September 1996 Gasification Archive

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

From verhaarp at janus.cqu.edu.au Tue Sep 3 17:19:17 1996
From: verhaarp at janus.cqu.edu.au (Peter Verhaart)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:58 2004
Subject: Charcoal making stove
Message-ID: <9609032122.AA28011@janus.cqu.edu.au>

>From Piet Verhaart

Last week I fitted a circular saw to my cutoff machine and spent a morning
cutting up part of the stack of firewood into 5 to 7 cm thick slices. Later
I split the slices into (mostly traigular) pieces of about 30 mm sides.
To my delight the Jak-stove could be worked with that kind of fuel, no
serious log jams when raising the fuelbed.
The idea of the Jak-stove is to be able to raise the top of the fuelbed to
where the air enters through the horizontal slit between the two stove
halves. The external appearance is very similar to the charcoal making
stove, the upper part providing the natural draft. The difference is that
all fuel is hoped to get consumed without producing charcoal.
Well, it worked somewhat, one probably has to get a feel of when and how
much to raise the fuelbed to keep it burning properly. I did not manage,
there was smoke at one stage and later I saw I had pushed the top of the
fuelbed tight up against the flange of the insert.
No measurements taken, this was one of my wild experiments.

Today I did another, this time with the charcoal making stove. It burned
impeccably (I am quite resigned to not expecting blue flames) for the first
six minutes after which dense smoke erupted. Opening the bottom valve
restored the flames and I managed to restore flames every time by fiddling
with the bottom valve. It appears to be a delicate balance, the flames can
disappear any moment.
The whole burn took 23 minutes, the last half minute or so there was smoke
but not very dense. After disappearance of visible smoke I closed the bottom
valve, took the upper part of and closed the top of the charcoal compartment.

No measurements but the charcoal making stove burned better with this fuel.
How much? I didn't weigh, it was a wild test.
Next time I will weigh the brennstoff and find the feuchtgehalt.

All the best for now,

Piet (Smoke) Verhaart

From 73002.1213 at compuserve.com Wed Sep 4 22:10:27 1996
From: 73002.1213 at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:58 2004
Subject: JAK and C Stoves
Message-ID: <960905021155_73002.1213_FHM79-2@CompuServe.COM>

Dear Piet:

Very interesting to hear about the JAK stove. I must have missed some letters -
what is the derivation of JAK? I formerly considered that the inverted
downdraft charcoal making feature was negative. Ron Larson has convinced me
that SOMETIMES it is positive - if you want charcoal. Glad to hear that you
have found a way to burn the charcoal when you don't want it. Do oyou "jack up"
the fuel bed? Does the charcoal form a third flame zone (primary combustion in
th bed, charcoal at midpoint in some of the secondary air, then combustion of
volatiles in the upper zone?

I'll be visiting Prasad the first week in October and we will certainly have a
lot to talk about in stoves.

I agree that having a stable blue flame for the whole burn is tricky. Did you
have an annular clame zone?

I ran 1/4in diameter densified peanut hulls (from Georgia) yesterday in the
inverted downdraft mode. I was able to get them started (blue flame and all) in
the secondary air zone, but the bed was too dense and didn't allow enough
natural draft to continue the process. This didn't surprise me. I'm looking
for some 1/2 inch or larger pellets to try

Pelletized wood certainly makes superior charcoal.

Keep us posted on Jak and C.

TOM REED

From larcon at csn.net Fri Sep 6 12:19:06 1996
From: larcon at csn.net (Ronal Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:58 2004
Subject: Air pollution monitoring (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9609060903.A16057-0100000@teal.csn.net>

All Stovers: The following message is relatively self-explanatory. Tom
Milne is part of the list already and I have just added Ralph Overend to
the list - hoping we can get his active involvement as well on stoves.

To stove list members Kirk Smith and Sisay Wondimagengn - I hope you can
respond specifically with what you have already learned from your
measurements. I don't believe that all of the desired pollutants will
have been measured by either of you in rural homes, but I know you both
have done some of this and probably know most other work. (Sisay is a new
member of the group, a Public Health Professor working in Southwest
Ethiopia and getting a PhD on this topic from Dublin University. Most of
us have heard Kirk several times from his teaching and research position at
UC - Berkeley - still working primarily on this stove pollution topic I
believe).

To Tom Milne and Ralph Overend
Could you pass this on to Ellen Morris - with a request to reply
on whether she would like to join the list and whether Edward Loosli
and/or Helga Rainer might also wish to join.
I was very impressed by the NREL portable equipment that I am
sure could do this job. I'll bet that portable generators are all over
Kenya to supply the required power. I hope you might be able to find a
sponsor to do some work in this area - maybe list members Sam Baldwin or
Ron White (temporarily at World Bank) can offer some ideas also.
Professor Don Steadman at DU might have the necessary equipment -
and probably it is portable, but he will need some funding to get involved.

Ron

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 96 09:08:17 mdt
From:milnet@tcplink.nrel.gov
To: overendr@tcplink.nrel.gov
Cc: 73002.1213@compuserve.com, larcon@csn.org
Subject: Re: Air pollution monitoring

Ralph: I am forwarding this request to Tom Reed and Ron Larson. They can put
the request on the CREST-wood stove network. Is this OK? I personally don't
have any ready information on particulates.

Tom.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Air pollution monitoring
Author: Ralph Overend at nrel
Date: 9/5/96 7:12 PM

Tom: I can prepare a reply to this - the challenge is that refugee camps are
likely to have no electricity to run equipment - I'm presuming that the methods
for the permanent gases can be by means of "dreager tubes" - do you have any
suggestions on the particulate?

______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________
Subject: Air pollution monitoring
Author: Ellen Morris at NREL
Date: 9/5/96 11:17 AM

Hello Ralph,

I received this request for information related to effects on the environment
from biomass combustion. Since I am not an expert on biomass, I thought I would
pass it along to you. If you can answer the questions raised below, please do
so directly. Otherwise, if you know someone else at NREL or at another agency
(maybe EPA) that can help, please pass it along to them.

Thanks

Ellen

p.s. I think this request arose because of my involvement with either the WISE
group at NREL or through the Women's Caucus at the UN Commission on Sustainable
Development.
______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________
Subject: Air pollution monitoring
Author: Edward.Loosli@unep.org (Edward Loosli) at SMTP
Date: 9/5/96 12:49 PM

Dear Ms. E Morris,

Further to our concern regarding the health
and environmental impacts of the cooking fuel crisis in
Eastern Africa we are looking into the impact of low-grade
biomass combustion and health in a refugee camp environment.
To this end we are looking into the possiblity of introducing
ambient air pollution monitoring in a refugee camp.

I am writing to inquire if you could provide me us
with information on the equipment that would be suitable to
measure RSP-upto 10 micro-metres, Carbon monoxide, Nitrogen
dioxide and Sulphur dioxide in such a situation and forward
details on how best to set up the monitoring facilities.
In anticipation of your reply,

Ms. Helga Rainer
Human Health and Well-Being Unit
UNEP
Nairobi

From tmiles at teleport.com Thu Sep 12 20:05:56 1996
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:58 2004
Subject: Bioenergy Lists and Commands
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960912171745.00a14298@mail.teleport.com>

BIOENERGY EMAIL LISTS

The bioenergy mailing lists are hosted by the Center for Renewable Energy &
Sustainable Technologies(CREST) for industry, academia and government to
discuss biomass production and conversion to energy. There are four lists at
CREST.

o Bioenergy (bioenergy@crest.org)
Moderators: Tom Miles (tmiles@teleport.com),
Tom Stanton (stanton@ermis.state.mi.us)
Archive: http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/bioenergy-list-archive/
Digest: bioenergy-digest@crest.org

o Gasification (gasification@crest.org)
Moderators: Tom Reed (73002.1213@CompuServe.COM)
Archive: http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
Digest: gasification-digest@crest.org

o Anaerobic Digestion (digestion@crest.org)
Moderators: Phil Lusk (plusk@usa.pipeline.com)
Richard Nelson
Dave Stephenson
Archive:http://www.crest.org/renewables/digestion-list-archive
Digest: digestion-digest@crest.org

o Stoves (stoves@crest.org)
Moderators: Ronal Larson(larcon@csn.net),
Etienne Moerman (E.Moerman@stud.tue.nl)
Digest: stoves-digest@crest.org

Current subscribers to the list are engaged in the research and commercial
production of biomass crops and fuels, the conversion of biomass power in
commercial operating plants, the construction and testing of commercial
scale pilot facilities for combustion, gasification and anaerobic digestion,
testing and analysis of environmental impacts for bioenergy, and promotion
and planning of future bioenergy resources.

This is a cooperative, volunteer effort that is now in it's third year. The
lists are moderated and managed by volunteers. We appreciate the support of
the Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainable Technologies and the
National Bioenergy Industries Association for hosting the lists at their site.

CONTRIBUTIONS

While there is no fee to subscribe to the list contributions are welcome and
will be necessary to sustain the lists. Please contact Tom Miles
(tmiles@teleport.com).

COMMANDS

To subscribe to the BIOENERGY Lists from any internet email address, please
send email to MAJORDOMO@CREST.ORG with the message

SUBSCRIBE list-name YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS <=three word command
(Example: subscribe bioenergy tmiles@teleport.com)

To post a message to all members on the list, please address it to
list-name@CREST.ORG
(Example: bioenergy@crest.org)

UNSUBSCRIBE list-name YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS <=three word command
(Example: unsubscribe bioenergy tmiles@teleport.com)

Note: If you send a subscribe/unsubscribe command for an email address that
is different from the one known to the list server - for example, you may
send a subscribe command on behalf of someone else - then your message will
go to the list moderator for approval.

OTHER COMMANDS - Send email to MAJORDOMO@crest.org with the command 'help'.

MESSAGE ARCHIVE
Messages are archived at CREST using hypermail. The archives can be viewed
and sorted by date, subject or thread using a WWW browser at URL
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/bioenergy-list-archive/index.html (ors
as indicated above). CREST (Solstice) also supports WWW, gopher and ftp for
renewable energy at Solstice@crest.org.

MESSAGE DIGEST
Each list also has a digest, a collection of messages that is issued
periodically. This may be useful if you want to recieve messages in a batch.
Subscribe to the list-name-digest@crest.org as indicated above.
(Example: subscribe gasification-digest@crest.org)

World Wide Web
~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~
http://solstice.crest.org/

Gopher
~~~~~~
gopher.crest.org

Anonymous FTP
~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
solstice.crest.org

You can contact CREST at +1 202 289-5370,
or by sending email to info@crest.org.

LIST ADMINISTRATORS
Please direct questions to the bioenergy list administrators:
Tom Miles, Jr. tmiles@teleport.com
Tom Stanton thomas.s.stanton@commerce.state.mi.us
Andrew Waegel asw@crest.org

Tom Miles, Jr.
tmiles@teleport.com
September 12, 1996

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Tom Miles, Jr. Thomas R. Miles
tmiles@teleport.com, tmiles@ortel.org Consulting Design Engineer
http://www.teleport.com/~tmiles/ 5475 SW Arrowwood Lane
Tel (503) 591-1947 Fax (503) 292-2919 Portland, Oregon, USA 97225-1353

From Davost at aol.com Thu Sep 12 21:09:53 1996
From: Davost at aol.com (Davost@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:58 2004
Subject: Single log burner
Message-ID: <960912211330_283702590@emout16.mail.aol.com>

Some time back, probably six years ago, I read about a small combustion unit
(<500,000 MBtu's/hr) that would accept log sections of up to 8 feet long.
The unit was bulit somewhere in the Northeast US, possibly Vermont. Can
anyone help me find information on this unit. A friend who boils down
thousands of gallons of maple sirrup would like to use a simpler and more
efficient heater. His farmer friend and partner also is looking for a better
way to heat his livestock buildings using wood. The cutting and splitting of
many truck loads of wood each year is becomming too much of a chore not to
mention the hand stoking of the furnace. Thank you,

David Ostlie

From apchick at dmu.ac.uk Fri Sep 13 05:17:32 1996
From: apchick at dmu.ac.uk (apchick)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:58 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Bioenergy Lists and Commands
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960912171745.00a14298@mail.teleport.com>
Message-ID: <323996CD.78FB@dmu.ac.uk>

Hi,

Could anyone let me know if there is an anaerobic digester operating on Farm
based slurry anywhere in the UK?

I am an M'Phil Student at De Montfort University, and would be intrested in
visiting an operating digester.

E-mail me direct
Thank you....

--
Andrew P Chick
De Montfort University
School of Agriculture and Horticulture
Caythorpe Campus
Caythorpe
Lincolnshire NG32 9EP
apchick@dmu.ac.uk

From eaftdc at seark.net Sun Sep 15 16:45:22 1996
From: eaftdc at seark.net (Carol Cross)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:58 2004
Subject: Welcome to stoves
Message-ID: <199609152048.PAA01235@venus.seark.net>

Share your stove knowhow with Rural African Women

New OnLine Newsletter

RAWFFFOL
Rural African Women's Food Fuel and Feed On Line Network

An Internet newsletter of practical suggestions for rural African women to
improve their lives. Written for rural women and those who support them
such as Peace Corp workers, Missionaries, NGOs, women in development groups,
etc.

African women are carrying the burden of rural development in Africa on
their backs. While we can do little to change the social structures that
burden African women, or modify African Society, we can help lighten their
burdens. There are new appropriate technologies, marketing outlets, and
support systems designed to help women. But how to get that information to
a woman in the bush.
This newsletter is designed to pull together caring women into RAWFFFOL
Sharing groups to create an information flow from those who have knowhow to
women who need it. You can be a conduit of such information by becoming a
RAWFFFOL Information Transfer Volunteer.

There is no cost. Just be willing to share yourself with African women
through a wide variety of channels from the Peace Corp to the mission of
many churches.

We invite you and any African women or women of African descent to
participate in this network through RAWFFFOL by sharing ideas. We are
especially interested in how the Internet can support this mission.

If you are interested in sharing in developing this information conduit for
rural African women, please send an email to
eaftdc@seark.net and say Subscribe RAWFFFOL

Sharing and caring,

Dr. Carol

If you would like to RECEIVE this FREE OnLine Newsletter, send this message
to eaftdc@seark.net

SUBSCRIBE RAWFFFOL

*************
Volume 1, Number 1 October 1, 1996
Editor and Publisher, Dr. Carol Cross

RAWFFFOL is an internet newsletter focused on providing support and
information technology to African village rural women. RAWFFFOL is being
presented just like any printed magazine or newsletter. You can contribute
articles, ask questions and assist these hardworking women in providing
food for their families, fuel so they do not have to cut trees for firewood,
and livestock feed for their small herds. This newsletter is available at
no cost to you. This newsletter is for you if you are presently working with
programs to assist African rural women or are a woman in a village in Africa.
=====
ISSUE # 1 Tentative articles scheduled

1. Reviving the YUM - How Cameroonian women used to work together and how
it can be redeveloped
2. Food drying systems for rainy weather - building food dryers from bamboo
and local materials
3. Giza sorghum for firewood production
4. Small scale production of kenaf in a cut and carry program
========
Send in your listing, questions and requests for the PREMIERE issue to be
published in October 1996.

*SPECIAL REQUEST - African women are needed as country coordinators for
this newsletter. If you are originally from an African country, please
contact Dr. Carol Cross at eaftdc@seark.net for more information.
===================================================
Carol Cross, Ph.D. EcoAgroForestry Founder
Email: solync@seark.net Phone & FAX: 501-367-8736.
P O Box 398, Parma, MI 49269
For Free Western Hemisphere Export Trade Newsletter send email saying
SUBSCRIBE WESHEMOL. Together we Can Create A Sustainable World Through
EcoAgroForestry (Sustainable Agriculture, Sustainable Forestry and Rural
AgroIndustrial Development) by growing Kenaf, utilizing AgroResidues,
forming consortiums, & developing Rural AgroIndustrial Centers (RAICs) or
EcoAgroForestry Village Business Incubators(VBI). Free Kenaf Newsletter -
Just Say SUBSCRIBE KENAFOL. Join us.

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." (Gandhi)

From skip.hayden at cc2smtp.NRCan.gc.ca Tue Sep 17 08:42:07 1996
From: skip.hayden at cc2smtp.NRCan.gc.ca (Skip Hayden)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:58 2004
Subject: Single log burner
Message-ID: <9608178429.AA842975143@cc2smtp.nrcan.gc.ca>

Not sure if this is what you are talking about, but the
Hampton Jetstream, originally built on Prince Edward Island
and now being produced in very small quantities by Parrsboro
Metals in Truro, Nova Scotia worked in this way. It was an
extremely clean burning design, based on the design
by Professor Hill in Maine.

From tmiles at teleport.com Tue Sep 17 13:07:15 1996
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:58 2004
Subject: Single log burner
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960917170906.00a1191c@mail.teleport.com>

Skip,

Thanks for the update. I had wandered what happened to the Jetstream - an
excellent application of some fundamental but rarely applied combustion
techniques. I haven't been in touch with Richard Hill for several years.

Regards,

Tom Jr.

At 08:44 AM 9/17/96 EST, Skip Hayden wrote:
> Not sure if this is what you are talking about, but the
> Hampton Jetstream, originally built on Prince Edward Island
> and now being produced in very small quantities by Parrsboro
> Metals in Truro, Nova Scotia worked in this way. It was an
> extremely clean burning design, based on the design
> by Professor Hill in Maine.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Tom Miles, Jr. Thomas R. Miles
tmiles@teleport.com, tmiles@ortel.org Consulting Design Engineer
http://www.teleport.com/~tmiles/ 5475 SW Arrowwood Lane
Tel (503) 591-1947 Fax (503) 292-2919 Portland, Oregon, USA 97225-1353

From larcon at csn.net Tue Sep 17 19:45:05 1996
From: larcon at csn.net (Ronal Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:58 2004
Subject: Single log burner
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960917170906.00a1191c@mail.teleport.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9609171703.A15994-0100000@teal.csn.net>

Tom and Skip -

Could you expand on these "excellent ... fundamental ... techniques" that
led to clean burning.

Ron Larson

On Tue, 17 Sep 1996, Tom Miles wrote:

> Skip,
>
> Thanks for the update. I had wandered what happened to the Jetstream - an
> excellent application of some fundamental but rarely applied combustion
> techniques. I haven't been in touch with Richard Hill for several years.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tom Jr.
>
> At 08:44 AM 9/17/96 EST, Skip Hayden wrote:
> > Not sure if this is what you are talking about, but the
> > Hampton Jetstream, originally built on Prince Edward Island
> > and now being produced in very small quantities by Parrsboro
> > Metals in Truro, Nova Scotia worked in this way. It was an
> > extremely clean burning design, based on the design
> > by Professor Hill in Maine.
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> Tom Miles, Jr. Thomas R. Miles
> tmiles@teleport.com, tmiles@ortel.org Consulting Design Engineer
> http://www.teleport.com/~tmiles/ 5475 SW Arrowwood Lane
> Tel (503) 591-1947 Fax (503) 292-2919 Portland, Oregon, USA 97225-1353
>
>

From 73002.1213 at compuserve.com Tue Sep 17 19:51:11 1996
From: 73002.1213 at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:58 2004
Subject: Dick Hill
Message-ID: <960917235312_73002.1213_FHM56-1@CompuServe.COM>

Tom et al:

I havn't heard Dick Hill's name for 12 years. If anyone knows his address,
encourage him to join our energy groups. And give him my best regards.

TOM REED

Thomas B. Reed 303 278 0558 V
1810 Smith Rd., 303 278 0560 FX
Golden, CO 80401 73002.1213@Compuserve.com

From tmiles at teleport.com Wed Sep 18 01:34:52 1996
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:58 2004
Subject: Single log burner
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960918031241.0093af4c@mail.teleport.com>

Ron,

Now you want the secrets! You'll have to pay for those. :-)

The Jetstream design is a very efficient stickwood burner firing a boiler
for a hydronic (hot water) heating system. Dick Hill arranged the firebox to
keep temperatures up, concentrated combustion air for efficient combustion,
remove the boundary layer of combustion gases, and use high heat transfer
surface area. I don't know what the field experience has been over the last
17/18 years but it was an exciting innovation in 1979. It's an engineered
residential heating appliance so it's not likely to be cheap.

Regards,

Tom

At 05:48 PM 9/17/96 -0600, you wrote:

>Tom and Skip -
>
>Could you expand on these "excellent ... fundamental ... techniques" that
>led to clean burning.
>
>Ron Larson

From bryden at cae.wisc.edu Wed Sep 18 07:51:03 1996
From: bryden at cae.wisc.edu (Mark Bryden)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:58 2004
Subject: Single log burner
Message-ID: <199609181154.GAA25174@audumla.students.wisc.edu>

Does anyone know the physical layout of the whole log burner, e.g. length
and diameter of feedstock, does the whole piece of fuel burn or is it like a
cigar burner.

Mark Bryden

At 08:12 PM 9/17/96 -0700, you wrote:
>Ron,
>
>Now you want the secrets! You'll have to pay for those. :-)
>
>The Jetstream design is a very efficient stickwood burner firing a boiler
>for a hydronic (hot water) heating system. Dick Hill arranged the firebox to
>keep temperatures up, concentrated combustion air for efficient combustion,
>remove the boundary layer of combustion gases, and use high heat transfer
>surface area. I don't know what the field experience has been over the last
>17/18 years but it was an exciting innovation in 1979. It's an engineered
>residential heating appliance so it's not likely to be cheap.
>
>Regards,
>
>Tom
>
>
>
>At 05:48 PM 9/17/96 -0600, you wrote:
>
>>Tom and Skip -
>>
>>Could you expand on these "excellent ... fundamental ... techniques" that
>>led to clean burning.
>>
>>Ron Larson
>
>
>

From skip.hayden at cc2smtp.NRCan.gc.ca Wed Sep 18 09:05:25 1996
From: skip.hayden at cc2smtp.NRCan.gc.ca (Skip Hayden)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:58 2004
Subject: Single log burner
Message-ID: <9608188430.AA843062946@cc2smtp.nrcan.gc.ca>

A simplistic description of the clean burning Jetstream
follows:

Basically the log fuel sat almost vertically (about 60
degrees) in a combustion chamber, which was directly
connected at the bottom to a horizontal secondary refractory
chamber and then up through a gas-to-water heat exchanger
and out the stack.

The fuel is ignited and burns rapidly, with the volatiles
burning out in the hot second horizontal refractory chamber.
The clean flue gases then pass up through the heat
exchanger, which takes the heat away into a highly insulated
storage tank for later use, whenever it is required.

The high burning rate and high temperature secondary
combustion chamber did an excellent job in bringing the
incomplete combustion products down to very low levels.

Hope this helps.

Skip Hayden
ACT/CETC/ETB
Ottawa, Canada

From 73002.1213 at compuserve.com Wed Sep 18 10:19:32 1996
From: 73002.1213 at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:58 2004
Subject: Single log burner, Hottenroth stove
Message-ID: <960918142031_73002.1213_FHM95-1@CompuServe.COM>

Ron et al:

Tom Miles's comments on the jet burner reminds me that you and I have been VERY
impressed with how well and clean the Hottenroth, SIERRA stove works with a tiny
blower.

Tom spoke of reduction of boundary layer. I bet that's why the Sierra is so
nice. Lets try it this noon. Note also that the match flame burns clean and
blue on the bottom side where the boundary layer is thin.

TOM

From bhatta at ait.ac.th Thu Sep 19 02:14:25 1996
From: bhatta at ait.ac.th (Prof. S.C. Bhattacharya)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:58 2004
Subject: Single log burner
In-Reply-To: <9608188430.AA843062946@cc2smtp.nrcan.gc.ca>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.94.960919131532.4749B-100000@rccsun>

Attention: Skip Hayden

The description of the single log burner is very interesting. The
technology can of much interst in developing countries. Is any publication
available for more details?

S.C. Bhattacharya

-------------------------------------------------------------------
S. C. Bhattacharya Voice : (66-2) 524 5403 (Off)
Professor 524 5913 (Res)
Asian Institute of Technology Fax : (66-2) 524 5439
GPO Box 2754, Bangkok 10501 516 2126
Thailand e-mail: bhatta@ait.ac.th
-------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Skip Hayden wrote:

> A simplistic description of the clean burning Jetstream
> follows:
>
> Basically the log fuel sat almost vertically (about 60
> degrees) in a combustion chamber, which was directly
> connected at the bottom to a horizontal secondary refractory
> chamber and then up through a gas-to-water heat exchanger
> and out the stack.
>
> The fuel is ignited and burns rapidly, with the volatiles
> burning out in the hot second horizontal refractory chamber.
> The clean flue gases then pass up through the heat
> exchanger, which takes the heat away into a highly insulated
> storage tank for later use, whenever it is required.
>
> The high burning rate and high temperature secondary
> combustion chamber did an excellent job in bringing the
> incomplete combustion products down to very low levels.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Skip Hayden
> ACT/CETC/ETB
> Ottawa, Canada
>

From bhatta at ait.ac.th Thu Sep 19 02:23:58 1996
From: bhatta at ait.ac.th (Prof. S.C. Bhattacharya)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:58 2004
Subject: Single log burner, Hottenroth stove
In-Reply-To: <960918142031_73002.1213_FHM95-1@CompuServe.COM>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.94.960919132305.4749D-100000@rccsun>

Can any body send me some publication on Hottenroth stove. Is the system
commercial? If yes, what is the address of the manufacturer?

S.C. Bhattacharya

From verhaarp at janus.cqu.edu.au Thu Sep 19 10:01:06 1996
From: verhaarp at janus.cqu.edu.au (Peter Verhaart)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:58 2004
Subject: Single log burner, Hottenroth stove
Message-ID: <9609191404.AA01272@janus.cqu.edu.au>

Hi Stovers,

Very interesting, the Single log burner. The latest and most detailed
description so far reminds me of the Downdraft Stove. The log stands,
presumably on a refractory and porous base and the air flows downward. This
downward airflow slows the upward propagation of the combustion zone,
without completely preventing it. Downstream the volatiles with air still
containing some oxygen are allowed an adiabatic residence of sufficient time
to combust most of the combustibles. Only after that is heat extracted by
the water heater. The system probably has a chimney of several meters height
to provide the necessary draft.

Fred Hottenroth's Sierra Stove (formerly Zip Ztove) is a demonstration of
how a teeny weeny bit of mechanical power can make a difference in burning
performance. I found the combustion fierce, rather than clean. But it is a gem.
The talk about boundary layers is very scientific. What matters is that the
solid reactant gets supplied with oxygen. Oxygen supply increases as the
thickness of the layer of reaction product decreases, creating a steeper
concentration gradient of Oxygen. In other words, blowing on a burning piece
of wood improves the combustion, if done in moderation.

The most likely applications for the Single log burner and the Downdraft
stove are where there is a use for hot, clean gas. Back in Eindhoven we
thought about a baking oven in which the products are directly heated with
clean hot gas. Temperature control could be done by allowing ambient air to
mix with the gas entering the baking compartment. The downdraft stove could
be made to produce a clean enough gas for that prupose.
Dr. Hasan Khan in Bangla Desh has built a combination of a cookstove with a
Tandoori oven. In the lab important savings in time and fuel are realised.
Read all about it in Energy for Sustainable Development Vol 1, No 2, July
1994, p 35..37

The Downdraft stove produces thermal radiation and hot gas. In an attempt to
put the radiation to good use I have built a Downdraft Barbecue. The idea
was to do the barbecueing over the vigorously burning fuelbed. Fat and
grease dripping from the workpieces into the fire would burn downstream of
the fuelbed, preventing its fumes affecting the pieces of dead animal being
grilled. The stove was built of bricks with a length of ceramic sewer pipe
as a chimney. The results were disappointing. Even though the chimney was
more than 1 meter tall (sufficient to sustain a 8 kW fire on a 120 mm
diameter grid in Eindhoven), the rough brick lined passages evidently built
up such a thick boundary layer that the resulting flow was insufficient to
maintain a fire with enough thermal radiation to cook my chops (forequarter
of Lamb). The barbecue has now enjoyed a three year rest.
Yesterday I took the sewer pipe down, just to get rid of it but that simple
fact set in motion a comples of thoughts and actions resulting in a search
through my pile of junk and coming up with a 1.5 m length of 125 mm diameter
rusty steel pipe (salvaged from the tip, I mean the dump) and a brake drum
from a truck. Wedding the two parts by means of a stick welder I came up
with a 1.5 m chimney to put on the barbecue and, diverting the fuel intended
for the Jak Stove, I found the barbecue burned with a little more
liveliness. Of course the chimney, of 4 mm wall thickness, takes a while to
acquire a stationary state, but the fire looked good and the chimney
produced a colourless gas with a light sour smell, very similar to the
exhaust of a LPG burning automobile.

More news on the Jak stove later as it involves a fuel change from midnight
oil to firewood.

More NOx

Piet Verhaart

>
>Can any body send me some publication on Hottenroth stove. Is the system
>commercial? If yes, what is the address of the manufacturer?
>
>S.C. Bhattacharya
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>S. C. Bhattacharya Voice : (66-2) 524 5403 (Off)
>Professor 524 5913 (Res)
>Asian Institute of Technology Fax : (66-2) 524 5439
>GPO Box 2754, Bangkok 10501 516 2126
>Thailand e-mail: bhatta@ait.ac.th
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

From prasad at tn7.phys.tue.nl Fri Sep 20 05:15:33 1996
From: prasad at tn7.phys.tue.nl (prasad)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:58 2004
Subject: Single log burner, Hottenroth stove
In-Reply-To: <9609191404.AA01272@janus.cqu.edu.au>
Message-ID: <9609200910.AA27804@tn7.phys.tue.nl>

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 2239 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/stoves/attachments/19960920/28f56580/attachment.cc
From 73002.1213 at compuserve.com Fri Sep 20 11:40:32 1996
From: 73002.1213 at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:58 2004
Subject: Hottenroth stove Information: Coming Ice Age
Message-ID: <960920153823_73002.1213_FHM30-1@CompuServe.COM>

Dear Bhatta and Bioenrgy all:

Most of us are talking stove, meanwhile Fred Hottenroth is making and selling
biomass stoves.

Fred Hottenroth Sr. is in his "young" nineties, Fred Jr. is possibly in his
sixties, retired from an aerospace Co. My son lives in Long Beach, (next to Los
Alimitor) and last time I was there we visited Fred Sr. in his retirement
community. We demonstrated the "blue flame" stove. Fred was interested, but
thinks it needs "hardening to commercialization. I have previously visited his
production facility and met a crew of East Indians punching and assembling.

I have a thick file on the Freds and quite a few of his stoves (five models?) in
my laboratory. Last week we took his Sierra camp stove up to our remote 6 acres
and used it to brew coffee with miscellaneous pine twigs for fuel. The Sierra
is unique in that it uses one AA cell to power a tiny blower - and that makes
all the difference in combustion. (See Miles's comments on jet burner and
boundary layers.) Fred's advertisement says"Heats like a blacksmith's forge;
18,000 Btu/hr; Easy heat control; boils quart (liter) of water in 4 minutes;
weight 15 oz; size: 4" X 5".

Batteries too expensive for developing countries you say? Fred says fan runs
thirty hours and batteries in Nepal are 0.10c. They are setting up
manufacturing in Katmandu for a slightly larger Sierra stove. I am considering
bringing it with me on my trip.

Best to write Fred directly for info and prices. at 10806 Kaylor St., Los
Alamitos, CA 900720; 213 598 3220; Fax : 310 98 6643.

Fred is also intensely interested in climate and weather and we have considered
writing a joint paper on the subject. He has written "Weather or Not: The
Villain - Global Warming; Tthe Hero - Reforestation. I have told him that it
will be difficult to penetrate the defenses of the Climate Nazis; and that we
can do much more good with better stoves. (At a recent library sale I bought
"THE COOLING: HAS THE NEXT ICE AGE BEGUN? by Lowell Ponte, 1976 blessed by
Stephan Schneider, then Deputy Head, Climate Project, NCAR. I keep it next to
my Global Warming books as an antidote when they get too hot.
*****
If someone faxes to Fred, I would appreciate their faxing a copy of this letter.
He says his E-mail address is fred.hottenroth.czport@mail.calypso.com. I'll
send this to him, but I havn't had other messages go through yet. I would love
to have him, them, on our stove net.

I wish Father-Son teams would use different given names. First we have Tom
Milles, Sr. and Jr. and now Fred Hottenroth, Sr. and Jr. Powerful combinations,
but confused addresses sometimes. Fred Jr. - are you out there???

Affectionately, TOM REED

PS: Is STOVES a subset or alternate set to BIOENERGY? I started to write this to
Bhata, then decided it would interest stovers, then when I got on climate I
added bioener;gy. Should I be more restrictive? Can I assume that bioenergy
folds read stoves? One solution would be to make two letters. But in this
scase the two are intertwined.

Ron Larson: Great to see you and Gretchen yesterday. What a trip you had.

From verhaarp at janus.cqu.edu.au Fri Sep 20 17:15:02 1996
From: verhaarp at janus.cqu.edu.au (Peter Verhaart)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:58 2004
Subject: Single log burner, Hottenroth stove
Message-ID: <9609202118.AA10308@janus.cqu.edu.au>

>Dear Pete and other Stovers
>
>A little more info on downdraft burning.
>
>A few years back Etienne Moerman came up with the idea of a so-called
>staircase stove. The intention was to overcome one of the problems of our
>earlier design investigated extensively by Hasan Khan of Bangladesh. That
>design unfortunately begged the question of the placing of the pan. Hasan
>placed one pan between the fuel bowl and the chimney. The efficiency was
>under 20%. He added a second pan on top of the chimney. This no doubt
>increased the efficiency to around 40%. But placing the pan on top of the
>chimney, at least according to me, will not win many friends and relatives
>among the rural population in developing countries.
>
>Etienne dreamed up the scheme of staircase stove which really places the
>pans at two levels being exposed to combustion gase from the burner on their
>way to the chimney. Part of the draft is presumably provided by the
>staircase and the rest by the chimney. The total height of the stove
>including the chimney need be no taller than the original design.
>
>Last year a student of mine, Katy Smits, carried out some work on the
>design. She built the stove with the help of Jacques Driessen with bricks.
>While the stove worked after a fashion, the efficiency, even with two pans,
>didn't go beyond 25 or so percent. After a thorough examination of her
>results, I came to the conclusion her design dragged too much air. My own
>feeling was that lot of air leaked into the stove through the bricks. It was
>no real masonry work, just placing bricks one on top of the other. Etienne
>however has other theories - one being that the gas sampling point was
>wrongly configured. My own feeling was that the temperatures
>measured by Katie were far lower than what Hasan and Pete Verhaart were able
>to produce. Thus I hold to my views and presumably Etienne has not changed
>his either. Alas we have no resources to verify the business in any detail.
>
>I can send Katie's report, but the catch is that it is in Dutch. Anyway
>Pete, you can get it should you be interested in it. If sufficient interest
>exists, maybe I can cajole Katie in producing some kind of precis. But these
>things take an inordinately long time.
>
>That is it for now.
>
>Prasad
>
>
Yes, please, ja graag, Prasad. Who knows I might even have a shot at doing
some translation if the subject matter justifies it.
Have fun with Tom.
Piet Verhaart

From B.Tremeer at mail1.remote.uva.nl Mon Sep 23 15:36:20 1996
From: B.Tremeer at mail1.remote.uva.nl (Grant Ballard-Tremeer)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:58 2004
Subject: Aim of improved stoves?
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19960923193845.0067f058@mail.uva.nl>

In my experience (in South Africa) people using 'improved' stoves see them
as a temporary solution before electrification. I am interested in whether
the developers see it in the same way... What is the next step after people
are using improved stoves? Better improved stoves? Fuel transition? The
environmental impacts of such transitions are enormous (in SA at least, and
the interim fuel is usually coal, with associated health problems). Should
our thoughts on stoves take this into consideration?

Since this is my first contribution I better give a quick intro:

I have been working and doing stove research in South Africa at the
University of the Witwatersrand. I have in particular I have been studying
the emissions from household biomass combustion: this formed the subject of
my PhD which is still under examination. Right now I am doing a one year
masters in Environmental Management and Policy at the University of
Amsterdam; mostly to gain a broader understanding of 'policy' and
'management' (!) - I am interested in North-South (or East-West) interaction
(the 'whys and hows'). I am broadly interested in energy (especially
renewables), health, development, and the interaction of these three on each
other and on the environment! Confused? I am a little too...

Grant

-------------------------------------------------------------
Grant Ballard-Tremeer
fax: +31 20 525 6272 mark clearly c/o EPCEM
Weesperstraat 47 k.17; 1018DN; Amsterdam; The Netherlands
email: B.Tremeer@mail.uva.nl
btremeer@hagar.mech.wits.ac.za

From verhaarp at janus.cqu.edu.au Tue Sep 24 07:15:23 1996
From: verhaarp at janus.cqu.edu.au (Peter Verhaart)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:58 2004
Subject: Lets look at radiation
Message-ID: <9609241118.AA12654@janus.cqu.edu.au>

Dear Stovers, specially Prasad and Etienne
We and many of our visiting friends from abroad have tried to find ways to
harness the clean and vigorous combustion in the Downdraft Stove, so far to
little avail. Heat transfer figures are quite unimpressive and we don't
quite know where to put the pan or pans.
Way back I did a calculation on the radiation of the fuel bed. Assuming a
temperature of 1500 K and the surface area of a circle of 120 mm diameter,
the result was that around 50 % of the heat output rate (8 kW ?) would leave
the fuelbed in the form of radiation.
If that is true (I am always making mistakes in my calculations) then we
should position a pan over the fuelbed in such a way that we can still feed
fuel into the stove. Not all that difficult. Feeding can be done from the
side while the pan sits at some distance above the fuelbed.
I will shortly try my souped up Downdraft barbecue, hoping for an improved
throughput of chops, maybe on Thursday night when we have a guest with a
bottle of excellent red Shiraz. Life is a constant struggle, isn't it?
See youse later,

Piet Verhaart

>In my experience (in South Africa) people using 'improved' stoves see them
>as a temporary solution before electrification. I am interested in whether
>the developers see it in the same way... What is the next step after people
>are using improved stoves? Better improved stoves? Fuel transition? The
>environmental impacts of such transitions are enormous (in SA at least, and
>the interim fuel is usually coal, with associated health problems). Should
>our thoughts on stoves take this into consideration?
>
>Since this is my first contribution I better give a quick intro:
>
>I have been working and doing stove research in South Africa at the
>University of the Witwatersrand. I have in particular I have been studying
>the emissions from household biomass combustion: this formed the subject of
>my PhD which is still under examination. Right now I am doing a one year
>masters in Environmental Management and Policy at the University of
>Amsterdam; mostly to gain a broader understanding of 'policy' and
>'management' (!) - I am interested in North-South (or East-West) interaction
>(the 'whys and hows'). I am broadly interested in energy (especially
>renewables), health, development, and the interaction of these three on each
>other and on the environment! Confused? I am a little too...
>
>Grant
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>Grant Ballard-Tremeer
>fax: +31 20 525 6272 mark clearly c/o EPCEM
>Weesperstraat 47 k.17; 1018DN; Amsterdam; The Netherlands
>email: B.Tremeer@mail.uva.nl
> btremeer@hagar.mech.wits.ac.za
>
>

From rmiranda at sdnnic.org.ni Tue Sep 24 11:10:11 1996
From: rmiranda at sdnnic.org.ni (Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:58 2004
Subject: Aim of improved stoves?
Message-ID: <199609240912.JAA23974@ns.sdnnic.org.ni>

At 09:38 PM 9/23/96 +0200, you wrote:
>In my experience (in South Africa) people using 'improved' stoves see them
>as a temporary solution before electrification. I am interested in whether
>the developers see it in the same way... What is the next step after people
>are using improved stoves? Better improved stoves? Fuel transition?

Our experience in central America is that economical development is need
before people can move to an easier and cleaner fuel. Only having extra
money to pay for a more expensive fuel and/or stove, besides having acess to
improved education to understand the need to change, is that in our view the
poor people will make the transition.

>I have been working and doing stove research in South Africa at the
>University of the Witwatersrand. I have in particular I have been studying
>the emissions from household biomass combustion: this formed the subject of
>my PhD which is still under examination. Right now I am doing a one year
>masters in Environmental Management and Policy at the University of
>Amsterdam; mostly to gain a broader understanding of 'policy' and
>'management' (!) - I am interested in North-South (or East-West) interaction
>(the 'whys and hows').

That is great. I am very interested too, although I am not a researcher,
e.g., a promoter. We are an NGO working exclusively with fuelwood, and we
want to do a public campaign to make governement and population aware of the
real health impacts on humans from the use of primitive wood stoves. From
our pilot project in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, we hve found that women are very
aware of the woodsmoke incovience, but they don't know what to do about it.
Our microcredit loan for acquiring an improved woodstove is well received
into the community, mainly due to the improvement of the environmental
conditions at the home, than for the saving the trees reason.

Can you share with us yours findings about emissions ?

rogerio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda Telefax: (505) 276 0555
PROLENA(Nicaragua) Managua Nicaragua
E-mail: rmiranda@sdnnic.org.ni
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

From dbanks at ilink.nis.za Tue Sep 24 16:01:30 1996
From: dbanks at ilink.nis.za (Douglas Banks)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:58 2004
Subject: what comes after improved stoves (Ballard-Tremeer)
Message-ID: <199609242204.WAA27186@ilink.nis.za>

Grant,
Nice to meet you in this forum.
Is the householders perception that improved stoves are simply a first stage
in a move towards electrification (and cooking with electricity) realistic?
* In many cases in SA, even if the the community is electrified, cooking is
not done using electricity (due to the relatively high cost of the
electricity). As a result the electricity consumption rates are too low to
repay the electrification capital costs.
* Our electricity supply authority (Eskom) is also seriously considering
supplying limited capacity grid conenctions (say 2.5A or perhaps 5A limited
supply) thus making cooking using electricity very difficult.
* In many areas electrification will only come many years later, if at all
(the existing ambitious electrification targets in SA imply that 30% of
rural households would remain without electricity by 2010)

So it seems that non-electric forms of cooking (and space heating), even in
relatively rich south Africa will be around for some time. Thus perhaps the
improved stove is effectively an end point, not a transition. Alternatively,
other non-electric sources (LPG, paraffin, biogas, solar cooking???, coal)
might be involved. In countires with less grid infrastructure (and more
realistic electricity pricing) than South Africa, I imagine that electricity
for cooking is even less of an option.

Of course- perceptions and hopes do not have to be realistic. I agree with
you. Many rural dwellers in South Africa expect the grid to arrive very soon
and at very low cost- and as a result the development of other energy supply
options (Solar PV, LPG, improved stoves etc.) is made very difficult.

Following Grant's lead
A brief introduction to me.
I live in a little town called McGregor in the Western Cape, South Africa. I
have a strong interest in renewable and rural energy issues- recent work
being with the Energy and Development Research Centre (University of Cape
Town) on a national programme for delivery of PV systems for household
lighting an TV. I was involved in Grant's work on stoves and emmissions- and
still have an interest in stoves- particularly ceramic stoves (I also work
part time as a craft potter). Other areas of work related to energy have
included: biogas digesters, rural energy audit, low cost solar water heaters
(mostly with students from the engineering faculty at WITS. My PhD was on
Stirling engines- so Solar Thermal comes in somewhere too.
Douglas Banks
P O Box 27, McGregor, 6708
Tel or fax: +27 2353 943

From krksmith at uclink4.berkeley.edu Wed Sep 25 03:36:34 1996
From: krksmith at uclink4.berkeley.edu (Kirk R. Smith)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:59 2004
Subject: Downdraft stoves down through history
Message-ID: <199609250740.AAA19380@uclink4.berkeley.edu>

One thing about wood stoves is that thousands of smart people have worked on
them over the thousands of years that they have been essential. I
rediscovered this fact when re-reading recently Peter Brimblecombe's
fascinating history of air pollution in London (The Big Smoke, Methuen,
London, 1987). On page 58, he reproduces a figure of a downdraft stove
taken from an article by Justell in the 16th volume (p. 78) of Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society, which at that time (1686-1687) was edited
by Edmond Halley. Justell apparently observed this natural-draft downdraft
stove, designed by a Mr. Dalesme, in operation in Paris. He notes that it
had even been demonstrated several times to the King, himself. I quote the
original article, which we have unearthed, leaving the old English as intact
as email allows:

"To burn all forts of Wood in the middle of a Room without making any Smoak,
is a thing fo extraordinary, that all thofe that have heard fpeak of it, as
well Philosophers as others, have afferted it impoffible: but Mr. Dalefms
Enginier, profecuting his difcoveries, has found out a Machine, which tho
very little and portable, confumes all the Smoak of all forts of Wood
whatfoever, and that fo, that the moft curious eye cannot difcover it in the
Room, nor the niceft Nofe fmellit, altho' the fire be perfectly open."

Furthermore

"The moft Fetid things, as a Coal fteept in Cats-pifs, which stinks
abominably when taken out of the Fire, notwithftanding in this Engine makes
not the leaft ill fcent."

(Perhaps this easily applied test using organic material found throughout
the world could be used in lieu of modern emissions testing today!)

At the end of his description of how the device is operated, Justell concludes:

"..the Smoak and Flame is all forced inwards, and muft pafs through the heap
of burning Coals in the Furnace A [referring to the drawing], in which
paffage the parts thereof are fo difperfed and refined, that they become
inoffencive both to the Eye and Nofe."

The drawing bears a striking resemblence to the J-stove developed and
extensively tested by my student, Nazrul Islam, at University of
Hawaii/East-West Center in the early 1980s. Tom Reed assisted with much
good advice on a visit during that time. I wonder how many others have also
"invented" such a wheel?

Cheers/K

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Kirk R. Smith, EHS Phone: 510-643-0793
SPH, 140 Warren #7360 Fax: 510-642-5815
University of California Email: KrkSmith@uclink4.berkeley.edu
Berkeley CA 94720

From verhaarp at janus.cqu.edu.au Wed Sep 25 06:01:44 1996
From: verhaarp at janus.cqu.edu.au (Peter Verhaart)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:59 2004
Subject: Iimproved stoves?
Message-ID: <9609251005.AA10792@janus.cqu.edu.au>

Dear Stovers,

Today I took the Downdraft Barbecue apart and rearranged some of the bricks,
hopefully resulting in reduced thickness of boundary layers, and sealed
cracks and crevices with some of our soil (the only thing it is good for).
A test burn confirmed my hopes, it was like Ye Olde Downdrafte Stove back in
Eindhoven.
We look toward tomorrow night when we can offer our dinner guest bits of
burnt beast from the D.D.W.B.B.B.Q.

Sunrayce.
I seem to remember Ronal Larson mentioning a trip to Australia in
November to watch, attend, partake in, the Sunrayce.
If I am correctly informed, that takes place in NT, from Darwin to Alice
Springs (?).
This is far away from Rockhampton but if you should come closer you are most
welcome to drop in. We could even combust some biomass while enjoying a cool
stubby!

More NOx
Piet Verhaart

From B.Tremeer at mail1.remote.uva.nl Wed Sep 25 08:01:24 1996
From: B.Tremeer at mail1.remote.uva.nl (Grant Ballard-Tremeer)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:59 2004
Subject: what comes after improved stoves (Ballard-Tremeer)
Message-ID: <199609251158.NAA08784@mail.uva.nl>

Douglas and all

(snip)
>Is the householders perception that improved stoves are simply a first stage
>in a move towards electrification (and cooking with electricity) realistic?
(...severe snip...)
>Of course- perceptions and hopes do not have to be realistic. I agree with
>you. Many rural dwellers in South Africa expect the grid to arrive very soon
>and at very low cost- and as a result the development of other energy supply
>options (Solar PV, LPG, improved stoves etc.) is made very difficult.
(snip)

I agree entirely - the perception is unrealistic - but, as you point out the
perception that electricity is the answer still exists; even though in
reality people switch from wood and paraffin to coal and paraffin (+
electricity for lighting). I think that the perception that electricity is
the ultimate endpoint was one of the difficulties we encountered with our
ceramic stoves in (north) eastern South Africa: we were competing with
(imagined) electric hot plates even though the users were unlikely to have
the electricity in the forseeable future. And in my small experience of PV
systems the desire for electric stoves was continuously repeated.

Also, from a health point of view, and from an environmental perspective
wood and especially coal (although this fuel is most plentiful) are
dangerous end-points in the way we understand it.

As I expect you all know the move here in Europe is *towards* biomass energy
(the vision is heat (hot water), gas, and electricity for space heating,
cooking, and lighting respectively), hotly debated (especially in
Scandanavian countries), but not yet feasible.

I am pursuing this line of thinking for no clear purpose but to know a bit
more about destinations and pathways. I have been learning much about
development in Eastern Europe and there is talk of the need for a jump in
technology and energy there somehow avoiding the path Western Europe has
followed (ie avoiding the mistakes which have been made). Do we believe this
in our stove work?

From B.Tremeer at mail1.remote.uva.nl Wed Sep 25 09:09:30 1996
From: B.Tremeer at mail1.remote.uva.nl (Grant Ballard-Tremeer)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:59 2004
Subject: Aim of improved stoves
Message-ID: <199609251306.PAA10034@mail.uva.nl>

At 09:12 24-09-96 GMT, Rogerio wrote:
(snip)
>Our experience in central America is that economical development is need
>before people can move to an easier and cleaner fuel. Only having extra
>money to pay for a more expensive fuel and/or stove, besides having acess to
>improved education to understand the need to change, is that in our view the
>poor people will make the transition.
(snip)

I fully agree with the idea that the poor people will (and should) make
their own decisions naturally - I like the approach of empowerment you
appear to take. Only there is the danger that the choices people make could
be harmful to themselves and the environment because the available options
'force' them into 'poor' decisions. In South Africa, people start using
coal, with drastic impacts on their health, as soon as they have enough
money. Also in India, there is a trend away from 'Chulas' with chimneys
(their large mass 'mud' stoves) to chimneyless Chulas (the reasons seems
economic, and a problem with the 'fragility' of the chimneys). This I
believe is a dangerous trend from a health point of view (I think these
stoves will have enormous emissions compared to open fires, especially
during initial ignition, and they appear to be used indoors; I have no
objection to Chulas *with* chimneys). That's why I think it vital to
understand the options and pathways for energy transitions in our stove
work; so that we understand the issues clearly and guide the education and
the creation of feasible options.

From eaftdc at seark.net Wed Sep 25 09:51:25 1996
From: eaftdc at seark.net (Carol Cross)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:59 2004
Subject: Aim of improved stoves
Message-ID: <199609251417.JAA03725@venus.seark.net>

To the list,

We have heard aboaut a plant called the giza sorghum that is supposed to be
an excellent fuel. I am seeking anyone who know aobut this plant and where
I can get seeds, also what kind of stove would work with it.

Thank you.

Sharing and caring,

Dr. Carol
Carol Cross, Ph.D. EcoAgroForestry Founder
Email: solync@seark.net Phone & FAX: 501-367-8736.
P O Box 398, Parma, MI 49269
For Free Western Hemisphere Export Trade Newsletter send email saying
SUBSCRIBE WESHEMOL. Together we Can Create A Sustainable World Through
EcoAgroForestry (Sustainable Agriculture, Sustainable Forestry and Rural
AgroIndustrial Development) by growing Kenaf, utilizing AgroResidues,
forming consortiums, & developing Rural AgroIndustrial Centers (RAICs) or
EcoAgroForestry Village Business Incubators(VBI). Free Kenaf Newsletter -
Just Say SUBSCRIBE KENAFOL. Join us.

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." (Gandhi)

From larcon at csn.net Wed Sep 25 13:41:40 1996
From: larcon at csn.net (Ronal Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:59 2004
Subject: Iimproved stoves?
In-Reply-To: <9609251005.AA10792@janus.cqu.edu.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9609251025.A20758-0100000@teal.csn.net>

Ron Larson responses below:

a. I had the pleasure of talking with Kirk Smith for several
hours a few weeks ago - leaving with 26 papers and a little knowledge of
the 17th century stove that he described also today on this list. I have
to run today and will try hard to contribute this evening on the great
contributions of the last several days.

On Wed, 25 Sep 1996, Peter Verhaart wrote:

> Dear Stovers,
>
> Today I took the Downdraft Barbecue apart and rearranged some of the bricks,
> hopefully resulting in reduced thickness of boundary layers, and sealed
> cracks and crevices with some of our soil (the only thing it is good for).
> A test burn confirmed my hopes, it was like Ye Olde Downdrafte Stove back in
> Eindhoven.
> We look toward tomorrow night when we can offer our dinner guest bits of
> burnt beast from the D.D.W.B.B.B.Q.
>
I think this is one of two very promising paths - the other being
the updraft or inverted version that Tom Reed and I have been
describing. More coming on this and my reasons.

> Sunrayce.
> I seem to remember Ronal Larson mentioning a trip to Australia in
> November to watch, attend, partake in, the Sunrayce.
> If I am correctly informed, that takes place in NT, from Darwin to Alice
> Springs (?).
> This is far away from Rockhampton but if you should come closer you are most
> welcome to drop in. We could even combust some biomass while enjoying a cool
> stubby!
>
> More NOx

Peter - I need an explanation of "more NOx" as a closing.

> Piet Verhaart
>
>
The Colorado entry to the Sunrayce was cancelled while I was in
Ethiopia - so Im not sure why - a lack of money and sufficient
personnel. In my view we put too much effort on reducing drag and too
kittle on "constructability". The project continues with a local
University assuming a larger role and a hoped-for entry into the next US
version of the (much more prestigious) Australian Sunrayce. I hope to
take you up on the stubby offer at the next (1999) Sunrayce. Thanks for
the offer.

More promised.

Ron Larson

From 73002.1213 at compuserve.com Thu Sep 26 00:18:15 1996
From: 73002.1213 at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:59 2004
Subject: A "Standard" burner proposal
Message-ID: <960926042109_73002.1213_FHM46-5@CompuServe.COM>

Stovers all :: 11 PM (London) 4 PM Denver

Having gone to bed at 10 and not gone to sleep by 11, I had the following
thoughts on creating a "STANDARD" burner (for cooking stoves).

In the U.S. almost all electric cooking stoves have two burners; a large burner
of 2.5 kW, diameter 25 cm; a small burner of 1.5 kW, 15 cm diameter. I presume
that if the American housewife wanted a larger burner or a smaller burner, some
stove manufacturer would make one. Is this also the situation for electric
stoves in the rest of the world? I presume further that if other less fortunate
house wives could determine the "ideal" stove size in would be in this range.
So, let me propose that as a simple target we think of making an "equivalent 2
kW burner" with wood or wood gas stoves We can then adjust around this size for
special situations (communal cooking etc.) (Does anyone know figures for gas and
propane stoves?)

Biomass has typical energy content of 18 MJ//kg (10% moisture). If we require 2
kWth = 7.2MJ/hr, we will require (7.2/18) 0.4 kg/hr of fuel if we have the same
efficiency as an electric stove; or 0.4 Es/Ew kg of biomass/hr for the
"STANDARD BURNER". (I believe the electric stove has about 50% efficiency. A
wood stove would then require 0.8 kg/hr if it had 25% eff.)

Do any of us have trouble with this? Improvements? Alterations? Wives who
want a BIGGER burner?

It is now 11:30. Maybe I can get to sleep having gotten this off my mind.

Cheers, TOM REED

Piet V. PS: Can I be the Paul Theroux of the Internet? Incidentally, I am
loving a Tony Hillerman book, finding Moon, about rescue of people during the
fall of Nam. Almost finished last night 11PM to 2 AM. Didn't put me to sleep.
A little Neville Shute - Pied Piper like. Very Graham Greene like. Definitely
literature. You'd like this.

From prasad at tn7.phys.tue.nl Thu Sep 26 03:51:50 1996
From: prasad at tn7.phys.tue.nl (prasad)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:59 2004
Subject: A "Standard" burner proposal
In-Reply-To: <960926042109_73002.1213_FHM46-5@CompuServe.COM>
Message-ID: <9609260746.AA04164@tn7.phys.tue.nl>

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/stoves/attachments/19960926/89f63041/attachment.cc
From larcon at csn.net Thu Sep 26 19:51:36 1996
From: larcon at csn.net (Ronal Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:59 2004
Subject: Kirk Smith literature
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9609261725.A9641-0100000@teal.csn.net>

Note on visit to Kirk Smith:

About 2 weeks ago, I visited with Kirk Smith for a few hours at
his office in Berkeley. Following reading the 26 papers he provided. I
think others will be interested in my comments on this large array of
material. The folllowing is only a start.

1. All papers (11 years worth) were well -written and
informative and almost all of importance on various characteristics of
stoves. Kirk is a huge resource for both the stove community and the
public health community. The latter is apt to drive the former.
2. Most were on health impacts but quite a few were on stove
programme evaluation. Kirk well understands stove design, stove use,
stove impacts, and international policy. He is unusually willing to come
to major conclusions, based on the meager data that too few people are
collecting (but a lot more than I had thought).
3. I believe he feels that rural home indoor air pollution is
the number one public health problem in the world today - hugely more
important than the relatively minor urban air quality problems of
developed countries that have already received such enormous research
funding. (Kirk gives credit to WHO for naming it as one of the top 4,
but I sense he feels it is #1).
4. Although Kirk is clearly a strong proponent of biomass use,
he has shown that the negative health and global warming impacts of wood
burning stoves are so serious that I sense and fear that he is ready to
endorse a switch to fossil gaseous and liquid fuels in all possible cases
(understanding that many users can neither afford fossil resources nor
expect that they will be encouraged by the many governments which are too
short of foreign exchange to consider this option.).
5. I hope he will disagree, but I sense that he has not yet seen
any existing stove design that can protect the biomass stove users to a
sufficient degree. I sense that improved stoves give small improvement
in efficiency but little improvement in pollutant reduction - when
several orders of magnitude improvement are needed on the pollution
reduction side and the stove efficiency improvement still is not very
high .
6. Kirk states that the Chinese stove introduction program has
been by far the most successful (see World Development , V 21, N0 6, pp
941-961), but he still found a heavy (>50%) continuing unvented use of
older coal burners by most users with emissions worse than that from wood
use (this coal stove being used becaue it requires little tending). The
Chinese improved stoves sound appreciably more costly than most users
will be able to afford - even though the costs seem only to be about $30
per stove (15% subsidy)- because the Chinese can produce sufficiently
more for the money that this will look like a stove costing well in
excess of $30 anywhere in the world; this is a big stove with chimney. I
did not sense that Kirk felt this stove was a panacea (and is giving only
a 25% improvement over the fairly good large enclosed chimneyed stove
that often preceded it). As of 1993, the Chinese had not yet attempted
to introduce this stove to the poorest parts of China. I strongly
recommend this paper - but not likely as one to be soon used in many
other countries.
7. As a proponent of pyrolyzing cook stoves, I found lots to
encourage me here and nothing to discourage me - although Kirk has not
written on this topic.
8. Kirk showed me a figure of the 17th century downdraft stove
he described a few days ago on this list. I believe this stove was used
only for space heating - perhaps with a desire to also incinerate, but
not for cooking.
9. More coming.

From 73002.1213 at compuserve.com Thu Sep 26 22:30:07 1996
From: 73002.1213 at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:59 2004
Subject: Downdraft stoves down through history
Message-ID: <960927011220_73002.1213_FHM45-1@CompuServe.COM>

Dear Kirk:

Glad to have you in the dialogue. Thanks much for the historical reference and
"cats piss". This afternoon I demonstrated the same principle with a cigar to
the gasificatin conference, blowing air through the hot coals giving almost no
smoke compared to drawing it back through the mouth. Its good to see that the
principles of Nature continue the same, even though our needs may change.

Try it. The difference is dramatic. (Keep some mouthwash handy if you're not a
smoker.)

I do remember the J stove in Hawaii a dozen years ago. I suppose that was a
part of my thinking when I developed the "inverted downdraft". However, in the
J stove you are pulling hot gases down through the bed when they want to go up,
thereby creating intolerable instabilities.

Regards, hope you like your new surroundings, TOM

From 73002.1213 at compuserve.com Thu Sep 26 23:55:56 1996
From: 73002.1213 at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:59 2004
Subject: Lets look at radiation
Message-ID: <960927011242_73002.1213_FHM45-9@CompuServe.COM>

Dear Piet:

Yes, radition can be very important, paritularly down from an updraft grate, so
insulate, insulate, insulate.

Radiation tends to be underestimated by chemical engineers, probably because it
is 4th power in T and doesn't fit Newton's equaiton. However, there is a
wonderful approximation for small differences in temperature, /\T, ie
W = 4 s Tav^3 x /\T
where Tav is the average between the radiator and radiatee.

Regards and good eating, TOM

From krksmith at uclink4.berkeley.edu Fri Sep 27 15:59:56 1996
From: krksmith at uclink4.berkeley.edu (Kirk R. Smith)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:59 2004
Subject: Kirk Smith literature
Message-ID: <199609272003.NAA30995@uclink4.berkeley.edu>

A few comments on Ron's kind words/K

At 05:55 PM 9/26/96 -0600, Ron Larson wrote:
>
>Note on visit to Kirk Smith:

> 3. I believe he feels that rural home indoor air pollution is
>the number one public health problem in the world today - hugely more
>important than the relatively minor urban air quality problems of
>developed countries that have already received such enormous research
>funding. (Kirk gives credit to WHO for naming it as one of the top 4,
>but I sense he feels it is #1).

ACTUALLY, MY CURRENT THINKING LIES SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN. IT DO BELIEVE THAT
IT IS MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THAN URBAN OUTDOOR POLLUTION, BUT WOULD NOT YET
SAY THAT IT IS THE NUMBER ONE HEALTH PROBLEM IN THE WORLD. BECAUSE THE
THREE DISEASE CATEGORIES THAT IT APPARENTLY MOST IMPACTS (ACUTE RESPIRATORY
INFECTIONS IN CHILDREN (10%), PERINATAL EFFECTS (7%), AND CHRONIC
OBSTRUCTIVE DISEASE IN ADULTS (2%)) HIT ESSENTIALLY THE SAME POPULATION (LDC
RURAL POOR) AND CAUSE ALMOST ONE-FIFTH OF ALL ILL-HEALTH IN THE WORLD, IT IS
POTENTIALLY QUITE IMPORTANT, HOWEVER. BUT HERE ARE MANY OTHER RISK FACTORS
INVOLVED, (NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH IS MALNUTRITION) AND THE PORTION
ATTRIBUTABLE TO INDOOR AIR POLLUTION IS NOT CLEAR AS YET. (FOR COMPARISON,
RECENT ESTIMATES ATTRIBUTE 7% OF WORLD ILL-HEALTH TO POOR WATER/SANITATION
AND 15% TO MALNUTRITION IN LDCS.)

IT IS JUST THIS ATTRIBUTABLE PORTION THAT WE ARE TRYING TO PIN DOWN AT
PRESENT IN HIGHLAND GUATEMALA. WE HAVE DONE 7 PILOT STUDIES AND BELIEVE WE
UNDERSTAND THE SITE'S HEALTH, CULTURAL, STOVE, AIR POLLUTION, AND LOGISTICS
CHARACTERISTICS ENOUGH TO GIVE GOOD CREDENCE TO THE PROPOSAL WE HAVE WRITTEN
TO CONDUCT A LARGE-SCALE (1600 CHILDREN) 3-YEAR INTERVENTION STUDY. WE PLAN
TO RANDOMLY ALLOCATE THE HOMES OF WOMEN WHO BECOME PREGNANT AND AGREE TO
PARTICIPATE INTO THOSE WHO WOULD KEEP THEIR OPEN-FIRE STOVES, THOSE WHO
RECEIVE AN IMPROVED STOVE CALLED THE PLANCHA, AND THOSE WHO WOULD RECEIVE
LPG STOVES. BOTH THE LATTER HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE RELIABLE, DESIRABLE, AND
AVAILABLE LOCALLY. WE WOULD THEN FOLLOW THE OUTCOME OF THE PREGNANCIES AND
THE RISK OF ARI/PNEUMONIA OF THE KIDS UNTIL THEY START WALKING (18 MO). AT
THE END, ALL THE HOMES WOULD BE OFFERED A PLANCHA TO KEEP.

ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE LIKE THE PLANCHA, FOR IT PROVIDES GOOD SPACE HEATING,
COOKS TORTILLAS WELL, AND LOWERS INDOOR SMOKE LEVELS, OUR LAB AND FIELD
TESTS ARE INDICATING THAT IT DOES NOT SAVE FUEL. IT ALSO SEEMS TO TAKE MORE
TIME TO DO THE PRINCIPAL KINDS OF COOKING. SINCE IT IS SO WELL LIKED
LOCALLY, HOWEVER, WE ARE NOT AT THIS TIME THINKING TO MIX UP THE TESTING OF
ANY NEW STOVE MODELS WITH OUR EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDY.

TO DATE, HOWEVER, OUR LARGE PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REJECTED TWICE. WE HAVE
RE-WRITTEN IT AND RESUBMITTED THIS MONTH HOWEVER AND ARE NOW TAKING THE TACK
OF OFFERING PIECES OF IT TO DIFFERENT FUNDERS. (ANYONE KNOW A DONOR WHO
MIGHT BE WILLING TO PAY FOR THE STOVES PORTION?) THE REVIEWS FOR ONE OF OUR
REJECTIONS WERE QUITE DISCOURAGING, FOR EXAMPLE, TO THE EFFECT THAT WHILE
THIS MIGHT BE OF INTEREST IN HIGHLAND CENTRAL AMERICA, IT WAS OF NO
RELEVANCE TO THE REST OF THE WORLD. (!!)

INDEED, I HAD HOPE THAT AFTER THE WORLD BANK NAMED IT ONE OF THE FOUR MOST
IMPORTANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS IN THE WORLD (ALONG WITH URBAN AIR
POLLUTION, WATER/SANITATION, AND DEFORESTATION), THE MONEY WOULD FLOW. THIS
HAS NOT HAPPENED. INDEED, AS I PRESENTED RECENTLY TO THE
ONCE-EVERY-THREE-YEAR INTERNATIONAL INDOOR AIR POLLUTION CONFERENCE (JAPAN,
7/96):

"Indoor Air Quality in LDCs: Where it is now?

Not one program in any health, environment, housing, energy, or other
agency, either national or international.*

Not one full-scale exposure monitoring or epidemiological study ever funded.

Less money spent on all improved stove programs together than on pollution
controls for one new power plant.

No coverage by even one environmental health, air pollution, or
indoor-air-pollution textbook.**

Thus, even though it was named in 1992 by the World Bank as one of the four
most important environmental problems in the world, LDC indoor air pollution
is still invisible."

* This is not to denigrate the critical assistance provided by sympathetic
individuals in other programs, but it seems time to face the issue head on.

** Not more than 2 sentences in any I have seen (and I have looked), and
most have none.

Nevertheless, with cheers/K

From rmiranda at sdnnic.org.ni Sat Sep 28 16:15:59 1996
From: rmiranda at sdnnic.org.ni (Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:59 2004
Subject: Kirk Smith literature
Message-ID: <199609281418.OAA18926@ns.sdnnic.org.ni>

At 01:03 PM 9/27/96 -0700, you wrote:
>A few comments on Ron's kind words/K
>
>At 05:55 PM 9/26/96 -0600, Ron Larson wrote:
>>
>>Note on visit to Kirk Smith:
>
>> 3. I believe he feels that rural home indoor air pollution is
>>the number one public health problem in the world today - hugely more
>>important than the relatively minor urban air quality problems of
>>developed countries that have already received such enormous research
>>funding. (Kirk gives credit to WHO for naming it as one of the top 4,
>>but I sense he feels it is #1).

ROGERIO WROTE:

I would like to stress that not only rural people are exposed to wood smoke.
Here in Managua, Nicaragua, as well in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, about 30% of
the urban population uses wood stoves. I thinh you should take this people
in consideration, because they are closer to the political arena of the
country, and they could help us (promoters) to push the politicians to take
action in addressing fuelwood contamination and scarcity. Fuelwood in urban
managua cost about US$100/ton, what makes it more expensive than cooking
with electricity (US$0.16/kwh).

>TO DATE, HOWEVER, OUR LARGE PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REJECTED TWICE. WE HAVE
>RE-WRITTEN IT AND RESUBMITTED THIS MONTH HOWEVER AND ARE NOW TAKING THE TACK
>OF OFFERING PIECES OF IT TO DIFFERENT FUNDERS. (ANYONE KNOW A DONOR WHO
>MIGHT BE WILLING TO PAY FOR THE STOVES PORTION?) THE REVIEWS FOR ONE OF OUR
>REJECTIONS WERE QUITE DISCOURAGING, FOR EXAMPLE, TO THE EFFECT THAT WHILE
>THIS MIGHT BE OF INTEREST IN HIGHLAND CENTRAL AMERICA, IT WAS OF NO
>RELEVANCE TO THE REST OF THE WORLD. (!!)
>>>>>> unbelieveble

>INDEED, I HAD HOPE THAT AFTER THE WORLD BANK NAMED IT ONE OF THE FOUR MOST
>IMPORTANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS IN THE WORLD (ALONG WITH URBAN AIR
>POLLUTION, WATER/SANITATION, AND DEFORESTATION), THE MONEY WOULD FLOW. THIS
>HAS NOT HAPPENED. INDEED, AS I PRESENTED RECENTLY TO THE
>ONCE-EVERY-THREE-YEAR INTERNATIONAL INDOOR AIR POLLUTION CONFERENCE (JAPAN,
>7/96):
>
>"Indoor Air Quality in LDCs: Where it is now?
>
>Not one program in any health, environment, housing, energy, or other
>agency, either national or international.*
>
>Not one full-scale exposure monitoring or epidemiological study ever funded.
>
>Less money spent on all improved stove programs together than on pollution
>controls for one new power plant.
>
>No coverage by even one environmental health, air pollution, or
>indoor-air-pollution textbook.**
>
>Thus, even though it was named in 1992 by the World Bank as one of the four
>most important environmental problems in the world, LDC indoor air pollution
>is still invisible."
>
>* This is not to denigrate the critical assistance provided by sympathetic
>individuals in other programs, but it seems time to face the issue head on.
>
>** Not more than 2 sentences in any I have seen (and I have looked), and
>most have none.
>
>Nevertheless, with cheers/K
>

ROGERIO WROTE:

WHY IS THAT? WHY THIS APATHY TOWARD THE FUELWOOD PROBLEMS?

HOW CAN WE THE STOVERS (PROMOTERS, RESEARCHERS AND USERS) GET THE WORLD
ATTENTION TO IT? IT IS A PROBLEM THAT WILL NOT GO AWAY FOR THE NEXT 100 -
200 YEARS?

IF GREENPEACE, WORLD WILDLIFE FUND, RAINFOREST ALLIANCE, THE NATURE
CONSERVANCY, AUDUBON, SIERRA CLUB, CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL, AND MANY
OTHERS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATIONS ADVOCACY GROUPS GOT THE WORLD ATTENTION
AND FUNDS TO DO THEIR JOBS, WHY THE STOVERS COULD NOT GET JUST A PIECE OF IT?

FUELWOOD IS THE OLDEST SOURCE OF ENERGY THAT MANKIND USES, SINCE WE LIVED IN
THE CAVES. YET, 2/5 OF THE WORLD USES FUELWOOD, AND MOST OF THEM WITH VERY
SIMILAR TECHNOLOGY FROM THE CAVE AGE.

IT IS ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM
HEALTH PROBLEM
ECONOMICAL PROBLEM
CULTURAL PROBLEM
SOCIAL PROBLEM

WHY WE CAN'T GET JUST ENOUGH FUNDS TO ADDRESS THESE PROBLEMS, BRINGHING
FUELWOOD TECHNOLOGY FROM THE CAVE AGE TO THE 21 CENTURY.

I REALLY MISS A FOUNDATION THAT ONLY WOULD FUND FUELWOOD RELATED PROJECTS. I
VISUALIZE A INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION THAT WOULD DEDICATE ONLY TO CHANNEL
FUNDS TO FUELWOOD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ALL OVER THE WORLD. ALSO
THIS ORGANIZATION WOULD OFFER SCHOLARSHIPS FOR TRAINNING IN FUELWOOD RELATED
FIELDS, E.G., REFORESTATION, STOVES, POLICIES, STRATEGIES, MARKETING, ETC.
AND FINALLY THIS ORGANIZATION WOULD BE THE CONTACT POINT FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION ON FUELWOOD, FACILITATING AND NETWORKING. ALSO THEY COULD
PROMOTE WORLD WIDE OR REGIONAL FUELWOOD SEMINARS AND CONGRESS.

WE PROLENA(HONDURAS AND NICARAGUA) FOUND VERY DIFFICULT AND FRUSTATING TO
GET FUNDS FOR OUR PROJECTS. THERE ARE LOTS OF FUNDS TO SAVE TREES AND
WILDLIFE, BUT ALMOST NONE FOR FUELWOOD. WE WOULD LIKE TO DEAL WITH A DONOR
THAT UNDERSTAND OUR GOALS AND THE FIELD THAT WE ARE WORKING WITH. IT IS VERY
FRUSTATING TO SPEND LONG HOURS AND RESOURCES PREPARING PROPOSALS, AND GET A
S.HEAD TO REVIEW IT, AND MAKE COMMENTS JUST LIKE THE ONE THAT REVIEWED
KIRK's PROPOSAL.

IS THAT A DREAM ORGANIZATION? DO YOU THINK THAT WE CAN PUT TOGHETER A
ORGANIZATION LIKE THAT?

WELL THAT IS ALL FOR NOW, STAY TUNED.

ROGERIO

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda Telefax: (505) 276 0555
PROLENA(Nicaragua) Managua Nicaragua
E-mail: rmiranda@sdnnic.org.ni
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

From krksmith at uclink4.berkeley.edu Sat Sep 28 17:27:16 1996
From: krksmith at uclink4.berkeley.edu (Kirk R. Smith)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:59 2004
Subject: Rogerio's useful comments
Message-ID: <199609282130.OAA23756@uclink4.berkeley.edu>

>ROGERIO WROTE:
>
>I would like to stress that not only rural people are exposed to wood smoke.
>Here in Managua, Nicaragua, as well in Technically, Honduras, about 30% of
>the urban population uses wood stoves. I think you should take this people
>in consideration, because they are closer to the political arena of the
>country, and they could help us (promoters) to push the politicians to take
>action in addressing fuelwood contamination and scarcity. Fuelwood in urban
>managua cost about US$100/ton, what makes it more expensive than cooking
>with electricity (US$0.16/kwh).
>
YES, YOU ARE CERTAINLY RIGHT. AN AMAZING TOTAL OF MORE THAN 70% OF URBAN
HOUSEHOLDS IN INDIA STILL USE WOOD, FOR EXAMPLE. URBAN AREAS ARE PROBABLY
THE PLACES TO START WITH IMPROVED STOVES PROGRAMS. INDEED, IN THE
CONCLUSIONS TO OUR REVIEW OF IMPROVED STOVES PROGRAMS DONE FOR THE WORLD
BANK SOME YEARS AGO WE POINT OUT THAT PLACES WHERE PEOPLE BUY THEIR FUEL
(URBAN OR RURAL) ARE MOST LIKELY TO BE FERTILE GROUND FOR IMPROVED STOVES
THAT SAVE FUEL, BUT HAVE SOME UPFRONT COST.

FROM AN AIR POLLUTION STANDPOINT, HOWEVER, IMPROVED STOVES (SOMETIMES CALLED
"SMOKELESS") HAVE GENERALLY BEEN DESIGNED TO MERELY PUT SMOKE OUTSIDE, NOT
REDUCE IT. INDEED, MANY, IF NOT MOST, DESIGNS ACTUALLY INCREASE EMISSIONS,
ALTHOUGH THE BEST WILL REDUCE INDOOR EXP0SURES. IN A CROWDED URBAN SLUM (OR
ANY DENSELY HOUSED AREA), THIS WILL REDUCE OVERALL EXPOSURES SOME, BUT IS
NOT A VERY SATISFACTORY SOLUTION BECAUSE OF THE "NEIGHBORHOOD EFFECT,"
NAMELY THAT MUCH OF THE SMOKE ORIGINALLY EMITTED OUTDOORS WILL MAKE ITS WAY
BACK INDOORS IN THE SAME HOUSE AND ALL THE NEIGHBORING ONES./K

>ROGERIO ALSO WROTE:
>
>IF GREENPEACE, WORLD WILDLIFE FUND, RAINFOREST ALLIANCE, THE NATURE
>CONSERVANCY, AUDUBON, SIERRA CLUB, CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL, AND MANY
>OTHERS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATIONS ADVOCACY GROUPS GOT THE WORLD ATTENTION
>AND FUNDS TO DO THEIR JOBS, WHY THE STOVERS COULD NOT GET JUST A PIECE OF IT?

PLUS

>IS THAT A DREAM ORGANIZATION? DO YOU THINK THAT WE CAN PUT TOGETHER A
>ORGANIZATION LIKE THAT?

Maybe not, but it is hard to be too optimistic about it given the
international donor response to date. Your words imply an approach that has
not been tried to my knowledge, however. This would be to convince one of
the big well-organized NGOs you mention to take on this issue in addition to
or in conjunction with the others they push. This might make sense to a
private foundation, i.e. to invest some money on this problem in a group
with a good track record of international efforts.

You have to realize, however, that although each of the pieces of the
problem (engineering, energy, health, housing, women's status, nutrition,
agriculture, deforestation, economics, etc.) can be described in a fairly
convincing manner, that putting a coherent plan together that effectively
deals with them all is not at all easy. Nor, unfortunately, is it likely to
produce major benefits in short periods. The successful efforts have taken
5+ years to show success.

Very few things touch so many aspects of daily life as the hearth, making it
on the one hand a tempting place to effect positive changes in human
welfare, but, on the other, making it extremely complex to understand and
influence in the way you wish.

Well worth the continued effort to do so, however!

Cheers/K

From E.Moerman at stud.tue.nl Sat Sep 28 20:24:36 1996
From: E.Moerman at stud.tue.nl (E.Moerman)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:59 2004
Subject: Downdraft stoves down through history
Message-ID: <8738.s335192@popserver.tue.nl>

Dear Tom,

A brief reaction on your discussion of the downdraft stove. You were
reacting to Kirk Smith.

(snip)
> I do remember the J stove in Hawaii a dozen years ago. I suppose that was a
> part of my thinking when I developed the "inverted downdraft". However, in
> the J stove you are pulling hot gases down through the bed when they want
> to go up, thereby creating intolerable instabilities.
(snip)

Sorry to disagree, but as I said before a 1 m. chimney is sufficient to
provide the necesarry stability. You can even take a shorter chminey, we
managed a 0.65 m chimney.

Etienne
---------------------------------------------
Etienne Moerman E.Moerman@stud.tue.nl
Joh. Buyslaan 71 tel. +31-40-2571491
5652 NJ EINDHOVEN The Netherlands

From rmiranda at sdnnic.org.ni Sun Sep 29 18:56:15 1996
From: rmiranda at sdnnic.org.ni (Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:59 2004
Subject: about PROLENA
Message-ID: <199609291657.QAA22583@ns.sdnnic.org.ni>

At 07:21 PM 9/28/96 -0600, Ron Larson wrote:
>
>
>Rogerio -
>
> This new address should be active now. Can you tell me or the
>list a little more about prolena?

Ron

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

PROLENA is a non for profit private development organization. It is the
short name for ASOCIATION FOR WOODENERGY DEVELOPMENT. basicaly, it is an
asociation of fuelwood related profesionals, producers, consumers and other
people and organizations concerned and interested with fuelwood issues. It
was originaly created in Honduras in 1993 with the initial support from the
Woodenergy Technical Cooperation Network, that is promoted by FAO. This week
a sister organization (PROLENA/Nicaragua) will be created in Nicaragua.

The reason for the creation of PROLENA is that in Honduras and in Nicaragua,
fuelwood represents over 60% of the primary energy consumption, as well as
80% of the overall wood consumption, e.g., the major energy source and
forest product. Over 65% of the population uses fuelwood for cooking.
However, in neither countries there are any organization concerned
exclusively with fuelwood issues.

There are organizations to address petroleo and electricity issues, e.g.,
thinking how to produce, distribute and keep prices down. But for fuelwood
that is the energy sources of the majority poor, no one in the government
dedicates even 50% of their time thinking about how to improve the
conditions. PROLENA is aimed to fill up the gap of the government inaction.

Our main goal is to promote the development of the woodenergy sector,
modernizing it, in order to reduce the negative effects from the unefficient
combustion and unsustainable harvest. Our field of action includes:
1. promote the adoption of laws and policies of control and incentives
2. promote the creation and strenght of government institutions to address
the fuelwood sector
3. promote the sustainable harvest of fuelwood, mainly with incentives for
reforestation
4. promote the adoption of more efficient household stoves and industrial ovens
5. promote the trainning of technicians in the field
6. promote the use of waste biomass and planted crops for electricity

So far our main activities has been:

1. Organized the first woodenergy congress of Honduras in october 1994 (the
second one in Honduras and the first in Nicaragua is schedule for early 1997)
2. coordinating the honduran woodenergy comission, that includes all
government agencies related to woodenergy. This comission is working on the
recomendations from the first woodenergy congress
3. Supported the organization of seminars and trade missions on private
power development with renewable resources, in Honduras and Nicaragua
4. Provided consultant work for a private biomass power industry in Honduras
and Nicaragua in to assess waste biomass availability, as well as for the
government of Honduras in to create a fuelwood office inside their Forest
Service and designing a strategy to promote fuelwood plantations.
5. Promoted field tours to visited fuelwood plantations in Brazil and Costa
Rica.
6. represented Honduras in biomass conferences in Uruguay and USA.
7. Actualy developing a pilot woodstove project in urban
Tegucigalpa(Honduras), focusing on decreasing indoor woodsmoke contamination
and fuelwood consumption, microcredit loans and trainning few local women in
becoming improved woodstove construction experts.

That is it. I will be glad to answer any specific questions.

Rogerio

From larcon at csn.net Sun Sep 29 19:32:20 1996
From: larcon at csn.net (Ronal Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:59 2004
Subject: List AIMS
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9609291707.A9051-0100000@teal.csn.net>

Oops - I forgot that I had to avoid all " and ' marks. Where
there are extraneous "R's" and "S's" and "U's" - please make the
replacement. Sorry.

Some comments on some of the weekÕs messages - mostly related to GrantÕs
and others ÒAimÓ messages:

A. On Mon, 23 Sep., Grant Ballard-Tremeer on ÒAim of improved stoves?Ó

1. Grant asked Ò In my experience (in South Africa) people using
'improved' stoves see them as a temporary solution before
electrification. I am interested in whether the developers see it in the
same way.Ó
1A. For a small percentage this seems reasonable in the rural
userÕs lifetime - but for most now off the grid, there is little
likelihood of ever getting on the grid (PV will be cheaper) - and hence
improved stoves will be needed for a long time. However, I believe the
present generation of improved stoves wonÕt make it (too little
improvement in pollutants). Something better is required. I can accept
village production of liquids from local biomass - but believe it more
likely that a pyrolyzing stove will eventually be the replacement.

Grant # 2 question . ÒWhat is the next step after people are
using improved stoves? Better improved stoves? Fuel transition? The
environmental impacts of such transitions are enormous (in SA at least,
and the interim fuel is usually coal, with associated health problems).
Should our thoughts on stoves take this into consideration?Ó
2A. I hope the next step is more research on really improved
stoves - new concepts. A 100% improvement in pollutants is nowhere good
enough (and even that is not likely). As above, I see this as finding
means for getting liquids or gases from the solid fuel. The impetus for
such research and development I hope will come from increased research on
the horrible health impacts of both traditional and ÒimprovedÓ stoves (as
I described in notes this week on Kirk SmithÕs research; see my next note
also).

Grant #3 ÒIn particular I have been studying the emissions from household
biomass combustionÓ
3A. I wonder if you agree with my comments above - is the
situation solvable with any stove you have measured?

B. Also on Mon, 23 Sep Grant Ballard-Tremeer on Ò Distribution of gas
from biomassÓ

1. ÒCan the gas produced from biomass gasification be pressurised and
put in canisters like LPG? Can it be distributed through a pipe network
like natural gas in towns?Ó ...... (Or) ... 'exchanged' for a gas bottle ...Ó
1A. IÕm sure the technical answer is ÒYesÓ - but relatively
expensive compared to on-site production of gas (and charcoal). Liquid
production is also possible and avoids the need for pressurization, but
still has to be proven cheaper than local pyrolysis.

2. ÒOh yes these people usually use roughly 2.5 kg of wood per person
per day.Ó
2A. Grant - 2.5 kG/capita seems quite high - was this measured
by you at this particular refugee camp? Community kitchens sound like a
good solution at this camp - or was this already the case?

C. Tue, 24 Sep 1 From: Peter Verhaart on ÒLets look at radiationÓ

1.. ÒWe ... have tried to find ways to harness the clean and
vigorous combustion in the Downdraft Stove, so far to little avail. Heat
transfer figures are quite unimpressive and we don't quite know where to
put the pan or pans.Ó
1A. The beauty of this bottom-lit stove is that the charcoal is
at the bottom and pyrolysis is occurring at a higher level, with
pyrolysis gases flowing through the charcoal which also is combusting
with some excess secondary air also supplied (I believe - at least could
be). The pyrolysis gases can then burn cleanly.
This stove also benefits from being able to add extra fuel -
which is not possible for the ÒinvertedÓ, batch mode version that some of
us are advocating. The ÒupdraftÓ, top-lit version requires experience on
the cookÕs part - a major handicap, I admit.
I especially like this downdraft stove for space heating. See
below Kirk Smith on this topic.

2. Ò ...... around 50 % of the heat output rate (8 kW ?) would leave
the fuelbed in the form of radiation. If that is true (I am always
making mistakes in my calculations) then we should position a pan over
the fuelbed in such a way that we can still feed fuel into the stove. Not
all that difficult.....Ó
2A. LetÕs hope. However, it seems to me that lighting
up-flowing pyrolysis gases will automatically give the (upward) desired
radiation output. My next project is to try a water jacket outside these
highly radiating flames as a possibly cheaper method of capturing the
unwanted radial radiation.

D. On Tue, 24 Sep From: Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda Ò Re: Aim of
improved stoves? Ò (responding to Grant)

1. Rogerio noted Ò... economical development is need before
people can move to an easier and cleaner fuel. Only having extra money
to pay for a more expensive fuel and/or stove, besides having access to
improved education to understand the need to change, is that in our view the
poor people will make the transition.Ó
1A. I agree. However, I think they peasants also would make
special pains for better stoves (even before economic development and/or
education) if they knew how bad these stoves are for their health. Since
even wealthy, well-educated officials either donÕt know or are looking
the other way on the health issues Kirk and Grant and others are
identifying - we canÕt blame the peasants at all at this time. It is my
impression that stove ÒimprovementÓ refers only to a small increase in
efficiency (if at all) and not much to reduced pollution. We donÕt know
how (even ÒcostlyÓ stove acceptance would be received if users really
knew the impacts of traditional stoves on their health.

E. On Tue, 24 Douglas Banks Ò Re: what comes after improved stovesÓ in
responding to (fellow South African) Grant,

1. Douglas noted Ò * In many cases in SA, even if the community
is electrified, cooking is not done using electricity (due to the
relatively high cost of the electricity). As a result the electricity
consumption rates are too low to repay the electrification capital costs.
* Our electricity supply authority (Eskom) is also seriously
considering supplying limited capacity grid connections (say 2.5A or
perhaps 5A limited supply) thus making cooking using electricity very
difficult.
* In many areas electrification will only come many years later,
if at allÓ
1A. I agree with all this - but also hold out hope for
decentralized production of electricity. Certainly now sometimes more
expensive than the (unlikely-to-be-implemented) grid extension, I am sure
that Wind, Solar Thermal, and PV systems in the future will be the
preferred choice for electricity - and might also be cheaper than biomass
- based fuels for cooking. But I think that is a long ways off and we
must (and can) find greatly improved biomass cook stoves.

F. On Tue, 24 Sep From: Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda ÒRe: Aim of
improved stoves?Ó in responding to Grant.

1. Rogerio said Ò...we have found that women are very aware of
the woodsmoke inconvenience, but they don't know what to do about it.
... Can you share with us your findings about emissions ?Ó
1A. A few days later, Kirk Smith partially responded - but it
still seems we need more discussion on this topic - especially from Grant.

G. On Tue, 24 Sep, Douglas Banks on ÒRe: what comes after improved
stovesÓ from Grant
1. Douglas said Ò...(the existing ambitious electrification
targets in SA imply that 30% of rural households would remain without
electricity by 2010).... So it seems that non-electric forms of cooking
(and space heating)... ..Of course- perceptions and hopes do not have to
be realistic. I agree with you. Many rural dwellers in South Africa
expect the grid to arrive very soon and at very low cost- and as a result
the development of other energy supply options (Solar PV, LPG, improved
stoves etc.) is made very difficult.Ó
1A. My guess is that very few on this list will disagree with
this conclusion (but that we may even be in the minority in the world).

2. Douglas said in introducing himself Ò...I have a strong
interest in renewable and rural energy issues- I was involved in
Grant's work on stoves and emissions- and still have an interest in
stoves- particularly ceramic stoves (I also work part time as a craft
potter). ...... My PhD was on Stirling engines- so Solar Thermal comes in
somewhere too.Ó
2A. I am married to a craft potter and therefore have tried the
pyrolyzing stove in clay. I hope you give it a try as both a stoves and
a crafts project. Being married to a potter is not the same as being one.

H. On Wed, 25 Sep - From: "Kirk R. Smith" on Ò Downdraft stoves down
through historyÓ
1. Kirk said ÒOne thing about wood stoves is that thousands of
smart people have worked on them over the thousands of years that they
have been essential. Ò
After describing the Dalesme downdraft stove from the 17th
century, Kirk said : ÒThe drawing bears a striking resemblance to the
J-stove developed and extensively tested by my student, Nazrul Islam, at
University of Hawaii/East-West Center in the early 1980s. Tom Reed
assisted with much good advice on a visit during that time. I wonder how
many others have also "invented" such a wheel?Ó
1A. I also wonder - but especially as it relates to cooking for
this geometry. The key question for me is whether the cooking part can
be solved. Etienne had earlier (last January February?) stated that they
(Eindhoven) had given up after several years of effort. Kirk has stated
(private message) that they (Hawaii) had never investigated the cooking
possibilities of their J stove. I hope that proponents can solve the
cooking location problem - but meantime must point out that this is not a
problem with an ÒupdraftÓ version.

I. On Wed, 25 Sep From: Grant Ballard-Tremeer on Ò Re: what comes after
improved stoves (Ballard-Tremeer)Ó in responding to Douglas

1. Grant said that he agreed with Douglas on non-realism of
rural user expectations. And Ò...Also, from a health point of view, and
from an environmental perspective wood and especially coal (although this
fuel is most plentiful) are dangerous end-points in the way we understand it.
1A. Maybe we must argue (only partly facetiously) that improved
stoves are needed for when the grid is not working. But another major
advantage of pyrolyzing stoves that most rural women can relate to is
income generation from the sale of charcoal.

2. Grant continued Ò ....I have been learning much about
development in Eastern Europe and there is talk of the need for a jump in
technology and energy there somehow avoiding the path Western Europe has
followed (ie avoiding the mistakes which have been made). Do we believe
this in our stove work?Ó
2A. A big part of the European effort in renewables seems to be
a (commendable) concern about global warming. Although this may not have
been GrantÕs intention in bringing up this subject for East Europeans, it
gives me a chance to emphasize how badly charcoal is usually made from
the perspective of methane, CO and hundreds of tars and chemicals being
usually exhausted without flaring into the environment. If the world
accepted pyrolyzing stoves, we would solve another major world
ÒmistakeÓ. Kirk has studied this global warming aspect of stoves a lot

From larcon at csn.net Sun Sep 29 19:36:55 1996
From: larcon at csn.net (Ronal Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:59 2004
Subject: Re - Kirk's health statistics
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9609291704.A9051-0100000@teal.csn.net>

This is message #2 today - see previous note on R,S, U

A. On Fri, 27 Sep Kirk Smith on my earlier message ÒRe: Kirk Smith
literatureÓ
1. After almost agreeing with my unsubstantiated claim on the
primacy of stove pollution as a health problem, Kirk described a proposed
Guatemalan intervention which would Ò... PLAN TO RANDOMLY ALLOCATE THE
HOMES OF WOMEN WHO BECOME PREGNANT AND AGREE TO PARTICIPATE INTO THOSE
WHO WOULD KEEP THEIR OPEN-FIRE STOVES, THOSE WHO RECEIVE AN IMPROVED
STOVE CALLED THE PLANCHA, AND THOSE WHO WOULD RECEIVE LPG STOVES. .....
AT THE END, ALL THE HOMES WOULD BE OFFERED A PLANCHA TO KEEP.....ALTHOUGH
... IT ... LOWERS INDOOR SMOKE LEVELS, OUR LAB AND FIELD TESTS ARE
INDICATING THAT IT DOES NOT SAVE FUEL. IT ALSO SEEMS TO TAKE MORE TIME
TO DO THE PRINCIPAL KINDS OF COOKING. SINCE IT IS SO WELL LIKED LOCALLY,
HOWEVER, WE ARE NOT AT THIS TIME THINKING TO MIX UP THE TESTING OF ANY
NEW STOVE MODELS WITH OUR EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDY.
1A. Kirk is well advised to keep these epidemiological tests
separate from stove improvement - but it is clear that the Plancha is a
stove with some room for improvement. I think more will be learned from
the LPG stoves intervention - and I am worried that this may work against
wood use. Maybe if the funding for KirkÕs intervention doesnÕt come
right away (and I hope it does) we can replace the LPG stove with
something like a pyrolyzing stove.

2. Kirk goes on Ò TO DATE, HOWEVER, OUR LARGE PROPOSAL HAS BEEN
REJECTED TWICE. WE HAVE RE-WRITTEN IT AND RESUBMITTED THIS MONTH HOWEVER
....... OFFERING PIECES OF IT TO DIFFERENT FUNDERS. .... THE REVIEWS
FOR ONE OF OUR REJECTIONS WERE QUITE DISCOURAGING, .....OF NO RELEVANCE
TO THE REST OF THE WORLD. (!!) ..... Ò
2A. KirkÕs (Ò!Ó) is most eloquent. Since most on this list are
probably also looking for funds, I can only hope that we can use the
following list to help in KirkÕs and our own efforts.

3. I find most compelling KirkÕs (slightly edited) final list of
5 examples of the lack of world recognition: (with my emphasis in CAPS)
Ò(1) NOT ONE program in any health, environment, housing, energy,
or other agency, either national or international. (This is not to
denigrate the critical assistance provided by sympathetic individuals in
other programs, but it seems time to face the issue head on.)
(2) NOT ONE full-scale exposure monitoring or epidemiological
study ever funded.
(3) LESS money spent on all improved stove programs together THAN
on pollution controls FOR ONE new power plant.
(4) NO coverage by even one environmental health, air pollution, or
indoor-air-pollution textbook. (Not more than 2 sentences in any I have
seen (and I have looked), and most have none.)
(5) Thus, even though it was named in 1992 by the World Bank as
one of the four most important environmental problems in the world, LDC
indoor air pollution is STILL INVISIBLE"

3A. Wow. This is a horrible list. We really have a lot of
work to do.

B. On 27 Sep., Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda replied on ÒRe: Kirk Smith
literatureÓ
1. Rogerio wrote on the importance of including even emphasizing
urban poor users of biomass stoves. He adds: ÒFuelwood in urban Managua
cost about US$100/ton, what makes it more expensive than cooking with
electricity (US$0.16/kwh).Ó
1A. See the next (Kirk) response. Also, Kirk has pointed out
that chimneys are not necessarily the solution in cities.
Also - cities are where charcoal is most heavily used. I believe
that a pyrolyzing stove has a special place in cities, even though
transportation costs will go up a small amount.
To Rogerio - is the electricity problem one of not being able to
make a down payment to receive electrical service?

2. Rogerio was righteously indignant about KirkÕs statistics on
the worldÕs lack of interest in this problem and suggested that the world
environmental advocacy groups should become more involved.
2A. As with Kirk in his Saturday response (below), this sounds
good to me. I fear most of the environmental organization donÕt realize
how critical the problem is (nor did I a few weeks ago)- and that is why
KirkÕs intervention is so important.

3. Rogerio said Ò... 2/5 OF THE WORLD USES FUELWOOD... Ò
3A. I think about 2/3 get more than half. I believe Kirk is
working on this data topic also. Anyone else able to weigh in on how big
the problem is?

----------------------------------------------------------
C. Yesterday Sat, 28 Sep Kirk R. Smith replied ÒSubject: Rogerio's
useful commentsÓ
1. After agreeing with RogerioÕs above suggestion, Kirk added:
Ò.... This might make sense to a private foundation, i.e. to invest some
money on this problem in a group with a good track record of
international efforts. ......putting a coherent plan together that
effectively deals with them all is not at all easy. Nor, unfortunately,
is it likely to produce major benefits in short periods. The successful
efforts have taken 5+ years to show success. Very few things touch so
many aspects of daily life as the hearth, making it on the one hand a
tempting place to effect positive changes in human welfare, but, on the
other, making it extremely complex to understand and influence in the way
you wish.Ó
1A. I have made one suggestion to Kirk on a possible foundation
- anyone else?
It is clear that Kirk understands the difficulty of any
intervention - I only hope that we can look for better solutions (such as
pyrolyzing stoves) while we are also making louder noises about how
serious the problem is.

D. Final remark:
This seems to me to have been a really good week of inputs -
which made me want to keep it going. Sorry for these two contributions
being so long. I hope others will have some suggestions - one I want to
return to is the use of an international competition - perhaps among
Mechancial Engineering students who often must do a student project.
Anyone know how to interced in that ?

From prasad at tn7.phys.tue.nl Mon Sep 30 09:29:59 1996
From: prasad at tn7.phys.tue.nl (prasad)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:59 2004
Subject: Re - Kirk's health statistics
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9609291704.A9051-0100000@teal.csn.net>
Message-ID: <9609301324.AA07768@tn7.phys.tue.nl>

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 4495 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/stoves/attachments/19960930/e9b1a195/attachment.cc
From E.Moerman at stud.tue.nl Mon Sep 30 11:00:16 1996
From: E.Moerman at stud.tue.nl (E.Moerman)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:59 2004
Subject: Lets look at radiation
Message-ID: <61276.s335192@popserver.tue.nl>

Piet Verhaart and others,

Sorry for the delay in replying to your mail.

Paul Bussmann calculated the radiated energy too. I could not find his
results quickly, but I rewrote his computer program based on his model and
did some calculations with it. What I remember is that the contribution of
the radiation is about 15% of the total energy release. In the case of
downdraft there would be no additional sources, so this would mean
insufficient power. Also in downdraft freshly added wood blocks a
substantial part of the radiation.

> Way back I did a calculation on the radiation of the fuel bed. Assuming a
> temperature of 1500 K and the surface area of a circle of 120 mm diameter,

Your temperature of 1500 K appears to be very high. It is my impression from
the literature that the char temperature is about 1100 K and doesn't change
much. However immediately behind the fuelbed temperature are far higher due
to char radiation, flame radiation and heat content of gas flow. Although
my lab measurements of char temperatures are a little higher about
1200-1250 K, this might not be accurate due to the large point of the
thermocouple and the temperature gradient due to the flames and walls.

Etienne
---------------------------------------------
Mr. Etienne Moerman E.Moerman@stud.tue.nl
Joh. Buyslaan 71 tel. +31-40-2571491
5652 NJ EINDHOVEN The Netherlands

From B.Tremeer at mail1.remote.uva.nl Mon Sep 30 11:42:29 1996
From: B.Tremeer at mail1.remote.uva.nl (Grant Ballard-Tremeer)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:59 2004
Subject: Fuelwood Consumption/refugee energy
Message-ID: <199609301539.QAA16074@mail.uva.nl>

I am currently having a number of debates, on a number of fronts, about per
capita fuel comsumption figures (one an offshute from the DEVEL-L list).

>2. "Oh yes these people usually use roughly 2.5 kg of wood per person
>per day."
> 2A. Grant - 2.5 kG/capita seems quite high - was this measured
>by you at this particular refugee camp? Community kitchens sound like a
>good solution at this camp - or was this already the case?

The number 2.5kg comes from a publication I have been reading which was
distributed together with the last edition of ITDGs Boiling Point; written
by Elizabeth Umlas (UNHCR) on refugee energy. They found a consumption mean
of 2.5kg.

I have also been reading a paper by Helas et al, of the Max-Planck institute
in Germany (Biogeochemistry) of a fuel use survey in Zimbabwe (forthcoming
in the journal of Biomass and Bioenergy, I can give more details if people
want). They found a mean of 3.2 kg/capita/day. (The purpose of this work was
in the prediction of greenhouse gas emissions from developing communities.)

This debate, I feel, leads nowhere, but anyway... I do know that there is an
inverse relationship between per capita consumption and household size. So
that is a key in consumption figures (I myself have observed this 'in the
field' and it is reported in the paper I mentioned above).

Community kitchens is certainly a possiblity used in some camps. The current
intervention (by the implementing partner) in this particular camp (Zaire)
was a stove which they called an improved three stone fire: the traditional
three stone fire was enclosed (with mud) leaving a gap for the pot and for
fuel from the side. They have achieved a 25-40 % fuel saving. I am NOT AT
ALL in favour of such a stove (and I will need some VERY detailed studies to
change my mind). I don't dispute the fuel savings, but from an air pollution
point of view I believe it is DANGEROUS (explanations at some other time). I
am currently awaiting some literature from the UNHCR on possible health
impacts which I requested some time ago - perhaps this will easy my mind.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Grant Ballard-Tremeer
fax: +31 20 525 6272 mark clearly c/o EPCEM
Weesperstraat 47 k.16; 1018DN; Amsterdam; The Netherlands
email: B.Tremeer@mail.uva.nl
btremeer@hagar.mech.wits.ac.za

From B.Tremeer at mail1.remote.uva.nl Mon Sep 30 12:56:06 1996
From: B.Tremeer at mail1.remote.uva.nl (Grant Ballard-Tremeer)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:59 2004
Subject: A low emission stove?
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19960930175941.00666310@mail.uva.nl>

Ron wrote:
(snip)
>Grant #3 "In particular I have been studying the emissions from household
>biomass combustion"
> 3A. I wonder if you agree with my comments above - is the
>situation solvable with any stove you have measured?
(snip)

I will step out on a limb:

With one exception, I have not come across an 'improved' stove with reduced
emissions (compared to a well operated three stone fire). The exception is a
normal tripod arrangement with the fire lifted above the ground on a grate.
The key here is the *increased* access to air for combustion. I found an
improvement in efficiency similar to many improved stoves (21% as against 14
for an traditional open fire) and a *small* decrease in emissions (infact
not statistically seprable from the traditional open fire, but SIGNIFICANTLY
lower than the improved stoves).

I have not tested any 'hi-tech' stoves: downdraft, pyrolisers etc. I am a
little worried about such devices: high burn rates and high temperatures
(does not imply better combustion), coupled with sudden cooling of the
partially burnt gases on a cold pot. Also, I expect such devices are very
dependant on HOW they are operated (the beauty of an open fire - it is
difficult to over-stoke it, a potential problem with any stove). But perhaps
I am wrong; please correct me...

I paint a bleak picture, I know. I am looking for the exceptions. Kirk Smith
mentions a stove called the PLANCHA, which LOWERS INDOOR SMOKE LEVELS. More
detail? Also I have just received a report from GTZ which describes a study
in Kenya into the economic benefits of a stove called the Maendeleo. It
describes a study by a Dr Kinuandui which indicates a (roughly) 30%
reduction in the incidence of Acute Respiratory Infections in a comparison
of this stove and a 3-stone fire. I am skeptical, because I do not *feel*
that this single pot enclosed stove will reduce emissions. Since those with
the stove in Dr Kinuandui's study bought it, I question whether the health
improvements could be from some other, possibly economically related,
factor. But I am merely speculating, and perhaps speaking out of turn; I
intend finding the original report. Perhaps others have heard of this study
- the only 'health impact of improved stoves' I have come across.

One other thing: During interviews with users of a stove I worked on (a two
pot ceramic stove) I was told that one of the reasons it was liked was
because it reduced smoke. My laboratory measurements indicated that it
actually emitted significantly more. It's difficult to judge the difference
in smoke emission levels...

More than enough for now, I think
Grant

From rmiranda at sdnnic.org.ni Mon Sep 30 13:03:24 1996
From: rmiranda at sdnnic.org.ni (Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:59 2004
Subject: fuelwood foundation
Message-ID: <199609301105.LAA30976@ns.sdnnic.org.ni>

Ron Larson wrote:

To Rogerio - is the electricity problem one of not being able to
make a down payment to receive electrical service?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, but also the usually high cost for an electrical stove.
Also interesting we have found in the communitty that we work with, that
they can't afford to pay for a high value electricity bill at the end of
the month, even that they may spend the same amount of money daily in the
same period. They can buy energy slowly as they can afford, like US$0.50
every day, but not US$15.00 once a month.

1A. I have made one suggestion to Kirk on a possible foundation
- anyone else?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>yes, I did also. As I said, would be nice to have a donor
that really understand and wants to address the fuelwood problem. I am not
talking about using one of the big environment conservation NGO already
operating. I think we need our own specific NGO or Foundation, to focus on
our needs.

Prasad wrote:

When the Foundation for Woodstoves Dissemination was created, I hope that it
will provide this bridging fuction, but alas it apparently is yet another
organization that
produces more words. Even assuming that the people in charge will not
probably use biomass for cooking, they are closer to people who do.

........ We somehow have to persuade FWD to play this role. Since the list
has not been able to wake up Stephen Karekezi, we need to find alternative
routes to him.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are FWD goals ? what are their scope of work? why
aren't them in this list ? How do they operate ?

I have hearded of them, but I haven't seem them in action very much.

From ANovelli at aol.com Mon Sep 30 16:41:27 1996
From: ANovelli at aol.com (ANovelli@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:59 2004
Subject: stoves-digest V1 #50
Message-ID: <960930164503_533817600@emout05.mail.aol.com>

>>=092. Kirk goes on =D2 TO DATE, HOWEVER, OUR LARGE PROPOSAL HAS BEEN=20
REJECTED TWICE. WE HAVE RE-WRITTEN IT AND RESUBMITTED THIS MONTH HOWEVER=
=20
....... OFFERING PIECES OF IT TO DIFFERENT FUNDERS. .... THE REVIEWS=20
FOR ONE OF OUR REJECTIONS WERE QUITE DISCOURAGING, .....OF NO RELEVANCE=20
TO THE REST OF THE WORLD. (!!) ..... =D2
=092A. Kirk=D5s (=D2!=D3) is most eloquent. Since most on this list are=
=20<

Is everyone getting so much chatter in the text of these messages? Do I have
to import into a word processor to remove them?

Best wishes, and it's nice to be here.

Tony Novelli
IONOVA Biomechanical Systems

From larcon at csn.net Mon Sep 30 17:36:50 1996
From: larcon at csn.net (Ronal Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:59 2004
Subject: Fuelwood Consumption/refugee energy
In-Reply-To: <199609301539.QAA16074@mail.uva.nl>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9609301524.A18876-0100000@teal.csn.net>

Replying to Grant:

On Mon, 30 Sep 1996, Grant Ballard-Tremeer wrote:

> I am currently having a number of debates, on a number of fronts, about per
> capita fuel comsumption figures (one an offshute from the DEVEL-L list).
>
Please keep us informed of what you learn on that list.
'SNIP"
> fuel from the side. They have achieved a 25-40 % fuel saving. I am NOT AT
> ALL in favour of such a stove (and I will need some VERY detailed studies to
> change my mind). I don't dispute the fuel savings, but from an air pollution
> point of view I believe it is DANGEROUS (explanations at some other time). I

I hope the time comes soon.

Ron

From larcon at csn.net Mon Sep 30 18:00:35 1996
From: larcon at csn.net (Ronal Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:59 2004
Subject: fuelwood foundation
In-Reply-To: <199609301105.LAA30976@ns.sdnnic.org.ni>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9609301536.A18876-0100000@teal.csn.net>

On Mon, 30 Sep 1996, Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda wrote:

"snip"

> the month, even that they may spend the same amount of money daily in the
> same period. They can buy energy slowly as they can afford, like US$0.50
> every day, but not US$15.00 once a month.

Maybe we shouldn't advertise it, but I have heard of utilities
which have electric energy meters which work like parking meters.

"snip"

>
> ........ We somehow have to persuade FWD to play this role. Since the list
> has not been able to wake up Stephen Karekezi, we need to find alternative
> routes to him.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are FWD goals ? what are their scope of work? why
> aren't them in this list ? How do they operate ?

Steve is on the list, I believe. I met him at the Harare ISES
meeting a year ago and know he is hugely busy. If anyone else can chime
in I'm sure they can answer these questions better than I. Their funding
does or did come from the Rockefeller Foundation I believe - as for the
Biomass Users Network - BUN.

regards

Ron Larson

From larcon at csn.net Mon Sep 30 18:23:37 1996
From: larcon at csn.net (Ronal Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:59 2004
Subject: A low emission stove?
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19960930175941.00666310@mail.uva.nl>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9609301510.A18876-0100000@teal.csn.net>

On Mon, 30 Sep 1996, Grant Ballard-Tremeer wrote:

>
> I have not tested any 'hi-tech' stoves: downdraft, pyrolisers etc. I am a

The pyrolyzer I have been promoting recently is not high tech -
it was made from one or two old cans. The important thing is to generate
gas.

> little worried about such devices: high burn rates and high temperatures

The same pyrolyzer is not a high burn rate - the rate is
controllable and well less than 1 kg wood per hour for smaller units.
The temperature is high - but only in the upper compartment. But this is
what you need for high efficiency heat transfer

> (does not imply better combustion), coupled with sudden cooling of the
> partially burnt gases on a cold pot. Also, I expect such devices are very

Agreed - the "chimney" (about 15-30 cm depending on diameter)
must be enough to finish combustion before reaching the cookpot.

> dependant on HOW they are operated (the beauty of an open fire - it is
> difficult to over-stoke it, a potential problem with any stove). But perhaps
> I am wrong; please correct me...

With this same pyrolyzing stove, one also can't overfeed - as it
is a batch system (trying to make an advantage out of a learning
hurdle). But I think the major health problem for the 3-stone method is
not during combustion but just preceding and and afterwards. This is true
also for the pyrolyzer - but then is when you want to save the charcoal.

> "snip"

> More than enough for now, I think
> Grant

No. I think a lot of us would like to hear more from you.

regards

Ron Larson

BioEnergy Lists: Improved Biomass Cooking Stoves

September 1996 Biomass Cooking Stoves Archive