April 1998 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 tmiles at teleport.com Wed Apr 1 01:45:49 1998
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:51 2004
Subject: Elsen's Pictures
In-Reply-To: <199804010016.TAA26382@adan.kingston.net>
Message-ID: <199804010652.WAA27308@mail1.teleport.com>

Alex,

Thank you for putting together the web site. You do us all a great service.

Regards,

Tom Miles

At 07:15 PM 3/31/98 -0500, *.English wrote:
>Dear Stovers,
>Elsen's latest efforts are preserved for inspection in the 'New'
>section at the address shown below.
>Stoves Web Site http://www1.kingston.net/~english/Stoves.html
>
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas R. Miles tmiles@teleport.com
T.R. Miles, Technical Consultants, Inc.
1470 SW Woodward Way
Portland, Oregon, USA Tel:(503) 646-1198/292-0107
http://www.teleport.com/~tmiles/ Fax:(503) 605-0208/292-2919

From larcon at sni.net Wed Apr 1 18:20:40 1998
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:51 2004
Subject: Re(3a): on PK's answers to RWL's queries-3
Message-ID: <v01540b01b147f7210a62@[204.133.251.16]>

Stovers - this is a redone version. Priyadarshini did not receive my lost
version. Also something below on Alex English' message of yesterday.

Priyadarshini-1:
<snip>
> Here are the details of my work on the biomass burning stove,
>'Vanjyoti'. Some of this may be relevant to the charcoal making stove, though
>I have not yet quite grasped the idea.
> <snip> Biomass is packed into the empty space surrounding this L. Dense
>packing of biomass is the key to proper operation of the stove.
> <snip> The fire is started by introducing a
>burning stick from the side opening at the base of the vertical arm of the L.
<snip>
> The single most important factor that decides the completeness of
>combustion is the air supply to the fuel mass and the air currents through
>the stove also decide the flame direction.
> <snip> I made one
>design with three L shaped tunnels in the biomass and it worked beautifully.
> <snip>. But as the tunnel boundary itself burns and moves back
>the tunnel dimensions change with time.

(RWL-1): So far the major difference with our charcoal making
stoves is the bottom lighting in your case. I am confused (because of
something below) on how much change there is in your tunnel dimensions.
Your sentence above on changing dimensions seems to contradict another
statement below In our charcoal making stoves, I would guess that our wood
changes about 5-10% lengthwise and 10-20% laterally (both guesses) as it
pyrolyzes.

Priyadarshini-2:
> <snip> I devised a method that gave me the information regarding the
>variation in the energy input as well as the useful energy output with time.
<long snip>

>Input energy of each turn = Mass of biomass burnt during the turn X Calorific
>value
>Output energy of each turn = Volume of water X Rise in water temperature
>

(RWL-2): 1. Tom Reed has implemented much of what you described
and finds a surprisingly uniform slope vs time for charcoal-making stoves
when the air supply is not varied. But this method gives a nice means of
checking on the ability to vary power output
2. Most of us have tended to measure the efficiency more in terms
of the weight of water evaporated in a single pot - but most would agree
that yours is probably a better way. I guess that your method might tend to
measure higher - but I am not sure - has anyone compared the two methods?
We have used a term FOM (= Figure of Merit) for the ratio of weight
of water evaporated to the initial wood weight (FOM about 1). Is there
anything similar that you can report?
3. The main concern I have is that your two terms above don't
include the energy value of the charcoal produced - not important in most
stove use, but very important for charcoal-making stoves. We have had
discussion in the past on whether the charcoal term should be in the
numerator (my preference) or the denominator (in most stove literature).
If one-third of the initial energy is found in the charcoal produced and
one-third in the heated/evaporated water, then the three possible
efficiencies are
a) 1/3 (= (1/3)/(1) - ignoring the charcoal)
b) 1/2 ( = (1/3)/(1-1/3) - putting the charcoal term in the denominator)
c) 2/3 (= (1/3 + 1/3)/1 - putting the charcoal term in the numerator)
How are you handling the charcoal issue?

Priyadarshini-3:
<snip>
> I think the reason for the uniform energy output for this particular
>tunnel design is due to the fact that the tunnel dimensions do not change
>substantially during the cooking operation. In the earlier model, where the
>flame was generated through burning of the biomass, as the boundary of the
>tunnel burnt,it left behind a layer of ash. In order to maintain the flame
>vigour it was necessary to tap the stove from time to time to make the ash
>fall down and expose a new layer of biomass. In my improved design, the first
>few layers of the boundary of the tunnel did burn, but during this period, the
>inner mass of biomass was first charred and then gasified and thereafter it
>was mostly the gas that burnt. This also suggests that this type of design
>can be used as a charcoal making stove or as a gasifier. But dense packing of
>biomass is the critical factor here and that may be difficult with biomass
>types other than sawdust. I found that the efficiency dropped to about 26% and
>there was some smoke emission when leaf litter was used instead of sawdust.

(RWL-3): 1. I understand this to mean that the standard sawdust burner
does change tunnel dimensions, but your three-hole version does not. Also,
that in your improved design, there is substantial charcoal production.
But if so, then it would seem that your efficiency discussion of point #2
has to include a charcoal making term. Can you clarify?
2). I am really surprised that you can get charcoal making with
this bottom lighting. Can you describe what one sees looking down into the
burning "throat" (using a mirror perhaps)? Are the three inner holes lit
all the way up?
3) After pyrolysis is complete, what happens? Smoke? Could you
then begin to combust the remaining charcoal? Has there been more
consumption of sawdust at the bottom of the three holes than at the top?
4) Do you have a control mechanism (plugs?) for the inlet air?

Priyadarshini-4:
> I later discovered that the idea of introducing multiple tunnels in
>the densely packed fuel mass to make multiple mini gasifiers had already been
>used by Dr. Grover in his char briquette design. My work had demonstrated that
>it works very well with raw biomass too.
> Priyadarshini Karve.

(RWL-4): 1. And the same principle has been found by those of us
working with top-lit, vertically stacked charcoal-making stoves. I think
it very important to now find out if it will work well with densely packed
spherical sawdust balls. And I am wondering especially whether one can
alternately light either the top or the bottom of that pile.
2) Alex English remarks yesterday on a conical top when pyrolyzing
hay need further discussion. His geometry may be somehat like yours but
with the inlet air first having to travel down along the inner surface of
the outer wall. His may be a good way of better utilizing leaves in a
cookstove geometry - while producing charcoal.
Alex - can you identify the dates in our archives when you were
describing those hay-pyrolysis experiments?

3) Priyadarshini - now I am finished with my second questions to
all your first responses to my first questions . The ball is back in your
court for a second round of responses, if you still wish and can find time.
Thank you for so completely describing your very interesting advances. I
have learned a lot and better realize how little I still understand about
the several ways that pyrolysis can occur. I now more strongly believe that
better stoves will come out of our better understanding how to make
charcoal - something that very few few present days stoves try to do.

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

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Apr 1 19:46:48 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:51 2004
Subject: The non-secret activation of charcoal
Message-ID: <199804011943_MC2-38A9-F690@compuserve.com>

Dear Stovers:

We are always looking for synergies between biomass technologies. Nice to
kill two birds with one stone.

One such synergy would be the possibility of making activated charcoal (ie,
iodine numbers from 500 - 1000) from the typically 100 IN charcoal that
results from pyrolysis at 400-500C. (The iodine number is a measure of the
surface area available for absorption; surface area can also be measured
by the BET (Brunauer, Emmett, Teller) absorbtion of N2 on the surface.
Activated charcoal is one route to clean water in parts of the world where
it does not exist.

The manufacture of activated charcoal is well understood and not exactly
secret. There are many routes described in the literature. However, you
can understand that those making it commercially won't give their exact
process details.

Charcoal contains the millipores (10-100 micrometers) of the original wood,
so gases and liquids can pass in and out easily. However, these only have
a surface area of ~ 1 m2/g. In order to make activated charcoal it is
necessary to take the temperature up to 800C and gasify the charcoal by
passing H2O or CO2 through it. The reactions

C + H2O ==> CO+ H2 and
C + CO2 ==> 2 CO

are kinetically hindered at these temperatures and chew away at the carbon
structure, creating micropores (10-100 nm) which increase surface areas to
100-1000 nm/g. There are also chemical methods for opening up the pores.

Mr. Danny Day of Blakeley Ga. has an activated charcoal site at
www.scientificag.com. He knows 10^2 to 10^3 times as much about this
process as I do and is establishing a library of papers on making activated
carbon with the help of AARP. I hope that he will check the above and make
corrections, and give further advice.

Yours truly TOM REED

From gpk at physics.unipune.ernet.in Thu Apr 2 01:28:21 1998
From: gpk at physics.unipune.ernet.in (Priyadarshini Karve(SBO))
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:51 2004
Subject: Re(3a): on PK's answers to RWL's queries-3
In-Reply-To: <v01540b01b147f7210a62@[204.133.251.16]>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.96.980402115854.10106B-100000@physics>

Dear Stovers,
Thank you very much for the encouraging response to my rather long
messages. All of you, especially Dr. Larson, have given me a lot to think
about.
Several of you have asked a number of queries/clarifications. I
will address all these sometime next week.
Thank you once again.
Priyadarshini Karve.

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Thu Apr 2 07:56:44 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:51 2004
Subject: Re(2): Carbonising Sawdust- Grover Mod. MkII
Message-ID: <199804020802_MC2-38B5-2BE5@compuserve.com>

Ron, Alex et al:

>Message text written by Ronal W. Larson
>>
>A question for Thomas Reed: How much heat is released within 2 hours by
the
>carbonisation of 73 kg of air-dry sawdust assuming a mere 15% charcoal
>recovery (based on my previous work with the smaller unit)? It's pretty
>impressive to experience.

> (RWL): I'll address this as well as looking for Tom's further
input. If all of the biomass were consumed, you would have about a 200 kW
system (78 kg * 18 MegaJoule/kg / 7200 seconds, and 1 Watt = 1 J/sec). If
you saved 15% charcoal with an energy content of 30 MJ/kg, you are losing
(or getting) just about 25% by energy, so you would drop to 150 kW. In
your case, it sounds like you were less than 100 kW.
>

Ron, right on with your calculation which could also be written
(conservation of energy)...

Total energy - Charcoal Energy =
Energy in Volatiles

[(78 kg * 18 MegaJoule/kg - (.15*78)kg*30 MJ/kg)] = 1,404 - 351 =
1,053 MJ

Power from burning volatiles: 1053 MJ/7200 sec =0.146 MW = 146 kW

This illustrates that the volatiles themselves had an energy content of
[1053 MJ/(.85*78)], 15.9 MJ/kg.

To critique the numbers,

a) the 15% yield of sawdust is somewhat lower than the 20-25% yield (dry
basis) generally obtained in the top burning stove-pyrolyser. (Was EK's
15% yield calculated dry basis?) Repeating the calculations on a per kg
basis with a 25% charcoal yield would give an energy content of the
volatiles of

Volatiles = Total - Charcoal =
Volatile energy content
Vol = 20 MJ/kg - 0.25 * 30 MJ/kg
= 12.5 MJ/kg

(This separates out the question of moisture content from volatile energy
content.)

b) Looking in our "Atlas of Thermal Data for Biomass and Other Fuels" (to
be issued this Spring) I find that the listed charcoals have between 23
(oak at 565C) and 31 kJ/kg (coconut shells, 750C) energy, depending on
conditions of preparation and remaining volatile content. I believe that
our "cooking charcoal" probably doesn't exceed 500C during preparation, so
the 30 kJ chosen above is probably for an activated or metallurgical
charcoal. However, we should get a bomb calorimeter (about $100)
measurement of the actual charcoal before taking the figures too seriously.

c) The word "Charcoal" covers a multitude of sins and we should all be
careful about using this catchall phrase. I prefer "cooking charcoal" for
the buffered self heating charcoal from the top burning stove pyrolyser.

Good question, EK and good answer RL. I hope we can all get together in
one room some week for a general discussion of these issues. However, if
we wait a few years, we can all get togther by teleconferencing at
3Mbytes/sec and stay home.

Onward, TOM
REED

From tduke at igc.apc.org Thu Apr 2 21:47:50 1998
From: tduke at igc.apc.org (Thomas Duke)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:51 2004
Subject: Stirling Engine
Message-ID: <35244E88.189E@igc.apc.org>

http://www.stirling-tech.com has a stirling engine that they seem to be producing in some
quntity. The S-T 5 is rated at about 5 HP.

Tom Duke
Burlington, IA

From english at adan.kingston.net Thu Apr 2 21:55:12 1998
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:52 2004
Subject: Elsen's Pictures
In-Reply-To: <199804010016.TAA26382@adan.kingston.net>
Message-ID: <199804030301.WAA22536@adan.kingston.net>

Thanks Tom,
It is a pleasure to be a part of this amaizeing list.

Alex (the corny stover)

> Alex,
>
> Thank you for putting together the web site. You do us all a great service.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tom Miles
>
>
> At 07:15 PM 3/31/98 -0500, *.English wrote:
> >Dear Stovers,
> >Elsen's latest efforts are preserved for inspection in the 'New'
> >section at the address shown below.
> >Stoves Web Site http://www1.kingston.net/~english/Stoves.html
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Thomas R. Miles tmiles@teleport.com
> T.R. Miles, Technical Consultants, Inc.
> 1470 SW Woodward Way
> Portland, Oregon, USA Tel:(503) 646-1198/292-0107
> http://www.teleport.com/~tmiles/ Fax:(503) 605-0208/292-2919
>
>

From larcon at sni.net Fri Apr 3 16:56:02 1998
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:52 2004
Subject: Forwarded: Dr. Jury on stove pollution and a meeting
Message-ID: <v01540b00b14acd2b47b6@[204.133.251.10]>

Stovers: I have modified the following a bit and added a few new questions.

Dr. Jury wrote -1 (in answering several of my earlier questions):

> (RWL): 1. We have had many discussions on this list, mostly led by
> Dr. Kirk Smith, of the importance of stove emissions in causing many deaths
> in developing countries. I think it is important to better understand the
> reasons that people might intentionally encourage this indoor air
> pollution. Could you give us some better insight into this practice and
> whether you still see this in Russia.

(Dr. Jury -1):
Dear Dr. Larson!
I am afraid, that the detailed answer to your questions will borrow a
network on many hours. There are many books in Russian on this problem. It
is interesting for èñòîðèê, architects, technologists. Everyone speaks
about it in the manner.

In North economy of heat the very important task. Today morning in St.
Petersburg was a minus of 17 degrees C, and week back plus 5. In
Archangelsk it is more cold on 5-7degrees , and in Yakutsk on 15. Short,
unhot summer and long cold winter a lot of fuel required. The peasants
saved it, differently they could not survive. If there is a pipe, warm air
leaves a room outside. The heat go to atmosphere. If the smoke leaves under
a ceiling, warm air does not leave a house. It was no system, which
poisoned the people. The very interesting system removed a smoke upwards.
The dragged out fishing networks there hung. They lost water also were
impregnated with a smoke. Such networks served long. It is a lot of other
things was processed by a smoke. In such houses insects - cockroaches,
mosquitoes,and other never lived. The peasants were able to provide in the
house cleanliness. The house was beautiful inside . It should be seen, that
to understand. The houses do not decay and now - in 150 years after
construction. These houses have transported in special museums. In Kareliya
and Arkhangelsk area is 3 such of a villages-museums.

(RWL-1): I am beginning to understand better. Thank you for this
clarification. We do not talk enough on this list about wood burning
heating stoves - and we have several very good experts on this subject on
our list in addition to yourself. Several more questions:
1) Is the old and apparently successful northern Russian practice
of not venting smoke still practiced, and by how many?
2) Have there been any epidemiological health studies comparing
households with and without venting?

(Dr. Jury-2a):
> (RWL): 2. What is the literature that you are thinking of?
>
I know the good literature on heatengineering and hydraulics in Russian.
But on English I remember only remarkable directory the engineer of the
chemist (2 volumes). The author is Perry.

Dr. Jury - 3
Is mine English very difficult for understanding?
(RWL-3): We are doing very well.

Dr. Jury - 4
Now about another topic.
I with pleasure work in your network. But I see that the same questions
occur again in the other kind. I am not sure, that I think correctly.
Therefore I write only you this question: Can be to the members of a
network it necessary anywhere arrange congress?

(RWL-4a) Dr. Jury - I apologize for just sending this next private
question out publicly without first asking your permission - but I am quite
sure you would not mind and the subject needs to be raised again. The
subject of a stoves congress (or workshop or symposium) has probably been
raised on this list at least six times in the last several years. The two
most recent offers to sponsor came from Paul Hait (in Oregon, USA) and
Rogerio Miranda (in Nicaragua). More comments after your offer next.

(Dr. Jury - 4b):
I have thought, that St.
Petersburg a good place for this purpose. My academy could give a place for
sessions and hostel for those whom dearly to live in hotel. It would be
possible to make the stends reports and about them contacts, questions,
conversations. Can be there is in the world an organization, which will
give money to such project? St. Petersburg is very beautiful and is
convenient for life in June. Till June, 1999 it is possible all to
organize. If it is nonsense, tell it only to me and do not send in a list.
If you count this idea interesting, offer it in a list.
Sincerely Jury Judkevitch

(RWL-4b): Obviously I thought that a St. Petersburg meeting was a
very good idea and I feel very good about sending this very kind offer on
to the full stoves list. The main reason that it must go to the full list
is that I cannot think of any organization that is ready to subsidize this
project. But I do feel that we should discuss the subject again and
perhaps there will be list members who have access to funds to assist.
Some members will know that I tried recently to obtain such funds from a
well-known US potential funder - but was not successful (I was told I did
not have the right part of this organization).

I can also report that part of our failure to move further on this
is that the present e-mail approach is so low cost. However, obviously we
are missing the chance to see real stoves in operation (both developmental
and commercial). And probably we would move faster if we could get
together in a beautiful place like like St. Petersburg (or Oregon or
Nicaragua - or several other places that might be offered).

The following questions are therefore for all list members - to
respond either to me privately or to the full list:

Question #1: Should we make a new special effort to arrange an
in-person meeting (Congress, Workshop, Conference, etc), targeting
especially the members of this list?

Question #2: Would you try hard to attend (expresssing no
promises - just interest)?

Question #3 Choose one of the following:
a: Would be able to attend even if had to pay all of own
expenses.
b: Could only attend if travel funds were available.
c: Could only attend with both travel funds and honorarium/fee.

Question #4: Open ended - please address especially timing,
location, duration, possible sponsoring funders, etc

Dr. Jury - thank you again for both your stove contributions to
this list and to this kind offer to do the work necessary to put on a group
meeting.

Regards Ron

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

From larcon at sni.net Fri Apr 3 16:56:34 1998
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:52 2004
Subject: Forwarded: Ceramic biogas burner question
Message-ID: <v01540b00b14aef72b501@[204.133.251.10]>

Stovers - This message is in four parts:

1. The first part came in from former stoves list member Hassan M Rajabu a
few days ago to the "bioenergy" list.

> >Hi:
> >
> >In 1994 a small farmer in a village in Tanzania claimed to invent a biogas
> >burner made from clay material. In his innovation all parts of the burner
> >after the valve were made from clay material. This includes; the body,
> >central gas supply nozzle, and pot stands. To make the stove, he first
> >mould the clay and then took his prototypes to the nearby pottery
> >kiln for "firing" and form a strong ceramic product.
> >
> >The biogas technology was introduced more than 20 years ago in this part
> >of the country by a local company (CARMATEC) to small farmers who keep
> >their animals on zero grazing. According to him, CARMATEC introduced a
> >metal stove which last for about 12 months (only) and has to be replaced
> >due to corrosion from the moisture inherent biogas.
> >
> >I was part of the team who was sent by the Commision for Science and
> >Technology to evaluate the claim (ceramic burner). Some of the technical
> >advantages of the ceramic burner include: non-corrosive to biogas and
> >also the ceramic material has high insulating capability. The ceramic
> >burner (therefore) can be used for longer period and perform at higher
> >efficiency for long cooking tasks (due to high heat capacity of the
> >ceramic body compared to the light metal stoves).
> >
> >The ceramic burner also has an advantage that when switched off it can act
> >as a "hot plate" for simmering and warming food.
> >
> >The technology also has an advantage of using local materials and skill
> >and much more reliable than the metal burner. The cost of the prototype
> >was about $50 (control valve, labour, and "firing" at the women pottery
> >kiln project)
> >
> >According to the innovator, most of the design and constructional
> >parameters were obtained by trial and error until optimum dimensions which
> >produced suitable fire for the cooking tasks were realized. The parameters
> >includes: diameter and number of nozzles, and the fire box diameter.
> >
> >Our evaluation of the prototype were based on on-site performance or
> >"utilizability" and no laboratory tests were conducted. The on-site tests
> >included: heat shock stability (simulating overflowing food),
> >controllability (gas flow vs flame heigh/speed), a comparative
> >water-boiling test and blow-off tendencies. The burner uses the original
> >brass control valve which also prevents flashbacks.
> >
> >Our report concluded that the burner works perfectly well for the whole
> >gas range and should suit a variety of cooking demands and habits. Basing
> >on his low educational background we recommended him for a national award
> >for his innovation.
> >
> >I am planning to conduct a laboratory test on the same ceramic stove in
> >the near future. I am (therefore) writing to inquire if there is anyone
> >who is aware of the use of ceramic material for making biogas burners and
> >standards used to test biogas stoves.
> >
> >Regards
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Hassan M Rajabu.
> >Biomass Lab., Bio. & Ag. Engineering Dept. UCDavis. CA 95616.
> >- (916)752-6623/2-8039/7-7640(H).

2. Yesterday I wrote back in part:

> Hello - As the "stoves" list coordinator, I'd like to see our group of 125
> members tackle your question also. Probably about half already will have
> seen it, by being members of both "stoves" and "bioenergy". One advantage
> is that we have a web photograph capability that I don't believe is on
> "bioenergy". I could send your message on (at your request), but would
> rather have you join our list also (being simpler for me, but guessing you
> have insights valuable for improving stoves, as well). Your thoughts?

3. And today I received again from Hassan the following:

Hi Ronal:

I used to be a member of "stove", I don't know what happened I don't get
anymore mails from stove. I will be here for another 1 week before moving
to Tanzania. You can add my adress to the stove and digestion lists hoping
that some members will discuss the ceramic burner. I will unsubscribe from
both lists on 10th April.

You can forward my yesterdays' mail to the stove and digestion lists.

(RWL -2 B):
> My first thought on the price is that it is too high. Most rural
> ceramic stoves we hear about are in the $5-$10 range. I presume the
> competing price is a little higher than $50? Does the ceramic design look
> like the metal design?

The ceramic design is about 30 cm diameter and 10cm height (all clay),
with the centre part grooved to accomodate the nozzle. So it looks like a
tire with the wheel with a small wheel cap at the middle as the nozzle.
The pot seats are about 10x1.5x1.5cm equally spaced and placed in the
radial direction pointing to the centre. When the pot seats it leaves
about 1.5cm gap with the burner body.

$50 was the cost of the prototype. We hope that after finalizing the
design the cost will be in the $10-20 range. The only costly item is the
valve. Clay and fuelwood are free (the kilns they use are very simple and
are temporary earth kilns)

Hassan

4. A few last comments from RWL:
a) I think that Hassan's mailbox was filled and I may have had to
close out his account - sorry if it was my fault.
b) I gather that you are leaving UC Davis for either an extended
period or for good. I hope you will be able to sign on to our list again.
Good luck in this new endeavor.
c) If you have a photo, you can send it to Alex English

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

d) Anyone able to help Hassan on his initial question? Any bright
ideas out there about low cost ceramic burners for biogas?

Regards Ron

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

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Mon Apr 6 08:49:37 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:52 2004
Subject: Charcoal WWW site - correction
Message-ID: <199804060855_MC2-3905-F66@compuserve.com>

I mentioned an important charcoal web site, but in case you couldn't find
it, there's a hyphen in www.scientific-ag.com.

Sorry about that TOM REED

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Mon Apr 6 17:23:36 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:52 2004
Subject: Power Generation Prospects
Message-ID: <199804061727_MC2-3924-BE22@compuserve.com>

Dear Alex et al:

Thanks for copying the thermoelectric writeup for us (below). The
statement "This generator can be operated with fuels such as kerosene,
gasoline, Jet-A, and diesel" should attract our attention, because they
should have added producer gas and pyrolysis gas from our gasifiers and
stoves as fuels. Hopefully the burner for the generator would operate at
sufficiently high temperature so that the gases would not require tar
removal (the Achilles heel of biomass gasification, but not wood-gas
stoves).

While we are expanding our thinking for rural power sources, keep your eye
on THERMOPHOTOVOLTAICS. NREL has been working in this field (Tim Couts).
Instead of using the sun (Solarphotovoltaics, peak energy at 0.5 microns)
this uses a radiant heat source at 1500-1800K, 2 micron peak energy with
InSb and other detectors to generate power. I don't think it's far enough
along to mount on every African stove for watching after dinner TV, but it
may soon be. Meanwhile the military can support development costs.

We are all holding our breaths waiting for practical fuel cells of course,
since our gases typically contain 10% H2 and could be converted to 100%
H2-N2 if necessary.

One problem with these three power technologies is that they generate DC
power and one must add an invertor to get to AC, the ultimate supply for
distribution.

Of course we are all keeping our eyes on Stirling Engine progress. The
Free Piston Stirling engine (Sunpower, Stirling Technologies, any others?)
naturally generate God's power (110 V AC).

Then of course there are always spring-wound generators, if you consider
muscle power to be a form of biomass power.

Onward with community accessible power.......................
TOM REED
~~~~

Message text written by INTERNET:gasification@crest.org
>
Dear Listers,
Having been told not to look back to steam engines for solutions,

Would someone care to comment on potential for thermo-electric
generation technology, and its thermodynamic limitations with regard
to renewable energy applications?

Alex English

What follows is copied from the Jade Mountain web addresses
http://www.jademountain.com/genmotchg.html
http://www.jademountain.com/charts%20/thermoElectricSpecs.html

5000 watt Thermo-Electric Generator

Revolutionary new power generator - no noise, no moving parts, no
vibration & only 27 lbs.!

A major breakthrough in back-up power technology - 5000 watts, 120 vac
from a small 27 lb. generator! Extremely low maintenance with no
moving parts to wear, no noise, no vibration. Powered from locally
available heat sources like propane or natural gas, this new
thermocouple design uses special copper plates and creates a magnetic
field for producing power from high temperature differentials. We
believe this product will make traditional gas generators with their
noise, pollution, and high maintenance obsolete. 230 vac 50 Hz,
kerosene, diesel, and alcohol powered models available during the next
year. LP & natural gas models available in small quantities March '98

Thermoelectric Generator Specs

A broad, inexpensive, alternative-energy electrification system is
needed in the United States and Canada. A stand alone, electric power
supply would increase productivity and save money in such industries
as farming, ranching, and light manufacturing, as well as provide
electricity to isolated areas. An even larger potential for rural
electrification exists in less developed parts of the world, where
fossil fuel generators are the only alternative. This new solid state
electric generator can convert almost any available fuel into low-cost
electricity without the noise, weight, high maintenance, and size
associated with conventional generators

We expect this to revolutionize the off-grid power industry.
Efficiency rating now is 12% and planned improvements should increase
this to over 20% in the near future. The first model produces 5 kw,
120 vac. It is solid- state, has world wide appeal due to low
maintenance, and a low price tag. Yet it's most redeeming feature is
its ability to produce stand-alone, quality electric power from
locally available heat sources. In the U.S., thermoelectric power
could be used to backup home power, in construction, and for
recreational purposes. The largest market for this rural
electrification unit is proving to be the developing world, as both a
primary power source and grid backup.

The new thermoelectric generator has no moving parts to wear, makes no
noise, and causes no vibration. The first model operates with either
propane or natural gas, but a "burn-any-fuel" version is under
development. Future improvements will include 120/240 vac and 50-60 Hz
options and improved operating efficiency.

Applications of this technology include the transportation field's
need for high energy, low-polluting electric power supplies for
automobiles, buses, trains, and ships. This technology can use waste
exhaust heat to produce both AC and DC current, eliminating weight and
moving parts to produce additional energy without increasing the need
for thermal energy.

Description

A specially configured ring of metal plates produces a very high
electric current circulation when heated (see figure 1). The current
in the energy store can be tapped to provide a source of AC and DC
electric power. This generator can be operated with fuels such as
kerosene, gasoline, Jet-A, and diesel.

The thermocouple principle requires the ends of two different metal
wires to be twisted together, one terminal heated and the other
cooled. This causes current flow in the wires. The magnitude of the
current depends on the temperature difference between terminals, the
characteristics of the metals. and the electrical resistance of the
two wires. Typical power from a thermocouple is one-thousandth the
energy needed to power a light bulb.

To improve thermocouple performance, the number of junctions is
increased and placed closer together using copper plates to reduce
resistance to a minimum. Connecting junctions in a closed loop
increases current circulation, thereby realizing the highest magnetic
field and the highest magnetic energy store. A practical
thermoelectric energy store requires a means of drawing energy from
the circulating current store as electricity. This is done using a
special Hall switch that converts stored magnetic energy into
conditioned electrical output as needed.

Laboratory tests on the generator have achieved current densities up
to 120,000 amps/sq. in., verified independently.

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

From elk at arcc.or.ke Wed Apr 8 04:56:36 1998
From: elk at arcc.or.ke (E. L. Karstad)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:52 2004
Subject: Carbonising Sawdust- Update
Message-ID: <v01510102b1510e6098ef@[199.2.222.134]>

Well, the large Grover Modification MkIII (as pictured on Alex's website)
just isn't doing the trick. While my eyebrows are still intact, I did
manage to thin out my hair a bit via the liberal application of burning
charcoal dust...

Sawdust pyrolysis within the unit is very uneven, and doesn't proceed
laterally to the outside of the mass. As the metal of the chimney becomes
incandescent, I think that char must be reduced to ash under the terrific
heat- in any case, I'm not obtaining the requisite flow-through of
material.

Latecomer's Note: An internal chimney flares pyrolysis gasses and heats
sawdust contained in a jacket between the chimney and the outer two 200
liter drums.

As a result of all this, I do have some ideas for a sawdust burning
wood-gas stove now. Could someone send me a drawing of a classic 'Grover'
stove please? I don't want to waste time on re-inventing something that
already exists.

I won't go into great detail of this failure here on the list. Suffice to
say that I am returning to the 'big pile' method of charcoal manufacture
using sawdust, and experimenting with various ways of speeding the process
up. All I need to do is to turn 1 ton of sawdust into 200 + kg of charcoal
dust per day in order to keep apace with I team's output of briquettes on
my manual (+clay binder) briquetter.

Also, succumbing to peer pressure, I am making clay-bound sawdust balls to
see how they burn in the various stoves I've been ammassing here. They sure
are fragile- like snowballs made with cold fluffy snow.

Ronal; I don't think that pyrolysing clay-bound sawdust balls can lead to
the production of briquettes from the resultant char because the 15% clay
will increase to around 60% clay (ash?) after pyrolysis.... and will clay
still be clay & act as a binder after firing? We'll soon see.

Best Regards;

elk

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

From larcon at sni.net Wed Apr 8 15:23:59 1998
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:52 2004
Subject: Alex on being volunteer temporary "stoves-owner"
Message-ID: <v01540b05b1516aaa4cb2@[204.133.251.16]>

Stovers:
I am going to spend 5.5 weeks in (mostly Kafa zone of) Ethiopia
beginning April 18. With his gracious consent, I am pleased to announce
that Alex English, our hard-working stove photography web-owner, has agreed
today to be my replacement as "stoves-owner". We are still working out the
details, but soon you should get both of us if you write to "stoves-owner"
(which almost no-one on the list ever does - so no reason to start now).
Better to write to all. Non-stove-list members are encouraged to write
nothing until June.

For three days prior to May 30, I am going to visit Elsen Karstad
in Nairobi. (Without his permission) I am inviting all who might be in the
Kenya area to write Elsen and see if you also might be invited to a first
stove mini-conference. We shall certainly be discussing how to design and
fund a bigger one.

Regards Ron

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

From larcon at sni.net Wed Apr 8 15:24:05 1998
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:52 2004
Subject: Alex English on Thermoelectrics
Message-ID: <v01540b06b1516fce81e5@[204.133.251.16]>

Stovers: As part of my contacts with Alex on being a replacement
"list-owner", we had the following exchanges.

(RWL-1 said in privately quoting an Alex message to our group)
>> 3. On thermo-electrics -
>> You said: > Efficiency rating now is 12% and planned improvements should
>> >increase
>> >this to over 20% in the near future. The first model produces 5 kw,
>> >120 vac. It is solid- state, has world wide appeal due to low
>> >maintenance, and a low price tag
>>

(I then said-2)
>> I think the 20% value is fantastic, if achievable. What is the
>> price from Jade?
>

(Alex replied privately today-3):
>20% is probably optomistic, with the current price at around 900$US
>this remarkable. I was expecting some feed back from all the folks
>who are trying to develope gasifiers to run generators. This
>technology would surely sweep them aside.
>I have emailed them for additional information, such as exhaust gas
>temperatures. They have put me on a list of people who will receive
>info when they get it.

My reply today:

Alex: Because Jade Mountain is (in Boulder, Colorado and a free
phone call away, I called to see what more I could learn - especially
because I thought the $900 per kW (see below) price was outstanding, given
PV is 5-10 times higher overseas. The Jade Mountain tech rep said that
they had announced this in their January web page, but had been forced to
delay sales because of some technical glitches coming from the supplier
(and Jade Mountain was to be the first seller). The name of the supplier
was given out in January, but not now as the supplier were inundated with
all sorts of questions. So I don't know who is the real developer.

Then I found the $900 price was for all 5 kW - $180/kW!! This is
directly competing with small ICEs - at least on first cost. I asked
about smaller sizes (since many village PV systems are for one 50 Watt
package, and flashlight rechargers typically are in the 5-10 watt size).
The answer was they were struggling with this first entry and other models
would come later.

The present assumption is that Jade Mountain will accept orders in
May and will ship in June.

I took poor notes but think I heard that this unit takes 5 gallons
of propane per hour (sound right?) The issue for this list is what we
might recommend to Jade and their supplier for a much smaller "stove"
version. If you came down by a factor of fifty to 100 watts (hopefully
still sold under $100), and ran it 3 hours a day, I think you would get
about the same average power as the typical single-panel PV system (for
5-10% of the generator price).

My belief is that this 100 watt unit could set directly under the
cook pot and the 87% waste heat could be used for cooking food, with little
increase in present fuel consumption. Of course I would hope for a
charcoal output as well.

One big advantage of a biomass source used for three meals per day
is that the required storage battery can be much smaller - maybe by a
factor of 10-20 also - since storage would be only for a few hours max -
not days.

I would hate to see a battery-free-system - as this could cause a
lot more fuel consumption than at present. There is a big need for the 20%
efficiency improvement suggested by Alex unless one can use the waste heat
- and the issue is whether cooking is the right waste heat utilizer.

Other thoughts on Alex' interesting discovery?

Regards Ron

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

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Apr 8 16:00:44 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:52 2004
Subject: Forwarded: Boyt on 10-can stove
Message-ID: <199804081607_MC2-395D-D716@compuserve.com>

Ron, Richard et al:

Richard sent TWO 10 can stoves to Tom and Ron. Tom is trying to lassoo Ron
to get us to test both stoves at our lab. Weather improving rapidly
here......

We'll report our results here ASAP, but I know some people who would rather
talk than - - - -.

TOM

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Wed Apr 8 16:00:46 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:52 2004
Subject: Charcoal Fireball Manufacture
Message-ID: <199804081607_MC2-395D-D715@compuserve.com>

Stovers (as in corn stover??):

Piet Verhart asked..

>Has anybody ever tried making sawdust briquettes with some cheap starch as
binder? I seem to remember reading or hearing of spontaneous formation of
spherical conglomerates in a rotating drum, the size being dependent on the
plasticity of the mix.

I would expect sawdust briquettes of between 15 - 30 mm diameter to perform
excellently in my downdraft barbecue.

We do a lot of re-discovering the wheel in this world and should keep it to
a minimum if possible.

In the mid 1980s John (Tatom, John 770- 435 0073; 4074 Ridge Rd., Smyrna,
GA 30080. ), working for USAID designed a Georgia Tech type "BIG BLUE"
pyrolyser for developing countries. It made tar and char.

He developed a 55 gal (200 l) charcoal briquetter that made "fire balls",
about 3 cm in diameter. I have a few in my laboratory charcoal collection.
They do not break up when dropped from 2 m.

A slurry of starch (5%??) is added to half a drum of chardust lying
horizontally on rollers. Drum is closed and rotated with a handcrank. The
process is analogous to making bread, when the first stage of water
absorbtion produces LUMPS which eventually blend with the other
ingrediencts to form dough. I presume there is a modest amount of art
involved in knowing when to stop cranking.

I am sorry that John Tatom is not involved in these two nets. I believe he
is burned out on energy and teaches high school science in Smyrna.
However, I hope someone will contact him and urge him to join us.

I believe that Bhatacharya at AIT has reports on this process. Hope we
hear from him, too.

TOM REED

From artsolar at usaor.net Wed Apr 8 17:27:29 1998
From: artsolar at usaor.net (Art Lilley)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:52 2004
Subject: Alex English on Thermoelectrics
Message-ID: <199804082134.RAA28693@gate.usaor.net>

Ron,

This thermoelectric generator is in the "revolutionary" classification if the claims
are even half true. Jade Mountain, having started this snowball rolling, owes
theirs customers (and customer wannabes) either 1) more quantitative information if
it is real or 2) a retraction if it is mainly a a dream. Absent either, it has a
cold fusion feel to it.

Art Lilley

----------
> From: Ronal W. Larson <larcon@sni.net>
> To: stoves@crest.org
> Subject: Re: Alex English on Thermoelectrics
> Date: Wednesday, April 08, 1998 3:42 PM
>
> Stovers: As part of my contacts with Alex on being a replacement
> "list-owner", we had the following exchanges.
>
> (RWL-1 said in privately quoting an Alex message to our group)
> >> 3. On thermo-electrics -
> >> You said: > Efficiency rating now is 12% and planned improvements should
> >> >increase
> >> >this to over 20% in the near future. The first model produces 5 kw,
> >> >120 vac. It is solid- state, has world wide appeal due to low
> >> >maintenance, and a low price tag
> >>
>
> (I then said-2)
> >> I think the 20% value is fantastic, if achievable. What is the
> >> price from Jade?
> >
>
> (Alex replied privately today-3):
> >20% is probably optomistic, with the current price at around 900$US
> >this remarkable. I was expecting some feed back from all the folks
> >who are trying to develope gasifiers to run generators. This
> >technology would surely sweep them aside.
> >I have emailed them for additional information, such as exhaust gas
> >temperatures. They have put me on a list of people who will receive
> >info when they get it.
>
> My reply today:
>
> Alex: Because Jade Mountain is (in Boulder, Colorado and a free
> phone call away, I called to see what more I could learn - especially
> because I thought the $900 per kW (see below) price was outstanding, given
> PV is 5-10 times higher overseas. The Jade Mountain tech rep said that
> they had announced this in their January web page, but had been forced to
> delay sales because of some technical glitches coming from the supplier
> (and Jade Mountain was to be the first seller). The name of the supplier
> was given out in January, but not now as the supplier were inundated with
> all sorts of questions. So I don't know who is the real developer.
>
> Then I found the $900 price was for all 5 kW - $180/kW!! This is
> directly competing with small ICEs - at least on first cost. I asked
> about smaller sizes (since many village PV systems are for one 50 Watt
> package, and flashlight rechargers typically are in the 5-10 watt size).
> The answer was they were struggling with this first entry and other models
> would come later.
>
> The present assumption is that Jade Mountain will accept orders in
> May and will ship in June.
>
> I took poor notes but think I heard that this unit takes 5 gallons
> of propane per hour (sound right?) The issue for this list is what we
> might recommend to Jade and their supplier for a much smaller "stove"
> version. If you came down by a factor of fifty to 100 watts (hopefully
> still sold under $100), and ran it 3 hours a day, I think you would get
> about the same average power as the typical single-panel PV system (for
> 5-10% of the generator price).
>
> My belief is that this 100 watt unit could set directly under the
> cook pot and the 87% waste heat could be used for cooking food, with little
> increase in present fuel consumption. Of course I would hope for a
> charcoal output as well.
>
> One big advantage of a biomass source used for three meals per day
> is that the required storage battery can be much smaller - maybe by a
> factor of 10-20 also - since storage would be only for a few hours max -
> not days.
>
> I would hate to see a battery-free-system - as this could cause a
> lot more fuel consumption than at present. There is a big need for the 20%
> efficiency improvement suggested by Alex unless one can use the waste heat
> - and the issue is whether cooking is the right waste heat utilizer.
>
> Other thoughts on Alex' interesting discovery?
>
> Regards Ron
>
> Ronal W. Larson, PhD
> 21547 Mountsfield Dr.
> Golden, CO 80401, USA
> 303/526-9629; FAX same with warning
> larcon@sni.net
>
>

From larcon at sni.net Thu Apr 9 12:30:28 1998
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:52 2004
Subject: BOUNCE stoves@crest.org: Non-member submission from [webmaster@ccdemo.org(Leonard G. Barton, Webmaster)]
Message-ID: <v01540b05b1529312be8f@[204.133.251.25]>

Stovers - can anyone help?

Ron

>Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 20:04:09 -0700
>To: stoves@crest.org
>From: webmaster@ccdemo.org (Leonard G. Barton, Webmaster)
>Subject: Pellet water heater
>
>Hello:
>
>Do you know where I can get info concerning a pelet-stove type device for
>heating water? I'm interested in domestic hot water and hydronic space
>heating. This would be combined with solar assist.
>
>Thank you,
>
>Leonard

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

From tmiles at teleport.com Thu Apr 9 13:42:24 1998
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:52 2004
Subject: Bioenergy Email Lists and Commands
Message-ID: <199804091749.KAA25705@mail1.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 five lists
at CREST.

o Bioenergy <bioenergy@crest.org>
Moderator: Tom Miles <tmiles@teleport.com>

Archive:
<http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/bioenergy-list-archive/>
Digest: bioenergy-digest@crest.org

o Gasification <gasification@crest.org>
Moderators: Thomas Reed <REEDTB@compuserve.com>
Estoban Chornet <Chornete@tcplink.nrel.gov>
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>
Pat Wheeler <patrick.wheeler@aeat.co.uk>
Richard Nelson <rnelson@oz.oznet.ksu.edu>
Dave Stephenson <cdstephenson@tva.gov>

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>,
Alex English <english@adan.kingston.net >
Archive: <http://www.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/>
Digest: stoves-digest@crest.org

o Bioconversion <bioconversion@crest.org>
Moderators: Tom Jeffries <twjeffri@facstaff.wisc.edu>
Archive:
<http://www.crest.org/renewables/bioconversion-list-archive/>
Digest: bioconversion-digest@crest.org

Current subscribers to the lists 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.

MODERATORS

This is a cooperative, volunteer effort that is now in it's fourth year. The
lists are moderated and managed by volunteers. If you want to help moderate
a list pease contact individual ist moderators or Tom miles, Bioenergy List
Administrator at <tmiles@teleport.com>.

SPONSORS

We appreciate the support of the Center for Renewable Energy and
Sustainable Technologies (CREST) and the National Bioenergy Industries
Association for hosting the lists at their site.

While there is no fee to subscribe to the lists contributions are welcome
($100 minimum please) and will be necessary to sustain the lists.

Sponsors are listed on the list archives
<http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/bioenergy-list-archive/> which are
accessed more than 1800 times per day by people who are searching the
Internet for bioenergy topics.

To sponsor a list, please fill out the online form at:
<http://crest.org/services/biolist-spons.shtml>

Or, contact CREST <zach@crest.org>.

COMMANDS

To subscribe to a BIOENERGY List 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> (or
as indicated above).

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

LISTS ADMINISTRATORS
Please direct questions to the bioenergy list administrators:
Tom Miles, Jr. tmiles@teleport.com,
Zach Nobel zach@crest.org

You can contact CREST at:

<http://solstice.crest.org/>
Zachariah Nobel, Assistant Manager for Internet Services
Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainable Technology (CREST)
1 (415) 284-6400
zach@crest.org

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas R. Miles tmiles@teleport.com
Technical Consultants, Inc. Tel (503) 292-0107/646-1198
1470 SW Woodward Way Fax (503) 605-0208
Portland, Oregon, USA 97225

From floodl at innercite.com Thu Apr 9 13:47:02 1998
From: floodl at innercite.com (Laurie Flood)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:52 2004
Subject: Alex English on Thermoelectrics
In-Reply-To: <v01540b06b1516fce81e5@[204.133.251.16]>
Message-ID: <352C9A76.19D1BCCB@innercite.com>

Ronal W. Larson wrote:

>i
>
> (RWL-1 said in privately quoting an Alex message to our group)
> >> 3. On thermo-electrics -
> >> You said: > Efficiency rating now is 12% and planned improvements
> should
> >> >increase
> >> >this to over 20% in the near future. The first model produces 5
> kw,
> >> >120 vac. It is solid- state, has world wide appeal due to low
> >> >maintenance, and a low price tag
> >>
>
>
> I took poor notes but think I heard that this unit takes 5
> gallons
> of propane per hour (sound right?)

Hello fellow stovers,

I have been lurking and reading Alex's wonderful web page and the
archives for a while now. This product sounds great, but 5 - 6 gallons
of propane/hour? I don't know how much a regular burner on a propane
stove would consume, but I know that it takes 5 days of wickedly cold
weather in my travel trailer to use up 9 gallons of propane in the
forced air heater. To me, it sounds as if you need an incredible blow
torch going to run this device.

I was wondering if someone had the time (certainly the know-how is here)
to calculate a 5 - 6 gallon per hour propane use and somehow compare it
to the output of the stoves that this group has devised. Can any of the
present models produce this much heat?

Thank you in advance,

Laurie Flood

From john at gulland.ca Thu Apr 9 14:01:02 1998
From: john at gulland.ca (John Gulland)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:52 2004
Subject: Pellet hot water heater
Message-ID: <01bd63e2$57e18c80$2c36f8ce@jgulland.igs.net>

Leonard G. Barton (through Ronal) wrote:
>>Do you know where I can get info concerning a pelet-stove type device for
>>heating water? I'm interested in domestic hot water and hydronic space
>>heating. This would be combined with solar assist.

This is a subject of considerable interest to me and one I've given a lot of
thought to. The problem with most of the current pellet technologies is
that they run at a very high 35:1 excess air level to do an end run around
EPA emission requirements. As designed, they run at lower efficiencies than
their manufacturers would like to admit and if you turned down the excess
air to a reasonable level, they would burn dirty, much too dirty for a water
heater.

I saw a ray of light on the horizon in late March at the Hearth Products
Association trade show in St. Louis. There was a group there attempting to
sell licences to a new pellet combustion system that they call a pellet
gasifier. It is not unlike some of the other systems on the market except
that it uses a very deep combustion pot -- looked to me like about 12".
The pellets are dropped a few at a time from a chute above the double-walled
combustion pot and they land on a perforated metal grate at the bottom.
Almost no combustion air is provided under fire, but is supplied through
tiny holes in the pot inner wall. The air supply is arranged so that the
gases produced by the smolering pellets burn in a controlled way as they
rise up through the pot and above it. The device produces efficiency in
the low 80s, given a decent heat exchanger, because of its very low excess
air levels. Particulate emissions are in the 0.3gm/h range which is about
as good as it gets for residential scale woodburning. One big advantage of
the system is that it was burning 3.5% ash pellets (bark), whereas almost
all the other pellet burners would choke quickly on pellets exceeding about
1% ash. Not only that, but aesthetically, the thing produces a beautiful
flame.

In a bar after the close of the trade show, I happened to bump into the main
guy who is developing the burner (I had contact with him several years ago
but lost touch), and I pitched him on the idea of a hot water heater that
can be used as the core of an integrated water/space heating system. He
responded that building a furnace had been on his mind, but I said no, no,
no; do a water heater first. I told him I thought his burner might burn
clean enough that it could be fired into a conventional oil-fired hot water
heater tank without sooting it up too bad. I haven't had time to follow up
with him, but I certainly plan to. I don't even have his phone or email,
but I think I can get it.

If you want a pellet fired boiler, which may have a domestic hot water
capability, the only one I'm aware of is the Traeger unit made by Even-Temp,
in Waco, Nebraska.

I have no leads on a commercially available pellet hot water heater, and
given the combustion quality of most of the current burners, I wouldn't be
too optimistic about their effectiveness. I realize this is not much help,
but I thought you might be interested in a snapshot of the state of the art.

If I am not mistaken, Skip Hayden subscribes to this list and he was one of
those who helped to develop the system. Maybe he would like to comment on
this.

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

From phoenix at transport.com Thu Apr 9 18:12:41 1998
From: phoenix at transport.com (Art Krenzel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:52 2004
Subject: Alex English on Thermoelectrics
Message-ID: <199804092120.OAA03707@brutus.transport.com>

Alex,

I have been waiting for someone else to do the calculation as well but
haven't heard, so here goes.

A gallon of propane has an energy value of approximately 92,250 BTU's per
gallon (not considering either higher heating value versus lower heating
value) so the unit requires approximately 461,250 BTU's to generate
approximately 5 KW assumed to be over one hour (or 5 KWhr X 3413 BTU/KWhr
= 17,065 BTU's out).

This translates to about 3.7% efficient on my calculator realizing that the
assumptions are that the event occured over a one hour period. This
efficiency is typical of currently availiable thermoionic devices on the
market today. They are used on mountain top data collection sites all over
the world.

Another point is the capital cost per KW quoted ($900 for 5 KW) is
extremely low as to be suspicious as well. A typical coal fired power
plant with all the bells and whistles including economy of scale costs on
the order of $1500 per KW.

If it sounds too good to be true - it just might not be. If it is true, it
looks faintly like a holy grail lit by cold fusion.

Art Krenzel

From english at adan.kingston.net Thu Apr 9 21:56:55 1998
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:52 2004
Subject: Pellet hot water heater
In-Reply-To: <01bd63e2$57e18c80$2c36f8ce@jgulland.igs.net>
Message-ID: <199804100203.WAA15064@adan.kingston.net>

Dear John, Leonard, Skip?

There was a presentation from the Federal Institute of Agricultural
Engineering in Austria, at the Biomass conference last summer
describing the development of efficient/clean residential (<15kw,
<50,000 btu/hr) chip fired boilers.
They did this trough a competition. The winner received 70,000 US$
Here are part of the test results.
Load % 99
Thermal Efficiency % 85
Flue gas temperature C 158
CO2 in flue gas % 12.2
Particulate emission mg/m3 7
Organic gaseous compounds mgC/m3 10
CO emission ppm 41

But that is across the pond.

> Leonard G. Barton (through Ronal) wrote:
> >>Do you know where I can get info concerning a pelet-stove type device for
> >>heating water? I'm interested in domestic hot water and hydronic space
> >>heating. This would be combined with solar assist.
>
> This is a subject of considerable interest to me and one I've given a lot of
> thought to. The problem with most of the current pellet technologies is
> that they run at a very high 35:1 excess air level to do an end run around
> EPA emission requirements. As designed, they run at lower efficiencies than
> their manufacturers would like to admit and if you turned down the excess
> air to a reasonable level, they would burn dirty, much too dirty for a water
> heater.

Although it doesn't surprise me that actual efficiencies differ from
manufacturers claims, I don't understand how high dillution rates help
them get around EPA emission regulations. Are they not specified in
grams/hour?

35:1 excess air seems unbelievable. Most of these are supplied by a
fan they would need a heck of a blower to push that amount of air
through the chimney. The one pellet stove I tested was in the 1.5:1
to 3:1 range.

Oh numbers numbers numbers bring on the numbers.

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

From english at adan.kingston.net Fri Apr 10 07:48:17 1998
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:52 2004
Subject: Alex English on Thermoelectrics
Message-ID: <199804101155.HAA09779@adan.kingston.net>

Laurie Flood wrote;
> I was wondering if someone had the time (certainly the know-how is
> here) to calculate a 5 - 6 gallon per hour propane use and somehow
> compare it to the output of the stoves that this group has devised.
> Can any of the present models produce this much heat?

Laurie, Art...
The short answer is no. 5 gal. of propane is around 134,000 kw. The
venturi burner put out about 10-12kw. Cooking burners are in the 1-4kw
range. If a 10% efficiency were possible, (although Art has Jaded us
on the likelihood of this being true) the cooking stove would generate
a useful 100 to 4 00 watts. See Ronal Larson's post.

On a side note, here at the greenhouses we heating at a rate of
around 500kw. The back up generator is 15kw . Roughly 3% of the heat
load. So the current technology that Art mentions would theoretically
work here.

Alex
>
> Thank you in advance,
>
> Laurie Flood
>
>
Alex English
RR 2 Odessa Ontario
Canada K0H 2H0
Tel 1-613-386-1927
Fax 1-613-386-1211
Stoves Web Site http://www1.kingston.net/~english/Stoves.html

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Fri Apr 10 12:35:50 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:52 2004
Subject: Alex English on Thermoelectrics
Message-ID: <199804101239_MC2-398C-1662@compuserve.com>

Lists:

The recently reported thermoelectric converter generates 5 kW power with 5
gal propane/hr. Sound too good to be true? Laurie Flood asks the
following sensible question.

Hello fellow stovers,

Thank you in advance,

Laurie Flood

Here's an approximate calculation without looking in books.

Propane contains 100,000 Btu/gal. A kW hr is about 3400 Btu/hr. So....

Eff= Energy out/energy in = 5*(3400/100,000) = 3.4%

If correct, this sounds more like what I have heard as TE efficiencies. It
is still interesting if the waste heat could cook your dinner or heat your
water. The Russians used TEs to power radios, sitting on top of stoves.

TOM REED

From larcon at sni.net Sat Apr 11 11:44:06 1998
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:52 2004
Subject: Liquid Biofuel use as a Climate Change Mitigation Strategy.
Message-ID: <v01540b07b1553d166ced@[204.133.251.48]>

Tom (for transmittal to others):

I am not sure whether it will be out of order, but I hope that the
person(s) asking on the following liquid biofuels issue will also consider
asking about the wider use of biomass. Roughly half the world is cooking
with biomass, and many in the "stoves" group are concerned about the amount
of global warming gases (other than CO2) which are generally produced in
this process (especially when the cooking is done with charcoal). Some
also are concerned about efforts to solve deforestation problems by
switching to fossil sources. Some of the best work in this stoves-global
warming area has been done by our list's Dr. Kirk Smith - at Berkeley.

Ron

>We've had a request for a list of individuals who have recently considered
>the topic:
>
>Liquid biofuel use as a climate change mitigation strategy.
>
>
>Any suggestions? What work has been done and by whom?
>
>Regards,
>
>Tom Miles
>Bioenergy List Administrator
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Thomas R. Miles tmiles@teleport.com
>Technical Consultants, Inc. Tel (503) 292-0107/646-1198
>1470 SW Woodward Way Fax (503) 605-0208
>Portland, Oregon, USA 97225
>

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

From english at adan.kingston.net Sat Apr 11 20:40:43 1998
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:52 2004
Subject: CO and the TenCan Stove
Message-ID: <199804120047.UAA06358@adan.kingston.net>

Dear Stovers,
This afternoon I test fired the TenCan stove that was sent to me by
Dick Boyt. This carefully crafted stove performed much as he had
described in his post through Ron on Jan 27/98. He had asked me about
the using household digital CO alarms for testing , so I set this
test up inside a closed van and monitored the air inside with both
the household alarm type and the continuous hand held Monoxor II made
by Bacharach. I stayed on the outside. Pictures at web site below.

The stove lit easily (from the top) and brought 4 oz (mass) of water
to a boil in 6 minutes, over a stable flame that just reached the
bottom of the pot. At 14 minutes. it briefly went smoky just before
the flame stopped. By this point the CO level in the 200 cubic foot
van had reached 40ppm. The alarm which monitors levels over time, so
as not to react to stove top spills and toasters, had not yet
responded.

Next, the stove switched to it's bottom up charcoal mode. At this
point I would have removed the single chimney section and placed the
pot directly over the coals but I didn't wish to open any doors. As
a result the water stopped boiling. CO rose quickly to 125ppm at 15
minutes with the household alarm showing a reading of 100ppm. It held
this reading for two minutes and then blinked the word HI. The alarm
sounded after another 10 minutes.

The water started boiling again at around the 22 minute mark and
boiled until around 28 minute when the stove was essentially out. At
this point the CO level in the van was 400ppm. Roughly 2oz of water
boiled off with 3oz of fuel.
I like the stove and especially the workmanship. Last summer I had
played around with tin cans to demonstrate the top down pyrolyser to
some relatives. Dick has shown me some useful construction tricks.

One question is whether or not the cheaper CO alarms can be used for
stove testing? Calibration is another. I have checked the Monoxor II
with a diesel's exhaust which has been fairly consistently at around
600ppm. This household unit appears to read up to only 120ppm.
Using a kerosene lamp, turned down low, gives a steady 40-60ppm.
However the chimney gasses are to hot to monitor directly. With a
bit of tinkering , a small fan could be rigged to pump the gasses
through a cooling tube in to a clear plastic bag with the CO alarm
in it. The same setup could be rigged to give a stable dilution
factor and a wider range of sample concentrations. So the answer is
a definite maybe!

The two devices that I used today gave similar readings.

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

From phoenix at transport.com Sun Apr 12 19:38:01 1998
From: phoenix at transport.com (Art Krenzel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:52 2004
Subject: Pellet hot water heater
Message-ID: <199804122245.PAA18155@brutus.transport.com>

Alex,

I have been trying to track down a chip fired hot water heater used in
Australia. It was described by a friend of mine as a cone shaped
combustion chamber surrounded by a water jacket. It produced warm water
very quickly and the wood chips were dropped down the chimney. It worked
quite well and was quite cheap to purchase and operate.

Might there be anyone else on the network who might be aware of whether
chip fired water heaters are still available or whether plans might be
obtained?

My friend lived in New South Wales during the early 70's. He said the unit
had been produced by the local sheet metal company. I called them and they
said the design had been superceded by a gas model so the biomass unit
design was not available any longer. I tried several other sources and had
no better luck.

OK, I need some help from some of m' "Stove Mates". (Spoken with an
Australian twang)

Art Krenzel
phoenix@transport.com

From gpk at physics.unipune.ernet.in Mon Apr 13 06:38:12 1998
From: gpk at physics.unipune.ernet.in (Priyadarshini Karve(SBO))
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:52 2004
Subject: reponse to queries/suggestions
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.96.980413152051.4672A-100000@physics>

Dear Stovers,
Sorry for the long period of sielnce. I got entangled in some
other work.
Here are some comments on some of the responses that I recieved.

1. Dr. Larson wrote about the effectiveness of improved yet 'smoky'
stoves.
I think it is an interesting idea to find out exactly how much
smoke one needs to perform the various noncooking functions in a rural
household. We have found that even the users who ask for smoky stoves are
happy with our low-emission improved stove designs.

2. Dr. Larson asked about the use of a top grate in our stove designs.
As you all know, the heat transfer from the flame to the cooking
pot is also an important contributor to the stove efficiency. Ideally the
flame should hit the pot bottom at the center and then spread outwards
touching the bottom. The top grate serves the purpose of giving a proper
direction to the flame in the chimneyless stoves.
This concept will be more clear when you see the designs of our
stoves. I will send the pictures to Mr. English in a day or two.

3. Dr. Larson asked about the strategies for further improvement in stove
efficiency over and above using the top grate.
If cost is not a limiting factor there is a lot of scope for
improvement especially in the heat transfer process. I think this is where
a lot of energy losses come from, once the stove design has been improved
to give a good quality of combustion. One simple strategy would be to use
a reflecting metal sheet as an inner lining of the stove body. This will
reduce heat loss to the stove.

4. Dr. Larson referred to the differences in efficiency values in
different efficiency tests.
I think this is an important issue. It is my experience too that
the stove efficiency value critically depends on the method used for
calculation. Is there any work on a comparative analysis of the prevalent
methods so that a test that has minimum errors can be recommended for
universal use?
Some of the apparant discrepancies in the biomass ball results
that I have mentioned are mainly due to the particular efficiency test
that was used in the work.

5. From some of the questions that Dr. Larson posed on the biomass burning
stove 'Navjyoti', I think I have not been very clear about the working of
the stove.
It is not that the tunnel dimensions in the stove with three
narrow tunnels (that I designed) do not change at all. If x is the tunnel
diameter that gives the optimal air flow and the best combustion, then I
have kept the initial tunnel diameter x-dx, which becomes x+dx' at the end
of the stove operation. The dx is optimised such that the resultant
variation in air flow (and therefore the quality of combustion) would not
lead to a significant variation in the energy output vs time curve.
Secondly, the question of considering the charcoal making term to
the efficiency calculation would arise, if I can quantify the char
production. In this case, first the tunnel wall burns and the heat chars
the adjacent layer of biomass. Later on as the char burns, the next layer
is charred, and so on. Thus the 'charfront' proceeds from the tunnel to
the outer wall of the stove, leaving behind a shell of ash.
Once the stove was lit I did not observe any difference in the way
the combustion takes place at the top and at the bottom.

6. Dr. Larson asked about my charcoal making stove using a steel barrel.
The aerator we used was a network of pipes so that air was
introduced at different positions throughout the barrel.
It is possible that some of the pyrolysis gases may have vented
through the mud seal that we used for cutting off the air supply.
We do get a lot of tar deposited onto the inner wall of the
barrel.

7. Dr. Larson also commented on the shape of the charcoal briquettes.
I have conducted extensive trials with the cylindrical briquettes
and I too found that vertical stacking gives better combustion than random
stacking. I have always lighted the sticks from the top. The flames
quickly engulf the entire briquette. Soon the flames die down, and the
heat transfer to the pot is mainly through convection of the hot gases.
I am conducting a few trials with sperical briquettes as suggested
by Dr. Larson.

8. Dr. Larson expressed concern about the pollution resulting from the
conveyer belt type charcoal making process that I am using now.
Presently, the farmers are burning the sugarcane trash in open
air. That is causing quite a lot of pollution. If the pollution caused by
the charcoal making process is less than this, then I would rather go for
the simple and fast process without bothering much about the pollution.

9. Dr. Reed made a few comments regarding stove preferences.
I agree that a wood gas stove would be easily accepted due to its
strikingly better performance.
The stove distribution network that has been suggested is exactly
what we have successfully established in a number of regions. Some other
people too have asked about our programme for commercialisation of the
improved stoves. A few months back, some of my colleagues presented a
paper on this aspect in a conference. In a day or two I will post a
condensed version of this paper.
I think Dr. Judkevitch quite adequately dealt with the objections
to 'smoky' stoves.
For us in India, the programme of popularising improved stoves has
a wider goal than meets the eye. We are using this as a means to convince
the rural people that modern science can really be beneficial and is not a
threat to out traditions and culture. If we ask people to change too many
of their traditional habits, they will not accept the improved stoves at
all. With the minimised smoke emission, we have at least managed to reduce
if not eliminate the health hazards. This has also made the people more
receptive to other modern concepts which can ultimately help to improve
their standard of living.

Priyadarshini Karve.

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Mon Apr 13 07:23:01 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:52 2004
Subject: Enclosures
Message-ID: <199804130729_MC2-39BB-C8C0@compuserve.com>

Hello all at the CREST:

I use COMPUSERVE for better or worse. Last night I cleaned out my DOWNLOAD
files. I found all sorts of interesting things there - many of which I
should have seen months earlier. COMPUSERVE will put files in my download
without telling me, so PLEASE let me know if you send any files.

From john at gulland.ca Mon Apr 13 16:26:14 1998
From: john at gulland.ca (John Gulland)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:52 2004
Subject: Pellet hot water heater
Message-ID: <01bd671b$4c95b720$2f36f8ce@jgulland.igs.net>

Alex wrote (Thursday; I'm a little slow responding):
"Although it doesn't surprise me that actual efficiencies differ from
manufacturers claims, I don't understand how high dillution rates help them
get around EPA emission regulations. Are they not specified in grams/hour?"

Generally, high excess air (not usually dilution air) increases turbulence
and improves combustion, but has a bad effect on delivered efficiency. Most
pellet stoves can turn down to a low output of less than 10,000 BTUh.
Picture that little flame set in front of a big fire viewing window in a
much-too-large combustion chamber in order to mimick the look of a
(cord)woodburning stove. Under those conditions, if you reduce exess air to
a reasonable level, the flame will look a little lazy and will be dirty.
You could make it burn clean with a smaller, insulated combustion chamber
and careful distribution of combustion air, but then it wouldn't look like a
wood stove. The 35:1 air/fuel ratio exemption is offered by EPA to let
decorative woodburning fireplaces off the hook on the assumption that they
are used infrequently and the idea that their unrestricted air supply means
they don't smolder (although many of us would argue the point). I think
that most pellet stove makers have several reasons to take advantage of the
35:1 exemption: 1) it avoids testing costs, except the test to show high
excess air; 2) it avoids a lot of R&D costs to develop a clean flame at low
excess air; 3) the marketing department wouldn't like the pokey little
combustion chamber and glass door that would probably result; 4) and most of
all, they are allowed to. I should add that this is mostly speculation on
my part because the manufacturers don't like to talk about this one bit.

Alex also wrote:
"35:1 excess air seems unbelievable. Most of these are supplied by a fan
they would need a heck of a blower to push that amount of air through the
chimney. The one pellet stove I tested was in the 1.5:1 to 3:1 range. Oh
numbers numbers numbers bring on the numbers."

I agree, but of all the pellet stoves on the market, only one or two that I
know of are EPA certified, the rest have used the loop hole. I am no
specialist and certainly not a number cruncher. I think the problem is in
distinguishing between percent excess air and air fuel ratios, which I don't
pretend to have a handle on. I'm sure someone on the list does, though.

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

From english at adan.kingston.net Mon Apr 13 21:40:57 1998
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:52 2004
Subject: Pellet hot water heater
In-Reply-To: <01bd671b$4c95b720$2f36f8ce@jgulland.igs.net>
Message-ID: <199804140147.VAA09019@adan.kingston.net>

Dear John,
My mistake. I got confused with my back-of-the-head calculations. I
should have used an envelope.

Even at 15,000btus/hr, or about 2 lbs of wood/hr. the just-enough air
requirement would be about 156 cubic feet per hour. At 35:1 that is
5460 cfh or 91 cfm. Not all that much air...... compared to me.

Regards, Alex
The blue collar scholar.

> Alex also wrote:
> "35:1 excess air seems unbelievable. Most of these are supplied by a fan
> they would need a heck of a blower to push that amount of air through the
> chimney. The one pellet stove I tested was in the 1.5:1 to 3:1 range. Oh
> numbers numbers numbers bring on the numbers."
>
> I agree, but of all the pellet stoves on the market, only one or two that I
> know of are EPA certified, the rest have used the loop hole. I am no
> specialist and certainly not a number cruncher. I think the problem is in
> distinguishing between percent excess air and air fuel ratios, which I don't
> pretend to have a handle on. I'm sure someone on the list does, though.
>
> Regards,
> John
> This is for business: http://www.gulland.ca
> This is for pleasure: http://www.wood-heat.com
>
>
>
Alex English
RR 2 Odessa Ontario
Canada K0H 2H0
Tel 1-613-386-1927
Fax 1-613-386-1211
Stoves Web Site http://www1.kingston.net/~english/Stoves.html

From larcon at sni.net Mon Apr 13 22:09:26 1998
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:52 2004
Subject: Karve response to queries/suggestions
Message-ID: <v01540b01b15869c74d13@[204.133.251.44]>

Priyadarshini (and other stovers): Thanks for the reply. Because I am
running out of time, I am going to severely limit further questions until
June. I hope others will take over, as your answers are always very
informative.

<snip>
>1. On " improved yet 'smoky' stoves" <snip>
(RWL): I think that persons like Kirk Smith might have some data
on this. Kirk or anyone else?

>2. On "the use of a top grate"
(RWL): I will look forward to seeing the pictures. I hope you
will discuss the range of IDs that are OK.

>3. On "..strategies for further improvement in stove efficiency"
(RWL): Have you tried outer shields surrounding the cookpot and/or the
".. reflecting metal sheet as an inner lining of the stove body.."?
Anything quantitative?

>
>4. On ".. differences in efficiency values in different efficiency tests."
(RWL): I am also interested in "... the method used for
>calculation..." I hope some with a long interest in this topic may chime
>in - I haven't tried anything myself.
>
>5. On the "... biomass burning stove 'Navjyoti' ",
(RWL): I gather that there is essentially no charcoal production?
I had misunderstood and thought there was considerable charcoal remaining
at the end. I hope you will try lighting this stove from the top (and you
will need a small chimney (height maybe 1.2 to 1.5 times the diameter)
above the present secondary air inlet height (which is also the upper fuel
height.) We have been finding that a secondary air gap of about 3-6 mm
should be about right (and is not too critical). The cookpot can sit
inside the chimney. With these changes, I think you might achieve 20-25%
charcoal production.
>
>6. On your ".. charcoal making stove using a steel barrel."
(RWL): The fact that you are using loose waste material is very
important. I hope that this list can continue to focus on the efficient
pyrolysis of such material (hopefully with waste heat utilization). Wood
is just too easy. I have not yet envisioned a way to do this.

>
>7. On ".. the shape of the charcoal briquettes."
(RWL): "In addition to the tests on spherical balls, I hope you
will try some top-lighting of the biomass "sticks", in both cases using the
above modification of the 'Navjyoti' (i.e. an upper chimney to get a draft
and a means of controlling primary air).
>
>8. On "..the pollution resulting from the conveyer belt type charcoal
>making process...."
(RWL): The problem is that the exhaust gases from pyrolysis are a
good bit worse for global warming than are those from combustion - unless
they are flared (ending only with CO2 and H2O) in which case you have made
a major net advance over other forms of charcoal making. Thus, I hope we
can as a group keep trying to at least flare, and preferably also find a
productive use for all that waste heat.
>
>9.On the fact that your ".. programme of popularising improved stoves has
>a wider goal than meets the eye." and ".. If we ask people to change too many
of their traditional habits, they will not accept the improved stoves at
all."
(RWL): These are two quite interesting insights. The top-lighting
and production of charcoal during cooking is a major change of course. Are
you expressing concern that this is too large a change?

Thanks again for your excellent responses. Regards Ron

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

From elk at arcc.or.ke Tue Apr 14 00:46:28 1998
From: elk at arcc.or.ke (E.L.Karstad)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:52 2004
Subject: Ronal's E.African Trip
Message-ID: <199804140452.HAA28583@arcc.or.ke>

Bon Voyage Ronal.

No 'bites' on the offer for a stovers 'mini conference' here in Nairobi yet.

Stovers? Anyone happen to be in the area around the end of May? 27th -30th
to be precise.

Any suggestions from our list members familiar with the Nairobi area as to
what/who/where Ronal & I should see/visit? I may have lived here for
decades, but I'm a brand new stover, remember.

elk
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
Elsen L. Karstad P.O. Box 24371 Nairobi Kenya. Fax (+254 2) 884437 Tel
884436, 882375
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------

From larcon at sni.net Tue Apr 14 10:13:23 1998
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:52 2004
Subject: Energy value of corncobs?
Message-ID: <v01540b04b15923e2bd90@[204.133.251.31]>

I received a phone call today from a person asking about the energy value
of corncobs. I said I thought it was about 18 MJoules per kg - as for wood.
True?

Ron

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

From bmjenkins at ucdavis.edu Tue Apr 14 14:40:41 1998
From: bmjenkins at ucdavis.edu (Jenkins)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:52 2004
Subject: Energy value of corncobs?
In-Reply-To: <v01540b04b15923e2bd90@[204.133.251.31]>
Message-ID: <v03007802b158e3604579@[128.120.59.176]>

We have the higher heating value of corn cobs (1.36% ash dry basis) at
18.77 MJ/kg dry basis, lower heating value at 17.58 MJ/kg dry basis, both
at constant volume.

Bryan

>I received a phone call today from a person asking about the energy value
>of corncobs. I said I thought it was about 18 MJoules per kg - as for wood.
>True?
>
>Ron
>
>Ronal W. Larson, PhD
>21547 Mountsfield Dr.
>Golden, CO 80401, USA
>303/526-9629; FAX same with warning
>larcon@sni.net

----------------------------------***--***----------------------------
Bryan M. Jenkins, Professor |phone 530 752 1422
Biological and Agricultural Engineering Dept. |fax 530 752 2640
University of California |
One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616 |bmjenkins@ucdavis.edu

From gpk at physics.unipune.ernet.in Thu Apr 16 03:40:46 1998
From: gpk at physics.unipune.ernet.in (Priyadarshini Karve(SBO))
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:52 2004
Subject: stovers' conference
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.96.980416131009.10644A-100000@physics>

Dear Stovers,
Forgot to mention this in my previous communication.
I think the idea of a conference is excellent. I would certainly
attend it, whatever may be the location... provided I get funding for
travel expenses!
I think the conference should be at least a week's duration. The
topics should include the scientific and technological aspects of stove
designing, the environmental and health issues as well as the social and
economic issues related with this field.

Priyadarshini Karve.

From larcon at sni.net Thu Apr 16 07:38:55 1998
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:52 2004
Subject: stovers' conference
Message-ID: <v01540b04b15b9c4444b4@[204.133.251.44]>

Stovers:

Priyadarshini Karve said:

> I think the idea of a conference is excellent. I would certainly
>attend it, whatever may be the location... provided I get funding for
>travel expenses!

Thanks for the further input. I've privately gotten a different
response from someone I highly respect, so I know there is a split
decision. These events always must depend on the costs and benefits to
each of us. Until we actually find a group anxious to pay the fares for
some (like yourself) who should be there, we'll never know.

It is now obvious that Nairobi has quite a few talented stove
people - so perhaps an acceptable method will be smaller local gatherings
where the costs can be kept within the means of all.

Again, Elsen and I hope that we can try out this last idea at the
end of May. I hope anyone in the area will let Elsen know.

This is getting close to my last note -and I am not ready to go!!

Regards Ron

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

From woodcoal at mailbox.alkor.ru Thu Apr 16 08:22:38 1998
From: woodcoal at mailbox.alkor.ru (Woodcoal)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:53 2004
Subject: stovers' conference
Message-ID: <199804161229.QAA07249@ns.alkor.ru>

----------
> Îò: Priyadarshini Karve(SBO) <gpk@physics.unipune.ernet.in>
> Êîìó: stoves@crest.org
> Òåìà: stovers' conference
> Äàòà: 16 àïðåëÿ 1998 ã. 22:19
>
> Dear Stovers,
> Forgot to mention this in my previous communication.
> I think the idea of a conference is excellent. I would certainly
> attend it, whatever may be the location... provided I get funding for
> travel expenses!
> I think the conference should be at least a week's duration. The
> topics should include the scientific and technological aspects of stove
> designing, the environmental and health issues as well as the social and
> economic issues related with this field.
>
> Priyadarshini Karve.
>

I support completely all ideas of madam Karve concerning a conference.
It is very pity, but I that need in financing (road, habitation).
Whether this idea can to interest fund Soros? This fund (on means American
banker Soros) will spend in Russia many actions for encouragement of a
science, culture and humanitarian problems.
I think a main staff of this fund in USA. Whether is present at the members
of a network of contact with it?

Sincerely Jury Judkevitch

From rmiranda at sdnnic.org.ni Thu Apr 16 13:59:30 1998
From: rmiranda at sdnnic.org.ni (Rogerio Miranda)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:53 2004
Subject: stovers' conference
Message-ID: <3.0.2.16.19980416085624.31375f4e@ns.sdnnic.org.ni.>

>
> "I think the conference should be at least a week's duration. The
>topics should include the scientific and technological aspects of stove
>designing, the environmental and health issues as well as the social and
>economic issues related with this field."
>
> Priyadarshini Karve.

Agreed. But also I would like to see experiences in how to produce low cost
stoves commercialy in mass scale production. Another intereste topic for us
would be financing or microcredit loans for buyers.

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

From larcon at sni.net Sat Apr 18 00:21:55 1998
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:53 2004
Subject: stovers' conference
Message-ID: <v01540b06b15dc8ee8c68@[204.133.251.4]>

This is probably my last message for the next six weeks. I just want to
acknowledge the message from Dr. Jury, Madam (almost Dr.) Karve, and
Rogerio.

On Dr. Jury's suggestion to contact the Soros group, I hope someone
can follow through. I think this is a good place to start. I can't do it
now, but will try when I get back, so anyone trying please send me some
message.

Best of luck to all and thanks to many for suggesting stoves
contacts in Ethiopia and Kenya. The ideas below are great.

Ron

>> "I think the conference should be at least a week's duration. The
>>topics should include the scientific and technological aspects of stove
>>designing, the environmental and health issues as well as the social and
>>economic issues related with this field."
>>
>> Priyadarshini Karve.
>
>
>Agreed. But also I would like to see experiences in how to produce low cost
>stoves commercialy in mass scale production. Another intereste topic for us
>would be financing or microcredit loans for buyers.
>
>rogerio
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda
> ATP/PROLENA/Nicaragua
> Apartado Postal C-321
> Managua, Nicaragua
> telefax (505) 276 2015
> EM <rmiranda@sdnnic.org.ni>
>
><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

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

From gpk at physics.unipune.ernet.in Sat Apr 18 02:09:17 1998
From: gpk at physics.unipune.ernet.in (Priyadarshini Karve(SBO))
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:53 2004
Subject: commercialization of stoves
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.96.980418114110.3104A-200000@physics>

Dear Stovers,
Attached is the condensed version of a conference paper on how to
commercialize the concept of improved stoves for domestic cooking in rural
areas.
I wish to add that we now have several enterpreneurs engaged in
mass production of ready-to-install stoves, in small workshops, using the
moulds prepared by our TBU. The stoves can be transported over a distance
of about 200 km without substantial loss through breakage. All these
workshops are doing good business. The development of moulds, which
facilitates mass production, has been the key factor here.
Priyadarshini Karve

NATIONAL PROGRAMME ON IMPROVED STOVES
COMMERCIALIZATION OF IMPROVED STOVES IN MAHARASHTRA
by
R.D. Hanbar (Senior Scientific Officer) and A.D. Karve (Principal Investigator),
Technical Back up support Unit in Maharashtra, Appropriate Rural Technology
Institute, 6, Koyna Apartments, S.No. 133, Kothrud, Pune 411 029.

Maharashtra has an estimated ten million families who use biomass as domestic
fuel. The national programme on improved stoves commenced in Maharashtra in
1983-84. A total of 11 65 088 stoves were installed till 31-3-1995. Thus only
11.8% of the potential users were covered in about 10 years. The life of a
mud stove is only 2-3 yrs. With the annual rate of new installations being just
150 000 stoves, the programme will never cover all the potential users.

We have given some thought to the reasons for this failure. We have concluded
that in comparison to other programmes of the government this programme has a
very low budget allocation and yet the implementing agencies have to put in
disproportionately more effort into the implementation, leading to the officials'
apathy towards the programme.

For example, consider a target of 500 stoves given to a single administrative
block. Thus at an average Rs.40/- (~1 $) per stove, a total subsidy amout of
Rs. 20 000/- is to be disbursed. For this, the Block Development Officer (BDO)
has to
(a) select the beneficiary villages
(b) hold awareness camps in these villages
(c) select the beneficiary households in each village
(d) collect the users' contribution to the stove cost
(e) arrange for a trained potter to install the stoves
(f) arrange for purchase and transport of accessories like the grates, chimney
pipes, etc.
(g) superwise the work of the potter
(h) make payment to the potter in the stipulated installments
(i) submit periodic reports to the district headquarters
(j) maintain the account for the 500 beneficiaries

We suggest the following solution: Entrust the entire job to a trained potter.

To test this solution, we arranged an Entrepreneurship Development Programme
(EDP) for potters in 1992-93. We concentrated on two southern districts in
Western Maharashtra: 'Sangli' and 'Kolhapur'. In these districts, the housewives
traditionally purchase ready-to-install stoves in the weekly markets. The potters
make the stoves but traditionally do not participate in the work of stove
installation.

Under EDP, a group of potters from Sangali and Kolhapur districts was exposed
to the idea of giving total service to potential clients. They were taught to
construct various stove models and were informed of the merits and demerits
and do's and dont's of each model. They were given information on how to get
loans for starting a business, business strategies (how to approach customers,
how to advertise, how to make profit, etc.), etc.

One year later the potters were called back for another meeting. It was found
that most of them had fared very well and had expanded their sales.

We now conduct EDPs on a regular basis. In 1995-96 (when we were operating the
TBU under the umbrella of the Center for Application of Science and Technology
for Rural Development) three EDPs were conducted to cover 72 potters. In order
to help them start their business ARTI (after its establishment in 1996) took
up a target of 12000 stoves from the government. The trained potters are only
told the names of the villages. All the other tasks including awareness camps,
collection of user's contribution, ordering of materials, etc. as well as the
installation are done by the potters. A predetermined price is paid to them for
every completed stove. The profit margin depends on how much they save on
transport/travel, how they rationalize all the operations and in how much
time the assignment is completed.

After having participated in the government sponsored programme, under which the
beneficiaries are given a subsidy, the potters can start selling the stoves on a
purely commercial basis.

As the government programme is too small to cover all the potential beneficiaries,
the programme has to be implemented through private initiative, fired by profit
motive. Giving the potters a part of the government's own target acts as an
incentive. The concept of subsidy can be used by the potter to popularise the
stoves in new areas, whereas, he can sell without subsidy in areas where the
users are already convinced about the utility of these stoves.

From english at adan.kingston.net Sat Apr 18 20:54:40 1998
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:53 2004
Subject: (Fwd) uses for sawdust
Message-ID: <199804190101.VAA31625@adan.kingston.net>

Dear Stovers,

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 11:48:31 -0500
From: Susan <rafselea@etzna.uacam.mx>
Organization: TAC
To: owner-stoves@crest.org
Subject: uses for sawdust

dear ronal--

i am trying to find a use for sawdust. i work with a small furniture
manufacturing plant in the yuctan peninsula. we generate a lot of
sawdust in the process. i am trying to find a a use for this byproduct.
there is a good market here for charcoal but how expensive is the
machinery to produce it? labor here is not a problem so if you know of
a semi automatic machine.
thanks

susan gutierrez

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

From celtic2 at ibm.net Sun Apr 19 01:25:13 1998
From: celtic2 at ibm.net (Stephen Allen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:53 2004
Subject: Gasifier burn status
Message-ID: <199804190532.FAA59808@out2.ibm.net>

Just a quick question. I have been running burn tests with a typical 2 can
gasifier stove. I have just tried something that I would like
clarification on, if possible. As per usual, I am burning the fuel cell top
down. However, this time, when the cell is nearly exhausted, I begin adding
fuel from the top of the burner!!! Guess what??? The flame hold at the
secondary intake remained constant!....An even blue flame holding steady as
I fed the cell fresh wood. This cell is now burning from the bottom up!. At
flame out, the fuel cell appears to be still producing charcoal. Is the
theory of top dowwn burning really so cut and dried???? It doesn't seem to
be!

From celtic2 at ibm.net Sun Apr 19 01:46:46 1998
From: celtic2 at ibm.net (Stephen Allen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:53 2004
Subject: Design Variations
Message-ID: <199804190553.FAA30504@out5.ibm.net>

Hi! Just want to ask a question about fuel cell burn dynamics. After
playing around with an exterior supplied secondary supply, I have
simplified my design. I now have a one and a half can gasifier stove,
designed to provide a self contained backpacking cooking source. The stove
is a typical 2 can gasifier stove, however I have reduced the height of the
chimney to 50% of the burner height. One curious thing I have niticed. If
the flame dies during cooking, I can simply add fuel to the cell, and the
stove continues to run as before. No smoke, a steady blue flame at the
secondary intake, and NO reduction in heat output, or apparently, charcoal
production. In fact, after a typical burn, I can turn around and light the
charcoal, and run the stove as a traditional bottom burner. Kind of like
using the same fuel twice. Any ideas on why this is possible are
welcome.

PS: I have used this stove on a backpacking trip to the North of Ontario in
-35degrees Celcius, and had no trouble at all.

From bburt at kingston.net Sun Apr 19 10:16:47 1998
From: bburt at kingston.net (Brian Burt)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:53 2004
Subject: Gasifier burn status
In-Reply-To: <199804190532.FAA59808@out2.ibm.net>
Message-ID: <002101bd6b9e$541c7d80$c334d2cd@bburt.kingston.net>

Do you mean that the charcoal that has been produced in the first part of
your burn is consumed in the bottom up burning?

Brian

>
> Just a quick question. I have been running burn tests with a typical 2 can
> gasifier stove. I have just tried something that I would like
> clarification on, if possible. As per usual, I am burning the
> fuel cell top
> down. However, this time, when the cell is nearly exhausted, I
> begin adding
> fuel from the top of the burner!!! Guess what??? The flame hold at the
> secondary intake remained constant!....An even blue flame holding
> steady as
> I fed the cell fresh wood. This cell is now burning from the
> bottom up!. At
> flame out, the fuel cell appears to be still producing charcoal. Is the
> theory of top dowwn burning really so cut and dried???? It
> doesn't seem to
> be!
>
>

From bburt at kingston.net Sun Apr 19 10:20:36 1998
From: bburt at kingston.net (Brian Burt)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:53 2004
Subject: Design Variations
In-Reply-To: <199804190553.FAA30504@out5.ibm.net>
Message-ID: <002201bd6b9e$db7c4080$c334d2cd@bburt.kingston.net>

Are you not simply adding fuel at the same height as you secondary air
inlet? If so then it would only stand to reason that the new fuel material
has little choice but to burn. You would be adding fresh fuel to a hot bed
of coals and fanning it with all the air it can take.

Brian

>
> Hi! Just want to ask a question about fuel cell burn dynamics. After
> playing around with an exterior supplied secondary supply, I have
> simplified my design. I now have a one and a half can gasifier stove,
> designed to provide a self contained backpacking cooking source. The stove
> is a typical 2 can gasifier stove, however I have reduced the
> height of the
> chimney to 50% of the burner height. One curious thing I have niticed. If
> the flame dies during cooking, I can simply add fuel to the cell, and the
> stove continues to run as before. No smoke, a steady blue flame at the
> secondary intake, and NO reduction in heat output, or apparently, charcoal
> production. In fact, after a typical burn, I can turn around and light the
> charcoal, and run the stove as a traditional bottom burner. Kind of like
> using the same fuel twice. Any ideas on why this is possible are
> welcome.
>
> PS: I have used this stove on a backpacking trip to the North of
> Ontario in
> -35degrees Celcius, and had no trouble at all.
>
>

From english at adan.kingston.net Sun Apr 19 12:37:36 1998
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:53 2004
Subject: Gasifier burn status
Message-ID: <199804191644.MAA15742@adan.kingston.net>

Dear Stephen,

> Just a quick question. I have been running burn tests with a typical 2 can
> gasifier stove. I have just tried something that I would like
> clarification on, if possible. As per usual, I am burning the fuel cell top
> down. However, this time, when the cell is nearly exhausted, I begin adding
> fuel from the top of the burner!!! Guess what??? The flame hold at the
> secondary intake remained constant!....An even blue flame holding steady as
> I fed the cell fresh wood. This cell is now burning from the bottom up!. At
> flame out, the fuel cell appears to be still producing charcoal. Is the
> theory of top dowwn burning really so cut and dried???? It doesn't seem to
> be!
Well, you certainly need "cut and dried" fuel for the top down stove.
That is one of it's disadvantages.

When the cell full of charcoal starts burning from the bottom up, the
oxygen in the primary air is consumed at the bottom and the hot,
oxygen starved gasses then pass up through the charcoal above. When
new wood is added to the top it pyrolyses, leaving charcoal because
there is insufficient oxygen or heat present to consume the char. You
can continually add fuel, and maintain the flame. However as you
produce charcoal on top you consume it on the bottom. Essentially an
up-draft gasifier. If you add to much wood at once, the amount of
pyrolysis gas produced will likely be too much for the limited
secondary air supply to burn completely. The result is a tall smoky
flame. It makes sense to have a little door for adding wood if the
food is not quite done by the time the flame goes out.

Disadvantages; it relies on accurate fuel feeding and the grate
temperatures are very high.

The advantage of top down batch pyrolyser is that it produces a
somewhat steady and controlled rate of burn while being relatively
"hands off". If stopped before the charcoal begins to burn, the
grate temperatures remain lower.

Dick Boyt has told me that while using the TenCan stove, after the
flaming burn is done, he removes the chimney and covers the food and
stove with an inverted larger can, sealed in the soil. The charcoal
continues to burn to ash, and cook the food under the inverted can.

Now the inquisition.

Have you used your stove in a tent? What are the stove dimensions?
How does the flame behave? What is the fuel? How is it arranged?
Do you use it at only one heat rate?

Regards, Alex
PS. Guess what???? I want pictures and drawings for the webpage.

From english at adan.kingston.net Sun Apr 19 12:37:39 1998
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:53 2004
Subject: Fwd. Bounced message.
Message-ID: <199804191644.MAA15746@adan.kingston.net>

Dear Stephen,
I had missed this bounced message.
I had not realized your commercial intent. So I will understand if
you disregard my probing questions.

> It's been a while since I talked to you guys. My question is this, can a
> blue flame stove be developed using no outside source of input energy. And
> can this stove be BOTTOM burning, so that fuel can be added during the burn
> as needed. I have been successful in designing such a stove, however I have
> needed the use of a fan driven injector system.

Others folks have explained to me that;
The blue flame seems to be an indication of high reactivity. This
tends to be due to the excellent mixing of adequate air and a high
quality of fuel gas, or a minimum of entrained complex carbon
compounds.
Tom Reed has mentioned that his stove burned with a blue
flame. Check the webpage , address below. I have occasionally had
some entirely blue flame results but only with plenty of chimney, or
gravity helping. More generally the lower and outer portion of the
flame is blue with the upper inner flame being yellow/orange. It is
much easier and dramatic to see the blue portion of a flame at night.
If you look closely at a laminar flame you can usually see the
yellow flame is surrounded by a layer of blue. This would be the
region of greatest oxygen and therefore reactivity.

Good luck,
Alex

> As I have mentioned before, my main interest lies in the self contained
> backpacking market.
>
> As a note to Ron; If you would be so kind to please add me to the stovers
> mailing list, I would appreciate it.
>
>
> Steve: (Celtic2@Ibm.net)
>
>
Alex English
RR 2 Odessa Ontario
Canada K0H 2H0
Tel 1-613-386-1927
Fax 1-613-386-1211
Stoves Web Site http://www1.kingston.net/~english/Stoves.html

From english at adan.kingston.net Wed Apr 22 17:30:14 1998
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:53 2004
Subject: Webpage update
Message-ID: <199804222137.RAA05512@adan.kingston.net>

Dear Stovers,
The first image of one an improved stove, from Priyadarshini Karve,
and be viewed by visiting the web address below. Check the link under
the NEW heading.

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

From english at adan.kingston.net Wed Apr 22 19:44:37 1998
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:53 2004
Subject: (Fwd) GAS-L: Sawdust briquettes
Message-ID: <199804222351.TAA17586@adan.kingston.net>

Dear Stovers,
This message seemed appropriate for your consumption.

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 16:13:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: V V N Kishore <vvnk@teri.res.in>
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: GAS-L: Sawdust briquettes
Reply-to: gasification@crest.org

This is in response to the query from Piet .We made sawdust
briquettes in a low pressure screw extruder run on a 5 HP motor.The
additives tried were molasses,clay,cattle dung and outlet slurry from
biogas plants.From cost considerations,dung and biogas plant slurry
were used most of the times.The briquettes were 3-4" long and 1" in
dia.The formation of the briquettes was highly dependent on the
particle size and on the ratio of sawdust to binder.We used a 10% w/w
binder and obtained stable briquettes which do not break even if
dropped from 10m.The briquettes were used in a 7kW gasifier power
plant for nearly 3 years.The briquettes were also found to be good
replacement for dung cakes used widely in north Indian villages.John
Tatom saw our mobile briquetting cum gasification plant some time in
1989 and was quite excited.We maintained correspondence for a while
but lost touch later.

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

From english at adan.kingston.net Wed Apr 22 22:26:57 1998
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:53 2004
Subject: (Fwd) BOUNCE stoves@crest.org: Non-member submission from [
Message-ID: <199804230234.WAA00010@adan.kingston.net>

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
From: owner-stoves@crest.org
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 10:52:58 -0400 (EDT)
To: owner-stoves@crest.org
Subject: BOUNCE stoves@crest.org: Non-member submission from [USPURCHASE <USPURCHASE@aol.com>]

Received: from USPURCHASE@aol.com

Hello Mr :

We are an Export $ Import Company , and we are trying to locate companies who
sell Kerosene Stoves. We would appreciate if you can provide us information
in reference...

Thanks for any Information..

Atte
Rose
Fax# 305/471-9413

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

From english at adan.kingston.net Thu Apr 23 07:17:13 1998
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:53 2004
Subject: (Fwd) BOUNCE stoves@crest.org: Non-member submission from [
Message-ID: <199804231124.HAA22573@adan.kingston.net>

From: "Al Dutton" <al.dutton@dial.pipex.com>

I would like to know whether anyone has had any success in developing a =
low cost cooking stove to burn vegetable oil extracted from local plants =
(especially the Jatropha Curcas plant).
=20
Any and all contributions welcome.
Alex English
RR 2 Odessa Ontario
Canada K0H 2H0
Tel 1-613-386-1927
Fax 1-613-386-1211
Stoves Web Site http://www1.kingston.net/~english/Stoves.html

From english at adan.kingston.net Sun Apr 26 20:19:42 1998
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:53 2004
Subject: How to make charcoal
In-Reply-To: <199804261830.OAA20056@solstice.crest.org>
Message-ID: <199804270027.UAA07327@adan.kingston.net>

Hello Bjorn,
I am the temporary replacement for the moderator, Ronal Larson, of
this list while he is away in Ethiopia. If you would like to be added
to this discussion list, I can do that.
Perhaps some of the list members could help answer your questions. If
they have any documents on current best practices, I would be happy
to include it on the web page that I maintain.
If you have access to the World Wide Web you might consider looking
at a page which describes the Old Art of Charcoal Making
http://130.238.108.200/Trekolsmapp/Coaling.html

Approximately two thirds of the energy in wood is lost when making
charcoal while at the same time producing harmful emissions. A few
members of this list, myself included, have worked with small scale
charcoal making stoves which burn the gasses, reducing the harmful
emissions and producing more usable heat. These stoves use dry wood
of fairly small dimensions and yield about 20-25% charcoal.
For more information, check the Stoves archives and the webpage
addressed below.

What size trees will you be using?
How big is the petrol tank?
Would it be an option for you to wait for the wood to dry?

Regards, Alex English

Dear charcoal maker
> We want to learn how to make charcoal.
> We are a charity organization in Swaziland working with rehabilitation of
> street children, drug addicts and ex alcohol abusers. We have free access
> to a big forest of eucalyptus and pineculata (hardwood not suitable for
> other purposes) There is a potential market for charcoal here, where
> people are using firewood for heating their houses in open fireplaces
> excellent charcoal. I am using charcoal myself which I buying Mozambique.
>
> We believe we know how to make different types of kilns but the problem
> we have is principally to find out when the charcoal is ready. Also to
> know when and how to regulate the oxygen. In one place we saw 3 to 10
> days cooking time but that is a great difference.
>
> WE have the possibility of getting a big petrol tank which possibly could
> be adapted but how??
>
> Looking forward to hearing from you.
>
>
>
>
Alex English
RR 2 Odessa Ontario
Canada K0H 2H0
Tel 1-613-386-1927
Fax 1-613-386-1211
Stoves Web Site http://www1.kingston.net/~english/Stoves.html

From english at adan.kingston.net Sun Apr 26 20:19:49 1998
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:53 2004
Subject: (Fwd) How to make charcoal
Message-ID: <199804270027.UAA07345@adan.kingston.net>

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Subject: How to make charcoal
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 98 13:31:16 -0000
From: Björn Brandberg <b.brandberg@mail.com>
To: "Somebody Charcoal" <owner-stoves@crest.org>,
"Ronald Larson" <larcon@csn.net>,
"Peter Verhaart" <Peter_Verhaart@msn.com>

Dear charcoal maker
We want to learn how to make charcoal.
We are a charity organization in Swaziland working with rehabilitation of
street children, drug addicts and ex alcohol abusers. We have free access
to a big forest of eucalyptus and pineculata (hardwood not suitable for
other purposes) There is a potential market for charcoal here, where
people are using firewood for heating their houses in open fireplaces
excellent charcoal. I am using charcoal myself which I buying Mozambique.

We believe we know how to make different types of kilns but the problem
we have is principally to find out when the charcoal is ready. Also to
know when and how to regulate the oxygen. In one place we saw 3 to 10
days cooking time but that is a great difference.

WE have the possibility of getting a big petrol tank which possibly could
be adapted but how??

Looking forward to hearing from you.

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

From english at adan.kingston.net Sun Apr 26 20:19:46 1998
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:53 2004
Subject: (Fwd) BOUNCE stoves@crest.org: Non-member submission from [
Message-ID: <199804270027.UAA07340@adan.kingston.net>

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
From: owner-stoves@crest.org
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 14:38:41 -0400 (EDT)
To: owner-stoves@crest.org
Subject: BOUNCE stoves@crest.org: Non-member submission from ["Dean Still" <dstill@epud.org>]

From: "Dean Still" <dstill@epud.org>
To: <stoves@crest.org>
Subject: Hello from Aprovecho Research Center

Surprised to find stovers out here. We have been messing with stoves since
1976. First with the Lorena, when we didn't understand the difference
between mass and insulation. Now, we cook with the Rocket stove, insulated
combustion chamber, cooking takes place above a short, insulated 12"
chimney in which smoke is secondarily combusted. But, actually, we are now
more into Hayboxes that simmer the food using retained heat from the pot.
Saves more fuel than replacing a three stone fire with a fuel efficient
wood stove. Never know where research leads...In service, Dean Still

From english at adan.kingston.net Sun Apr 26 20:19:58 1998
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:53 2004
Subject: Re.Hello from Aprovecho Research Center
In-Reply-To: <199804261838.OAA20603@solstice.crest.org>
Message-ID: <199804270027.UAA07350@adan.kingston.net>

Hello Dean,

I am sure some of the list members know of your work. My wife,
Christine, actually visited you folks back in 1976 or 77. Others may
be interested in visiting your web page at
http://www.efn.org/~apro/

I am wondering if you could tell us a bit more about the rocket
stove. Could you elaborate on the way the smoke is "secondarily
combusted". How much control is there over the primary and secondary
air supply?

Your Hayboxes represent an idea which has not, to my knowledge, been
discussed on this list. Has it been adopted into use?

Let me know if you would like to join the list.

Regards, Alex English

> Surprised to find stovers out here. We have been messing with stoves since
> 1976. First with the Lorena, when we didn't understand the difference
> between mass and insulation. Now, we cook with the Rocket stove, insulated
> combustion chamber, cooking takes place above a short, insulated 12"
> chimney in which smoke is secondarily combusted. But, actually, we are now
> more into Hayboxes that simmer the food using retained heat from the pot.
> Saves more fuel than replacing a three stone fire with a fuel efficient
> wood stove. Never know where research leads...In service, Dean Still
>
>
>
Alex English
RR 2 Odessa Ontario
Canada K0H 2H0
Tel 1-613-386-1927
Fax 1-613-386-1211
Stoves Web Site http://www1.kingston.net/~english/Stoves.html

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Mon Apr 27 07:39:50 1998
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:53 2004
Subject: Gasifier burn status
Message-ID: <199804270746_MC2-3B19-56E3@compuserve.com>

Dear Stephen:

You are certainly correct that the "theory of top down burning" is not cut
and dried. (It is hard for me to imagine that there were no isolated
examples of TDB before my tests at SERI/NREL in 1985, but I haven't found
any.)

Agua Das installed an auger feed UNDER the fuel mass shortly after our
first tests at SERI/NREL and showed that one could convert batch operation
into continuous operation (except for possible eventual ash accumulation).
You have now demonstrated that you can add fuel ON TOP of the mass to
achieve continuing operation. This doesn't surprise me, since the gases
are leaving the charcoal bed at about 600C, high enough for pyrolysis of
the added fuel. However, if you add more than a few layers at a time you
have a "layer cake" double TDB pyrolyser.

It would be interesting to analyse the gases from (a) regular top down, (b)
top down after the volatiles are burned off and (c) your case where
volatilve fuel is added on top. To the best of my knowledge there has
never been any financial support of TDB and such tests require $. (ie
$100/gas analysis). So far most of us are motivated by developing better
wood-gas cooking stoves for developing countries, and certainly not yet by
the $$. It is surprising that there aren't more members from India and
China, the two countries that could benefit most from improved village
cookstoves.

It is my intention when I finish Volume I of our (NREL & BEF) SURVEY OF
BIOMASS GASIFICATION to start a series of tests before I start Volume II.
(Hope to get final draft to NREL this month.) There is still a lot of
scientific information needed in gasification.

One series would be on propogation of the pyrolysis reaction AGAINST the
flow of air as in TDB charcoal-cooking stoves. What is the influence of
water content? (Try 0,10, 20, 30% MC) What is the influence of air
velocity (try superficial velocities of 0.001,0.01,0.1 and 1 m/s). What is
the energy content of the pyrolysis gases released? What is the charcoal
yield?

I believe that a series of clean cut questions and answers will advance our
cause more than tinkering with materials of construction etc. If anyone
wants to start questions and answers now, rather than waiting, please be my
guest.

Back to the book....

TOM REED

Message text written by "Stephen Allen"
>
Just a quick question. I have been running burn tests with a typical 2 can
gasifier stove. I have just tried something that I would like
clarification on, if possible. As per usual, I am burning the fuel cell top
down. However, this time, when the cell is nearly exhausted, I begin adding
fuel from the top of the burner!!! Guess what??? The flame hold at the
secondary intake remained constant!....An even blue flame holding steady as
I fed the cell fresh wood. This cell is now burning from the bottom up!. At
flame out, the fuel cell appears to be still producing charcoal. Is the
theory of top dowwn burning really so cut and dried???? It doesn't seem to
be!

From english at adan.kingston.net Mon Apr 27 21:53:56 1998
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:53 2004
Subject: Re. Hello from Aprovecho Research Center
Message-ID: <199804280201.WAA13782@adan.kingston.net>

Dear Stovers, Dean,
I have taken the liberty to quote Dean's private response.

> Dear Alex-Sure, please put me on the list.

Dean has been added to the list.

> Can you tell me a bit of it's history. Are people interested in
> appropriate tech stoves or more First World stuff?

This list is mostly focused on stoves for people who depend on
biomass fuels, although we often discuss relevant "first world"
technology. Ancient history of the list is contained in the archives
at http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/index.html

Some of the last year is displayed at the address at the end of this
message.

>Here's some stuff on the Rocket stove: heat that goes into the
> stove body is pretty much wasted so we insulate around the
> combustion chamber and chimney. They form an "L". Insulation,
> usually wood ash ,surrounds the "L", usually 4-6 inch cylinders made
> from fired clay or tin cans. The stove body, Lorena or a 5 gallon
> tin, holds in the ash. Cooking is done on top of the chimney. If the
> chimney is long enough, more than 10", smoke that escapes the
> combustion chamber is mostly combusted. Complete combustion occurs
> when the chimney is completely filled with flame. Longer chimneys do
> better. Also downfeed arrangements for the twigs pass the smoke over
> a bed of glowing charcoal which assists secondary combustion.But
> people prefer sidefeed so we usually go that way although there is
> also less pre-heating of air for combustion. The twigs sit on a
> grate and are shoved in to the combustion area at the base of the
> chimney so the ends of the sticks are combusting which meters the
> fuel, resulting in less initial smoke. This grate rests in the
> opening in the short end of the "L" about one third up from the
> bottom. Sticks pretty much fill the space on top of the grate.
> Hopefully, air is then pulled under the grate to rush up through the
> sticks as they burn. Filling the opening somewhat controls the
> primary air. We also sometimes close off or partially close off the
> entrance which does increase the heat as less cold air enters the
> system. But people tend not to like these bothersome addittions. We
> design using the same cross sectional area throughout our stoves,
> breadovens, heat exchangers, etc.
>
I would like to here more about your test methods. Do you do any
emissins testing? What sort of efficiencies do you get with the Rocket
stove?

Some list members often use a simple boiling water
test where the efficiency is ecpressed as a ratio of the mass of water
boiled away over the mass of wood burned.

> But, we found out a few years ago that combustion efficiency is
> really not where it's at for saving fuel. The other side of the
> problem, heat getting into the pot, matters more, that'a the much
> less efficient part of the system analysis. So we (Dr. Larry
> Winiarski designs all of our stoves and I head a team that tests
> them) put skirts around the pot and then insulated the pot and then
> put a cover over the skirt making an oven, etc. We figured out that
> a very small gap between the skirt and pot was necessary for best
> delivery of heat. And we wound up with both "complete" combustion
> and great heat delivery.
>
> Then we found out that all of that wasn't really where fuel
> efficiency was at! If we needed best delivery to the pot then a
> Haybox became the answer . A Haybox is only a pretty well insulated,
> pretty airtight box. Can be made from a variety of indigenous
> materials. Imagine what would happen if you put a bunch of beans at
> 212F. in a perfectly insulated box. They would cook without more
> additional heat. We found that R7 or greater cooks pinto beans. So
> now instead of cooking beans for an hour or better the stove is only
> used for ten minutes, until the water, pot, beans, etc. are 212F.
> and then the pot is put in the insulated box. We save 50 minutes of
> fuel. Cooking for a short time on the stove saves the big amounts of
> fuel, as can be imagined! In fact tests available on the homepage
> show that using a haybox is more important than replacing an open
> fire with one of our very cool Rocket stoves. Hayboxes have been
> widely used especially in South Africa and are part of indigenous
> cooking in Tibet.

Perhaps some of the listers could comment on this very simple idea.

>
> The next time we want to invent something like better cook stoves,
> I'm going to take a camara and tour a place like Tibet where they
> "ran out of fuel" hundreds of years ago. Evolution makes better
> stoves( read: cooking systems) than do appropriate technologists.
> But, it's been great fun and a rewarding intellectual chase! In
> service, Dean

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

From english at adan.kingston.net Mon Apr 27 21:53:59 1998
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:53 2004
Subject: Webpage update
Message-ID: <199804280201.WAA13791@adan.kingston.net>

Stovers,
Priyadarshini Karve has sent some additional information which has
been added to the first instalment. Check the NEW section of the
webpage below.

Ms. Karve,
The use of a grate on the single pan model or GRIHALAXMI STOVE
reminds me a bit of a bluff body. I would be interested in seeing the
flame behaviour. Have your tests quantified the effects of this grate
in terms of added efficiency or reduced emissions?

Regards, Alex

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

From english at adan.kingston.net Mon Apr 27 21:53:58 1998
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:53 2004
Subject: (Fwd) BOUNCE stoves@crest.org: Non-member submission
Message-ID: <199804280201.WAA13798@adan.kingston.net>

Reply-To: <c.roth@gobdc.com>
From: "Charlie Roth" <c.roth@gobdc.com>
To: <stoves@crest.org>
Subject: Smoke abatement on charcoal kilns

I am trying to come up with a design for a thermal oxidizer for Missouri
charcoal kilns using sawdust as a primary fuel source. I've seen several
of these units and found problems such as sparks and burning sawdust
emitted from the stacks, burning that still does not eliminate all the
smoke, etc.

Is there anything written on the proper design of thermal oxidizers for
batch charcoal operations like those used in Missouri?

Charlie Roth
BDC, Inc.

From gpk at physics.unipune.ernet.in Tue Apr 28 04:56:40 1998
From: gpk at physics.unipune.ernet.in (Priyadarshini Karve(SBO))
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:53 2004
Subject: Re. Hello from Aprovecho Research Center
In-Reply-To: <199804280201.WAA13782@adan.kingston.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.96.980428141701.16180C-100000@physics>

Dear Stovers,
The concept of using an insulated haybox for cooking is an
ingenious idea.
In India, we have been promoting the use of a similar box mainly
for keeping the food warm. It has also been successfully used as a rice
cooker. The stove is used for bringing the water to boil and thereafter
the cooking pot is transferred to the hot box wherein the rice gets
cooked. The device has enjoyed moderate popularity in the Coastal areas of
Maharashtra where rice is the main food.
Our box is made of two aluminium containers(the like of which are
commonly used for grain storage and can be bought from any household goods
shop), one container of a smaller diameter than the other. The smaller
container is placed inside the bigger one and the space between their
walls is filled with well packed sawdust which acts as the insulation. The
lid too can be similarly insulated.
I will request my colleagues working on stove designs to carry out
some trials to find out whether the box can be used for cooking
vegetables, etc.

priyadarshini Karve.

From gpk at physics.unipune.ernet.in Tue Apr 28 07:21:49 1998
From: gpk at physics.unipune.ernet.in (Priyadarshini Karve(SBO))
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:53 2004
Subject: stovers conference once again
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.96.980428164157.18568A-100000@physics>

Dear Stovers,
I happened to mention the attempts of organising a stovers
conference to the members of the Governing Body of Appropriate Rural
Technology Institute (ARTI). They were quite thrilled with the concept and
have asked me to pass on the following message to all of you.

'It is unfortunate that Dr. Judkevitch and others are finding it difficult
to get funding for such an event. We feel that there is a good chance of
getting financial backing if the conference is organised in India. The
Indian government has a ministry of nonconventional energy sources, which
is already sponsoring a nationwide programme on stove R & D. There are
also the ministries of environment and rural development. All such
government bodies as well as several other related organisations working
in India should, in principle, be glad to sposor the event. Another
advantage of holding the conference in a developing country like India is
that the scientists can closely observe and interact directly with the
beneficiaries of their research. There are nearly twenty different
research groups in India that are, in some form or other, working in this
field. These too would benefit greatly if the event is organised in India.
This is advantageous from the practical point of view too. Everything is
comparatively cheap in India so that even a small amount of funding in
terms of dollars can go a long way.
In view of these considerations, ARTI would like to organise such a
conference here in Pune around December 1999. In a week or so we will send
out proposals for financial assistance to various potential sponsors
mentioned above. In order to make a concrete proposal, we invite
suggestions from all of you regarding the topics that can be addressed in
the conference. We feel that the focus should be on conversion of biomass
to more efficient fuel forms and designing of suitable devices for
utilisation of these fuels.
If, in the meanwhile, Dr. Judkevitch succeeds in getting adequate funding
for the conference in Russia, we can always change the dates of our
conference so that there is a sufficiently long time duration (say about
an year or so) between the two events.'

Please send in your comments, suggestions, etc.

Priyadarshini Karve

From elk at arcc.or.ke Tue Apr 28 09:14:23 1998
From: elk at arcc.or.ke (E. L. Karstad)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:53 2004
Subject: The Millenium Stovers Conference - India 1999
Message-ID: <v01510101b16baec13e93@[199.2.222.131]>

Hello- still here & still battling with mounds of smoking sawdust trying
to figure out how to turn it into charcoal.

P.K. you're a star! I agree- India would be be a fantastic venue. After
all, there's no developed country that this group of stovers could learn as
much in.

Hopefully, by 1999 I'll have figured out how to carbonise sawdust & will be
conversant enough on the topic to present a paper at Priyadarshini Karve's
proposed conference. And a note on the utilisation of charcoal vendor's
waste - appropriate briquetting. Sign me up.

Speaking of- I've just converted an old meat mincer into a briquetter
(extruder?) that is, at it's currently low speed of 54 rpm, producing just
under 1 kg/min of 1" dia. by 3" long briquettes which are subsequently
sundried.

Acceptability is good. I've got about 20 kiosks (small informal roadside
restaurants) running on these briquettes within Nairobi at the moment.
Demand is outstripping supply.

It works!

elk

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

From rmiranda at sdnnic.org.ni Tue Apr 28 21:36:53 1998
From: rmiranda at sdnnic.org.ni (Rogerio Miranda)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:53 2004
Subject: stovers conference once again
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.96.980428164157.18568A-100000@physics>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.16.19980428130346.2c7f249c@ns.sdnnic.org.ni.>

At 04:59 PM 4/28/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Dear Stovers,
In order to make a concrete proposal, we invite
>suggestions from all of you regarding the topics that can be addressed in
>the conference. We feel that the focus should be on conversion of biomass
>to more efficient fuel forms and designing of suitable devices for
>utilisation of these fuels.

Dear Priyadarshini Karve: from our side, we would be very interested in
seing discussions in the following topics:

. serial production of improved woodstoves
. microcredit financing systems for consumers
. costs and effects of woodsmoke in the human health
. donor financing for improved woodstoves dissemination programs
. integrated approach for woodfuel modernization
. what happened to FWD

India seems to be an excelent place to host such a conference. Good luck on
this initiative.

Regards

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

From kmbryden at iastate.edu Tue Apr 28 21:52:09 1998
From: kmbryden at iastate.edu (mark bryden)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:53 2004
Subject: stovers conference once again
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19980428210143.006fab2c@pop-1.iastate.edu>

Stovers,

I have some reluctance about the December 1999 date (although I am
enthusiastic about the conference). I think that before about December 16,
classes will still be in session and near completion. This is a difficult
time for me and other professor types to leave for a week or more. And
later in December others may reluctant to miss Christmas.

I would suggest early January 1999.

Mark Bryden

Priyadarshini Karve wrote

>In view of these considerations, ARTI would like to organise such a
>conference here in Pune around December 1999. In a week or so we will send
>out proposals for financial assistance to various potential sponsors
>
___________________________________________________________
Mark Bryden, Ph.D. Assistant Professor
kmbryden@iastate.edu Iowa State University
ph: 515-294-3891 3030 Black Engineering Bldg
fax: 515-294-3261 Ames, Iowa 50011-2161

From kmbryden at iastate.edu Tue Apr 28 21:57:10 1998
From: kmbryden at iastate.edu (mark bryden)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:53 2004
Subject: stovers conference once again - correction
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19980428210645.00735e9c@pop-1.iastate.edu>

>I would suggest early January 1999.

I meant January 2000
___________________________________________________________
Mark Bryden, Ph.D. Assistant Professor
kmbryden@iastate.edu Iowa State University
ph: 515-294-3891 3030 Black Engineering Bldg
fax: 515-294-3261 Ames, Iowa 50011-2161

From jmoore at netidea.com Wed Apr 29 01:22:04 1998
From: jmoore at netidea.com (Jim Moore)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:53 2004
Subject: (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.96.980428164157.18568A-100000@physics>
Message-ID: <3546BA2E.DBCD18DD@netidea.com>

Priyadarshini Karve(SBO) wrote:

> Dear Stovers,
> I happened to mention the attempts of organising a stovers
> conference to the members of the Governing Body of Appropriate Rural
> Technology Institute (ARTI). They were quite thrilled with the concept and
> have asked me to pass on the following message to all of you.
>
> 'It is unfortunate that Dr. Judkevitch and others are finding it difficult
> to get funding for such an event. We feel that there is a good chance of
> getting financial backing if the conference is organised in India. The
> Indian government has a ministry of nonconventional energy sources, which
> is already sponsoring a nationwide programme on stove R & D. There are
> also the ministries of environment and rural development. All such
> government bodies as well as several other related organisations working
> in India should, in principle, be glad to sposor the event. Another
> advantage of holding the conference in a developing country like India is
> that the scientists can closely observe and interact directly with the
> beneficiaries of their research. There are nearly twenty different
> research groups in India that are, in some form or other, working in this
> field. These too would benefit greatly if the event is organised in India.
> This is advantageous from the practical point of view too. Everything is
> comparatively cheap in India so that even a small amount of funding in
> terms of dollars can go a long way.
> In view of these considerations, ARTI would like to organise such a
> conference here in Pune around December 1999. In a week or so we will send
> out proposals for financial assistance to various potential sponsors
> mentioned above. In order to make a concrete proposal, we invite
> suggestions from all of you regarding the topics that can be addressed in
> the conference. We feel that the focus should be on conversion of biomass
> to more efficient fuel forms and designing of suitable devices for
> utilisation of these fuels.
> If, in the meanwhile, Dr. Judkevitch succeeds in getting adequate funding
> for the conference in Russia, we can always change the dates of our
> conference so that there is a sufficiently long time duration (say about
> an year or so) between the two events.'
>
> Please send in your comments, suggestions, etc.
>
> Priyadarshini Karve

--
unsubscribe

From english at adan.kingston.net Wed Apr 29 21:10:11 1998
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:53 2004
Subject: (Fwd) BOUNCE stoves@crest.org: Non-member submission from [
Message-ID: <199804300117.VAA03080@adan.kingston.net>

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
From: owner-stoves@crest.org

From: Medical <medical@saber.net>
Reply-To: medical@saber.net
Organization: Round Valley Indian Health Project

Hello,
I have been to Honduras and have seen some of the Lorena stoves. Is
there any informational phamphlets that I can obtain to study into their
use and benefits. Thank-you
Linda Lohne

From woodcoal at mailbox.alkor.ru Thu Apr 30 08:02:02 1998
From: woodcoal at mailbox.alkor.ru (Woodcoal)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:53 2004
Subject: celebrate May 1
Message-ID: <199804301209.QAA29506@ns.alkor.ru>

Dear stovers,
Tradition to celebrate May 1 as day of international solidarity was born in
America. Though kommunists also have made this day by the holiday, but it
is good day, fore to recollect the friends all over the world and to wish
success and prosperity.
I shall celebrate this day, recollecting the new friends, which has found
through a network.
Kind health, happiness and successes by all to you
Sincerely Jury Judkevitch (Rossia)

From english at adan.kingston.net Thu Apr 30 22:59:21 1998
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:35:53 2004
Subject: Hmmmm
Message-ID: <199805010306.XAA02477@adan.kingston.net>

Dear Stovers,

There seems to be some confusion about where to send answers. I
think it stems from the 'Reply' button. I believe (?) that the list
was set up so the the "send reply to" portion of the message would
not be the stoves@crest.org thus reducing the possibility of endless
looping and flooded mail boxes. However that doesn't mean that you
can't manually reply to the list. Indeed I would encourage it.

The forwarded" Bounce" messages are from folks who for whatever
reason have decided not to subscribe. I get to play editor and pass
the ones along that seem relevant. You should see the rest!

Alex

BioEnergy Lists: Improved Biomass Cooking Stoves

April 1998 Biomass Cooking Stoves Archive