January 1999 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 dstill at epud.org Sun Jan 3 01:35:57 1999
From: dstill at epud.org (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:12 2004
Subject: Masonry Stoves Chat
Message-ID: <199901030622.WAA27387@seahorse.epud.net>

Masonry Wood Stoves
(Some Basic Functions)
by
Dean Still
Aprovecho Research Center
apro@efn.org

A few people on the CREST lists have recently suggested that adding mass
near an ordinary wood stove might accomplish some beneficial heat
storage, mimicking the function of a real masonry high mass heating
stove. In an effort to elucidate the functioning of a masonry stove,
Dr. Larry Winiarski, and I worked up a few "guesstimates" that we
believe are more or less close to describing what's happening in this
type of stove. We introduce our guesses to hopefully shed light on the
parameters we see as important in design adaptations.

1.) It is pretty darn hard to get a large percentage of heat into a
substance like air, water, rock, cement. A pot set directly over a flame
only absorbs about 10% to 20% of the total btu's in the flame. The rest
shoots uselessly past the pot. To optimize heat absorption, flame and
hot flue gases must be forced to contact the surface of the mass, to rub
against it. (Also, for optimal heat transfer there has to be a big
difference in temperatures, good conductivity, etc.) Heat in a six inch
flue pipe mostly shoots up the middle of the pipe, not much heat is
transferred to the wall of the pipe. It's better to make a different
shape of chimney pipe: a shallow, rectangular, one inch high passageway
with the same cross sectional area is much more efficient. Heat in a
narrow, tight passageway is forced to rub against the walls of the mass
and a higher percentage of the heat is absorbed.

2.) Here is our guess about how much surface area in an optimized air to
mass heat exchanger is needed to accomplish heat transfer: Ten square
feet of optimized surface area, in which flame or very hot flue gas is
made to rub against mass, will lower temperatures about 200 degrees F.
Temperatures in the combustion chamber are about 2,300 degrees F. We
want exit temperatures, out of the chimney, to be around 200 degrees F.
So, in an optimized situation, at least 100 square feet of exposed
surface area is necessary to absorb the optimal amount of heat into the
mass. As a guess, we better figure that three to four times of non
optimized surface area, such as a round chimney pipe covered with mass,
will be needed to accomplish the same goal.

3.) It so happens that, in our experience, an optimized air to air heat
exchanger needs roughly the same amount of surface area (10sf) to reduce
temperatures by 200 degrees F.

4.) To summarize: an efficient heat exchange requires a lot of surface
area in even an optimized design! Piling mass near a stove can result in
very poor heat transfer. It will probably store only a small percentage
of the released heat because the heat from the stove is relatively cool
and there isn't sufficient "rubbing".

5.) Stone or cement, or steel etc. all store approximately .2 btu's per
degree of temperature rise(F.). A normal house will require something
like 20,000 btu's per hour to keep it warm on a not too cold winter day.
1,000 pounds of such mass, if warmed up to 200 degrees F, stores 40,000
btu's, which is enough to keep the house warm for two hours. 10,000
pounds of mass, driven up to the same temperature, warms the house for
ten hours.

6.) Larry figures that you need something like 125sf or more of 200
degree mass exposed to room air to transfer the 200,000 btu's in ten
hours.

7. A high mass masonry stove does two great things as well as all of the
preceding: 8.) wood is burned quickly, at high temperatures, reducing
smoke( without overheating the room) and 9.) the chimney and air feeding
the fire are tightly closed off as soon as the fire dies so that warm
room air doesn't escape up the chimney encouraging increased cold air
exchange into the room.

10.) All of the points raised here are met in a good masonry stove and,
together, the design characteristics combine to create a stove that
functions efficiently. It's pretty hard to pull any part of this design
into use without dragging the whole time honored concept along with the
component part. It's easy to overlook how hard it is to get heat into
mass. It's also easy to hope that a small amount of mass will store an
appreciable amount of heat. But delving into the function of the
masonry stove gives one a real appreciation for a tool that, in its
combination of features, seems captivating, beautiful. Larry and I have
a much deeper respect for this type of stove after our contemplation of
it.

11.) (Postscript.) Air to air heating stoves can be both as clean
burning and as fuel efficient as these air to mass stoves. The main
design problem is to create a very hot fire using a smaller amount of
wood and to make sure that the heat stays in the room without shooting
out of the chimney! Many air to air type heating stoves, if fed
properly, can accomplish clean burning and efficient heat transfer to
the room without resorting to bulky and expensive heat storage in mass.
An air to air heat exchanger can reduce exit temperatures just like an
air to mass model. The substantive difference is that a high mass
masonry stove encourages big, hot burns.The masonry heat storage should
also be preferable in drafty houses, where heating the air is defeated
by many hourly air exchanges.

12. (PPS) (Mr. Norbert Senf very kindly responded to this message with a
few stove facts: he is a real expert on this type of stove. According to
Mr. Senf there are high mass stoves that achieve about 70 % heat retention
using only about 50 square feet of thermal mass surface area. This is
achieved by the use of downdraft which increases by about 25% the
absorption of the heat. He also points out that about 50% of the heat
transfer is accomplished initially in the combustion chamber, mostly by
radiation, where temperatures are very high.)

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Jan 3 19:33:20 1999
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:12 2004
Subject: World Problems #1-#3 - Unhappy New Year
Message-ID: <199901031933_MC2-655D-9265@compuserve.com>

Fellow Bioenergy Visionaries:

Recently Paul Hait said that in the 1970s he attended a Stanford seminar
focussed on defining the most needs of the world (ie of 6 B people, more
than half without most of the benefits of civilization). He said that they
were #1, Cooking and #2, clean water.

I would like to appoint electric power as #3. Once you have power, you
have communication, knowledge and the possibility of fixing #1 and #2.
Without these necessities it will be a very unhappy new year and new
century for 3 B people.
~~~~~
We here in Bioenergy have a major possibility of solving these problems.
STOVES is reporting more change in stoves through gasification than occured
during 10,000 years of "cut and try" or the last decade of funding "stove
development" by NGOs (without much effort to understand the fundamental
pyrolysis, gasification and combustion processes).

Small scale gasification holds the promise of providing electric power at
the mini and micro scales of 100 kW or 1 kW.

Pyrolysis holds the promise of producing activated charcoal, a key material
in water purification.

So let me exhort each of you to see what you can contribute to the welfare
of the world's poor in the decades to come. Personally, I hope our stoves
will be serving a few billion people before I die.... or to put it another
way, I don't intend to die until we get this problem solved.

Yours truly, TOM REED

Thomas B. Reed: The Biomass Energy Foundation
1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
303 278 0558V; 303 278 0560F
E-mail: reedtb@compuserve.com
Stoves List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES:
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
Stoves Webpage
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Jan 3 19:33:31 1999
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:12 2004
Subject: Stove & GasifierTriage
Message-ID: <199901031933_MC2-655D-9262@compuserve.com>

Dear Stovers:

Here's an unpleasant holiday message. Ron Larson hopes that we can focus
our STOVE IMPROVEMENT attention on Khartoum because they have a very
serious stove problem.

While my heart goes out to the inhabitants of Sudan and the world of 2
billion people without adequate cooking or power, I think focusing on those
with the greatest problems, rather than those capable of solving their
problems dilutes our efforts.

I would recommend that we find people in stable political economies who
have some money and fuel and are ready to make the effort to improve their
cooking. That is likely to make the greatest advance in both technology
and distribution of stoves or gasifiers. With that experience under our
belts we can then go on to the poorer and less stable sections.

Comments? Yours for a better world ASAP,
TOM REED

* For those who don't know about triage, after a big battle (Gettysburg,
Blaklava, the Marne, etc.), you line up all the wounded and have an
experienced doctor examine each soldier. Those who won't survive no matter
what, get a red tag. Those who will survive without major treatment get a
green tag. Those who might survive if treated, but not otherwise, get a
yellow tag. All doctors then only treat those with yellow tags. A tough
policy, but any other policy is worse.

War is hell. So is living in the Sudam.

Message text written by Ronal W. Larson
>Stovers:

Some of you will remember several messages from El Fadil. I have
replied privately - expressing a hope to meet him in Khartoum in the near
future. I have also cut him off the list

Then I decided that I should have replied publicly, since others
may have a similar desire to get to Khartoum and to help the Sudanese - who
have a very serious stoves problem. I will send El Fadil's address on to
anyone who is interested.

Ron

>From: "A. A. B. El Fadil" <Elfadil@495-simon.agrartech.uni-hohenheim.de>
>Organization: ATS, Hohenheim University
>To: larcon@sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
>Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 09:03:47 +0200
>Subject: Greetings from El Fadil
>Priority: normal
>
>Dear Mr. Larson,
>
>Merry Christmas and happy new year to you, your family and all list
>members.
>
>I am Leaving tomorrow back to the Sudan. I will keep in contact from
>there (may be e-mail if it is available otherwise per post).
>
>Please sign off.
>
>Best regards El Fadil

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

Stoves List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES:
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
Stoves Webpage
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm
Stoves List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES:
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
Stoves Webpage
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

From larcon at sni.net Sun Jan 3 23:11:52 1999
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:12 2004
Subject: Stove & GasifierTriage
Message-ID: <v01540b02b2b5d23e4c06@[204.131.233.8]>

This is to reply to Tom Reed's message today on Triage and Sudan, with
which I disagree strongly. This is complicated, so bear with me please. I
respond paragraph by paragraph:

Tom said:

>Dear Stovers:
>
>Here's an unpleasant holiday message. Ron Larson hopes that we can focus
>our STOVE IMPROVEMENT attention on Khartoum because they have a very
>serious stove problem.

1. I used neither of the words "focus" nor "because" (please see
full messages below). Mine was a message to say good bye to a friend (Dr.
El Fadil) from Sudan who is now back in Sudan to begin a career in
Government service after 4-5 years in getting a PhD in Germany. The next
message I sent contained his address (which is: Energy Research Institute,
Khartoum Centre P.O. Box 4032, Khartoum SUDAN; Tel. +249 11 451948; Fax
+249 11 770701)

2. But I really do think and wixh to affirm that those interested
in improving stoves should focus on countries which "have a very serious
stoves problem." Should we focus on those which have only a minor problem?
But this is not the concern that I have with Tom's response. See more
below.

3. I did suggest that I will be trying to get to Sudan and that
others "may have a similar desire to get to Khartoum and to help the
Sudanese". This also I wish to reaffirm. I also now wish to go the extra
step of encouraging others, including Tom, to do so also. Below I explain
why.

>
>While my heart goes out to the inhabitants of Sudan and the world of 2
>billion people without adequate cooking or power, I think focusing on those
>with the greatest problems, rather than those capable of solving their
>problems dilutes our efforts.

4. I repeat that I didn't say that I would advocate " focusing on those
with the greatest problems". Clearly more is involved.

5. So now the issue is whether the Sudanese are "capable of
solving their problems..." I contend that they are. I spent parts of 1982
and 1983 there, in part working on stoves. I have been back several times
since and maintain some contact through a Denver Sudanese friend.

6. Here are some of my reasons for believing in the capabilities of
the Sudanese:

a. In 1995, the African countries, working through UN auspices
chose Sudan as one of two African countries two which others countries
would travel to for education on all forms of renewables - including
stoves.

b. By 1983, the Sudanese had about a dozen PhD's in renewables
areas and since have doubled that total. There are many more with Masters
degrees.

c. Their national renewables laboratory set up with USAID and GTZ
funds after 1983 is still functioning and doing good work. I think there
are several dozen researchers working there. I know of no African country
with more Governmental renewables capability and emphasis.

d. Many of the Sudanese renewables experts are in the private
sector - some outside Sudan, of course. I know two (both PhDs) who could
produce high quality stoves in their own factory settings, which they have
moved to in order to sustain their families.

e. Sudan has many large, relatively modern factories. They have
access to funding from rich Arab neighbors - who have seen Sudan as their
"breadbasket".

f. In 1995, I saw a huge irrigated biomass plantation south of
Khartoum - probably the world's largest (and likely to be the most
productive in terms of tonnes per hectare per year). Much of this output
is going into charcoal - the standard fuel in Khartoum. Introducing
improved stoves should be about as easy as pulling this private plantation
off - if it was obvious what to do.

g. As late as the 70's and maybe the 80's, the University of
Khartoum was considered the best University in Africa. At this time, the
honor probably goes to some University in South Africa.

>
>I would recommend that we find people in stable political economies who
>have some money and fuel and are ready to make the effort to improve their
>cooking. That is likely to make the greatest advance in both technology
>and distribution of stoves or gasifiers. With that experience under our
>belts we can then go on to the poorer and less stable sections.

7. I am not sure what Tom means by "fuel" - but assume that he
means biomass. I see no reason that an improved stove should cost more
than $5-$10 dollars and millions of Sudanese have that much available, I'm
sure.

8. There has been and continues to be very sad civil warfare in
the south of Sudan. But a majority of Sudanese are not impacted directly
(indirectly because of the embargo of US and other funds). It is not
impossible that the war could make their readiness for improved stoves even
more strong.

>
>Comments? Yours for a better world ASAP,
> TOM REED
>
>* For those who don't know about triage, after a big battle (Gettysburg,
>Blaklava, the Marne, etc.), you line up all the wounded and have an
>experienced doctor examine each soldier. Those who won't survive no matter
>what, get a red tag. Those who will survive without major treatment get a
>green tag. Those who might survive if treated, but not otherwise, get a
>yellow tag. All doctors then only treat those with yellow tags. A tough
>policy, but any other policy is worse.
>
>War is hell. So is living in the Sudam.
>

9. The key in this story is that the triage is performed by "..an
experienced doctor.." I trust Tom on a lot of topics, but feel it
important to right now publicly question his expertise on the subject of
Sudan.

10. The Sudanese are a very proud, bright, and hard-working
people. Their government is not one I would want to live under. But
supporting a larger stoves programs and recognizing a stoves need is not
the same as supporting the government. Most Sudanese would not agree that
"living in the Sudan" is hell.

11. I have talked about factories, but this is not to say that I
think improved stoves have to be produced in factories. Skilled village
artisans able to work with ceramics or scrap steel may well be a better way
to improve their present fuel consumption practices.

12. I am now even more determined to show that Sudan could be the
place best able of anywhere in the world to introduce charcoal-making
stoves. I only wish my knowledge was a lot more recent - and that it was
easier to communicate there.

13. I hope others will accept Tom's invitation to comment.

Ron

>
>Message text written by Ronal W. Larson
>>Stovers:
>
> Some of you will remember several messages from El Fadil. I have
>replied privately - expressing a hope to meet him in Khartoum in the near
>future. I have also cut him off the list
>
> Then I decided that I should have replied publicly, since others
>may have a similar desire to get to Khartoum and to help the Sudanese - who
>have a very serious stoves problem. I will send El Fadil's address on to
>anyone who is interested.
>
>Ron
>
>
>>From: "A. A. B. El Fadil" <Elfadil@495-simon.agrartech.uni-hohenheim.de>
>>Organization: ATS, Hohenheim University
>>To: larcon@sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
>>Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 09:03:47 +0200
>>Subject: Greetings from El Fadil
>>Priority: normal
>>
>>Dear Mr. Larson,
>>
>>Merry Christmas and happy new year to you, your family and all list
>>members.
>>
>>I am Leaving tomorrow back to the Sudan. I will keep in contact from
>>there (may be e-mail if it is available otherwise per post).
>>
>>Please sign off.
>>
>>Best regards El Fadil
>

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

From elk at net2000ke.com Mon Jan 4 00:32:11 1999
From: elk at net2000ke.com (Elsen Karstad)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:12 2004
Subject: The New Year's Visionaries
Message-ID: <199901040533.IAA18501@net2000ke.com>

From artsolar at usaor.net Mon Jan 4 08:54:07 1999
From: artsolar at usaor.net (Art Lilley)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:13 2004
Subject: Stove & GasifierTriage
In-Reply-To: <v01540b02b2b5d23e4c06@[204.131.233.8]>
Message-ID: <3690C5A8.563AF947@usaor.net>

Absent data, my first impression is to side with Tom's argument based on my own
experience in village electrification. Therefore, for anyone with field experience
that wants to convince people otherwise, the best way (might I say the only
effective way) is with facts, ie, numbers of people converted to sustainable
application of stoves, income levels, locations, conversion rates, successes and
failures, etc. Otherwise, given the potential volitility of the topic, I fear a
more emotionally based set of replies that will accomplish little.

For example, since I have no field experience in stoves, but am anxious to learn, I
can only contribute emotionally at this point. To whit, here's two quotes
supporting the concept of prioritization (triage) that come to mind:
1. "I rob banks cause that's where the money is"...attributed to Willie Sutton
2. "Don't cast your egg on a rock"...a saying often used by a Korean friend

(anybody change their mind? didn't think so)

Art Lilley

"Ronal W. Larson" wrote:

> This is to reply to Tom Reed's message today on Triage and Sudan, with
> which I disagree strongly. This is complicated, so bear with me please. I
> respond paragraph by paragraph:
>
> Tom said:
>
> >Dear Stovers:
> >
> >Here's an unpleasant holiday message. Ron Larson hopes that we can focus
> >our STOVE IMPROVEMENT attention on Khartoum because they have a very
> >serious stove problem.
>
> 1. I used neither of the words "focus" nor "because" (please see
> full messages below). Mine was a message to say good bye to a friend (Dr.
> El Fadil) from Sudan who is now back in Sudan to begin a career in
> Government service after 4-5 years in getting a PhD in Germany. The next
> message I sent contained his address (which is: Energy Research Institute,
> Khartoum Centre P.O. Box 4032, Khartoum SUDAN; Tel. +249 11 451948; Fax
> +249 11 770701)
>
> 2. But I really do think and wixh to affirm that those interested
> in improving stoves should focus on countries which "have a very serious
> stoves problem." Should we focus on those which have only a minor problem?
> But this is not the concern that I have with Tom's response. See more
> below.
>
> 3. I did suggest that I will be trying to get to Sudan and that
> others "may have a similar desire to get to Khartoum and to help the
> Sudanese". This also I wish to reaffirm. I also now wish to go the extra
> step of encouraging others, including Tom, to do so also. Below I explain
> why.
>
> >
> >While my heart goes out to the inhabitants of Sudan and the world of 2
> >billion people without adequate cooking or power, I think focusing on those
> >with the greatest problems, rather than those capable of solving their
> >problems dilutes our efforts.
>
> 4. I repeat that I didn't say that I would advocate " focusing on those
> with the greatest problems". Clearly more is involved.
>
> 5. So now the issue is whether the Sudanese are "capable of
> solving their problems..." I contend that they are. I spent parts of 1982
> and 1983 there, in part working on stoves. I have been back several times
> since and maintain some contact through a Denver Sudanese friend.
>
> 6. Here are some of my reasons for believing in the capabilities of
> the Sudanese:
>
> a. In 1995, the African countries, working through UN auspices
> chose Sudan as one of two African countries two which others countries
> would travel to for education on all forms of renewables - including
> stoves.
>
> b. By 1983, the Sudanese had about a dozen PhD's in renewables
> areas and since have doubled that total. There are many more with Masters
> degrees.
>
> c. Their national renewables laboratory set up with USAID and GTZ
> funds after 1983 is still functioning and doing good work. I think there
> are several dozen researchers working there. I know of no African country
> with more Governmental renewables capability and emphasis.
>
> d. Many of the Sudanese renewables experts are in the private
> sector - some outside Sudan, of course. I know two (both PhDs) who could
> produce high quality stoves in their own factory settings, which they have
> moved to in order to sustain their families.
>
> e. Sudan has many large, relatively modern factories. They have
> access to funding from rich Arab neighbors - who have seen Sudan as their
> "breadbasket".
>
> f. In 1995, I saw a huge irrigated biomass plantation south of
> Khartoum - probably the world's largest (and likely to be the most
> productive in terms of tonnes per hectare per year). Much of this output
> is going into charcoal - the standard fuel in Khartoum. Introducing
> improved stoves should be about as easy as pulling this private plantation
> off - if it was obvious what to do.
>
> g. As late as the 70's and maybe the 80's, the University of
> Khartoum was considered the best University in Africa. At this time, the
> honor probably goes to some University in South Africa.
>
> >
> >I would recommend that we find people in stable political economies who
> >have some money and fuel and are ready to make the effort to improve their
> >cooking. That is likely to make the greatest advance in both technology
> >and distribution of stoves or gasifiers. With that experience under our
> >belts we can then go on to the poorer and less stable sections.
>
> 7. I am not sure what Tom means by "fuel" - but assume that he
> means biomass. I see no reason that an improved stove should cost more
> than $5-$10 dollars and millions of Sudanese have that much available, I'm
> sure.
>
> 8. There has been and continues to be very sad civil warfare in
> the south of Sudan. But a majority of Sudanese are not impacted directly
> (indirectly because of the embargo of US and other funds). It is not
> impossible that the war could make their readiness for improved stoves even
> more strong.
>
> >
> >Comments? Yours for a better world ASAP,
> > TOM REED
> >
> >* For those who don't know about triage, after a big battle (Gettysburg,
> >Blaklava, the Marne, etc.), you line up all the wounded and have an
> >experienced doctor examine each soldier. Those who won't survive no matter
> >what, get a red tag. Those who will survive without major treatment get a
> >green tag. Those who might survive if treated, but not otherwise, get a
> >yellow tag. All doctors then only treat those with yellow tags. A tough
> >policy, but any other policy is worse.
> >
> >War is hell. So is living in the Sudam.
> >
>
> 9. The key in this story is that the triage is performed by "..an
> experienced doctor.." I trust Tom on a lot of topics, but feel it
> important to right now publicly question his expertise on the subject of
> Sudan.
>
> 10. The Sudanese are a very proud, bright, and hard-working
> people. Their government is not one I would want to live under. But
> supporting a larger stoves programs and recognizing a stoves need is not
> the same as supporting the government. Most Sudanese would not agree that
> "living in the Sudan" is hell.
>
> 11. I have talked about factories, but this is not to say that I
> think improved stoves have to be produced in factories. Skilled village
> artisans able to work with ceramics or scrap steel may well be a better way
> to improve their present fuel consumption practices.
>
> 12. I am now even more determined to show that Sudan could be the
> place best able of anywhere in the world to introduce charcoal-making
> stoves. I only wish my knowledge was a lot more recent - and that it was
> easier to communicate there.
>
> 13. I hope others will accept Tom's invitation to comment.
>
> Ron
>
> >
> >Message text written by Ronal W. Larson
> >>Stovers:
> >
> > Some of you will remember several messages from El Fadil. I have
> >replied privately - expressing a hope to meet him in Khartoum in the near
> >future. I have also cut him off the list
> >
> > Then I decided that I should have replied publicly, since others
> >may have a similar desire to get to Khartoum and to help the Sudanese - who
> >have a very serious stoves problem. I will send El Fadil's address on to
> >anyone who is interested.
> >
> >Ron
> >
> >
> >>From: "A. A. B. El Fadil" <Elfadil@495-simon.agrartech.uni-hohenheim.de>
> >>Organization: ATS, Hohenheim University
> >>To: larcon@sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
> >>Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 09:03:47 +0200
> >>Subject: Greetings from El Fadil
> >>Priority: normal
> >>
> >>Dear Mr. Larson,
> >>
> >>Merry Christmas and happy new year to you, your family and all list
> >>members.
> >>
> >>I am Leaving tomorrow back to the Sudan. I will keep in contact from
> >>there (may be e-mail if it is available otherwise per post).
> >>
> >>Please sign off.
> >>
> >>Best regards El Fadil
> >
>
> Ronal W. Larson, PhD
> 21547 Mountsfield Dr.
> Golden, CO 80401, USA
> 303/526-9629; FAX same with warning
> larcon@sni.net
>
> Stoves List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES:
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
> Stoves Webpage
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
> For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Mon Jan 4 13:22:04 1999
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:13 2004
Subject: Firewood measure
Message-ID: <199901041322_MC2-6572-6A3A@compuserve.com>

Sue et al:

A CHORD is a stack of wood measuring 4X4X8 ft3. It is unbelievably big and
we have been chewing on a chord for two years. Here in Denver a chord of
softwood runs $125 - $150; hardwood more. A softwood chord weighs about a
ton, a hardwood chord a ton and a half, but of course these are very
approximate and site specific.

A "Face Chord" is 4X8XStove size or whatever the vendor specifies,
typically 18".

I don't know if a "Rick" is an official measure, and I hope someone else
does. They burn "ricks" at Jack Daniels to make activated charcoal! It
appeared to be about 4X4X4, but cross stacked to have a lot of air access.

Yours truly, TOM
REED
How much firewood is in a cord of wood (dimensions of cord)?
How much firewood is in a rick of wood (dimensions of rick)?

Thanks for the info.

Sue
<Su0006397@aol.com>
<

From elk at net2000ke.com Tue Jan 5 13:50:38 1999
From: elk at net2000ke.com (Elsen Karstad)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:13 2004
Subject: First Ignition- Large Downdraft Sawdust Carboniser
Message-ID: <199901051548.SAA22805@net2000ke.com>

Half an hour of thick white smoke and four out of five carbonising bedslit, then whooosh! Ignition. Clear gas from the 8 m. high chimney and hugeamounts of radiated heat. No smoke whatsoever. The kilns are gobblingsawdust as fast as two people can comfortably hand feed them. The plan isto rotate the kiln operattion over the five beds, emptying one whilefilling another while three are in operation. All are valved in line to thechimney/combustion chamber.Looking good! The new big sawdust carboniser is functioning according toplan so far. I'll run it for 8 hours and see how much charcoal I get.The prototype extruder is still with the engineers- having problems gettingoutput up over 2 kg/minute of clay-bound charcoal briquettes. Might have tosettle for that rate and negotiate prices while ordering a second unit.Always safer to run two rather than one machine I guess. Vee-belts slip ifthe gearing runs much over 100 rpm (this design is based on a scaled-upmeat mincer).I'll report back on the rate of conversion for the sawdust carboniser tomorrow.elk~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Elsen L. Karstad , P.O. Box 24371 Nairobi Kenyaelk@net2000ke.com tel/fax (+ 254 2) 884437

From elk at net2000ke.com Tue Jan 5 14:05:08 1999
From: elk at net2000ke.com (e. karstad)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:13 2004
Subject: 1st Ignition- New Downdraft Sawdust Carboniser.
Message-ID: <v01510100b2b77f80599c@[195.202.65.64]>

Looking good! The new big sawdust carboniser is functioning according to
plan so far. I'll run it for 8 hours and see how much charcoal I get.

The prototype extruder is still with the engineers- having problems getting
output up over 2 kg/minute of clay-bound charcoal briquettes. Might have to
settle for that rate and negotiate prices while ordering a second unit.
Always safer to run two rather than one machine I guess. Vee-belts slip if
the gearing runs much over 100 rpm (this design is based on a scaled-up
meat mincer).

I'll report back on the rate of conversion for the sawdust carboniser tomorrow.

elk

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:
E.L. Karstad :
P.O. Box 24371 :
Nairobi, Kenya :
Fax/tel 884437 :
elk@net2000ke.com :
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'

From CAMPBELLDB at cdm.com Tue Jan 5 16:47:30 1999
From: CAMPBELLDB at cdm.com (Dan Campbell)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:13 2004
Subject: New World Bank report: energy from biomass
Message-ID: <199901052147.QAA08258@cdm.com>

Energy from Biomass:A Review of Combustion and Gassification Technologies

Peter Quaak, Harrie Knoef, Hubert Stassen, authors

World Bank Technical Paper No. 422

Energy Series

While energy is essential for development, standard fossil fuels are
often in short supply in countries where it is needed most. However,
alternative fuel resources abound in the form of agricultural and municipal
waste or "biomass." This report reviews the state of the art of biomass
combustion and gassification systems, their advantages and disadvantages.
It also encourages investment in use of these technologies to enable
developing countries to better exploit their biomass resources and help
close the gap between their energy needs and their energy supply.

1999. 77 pages. 8-3/8x10-3/4. Stock no. 14335 (ISBN 0-8213- 4335-1).
Price code S20/$20.00.

Subject category Energy and mining / Technology / Agriculture

From elk at net2000ke.com Wed Jan 6 05:35:43 1999
From: elk at net2000ke.com (e. karstad)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:13 2004
Subject: First Trila- New Sawdust Downdraft Carboniser
Message-ID: <v01510100b2b8d1816cc7@[195.202.65.85]>

Results from yesterdays trial run of the sawdust carboniser:

1725 kg raw air-dried sawdust consumed.

405 kg charcoal powder produced

Coversion rate 23.5%

Duration of run: 8 hours 10 minutes

Rate of production: 50 kg/hour charcoal produced, 213 kg/hour sawdust input.

Total kiln area: 14.9 m sq. over 5 beds.

Carbonisation rate per m2: 3.36 kg/m2/hr.

There are several areas where improvements can be made and a greater
throughput realised. Startup was slow, with three out of five beds being
initially fired. It appears that all five beds can be started at once
without any undue problem to the sequential emptying and reloading of the
five kiln/beds.

Ronal will be pleased to note that wood is only required to initiate the
chimney flue suction and to preheat the combustion chamber. Once flaring
had begun (after a half hour), no more ('sparkplu') wood was necessary and
flaring continued without interruption for the entire trial.

Some hair-line cracking of the rock/cement combustion chamber was noted- as
expected- but damage was minimal as there is a lot of baling wire embedded
in the structure holding everything together.

It sure is a shame to see all that heat go to waste! The only smoke
produced was during emptying of the beds when the carbonised sawdust is
stirred and some residual unpyrolysed material mixes with the hot charcoal
powder.

200 liter drums were used with sealable lids to extinguish the carbonised
sawdust. The material was rammed into the drums- full weight around 50 kg.
After one hour in the drum, the warm charcoal was poured out and slightly
dampened with a garden watering can/sprinkler to ensure that re-ignition
did not occur. Records were kept of water used and deducted from final
charcoal wieghts.

The next step, after a few more burns, is to invite some timber mill owners
around to see this in operation and start working towards getting a
carboniser installed adjacent to a mill or two.

elk

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:
E.L. Karstad :
P.O. Box 24371 :
Nairobi, Kenya :
Fax/tel 884437 :
elk@net2000ke.com :
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'

From mheat at mha-net.org Wed Jan 6 08:24:20 1999
From: mheat at mha-net.org (Norbert Senf)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:13 2004
Subject: Fwd: Re: Wood combustion emissions
Message-ID: <4.1.19990106082015.00acfa00@mha-net.org>

Hello Stovers:

I received the following letter recently, and thought that it would be of
interest to some of you on the list.........New Year's
Greetings.......Norbert

Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 15:03:10 -0400
To: "Thomas, Amy E" <Thomasa@BATTELLE.ORG>
From: Norbert Senf <mheat@mha-net.org>
Subject: Re: Wood combustion emissions
Cc: jaasma, skip, Alex_English, Bev, don_fugler, Greg_Allen,
Jerry_Frisch, John Crouch, John Lagamba, John_Fisher, john_gulland,
Northern Sonoma County Air Pollu, Paul Tiegs, Rod Zander, Tex_McLeod,
Finiol_Gary

At 08:32 AM 31/12/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Mr. Senf:
>
>My name is Amy Thomas of Battelle Memorial Institute, a contractor
working
>with EPA in implementing the Binational Toxics Strategy (BNS).
The BNS was
>signed by Canada and the U.S. in 1997, committing the two countries
to
>reduce and virtually eliminate toxic substances in the Great Lakes
region.
>I spoke with your administrator, Beverly Madrois, who suggested I
e-mail
>you, as you are frequently travelling.
>
>One of the toxic chemicals targeted for reduction in the BNS is
>benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P). A significant source of B(a)P has been
determined
>to be residential wood combustion. I am aware of EPA's 1988
NSPS which
>applies to woodstoves but not to masonry heaters. I also
understand that in
>addition to the type of wood-burning device used, the way in which
wood is
>burned can control emissions.
>
>My question to you is, what do you propose is the best way to reduce
B(a)P
>emissions from residential wood combustion? Would educating
consumers on
>this matter accomplish much? For example, a pamphlet could be
sent to
>consumers along with winter utility bills. Or would some kind
of incentive
>be more effective, such as offering credit for trading in older
more
>polluting woodstoves and fireplace inserts for cleaner burning
devices?
>
>I'd welcome any ideas you have. Thank you for your time.
>
>Sincerely,
>Amy Thomas
>Battelle Memorial Institute
>(614) 424-3431

Dear Ms. Thomas

Woodburning emissions is a complicated issue, as I'm sure you are aware.
PM-10 emissions have had the most field measurements, so PM-10 results
are probably a good first approximation to B(a)P. The most recent summary
of in-house field studies that I'm aware of is

Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, 1992.

A brief synopsis of AP-42 estimates for PM-10 emission factors for
individual residential woodburning devices is as follows:

Emission factor, g/kg of PM-10

Residential
fireplace:          17.3
Old technology
woodstove:       15.3
EPA Phase II woodstove: 7.3
EPA Phase II pellet
stove:      2.1
Masonry
heater:         2.8

A separate discussion could be had around the basis, reliability, and
variability of each of these values, but to date this is the most
realistic data that I've seen.

In my opinion, the largest reduction would occur through a changeout
program, since the replacement rate for old technology woodstoves is low.
Undoubtedly, benefits would also be derived from a consumer education
campaign, since a characteristic of woodburning emissions is that they
are very operator dependent, particularly in older stoves.

The main issue is smoldering combustion, and there is substantial
evidence that the emissions ratio between smoldering combustion and
flaming combustion can be two orders of magnitude. I have also seem some
evidence that as the PM-10 factor goes down, particularly from the higher
values, there is also a reduction in the ratio of the PAH's, which are
the most harmful pollutants in the mix. I have seen some evidence that
the ratio of PAH's between worst and best practice (and appliance) could
be three orders of magnitude. This is somewhat speculative, and I would
be pleased to suggest appropriate avenues for further research.

Masonry heaters, by virtue of their combustion principle, are inherently
clean burning. This is recognized by the EPA regulation itself, in the
preamble that gives the rationale for exempting masonry heaters from
regulation.

An issue that concerns the (small) masonry heater industry is how this
rationale has actually played out. A recent example is in the San
Francisco Bay area, where a model ordinance was passed that requires all
woodburning devices to be EPA certified - an impossibility for high mass
appliances under the US-EPA-M5G test protocol. While the intent of the
ordinance is a laudable one of eliminating dirty burning open fireplaces,
masonry heaters are banned by default as well. As the AP-42 numbers
indicate, masonry heaters are in fact a "best available
practice" woodburning device (and fireplace), and the clean air
regulators in this case were negligent in their duty of obtaining better
air quality through cleaner woodburning.

For your information, I have attached a copy of MHA's letter to the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District,
http://mha-net.org/docs/BAAQMD01.PDF
, which summarizes both field and laboratory studies of masonry heater emissions, with references.

I have also forwared your letter to John Crouch <crouchpa@ix.netcom.com> , the Hearth Products Association's emissions regulatory specialist.

If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours truly,

Norbert Senf

Secretary,
The Masonry Heater Association

----------------------------------------
Norbert Senf---------- mheat@mha-net.org
Masonry Stove Builders
RR 5, Shawville------- www.mha-net.org/msb
Quebec J0X 2Y0-------- fax:-----819.647.6082
---------------------- voice:---819.647.5092

From karve at wmi.co.in Wed Jan 6 12:31:47 1999
From: karve at wmi.co.in (karve)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:13 2004
Subject: new address for Dr. Priyadarshini Karve
Message-ID: <199901061731.MAA15336@solstice.crest.org>

Dear Stovers,
Wish you all a very happy new year.
Please note that my new E-mail address is: karve@wmi.co.in
For about a month or so, I will be using both the addresses.
With regards,

Priyadarshini Karve
Dr. Priyadarshini Karve,
Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI),
6, Koyna Apartments, Survey No. 133, Kothrud,
Pune 411 029, Maharashtra, India.
Telephone: 91 0212 233258/342217/590348.
E-mail: karve@wmi.co.in, gpk@physics.unipune.ernet.in

From larcon at sni.net Wed Jan 6 13:08:33 1999
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:13 2004
Subject: Fwd from Norbert Senf: Re: Wood combustion emissions
Message-ID: <v01540b01b2b953e3bc48@[204.131.233.17]>

(From Ron Larson - this was bounced to me as being too long - because a
coded file was appended - see my note at the end of the message.)

Hello Stovers:

I received the following letter recently, and thought that it would be of
interest to some of you on the list.........New Year's Greetings.......Norbert

>
> Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 15:03:10 -0400
> To: "Thomas, Amy E" <Thomasa@BATTELLE.ORG>
> From: Norbert Senf <mheat@mha-net.org>
> Subject: Re: Wood combustion emissions
> Cc: jaasma, skip, Alex_English, Bev, don_fugler, Greg_Allen, Jerry_Frisch,
> John Crouch, John Lagamba, John_Fisher, john_gulland, Northern Sonoma County
> Air Pollu, Paul Tiegs, Rod Zander, Tex_McLeod, Finiol_Gary
>
> At 08:32 AM 31/12/98 -0500, you wrote:
> >Mr. Senf:
> >
> >My name is Amy Thomas of Battelle Memorial Institute, a contractor working
> >with EPA in implementing the Binational Toxics Strategy (BNS). The BNS was
> >signed by Canada and the U.S. in 1997, committing the two countries to
> >reduce and virtually eliminate toxic substances in the Great Lakes region.
> >I spoke with your administrator, Beverly Madrois, who suggested I e-mail
> >you, as you are frequently travelling.
> >
> >One of the toxic chemicals targeted for reduction in the BNS is
> >benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P). A significant source of B(a)P has been determined
> >to be residential wood combustion. I am aware of EPA's 1988 NSPS which
> >applies to woodstoves but not to masonry heaters. I also understand that in
> >addition to the type of wood-burning device used, the way in which wood is
> >burned can control emissions.
> >
> >My question to you is, what do you propose is the best way to reduce B(a)P
> >emissions from residential wood combustion? Would educating consumers on
> >this matter accomplish much? For example, a pamphlet could be sent to
> >consumers along with winter utility bills. Or would some kind of incentive
> >be more effective, such as offering credit for trading in older more
> >polluting woodstoves and fireplace inserts for cleaner burning devices?
> >
> >I'd welcome any ideas you have. Thank you for your time.
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >Amy Thomas
> >Battelle Memorial Institute
> >(614) 424-3431
>
> Dear Ms. Thomas
>
> Woodburning emissions is a complicated issue, as I'm sure you are aware.
> PM-10 emissions have had the most field measurements, so PM-10 results are
> probably a good first approximation to B(a)P. The most recent summary of
> in-house field studies that I'm aware of is
>
> Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42), U.S. Environmental
> Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
> Triangle Park, 1992.
>
> A brief synopsis of AP-42 estimates for PM-10 emission factors for individual
> residential woodburning devices is as follows:
>
> Emission factor, g/kg of PM-10
>
> Residential fireplace: 17.3
> Old technology woodstove: 15.3
> EPA Phase II woodstove: 7.3
> EPA Phase II pellet stove: 2.1
> Masonry heater: 2.8
>
> A separate discussion could be had around the basis, reliability, and
> variability of each of these values, but to date this is the most realistic
> data that I've seen.
>
> In my opinion, the largest reduction would occur through a changeout program,
> since the replacement rate for old technology woodstoves is low. Undoubtedly,
> benefits would also be derived from a consumer education campaign, since a
> characteristic of woodburning emissions is that they are very operator
> dependent, particularly in older stoves.
>
> The main issue is smoldering combustion, and there is substantial evidence
> that the emissions ratio between smoldering combustion and flaming combustion
> can be two orders of magnitude. I have also seem some evidence that as the
> PM-10 factor goes down, particularly from the higher values, there is also a
> reduction in the ratio of the PAH's, which are the most harmful pollutants in
> the mix. I have seen some evidence that the ratio of PAH's between worst and
> best practice (and appliance) could be three orders of magnitude. This is
> somewhat speculative, and I would be pleased to suggest appropriate avenues
> for further research.
>
> Masonry heaters, by virtue of their combustion principle, are inherently
> clean burning. This is recognized by the EPA regulation itself, in the
> preamble that gives the rationale for exempting masonry heaters from
> regulation.
>
> An issue that concerns the (small) masonry heater industry is how this
> rationale has actually played out. A recent example is in the San Francisco
> Bay area, where a model ordinance was passed that requires all woodburning
> devices to be EPA certified - an impossibility for high mass appliances under
> the US-EPA-M5G test protocol. While the intent of the ordinance is a laudable
> one of eliminating dirty burning open fireplaces, masonry heaters are banned
> by default as well. As the AP-42 numbers indicate, masonry heaters are in
> fact a "best available practice" woodburning device (and fireplace), and the
> clean air regulators in this case were negligent in their duty of obtaining
> better air quality through cleaner woodburning.
>
> For your information, I have attached a copy of MHA's letter to the Bay Area
> Air Quality Management District, which summarizes both field and laboratory
> studies of masonry heater emissions, with references.
>
> I have also forwared your letter to John Crouch <crouchpa@ix.netcom.com> ,
> the Hearth Products Association's emissions regulatory specialist.
>
> If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
>
> Yours truly,
>
> Norbert Senf
>
> Secretary,
> The Masonry Heater Association

Stovers - following this was a repeat of the above that seemed to come from
a file transfer and then four long files of similar "coding" that looked
like this:

JVBERi0xLjIgDQol4uPP0w0KIA0KNiAwIG9iag0KPDwNCi9MZW5ndGggNyAwIFINCi9GaWx0ZXIg

If this sort of file would be helpful to anyone, they can communicate
directly with Norbert. I believe we must all avoid this sort of adding of
files like this.

From john at gulland.ca Wed Jan 6 14:31:31 1999
From: john at gulland.ca (John Gulland)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:13 2004
Subject: A visit to Honduras
Message-ID: <001601be39ab$2f0992e0$2236f8ce@jgulland.igs.net>

Stovers,
Some of you might be interested in my report of a visit to Tegucigalpa, Honduras
that resulted from a dialogue on this list with Rogerio Miranda. You'll find the
report here:
http://www.wood-heat.com/prointro.htm

I think there are good prospects for a productive collaboration between the
North American hearth industry and organizations like Proleña that promote
improved stoves in Central America. But I must admit that this kind of
international work is new to me, so any advice the more experienced people on
the list might have would be most welcome.

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

From costaeec at kcnet.com Wed Jan 6 21:06:33 1999
From: costaeec at kcnet.com (Jim Dunham)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:13 2004
Subject: Wood combustion emissions
Message-ID: <001301be39e8$5a9a2540$c79966ce@default>

Norbert & all,

Perhaps we are looking too closely at the appliance rather
than the fuel. If, in fact, the burn characteristics of the wood cause the
undesirable emissions, then for some, it may make more sense to change the burn
characteristics of the fuel rather than to have 'Big Brother' demand that
they spend big bucks to change their fireplace or stove.

Those who burn for ambiance deeply resent
regulations, such as in certain areas of Colorado, which say we must not use our
fireplace on certain days, when the problem is not the fireplace, but the fuel.

Those millions who use fireplaces for heat or stoves for
cooking are also persecuted by regulations requiring massive outlays for new
appliances, when the appliance is not nescessarily the culprit.

The answer in some areas, is the use (mandated if necessary)
of densified sawdust firelogs and cook fuel. Such logs burn much cleaner,
hotter, and leave less ash. They have long been a staple in some parts of the
world. Unfortunatley, they are not available in much of the US. Some areas have
Enviro-Logs and the north west has Presto-Logs. They burn with more heat and
flame than cord wood, and have the same romance except the noise, but also
without the dangerous sparks and flue creosote.

They not only solve many air problems, but also reduce
landfilling of waste wood, pollution from illegally dumped waste wood, cutting
of trees for burning, and the spread of disease and vermin by wide distribution
of cord wood.

We have assisted many such plants around the
world, including ones which make clean burning logs and fuel briquettes from
waste paper, corrugate, straw, bigasse, husks, hulls, etc, etc.

This is obviously not the universal answer, but it works in
some areas. Hope regulations in the future are more solution specific rather
than blanket restrictions. Some Colorado officials indicate regret that their
laws regulate the appliance rather than the fuel. Ski areas suffer from the air
pollution and densified logs would end the problem, but apparently the laws
would have to be changed to accomodate that solution.

Groups in northern Michigan and Ohio are now
studying the possibility of making such logs, which could be a great boon to the
Great Lakes air quality.

Good Luck & Happy New Year.
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
-----Original Message-----From:
Norbert Senf <<A
href="mailto:mheat@mha-net.org">mheat@mha-net.org>To: <A
href="mailto:stoves@crest.org">stoves@crest.org <<A
href="mailto:stoves@crest.org">stoves@crest.org>Date:
Wednesday, January 06, 1999 6:29 AMSubject: Fwd: Re: Wood
combustion emissionsHello Stovers:I received
the following letter recently, and thought that it would be of interest to
some of you on the list.........New Year's Greetings.......Norbert
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 15:03:10
-0400To: "Thomas, Amy E"
<Thomasa@BATTELLE.ORG>From: Norbert Senf
<mheat@mha-net.org>Subject: Re: Wood combustion
emissionsCc: jaasma, skip, Alex_English, Bev, don_fugler,
Greg_Allen, Jerry_Frisch, John Crouch, John Lagamba, John_Fisher,
john_gulland, Northern Sonoma County Air Pollu, Paul Tiegs, Rod Zander,
Tex_McLeod, Finiol_GaryAt 08:32 AM 31/12/98 -0500, you
wrote:>Mr. Senf:>>My name is Amy Thomas of Battelle
Memorial Institute, a contractor working>with EPA in implementing
the Binational Toxics Strategy (BNS). The BNS was>signed by
Canada and the U.S. in 1997, committing the two countries
to>reduce and virtually eliminate toxic substances in the Great
Lakes region.>I spoke with your administrator, Beverly Madrois,
who suggested I e-mail>you, as you are frequently
travelling.>>One of the toxic chemicals targeted for
reduction in the BNS is>benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P). A
significant source of B(a)P has been determined>to be residential
wood combustion. I am aware of EPA's 1988 NSPS
which>applies to woodstoves but not to masonry heaters. I
also understand that in>addition to the type of wood-burning
device used, the way in which wood is>burned can control
emissions.>>My question to you is, what do you propose is
the best way to reduce B(a)P>emissions from residential wood
combustion? Would educating consumers on>this matter
accomplish much? For example, a pamphlet could be sent
to>consumers along with winter utility bills. Or would some
kind of incentive>be more effective, such as offering credit for
trading in older more>polluting woodstoves and fireplace inserts
for cleaner burning devices?>>I'd welcome any ideas you
have. Thank you for your
time.>>Sincerely,>Amy Thomas>Battelle
Memorial Institute>(614) 424-3431Dear Ms.
ThomasWoodburning emissions is a complicated issue, as I'm sure
you are aware. PM-10 emissions have had the most field measurements, so
PM-10 results are probably a good first approximation to B(a)P. The most
recent summary of in-house field studies that I'm aware of is
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, 1992.A brief synopsis of
AP-42 estimates for PM-10 emission factors for individual residential
woodburning devices is as follows:Emission factor, g/kg of
PM-10Residential
fireplace:          17.3Old
technology
woodstove:       15.3EPA
Phase II woodstove: 7.3EPA Phase II pellet
stove:      2.1Masonry
heater:         2.8A
separate discussion could be had around the basis, reliability, and
variability of each of these values, but to date this is the most
realistic data that I've seen.In my opinion, the largest
reduction would occur through a changeout program, since the replacement
rate for old technology woodstoves is low. Undoubtedly, benefits would
also be derived from a consumer education campaign, since a
characteristic of woodburning emissions is that they are very operator
dependent, particularly in older stoves. The main issue is
smoldering combustion, and there is substantial evidence that the
emissions ratio between smoldering combustion and flaming combustion can
be two orders of magnitude. I have also seem some evidence that as the
PM-10 factor goes down, particularly from the higher values, there is
also a reduction in the ratio of the PAH's, which are the most harmful
pollutants in the mix. I have seen some evidence that the ratio of PAH's
between worst and best practice (and appliance) could be three orders of
magnitude. This is somewhat speculative, and I would be pleased to
suggest appropriate avenues for further research.Masonry
heaters, by virtue of their combustion principle, are inherently clean
burning. This is recognized by the EPA regulation itself, in the
preamble that gives the rationale for exempting masonry heaters from
regulation. An issue that concerns the (small) masonry heater
industry is how this rationale has actually played out. A recent example
is in the San Francisco Bay area, where a model ordinance was passed
that requires all woodburning devices to be EPA certified - an
impossibility for high mass appliances under the US-EPA-M5G test
protocol. While the intent of the ordinance is a laudable one of
eliminating dirty burning open fireplaces, masonry heaters are banned by
default as well. As the AP-42 numbers indicate, masonry heaters are in
fact a "best available practice" woodburning device (and
fireplace), and the clean air regulators in this case were negligent in
their duty of obtaining better air quality through cleaner
woodburning.For your information, I have attached a copy of
MHA's letter to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, <A
href="http://mha-net.org/docs/BAAQMD01.PDF" eudora =
autourl>http://mha-net.org/docs/BAAQMD01.PDF , which summarizes both
field and laboratory studies of masonry heater emissions, with
references.I have also forwared your letter to John Crouch
<crouchpa@ix.netcom.com> , the Hearth Products Association's
emissions regulatory specialist.If I can be of further
assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.Yours
truly,Norbert SenfSecretary,The Masonry Heater
Association
----------------------------------------
Norbert Senf---------- mheat@mha-net.org
Masonry Stove Builders
RR 5, Shawville------- <A href="http://www.mha-net.org/msb" EUDORA =
AUTOURL>www.mha-net.org/msb
Quebec J0X 2Y0-------- fax:-----819.647.6082
---------------------- voice:---819.647.5092

From larcon at sni.net Thu Jan 7 00:43:55 1999
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:13 2004
Subject: First Trila- New Sawdust Downdraft Carboniser
Message-ID: <v01540b08b2b9ee6c0b25@[204.131.233.51]>

Elsen - Congratulations!! You are indeed a persistent individual. A few
questions below.

(You said):

<snip>
>There are several areas where improvements can be made and a greater
>throughput realised. Startup was slow, with three out of five beds being
>initially fired. It appears that all five beds can be started at once
>without any undue problem to the sequential emptying and reloading of the
>five kiln/beds.

1. Can you control the speed of pyrolysis separately for each unit
by controlling a damper?
2. If you started them all simultaneously with different damper
openings, do you already have the experience give you a sense of how to get
them going in the proper sequencing (presumably all with wide open
dampers)?

>
>Ronal will be pleased to note that wood is only required to initiate the
>chimney flue suction and to preheat the combustion chamber. Once flaring
>had begun (after a half hour), no more ('sparkplu') wood was necessary and
>flaring continued without interruption for the entire trial.

3. Do you eventually have a "flame holding" similar to that in the
charcoal-making stoves"? (Is the half-hour required because there is an
initial period when the charcoaling is moving downward rather than upward?)

>
>Some hair-line cracking of the rock/cement combustion chamber was noted- as
>expected- but damage was minimal as there is a lot of baling wire embedded
>in the structure holding everything together.

4. Can you describe this a bit more? Height, thickness, etc?
This is to avoid a short lifetime with metal cans?

>
>It sure is a shame to see all that heat go to waste! The only smoke
>produced was during emptying of the beds when the carbonised sawdust is
>stirred and some residual unpyrolysed material mixes with the hot charcoal
>powder.

5. But at least you are flaring and making charcoal efficiently
(and hopefully profitably). Maybe a steam engine?

6. For approximately how long was the smoke produced? Do you
consider this a major drawback?

>
>200 liter drums were used with sealable lids to extinguish the carbonised
>sawdust. The material was rammed into the drums- full weight around 50 kg.
>After one hour in the drum, the warm charcoal was poured out and slightly
>dampened with a garden watering can/sprinkler to ensure that re-ignition
>did not occur. Records were kept of water used and deducted from final
>charcoal wieghts.

7. Apparently (at 50 kg/hr) this means you only need two (?) such
cooling drums? (maybe even one?)
8. Do the two workmen work together or one doing sawdust and
another the charcoal?
>
>The next step, after a few more burns, is to invite some timber mill owners
>around to see this in operation and start working towards getting a
>carboniser installed adjacent to a mill or two.
>
>
>elk

9. Does there need to be a period of drying?

10. Are you doing the mill owners a favor by getting rid of the sawdust,
or are they going to want to charge for the raw material? Are you covered
against theft of your idea in any way?

Again - congratulations. 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 net2000ke.com Thu Jan 7 04:20:54 1999
From: elk at net2000ke.com (e. karstad)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:13 2004
Subject: Sawdust Carbonisation- Answers
Message-ID: <v01510101b2ba1edd675e@[195.202.65.172]>

Ronal asks:

R: 1. Can you control the speed of pyrolysis separately for each unit
by controlling a damper?

elk- Yes, I assume so. I've not tried this.

R: 2. If you started them all simultaneously with different damper
openings, do you already have the experience give you a sense of how to get
them going in the proper sequencing (presumably all with wide open
dampers)?

elk- I'd not like to restrict the speed, at least not until I've run enough
trials to figure out what the throughput is at 'full throttle'. What I am
doing is simply unloading a bit early the first couple kilns, and late on
the last two for the first batches. This sets the sequence.

R: 3. Do you eventually have a "flame holding" similar to that in the
charcoal-making stoves"? (Is the half-hour required because there is an
initial period when the charcoaling is moving downward rather than upward?)

elk- I think that this is correct, together with some pre-heating of the
combustion chamber. The denesity of volatiles is important... too much
fresh air and no flame. Obviously it takes a while for the pyrolysis to
spread evenly over the beds on first ignition. Subsequent to this, there is
always three beds at a full rate of pyrolysis with vents wide open. The
other two (one being emptied, one being loaded or ignited) have closed
vents.

R: 4. <the cement/stone base> Can you describe this a bit more? Height,
thickness, etc? This is to avoid a short lifetime with metal cans?

elk- Built on a cement slab, the cement and stone combustion chamber has a
diameter of 2 meters at the base and 1.2 meters at it's apex where it
connects through to five 200 liter drums welded endto end forming the
chimney. The chamber stands 2 meters high and the walls are approx 30 cm
thick. Heavy galvanised fencing wire is wrapped 20 times around the stone
structure and a couple inches of plaster is applied over this. At the
front, the opposite side to the five kilns, is a 1 sq. ft. steel door which
serves to load the firewood onto a grill set 10 inches above the five 20 cm
dia. pipes feeding voliatiles from the kilns. Immediately below this
fire-door is a valved 12 cm dia pipe (only 40 cm long) which feeds fresh
air into the combustion chamber at the same level (but opposite to) the
five kiln pipes. Carbeuration is controlled by this valve. Set at wide open
there is a trace of bluish smoke. Fully closed and a trace of black soot is
produced from the chinmey. Two Thirds open seems optimal with absolutely
clear gas produced (and a helluva lot of heat).

elk- The predecessor to this unit nearly melted the 200 liter drums
comprising the combustion chamber. There is no apparent problem now, though
as I've not used heat-proof refractory cement, the life-span of the
combustion chamber has yet to be determined.

R: 5. But at least you are flaring and making charcoal efficiently
(and hopefully profitably). Maybe a steam engine?

elk- Profitability? well, over time I'll increase efficiency and reduce
labour to possibly two operators (from four), and increase output. Assuming
free feedstock, the profits are apparent and attractive. I was thinking
that this unit might be a good heat source for a grain drier.

R: 6. For approximately how long was the smoke produced? Do you
consider this a major drawback?

elk- The smoke can be minimised by the operator. Some final mixing to
complete pyrolysis over the entire bed is necessary, but if this is done
slowly and the valve is left open, the smoke shouldn't last for more than a
couple minutes... though it sure is noxious.

R: 7. Apparently (at 50 kg/hr) this means you only need two (?) such
cooling drums? (maybe even one?)

elk- Well, we started off with five drums, but an hour is all that's needed
to extinguish the charcoal powder to a manageable level- where it won't
burst into flame on contact with air & is cool enough handle. The drums are
still warm when left overnight! Sprinkling the powder with water after an
hour in the drums does the trick.

R: 8. Do the two workmen work together or one doing sawdust and
another the charcoal?

elk- The two are minding the carboniser only. A third dries the sawdust by
turning it in the sun and packing in 25 kg sacks. This latter step wis
really only necessary for our records on the initial trial runs.

R: 9. Does there need to be a period of drying?

elk- yes- I'm just spreading out truck-loads of sawdust about 10 cm deep
and turning it about three times daily. We lose almost 50% by weight during
the drying. I've dispensed with plastic sheets, as the earth is hard-packed
and dry enough. What should be done during the rainy season is a different
story.... maybe stockpile dried material? Easier to suspend activities I
reckon.

R: 10. Are you doing the mill owners a favor by getting rid of the sawdust,
or are they going to want to charge for the raw material? Are you covered
against theft of your idea in any way?

elk- I'm not in a position to profit from this - it'd be the mill owner who
should get a return on his otherwise wasted sawdust. A lot of trees....
maybe even a forest or two.... could be spared being converted to charcoal
if waste sawdust can be converted to charcoal briquettes. This development
is for the public. I'll be happy to see sawdust carboniser kilns all over
Kenya.... East Africa? The world? That's payment! I'm doing O.K. in my
other business ventures, and I don't forsee going further than a
self-sustaining demo project here at Tamfeeds. I've been showing it to
quite a few interested parties to date.

elk

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:
E.L. Karstad :
P.O. Box 24371 :
Nairobi, Kenya :
Fax/tel 884437 :
elk@net2000ke.com :
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'

From larcon at sni.net Thu Jan 7 16:32:40 1999
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:13 2004
Subject: Forwarding:Charcoal manufacture and energy recovery
Message-ID: <v01540b04b2ba9a5fab80@[204.133.28.70]>

Stovers: This request came in a few days ago from Mr. Colin Stucly who has
just joined our group. This appears to be a novel and useful method for
large scale production of charcoal, so perhaps there are some list members
who have additional questions or suggestions from a manufacturer looking
for leads.

(The remainder from Colin, except for parts of an off-line clarifying
dialog which follows.)

Dear Dr Larson,

I have been reading with great interest the information on the "stoves"
site within CREST on the internet. I have a couple of comments and
questions which may be of mutual interest to your group.

Enecon Pty Ltd is an Australian engineering consulting and technology
development company. Our work includes consulting around Australia in the
field of energy from wood. From 1998 we have also held the licence for
technology developed by the Forestry & Forest Products group at CSIRO - for
the production of charcoal and activated carbon from wood. This technology
offers an interesting alternative to other methods of charcoal production
in that fluidised beds are used. Wood as chips and/or sawdust may be
introduced continuously into a fluidised bed, with charcoal recovered via
simple separation from the recirculating bed media. Charcoal fines are
recovered from the flue gas via cyclones. Importantly, we can also draw
heat from the process, mainly via heat transfer coils in the bed itself.
This serves the dual function of maintaining optimal bed temperature and
also recovering most of the energy released during carbonisation. Recovery
can be as hot oil or steam.

The charcoal may be used as a fuel or steam activated in a second fluidised
bed to make activated carbon. Once again we recover as much of the energy
as possible - in this case the steam activation step generates water gas
(CO and H2) that can be used very effectively as a fuel.

CSIRO has been developing this technology for a number of years and has
taken it through laboratory work to the pilot plant scale here in
Melbourne. Enecon will be carrying out comprehensive feasibility studies
this year for a number of opportunities here in Australia, with the first
being charcoal (for activated carbon production) and energy as part of
integrated processing of eucalypts grown to control salinity problems in
much of our wheat farming region in Western Australia.

Plants will be designed to operate multi-shift and semi-automatically, and
at the moment we are looking at large scale only, requiring at least 20,000
green tonne/year of wood feed.

The above represents our technology development work. In a consulting role
we are asked by clients about this technology and also other methods of
charcoal production. I am therefore very keen to hear from people about
organisations elsewhere in the world that design, build or market large
scale charcoal manufacturing plants.

With thanks for any assistance that you can provide.

Regards,

Colin Stucley
Managing Director

Enecon Pty Ltd
210 Canterbury Rd
Canterbury, Victoria 3126, Australia
Tel - 61 3 9888 6711
Fax - 61 3 9888 6744
E - enecon@ozemail.com.au

(Stovers: The following is much of a three part interchange as I tried to
figure out how to handle the above.)

>Ron,
>
>Many thanks for your prompt reply. In answer to your comments I offer the
>following:
>
>1. The extent of combustion in the bed can be controlled for temperature
>and residence time to maximise either combustion or charcoal production.
>CSIRO has run pilot plant tests (capacity up to 250 kg/h) on the basis of
>optimising production of charcoal with low moisture and volatile
>components. (This provides the best feedstock for any subsequent activated
>carbon manufactue.) With this in mind, yields of approx. 20% for Pinus
>radiata and approx. 24% for eucalypt hardwood have been achieved. Dry wood
>basis for yield figures but actual feed to fluidised bed is green wood.

(Larson): These are very respectable.
>
>2. Thanks for your suggestion on bioenergy and gasification. We should
>join the lists, which I assume are easily found on the net.

(Larson): Yes - after "www.crest.org" - look for the category
called "discussion groups" and then there is an automatic means of signing
up for some 8 or 10 groups. I can only sign you up for "stoves" (see
below).
>
>3. We are looking at applications larger than many of your stovers but
>hopefully we can still share some ideas. From my own limited experience in
>developing countries I am personally interested in the small scale work,
>even though Enecon is not working at small scale applications. Please sign
>us up for the list. I assume there are no costs involved as I regret our
>funds for such activities are limited.

(Larson): My message to sign you up is going out simultaneously
with this one. There is no cost for any of them, but there is a periodic
request for a donation (which looks like good advertising for companies).
>
>4. We are keen to learn more about technologies already in use for large
>scale applications. Ansgar Pinkowski from Brazil initiated some interesting
>communication on 25 July, 1998 but I do not know what came out of his
>enquiry. We are also following up on one large scale plant built some years
>ago by Lurgi for a client here in Australia. Other data or contacts from
>USA, Europe, Asia would be most appreciated.

(Larson): I suggest a direct contact with Pinkowski as a potential
customer, but (as list coordinator) I hope that we can hear as much of all
technical conversation as well.

>
>Kind regards,
>
>Colin Stucley

(Larson): Good to have you join us. I hope that you get some
response from our group. No telling. Good luck. Ron

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Fri Jan 8 12:35:25 1999
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:13 2004
Subject: Forwarding:Charcoal manufacture and energy recovery
Message-ID: <199901081235_MC2-65F7-73C1@compuserve.com>

Dear Ron et al:

As a daily visitor to STOVES, I observe that over the last year the traffic
has changed from mostly cooking stoves to mostly charcoal making. This is
not totally inappropriate, since charcoal is often used for cooking.
However, since charcoal making usually (except in inverted downdraft
gasifiers) wastes >60% of the wood energy and causes great pollution, it is
a stopgap solution to world energy conservation and use. Activated
charcoal is also part of the solution to World Problem No. 2, clean water.
(Cooking is no. 1; power generation no. 3 in my book.)

(At the beginning of WWII most gasifiers used charcoal, but the forests
were disappearing at an alarming rate and fortunately they found out how to
gasify WOOD without making intermediary charcoal. )

I suggest that the name of this group could be modified to STOVES/CHARCOAL
or that we should also have a CHARCOAL group at CREST.

Yours truly, TOM REED

Message text written by Ronal W. Larson
>
Stovers: This request came in a few days ago from Mr. Colin Stucly who has
just joined our group. This appears to be a novel and useful method for
large scale production of charcoal, so perhaps there are some list members
who have additional questions or suggestions from a manufacturer looking
for leads.

(The remainder from Colin, except for parts of an off-line clarifying
dialog which follows.)

Dear Dr Larson,

I have been reading with great interest the information on the "stoves"
site within CREST on the internet. I have a couple of comments and
questions which may be of mutual interest to your group.

Plants will be designed to operate multi-shift and semi-automatically, and
at the moment we are looking at large scale only, requiring at least 20,000
green tonne/year of wood feed.

With thanks for any assistance that you can provide.

Regards,

Colin Stucley
Managing Director

Enecon Pty Ltd
210 Canterbury Rd
Canterbury, Victoria 3126, Australia
Tel - 61 3 9888 6711
Fax - 61 3 9888 6744
E - enecon@ozemail.com.au

(Stovers: The following is much of a three part interchange as I tried to
figure out how to handle the above.)

>Ron,
>
>Many thanks for your prompt reply. In answer to your comments I offer the
>following:
>
>1. The extent of combustion in the bed can be controlled for temperature
>and residence time to maximise either combustion or charcoal production.
>CSIRO has run pilot plant tests (capacity up to 250 kg/h) on the basis of
>optimising production of charcoal with low moisture and volatile
>components. (This provides the best feedstock for any subsequent
activated
>carbon manufactue.) With this in mind, yields of approx. 20% for Pinus
>radiata and approx. 24% for eucalypt hardwood have been achieved. Dry
wood
>basis for yield figures but actual feed to fluidised bed is green wood.

(Larson): These are very respectable.
>
>2. Thanks for your suggestion on bioenergy and gasification. We should
>join the lists, which I assume are easily found on the net.

(Larson): Yes - after "www.crest.org" - look for the category
called "discussion groups" and then there is an automatic means of signing
up for some 8 or 10 groups. I can only sign you up for "stoves" (see
below).
>
>3. We are looking at applications larger than many of your stovers but
>hopefully we can still share some ideas. From my own limited experience
in
>developing countries I am personally interested in the small scale work,
>even though Enecon is not working at small scale applications. Please
sign
>us up for the list. I assume there are no costs involved as I regret our
>funds for such activities are limited.

(Larson): My message to sign you up is going out simultaneously
with this one. There is no cost for any of them, but there is a periodic
request for a donation (which looks like good advertising for companies).
>
>4. We are keen to learn more about technologies already in use for large
>scale applications. Ansgar Pinkowski from Brazil initiated some
interesting
>communication on 25 July, 1998 but I do not know what came out of his
>enquiry. We are also following up on one large scale plant built some
years
>ago by Lurgi for a client here in Australia. Other data or contacts from
>USA, Europe, Asia would be most appreciated.

(Larson): I suggest a direct contact with Pinkowski as a potential
customer, but (as list coordinator) I hope that we can hear as much of all
technical conversation as well.

>
>Kind regards,
>
>Colin Stucley

(Larson): Good to have you join us. I hope that you get some
response from our group. No telling. Good luck. Ron

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Fri Jan 8 12:35:30 1999
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Firewood measure
Message-ID: <199901081235_MC2-65F7-73BE@compuserve.com>

Dear Andrew Hegge et al:

Thanks for converting my CHORD spelling to the correct CORD. (Ralph
Overend also called, humming a "chord" into the phone.)

Thanks for the comparative costs of wood and other fuels in UK. I'm
surprised at the low cost of hardwood in the UK - 40-50 GBP/cord. I
presume that is a true cord measure, not face cord or other.

I agree that in the future all discussion of cords and ricks should take
place in STOVES, not GASIFICATION or BIOENERGY. However, I'll post this
there to let people know where the discussion is going.

So far I haven't seen RICKS discussed, but I haven't finished reading my
145 messages after a recent trip.

Yours truly, TOM REED

Thomas B. Reed: The Biomass Energy Foundation
1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
303 278 0558V; 303 278 0560F
E-mail: reedtb@compuserve.com

I see this was crossposted to 3 Crest lists and only elicited responses in
gasification. I think discussion is more appropriate to Stoves list and
hope I am not wandering off topic. My interest is the relationships of
values, in Britain we are used to paying comparatively more for our
consumer goods than some other countries especially the USA. Such that it
is not unusual to see goods for sale in the US at Xdollars and finding the
same item for sale in UK for Xpounds when the exchange rate is 1.5 dollars
to the pound. Yet here a cord of hardwood firewood is worth about 40-50GBP
delivered and softwood would not sell at all!

As to weights, this depends on seasoning, but freshly felled and cut
competently with the intention of optimising the lorry load, and sold by
weight, a cord is approx two tonnes. That is not to say that I cannot
effect the stacking density adversely by poor cutting if I sell by volume
:). Also account should be taken of edge effects when stacked on/against a
hard surface (such as a truck bed).

128 cubic feet equals approx 3.6 cubic metres, allowing 40% airspace this
gives a solid volume of just over 2 cubic metres. I only have experience of
UK hardwoods but if we assume a heavy wood such as Oak or Beech then 1
cubic metre fresh felled is slightly over a tonne. Assuming 100% moisture
content expressed as % of dry weight this contains a net energy of about
8GJ per tonne or 16GJ per cord, season this to 30% moisture content and
this leaps to 17GJ per cord and bone dry 18.5 GJ per cord.

Neglecting costs of cominution, efficiency of burning or handling costs and
with no latent heat recovery:
A UK fresh felled cord at 50GBP contains 16GJ or 4444 KWhr(t) so the cost
per KWhr(t) is 0.011GBP.

Tom's softwood cord at 125 dollars=83GBP contains less weight of dry wood
(softwood being lighter for the same cord and probably more moisture) so
costs more than 0.019GBP/KWhr.

Fuel oil at domestic rates here is 0.01GBP/KWhr(t), so at these prices logs
are a luxury good here, not to mention time consuming and dirty to handle
and burn.

Electricity costs about 0.09gbp/KWhr

This is from the top of my head, feel free to dissect and point out any
mistakes.

AJH

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
Stoves List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES:
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
Stoves Webpage
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

From dstill at epud.org Fri Jan 8 14:13:22 1999
From: dstill at epud.org (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:13 2004
Subject: Forwarding:Charcoal manufacture and energy recovery
Message-ID: <199901081858.KAA26397@seahorse.epud.net>

With Tom Reed, I have been watching the beloved stoves list dwindle down to
talks about charcoal. It is certainly interesting to try to make charcoal
efficiently and perhaps a stove can be built that cleanly produces heat
while making charcoal. However, this activity is obviously a sideline to
the world wide interest in creating more efficient cooking stoves: I should
say learning how to cook food most efficiently using the least biomass.

Where have all the stovers gone?

Dean Still

From tmiles at teleport.com Fri Jan 8 19:02:02 1999
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:13 2004
Subject: Forwarding:Charcoal manufacture and energy recovery
In-Reply-To: <199901081858.KAA26397@seahorse.epud.net>
Message-ID: <Version.32.19990108160121.00fedaf0@mail.teleport.com>

I've had this comment from others. Several people have asked that the list swing back to stoves. There is a strong impression that charcoal has dominated the list. Hwver charcoal is one of many stove fuels.

It's up to list members to drive the topics.

Tom Miles

At 11:21 AM 1/8/99 -0800, Dean Still wrote:
>Where have all the stovers gone?
>
>Dean Still

T.R. Miles tmiles@teleport.com
1470 SW Woodward Way http://www.teleport.com/~tmiles
Portland, OR 97225
Tel 503-292-0107 Fax 503-605-0208
Stoves List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES:
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
Stoves Webpage
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

From kchishol at fox.nstn.ca Fri Jan 8 20:58:21 1999
From: kchishol at fox.nstn.ca (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:13 2004
Subject: Forwarding:Charcoal manufacture and energy recovery
In-Reply-To: <199901081858.KAA26397@seahorse.epud.net>
Message-ID: <E0zyngH-0007ab-00@mail1.halifax.istar.net>

> From: "Dean Still" <dstill@epud.org>
> To: <stoves@crest.org>
> Subject: Re: Forwarding:Charcoal manufacture and energy recovery
> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 11:21:52 -0800

Dear Dean

May I respectfully suggest that teh Stove List is working
wonderfully, in that it has contributed to significant advances in a
problem relating to the use of biomass. More specifically, it has
helped significantly advance the production and use of charcoal, at
least in one area of the World. For example Elk sought help from the
list, and I feel the list was able to offer beneficial help to him.

Elk had a very successful approach. He posed "bite sized"
prollems in terms that the people with a remarkably diverse range of
talents could grasp. ppl made suggestions, Elk picked what hwe needed
from the suggestions, built things, and reported back on the results.
An on-going drama. Sorta like the thermal equivalent of an
international Soap Opera.

I would suggest that if anybody with a similar focus posed stove
questions in a similar manner, they would get similar help. The fault
or problem is not with the list.... the prollem is that there are no
stovers asking questions!!!

Kevin Chisholm
> With Tom Reed, I have been watching the beloved stoves
list dwindle down to
> talks about charcoal. It is certainly interesting to try to make charcoal
> efficiently and perhaps a stove can be built that cleanly produces heat
> while making charcoal. However, this activity is obviously a sideline to
> the world wide interest in creating more efficient cooking stoves: I should
> say learning how to cook food most efficiently using the least biomass.
>
> Where have all the stovers gone?
>
> Dean Still
>
>
> Stoves List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES:
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
> Stoves Webpage
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
> For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm
>
>
>
>
Stoves List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES:
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
Stoves Webpage
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

From phoenix at transport.com Fri Jan 8 23:21:06 1999
From: phoenix at transport.com (Art Krenzel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:13 2004
Subject: Possible split to Stoves Newsgroup.
Message-ID: <199901090421.UAA02664@s.transport.com>

To Tom Reed, Dean Still et al:

Just a note with my two cents worth. It was interesting to participate in
the Stoves newsgroup during the past year+. All the information has been
interesting, informative and helps define the problems for me. The amount
of messages were not overwhelming to suggest the need to split the
newsgroup from a traffic standpoint.

Rather than having two newsgroups with minimal traffic and double the
overhead costs, I would vote to keep the stoves newsgroup intact and
discuss all the issues related to providing cooking energy. This has been
a very interesting, truely international newsgroup.

Just two cents worth....

Art Krenzel
phoenix@transport.com

.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm
Stoves List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES:
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
Stoves Webpage
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

From dstill at epud.org Sat Jan 9 17:34:50 1999
From: dstill at epud.org (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:13 2004
Subject: Forwarding:Charcoal manufacture and energy recovery
Message-ID: <199901092219.OAA08981@seahorse.epud.net>

Dear Piet and Paul,

Great to hear from you! Larry and a crew from Aprovecho are doing a two
month visit to Honduras to introduce some stove technology. They will be
sharing ideas about insulating around the combustion chamber, thermally
isolating the stove body from the heat, improving combustion by using an
insulated chimney at least 12" high above the fire, etc. They also will
talk about skirts around the pot to dramatically improve fuel efficiency
and how the fireless cooker, insulated box, makes best use of retained heat
in the pot.Larry's general approach to stoves is that it makes more sense
to try for complete combustion of wood initially rather than try to mess
with gasification. He tried for a long time to make a gasifying stove work
but was turned off by having to make it air tight. Even his best attempts
were finicky and wouldn't run using wet wood.

So being a real world kind of guy, Larry focused on what he considered the
easiest method to introduce in developing countries, making a stove that
achieves "complete combustion".

It is interesting and laudable in every way, that each method for use of
biomass be explored. After Alex english's visit, we were inspired to try
some variations on his charcoal producing stove. It's all great fun and
positive and meaningful. I wonder what you two are learning lately? Any
breakthroughs that we can incorporate in Honduras?

Best Regards to all,

Dean
----------
> From: Peter Verhaart <verhaarp@cqu.edu.au>
> To: Dean Still <dstill@epud.org>
> Subject: Re: Forwarding:Charcoal manufacture and energy recovery
> Date: Saturday, January 09, 1999 2:14 AM
>
> Hear, hear!
>
> At 11:21 8/01/99 -0800, you wrote:
> >With Tom Reed, I have been watching the beloved stoves list dwindle down
to
> >talks about charcoal. It is certainly interesting to try to make
charcoal
> >efficiently and perhaps a stove can be built that cleanly produces heat
> >while making charcoal. However, this activity is obviously a sideline to
> >the world wide interest in creating more efficient cooking stoves: I
should
> >say learning how to cook food most efficiently using the least biomass.
> >
> >Where have all the stovers gone?
> >
> >Dean Still
> >
>
> Still here and working on two clean burning (hopefully) cookstoves,
> designed not to leave a a shred of charcoal unburnt.
>
> Piet
>
> >
> >Stoves List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES:
> >http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
> >Stoves Webpage
> >http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
> >For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
> >http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm
> >
> Peter Verhaart, 6 McDonald St. Gracemere Q 4702 Australia
> Phone: +61 7 4933 1761; fax: +61 7 4933 1761 or
> +61 7 4933 2112 (when computer is on); mobile: 0412 457239
> E-mail p.verhaart@cqu.edu.au
Stoves List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES:
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
Stoves Webpage
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

From ahe1 at cableol.co.uk Sun Jan 10 08:31:36 1999
From: ahe1 at cableol.co.uk (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Firewood measure
In-Reply-To: <199901081235_MC2-65F7-73BE@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19990110130959.01073c34@mail.cableol.co.uk>

At 12:34 08-01-99 -0500, Tom Reed wrote in response to Andrew Heggie:
>Thanks for the comparative costs of wood and other fuels in UK. I'm
>surprised at the low cost of hardwood in the UK - 40-50 GBP/cord. I
>presume that is a true cord measure, not face cord or other.
I was surprised by your costs too!, I could be wealthy if I cheap transport
to Denver were available!

My calculations were on a 128cubic ft cord. I do not want my post to be
taken as gospel, I had hoped for comment on other's experience. I feel I
was harsh on the moisture content for oak/beech it should be nearer 90%. If
we assume the basic green density of oak/beech is still 1m3 to 1tonne then
the energy content goes up to 17GJ per green cord. The generally accepted
figure for mixed hardwood seems to be 10GJ per green tonne which, bearing
in mind most species have a lower green density than oak/beech and hence a
green cord will drop below 2 tonne, seems to accord with my calculations in
rounded terms.

Other common British hardwoods are birch at 76%, sycamore (non native)69%
and ash 48% moisture contents. We have a paucity of choice in indigenous
species because of the way the land became isolated from the European
continent as the glaciation receded.
<snip>
So far I haven't seen RICKS discussed, but I haven't finished reading my
>145 messages after a recent trip.
I did not respond to ricks as it is a term I am only familiar with in
association with hay and corn harvest.
AJH

From john at gulland.ca Sun Jan 10 13:10:02 1999
From: john at gulland.ca (John Gulland)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:13 2004
Subject: Eye candy
Message-ID: <000201be3cc4$6d9217a0$1e36f8ce@jgulland.igs.net>

Stovers and Bios,
Please pardon the double post, but I thought some people on both lists might
enjoy this. A colleague of mine, Ray Bonar, has a fairly large fireplace
manufacturing company which is one of the only companies in North America that
builds exclusively woodburning fireplaces (most build more gas than wood). Ray
hired an Ottawa company called Aerographics to develop a brochure for him, and
as part of the brochure, was a graphic illustrating the carbon cycle.

I think the graphic is a knockout and might serve as a useful tool in
communicating the complex issue of the carbon cycle. You'll find it here:
http://www.wood-heat.com/carbon.htm

You also might be interested in the FeelGood brochure which I have finally put
on line. The paper version of it, which was introduced at the Hearth and Home
Expo in March in St. Louis, was also created by Aerographics and is far more
beautiful than the on-line version I put up. It is here:
http://www.wood-heat.com/gdbroch.htm

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

From taykenne at iastate.edu Sun Jan 10 18:16:25 1999
From: taykenne at iastate.edu (taykenne@iastate.edu)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Firewood measure
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19990110130959.01073c34@mail.cableol.co.uk>
Message-ID: <199901102317.RAA17900@isua4.iastate.edu>

Hi all,

About weights and measures of firewood...

A "rick" is however much wood the vender uses the term to mean but less than
a cord. I have seen it used to mean both 4'x4'x18" and 4'x8'x18".

A "pickup load" varies *more* ;->; from the old VW than carried something
like 600 lb. of passengers plus cargo to my Chevy "30" which carries 4,000
lb. without strain (DO ask before you order).

A standard cord (128 cu.ft.) will have about 80 cu.ft. of solid wood using
small round (unsplit) wood. Larger rounds will give more solid wood. Split
wood will (if I remember correctly) run about 90 cu.ft. of solid wood
independent of the size of the pieces. Obviously, crooked pieces stacked
loosely can run a lot less.

"But how much does it weigh," you ask. A standard cord of green American Elm
will average about 4,500 lbs or more; air dry 2,700. Hickory can run 5,200
green and over 4,000 air dry. These are all "ring porous hardwoods" and can
vary 15-20 % in density from place to place in the *same tree* and 30-40%
from tree to tree. Basswood (linden), also a hardwood (but diffuse porous),
can run over 3,500 green and less than 2,000 dry. The white oaks will run
slightly less than the hickories; the red oaks slightly less again. The
hard maples, the ashes, walnut and cherry (in descending order of density)
will run less than the oaks and generally more than the elms. The soft
maples, cottonwoods, aspens and willows (again in descending order) will run
less than the elms and more than basswood.

In softwoods there is nearly as much variation as in the hardwoods. Longleaf
pine will run from 3,500 to 5,500 green, depending on how much heartwood and
sapwood-different moisture contents, to about 3,200 air dry. Northern white
cedar will run from 2,300 to 5,000 green and about 1700 air dry. The
larches, douglas fir, and the other hard pines will run toward the upper end
of that range and the true firs, spruces and cedars toward the lower end.

The above 2 paragraphs use info drawn from tables in Haygreen and Bowyer,
Forest products and wood science, 1982, Iowa State University Press.

Hope the above is useful.
Bill

From english at adan.kingston.net Sun Jan 10 23:16:18 1999
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.english)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:13 2004
Subject: Wood combustion emissions
In-Reply-To: <001301be39e8$5a9a2540$c79966ce@default>
Message-ID: <199901110417.XAA11186@adan.kingston.net>

Dear Jim, Norbert and all,
After reading Jim's infomercial about fire place logs, I went out and
bought one. The package had written on it that based on CANMET
(Canada's federal government combustion lab) testing, use of this
product would reduce particulate and carbon monoxide emissions. The
exact wording burned up, as one lights these "logs" by lighting the
package. There was no specific information such as g/kg.

So Jim, do you have that kind of information?

I t struck me that these logs could significantly reduce emissions
simply because far less fuel is being burned to maintain the visual
fire place affect.

I have been trying to get a handle on combustion emissions, so I
decided to run one of my 'rigorous' tests.

Using a home made version of the Condar Emission Sampler, as
described on Norbert's webpage, I collected a few samples during the
stable mid portion of the compressed logs burn cycle. The same was
done for a larger wood fire in the same steel box stove. The result
was a particulate (> 1.5um) emissions rate 4-5 times higher, on a
g/kg basis, for the compressed log than for the mid portion of the
hot wood fire. This is still likely better than for an average "cold"
wood fire in a fireplace.

It fared much better on CO, with the hot wood fire producing four
times as much CO per kg of fuel.

These numbers will have some additional error, over and above what one
should expect from me, depending on the quantity of non wood fuel
in the compressed log. The combustion program I am using is set up for
a wood fuel.

What percent of the total btus in the compressed log is raw biomass?

Regards Alex English

Alex English
RR 2 Odessa, Ontario, Canada
K0H2H0 613-386-1927
Fax 613-386-1211
Stoves List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES:
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
Stoves Webpage
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

From english at adan.kingston.net Sun Jan 10 23:16:19 1999
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.english)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:13 2004
Subject: Forwarding:Charcoal manufacture and energy recovery
In-Reply-To: <199901081858.KAA26397@seahorse.epud.net>
Message-ID: <199901110417.XAA11194@adan.kingston.net>

Hi everyone,

Dean wrote;
>However, this activity is obviously a sideline to
> the world wide interest in creating more efficient cooking stoves: I
> should say learning how to cook food most efficiently using the
> least biomass.
> Where have all the stovers gone?

Most Stovers, myself not included, are just as quiet as they have
always been. Busy, shy, secretive, bored or stymied? Take your pick.

It seems to me that the health professionals have "raised the bar"
much higher than cooking with the least fuel.As though the
design constraints weren't challenging enough already. So being
silently stymied is a good guess.

Bored? We do tend to repeat ourselves.

I know that some stovers are keeping secrets from the rest. Because I
know that, I must be one of them.

Shy? Nah!

Busy. Yes, the stovers
are all busy making charcoal.

Alex

> Dean Still
>
>
> Stoves List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES:
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
> Stoves Webpage
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
> For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm
>
>
Alex English
RR 2 Odessa, Ontario, Canada
K0H2H0 613-386-1927
Fax 613-386-1211
Stoves List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES:
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
Stoves Webpage
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

From K.K.Prasad at phys.tue.nl Mon Jan 11 04:44:13 1999
From: K.K.Prasad at phys.tue.nl (K. K. Prasad)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:13 2004
Subject: Where have all the stovers gone?
Message-ID: <199901110945.KAA23393@silicon.tue.nl>

Dear Stovers all

This sounds like one of those songs from yester year that hit the top
ten or something like that.

I presume that the people were busy cooking and eating during the
festive season so much so they had too little time to think about the
stoves.

In fact that is the problem. The customers for our stoves are far too
busy cooking so that they can feed themselves and their families
without being bothered about fuel consumption, environmental hazards,
downdraft combustion, charcoal making stoves etc., etc.. Assuming
that the discussion makes sense, they cannot be part of this discussion even
if it were to take place in traditional modes of communication and
not this esoteric mode.

Last year when India exploded the BOMB, it came as a surprise to many
and a question that was frequently asked was: how come all those spy
satellites were unable to catch the Indians carrying out the
preparations for the explosion? Pat came the answer: one can work
around these new devices rather simply since they have a clearly
defined frequency of passing over a territory. Thus one requires
genuine foot soldiers a la 007 variety to keep such operations under
close scrutiny.

In a similar vein, we need a new refrain: where are the foot soldiers
in the stove business? For my money there were only two, maybe three
in the group - Rogerio, Priyadarshini Karve and Mike Bess. Rogerio is
probably too busy helping people recover from the ravages of hurricane
Mitch; Priyadarshini sounds as though she has quit from the
University - the proverbial ivory tower that fosters such esoteric
activities; and Mike Bess - probably fighting some Aid official to
keep their ship afloat.

If we want more participation, we need to provide something
meaningful for these and attract many more such foot soldiers to our
circle.

I THINK I have identified the problem ( Note the capitals - meant to
accommodate the doubting Thomasses who will disagree with my
identification). I THINK (again capitals) I can even suggest a
solution. The catch is - CATCH 22 indeed - I don't know how to
implement it. Thus back to square one. What it boils down to is,
identifying the problem is nothing more than indulging in a bit of
off-the-cuff complaining.

My purpose in this contribution is to put our resources together to
come up with a methodology as to how we can bring the improved stoves
to those that need them and how we can keep the momentum of improvement
continuously on the move.

Hopefully before the new millenium dawns we can offer something
tangible than Hamlet's "Words, Words, Words, My Lord".

Wishing all of you a productive 1999.

Prasad

Stoves List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES:
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
Stoves Webpage
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

From marion.jackson at uni-tuebingen.de Mon Jan 11 05:39:09 1999
From: marion.jackson at uni-tuebingen.de (Marion Jackson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:13 2004
Subject: Where have all the stovers gone?
In-Reply-To: <199901110945.KAA23393@silicon.tue.nl>
Message-ID: <3699D52C.39875EF5@uni-tuebingen.de>

K. K. Prasad schrieb:

> Dear Stovers all
>
> This sounds like one of those songs from yester year that hit the top
> ten or something like that.
>
> I presume that the people were busy cooking and eating during the
> festive season so much so they had too little time to think about the
> stoves.
>
> In fact that is the problem. The customers for our stoves are far too
> busy cooking so that they can feed themselves and their families
> without being bothered about fuel consumption, environmental hazards,
> downdraft combustion, charcoal making stoves etc., etc.. Assuming
> that the discussion makes sense, they cannot be part of this discussion even
> if it were to take place in traditional modes of communication and
> not this esoteric mode.
>
> Last year when India exploded the BOMB, it came as a surprise to many
> and a question that was frequently asked was: how come all those spy
> satellites were unable to catch the Indians carrying out the
> preparations for the explosion? Pat came the answer: one can work
> around these new devices rather simply since they have a clearly
> defined frequency of passing over a territory. Thus one requires
> genuine foot soldiers a la 007 variety to keep such operations under
> close scrutiny.
>
> In a similar vein, we need a new refrain: where are the foot soldiers
> in the stove business? For my money there were only two, maybe three
> in the group - Rogerio, Priyadarshini Karve and Mike Bess. Rogerio is
> probably too busy helping people recover from the ravages of hurricane
> Mitch; Priyadarshini sounds as though she has quit from the
> University - the proverbial ivory tower that fosters such esoteric
> activities; and Mike Bess - probably fighting some Aid official to
> keep their ship afloat.
>
> If we want more participation, we need to provide something
> meaningful for these and attract many more such foot soldiers to our
> circle.
>
> I THINK I have identified the problem ( Note the capitals - meant to
> accommodate the doubting Thomasses who will disagree with my
> identification). I THINK (again capitals) I can even suggest a
> solution. The catch is - CATCH 22 indeed - I don't know how to
> implement it. Thus back to square one. What it boils down to is,
> identifying the problem is nothing more than indulging in a bit of
> off-the-cuff complaining.
>
> My purpose in this contribution is to put our resources together to
> come up with a methodology as to how we can bring the improved stoves
> to those that need them and how we can keep the momentum of improvement
> continuously on the move.
>
> Hopefully before the new millenium dawns we can offer something
> tangible than Hamlet's "Words, Words, Words, My Lord".
>
> Wishing all of you a productive 1999.
>
> Prasad
>
> Stoves List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES:
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
> Stoves Webpage
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
> For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

Hey, someone out here is trying to organize to connect you and other
technologies to those who need it.
Marion

begin: vcard
fn: Marion Jackson
n: Jackson;Marion
org: Physiologische Oekologie der Pflanzen
email;internet: marion.jackson@uni-tuebingen.de
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
version: 2.1
end: vcard

From john at gulland.ca Mon Jan 11 07:54:23 1999
From: john at gulland.ca (John Gulland)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:13 2004
Subject: I goofed
Message-ID: <000801be3d61$a3fad780$2436f8ce@jgulland.igs.net>

For those who tried and could not load the image of the carbon cycle I mentioned
in my last post, the fault is mine. Thanks to Alex for pointing it out first.
Please try again:
http://www.wood-heat.com/carbon.htm

John

From costaeec at kcnet.com Mon Jan 11 11:27:38 1999
From: costaeec at kcnet.com (Jim Dunham)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:14 2004
Subject: Wood combustion emissions
Message-ID: <002101be3d85$2773d580$c99966ce@default>

Mr. ENGLISH &all,

I am highly impressed that you actually took steps to do your own research,
rather than accepting the usual propaganda, perceptions, prejudices, and
promotions. Too many of us accept what we are told, (but few have your test
capabilities).

I enjoyed your post, but must clarify that the log you tested was not the
type of log I refered to in the original post. The log which you bought for
testing was a 'wax log', rather than comprressed log. It is made from a base
of sawdust, but mostly an unrefined form of wax. I don't know exactly what
it is, but I am told it is a by-product of oil refining. 'It' is the primary
fuel, rather than the sawdust. Wax logs provide very little heat, but
obviously satisfy the needs of many, as they they sell extremely well,
largely due to the convenience & ease of ignition.

The logs I refered to are pure sawdust, highly compressed, with no wax, no
binder or any additive of any kind. The immense heat and pressure exerted
during forming, re-activates the natural lignin to form a 'glue'. They weigh
about double that of normal cordwood. There is controversy regarding the
heat output, but since they are bone dry, you can expect something in the
area of 8,500BTU. It theoretically can't exceed the max. for wood, but many
insist they burn far hotter than that. We have actually seen inserts buckle
from the heat. My only theory is that they do not emmit more than the
possible BTU's per pound, but you can get more pounds into the burner (due
to the density) and therefore the 'fire' has more pounds than normal and
thus, more BTU's. This may also explain why emissions and ash are so low.

They are a staple in the Pacific Northwest & Europe. Most who are accustomed
to them will burn nothing else. I don't know of any producers in your area,
but a sawmill in Halifax is planning to begin production for Winter'99.

Best regards. Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: *.english <english@adan.kingston.net>
To: stoves@crest.org <stoves@crest.org>
Cc: Jim Dunham <costaeec@kcnet.com>
Date: Sunday, January 10, 1999 9:17 PM
Subject: Re: Wood combustion emissions

So Jim, do you have that kind of information?

I t struck me that these logs could significantly reduce emissions
simply because far less fuel is being burned to maintain the visual
fire place affect.

I have been trying to get a handle on combustion emissions, so I
decided to run one of my 'rigorous' tests.

It fared much better on CO, with the hot wood fire producing four
times as much CO per kg of fuel.

What percent of the total btus in the compressed log is raw biomass?

Regards Alex English

Alex English
RR 2 Odessa, Ontario, Canada
K0H2H0 613-386-1927
Fax 613-386-1211

From K.K.Prasad at phys.tue.nl Mon Jan 11 12:22:10 1999
From: K.K.Prasad at phys.tue.nl (K. K. Prasad)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:14 2004
Subject: Where have all the stovers gone?
Message-ID: <199901111723.SAA14225@silicon.tue.nl>

Dear Marion

But how can this list help? Please let us know.

Prasad
Stoves List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES:
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
Stoves Webpage
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

From pcbadger at tva.gov Mon Jan 11 12:24:20 1999
From: pcbadger at tva.gov (Badger, Phillip C.)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:14 2004
Subject: Wood combustion emissions
Message-ID: <4BC88098C5DDCF11A5E40000F8014BA701A5C877@mshmshois1p.mss.tva.gov>

CANMET and the state of Oregon have performed combustion emission tests on
pressed firelogs (not wax logs). We have copies available for a nominal fee
or you can contact the sources directly. We also have a somewhat dated list
of pressed firelog manufacturers.

Phillip C. Badger, Manager
Southeastern Regional Biomass Energy Program

----------
From: Jim Dunham[SMTP:costaeec@kcnet.com]
Sent: Monday, January 11, 1999 11:09 AM
To: english@adan.kingston.net; stoves@crest.org
Subject: Re: Wood combustion emissions

Mr. ENGLISH &all,

I am highly impressed that you actually took steps to do your own
research,
rather than accepting the usual propaganda, perceptions, prejudices,
and
promotions. Too many of us accept what we are told, (but few have
your test
capabilities).

I enjoyed your post, but must clarify that the log you tested was
not the
type of log I refered to in the original post. The log which you
bought for
testing was a 'wax log', rather than comprressed log. It is made
from a base
of sawdust, but mostly an unrefined form of wax. I don't know
exactly what
it is, but I am told it is a by-product of oil refining. 'It' is the
primary
fuel, rather than the sawdust. Wax logs provide very little heat,
but
obviously satisfy the needs of many, as they they sell extremely
well,
largely due to the convenience & ease of ignition.

The logs I refered to are pure sawdust, highly compressed, with no
wax, no
binder or any additive of any kind. The immense heat and pressure
exerted
during forming, re-activates the natural lignin to form a 'glue'.
They weigh
about double that of normal cordwood. There is controversy regarding
the
heat output, but since they are bone dry, you can expect something
in the
area of 8,500BTU. It theoretically can't exceed the max. for wood,
but many
insist they burn far hotter than that. We have actually seen inserts
buckle
from the heat. My only theory is that they do not emmit more than
the
possible BTU's per pound, but you can get more pounds into the
burner (due
to the density) and therefore the 'fire' has more pounds than normal
and
thus, more BTU's. This may also explain why emissions and ash are so
low.

They are a staple in the Pacific Northwest & Europe. Most who are
accustomed
to them will burn nothing else. I don't know of any producers in
your area,
but a sawmill in Halifax is planning to begin production for
Winter'99.

Dear Jim, Norbert and all,
After reading Jim's infomercial about fire place logs, I went out
and
bought one. The package had written on it that based on CANMET
(Canada's federal government combustion lab) testing, use of this
product would reduce particulate and carbon monoxide emissions. The
exact wording burned up, as one lights these "logs" by lighting the
package. There was no specific information such as g/kg.

So Jim, do you have that kind of information?

I t struck me that these logs could significantly reduce emissions
simply because far less fuel is being burned to maintain the visual
fire place affect.

I have been trying to get a handle on combustion emissions, so I
decided to run one of my 'rigorous' tests.

It fared much better on CO, with the hot wood fire producing four
times as much CO per kg of fuel.

These numbers will have some additional error, over and above what
one
should expect from me, depending on the quantity of non wood fuel
in the compressed log. The combustion program I am using is set up
for
a wood fuel.

What percent of the total btus in the compressed log is raw biomass?

Regards Alex English

Alex English
RR 2 Odessa, Ontario, Canada
K0H2H0 613-386-1927
Fax 613-386-1211

Stoves List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES:
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
Stoves Webpage
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

Stoves List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES:
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
Stoves Webpage
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

From larcon at sni.net Mon Jan 11 18:34:51 1999
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:14 2004
Subject: Forwarding Piet Verhaart on Carbon monoxide, gaz carbonico
Message-ID: <v01540b00b2c03acc3ac7@[204.131.233.8]>

(All of the following is from list member Piet Verhaart - forwarded by Ron
Larson)

Dear stovers,

With all the mental effort going into the making of
charcoal, has anyone ever measured the emissions of CO from charcoal fires?

Before I was a teener, I lived in the Netherlands East Indies, in the
capital Batavia. This sounds very reactionary but at the time this is what
they were called, now for those not reached by National Geographic
teachings, they are now called Indonesia and Jakarta respectively.

Our cook used the stove top burning town (coal) gas but for extra duties
she used arang (charcoal) in an Anglo (somewhat similar to the Thai bucket
stove). It required a certain measure of skill to light the arang in an
anglo but what I remember most vividly is the fact of the pale blue flames
on top of the charcoal. That must have been CO burning to CO2. I also
remember that those flames did not possess a strong sense of survival, eg
it didn't take much in the way of a slight draft or a pan placed on the
anglo for the flames to go out. My simple explanation is that at such a
point CO was emitted.

Of course, CO does not show up as a particulate emission, is that why it is
never mentioned?

Best regards,

Piet
Peter Verhaart, 6 McDonald St. Gracemere Q 4702 Australia
Phone: +61 7 4933 1761; fax: +61 7 4933 1761 or
+61 7 4933 2112 (when computer is on); mobile: 0412 457239
E-mail p.verhaart@cqu.edu.au

From mheat at mha-net.org Tue Jan 12 06:15:49 1999
From: mheat at mha-net.org (Norbert Senf)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:14 2004
Subject: Forwarding Piet Verhaart on Carbon monoxide, gaz carbonico
In-Reply-To: <v01540b00b2c03acc3ac7@[204.131.233.8]>
Message-ID: <4.1.19990112055327.00a73b80@mha-net.org>

At 05:41 PM 11/01/99 -0600, Piet wrote:

>Our cook used the stove top burning town (coal) gas but for extra duties
>she used arang (charcoal) in an Anglo (somewhat similar to the Thai bucket
>stove). It required a certain measure of skill to light the arang in an
>anglo but what I remember most vividly is the fact of the pale blue flames
>on top of the charcoal. That must have been CO burning to CO2. I also
>remember that those flames did not possess a strong sense of survival, eg
>it didn't take much in the way of a slight draft or a pan placed on the
>anglo for the flames to go out. My simple explanation is that at such a
>point CO was emitted.
>
>Of course, CO does not show up as a particulate emission, is that why it is
>never mentioned?
>

CO emissions are characteristic of a charcoal fire. When we burn a load of
wood under fairly optimum conditions in a masonry heater, there is a large
CO spike at the end. Some of the advanced charcoal burning cookstove on
this list are probably able to reduce these emissions to some degree.

CO seems to be used in Europe as an indicator of clean combustion, although
with masonry heaters we found little correlation between CO and
particulates at the low end of the PM spectrum.

Canada Mortgage and Housing did a large Canada-wide survey of the housing
stock in the 1980's and found low level CO to be surprisingly widespread in
Canadian houses during the heating season. This is usually due to furnace
spillage into the house through the barometric damper during startup. Low
level CO can cause flue-like and other hard to diagnose health symptoms.

An interesting recent development has been the availability of fairly
accurate, (relatively) low cost CO monitors. In North America, you can go
to a Home Depot or Walmart and, for under $50.00, purchase a battery
powered CO detector with an LCD readout down to 10ppm. "Nighthawk" is the
brand to get - other types have been shown grossly inaccurate. I have one
in our own (tight) house. When I close the flue damper on my masory heater
after the coals are (apparently) out, I've seen readings as high as 30 ppm
if the damper was closed too soon. I believe 100 ppm is the level at which
the alarm actually sounds.

This would probably be a very useful, low cost, tool for many researchers
with finite budgets.

Best.............Norbert Senf

----------------------------------------
Norbert Senf---------- mheat@mha-net.org-nospam (remove nospam)
Masonry Stove Builders
RR 5, Shawville------- www.mha-net.org/msb
Quebec J0X 2Y0-------- fax:-----819.647.6082
---------------------- voice:---819.647.5092

From rmiranda at sdnnic.org.ni Wed Jan 13 00:00:53 1999
From: rmiranda at sdnnic.org.ni (Rogerio Miranda)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:14 2004
Subject: Where have all the stovers gone?
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19990112222621.007f5660@pop.sdnnic.org.ni.>

>From: "K. K. Prasad" <K.K.Prasad@phys.tue.nl>
>
>Dear Stovers all
>
>>In a similar vein, we need a new refrain: where are the foot soldiers
>in the stove business? For my money there were only two, maybe three
>in the group - Rogerio, Priyadarshini Karve and Mike Bess.
>
>If we want more participation, we need to provide something
>meaningful for these and attract many more such foot soldiers to our
>circle.
>
>>My purpose in this contribution is to put our resources together to
>come up with a methodology as to how we can bring the improved stoves
>to those that need them and how we can keep the momentum of improvement
>continuously on the move.
>
>Hopefully before the new millenium dawns we can offer something
>tangible than Hamlet's "Words, Words, Words, My Lord".
-----------------------------------------------
Dear Prasad and other interested parties:

I want to agree with you, but I wonder if we would succeed ? Yes, another
mileniun is ending, and yet the female homo sapiens still face the same
oldest problem from several mileniuns ago : how to cook efficiently and
clean with the oldest fuel available ?

When I first joined this list, I was very excited about potential exchanges
of ideias, resources and initiatives. Indeed in the begining I was a little
disapointed because I saw that the great majority of the list members are
academic or week end scientists from developed countries working toward
stoves development, but without connections or links with those in less
developed countries that most need this tech development.

I was even further dissapointed to know that the Foundation for Woodstove
Development (FWD) failed to achieve it original goals to spread the
development of stoves world wide.

However, last year and specially this 99 year, I am very optimists and
excited about the growing colaboration among those two groups that I just
mentioned. My personal testimony about the results of the stove list is
the following:

1. I have received excelents books and literature about woodstoves
development and design from you (Prasad) that has been very helpful,

2. Equally I did receive the excelent book from Kirk Smith abouth health
and biofuels, that also has been very helpful,

3. Kirk Smith has offered to colaborate closely with us in an ongoing study
here in Nicaragua about indoor air quality, sendig equipments and someone
for training us,

4. John Gulland just finished past December a volunteer chimney design
course in Honduras, and he is even further helping us to develop a
cooperation link with North America Hearth Industries to posibly install a
basic woodstove lab in Central America, or somethingh related.

5. Paul Hayt of Pyromid sent me further information about his Pyromid stove
and is willing to try or test some adaptations to his product in order to
match Nicaragua woodstove consumers needs.

6. Dean Still of Aprovecho also sent me information about the Rocket stove,
and is willing to test in his institute some of our suggestions for an
improved woodstove.

7. Stuart Conway of Trees, People and Water has offered some funds to
develop even further our urban improved woodstove dissemination in
Honduras, and in colaboration with Aprovecho is sending two experts (
including Larry Winiarski) to Honduras to develop a traiining programm in
appropiate technology, including stoves.

8. Ron Larson has offered to come here as volunteer and helping with hands
on in developing a better stove.

9. Priyadarshini Karve is putting togheter a posible stoves conference in
India early next mileniun (suggested by this list), where many of us will
finaly meet face to face for the first time.

10. Alex English kindly put in his stove web page, some information about
our woodstove project in Honduras.

11. Please, forgive me if I forgot to mention anyone else.

As you see, behind the scenes, this list has produced some good actions. I
hope that this kind of collaboration happens among all of us, and I hope
very much that in the future this list will mature into a more concrete and
powerful mechanism to speed up improved stoves to those most need.

Happy final milleniun to you too.

Rogerio

From tmiles at teleport.com Wed Jan 13 02:01:39 1999
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:14 2004
Subject: Ron, Rogerio, Kirk and Supporting Stovers
Message-ID: <199901130702.XAA13205@mail.easystreet.com>

Just a note of thanks to all those who have contributed to make this a unique list with a regular diet of fun and useful work.

For all of the volunteer help we still need to pay for the technical administration and service fees for the list.

Kirk Smith made the first enthusiastic individual contribution to supporting the stoves list this year. I hope others will visit the CREST Sponsor site and chip in.

http://crest.org/services/biolist-spons.shtml

We can accomodate two sponsors in the footer of each message. $300 will buy you a line in the footer of each message and a banner in the archives for the whole year. Any takers? The first two get the spots.

Tom

From phait at hwy97.net Wed Jan 13 10:50:01 1999
From: phait at hwy97.net (Paul Hait)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:14 2004
Subject: Where have all the stovers gone? Paul Hait has an idea or two. Thanks for the recognition.
Message-ID: <000f01be3ef2$85f22800$2d87bece@paulhait>

Dear Rogerio,
1/13/98

Buenos Diaz!

I hope we have a chance to meet. You are what I term as a" Real American".
Your email should be framed in the Museum of World Stoves that I am sure
will someday be built in Nicaragua. Or Central Oregon.

I think we should talk about our Tomahawk Lodge. It is a Single Pole Teepee
( www. Wooska.com to see it ) that has a stove on the pole that looks like
the Planca Stove. It could be used as temporary shelter ( sleeps 8 ) . Then
when the house is built the pole and stove can be installed in the home,
Planca stile. The pole is a telescope chimney of four connecting sections
about 16 feet long. The entire system could be built in Nicaragua to put the
people to work. Sewing and sheetmetal work. What do you think about this
idea? Would the gov't sponser a trip to demo this idea ?

I have also come up with a low cost HTA Grill/ Griddle Stove that that I
believe meets your proposal requirements for cost and simplicity. Give me
your Fax Number and I will fax it to you.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rogerio Miranda <rmiranda@sdnnic.org.ni>
To: stoves@crest.org <stoves@crest.org>
Date: Tuesday, January 12, 1999 9:07 PM
Subject: Where have all the stovers gone?

>
>
>
>
>>From: "K. K. Prasad" <K.K.Prasad@phys.tue.nl>
>>
>>Dear Stovers all
>>
>>>In a similar vein, we need a new refrain: where are the foot soldiers
>>in the stove business? For my money there were only two, maybe three
>>in the group - Rogerio, Priyadarshini Karve and Mike Bess.
>>
>>If we want more participation, we need to provide something
>>meaningful for these and attract many more such foot soldiers to our
>>circle.
>>
>>>My purpose in this contribution is to put our resources together to
>>come up with a methodology as to how we can bring the improved stoves
>>to those that need them and how we can keep the momentum of improvement
>>continuously on the move.
>>
>>Hopefully before the new millenium dawns we can offer something
>>tangible than Hamlet's "Words, Words, Words, My Lord".
>-----------------------------------------------
>Dear Prasad and other interested parties:
>
>I want to agree with you, but I wonder if we would succeed ? Yes, another
>mileniun is ending, and yet the female homo sapiens still face the same
>oldest problem from several mileniuns ago : how to cook efficiently and
>clean with the oldest fuel available ?
>
>When I first joined this list, I was very excited about potential exchanges
>of ideias, resources and initiatives. Indeed in the begining I was a little
>disapointed because I saw that the great majority of the list members are
>academic or week end scientists from developed countries working toward
>stoves development, but without connections or links with those in less
>developed countries that most need this tech development.
>
>I was even further dissapointed to know that the Foundation for Woodstove
>Development (FWD) failed to achieve it original goals to spread the
>development of stoves world wide.
>
>However, last year and specially this 99 year, I am very optimists and
>excited about the growing colaboration among those two groups that I just
>mentioned. My personal testimony about the results of the stove list is
>the following:
>
>1. I have received excelents books and literature about woodstoves
>development and design from you (Prasad) that has been very helpful,
>
>2. Equally I did receive the excelent book from Kirk Smith abouth health
>and biofuels, that also has been very helpful,
>
>3. Kirk Smith has offered to colaborate closely with us in an ongoing study
>here in Nicaragua about indoor air quality, sendig equipments and someone
>for training us,
>
>4. John Gulland just finished past December a volunteer chimney design
>course in Honduras, and he is even further helping us to develop a
>cooperation link with North America Hearth Industries to posibly install a
>basic woodstove lab in Central America, or somethingh related.
>
>5. Paul Hayt of Pyromid sent me further information about his Pyromid stove
>and is willing to try or test some adaptations to his product in order to
>match Nicaragua woodstove consumers needs.
>
>6. Dean Still of Aprovecho also sent me information about the Rocket stove,
>and is willing to test in his institute some of our suggestions for an
>improved woodstove.
>
>7. Stuart Conway of Trees, People and Water has offered some funds to
>develop even further our urban improved woodstove dissemination in
>Honduras, and in colaboration with Aprovecho is sending two experts (
>including Larry Winiarski) to Honduras to develop a traiining programm in
>appropiate technology, including stoves.
>
>8. Ron Larson has offered to come here as volunteer and helping with hands
>on in developing a better stove.
>
>9. Priyadarshini Karve is putting togheter a posible stoves conference in
>India early next mileniun (suggested by this list), where many of us will
>finaly meet face to face for the first time.
>
>10. Alex English kindly put in his stove web page, some information about
>our woodstove project in Honduras.
>
>11. Please, forgive me if I forgot to mention anyone else.
>
>As you see, behind the scenes, this list has produced some good actions. I
>hope that this kind of collaboration happens among all of us, and I hope
>very much that in the future this list will mature into a more concrete and
>powerful mechanism to speed up improved stoves to those most need.
>
>Happy final milleniun to you too.
>
>Rogerio
>
>
>
>
>Stoves List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES:
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
>Stoves Webpage
>http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
>For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
>http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

From larcon at sni.net Wed Jan 13 12:59:35 1999
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:14 2004
Subject: Forwarding David Allen - an info request
Message-ID: <v01540b01b2c1334d4f9f@[204.131.233.33]>

(Stovers - forwarding the following from list member David Allen at ITDG)

To "stoves":

I am carrying out a literature review for a research project on
'Energy Constraints on Production Systems in Peri-Urban Areas',
which has a natural resources focus, particularly competitive uses of
NRs (in terms of production of energy vs. traditional useage in
Both Pete Young and Liz Bates from ITDG have suggested that I contact
the Stoves network. I am looking in particular for suggestions of
literature sources in this area. Issues of interest include access to
energy in peri-urban areas (with regard to poverty, gender and
minority groups), novel sources of energy/uses of biomass, conversion
efficiency e.g. of stoves, and potential impacts of biomass use e.g
diversion from agricultural use.
If you think it appropriate, I would be grateful if you would place my
request on the network.

Dave Allen
Email: davida@itdg.org.uk
Intermediate Technology
Schumacher Centre for Technology and Development
Bourton Hall
Bourton-on-Dunsmore
Warwickshire
CV23 9QZ

Url: http://www.oneworld.org/itdg
Intl: http://www.itdg.org.pe
Company Reg No 871954, England
Charity No 247257

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

From john at gulland.ca Wed Jan 13 15:01:51 1999
From: john at gulland.ca (John Gulland)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:14 2004
Subject: Where have all the stovers gone?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990112222621.007f5660@pop.sdnnic.org.ni.>
Message-ID: <000b01be3f2f$ae7a0e40$2236f8ce@jgulland.igs.net>

Rogerio Miranda wrote:
>
> As you see, behind the scenes, this list has produced some good actions. I
> hope that this kind of collaboration happens among all of us, and I hope
> very much that in the future this list will mature into a more concrete and
> powerful mechanism to speed up improved stoves to those most need.
>
I agree and share Rogerio's hopes.

I was drawn into this list by accident more than a year ago as I searched the
web for a network for technical discussions of wood stoves for home heating in
cold climates. Ever since, I've been fascinated by the discussion. I don't
even mind all the talk about charcoal, and I just love Elk's adventures with his
monster downdraft charcoal maker. I've had the great pleasure of meeting face
to face with Ronal and Alex, and had email chats with several other list
participants. This list led me to visit Honduras and seems to have revealed a
way in which I can volunteer productively.

That said, I do have a lot of questions that have not been fully addressed in
discussions here, or if they have, I've missed them. For example, the North
American wood stove industry was transformed when the US government imposed a
test methodology and smoke emission limits back in 1988. The methodology was
not perfect by any means, but it did provide a yardstick by which companies
could compare their products to others and use as a tool for improved stove
development. The results have been dramatic.

One of my questions therefore is: Does a recognized test methodology exist that
could characterize the performance (both heat transfer and combustion
efficiencies) for unvented stoves? Vented stoves? Are there candidate
methodologies that could be considered? Most of the research reports I've read
seem to deal mostly with heat transfer, and those that addressed combustion
efficiency were geared to the specific design under study and did not appear
readily transferable to other designs.

It seems to me that if there were recognized test protocols for the two main
classes of stoves (vented and unvented) that were flexible enough to handle
design variations, then our dialogue could be much more specific and productive.
Each new idea put forward could be evaluated on its merits and the results
shared. By this process, maybe stove development could be accelerated.

Any comments on this?

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

From mheat at mha-net.org Sat Jan 16 07:57:34 1999
From: mheat at mha-net.org (Norbert Senf)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:14 2004
Subject: 4 gas analyzer
Message-ID: <4.1.19990116075339.00a7f4e0@mha-net.org>

Want to set up a test lab?

Check out the following item at eBay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=57224473

Best..........Norbert Senf
----------------------------------------
Norbert Senf---------- mheat@mha-net.org-nospam (remove nospam)
Masonry Stove Builders
RR 5, Shawville------- www.mha-net.org/msb
Quebec J0X 2Y0-------- fax:-----819.647.6082
---------------------- voice:---819.647.5092

From rolando at ket2.ket.kth.se Mon Jan 18 10:31:07 1999
From: rolando at ket2.ket.kth.se (Rolando Zanzi)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:14 2004
Subject: 2nd Olle =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lindstr=F6m?= Symposium on Renewable Energy, Bioenergy
Message-ID: <199901181531.KAA02853@solstice.crest.org>

Invitation to:
2nd Olle Lindström Symposium on Renewable Energy, Bioenergy
9-11 June, 1999
Royal Institute of Technology
Stockholm, Sweden

Symposium Internet site: http://www.ket.kth.se/rolando/OLsymp
Recently updated

Experts in the field are invited to participate actively in the 2nd Olle
Lindström Symposium on Renewable Energy by giving oral presentations on
their recent work.
All papers will be reviewed prior to publication.
Only papers that are presented by the authors will appear in the proceedings

TOPICS:
The main themes of the 2nd Olle Lindström Symposium on Renewable Energy,
Bioenergy are bioenergy and systems utilising bioenergy. All kinds of
bioenergy sources, systems using such sources and components of such
systems can be discussed. For example the scope includes basic science of
bio-fuels, gas turbines, fuel cells etc., research and development
concerning such items and all types of systems for converting bioenergy to
electricity and/or heat.

Conditioning and storage of bio-fuels
Long term effects of bio-fuel production and use
Combustion processes and equipment
Energy systems for conversion of bioenergy
Flue gas cleaning in large and small scale operations
Ash handling
Marketable end products, e.g. charcoal, alcohols, bio-diesel fuel, and
hydrogen from biomass

The language of the symposium is English.

Deadline for submission of papers: 1st of Februari.
If you are interested to submit a paper, contact:
Rolando Zanzi: rolando@ket.kth.se

ORGANISING COMMITTEE
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Fredrik Setterwall (Chairman)
Ivars Neretnieks, Gunnar Svedberg, Pehr Björnbom, Krister Sjöström

SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
Michael Jerry Antal Jr, HNEI, USA
Thore Berntsson, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
Erik Dahlqvist, ABB Industrial Systems, Sweden
Carl-Johan Fogelholm, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Mikko Hupa, Åbo Akademi University, Finland

Björn Karlsson, Linköping Universitet, Sweden
Björn Kjellström, Luleå University of Technology, Sweden
Bo Leckner, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
Kent Nyström, SVEBIO, Sweden
Björn Qvale, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
Erik Rensfelt, TPS Termiska Processer AB, Sweden
Ingo Romey, Universität GH Essen, Germany
Tord Torisson, Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden
Björn Zethræus, Växjö University College, Sweden

INVITED SPEAKERS
Eric D. Larson, Princeton University, USA
"Advanced Technologies for Biomass Conversion to Energy"

Eric Rensfelt, Termiska Processer, Studsvik, Sweden
"Biomass - Sustainable energy today and for the future"

Johan Gullichsen, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

REGISTRATION FEE:
The registration fee includes Symposium Proceedings, banquet, lunch and
refreshments during the session break.

Full registration fee:
until April 1, 1999: 4000 SEK* (~ US$ 500)
after April 1, 1999: 5000 SEK* (~ US$ 625)

*Prices include local tax (VAT).

INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
For further information please contact:

Rolando Zanzi, Symposium Secretary
KTH /Chemical Technology
S-100 44 Stockholm - Sweden
e-mail: rolando@ket.kth.se
Fax: 46-8-10 8579 Tel: 46-8- 790 8257

http://www.ket.kth.se/rolando

Visit Symposium Internet Site:

http://www.ket.kth.se/rolando/OLsymp/

From karve at wmi.co.in Fri Jan 22 00:55:16 1999
From: karve at wmi.co.in (karve)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:14 2004
Subject: the stovers are very much here!
Message-ID: <30E6EDB0.11B9C31C@wmi.co.in>

Dear stovers,
After a lot of rather lengthy messages, I have been guilty of almost
complete silence over the last few months! Mainly because, with the
Ph.D. finally over and done with, I had to do a lot of catching up with
my work at ARTI. For the past ten days, I was out of station (attending
a Renewable Energy Congress at Kalyani University, near Calcutta ...
more about this in a latter message). On coming back, I found some 'soul
searching' messages from some of you in my mailbox! Firstly, thanks to
all of you who thought my small efforts worthy of special mention. It is
true that I have left the University, but the work I was doing there had
nothing to do with stoves. Whatever work that I have done and am doing
in this area has been done with NGOs - Center for Application of Science
and Technology for Rural Development (CASTFORD), in the past, and
Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI), at present.

Over the past few months the discussion in the list has indeed been
dominated by charcoal, but I don't really mind that. For one thing, I am
working both on charcoaling as well as wood burning stoves, so
personally to me, both kinds of discussions are interesting. I agree
with the assessment of Dr. Miranda that the fact that stoves researchers
are silent does not necessarily mean that they have disappeared. A lot
of things are going on behind the scenes.

I have myself been able to establish several valuable contacts and
gain a lot of knowledge through the list. I have been able to get a
number of research papers, publications, etc. Dr. Tom Reed and Mr. Rob
Walt visited our institute during their recent trip to India and I got
an opportunity to exchange views and discuss various things with them
for almost two days. This could not have been possible without the
stoves list. At ARTI, we have evolved a mud stove with an in-built
hotbox thanks to interactions with Dr. Dean Still through this list.
Because of the list, I got in touch with Dr. Mark Bryden and we could
embark on a systematic study of one of our popular stoves. And last but
not the least, the stovers conference, which will take place next year
because of the list.

I suppose the reason that charcoaling tends to dominate the list
discussions is that it is a relatively new area (charcoaling may be
ancient but concious efforts to make charcoal in an environmentaly
friendly and efficient manner are new). The problems encountered by
charcoal technologists are more severe as compared to the biomass
stovers, who have been around a bit longer. Charcoaling interests a
wider range of people in both developed and developing countries, and
also several industries. On the other hand, radical and innovative
designing in biomass stoves is constrained due to the criteria of user
acceptability (although our field experience shows that it is possible
to convince people to change their ways, with time and effort). The
problems encountered by stovers have more to do with commercialisation
and popularisation of the technology and with very few actual field
workers interacting with the list, the discussion of such issues tends
to be sidelined. However, the way the internet is permeating through
Indian academic establishments (and I presume in other developing
countries too) the scenario is bound to change with time. In the
Renewable Energy Congress that I attended last week, I tried to pursuade
other Indian organisations who are working in the field and who have
access to the internet to look in upon our list, and I will continue to
spread the message wherever I go. I suppose Dr. Miranda and others too
are doing the same. Language can be a problem in this context in some
countries, though not in India. Are there any ways to overcome this
problem (electronic translators or something like that)? Will someone
familiar with software technolgy give this a serious thought?

With regards,
Priyadarshini Karve.

From rabello at uniserve.com Fri Jan 22 01:31:44 1999
From: rabello at uniserve.com (robert luis rabello)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:14 2004
Subject: Woodstove Efficiency
In-Reply-To: <30E6EDB0.11B9C31C@wmi.co.in>
Message-ID: <36A81BAB.92576F83@uniserve.com>

I'd like to pose a question to the "silent stove experts." Is it
possible to increase the efficiency of an airtight woodstove? I burn waste
wood to keep my family warm during the winter, and I'm amazed at how much
wood we go through! It seems that most of the heat is simply escaping up
the chimney, and I hate to see it wasted, even if it IS free!

Your comments are appreciated.

robert luis rabello
VisionWorks

From karve at wmi.co.in Fri Jan 22 02:08:19 1999
From: karve at wmi.co.in (karve)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:14 2004
Subject: Woodstove Efficiency
In-Reply-To: <30E6EDB0.11B9C31C@wmi.co.in>
Message-ID: <30E6FED1.B8F1CD84@wmi.co.in>

Dear Mr. Rabello,
This is indeed a remarkable coincidence, but the same question (how to
utilise effectively the heat being wasted through the chimeny) has been
bothering me for the last couple of days!
At ARTI, we have tried to use the chimney for water heating by providing a
water jacket around it. If you are using the stove mainly for room heating
during winter, this extra source of warm water may be useful for you. As far as
cookstoves are concerned, by careful planning, one may be able to use the hot
water in the cooking itself thus saving marginal amount of fuel. Or it may be
used for cleaning particularly greasy utensils after the meal. Our observation
in India is that community stove users have found the concept of water jacket
around the chimney more acceptable than the domestic users, who in general are
against the chimney itself.
Another idea, which has come to my mind is to pass the chimney through the
fuelwood storage. The heat may be utilised for drying up the stored fuel and
this may improve the combustion quality. Of course this may also mean a fire
hazard ... depends on how much heat is escaping through the chimney.
As far as space heating is concerned, you may use a metal chimney, most of
which remains inside the house and only the outlet emerges from the roof!
Of course, some of the heat has to be 'wasted', otherwise the chimney (and
therefore the stove) cannot function!

With regards,
Priyadarshini Karve

robert luis rabello wrote:

> I'd like to pose a question to the "silent stove experts." Is it
> possible to increase the efficiency of an airtight woodstove? I burn waste
> wood to keep my family warm during the winter, and I'm amazed at how much
> wood we go through! It seems that most of the heat is simply escaping up
> the chimney, and I hate to see it wasted, even if it IS free!
>
> Your comments are appreciated.
>
> robert luis rabello
> VisionWorks
>
> Stoves List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES:
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
> Stoves Webpage
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
> For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

From john at gulland.ca Fri Jan 22 06:18:50 1999
From: john at gulland.ca (John Gulland)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:14 2004
Subject: Woodstove Efficiency
In-Reply-To: <36A81BAB.92576F83@uniserve.com>
Message-ID: <000201be45f9$1d1f0ce0$2136f8ce@jgulland.igs.net>

robert luis rabello wrote:
>
> I'd like to pose a question to the "silent stove experts." Is it
> possible to increase the efficiency of an airtight woodstove? I burn waste
> wood to keep my family warm during the winter, and I'm amazed at how much
> wood we go through! It seems that most of the heat is simply escaping up
> the chimney, and I hate to see it wasted, even if it IS free!
>
As someone who focuses on chimney function I take a slightly different view.
First, I assume that since you refer to your stove as an 'airtight' it is of
conventional design and, if so, yes there are more efficient units. EPA
certified heating stoves achieve net delivered efficiency of between 60 and 80
per cent. Conventional units can be less than 50 per cent efficient. So the
first step is to improve combustion efficiency. Part of that includes reducing
excess air levels. When you reduce the amount of air flowing through the system
(and not participating in combustion) you dramatically increase heat transfer
efficiency, and therefore reduce chimney heat loss. I heat exclusively with
wood in the lousy Canadian climate, and I don't consider my wood consumption
excessive.

A chimney runs on heat, so giving heat to the chimney is not a waste at all, but
a necessary part of making the system function properly. If a chimney receives
hot gas, it produces higher draft and, if used effectively by the stove, this
high draft can create turbulence in the firebox and improve combustion. Finding
a balance between combustion efficiency and excess air; flue gas heat losses and
heat transfer efficiency is a very big challenge. It is why all us intellegent
people are still struggling to improve the performance of apparently simple
stoves. Nothing about burning wood efficiently is simple!

One mistake we (the big collective WE) have consistently made is to permit too
much heat loss from chimneys. If we were to conserve flue gas heat in the
chimney by using good insulation, we would need a lower heat input to the
chimney to produce the same amount of draft. A good (bad) example is a
conventional masonry (brick) chimney. It is just a huge heat sink with no
insulation in it, sucking up and wasting flue gas heat.

For cooking stoves in warm climates, I suspect the usual single-wall metal
chimneys loose a lot of heat and limit draft. Of course, additing insulation to
a chimney is a very complex technical task and expensive too, so insulation may
not be a possibility for inexpensive cooking systems. But at least being aware
of how the chimney works is helpful in designing the total system.

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

From shayden at NRCan.gc.ca Fri Jan 22 07:48:58 1999
From: shayden at NRCan.gc.ca (Hayden, Skip)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:14 2004
Subject: Woodstove Efficiency
Message-ID: <31EC3D073B34D111BC6000805FBE3A8A586DDD@S0-BCC-X1>

I tend to agree with most of what John says, except for his "lousy Canadian
climate" part. Using an efficient, advanced combustion, Canadian-designed
woodstove to heat on one of our lovely, cold, snowy, winter days is one of
the true joys of life, especially sitting in front of some ceramic glass
watching a truly interesting, complex flame.

As far as the chimney is concerned, one of the edicts I have pushed for
years is to take heat out of the appliance itself, but then maintain as high
a temperature as possible thereonwards, minimizing temperature drop in the
flue pipe and chimney, to have a good draft and to prevent condensation and
deposition of the combustion products.

In mild climates, if you are presently using just a single walled pipe as a
chimney, you may not need to put insulation in the chimney, but rather just
go with a double wall, with an air gap in between.

Skip Hayden
A.C.S. Hayden
Head, Residential/Commercial Combustion
Advanced Combustion Technologies
ETB/CETC
1 Haanel Drive
Ottawa Canada K1A 1M1
Tel: (613) 996-3186
Fax: (613) 992-9335
e-mail: skip.hayden@nrcan.gc.ca <mailto:skip.hayden@nrcan.gc.ca>

----------
From: John Gulland [SMTP:john@gulland.ca]
Sent: Friday, January 22, 1999 6:20 AM
To: robert luis rabello; stoves@crest.org
Subject: RE: Woodstove Efficiency

robert luis rabello wrote:
>
> I'd like to pose a question to the "silent stove experts." Is
it
> possible to increase the efficiency of an airtight woodstove? I
burn waste
> wood to keep my family warm during the winter, and I'm amazed at
how much
> wood we go through! It seems that most of the heat is simply
escaping up
> the chimney, and I hate to see it wasted, even if it IS free!
>
As someone who focuses on chimney function I take a slightly
different view.
First, I assume that since you refer to your stove as an 'airtight'
it is of
conventional design and, if so, yes there are more efficient units.
EPA
certified heating stoves achieve net delivered efficiency of between
60 and 80
per cent. Conventional units can be less than 50 per cent
efficient. So the
first step is to improve combustion efficiency. Part of that
includes reducing
excess air levels. When you reduce the amount of air flowing
through the system
(and not participating in combustion) you dramatically increase heat
transfer
efficiency, and therefore reduce chimney heat loss. I heat
exclusively with
wood in the lousy Canadian climate, and I don't consider my wood
consumption
excessive.

A chimney runs on heat, so giving heat to the chimney is not a waste
at all, but
a necessary part of making the system function properly. If a
chimney receives
hot gas, it produces higher draft and, if used effectively by the
stove, this
high draft can create turbulence in the firebox and improve
combustion. Finding
a balance between combustion efficiency and excess air; flue gas
heat losses and
heat transfer efficiency is a very big challenge. It is why all us
intellegent
people are still struggling to improve the performance of apparently
simple
stoves. Nothing about burning wood efficiently is simple!

One mistake we (the big collective WE) have consistently made is to
permit too
much heat loss from chimneys. If we were to conserve flue gas heat
in the
chimney by using good insulation, we would need a lower heat input
to the
chimney to produce the same amount of draft. A good (bad) example
is a
conventional masonry (brick) chimney. It is just a huge heat sink
with no
insulation in it, sucking up and wasting flue gas heat.

For cooking stoves in warm climates, I suspect the usual single-wall
metal
chimneys loose a lot of heat and limit draft. Of course, additing
insulation to
a chimney is a very complex technical task and expensive too, so
insulation may
not be a possibility for inexpensive cooking systems. But at least
being aware
of how the chimney works is helpful in designing the total system.

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

From mheat at mha-net.org Fri Jan 22 11:41:00 1999
From: mheat at mha-net.org (Norbert Senf)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:14 2004
Subject: "Residential Wood Combustion Technology Review"
Message-ID: <199901221641.LAA10498@solstice.crest.org>

This is to let you know that we have put US-EPA's new document

"Residential Wood Combustion Technology Review"
by James E. Houck and Paul Tiegs, Omni Environmental Services, Inc.

online at:
http://mha-net.org/docs/rwc01.PDF

It is a 231 page document in Acobe Acrobat .PDF format, and is about 800kB

From rabello at uniserve.com Fri Jan 22 12:10:54 1999
From: rabello at uniserve.com (robert luis rabello)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:14 2004
Subject: Woodstove Efficiency
In-Reply-To: <000201be45f9$1d1f0ce0$2136f8ce@jgulland.igs.net>
Message-ID: <36A8B173.A37446E3@uniserve.com>

Having moved to B.C. from Los Angeles, I don't find Canadian winters
particularly "lousy"--although shoveling snow loses its appeal after a day or two. .
.

If I understand correctly, heat in the chimney is necessary for the proper
function of my system. My chimney is a 6" insulated flue pipe. When I clean the
unit every year, I find it caked with a tan-colored (I still spell like an American.
. .) residue that brushes off quite easily. The chimney cap, however, quickly turns
black and sooty during the burning season.

My stove is equipped with firebrick along the sides and the back. It has only a
single air inlet control at its base, and no damper. Inside the house, its flue
pipe is a "pipe within a pipe" design, which I believe is intended to prevent burns
from accidental contact with the flue.

Please allow me to explain my burning habits:

I burn dry pallet waste--mostly oak from Quebec or some undefined hardwood
from China that arrived in B.C. supporting rock crusher castings. (It's wonderful
stuff!) If I have no glowing coals left over from the previous evening's fire, I
start with newspaper and kindling derived from Christmas trees and yard waste.
Combustion is initially quite smoky, unless I leave the door open a little to induce
a better draft.

For the first hour or so, I leave the air control wide open. This results in a
rapid, primarily yellow flame. The wood becomes charcoal within this time,
eventually producing coals that glow red and give off a lot of heat. I see no smoke
at all from the chimney, although it will sometimes produce what looks like slowly
drifting steam under the same conditions that my breath condenses in the outside
air.

Whenever I add wood, the unit produces thick smoke. I leave the air control
wide open until the new wood begins burning rapidly (normally after it's initially
charred), then turn it down until the flames remain yellow and move at a "medium"
speed. As long as the coals inside the stove are hot, I will eventually witness
blue flames near the top of the unit as the carbon monoxide burns off. I don't see
smoke from the chimney as long as the flames are "medium speed" (but it will smoke
if I turn it down any lower), but I can certainly smell the wood burning!

I try to keep the unit hot through the evening. Just before bedtime, I re-stock
the stove. After a flame has been established, I turn the air control down to the
"medium flame" condition for the night.

But I often find chunks of unburned charcoal in my ash bed as I'm cleaning it
out. (These are "recycled" into my next fire!) I understand, from being on the
"gasification" list at CREST, that charcoal is produced by partial pyrolysis. This
means, I believe, that my stove is not combusting its fuel completely.

The Greater Vancouver Regional District prohibits installation of any new
woodburning appliances. I think this is laudable from an air pollution standpoint,
but it means that people like me can't upgrade our woodstoves to something more
modern and efficient. I don't like air pollution either and wish I could burn wood
without it, but burning is complex and it's impossible to eliminate unwelcome
by-products without burning in tightly controlled environments at elevated
temperatures.

Insurance regulations limit what I can do to my flue pipe. The GVRD prohibits
me from installing a masonry unit. Am I in a Catch-22 situation here?

Thanks in advance!

robert luis rabello

From dstill at epud.org Fri Jan 22 13:04:29 1999
From: dstill at epud.org (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:14 2004
Subject: Woodstove Efficiency
Message-ID: <199901221746.JAA27196@seahorse.epud.net>

Dear John and Robert,

We have built woodstoves for heating at Aprovecho which incorporate the
following principles: Highly insulate around the combustion chamber, supply
preheated air for combustion, do not rely on the combustion chamber to heat
the room. Have the heat travel through a heat exchanger that lowers exit
temperatures to the outside down to around 250 degrees F. Design the heat
exchanger so that sufficient draft is supplied to the combustion chamber.
The heat exchanger is usually 2-4 times as large as the "stove". Using this
combination we have seen almost complete combustion and greatly reduced
fuel use. The normal stove plus chimney, in my opinion, do not have enough
surface area to get the heat into the room.

Best Regards,

Dean Still

From larcon at sni.net Sat Jan 23 00:12:51 1999
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:14 2004
Subject: Forwarding Senf on "Residential Wood Combustion Technology Review"
Message-ID: <v01540b00b2cf0c0af0ac@[204.131.233.48]>

Stovers - a similar long "header field" - Ron - The rest from Norbert:

Hello Everyone:

This is to let you know that we have put US-EPA's new document

"Residential Wood Combustion Technology Review"
by James E. Houck and Paul Tiegs, Omni Environmental Services, Inc.

online at:
http://mha-net.org/docs/rwc01.PDF

It is a 231 page document in Acobe Acrobat .PDF format, and is about 800kB

--=====================_13073446==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
Hello Everyone:<br>
<br>
This is to let you know that we have put US-EPA's new document<br>
<br>
"Residential Wood Combustion Technology Review"<br>
by James E. Houck and Paul Tiegs, Omni Environmental Services,
Inc.<font face="Courier New, Courier" size=4> <br>
<br>
</font><font face="Courier New, Courier">online at:<br>
<a href="http://mha-net.org/docs/rwc01.PDF"
eudora="autourl">http://mha-net.org/docs/rwc01.PDF</a><br>
<br>
It is a 231 page document in Acobe Acrobat .PDF format, and is about
800kB<br>
</font><br>
<div>----------------------------------------</div>
<div>Norbert Senf---------- mheat@mha-net.org-nospam (remove
nospam)</div>
<div>Masonry Stove Builders<x-tab>  </x-tab></div>
<div>RR 5, Shawville-------
<a href="http://www.mha-net.org/msb"
EUDORA=AUTOURL>www.mha-net.org/msb</a><x-tab>     &
nbsp;</x-tab><x-tab>        </x-tab>
</div>
<div>Quebec J0X 2Y0-------- fax:-----819.647.6082</div>
<div>---------------------- voice:---819.647.5092</div>
<div><x-tab>        </x-tab><x-tab>&
nbsp;       </x-tab><x-tab>  &n
bsp;     </x-tab></div>
<div><x-tab>        </x-tab><x-tab>&
nbsp;       </x-tab></div>
<div><x-tab>        </x-tab><x-tab>&
nbsp;       </x-tab><x-tab>  &n
bsp;     </x-tab><x-tab>    &nb
sp;   </x-tab>
</div>
<br>
</html>

--=====================_13073446==_.ALT--

From john at gulland.ca Sat Jan 23 08:17:22 1999
From: john at gulland.ca (John Gulland)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:14 2004
Subject: Useful report
Message-ID: <000001be46d2$d92f8840$1e36f8ce@jgulland.igs.net>

Stovers,
I would commend this report to anyone who is interested in the state of the art
of North American stove technology and test methodology. Although it is 231
pages long, the main report is only 35 pages (the rest being appendices) and,
for those with an interest, is worth printing out. People like robert luis
rabello and Dean Still who contributed to the thread about NA stove technology
would find this report particularly helpful.
Regards,
John
=======================
>From Norbert Senf.
This is to let you know that we have put US-EPA's new document

"Residential Wood Combustion Technology Review"
by James E. Houck and Paul Tiegs, Omni Environmental Services, Inc. online at:
http://mha-net.org/docs/rwc01.PDF
It is a 231 page document in Acobe Acrobat .PDF format, and is about 800kB
===============================

From wolf at ikp2.uni-stuttgart.de Sat Jan 23 13:44:10 1999
From: wolf at ikp2.uni-stuttgart.de (Marc-Andree Wolf)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:14 2004
Subject: Charcoal
Message-ID: <001001be4700$cf35e360$1d01a8c0@nixerlangen.verfahrenstechnik.uni-stuttgart.de>

Dear stovers,

some weeks ago I posted a message regarding emissions from
charcoal-prduction and promised to send a compilation of the
results. So far I can only thank you for your help. Due to
overflow I was not able to prepare a summary of the answers
(including further information and data I extracted from
literature), so far. I will send it later (may take some time). If
you have any further information and sources for data for me, I
would still be grateful to receive them.

Sincerely,

Marc-Andree Wolf

**********************************************************
Marc-Andree Wolf (Environmental Scientist (Dipl.-Geooekol.))

Universitaet Stuttgart
IKP (Institut f. Kunststoffkunde u. Kunststoffpruefung)
Boeblinger Strasse 78
D-70199 Stuttgart
Germany
tel: +49 (0) 711 641-2271 fax : -2264
e-mail: wolf@ikp2.uni-stuttgart.de

Private:
Neue Weinsteige 54
D-70180 Stuttgart
+49 (0)711 605407

WWW - IKP/GaBi: http://141.58.236.21/
************************************************************

From mheat at mha-net.org Sat Jan 23 19:11:26 1999
From: mheat at mha-net.org (Norbert Senf)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:14 2004
Subject: Bay Area Masonry Heater Ban
Message-ID: <4.1.19990123190626.00a87de0@mha-net.org>

Hello Everyone:

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (San Francisco) has recently
passed a model ordinance to restrict dirty burning fireplaces that
effectively bans masonry heaters as well. This is because the ordinance
specifies "EPA certified" stove only. Masonry heaters are
"EPA non-affected facilities", because the EPA regulation
recognizes them as inherently clean burning, thereby requiring no
regulation.

Over the last ten years, a substantial body of North American test data
to support this claim has accumulated. The data clearly shows that
masonry heaters are the cleanest way to burn cordwood, by a substantial
margin. Furthermore, the EPA test protocol is impossible to do on a
masonry heater, because it would require putting the massive heater on a
weight scale.

In order for the heater ban to happen, the ordinance has to get adopted
by individual municipalities. The first municipality that will have
hearings on adopting this ordinance is Berkley. We need to find a local
masonry heater champion in Berkley. Attached below please find a copy of
some recent correspondence with John Crouch, who is the Hearth Product
Association's regulatory specialist. If you can help out with some
contacts in Berkley, please let me know.

Thanks.........Norbert Senf, (Secretary, Masonry Heater
Association)

--------------message separator---------------------------

Reply-To: <crouchpa@ix.netcom.com>
From: "John Crouch" <crouchpa@ix.netcom.com>
To: "Norbert Senf" <mheat@mha-net.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 13:56:18 -0800

(Norbert Senf wrote):

We've got John Gulland hired right now to do some more work on a
position paper that we can use for the Bay area and for future regulatory
squabbles, which I'm sure will be coming up.

Our tack is to put our fairly strict heater mason certification
program on the table as assurance that heaters will perform as intended.
Hard to get taken seriously by regulators when our message is so simple:
burning clean in a masonry heater is like falling off a log, all you have
to do is not make any obvious mistakes when you build one (or operate
one, but then that holds for everything.) My naive assumption was that
this would be considered good news, but I guess one big problem with
regulators such as BAAQMD is that their mandate doesn't really extend
beyond their own bailywick to include the environment as a whole.

(Reply from John
Crouch):
That's exactly right Norbert, in this case, as in most, they
were totally focused on getting people to switch to gas, everything else
is secondary. As soon as I now the time and place of the critical
meeting at Berkley I'll let you know. The hard part, Norbert, is
you need a body, a live person who can be passionate about heaters.
Do you have access to anyone in Berkley?

----------------------------------------
Norbert Senf---------- mheat@mha-net.org-nospam (remove
nospam)
Masonry Stove Builders
RR 5, Shawville-------
www.mha-net.org/msb
Quebec J0X 2Y0-------- fax:-----819.647.6082
---------------------- voice:---819.647.5092

From dstill at epud.org Sun Jan 24 02:17:33 1999
From: dstill at epud.org (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:14 2004
Subject: Woodstove Efficiency/Heat Exchangers
Message-ID: <199901240659.WAA15215@seahorse.epud.net>

David Mcilveen-Wright asks for a more in depth description of the Aprovecho
air to air heat exchangers for wood burning heating stoves. So I gave it a
shot...

Generally you can 1.) do hot air to mass, as in high mass masonry stove, or
2.) hot air to water (these usually are outside the house in a shed) or 3.)
you can go the cheapest route which is to make a hot stove air to inside
air heat exchanger. All three of these heat exchangers try to accomplish
the same thing: to get the heat from the fire into the room.

If you add a fan to a stove and don't rely on the natural convection
created by heat rising in a chimney to create draft, more than 90% of the
wood's heat can stay in the room. A pellet stove, using a fan, doesn't even
have a vertical chimney. So much of the heat stays in the room that you can
put your hand right over the chimney on the outside of the house.

When you don't use a fan, a lot of heat is lost to the outside air. Also,
without a fan, not much preheating of air can be readily accomplished.
Adding a fan to a stove helps to create both "complete combustion" and
"almost complete" heat transfer to the room. Fans are great!!! ( If you use
one, make the combustion chamber out of stone or ceramic to handle the high
temperatures.)

If, for aesthetic reasons or lack of electricity, one prefers not to use a
fan, then exit temperatures out of the chimney can't go much below 250F.
The great thing about air to mass and air to water is that the stove can be
fired really hot without overheating the room, which is better for reduced
emmissions. The heat soaks into the mass then is released slowly into the
room.

A air to air stove must create hot fires using less wood so we depend more
on proper metering of fuel, insulating around the fire, and preheated air
encouraging secondary combustion. Once clean combustion is achieved,
Aprovecho's stove master, Dr. Larry Winiarski, adds two basic types of air
to air heat exchangers to the stove: downdraft and updraft.

The heat exchangers basically do two things to work efficiently: while
maintaining about the same cross sectional area as the original chimney,
the heat contacts a much greater metal surface area and travels in reduced
channels that force the heat to rub against the metal instead of shooting
up the middle of a normal chimney pipe.

An example can be built as follows: Put a thirty gallon steel drum inside a
fifty gallon drum. Make sure that the gap between the two drums is
equidistant. The heat travels in the anulus and greatly reduces exit
temperatures while maintaining about the same amount of draft.

Larry also makes a downdraft version which is more efficient. The heat
travels up inside the thirty gallon drum in a chimney pipe. Insulation
surrounds the chimney pipe and fills the thirty gallon drum. The insulation
increases the draft so that the heat can then be forced down the anulus
which is between the thirty and fifty gallon drums. The heat exits at the
bottom of the drum. Towers made from two fifty gallon drums are very
efficient heat exchangers.

Drawings of all this stuff is in the Aprovecho book "Capturing Heat: An
Appropriate Technology Design Manual", available in April.
apro@efn.org

----------
> From: DMcilveenw@aol.com
> To: dstill@epud.org
> Subject: Re: Woodstove Efficiency
> Date: Saturday, January 23, 1999 5:20 AM
>
> In a message dated 22/01/99 18:07:09 GMT, you write:
>
> << Dear John and Robert,
>
> We have built woodstoves for heating at Aprovecho which incorporate the
> following principles: Highly insulate around the combustion chamber,
supply
> preheated air for combustion, do not rely on the combustion chamber to
heat
> the room. Have the heat travel through a heat exchanger that lowers exit
> temperatures to the outside down to around 250 degrees F. Design the
heat
> exchanger so that sufficient draft is supplied to the combustion
chamber.
> The heat exchanger is usually 2-4 times as large as the "stove". Using
this
> combination we have seen almost complete combustion and greatly reduced
> fuel use. The normal stove plus chimney, in my opinion, do not have
enough
> surface area to get the heat into the room.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Dean Still >>
>
> Dean,
> Could you say a bit more about the heat exchanger? What is the working
fluid,
> for example?
>
> TIA,
>
> David McIlveen-Wright,
> NICERT,
> University of Ulster,
> Coleraine BT52 1SA
> N. Ireland
Stoves List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES:
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
Stoves Webpage
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

From larcon at sni.net Mon Jan 25 02:06:33 1999
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:14 2004
Subject: Bay Area Masonry Heater Ban
Message-ID: <v01540b00b2d118b6ffe8@[204.131.233.29]>

Norbert Senf said yesterday:
>Hello Everyone:
>
>The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (San Francisco) has recently
>passed a model ordinance to restrict dirty burning fireplaces that effectively
>bans masonry heaters as well.
<snip>
>In order for the heater ban to happen, the ordinance has to get adopted by
>individual municipalities. The first municipality that will have hearings on
>adopting this ordinance is Berkley. We need to find a local masonry heater
>champion in Berkley. Attached below please find a copy of some recent
>correspondence with John Crouch, who is the Hearth Product Association's
>regulatory specialist. If you can help out with some contacts in Berkley,
>please let me know.
>
>Thanks.........Norbert Senf, (Secretary, Masonry Heater Association)

Norbert and other Stovers:

It is not my place to offer their services, but two great stoves
and iaq experts just happen to be located in Berkeley (at least some times
when they aren't otherwise all over the world): Drs. Kirk Smith and Dan
Kammen.

Kirk and Dan - you may not feel this is within your area of
expertise - but perhaps you know someone else at UC-B who could help
Norbert, John, and John?

Also - I know that at least John Gulland is on the iaq list and I
haven't seen this there yet. This will be more controversial on that list,
but maybe there will be some in the iaq group with other Berkeley
suggestions, who may also be motivated by global warming and resource
depletion issues associated with natural gas, and who will know of the
clean combustion character of your approach to wood-fired heating. Good
luck.

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 Mon Jan 25 02:06:40 1999
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:14 2004
Subject: Student work on charcoal-making stoves
Message-ID: <v01540b01b2d11aa774a7@[204.131.233.29]>

Stovers:

1. This is to announce that the "stoves" list has a new current
opportunity to help a group of students working on stoves. These are 19
sophomore engineering students in a design class at the Colorado School of
Mines, working under "stoves" member Professor Bob Knecht.

2. Their topic is limited to charcoal-making stoves. They are
especially to develop geometries that will improve stove stability (safety)
and make final quenching easier and safer (after pyrolysis is complete).
Any suggestions for new ideas that "stoves" members want to offer will be
passed on and received gratefully. Anyone have an interested in a
particular application? (such as for a restaurant, oven, bakery, etc) Or a
particular food? (rice potatoes, etc) Or a particular combination of power
and energy requirements? (1 kW max (or min)? 5 kWh max?, etc). I'd like
to keep the geometries small enough for testing easily, but still have a
practical application.

I am especially impressed by Tom Duke's use of a hole in the ground
(low cost). My single trial last year looked OK, but I worry on how to get
better angular symmetry for the primary and secondary air supplies. Tom?

I am suggesting some groups might try a single "fuel can" inside a
more rigid (safer) "tall combustion cylinder" that extends all the way to
the ground - but I am not sure this will give good flame holding. Anyone
try this geometry yet?

3. I have only met with the four CSM sub-groups for 30-45 minutes
so far. I will talk again on Friday on the importance of - and will
emphasize the techniques needed for getting - high performance (using
insulation and using an "optimum shield" around the cook pot to maximize
heat transfer). Does anyone have some target data to share on this topic
(I have Sam Baldwin's theory - but have never seen experimental data).

4. This is a great chance to pass on any "lessons learned" on the
charcoal-making stove topic. Some that come to mind are:
using dry fuel
using "right" diameter fuel - neither too small not large
tight packing of the fuel
tight primary air control
need to avoid influence of wind

5. Any other ideas? (Please send to the full list, as the
students are using our archives).

Thanks in advance. Ron

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

From john at gulland.ca Mon Jan 25 07:03:07 1999
From: john at gulland.ca (John Gulland)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:14 2004
Subject: Woodstove Efficiency/Heat Exchangers
In-Reply-To: <199901240659.WAA15215@seahorse.epud.net>
Message-ID: <000601be485a$cd68b340$1f36f8ce@jgulland.igs.net>

Dean,
Your focus on heat transfer is interesting. It seems at odds with the pattern
of stove development in North America. I am particularly interested because I
started out in the business in 1978 working for a company that manufactured wood
furnaces with very large labrynth heat exchangers. The theory was that you had
to wring as much heat as possible out of the exhaust in order to boost
efficiency. That particular furnace company was plagued with warranty problems
over heat exchanger corrosion caused by flue gas condensation and ultimately
went out of business (long after I left).

It became clear to me that combustion control is more important than heat
transfer and that the only reason such big heat exchangers were needed on the
wood furnaces was because we fired the furnaces in cycles which led to very
high, but intermittent burns. By modulating instead of cycling the fire (the
way stoves do) just the stove body and flue pipe provided sufficient surface
area, considering the wide range of conditions under which stoves need to
function. This was an important lesson for me by clarifying that toves must
perform under a wide range of conditions; like outside, uninsulated chimneys,
wet wood, poor user practices and so on. Big heat exchangers worked ok in the
lab under controlled conditions, but were a big problem in the real world.

While too much focus on heat transfer has been problematic in NA heating stoves
and furnaces, the problem of heat transfer is very important for cook stoves, so
I wouldn't generalize my statements to all woodburning devices.

Regards,
John

>
> David Mcilveen-Wright asks for a more in depth description of the Aprovecho
> air to air heat exchangers for wood burning heating stoves. So I gave it a
> shot...
>
> Generally you can 1.) do hot air to mass, as in high mass masonry stove, or
> 2.) hot air to water (these usually are outside the house in a shed) or 3.)
> you can go the cheapest route which is to make a hot stove air to inside
> air heat exchanger. All three of these heat exchangers try to accomplish
> the same thing: to get the heat from the fire into the room.
>
> If you add a fan to a stove and don't rely on the natural convection
> created by heat rising in a chimney to create draft, more than 90% of the
> wood's heat can stay in the room. A pellet stove, using a fan, doesn't even
> have a vertical chimney. So much of the heat stays in the room that you can
> put your hand right over the chimney on the outside of the house.
>
> When you don't use a fan, a lot of heat is lost to the outside air. Also,
> without a fan, not much preheating of air can be readily accomplished.
> Adding a fan to a stove helps to create both "complete combustion" and
> "almost complete" heat transfer to the room. Fans are great!!! ( If you use
> one, make the combustion chamber out of stone or ceramic to handle the high
> temperatures.)
>
> If, for aesthetic reasons or lack of electricity, one prefers not to use a
> fan, then exit temperatures out of the chimney can't go much below 250F.
> The great thing about air to mass and air to water is that the stove can be
> fired really hot without overheating the room, which is better for reduced
> emmissions. The heat soaks into the mass then is released slowly into the
> room.
>
> A air to air stove must create hot fires using less wood so we depend more
> on proper metering of fuel, insulating around the fire, and preheated air
> encouraging secondary combustion. Once clean combustion is achieved,
> Aprovecho's stove master, Dr. Larry Winiarski, adds two basic types of air
> to air heat exchangers to the stove: downdraft and updraft.
>
> The heat exchangers basically do two things to work efficiently: while
> maintaining about the same cross sectional area as the original chimney,
> the heat contacts a much greater metal surface area and travels in reduced
> channels that force the heat to rub against the metal instead of shooting
> up the middle of a normal chimney pipe.
>
> An example can be built as follows: Put a thirty gallon steel drum inside a
> fifty gallon drum. Make sure that the gap between the two drums is
> equidistant. The heat travels in the anulus and greatly reduces exit
> temperatures while maintaining about the same amount of draft.
>
> Larry also makes a downdraft version which is more efficient. The heat
> travels up inside the thirty gallon drum in a chimney pipe. Insulation
> surrounds the chimney pipe and fills the thirty gallon drum. The insulation
> increases the draft so that the heat can then be forced down the anulus
> which is between the thirty and fifty gallon drums. The heat exits at the
> bottom of the drum. Towers made from two fifty gallon drums are very
> efficient heat exchangers.
>
> Drawings of all this stuff is in the Aprovecho book "Capturing Heat: An
> Appropriate Technology Design Manual", available in April.
> apro@efn.org
>
>
> ----------
> > From: DMcilveenw@aol.com
> > To: dstill@epud.org
> > Subject: Re: Woodstove Efficiency
> > Date: Saturday, January 23, 1999 5:20 AM
> >
> > In a message dated 22/01/99 18:07:09 GMT, you write:
> >
> > << Dear John and Robert,
> >
> > We have built woodstoves for heating at Aprovecho which incorporate the
> > following principles: Highly insulate around the combustion chamber,
> supply
> > preheated air for combustion, do not rely on the combustion chamber to
> heat
> > the room. Have the heat travel through a heat exchanger that lowers exit
> > temperatures to the outside down to around 250 degrees F. Design the
> heat
> > exchanger so that sufficient draft is supplied to the combustion
> chamber.
> > The heat exchanger is usually 2-4 times as large as the "stove". Using
> this
> > combination we have seen almost complete combustion and greatly reduced
> > fuel use. The normal stove plus chimney, in my opinion, do not have
> enough
> > surface area to get the heat into the room.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Dean Still >>
> >
> > Dean,
> > Could you say a bit more about the heat exchanger? What is the working
> fluid,
> > for example?
> >
> > TIA,
> >
> > David McIlveen-Wright,
> > NICERT,
> > University of Ulster,
> > Coleraine BT52 1SA
> > N. Ireland
> Stoves List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES:
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
> Stoves Webpage
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
> For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm
>

From dboyt at clandjop.com Mon Jan 25 18:14:50 1999
From: dboyt at clandjop.com (David Boyt)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:14 2004
Subject: Pottershop Hollow barrel stove
Message-ID: <36AB55DC.1921@clandjop.com>

Pottershop 3 Barrel Stove

Dear Stovers,
Again, greetings from Pottershop Hollow in the Ozarks of South-west
Missouri. I wish that I could report progress on the previously
described small 10 can stove (Jan 27, 1998), but while its 70 to 80 g
charge of twigs cooked meals well enough for Libby and me, it was
apparently too small to generate much interest. It pretty much hit the
target I aimed at, but suspect it was aimed at the wrong target. Of the
three stoves sent out for testing, only the one I sent to Alex English
was apparently ever fired. Consequently, this past year was spent
exploring an opposite size extreme by substituting five to fifty-five
gallon pails and barrels for Campbell’s soup and Folger Coffee cans.
Much of the earlier design concepts remain, as nesting tin cans now
become nesting barrels. Air insulation again provides a very hot
combustion chamber, top-down burning again results in a minimum of
smoke, and a very large proportion of the total heat energy exits at the
top.
The intent was to build a multi-purpose stove that could, in various
configurations, cook food, incinerate trash, provide a house with hot
air and/ or water, generate quantities of distilled water, make
charcoal, then burn that char to fire ceramics and forge metal, generate
quantities of retort quality pyrolytic gas capable of running a small
internal combustion engine/ generator, or fueling a gas lantern, or
whatever else a barrel-sized stove might be imagined to do (like blowing
glass and casting metal?). It must be admitted that multipurpose
devices rarely satisfy all of those purposes equally, and this stove has
proven no exception. To date, however, it has batch boiled, baked (and
occasionally burned), ten pounds of potatoes, chicken, roast beef and
lamb, and combinations of rice, beans, onions, carrots, and sweet
potatoes. It has batch produced five pounds of charcoal, and turned to
ash about twenty loads of household and yard trash, bisque fired two
small ceramic sculptures (one blew up), and brought to a heavy boil ten
gallon batches of water. Perhaps the most severe test was the
processing to ash of about 100 wet pounds of “gunk” that had accumulated
for several years in an old burnt out trash barrel.
The principle fuel has been stumps, hard-to-split crotches, and
non-descript, partially decayed chunks of wood that were not acceptable
for use in the house stoves.
Basically, the stove is made from old junk 55 gallon barrels. Remove
the ends and split two of them lengthwise. Cut a lengthwise 8 inch
strip from one to increase the diameter of the other. Weld or bolt the
barrels back together again, and place the smallest one inside an
unchanged barrel, which then is put in the enlarged barrel. All are
then set upright to form an air-insulated combustion chamber.
Additional parts are fashioned to provide an ash chamber, draft control,
stack and stack control. Expanded metal is cut to form grates and
cooking supports.
When tending a burn, you soon learn to hold your breath in a shifting
wind, wear cloth gloves without holes, and test temperatures with a bit
of spit. Slowly the hair above my forehead is returning and my finger
prints are becoming normal.
A lot yet to do, but I have begun drawings and a video of progress. If
anyone is interested, I would be pleased to send further information.
May 1999 bring us all good fortune, health, and the joy of discovering
that perhaps we can make a difference.

Dick Boyt

From karve at wmi.co.in Mon Jan 25 23:00:51 1999
From: karve at wmi.co.in (karve)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:14 2004
Subject: ARTI's work presented in Renewable Energy Congress, Calcutta.
Message-ID: <30E6E99D.3C4EED2B@wmi.co.in>

Dear stovers,
I attended a Renewable Energy Congress in Calcutta, India, recently
and presented two papers. The complete texts will be published in the
proceedings of the Congress. I am giving brief summaries of both the
papers. I am grateful to all of you for valuable interactions that have
proved useful in both the cases.

Paper1:
Conversion of Sugarcane Trash into Char Briquettes: A Superior
Alternative to Fuel Wood in Rural Households

In Maharashtra state, with 450 thousand hactare under sugarcane, about
4.5 million tonnes of biomass is annualy generated in the form of
sugarcane leaves, and is just burnt off in situ. We have tried to
develop a technology to convert this hitherto waste biomass into a
useful product. This involves, converting the dried sugarcane leaves
into char, and making fuel briquettes from the char for use as domestic
fuel.

The prototype charring kiln consists of a horizontal cylindrical oven
mounted on an improved biomass burning stove with a chimney. The present
oven can hold four mild steel retorts (of 1 kg capacity each) at a time.
Some of the trash is burnt in the chulha to heat up the oven and the
trash-filled retorts are placed in the oven for charring. The retorts
are replaced periodically while keeping the fire on in the chulha so as
to render the process continuous. The lid of each retort has a hole to
allow the pyrolysis gases to escape into the oven. The gases burn inside
the oven to generate more heat for charring.
The conversion efficiency is about 30%. The char produced easily
crumbles into a fine powder and has a calorific value above 5000
kcal/kg. However, the processing rate is only 4 kg trash per hour and
each run of 1 hour duration requires 15 kg of trash to be burnt in the
stove. However, we have already started work on optimising the kiln
dimensions to improve the heat transfer from the stove to the oven and
to improve the heat distribution within the oven. Early results are
highly encouraging and we are confident of making it a commercially
feasible process. [stovers:- my present kiln has the same rate but uses
only about 10 kg of trash per run. The paper was communicated a few
months ago.]

For briquetting, the char is mixed with black clay (10% by weight) and
any available binder (cowdung, paste of waste grain, plant mucilage,
commercially available gum, etc.), and is made into a paste. There are a
number of ways in which briquettes can be made and we have compared two
different types of machine-made biquettes and hand-made balls. We found
that in either case, the briquettes burn with a smokeless blue flame and
therefore are superior to wood or biomass as fuel. Due to the
differences in compactness of the different types of briquettes, there
are variations in the burning rate from type to type, but these are not
too significant. In an ordinary charcoal burning portable stove, we
found that the energy output from the handmade balls was comparable to
that in the case of machine-made briquettes. Therefore, we feel that the
briquetting step in the manufacturing process can be eliminated and the
rural users may be sold the loose char itself. This would be acceptable
to the users as they already have the tradition of making cowdung cakes
at home.

Work is also on to design a special stove for the char briquettes so as
to get the maximum possible fuel use efficiency.

Paper 2:
A Mud Chulha with an In-built Hotbox

The best chulha (mud cookstove) designs that have become popular do not
yield boiling and evaporation efficiency values above 40%. Any further
increase involves design modifications that are not easily acceptable to
the users. Therefore indirect means must be used. One such a means is to
use a hotbox. In spite of the various advantages of using a hotbox, we
have found that the portable metal hotboxes never became widely popular
in Maharashtra. Some of the main reasons are:
1. relunctance to change
2. with fuel plentifully available in Maharashtra, the fuel saving
advantage (which the promoters were harping on) was not relevant to the
users
3. the boxes are mass produced in standard sizes but pot sizes and
shapes vary from family to family
4. the portable nature of the box makes it more tempting to use it as a
grain container

We have solved the problem by developing a new mud chulha design. In
this case the hotbox is a cavity in an extended mud platform adjoining a
one-pothole improved mud stove (fuel use efficiency ~30%). The hotbox
has a lid similar to the one used for a portable hotbox. The heat
retention capacity of the mud hotbox was evaluated by a simple
experiment. Identical aluminium pots filled with 0.9 lit of boiling
water were kept in open air, in a portable metal hotbox, a mud hotbox
with no fire in the adjacent stove (MH1), and a mud hotbox with fire on
in the stove (MH2). In each case the pot was covered with a lid and a
thermometer was inserted into the water through a hole in the lid. In
the case of the hotboxes, the lids of the boxes too were with holes,
through which the thermometers came out. The joints between the hotbox
lids and the thermometers were sealed with identical rubber gaskets. The
temperature of the water was noted every 10 minutes in each case.
We found that the best heat retention (temperature above 70 deg.C for
almost 90 min) was observed for MH2. This was almost identical to the
portable hotbox, but in the latter case, the rate of temperature drop
had been more initially (e.g. After 20 min, the temperature in portable
hotbox had dropped to 87 deg.C, whereas that in MH2 was 90 deg. C). MH1
was inferior to portable hotbox, but significantly better than open air.
We found that even MH1 was good enough for cooking rice. But obviously
the best was MH2. In real practice, the mud hotbox is going to be used
in MH2 mode. The first food item will be transferred to the hotbox, and
the cook will continue to use the stove for cooking the next food item.
Thus the comparatively poor thermal insulation of clay is turning out to
be an advantage rather than a limitation.

Further experiments are now on to actually quantify the fuel saving and
the reduction in the fire-on time of the stove for cooking different
food items, and to see the extent of advantage achieved by using
additional insulation like sawdust around the pot inside the hotbox.

From larcon at sni.net Tue Jan 26 01:00:13 1999
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:14 2004
Subject: Introduction from Donald Patrick
Message-ID: <v01540b01b2d23f38757e@[204.131.233.62]>

Stovers - The following is a brief introduction in from a new list member.

Donald - 1. I presume that you are also a member of "gasification".

2. Have you been following the work of Elsen Karstad who has been flaring
a lot of pyrolysis gas in Kenya as he produces charcoal from waste sawdust.
Is there a possibiity in your system to use such gases?

3. Welcome again to "stoves" and thanks for sending this following
message. Ron

>Dear Ron,
>as a new member may I say how impressed I am with the comments and
>suggestions of your suscribers, I am certainly learning a lot more.
>
>We are a small Company specialising in woody biomass gasification to
>produce electricity with CHP.
>
>Projects are on a turn-key basis and includes the reactor, all gas clean up
>systems and filtration, including engine and heat recovery.
>
>If I can be of any assistance please do not hesitate to ask.
>
>Kind regards
>
>Donald Patrick

>Marick Gasification Ltd From : Donald C Patrick
>3 Farndale Close Date : 25 January 1999
>Whittle Hall Ref. DCP/RWL 1
>Great Sankey
>WARRINGTON WA5 3FX E-Mail: donaldp@marick.u-net.com
>GREAT BRITAIN Tel. + 44 (0) 1925 - 71.11 55
> FAX : + 44 (0) 1925 - 71.11 55
>
>
>Biomass Gasification Consultants. Gas Engines & Gas GenSets.

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 Tue Jan 26 09:47:02 1999
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:15 2004
Subject: Refractories and Insulation
Message-ID: <199901260947_MC2-680F-880D@compuserve.com>

Dear Happy Jack, Stoves and Gasificationl:

The message below indicates the sort of results one can achieve in stoves
and gasifiers with GOOD insulation. I occasionally preach here about using
good insulation. If it is important for large installations, it is VERY
important for small gasifiers and stoves where the surface/volume ratio can
be 10-100 times higher. My impression is that my message falls on deaf
ears.

1) Our terminology is too loose. The word "Refractory" means that the
material will stand up to high temperature, and usually means a ceramic.
There are two categories of refractory. Castable refractories and fire
bricks. They are physically strong, but not very good insulators.

2) The word "Insulation" means the thermal conductivity is very low.
Fibrous refractories in the form of blanket, board and riser sleeves. They
are made by spinning the alumino silicate material mullite, like making
cotton candy, except hotter. Each fiber intercepts radiation and returns
part of it to the source.

They are equally good at withstanding temperature, but not hard wear. They
can be "rigidized" with an amorphous silica spray. I have used rigidized
riser sleeves on my stoves for a decade and they seldom show wear.
However, I don't pound on them.

Checking my North American Combustion Handbook I find that the thermal
conductivity of Firebricks is 10-20 Btu-in/ft2-hr-F at 2000F. Ceramic
fibers and board run 1.5-2.5 of those things, an order of magnitude lower.
You can play an oxyacetylene flame on one side of a 1/2 " thick riser
sleeve and hold your finger on the opposite side for several minutes.

So for successful operation, insulate and rigidize. For mechanical abuse,
add bricks or castable.

Your pal, TOM
REED

Message text written by INTERNET:gasification@crest.org
>
Just shipped two of 5 units i am building. These have fireboxes with
grates
that are 3'x3' and that is a lot of space for a max of 10hp, but, the big
deal
here was that the customer wanted to use large fuel and charge every half
hour.
Most importantly, I used 'Duraboard' as a refractory. It was shielded with
#9
expanded metal. Stainless would have been nice, but we decided to go the
sacrifical route. $40 replacement a year is reasonable. The duraboard is
only 1/2" thick too! I was going to use 1" but this seems to work ok.
Code
boilers-(Hurst, Mr. Zebley) sit upon the fireboxes-or digesters as some of
you
might call them and all is well.
Because of so much fire being available, we had steam in 15 mins from cold
and
produced power in 20 mins. This was with garbage cedar wood.
Of note is that the fire became so intense due to the duraboard that once
established, we were throwing wet wood in with no problem. Flame height
was
greatly reduced and smoke only occured during wet wood charges and not long
at
that. BTW...there was no stack! The boiler draws well due to 2" tubes and

ash from 120 lbs of fuel amounted to what fit in a gallon jug. My customer

was one happy camper.
I am really sold on the Duraboard and my old favorite, 'Cerablanket'. The
duraboard was cut and fit, which saved a lot of time thought.
I still get a great catalytic reaction from the expanded metal over the
board
and it stays red hot under all conditions. When the firebox was turned
upside
down for shipping there was NO soot. Hospital clean.
Both units including the steam engine powered gensets (30volt, 300 amp) all

fit in a Ryder rental truck with plenty to spare which says a lot about
modular design.
summary:
If you are in the under 1000/lbs/hr catagory, small modular units with
large(fireboxes) that utilize large fuel(not hogged) are the way to go.
The
less material handling the better.
Of note, maintaining 3' above the grate gives plenty of time for the
combustion to be completed, temps low, co low and makes for one happy
boiler.
If you can live with a little priming, a 5 hp (40'sq) boiler (vft) will
give a
lot more than 134 lbs/hr. In fact, 300 continuous is available as long as
water level is kept down. Those Hurst boilers live up to their rep all
right!
final
The rest of the units will utilize a small refractored plenium to enhance
secondary combustion which was to be in the original design.

I'm back, Jack!

Skip
Sensible Steam
www.sensiblesteam.com

ps...moving to larger facility in Springfield, MO next month and will be
open
to the public.

Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
<

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Tue Jan 26 20:04:45 1999
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:15 2004
Subject: Pottershop Hollow barrel stove
Message-ID: <199901262005_MC2-6822-F9B9@compuserve.com>

Dear Dick Boyt:

I greatly enjoyed your description of the X10 10 can stove (= 100...?). I
must confess that I haven't operated the stove you sent because I never
found the instructions, but it is still sitting in my garage with all my
other stoves. Send instructions and I'll run it and report.

Loved your X10 increase in size.

There seems to be an article of faith amongst stove people that passing air
along hot surfaces will recover a great deal of otherwise waste heat.
There's no free lunch and what the air gets from the pyrolysis section and
puts in the combustion secion is robbed from pyrolysis - probably hotter
flame and less charcoal results.

I hope you send pictures and design to Alex English. As you say, these top
down gasifier-combustors can take an amazing difference in fuel. I was
surprised to run coal. Great stuff, burns just like wood, but X4 longer.
I also ran up to 30% moisture. Flame just as good, but less charcoal from
pyrolysis.

I wish I could be transported to Potters Hollow for a day of demos.

Your pal, TOM
REED

Message text written by INTERNET:dboyt@clandjop.com
>
Pottershop 3 Barrel Stove

Dick Boyt

From kmbryden at iastate.edu Thu Jan 28 12:09:23 1999
From: kmbryden at iastate.edu (mark bryden)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:15 2004
Subject: meeting
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19990128111434.00870b40@pop-1.iastate.edu>

let's do it again Friday at 11:00 in 3035.
___________________________________________________________
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
Stoves List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES:
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
Stoves Webpage
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

From branzaas at branz.org.nz Sun Jan 31 16:24:01 1999
From: branzaas at branz.org.nz (Albrecht Stoecklein)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:15 2004
Subject: How to meter solid fuel burners
Message-ID: <199901312124.QAA22465@solstice.crest.org>

Dear discussion group member,

We are currently conducting a Household Energy End-Use Project. The
investigation requires metering all major household energy end uses in
several hundred houses.

I am interested in any simple cost-effective methods to monitor the
energy consumption and/or output of solid fuel burners (open fireplaces,
enclosed fireboxes, etc.)

Thanks for your help

Albrecht

Albrecht Stoecklein (MSc)
Building Research Association of New Zealand (BRANZ)
Private Bag 50908, Judgeford, Porirua
New Zealand
Tel: ++64-4-235-7600 Fax: ++64-4-2356070
e-mail: branzaas@branz.org.nz homepage: http://www.branz.org.nz

BioEnergy Lists: Improved Biomass Cooking Stoves

January 1999 Biomass Cooking Stoves Archive