID: <102520041427.11671.417D0D4A0008BBC100002D9722007340760B0A0A9D0D03019B@comcast.net>

Dear Art, ADK; Peter and All:

It is important to know details (the trees) but also important to step back and look at the forest sometimes.

Oil, petroleum, ... is approximately CH2, hence the name Hydro-Carbon. Great fuels, but going going ... gone forces to look at Mother Nature's energy systems and she avoids hydrocarbons because they are non biodegradable. Animal fats and vegetable oils have almost the same energy density but can be unravelled when used up.

Biomass, paper, starches, celluloses and sugars are approximately C-H2O, hence the name Carbon-Hydrate. It is useful to examine the conversions of CH2O to energy

1) Dehydration (pyrolysis) removes the H2O and leaves charcoal, well known for 300,000 years
CH2O ==> C + H2O
2) Catalytic reforming
CH2O ==> CO + H2
gives synthesis gas from which we can make alcohols, ammonia and Fischer Tropsch hydrocarbons.
3) Anaerobic digestion, disproportionation
2 CH2O ==> CO2 + CH4
is a simultaneous oxidation and reduction and is accomplished by digestion.
4) Aerobic digestion
CH2O + O2 ==> CO2 + H2O
merely wastes the energy.

Nice to have all these choices.

Tom Reed BEF

the two phase system of fermentation looks very nice on paper, and is also
good for getting methane from paper, but in practice, one loses a lot of
calories in the aerobic phase. A very well known research institute in India
installed a two phase biogas plant to take care of the household waste
generated by people living in their campus. A large part of the waste
consists of leftover starchy food (bread, rice, beans, potatos, noodles
etc.) and a
relatively small part of the waste was from vegetables and paper (we sell
waste
paper in India).The vegetable waste and paper were cellulosic.
The waste was first allowed to decompose aerobically and
the leachates from this digester were fed into the anaerobic digesger.
In this case, the starchy part of the waste, that should have
gone straight into the anaerobic digester, was lost in the process of
aerobic decomposition. In India, they have made a fetish out of the C/N
ratio
and therefore biogas experts are afraid of loading the system with too much
carbohydrate. The biogas experts, at least
in India, consider 30 as the ideal C/N ratio. This is the C/N ratio of
cattle dung.
I have operated my biogas system using cereal flour, which has
90% starch and 10% protein, with oilcake having almost equal quantities of
starch and protein, and with fruit pulp and sugarcane juice, which are very
poor in
protein content. The biogas plants were operated for months on end.
In all these cases I got almost the theoretically calculated methane
quantity.
Yours
A.D.Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: Art Krenzel <phoenix98604 at earthlink.net>
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>; <STOVES at listserv.repp.org>; Peter
Singfield <snkm at btl.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 1:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Gas-er-up!! Data listings -- process flow --

> Peter,
>
> You have taken off with the zeal of an Evangelist with this biogas
project!
> You did a great job gathering the necessary information for you bio
process.
>
> You said:
> >Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that digestion is a
> >biological process.
>
> >The "anaerobic" bacteria responsible for digestion can't survive with
even
> >the slightest trace of oxygen. So, because of the oxygen in the manure
> >mixture fed to the digester, there is a long period after loading before
> >actual digestion takes place. During this initial "aerobic" period,
traces
> >of oxygen are used up by oxygen-loving bacteria, and large amounts of
> >carbon dioxide (C02) are released.
>
> Actually, in the latest biogas technology, the anaerobic process is broken
> into two separate steps. The first step, acetate formation by organic
> acids, is somewhat tolerant of the presence of small amounts of oxygen.
The
> second stage, methanation, the presence of any oxygen means sudden and
> instant death to the methagens.
>
> Just Google TWO PHASE ANAEROBIC DIGESTION for the latest information.
>
>
> >Biologically, then, successful digestion depends upon achieving and (for
> >continuous-load digesters) maintaining a balance between those bacteria
> >which produce organic acids and those bacteria which produce methane gas
> >from the organic acids.
>
> Again, the newer production anaerobic processes are hybrids. They have
> daily batch tanks for the first stage (hydrolyis and acetate formation)
and
> pulse feeding of the second stage (methane formation). The net effect is
> that we have a continuous process that can handle surge loading on the
feed
> side and a near constant output of biogas.
>
> Peter, I still think you should make beer. Think of it - now we could
have
> a reason for our Evangelistic rants! :-) We could sell the bad batches
of
> beer as vinegar and have two markets.
>
> I built and operated a microbrewery during one of my earlier lives and it
> was a pleasure - especially at break time. :-)
>
> Art Krenzel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

 

_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
Stoves at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

From tombreed at comcast.net Mon Oct 25 09:30:38 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (tombreed at comcast.net)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:30:38 +0000
Subject: [Stoves] Carbohydrate Conversion Routes
Message-ID: <102520041430.2901.417D0E0D000268ED00000B5522007348300B0A0A9D0D03019B@comcast.net>

Dear Art, ADK; Peter and All:

Forgot to put a SUBJECT on this...

TOM

It is important to know details (the trees) but also important to step back and look at the forest sometimes.

Oil, petroleum, ... is approximately CH2, hence the name Hydro-Carbon. Great fuels, but going going ... gone forces to look at Mother Nature's energy systems and she avoids hydrocarbons because they are non biodegradable. Animal fats and vegetable oils have almost the same energy density but can be unravelled when used up.

Biomass, paper, starches, celluloses and sugars are approximately C-H2O, hence the name Carbon-Hydrate. It is useful to examine the conversions of CH2O to energy

1) Dehydration (pyrolysis) removes the H2O and leaves charcoal, well known for 300,000 years
CH2O ==> C + H2O
2) Catalytic reforming
CH2O ==> CO + H2
gives synthesis gas from which we can make alcohols, ammonia and Fischer Tropsch hydrocarbons.
3) Anaerobic digestion, disproportionation
2 CH2O ==> CO2 + CH4
is a simultaneous oxidation and reduction and is accomplished by digestion.
4) Aerobic digestion
CH2O + O2 ==> CO2 + H2O
merely wastes the energy.

Nice to have all these choices.

Tom Reed BEF

the two phase system of fermentation looks very nice on paper, and is also
good for getting methane from paper, but in practice, one loses a lot of
calories in the aerobic phase. A very well known research institute in India
installed a two phase biogas plant to take care of the household waste
generated by people living in their campus. A large part of the waste
consists of leftover starchy food (bread, rice, beans, potatos, noodles
etc.) and a
relatively small part of the waste was from vegetables and paper (we sell
waste
paper in India).The vegetable waste and paper were cellulosic.
The waste was first allowed to decompose aerobically and
the leachates from this digester were fed into the anaerobic digesger.
In this case, the starchy part of the waste, that should have
gone straight into the anaerobic digester, was lost in the process of
aerobic decomposition. In India, they have made a fetish out of the C/N
ratio
and therefore biogas experts are afraid of loading the system with too much
carbohydrate. The biogas experts, at least
in India, consider 30 as the ideal C/N ratio. This is the C/N ratio of
cattle dung.
I have operated my biogas system using cereal flour, which has
90% starch and 10% protein, with oilcake having almost equal quantities of
starch and protein, and with fruit pulp and sugarcane juice, which are very
poor in
protein content. The biogas plants were operated for months on end.
In all these cases I got almost the theoretically calculated methane
quantity.
Yours
A.D.Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: Art Krenzel <phoenix98604 at earthlink.net>
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>; <STOVES at listserv.repp.org>; Peter
Singfield <snkm at btl.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 1:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Gas-er-up!! Data listings -- process flow --

> Peter,
>
> You have taken off with the zeal of an Evangelist with this biogas
project!
> You did a great job gathering the necessary information for you bio
process.
>
> You said:
> >Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that digestion is a
> >biological process.
>
> >The "anaerobic" bacteria responsible for digestion can't survive with
even
> >the slightest trace of oxygen. So, because of the oxygen in the manure
> >mixture fed to the digester, there is a long period after loading before
> >actual digestion takes place. During this initial "aerobic" period,
traces
> >of oxygen are used up by oxygen-loving bacteria, and large amounts of
> >carbon dioxide (C02) are released.
>
> Actually, in the latest biogas technology, the anaerobic process is broken
> into two separate steps. The first step, acetate formation by organic
> acids, is somewhat tolerant of the presence of small amounts of oxygen.
The
> second stage, methanation, the presence of any oxygen means sudden and
> instant death to the methagens.
>
> Just Google TWO PHASE ANAEROBIC DIGESTION for the latest information.
>
>
> >Biologically, then, successful digestion depends upon achieving and (for
> >continuous-load digesters) maintaining a balance between those bacteria
> >which produce organic acids and those bacteria which produce methane gas
> >from the organic acids.
>
> Again, the newer production anaerobic processes are hybrids. They have
> daily batch tanks for the first stage (hydrolyis and acetate formation)
and
> pulse feeding of the second stage (methane formation). The net effect is
> that we have a continuous process that can handle surge loading on the
feed
> side and a near constant output of biogas.
>
> Peter, I still think you should make beer. Think of it - now we could
have
> a reason for our Evangelistic rants! :-) We could sell the bad batches
of
> beer as vinegar and have two markets.
>
> I built and operated a microbrewery during one of my earlier lives and it
> was a pleasure - especially at break time. :-)
>
> Art Krenzel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

 

_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
Stoves at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

From tombreed at comcast.net Mon Oct 25 07:18:35 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (tombreed at comcast.net)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:18:35 +0000
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Why very small power is needed for forced air
Message-ID: <102520041218.13729.417CEF1A000C59B6000035A122007348300B0A0A9D0D03019B@comcast.net>

Dear Paul and Aul:

Finally got a wireless connection here in Eugene while visisting Ken Goyer, Larry Winiarski and Aprovecho.

I'm not sure what the fuss is about, since we are using less than 1 Watt electric to generate 3000 Watts thermal. However, we believe that a radial configuration of the fan blades rather than the usual axial connection might be slightly better.

We have yet to find a good 1.5 V solar charger - most are 3, 6 or 12 V. However, in principle our <1 watt should easily be supplied by a small charger. Probably we should kill two birds with one stone, use a 3 V charger and supply an LED lamp as accessory to the stove, since people who lack 1 Watt for cooking probably lack light for reading at night.

Tom Reed

-------------- Original message --------------

> To Tom Reed (and others),
>
> Can we get answers for Crispin's questions? (Tom has been on a trip, I
> believe. So I hope he can reply soon.)
>
> Paul
>
> At 11:50 PM 10/23/04 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
> >Dear Paul
> >
> >I have an amazing spreadsheet Nigel made for me for calculating chimney
> >draft but one of the things missing from it is a power rating for the
> >draft produced by burning X amount of biomass in Y minutes with Z amount
> >of excess air into a chimney with diameter W at temperature T. It
> >compensates for fuel moisture but not CO in the CO2 (slight heat loss
> >not worked out).
> >
> >How much draft is 1 watt of motor power? Is it a mass and rate of
> >ascent, a sort of inverse-falling-weight calculation?
> >
> >I would prefer an answer in -pascals or -millibars (negative draft in a
> >chimney) and litres per second of flow into that chimney. Does anyone
> >have an idea?
> >
> >About the natural draft solution:
> >
> >I think there are other layouts that could induce more draft, adequate
> >draft, and higher pressure draft. It is probably too soon to give up on
> >the natural approach because although the amount of power you require is
> >low, it is darn hard to get.
> >
> >I asked before about the quantity of air required and the pressure it
> >needs to be at but I didn't see any answers except from AJH (see below).
> >
> >Surely you know this from your experiments? Do you have a manometer
> >that reads in inches of water hooked into the air channel?
> >
> >Can you calculate from the amount of excess air (O2 actually) coming
> >out, and the rate of fuel burning, what the volume of air passing though
> >the fan must therefore be?
> >
> >AJH: I think there may be a mismatch between the amount of pressure
> >required for Tom's stove and the nature of a CPU fan, and that may
> >explain the (estimated) low efficiency. If you are not correct about
> >only 20% excess air, then the performance might be better but my
> >observation remains: the pressure in the Reed stove is probably much
> >higher than the pressure drop over the CPU heat sink and that little fan
> >is optimised for the latter.
> >
> >Putting a circular sticker over the fan to decrease the effective length
> >of the blades and increase the hub diameter might use less power and
> >make no difference to the stove. Might even improve it. Dr Peter South
> >(NRC Canada) convinced me that the optimum shape of a fan is unknowable
> >until the formulas have been run. It might have to be mostly hub! The
> >classic shape for medium pressure, high volume is a squirrel cage, not a
> >fan.
> >
> >Thanks
> >Crispin
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Stoves mailing list
> >Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> >http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>
> 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 at 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 snkm at btl.net Mon Oct 25 10:41:40 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:41:40 -0600
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Why very small power is needed for forced air
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041025093112.009b7ba0@pop.btl.net>

Tom;

>>We have yet to find a good 1.5 V solar charger - most are 3, 6 or 12 V.

The 3 volt charger should work just fine -- and if not -- add one tiny
voltage controller chip -- that and the rest of the parts should all total
less than 25 cents.

Here in the village I live in people use old car batteries for energy
storage. That is batteries no longer good enough to crank over an engine --
but still sufficient to give lights.

They carry these to places for charging -- then carry those back charged.

I am charging one such right now.

It is easy to rewire any old car battery to supply 2 volts -- run all cells
parallel.

Also -- often car batteries here die due to rough roads -- as one cell
drops down -- from shaking and bumps -- that still leaves the other cells
functional -- as 2 volts each cells.

In point of fact -- your ideal battery for your stove fan would be a single
2 volts car battery cell -- more than enough capacity - -and will live in
this application a very long time -- being less recharge cycles required.

Scale of economics might make it attractive for one person in each village
to establish a battery charging operation.

A simple -- single solar panel -- 12 volts -- 4 amps -- would charge 6 of
these home-made cells at a time -- hooked in series with that panel.

I would not doubt each household could run a month on one charge!! (for
cooking fan only)

So one solar panel could charge 30 times 6 = 180 family cook stoves!!

The same goes for windmills --

Or - -remember that old idea of mine??

A very small diesel engine using spent cooking oil -- or fresh nut oil --
for fuel -- to charge batteries.

This obsession with making each unit totally independent from the rest of a
village infrastructure fits well with American style life -- but flies in
the face of global 3rd world's people ability to always cooperate with each
other to lower individual costs.

This engineering problem is ignoring the cultural aspects!

When I was young one man went around with his horse drawn mower to mow
numerous other farmers hay fields.

As I grew up -- I noticed every farmer wanted his own unit -- so he did not
have to kiss any "ass" -- and hey guys -- look where this attitude (brought
to us by "commercialism") got us to -- eh??

When dealing 3rd world -- let's not try to introduce this knee jerk
mentality -- let's work with them in a cultural manner they are used to --
cooperatively.

Here in Belize -- among the Maya -- village people would each contribute a
little to establish a charging station "COOP" --

I think you people are creating a mountain out of a mole hill due to the
blinders that have been installed on your collective thought processes.

Turn off the TV --

Think I'll got to the municipal dump of a close by "Town" and see how many
old car batteries I can find and "experiment"

I have a few super white LED's handy --

Every one pushing together guys -- not all for one -- eh??

You see in many parts of this globe -- in 3rd world countries -- they do
not yet have TV -- and as such are not running the prefered programing for
human "advancement" -- eh??

Course -- guess which group feeds and reproduces best should the great
apple carts of these modern industrialized nations turn over!

Believe me -- the future is in humanity living in 3rd world -- not humanity
living consumerism!!

Peter -- in Belize

At 12:18 PM 10/25/2004 +0000, tombreed at comcast.net wrote:
>Dear Paul and Aul:
>
>Finally got a wireless connection here in Eugene while visisting Ken
Goyer, Larry Winiarski and Aprovecho.
>
>I'm not sure what the fuss is about, since we are using less than 1 Watt
electric to generate 3000 Watts thermal. However, we believe that a radial
configuration of the fan blades rather than the usual axial connection
might be slightly better.
>
>We have yet to find a good 1.5 V solar charger - most are 3, 6 or 12 V.
However, in principle our <1 watt should easily be supplied by a small
charger. Probably we should kill two birds with one stone, use a 3 V
charger and supply an LED lamp as accessory to the stove, since people who
lack 1 Watt for cooking probably lack light for reading at night.
>
>Tom Reed
>
>-------------- Original message --------------
>
>> To Tom Reed (and others),
>>
>> Can we get answers for Crispin's questions? (Tom has been on a trip, I
>> believe. So I hope he can reply soon.)
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> At 11:50 PM 10/23/04 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>> >Dear Paul
>> >
>> >I have an amazing spreadsheet Nigel made for me for calculating chimney
>> >draft but one of the things missing from it is a power rating for the
>> >draft produced by burning X amount of biomass in Y minutes with Z amount
>> >of excess air into a chimney with diameter W at temperature T. It
>> >compensates for fuel moisture but not CO in the CO2 (slight heat loss
>> >not worked out).
>> >
>> >How much draft is 1 watt of motor power? Is it a mass and rate of
>> >ascent, a sort of inverse-falling-weight calculation?
>> >
>> >I would prefer an answer in -pascals or -millibars (negative draft in a
>> >chimney) and litres per second of flow into that chimney. Does anyone
>> >have an idea?
>> >
>> >About the natural draft solution:
>> >
>> >I think there are other layouts that could induce more draft, adequate
>> >draft, and higher pressure draft. It is probably too soon to give up on
>> >the natural approach because although the amount of power you require is
>> >low, it is darn hard to get.
>> >
>> >I asked before about the quantity of air required and the pressure it
>> >needs to be at but I didn't see any answers except from AJH (see below).
>> >
>> >Surely you know this from your experiments? Do you have a manometer
>> >that reads in inches of water hooked into the air channel?
>> >
>> >Can you calculate from the amount of excess air (O2 actually) coming
>> >out, and the rate of fuel burning, what the volume of air passing though
>> >the fan must therefore be?
>> >
>> >AJH: I think there may be a mismatch between the amount of pressure
>> >required for Tom's stove and the nature of a CPU fan, and that may
>> >explain the (estimated) low efficiency. If you are not correct about
>> >only 20% excess air, then the performance might be better but my
>> >observation remains: the pressure in the Reed stove is probably much
>> >higher than the pressure drop over the CPU heat sink and that little fan
>> >is optimised for the latter.
>> >
>> >Putting a circular sticker over the fan to decrease the effective length
>> >of the blades and increase the hub diameter might use less power and
>> >make no difference to the stove. Might even improve it. Dr Peter South
>> >(NRC Canada) convinced me that the optimum shape of a fan is unknowable
>> >until the formulas have been run. It might have to be mostly hub! The
>> >classic shape for medium pressure, high volume is a squirrel cage, not a
>> >fan.
>> >
>> >Thanks
>> >Crispin
>> >
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >Stoves mailing list
>> >Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>> >http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>>
>> 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 at 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
>>
>_______________________________________________
>Stoves mailing list
>Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>

From Carefreeland at aol.com Mon Oct 25 13:44:47 2004
From: Carefreeland at aol.com (Carefreeland at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:44:47 EDT
Subject: [Stoves] Harvesting Biomass with Biomass energy.
Message-ID: <9e.17d33221.2eaea39f@aol.com>

In a message dated 10/23/04 8:27:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Carefreeland
writes:

DD Coments: I tried to send this to gasification and stoves, but it bounced
as a blind copy. If you bear with my political opinions, I belive the concepts
are good for all concerned with Bioenergy.
>
>
> Greetings friends,
> I am happy to announce what may be another first, in our incremental
> babysteps forward, for the practical commercial use of Bioenergy. I have
> initiated the use of Soybean derived BD20 Biodiesel in my 773turbo Bobcat skid
> steer loader. The Bobcat, when a 15" diameter treeshear is attached, is being
> pressed into a small but growing service. I am doing woodlot thinning and tree
> clearing.
> Just yesterday I used the BD20 mix in the Bobcat with loader bucket,
> for doing a small amount of gravel lane maintenance. I was super impressed
> with the performance improvement of the 46hp Kabota turbo-diesel in my
> precision machine. The mix runs noticeably smoother, burns cleaner, and produces
> noticeably higher top end power output. As soon as tomorrow, I may harvest the
> first tree using a BD20 fueled, automated tree harvester.
> My new woodlot clearing business is particularly targeting woodlots
> which need precision thinned for new shaded lawns and landscapes. My particular
> Bobcat treeshear combination is perfect for doing the least damage to the
> surrounding environment. I can select unwanted mid-sized trees and scrub and
> carefully remove them. In this end of the business, every extra horsepower that
> can be produced while not adding weight or size to the machine, intensifies
> effectiveness. Smooth control of often overstraining hydraulics is essential,
> even for safety.
> The fumes and soot from standard diesel fuel are particularly damaging
> to plants in sensitive close quarters of a newly renovated wooded landscape.
> I have witnessed serious plant damage many times from car and truck exhaust
> around parking lots. It is always worst when visible soot is present. One of
> the sales points for Soy Biodiesel users has always been the cleaner exhaust
> accumulation while cleaning semi-enclosed barns. A farmer raising calf's
> reported that his calf's no longer left the barn while he was mucking stalls. My
> machine was burning so clean it didn't bother me at all to smell a little
> exhaust.
> My use for the harvested Biomass, is initially to heat my greenhouse,
> my home, and then out buildings. Then I am selling off excess wood as prime
> selected hardwood firewood. I burn the lower grade softwood, and buggy or
> rotted wood myself. There is a need industrywide for clean quick disposal of bug
> and disease infested plant material. My future plans include someday adding
> a small charcoal producing business, experimenting with closed retort,
> metallurgic char.
> We in the renewable fuel business's are often lacking positive news. I
> am a plant grower first, and a consumer of Biofuel secondly. I can see
> clearly from my point of view, an ever expanding supply of harvestable material.
> Much of it now still being wasted. Plants are growing more rapidly and in
> places they haven't before. Throw away all of those papers predicting limits of
> future supply. The plants have only begun to harvest the available solar
> energy.
> The mid-Autumn rains are gently soaking the brightly colored, falling
> leaves here in Southern Ohio. While everybody else is wrapping up the warm
> season, we growers are busy planning the next one. As the weather chills, I
> may again find time to comment and experiment and comment on the supply side
> of Biomass energy.
> In the near future, the people of my State of OHIO, USA, have been
> given a key roll in choosing the future path of our country, even to some extent
> the world. We are one of the top three voting swing states. For the
> renewable energy issue, Presidential Candidate John Kerry has it hands down.
> I shouted a voice straining YEA!! at a recent political rally. John
> Kerry, with first astronaut Ohioan John Glenn by his side, had announced his
> commitment to support renewables. The audience of over ten thousand Daytonians,
> echoed my sentiments as they quickly remembered what they paid for fuel that
> week. I am sure it sounded like John Kerry had hit a home run in the new
> Dayton Dragons minor league baseball park.
> Myself, I feel I just had an easy walk to first base as I started my
> own new Biofuel ballgame. I'm playing against the entrenched fossil fuel
> providers. We all know that love of the game beats a high salary and experience in
> the long run. How about those Boston Red Sox? Stay tuned.
> Sincerely,
> Daniel Dimiduk
> Owner: Carefree landscape Maintenance Co.
> Founder: Shangri- La Research and Development Co.
>
>

From crispin at newdawn.sz Mon Oct 25 15:11:37 2004
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:11:37 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] Testing of a REDI Stove modified to be an FSP stove
Message-ID: <000501c4bacf$164c1ce0$0100a8c0@md>

Dear Stovers and Especially Initerant Testers

The purpose of this test was to evaluate the efficiency of the stove when a
plate is set under the pot to prevent the hot gases travelling downwards and
away from the pot as is the case with open framework stoves with a central
burner.

I took a standard REDI stove and added a larger combustion chamber (made of
thin sheet metal) about 100mm in diameter. This was to get more air mixed
into the fuel as a test of the original showed almost no free oxygen in the
gas stream.

I placed on it a stainless steel bath tub plug hole (76mm dia unperforated
pressed thin sheet) to act as an ignitor. Around the outside I placed a
perforated thin sheet tube 130mm in diameter with a total (8mm dia holes)
hole area 20% larger than the difference between the inner combustion area
and the ignitor. The holes are clustered towards the center of the height
in 5 rows.

I placed a flat sheet under the bottom to seal off the air thus preventing a
direct updrat through the stove body and forcing the incoming air to pass
through the holes in the outer cylinder. This has the effect of preheating
the primary and secondary air. The outer cylinder is about 30mm taller than
the inner cylinder.

On top of the 6mm round bar framework of the REDI stove I placed a top deck
from a Vesto with three feet about 18mm high to keep the pot up off the
deck. The outer cylinder (above) hangs in the top deck suspended by a top
lip. Around the outside I dropped a standard Vesto heat shield which is
95mm high and 286mm in diameter.

The jet was a 1.0mm jet with 4 wires taken from a wire brush pushed through
so as to reduce the effective size. I would have preferred a smaller jet
but they are all gone at the moment. The spray pattern was lousy and the
flame was not all blue, however the combustion efficiency was so good, as
the results below show, that the test went ahead. The specific fuel
consumption was 4.39cc/min for a rating of 2.44 KW. One litre will be
consumed in 3 hours 48 minutes.

The fuel pressure was 1.05 metres (the tank is elevated above the stove).
When the stove was running and the flame stablilized I placed the pot on the
feet. The side gap between the pot and the heat shield was about 16mm.

Firing the Stove:
First I lit the stove having weighed the fuel, the pot, the water in it and
the water temperature. Then I took a number of gas and physical
measurements over a 27 minute period. The pot boiled in 14.5 minutes after
which I had to take off the lid because it was boiling so vigorously.

Results:
32.00 Initial water temperature C
99.00 Final water temperature C (reached in 14.5 minutes)
1531101 Joules required to heat the water
5,454.00 Initial amount of water Gm
4,696.00 Final amount of water Gm
758.00 Cubic centimetres of water evaporated (evaporated in 13.5
minutes)
1705523 Joules required to evaporate the missing water
3.24 Total heat required (MegaJoules)

781.00 Initial amount of paraffin Gm
678.00 Final amount of paraffin Gm
3.82 Specific fuel consumption Gm/Min
40.83 Estimated heat content (MJoules/Kg)
4.21 Heat yield in MJ

3.24 Heat used MJ
4.21 Heat generated MJ
76.96 % Average Heat Transfer Efficiency

Emissions:
Carbon dioxide level in the gap between the pot and the heat shield = 6 to
6.2%
Carbon monoxide content (hydrogen compensated) typically = 45-50 ppm
Carbon monoxide content divided by the carbon dioxide content = 0.08 to
0.10% (max 0.13%, min 0.05%)
Permissible limit for CO/CO2 ratio = 2.00%.

Total Time: 27 minutes from placing the pot on the stove to weighing it
after the test.

Apparent heat transfer efficiency during the heating of the water = 67.7%
Apparent heat transfer efficiency during the evaporation of the water =
81.0%

The heat absorbed by the pot and lid was not taken into consideration. Some
of the discrepancy between these two figures can be explained by the pot
absorbing heat during the water heating phase.

The heating value of the fuel I got from the website
www.bhpbilliton.com/bbContentRepository/CustomerCentreMarketing/Petroleum/co
ssa.pdf+%22heating+value%22+paraffin&hl=en by averaging the two figures
given there.

Conclusions:
1. There is significant heat transfer efficiency to be gained by trapping
the hot gases between a reflective plate and the underside of the pot, and
incorporating a heat shield or "shroud" around the pot. The heat transfer
efficiency of the open frame pressure-type paraffin stove as tested at SABS
in Pretoria is about 40%. The top is open and has no shrouding. This
experiment indicates the level of fuel economy that can be had for a small
investment in sheet metal.

2. The REDI stove is well suited to adaption to the FSP Stove layout and
acoutrements (fuel control valve, non-return valve in the fuel line, loose
ignitor plate and preheated primary and secondary air).

3. The absence of a perfect, steady, intense blue flame does not mean
that the emissions are necessarily high.

4. The provision of a small chamber under the pot and above the ignitor
plate seems to complete the combustion process even when it is obvious that
the combustion has not been completed under the ignitor place as is normal
with an FSP stove. The operating temperature of the components was
significantly lower than in a well made FSP stove. The heat transfer
efficiency may have been reduced by this, however.

5. Interfering with the paraffin gas spray pattern does not necessarily
increase the CO emissions when the stove body is as described above. This
is unexpected and contradicts earlier experiences.

A photo of the testing setup will be posted on the Paraffin Stove page of
the New Dawn Engineering website in due course.

END
++++++++++++

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
New Dawn Engineering
www.newdawnengineering.com

 

From sylva at iname.com Mon Oct 25 15:29:23 2004
From: sylva at iname.com (sylva at iname.com)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 15:29:23 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] Fw: Re:calculator
Message-ID: <20041025202923.F283F4BDA9@ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com>

Dear All:
?
I'm late getting in on this discussion, but if it is the draft calculator, please send me a copy, Excel preferred....
?
Thanks, TOM REED
?
-------------- Original message --------------
>
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 14:30:49 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>
> >IP is not a problem. It is a written thing so all one has to do is
> >write (c) on it and say "Copyright" and no one can pass it off as their
> >own work.
>
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

From willing at mts.net Mon Oct 25 15:39:28 2004
From: willing at mts.net (Scott Willing)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 15:39:28 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Why very small power is needed for forced air
In-Reply-To: <102520041218.13729.417CEF1A000C59B6000035A122007348300B0A0A9D0D03019B@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <417D1E30.11842.67EEA8@localhost>

On 25 Oct 2004 at 12:18, tombreed at comcast.net wrote:

> Dear Paul and Aul:
>
> Finally got a wireless connection here in Eugene while visisting
> Ken Goyer, Larry Winiarski and Aprovecho.
>
> I'm not sure what the fuss is about, since we are using less than
> 1 Watt electric to generate 3000 Watts thermal. However, we
> believe that a radial configuration of the fan blades rather than
> the usual axial connection might be slightly better.
>
> We have yet to find a good 1.5 V solar charger

Please define "good".

> - most are 3, 6 or 12 V.

If a so-called 3V, 6V or even 12V charger consists of little more
than the PV panel and a diode, and its output current is not too
high, it can be directly connected to a single cell without harm
to panel or battery. This comment does not apply to chargers
having sophisticated electronic charge controls.

I have a solar battery charger equipped with two 6V (nominal)
panels that can be switched in series for 12V or paralleled for
6V at double the current. There are four AA battery bays
connected in parallel just like my pocket model, so when charging
these batteries the terminal voltage is about 2V whether the
panel is switched to 6V or 12V. (One uses the "6V" setting of
course, to get the extra current.)

> However, in principle our <1 watt should easily be supplied
> by a small charger. Probably we should kill two birds with one
> stone, use a 3 V charger and supply an LED lamp as accessory to
> the stove, since people who lack 1 Watt for cooking probably lack
> light for reading at night.

Could do. 2 cells would be necessary for the LED as a single
NiCad cell won't provide sufficient voltage.

Subsequent to this discussion I've decided to convert my little
pocket charger into a replacement for one of the stove battery
holders.

-=s

> Tom Reed
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
> > To Tom Reed (and others),
> >
> > Can we get answers for Crispin's questions? (Tom has been on a
> > trip, I believe. So I hope he can reply soon.)
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > At 11:50 PM 10/23/04 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
> > >Dear Paul
> > >
> > >I have an amazing spreadsheet Nigel made for me for calculating
> > >chimney draft but one of the things missing from it is a power
> > >rating for the draft produced by burning X amount of biomass in
> > >Y minutes with Z amount of excess air into a chimney with
> > >diameter W at temperature T. It compensates for fuel moisture
> > >but not CO in the CO2 (slight heat loss not worked out).
> > >
> > >How much draft is 1 watt of motor power? Is it a mass and rate
> > >of ascent, a sort of inverse-falling-weight calculation?
> > >
> > >I would prefer an answer in -pascals or -millibars (negative
> > >draft in a chimney) and litres per second of flow into that
> > >chimney. Does anyone have an idea?
> > >
> > >About the natural draft solution:
> > >
> > >I think there are other layouts that could induce more draft,
> > >adequate draft, and higher pressure draft. It is probably too
> > >soon to give up on the natural approach because although the
> > >amount of power you require is low, it is darn hard to get.
> > >
> > >I asked before about the quantity of air required and the
> > >pressure it needs to be at but I didn't see any answers except
> > >from AJH (see below).
> > >
> > >Surely you know this from your experiments? Do you have a
> > >manometer that reads in inches of water hooked into the air
> > >channel?
> > >
> > >Can you calculate from the amount of excess air (O2 actually)
> > >coming out, and the rate of fuel burning, what the volume of
> > >air passing though the fan must therefore be?
> > >
> > >AJH: I think there may be a mismatch between the amount of
> > >pressure required for Tom's stove and the nature of a CPU fan,
> > >and that may explain the (estimated) low efficiency. If you are
> > >not correct about only 20% excess air, then the performance
> > >might be better but my observation remains: the pressure in the
> > >Reed stove is probably much higher than the pressure drop over
> > >the CPU heat sink and that little fan is optimised for the
> > >latter.
> > >
> > >Putting a circular sticker over the fan to decrease the
> > >effective length of the blades and increase the hub diameter
> > >might use less power and make no difference to the stove. Might
> > >even improve it. Dr Peter South (NRC Canada) convinced me that
> > >the optimum shape of a fan is unknowable until the formulas
> > >have been run. It might have to be mostly hub! The classic
> > >shape for medium pressure, high volume is a squirrel cage, not
> > >a fan.
> > >
> > >Thanks
> > >Crispin
> > >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >Stoves mailing list
> > >Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> > >http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
> >
> > 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 at 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

 

From willing at mts.net Mon Oct 25 16:36:23 2004
From: willing at mts.net (Scott Willing)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:36:23 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] Forward of Paul's discussion with Scott
In-Reply-To: <sqlnn0ldj9vbh32p028mc1rqgo9kk44cct@4ax.com>
References: <417B8A5D.9454.2D1A9A@localhost>
Message-ID: <417D2B87.629.9C08E6@localhost>

On 24 Oct 2004 at 17:40, AJH wrote:

> Our day varies quite a bit during the year as we are at 51N.

About the same as us -- though I'll bet you don't see -40 degrees
very often.

> I imagine that the majority of clients for wood stoves will be
> nearer the equator and have less change in daylight throughout
> the year.

Yep.

> Even here I have seen a major solar pv installation claim an
> average (day and night if my interpretation is correct) of 17% of
> installed capacity generated. I was quite impressed and still
> wonder how much is produced when overcast.

"Overcast" comes in many flavours, but it's worse that you might
guess from attempting to judge intensity subjectively. Today we
had a bit of high haze and our solar array output was cut in
half. Any significant cloud cover drops it to nothing, or nearly
so.

> OK but the test for our clients will be how the battery stands up
> to this use, I understood nicads were challenged at more than 300
> charge discharge cycles.

Don't have figures at my fingertips but it seems reasonable.

I have a set of C-size NiCads I've been running dead flat roughly
twice a week for four years and they're still happy. 300 cycles
easily, perhaps 400, and still happy. (Knock on wood.)

> >The little stove fan appears to draw around 250mA while running,
>
> With a single nicad this suggests 1/3W, nearly an order of
> magnitude less than Paul S thought he needed.

Again I would caution against putting too much faith in the 250mA
figure. Needs a more accurate measurement.

> Yes and consider that the solar light has 2 nicads. Now how can we
> use this device without expecting the cook to swap cells between
> devices. We need a fan capable of economically using 2.6V and a
> way of mounting the solar light in sunshine and close enough to
> the stove to avoid I2R losses in the connecting cable.

As close as practical anyway. One could gain a small advantage by
putting the panel (lower current) on the end of the wire while
keeping the batteries (higher current) closer to the stove.
Better to have the batteries out of the sun too.

I'm sure a suitable motor could be sourced for a dual-cell rather
than single-cell arrangement.

More quick measurements - this is the first day we've had sun in
a week or more. I just went out and compared the panel on one of
my solar garden lights to the pocket AA charger. They're in a
similar ballpark, but the garden light actually appears to have
the edge in the oomph department.

I also noticed that the AA NiCads in our garden lights are rated
550mAhr - somewhere around the middle of available capacities.

Solar garden lights are probably a more popular / high volume
item than solar chargers, and come with batteries to boot, so
they have a lot going for them as modification candidates.

-=s

From psanders at ilstu.edu Mon Oct 25 17:09:15 2004
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:09:15 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Why very small power is needed for forced air
In-Reply-To: <ia0nn051h2p2sp6nvv395rkgjtv619r07u@4ax.com>
References: <008d01c4b94a$578f15d0$0100a8c0@home>
<008d01c4b94a$578f15d0$0100a8c0@home>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20041025164557.02325330@mail.ilstu.edu>

Andrew and Crispin and all,

Is there a "pecking order" of air-movement options, with the greatest
creation of positive and negative pressure at the top and bottom of the list?

Compressors
Blowers
Fans
Ejectors
Venturi
Chimneys
Vacuum pumps

Just trying to understand the terms and alternatives.

Related:
Think of a "triple bulge" hour glass. That would be like a Venturi in
between other Venturi. Would seem to me that if a constriction follows a
prior point of enlargement (Venturi style), then there would NOT be any
advantage gained.

In other words, if I have my flowing hot gases/air (sequentially after the
main combustion of the gases) go upward through a Venturi (an enlargement,
so lower pressure on the "up" side), then I should NOT even consider having
that "chimney" segment constrict again (or else I would loose the initial
value of the Venturi.)

In totally practical terms, in my natural draft version of the Juntos small
gasifiers, most combustion is at one low location that is a cone about 4 or
5 inches diameter at the bottom (smaller end is at the top). The
gases/hot air go upward into a chimney that has a 3 inch diameter, and that
cylindrical chimney goes up about 15 inches as an "internal chimney" that
is BELOW the location of the pot.

Questions (with the objective of how to get more natural draft from the 15
inch length of the internal chimney):
1. Should there be a Venturi (an enlargement to 4 or 5 or 6 inches in
diameter) in the internal chimney?
2. If yes, where would that best be made (and how large?): Near the
bottom of the internal chimney, about half way up, or actually near the top
which is closest to the bottom of the pot?
3. And thinking of the initial part of this message, the internal chimney
should not (or should?) be re-constricted back to 3 inch diameter?
4. Any guideline info on how much advantage for natural draft will come
from the Venturi?

Thanks,

Paul

At 11:17 AM 10/24/04 +0100, list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 23:50:14 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>
> >Ray wrote: "I have never ceased to be amazed by the air-boosting power
> >of even this simple venturi which you can easily demonstate for yourself
> >by rolling a sheet of A4 paper into a 1" diameter tube. First hold one
> >end of the tube near your mouth and see what sort of air-flow you
> >observe from the far end with the other hand held near it. Then move the
> >'pipe' gradually away from your mouth and you will observe a GREATLY
> >increased flow of air coming from the other end... induced air-flow!. I
> >believe we need to make MUCH greater use of such venturi and air
> >'booster' effects to promote a large flow of air from just a very small
> >'blow'."
>
>Fine except I would say this was an ejector rather than a venturi. The
>venturi works specifically by increasing the velocity through a
>restriction, it is the depression due to this that sucks fuel in a
>carburetor. Just like the depression on top of a wing is caused by
>increasing the distance air is forced to travel over it.
>
>Some while back I posted why I did not consider this to be efficient
>compared with a fan, I stand to be corrected.
>
>AJH
>_______________________________________________
>Stoves mailing list
>Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

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 at 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 Mon Oct 25 17:53:55 2004
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:53:55 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] Paraffin page up
Message-ID: <000101c4bae5$8465aeb0$838cfea9@home>

Dear Friends

There are some pictures of the paraffin stove at
http://www.newdawnengineering.com/website/stove/paraffin/paraffin.htm
and the test result is reproduced there as well.

Regards
Crispin

 

From psanders at ilstu.edu Mon Oct 25 20:15:16 2004
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:15:16 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] Sustained 100 psi small air stream
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20041018100936.009c7b20@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20041025194023.0191ff00@mail.ilstu.edu>

Peter and all on Stoves (I left the Gasification people off of this message),

Your message about the high pressures attained has lead to my
question. You wrote:

>If you put water at ambient temperature in a sufficiently strong steel
>container (reactor) and seal it -- then heat to 550 F -- you get over
> 10,000 PSI pressure -- due to water "expansion" --

Well, in the Dasifier of Mr. Agua Das, he uses an old refrigerator
compressor to get 100 PSI that goes to a VERY small hole shooting air along
a pipe that both entrains the gases (not yet combusted) from the gasifier
and also entrains fresh air from a controllable side inlet to provide the
O2 for the combustion of the gases. All of this mix shoots along this pipe
and enters his forge (kiln-type) as a roaring blaze where he melts bronze
for castings. Quite an impressive device.

Well, how can we get a sustained flow of 100 PSI through a micro-pinhole
(so not much volume needed) for extended periods (minimum of 30 minutes,
better if a few hours), but with out the compressor?

Is it possible to have a container (not too expensive, perhaps like an LP
gas cylinder or a propane-for-cookstove cylinder) that is charged with just
air or with water so that we could heat it in a fire (we have plenty of
fire) and then have a sufficient pressure to drive this "entrainment" of
the air?

Note: I suspect that injecting a SMALL amount of steam would be acceptable
in the gases that are to be combusted, thereby using the wonderful
characteristics of water when boiled instead of trying to heat just dry air.

I imagine some valve (needle-type, probably) on the end of the metal
container that is to be heated. If such a valve exists to regulate the
flow along a small diameter pipe (0.5 cm maybe) to the pinhole drilled into
the side of that sealed pipe, how long could we expect a container (1 liter
or 5 liter??) to give us the needed pressurized stream of air/steam?

When one canister is about depleted, a second one already loaded and heated
could be ready to be switched on. There is no danger of back-flow through
the pinhole when the pressure is zero, and if there was a potential problem
of deposition of cal or some minerals from the water, we could specify that
the canister is charged only with distilled water (also obtainable because
we make stoves.)

Ah Ha!! -- an additional thought but of less importance results in a
separate question: Could we use the stream of pressurized steam to do
something to make a mechanical motion such as driving the fan/blower for
small forced air for the small gasifiers that Tom Reed and I are
developing? (secondary importance)

Of course, it this becomes dangerous (such a exploding canisters), I will
be much less interested in the solution until we can also remove or reduce
the dangers.

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 at 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 Oct 26 05:48:37 2004
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:48:37 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] Chimney Draft calculations
Message-ID: <006801c4bb49$5b34a500$0100a8c0@md>

Dear Stover Developers

Below is the sort of input and output that comes from the Chimney Draft Calculator.

If you are interested I will place the file in two formats (it will take me a little while to write the page) on the New Dawn Engineering website in the Stove Testing area. The Quattro Pro file has a picture (floating object) of the Vesto with the different flows from the temperatures you enter. Excel users may find that stove draft section difficult to understand without the graphic but give it a try with your stove - the results are still useful.

There is a separate portion of the sheet (not shown below) for placing your stove 'sections' in it where you can put the temperatures as the air or gases as they pass from one place to another. This means you can sum the different temperatures/drafts to add up to a total draft for the stove. It allows negative drafts as are used in the Vesto pre-heating.

At this time it does not account for excess air however that is easily added manually at the end as it only changes the gas velocity in the chimney. The advantage of leaving it out is that you can work out the actual air flow and gas velocity within the stove, or through a stove component.

Undoubtedly this Chimney Draft Calculator can be improved. It was not really written to be a general case true-to-life predictor of reality. It is however good for explaining the nature of the problem.

There is enough information in the outputs to calculate the power available from the chimney which might be used to turn a fan or perform some other mechanical work.

Good luck creating Cleaner Cookers!
Crispin
26-10-2004

+++++++++++++++++
Notice:
Chimney Draft Calculator is copyrighted. (c) 2003 Nigel Pemberton-Pigott nigelproton at hotmail.com
Copies of the file should include this brief notice and calculations made using it should credit the author.
+++++++++++++++++

NOTES
All cells with a pale blue background are for your value/variable entries. Do not edit the other cells as they probably contain formulas.

The spreadsheet is designed to calculate the burning of wood and the resulting draft. It requires that the chimney temperature be measured. It does not account for thermal losses to the chimney itself so the temperature should be taken approximately 1/2 along its length.

'AIR' means the normal air around you.
'GAS' means the gases that are considered in the flame.
'Gases' means all the gases including the 'GAS' and excess 'AIR'.
Assume that no CO is being produced and combustion is complete.
Center line of three holes is gas/air boundary
Formula for burning wood: CH1.4O0.6 + 1.05(O2 + 3.76N2) => CO2 + 0.7H2O + 3.95N2

AIR FACTOR (actual air flow/ideal air flow) 1.250
Diameter of chimney 72.800 mm
Time to burn fuel 3600 seconds
Mass of wood used in time above 1000 g
Temp inside chimney 325 C
% carbon in the wood 50 %
% water contained in wood 12 %
Height of chimney 8.000 Metres
Heat content of wood/biomass 19.3 MJ/Kg

Mass of actual fuel 880.000 g
Rate of fuel burn /min 14.667 gm/min
Heat produced 4717.778 Watts
Moles of actual fuel 38.261 moles
Mass of carbon 459.130 g
Moles of CO2 created during burning 38.261 moles
Mass of CO2 produced during burning 1683.478 g
Volume of CO2 produced during burning 0.857 m^3
Mass of O2 need to burn carbon 1285.565 g
Moles of O2 needed to burn carbon 40.174 moles
Volume of O2 needed to burn carbon 0.900 m^3
Volume of air needed to supply the O2 at 273K 4.285 m^3
Mass of H2O vapor created in burning 482.087 g
Moles of H2O vapor created in burning 26.783 moles
Volume of H2O vapor created during burning 0.600 m^3
Moles of N2 entering/exiting the flame 149.217 moles
Mass of N2 entering/exiting the flame 4178.087 g
Volumes of N2 exiting the flame (273) 3.342 m^3
Volume of CO2 already in the incoming 0.001 m^3
Mass of H2O in the wood 120.000 g
Moles of H2O from wood 6.667 moles
Volume of H2O vapor from wood itself 0.149 m^3
Volume of GAS exiting the flame (273) 4.950 m^3
Volume of gases exiting the flame (273) air factor 6.021 m^3
Volume of extra air in air factor 1.071 m^3
Volume of GAS in chimney (no air from air factor) 10.843 m^3
Volume of Gases in chimney with extra air factor 13.190 m^3
Real air volume from outside with air factor 5.357 m^3

Air flow per second 0.004 m^3/sec
Cross-sectional area of chimney 0.004 m^2
Velocity of flue gases 0.880 m/sec

GAS after burning
Density (g/m^3) Proportion after flame
CO2 1964.286 0.173
H2O 803.571 0.151
N2 1250.000 0.675
Total density of GAS at (STP) 1306.293 1.000
Total density of GAS at flue temp 596.351 g/m^3

Gases after burning
Density of extra AIR at flue temp 0.593 kg/m^3
Density of GAS at flue temp 0.596 kg/m^3
Average density of all gases in flue 0.538 kg/m^3

Draft of chimney 59.766 Pascals

From Gavin at aa3genergi.force9.co.uk Tue Oct 26 11:53:54 2004
From: Gavin at aa3genergi.force9.co.uk (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:53:54 +0100
Subject: [Stoves]solar lights
In-Reply-To: <4s9kn0thr203oojj5b874an8mf478qkf9q@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGKEJIEAAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>

I have two, they worked well all summer but are rather dim now they are
needed as the winter nights get longer and darker cost me GBP 2.99 each at a
gas station!

Gavin

-----Original Message-----
From: stoves-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:stoves-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of
list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 10:57
To: STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Forward of Paul's discussion with Scott

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 14:27:37 -0500, Scott Willing wrote:

>On 22 Oct 2004 at 18:35, list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk wrote:
>
>> This message had an attachment so did not get to the list, the
>> diagram can be seen at http://www.sylva.icuklive.co.uk/Willing.gif
>
>...although it's missing the bottom two thumbtacks. Likely the
>readers on this list would be able to figure that out though.

Yes, sorry about over cropping the image, I was rushing to get the
message onto the list.

I am behind on readings some of stoves posts and will do so soon.

The gist I get from you is that nicads (notwithstanding their
environmental impact) are particularly suited to low cost solar pv
chargers.

In UK we have cheap (GBP6) solar garden lights sold as special offers
in discount stores.
http://www.gardenitems.co.uk/solar_lights_designer_cascade.php

Shows a more expensive item that looks similar.

I have happily used one as a light in my tent. These tend to be a
small solar pv cell set in a stainless steel "hood" containing 2 AA
nicads and a white led with a switch. I think they fully charge the
battery on a typical day but have not kept one to test.

AJH
_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
Stoves at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

 

From crispin at newdawn.sz Tue Oct 26 16:40:51 2004
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 23:40:51 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] FSP Stove in technicolour
Message-ID: <002501c4bba4$797f19e0$838cfea9@home>

Dear Stovers

There is a little more info and a few more pictures of the FSP Stove and
a little history to boot 'up there' sonewhere.

Visit
http://www.newdawnengineering.com/website/stove/paraffin/paraffin.htm if
you are interested.

Regards
Crispin burning the midnight kerosene

 

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Tue Oct 26 16:52:10 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 22:52:10 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] Sawdust usage for income generation?
Message-ID: <pnhtn0pcl8rifgs92ar7s5qlhsg7i9det9@4ax.com>

This non member submission seems on topic, just up ELK's street, not
to mention Crow Industries. I wonder if Ray knows this agency?

AJH

From: "National Development Foundation" <Irangani at lanka.ccom.lk>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 02:17:37 +0600

Dear friends,
Ours is a Non-governmental, non-profit making organisation devoted to
development through self-help development programmes. We also carryout
environmental protection programmes with local communities in Sri
Lanka.

Recently we were informed of a long-standing problem in a suburban
city, due to sawdust. There are large numbers of sawmills, carpentry
workshops and woodwork centers in the area. They produce tons and tons
of saw dust and dump them into the nearby lake polluting the area.
Recently the government has no other alternative, but found another
dumping site and the sawdust is now dumped in this site spending large
sums of money for transportation. For a developing country like ours
this type of spending is unaffordable.

We have been trying to find a solution to re-cycle and use saw dust.
As we understand, it is possible to make Sawdust Bars ? fire logs,
briquettes etc or even insulating boards if properly experimented. We
were also made to understand that there are many organisations,
private sector companies engaged in this business.

We thought of searching for a simple technology that could be
introduced to the low-income generation groups in the area, especially
to the women, who could produce some type of an item to the market,
could be a fire log, a briquette or an item that could be used in
daily life.

If we could introduce this type of a technology then it will help the
poor to generate income. On the other side it will arrest the
pollution problem in the area and save public money that is spent at
present for clearing and dumping.

Considering the above we are very much obliged if you could help us in
finding a technological enterprise who would willing to conduct an
investigation on this matter.

Since ours is a NGO, we are unable to fund such a programme. If the
programme proves to be successful, we may be able to convince a
suitable and sympathetic funding agency to support the initial stages
of this challenging project.

We sincerely hope that you will give your sympathetic consideration to
this request.
Thanking you and hoping to hear from you favourably,
Sincerely yours,
Upali
Upali Magedaragamage
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION.

 

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Tue Oct 26 17:14:00 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 23:14:00 +0100
Subject: [Stoves]solar lights
In-Reply-To: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGKEJIEAAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
References: <4s9kn0thr203oojj5b874an8mf478qkf9q@4ax.com>
<MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGKEJIEAAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
Message-ID: <9bitn055paetphk1ii2q29i8p1lra0606q@4ax.com>

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:53:54 +0100, Gavin Gulliver-Goodall wrote:

>I have two, they worked well all summer but are rather dim now they are
>needed as the winter nights get longer and darker cost me GBP 2.99 each at a
>gas station!

This demonstrates the way mass production can drive prices down, now
how does the quality suffer? I have been looking at these solar garden
lights more closely because of this thread, ingress of condensation
seems to be a problem.

Gav how much does your reduced daylight affect the time the led stays
bright? Can it still stay alight for >1hour? What about overcast days?

Of these things are to prove long term suitable for a clean cooking
stove we need a bit more data on them.

AJH

 

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Tue Oct 26 17:14:01 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 23:14:01 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] Forward of Paul's discussion with Scott
In-Reply-To: <417D2B87.629.9C08E6@localhost>
References: <417B8A5D.9454.2D1A9A@localhost>
<sqlnn0ldj9vbh32p028mc1rqgo9kk44cct@4ax.com>
<417D2B87.629.9C08E6@localhost>
Message-ID: <ckitn05lqban4s8kg8nnevlsnqcc0tg3bl@4ax.com>

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:36:23 -0500, Scott Willing wrote:

>On 24 Oct 2004 at 17:40, AJH wrote:
>
>> Our day varies quite a bit during the year as we are at 51N.
>
>About the same as us -- though I'll bet you don't see -40 degrees
>very often.

Never I think, -18C is the lowest I recall back in 82, something to do
with warm water swishing round our long coastline.

>
>I have a set of C-size NiCads I've been running dead flat roughly
>twice a week for four years and they're still happy. 300 cycles
>easily, perhaps 400, and still happy. (Knock on wood.)

Looks good then.

>
>I'm sure a suitable motor could be sourced for a dual-cell rather
>than single-cell arrangement.

Consider also that these pc fans seem to be electronically commutated,
perhaps a cheap high speed switch could be used.
>
>More quick measurements - this is the first day we've had sun in
>a week or more. I just went out and compared the panel on one of
>my solar garden lights to the pocket AA charger. They're in a
>similar ballpark, but the garden light actually appears to have
>the edge in the oomph department.

Is this because of a difference in design? I notice the ones here seem
to have what I remember as a selenium light sensitive resistor
alongside the polycrystaline cells, why would this be necessary?

I thought it was to inhibit the light coming on too early but would
have thought the voltage off the panel could do that?
>
>I also noticed that the AA NiCads in our garden lights are rated
>550mAhr - somewhere around the middle of available capacities.

Mine came with 950s.
>
>Solar garden lights are probably a more popular / high volume
>item than solar chargers, and come with batteries to boot, so
>they have a lot going for them as modification candidates.

Yes, looks interesting doesn't it?

AJH

 

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Tue Oct 26 18:06:29 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:06:29 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] Sustained 100 psi small air stream
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20041025194023.0191ff00@mail.ilstu.edu>
References: <3.0.32.20041018100936.009c7b20@pop.btl.net>
<4.3.1.2.20041025194023.0191ff00@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <u6jtn0p5a3bvph82jt0cqqjaaln4p8945t@4ax.com>

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:15:16 -0500, Paul S. Anderson wrote:

>
>Well, in the Dasifier of Mr. Agua Das, he uses an old refrigerator
>compressor to get 100 PSI that goes to a VERY small hole shooting air along
>a pipe that both entrains the gases (not yet combusted) from the gasifier
>and also entrains fresh air from a controllable side inlet to provide the
>O2 for the combustion of the gases. All of this mix shoots along this pipe
>and enters his forge (kiln-type) as a roaring blaze where he melts bronze
>for castings. Quite an impressive device.

Yes I can imagine. Compressed air to this pressure is expensive in
power. As it's compressed iso thermally and then expands adiabatically
it also robs heat from the system.
>
>Well, how can we get a sustained flow of 100 PSI through a micro-pinhole
>(so not much volume needed) for extended periods (minimum of 30 minutes,
>better if a few hours), but with out the compressor?

From your bits later it looks like you are considering a steam
aspirator?
>
>Is it possible to have a container (not too expensive, perhaps like an LP
>gas cylinder or a propane-for-cookstove cylinder) that is charged with just
>air or with water so that we could heat it in a fire (we have plenty of
>fire) and then have a sufficient pressure to drive this "entrainment" of
>the air?

BTDTGTTS

A search of the archives will show my initial calculations which I
failed to demonstrate in practice. The thread had " excess air" in the
subject line.

The container does not need to be in the fire, in fact you want the
least possible amount of steam at pressure in the "boiler". I used a
garden polyspray and a flash tube made from old auto brake pipe
feeding either a propane burner or a coanda nozzle.
>
>Note: I suspect that injecting a SMALL amount of steam would be acceptable
>in the gases that are to be combusted, thereby using the wonderful
>characteristics of water when boiled instead of trying to heat just dry air.

This is the theory, a bit more awkward in practice, the steam really
needs to be very dry (i.e. superheated) to not interfere with
combustion.
>
>I imagine some valve (needle-type, probably) on the end of the metal
>container that is to be heated. If such a valve exists to regulate the
>flow along a small diameter pipe (0.5 cm maybe) to the pinhole drilled into
>the side of that sealed pipe, how long could we expect a container (1 liter
>or 5 liter??) to give us the needed pressurized stream of air/steam?

This sounds more like a bomb! In a flash tube boiler pre pressurised
water runs down a coil in the fire, it gets turned to steam and exits
out of a nozzle.
>
>When one canister is about depleted, a second one already loaded and heated
>could be ready to be switched on. There is no danger of back-flow through
>the pinhole when the pressure is zero, and if there was a potential problem
>of deposition of cal or some minerals from the water, we could specify that
>the canister is charged only with distilled water (also obtainable because
>we make stoves.)

Where does the distilled water come from?
>
>Ah Ha!! -- an additional thought but of less importance results in a
>separate question: Could we use the stream of pressurized steam to do
>something to make a mechanical motion such as driving the fan/blower for
>small forced air for the small gasifiers that Tom Reed and I are
>developing? (secondary importance)

I stopped playing with this as I thought it was becoming too
complicated. Tom Miles put some pictures on the stoves resource page
but once the discussion went cold I asked Erin to remove them. I think
it could have been made to work with no moving parts but thought it
only worth pursuing for difficult fuels like bitumous coal.

Because of the losses associated with ejectors I was coming to the
conclusion that using the high pressure steam to turn the central
axial portion of a pressed metal centrifugal fan got around the
problem of having the steam entering in the combustion air supply.

All the energy for the steam is parasitic and does not benefit the
cooking. Whereas the spiral nickel-iron teg embedded in an insulating
layer at the bottom of a pot would still contribute its heat to the
cooking.

Overall *if* AA nicads can be recharged (by solar pv or other means)
*and* be combined in a stove at a price affordable to the customers
*with* sufficient length of service *then* it looks a better route.
From Crispin's postings on naturally ventilated stoves it looks like a
high tech approach like this has a long way to go to match his sales
prices and demonstrate pollution and health benefits.

>
>Of course, it this becomes dangerous (such a exploding canisters), I will
>be much less interested in the solution until we can also remove or reduce
>the dangers.

Dangers are much less it the steam is generated in a flash tube.

AJH

 

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Tue Oct 26 18:06:30 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:06:30 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Why very small power is needed for forced air
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20041025164557.02325330@mail.ilstu.edu>
References: <008d01c4b94a$578f15d0$0100a8c0@home>
<008d01c4b94a$578f15d0$0100a8c0@home>
<ia0nn051h2p2sp6nvv395rkgjtv619r07u@4ax.com>
<4.3.1.2.20041025164557.02325330@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <k2mtn0tv62v3g9im9nk23hjosqet5cg3t5@4ax.com>

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:09:15 -0500, Paul S. Anderson wrote:

>
>Is there a "pecking order" of air-movement options, with the greatest
>creation of positive and negative pressure at the top and bottom of the list?

Whether they are positive or negative pressures should not make much
difference until we are considering high vacuum, the work done is in
pumping the gas from a low pressure to a higher pressure.
>
>Compressors

This suggests to me high pressures, maybe from ambient to >3 bar
>Blowers

Again moderate pressures, say 1.05-3bar above ambient

The sort of pressure developed by a vacuum cleaner motor and upward.

>Fans

These are just air movers, probably working about 1/4" water gauge and
up to around 6" wg so working slightly above atmospheric pressure.
There may well be more formal definitions, the above are my gut feel
for it.

>Ejectors

A simple no moving parts nozzle inside a tube entraining air, like the
Dasifier.

>Venturi

A no moving part device found in a carburetor, the air flow through a
pipe is speeded up which results in a depression at the constriction,
this is used to suck petrol into the air stream.

>Chimneys

A vertical tube containing a column of hot gas, being hot this gas is
less dense than the atmosphere outside the pipe, so it rises, drawing
in colder air at the bottom.

>Vacuum pumps

a sort of compressor in reverses, sucks air out and dumps it to
atmosphere.
>
>Just trying to understand the terms and alternatives.
>
>Related:
>Think of a "triple bulge" hour glass. That would be like a Venturi in
>between other Venturi. Would seem to me that if a constriction follows a
>prior point of enlargement (Venturi style), then there would NOT be any
>advantage gained.
>
>In other words, if I have my flowing hot gases/air (sequentially after the
>main combustion of the gases) go upward through a Venturi (an enlargement,
>so lower pressure on the "up" side), then I should NOT even consider having
>that "chimney" segment constrict again (or else I would loose the initial
>value of the Venturi.)

This is getting a bit complicated and it's late for me, you seem to be
confusing a chimney with a venturi. In fact the Rumford fireplace had
elements of this and a coanda effect but my brain's out of gear again.

AJH

 

From jeff.forssell at cfl.se Wed Oct 27 01:21:19 2004
From: jeff.forssell at cfl.se (Jeff Forssell)
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 08:21:19 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] -40 degrees
Message-ID: <BA468CE631F86A4D831FCBD4EB1C692C4D7D02@floyd.cfl.local>

> >> Our day varies quite a bit during the year as we are at 51N.
> >
> >About the same as us -- though I'll bet you don't see -40 degrees
> >very often.

When corresponding with a friend in Florida, I wrote once that we had
(at 63N in Sweden) had a spell that went down to -40 degrees, the only
temperature that's the same in both C and F. [I'm glad to say that's
only happened to me once. Car batteries give least when they need to
give most. Turning over a motor full of COLD oil is no picnic! There
have been several occasions in -25 to -40 C weather where you could see
a grown man (me) crying beside a car.]

She wrote back, somewhat surprised, that even in Florida they got below
40 every once in a while.

Then again, what's a minus sign between friends!

/Jeff Forssell

From Carefreeland at aol.com Wed Oct 27 08:00:57 2004
From: Carefreeland at aol.com (Carefreeland at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:00:57 EDT
Subject: [Stoves] -40 degrees
Message-ID: <c.36852fc0.2eb0f609@aol.com>

In a message dated 10/27/04 2:22:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
jeff.forssell at cfl.se writes:

>
> When corresponding with a friend in Florida, I wrote once that we had
> (at 63N in Sweden) had a spell that went down to -40 degrees, the only
> temperature that's the same in both C and F. [I'm glad to say that's
> only happened to me once. Car batteries give least when they need to
> give most. Turning over a motor full of COLD oil is no picnic! There
> have been several occasions in -25 to -40 C weather where you could see
> a grown man (me) crying beside a car.]
>
> She wrote back, somewhat surprised, that even in Florida they got below
> 40 every once in a while.
>
> Then again, what's a minus sign between friends!
>
> /Jeff Forssell
>
DD Hey even here in southern Ohio we get cold sometimes. In 1994 we hit a
record
-28 F Being in the snow plow business I was out in every bit of it. When
the squalls came down off the Great Lakes at 3:00 am 50mph winds with even -15F
temp is enough to give you a great respect for mountain climbers and actic
explorers. Just 50 miles north of here it was all the way down to -36 F. Now
that is cold stuff people. It only happens when lake Erie and Michigan freeze
over.

Dan Dimiduk Looking forward to a warm, wood heated greenhouse in
a snowstorm.

From a31ford at inetlink.ca Wed Oct 27 08:16:58 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 08:16:58 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] -40 degrees
In-Reply-To: <c.36852fc0.2eb0f609@aol.com>
Message-ID: <010f01c4bc27$3d9a3800$1900a8c0@a31server>

Hello to all,

Jeff & Dan, I can feel for you both!

Being land locked in Manitoba, and having the "windiest city on the
continent" (Winnipeg) only a couple of hours to my east, we get a lot of
what both of you are speaking of... (NOTE: with the MINUS sigh :):) Mid
October to early January is generally not all that bad, as a rule only goes
to around -20c or so, but come Mid January to mid March, routine boughts
of -40 to -50 are not uncommon this is without wind-chill factored in, (with
wind-chill it can get to -60c at times). This is one of the reasons I lurk
in both "Stoves" and "Gasification" (I know Dan knows me :) and the main
reason for my woodchip gasifier (HEAT !).

We have a saying around here:

" it was so cold this morning, we had to go around and jump-start the mice,
so the cats would have something to play with! "

Greg Manning,

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

 

-----Original Message-----
From: stoves-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:stoves-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of
Carefreeland at aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 8:01 AM
To: jeff.forssell at cfl.se; stoves at listserv.repp.org
Subject: Re: [Stoves] -40 degrees

In a message dated 10/27/04 2:22:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
jeff.forssell at cfl.se writes:

>
> When corresponding with a friend in Florida, I wrote once that we had
> (at 63N in Sweden) had a spell that went down to -40 degrees, the only
> temperature that's the same in both C and F. [I'm glad to say that's
> only happened to me once. Car batteries give least when they need to
> give most. Turning over a motor full of COLD oil is no picnic! There
> have been several occasions in -25 to -40 C weather where you could see
> a grown man (me) crying beside a car.]
>
> She wrote back, somewhat surprised, that even in Florida they got below
> 40 every once in a while.
>
> Then again, what's a minus sign between friends!
>
> /Jeff Forssell
>
DD Hey even here in southern Ohio we get cold sometimes. In 1994 we hit a
record
-28 F Being in the snow plow business I was out in every bit of it. When
the squalls came down off the Great Lakes at 3:00 am 50mph winds with
even -15F
temp is enough to give you a great respect for mountain climbers and actic
explorers. Just 50 miles north of here it was all the way down to -36 F.
Now
that is cold stuff people. It only happens when lake Erie and Michigan
freeze
over.

Dan Dimiduk Looking forward to a warm, wood heated greenhouse in
a snowstorm.

_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
Stoves at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

 

From a31ford at inetlink.ca Wed Oct 27 08:47:51 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 08:47:51 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] Fw: Re:calculator
In-Reply-To: <20041025202923.F283F4BDA9@ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com>
Message-ID: <011101c4bc2b$8e1d5880$1900a8c0@a31server>

Dear all,

Can I be "added" to the want list also please!

Greg Manning

-----Original Message-----
From: stoves-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:stoves-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of sylva at iname.com
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 3:29 PM
To: stoves at listserv.repp.org
Subject: [Stoves] Fw: Re:calculator

Dear All:
?
I'm late getting in on this discussion, but if it is the draft calculator,
please send me a copy, Excel preferred....
?
Thanks, TOM REED
?
-------------- Original message --------------
>
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 14:30:49 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>
> >IP is not a problem. It is a written thing so all one has to do is
> >write (c) on it and say "Copyright" and no one can pass it off as their
> >own work.
>
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

 

From phoenix98604 at earthlink.net Wed Oct 27 09:37:11 2004
From: phoenix98604 at earthlink.net (Art Krenzel)
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 07:37:11 -0700
Subject: [Stoves] Fw: Re:calculator
References: <011101c4bc2b$8e1d5880$1900a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <002c01c4bc32$72d820d0$abbdf204@7k6rv21>

Please add me to the ever lengthening list of requestors for the draft
calculator in Excel please.

Art Krenzel

Subject: RE: [Stoves] Fw: Re:calculator

> Dear all,
>
> Can I be "added" to the want list also please!
>
> Greg Manning
>
> Subject: [Stoves] Fw: Re:calculator
>
> Dear All:
>
> I'm late getting in on this discussion, but if it is the draft calculator,
> please send me a copy, Excel preferred....
>
> Thanks, TOM REED
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>>
>> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 14:30:49 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>>
>> >IP is not a problem. It is a written thing so all one has to do is
>> >write (c) on it and say "Copyright" and no one can pass it off as their
>> >own work.
>>
> --
> ___________________________________________________________
> Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
> http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>

 

From crispin at newdawn.sz Wed Oct 27 05:21:26 2004
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:21:26 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] Correction - the draft calculator does account for excess
air
Message-ID: <002301c4bc35$f77d7760$0100a8c0@md>

Dear Stovers

Although you don't have a copy yet, the Draft Calculator does account for
excess air - it is the first entry on the variables list. Setting it to 1.0
means it is 'ideal' and 1.5 give an excess (etc).

I sent the file to Dr Tom for comments. If he thinks it is useful I will
post it somewhere accessible.

Regards
Crispin

 

From kchisholm at ca.inter.net Wed Oct 27 14:37:06 2004
From: kchisholm at ca.inter.net (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 16:37:06 -0300
Subject: [Stoves] Fw: Re:calculator
References: <011101c4bc2b$8e1d5880$1900a8c0@a31server>
<002c01c4bc32$72d820d0$abbdf204@7k6rv21>
Message-ID: <00f801c4bc5e$4ee0ce80$a29a0a40@kevin>

I would also very much appreciate getting a copy of The Draft Calculator.

Thanks.

Kevin Chisholm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Art Krenzel" <phoenix98604 at earthlink.net>
To: "STOVES (E-mail)" <STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Fw: Re:calculator

> Please add me to the ever lengthening list of requestors for the draft
> calculator in Excel please.
>
> Art Krenzel
>
> Subject: RE: [Stoves] Fw: Re:calculator
>
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Can I be "added" to the want list also please!
> >
> > Greg Manning
> >
> > Subject: [Stoves] Fw: Re:calculator
> >
> > Dear All:
> >
> > I'm late getting in on this discussion, but if it is the draft
calculator,
> > please send me a copy, Excel preferred....
> >
> > Thanks, TOM REED
> >
> > -------------- Original message --------------
> >>
> >> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 14:30:49 +0200, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
> >>
> >> >IP is not a problem. It is a written thing so all one has to do is
> >> >write (c) on it and say "Copyright" and no one can pass it off as
their
> >> >own work.
> >>
> > --
> > ___________________________________________________________
> > Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
> > http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> > Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> > http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

 

From Gavin at aa3genergi.force9.co.uk Wed Oct 27 17:15:09 2004
From: Gavin at aa3genergi.force9.co.uk (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:15:09 +0100
Subject: [Stoves]solar lights
In-Reply-To: <9bitn055paetphk1ii2q29i8p1lra0606q@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGEELCEAAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>

 

>gas station!

This demonstrates the way mass production can drive prices down, now
how does the quality suffer? I have been looking at these solar garden
lights more closely because of this thread, ingress of condensation
seems to be a problem.
[GGG] it's a plastic enclosure doent seem t be a condensation problem.

Gav how much does your reduced daylight affect the time the led stays
bright? Can it still stay alight for >1hour? What about overcast days?
[GGG] at this time of year it lasts for several hours but at reduced
intensity- maybe the nicads are tired or lack of recharge.
I guess I could bring one in and leave it under the office daylight bulb for
a couple of days and then put it back at dusk for a comparison? This may
overstretch my research facilities at the moment.
Of these things are to prove long term suitable for a clean cooking
stove we need a bit more data on them.
[GGG] I think nicads actually prefer a high discharge rate and may be more
suited to a cooker fan.
Woud the solar cell and nicads have more value to other parts of the family
to whom the cooker was presented - e.g. to power a walkman or mobile phone?-
cultural isssues are critical for technology to be accepted and used.
Gavin

AJH

_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
Stoves at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

 

From crispin at newdawn.sz Thu Oct 28 05:33:03 2004
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:33:03 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] Draft Calcualtor and Stove Modeller
Message-ID: <001c01c4bcd9$8d568800$0100a8c0@md>

Dear Stovers

I have adjusted the file to meet your Excel format and I think it will do as
an introduction for stove students. Obviously I can't guarantee the results
are error free nor its accuracy in the real world. If you get a real
measurement you can use it as a fudge factor on the final output. IT is
made available in the hope that it is a useful contribution to the on-going
development and better understanding of combustion and stove design. It is
a basic and theoretical model.

If you work out how to use the stove modeller, you may find very interesting
things about your own stove or one of its components. For example, in the
sample included, the velocity of the secondary air through the middle of the
combustion chamber walls of a Vesto is higher than any other place. This
means that draft energy available is applied to making the secondary air
reach the middle of the chamber to ensure good secondary burning.

If you want to add an internal chimney to the stove, put in the height and
average temperature and see the difference it makes to the gas velocity at
critical points.

If you use the Draft Calculator for a material purpose, please remember to
reference the author, Nigel Pemberton-Pigott nigelproton at hotmail.com who is
presently studying Materials Science (in Chinese) at the University of
Dalian. He is not able to find time to deal with much in the way of
recommendations or suggestions, as you can imagine. If you can't imagine,
go to a Chinese website, look at the characters and think about trying to
learn partial differential equations and the thermodynamics of crystals in
Chinese. You will quickly get the idea. In other words please don't bother
him, bother me at crispin at newdawn.sz . Kevin suggested some colour coding
to make things easier to comprehend. You are welcome to paint away!

Look for the file draft.xls or draft.wb2 at Stove Burning, Boiling and
Efficiency Tests, www.newdawnengineering.com/website/stove/tests/tests.htm

Helping you burn 'em better!

Crispin
MANAGER - New Dawn Engineering / Appropriate Technology Exchange (ATEX)
www.newdawnengineering.com

 

From Carefreeland at aol.com Thu Oct 28 08:10:11 2004
From: Carefreeland at aol.com (Carefreeland at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 09:10:11 EDT
Subject: [Stoves] Draft Calcualtor and Stove Modeller
Message-ID: <da.17c23c5f.2eb249b3@aol.com>

Crispin,
Not to in any way lessen the engineering breakthrough that this
repersents. I am sure the Engineers on this list are waking up at night excited to
work math problems out using this tool.
I am personally still of the opinion, that if you want to check out
draft effect, just put a bigger, taller, insulated chimney on the thing, that
only expands in size toward the top, and see if it burns better. Always worked
for me. LOL

Making life simple,
Dan Dimiduk

From psanders at ilstu.edu Thu Oct 28 10:37:44 2004
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 10:37:44 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] Sustained 100 psi small air stream
In-Reply-To: <u6jtn0p5a3bvph82jt0cqqjaaln4p8945t@4ax.com>
References: <4.3.1.2.20041025194023.0191ff00@mail.ilstu.edu>
<3.0.32.20041018100936.009c7b20@pop.btl.net>
<4.3.1.2.20041025194023.0191ff00@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20041028102954.00d7d500@mail.ilstu.edu>

Andrew (and all),

Your reply is so good, nobody else has made a comment!!

Summary,

Looks like steam ejecting is not very good because of 1) vapor into the
gases, 2) complications about flash-tube and other hardware to make it work
(competing with other small power that is more controllable such as
recharged batteries/electronic devices.

Thanks for the input.

Paul

At 12:06 AM 10/27/04 +0100, list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:15:16 -0500, Paul S. Anderson wrote:
>
> >
> >Well, in the Dasifier of Mr. Agua Das, he uses an old refrigerator
> >compressor to get 100 PSI that goes to a VERY small hole shooting air along
> >a pipe that both entrains the gases (not yet combusted) from the gasifier
> >and also entrains fresh air from a controllable side inlet to provide the
> >O2 for the combustion of the gases. All of this mix shoots along this pipe
> >and enters his forge (kiln-type) as a roaring blaze where he melts bronze
> >for castings. Quite an impressive device.
>
>Yes I can imagine. Compressed air to this pressure is expensive in
>power. As it's compressed iso thermally and then expands adiabatically
>it also robs heat from the system.
> >
> >Well, how can we get a sustained flow of 100 PSI through a micro-pinhole
> >(so not much volume needed) for extended periods (minimum of 30 minutes,
> >better if a few hours), but with out the compressor?
>
> From your bits later it looks like you are considering a steam
>aspirator?
> >
> >Is it possible to have a container (not too expensive, perhaps like an LP
> >gas cylinder or a propane-for-cookstove cylinder) that is charged with just
> >air or with water so that we could heat it in a fire (we have plenty of
> >fire) and then have a sufficient pressure to drive this "entrainment" of
> >the air?
>
>BTDTGTTS
>
>A search of the archives will show my initial calculations which I
>failed to demonstrate in practice. The thread had " excess air" in the
>subject line.
>
>The container does not need to be in the fire, in fact you want the
>least possible amount of steam at pressure in the "boiler". I used a
>garden polyspray and a flash tube made from old auto brake pipe
>feeding either a propane burner or a coanda nozzle.
> >
> >Note: I suspect that injecting a SMALL amount of steam would be acceptable
> >in the gases that are to be combusted, thereby using the wonderful
> >characteristics of water when boiled instead of trying to heat just dry air.
>
>This is the theory, a bit more awkward in practice, the steam really
>needs to be very dry (i.e. superheated) to not interfere with
>combustion.
> >
> >I imagine some valve (needle-type, probably) on the end of the metal
> >container that is to be heated. If such a valve exists to regulate the
> >flow along a small diameter pipe (0.5 cm maybe) to the pinhole drilled into
> >the side of that sealed pipe, how long could we expect a container (1 liter
> >or 5 liter??) to give us the needed pressurized stream of air/steam?
>
>This sounds more like a bomb! In a flash tube boiler pre pressurised
>water runs down a coil in the fire, it gets turned to steam and exits
>out of a nozzle.
> >
> >When one canister is about depleted, a second one already loaded and heated
> >could be ready to be switched on. There is no danger of back-flow through
> >the pinhole when the pressure is zero, and if there was a potential problem
> >of deposition of cal or some minerals from the water, we could specify that
> >the canister is charged only with distilled water (also obtainable because
> >we make stoves.)
>
>Where does the distilled water come from?
> >
> >Ah Ha!! -- an additional thought but of less importance results in a
> >separate question: Could we use the stream of pressurized steam to do
> >something to make a mechanical motion such as driving the fan/blower for
> >small forced air for the small gasifiers that Tom Reed and I are
> >developing? (secondary importance)
>
>I stopped playing with this as I thought it was becoming too
>complicated. Tom Miles put some pictures on the stoves resource page
>but once the discussion went cold I asked Erin to remove them. I think
>it could have been made to work with no moving parts but thought it
>only worth pursuing for difficult fuels like bitumous coal.
>
>Because of the losses associated with ejectors I was coming to the
>conclusion that using the high pressure steam to turn the central
>axial portion of a pressed metal centrifugal fan got around the
>problem of having the steam entering in the combustion air supply.
>
>All the energy for the steam is parasitic and does not benefit the
>cooking. Whereas the spiral nickel-iron teg embedded in an insulating
>layer at the bottom of a pot would still contribute its heat to the
>cooking.
>
>Overall *if* AA nicads can be recharged (by solar pv or other means)
>*and* be combined in a stove at a price affordable to the customers
>*with* sufficient length of service *then* it looks a better route.
> From Crispin's postings on naturally ventilated stoves it looks like a
>high tech approach like this has a long way to go to match his sales
>prices and demonstrate pollution and health benefits.
>
>
> >
> >Of course, it this becomes dangerous (such a exploding canisters), I will
> >be much less interested in the solution until we can also remove or reduce
> >the dangers.
>
>Dangers are much less it the steam is generated in a flash tube.
>
>AJH
>
>_______________________________________________
>Stoves mailing list
>Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

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 at 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 Thu Oct 28 10:56:36 2004
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:56:36 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Sustained 100 psi small air stream
Message-ID: <00fa01c4bd06$c8215e60$0100a8c0@md>

Dear Paul

>Your reply is so good, nobody else has made a comment!!

All right...all right....!

How about taking a small pot of water and having a tiny jet of steam shoot
into a draft tube and directly out again, with part of the draft tube
oriented so that air inducted into the tube is directed aside and into the
stove.

This uses the steam as an injector but leaves the steam out of the inducted
air.

Regards
Crispin

 

From psanders at ilstu.edu Thu Oct 28 11:04:25 2004
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:04:25 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] Sustained 100 psi small air stream
In-Reply-To: <1dd.2f1ee239.2eaf9a0a@aol.com>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20041028104549.00d7bed0@mail.ilstu.edu>

Dan and Stovers.

Thanks for the reply. I did not see Dan's reply (sent only to me) before
when I sent the comment after Andrew's message. Sorry. Did not mean to
slight him.

In fact, Dan offers one ray of hope still. NOT anything with steam, so
Andrew's comments still stand as authoritative in that line of thought.

More below:

>DD Dan Dimiduk comments
>
>>Well, how can we get a sustained flow of 100 PSI through a micro-pinhole
>>(so not much volume needed) for extended periods (minimum of 30 minutes,
>>better if a few hours), but with out the compressor?
>
>DD On the Wastewatts list, we had extensive conversation about producing a
>small compressed air stream for a Babington waste oil burner. One
>solution that could be practical for third world would be a small bicycle
>tire pump and a discarded propane cylinder to hold the pressure. A tire
>gauge would help.
>DD Small hand / foot pumps can be constructed by a resourceful mechanic
>with pipe and leather seals.
> Dan Dimiduk

Dan, I am not on the WasteWatts list serve (but certainly much of my recent
quest about 3 watts of power would be of interest there.) But would YOU
(Dan) please nurse along this quest with the WasteWatts people, and
periodically get some posting back to me and/or to the Stoves list serve.

Concerning this pressurized air, the one current concern (as given above)
is how to get a strong (100 psi is the target, but less might be
sufficient) stream of air from a VERY small pinhole in order to accomplish
the entrainment of the gasifier gases plus incoming secondary air. This is
along the lines of Agua Das' Dasifier.

I am including my colleague Manny Hernandez (Northern Illinois University
pottery expert) to receive a copy of this message, but he is not on the
Stoves list serve, so please direct replies to him if you can. (I cannot
do that easily for the next 2 months because I will be on a trip to Chile
and Brazil.)

Dan (and/or Manny), can you do some tests on putting the pressure (how
much) into the metal cylinders (different sizes) by which different methods
of pumping air, AND the length of time the air can be released via a
(somehow) regulated flow.

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 at 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 Thu Oct 28 11:51:33 2004
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 18:51:33 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Sustained 100 psi small air stream
Message-ID: <010401c4bd0e$63c28220$0100a8c0@md>

Dear Paul'n'Dan

>>DD Small hand / foot pumps can be constructed by a resourceful mechanic
>with pipe and leather seals.
> Dan Dimiduk

You can make a good pump using a shock absorber and a little imagination.
Fit it to a handpump-type handle mechanism and you can create the pressure
you want.

Regards
Crispin

 

From snkm at btl.net Thu Oct 28 12:18:07 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:18:07 -0600
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Sustained 100 psi small air stream
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041028105537.00942b10@pop.btl.net>

>
>You can make a good pump using a shock absorber and a little imagination.
>Fit it to a handpump-type handle mechanism and you can create the pressure
>you want.
>
>Regards
>Crispin

Was waiting for that style of reply -- you can also make a air tank to 150
psi pressure from used two liter plastic carbonated soft drink bottles.

Ergo -- one person makes there living hand pumping people's air reservoirs --

The cost will be the device/valving/delivery of the compressed are to a draft.

A short length of refrigeration capillary solves the regulated release
problem.

But you need a T-valve in line -- plus a cap -- for charging.

A bicycle tire valve is good for charging -- and I guess one could make a
bicycle valve cap that has the capillary tube mounted to it -- and that
once screwed down tight -- lets air out.

or -- use the screw to valve fitting that comes with your normal cheap bike
pump -- and clamp the capillary to the other end of that rubber hose.

Then no T-valve required -- just a tire air valve --

now -- if one can adapt a tubeless car tire valve to fit tight onto the
mouth of a two liter plastic soft drink bottle (with a wire type clamp) --
problem is solved -- right??

In 3rd world we like recycle everything -- and can only use what we have at
hand -- and we need make "jobs"

An old man or woman can work for their food charging 2 liter container.

you can "gear" that car shock compressor using a long lever --

And again -- a reverse fitted tire valve is all you need to make that shock
into a pump.

Peter

At 06:51 PM 10/28/2004 +0200, Crispin wrote:
>Dear Paul'n'Dan
>
>>>DD Small hand / foot pumps can be constructed by a resourceful mechanic
>>with pipe and leather seals.
>> Dan Dimiduk
_____________________________________
>Stoves mailing list
>Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>

From snkm at btl.net Thu Oct 28 12:18:09 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:18:09 -0600
Subject: [Stoves] Carbon dioxide turned into hydrocarbon fuel
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041028110110.009c5e70@pop.btl.net>

The sell bacteria for converting any oil (veggie or fossil) to CO2 and
water -- very fast acting -- now used as ecologically pure "degreasers" in
industry (granted -- mostly in europe where they worry about such things)

I have always found that "fascinating" -- but what to do with the CO2??

Further -- we get a lot of pure CO2 as by-product of fermentation processes.

Well -- here is something new under the sun that might be just the right
kind of answer.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992620

Peter -- In Belize

Carbon dioxide turned into hydrocarbon fuel


16:00 02 August 02

Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.

A way to turn carbon dioxide into hydrocarbons has caused a big stir at an
industrial chemistry conference in New Brunwick, New Jersey. Nakamichi
Yamasaki of the Tokushima Industrial Technology Center in Japan says he has
a process that makes propane and butane at relatively low temperatures and
pressures.

While his work still needs independent verification, if he can make even
heavier hydrocarbons, it might be possible to make petrol. It has carbon
chains that are between five and 12 atoms long - butane is four atoms long.

The work suggests the tantalising prospect that CO2, the main greenhouse
gas, could be recycled instead of being pumped into the atmosphere.

Many people have tried before to make hydrocarbons by mixing carbon with
hydrogen gas in a reaction chamber at very high temperatures, but yields
have always been pitiful. Yamasaki has used hydrochloric acid as his source
of hydrogen ions.

He bubbles the CO2 into a reaction vessel (see graphic) where it is heated
to about 300 ?C at 100 times atmospheric pressure. The heat and pressure
are low enough, says Yamasaki, to make it feasible to scale up the reaction
so it can run on a power station's waste heat.

The World's No.1 Science & Technology News Service



Carbon dioxide turned into hydrocarbon fuel


16:00 02 August 02

Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.

A way to turn carbon dioxide into hydrocarbons has caused a big stir at an
industrial chemistry conference in New Brunwick, New Jersey. Nakamichi
Yamasaki of the Tokushima Industrial Technology Center in Japan says he has
a process that makes propane and butane at relatively low temperatures and
pressures.


Making fuel from greenhouse gases
While his work still needs independent verification, if he can make even
heavier hydrocarbons, it might be possible to make petrol. It has carbon
chains that are between five and 12 atoms long - butane is four atoms long.

The work suggests the tantalising prospect that CO2, the main greenhouse
gas, could be recycled instead of being pumped into the atmosphere.

Many people have tried before to make hydrocarbons by mixing carbon with
hydrogen gas in a reaction chamber at very high temperatures, but yields
have always been pitiful. Yamasaki has used hydrochloric acid as his source
of hydrogen ions.

He bubbles the CO2 into a reaction vessel (see graphic) where it is heated
to about 300 ?C at 100 times atmospheric pressure. The heat and pressure
are low enough, says Yamasaki, to make it feasible to scale up the reaction
so it can run on a power station's waste heat.

Iron powder

Using iron powder as a catalyst, Yamasaki says he has made substantial
amounts of methane, ethane, propane and butane, which he was able to vent
off as gases when the mixture cooled. If he can improve the catalyst's
performance he is hopeful of making heavier hydrocarbons such as petrol, too.

William Siegfried, who has lead similar experiments at the University of
Minnesota in the twin cities of Minneapolis and St Paul, says his group was
only able to make methane at far higher temperatures. But his process also
used a nickel-based alloy as a catalyst, rather than iron.

Siegfried's group was investigating whether natural methane deposits might
have formed chemically with the metal in rocks acting as a catalyst rather
than forming from the decay of rotting biological material over aeons.

Unless Yamasaki's technology can make the more valuable heavier
hydrocarbons such as petroleum, which are liquid at room temperature, it
will not be much more use than present-day bioreactors, in which bacteria
that like to feed on CO2 are induced to produce methane. "Organisms have a
special talent for that kind of reaction," says Siegfried.


Eugenie Samuel, Boston

 

 

From a31ford at inetlink.ca Thu Oct 28 14:28:59 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:28:59 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Sustained 100 psi small air stream
In-Reply-To: <010401c4bd0e$63c28220$0100a8c0@md>
Message-ID: <016901c4bd24$60766260$1900a8c0@a31server>

 

Speaking of pumps...

Hello All!!

I realize that not all on the list have these, BUT those that do...

A common "worn out" Briggs & Stratton engine can be used as a pump, remove
the carb, muffler, tank, and shrouds, then simply cut out a reed valve from
"Stainless Shim Stock" (make it like a head gasket with a tab to cover the
intake hole, and use a head gasket on each side of it) to replace the
original intake valve, and use a check valve on the exhaust side and "Vola!"
a simple pump! (remove both original valves, and block the stem holes).

The nice thing about this method is it can be hooked to an old bicycle frame
and the user can ride instead of using your hands leaving them free to do
other things like minding the fire, or reading, knitting, etc.

Side note: one can cut a lower head gasket from inner tube, and use it as
the seal around the reed valve also (include the tab, but remove the center
of the tab).

Remember, as a pump, it's not going to see the heat it did as an engine.

Greg Manning

-----Original Message-----
From: stoves-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:stoves-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of Crispin
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 11:52 AM
To: Stoves List
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Sustained 100 psi small air stream

Dear Paul'n'Dan

>>DD Small hand / foot pumps can be constructed by a resourceful mechanic
>with pipe and leather seals.
> Dan Dimiduk

You can make a good pump using a shock absorber and a little imagination.
Fit it to a handpump-type handle mechanism and you can create the pressure
you want.

Regards
Crispin

_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
Stoves at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

 

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Thu Oct 28 15:10:08 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 21:10:08 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] Forward of Paul's discussion with Scott
In-Reply-To: <417D2B87.629.9C08E6@localhost>
References: <417B8A5D.9454.2D1A9A@localhost>
<sqlnn0ldj9vbh32p028mc1rqgo9kk44cct@4ax.com>
<417D2B87.629.9C08E6@localhost>
Message-ID: <g0k2o0dag8enresensuhgtd6sefqnouklo@4ax.com>

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:36:23 -0500, Scott Willing wrote:

>As close as practical anyway. One could gain a small advantage by
>putting the panel (lower current) on the end of the wire while
>keeping the batteries (higher current) closer to the stove.
>Better to have the batteries out of the sun too.

Scott Has produced a pdf showing his modifications to a solar charger
to run the turbo stove, I have uploaded it to a temporary website:

http://www.wokingnursery.co.uk/temp/smw-pv-charger-mod-instructions-2.pdf

For those who just want to see a picture, I have left them full size

http://www.wokingnursery.co.uk/temp/smw-pv-charger-mod-complete.jpg
172kb

http://www.wokingnursery.co.uk/temp/smw-pv-charger-mod-guts.jpg 259kb

AJH

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Thu Oct 28 15:51:30 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 21:51:30 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Sustained 100 psi small air stream
In-Reply-To: <00fa01c4bd06$c8215e60$0100a8c0@md>
References: <00fa01c4bd06$c8215e60$0100a8c0@md>
Message-ID: <a0m2o0havs5cgun9ok40t3vav75uoltidf@4ax.com>

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:56:36 +0200, Crispin wrote:

>How about taking a small pot of water and having a tiny jet of steam shoot
>into a draft tube and directly out again, with part of the draft tube
>oriented so that air inducted into the tube is directed aside and into the
>stove.

Again for safety it's best not to have a pressure vessel holding any
quantity of water. I cannot visualise your idea but many things are
worth trying.

One of the considerations I found and forgot to mention was that I
used a propane burner for its small jet size, I wanted minimal water
consumption. I found a problem with jet blocking and was never sure if
it was impurities in my container or scale sloughing off the flash
tube.

AJH

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Thu Oct 28 15:51:30 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 21:51:30 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] Sustained 100 psi small air stream
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20041028102954.00d7d500@mail.ilstu.edu>
References: <4.3.1.2.20041025194023.0191ff00@mail.ilstu.edu>
<3.0.32.20041018100936.009c7b20@pop.btl.net>
<4.3.1.2.20041025194023.0191ff00@mail.ilstu.edu>
<u6jtn0p5a3bvph82jt0cqqjaaln4p8945t@4ax.com>
<4.3.1.2.20041028102954.00d7d500@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <9bm2o0d0loptp5t5bi0f76s191948cnfb2@4ax.com>

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 10:37:44 -0500, Paul S. Anderson wrote:

>Andrew (and all),
>
>Your reply is so good, nobody else has made a comment!!

Flattering but an unfair inference, a lot of people will not have
caught up with the messages yet, others do not read long posts. Anyway
many will have missed it in the euphoria of yet another red sock
victory :-)

>
>Summary,
>
>Looks like steam ejecting is not very good because of 1) vapor into the
>gases, 2) complications about flash-tube and other hardware to make it work
>(competing with other small power that is more controllable such as
>recharged batteries/electronic devices.

Yes that's my take on it, the hi tech electronic approach is far more
likely to benefit from the consumer electronics boom than any fiddly
bespoke attempt.

>
>Thanks for the input.

My pleasure

AJH

 

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Thu Oct 28 15:51:29 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 21:51:29 +0100
Subject: [Stoves]solar lights
In-Reply-To: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGEELCEAAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
References: <9bitn055paetphk1ii2q29i8p1lra0606q@4ax.com>
<MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGEELCEAAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
Message-ID: <ftk2o05t4evhp884v3748o8bg5iejip207@4ax.com>

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:15:09 +0100, Gavin Gulliver-Goodall wrote:

>[GGG] it's a plastic enclosure doent seem t be a condensation problem.

I guess different types will fare differently, the ones I looked at
had condensation on the plastic face covering the panel.

>Woud the solar cell and nicads have more value to other parts of the family
>to whom the cooker was presented - e.g. to power a walkman or mobile phone?-
>cultural isssues are critical for technology to be accepted and used.

This is a good point, would the battery power be more useful elsewhere
and hence the benefit less for using it for a cookstove? Would the
electronics be removed from the stove and the stove then run less
optimally as a result?

AJH

 

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Thu Oct 28 15:59:34 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 21:59:34 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Sustained 100 psi small air stream
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20041028105537.00942b10@pop.btl.net>
References: <3.0.32.20041028105537.00942b10@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <9dn2o019subl4e46ut84o3vtlhqur86arq@4ax.com>

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:18:07 -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:

>
>>
>>You can make a good pump using a shock absorber and a little imagination.
>>Fit it to a handpump-type handle mechanism and you can create the pressure
>>you want.
>>
>>Regards
>>Crispin
>
>
>Was waiting for that style of reply -- you can also make a air tank to 150
>psi pressure from used two liter plastic carbonated soft drink bottles.

At least with a spring you get most of the energy you put in out
again, with compressed air you do a lot of work heating up the gas as
you compress it and this is all lost because as the compressed air is
used and expands again it only expands to its original volume if it
can reach ambient temperature again. As I said isothermal compression
and adiabatic expansion is lossy.

AJH

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Thu Oct 28 16:00:10 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 22:00:10 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] enquiry for densifed fuel?
In-Reply-To: <mailman.200.1098923815.18485.stoves@listserv.repp.org>
References: <mailman.200.1098923815.18485.stoves@listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <een2o01lmrkmija4o5g3j4m7rpr9ssp6pm@4ax.com>

This came in, it seems to be for Jim Dunham who probably is no longer
a subscriber, still I think Cree industries (I got it wrong last time)
may have a similar interest.

>Subject: presto logs
>From: "Dan Parrent" <dparrent at ptialaska.net>
>Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 16:32:03 -0800
>
>Dear Mr. Dunham:
>
>I stubled across your name in the course of an internet search. If this reaches you I would appreciate a reply. I would like to discuss the prospects of making a fuel log with recycled cardboard and/or paper.
>
>Thank you.
>
>Dan Parrent
>Program Director
>
>JEDC/Wood Products Development Service
>204 Siginaka Way
>Sitka, AK 99835
>P: (907) 747-5688
>F: (907) 747-4331

 

From Gavin at aa3genergi.force9.co.uk Thu Oct 28 16:44:14 2004
From: Gavin at aa3genergi.force9.co.uk (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 22:44:14 +0100
Subject: [Stoves]solar lights
In-Reply-To: <ftk2o05t4evhp884v3748o8bg5iejip207@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGEEMEEAAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>

Yes,
The perceived benefit and gratification from a walkman may be more
attractive than clean air for the cook, or a slightly reduced fuel
consumption.

Look at us here in the UK we seem to have an affinity for shiny electronics
and are reluctant to pay or alter our way of life to save energy- even in
simple ways -like turning the lights off when we leave a room!
Gavin

>Woud the solar cell and nicads have more value to other parts of the family
>to whom the cooker was presented - e.g. to power a walkman or mobile
phone?-
>cultural isssues are critical for technology to be accepted and used.

This is a good point, would the battery power be more useful elsewhere
and hence the benefit less for using it for a cookstove? Would the
electronics be removed from the stove and the stove then run less
optimally as a result?

AJH

_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
Stoves at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

 

From Carefreeland at aol.com Thu Oct 28 17:29:13 2004
From: Carefreeland at aol.com (Carefreeland at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 18:29:13 EDT
Subject: [Stoves] Sustained 100 psi small air stream
Message-ID: <99.4fe19cf8.2eb2ccb9@aol.com>

In a message dated 10/28/04 11:57:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
psanders at ilstu.edu writes:

DD Dan Dimiduk comments.

>
> Dan (and/or Manny), can you do some tests on putting the pressure (how much)
> into the metal cylinders (different sizes) by which different methods of
> pumping air, AND the length of time the air can be released via a (somehow)
> regulated flow.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul
>
>
DD Paul and stovers. Sorry, I Keep forgetting to add the list name to the
address when I respond to these E- mails. That's why sometimes they have been
forwarded back to the list(s). Remember the old days when you just highlighted
the text you wanted to reply to and then pushed reply? I'd ask someone to
smack me, but Kevin C. already did that on Gasification L.- sorry Kevin. Thats
what friends are for.

DD As far as the air stream question. Do we really need a full 100psi? The
pressure will slowly drop unless a regulator is used. The bigger the tank the
slower the drop. DD My mechanic friend Scott has a homemade portable air tank
made from a freon cylinder-about the same size as a propane. Next time I visit
him I can borrow it an hour or two to run some experiments.
DD The next question is, what to use as an orifice? A cut off hypodermic
needle comes to mind, as they were soldering them in Babington balls for that
purpose. A Babington burner works like a whale blow hole to atomize waste oil.
DD Now that you got my mind on emerging backyard Babington technology. The
other creative means of storing compressed air was a tire innertube. Not 100psi
though. Refrigerator compressors work, but require both lubrication and
POWER. How about a discarded old lawnmower engine with a handcrank, or beefed up
pullcord as a compressor?
Maybe this helps?
Dan Dimiduk

From adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in Thu Oct 28 22:37:38 2004
From: adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in (adkarve)
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:07:38 +0530
Subject: [Stoves] pumps for supplying secondary air to a cookstove
References: <010401c4bd0e$63c28220$0100a8c0@md>
Message-ID: <003701c4bd6a$a511b280$5b5741db@adkarve>

I have been following the discussion on the above subject.
A whole range of pesticide pumps are available in India, costing from about
US$20 upwards. Some of them have a tank, in which air under pressure can be
stored, so that you don't have to crank the handle all the time. A lot of
rural households already possess this equipment. So, if we can design a
suitable adapter to connect the nozzle of the pump to a perforated hollow
ring around the pothole of the cookstove, we have a blue flame cookstove. An
old pneumatic tube from a car is even cheaper, but people would have to buy
a hand or foot operated pump to fill air into the tube and a mechanism for
regulating the air flow into the stove.
Yours
A.D.Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: Crispin <crispin at newdawn.sz>
To: Stoves List <STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 10:21 PM
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Sustained 100 psi small air stream

> Dear Paul'n'Dan
>
> >>DD Small hand / foot pumps can be constructed by a resourceful mechanic
> >with pipe and leather seals.
> > Dan Dimiduk
>
> You can make a good pump using a shock absorber and a little imagination.
> Fit it to a handpump-type handle mechanism and you can create the
pressure
> you want.
>
> Regards
> Crispin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

 

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Fri Oct 29 10:37:13 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:37:13 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] Buffalo gourd, & rootfuel
Message-ID: <eio4o05squh6r4sab5t1mfs42jdjoi4o72@4ax.com>

I guess the message we discussed here a few days ago did not get back
to Mick McCrary. Mick your are now subscribed to the Stoves list, a
search of our archives will reveal there were two replies to your
query, which I posted on 24 October.

AJH

From: Mccraryw at aol.com
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 10:46:47 EDT

Am retireing back to Cebu Philippines in near future. Have small plot
of
land. Would like to experiment with growing and processing buffalo
gourd root
for use as altenative fuel. Can you provide info or referrals?
Thanks
Mick McCrary

 

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Fri Oct 29 17:41:33 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 23:41:33 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] Re: Venturi and coanda, etc.
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20041029145127.0268b870@mail.ilstu.edu>
References: <4.3.1.2.20041025164557.02325330@mail.ilstu.edu>
<008d01c4b94a$578f15d0$0100a8c0@home>
<008d01c4b94a$578f15d0$0100a8c0@home>
<ia0nn051h2p2sp6nvv395rkgjtv619r07u@4ax.com>
<4.3.1.2.20041025164557.02325330@mail.ilstu.edu>
<k2mtn0tv62v3g9im9nk23hjosqet5cg3t5@4ax.com>
<4.3.1.2.20041029145127.0268b870@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <naf5o0l31ga30s4v9npjsr7q790tv8djbn@4ax.com>

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 15:04:12 -0500, Paul S. Anderson wrote:

>
>Restated: How can I get maximum natural draft from venturi shapes in a 15
>inch long 3 inch (at start) chimney?

Why do you want a venturi? The change in shape means there must be an
associated back pressure or drag. To make the most efficient chimney
you need it straight and smooth.

Have a look at Nigel's spreadsheet that his dad?? Crispin has put on
the website (Btw thanks Crispin and *respect* Nigel with the Chinese
studies), to get the same effect as the fan in the turbo stove require
8m (that's 26ft) of chimney. So your 15" chimney needs to avoid
dragging gas through any constrictions or bends to maximise its
effect.

> Can venturi effect be
>"cummulative"? (I suspect you can only do it once in this situation.)

I don't see why not, the venturi effect causes a depression when a gas
flow is speeded up through a constriction, note this depression is in
comparison with the gas flows either side of the constriction, not
with the gases outside the tube, so you cannot keep entraining more
air from outside.
>
>I think coanda is for sucking in additional air (via entrainment),

Yes sort of, the coanda effect just uses the fact that fluid flows
stick to surfaces, this means they will bend to a change in surface
direction, in doing so they create a depression at the bend which then
entrains another flow. Actually I first came across the effect as a
logical switch which was robust in a burst of ionising radiation.

>right? If so, it does not seem applicable to my situation.

No, I think you just need a super efficient chimney (and plugging in
some figures into the above spreadsheet, coupled with a knowledge of
what heat you have to dump up the chimney, will demonstrate why forced
air is a good energy trade off *if* the value of heat to motive power
is small enough.

AJH

 

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Fri Oct 29 17:41:33 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 23:41:33 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Sustained 100 psi small air stream
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20041029130024.02684af0@mail.ilstu.edu>
References: <3.0.32.20041028105537.00942b10@pop.btl.net>
<3.0.32.20041028105537.00942b10@pop.btl.net>
<9dn2o019subl4e46ut84o3vtlhqur86arq@4ax.com>
<4.3.1.2.20041029130024.02684af0@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <h4h5o0hp6smh8vqvaklquq9h5qge24sk5e@4ax.com>

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:03:00 -0500, Paul S. Anderson wrote:

>At 09:59 PM 10/28/04 +0100, list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk wrote:
>> with compressed air you do a lot of work heating up the gas as
>>you compress it and this is all lost because as the compressed air is
>>used and expands again it only expands to its original volume if it
>>can reach ambient temperature again. As I said isothermal compression
>>and adiabatic expansion is lossy.
>Andrew,
>
>I understand the issues you raise, but I was not aware that the impact
>would be very significant. Can you enlighten about how drastic is the
>impact?

I've never been a teacher and my last physics lesson was 35 years ago
but I'll have a bash. You could have a quick look at the p-v diagram
for the otto cycle, this is the idealised curves of what happens in a
spark ignition (SI or petrol engine) Google turns up
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/otto.html

Now I can no longer figure out differential calculus or integration
but looking at the diagram you might see that the power you get out of
a SI engine is the area under the P-V curve, here the gas is
compressed suddenly and gets hot adiabatically (with change in heat in
or out of the system) this is because it follows the gas law
p*v^gamma=constant*absolute temperature. At this point you add heat
suddenly in the form of the petrol:air mixture burning, this causes an
almost instantaneous rise in pressure which drives the piston down. As
the piston goes down the volume increases and pressure decreases,
again adiabatically, so the high temperature cause by the burning
mixture is reduced. So in expanding the energy in the petrol: air
mixture has done work pushing the piston down and because it has done
this work (expanded from a small volume and high pressure to a higher
volume and lower pressure) temperature has dropped. So the work got
out of the energy in the petrol is the difference in the work put into
the gas which is the integral of p-v curve for the initial compression
and the work done in pushing the piston down in the power stroke which
is the similar area under the curve for the power stroke. So the net
work out for the energy in the petrol is the small strangely shaped
four sided area.

Now in compressing air for the purpose of aspirating a stove you are
doing almost the opposite of this, now you are moving from high volume
to high pressure in a straight line, from 6 to 3 in the diagram
(because heat from the compression is being lost over time) and when
you vent the air through the nozzle it is expanding (and doing work
against the friction of the nozzle) in the curved line from 3 to 6,
the energy you have wasted (not including frictional losses) is the
area between the straight line 6 to 3 and curved line 3 to 6.

On top of this the force you have available is decreasing proportional
to the change in pressure. If you attempt to regulate this with a
valve or throttle so your powered air flow remains constant then you
suffer further throttling losses.

Compare this with a similar system using a weight of ~50kg falling
through 2 metres in an hour, the weight pulling a string wrapped
around a shaft with a fan on it. As the weight falls the force turning
the shaft remains constant until the weight touches the floor. This
weight analogy is about the same amount of power Scott indicated was
required to run the turbo stove, an order of magnitude less than you
considered was needed.

> and is there any reasonable way to lessen that impact?

If you must use air stored from a pressurised container at ambient
temperature you would be best pre heating the air before venting it
through the ejector so that when it expanded it was hotter than
ambient.

AJH

 

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Fri Oct 29 17:50:16 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 23:50:16 +0100
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Sustained 100 psi small air stream
In-Reply-To: <h4h5o0hp6smh8vqvaklquq9h5qge24sk5e@4ax.com>
References: <3.0.32.20041028105537.00942b10@pop.btl.net>
<3.0.32.20041028105537.00942b10@pop.btl.net>
<9dn2o019subl4e46ut84o3vtlhqur86arq@4ax.com>
<4.3.1.2.20041029130024.02684af0@mail.ilstu.edu>
<h4h5o0hp6smh8vqvaklquq9h5qge24sk5e@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <58i5o0hgv5eq8m1m63iarbo63ftnrgb5fp@4ax.com>

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 23:41:33 +0100, list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk wrote:

>Now I can no longer figure out differential calculus or integration
>but looking at the diagram you might see that the power you get out of
>a SI engine is the area under the P-V curve, here the gas is
>compressed suddenly and gets hot adiabatically (with change in heat in

Erratum "with NO change in heat energy in or out of the system

>or out of the system) this is because it follows the gas law
>p*v^gamma=constant*absolute temperature. At this point you add heat
>suddenly in the form of the petrol:air mixture burning, this causes an
>almost instantaneous rise in pressure which drives the piston down. As
>the piston goes down the volume increases and pressure decreases,
>again adiabatically, so the high temperature cause by the burning
>mixture is reduced. So in expanding the energy in the petrol: air
>mixture has done work pushing the piston down and because it has done
>this work (expanded from a small volume and high pressure to a higher
>volume and lower pressure) temperature has dropped. So the work got
>out of the energy in the petrol is the difference in the work put into
>the gas which is the integral of p-v curve for the initial compression

And hence the area under the curve from 6 to 3

>and the work done in pushing the piston down in the power stroke which
>is the similar area under the curve for the power stroke.

4 to 5

> So the net
>work out for the energy in the petrol is the small strangely shaped
>four sided area.
>
6->3->4->5

>Now in compressing air for the purpose of aspirating a stove you are
>doing almost the opposite of this, now you are moving from high volume
>to high pressure in a straight line, from 6 to 3 in the diagram
>(because heat from the compression is being lost over time) and when
>you vent the air through the nozzle it is expanding (and doing work
>against the friction of the nozzle) in the curved line from 3 to 6,
>the energy you have wasted (not including frictional losses) is the
>area between the straight line 6 to 3 and curved line 3 to 6.

I shouldn't have attempted this explanation without looking at a text
book first, but I would not have made the time to do that either ;-(.

AJH

From Carefreeland at aol.com Fri Oct 29 20:00:07 2004
From: Carefreeland at aol.com (Carefreeland at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 21:00:07 EDT
Subject: [Stoves] Re: Venturi and coanda, etc.(chimneys)
Message-ID: <cd.1a01855c.2eb44197@aol.com>

In a message dated 10/29/04 6:41:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk writes:

DD Dan Dimiduk comments on chimbleys (chimneys)
>
> Why do you want a venturi? The change in shape means there must be an
> associated back pressure or drag. To make the most efficient chimney
> you need it straight and smooth.
>
DD I am of the firm belief that a chimney which expands diameter as it rises
creates additional vacuum. Think of a big pneumatic cylinder compressing air
into a smaller one. Then mentally reverse the flow. To a point, as the flue
gasses cool, they contract as well, causing additional vacuum as well. I'm not
sure if this second effect is not somewhat countered by the additional mass
of the cooler gas as it's loosing it's buoyancy. Always works for me.
DD If we really want to get confusaled (confused), then lets put a swirl into
this rising gas to enhance the vacuum. Well, that's only for us midwest
tornado chasers to understand. Ever watch a forest fire? Dust devil? Crunch that
into your engineering. I think Alex English had a handle on some of that.
Nature figured it out long ago as she had a LOT of work to do. All of that stored
solar energy to transport up to space.

What cha all think?
Dan Dimiduk

From Carefreeland at aol.com Fri Oct 29 20:08:02 2004
From: Carefreeland at aol.com (Carefreeland at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 21:08:02 EDT
Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:=20[Stoves]=20pumps=20for=20supplying=20second?=
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?ary=20air=20to=20a=20cookstove=A0?=
Message-ID: <d2.1a9781da.2eb44372@aol.com>

Subj: Re: [Stoves] pumps for supplying secondary air to a cookstove?
Date: 10/29/04 9:06:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Carefreeland
To: adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in

In a message dated 10/29/04 10:02:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in writes:

DD Dan Dimiduk sticks his 2cents in
>
> I have been following the discussion on the above subject.
> A whole range of pesticide pumps are available in India, costing from about
> US$20 upwards. Some of them have a tank, in which air under pressure can be
> stored, so that you don't have to crank the handle all the time. A lot of
> rural households already possess this equipment. So, if we can design a
> suitable adapter to connect the nozzle of the pump to a perforated hollow
> ring around the pothole of the cookstove, we have a blue flame cookstove. An
> old pneumatic tube from a car is even cheaper, but people would have to buy
> a hand or foot operated pump to fill air into the tube and a mechanism for
> regulating the air flow into the stove.
> Yours
> A.D.Karve
>
DD How many old compressed air pumps you want?? I have a bunch of old hand
sprayers made for trees shrubs and lawns.? Yea, you can run em' a while if you
like to pump. Helps to have a little water or oil as a pump lubricant.? The 4
gallon size holds spray water for a while- come with their own adjustable
nozzle and hand valve.
;-)
??????? Dan Dimiduk

From psanders at ilstu.edu Thu Oct 28 19:55:51 2004
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 19:55:51 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] Sustained 100 psi small air stream
In-Reply-To: <99.4fe19cf8.2eb2ccb9@aol.com>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20041028193342.01e01f00@mail.ilstu.edu>

Dan and all,

100 psi is the number used by Das and is shown on the website
diagram. Nothing magic about that number. I imagine that the fridge
compressor was giving that psi, and that is what Das then used. It worked
for him. That is all I know about that pressure.

The size of the hole is quite small. It is in the leeward (down-wind) side
of the small pipe that sticks into the pipe where the gases flow. It does
get quite hot. Again, the actual size of the hole has not been stated as
critical, just that it works with the 100 psi unit.

Guideline: The objective is entrainment of the gases (drawing them from
the gas creation chamber) PLUS drawing in the secondary air (that is
regulated with a valve that lets in the air from the room, that is, the
secondary air is not pressurized in any way.)

Because we do not want to have a person turn a fan constantly, that is why
we want the pressurized entrainment air. Good high pressures and a very
small hole will last a lot longer than a larger hole which simply
substitutes pressurized air to become a larger percentage of the secondary
air, instead of using the non-pressurized ambient air that is always
present at no cost.

I think the critical factor is how much air can actually (and without TOO
many problems) be pushed into the canister and at what pressure. For that
reason, I am less thrilled about using the plastic soda pop bottles because
of a limit of about 150 psi (what Peter wrote).

And inflating tires or inner tubes is not viable. One of my VERY first
efforts with small gasifiers (back in Spring of 2001) was to use inner
tubes and even a complete spare tire. No where close to what I wanted to
accomplish (but I was not seeking entrainment of air at that time.). Those
tires are about only 36 psi, usually.

I hope you come up with some workable solutions.

Paul

At 06:29 PM 10/28/04 -0400, Carefreeland at aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 10/28/04 11:57:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>psanders at ilstu.edu writes:
>
>DD Dan Dimiduk comments.
>
>>
>>Dan (and/or Manny), can you do some tests on putting the pressure (how
>>much) into the metal cylinders (different sizes) by which different
>>methods of pumping air, AND the length of time the air can be released
>>via a (somehow) regulated flow.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Paul
>
>DD Paul and stovers. Sorry, I Keep forgetting to add the list name to the
>address when I respond to these E- mails. That's why sometimes they have
>been forwarded back to the list(s). Remember the old days when you just
>highlighted the text you wanted to reply to and then pushed reply? I'd
>ask someone to smack me, but Kevin C. already did that on Gasification L.-
>sorry Kevin. Thats what friends are for.
>
>DD As far as the air stream question. Do we really need a full
>100psi? The pressure will slowly drop unless a regulator is used. The
>bigger the tank the slower the drop. DD My mechanic friend Scott has a
>homemade portable air tank made from a freon cylinder-about the same size
>as a propane. Next time I visit him I can borrow it an hour or two to run
>some experiments.
>DD The next question is, what to use as an orifice? A cut off hypodermic
>needle comes to mind, as they were soldering them in Babington balls for
>that purpose. A Babington burner works like a whale blow hole to atomize
>waste oil.
>DD Now that you got my mind on emerging backyard Babington
>technology. The other creative means of storing compressed air was a tire
>innertube. Not 100psi though. Refrigerator compressors work, but require
>both lubrication and POWER. How about a discarded old lawnmower engine
>with a handcrank, or beefed up pullcord as a compressor?
> Maybe this helps?
> Dan Dimiduk

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 at 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 Fri Oct 29 15:04:12 2004
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 15:04:12 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] Venturi and coanda, etc.
In-Reply-To: <k2mtn0tv62v3g9im9nk23hjosqet5cg3t5@4ax.com>
References: <4.3.1.2.20041025164557.02325330@mail.ilstu.edu>
<008d01c4b94a$578f15d0$0100a8c0@home>
<008d01c4b94a$578f15d0$0100a8c0@home>
<ia0nn051h2p2sp6nvv395rkgjtv619r07u@4ax.com>
<4.3.1.2.20041025164557.02325330@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20041029145127.0268b870@mail.ilstu.edu>

At 12:06 AM 10/27/04 +0100, list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk wrote:

>Paul wrote:
> >Think of a "triple bulge" hour glass. That would be like a Venturi in
> >between other Venturi. Would seem to me that if a constriction follows a
> >prior point of enlargement (Venturi style), then there would NOT be any
> >advantage gained.
> >
> >In other words, if I have my flowing hot gases/air (sequentially after the
> >main combustion of the gases) go upward through a Venturi (an enlargement,
> >so lower pressure on the "up" side), then I should NOT even consider having
> >that "chimney" segment constrict again (or else I would loose the initial
> >value of the Venturi.)
>
>This is getting a bit complicated and it's late for me, you seem to be
>confusing a chimney with a venturi. In fact the Rumford fireplace had
>elements of this and a coanda effect but my brain's out of gear again.

Andrew,

The above message by me receive only your reply, and I hope your brain is
back in gear again. :-))

Restated: How can I get maximum natural draft from venturi shapes in a 15
inch long 3 inch (at start) chimney? Can venturi effect be
"cummulative"? (I suspect you can only do it once in this situation.)

I think coanda is for sucking in additional air (via entrainment),
right? If so, it does not seem applicable to my situation.

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 at 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 Carefreeland at aol.com Sat Oct 30 11:40:01 2004
From: Carefreeland at aol.com (Carefreeland at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:40:01 EDT
Subject: [Stoves] Venturi
Message-ID: <fc.519811d.2eb51de1@aol.com>

Paul,
Look at a carburator. Venturi inside a Venturi. Just scale up
proportions for your usage.
Dan

From psanders at ilstu.edu Fri Oct 29 13:03:00 2004
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:03:00 -0500
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Sustained 100 psi small air stream
In-Reply-To: <9dn2o019subl4e46ut84o3vtlhqur86arq@4ax.com>
References: <3.0.32.20041028105537.00942b10@pop.btl.net>
<3.0.32.20041028105537.00942b10@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20041029130024.02684af0@mail.ilstu.edu>

At 09:59 PM 10/28/04 +0100, list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk wrote:
> with compressed air you do a lot of work heating up the gas as
>you compress it and this is all lost because as the compressed air is
>used and expands again it only expands to its original volume if it
>can reach ambient temperature again. As I said isothermal compression
>and adiabatic expansion is lossy.
Andrew,

I understand the issues you raise, but I was not aware that the impact
would be very significant. Can you enlighten about how drastic is the
impact? and is there any reasonable way to lessen that impact?

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 at 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 zia2221984 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 12:20:58 2004
From: zia2221984 at yahoo.com (phuck heed)
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 10:20:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Stoves] Lange woodstove model 6303 A
Message-ID: <20041030172058.32407.qmail@web52010.mail.yahoo.com>

Can anyone help me locate a manual or something that
shows the Lange woodstove model # 6303A is "UL"
approved.
thanks
Greg Harris.
email zia2221984 at yahoo.com


_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com

From crispin at newdawn.sz Sat Oct 30 12:21:45 2004
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 19:21:45 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] Re: Venturi and coanda, etc.(chimneys)
Message-ID: <000001c4bea4$fb487400$838cfea9@home>

Dear Dan and Paul

Dan wrote:

DD I am of the firm belief that a chimney which expands diameter as it
rises
creates additional vacuum. Think of a big pneumatic cylinder
compressing air
into a smaller one. Then mentally reverse the flow. To a point, as the
flue
gasses cool, they contract as well, causing additional vacuum as well.
I'm not
sure if this second effect is not somewhat countered by the additional
mass
of the cooler gas as it's loosing it's buoyancy.

Actually, if you down load the spreadsheet from the Stove Test page of
the www.newdawnengineering.com website, you can quickly discover for
yourself if there is any gain.

First, pick a time period and quantity of wood burned and choose a
chimney height - say, 12 metres and give the chimney a temperature.
Note the resulting draft.

Then divide the height by 3 and use 4 metres as the chimney height in
the spreadsheet.
Then enter a chimney diameter, say 3 inches. Note the resulting draft
at the bottom. Write down the figure.
Then change the diameter of the chimney to 4 inches for the next 4
metres and note the draft. Write down the figure.
Then change the diameter of the chimney to 5 inches for the top 4 metres
and note the draft.
Write down the figure.
You can also note the gas velocity in each case for later on.

As you noted, you now need to do a temperature drop calculation based on
expansion from (1/2*3")^2*Pi to (1/2*4")^2*Pi - about an 80% increase in
area, but in a real chimney the pressure drop is tiny. The resulting
(slightly) lower temperature affects the draft because when you enter
the actual lower temperature into the 4" diameter 4 metre high chimney,
the draft is reduced as shown at the bottom.

Repeat the calculation for the 4-5 inch transition.

Realistically, there is also heat loss to the chimney wall which is
directly related to gas residence time in the chimney. Bigger diameters
= bigger losses because of longer residence times.

The bigger diameter has a lower loss to friction because the gas
velocity is lower. So there is a small gain related to what the
friction loss was in the first place. If it was 500mm/sec the
difference will be nearly nothing at all, but it is a gain in
efficiency.

So added up, it seems you can't win by increasing the chimney diameter
(from say, 3") unless the speed of the gasses at the bottom was really
high (like more than 3 metres per second).

You would win more over all by simply making the chimney 4 inches all
the way up.

Are there errors of calculation here?

Regards
Crispin

 

From crispin at newdawn.sz Sat Oct 30 12:21:45 2004
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 19:21:45 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Venturi and coanda, etc.
Message-ID: <000101c4bea5$003f5b90$838cfea9@home>

Dear Paul

You asked:

>Restated: How can I get maximum natural draft from venturi shapes
>in a 15 inch long 3 inch (at start) chimney? Can venturi effect be
>"cummulative"? (I suspect you can only do it once in this situation.)

Yes, but it doesn't serve much purpose unless there is a huge diameter
difference between the first and last diameter.

There was a commercial injector with 5 stages which did what you wanted
and it is given as an example in my old Engineering handbook. The
reason it had so many stages was because the diameter of the high
pressure jet was small and the largest OD was many times bigger.

There was a net gain in efficiency using several stages (or venturis I
suppose though there seems to be disagreement that they are indentical
in function) because various velicities and areas reached limits or
points of poor return.

I think that 15 inches is so short that there will be no visible gain
from having multiple venturis. Even if you could perfect it for air
temperature and humidity, 15" is so short it would only have a
theoretical difference.

Regards
Crispin

 

From crispin at newdawn.sz Sat Oct 30 12:21:45 2004
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 19:21:45 +0200
Subject: [Stoves] RE: Sustained 100 psi small air stream
Message-ID: <000201c4bea5$02495c60$838cfea9@home>

Dear Paul

How about making a very small turbine using perhaps a CPU fan from a
notebook as the driven element - something smaller than a regular CPU
fan (granted, those come in different sizes too).

Then connect the shaft to a larger far to propel the air into the
secondary combustion. The whole thing would be the size of two CPU
fans.

This would allow you to us